1982-04-21

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
31 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 21, 1982


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, there is not a Canadian today who is not being affected by the serious economic recession in the country. The escalating collapse of our business base, the alarming rise in unemployment, a crippling increase in the cost of consumer goods and services, harshly punitive interest rates, and the indifferent attitude of this government toward its wasteful spending habits have all contributed to the tragic mess we are in today. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That the government use its power, not simply as a means to rule and control arrogantly, but to govern in such a manner that it addresses the real and immediate needs of the people by developing programs with a sense of purpose and direction which will instil confidence in the public and in all sectors of the economy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, the recent news that the Department of Employment and Immigration has earmarked $5 million for an advertising campaign to convince Canadians that the economy as a whole is working, when the reality is that unemployment is at the highest level since 1940, is an insult to the intelligence of Canadians and a slap in the face to those 1.2 million Canadians unemployed as a result of the government's disastrous fiscal and monetary policy. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That, if the government is going to spend the $5 million, it would be better to invest it in job training for the unemployed, instead of wasting it on another attempt by this floundering government to sell itself to the voters with the taxpayers' dollars.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, the National Energy Program continues to drive Canadian business south of the border. We have recently learned that British Columbia companies are buying their fuel in the United States at a saving of 30 cents per gallon and that some Great Lakes shippers have called for tenders from the United States. Whereas the National Energy Program's export fuel tax is in part responsible for giving the United States the competitive edge on marine fuel prices, and whereas the government has promised flexibility on this tax, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources remove altogether the transportation fuel compensation recovery charge before the United States becomes Canada's number one supplier of marine fuel.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a motion under Standing Order 43. Whereas in answer to my question posed on Monday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources clearly did not understand the Candu reactor's unique on-line refuelling process and the fact that the spent fuel containing the plutonium can be removed from the reactor core, chemically changed, and diverted for military purposes at any time; and in view of the fact that in its desperation to sell Candu reactors the Canadian government is

April 21, 1982
5.0.	43
prepared to ignore the danger associated in doing business with the Argentinian government, a country beset by internal strife, a place where human rights do not exist and where thousands of people have simply disappeared, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That the Canadian government withdraw 71 Canadian technicians from Argentina in order to express our opposition to human rights violations in that country and the occupation of the Falkland Islands and to ensure that the spent fuel from the Candu reactor will not be used to make nuclear weapons.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ADMINISTRATION
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, Liberal administrations over the past 14 years have consistently promised to fight inflation. It started with the Benson budget in 1968. In 1973 the minister of finance at that time, John Turner, said "This budget is aimed at reducing inflationary pressure in Canada and at offsetting the effect of past inflation." In 1974 the same minister said, "Two digit inflation ... is simply not acceptable to this government." In the same year the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised to wrestle inflation to the ground. In 1976 the then finance minister, Donald Macdonald, said "Our first objective must be to maintain the underlying trend to lower inflation." In 1978 the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) said, "We are being held back by serious unemployment and inflation and we must do all we can to deal with them."
It goes on and on. In 1980, 1981 and 1982 the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) said the same thing. Madam Speaker, it is obvious that the present administration has lost the battle, inflation has gone from 4 per cent in 1968 to 11.6 per cent today.


Madam Speaker:: Order. At every sentence I have been hoping the hon. member would finish his enumeration and go to his motion. I must ask him to go to the motion.


John Horton McDermid: I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Prime Minister accept defeat in his battle against inflation, go to the Governor General to dissolve Parliament, call an election immediately, so that Canadians can decide who should be leading the battle against inflation and toward economic renewal.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, in view of the importance and increased need for a greater emphasis on science and technology in order to reverse our economic decline, and in view of the fact that both Dr. Stuart Smith of the Science Council of Canada, and Dr. Larkin Kerwin of the National Research Council, have endorsed the urgent need for this new emphasis on science and technology, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That there be established a committee of the House of Commons to be known as the Standing Committee on Science and Technology.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) made statements in this House yesterday which were misleading when he said the federal Liberal government was the only government attempting to help the owners of homes with urea formaldehyde foam insulation; whereas recently released research indicates that the federal government program may be a colossal $110 million failure, and in the interest of providing accurate, honest information to home owners so they will be informed about the long-term hazards they face, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That in the future the minister spend more time answering questions rather than criticizing his colleagues and misleading the people of the country, and that he and the Minister of National Health and Welfare give an undertaking that they will in this House provide written answers to the list of questions which are being given to him by hand this afternoon which have been asked by home owners with UFFI in their homes.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?
April 21, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to take exception to the allegations that certain Canadians received funds from the public purse, courtesy of the CBC, to appear "spontaneously" in the crowds on Parliament Hill last weekend and be interviewed. I therefore rise to move and to ask, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
Twinkle, twinkle little star You came to Ottawa from afar.
Did you come because you care?
Or because the CBC paid your fare?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

[ Translation]


AIRPORTS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Yesterday, the provincial court in St. Jerome decided to postpone a ruling on whether or not to evict 77 farmers from expropriated land at Mirabel until May 14. Considering the barbaric action taken by the President of the Canada Lands Company (Mirabel) Ltd., Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer, to cancel leases and evict farmers who, in fact, were merely trying to buy back land that was expropriated indiscriminately, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That the House ask the government to return to the farmers, as soon as possible, 78,000 acres of land that were expropriated unnecessarily for the Mirabel airport.


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister in the absence of a never-present Minister of Finance.


Mr. Crosbie:: Where is he?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The consumer price index for the first three months of this year has increased to 12.4 per cent. In the last three months of 1981 the consumer price index was up 8.8 per cent. At the same time, Statistics Canada told us the signs that the recession was about to bottom had vanished by the early part of this year. In the face of this, the government is dithering and doing nothing. With that very discouraging information, will the Prime Minister order the Minister of Finance to bring a new budget, a new economic statement, into this House, to give Canadians some sense of direction and confidence that the government knows what it is doing?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should take the time to read the budget speech again. He would find that in his speech the Minister of Finance included a formal commitment and the means for implementing it, namely, to invite all economic partners to join the government in the fight against inflation. Going even further to emphasize the government's determination, a point stressed by the hon. member, the Minister of Finance has embarked on a series of meetings with businessmen and people from all parts of the country to urge them to take part in the fight against inflation which is necessary if we want to lower interest rates and improve the state of the Canadian economy for the benefit of all Canadians.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I do not know where the Minister of State for Finance has been, but the economy is going down a sewer right now because the Minister of Finance is doing nothing. We do not need consultations. We need action from the government, action to settle the economy.


LEVEL OF INTEREST RATES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. A few weeks ago the Prime Minister said that the reason for the current high level of interest rates was to fight inflation. In light of this very discouraging news on inflation, would the Prime Minister tell the House how high he expects interest rates have to go before inflation is beaten?

April 21, 1982
Oral Questions


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member quoted me incorrectly. I did not say that the reason for the high interest rates was to fight inflation; I said it was because inflation was high and people were only lending their money at higher rates of interest. That is why rates of interest are high, and that is why inflation must be brought down.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, that is a truism. What we need in this country is action, action from the Prime Minister, not some philosophical statements.


REQUEST THAT ENERGY TAXES BE REDUCED
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, let me put another question to the Prime Minister. The key part of the increase in prices, according to the report released this morning, was the high price for gasoline, heating oil and natural gas. Since heavy federal government taxes are a very important part of these price increases, would the Prime Minister consider forgoing some of those taxes in order to reduce the price increase in energy costs, particularly in view of the fact that the United States now has gasoline prices lower than those in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member somehow takes affront because what I said was a truism. If the hon. member had not stated a falsism, I would not have had to state a truism.
In so far as the hon. member's suggestion as to tax policy is concerned, I will make sure the Minister of Finance receives the hon. member's message.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, because we have not been able to get answers, could I direct a question to the chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs? Would the chairman of that committee confirm that he has a definite arrangement for the Minister of Finance to appear at the committee hearings on April 29 and April 30, and again in the first week of May, so that for once this year the House of Commons committee can question the Minister of Finance with respect to his policies? The chairman knows that the Minister of Finance has ducked the committee hearings not only all last fall but so far all this year. Will he give us the commitment he has from the Minister of Finance as to his attendance next week and into the first week of May?


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the minister has given his commitment to
meet on April 29 and April 30. The question about the first week of May was raised with me last night. I have not been able to talk with the minister. I have talked with his parliamentary secretary. We will do all in our power to see that the minister is able to attend in the first week of May, but certainly a commitment has been made for April 29 and 30, and I should add that on previous occasions the minister has not been at the committee for very good and valid reasons of public policy. We should not put forward the argument to the people that the minister is trying to avoid the committee, because it is not true.


REQUEST FOR VERIFICATION OF RUMOUR
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, inasmuch as the chairman has said that the minister has not been avoiding the committee, could he perhaps enlighten the House as to what urgent meeting the Minister of Finance had in Toronto last evening, or is the rumour correct that the minister needed some time to prepare for examination by banks and other officials in Toronto and that he did not have the answers-


Madam Speaker:: I am not sure that question can be answered by the chairman of the committee.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. During the past two years Canadians have been losing their homes, businesses have gone broke in record numbers-a thousand last month alone- and thousands of workers have lost their jobs, all in the name of a high interest rate policy allegedly aimed at curing inflation. Considering that the figures released today show that the cost of living rose more rapidly during the past month than for any period in almost a year, will the government finally admit that it was wrong and abandon this high interest rate dogmatism?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as I have had occasion to explain before to the hon. member, the government does not have a high interest rate policy. There are high interest rates because the rate of inflation is high. Naturally people who save money and put it aside do not want to lend it at low interest rates when the rate of inflation is high. This is why, time after time, I have attempted to convey to the Leader of the New Democratic Party that we do not have a policy of high interest rates, that we have high inflation. The way to bring down interest rates is to bring down inflation. This is why the endless suggestions of the New Democratic Party for spending on this, that, and the next thing, are not helping to bring down inflation. On the contrary, they are helping to increase the deficit, to increase
April 21, 1982

the call on funds and, therefore, to increase interest rates. Perhpas he should try to understand that.


BANKS AND BANKING
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, if I needed a lesson in economics, the Prime Minister is the last person in the country to whom I would turn.
I have two supplementary questions following on what he said. There is an area in which the government can deal directly, which has seen a month-over-month increase of considerable proportion; that is, mortgage rates. A major reason for the increase in the cost of living last month was the high levels of mortgage rates. Considering that the federal government has jurisdictional authority over the banks, and considering that before he became Prime Minister there was a requirement in the laws affecting banks that they put up mortgage money at reasonable levels for Canadians, why does the Prime Minister not take action to bring down mortgage interest rate levels as established by the banks, so that Canadians could keep their homes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member prefaced his question by saying that I would be the last person he would want to ask about economics. Maybe I could take notice of his question and have the second last person give him the answer some other day.


John Edward Broadbent: That kind of flippancy is precisely what accounts for the high level of the Liberal party in the polls today. I asked the Prime Minister a serious question about federal jurisdictional authority over banking; I hope he will deal with it.


THE ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question deals with a third area, which is unemployment. Yesterday the Minister of Finance acknowledged that high interest rates have an impact on the level of employment. He implied that having high interest rates will bring down the level of inflation, which will ultimately create more jobs. We have seen an increase in the cost of living directly related to the high interest rate policy. If the government is going to maintain the high interest rate policy, as the Prime Minister said today it will, will he at least admit that
Oral Questions
thousands more Canadians who already feel insecure about their jobs will lose them in the next few months?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member often asks me rhetorical questions. I try to deal with the substance behind the questions, if there is any. He is just now repeating what I said was not the case. He is repeating that we have a high interest rate policy, and he also says that my policy is to try to keep interest rates high. It proves that he should really ask someone else about economics if he does not want to listen to me. He should try to understand some of the basics.


HOUSING
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, the question put by the previous speaker is so important that I wish to pursue the subject in a question that is also directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada. The Prime Minister is aware that interest rates are responsible for the critical situation in the construction industry and that thousands of homes were not built during the past two years, as a result of the government's policy. The result has been unemployment. In the circumstances, considering the problems facing Canada, Canadians and Quebecers in the housing sector, is the Prime Minister prepared to make his Minister of Finance see the light and ask him to provide special interest rates for housing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member is pursuing the question by the previous speaker, but is he suggesting that we should have a special interest rate just for the construction industry and-


Roch La Salle: We have to start somewhere!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -is it not going to apply to other sectors? All right, I will let the Minister of Finance know that the hon. member is interested in the construction industry but not in farmers or small business or the fishing industry, and so on.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT APPLY PREFERRED INTEREST RATES TO CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, speaking about the fishing industry, I remember the Right Hon. Prime Minister said two years ago that if gas was going to cost 18 cents more per gallon, fishermen would not be able to afford to go to their fishing grounds. I wonder what is happening to the fishermen today.
My question today is concerned with housing. I could ask the same sort of question with respect to agriculture. I wish to ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister-in fact, the Prime Minister is aware that ten of his members made no secret of

April 21, 1982
Oral Questions
the fact that they wanted to see thousands of housing units built, and the answer they got from the Prime Minister was: Send me a letter of resignation instead. Is the Prime Minister at least prepared to recommend, not to ask, to recommend and explain to his Minister of Finance, who still does not understand the problem, that special rates are absolutely essential to get the construction industry going again and provide and maintain employment for thousands of workers. All the members of this House understand that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, of course my members understand the problems presently facing the construction industry, but the same problems are also confronting small businesses, farmers-


Roch La Salle: Small businesses should get something out of it.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please!


CRIMINAL CODE
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice who gave us the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but who appears to be more interested in protecting the rights of prostitutes and pimps who degrade and defile neighbourhoods than he is in protecting the rights of the residents who live in them. On Monday I asked the minister when he would deliver on his commitment to give the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs the power to deal with the issue of street prostitution which infests our major urban centres. In his reply the minister insisted that he wants the committee to study the problem in connection with Bill C-53 which deals with sexual offences.
I would point out to the minister that his Liberal colleague, the chairman of the justice committee, has already ruled that the committee cannot deal with the issue of soliciting without a specific reference from the minister.
Why does the minister continue to insist-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Question.


Pat Carney: Why does the minister continue to insist that soliciting can be dealt with by the committee when, in fact, his own Liberal colleague has ruled the minister's suggestion out of order?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I made that suggestion some weeks and months ago, and it was the critic of her party who refused, in committee, to agree to the discussion of the possibility of a specific reference. I wanted to make the
project as easy as possible. The hon. member should know that the official policy of her party when in power, as expressed by the minister of justice of the day, was that the question of soliciting on the streets was not a question under the Criminal Code but, rather, was the responsibility of the municipalities. This is still the policy of her party. At that time we had another alternative. However, in order to clarify the situation, I have offered to refer the problem to the committee. Unfortunately, I did not have the collaboration of the Conservative Party.


Mr. Clark:: That is not true. That is a falsehood.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Therefore, I am having a discussion with the House leader of our party, and we will make a formal reference to the committee.


