1982-06-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to move a motion. On June 1, 1957, the people of Canada elected a Progressive Conservative government under the leadership of the late Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker. There are several members in the House of Commons and the Senate who continue to serve the House of Commons and the Senate on behalf of the people of Canada. They are the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates), the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the hon. Senators David Walker, Orville Phillips, Robert Muir, and Heath Macquarrie. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House send its congratulations to these honourable Senators and Members of Parliament, wish them good health and happiness, and pray that they may continue to serve the people of Canada in the House of Commons and the Senate for many more years.


Madam Speaker:: 1 am sure members of the House would want to express their sentiments by applauding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the federally imposed excise tax on natural gas is putting the fertilizer manufacturing companies and the Canadian farmer at an extreme disadvantage with their American counterparts and creating a disastrous economic situation for both, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the federal government, at the very least, drop the excise tax on natural gas to the point where both the Canadian fertilizer producing companies and the Canadian farmers can be on an equitable and competitive basis with their American counterparts.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR REDUCTION OF TAXES AFFECTING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Liberal Government of Canada is supposed to be fighting inflation, and yet its own regressive taxes, for example, the excise tax on agricultural products, are inflaming inflation-this tax is approximately one third of current natural gas costs and has increased the cost of anhydrous ammonia fertilizer by as much as $93 per ton at the retail level-and the federal tax on gasoline and diesel fuel affects all farm products, which in turn increases the cost of food to the nation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Reed Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House urges the government to be realistic and rescind the present taxes and levies affecting the farm gate prices of fertilizers, fuels, and chemicals used in agricultural production.
This will be a major step in reducing inflation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing national necessity. During the past week five Canadian supporters of disarmament have been stopped, on orders of the U.S. government, from attending disarmament meetings connected with the U.N. Special Session on Disarmament, and

June 10, 1982
another supporter has been harassed so as to miss her booked flight, although these supporters and many others travelled freely to UNSSOD I in 1978. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) and the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean):
That this House request the Acting Prime Minister to use his good offices with the President of the United States to persuade President Reagan to respect both his obligations as chief of state of the country that is host to the United Nations, and also the United States obligations as a signatory to the Helsinki Accords on freedom of movement, and give assurance that the thousands of Canadians planning to attend the disarmament rally this weekend at the United Nations will not be stopped, delayed, or harassed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SHIPS AND SHIPPING
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, whereas the traditionally unregulated deep sea shipping environment has been changing in the last decade, increasingly influenced by governments, rather than commercial forces, in support of national flag fleets; and whereas Canada relies almost entirely on foreign flag carriers to carry its vast import and export trade; pursuant to Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski):
That the government be directed to bring in incentives and measures to create a climate where ship owners will be encouraged to register their vessels in Canada, receive an adequate return on their investment, and establish a Canadian Merchant Marine.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the excellent performance of Canadian mayors and municipalities which have consistently given the taxpayer the best value for money of all three levels of government while maintaining balanced budgets and a taxation level only about one third as large per capita as the federal tax levy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That the Minister of Finance be directed to seek the immediate counsel of the Canadian mayors who arc visiting in Ottawa this week, so that he might discover from them the common sense rules of competent financial management, and obtain their expert advice in preparing a new budget based on the business-like, yet practical approach which has been applied so successfully over the years by municipal levels of government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) has not raised this question in his riding, I rise on the urgent matter of the lay-off of 1,170 workers in Grande Cache, Alberta, which was announced by McIntyre Mines last week. These 220 permanent lay-offs, combined with 950 temporary lay-offs to take effect on June 28, threaten not only the short-term prosperity but the longterm survival of this community, as it is totally dependent upon employment in the mines. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis):
That the Intergovernmental Mines Ministers Task Force on One Industry Towns be requested to hold public hearings in Grande Cache so that it can develop plans to ensure the economic future of one of the major towns in the riding of Yellowhead.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, every day in Canada 1,185 more Canadians lose their jobs. Every day in Canada 3,500 more home owners are forced to renew their mortgages at approximately double the original rate-from 10.5 per cent to 18.5 per cent. These figures, along with all the other alarming statistics, are a direct result of the November 12,	1981, budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). Therefore 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the November 12 budget be withdrawn forthwith and replaced with a new incentive-oriented document, failing which, that this House recognize the

June 10, 1982

crisis state of our economy and therefore recommend to His Excellency the Governor General that Parliament be dissolved in order to give the people of Canada an opportunity to elect a new government which would immediately implement a policy that would put us on the road to economic recovery.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, in addition to the many serious economic troubles with which Canadians are forced to deal every day, the problem of mortgages continues to be a source of severe hardship. It has been estimated that up to 3,000 mortgages come due each day. Home owners who do not qualify under present programs of assistance and who have to renew their mortgages are faced with escalating rates of interest which shortly may reach the incredible level of 19 per cent. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Minister of Finance immediately institute a further program of assistance to help this group of beleaguered home owners, a plan which would halt this cruel and unnecessary loss of homes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, in a letter to The Citizen of Ottawa, the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), in her capacity as chairman of the Liberal caucus committee on economic development, stated that the Liberal caucus has responsibility to assess government policies and to offer suggestions for change. Inasmuch as by her own admission it is apparent that it is the whole Liberal caucus-and not just the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen)-which has approved government actions that have brought economic disaster to Canadians, 730 of whom are losing their jobs every day, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That this House call upon decent members of government opposite to accept responsibility for their actions and resign today.
Oral Questions


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Frith) revealed in La Presse this morning that the federal government's green paper on pension reform has been postponed again, this time until the fall. The hon. member said that this latest postponement was due to "the bad economic situation". In view of the fact that it is becoming increasingly apparent that the federal government is not really serious about pension reform, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That, first, the federal government dig into the same pocket which produced $2 billion for Imperial Oil last week and bring all senior citizens at least up to the poverty line immediately, and second, since the Liberals admit they do not have the political will to include pension reform as a high priority, that they should stop pretending to the Canadian people that ensuring adequate retirement incomes are an important mandate of this government and give that job over to someone who will carry it through, namely, the NDP.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who will know, of course, that the bank rate today has risen significantly, 33 points, to 16.20, which of course means that mortgage interest rates are on their way up to the record highs of last year. As this recession deepens, what advice does the minister have for the 490,000 families in this country who are facing mortgage renewals between June 1, and October 31 of this year, many of whom took out one-year mortgages last year when they were at record highs in anticipation of things getting better this year? These people will be wiped out.

June 10, 1982
Oral Questions


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has stated in his question that, in his view, the interest rates are on their way to the record highs of last August. 1 believe that if he has that view, it is exaggerated. I see no indication that that same record high will be achieved as a result of a significant, but nevertheless a change of 33 basis points in the bank rate which, of course, was a result of the auction held today.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister's self-assurance is not very reassuring.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FOR HOMEOWNERS
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, can the minister go one step further and assure the House and the country that mortgage interest rates will not go beyond their present levels? They are away too high now, and he knows that. He knows that the legislation introduced in his budget is not addressing that situation.
If the minister cannot give us that assurance, and since he knows interest rates are too high already, what can he tell these half a million Canadian families who are facing economic ruin because they cannot afford to renew at these usurious mortgage interest rates or they will be wiped out? It is a very serious situation and one that 1 do not believe the Minister of Finance appreciates.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the government and the Minister of Finance fully appreciate the impact of high interest rates on the Canadian people, not only home owners but farmers, small-business men, and upon investment generally. We appreciate the consequences of these rates very much, indeed. That is why all of our policies are directed against reducing the cause of high interest rates and high interest rates themselves. That is the basic solution to the problem. We have attempted, within the limits of our budget, to provide assistance to home owners who need that assistance most. We will continue to provide that kind of assistance.
I do not believe that it is within the capacity of the government to protect everyone fully against this situation of abnormally high interest rates. That is my answer to the hon. member.


PLIGHT OF AVERAGE INCOME EARNERS
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the minister must be misinformed because he is too good a parliamentarian deliberately to mislead or even try to mislead the House. Of those in so-called dire straits whom the minister's budget was supposed to address, only 12,000 would qualify for the mortgage interest deferral. Of those 12,000, less than 1 per cent have even bothered to apply, because they know full well that if they do not hang today under that plan, they will be hung, drawn and quartered tomorrow.
If the minister holds to the view that everyone cannot be protected from high interest rates, in the name of God will he seriously try to do something for those average Canadians who are seeing their family incomes and savings and their family dreams wiped out by the attitude of this government, and by a budget that even the minister himself should be prepared to admit is in a shambles?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, in a sense the hon. member spoils his own questions by putting in so many unjustified comments.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member refers to the budget as if it were the source of high interest rates, as if it were the source of world recession, and as if it were the source of very high income demands in Canada. Each of these is contributing to our present situation, and none of these items has been the result of the budget of last November. The hon. member knows that, and I ask him why he does not take that into account in his questioning today.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTRODUCE EMERGENCY MEASURES
James Aloysius McGrath: Truly the minister, stretching credibility, is not trying to expect this House to believe that he bears no responsibility for the 4,400 businesses which have gone bankrupt this year, and for the thousands of Canadians who are facing personal bankruptcy. His budget has not addressed this problem. Will he at least bring in emergency measures until he is prepared to replace that disastrous budget?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 know the hon. member's interest in these questions is serious and sincere. I have already explained to the House, in reply to questions put by his leader on Tuesday, the process through which the government is going and will go in an effort to deal with the current economic situation.


INCREASE IN UNEMPLOYMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. I would like to say to him that his policies are directly responsible for the fact that 1,185 more Canadians are without jobs every single day, 1,185 more Canadians with families to feed and mortgages to pay. How long is the minister prepared to condemn 1,200 more Canadians every day to job loss and insecurity because he is too stubborn and too uncaring to change his policies?
June 10, 1982


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I do not accept for one moment the statement in the hon. member's question that the policies of the government are responsible for the recession which is taking place, not only in Canada but also in every industrialized country in the world. I am surprised that the hon. member, considering her experience, would make such a foolish statement in the House of Commons.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The minister's answer is appalling.


INQUIRY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT PLANS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Has the
minister no understanding of the fears, the frustrations and the hopelessness which exists in every part of this country because people do not know, from one day to another, whether they will still have jobs? Will the minister tell the House and the Canadian people this afternoon what he is prepared to do to meet the fears, frustrations and anxieties right across this country, which he has created? That is what the people want to know.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think that all of us in the House, including hon. members on this side, have as much knowledge about the Canadian people as the hon. member.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Do something, then.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Hon. members on this side have been elected by the Canadian people to represent-


Mr. Nielsen:: They would not be today.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -the interests of the Canadian people. I want to assure the hon. member that our sensitivity and our understanding are as great as those of any hon. member on the other side of the House, including the hon. member who has just asked the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT GOVERN MENT ACT TO REDUCE INTEREST RATES
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, we have been hearing a different tune from the Prime Minister at Versailles. He admitted that the government's efforts to wrestle inflation to the ground actually have been wrestling the economy to the ground.
We have heard from the chief executive officers of a number of chartered banks that the present high interest rates policy will devastate the economy in the next number of months. CMHC tells us that if mortgage rates go over 20 per cent, as they will because of the high interest rates, some 40,000 Canadians will lose their homes this year. Will the government
Oral Questions
consider taking the radical step of reducing the interest rate level, to enable the economic recovery to begin?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, obviously the objective is to reduce interest rates-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is what we attempted to bring about through our efforts at the Versailles Summit, and that is what we are attempting to bring about through our efforts to reduce inflation. I want to assure the hon. member that if he thinks there is some easy, overnight solution to high interest rates, then he is making a mistake. If there were an easy solution I would be the first to bring it forward and implement it, but there is no easy solution.
The bringing down of interest rates requires a resolution of problems in the United States. And it requires a reduction in inflation rates in Canada, in our own country. If these two things were brought about, then I believe there would be some assurance that interest rates would drop in Canada and some relief would come to the Canadian economy.


QUERY RESPECTING REASON FOR GOVERNMENT POLICY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, if the efforts of the minister to combat inflation have resulted in increased interest rates, then he should use a different approach, because interest rates have to come down. My question refers to the tactics being used now of taking more and more money out of the hands of working Canadians, a practice that we saw in the 1930s when workers were competing against other workers to get work even at less money, for fewer jobs. Can the Minister of Finance explain to the Canadian people why we are pursuing the same policy that got us into this disastrous situation as a result of the fact that the government does not know what it is doing-or is the economy totally out of control?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think the answer to both questions is no.


REQUEST FOR TWO-WEEK DEBATE
Nelson Andrew Riis: My last question to the minister is in the form of a suggestion. We have heard today, and we will hear in the rest of the question period, that our economy is in a state of crisis. This is an emergency situation. 1 am wondering if the minister would consider recognizing that this is an extraordinary time in Canadian history, requiring extraordinary measures, and if the minister would set aside the next two weeks so that the House of Commons could address the serious situation that is before us and encourage both the government side and the other side to come forward with positive, constructive solutions to fight this

June 10, 1982
Oral Questions
economic crisis in which we find ourselves today. Let us set aside the next two weeks to address this problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think that the hon. member, in a way, is depreciating the House of Commons as it has operated over the last several months. I have been in this House almost every day and I believe the House has been addressing the economic situation, in question period. There have been numerous debates on economic matters. It seems to me that we have been given ample opportunity to express our views on what ought to be done about the economic situation.
My distress, my disappointment, is that 1 have received such little constructive assistance from the opposition in addressing the economic problems of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Resign, resign!

[ Translation]


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, I have the impression that the Minister of Finance, in regretting that proposals have not been forthcoming from the opposition side, has just admitted his incompetence. In my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I pointed out that by December 31, as the Minister of Finance is no doubt aware, more than 500,000 Canadians will no longer be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Perhaps I could help the Minister of Finance by pointing out that 1,750 employees at General Motors in Sainte-Therese will no longer be receiving unemployment insurance benefits next November. In the circumstances, does the Minister of Finance have any proposals to make in connection with this dramatic situation or is he going to let 1,750 employees go straight to the welfare office?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member ought to address that question, which has to do with unemployment insurance, to the minister responsible for the unemployment insurance system.


Mr. Clark:: He is not here.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to assure the hon. member that we will take every possible step within the law passed by Parliament to help these particular workers.
[ Translation]


THE ECONOMY
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, that is certainly not encouraging for the 1,200,000 unemployed workers we have in Canada today. After the Versailles Summit, the Minister of Finance started off Tuesday morning by mentioning certain proposals. The Minister of Employment and Immigration did not challenge the figures 1 gave him just now but was not prepared to confirm them. I wish to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has any proposals with respect to the 500,000 Canadians who will no longer be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. If he cannot give an answer today, considering the fact that yesterday, both bankers and owners of professional hockey clubs severely criticized the minister for his financial policies, I still wonder, Madam Speaker, whether the minister, in his desire to serve his country, would not be better advised to ask his Prime Minister to relieve him of his duties, since he is incapable of answering the questions we have been putting to him for three weeks.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have no difficulty in answering questions on the Order Paper addressed to me, but I find it very difficult to engage in the kind of rhetorical abuse in which the hon. member specializes in his questions.


MINES AND MINING
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines. A week ago we had an inventory of over 35,000 mine workers whose jobs had been affected by shutdowns, unscheduled summer vacations, and labour disruptions. This week the number is 42,000 or more. We have seen another 6,000 mine workers in the past week, and up to 200,000 mine workers and indirect service workers face unemployment because of the failure of the government to take positive and concrete steps to resolve the difficult problems within our economy.
What advice has the Minister of State for Mines offered to the cabinet? Knowing that the Government of Canada has the power to rectify this situation, what specific and concrete proposals has she made to the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to help the thousands of mine workers who must contend with no work and countless human problems?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, obviously the hon. member does not understand the international mineral situation. He has been told time and
June 10, 1982

time again that this is an international situation and that markets in the world are in a very difficult situation. I remind him that there are mines closing all over the world. For instance, in the Philippines mines are operating at 50 per cent capacity. The only nickel mine in the United States has closed down completely. Our mineral industry is faring better than those in most countries, and in those areas facing lay-offs and shutdowns we are making every effort to see that miners are employed. There are nine make-work projects in my area alone, using Section 38, which are employing over 300 laid-off miners.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, the minister knows that is pure poppycock. At least a third of the work force in mining in Canada today is facing unemployment. The new president of the Canadian Mining Association said just two weeks ago that the problem is not a lack of demand for Canadian minerals in foreign markets but that the problem is essentially domestic. The president of the Canadian Mining Association said that "what is needed is the determination by government to restore an environment that encourages mineral development in Canada.''


REQUEST THAT POLICIES BE REVERSED
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I want to put a straightforward question to the Minister of Finance. When will he reverse the socialistic, antiinvestment policies contained in his November 12 budget, the National Energy Program, and the policies of FIRA which are destroying the mining industry in Canada? Will he answer that question?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, I would like to refer to the original question the hon. member raised. He obviously does not understand the international mineral situation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Judith A. Erola: If he was speaking directly to the president of the Canadian Mining Association, he would know


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


REQUEST THAT FARMERS BE ALLOWED TO EXCEED SALES QUOTAS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker-:


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, of which I have served him notice.
Oral Questions
Bearing in mind the state of the economy and the high rate of bankruptcies among farm owners, and knowing that farmers have large volumes of grain stored-in other words, value stored-on their farms, would the minister give consideration to allowing farmers to sell in excess of quota in those situations where farmers can establish they are in very serious financial difficulties, with the provision that the moneys from those sales would go directly to the relief of debt?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I will discuss that with my colleague, the Minister of State responsible for the Wheat Board, but as a general proposition my suggestion would be that, as much as possible, we should not mix objectives. There is already the payment of initial payments; there is already the prairie grain advance payments, which put money into the hands of farmers this year. 1 understand that the prairie grain advance payments program has already provided $333 million to western farmers.
I suggest it might not be wise to intervene too much in the quota system, the purpose of which is to select the grains which can be exported, not specifically to provide money to farmers.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CONDUCT STUDY
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, 1 appreciate the comments of the minister with respect both to the need for the selection of qualities of grain and also the issue of congestion at country elevators. However, I simply plead with the minister again, on behalf of farmers who are in severe debt situations, particularly those who are young start-up farmers, at least to conduct a study or some investigation to see to what extent he can disburse extra money where value from farm operations actually exists but cannot be converted to cash. That could be done for the purpose of keeping people in operation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I can only repeat the first part of the answer I gave. I will be in touch with my hon. friend in this regard later.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He is busy studying-his briefing notes, I hope.
Yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources assured the House that Canadian nuclear materials will never be used to build an Argentine bomb. He based that naive conclusion on two points. The first was that the military dictatorship in Argentina promised it would not. The second one was that the International Atomic Energy Commission

June 10, 1982
Oral Questions
would guarantee that the Argentinians would keep their word, through supervision and inspection by the Commission.
I should like to ask the minister how he expects the people of Canada to accept his blinkered view, considering the military dictatorship's record on civil rights, broken promises, military aggression into the Falklands, and especially in light of the fact that the International Atomic Energy Commission itself, the group that the minister says will ensure compliance with our nuclear agreement, told the Canadian government months ago that there was no way it could prevent or even detect the diversion of Canadian nuclear material into an Argentine military program?