Charles Joseph Clark: A falsehood.


FULFILMENT OF COMMITMENT
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, in view of the minister's-


Charles Joseph Clark: Falsehood.


Pat Carney: -falsehood, I would like to read into the record the minutes of the proceedings of-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Pat Carney: -April 22 of the committee in which his parliamentary secretary was instructed to see the minister on this issue and that Mr. Peterson was-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Pat Carney: -ordered to come back to the steering committee with a solution.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Pat Carney: May I remind the minister that many of the victims of his announcement are youngsters-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member seems to think that she is making a speech rather than asking a question. I would urge her to go to her question immediately.


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my question is this: since the minister first made his commitment to introduce amendments to the Criminal Code in July, 1980, when he met with the residents of the west end of Vancouver, when is the minister prepared to act on that commitment made nearly two years ago?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I have said many times that cases have been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, and I asked the hon. member to wait until the matter has been clarified by the Supreme Court. It is a logical position which all ministers of justice take in such
April 21, 1982

circumstances. I hope that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre will invite Senator Flynn to come before the committee to explain the position-


Charles Joseph Clark: You get the reference.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -taken by the Conservative Party when it was in power, when it asked the municipalities to deal with the matter as that party felt it had nothing to do with the Criminal Code. At least I have consented to look into the matter and refer the matter to the committee, and have not simply referred the problem to the municipalities, as was the case when the Leader of the Opposition was the prime minister.


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications, the minister responsible for freedom of information legislation. The minister has refused to appear before the justice committee for over four months, concerning freedom of information legislation, using the excuse that he was waiting for the provincial governments to respond to a uniform act. Now that the majority of the provincial governments have stated that they want nothing to do with a uniform act, when will the minister stop stalling the bill and bring the bill before the justice committee, or will the minister allow the bureaucrats, some of his own cabinet colleagues, and perhaps even the Prime Minister, who has never been particularly enamoured of the idea of freedom of information legislation, to kill this long overdue bill? Specifically, is the minister prepared to give us a commitment that this bill will be brought back before the justice committee in this session of Parliament?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, obviously we are all committed to the principle of freedom of information. When the hearings on the bill were suspended in November, it was at the specific request of the attorneys general of just about every province, the sole exception being the province of Manitoba. Since that time a number of the attorneys general who had asked us to pursue the idea of coming up with a uniform bill concerning freedom of information, which indeed would have been a distinct advantage for all advocates of freedom of information, have changed their minds as they feel that the uniform approach would not be productive. However, most of them have maintained a number of objections, as outlined in Mr. McMurtry's letter of November, to the effect that certain of the sections in the actual draft bill which is before the committee ought to be re-examined and changed.
As 1 indicated to the hon. member during the course of my answer to him and to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton a couple of weeks ago, there were basically three options in front of the government. One was to pursue the uniform bill approach, which is no longer possible since the attorneys
Oral Questions
general have changed their minds. The second was to bring the bill back from the committee without amendment, and the third possibility was, of course, to bring the bill back to the committee with a number of amendments.
I have finished my analysis of the recommendations made to us by the provinces, and I have reported to my cabinet colleagues. This matter is now in front of the cabinet, and once a decision has been taken I will be able to give the hon. gentleman a more forthcoming answer.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, when the minister appeared yesterday before the committee on communications, he did not even indicate that freedom of information legislation was a priority.


QUERY RESPECTING CROWN PRIVILEGE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. In view of the fact that the provincial objections centre around two fundamental areas, that is, removal of Crown privilege and the right to independent judicial review, both of which are absolutely critical for an effective freedom of information act, will the minister assure the House that he will in no way water down this fundamental principle of independent judicial review and an end to Crown privilege, both principles which this government, and particularly this Prime Minister, had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to accept? Can we be assured that these principles will be maintained in any legislation which the government brings back to the justice committee in this session of Parliament?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I think there are indeed two questions raised by the hon. member. One concerns the access to information legislation and one concerns Crown privilege. As far as the access to information legislation is concerned, I would very much hope that, as soon as my cabinet colleagues have been able to finish their examination, we will be able to take a definitive position as to when and how we would want to reintroduce the bill or continue hearings in front of the committee.
The hon. member himself has indicated that the main concern of the provincial attorneys general centred around the disappearance of Crown privilege. The hon. member may also know that there have been a couple of court decisions in this country during the course of the fall of 1981 which have changed the common law in many respects concerning Crown privilege. Therefore, it is indeed important to follow the recommendations of the attorneys general, to re-examine the whole question of Crown privilege in the light of evolving jurisprudence in this country and in the countries which follow common law.


REQUEST FOR URGENT CABINET CONSIDERATION
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, may I have an undertaking from the Minister of Communications that there will be urgent consideration by the minister

April 21, 1982
Oral Questions
and his colleagues with respect to the matter now that the situation has been changed by the letter of the attorneys general? Will he assure the House that he is considering this to be an urgent matter?


Francis Fox: Yes, Madam Speaker, I expect that my cabinet colleagues will be able to consider the matter in due course.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Stan Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The citizens of Hamilton and surrounding area are being agitated and disturbed by rumours that the expansion of the Mount Hope Airport is being stalled for some reason and that Nordair may be withdrawing its services. Can the minister inform this House of the current status of the expansion project for the airport in Hamilton and, I hope, allay these fears?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, in the coming days I will be signing a submission to Treasury Board concerning this airport. It will be at the level which has already been announced, that is, at the $50 million level. The date for the completion of the airport will remain the same, 1985-86. Because of discussion, internally and with the carriers, on space allocation within the airport, the design work has been postponed by about six months, which means that the start of construction will be delayed until next summer, as opposed to this summer, as originally planned. However, I repeat that the completion date will remain the same.
Concerning the subject of Nordair service to Hamilton, there has indeed been a rumour founded on a discussion between the carrier and the Chamber of Commerce in Hamilton. That was only discussion. A review is now being made by Nordair, and I have informed the president of the carrier company that 1 would like to see him before a decision is made, and I will do so.


EMERGENCY MEASURES
[Stage Direction]
EMERGENCY PLANNING-P.C. 1981-1305, MAY 21, 1981, REGISTRATION SI/81-76 JUNE 10, 1981
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the government House leader. On April 1 the government voted to support my motion for the production of papers with regard to emergency planning order PC-1305. It has now been three weeks, but those papers have not been tabled. I would like to ask the minister, what is the holdup?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, we are translating the documents, and when they are translated we will be tabling them.


CONSEQUENCE OF DELAY IN TRANSLATION
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, if there had been an impending emergency, or if there is an impending emergency, what does the government plan to do if those papers are not translated?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, we plan to translate and table them as soon as possible.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It relates to the scallop industry. The proposed United States scallop management plan, expected to take effect next month, uses a meat count of 40 to the pound, with enforcement against the possession of smaller scallops. This could be classed as a non-tariff barrier against Canadian scallops. Since the minister stated in the House on February 4 that conservation measures which would become trade barriers were not acceptable and would be the subject of further discussion, will he tell the House whether these further talks have been held and, if so, what has been the result?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, there were contacts as late as last week. I do not have in my briefing book the report on this meeting. I suspect the official involved went on to another country for a meeting. I will check and try to give the hon. member an answer tomorrow.


PRODUCTION OF KIRBY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, the Kirby commission has been studying the fishing industry for some time. Have any recommendations been made by the commission suggesting the type of federal aid which should be provided to the fishing industry, especially the scallop industry and the marketing problem faced by the entire industry, which would help it through this difficult period? If not, when can the House expect the commission to bring in a report?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I spoke to Mr. Kirby as late as yesterday. He still hopes to have recommendations before cabinet prior to the summer break.
April 21, 1982


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware that fertilizer prices in western Canada are between $30 and $60 per tonne higher than they are in the western United States? For the Canadian farmer who is planting a quarter section of land, this means an added cost of roughly $4,000. If he is aware of this situation, can he indicate what action he is planning to overcome what appears to be a grossly unfair situation?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am aware of what the hon. member is saying. It is the market system working. There is no tariff on fertilizer moving across the Canada-United States international border. It moves freely. Farmers can go there to purchase fertilizer. I know it would be inconvenient, but I am sure the hon. member does not want me to invoke more regulations concerning control of the sale of fertilizers.
It is said that it is surplus fertilizer being moved into world markets. Approximately 50 per cent of the fertilizer is moved into markets other than the Canadian market. Production is 50 per cent more than is needed for domestic use and is exported. There are three new plants that will come on stream in the next 11 months. That will make those figures look so small it will be amazing. These are nitrogen-producing fertilizer plants that will be producing mostly for the export markets.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET REPRESENTATIVES OF MANUFACTURING COMPANIES
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, inasmuch as this fertilizer is produced in Canada, will the minister assure the House that he is prepared to meet with the fertilizer companies, or at least prevail upon them to instil some equity and fairness in their marketing practices, particularly in light of the fact that farm input costs are rising dramatically, mainly fuel prices and fertilizer prices, largely as a result of federal government taxes? Will the minister consider meeting with the fertilizer companies, prevail upon them, and use his ability as a friendly persuader?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, we have a group which meets with the fertilizer manufacturers in Canada. Some of my officials have discussed this informally with them. I addressed this group about three weeks ago in this city. I also pointed out to them in private conversation that we had definite concerns about this fact. It is the market system working in its own fashion. We have deep concern. I repeat, there is no tax on fertilizer coming into or moving out of Canada. There is free trade. It can move freely back and forth across the border. It is an inconvenience. I agree, as the hon. member said, it is unfair that Canadian fertilizer users are being subjected to this.
Oral Questions ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY


CAPACITY OF WELLAND CANAL TO ACCOMMODATE SHIPPING
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The St. Lawrence Seaway system is in potentially serious trouble if the bottleneck of the Welland Canal is not dealt with very soon. Forecasts of demand for later this decade indicate that up to 65 million tonnes of cargo could be moved through the system, yet the canal's capacity to move this much cargo is fast becoming limited. Does the minister plan to increase the size of the Welland Canal in order to take advantage of the demands placed upon it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the postulate is not right. This is an assessment made by the government of Ontario indicating five years before capacity is reached on the Great Lakes. That study is contradicted by studies made in my department and by the Seaway which estimate it will be a decade before we reach that point. A recent joint study by the Canadian and American Seaway authorities indicated, that 18 or 19 years may be a more accurate estimate. Therefore, there is now plenty of capacity on the Seaway.
Administrative and technological measures of a short-term nature are being taken in order to expand the capacity. Longterm planning for the doubling of the Welland Canal or doing something about the length of the navigation season is also being carried out. Therefore, my friend should not worry too much. Things are well in hand.


QUERY RESPECTING CANAL IMPROVEMENTS
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, the minister's answer regarding the task force report by the Ontario government is correct. However, in his report the minister indicated that modernization of the canal, at least some restorative work on the walls of the canal and enlarging the areas in which ships can pass, should be started immediately. What is the minister's answer on that matter?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I could send my friend a report on what is now being done by way of administrative and technical changes to the Welland Canal. I will send him that report to assure him that what I said is correct. There will be a number of speeches on this subject in the coming months. There will be a colloquy in the city of Quebec early in June on the Seaway. A lot of good speakers will be there to give reports on the state of navigation on the Seaway and the St. Lawrence.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I think we can take from his earlier comments in this question period that he intends to have Canada follow lock-step in terms of economic policy with the United States.

April 21, 1982
Oral Questions
The United States government is in the process of gutting the U.S. environmental protection agency, to the concern of many people not only in the United States but around the world, and now plans to gut the Clean Air Act and cut funding to research on Great Lakes water quality, something which will tamper with the treaty that is very important to both Canada and the United States in terms of keeping our Great Lakes water quality clean. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether he has communicated the concern of this House and Canadians to President Reagan regarding the direction the United States is going, and our serious concern about toxic wastes in the Great Lakes and about acid rain, or are we going to follow the policy of the United States and see the changing of our Clean Air Act and the gradual loss of the pollution controls we fought so hard to get in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, I did communicate those concerns, which are concerns of the government and this party, to the President.


ACID RAIN RESEARCH PROGRAM
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister would comment on the new acid rain strategy of his government which was revealed today. As a matter of fact, I will reveal it right now. It is the awarding of a $30,691 contract to the University of Toronto to put concentrated acid rain into the eyes of rabbits in order to study acid rain. Does the Prime Minister think that will reduce acid rain, or will the new Liberal policy on acid rain be to provide goggles to all Canadian rabbits?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will ask the hon. member to think about the answer. He might be able to find it himself.


AVIATION INDUSTRY
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if, during his recent meeting with President Mitterrand, the subject of French aviation air bus program was discussed and whether any possibility of transferring some of that program to Canada for the benefit of our aviation industry was considered? If there are any details, could the Prime Minister tell the House about them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as I responded in the House yesterday to a question about my discussions with President Mitterand, 1 will repeat to the hon. member that the discussions were purely preparatory to the Summit, and they had to do with matters which are on the agenda of the Summit. Of course, the air bus is not one
such matter. However, the Prime Minister of France is arriving in Canada tomorrow, and we do intend to discuss this matter, amongst others, with him.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The farm sector is experiencing increasing difficulties. In one recent sampling 25 per cent of the respondents were not able to plant their spring crops because of the difficulty in obtaining financing. In addition, 40 per cent felt they were financially bankrupt. Interest rates of over 16 per cent now apply to farm credit. The small business bond is not working. Indeed, this morning in Toronto a group of 200 farmers blockaded the Ontario Food Terminal because of the failure of the minister and his government to provide adequate solutions to the increasing number of problems. Was the minister aware of this blockade? Is he aware of the increasing difficulties in the agricultural sector, and is he prepared to do anything about them now?


Mr. Greenaway:: Instead of talking through his green hat.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I was not made aware that a group of 200 farmers were at the Ontario Food Terminal.
The hon. member seems to make fun of the fact that the farm credit interest rate is 16.5 per cent. The hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex reported to me today that he has had meetings with farmers in his constituency. They are being asked to pay 30 per cent for money for farm operations this spring. These operations include spring planting and so forth.
The hon. member for Bruce-Grey knows very well that farm credit is for long-term money. We do not provide short-term money under those circumstances. Loans are made in respect of debt accumulation so that farmers can pay off their debts, but it is up to private lending institutions to make sure that money is available to farmers. First and foremost it is up to the province of Ontario to do something more than it is doing at the present time.
The hon. member also knows that we lent money interest free in Ontario last year, as well as in some other provinces. However, the bulk of the money went to Ontario. Nearly $100 million in farm credit went to Ontario. In addition, Ontario farmers received some 40 per cent of the emergency funds we lent.
The hon. member tries to get across the idea that we do not care and are not doing anything, but he is wrong. We are very concerned about the problems farmers are facing, but as far as I am concerned those problems are strictly-maybe not strictly-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
April 21, 1982


Eugene Whelan: -these problems should be of more concern to the province. I met with the minister of agriculture for Ontario to discuss the urgent concern he feels in relation to how Ontario farmers will finance their operations this spring. Again I say, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Lewis:: Let him go on, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Beatty:: Put the bull back in the pen.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, instead of asking a supplementary question, it might have been better for me to let the minister continue to talk and to bury himself. He said two important things. The first was that the agricultural community is facing a 30 per cent interest rate for planting its crops. The minister knows very well farmers cannot survive with that kind of interest requirement.
Second, the minister also knows that-


Madam Speaker:: Order. We heard the minister's answer. We need a question now, please.