Hon. Mare Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, first of all I should like to invite my hon. friend to quote from the report he claims he has from the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna as the basis of his allegations. 1 suggest to him that has allegation is not founded. I indicated some arguments yesterday to which the hon. member has referred. One is the international treaty and agreement that has been arrived at with Argentina, the second is inspection by the International Atomic Energy Commission, and the third is that using the Candu system in order to develop explosive material would be the most expensive and most circuitous route to achieve that purpose. It could be as high as ten times more expensive to use the Candu system than other existing alternatives that any country can develop on its own. As I have indicated before in the House, for the Argentinians to resort to the Candu system to achieve that purpose would be a very stupid decision for them to take.


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, not everyone shares the minister's confidence. If the minister has not read the report from the IAEC, it is not up to me to read it for him. I should like to tell the minister that if Argentina goes ahead and builds a nuclear weapon and causes the deaths of thousands of people in that part of the world, it will be the minister's responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ORDER FREEZE ON SHIPMENTS OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS TO ARGENTINA
Mark Willson Rose: According to the Latin American Weekly Report published on May 21, 1982, and after Argentina had denied it intended to go ahead and build a nuclear capability, two weeks before that date it had finally decided to go ahead and build a nuclear military capability, or a nuclear bomb. Will this change the policy of the minister toward our commitment to Argentina? Will the minister order a freeze on all shipments of nuclear fuel rods to
Argentina, at least until the time Argentina signs the nuclear nonproliferation treaty?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already answered those questions in the House.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Frederick John King: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, to whom I sent notice. It is a question of concern to Canadians for whose well-being he bears responsibility.
A number of RCAF officers taken prisoners of war while serving in Europe during World War II, contributed a part of their pay received under reciprocal agreements with the Government of Germany, to a fund to assist others in the camps who were in less fortunate circumstances. Following the war the Canadian government made representations to the Air Ministry in Britain to effect refund of those contributions to the individual donors. I am informed that the adjustments may never have been completed. Would the minister confirm that RCAF officers held prisoners of war in Germany who contributed to the communal fund at Stalag Luft I and Luft III have never received full refund of their contributions?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: First of all, Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving notice of the question. The information available to me would indicate that, as a result of the passing of a Privy Council order on January 4, 1946, provisions were made for the reimbursement of both pay and benefits of Canadian servicemen as a result of their being incarcerated. To my knowledge all have received a refund, but if the hon. member has information about individuals who may not have been looked after by this program, I would be happy to discuss the matter with him.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED KINGDOM GOVERNMENT
Frederick John King: Madam Speaker, that is my information. Inasmuch as I am told that these funds were absorbed into the treasury of the United Kingdom, would the minister renew those representations made in 1946 to the Government of the United Kingdom, in order that the injustice be corrected which penalizes persons who have already made great sacrifices for their country?


W. Bennett Campbell: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will be happy to do that.
June 10, 1982


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
OraI Questions

Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State (External Relations). Last week I brought to the attention of the House the action of the United States government in refusing entry to five Canadians who planned to attend the UN Session on Disarmament. Although the case I raised of Mrs. Kay Mac-Pherson has been happily resolved, will the minister make further representations to the United States government to ensure that the 50 busloads of Canadians leaving Montreal and Toronto tonight for the UN session and peace rally this weekend, are not refused entry at the U.S. border in defiance of the United States commitment to the free movement of peoples, as agreed to by its signing of the Helsinki Accord?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of State (External Relations)):: Yes, Madam Speaker. I can inform the hon. member for York East that the department has been advised of this matter, and it is now making representations regarding Canadians who want to take part in the conference. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General has already informed the hon. member, on behalf of the government, that the department is giving serious attention to this matter. I shall ask senior officials to get in touch with the hon. member directly, in view of the urgency of this matter.


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, if the minister is giving this matter serious consideration, would he pay attention to the suggestion made by the president of the Royal Bank, for example, who suggested that there should be severe cutbacks in government expenses on a broad base? He mentioned the things he had done in his bank. Would the minister also pay attention to the suggestions made by the president of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce that perhaps there should be changes in the capital gains tax to encourage investment in equities? He said the system is too debt burdened. Would the minister pay attention to those suggestions and would he present to the House, before it is too late, and before the end of this month, a budget incorporating some of those suggestions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 do not propose to present a budget before the end of the month. That is the present situation. 1 already replied to the Leader of the Opposition earlier in the week with respect to the intentions 1 had about a financial and economic statement, to use his words. I want to give him the assurance that the same situation prevails today, but some of the proposals that have been made about cutting expenditures obviously have to be taken seriously.
I would remind the hon. member who posed the question that it is possible for Members of Parliament, when they examine estimates and approve them, to suggest where reductions in expenditures should take place. It is easy to talk about expenditure reductions in general, but when it comes to deciding upon particular programs then I think that is where the bullet has to be dealt with, so to speak. 1 advise the hon. member to show his hand by going into committee and indicating where he thinks government expenditures ought to be reduced.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He will know that the bankruptcy rate this year in terms of dollars has increased 100 per cent. He will also know that every president of the chartered banks appearing before the standing committee have indicated that if interest rates continue to rise, or even stay at the same level, the rate of bankruptcies will soar. 1 wonder if the Minister of Finance has paid attention to those hearings and the many suggestions coming from the presidents of banks about what he might do to change the fiscal stance of the government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have been following the hearings before the standing committee as well as possible. Of course the committee has not reported. It is the views of the members of the committee that 1 would like to have, rather than the views of witnesses such as the bankers. 1 have been paying attention to what has been said and will give it careful consideration.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport who should have by now received Dr. Gilson's final report regarding the payment of federal rail subsidies in western Canada. Initial drafts of that report indicated that farmers would be asked to pay 3 per cent of all rail cost increases due to inflation over the next four years, which is equal to some $220 million to $245 million. Will the minister confirm these findings, and explain how he expects western Canadian farmers actually to pay these incredible amounts at a time when most of them are facing bankruptcy?
801 1 6-21

June 10, 1982
Oral Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I regret to say that I have not yet received the Gilson report so I am not in a position to comment on it. It is expected that he might present it to me during the weekend, but I have not received it yet. What my hon. friend has seen is the first draft which was given to those who negotiated with him.


REQUEST THAT REPORT BE TABLED
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam
Speaker, 1 realize it is supposed to be on its way by courier, and I thought it would have arrived by now. Since this report is of great importance to western Canadians in general, will the minister make a commitment to this House to table the report when it arrives, and have it referred to the transport committee so that we can deal with it before the House rises this summer?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, 1 already answered that question in part. I said I would receive the report, and when I do 1 will have it translated and printed-this might take two or three weeks-and then it will be made quite public. I am not really in a position to say that it will be debated in the House before the summer recess, but as my hon. friend knows there will have to be legislation leading to the amendment of the Crow rate. That will have to come to the House and will be looked into, I am sure, in great depth in the fall.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for External Relations concerning the Middle East situation. For the past several days the State of Israel has been flouting both international law and a unanimous Security Council resolution, and has caused thousands of innocent civilian casualties. Since Israel seems to be prepared to ignore the advice of even its closest friends, such as Canada, in this affair, will the government give consideration to the possibility of enacting trade sanctions, and consider the possibility of according some form of official recognition to the Palestinian people and their representatives?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, the official position of the Canadian government has been expressed directly by the Prime Minister to the Prime Minister of Israel. There is no hesitation in saying that what is going on at the moment in Lebanon, including Beirut, is a most serious and tragic situation. 1 will not read the cable we received from Canadian officials in Beirut or elsewhere; I will just say that Beirut is being bombarded unmercifully, to use the words of a Canadian official. 1 think what the Prime Minister has said to the Premier of Israel, that
they should retreat immediately and unconditionally, represents the opinion of the Canadian people.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Earlier in the week the minister indicated in a television interview that the most urgent problem facing Canada today was to restore investor confidence. Whereas the first budget the minister brought in turned out to be a national energy policy which destroyed investor confidence in that sector, and his second budget is nearly killing investment right across the country, what is he going to do about those two items?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, when decisions are taken on these points I will be pleased to communicate them to the House.


REQUEST THAT ALL-PARTY TASK FORCE BE APPOINTED
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, will the minister consider calling an all-party special committee, asking intelligent members from both sides of this House-


Mr. Rossi:: You won't be there.


Jack Wendele Shields: -to sit down with him as a task force and address the problems facing Canada? He is listening to the wrong people; the bureaucrats do not know what is happening in the country. The politicians do, so will he do that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the standing committee set up by this House, made up of very intelligent members, has before it a number of important matters, and I am quite prepared to await and receive the report from that committee which has already been authorized. If it wishes to make recommendations, I will be glad to listen and consider them.


POSSIBILITY OF POLICY CHANGES
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, if I heard the Minister of Finance correctly, in answer to a question about whether or not he would change fundamental elements of the budget and the National Energy Program, he said that when those decisions were taken there would be a report to the House. Is the government now, today, considering major changes in the budget or the National Energy Program?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, probably better than I know, that it is quite impossible for me to tell him what is being considered in cabinet.
June 10, 1982


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who will know that the number of Canadians who have gone from dire straits into severe distress has increased dramatically over the past several months. The one program the minister offered to those people in distress was a small business bond, which was changed from a development bond to a distress bond.
Does the minister understand that two of the largest Canadian banks no longer use that bond, and the Canadian farmers and businessmen who would use that bond in a distress situation no longer have that opportunity, and so there is now nothing in his economic program to deal with those in distress? Does he know that, and what is he prepared to do about it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the reason the Small Business Development Bond was introduced was to provide reduced rates of interest to borrowers because of the tax room available to the banks. If in a particular case there is no more tax room available to a particular bank, then obviously the bond with respect to that bank would become inoperative. But it is my information that the operation of the bond is still quite valuable to large classes of borrowers in Canada. As the hon. member knows, several billions of dollars have already been put out to groups in this country as a result of the benefits of the bond. But I will consider his representations, as I did on a previous occasion and indeed changed the operation of the bond to meet some of his representations.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, I am somewhat enthusiastic about the minister's response. I think he knows, when he tells us about the S2.5 billion which has been used, that that in no way applies to the distress area; rather, it is the total investment that the banks have used.


REQUEST THAT NEW ECONOMIC MEASURES BE INTRODUCED
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister. Does he know that every day and a half he delays his new economic program another Canadian farmer goes bankrupt, and that every hour and a half he delays, another Canadian business bites the dust, and that every 20 minutes he delays his new economic measures another Canadian personal bankruptcy is declared? How long, how many days, how many hours, is the minister prepared to go on before introducing new economic measures to help Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member wants to ask me a question about government policy, I will be glad to answer. I have already indicated in reply to a question
Business of the House
from his leader earlier in the week what the situation was with respect to any statement to the House of Commons.


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


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, we had a meeting this morning at which we made a few agreements. For example, tomorrow there is an agreement to deal with three stages of the bill which will be introduced in a few minutes in the name of the Minister of Justice to amend the Criminal Code. Then if we have time we will start second reading debate on Bill C-95.
[ Translation]
As far as next week is concerned, on Monday we shall conclude debate on the energy bills, including Bill C-104 and Bill C-108, if the debate on these bills is not wound up today. Also on Monday, the plan is to adopt on second reading Bill C-115 on occupational training, and there is agreement-if there is time-to dispose of all stages of Bill C-l 16, with one member speaking per party. I understand that not necessarily the duration of the debate but its timing for Monday may be discussed further, in the light of information I have just received and which has been mentioned by the member for Yukon (Mr. Neilsen). On Tuesday, we shall proceed with the report stage and third reading of Bill C-l 11, in accordance with an order of the House, with a vote on third reading at the end of the day. Finally, next Wednesday and Thursday will be opposition days.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, perhaps you might permit me to thank all hon. members of the House for their response to the Standing Order 43 motion which complimented members of the class of 1957 sitting both in this place and in the other place. We appreciate that expression of good wishes.
Can the government House leader tell me when Bill C-60, the northern pipeline bill, is to be proclaimed? I am informed that has yet to be proclaimed. Perhaps there might be an explanation as to why it is not being proclaimed.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I will be glad to consult with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and report to my honorable colleague. I understand that most likely the bill will be proclaimed at the end of this month. However, I would like to discuss the matter with the minister of energy and then report to the House.


Mr. Crosbie:: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the government House leader on business of the House. I have a motion on the Order Paper which deals with the Minister of

June 10, 1982
Business of the House
Justice and his conduct in this House. It asks that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. As the House leader knows, this is a matter to which the government, in the British parliamentary tradition, gives time so that it can be dealt with an hopefully referred to the committee. Will the matter be given government time so that we can deal with it, or is it true that the Minister of Justice has said he does not want it dealt with and does not want it allowed any time in this House?


Mr. Wilson:: It is being swept under the carpet.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 checked the precedents for the kind of motion presented by the hon. member, but unfortunately, there are none at all. 1 may remind the House that the hon. member had two options, namely, to raise a question of privilege or to give forty-eight hours' notice and present a substantive motion on the subject. He preferred the first option, and he raised his question of privilege and lost. Nevertheless, he had ample opportunity during the debate on his question of privilege to try to make his point and to formulate his accusation. He had nearly a whole day to speak to this subject and express his views, and today, after losing his case, after his case was rejected and the Chair had decided there was no prima facie evidence for a question of privilege-the Chair indicated in its decision the options that were open to the opposition-he chose to take advantage of the existing procedure and to try another approach. If the hon. member had taken this option in the first place, the reaction of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), to which he referred, would probably have been different. However, first of all, the hon. member has had ample time to express his point of view which is unprecedented in this House, and as a result, we feel perfectly justified in demanding that the provisions of Standing Orders-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 am not happy at all with the way the minister commented on the ruling I gave on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). He will have to admit that my ruling was based on parliamentary procedure, and that there is no question of a member losing or having his case rejected as a result of a ruling given by the Chair. The minister may wish to explain to the hon. member at what time the motion could be considered by the House, but I would ask him not to refer to my ruling in those terms.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I may refer the hon. member to Standing Orders 15(4) and 20 which clearly establish the procedure to be followed on motions arising from private members' business. As I said before, considering the fact that the Chair ruled that this was not a prima facie case of privilege, the hon. member had ample time to express his views. He is now taking another approach open to him under the Standing Orders, and it is up to the government to decide, under the provisions of Standing Order 18(2), what the order of precedence will be. Once more, if the hon. member had not had
ample time to express his views on a previous occasion, it might be felt that to refuse to consider today's request would be inappropriate. However, the hon. member has had an opportunity to make his accusations, and secondly, and this is more important in that it distinguishes the motion from every previous precedent, the wording of the motion appearing on the Order Paper is clearly an accusation, a judgment without due process of the Minister of Justice. Anyone reading the motion will realize that it is impertinent, bold, disrespectful and unparliamentary, and never in the history of the Parliament of Canada has notice been given for a motion of this kind prior to a debate on the actual question. Because of its wording, the motion is inappropriate and unacceptable to the government, and that is why the Minister of Justice feels that he has every reason to refuse to allow any kind of precedence to be given to this motion, which is any case has already been the subject of debate.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have laid a grave charge against the Minister of Justice, namely, that he deliberately misled this House. This matter should have great priority and should be dealt with. Will the House leader give this House and a committee of this House a chance to look into the conduct of the Minister of Justice and my charge, or will the government continue to be frightened to do so and hide behind this piffle that we have just heard? I have followed exactly what the Speaker advised. This matter should be dealt with by this House and now. It is a grave charge against a minister of the Crown.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I have just explained that the hon. member had ample opportunity to make some noise, get publicity and plead his case earlier in this House. What 1 am saying today is that the hon. member has chosen a second way in trying to achieve his goal. He has given notice of a substantive motion which under the Standing Orders appeared on the Order Paper under private member's business.
1 think that in all fairness the hon. member is no more equal than any other member on either side of the House. Therefore, I think the hon. member for St. John's West should wait his turn. However, if the matter is so important to him even after having had the opportunity to plead his case one day and the Speaker having found that there was no prima facie case of privilege, maybe the hon. member's party would support him and move his motion on one of the three opposition days that remain in this session.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the action of the government now raises a very serious problem in procedure. As you and your predecessors have so often said, a question of privilege is rare, so rare that the House deals with a question of privilege immediately when it arises, and it should arise at the earliest
June 10, 1982

possible opportunity. That was done by the hon. member for St. John's West and the Chair dealt with that question expeditiously.
1 prefer Madam Speaker's version, your judgment on that occasion, rather than the interpretation which has been placed upon it by the government House leader. You made it quite clear that a matter of procedure was involved, as had your predecessor in the case of the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland at the time that he raised his question of privilege.
On those occasions the ongoing procedure suggested to both hon. members was that a substantive motion could be placed upon the Order Paper. There is only one reason the Chair made a suggestion like that on both those occasions, and that was to enable the House in the ordinary course to deal with the questions of privilege which were raised. In this instance, a very serious question of privilege involving a charge concerning the conduct of the Minister of Justice was repeated today in the same language which caused the Chair considerable concern on the original occasion.
The serious procedural question which arises now, if the government continues to follow this wholly undesirable course, is that we will have substantive motions of privilege languishing on the Order Paper potentially throughout the whole of a session. I am sure that is not the traditional parliamentary process.
In my submission, the government is obliged to make government time available at the earliest possible opportunity to give the House the opportunity to deal with the motion. We know that with its majority the motion itself will be defeated, but it should be disposed of and disposed of immediately. To adopt any other position or to suggest that questions of privilege should become the subject of allotted days, I really think is the kind of suggestion which the government House leader ought to reconsider seriously. Traditionally it was the government which had the obligation to deal immediately with questions of privilege and in the shortest possible time.
What it means to the Chair is this. If the government insists upon adhering to this stand, it is pointless for the Chair on future occasions which will arise even to suggest the process of putting a substantive motion down, because we now know, if the government adheres to its position, that it will never be dealt with, that it will languish on the Order Paper and indeed die with prorogation. In the meantime, the stigma is hanging over the person charged, and the question whether or not there is substance to the charge remains unanswered. Surely the illogic of that position must present itself forcefully to the government House leader.
1 have one other thing I want to say before I finish. We on this side have offered, because we know the government is hard up for time between the targets it wants to reach and now, that we would keep that debate short and indeed restrict it to only two speakers on the question. We believe strongly that the House should be given the opportunity to resolve the question, even if the government were to say to us that it will
Privilege-Mr. Andre
bring the matter on for a vote without any speakers. The government House leader made a great to do about the hon. member for St. John's West having two swings at the cat, as it were. I think there might be a disposition, even if we made no speeches, to bring the motion on, to allow the House to divide on it and to resolve the matter. It is totally unacceptable and surely totally unparliamentary to have such a substantive motion lying on the Order Paper between now and dissolution.
That is the result of the government's position, plus the other serious position in which the government House leader has placed the Chair, because no longer with any serious intent can the Chair suggest to any hon. member who raises a question of privilege that there is the option of placing a substantive motion. It will not exist if they adhere to their position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Of course, there is no need for me to rule on this because there is no point of order involved. Hon. members know the statement which I made in the House at the time of the ruling. However, the conduct of business in the House of Commons is the responsibility of the government. The Speaker has no responsibility or other obligation to rearrange the business. 1 think that is quite clear to hon. members.
Obviously this is a matter which the House leaders should negotiate between themselves and as much as possible not in the House. I have allowed this short debate or short exchange to take place because there was a question relating to government business, but I am afraid it cannot be prolonged. I invite the leaders to negotiate this matter between themselves.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege of which I gave you notice earlier this day. The question arises out of a newspaper article in The Calgary Herald on Saturday, June 5, 1982. I became aware of the article on Tuesday, June 8, of this week and yesterday, June 9, would have been the first opportunity to raise the matter. But in view of the unique nature of the question, I felt I should discuss it with my colleagues and examine precedents to see how best to proceed. Subsequently I decided that the best way to proceed was to raise the matter in the House.
The newspaper article in question arose out of an interview which Your Honour had with Mr. Bob Bergen, a staff writer for The Calgary Herald. The interview occurred at the time Your Honour received an honorary degree from the University of Calgary last weekend. The article reads, in its first part, in such a manner as to suggest that Your Honour was reflecting on my actions and conduct in the House of Commons. If I might just quote from the first part of the article, it reads:

June 10, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Andre
"The rules of Parliament have to be changed to deal with radical l%0s-crn campus politics which have crept into the House of Commons," says House Speaker, Jeanne Sauve.
Sauve also said the methods of Calgary Centre MP. Ilarvie Andre, during the March bell-ringing crisis in the House of Commons typify that decade's confrontation tactics.
"In the 1960s you had campus unrest and new tactics we weren't used to", Sauve said in an interview Friday.
"Well those students are now in Parliament and they've brought with them some of their ways of expressing themselves and conducting their battles", she said.
Sauve said Andre, who engineered the bell-ringing incident in the House over the Liberal government's omnibus Energy Securities Bill, is an example of one who uses the tactics of confrontation.
"He is the one who raised the problem of the omnibus bill, quite obviously", she said.
I received from Madam Speaker's special assistant, Marie Bender, a copy of a telex she had sent to Mr. Murray Ball, news editor of The Calgary Herald, on June 7, 1982. The telex says that your Honour wished to make clear in her interview that when commenting on campus politics of the sixties your Honour made no connection whatsoever with Mr. Harvie Andre's intervention in the House; nor did you in any way convey the bell-ringing incident. The telex goes on to say:
The direct quotes in the article are correct and when one reads them against the first part of the article, they arc clearly of a general nature which is the only type of comment Madam Sauve, as Speaker of the House, would want to be associated with.
As can be seen from the quote in the article 1 read earlier to the House, the quotes attributed to you, along with the other comments in the article, clearly leave the impression that Your Honour has accused me of somehow utilizing undergraduate tactics from the 1960s in pursuit of my political objectives.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Perhaps Madam Speaker would like to quiet the jackals on the other side so I might continue.


John Carnell Crosbie: The louts.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Liberals are using that statement.


Harvie Andre: When I became aware of this article I thought I had one of three alternatives. I could have ignored the article but that would have left on the public record an apparent accusation with which I vehemently disagree.


An hon. Member:: You were never a radical.


Harvie Andre: The rabble-rousers on my left are not interested in what 1 have to say either. They can depart the chamber, then.
In the 1960s I was a professor, not a student, and if anything was on the receiving end-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is a long time ago, Andre.


An hon. Member:: She is smiling. She thinks it is a joke.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, perhaps if you were not smiling the jackals would not be laughing.


Some hon. Members:: Show some respect.


Harvie Andre: My second course of action could have been to respond to the article by Mr. Bergen, but that would have appeared as if I were using the public media to criticize the Chair, which is something I do not feel is consistent with the conventions and practices which require that members of Parliament respect the Chair and its decisions.
My third alternative is the one 1 chose. It is to raise the matter here in the House. I have been unable to find, and I am certain there does not exist, a precedent for a Speaker to have reflected on the words or conduct of a Member of Parliament in the House or outside the House. Indeed, during the March bell-ringing incident, your Honour was very careful not to reflect on the actions of any of the parties to this dispute, and indeed such is the convention involved here. Not one of your predecessors, even though hounded by the media for reaction, would in fact have commented on the actions or conduct of any member of the House in regard to that incident. That is the strength of that particular convention.
I have had enough experience in politics to know-and have experience first-hand-that news reports do not always accurately reflect what was said or the context in which it was said. It might be that Madam Speaker was misquoted and it might be that the reporter, by taking her quotes out of context, has created a different impression. There might be other explanations.
As things stand now, this article appearing in a major newspaper in my riding, based on an interview with your Honour, clearly leaves the impression that your Honour is reflecting on my conduct as a Member of Parliament for my constituency.
I am sure that your Honour agrees with me that it would be extremely unfortunate and undesirable for this precedent situation to result in a circumstance where Speakers would be reflecting on the conduct or behaviour of Members of Parliament via the media, as it would be equally undesirable for Members of Parliament via the media, as it would be equally undesirable for Members of Parliament to be reflecting upon the behaviour of Speakers in the performance of their duties through the public media.
I feel that the matter is serious enough in terms of the unfortunate appearance that it creates that I ought to raise the matter. As I indicated, it certainly would be unsatisfactory to me, and I am sure to Your Honour, to have a circumstance where, in fact, there would be public criticism of each other via the media. I would not like to have that reflection on my conduct as a Member of Parliament remain on the public record without some correction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his submission. I believe we are both in the same boat. We both feel quite
June 10, 1982

offended by the way this very short interview was reported in The Calgary Herald. I felt so much so that 1 immediately issued a press communique on Monday morning, a copy of which I sent to the hon. member at his office along with my speech.


Harvie Andre: No, I am sorry.


Madam Speaker:: This was so that he would at least be aware that this took place and that he would know how I reacted to it.
1 feel a bit uneasy because the hon. member is raising a question of privilege and I happen to be the judge of that question of privilege at the same time as 1 am extremely involved in it. However, I think it would be quite clear to all members that such statements made outside the House by one member about another member do not in themselves constitute a question of privilege. Therefore, I think the hon. member would recognize with me that he does not have a basis for a question of privilege. However, if there were a basis for a question of privilege in the fact that an hon member said something about another hon. member outside the House, I think 1 would be the first one who would want to raise a question of privilege because obviously the words put indirectly in my mouth give the impression that 1 might have said things that I certainly have not said, and 1 have already told the hon. member that.
I am not misquoted because everything that is in direct quotes is exactly what I said. That appears in the latter part of the article. However, in the first part of the article there are a sequence of statements made by the reporter and allusions that I might have said that. The sequence in which these paragraphs are written gives an impression that I did in fact criticize or reflect on the conduct of the hon. member for Calgary Centre at the time of the bell-ringing crisis.
Hon. members know that I gave a few interviews during the course of that bell-ringing crisis. At that time I did not comment on anyone's actions in the House. I think that should be sufficient evidence that this Speaker knows quite definitely that there is no way the Speaker can comment on the conduct of members in the House. Certainly, 1 never did that.
Since the hon. member is quoting from the report, 1 would like to quote some of the other things which are in quotes in the article. When I read them to the House it will realize that they are hardly reconcilable with the first part of the article where 1 appeared to be reflecting on what a member might have said the reporter quoted me as saying:
The House sat down and negotiated its way out of the difficulty and that's what has to happen.
Those were my exact feelings about the crisis. In answer to another question, 1 said:
The temptation was great to do otherwise than let the House get out of its own
mess.
The reporter stated in the article:
Privilege-Mr. Andre
While Sauve says she has ideas about the nature of the reform that could take place to prevent such a crisis, she says she will only reveal them to parliamentary committees studying reform if asked.
Then I am reported to have said:
The way society now functions, and how it solves its problem by confrontation, that kind of behaviour is now reflected in Parliament.
1 did say that because 1 was being asked the question why this happens in the House in this way. If one looks around at what is happening, these tactics are admissible in some other quarters and, of course, they are reflected in the House. I certainly did not allude to the hon. member as being one of those "campus students", because 1 definitely knew that the hon. member could not possibly have been a student in 1960, and we have just learned that he was a professor.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Neither could I have been a student. We are in the same boat there.
I did send a press communique, so I think the record is straight as far as The Calgary Herald is concerned. The press communique stated:
The Speaker of the House wishes to make it clear in an interview she gave at the time that she received a doctor of laws degree-
1 thought 1 would accept that doctor of laws degree to reassure the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence).
-that when commenting on Canada's politics of the sixties, she made no connection whatsoever with Mr. Harvie Andre's intervention in the House, nor did she in any way qualify the bell-ringing incident.
It went on to state:
The direct quotes in the article are correct-
I admit that they are correct, and I think the newspaperman has them on tape, and that:
-when one reads them against the first part of the article, they arc clearly of a general nature which is the only type of comment Madam Sauve, as Speaker of the House, would want to be associated with.
So I think the public record has been made clear. I regret that the journalist has reported me in this way, but there is not much that I can do about it. As an experienced politician, I can assure the hon. member and give him my word that I do not think I even committed any kind of imprudence in the course of that particular interview. I am quite sure of it, I categorically state it, and I hope the hon. member will take my word, as I always take the word of hon. members in this house. So I did not reflect upon the hon. member's conduct, and I do want to make that quite clear.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I accept Your Honour's indication that you did not intend to reflect on my statements or conduct or somehow relate those to your interpretation of why the House employed the bell-ringing incident, that it had something to do with 1960s style campus politics evolving to the House of Commons. 1 assure Your Honour that it does have something to do with the sixties. The rule changes in 1969 were what prevented and closed off the opportunity for

June 10, 1982
Petitions
hon. members to curtail an excessively arrogant government. That is the only legacy of the sixties which has resulted in other mechanisms being used, but that is a dispute between yourself and myself as to why the House has behaved in the way it has under this government.
Madam Speaker, I did want to indicate that I did not receive a copy of your speech. You may have intended that a copy be sent to my office, but my office did not receive one. What ! received was a telexed letter, not from yourself but, rather, from your special assistant, Mary Bender. I did not feel the quotation in the second paragraph entirely corrected the record, but I accept Your Honour's indication that you did not have that intent.
Although 1 have indicated my acceptance of Your Honour's position, I would not want the record to reflect that I would not have considered it to be a breach of privilege had Your Honour intended to publicly criticize me and had Your Honour intended to reflect on my conduct as a Member of Parliament. I would not have accepted that as a ruling. I would have considered that to be a most serious breach of privilege. However, 1 accept Your Honour's indication that that was not your intention.


CRIMINAL CODE
Yvon Pinard: for leave to introduce Bill C-l 17, to amend the Criminal Code.


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

[ English ]

Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-l 18, An Act to amend certain Acts that provide for the retention of records.


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


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition signed by 378 citizens and gun owners of Cariboo-Chilcotin riding in British Columbia. This joins a similar petition which I submitted previously containing 758 signatures.
The purpose of this petition is to protest the introduction of Bill C-451, a private member's bill concerning gun control. The signatories to this petition are legitimate gun owners who use their firearms both for sport and often in the course of their work.
The nature of the petition is to demand the immediate withdrawal of Bill C-451, as well as 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 the petition in order and that you will exercise the discretionary powers vested in the office of Speaker of the House to allow discussion and/or referral to the appropriate committee at the earliest possible time in order that the flaws in this proposed legislation may be pointed out.


MISCELLANEOUS STATUTE REPEAL ACT
Donald James Johnston: for leave to introduce Bill C-l 19. An Act to repeal certain statutes that have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,125, 3,687, 4,284, 4,293 and 4,297.


Mr. Clarke: !. With reference to each corporation not included in Schedules C and D of the Financial Administration Act which are wholly-owned by Her Majesty in right of Canada, during the period 1970-80 did the corporation acquire shares or other ownership interest in any other corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and, if so, what was the (a) name of the corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and any subsidiaries thereof (b) percentage of equity acquired (c) cost of acquisition (d) book value of the acquisition?
June 10, 1982

2. In each case, does the corporation have a plan to change the present portion of ownership in any of these enterprises and, if so, what is the plan?


David P. Smith: In so far as the Bank of Canada is concerned: 1. (a) Bank of International Settlements (BIS), (b) 1.8 per cent of outstanding BIS shares at the end of its 1969-70 fiscal year, (c) $2,633,196.86, (d) Same as (c).
2.	No.
In so far as the Canada Council is concerned: The Canada Council's cultural programs are funded partially from income from the endowment fund and other funds set up from bequests and gifts made to the council for specific purposes. The investment committee follows rules that are similar to those established under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. Under a rule established by council, no single equity exceeds 7 per cent of the total equity market value.
1.	The Canada Council does not hold a significant percentage of any corporation. As a rule, the Canada Council does not exercise its voting rights.
2.	No.
The following government institutions have no information on this subject: Canadair Limited, The Canadian Wheat Board, de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, International Development Research Centre, National Arts Centre Corporation, Standards Council of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
3.	No. Work sharing is available in all sectors.
* It is anticipated that, if the demand for work sharing approaches $10 million, an increase in the expenditure ceiling would be sought.
Mr. MacKay: What was the total cost of the so-called Newcombc inquiry of 1979-80 and what amount was paid to Mr. Edmund Peter Newcombe, Q.C., for his services as commissioner of the inquiry?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
total cost of the so-called Newcombe inquiry established on December 13, 1979 by the then Progressive Conservative government was $7,414.83. The total amount of $6,214.83 was paid to Mr. Edmund Peter Newcombe, Q.C., for his services as commissioner of the inquiry.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	How many recruits were accepted as medically suitable at recruiting stations and later found to be medically unsuitable at CFB Cornwallis during the calendar year (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981?
2.	In (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981, what percentage of recruits were released from CFB Cornwallis (i) for disciplinary reasons (ii) on request by the recruit (iii) for medical reasons (iv) for a false enlistment (v) for other reasons?
3.	Is it customary to give complete medical examinations before enrolment and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 3,687-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In each of the past five years, by province, what amount was spent on work sharing agreements?
2.	What amount is estimated to be spent in the (a) present (b) next fiscal year?
3.	Are only designated sectors of the economy eligible for this program and, if so, which sectors?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. None for 1980 and 1981. The following are the amounts, by calendar year, for 1977 and 1978 (not available separately) and 1979:


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: 1.	Statistics are not maintained on releases at each training base for medical reasons due to pre-existing medical problems. The releases are included in the category of irregular enrolments. The Directorate of Medical Treatment Services (DMTS) does however, review the files of all those who are released as a result of a pre-existing medical problem. The following numbers of files which were reviewed by DMTS are from all recruit training bases.
Year	Personnel Released as a Result
of a Pre-existing Medical Problem
Region	1977 and 1978 S(thousands)	1979 $(thousands)Newfoundland	-	-Nova Scotia	$ 20.3	-Prince Edward Island	-	-New Brunswick	$ 117.7	$ 10.3Quebec	$ 940.9	$ 18.8Ontario	$ 174.8	$159.9Manitoba	-	-Saskatchewan	$ 3.5	-Alberta/Northwest Territories	$ 15.9	-British Columbia/Yukon	S 49.5	-Canada	$1,322.6	$189.02.	(a) No estimate has been made. Present authorities place a limit of $10 million on expenditures in the 1982 calendar year, (b) No estimate has been made and no limit has been authorized.*1979	557	1980	684	1981	598	2.	The following chart	shows,	by percentages,	recruitreleases at CFB Cornwallis.	0)	(ii)	(iii) (iv)	(V)Year Disciplinary On request	Medical False	Otherof member	Enrolment	(a)	1979 0.02	1.2	0.04 6.3	9.5(b)	1980 0.04	0.2	0.10 6.4	6.3(c)	1981 0.02	0.4	0.95 4.7	5.13.	It is not and has not been customary to give complete medicals to applicants other than aircrew prior to enrolment
June 10, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
since 1976. It was considered at that time the lengthy delays required to obtain laboratory and x-ray results were discouraging many applicants and were one cause of the low enrolment rate. As a result the decision was taken to streamline the enrolment process by modifying the enrolment examination.