PROPOSED MORATORIUM ON FARM FORECLOSURES
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my question to the minister is simple. He knows that one of the members of his Liberal caucus will be presenting a bill respecting a moratorium on farm foreclosures. There will be some amendments to provide interim solutions. Will the minister support that, and has he been able to persuade the Minister of Finance to agree to that proposal?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, it is obvious that the hon. member and I discuss things very freely back and forth not only inside this House but also outside. The hon. member also discusses matters with the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex. We are well aware of the private member's bill the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex is presenting to the House. Yes, I do support the intent of that bill.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State. The signing of the constitutional proclamation on Saturday completed the work toward full Canadian sovereignty launched by the Fathers of Confederation in Charlottetown in 1864. Given the close historic link between the Charlottetown conference of 1864 and the patriation of the Constitution, would the government give active consideration to the idea of making one, and one only, official copy of the proclamation, with original signatures, and placing it in
Oral Questions
Province House in Charlottetown? This would mark the close link between the two great and historic events.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the suggestion of the hon. member is a constructive one. I have already heard it from one of my ministers. I had to point out to him what I point out to the hon. member: there have been other requests for such copies. For instance, it was put to me that-


Mr. Pelletier:: Sherbrooke.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Apart from Sherbrooke there were requests that a copy be placed in the House of Commons or in the Parliamentary library, in the archives and another in the United Kingdom. At some point the number of original copies might be too great.
The Magna Carta was signed in four copies and sent to four corners of the realm. That was to prevent King John from being able to destroy them. In this particular case I do not think that precaution is necessary.


Mr. Nielsen:: Watch out for Rene.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can only tell the hon. member, as I told the members of my cabinet and caucus, who made equally valid suggestions, that we are studying the matter in a real way, and we want to see if there is some possibility of priorizing the use of some copies without getting into a multiplicity of copies which, I take it, would call for Her Majesty the Queen singing-signing a great number of originals.


Mr. Crombie:: Singing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: She could sing it too.


AGRICULTURE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister is supplementary to the question posed by my colleague, the hon. member for Bruce-Grey. Is the government supporting the private member's bill respecting a moratorium on farm foreclosures which the Minister of Agriculture says he supports?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not have information on that. I will have to discuss his answer with the minister and, as usual, be guided by his good common sense.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Was the
Minister of Agriculture speaking for the government when he

April 21, 1982
Oral Questions
expressed the support of the government for the legislation proposing a moratorium on farm foreclosures?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the right hon. member is referring to an idea which, I understand, the Minister of Agriculture said seems worthy of consideration. I think the first thing we would want to do is see the bill itself. If the Leader of the Opposition has a copy of the bill, I wish he would table it so we could consider it as soon as possible.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is your bill.


QUERY RESPECTING MINISTER'S INTENTIONS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, this question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. If the government will not support this bill, for which the minister has expressed his support-let me rephrase the question to avoid the hypothetical. Is it the intention of the Minister of Agriculture to resign if the government does not support the bill, the principle of which he has supported in this House?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I remember when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition proposed high interest rates. I never saw him resign. He should resign now because he proposed that in 1979 when he was prime minister of the country. Now that is what his party tries to win on.
I said the intent, as explained to me by the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex, of that bill-that I support the intent of that bill. If I can have something done along those lines-and we do that in the Farm Credit Corporation at the present time. We do provide maratoriums under the Farm Credit Corporation for two, three and four years, as high as that, for farmers. We are doing that same thing, so the intent is there.


MINISTER'S COURSE OF ACTION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. If the minister fails in his attempt to have the government support the intent of this legislation, will he resign, or will his principles be as flexible as the principles of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who promised that he would resign if interest rates went up but he stays in office while interest rates in the country soar?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, all I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition is that I rarely fail.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Tuesday, April 20, 1982, and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the standing orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. During the debate on Bill C-104 yesterday, when I quoted some figures from a Senate report, it caused a good deal of excitement among hon. members to my right. There were a number of shouted interjections and I waited until today to see if any of them were recorded in Hansard. 1 find that one that was recorded is attributed to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). The interjection was "complete lies".
At the appropriate time I am willing to discuss with the hon. member whether or not the evidence given before the Senate is to be believed. Although the hon. member is a more experienced parliamentarian than I, I believe if he has not looked at Citation 319 of Beauchesne at page 108, he should look at it. I think that he would find that in the expression he used, "complete lies", the word "lies" is not acceptable. I hope he will withdraw those words and that the record can be corrected to show his withdrawal.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, when the hon. member was speaking he said "the jackals to my right". There are no jackals to his right. It was a complete lie. I might add that if there are any jackals in the House they are all in front of him.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I recognize that there is room for a difference of opinion about words that the hon. member mentions now but the words that he used, "complete lies" did not follow those words, they followed statements regarding "these companies have so much cash flow" and so on. I believe the hon. member should clarify his words.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is another one.


Madam Speaker:: I think that perhaps this problem can be solved quite easily with a bit of good will on the part of hon. members. Of course the way it is-I see these words in Hansard "complete lies", and of course that will not do. This is considered to be an unparliamentary expression. I think the problem can be solved quite easily if the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) would say that perhaps there was a difference at the time when he said this and that at any rate he
April 21, 1982

did not mean to say that the hon. member was uttering complete lies. I think that can be arranged quite easily.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, if you would give me the time I could go through the hon. member's address and show where there are at least three complete lies. If you want me to say-


Madam Speaker:: Statements of hon. members are accepted in the House. One can have an opinion on those statements but one may not, in the House, accuse an hon. member of uttering complete lies. The hon. member is not helping the House too much by repeating that expression. I think it is very simple, if the hon. member would assure the House that what is recorded in Hansard certainly went beyond whatever he intended to say.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I cannot say I went beyond anything I intended to say. I intended to say just what I said. If you want me to say "complete fabrication", okay, but he did give a lie. The "jackal" itself was a lie; a complete fabrication. If you want me to lie, I would have to lie, and I am not prepared to lie.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think we all recognize that the hon. member may have an opinion on whatever another hon. member is saying, but he cannot openly and clearly accuse an hon. member of uttering complete lies. I would ask the hon. member not to substitute another word now because that is not possible, but to withdraw those words.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I am not prepared to withdraw it. I will say it is a complete fabrication, because that is what it was.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member should understand that I will accept "complete fabrication" but he must withdraw the first two words, "complete lies"; otherwise he knows what the consequences are.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, if you want to replace "complete lies" with "complete fabrication", that is okay with me.


Madam Speaker:: Does the hon. member withdraw "complete lies"? Does he do it now?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, if you want to replace the words "complete lies" with "complete fabrication", okay.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Withdraw, my eye!


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the words that have been used by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) can be and should be taken as satisfactory-


Some hon. Members:: No!


Erik Nielsen: -compliance with the position taken by the Chair. I would think also that it should be acceptable to the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Otherwise, should debate continue I could raise other questions of privilege which have a direct relationship to that exchange, such as the use of
Privilege-Mr. Heap
the term "jackal". I will not raise that now. It is not my intention to do so. However, the words that have been used by the hon. member for Bow River, I strongly suggest, should be acceptable to the Chair and to the hon. member concerned.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, if I could make a slight contribution to this very serious debate-


John Carnell Crosbie: It usually is.


John Edward Broadbent: -the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) obviously objected to the word "jackal". I understand the context in which that expression was uttered and I am sure my colleague did not mean, quite literally, that the people sitting to his right were jackals-or the entities to his right. He made the error of thinking that those things that sound like and look like jackals are jackals. He was not lying; he was making a judgment, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, in the strictest sense, when a member is charged by the Speaker to withdraw, normally that is the only matter dealt with. That is the issue. When the opposition House leader suggests to you that that is not what the hon. member had said, when in fact he has refused three times to withdraw, then indeed you must instruct him once again to withdraw.
The fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, that with respect to our rights and privileges the rules apply to everyone on all sides of the House. If the hon. member is going to call someone a liar and he is requested by you to withdraw, he has no alternative but to withdraw.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I have been sitting here quietly listening to what has occurred. I listened to what the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) said and, as I recall it, he said, "Madam Speaker, if you wish to substitute the word "fabrication", or "complete fabrication" for "complete lie", that is all right with me". I believe that is a withdrawal.


Madam Speaker:: There is a certain nuance to the words "substituting" and "withdrawing", but I think this debate can be solved perhaps by the two hon. members agreeing on something. There is another factor in the matter of using unparliamentary language, which is whether or not it creates a disturbance in the House even if the word is listed. Sometimes it goes by and does not create a disturbance in the House.
I wonder if the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) would feel his honour is restored by the fact that the hon. member for Bow River has substituted "fabrication" for the word he had uttered previously in the House.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I find that on page 106 of Beauchesne's the word "fabrication" is listed as a word not to be used.

April 21, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Heap


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I am trying to learn the rules of the House and I do not think I should take instruction from the hon. member for Bow River because he does not seem sure himself.


John Horton McDermid: He has a lot more experience than you do.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I understand he has a great deal of experience, but he does not seem to have learned from it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, what is at stake is not my personal feelings or those of the hon. member for Bow River; it is a question of the rules of the House, and I would leave the matter in your hands.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is absolutely right, the word "fabrication" also appears on the list. Therefore, I have no other choice but to ask the hon. member for Bow River to withdraw those expressions.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, when the hon. member starts showing respect, then he will get respect. It was a lie, it is still a lie, and I am not going to lie by saying it is not.


Madam Speaker:: So the hon. member refuses to withdraw those expressions?


Gordon Edward Taylor: I said I would replace it with "fabrication".


Madam Speaker:: I just told the hon. member that "fabrication" also appears on the list of unparliamentary expressions. Does the hon. member withdraw those expressions which he used yesterday and today in the House?


Gordon Edward Taylor: I will use the word "mendaciousness", then. Replace it with "mendaciousness."


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, I am asking the hon. member to withdraw, not to substitute another word. If he will not withdraw, he will understand that I have no other choice but to name him.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I regret intervening again. However, I submit to you our rules are not so rigid that there is only one option. Members have, through many, many years in the House, been permitted to substitute an offensive expression with something which is not unparliamentary, which substitution has for many years constituted sufficient withdrawal. In my submission, if the hon. member for Bow River, wishes to withdraw the word "fabrication" and the word "lies" and substitute the word "mendacity", I submit that is sufficient compliance with the rules of Parliament.


Madam Speaker:: I would agree with the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). If the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) will follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Yukon, I will accept that.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I said I would substitute it with the word "mendacity".


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member withdraws the two previous expressions? I am afraid that has to be done.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Put it right over the top of it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PETITIONS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of my constituents. The purpose of this petition, signed by 1,300 citizens of Leduc and district in the constituency of Wetaskiwin is to urge the government to increase and upgrade the safety equipment at all Leduc area railway crossings. This action is prompted by the occurrences of railway accidents in that area. The petition urges that all railway crossings be equipped with adequate safeguards as rapidly as possible, and that the enforcement of the relevant regulations be rendered more effective.
The petitioners hope you will find the petition in order and will note the great urgency of the circumstances leading up to it, and ask that you use the powers of your office to allow discussion and referral to committee as soon as possible.


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition sponsored by the St. John's Jaycees and signed by 72,000 citizens of Newfoundland. The petition points out the hazardous conditions prevailing in the northwest Atlantic, which was tragically highlighted by the sinking of the oil rig Ocean Ranger with the loss of 82 lives. It points out the dangers to the men who work on these oil rigs, and the men and women who work off the Newfoundland shore in our fisheries and other offshore industries. It also points out the lack of protection our people have at the present time. Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament directs the government to establish full search and rescue capability in Newfoundland so that its citizens can enjoy the same degree of protection enjoyed by Canadian citizens who work offshore in the maritime provinces.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition signed by 805 citizens and owners of firearms in the Cariboo-Chilcotin riding of British Columbia. The purpose of this petition is to protest the
April 21, 1982

introduction of Bill C-451, a private member's bill concerning gun control.
Most of the signatories to this petition are legitimate gun owners who use their firearms for sport and often in the course of their work. The petition demands immediate withdrawal of Bill C-451 or the denial of passage of the bill should it come up for consideration in the House. The petitioners hope that in your examination of the petition you will find it is in order, and that you will exercise the discretionary powers vested in the office of Speaker of the House to allow discussion at the earliest possible time in order that the flaws in this proposed legislation may be pointed out.


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. 2,004, 2,528, 3,509, and 4,111.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	What is the formula or method used for determining the rates of interest earned by the (a) Public Service Superannuation Account (PSSA) (b) Canadian Forces Superannuation Account (CFSA) (c) Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account (RCMPSA)?
2.	From January 1, 1960 to January 1, 1981, what were the effective annual rates of interest earned quarterly by the (a) PSSA (b) CFSA (c) RCMPSA?
3.	What is the formula or method used for determining the rate of interest earned by the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account (SRBA)?
4.	What effective annual rates of interest would the (a) PSSA (b) CFSA (c) RCMPSA have earned quarterly from January 1, 1960 to January 1, 1981, if it had earned interest at rates determined in accordance with the formula or method described in the answer to part 3?
5.	As of January 1, 1981, what are the balances of the (a) PSSA (b) CFSA (c) RCMPSA?
6.	What is the balance of the SRBA as of January 1, 1981?
7.	What would be the balance of the SRBA as of January 1, 1981, if the SRBA were credited with interest on the quarterly balances that existed in the PSSA, CFSA, and the RCMPSA from January 1, 1960 to January 1, 1981, at rates equal to the difference in the rates contained in the answers to parts 2 and 4 and if these interest earning credits themselves earned interest quarterly at rates determined in accordance with the formula or method described in the answer to part 3?
8.	What would be the balance of the SRBA as of January 1, 1981, if from its inception the (a) interest earning rate had been increased by an annual rate of Vs of 1 per cent (b) interest had been calculated and credited to the SRBA monthly on the monthly balances of the SRBA?
9.	What would be the balance of the SRBA as of January 1, 1981, if (a) interest earnings had been calculated and credited to the SRBA in the manner described in part 8 (b) it was credited monthly with interest earnings on the actual or estimated monthly balances of the PSSA, CFSA, and RCMPSA that existed from January 1, 1960 to January 1, 1981 at effective annual rates that were Vs of 1 per cent above the difference between the monthly equivalents of the rates determined in accordance with the formulas described in the answers to
Orders Paper Questions
parts 1 and 3, and if the interest earnings so determined themselves earned interest and had been credited to the SRBA at the rate and in the manner described in part 8?
10.	What would be the dollar value of the (a) PSSA (b) CFSA (c) RCMPSA (d) SRBA as of January 1, 1981, if the interest earned on all contributions from January 1, 1960 to January 1, 1981 were calculated at a 1 per cent higher rate, as indicated in the Tomenson-Alexander report would have been possible in a well diversified private pension fund?