Mr. McKinnon: With reference to the answer to question No. 3,444 concerning the purcha.se and distribution of aircraft refueller trucks which indicated that trucks valued at $121,000 each will be distributed at 19 Canadian Forces Bases (a) which bases are to receive the trucks (b) how many trucks will be positioned at each base?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: (a) and (b) The distribution of aircraft refueller trucks by base and quantity is as follows:
Canadian Forces Base	Bagotville	13Canadian Forces Base	Chatham	7Canadian Forces Base	Cold Lake	14Canadian Forces Base	Comox	11Canadian Forces	Base Edmonton	7Canadian Forces	Station Gander	3Canadian Forces Base	Greenwood	8Canadian Forces Base	Moose Jaw	8Canadian Forces Base	North Bay	5Canadian Forces Base	Ottawa	5Canadian Forces Base	Portage la Prairie	5Canadian Forces Base	Shearwater	10Canadian Forces Base	Summersidc	4Canadian Forces Base	Toronto	3Canadian Forces Base	Trenton	7Canadian Forces Base	Winnipeg	10Canadian Forces Base	Montreal	3Canadian Forces Base	Borden	2Canadian Forces	Europe	32Total	157
[English}


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 9, 1982, consideration of Bill C-104, respecting Petroleum Incentives and
Canadian Ownership and Control Determination and to amend the Foreign Investment Review Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation, and Motion No. 1 (Mr. Lalondc).
Madam Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


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


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved:: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-104, An Act respecting petroleum incentives and Canadian ownership and control determination and to amend the Foreign Investment Review Act. be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 41 at page 3 the following:
"2.1. The objects of this Act are:
(1)	To provide a petroleum incentive program;
(2)	To foster greater self-sufficiency of oil and gas supplies in Canada;
(3)	To promote development of oil and gas fields on Canada Lands;
(4)	To facilitate, in relation to oil and gas development, consultation and coordination with the governments of the provinces, the Yukon Territory, and the Northwest Territories;
(5)	To maximize the social and economic benefits from the oil and gas developments on Canada Lands, including the maximizing of the opportunities for employment of Canadians while at the same time minimizing any adverse effect on the social and environmental conditions of the areas most directly affected by the oil and gas developments;
(6)	To advance national economic and energy interests and local public interest in social and economic development by ensuring the highest possible degree of Canadian participation in general, and local participation in particular, in all aspects of the oil and gas development in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories."
He said: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to this amendment, but before doing so I have some preliminary remarks that I would like to address in response to some of the comments that were made last night by the "hon. Jerry Rubin" of this House, the member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), or "radical Harv", as he is now going to be known around here! 1 never thought he was a member of the SDS; I thought it was more like the SS!
In any case, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we heard from the Conservatives yesterday-and I see the radical member back now-speaking with respect to this bill. I really never heard such hypocrisy in all my life. How about sitting down and listening to this, because I want to quote from the letter that the hon. member has written. The hon. member from Calgary Centre, the Conservative energy critic, stood up in the House yesterday to speak on Bill C-104, a bill to give
June 10, 1982

$8.9 billion in grants to oil companies under the new National Energy Program update, and that is what the figure will be, $8.9 billion over five years. The member for Calgary Centre said he had got some changes in this bill and was quite happy. He got a judicial review of one section. He said nothing about giving $8.9 billion away. Then he criticized the petroleum incentives program grants, the PIP grants, not because they were excessive but because they were bureaucratic in filling out the forms. He should try and fill out some welfare forms or some unemployment insurance forms. He would find that they are just as bureaucratic. There is no one to defend those people, but there are many people to defend the oil companies, as the member for Calgary Centre does incessantly in this House.
Then the rest of the Conservative members got up and gave the impression that they were against this program. But here is the letter, Mr. Speaker, dated December 21, 1981. It is from "Radical Harv", the hon. member for Calgary Centre, to his fellow 1960 radical member and Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), who was also teaching university, I believe, in the 1960s. Here is what the member for Calgary Centre said:
The parts of the proposed bill dealing with the Canadian Ownership Rate and the Petroleum Incentive Program arc long overdue and we would be willing to see two relevant acts introduced and dealt with on a priority basis.
What hypocrisy for the Conservative Party to stand up and say, "We are really against this." They are not against it at all. There is the letter. What he wanted was quick dealing with it. They were saying: "Let us deal with the petroleum incentives program, let us get it over with, and let us get those grants to the oil companies as quickly as possible".
This is an incredible gift to the industry. How does the Conservative Party criticize this bill? They criticize it by saying: "Well, it may be against the Bill of Rights because it may discriminate against Canadian companies". I often think, when I hear that, of K. C. Irving sitting there in the Bahamas, the man who owns all the media in New Brunswick, the forest industry in New Brunswick, Irving Oil and a good part of other industries, including the beer industry. And we are to defend his rights as he sits there in the Bahamas!


Mr. Breau:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, 1 hope the hon. member will not want to mislead the House. Mr. K. C. Irving does not own all of the papers in New Brunswick. There are at least two or three French language newspapers that he does not own.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am glad you pointed out that there are a couple of French newspapers. However, 1 am not here to attack K. C. Irving. I am here to deal with some of the Conservative allegations on this bill and also to deal with the bill itself. It is just incredible. We are at a time, Mr. Speaker, when the average family are having difficulties and are suffering, as we all heard from some of the questions put in question period. Yet we see this program in Bill C-104 which will give away in the petroleum incentives program more than $8.9 billion. Just think of that, $8.9 billion.
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
In my province the government is asking public servants and other people for restraint, not to go to the hospital because there are not enough beds, to cut back and so on. And here we are giving away $8.9 billion in grants. Think of that!
From Vancouver today, Allan Fotheringham, the Southam News columnist, writes that we should look into the salaries of some senior executives in the oil industry in this period of restraint. He quotes a report of the United States Securities Exchange Commission. That commission requires that all companies that are traded publicly disclose all facts, material or otherwise that may affect the company's business. We do not have that kind of law in Canada, so you have to go to the United States to find out the salaries of senior officials and senior executives.
According to that report, the salary of the Imperial Oil Chairman, Jack Armstrong, eased upward from $408,850 to $480,700. Poor Mr. Armstrong and Imperial Oil! The government gave Imperial Oil-I found this out in committee-$45 million to continue Cold Lake for a year. It was put on hold and Imperial just pocketed our $45 million, and Mr. Armstrong pockets $480,000 a year.
Mr. Pierce, the chairman of Ranger Oil, managed to get by with an increase from his last year's salary of $233,639 to $398,053. Is that not incredible! Just think of these large salaries and these large increases, and then think of the government in this bill giving $8.9 billion to oil companies!
The Conservatives criticize the bill because they are worried about a clause in the Charter of Rights, which they did not like in the first place. They are worried about bureaucracy in the bill. But at no time do they say that it is obscene to give $8.9 billion to an industry that says "We do not want government looking after us." If they want government to get out of their lives, let government get out of their lives. Let them do their exploration on their own, without $8.9 billion in PIP grants.
The system that we have in this country is screwy; it is upside down. Perhaps "Radical Harv" when he was a student radical in the 1960s had a different way of looking at things, but it seems to me that it is crazy, when we have so much need in medicare, in education, in job creation and so on, to give $8.9 billion to oil companies.
There will be some exploration and jobs will be created, but that will be in the north and offshore. Exploration will be done in the north by Gulf, Imperial and perhaps Dome, if Dome survives. It will be done in the Hibernia field by Mobil. Those are large American multinational companies. Have we not learned the pattern and that oil companies will want more money? Then they will go out and come back and say they have found more oil and gas, and they will want to export it, like they did one-half of their daily oil production in 1970. After they have done that, they will say there is a shortage. They will say there is a crisis, and they will come back and ask for more money. It is a never-ending circle. It is a Catch-22 situation.

June 10, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
1 had to sit here the other night and listen to nonsense from members of the official opposition in their attacks on the government in relation to this bill. Members of the official opposition are inconsistent. According to the Gallup poll, if an election were held tomorrow 1 suppose members of the official opposition would form the government, but it would be a government with no policy. They would give Petro-Canada away to the oil companies. They would give even more money to the oil companies. Do the Canadian people really want that? I ask the Canadian people, through you, Mr. Speaker, and through the media, to think about that. I ask the Canadian people to think about who wants to give more money to the oil companies because that is what the Conservatives have been saying.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre is the "Chicago Sevener" of this House. The other day he said in this House that he would get rid of Crown corporations, including Petro-Canada. That is his policy. That may be the policy of the blue Tories, but it is not the policy of the red Tories. Perhaps it is the policy of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) but not that of Mr. Mulroney. This is a very serious matter and the official opposition should be consistent.
There is another problem, and 1 have dealt with it in this amendment. The money provided by this bill is to be used to develop the north and offshore, but mainly in the Canadian Arctic. The government is moving out of Alberta, which is a silly policy. We should be developing the heavy oil in the Lloydminster-Wainwright area. That would provide many jobs. I received a call from Mr. Peter Susa, a representative of the steelworkers' union at the Interprovincial pipe plant at Regina. He told me that on July 14, 1982, Ipsco will lay off 516 workers for an indefinite period; 311 at Regina steel, 105 at Regina pipe, 86 at Edmonton, 80 at Port Moody and three at Brooks, Alberta. After September 30, 1982, that number will increase to 1,000. There would not be those lay-offs if the government was operating and helping in the regular industry in Alberta and Saskatchewan rather than going up to the north where American companies will be doing the basic exploration. Small Canadian contractors will not be there.
When the New Democratic Party toured Alberta, we were told at Edmonton by the ESA that its members would not be able to go up into the Canadian Arctic. They want to be close to home; that is where their jobs are.
There is another concern up in the Canadian Arctic when we go-1 was about to say "hell bent for development". Perhaps that is unparliamentary. Perhaps 1 should say "all bent for development". The problem is in relation to the native people there. They live there. It is their home, their land and their country. That is why we are introducing this amendment.
Our Motion No. 2 sets out certain objects and refers to the objects section of the Northern Pipeline Act of 1978, Section 3, which was passed by this House. The purpose of this objects section is to make clear that the petroleum incentives program must serve national and local public interests as well as provide incentives for the development of the oil and gas potential of the Canada lands. The Northwest Territories are singled out in this amendment because the other Canada lands described in Clause 2 of this bill are submarine areas, and the local public
interest is accordingly less a matter of local public debate- unless we want to include fish! There are no people there, but there are people in the north. There are native people who are the majority. There are Inuit and Dene people in the Beaufort Sea area, for example. This bill does nothing for them. It does not mention them. They were hardly even consulted about this bill. That is the Ottawa way of doing things. We put one ad in the Yellowknife newspaper to tell the people about this bill and to tell them they could come to the committee. When they came to the committee, at first they had trouble being heard but, thanks to the generosity of the members of the committee, they were able to be heard.
In passing, I want to pay tribute to the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) for his chairmanship of the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation. He did a good job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is the last good thing I will say about those fellows opposite.


Marc Lalonde: Now you will stop being honest.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Hon. members opposite should be putting this amendment in. The amendment deals with local participation in all aspects of oil and gas. I see the minister over there. We could continue this debate for a long time. 1 put it to the minister again that one would expect him to understand the interests and desires of a local group fighting for its rights and culture. That is what Canadian people in the north want.
We talked about the issues of the sixties, and I made fun of the hon. member for Calgary Centre. I said he was the Jerry Rubin of this House. One of the issues in the United States in the sixties was the treatment of minority groups, especially black people, with some dignity. The Americans passed a number of civil rights acts. We have never faced up to that in Canada. We have a problem in Canada. We like to talk about how bad South Africa, the United States and other places are, but the way we treat our native people in this country is shameful and we have to change. This House is the place to change. The native people are the majority in the north. This bill deals with giving grants for speeding up exploration in the north, especially in the Beaufort Sea area and the western Arctic, but what do we do about consulting local people? Nothing. This amendment simply says that as part of the statement of objects in this bill, we should try to maximize economic benefits to the people who are there. The amendment reads:
-at the same time minimizing any adverse effect on the social and environmental conditions of the areas most directly affected-
A native chief, Sam Raddi, told a federal government inquiry that there is a story the native people tell. His father told him and his father's father told his father. The story is passed down through the generations. The story is that if the animals ever disappear from the Beaufort Sea area-the cariboo, the whale and the seal-then the people go next.
June 10, 1982

There is much we could learn from native people. We could gain much wisdom about life from them. If we do not look after our environment, we will disappear because we are part of that environment. That is what we have to learn.
That is why we have introduced a clause like this. It talks about local participation in oil and gas development. It does not require the government to do anything in terms of levying tax. The Crown does not have to spend money. All the amendment says is that the government must consider local development. It must consider the native people and the people who call that area their home. Most Canadians live in the south of Canada along a strip right across the country which is near the United States. Some people still think about the north. There is good will in southern Canada for the north-even in Toronto-because Canadians are a northern people. When we deal with the north in any of these bills we should not forget the people there. I think in southern Canada there is support for northern interests.
All we ask is that the government adopt this amendment which will give firm protection to the north and will show some concern for the native people who call the north their home.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of Motion No. 2 introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) and to express my appreciation for the job he has done in raising what I consider the real issues of this whole energy package.
Our concern with this bill is that it proposes a massive incentive program for the oil companies without any guaranteed benefits for the Canadian people. The idea of an incentive is to give some person or some organization a reason for taking action. By making provision for the payment of some $8.9 billion to the oil companies, the government is giving them plenty of reason to act but is rather vague about the actions it requires from them, other than simply that they should spend money on petroleum exploration and development of the Canada lands.
The bill sets out the framework for paying $8.9 billion of taxpayers' money to the oil companies so that the federal government can do an end run around the petroleum producing provinces.
In Hamlet there is an interesting situation in which Hamlet, sitting by the graveside, considers the whole cycle of human mortality-how a person can die and rot and become earth that in turn nurtures food that goes into other human beings. Then he says that in this way a king can do a progress through the guts of a beggar. Under PIP, the money of poor people paid out in taxes does a progress through the guts of the bureaucracy and ends up in the pockets of the oil companies.
This amendment sets out the objects which we believe the act should achieve. If we are to have incentives, then they should be directed toward goals that are in accord with our
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
national purpose. Simply shovelling money out to the companies may be a well-established Canadian custom but it hardly constitutes a national goal around which all Canadians of intelligence and good will can unite.
The amendment sets out some objectives which should be an integral part of any incentive program. Some of these objectives have been overlooked. The amendment states, in part, as follows:
The objects of this Act are:
(1) To provide a petroleum incentive program;
There is no question about that, Mr. Speaker. Providing $8.9 billion to the oil companies will give them plenty of incentive. The remaining five objectives set out the benefits that should accrue to Canadians as a result of this $8.9 billion. Let us consider the merits of these objectives and ask how well the bill measures up to them. Does the bill promote these objectives as well as it promotes giving money to the oil companies? The second objective reads:
To foster greater self-sufficiency of oil and gas supplies in Canada;
The question of self-sufficiency in oil and gas has been at the centre of Canadian political debate for the last decade. All parties agree that energy self-sufficiency is a desirable objective. Certainly it is one of the standards against which PIP should be measured.
We have serious questions about whether $8.9 billion for the oil companies is the way to achieve self-sufficiency. That $8.9 billion could be used in ways to achieve much more, such as enhanced recovery, an increased program of conservation and putting money into alternate energy. If we consider some of the situations in which we are involved we find, for example, that Dome, in exchange for Japanese financing, has already promised to export petroleum resources from the Beaufort. We have to ask how increased exports will lead to greater selfsufficiency. We know very well that it will not. We travelled this route ten or fifteen years ago and that is why we are facing the present crisis.
The third objective is:
To promote development of oil and gas fields on Canada lands.
The act will indeed do this by providing up to 80 per cent of drilling and exploration costs. This is one of the objectives of the act and it should be stated as such. We have to ask how desirable this goal is. Is it to the advantage of Canadians to pay $8.9 billion for a program that ignores more accessible petroleum reserves in the western provinces? Is drilling in the Beaufort Sea, with all the attendant environmental risks, the best way to achieve energy security in Canada? We have to ask if it is in our own best interests as a nation to encourage the economic equivalent of a pre-emptive strike on land that is still subject to land claims negotiations. Is it really part of our national character to deal craftily with the aboriginal people of the north, guaranteeing them aboriginal rights in the Constitution but eroding those rights and circumscribing them by this legislation which gives out incentives for development on lands for which claims are under negotiation?

June 10, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
The fourth objective is this:
To facilitate, in relation to oil and gas development, consultation and coordination with the governments of the provinces, the Yukon Territory, and the Northwest Territories;
Canada is a federal state and co-operation should be the hallmark of any energy legislation. Where the government was unable to get along with the producing provinces which have a degree of sovereignty in their own sphere, it simply picked up its marbles and headed for the territories where it hopes it can still reign supreme. No consultation with the territories has taken place. No revenue-sharing agreement has been reached with them. Instead, the territories will be completely dependent upon the largesse and generosity of the federal government-as the 13 American colonies were dependent upon George III. The government seems to be about as stupid and insensitive as George III. Perhaps it should look at history to see what happened there.
The people of the north are tired of exploitation without consultation. They object to the imposition of a form of development that denies their basic right to determine their own future. There is a need to return to co-operative federalism and to include the territories.
The fifth objective reads:
To maximize the social and economic benefits from the oil and gas developments on Canada Lands, including the maximizing of the opportunities for employment of Canadians while at the same time minimizing any adverse effect on the social and environmental conditions of the areas most directly affected by the oil and gas developments;
The question "What's in it for me?" may not be satisfactory as a total human philosophy, but it is a pretty important question for most Canadians today. We know that each of us will have to pay a pretty hefty chunk of that $8.9 billion, at a time when we have trouble raising money for housing, for health care and for higher education. It is important that we ask what are we getting for it in the way of jobs, and how many. Will there be enough for my kids coming out of school, where will they be, how long will they last and how much will they pay? With two million Canadians out of work these are not frivolous questions. Unfortunately, while this should be an objective of the incentive program, there is nothing in the bill which says how it would meet this objective. There are no guarantees, the incentives are only for exploration and development, and there is no requirement for performance in terms of job creation.
The second part of this objective talks about minimizing adverse effects on the people most affected. We have to recognize that oil drilling and exploration in the north will mean major disruption in the lifestyle of northern people. Unfortunately there is nothing in this incentive program which even asks the companies to raise that as a concern. The record of the government is one of dragging its feet on land claims negotiations and cutting back on money for environmental grants.
I am pleased to see the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) is here today and I would be interested in hearing his comments on the fact that the Beaufort Sea coalition has had its grants cut back by some 62 per cent. How are we going to be concerned about the environment at the same time as we are cutting back on the money? There was a promise of $10 million to help the people of the north deal with the social impact of the Norman Wells pipeline, but none of it has materialized. It is important that this bill recognizes as an objective the need to maximize the benefits and minimize the adverse effects; then we can measure the program to see how well it delivers.
The final objective is:
To advance national economic and energy interests and local public interest in social and economic development by ensuring the highest possible degree of Canadian participation in general, and local participation in particular, in all aspects of the oil and gas development in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
Basically we want guarantees to the highest possible extent of Canadian and local participation. The people who suffer the adverse effects should get some of the benefits. But the bill does not do that.
When we were debating Bill C-48 last year and looking at its basic philosophy, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way pointed out time and again that the numbers regarding Canadian ownership could be and would be fiddled. If we look at the first major contract given out under that bill, we see that Esso, with about 30 per cent Canadian ownership, has formed some kind of a paper consortium involving ten other companies so that it will have some kind of Canadian content and be able to get the money from the Canadian people.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, does not really achieve the goals it should. I think we should at least have a statement of our objectives, and we can then see whether or not it measures up. Therefore, I urge the adoption of this amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
June 10, 1982


Marc Lalonde: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-104, An Act respecting petroleum incentives and Canadian ownership and control determination and to amend the Foreign Investment Review Act, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 22 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"the applicant has a prescribed interest or has or had".