Mr. Norman Kelly (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: 1. The (a) Public Service Superannuation Account, (PSSA), (b) Canadian Forces Superannuation Account (CFSA) and (c) Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account (RCMPSA) earn interest quarterly. The quarterly rate is determined as if the excess of receipts over disbursements, each quarter since the accounts began, and been invested in long-term Government of Canada bonds (20 or more years) and as if these amounts had been reinvested at current rates every twenty years.
2.	From January 1, 1960 to June 30, 1969 the PSSA, CFSA and RCMPSA earned quarterly interest at an effective annual rate of 4 per cent. The quarterly interest rates earned since the quarter commencing June 30, 1969, expressed as effective annual rates, were as follows:
Quarter ending September 30, 1969	Per cent 5.1
Quarter ending December 31, 1969	5.1
Quarter ending March 31, 1970	5.2
Quarter ending June 30, 1970	5.4
Quarter ending September 30, 1970	5.4
Quarter ending December 31, 1970	5.5
Quarter ending March 31, 1971	5.6
Quarter ending June 30, 1971	5.7
Quarter ending September 30, 1971	5.7
Quarter ending December 31, 1971	5.7
Quarter ending March 31, 1972	5.8
Quarter ending June 30, 1972	6.0
Quarter ending September 30, 1972	6.0
Quarter ending December 31, 1972	6.0
Quarter ending March 31, 1973	6.1
Quarter ending June 30, 1973	6.2
Quarter ending September 30, 1973	6.2
Quarter ending December 31, 1973	6.3
Quarter ending March 31, 1974	6.3
Quarter ending June 30, 1974	6.4
Quarter ending September 30, 1974	6.5
Quarter ending December 31, 1974	6.7
Quarter ending March 31, 1975	6.7
Quarter ending June 30, 1975	6.8
Quarter ending September 30, 1975	6.9
Quarter ending December 31, 1975	7.0
Quarter ending March 31, 1976	7.1
Quarter ending June 30, 1976	7.2
Quarter ending September 30, 1976	7.2
Quarter ending December 31, 1976	7.3
Quarter ending March 31, 1977	7.4
Quarter ending June 30, 1977	7.4
Quarter ending September 30, 1977	7.5
Quarter ending December 31, 1977	7.6
Quarter ending March 31, 1978	7.6
Quarter ending June 30, 1978	7.7
Quarter ending September 30, 1978	7.9
Quarter ending December 31, 1978	7.9
Quarter ending March 31, 1979	7.9
Quarter ending June 30, 1979	8.0
Quarter ending September 30, 1979	8.1
Quarter ending December 31, 1979	8.2
Quarter ending March 31, 1980	8.2

April 21, 1982
Order Paper Questions
Per cent
Quarter ending June 30, 1980	8.5
Quarter ending September 30, 1980	8.6
Quarter ending December 31, 1980	8.7
3.	Interest is calculated monthly on the minimum balance in the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account (SRBA) at a rate of interest representative of the yield on outstanding Government of Canada bonds having a term to maturity of five years, less Vs of 1 per cent. Interest is credited to the account at the end of each quarter.
4.
Per cent
Quarter ending March 31, 1960	6.1
Quarter ending June 30, 1960	5.4
Quarter ending September 30, 1960	5.4
Quarter ending December 31,1960	4.0
Quarter ending March 31, 1961	4.0
Quarter ending June 30, 1961	4.3
Quarter ending September 30, 1961	4.3
Quarter ending December 31, 1961	4.0
Quarter ending March 31, 1962	4,0
Quarter ending June 30, 1962	3.9
Quarter ending September 30, 1962	3.9
Quarter ending December 31, 1962	5.4
Quarter ending March 31, 1963	4.4
Quarter ending June 30, 1963	4 7
Quarter ending September 30, 1963	4.2
Quarter ending December 31, 1963	4,6
Quarter ending March 31, 1964	4 6
Quarter ending June 30, 1964	5.0
Quarter ending September 30, 1964	4.9
Quarter ending December 31,1964	5.0
Quarter ending March 31, 1965	5.0
Quarter ending June 30, 1965	4 7
Quarter ending September 30, 1965	5.0
Quarter ending December 31, 1965	5,1
Quarter ending March 31,1966	5.4
Quarter ending June 30, 1966	5.5
Quarter ending September 30, 1966	5.5
Quarter ending December 31,1966	5 9
Quarter ending March 31, 1967	5 7
Quarter ending June 30, 1967	5,0
Quarter ending September 30, 1967	5.9
Quarter ending December 31, 1967	6.1
Quarter ending March 31, 1968	6.7
Quarter ending June 30, 1968	7 3
Quarter ending September 30, 1968	7.1
Quarter ending December 31, 1968	6.4
Quarter ending March 31, 1969	7.2
Quarter ending June 30, 1969	7.3
Quarter ending September 30, 1969	7.7
Quarter ending December 31,1969	8.1
Quarter ending March 31, 1970	8.6
Quarter ending June 30, 1970	7.7
Quarter ending September 30, 1970	7.4
Quarter ending December 31, 1970	7.6
Quarter ending March 31, 1971	5.8
Quarter ending June 30, 1971	5.6
Quarter ending September 30, 1971	6.0
Quarter ending December 31, 1971	6 0
Quarter ending March 31, 1972	5 4
Quarter ending June 30, 1972	6.7
Quarter ending September 30, 1972	7.1
Quarter ending December 31, 1972	6'9
Quarter ending March 31, 1973	6.3
Quarter ending June 30, 1973	6^8
Quarter ending September 30, 1973	7.4
Quarter ending December 31, 1973	7.3
Quarter ending March 31, 1974	7 j
Quarter ending June 30, 1974	i',i
Quarter ending September 30, 1974	9.3
Quarter ending December 31, 1974	9.2
Quarter ending March 31, 1975	Per cent 7.3
Quarter ending June 30, 1975	6.8
Quarter ending September 30, 1975	7.7
Quarter ending December 31, 1975	9.1
Quarter ending March 31, 1976	8.7
Quarter ending June 30, 1976	9.0
Quarter ending September 30, 1976	9.0
Quarter ending December 31, 1976	8.7
Quarter ending March 31, 1977	7.8
Quarter ending June 30, 1977	8.1
Quarter ending September 30, 1977	7.9
Quarter ending December 31, 1977	8.1
Quarter ending March 31, 1978	8.2
Quarter ending June 30, 1978	8.8
Quarter ending September 30, 1978	9.1
Quarter ending December 31, 1978	9.1
Quarter ending March 31, 1979	10.2
Quarter ending June 30, 1979	10.2
Quarter ending September 30, 1979	10.1
Quarter ending December 31, 1979	11.1
Quarter ending March 31, 1980	12.0
Quarter ending June 30, 1980	14.3
Quarter ending September 30, 1980	11.1
Quarter ending December 31, 1980	13.6
5.	(a) PSSA-$11,976,713,992
(b)	CFSA-$ 9,183,383,30 3
(c)	RCMPSA-$965,052,607
6.	SRBA-$806,732,607.
7.	Approximately $5,745,000,000.
8.	Approximately $812,700,000.
9.	Approximately $6,305,000,000.
10.	The balances shown in question No. 5 for the PSSA, CFSA and RCMPSA would not have been affected by additional interest earnings of 1 per cent per annum since the three acts provide that any interest earnings of the accounts over the rate assumed in the actuarial reports (i.e.: interest over 4 per cent until the late 1970s and more recently, interest over 6.5 per cent can be used to offset the cost of amortizing actuarial
deficiencies caused largely by salary increases. SRBA__


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does the government intend to take action with regard to the fact that the 1980 annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages states there are no bilingual positions in the Post Office Department among Newfoundland's 1,036 postal employees and, if so, what are the details?
2.	For what reason would it be necessary to have bilingual employees in Newfoundland?
3.	What is the estimated percentage of persons living in Newfoundland who speak the (a) English (b) French language only?


David P. Smith: I am informed by Canada Post and Statistics Canada as follows:
1.	In Newfoundland, bilingual services are provided, and have been for a number of years, at the Cape St. George Post Office to serve the only area that has an established demand. The Postmaster of this office is employed under the terms of
April 21, 1982

the Post Office Act, therefore is not included in the figures quoted by the Commissioner of Official Languages. As well, Canada Post is committed to the introduction of bilingual services in Labrador City in 1981-82.
2.	As a federal institution, Canada Post recognizes an obligation to provide services in both French and English to Canadians in areas where a demand is established.
3.	The latest information on languages is from the 1976 census, but that information relates only to mother tongue, as opposed to language currently spoken. According to the 1976 census the distribution of the population in Newfoundland by mother tongue was as follows:
Mother tongue English: 97.7 per cent
Mother tongue French: 0.5 per cent
Mother tongue neither English nor French: 1.8 per cent
The most recent information on official languages capabilities was collected in the 1971 census, which asked whether English or French were spoken well enough to conduct a conversation. For Newfoundland, the official languages capabilities of the population in 1971 were:
English only: 98.0 per cent French only: 0.1 per cent Both English and French: 1.8 per cent Neither English nor French: 0.1 per cent
Similar information is being collected in the 1981 census.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Do Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta and the Yukon territory levy provincial health insurance premiums as a form of provincial revenue?
2.	(a) Did the government transfer $42 million on behalf of federal employees in 1980-81 to provincial treasuries as a part of this levy (b) did the government estimate the amount that it would receive in personal income taxes on this transferred sum?
3.	Does the government collect personal income taxes for Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta and, if so, in each province, what is the approximate percentage of the amount collected as federal taxes?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Departments of Finance, National Health and Welfare, National Revenue (Taxation) and by the Treasury Board as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) The federal government, as employer, pays a portion of the provincial health insurance premiums payable by its employees in the aforementioned provinces and the Yukon territory, and makes such contributions directly to the provincial authorities. In 1980-81, the amount of these contributions was $38.9 million.
(b)	On a payment such as this, the federal government estimated to recoup 20 per cent in aggregate in federal personal income taxes. Since the amount
Order Paper Questions
transferred in 1980-81 was $38.9 million, federal income taxes recovered are estimated to have been $7.8 million.
3.	Yes. The amount of personal income tax assessed for the year 1979 in the three provinces in question is as follows:
Total Tax	Provincial Tax
	(millions of dollars)		Percent of total
Ontario	10,566	3,501	33British Columbia	3,489	1,169	34Alberta	2,716	791	29
(Source: taxation statistics 1981)
These amounts reflect the application of the income tax acts of the three provincial jurisdictions including a variety of provincial income tax reductions and provincial tax credits.


Mr. Cossitt: Did the National Capital Commission decide to change its official colours from green and white to browns, beige and white on vehicles and stationery and, if so (a) what is the name of the highest-ranking official making the decision and on what date was it made (b) what is the total estimated cost of the change in colours and is it approximately $1.2 million (c) what is wrong with the present colours that requires that they be changed at considerable expense (d) what is the justification for such an expense, in view of the government's restraint program?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, to brown and beige, (a) Mr. C. M. Drury, chairman, and the executive committee on November 17, 1981, on the advice of its advisory committees on design and the arts.
(b)	$1.4 million of which $1.2 million is estimated replacement cost of signs.
(c)	Green has been used for vehicles and black for signs with white lettering in both cases. In order to standardize on one colour system, adoption of brown and beige in both areas, plus future stationery needs, is intended to give continuity to public recognition of NCC property, activities and vehicles. The use of the Canada wordmark will also be introduced in all applications.
(d)	Changeover is phased over next four years on normal replacement or renewal basis within budget limitations.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

April 21, 1982
Canada Business Corporations Act


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 87.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 87-Mr. Korchinski:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence and communications, including telephone submissions, regarding the application by Cargill Grain Limited for a grant from DREE towards construction of an oil seed crushing plant at Melfort, Saskatchewan.
[ Translation]
Mr. Andre Maitais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, disclosure could be damaging to the company's competitive position. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I did not hear the full response of the parliamentary secretary because his microphone was not functioning.


Madam Speaker:: Would the parliamentary secretary please repeat his reply?


André Maltais: Madam Speaker, the requested documents are confidential for business reasons, and the government feels that their disclosure could be damaging to the company's competitive position at this time. The hon. member is kindly requested to withdraw his motion for the time being.


Erik Nielsen: Transfer for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, April 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-105, to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned last evening, I was about to analyse the bill, the changes in corporate law, and comment on what this bill can do. This bill affects all corporations in Canada. First, the bill essentially has two major features in it. It allows changes with respect to shareholdings in companies to be handled in two separate ways. For the first time in the history of corporate law this bill will allow a corporation, through its directors, to go into the open market and purchase publicly held shares in the name of the corporation. Those shares will continue to remain outstanding shares of the corporation, albeit not subject to vote and the bill will allow the corporation to qualify under the oil arrangements and under any other provincial or Canadian laws or licence requirements with respect to ownership or control by Canadians.
Let us go into the history of this question of companies being able to trade in their own shares. Corporate law originally set out that a company could not invest in its own shares. A company was prohibited by law from buying up its own shares. In 1974 and 1975 and through that period we changed the corporate law of this country with the Canada Business Corporations Act which allowed a company for the first time to invest in its own shares. The law was changed in order to give a company a great deal more flexibility with respect to financing. Indeed, it allowed a company to use the capital and surplus to buy up shares of shareholders, thus allowing those shareholders to get their investment back and at the same time withdraw their money out of the company. It also allowed for certain takeovers and amalgamations that were possible as a result of a company being allowed to purchase its own shares. But those provisions for purchasing shares only relate to purchasing the shares for cancellation. What a company can do under the present law is to purchase the shares, and when those shares are purchased they are in effect no longer available in the marketplace. They can no longer be put back into the marketplace.
The effect of this bill is to allow a company to purchase its own shares and within a period of two years put those shares back into the marketplace. This is a dramatic change in corporate law which the House must realize is taking place and it is taking place in the name of Canadianization.
The other night I said that patriotism was described as the last refuge of a scoundrel. An appeal to patriotism is the refuge of a scoundrel, which is exactly what this particular provision will allow. For the first time it allows scoundrels to wheel and deal in the corporate stock of their own company. Indeed, it is a very dramatic change to what has been allowed up to now with respect to the activities of companies. I say with all sincerity that this is a very, very serious change in law. What in fact you have is an ability of directors, under the guise of wanting to maintain Canadian ownership and control of their company, to speculate in the stock market with their own stock using the company's own money. When you look at it that way you will say there is something wrong here, Mr. April 21, 1982