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


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


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-104, An Act respecting petroleum incentives and Canadian ownership and control determination and to amend the Foreign Investment Review Act, be amended in Clause 10
(a)	by striking out lines 5 to 16 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"for 1981-1986, 50% or more but less than 65%;"
(b)	by striking out lines 18 to 30 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"for 1981-1986, 65% or more but less than 75%; and"
(c)	by striking out lines 32 to 38 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"for 1981-1986, 75% or more."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the PIP grants is to promote greater private Canadian ownership in the industry. The higher the Canadian ownership rate, COR, the greater the grant. When the NEP was first introduced in 1980, presumably after much consideration and determination by cabinet- although I wonder-they agreed to push ahead with Canadi-anization as rapidly as possible. The COR levels were in three categories: zero to 50 per cent; 50 per cent to 75 per cent; over 75 per cent. Because of intense lobbying by the industry, including Conservative members, the COR levels have been reduced and an intermediate category has been added.
The effect of this amendment will be to institute a 50 per cent to 64 per cent COR for level 2 beginning in 1981, a 65 per cent to 74 per cent COR for level 3 beginning in, 1981, and a 75 per cent plus COR for level 4 beginning in 1981, instead of phasing in percentage levels as presently in the bill.
The Liberals, Mr. Speaker, have decided to Canadianize. You know their motto very well: "Don't do anything by half that you can do by quarters." This bill is an example of that. Canadianization is not a yacht race, you do not have to tack and weave and so on. It seems to me that if you have a goal, you approach the goal.
We in the NDP would not Canadianize in this way. It is unworkable, bureaucratic, and a big giveaway to Imperial Oil and its friends. But this is the way the government has chosen to Canadianize. It seems to me that if they are going to Canadianize by way of private Canadian industry, then they
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
should do it in a straightforward way. Do not tack all over the place. The government should have some tough Canadian ownership rates. If we do not have some tough Canadian ownership rates, we will have what the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Island (Mr. Manly) said a moment ago-that Imperial Oil will be going into the Beaufort Sea involved in a consortium of companies and the paper consortiums will be doing all the work.
During the committee hearings we were told by representatives of Home Oil that Home Oil goes where it can get the best return. Home Oil will go to Australia, the North Sea or wherever. Home Oil is not perhaps as interested in Canadian-izing or exploring in Canada as we may want them to be. Home Oil's representatives said they would look at the north but Home would be part of a consortium of companies. We will have the same old gang going up north. It will include Gulf and Imperial, which is the same old gang.
This amendment points out one of the defects in the government's energy program. It shows one of the patterns that has emerged from the government's energy program and that is the pattern of backing off. When there is pressure from the industry, the government backs off. That is why the federal government gave the industry $2 billion the other day. The government then sells out. It has sold out on consumer prices. Along with the Conservatives, the Liberal Party is a high-priced party in Canada. The Liberals are even worse than the Conservatives because the Liberals are not going to give any money back as an energy tax credit to low and middle-income people. Instead the government is going to give $8.9 billion in grants to the oil companies.
This money will be given mostly to the large companies because the large oil companies are the ones that will go north in phony consortiums. That is why we have brought in this amendment. If the government wants to pursue this form of Canadianization, let the government bring in some tough Canadianization rules. As I have said before, the government should not be backing off and doing things by quarters when the government could be doing it in total.
Canadians are ready for leadership in Canadianization. I do not agree with the Conservatives in this debate when they pooh-pooh Canadianization. Canadians are ready for it. I think Canadians want public ownership. They want us to use Petro-Canada. David Lewis, Tommy Douglas and the rest of us in the New Democratic Party dragged the Liberals kicking and screaming into bringing in Petro-Canada. Now that we have it, why do we not use it? Why give $8.9 billion to companies that say, "We are for free enterprise; we want to get the government off our backs."? Let the government get off their backs and not give them this $8.9 billion. The government can give the money to people in my riding in the east end of Vancouver who had trouble last winter paying their hydro bills. Luckily, we had a mild winter in Vancouver.

June 10, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act


Mr. Blaikie:: We should get the oil companies off the people's backs.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My colleague says we should get the oil companies off the people's backs, but we will not if we give them $8.9 billion. It seems to me it is the other way around.
In any event, this amendment proposes to say to the Liberals "Quit backtracking; get on with the job. Make it tough if you are going to do this, otherwise Canadianization through PIP and COR will simply fall apart." I invite the government to accept the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 4. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section I 1 of Standing Order 75, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, you were good enough to reply to my submission the other night with respect to Motion No. 5. The Chair ruled it out of order. The hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) must have passed me his notes because I made mistake when I suggested-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, the Chair yesterday again ruled the hon. member's motion out of order. There is no further discussion on the matter.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-104, an act respecting petroleum incentives and Canadian ownership and control determination and to amend the Foreign Investment Review Act, be amended by adding immediately after line 38 at page 7 the following:
"12.(1) Notwithstanding this Act, any aboriginal right, title or interest, or any claim under such right, title or interest that any aboriginal people in Canada may have had prior to the coming into force of this Act, in and to the land which is herein described as Canada Lands, continues to exist until an agreement with that aboriginal people is effected which provides otherwise. (2) In this act, "aboriginal people" means those people described in Section 35(2) of the Canada Act."


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Motion No. 6 is similar to an amendment that was accepted for Bill C-48. It is necessary to assure the aboriginal people of the north that we continue to regard their rights as being paramount. The guarantee in the Constitution is not something they regard as adequate. I think
it is important that we have this amendment accepted. In the native claims policy entitled "In All Fairness", tabled in December, 1981, by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), we find on page 23 the following:
Lands selected by Natives for their continuing use should be traditional land that they currently use and occupy: but persons of non-Native origin who have acquired for various purposes, rights in the land in the area claimed, are equally deserving of consideration. Their rights and interests must be dealt with equitably.
Other basic access rights must be taken into consideration: rights of access such as transportation routes within and through a settlement area; rights of way for necessary government purposes; rights of access to holders of subsurface rights for exploration, development and production of resources, subject to fair compensation as mutually agreed either through negotiation or arbitration.
This places the whole question of Indian land rights and aboriginal rights on a par with the rights of big corporations that have acquired financial interests in the area. I think it is absolutely essential that there be some protection for the aboriginal rights of the people of the north. This is in accord with previous guarantees. I urge the government to accept this amendment.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly on this amendment. I will perhaps say something about the other motions afterwards. As we are all agreed to the government motions, perhaps we can proceed with them right away and have the vote before five o'clock.
With respect to what my colleague said, it is important that we put something in this bill to recognize that there are aboriginal rights in this particular area. I am amazed how powerful the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) seems to be in the cabinet. He is nodding and saying how he appreciates that. But the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) have completely lost in their dealings on the north. The little white knight of the Department of the Environment has been slain by the dragon of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Department of the Environment has really been thrown out of the north and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has won the battle and has developed the north in every respect.
The Minister of the Environment should pay some attention to what the native people up there have been saying. He should pay some attention to the fact that if there is an oil spill in the Beaufort Sea-as there will be, although I hope not-as we speed up exploration, we will have an environmental disaster of a proportion that we have never seen before. It will be worse than the blow-out in the Gulf of Mexico, because we will not be able to stop it.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Plug the holes with cabinet ministers. They are sticky enough.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My colleague says we should try to plug the hole with cabinet ministers. In any event, what we have tried to do is consult with the Dene people. I understand that the
June 10, 1982

native people from Alaska to Greenland have an interest in the development of the north. They had suggested to us that they have a consultative council so they could be consulted at least when the development went ahead and when the minister authorized grants and directed exploration in the north. They felt they were not listened to when we debated Bill C-48. They do not have the kind of lobby which the industry has. They do not have the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), the pimp of the oil industry here, to raise arguments for them. They do not have money to put advertisements in newspapers. They do not have money to do that kind of thing. There is really no one to speak for the native people of the country. That is why we have put in these amendments and we urge the government to adopt them.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) on a point of order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the rest of the amendments, unless I am mistaken, are government amendments. Is that correct?


Marc Lalonde: Correct.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Then I would have no objection on behalf of my party, whatever is the proper procedure, to agreeing to their being put through now and dispensing with the reading of them. We would be prepared to let them go now, and we could have the vote on our amendments, if possible.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the remaining amendments are in the name of the minister. If the opposition agrees to them, of course we are willing to accept that. But I would like to know whether the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) agrees or not. If they still have something to say, perhaps they could say it on third reading. We are openminded.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would like an opportunity to make about five minutes' worth of remarks, and then I would concur with the agreement. First I should like to point out that
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
by last count the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) this afternoon called me a "storm trooper", an "SS", and I think he referred to me as a "pimp".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: I have not had a chance-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member used this language, it is unparliamentary. The Chair missed it, I invite the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, if he used the expression just described by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), to withdraw such a remark because it is clearly unparliamentary.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Which expression was it, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The reference to the hon. member as a "pimp", I believe I will have to rule unparliamentary.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I originally read the word when it was used by the previous hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands, Tommy Douglas. He used it in the House of Commons. He seemed to get away with it, but if Your Honour feels that way, I would be pleased to withdraw it, and I withdraw the reference to the SS. I meant SDS, Students for Democratic Society, which I suspect was the radical group with which my friend was involved in the 1960s.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not object to the hon. member describing me as a radical student from the 1960s, provided that he does not insist that I grow a beard, let my hair get long and shaggy, wear jeans, sandals and the other accoutrements or parts of the uniform that go along with being in that category!


Marc Lalonde: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-104, An Act respecting petroleum incentives and Canadian ownership and control determination and to amend the Foreign Investment Review Act, be amended in Clause 21 by adding immediately after line 30 at page 11 the following:
"(*/) requiring notices to be submitted to the Minister by or on behalf of persons who have received incentives that are greater or less than the amounts to which they are entitled, specifying the time limits within which such notices shall be submitted and providing for the extension by the Minister of such times limits;"
and by renumbering the subsequent paragraphs of that Clause accordingly.


Marc Lalonde: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-104, An Act respecting petroleum incentives and Canadian ownership and control determination and to amend the Foreign Investment Review Act, be amended in Clause 30 by striking out line 4 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"(4) For greater certainty the Federal Court of Appeal has jurisdiction, under section 28 of the Federal Court Act, on any ground set out in section 28 of that Act, to hear and determine an application to review and set aside a determination of the Minister under subsection (1) of this section.
(5) Interest referred to in section 24 or"

June 10, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act


Marc Lalonde: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-104, An Act respecting petroleum incentives and Canadian ownership and control determination and to amend the Foreign Investment Review Act, be amended in Clause 35
(a)	by striking out line 27 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor: "equity within the meaning of the regulations, the percentage of the formal"
(b)	by striking out line 31 at page 16 substituting the following therefor:
"more than one class of formal equity within the meaning of the regulations,".


Marc Lalonde: Motion No. 10
That Bill C-104, An Act respecting petroleum incentives and Canadian ownership and control determination and to amend the Foreign Investment Review Act, be amended in Clause 39 by striking out line 41 at page 21 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) Subject to subsection (6) and section".


Marc Lalonde: 
Marc Lalonde: Motion No. 12
That Bill C-104, An Act respecting petroleum incentives and Canadian ownership and control determination and to amend the Foreign Investment Review Act, be amended in Clause 45
(a)	by adding immediately after line 3 at page 27 the following:
"(4) Notwithstanding anything in this Part, where the Minister is of the opinion that the Canadian ownership rate or control status stated in a certificate was not determined in accordance with this Part and the regulations to the prejudice of the person to whom the certificate was issued, the Minister shall redetermine the Canadian ownership rate or control status in accordance with this Part and the regulations and issue a new certificate accordingly."
(b)	by striking out line 5 at page 27 and substituting the following therefor: "subsection (2) or (4) shall replace any certificate in"
(c)	by renumbering subclauses (4) and (5) at page 27 as subclauses (5) and (6), respectively.


Marc Lalonde: Motion No. 13
That Bill C-104, An Act respecting petroleum incentives and Canadian ownership and control determination and to amend the Foreign Investment Review Act, be amended in Clause 48 by adding immediately after line 23 at page 30 the following:
"(7) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Minister may exempt an applicant for a certificate from the application of this section or any provision thereof in respect of any investor that is Fler Majesty in right of Canada or a province or an entity all or substantially all of the formal equity or assets of which are owned, directly or indirectly, by Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province."


Marc Lalonde: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-104, An Act respecting petroleum incentives and Canadian ownership and control determination and to amend the Foreign Investment
Review Act, be amended in Clause 52 by striking out lines 4 and 5 at page 32 and substituting the following therefor:
"nation of the Canadian ownership rate of any person or class of'.


Marc Lalonde: Motion No. 15
That Bill C-104, An Act respecting petroleum incentives and Canadian ownership and control determination and to amend the Foreign Investment Review Act, be amended in Clause 53 by striking out lines 14 and 15 at page 33 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canadian ownership rate of the Canadian ownership rate and control status of the applicant and the effective period".


Marc Lalonde: Motion No. 16
That Bill C-104, An Act respecting petroleum incentives and Canadian ownership and control determination and to amend the Foreign Investment Review Act, be amended
(a)	by adding immediately after line 25 at page 34, the following:
"Judicial Review
59. Notwithstanding subsection 28(2) of the Federal Court Act, where a person is directly affected by a determination or redetermination of Canadian ownership rate by the Minister under subsection 39(2), 44( 1) or 53( I), he may apply to the Federal Court of Appeal for a review under section 28 of the Federal Court Act, whether or not the determination or redetermination is of an administrative nature not required by law to be made on a judicial or quasijudicial basis, by filing a notice of the application in the Federal Court within thirty days after the determination or redetermination is made or within such further time as the Federal Court of Appeal or a judge thereof may, either before or after the expiration of those thirty days, fix or allow."
(b)	by renumbering Clauses 59 to 63 at pages 34 to 37 as Clauses 60 to 64, respectively.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the remainder of the motions brought forward by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), the bulk of them are technical in nature. The last one, motion No. 16, provides for a judicial review of certain ministerial decisions. I should like to indicate frankly that I welcome that addition by the government. It arose from submissions made before the committee by numerous groups, such as the Canadian Bar Association and so on. I offer it as an example of where this procedure in fact worked very well.
The government has indicated that this is an improvement. It has satisfied the very sincere objections of numerous witnesses who appeared before the committee. I would put it down on the plus side as one of the good things which came out of the radical student activist procedures of the early part of March.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I gather that there is unanimous consent of the House that Motions Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 be carried. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Therefore it is agreed unanimously that these motions be carried.
Motions Nos. 7 to 16 inclusive (Mr. Lalonde) agreed to.
June 10, 1982


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That leaves three of our amendments, Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 6. Subject to what the hon. member for Calgary Centre and the minister have to say, I would certainly be agreeable to having one vote on all three amendments; they could be grouped together. I have not had a chance to talk to my hon. friend. 1 do not know if he has had time to look at them.


Yvon Pinard: Agreed.


Harvie Andre: Perhaps we can work something out while the bells are ringing. We would support motions Nos. 2 and 6 but not Motion No. 4. Perhaps something could be worked out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of Bill C-104.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

After the ringing of the bells:
Madam Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 2. Do 1 understand that the vote on this motion will dispose also of Motion No. 6? Is that agreed by the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Allmand:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not vote on those motions because I came in after the question was put.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 4.


Madam Speaker:: i declare the motion lost.
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: that the bill as amended be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if you seek unanimous consent for third reading to be dealt with later this day, I think you will obtain it.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give its unanimous consent to this proposition?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-104, respecting petroleum incentives and Canadian ownership and control determination and to amend the Foreign Investment Review Act, be read the third time and do pass.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I propose to speak at third reading. I understand, however, that there is now to be a private members' hour. I would like to know if the private members' hour is between now and six o'clock. If it is not, 1 will speak at third reading of the bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Madam Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Public Works-Task force report on payments of grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)- Industry-(a) Quality of rails produced by Sydney Steel Corporation (b) Importation of rails; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-Petro-Canada-(a) Acquisition of Petrofina-Collection of tax; (b) Canadian ownership charge.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.
Shall the order under private bills stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House shall now proceed to the consideration of notices of motions (papers). Shall all items preceding No. 36 stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 10, 1982


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South) moved:: That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all communications, transcripts or notes of interviews, memos, notes of telephone conversations, applications for grants, bursaries and fellowships between the government through the International Development Research Centre and any other person or group requesting or being considered for financial grants from the International Development Research Centre, particularly relating to financial grants or fellowships or financial sponsorship to individuals who hold or held elected or appointed office in governments of other countries or who were or are members of recognized political parties in other foreign nations.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the most salient point of this debate is freedom of information but there is an underlying point and that is the profligate spending of the Grit government on the other side of the House; in reality, it is the total squandering of taxpayers' dollars and then not wanting to account for it.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Maltais) did not wish to tell me, and thus did not wish to tell the Canadian people, on whom, where and why the International Development Research Centre spends Canadian taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. The IDRC has budgeted for 1982-83 to the tune of $59 million but the government does not want to answer questions about it.
There is no open government on the benches opposite; there is no freedom of information with the government and there is no autonomy either. One thing there is, however, and that is moral turpitude. The government does not believe in or have any appreciation for the British democratic system of responsible government. The Freedom of Information Act, Bill C-43, has finally come before a committee but the warped thinking of the Liberals leads them to want to amend it to make the public establish its right to freedom of information. It looks as if the government wants to make a whole list of cabinet exclusions and exemptions to protect cabinet ministers even further and make them even more irresponsible. Bill C-43 could mean that taxpayers seeking information may be subjected to a judicial review before they can obtain information from this arrogant, unbending and unrepentant government.
This is the government that has destroyed our currency, destroyed our international credibility, that has given us the highest interest rates in history, that will not help the jobless, that will not help the mortgage holder and that will not help the farmer or the small businessman. Now it will not give out information on increased aid spending.
I do not think there is a Canadian alive who does not want to give aid to Third World countries if and when that aid is desperately needed, Mr. Speaker. At the moment, however,
1,250,000	Canadians are unemployed. Interest rates are high. A business is going bankrupt every 20 minutes in this country. But do we cut down on foreign aid, the irresponsible spending
International Development Research Centre
part of it that does not make sense? No, Mr. Speaker; instead we increase it.
Let us examine the reasoning behind my request for the production of papers, Mr. Speaker. First, there is the fact that the Liberal Party has been infiltrated by a cell of left-leaning demagogues headed by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Second, this government is made up of a bevy of profligate spendthrifts throwing taxpayers' money away with abandon, particularly to leftist states. Third, it is a government that was elected to govern, not to rule, but it has been ruling by orders in council and by secrecy for the last 14 years. It is a government which is not responding to the will of the people. It is a government that is not supplying information not only to the people but to the official opposition, of which I am proud to be a member.
The government is bankrupt of new ideas to increase our own productivity. That is what is needed before we can help any Third World countries and before we can help ourselves. If we are to be successful we must increase productivity and our GNP before we can aid the Third World in a constructive manner.
The government, in the guise of helping the Third World, has mismanaged millions of dollars through Cl DA and the IRDC and has flagrantly assisted left-wing regimes with Canadian taxpayers' money. All of this is taking place at a time when we could have used this funding. That $59 million could have been pumped into agri-bonds, into small business development loans, into farm credit, used to help people with their mortgages and to stave off bankruptcies.
Canadians want to know where their tax dollars are spent and so do members on this side of the House. They want to know who is receiving the aid. They want to be assured that it does not go to unstable or communist regimes. We want the government to spell out who receives our largesse and why they receive it. As our businesses go bankrupt, as farmers fail and as interest rates go through the ceiling and our dollar sinks to the lowest depths, we want to know. If the freedom of information bill were before us, this debate would probably not be necessary.
In the time that I have been in this House expenditure abuses have only come to light through the brown envelopes that find their way to members and occasionally through the Auditor General's report. The synopsis provided by the IDRC is vague if not incomprehensible. Cl DA is a horror story and everyone in Canada knows that. The figures show that.
An hon. member opposite set down question No. 3,515 on the Order Paper asking the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) how many people work for the Canadian International Development Agency, how many of them work in Ottawa and how many in countries where the agency gives aid, as well as the total salaries for staff outside Ottawa and in Ottawa. The answers are shocking, Mr. Speaker. In Ottawa-Hull 1,003 bureaucrats work for CIDA. In countries where CIDA provides development assistance, 54 people are employed for a total of 1,057 people. For the fiscal

June 10, 1982
International Development Research Centre
year 1981-82 the salary costs, including overtime and other costs, are estimated at $32,400,000. This is at a time when the government preaches restraint.
I should like to mention a few examples of where our aid money goes, Mr. Speaker. Ethiopia must have the best sorghum crop the world will ever see, because in four separate funding projects we gave that country a total of $1.36 million. In a dozen aid projects to the left-leaning Ethiopia the IDRC invested a total of $3.2 million.
I should like to know why we invested $290,000 to develop the impact of tourism on Asia? Is that very important to Canadians who are losing their jobs? Why did we invest $73,700 in the Cuban lobster fishery? Tanzania, under the dictatorship of Mr. Nyerere, was a favourite target of IDRC. It is one of Canada's favourite aid clients. In the three fiscal years of 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, Canada gave this Marxist dictatorship $91,541 million. Of this, $78.92 million was in grants-not loans, but grants. If that $78 million had been put into small business or agriculture in this country, we would have started getting back to work again.
We gave that friendly little country of Iran $292,000. We gave Algeria, with its dictator, $380,000. In separate funding and nothing to do with the $100 million we already gave, Mr. Manley of Jamaica received $828,000 for four projects. Mali is another left-leaning country and it received $1.13 million. El Salvador received $385,000. The friendly Belgian Congo received $105,000 for the improvement of nut crops. The biggest crop of nuts is sitting opposite, Mr. Speaker!
All of this money was given to hostile regimes and dictatorships at a time when Canadians are out of work, mortgages are uncontrollable, and interest rates make it impossible for anything to work right-even with all the grease that the government applies.
These are just a few of the giveaways that I wanted to address, which is why I asked for this debate. We would like to know why this money is being spent, where, what the countries are, and we would like to see all the documentation to show that it is nothing but profligate spending. CIDA's budget last year was $1.45 billion, escalating to $1.74 billion this year. This is double the per capita contributions of the United States. What a fallacy! President Reagan has cut foreign aid to $5.1 billion; ours has gone up to $1.74 billion, and the government wants to raise it to 0.7 per cent of the GNP by the end of the decade.
How many more billions will that be to build statues, to build sewage systems which fall into the sea, to help Haiti cancel it because it was not managed property? We are giving the Czechs a $300 million sweetheart loan to build a phosphate pulp mill, the better to compete against our forest products industry. We are helping to modernize Cuba's airports, the better for them to launch bombers and fighters and provide smooth landing for planes from the U.S.S.R. We are lending the U.S.S.R. $1 billion at fire sale interest rates, perhaps as
low as 7.8 per cent, for a gas pipeline. It is a litany of trial and error and mismanagement. These are not just my words, believe me. All you have to do Mr. Speaker, is look at the 1979 Auditor General's report which says:
A significant factor affecting CIDA's Estimates is that it has been obliged to obtain legal authority for its operations through appropriations acts, because there is no act of Parliament establishing the Agency and delineating its authority.
Imagine, they are spending almost $2 billion of taxpayers' money without authority. It goes on:
For example, in the 1979-80 Estimates, Vote L40 will appropriate SI to establish authority for a statutory item to purchase shares in the Inter-American Development Bank.
Another one of those dollar votes where you have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to understand the bookkeeping principles of this government. What does that $1 vote mean? It goes on:
The estimated cost of these shares is $310 million (U.S.).
That is what is hidden in there. The report says:
The present form of the Estimates is prescribed by the Treasury Board. We found several weaknesses in this format that limited CIDA's disclosure of information to Parliament.
That crew across the way goes on and on. Mr. Speaker, let us look at Volume I of the Public Accounts of Canada for the year 1981 and really get into it and see what is going on over there, and why we are in the trouble we are in. It says:
Loans to national governments consist mainly of the loan to the Government of the United Kingdom under the authority of the United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act, and special loan assistance to developing countries.
Table 6.8 presents a summary of the balances and transactions for the various types of loans and advances that were made to national governments including developing countries.
It makes very interesting reading. For instance, the first item is "China-Finance $49,426,118". A little later on it says:
An interest-free loan to China was authorized under the Export Credits Insurance Act.
We borrow money at 17 per cent or 18 per cent and give $750 million to the Governor of the Bank of Canada to prop up our dollar, but we can lend money to China interest free. Then there is Greece, March 31, 1981, $6,525,000. Then it says:
An interest-free loan to Greece was authorized by PC 1932-2630.
We know what they are, those little orders in council. Parliament does not get to hear about them. Then it says:
Partial settlement has been negotiated as at April I, 1981, and parliamentary authority to write off the balance during 1981 -82 is being sought.
It says "partial settlement" and "write off the balance". Write it off, boys! We have all kinds of money. We can go out and borrow more and put some more people out of their homes. Then there is Jamaica, $25 million as of March 31, 1981. This was extended August 9, 1981, with interest at 8.875 per cent.
I can go on and on with this absolutely damning litany, Mr. Speaker. Governments do not make money, governments spend money. When they spend it in this way, they should be turfed out. It is a sin.
June 10. 1982

Then there is the heading "Developing Countries-Special Loan Assistance". How many Canadians know what this government is doing with their hard-earned tax dollars? It says:
Special loan assistance is given to developing countries. During the year, additional loans to Turkey were authorized by votes-
The terms and conditions of loans to developing countries, with their year-end balances, are categorized into seven main groups:
(a)	20-year maturity, 5-year grace period at 5% interest per annum, maturing September 2000, $18,958,697;
(b)	25-year maturity, 5-year grace period at 6% interest per annum, maturing March 2001, $1,673,789;
(c)	30-year, maturity, 7-year grace period at 3% interest per annum, maturing at various dates between March 1997 and September 2011, $168,538,287;
(d)	30-year maturity, 7-year grace period interest-free, maturing March 2010, $1,960,057;
(e)	35-year maturity, 5-year grace period interest-free, maturing at various dates between April 2001 and November 2005; $3,820,444;
(0 40-year maturity, 10-year grace period interest-free, maturing March 2008, $861,654; and.
(g) 50-year maturity, 10-year grace period interset-free, maturing at various dates between March 2003 and March 2031, $1,953,618,922.
Interest-free, isn't that interesting? We sure have a lot of money in Canada. We cannot help home owners, small business or the farmer, but would you believe it, we can give 30, 40, even 50 year interest-free loans to other countries. When you look at those countries it makes very interesting reading to see the way they lean, because the ones that get the most attention are the ones that are the farthest to the left. Chile, Cuba, Algeria, Argentina, Belize, and on and on down through this litany of horrors until you come to a total of $2,149,431,850. That is what the government is doing with the hard earned taxpayers' money, borrowing it and giving it away.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, there is no one who does not want to help the Third World. But before anyone can help anyone else they have to be able to help themselves. That means pouring money into Canada for jobs and increased productivity, until we get our GNP up and then we can start to give it to the people, but only those who need it. These countries I have just mentioned certainly are not the people who need it. Take a look at the 1982-83 estimates. The government expenditure plan says:
Canada has traditionally been regarded as a country with a high level of active concern for international development.
That is true. It goes on:
The government has announced its intention to increase its level of Official Development Assistance with a view to achieving a target of 0.5 per cent of GNP by the mid-1980s and 0.7 per cent of GNP by the end of the decade.
In the last three months our GNP has gone down 1.8 per cent. Where is the sense? It says further:
Planned ODA levels of $1.724 million for 1982-83, $1.946 million in 1983-84, $2,270 million in 1984-85, and $2,631 million in 1985-86-
If half that were spent on creating jobs, on small business and agri-bonds, on reducing interest rates, what would it do for this country and our unemployed? It is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to see what CIDA's budget is for 1982-83. It is going to be a nice tidy $1,296 billion, up $188.8 million from 198182. This in a time of restraint, as the government talks about
International Development Research Centre
it. Tighten your belts. What a laugh! We will build another statue in Algeria, give a little more money to Belize and the skindiving buddy of the Prime Minister.
Let us take a look at the rest of it here. There is $896 million in bilateral loans, $299 million in investment and advances to international financial institutions and $332 million in reserves for new initiatives-I would love to see them-including Petro-Canada International. That is another beauty. We have a finance minister who is now the patron saint of Belgium for buying Petrofina stock at twice the price it should have been. As I said before, $59 million is going into the IDRC.
The questions I put on the Order Paper to have answered are: Who gets that money; what parties do they belong to; what countries do they belong to; and are they communist states? We on this side of the House want to know. The people of Canada want to know. People want their interest rates brought down. People want their mortgage rates brought down. But this government does not seem to be interested in that whatsoever. All of this came about because I asked the Prime Minister a simple question in the House one day.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, in presenting his ideas about development assistance today, the hon. member opposite has polarized his argument. He calls upon Canadians to choose between assistance to the needy at home and to the needy abroad. There is no need for such a choice. There is nothing mutually exclusive about providing assistance to those in our own society who require help and providing assistance to those in other countries who also need help. The great majority of Canadians support both such activities. We are not a people so devoid of a sense of responsibility for our fellow man that our sense of responsibility, that our sense of compassion, abruptly ends at our own borders. We are working at home to help ourselves but we are also working abroad to help others in need.
The hon. member opposite has directed our attention particularly to the activities of the International Development Research Centre. 1 welcome the occasion to say a word about the remarkable accomplishments of the centre during the decade since its inception. The IDRC unfortunately is not an institution well known to the Canadian people. I say unfortunately because it represents one of the real success stories in the continuing and often difficult, complex saga of international development. Were more Canadians aware of the accomplishments of this unique and imaginative organization, they would share the pride that many of us in the House have in that institution. Many of us have watched with admiration its growth, its evolution and its extraordinary success.
The centre was created some 11 years ago in response to a need articulated by the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson and a major World Bank study group which involved some of most distinguished experts in the field of development assistance. That commission found that of all research undertaken

June 10, 1982
International Development Research Centre
throughout the world, less than 3 per cent was in developing countries. Of even greater concern, some of that research, dictated by traditions of former colonial powers, was centred on activities not of direct interest to the developing countries themselves.
The commission accordingly recommended that urgent steps be taken to enhance the capacity in developing countries for indigenous research. The accuracy of the commission's assessment was amply borne out a decade later when the prime request of the developing countries at the United Nations Conference on Science and Technology on Development in Vienna asked the industrialized countries for assistance in enhancing their own indigenous research capacities. I recall that the Canadian government spokesman at that conference, the Hon. Martial Asselin, pointed out many of the accomplishments of the IDRC. The government of the day pledged additional resources to permit the centre to undertake a new program of linking needs of developing countries with Canadian research capacity. That new program has now been launched with the provision of funds by the present government scheduled to begin this fiscal year. It was, incidentally, at the Vienna conference that the International Development Research Centre was held up as an example for other industrialized countries capable of providing assistance to the developing world.
In short, from the time of its creation in 1971 until the present, IDRC has enjoyed all party support in this House and the continued confidence of Canadian governments. From the outset, the IDRC has been directed by an international board of governors as provided in its statutes and has concentrated its efforts on what has come to be called the "basic needs" sector. The centre consists of four major program divisions, the largest of which is devoted to agriculture and related nutritional sciences. Another of the divisions deals with health sciences. A third deals with social sciences and the fourth deals with information sciences. In all four divisions, concentration is on those persons living in rural areas of developing countries. In the agriculture sector, for example, emphasis is on the production of food crops indigenous to the area and not to cash crops planted for export, as was frequently the policy of colonial governments.
The International Development Research Centre has assisted through its efforts improvements in such crops as cassava, sorghum, millets and a variety of grain and legumes of sometimes exotic but always of a nutritious nature. Additionally, the centre is active in forestry and agroforestry, aquaculture, animal production and in post-production systems, including harvesting, drying, storage and milling of grain. In this respect, the centre was a charter member and continuing contributor to the consultative group on international agricultural research. For a lengthy period, the first president of the centre served as the Canadian member on the technical advisory committee of that group. The current president serves as a member of the board of trustees of the International Food Policy Research Institute.
In the health sciences, the centre's activities deal with such areas as health care delivery services, co-operation with the World Health Organization tropical disease program, and with sanitation and water purity questions. In the social area, the centre has concentrated on funding of research in a broad range of sectors, including science and technology policy, economics, education and associated problems. These studies have assisted developing countries to formulate wise policies leading to the design of more effective development strategies.
The information sciences division, the fourth which I noted, was created to assist developing countries in the accumulation, storage and retrieval of invaluable research information. It has done so in several successful ways, including the design of a bibliographic data management system for a mini computer which has proved to be highly sought after not only by developing countries but, on a licensing basis, by institutions in developed countries.
During its continuing evolution, the centre has kept two objectives in mind. One is to assist developing countries in the solution of their particular problems, but always to do so in a fashion that enhances the indigenous research competence of scientists and technicians in those countries. Accordingly, the research is chosen by experts in the developing countries and almost in its entirety carried out there by them. Hence, the experience gained stays primarily in the developing countries. The problems dealt with are best known to the scientific communities in those countries.
There is every reason to understand, therefore, why so many other countries have emulated the lead of Canada and have created institutions similar to the IDRC. I speak of the United States, of Sweden and of Germany. I am delighted that some Canadian publications have recently begun drawing to the attention of Canadians the accomplishments of this little known but highly effective organization.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say a few words today about the International Development Research Centre and about development in general. Of course, development is a word which is difficult to understand. 1 have difficulty understanding it; practically everyone has a different understanding of the word. I am sure my understanding is somewhat different from that of the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) who introduced the motion which is before the House today.
The hon. member for Simcoe South made quite a scathing attack on the whole program of development which is being sponsored outside Canada. I do not share his ideas. I am sure he realizes that we have quite different views about development in the world.
When a recession begins in a country such as our own, the step below us in the developing world has already reached total depression. If the country is ready to help at a time when it is in good financial circumstances, it is probably helping a group already faced with a recession. The factor we use to indicate recession, 8 per cent to 14 per cent unemployment, is often 30
June 10, 1982

per cent to 60 per cent unemployment in countries which are recipients of development aid.
The word "aid" is also very difficult to come to grips with. I personally believe that the most difficult action for a human being, a group of people or a country, is to aid in a positive manner. How do we aid someone? How do we aid a friend, a wife, a husband or anyone? Almost invariably when someone is in the position of being able to aid, a relationship is established which is at least difficult if not impossible. The question of how and when aid should be given should be studied in great detail, particularly when it comes to international questions.
The present situation is such that there are now four billion people in the world, which perhaps will grow to six billion by the end of the century. How do we feed, clothe, help and house those numbers? How do we help cure the economic problems with which these numbers of people are faced? This is why I believe the IDRC in itself is an instrument, a tool or a possibility to bring about a study to discover how aid can be given.
The International Development Research Centre is located very close to the House of Commons. It is approximately a five minutes' walk from our front door. I suggest to all hon. members of the House, and in particular the hon. member for Simcoe South, that they should visit this centre to see what takes place there.
Back in 1975-76 I had the privilege of receiving a fellowship from the IDRC. Ten such fellowships are given each year to Canadians who are middle-aged and are not working full-time in the area of development. I met those qualifications, and I happen to be one of the ten who received a fellowship in 197576 prior to coming to the House of Commons. I did not even have a thought of entering politics at the time.
Also at that particular stage of my life I had the advantage of studying an area with which I was personally concerned. I am referring to the question of aid, in particular, aid given by volunteer groups in Canada, non-governmental organizations such as church groups, service groups, CUSO and other such organizations. 1 believe this form of aid is closest to the hearts of Canadians. 1 studied how such aid influences the development process in other parts of the world. It involves a very difficult series of steps.
After the period of a year I wrote a book on the subject. I will give a copy of it to my friend, because I attempted to describe the difficulty of the process in it. One of the greatest problems associated with aid is that sometimes there is too much good will and not enough know-how. This is why I turn to the IDRC which has the know-how to learn the process of bringing qualified people from around the world to study particular situations. To my mind this is really necessary and has been very, very well done by the centre.
I have also had the privilege of visiting some of its secondary centres in South America, Colombia, Singapore and Asia where they experiment with the development process to find ways to produce food and to help people to provide for themselves. For example, I saw fish experiments when 1 travelled
International Development Research Centre
with the North-South committee to Singapore. The experiment involved the production of protein from shellfish, not in tonnes per acre but in tonnes per square foot. They were finding revolutionary ways of producing food. For that reason the North-South parliamentary task force recommended to Parliament that the government increase the funding of IDRC in order that it may more fully realize its very considerable potential.
The task force was represented by all three parties of the House. I am glad at the way in which the centre is involved in aid, and I am glad that aid is continuing to grow. The report of the task force indicated that another major problem in Canada was the question of education in the area of international aid. How do we bring about the education of our people to ensure that aid is not thrown away, as my hon. colleague said?
In reality most aid never leaves Canada. Most of the money goes to Cl DA and remains in Canada. In fact, the statutes indicate that 80 per cent of bilateral aid must remain here. It is called tied-in aid. It is money used to buy things in Canada for other countries. The notion that nothing is brought into the economy in this area, as my hon. colleague said, is just not true. 1 do not believe it is so. Most of the money stays right in the country.
In the few moments remaining, I should like to tell a story about my colleague and I when we were at the United Nations a year ago. He suggested that we should go out to dinner together in New York and that I should recommend a restaurant at which to eat. I said, "Let us go to a Brazilian restaurant", and I suggested that we should order feijoado. He, his wife and I enjoyed this dish, at which point I told them that it was comprised of sheep's stomach, sheep's entrails, beans and rice. If I had told them before we started that it was sheep's guts, they probably would not have gone. But the point is that we learned a little about another people, which is important in the entire process of development. We must learn how other people do things so that we can help each other around the world.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We started at 5.20 o'clock; surely we are entitled to one hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I am sure hon. members are aware that as a result of a House order we are to resume consideration of Bill C-104 at this point. We are sitting extended hours. Therefore, this has become a government order. I do not have the date here, but it was given unanimous consent.