Speaker. It may be all very well for us to want to have Canadian ownership of corporations, but in doing that, are we going to allow the possibility of directors of corporations, able to use the company's earned surplus, the company's financial ability, to go into the market and buy up shareholders' shares-they could even be Canadian shareholders' shares because presumably they will be shares purchased on the market-take those shares back in, speculate on them or sell them off privately to some other person? If that is allowed, it is a total misuse of the trusteeship that directors elected for public corporations have to their shareholders. Indeed, the corporations could be private corporations. Therefore, we have a situation for the very first time where a company and the officers of a company can go into the market and use the company's assets to buy shares which the company intends to resell. Indeed, the very purpose of the section is to allow the company to buy the shares to resell.
I have no quarrel with the existing system where a company buys up the shares. If for the purpose of continuing to get credit for Canadian ownership they can buy up the shares to qualify in some way for ownership and control in terms of the crazy rules and regulations that were proposed under Bill C-104, that is all right, but what we have here is a situation where the corporation, through its directors, is allowed to speculate using shareholders' equity, to speculate and play around with the shareholders' own money, for private benefit. This is a dramatic change in what until now has been the basis of sound corporate practice. When we make changes in the way corporate law is structured, we not only seriously affect the value of corporate stocks of companies affected by the possible change, but we generally hurt or damage the reputation of federally-incorporated companies. This is a serious concern which the House must address.
Another change in the act involves a provision which was originally contained in Bill C-94. Significant changes have been made to Bill C-94 as a result of the efforts of my party in drawing to public attention the damages inherent in it. Those changes resulted in other portions of the constrained share regulations being altered as they were in the first paragraph on the top of page 9 of the bill. Nonetheless, as pointed out by the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), the changes to Section 43 of the Canada Business Corporations Act that were followed up with amendments to Sections 122 and 168 of the act do not seem to have solved the problem totally.
The essence of Section 43.1 in Part V.l on page 4 of Bill C-105 is that a company should be entitled, in order to keep its qualification in line, to expropriate somehow the shares of shareholders, then sell those shares to other persons and pay the expropriated shareholders the net value of or the net receipt from the sale. It is true that this only applies where there are constrained shares, but I submit that the definition of constrained shares in inadequate. The details as to how the expropriation sale and eventual distribution of net proceeds are to be effected are not properly set out. Indeed, the entire
Canada Business Corporations Act
concept that directors of a company should somehow be entitled to seize a shareholder's share for which the shareholder has paid, to sell it in the marketplace as if the shareholder never owned it and to pay the net proceeds to the person selected to be expropriated, must be offensive to us all. It is not a fair compensation for property or even an ordinary expropriation. It is an actual seizure and payment of net proceeds to the holder of the share. In other words, all the costs of the expropriation are borne by the person expropriated.
Let me turn to a situation wherein one's property is taken over by the Ontario department of highways. Departmental officials could say that they had to appraise it, do this or that, and that they had only been able to obtain so much for the property, and turn over the net proceeds. This is what we are talking about. While the provision refers to constrained shares, there is no provision with respect to what the constrained shareholder will in fact receive. There is provision in the bill for notice to the constrained shareholder that he had better sell his share or shares, but if there is little or no market, but only hopes for opportunities with those shares, then he could be virtually expropriated without any compensation because in fact he is forced to sell and all he receives as a result of the sale are the net proceeds. In a weak market such as the one of today he could be wiped out. Both of these provisions are bad ones and should not be included in the statute law.
It is one thing to talk about Canadian ownership. I think we want Canadian ownership. But to include these provisions in the Canada Business Corporations Act is wrong. It is wrong to allow directors of a corporation-or the majority of shareholders of a corporation organizing with the directors-to so damage the interest of other shareholders, for the alleged purpose of Canadianizing or allowing the corporation to take advantage of some provincial privilege or some other privilege in some other statute. The hon. member for York-Peel produced in the House a series of Ontario and federal statutes which particularly require some element or a totality of Canadian ownership and control. It is also wrong to allow minority shareholders, albeit foreign or perhaps not that foreign, to be expropriated without really being compensated or to allow, as in the first part of the bill, directors to go into the marketplace to wheel and deal with the money of shareholders, to favour some persons over other persons. These provisions are wrong.
There is no need for this bill. Even if we were to go along with the government's Canadian ownership package with respect to grants to the oil industry, we do not need this bill. Companies can change their incorporations. They can create more shares. They can request supplementary articles of association to give them larger capital. They can organize their control in many other fashions. They do not need these powers. Inasmuch as these powers extend beyond the oil and energy industry, they should not be in this piece of legislation because they do not properly belong there. Therefore, I suggest that we must oppose this bill.

April 21, 1982
Canada Business Corporations Act
I would like to review for a moment some events which are occurring in the marketplace. Yesterday and today articles appeared in The Globe and Mail which contained parts of a speech given by Mr. W. A. Macdonald to an IBM conference in Banff, Alberta. Mr. Macdonald is from the law firm of McMillan, Binch, and you realize there is another famous partner of that firm who used to be in the House. Apparently, Mr. Macdonald and that former member got along well and I suspect they compared notes with respect to this presentation.
In any event, in Mr. Macdonald's speech he listed some elements of Canadian financial policy which were important to the Canadian nation. In that speech, which appeared in The Globe and Mail on April 20, he said:
Canada has an open economy, which is deeply dependent on world trade in goods and services and on international capital flows. This has always required a recognition that there are severe restraints on insular policy-making, based on a false premise as to the ability of any Canadian government to control the details of the Canadian economy against the power of external economic forces.
He said further:
Canada has an isolated economy with a small market alongside the largest and most powerful economy in the world. Canada has always sought to handle these special vulnerabilities by a twofold approach: first, to support a stable, relatively free, multilateral and financial order; second, to develop a close, but not too close, relationship with the United States, whereby trading and financial particulars can be worked out within the framework of a stable, multilateral order and on the basis of constructive, mutual self-interest.
In other words, until now our success was based on those rules which provide a stable arrangement in our corporate law and state that we do not attempt to be too ultra-nationalistic and that we rely on the financial power of the New York marketplace to a great extent.
Speaking to that very issue, Mr. Macdonald said in the same article:
... Canada continues to increase its foreign debt at an accelerating rate. Much of this foreign debt is long term and floated in the New York market. The limited funds available in relation to expected demand in that market have resulted in high interest rates.
He went on to say:
Can we really believe we can increase our claims on the New York financial market and persist in our unwillingness to acknowledge any U.S. concerns as to major unfairness and protectionist elements in the NEP and FIRA? Is it realistic to believe we can continue to enjoy unimpeded access to U.S. financial markets while the overcrowding of U.S. government issues arising out of their rapidly growing deficit is already threatening both the economic recovery in the United States and the entire economic revolution on which President Reagan is staking his political future?
He says further:
At the very time when the country needs to put its strongest economic foot forward to offset the costs of the present world economic situation, we have been pursuing increasingly interventionist, nationalist and provincialist policies.
That is what this legislation is, a policy which is part of an attempt somehow to Canadianize not only the oil industry but other industries as well. This is to be accomplished by changing the very fabric of the Canada Business Corporations Act to allow individuals-not the government-to expropriate shares and pay not the market price but the net proceeds for those shares. It will allow directors of Canadian corporations to use shareholders' money in the marketplace, to expel foreign
shareholders and perhaps to favour their own friends and others.
There are provisions in the bill for rules and regulations to be proclaimed by the government. But the problem with imposing regulations in corporate law by order in council is that laws of this nature can be changed at will. In other words, there can be regulations which will protect the investor to make sure that directors do not, at their discretion, play with the stock market.
To have rules imposed in this manner is not the answer because there is no certainty as to what future regulations will be. Instead, rules with respect to financial transactions of this nature and to the activities of corporations should be clearly stipulated in a statute. In this way, regulations could only be changed by an act of Parliament through the usual process of three readings here and in the other place and through committee hearings.
The difficulty arising from regulations which are made by order in council is that no committee hearings are required. We would only find out about a regulation after it has been made. Changes can be made again and again without any opportunity to prevent the government from changing the rules in the middle of the game. Protection for minority shareholders is not set out in the statute in any detail. The details required with respect to stipulations for directors of companies buying shares and then reselling them are not set out in the bill. For example, directors could buy for $10 and sell for $20 or perhaps even sell for $5 to friends and thus rape the treasury of the company.
There is no requirement that they can only buy from foreign shareholders. It only stipulates that in order to keep Canadian ownership content they must buy shares in the market. Do they buy Canadian shares or what? When shares are purchased on the stockmarket there is no way of knowing whether they are foreign or Canadian shares. Indeed, with the manner in which shares are handled presently, behind trusts and pension plans and in street form, it is difficult to know who owns what.
You could be buying Canadian shares but you would not really know. It is true that the intent is to buy foreign-held shares in Canadian corporations, but these shares are purchased through the use of shareholders' money, and that is what I believe is wrong. I see nothing wrong with a company investing in its own shares provided those shares are then cancelled. Companies would then buy the shares in the marketplace and reduce the number of shares outstanding. However, that is not the case here. I see nothing wrong with the situation where a share was specifically issued which could only be held by a Canadian-a living Canadian individual and not a Canadian corporation-and a share was not a share unless it was in fact registered to a living Canadian. If that living Canadian sold his share to a foreigner, then that living Canadian would lose his rights in that share. That would be possible. I see nothing wrong with that. However, that is not
April 21, 1982

what is in this bill. This bill speaks of constrained shares and then it says that a constraint must be shown on the face of the constrained shares, but it does not say there is anything wrong with shares which do not have any notification of constraint on them. There is a provision in the bill for shares which are not dealt with as constrained shares because when they were originally issued they were not then constrained shares.
Therefore, this a bad law. It is important that the bill go to committee, but it is even more important that members of Parliament who are concerned about the kind of laws we have realize that this bill contains bad law. I see that the minister responsible for foreign affairs is here in the House. As he is a former law professor, I think he should be concerned about the bad law in this bill. This bill should be considered and it should be withdrawn. I say it has nothing to do with the Canadian ownership concept of the oil industry. The bill goes beyond that. It affects all corporations. It affects our activities, fund raising and financial arrangements whereby Canadian companies, in some cases, are listed on the New York market, and properly so. A number of our major companies are there. They use the New York market, which is really the world finance market. Certainly, we use either the London or New York market to raise funds. Much of those funds must be raised by shares issue or share pledge. Consequently, a company needs to have its shares listed in those markets. It is not good for Canada to be so insular as to make it possible that changes could be made which would affect those shares now being issued in other countries when there is a cutback in the trading position of companies largely held in Canada, indeed, with the majority of the shareholders presently in Canada.
Therefore, I say that this bill is a bad bill. It should be defeated. It must be defeated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak briefly on Bill C-105. Let me first say that in my estimation this is a dangerous bill. This is a new dimension in corporate practice, and I do not like it.
The government is overly obsessed with Canadianization of the oil and gas industry in Canada. By 1990 it wants the industry to be 50 per cent Canadian owned. The time-frame is too short. The methods of the government, like this Bill C-105, are devious and destructive to government and industry relationships and particularly to federal-provincial relationships. The economic climate generated on the short term is one in which there is a flight of capital, a flight of technological competence and a flight of management skills.
In 1977, as the newspaper reported today, there was a Canadian capital outflow of some $265 million. By 1980, the outward flow was $2.2 billion. In 1981, it increased to $10.2 billion. The cause of this terrific increase has been stated to be the National Energy Program and subsequent legislation. How can our economy, which is geared to megaprojects, possibly recover? We desperately need capital, yet the government
Canada Business Corporations Act
works furiously to drive capital away. How does it intend to bring capital into the nation to build the vast megaprojects that we have before us? This must surely be some form of selfstrangulation.
Yesterday the minister told us that last year the investment in the energy industry dropped by some 30 per cent to 40 per cent. I think he acknowledged that. Yesterday he also advised the House that the U.S. department of commerce, in its recent report, projected an increase of investment of 28 per cent in the energy sector in Canada this year. However, the minister did not tell us how much investment on Canada lands was projected as against the protection for provincial lands. He did not tell us whether this projection included investment in Alsands or projects like it.
I can understand, and even to a partial degree accept without too much difficulty, the Canadianization program worked out in Bill C-48 concerning Canada lands. This is a future course dictated by political philosophy and perspective. All companies know the rules in advance so that the private sector will behave accordingly and form the necessary partnerships and consortiums to explore, develop and market, knowing full well that no less than 25 per cent will be under Canadian ownership and that, in most cases, it will be more. This is very similar to the Norwegian policies which were explained to us in detail when we were debating Bill C-48. There is nothing wrong with that type of approach, whether one agrees with Canadianization or not. It is a future movement. The new regimes of state ownership and Canadianization can readily be imposed on the new development, in new areas, under the jurisdiction of a single regime under Canada lands.
Canadianization on Canadian lands is done under a single regime: the federal government. It does not involve the provincial governments. However, to try to impose a devious regime of Canadianization on an entire industry, presently almost entirely limited to activity on provincial lands, exploiting provincial resources, is no less than economic madness. The federal government can administer PIP, as it has indicated, on federal lands to Canadianize, if it wishes. Surely, this is appropriate action, but it should surely allow the provinces to administer PIP on provincial lands in accordance with provincial policies, provincial priorities and provincial political perspectives which may not be associated with the rapid Canadianization. Why not? Why must the federal government dictate to the provinces that it shall Canadianize their industry on their own resources at a certain rate so that they will be 50 per cent Canadianized by 1990? Why must the government insist on this in order for those companies working in the provinces, on provincial resources, to receive the PIP grants? I find this difficult to accept. As a result, the whole Canadianization program is badly curtailing the oil and gas sector on provincial lands, particularly Alberta. I say again that I have no difficulty if that is what the federal government wants to do with Canada lands. It is a single jurisdiction dictating the development of a massive new industry where they are fully responsible.