Gordon Edward Taylor: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely every other time we have started late we have gone the full

June 10, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
hour on private members' hour. That is why it is called private members' hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. That is done on occasion with unanimous consent of the House, but unanimous consent has already been given-I do not have the date-that we sit extended hours during debate on energy legislation. This is energy legislation that we are concerned with now and that is the House order. I cannot see how we can break the unanimous consent we had previously.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Orders say that we are entitled to one hour of debate. That is a Standing Order of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. I do not want to carry on a dispute with the hon. member. The Standing Orders say private members' hour is between the hours of five o'clock and six o'clock.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-104, respecting petroleum incentives and Canadian ownership and control determination and to amend the Foreign Investment Review Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the third and final reading of Bill C-104. I hope that what 1 have to say on this matter will be heard by the Canadian consumer. This long debate is coming to a close tonight in the House of Commons, but 1 think it is the ordinary consumer of Canada who has suffered and will suffer as a result of these energy bills. They will suffer in the pocket because they will be paying for this legislation. The beneficiaries will be the Government of Canada, the Governments of Saskatchewan and British Columbia, and particularly the Government of Alberta. The oil industry, which always seems to be there to get part of the benefits, will also be beneficiaries.
I used the word at the beginning of the debate that the consumers of Canada were being hosed. They are still being hosed and they will be hosed in the future. Some day in Canada the consumers will get together and rebel against this hosing.
We are told that Bill C-104 is a government bill which is designed to give $8.9 billion in the form of petroleum incentive program grants to oil companies-Canada oil companies we hope. It is only a hope because one can see by looking at the details of the legislation that it contains flaws which will allow Imperial Oil and its friends to benefit indirectly from these grants. The bill will give money to these oil companies to go to
Canada lands in the Arctic and on the offshore of the east and west coast. However, it will mainly be in the Arctic. The companies will go to those Canada lands to explore for oil and gas.
I would begin my criticism of the bill by referring to a recent article in The Globe and Mail dated June 4. It is headed "Tarsiut Wellflow is Disappointing". The article
states:
Not only did oil flow at a much lower rate than expected, but some analysts thought the well is only "marginally" economical.
It goes on to say:
"The results are encouraging, but they still fail to prove that oil can be produced economically from Tarsiut ... Many investors had hopes for this well, partly because of recent comments made by senior executives of Dome Petroleum Ltd. of Calgary, one of the key partners in the exploration program.
Tarsiut is a well up in the Mackenzie. The government has pinned high hopes on the Mackenzie delta and the Beaufort Sea. Its hopes are so high that a large part of the $8.9 billion it is giving to the oil companies in grants will go to this area. Yet not a drop of oil has ever been produced from the area. It seems to me that there have been no real commercial finds in this area so far.
The government is taking a big gamble. It is gambling with the taxpayers' money, it is gambling with the environment and with the lives of the native people who live up there. One wonders why the government is taking that gamble. Would it not make more sense to spend this kind of money on the conventional industry or in the heavy oil of Alberta and Saskatchewan? I suspect that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) wants to go up to the north in order to move around the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. We are back to the old story of the federal government fighting the provincial government.


Marc Lalonde: Nonsense.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is the guiding thrust of this program. It is a power thrust which is perfectly in keeping with the style and substance of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
What will happen if oil is found up there, which I hope it is? It is my hope that it will be found in commercial quantities. We need oil in Canada since most of our oil surplus was exported in the 1970s. At one point half of our daily production was exported and that is why we now need to give $8.9 billion, according to the government, to Imperial Oil and its friends to go up to the north to explore for oil.
"The Journal" is a program which comes on after "The National" on CBC. Mr. Jack Gallagher, chairman of Dome Petroleum, was being questioned on "The Journal" on February 9, 1982. His remarks are in the transcripts of that program. He was asked what will happen if oil is found up in the Beaufort Sea. He replied:
Canada has lived and continues to prosper as an exporting nation, and there's nothing very different about oil or gas or wheat or anything else. If we can prove
June 10, 1982

that Canada has a major surplus of oil. then there is no reason why we won't and can't export a part of that.
There is the thinking. More government money to find oil, and if we do find it it will be exported.


Mr. Kelly:: More jobs.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My hon. friend opposite says there are more jobs. Can you imagine how many jobs in Toronto, in your riding, you could create by putting in S8.9 billion? I imagine that you could retrofit every house in Toronto. You would not need the Beaufort Sea resources if you put that kind of money in Toronto. Every small construction firm in Toronto could be put back to work.
However, this is the kind of policy option that the government is taking. It is opting for the big megaprojects and concentrating on the supply side while ignoring the demand. This is not a new idea. It has been said for the last 10 years that there are more jobs in small scale energy, in alternatives and conservation than there are in these big projects. You can create a lot of jobs for $8.9 billion.
Let me explain how the system works. A Canadian company can get an 80-cent grant from the taxpayer on each dollar it spends. If the company is paying some income tax-this is a problem because many of the companies do not pay income tax like you or 1-it has another 13 cents taken off. Therefore, the Canadian public is paying 93 cents on every dollar for this grant. This is the heart of the Liberals' Canadianization program. They propose to encourage small Canadian companies by providing Canadian petroleum incentive grants, PIP grants.
The government has a very complicated and basically unworkable bureaucratic structure to decide what is a Canadian company. It is called COR, Canadian ownership rate. It is very complicated. It will be difficult for it to work, because the oil companies, which are pretty good at this, have literally hundreds of accountants and smart lawyers who will plan to go around these Canadian ownership requirements-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Good corporate citizens that they are.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -just like Shell, Imperial and Gulf have done all over the world, and they will do it here.
I want to quote what the Consumers' Association of Canada said to us. For one brief moment in the committee we actually did hear from a consumers' group instead of hearing from an oil company group. In its brief the Consumers' Association of Canada stated:
Bill C-104 and the philosophy behind it perpetuate the failed energy policies of the past-namely, that future oil security can be bought through higher prices and subsidies for oil companies.
It warns us about the advertisements we will face, and states:
That is why we see full page newspaper advertisements and multi-million dollar television campaigns sponsored by the petroleum industry.
Do hon. members know of the ad where the hockey player skates on a kind of glass with Gulf Oil, or of an ad where
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
someone is out on the rigs on the Beaufort Sea, or of ads with a message like that? This is the message the Canadian Petroleum Association is taking to Parliament today. And it refers to energy security.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: More money.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It wants more money, as if $8.9 billion is not enough. It wants more money. The Canadian Petroleum Association is big oil. It is Imperial, which is owned by Exxon, the largest company in the world; it is Gulf in the United States, and it is Shell. That is the kind of people who are directing policies in Canada. They are perfectly right to conduct business in Canada. There are some very good people, such as engineers and so on, who work for those companies, but Canadian energy policy should not be directed by those particular organizations. Beside them, the consumer does not have a chance.
The government is backing off its National Energy Program. Day by day, it is backing off, and I predict that it will back off more. A year ago we said that it would back off and, sure enough, two weeks ago it announced another $2 billion for the oil industry.
1 want to tell Your Honour a little about how the program works. The PIP program in this bill, these grants which will possibly amount to 93 cents on every dollar, will replace the past giveaways, the superdepletion allowances. The only real difference from the past, however, is that the beneficiaries will be privately Canadian-owned companies instead of multinational oil companies.
We are hearing many arguments from the oil companies on how they are risking their money to find oil in Canada. But I say, on behalf of the consumers of Canada, that these companies have been drilling and have struck it rich, but they have not struck it rich in the Beaufort Sea, not at Tarsiut. They have struck it rich in Ottawa; that is where they have struck it rich. They have struck it rich in Alberta as well. The Alberta government is administering the Petroleum Incentive Program for Alberta. That was part of the deal with Ottawa.
The PIP grants are only the latest aspect of the supply and demand roller-coaster, it seems to me, which has typified the historical pattern in Canada. I think we all understand that the goal of the oil companies is to maximize profits. They do it by demanding higher prices and more tax incentives in order to find more oil and gas. When it is found, they tell the National Energy Board that there is a surplus and that it must be exported to keep their cash flow going.
After the export permits are granted, that 300-year surplus suddenly threatens to run out in seven years. There is a crisis. There is a shortage. Then the oil companies say, "We must have energy security for Canada." "Energy security" is interesting wording. It is basically oil company wording. How do we get energy security for Canada? The oil companies say, "You give us higher prices and you give us more money." It is a Catch-22 situation. It would be amusing if it were not costly

June 10, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
to the taxpayers of Canada. It amounts to $8.9 billion. Just think what we could do with that money in the fields of medicare and education.
In my province of British Columbia people are lining up for hospital beds because we apparently do not have enough money for health care. Students are having difficulty as their loans are being cut back. The government is making it more difficult for students to live. However, we can find $8.9 billion for the oil industry.
1 am attacked as being a radical socialist who suddenly, according to my critics, does not understand the industry. Well, I will tell Your Honour that there are a couple of things I do not understand about the industry. One thing I do not understand is when I hear my Conservative friends and the industry say, "We are in favour of private enterprise. Get the government off our backs." Then they want $8.9 billion of the taxpayers money to explore for oil, and they call it their money! We heard a good submission by Home Oil Company, a Canadian company, which was very instructive. It pointed out that Australia does not have a grant system. Why does Canada need this system? It needs this system because it is part of the Liberal Canadianization goal.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) was perhaps radical in the 1960s, but now, in the 1980s, as he is older, he thinks that this is a bureaucratic and unworkable system, as he said in the House. That is the only thing we have agreed upon in these last two months of debate. It is a bureaucratic and unworkable system.
There is one other thing 1 do not understand, and I am sure some of the Liberal members will correct me if I am wrong. Why does it seem we are in such a hurry to go to the frontiers when there is still action and there are still oil plays in Alberta and Saskatchewan? I point that out to the hon. member. As well, are there not small Canadian companies in the Lloydmin-ster-Wainwright area? That is what 1 am told in Calgary. I am told that that would be a good area to work.
In Edmonton the Energy Services Association told us that they will have trouble supplying services way up in the Arctic, because they feel that the big oil companies will go to their big American contractors and therefore the spin-off jobs will not go to Canadians.
Why are we going to the Arctic so quickly? I know that there has been a decline of conventional oil in western Canada, but it seems to me that there is a Saudi Arabia of oil in the heavy oil in Alberta. 1 think we could go there. We are going to the Arctic because the government does not want to deal with provincial powers. It does not want to deal with Alberta or Saskatchewan. It wants to deal with the Northwest Territories or the Yukon because they are colonies.
Today in this House we introduced an amendment to protect the native people. It was not a radical amendment. Our amendment would have ensured consultation with them to get their views and involve them a little bit in this development. Its purpose was not to exploit them. However the government just rejected it out of hand.
The government is intent on falling into a trap, the trap of a rather strange Canadianization. I think the Canadian people
want Canadianization. As a matter of fact the Committee for the Canadianization of the Petroleum Industry came before the Energy Committee and submitted a statement dated January 24, 1982, after a conference in Ottawa, which stated:
These governments should use much of their increased revenues from oil and gas to benefit Canada by increasing public ownership of the industry.
What is the effect of the PIP program and the Liberal Canadianization program? The effect is to increase private ownership. Therefore the Rockefellers are replaced with the Gallaghers of Dome and the Blairs of Nova. It is no wonder that Dome and Nova are so subservient and interested in the federal Liberal Party and so very uncritical of the government's National Energy Program. They are so clearly uncritical of the program. Where does it get us to replace the large American oil companies by the large Canadian oil companies?
Mr. Speaker, do you know what the largest Canadian oil company is? We found this out in committee. The largest oil company in Canada is Imperial Oil. The largest Canadian company is Dome Petroleum, not Petro-Canada. The Committee to Canadianize suggested, and I quote, "That Canada's goal must be increased"-that is, Canadian ownership-"to at least 75 per cent in Canadian ownership of the vital petroleum industry by 1985, with Petro-Canada as the largest oil company in the country."
As most Canadians know, we have an oil industry that is, or at least was, about 75 per cent foreign owned. In the last year or so, $6.5 billion has been spent, and the Canadian ownership rate has increased only by about 6 per cent.
It is a beginning, I admit that, and in many ways the minister has had a certain degree of courage in bringing in a program, albeit a small program, to try to do something about it.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre, the opposition critic, my counterpart in the Conservative Party, also expressed an interest in Canadianizing the industry. He pointed out, contrary to what I sometimes say about him, that he was a member of the Committee for an Independent Canada, in Calgary. So we all want to Canadianize the industry. How would we do it? I am not sure how the Conservative Party would do it. I have trouble understanding them or getting them to state how they would do it. It seems to me that they say it is going to happen naturally.
The government has said: "We are going to do it by PIP grants, we are going to do it by this Canadian ownership rate." It seems to me that there is another way of doing it. This is what the Committee to Canadianize said, and I quote, "We strongly urge the federal government to acquire one of the four major foreign-control led companies as a new Crown corporation or as a component of Petro-Canada." In other words, if you really wanted to Canadianize, if you really wanted to get 50 per cent control of this industry by 1990, or indeed by 1985,

June 10, 1982
you could do it. But it would take some political courage. Instead of giving $8.9 billion in PIP grants, you could introduce a bill in this House of Commons to acquire the majority interest in Imperial Oil, or Gulf, or one of the other companies. There is support for that amongst the Canadian people out there.
The Committee to Canadianize said they did a poll and the poll indicated that Canadians, by and large, favoured such a takeover. They took a Gallup poll on the question of public ownership. It showed that 55 per cent of Canadians were in favour of taking over one of the big four oil companies, while 28 per cent were opposed. As to increasing the Canadian ownership rate more quickly than the government would like, Canadians were away up in the high 60 per cent region in favour of that. So there is support out there. The government could do that. But instead the government will throw $8.9 billion at the industry. That is the problem.
There are other things the government could do to help this industry, and to stop it from being an export-oriented industry. Let us take natural gas, for example. When the minister was in opposition, before he became known as "Old Ironclad," he suggested that there should be iron-clad guarantees, that we should not pre-build the Alaska pipeline before we had financial guarantees that the whole line would be built. The reason for that, as he correctly saw, was that if we built a large export pipeline, he or some other energy minister would be under all kinds of pressure to export natural gas. And that is what is happening right now in Alberta.
There are other things that we could do, Mr. Speaker. We could broaden the gas market, and the minister has tried this and he should continue doing this, by getting people in Ontario and Quebec to convert to natural gas. We could throw some of that $8.9 billion at further conversion, and we could pay the money more quickly to the people and we might get further conversions to natural gas. Then we could use Canadian gas in Ontario and Quebec and in the Maritimes, rather than export it to the United States.
Also, we could get a proper marketing system of gas, a proration in Alberta, so that some of the little companies would get a better shot at the market rather than the big companies.
You could also put some money into the heavy oil sector through smaller projects. I know that in the recent update the minister has agreed to give certain tax advantages in that area. But a lot more could be done in that area. And it would benefit the small producers rather than the larger oil companies. If it works, you could give some money for oil upgrading.
I do not think that Canadians understand why a government would give $8.9 billion in grants to oil companies. Dome Petroleum told us in the committee that they did not pay any taxes; but they are going to get one third of the grants. That is how we thought the grant was $6.5 billion. They would get one third of these grants in the next three years, which was about $600 million. A lot of the money was being used in that bill in a crazy bid to take over other companies. What are we doing
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
in this country? The banks are financing oil companies and other companies to take over companies, when we have so much need of capital in other aspects. In my province the forest industry is in depression. We will have to consider ways of directing bank investments so that money will be invested in housing and manufacturing and some of the areas where it is needed. What does this bill do? It does not do anything like that.
What do other countries do, Mr. Speaker? Australia does not give grants. In Mexico the industry has been nationalized long ago. In Britain the industry is 50 per cent owned by the British National Oil Corporation, which has the first claim, and a 51 per cent share of oil production. They participate in joint ventures, but they retain control over all the projects.
To whom are we giving control here in this bill? We are giving it to Canadian private firms like Dome Petroleum, which appears to be on its last legs. We are going to give $600 million in grants to a company that is having financial difficulties now. I hope it does not collapse but, if it does, the last remnant of the National Energy Program will collapse with it.
I know that those men had some dreams for the Beaufort Sea. Why are we putting all this money into that? It seems incredible to me.
In Norway, StatOil, the government oil company, can take up to a 70 per cent interest in any block of land it does not already hold, and it is an active participant in controlling things. They have learned, in the other countries, not to knuckle in every time the oil industry cries out. We have not learned that yet. We still have these advertisements in the newspapers and we still have the consumers getting hosed. Mr. Speaker, I said it was inconsistent for the companies to argue that they needed $8.9 billion in PIP grants when they also said they wanted the government off their backs. If they do not want corporate welfare, then don't take it.
It is also inconsistent, I might say, of the party on my right, the Conservative Party. On second reading they voted against this bill. Apparently they are still against this bill. Yet, on December 21, 1981, the opposition critic, the "radical Harv" as they call him now, the member for Calgary Centre, wrote to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde):
The parts of the proposed bill dealing with the Canadian ownership rate and the Petroleum Incentive Program are long overdue.
So there is the Conservative Party saying; "Let us get on, let us give the $8.9 billion."


An hon. Member:: Right on!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Every day in this House of Commons the Conservative Party stands up and asks for more money for the oil companies. They also want to get rid of Petro-Canada. What kind of program is that? If we are to believe the latest polls, there could be a future Conservative government, and perhaps the hon. member for Calgary Centre will be the minister of energy, mines and resources. What would he do? We should read his speeches. He would give Petro-Canada away.