April 21, 1982
Canada Business Corporations Act
Today we have two governments fighting over maximizing their economic take. One is bent on getting due economic rent for its resources. The other, the federal government, is massively bleeding the industry through the PGR tax and incremental taxes. It is partially using such taxes as incentives through the PIP program to force corporate reorganization, corporate refinancing and corporate restructuring of companies developing provincial resources.
The federal government through this legislation is poaching upon provincial areas of jurisdiction. In my estimation, it is severely undermining the very intent of Sections 50 and 51 of the Constitution just patriated. That section is very explicit. It reads:
In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to
(a)	exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province;
(b)	development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom; and
(c)	development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy. ...
(4) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation in respect of
(a)	non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province and the primary production therefrom, and
(b)	sites and facilities in the province for the generation of electrical energy and the production therefrom,
How can a province maximize its take from its own resource and have freedom in relation to taxation when the federal government comes in in a massive way with a big hand and takes a major portion at the front end? This taxation is only possible after the federal government gets its take. If there is nothing left, the provincial government gets nothing. This section in the Constitution tends to be meaningless. The federal government can make it meaningless. I find that contradictory to the very intent of this section and in fact contrary to the patriated Constitution.
The federal government is trying to impose its political philosophy on the provinces in the development of provincially-owned resources. That is wrong. It is unconstitutional in accordance with the new Constitution. Surely Saskatchewan can nationalize all it wishes and Alberta can promote free enterprise regardless of ownership all it wishes in the development of resources without the hand of Big Brother in Ottawa forcing its political philosophy and direction on the provinces.
This is basic to the patriated Constitution. It is very basic to Sections 50 and 51 of it. I find that a very serious anomaly in this area. The constitutionality of this legislation must be tested in the courts at the earliest possible time.
I repeat, I have no dificulty with the federal government Canadianizing the industry on federal lands. It is a single jurisdiction. It has every right to do that and to do it as it wishes. However, when it involves itself in Canadianization of provincial lands, it must respect provincial authority and the provincial constitutional rights which those provinces have in connection with their resources.
I can understand the desire of the national government and its philosophy in imposing the Canadianizing requirement on industries involved in renewable resources and industries involved in non-renewable resources such as oil and gas where it has sole jurisdiction, like Canada lands. With renewable resources such as electricity, governments all across the nation, with the exception of Alberta, have got involved because that goes on forever.
To force that on the provinces with regard to provincial nonrenewable resources is unacceptable, particularly when some of them have a lifetime of only five or ten years. Why would a government want to Canadianize companies having a resource if it wants to do additional exploration and it only has a five to ten-year lifetime on that resource? Surely it would want to Canadianize a renewable resource industry such as fisheries, forestry, hydroelectricity, but why Canadianize something with a very finite lifetime? I find it difficult to understand. The only explanation I can give is that it has not been fully thought out. It must be examined more fully.
Why would a government or any political philosophy generate such economic instability to Canadianize an industry involved in non-renewable resources which have a very finite lifetime? If the government wants money, surely it can tax the industry to its heart's desire. If it wants to control and discourage capital outflow, it can tax dividends as heavily as it wishes and make them non-tax deductible.
A government with restrictive conditions imposed on the Canadian subsidiaries of multinational companies will have these overseas branches stripped from them at the earliest opportunity. Instead of having Canadian companies with a multinational effect throughout the world, we will have Canadian companies with little association with world industry, with a limit in terms of technological interchange and exchange.
Multinational oil and gas subsidiary corporations in Canada are good citizens. They employ only Canadians. They reinvest most of their generated cash flow in Canada. Many do massive research in Canada such as the Syncrude project, Suncor and the heavy oil Cold Lake plants. The world knows that in Alberta and Canada we are at the forefront of technological development in heavy oils, oilsands and in many other areas, in drilling, for example. The world runs to Alberta to get our technology, so no one can say research is being done outside the country in this particular industry. It is done in Canada. We are the experts in this area. If the South Americans want heavy oils, they come to Alberta to get the technology. One cannot say we must Canadianize if we want research to be done here.
I can understand policies which limit the corporate size of Canadian subsidiaries of multinationals to prevent massive accumulation and concentration of assets because a diversity of small companies is always healthier than just a few major ones in a particular industry. I can understand a government, whether it is provincial or federal, withholding licences and
April 21, 1982

permits from foreign-owned corporations. I can also understand-but I reject-the myriad government controls and regulations imposed on the oil and gas industry, although much too often they are excessive and expensive. If governments control, regulate, monitor, tax heavily and restrict corporate growth, what earthly reason is there for Canadiani-zation, or even nationalization, of a corporate entity producing non-renewable resources which have a finite lifetime? We can do anything we wish with the companies or industry now. We can destroy them overnight, as is being done in western Canada. What earthly reason is there for trying to Canadian-ize something which has a very finite lifetime? I find it difficult to understand the reasoning. It is only because a few politicians hunger and thirst for power without ever really having earned the right to it or knowing what the industry is all about. There is a massive design and desire to control what belongs to the people in any event. The resources belong entirely to the people.
Canada Business Corporations Act


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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 yeas have it.
I have worked for multinational corporations. I know the mood in many of them. I worked for General Electric in Peterborough, and I have never seen greater Canadian attention and greater Canadian realization than I have witnessed and experienced in some of the multinational corporations. Surely we must control them and regulate them, but surely we must not drive them from this nation. We need capital, we need technology and we need multinational corporations to develop the energy industries of this nation.
And more than five members having risen:


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Messrs.
Bachand
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate)
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Bigin (Miss)
Berger
Blais
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bossy
Breau
Bujold
Bussieres
Caccia
Campbell
(Miss)
(South West Nova) Campbell (Cardigan)
Chenier Chretien Collenette Corriveau Cdti (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cyr
Daudlin
Dawson
de Corneille
Demers
Deniger
Dingwall
Dion
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Dubois Dupont Dupras Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gendron
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourde
(Levis)
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Irwin
Isabelle
Kaplan
Kelly
Lachance
Lalonde
Lamontagne
Landers
Lang
Laniel
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Beauce)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefcbvre
Loiselle
Lumley
MacBain
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McRae
Nicholson
(Miss)
Olivier
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- La keshore) Rompkey Rooney Rossi Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tobin Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson-108.

April 21, 1982
Canada Business Corporations Act
++NAYS
Messrs.
Andre	Friesen	MitgesBaker	Fulton	Murphy(Nepean-Carleton)	Greenaway	MurtaBeatty	Gurbin	NickersonBlackburn	Halliday	NielsenBlaikie	Hawkes	NowlanBlenkarn	Heap	OberleBosley	Howie	OrlikowBradley	Huntington	ParkerBroadbent	Jarvis	PattersonCardiff	Jewett (Miss)	ReidCarney (Miss)	Kempling	(St. CatharirClark	Kristiansen	Robinson(Yellowhead)	La Salle	(Burnaby)Clarke	Lewis	Roche(Vancouver Quadra)	Lewycky	SchellenbergerCooper	MacKay	ScottCrombie	Mazankowski	(Victoria-HaCrosby	McCain	Skelly(Halifax West)	McCuish	StevensCrouse	McDermid	TaylorDantzer	McGrath	TowersDarling	McKenzie	WaddellFennell	McLean	WenmanFraser	Mitchell	WrightFretz	(Mrs.)	Yurko-70.[Translation]	During the vote:


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


Mr. Rossi:: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) came in too late for the division.


Madam Speaker:: The point of order may be raised after the division.
After the vote:


Madam Speaker:: The motion is carried. The bill is therefore referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
Madam Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council, on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, a number of members on this side of the House were witness to the fact that the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) was not in his seat when the division started, and since this has happened before, when there was a request to nullify a Liberal member's vote, I feel that all members should be treated the same. The hon. member may have been late, or perhaps he just got back from Gabon, but whatever his reason, he was not in his seat when the division started and his vote should not be recorded.


Madam Speaker:: I did not see the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). I did not realize he was allegedly late for the vote. I ask the hon. member to tell me whether he was in fact late.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I plead the fifth amendment!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nowlan:: Of the new charter!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I have a complaint. There is a conspiracy to keep me from voting in this House. I was a little late. The count had started but it had not proceeded very far.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Therefore, the hon. member's vote should not be counted.


ENERGY ADMINISTRATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, April 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-103, to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and to enact provisions related thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
Hon. Marc Laionde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we are continuing with this marathon that we started the week before Easter. We are not beginning debate on the seventh bill dealing with energy. The bill we have before us this afternoon consists of amendments to the Petroleum Administration Act. The act will be renamed the Energy Administration Act and formal authority is being sought for several oil and gas pricing and compensation initiatives.
First, this bill will establish a new ceiling of $75 per cubic metre for the petroleum compensation charge on refiners and importers and broaden the scope for payment of compensation to include new domestic oil.
Second, it will establish a new oil export charge ceiling of $350 per cubic metre and provide us with authority to share one-half of the revenue from this charge with the producing provinces.
Third, it will establish the Canadian ownership special charge and the Canadian ownership account and ensure the charge cannot be raised above its current level without additional legislation.
Fourth, it will establish the transportation fuel compensation recovery charge on marine and aviation fuel used by carriers in international transportation with a ceiling of $350 per cubic metre. It will establish authority for and terminate the special compensation charge which had been established at the time of the breakdown in our negotiations with the Government of Alberta.
April 21, 1982



The basic elements of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, are directly related to the main goals of the National Energy Program. They include expanding the application of the petroleum compensation charge, which will enhance the effectiveness of higher prices for new oil as an incentive to undertake exploration and development operations. This promises to strengthen the energy security of Canadians and promote industrial activity in western Canada. The increasing importance of Petro-Canada is another vital element of the energy program that has been incorporated in this bill. Previously, a major step was made in this direction when the Crown corporation acquired Petrofina Canada, while the Canadian ownership special charge covers the major part of the cost of this acquisition. One of the main goals of the National Energy Program is to end our dependence on foreign oil by 1990. We shall honour this commitment, while maintaining a fair and realistic pricing system that will be acceptable to both the oil industry and the general public.
Our oil and gas pricing schedule, as created in consultation with the provinces, reflects the sense of realism and fairness which characterizes our energy program. Our pricing system has three essential advantages over the regime proposed by the previous Conservative government in 1980. It ensures that prices rise gradually and predictably so that consumers and the Canadian economy in general are given time to adjust. It ensures oil pricing fairness on a national level by providing a blended price to all regions of the country, and it results in a consumer price which has been and will continue to be lower than that paid by people of most other countries.
The Conservative government proposed in 1979 to pay one price to producers of oil in Canada except synthetic oil, regardless of the cost of developing and producing different types of oil. Moreover, the price was directly linked to 85 per cent of the international price, whatever the international price might be, thereby directly exposing Canadian consumers to the uncertainties of international oil prices regardless of the consequences to the country's economy.

This kind of pricing system would have forced Canadian consumers to spend several billion dollars more on already discovered oil and old oil, and to keep paying higher prices although at the time the oil was discovered, production costs were much lower. In addition, under the same system, production of new oil in Canada would not have been as profitable as it is elsewhere. I think people will find that our pricing system is entirely different and more sensible.

Our pricing system provides producers with the kind of return on investments they need to get on with the job of finding and producing oil for Canada-no more, no less.
Energy Administration Act
Returns on existing oil production have not been increased appreciably. However, returns from our new oil reference price created by the energy agreement with Alberta compare favourably with returns offered anywhere else in the world. This price applies to all companies developing new oil anywhere in Canada. This regime provides the Canadian economy with the certainty and stability needed to plan sound economic development in the 1980s.
At the wellhead prices for old oil, that is oil discovered before December 1980, will rise gradually and predictably at a fixed schedule to no more than 75 per cent of the international price. Unlike Conservative budget proposals, this price is not fully linked to the world price. It reflects the fact that this oil was relatively easy and certainly less expensive to develop than oil discovered recently. The substantially higher new oil reference price will be paid to producers of oil discovered after December 31, 1980, to producers of synthetic oil and new frontier production.
This reference price will provide a powerful incentive to producers to develop new oil supplies. It will never exceed world prices. Also, in the event that world prices rise sharply, the new oil price has a provision for phasing in increases, thereby protecting Canadian consumers.

Prices for recently discovered conventional oil, imported oil, frontier oil and synthetic oil are weighted in order to set a price that will apply in all areas of Canada. Today, the weighted price, that is, the average blended price for all oil produced in Canada and imported oil is 70 per cent of the world oil price. Oil that may be sold at the new reference price, plus imported oil, account for 36 per cent of the weighted price. Although this percentage may increase during the period covered by the energy agreement concluded with Alberta, we expect that the lower price for conventional oil will still constitute the major part of the weighted price when the agreement expires in 1986, thus keeping the weighted price below world levels. Our blended price, or average price if you prefer, which will apply to all imported or Canadian oil, will guarantee not only that Canadians will pay much lower prices than consumers in other countries, but also much lower prices than they would have had to pay with the Progressive Conservative budget.

The opposition continually attacks our pricing system on the basis of gasoline prices at the pumps. Its spokesmen never bother to point out to the general public that the Government of Canada does not control retail gasoline prices. We establish the price refiners pay for the crude they buy. This is the blended price. As I indicated, it stood at about 70 per cent of the world price in January of this year. If we included only the price of the old oil or oil discovered in Canada and exploited before December 31, 1980, we would have a price for old oil which is 54 per cent of the international price.

April 21, 1982
Energy Administration Act
The integrated or blended price for all oil produced in Canada stands at the present time at about 70 per cent of the world price. After refiners purchase their crude at the blended price several costs, many of which are not under our control, are added to the price. For instance, they include the cost of refining and transporting oil to markets. They include profit margins for refiners and retailers and, very significantly, they include retail sales taxes. These retail sales taxes in turn include a constant 9 per cent in federal taxes, and then from zero to 40 per cent in provincial taxes depending upon the province-zero per cent in Alberta, 40 per cent in Quebec, and various levels of taxation according to the provinces.

Obviously Mr. Speaker, Canadians are in a good position because our blended price is still only 70 per cent of world prices and will remain much lower over the next four years. It is interesting to note the substantial at-the-pump tax in some provinces, including those provinces which pretend to be concerned about the impact of rising energy costs on their economy. In this regard, I would once again point out that Quebec has the highest sales tax in Canada, namely a 40 per cent sales tax on gasoline at the pump and this tax means gasoline prices in Quebec are the highest in Canada.

But even with substantial provincial taxes, the price of gas at the pumps continues to be half what it is in most European countries. It is rather difficult to compare Canadian and American prices because of differing sales taxes in the two countries and varying prices throughout the United States. I would invite my hon. friends to have a little patience. I will answer all their arguments, including those questions they will ask in the next few days.
I would like to deal with the comparison between Canada and the United States and explain it quite clearly on the record. I would point out that before sales taxes-I have talked about those sales taxes before-gasoline in the United States cost 36 cents a litre while in Canada at the present time it is only 29 cents a litre. That is a difference of 7 cents. However, it is clear that this substantial price advantage offered to consumers by our blanket pricing system is eliminated in many provinces through retail sales taxes imposed by provincial governments. I have indicated that provincial sales taxes vary in this country from zero cents in Alberta to 13 cents per litre in Quebec. The highest sales tax in any state in the United States goes up to 4.5 cents a litre, about three times less than the highest tax in a province in Canada. In effect, this means that you have a significant difference at the pump due to large differences between provincial taxes in Canada and state taxes in the United States.
Obviously, I do not challenge the right of provincial governments to impose such taxes. But I want to make it clear to the Canadian public that it is the provinces, not the Government of Canada, that are taking away the benefits offered by our blended pricing system in those provinces where they have very high sales taxes indeed.
The petroleum compensation charge is an integral part of the blended pricing system. It is the charge that will be used to ensure that the producers of new oil receive the new oil reference price for their production. This ensures that producers receive a fair price for their oil.
The petroleum compensation charge also ensures fairness among regions in Canada. As we know, certain parts of Quebec and all of Atlantic Canada depend upon high cost imported oil to meet a substantial portion of their energy needs. The Government of Canada has taken steps to ensure that these regions will soon have access to domestic oil and gas production but these efforts will take a few years to come to fruition. Since 1974, it has been the policy of the Government of Canada that no region in Canada should have to pay substantially higher oil costs because an accident of history and geography has made them dependent upon imported oil.
Currently, the largest portion of the petroleum compensation charge is used to compensate refiners in these regions for the difference in the international oil price they must pay and the price paid by refiners in other parts of the country who have access to less expensive domestic production.

Mr. Speaker, Canada has benefited greatly from the petroleum compensation charge which, since its introduction by our government in 1974, has cushioned the Canadian economy and Canadian consumers against the shock caused by the sudden major increases of world oil prices throughout the seventies. Since 1974, this charge has been used to pay $13.7 billion in compensation to those regions of Canada, namely Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, which, because of their geographic location and their history, have had to rely in varying degrees on imported oil to meet their energy requirements. This is what our government means by equity and this is what we have really done for consumers in this country, especially those in eastern Canada who were in a very unfavourable position. These moneys have been spent to ensure that Canadians across the country will pay similar prices for the oil they need.

This bill contains a major provision relating to an important goal of the National Energy Program, that of vastly expanding the opportunities for Canadians in the petroleum industry.
We are seeking formal authority for the Canadian ownership special charge which provides the means to allow the Government of Canada to expand its ownership in the oil and gas industry. Revenue from the charge which is placed in the Canadian ownership account is currently being used to help defray the cost of Petro-Canada's purchase of Petrofina slightly more than a year ago. In future, revenue could be used to finance additional purchases on behalf of Petro-Canada, the government or other Crown corporations created for the purpose of expanding public sector involvement in the oil industry. But I want to make it clear that no future acquisitions will be financed from this account without Parliament
April 21, 1982

having the choice to debate the matter through the negative resolution procedure.
It is clear that the Canadian people support an aggressive public sector presence to promote projects that will make a major contribution to energy security and encourage the Canadian private sector to get involved.
Some commentators in the House, and outside, have complained about these charges in aggregate. It is not so much that they quarrel with the purchase of each charge, but they say that the cumulative effect on consumers is excessive. A fair-minded observer, however, would recognize that Canadians support these measures as an investment in securing our own energy future. Each charge in this bill serves a specific purpose related to one of the golas of the National Energy Program. They are the means whereby the government can carry out the major goals of the National Energy Program for the benefit of all Canadians.
In that respect I was interested to read today the most recent report by the Canadian Petroleum Association on the proven reserves, especially after having heard all the moans from the Conservative benches during the last few weeks. It is interesting that this report that was made by the Canadian Petroleum Association-not by the government-indicated that in 1981, the year about which our friends on the other side complained so much, we have had an increase in established oil reserves in Canada for the first time in many years. An increase, Mr. Speaker, when our established reserves had been decreasing each previous year.
In 1981 a very significant increase was also obtained in our established reserves in oil and gas. This happened after the National Energy Program had been proclaimed and started to come into effect.
I would also stress that some of the charges indicated here contain an increase in the maximum that is set for those charges. This does not mean that the government is increasing those charges to that level. This provides a ceiling under which the charges can be varied according to the needs. For instance, each month the National Energy Board reviews the petroleum compensation charge and my department reviews how much we need to pay the refiners for imported petroleum. When the petroleum which is imported decreases in price, the charge decreases. If the price of imported petroleum increases, the charge obviously has to increase to pay the difference between the Canadian price and the imported price.
This is the reason we need to have that flexibility, to enable us to vary the charge every month, for instance. Similarly, this applies to the export charge on oil that we export to the United States. We need the flexibility to vary this charge. This is the reason this bill provides for possible increases in the level of those charges.
This bill represents a very fundamental part of our National Energy Program and I commend it to the House. I urge all hon. members to give their strong support to the bill.
Energy Administration Act


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it will be interesting to see how many Liberals stand up and debate this bill and how many stand up and vote for it when it comes time to vote. This bill represents the recognition of the Liberals violating every single promise they made during the 1980 election campaign. They said re-elect the Liberals and they would provide cheap gasoline and heating oil for Canadians. They said: "Re-elect the Liberals and you will get to pay over $2 a gallon for gasoline."


Marc Lalonde: Cheaper than you!


Harvie Andre: The United States deregulated the oil industry. The United States has world prices. They do not claim they charge less than world prices. The people in the United States are paying world prices. However, if one lives in Windsor, one pays more for gasoline than if one lives in Detroit. If one lives in Vancouver, one pays more for gasoline than if one lives in Bellingham, Washington.


Marc Lalonde: Provincial sales tax.


Harvie Andre: If one lives in Canada under this great government, one pays more for gasoline and heating oil than if one lives in the United States, which is at the world price and does not claim anything else.


Marc Lalonde: Provincial sales tax.


Harvie Andre: For some reason, the government there is expected to tell the truth. For some reason, it is held to account for its promises.


Marc Lalonde: Compare Calgary and Montana.


Harvie Andre: This minister says, "Oh, but look, crude oil is cheaper; we do not pays these western producers as much for the oil as Americans pay their western producers." We know why, of course. On October 22, 1981, in his speech in Sherbrooke, Quebec, the minister said that a greater threat to national unity than Quebec nationalism is the growing wealth of Alberta, and that it was necessary for him to show his teeth.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Harvie Andre: So he did. He showed his teeth. He is putting those companies into receivership and forcing them into bankruptcy, left, right and centre. He is doing this constantly. However, he says that he is doing it to save the consumers.
Well, what has he done? Sure, the price of crude oil is cheaper, but how does that affect the consumer? We do not buy crude oil at the pump. We do not put crude oil into our furnaces. We do not put crude oil into our cars. We use gasoline, diesel fuel and heating oil. So after the crude oil, what comes next? There is the PGRT, the NGGLT, the PCC and the COC; there is the special levy, and I forget the initials, the federal excise tax, the federal sales tax; and yes, on top of all of those six or seven federal taxes, there is a provincial tax as well.

April 21, 1982
Energy Administration Act
The minister says: "I cannot help it that our gasoline prices are higher in Canada. It is those rotten provincial governments; they have put on a highway tax". However, he did not mention the seven taxes which the federal government has put on. He has produced more blooming taxes than there are initials in the alphabet. The petroleum compensation charge alone amount to 74 cents a gallon.
Does Your Honour remember the outrage, the indignation and the screaming about 18 cents per gallon? "Oh, terrible! Eighteen cents per gallon of gasoline! My goodness, that is awful! The poor consumers of Canada! Re-elect the Liberals and there will be no 18 cents a gallon excise tax!" Oh, no, there will be a 24-cent petroleum compensation charge and a 4 cents a gallon ex-Canadian ownership charge, and I do not know how much a gallon for the rest of those charges which are laid on. Therefore, the net result is that when one goes to fill up a car with gasoline here in Ottawa, in Montreal, or anywhere else, one is paying more than one would be required to pay if one lived in the United States, and the United States is at the world price.
The minister proudly announced that he would beat those westerners into place, by cracky. He said they would not sell their crude oil to the rest of Canada at world price. They would sell it at less than world price to show what a big, strong, tough man he is. However, the poor consumers will have to pay on the way. Honesty is not a long suit for Liberals.
One of the charges in this bill does not affect the consumer in the direct way it should. It should in fact reduce the consumers' bill, but it does not, again as a result of the broken promises, violation of commitments and chicanery of this government. That is the oil export charge which is levied by the bill. It states that since Canadian producers cannot charge world prices for their crude oil, which is the type one uses in a furnace, the government wants to charge world prices when the oil is sold to the Americans. Therefore, the government put on an export charge to take up the difference.
I would like to go over a little history about where that export charge came from and the way in which successive Liberal ministers have used, abused and deceived Canadians about that charge. That charge arose in early October of 1973, to be precise, when we had a minority government. The inflation rate was about 5 per cent. Outrageous! The New Democratic Party said: "By cracky, if you do not bring down inflation, we will defeat your minority government." So in a speech to the House on September 7, 1973, I believe, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said: "I will bring down inflation. I will put a price freeze on oil, bread and milk. I will save you from inflation by having western Canada subsidize you." That was the genesis of the Western Canada Concept: it arose from his speech on September 7, 1973. Yesterday, the minister had the temerity to say that separatism is a result of western politicans. Separatism is the result of himself and his colleagues-


Some hon. Members:: Right on!


Harvie Andre: -saying that the west shall subsidize and maintain the Liberal party in power.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Now, as circumstances would have it, in October 1973 there was a war in the Middle East and OPEC put on an embargo and the price of crude oil shot up. We were frozen in Canada. Obviously, eastern Canada, which imported crude oil, could not be expected to pay what was then considered to be a very high level of $8 a barrel for crude oil while those relying on western Canada would get theirs for $4. So at the insistence of Mr. Robert Stanfield, the Hon. Robert Stanfield, the then leader of the opposition, and at the reluctance of the Prime Minister, a one-price crude oil system was brought into this country and an export tax was put on to capture that difference between the Canadian price and the American price.
The then minister of energy, Hon. Donald Macdonald, said to the producers: "Do not worry; we have put this export tax on, but it is our intention to give it back to you because it obviously belongs to you." Well, the bill for subsidizing the imports started to rise, so this very fair-minded person in the Liberal Party, Donald Macdonald, said on November 21, 1973: "Gee, we cannot give you the money. We need it for subsidization. We will split it with you, 50-50. We will keep 50 per cent to help subsidize imports and we will give 50 per cent back to the producers since it is obviously theirs." Six days later, between Christmas and New Year, when there was sure to be no press attention, the Hon. Donald Macdonald said: "I am sorry, we will keep it all".
It was from that point that the west-east battles, the federal-provincial battles in terms of western Canada, began. First, the federal government was quite willing to exploit a weaker region of the country in order to remain in power. Second, it was quite prepared to break its promises as quickly as it made them if it felt it could get away with that and it served its purposes. That export tax was going into subsidization of imports. In that way the west was making its more than fair share of contributions to a uniform energy price across the country.
That money was not enough. In the 1975 budget the then minister of finance, the hon. John Turner, said that we had to have an excise tax on gasoline to help pay for the imports of crude oil. Therefore, a nine cents a gallon tax was put on to help pay for imports.
Then along came the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) who said we are going to have a blended pricing system. He abuses the petroleum compensation charge, and he increased it illegally; I will get to that in a moment. He said that henceforth the moneys collected from the petroleum compensation charge would be used to pay for subsidizing imports.
What happened to the excise tax on gasoline and the export tax? Last year those two taxes amounted to $1,414 million.
April 21, 1982

Were they used to subsidize imports? No, they went into the general treasury. The consumers were already paying an excise tax and, indirectly, an export tax. On top of that, the petroleum compensation charge was collected in sufficient amounts to totally subsidize all imports.
In its very sneaky, dishonest, immoral manner the government put into general revenues taxes which were supposedly collected to maintain the one-point system. One can say so what, the government needs money. What bothers me more than the money is the downright dishonesty of the minister. I will give an example of what I mean. On March 23, 1982, in the Public Accounts Committee we heard testimony from the assistant deputy minister of energy, mines and resources, Mr. A. D. Hunt. These are his exact words:
The petroleum compensation charge revenues are used to compensate domestic classes of petroleum-
That is, Syncrude.
-as well as to pay compensation for imported oil.
Mr. Hunt, the assistant deputy minister, said that imported oil is fully compensated by the petroleum compensation charge. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources appeared on "Canada AM" on April 2, 1982, at 7.50 a.m. I suppose he thought no one would be listening who would catch him at his less than truth. He was asked by Miss Pamela Wallen:
The taxpayers in this country pay more than $6 million a day to subsidize oil imports yet now, to solve a problem, we have to increase our exports?
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources replied:
Now whatever we export is charged, there is a tax export charge and the revenues coming from that export charge help in reducing our cost for the imported oil.
That is an absolute falsehood. What the minister said over public television when Miss Wallen asked him an embarrassing question is absolutely untrue. Truth to this minister is whatever facts he happens to believe suit his political purposes. That is the truth as far as he is concerned.
The net result of all of his chicanery, all of these taxes and all of these broken promises, is that right now in Canada we pay over $2 a gallon for gasoline, $1.35 of which is taxes. Sixty-seven per cent of what we pay at the pump is taxes.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am afraid the hon. gentleman has used unparliamentary language. I did not call it to your attention before because I wanted to be sure by reading Beauchesne and Erskine May. We are used to the hon. gentleman's diatribes and language that stretches propriety, as well as his allegations that are usually unfounded, misleading and, in my view, not worthy of this House. However, on three occasions in his speech he used the word "dishonest" applicable to members of this government, either present or past.
The use of that term is completely unparliamentary. I suggest that the hon. member not only abstain from using it, although he has used it on numerous occasions, but also withdraw his use of it in the recent past. In future he should
Energy Administration Act
refrain from using that term, in effect attempting to inflame public opinion in a very unparliamentary way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The minister is saying that the word "dishonest" is unparliamentary when addressed to a member. I did not hear that. I did not hear him say a certain member was dishonest. If that was said, it is the privilege of the member to request that the word be withdrawn. I did not hear the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) call a particular member dishonest. The member can say that in his opinion the government acted in a dishonest way, but it is hard to ask that it be withdrawn if the words are not directed to a particular member.
[ Translation]


Jean-Jacques Blais: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I shall simply reserve the right to look at the blues and to inform the minister, because I understood the hon. member to use the term "dishonest". He used it two or three times in talking about the action taken by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). I do not want to waste the time of the House, but I simply want to remind the hon. member that he is a parliamentarian and that he should respect the rules of this House.


Harvie Andre: I will have to examine the blues. I certainly do not want to use any unparliamentary language, but the thoughts behind those words are factual. If the sensitive Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) believes that the accusation is untrue, when he reads this I also ask him to read the statement made by the minister on "Canada AM" and I ask the minister to correct the wrongful information that he transmitted across the country. I ask him to be equally concerned about the truth as he is about the use of language in this House to try to describe the behaviour of the government of which he is part. He accuses me of inflaming. Unless there is some recognition soon by himself and by what the Prime Minister has called the "trained donkeys on the bankbenches of the Liberal Party"-and, by the way, that is a quote from his book, so hon. members opposite cannot accuse me of using unparliamentary language or being unkind; it is a quote from Pierre Elliott Trudeau's book-of what is happening and what hon. members opposite are doing by blindly-stupidly, I maintain-voting in favour of what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources keeps proposing to this House, they will leave carnage across the country.
It might be that the Minister of Supply and Services thinks I am being inflammatory, but 1,700 people were at a meeting of the Western Canada Concept in the Fraser Valley last night. Why were they there? They were there because of what I have just been talking about. They were there because of promises and deceits, dishonesty and statements by the minister that they know to be untrue. This continuous propaganda barrage through multimillion dollar advertising campaigns-

April 21, 1982
Energy Administration Act


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. If there was any doubt in Your Elonour's mind prior to the last expressions used by the hon. gentleman, surely that doubt must now have been dissipated. The hon. gentleman has been in this House since 1972. I have observed him since that time-


Harvie Andre: And learned nothing.


Jean-Jacques Blais: -and the accusations he is making are made as if he were looking into a looking glass. I have heard him use hyperbole of the worst kind with the precise view in mind of exciting in western Canada the kind of behaviour which resulted in the meeting which took place last evening.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Dingwall) informed me-and I hope I am not breaking a confidence- that there would be only one speaker for the Liberal party on this bill. There seems to be some pent-up need on the part of others to participate, and I welcome their participation. If the minister would like to give a speech on this bill, I hope he will read the bill first because, if he did, he might be a little less critical of the remarks I have been making. He would be less critical if he was aware of the issues. However, if he feels a need to speak, I certainly hope he takes advantage of the opportunity the House of Commons provides. If he feels his speech would contribute to a reduction in the feelings of frustration, anger and rage which cause people in the hundreds and thousands in western Canada to look at separatism as an answer, and if he can allay their concerns and cause those meetings to decrease in number, then I would welcome that speech. I sincerely would, but I am afraid that is not likely to occur.
So far the only answer from the government is an advertising campaign which brings more people out to such meetings. They know why they are angry, and when they see ads on television with geese flying into the sunset and the government saying "We have to inform you", the implication is: "Look, you dummies out there, you don't know what is going on. If you watch these ads, they will make you know what is going on, and then you won't want to join the WCC." The $70 million the government is spending on advertising is not just money down the drain; it is contributing to the membership of the WCC, but the government does not seem to understand.
There were marvellous promises made. There was no way the party opposite would allow an 18 cents tax increase. Hon. members opposite said: "Vote Liberal and we will keep the price of gasoline down". Vote Liberal and pay more than $2 a gallon for gasoline. We pay $1.35 in taxes alone. We have to listen to the minister say he is keeping our prices below the world level. What do we have to do to get a minister to tell us
the truth? Can we expect truth out of our national government?


Norman Kelly: Can we expect it from you, Harvie?


Harvie Andre: This is what causes people to think that perhaps the WCC is the only alternative, and that is the tragedy.


Norman Kelly: Get out of the gutter.


Harvie Andre: Let me tell hon. members about the competence of this government which fills us full of hope. Item two of the long list of taxes attached to this bill is a transportation fuel recovery charge. Let us remember that all this is to help Canadian consumers! Canadian consumers are going to pay less than world price! Let me read from the Vancouver Province of Sunday, April 11, 1982:
A special tax imposed by the federal government on diesel oil burned by Canadian ships engaged in international trade has raised the cost of fuel well above the prevailing U.S. price, the Council of Marine Carriers claims.
I suppose that is propaganda designed to enrage and inflame feelings of separatism, according to the hon. member who was mouthing off and is now silent. I suppose that is what that is all about. We are protected from the world price unless, of course, we happen to drive cars and need gasoline or if we happen to have ships which burn diesel fuel.


Norman Kelly: This garbage passes for insight out west, but not here.


Harvie Andre: I referred to automobiles and ships. What about aircraft? Let us see what the geniuses and marvellous people who bring us "cheap energy" are doing in relation to aircraft fuel. According to the Edmonton Journal of April 11, 1982:
Canadian airline and oil industry officials are shaking their heads in disbelief at a complex new fuel tax system now being proposed by the federal government.
A direct tax on aviation fuel used for international flights has been withdrawn following complaints by other countries that the tax violated bilateral air agreements.
What we are asked to approve in Bill C-103 is a tax the government cannot impose because it violates International Air Transport Association agreements. However, the government has collected it, so we now have to pass a law to legalize a tax collected previously which the government was not allowed to collect. Can hon. members believe that? And the government says "Vote for us and we will keep prices down"!
Let me quote from this article again:
"I think they (federal officials) are out of their minds," said Gordon Lindsay of the Air Transport Association of Canada.
"This is the most complex thing I've ever seen pulled on a tax."
The article goes on with equally complimentary comments about the competence of this government, to which those-to use the description of the Prime Minister-"trained donkeys" say, "Aye, sir, aye, we approve; we think you are wonderful and doing just a great job."


David P. Smith: Thanks, Harv.


Mr. Cousineau:: Don't be so generous.
April 21, 1982


Harvie Andre: Then the petroleum compensation charge is a dandy. That was brought in originally to set up a special fund to subsidize Syncrude production to domestic levels. We passed an act in this House, with relative dispatch, which provided that there shall be collected on every barrel of oil in Canada sufficient funds to subsidize the Syncrude price down to world levels, or production from any other tar sands plants which might come along. It was somewhat like unemployment insurance. It was a special fund. It did not go into consolidated revenue. It was not a tax. It was not preceded by a Ways and Means motion, which would have been required if it was a tax. It was a special fund to take care of the Syncrude situation, which arose out of an agreement between various provinces and others which participated. The government decided to raise more money to subsidize imports. It was not getting enough from the export tax. An excise tax could have done it, but in the election campaign the Liberal Party made a big thing about excise taxes, so it could not use excise taxes. The government had to invent a new tax. It has the same effect. It still hurts when you pay it out of your jeans when you buy gasoline, but the government would not use the horrible words "excise tax." It was the petroleum compensation charge. One of the geniuses-one of the "Tanzanianizers"-in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources discovered that perhaps the government could use this petroleum compensation charge. Lo and behold, on July 10, 1980, the minister comes tramping in and lays down a piece of paper, saying: "This is a notice of ways and means; effective midnight tonight you will now pay more for the petroleum compensation charge".
I raised a point of order and asked: "How can you do that? How can you just lay down a piece of paper and suddenly start collecting money, since the bill you purport to amend by that ways and means motion was not a tax bill in the first instance but a special fund?" Madam Speaker said: "That is a legal problem; I cannot deal with it, sorry."
We then sought legal counsel and were told: "You are right, it is illegal; they are not supposed to do that". We asked: "How much would it cost to pursue this?" The reply was: "About $200,000." We just do not happen to have $200,000 to spare in order to require the government to keep the law. That is all we are asking-that the government obey the law.
Finally, in Bill C-103 the government is trying to catch up and make legal what is illegal. This time it introduced a notice of Ways and Means, and so suddenly something that was not a tax is defined as a tax. How that magic transformation occurred I have no idea. I asked legal counsel for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Elwood, how that could be. He replied; "Just because there is a procedural imperfection, that does not mean it is not a tax." Just because there is a procedural imperfection? It is as if he were saying: "Look, you turkey, you Member of Parliament, you are just a sausage factory. You are supposed to spit out whatever we geniuses decide. You should not be asking us to obey all of these little procedural niceties in the House of Commons." That is simply
Energy Administration Act
unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. And we are supposed to live in a parliamentary democracy!
I recommend that members examine a letter I received from the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments which is signed by the two chairmen, Senator John Godfrey, a Liberal, and the Hon. Perrin Beatty, a Conservative. It states that the government is currently breaking the law in regard to the export tax, that it is collecting more than it is authorized to collect by law. What do you do with a government that refuses to obey the law, Mr. Speaker? Some people feel that you must go to Western Canada Concept meetings. Unfortunately, that is what they feel. Is that not sad?
This business about the petroleum compensation charge has not stopped yet. The government collects the equivalent of 24 cents per gallon now, or about $3 billion per year. Now it wants us to give it authority to allow that to be raised to $7.5 billion per year without having to ask the House for permission.


An hon. Member:: How much is that per gallon?


Harvie Andre: That is 48 cents per gallon. The government wants us-not us, but the "trained donkeys"-to turn over to the executive the right to levy taxes of up to 48 cents per gallon. That is almost a victory, Mr. Speaker. I am almost smiling about it because in the original version of Bill C-94-


An hon. Member:: Bill C-98.


Harvie Andre: Well, on this one they were asking for authority to raise 70 cents per gallon. The minister says: "Ah, but this is just to subsidize imports and will not be abused." I would remind him of what one of his predecessors, Mr. Macdonald, said about the export tax. He said that it would be used for import subsidization. But not any more, Mr. Speaker; it is for another purpose. I would remind him of what the Hon. John Turner said about the excise tax on gasoline. In his budget of 1975 he said that it would be used for import subsidization. Where is it going now? It is going into other revenues.
The minister stands up and says: "Don't worry about that 48 cents per gallon, about that $7.5 billion. We won't abuse it; we will just use it for import subsidization." To that I say: "Listen, when two of your predecessors gave us a line like that and then had it flipped around, why in blazes would we believe you now?"-unless, of course, one was a trained donkey.
It is absurd that we are asked to give the government authority to collect that kind of tax without ever having to come back to this House. It is an incredible principle that we should be asked to turn over to the Crown the authority to raise taxes at will without ever getting the approval of Parliament. That bears no resemblance to parliamentary democracy; it bears a closer resemblance to a dictatorship.
Related to that and just as offensive is this Canadian ownershipcharge. That is a sneaky little deal, another sneaky little tax which amounts to four cents per gallon or $800 million per year. It is being used to pay off the purchase of

April 21, 1982
Energy Administration Act
Petrofina. Petrofina is a company whose shares were trading at about $40 until some people who were lucky, or got to know somebody, bid them up to about $80. Then along came Petro-Canada and paid $120 per share for them. I would like to know who those people were who bid them up from $40 to $80. In the early summer of 1980 they were worth $40. At that time a few other oil companies were trading around that price but they are trading around $20 now. We can fairly say, therefore, that had Petro-Canada not bought Petrofina for $120 per share, one could probably buy a share today for about $20 or $25. The government only paid about four or five times what the market shows the company is worth.
That is not declared in the blue books and the estimates in a way that might alert the public to what is happening so that people could make a judgment. The government does not want to have people looking at the record, apparently. It does not want spending to go up because it wants the minister to be able to claim that it is holding expenditures down. So this sneaky little Canadian ownership charge is created in a sneaky little account which is outside the regular government accounts and the money pours in. That means that the minister or his appointees at Petro-Canada have $800 million per year to play with and buy companies.
What a joy that is! What a great job they have! We do not know what they are paid. We do know that some get free mortgages, such as Mr. Phelps, if they happen to work for the minister and we know that his salary is augmented. But we do not know what all these people are being paid. All we know is that every time we fill up our automobile tank at the pump, four cents per gallon goes into a little pot for them to play with. Apparently we do not have any right to know; we are only Members of Parliament elected by the citizens of Canada and that does not give us any right to ask questions about how $800 million per year is being spent or should be spent.
That $800 million is almost a victory, Mr. Speaker, because originally the minister asked for the authority to raise the amount to $4.5 billion a year. He wanted to be able to add 28 cents per gallon on his own say so as a tax to be used by him and his Crown corporations, Petro-Canada or others. He wants the authority to create a whole bunch of others in order to buy whatever he wants. Well, a lot of people made money on those Petrofina shares. You can imagine how many wealthy speculators there would be if the same people had $4.5 billion a year to spend buying up whatever they can. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely immmoral, improper, dishonest, and only a trained donkey would vote for it.
Then there is the special compensation charge which was thought up by the genius who wants to Tanzanianize Canadians. It is exactly the same as the petroleum compensation charge, but they had to call it "special" because the minister was playing his political games. When there was a cutback in Alberta's production he called it the Lougheed levy; the rest of the country called it the Lalonde levy. It was a gimmick, but it has been collected and, even though it has come and gone, here we are six months later being asked to legalize something which was illegally put in place and which no longer exists.
What kind of trained donkey would allow himself to be abused that way?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have the petroleum compensation payments, the spending part of the petroleum compensation charge. They are collecting now in the vicinity of $3 billion; that is, 24 cents a gallon at the pump. Talking about cooking the books and everything else, that item is listed in the blue books as a negative expenditure. Can you believe that? How do you get government spending to decrease, because each year the number gets bigger? Last year it was up 22 per cent. What you do is invent a negative expenditure which results in it being up only 16 per cent. That is what they have done with this!
In any event, we are taking 24 cents a gallon from every Canadian who buys gasoline, heating oil or diesel fuel and that money is being used to subsidize oil imported from Mexico, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. At the same time non-subsidized oil produced by Canadians is shut in to the extent of 300,000 barrels a day because of this program to subsidize imports. We are subsidizing Pemex and Aramco while Canadian producers-western Canadians I admit, but Canadian producers-are shut in. It is costing one company, Oakwood Petroleums, 100 per cent Canadian owned, a million dollars a month.
When we ask the minister about that, he says: "Well, I am asking them to cut back." This shut-in production, Mr. Speaker, means hundreds of small service companies owned by Canadians do not have any work. You do not need to service a well which is not working. They are going bankrupt left, right and centre. The smart ones left for the United States last year, but the minister says he is proud of his National Energy Program because it is Canadianizing the oil and gas industry. Well, those who are still here are card carrying members of the WCC; they consider Canadianization a dirty word. That is sad, Mr. Speaker. It should be a marvellous word; it should fill us full of enthusiasm and we should be driving towards majority Canadian ownership and giving these junior Canadian companies the opportunity to participate in this tremendous growth. But in the incompetent and stupid way this program is being administered, these people are being driven out of business.
I have not mentioned, Mr. Speaker, what that 300,000 barrels of shut-in production are costing the Canadian economy. It costs us what, $20 million a day to import that same amount. We have to borrow that money so we have to keep our interest rate higher than the United States. What does that do to the dollar? Has it raised our inflation and interest rates by 1 per cent or 2 per cent? It is pretty hard to tell, but it has for sure raised both. Yet these people will still vote for that program and say to the minister he is doing a good job, even though he has driven hundreds of businesses into bankruptcy, even though consumers are unnecessarily paying 24 cents a gallon for gasoline, heating oil and diesel fuel. All this despite the fact the minister's own officials-the smart ones, not the Tanzanianizers-are telling him it is a disaster, change it. But
April 21, 1982

he says: "Oh no, you do not change things; that means recognizing we may have made a mistake. 1 cannot do that, there might be some political cost. Why should I admit a mistake and get egg on my face just because there happens to be a few hundred companies going out of business in western Canada?"


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Why don't you say something positive so they will think that western Canadian politicians might have something to say occasionally? Then maybe they would listen.


Harvie Andre: The NDP member wants me to say something positive.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Right.


Harvie Andre: We know that as the little red rump of the Liberal Party, this hurts him as much as it hurts them. The only positive thing I can say about this is to plead with you to defeat this legislation and serve Canada well.
Energy Administration Act


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


David P. Smith: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It would appear that due to a typographical error in the instructions which the Table has received, Bill C-108 was called rather than Bill C-103. 1 would seek the unanimous consent of the House that the debate which has occurred so far on this bill be deemed to have applied to Bill C-103 rather than Bill C-108.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that Bill C-103 will be deemed to have been introduced, rather than Bill C-108?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Thursday, April 22, 1982