June 10, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
9 (1830)
The philosophy of the industry seems to be: "Pay me now, pay me later, and keep paying me."
I want to conclude-


Marc Lalonde: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I do not know about the minister's constituency, but the people in my constituency are ordinary people. The people in the east of the Vancouver-Kingsway constituency are having some tough times right now. My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), represents a city constituency. The hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) represents rural areas. My colleagues represent farmers and native people in the north, but we all represent consumers. It is the consumer who has to pay, and the price of gasoline has risen. The average cost of heating a home in my riding has increased from approximately $800 to $1,100 in a very short time. The cost of putting gasoline into a car and driving it for a year has risen from $700 to approximately $800. As statistics tell us and as any senior in Vancouver-Kingsway could tell us-and they have told me-the price of energy has risen 30 per cent in the last year, and it will continue to rise.
If the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is really concerned about the consumer, let him not come into this House with $8.9 billion in PIP grants. Let him go to Premier Lougheed and Premier Devine of Saskatchewan and say to them, "Let's give the consumers of Canada a break." Let the minister and his provincial counterparts forgo the scheduled $2.25 a barrel increase in the price of oil on July 1. For a change let them give the consumers of Canada a break.
We in the New Democratic Party oppose this bill. We oppose giving $8.9 billion to one of the richest industries in Canada. Some small companies are having bad times now, but there are measures we could take to help them. We do not need to give $8.9 billion in relation to the Canada lands. Let us develop some of the heavy oil in Alberta and Saskatchewan. In the next scheduled increase let us give consumers a break at the pumps. Let us see if we can do something for the seniors of this country by way of grants or tax credits. Those are the kinds of things we can do but, instead, the government brings this bill forward and proposes to give the oil companies $8.9 billion. It proposes to pay 93 cents of every exploration dollar and to do that without taking a corresponding equity position.
There is an answer. We can be positive. The answer is to put that money into Petro-Canada, the government oil company, and to put money into conservation, alternate energy, insulation and so forth. That would change the mix. That would be a policy the people of Canada would welcome. The people of Canada are looking for leadership. It looked as if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources finally would start to provide leadership through the National Energy Program and get control of our industry-a vital industry-but instead we have a phony, unworkable Canadianization. It is a sham. It is a
bureaucratic scheme. It proposes to give by way of grants what used to be given by way of tax advantages. It repeats all the mistakes of the past.
I quoted Gallagher in relation to exporting oil. I spoke about exporting gas. We are going to make the same mistake. We must be a pretty dumb country to export half our oil.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Dumb government.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is a dumb government. It would have to be crazy to repeat the same mistakes in relation to natural gas, yet that is what this government is doing. For all those reasons we in the New Democratic Party oppose Bill C-104.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Earlier when the Chair intervened to end private members' business so the House could revert to government business, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) questioned the decision of the Chair. He said he accepted it, but under protest.
In order to eliminate any doubt in the hon. member's mind I wish to bring to his attention Standing Order 15(4), which refers to private members' business-not private members' hour-on Thursdays between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. It was 6 p.m. when I intervened.
1 invite the hon. member to consult Poles and Proceedings for March 22, 1982, which records a motion put, by unanimous consent, by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) and seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), which provides in part:
When the House is considering any of the said bills, Standing Order 31(1) shall not apply and notwithstanding any Standing Order the House shall sit between 6.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays.
This is in relation to the consideration of energy business.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I will not take up too much of the time of the House. 1 just want to correct a few of the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). To correct them all would take a great deal of time indeed.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has never let consistency or facts get in the way of a good argument. For example, near the end of his speech he was talking about giving consumers a break. That is a sentiment with which I am sure everyone in the House would concur, but nowhere in the hon. member's remarks did he acknowledge that when a consumer fills up his tank with gas, two thirds of the cost is taxes. If the hon. member wants to be consistent in his concern for the consumer, he should be suggesting that governments cut back on their taxes because it is government taxes to the extent of two thirds which are penalizing the consumer.
The hon. member suggested in his speech that what we need to do is let Petro-Canada take over another big oil company. Petrofina was not enough. The takeover of Petrofina is being paid for by means of a tax paid by consumers. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway should make up his mind. Does he want to tax consumers more in order to provide Petro-
June 10, 1982

Canada with more toys to play with, or does he want to protect the consumer? Try as he might, he cannot have it both ways.
Consistency or intellectual honesty will not get in the way of the hon. member's arguments. He thinks it is terrible that all those takeovers occurred last year. I agree with him. I think they contributed nothing to the country. They contributed not one job and not one barrel of oil. Canadianization was the hallelujah chorus of the government. That was a marvellous thing, but in the process many very good companies have been decimated, and nothing has been gained for the country in terms of jobs. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway agrees that all those takeovers were terrible.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Private takeovers.


Harvie Andre: Then he turned around and said Petro-Canada should take over some more companies. He can have it one way or the other, but he cannot on the one hand say takeovers are terrible because they do not create new jobs or find any new oil-they just use up valuable capital-and on the other hand say, "I want Petro-Canada to do that thing which I have just described as a terrible activity." Yet that is the gist of the argument of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. It is unfortunate he did not feel the necessity to be a little more intellectually honest in his arguments. He is a socialist, a social democrat, or whatever name they apply to themselves these days. That is fine. That is a legitimate political point of view. It is a philosophy which has succeeded nowhere in the world in terms of bringing better standards of living to the people who have lived under it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What about Germany and France?


Harvie Andre: Both those countries were doing a lot better when they were under Christian Democrat governments or Gaullist governments than they are doing under socialist governments. Under the Christian Democrats, Germany had one of the highest growth rates in the world. Since the socialists took over they have one of the highest unemployment rates in Europe. If the hon. member wants to use Germany as an example, he will find it performed marvellously under the Christian Democrats and not so marvellously under the Social Democrats.
The one country that has had a consistently outstanding economic performance in the last two or three decades is Japan. It has had a conservative government through all that time.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It has had a little economic planning as well.


Harvie Andre: If the hon. member were being intellectually honest, as opposed to reflecting the left-wing prejudices he learned in university, he would have to acknowledge that economies around the world work better under conservative governments. What bothers me is the distortion of the position of this party as put forward by the hon. member, and the distortion of things that we have said regarding this program. Intellectual dishonesty is not a capital crime in politics or the
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
hon. member would have been decapitated long ago. It is not playing by the rules, however, to distort the position of another person or party deliberately. I have said repeatedly, as the hon. member knows although he refuses to accept my argument, the whole thrust of this program is a disaster.
The National Energy Program dreamed up by those geniuses in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources- who, according to Maclean's magazine, describe themselves as the "enfin" group, that bunch of PhDs that was turned loose to find a way for the government to control the oil and gas industry-proposed the petroleum and gas revenue tax, the natural gas and gas liquids tax, the incremental oil revenue tax, excise tax and sales tax-you name it. It was an increase in taxes in the order of $6 billion per year. To promote Canadianization they proposed giving $2 billion back to the oil industry, biased toward Canadian-owned companies.
That kind of program sounds great if one's only experience is time spent at the University of Toronto under Mel Watkins. If that is your economic training, then it is a great program. But the real world does not work the way Mel Watkins would like it to work and his students are no smarter than he is. They produced a disastrous program.
I see that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has left the House. The truth must be hurting him.
As I indicated in my letter to the minister and to his parliamentary secretary privately, the government has hit the industry severely with these taxes. They affect the junior Canadian companies in particular. As the government's figures show, in the first six months of 1981, Canadian-owned oil and gas companies suffered a 52 per cent drop in income over the previous year. Foreign-owned multinationals suffered a 28 per cent drop in income, so they were hurt. The Canadian companies were devastated by the taxes brought in under the National Energy Program, however. To help ameliorate that somewhat, the government proposed another stupid plan, which will fail, but if that is what it is going to do-then it should at least do it. That was the thrust of my letter, and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway knows that.
All I was saying to the government was, if that is what you were going to do then at least do it. Don't just load on taxes and kill these companies-and a lot of junior Canadian companies were killed, but not the multinationals. They will last longer than the minister or the government or any of us. A lot of junior Canadian companies were killed. PIP grants were one way in which a little bit of activity could be restored to the industry to get the service companies and drilling companies back to work. Perhaps some of the small towns in Alberta which rely on the oil industry and now are dying as a result of the National Energy Program, will have some vigor restored.
That was the reason for suggesting to the minister last December that if this part of the program, to match the taxes he was already collecting, were brought forward we would treat it with dispatch. We certainly would not support it. We certainly would not vote for it, because it is a disaster and it will collapse within two years. I guarantee that. The reason it

June 10, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
will collapse is because people like the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway are, unfortunately, not alone. A lot of pressure will be brought to bear with simple-minded approaches like his, asking how grants can be given to the industry while hospitals are closing-how $2 billion can be given to the industry when there is a desperate need for a home for unwed fathers or some such thing! That is the kind of statement that will be made, forgetting about the taxes. The pressure will be overwhelming, and the program will collapse.
Another reason is that the program has created a bureaucratic nightmare. It would need a Philadelphia lawyer to read the regulations and fill out the application forms. As the Canadian Bar Association indicated, the whole program may be in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any case.
For those three reasons we are passing a program today that, in all likelihood, will die within a year or two. All of this will have been in vain and it will be left to someone else to try to clean up the mess and restore sanity to the energy sector of the Canadian economy.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I cannot resist the temptation to respond to a few of the things the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) had to say about intellectual honesty. I was particularly amused and amazed that he cited the Japanese government as a conservative government which he has reason to admire. One of the reasons that the Japanese have fared so well over the last 30 years is because of the very close relationship between government and industry. This is because of extensive economic planning and the fact that investment decisions have to be cleared by the government. In fact the opposite of what this Conservative Party most often advances is the case in Japan. In his sermon about intellectual honesty I think the hon. member for Calgary Centre would do well to examine his own position, as Socrates said, before he attacks the intellectual honesty of others.


Harvie Andre: How many Crown corporations do they have in Japan?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, of course the monarchy in Japan was disbanded to all intents and purposes some time ago. Whether there are things called Crown corporations or not, it remains true that in Japan there is economic planning of the sort that this Conservative Party has often criticized. That is the reason Japan has the kind of economy it does. And, of course, Japan has b^en having the best of both worlds as far as international trade is concerned. All countries of the western world are concerned about that, but the hon. member for Calgary Centre did not mention it.
We are talking about the National Energy Program today. The NEP is a failure. It is a failure for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is the Liberal Party, which, in its customary way of not wanting to make hard philosophical and political decisions, has tried to go what I suppose they would call themselves-when they are trying to be positive about themselves, which must be difficult these days-the middle
way. And what they have ended up with is the worst of all possible worlds.
The Conservatives and the New Democratic Party have radically divergent but nevertheless internally coherent views of how we are going to develop our energy resources. The Conservative view is that you give the multinationals and others as much money as they say they need in order to find the oil. We say that for too long that particular scheme, which the Liberals have relied upon up until the creation of Petro-Can, saw the public interest being sold out time and again. We want to see these resources developed by the public sector through a PetroCan enlarged by the purchase of Imperial Oil, so we can go about developing our energy resources in a way that is entirely different from what we have been used to until now.
The Liberals, Mr. Speaker, could not make that kind of decision because they have certain economic loyalties to the oil companies and the private sector and because, in the final analysis, they are not that much different from the Conservatives on this issue. The Liberals want to appeal to that growing body of public opinion which says these resources must be regarded as a public utility and not be managed in the interests of the profit-motivated private sector.
In this respect I give the Progressive Conservative Party credit. They know public opinion is against their position on PetroCan and in favour of more public ownership in the energy industry. Yet they persist in this criticism of Crown corporations; they persist in pouring out venom in this House day after day about PetroCan and other Crown corporations. I can only say that if this suicidal passion of that party arises out of a deep-seated principle and objection to Crown corporations, then they have my admiration. I personally believe that is one of the reasons why the government of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) fell so quickly. Their position on PetroCan helped create the political context for their defeat. They could not come out and say, "I guess this is what the Canadian people want". It is not communism, statism, or all the boogeyman things that so many of the Conservative backbenchers want to make it out to be. But no, the Conservatives, being the sort of principled lot that they are, to this very day still get up and pour abuse on what the Canadian people obviously want.
What about the Liberals? I often say the difference between the liberals and the Tories is the difference between smart capitalists and stupid ones. What we have over here are people who want to give the impression that they are doing something about Canadianization, while at the same time making sure their traditional friendships with the multinationals and private Canadian oil companies is kept well lubricated. How do you do that, Mr. Speaker? With lots of money, $8.9 billion worth in this one energy bill alone. So we have this money going out to the private oil companies, and what have we got? We have a national energy policy which does not work.
June 10, 1982

Instead of public ownership and having our resources developed in an alternative way, we have this huge bureaucracy which-the Conservatives are quite right-does not work? Why? Because the Liberals do not have the guts to go out and set up a truly Canadian energy sector and begin to develop these resources as they should be developed.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, Judas sold his soul for 30 pieces of silver. What we see here is a government spending $8.9 billion on the so-called private sector, when it was unwilling to leave in the established programs financing the $2 billion which would have enabled the government to negotiate improved national standards of medicare. For $2 billion this government sold down the river the future of medicare and gave the provinces a club with which to beat the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) every time she opens her mouth about extra billing. But we have $8.9 billion to give to the private oil companies, these great entrepreneurs.
I get a charge out of the Conservative Party; they are always going on and on about entrepreneurship, free enterprise and risk taking, yet the private sector oil companies and others cannot get their nose in the public trough deep enough and fast enough. Then they go out and lecture people about selfreliance, pulling yourself up by the bootstraps, and all this rhetoric. Socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor, that is what it amounts to. If you are big enough and strong enough you can get yourself into the public trough with Progressive Conservative approval. But God help you if you are poor, or on welfare, or unemployed, because helping you is demoniacal and evil government spending. When it is government spending to help out the private sector, the oil companies, that is something the government should be doing more of, and indeed the hon. member for Calgary Centre, as far back as December last, was encouraging the minister to get on with the job of providing this money to the oil companies.
I have said, Mr. Speaker, a couple of times now in the energy debate, and 1 am going to say it again because no one seems to have picked it up yet, that the argument we are having about energy in this country is very limited indeed. It is really about who will preside over the last days of the prevailing energy model; will it be the private sector, the public sector, or will it be this bureaucratic nightmare called the Liberal government? Which of those three will preside over the last days of the energy model we have been living in for decades? Sooner or later we must all wake up to the fact that the energy model which now exists will have to be transcended.
We live in a finite world. As long as our energy policy is directed toward the infinite expansion of supply without seriously addressing the demand side of the question then we are living not in a fool's paradise, but a difficult paradise, because you have to spend all this money trying to find that last drop of oil. You have to drill holes irresponsibly all across the Arctic, taking the chance that we may have one of the greatest ecological disasters of all times on our hands. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) said
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
earlier today, what can happen up north will make the spills in the Gulf of Mexico and in other places look like kindergarten play compared to what we will have on our hands if we get a blow-out in the Arctic. Yet we are prepared to do that rather than to face up to the fact that we will have to change our way of life. It is as simple as that.
We will have to redirect the kind of money this government is now willing to spend in a desperate attempt to find the last reservoir of non-renewable resources. We will have to begin to redirect substantial sums of money, not token little bits of money for Enertech and that sort of thing, into the development of renewable resources of alternative energy technologies and conservation technologies and of the "will" to conserve. We must have the will to conserve. That is something that will not come easy. We have been taught in this country that we are able to consume, consume, and consume. There will be some difficult transitions because it will not be an easy task. But in that area we are not getting any leadership whatsoever from this government.
People are much more ready than politicians give them credit for to face up to some of these difficult issues. But people want to know that somebody is there who is willing to manage that difficult transition in their interests, not just in the interests of those who happen to own or control our energy resources. We are pouring so much money into the last days of this energy model, and the last days may go on for some time. The resilience of certain mistakes in ways of doing things never ceases to amaze me. Nevertheless, we are at the end of an era. The amount of money which this government, and particularly this minister, who otherwise seems to be an intelligent man, is willing to pour into these last days is astounding. The money that goes into the nuclear industry to keep that Canadian dream alive that somehow we will be the people who will fill the earth with nuclear reactors! To keep that dream alive, we spend millions and millions and millions of dollars to keep our domestic nuclear industry alive and to finance the export of Candu reactors to whomever is willing to pay the price regardless of what they intend to do with the possibilities that having our nuclear reactors on their soil enables them to do.
In this respect I must say, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes those of us who are in favour of Crown corporations realize just how much we need to make Crown corporations more accountable to Parliament, the people and to the political process than they have been under the Liberal government. I am thinking of the nuclear industry in particular. Here we have Atomic Energy of Canada in Manitoba which is doing environmental impact studies on its experimental laboratory for underground disposal of radioactive waste. What has Atomic Energy said? Atomic Energy has said it will not harm the environment. But I did not expect Atomic Energy to say anything else. It is in the business of selling nuclear reactors. That means Atomic Energy is in the business of creating nuclear waste. That means Atomic Energy also has to be in the business of pretending this stuff can be disposed of safely. The same people are involved in all three areas, and some very
18342

June 10, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
serious questions have to be raised about Atomic Energy of Canada as an example of we do not want when we talk about Crown corporations.
A little while ago somebody across the way said something about jobs. Apart from the consideration that the kind of alternative energy development that we are talking about I think, in the final analysis, will produce more jobs, and more long-term jobs at that, it will produce clearner, less dangerous jobs and it will provide more meaningful work than the kind of boom and bust employment situation which the kind of development the government is talking about creates. In spite of all that, I want to say a word about the whole question of jobs, and development, of jobs and the environment, and jobs period.
We are in a time when a lot of people are unemployed in this country which is an underestimation when over 1 million people are unemployed. Therefore, anything that is critical of job creation has to be very carefully said. But I think one thing needs to be said, and I will say it now. Just because something creates jobs does not make it right. It is as simple as that. There is no moral axiom anywhere that says simply because something creates employment, that makes it right and it makes it wrong for people to attack and criticize a project and say that it should not be happening.
I will use a biblical example to back up my argument. Recall that when St. Paul came to Rome and converted Rome to Christianity, one of the first things that happened was that he put a lot of people out of work. He put a lot of people out of work, those who were making idols. They used to make graven images which had to do with local religion. St. Paul didn't say, "No, We can't Christianize Rome because, by God, it puts people out of work. Jobs come first. Jobs come before morality. Jobs come before the right and jobs come before everything." He said "No, we are going to do this anyway."
I think we have to decide what kind of society we want, what kind of energy development we want and what kind of an economy we want. We have to have the confidence that we will find ways within that framework go give people meaningful work. That is the kind of leadership the Canadian people are seeking. I think my colleagues and I are able to provide that kind of leadership and we are going to be doing that in the weeks and years ahead.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke talked about loyalty. I want to say the loyalty of the Progressive Conservative Party is to the people of Canada. Our policies would be fair to the people in every part of Canada with special privileges for none. I think that is the type of policy the people want.
As for the national energy policy, it has been a disaster for Canada. It is a disaster now. I have just a few comments on that and why this bill should not proceed. Action is being moved from parts of Canada into the north land. I have no objection to the development of our north. It is a very worthwhile endeavour. I do object to the fact that it is being done with a view to discriminating against conventional oil in other
parts of Canada. There is no reason at all why some of this money should not have been spent on conventional oil in Alberta, Saskatchewan and perhaps other places. To move it out entirely ignoring conventional oil has destroyed a large number of small Canadian companies. It is not fair and it is not a sound policy. I think the policy should be fair to native people, and it does not appear to be.
A few months ago Bill C-48 placed the ownership of all land in the north in the hands of the Canadian government. Consequently, the opportunity for provincial status for native people in the northwest territories or northland has almost vanished. Once the Canadian government obtains control of the resources and takes off the cream, there is little hope of provincial governments having sufficient finances to operate. It is not being fair to native people.
Also the government is not being fair to native people in connection with land claims. Native people have been in those areas for a long time. They have been through hard times, they have been through difficult times; they have been through some good times and some times of famine. When an opportunity comes for them to have a break, then they should get it. With the work which is going on in the north, I think there should be a definite policy in terms of hiring northern people. This would give them a fair chance at being employed close to their homeland, which I do not think is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The National Energy Program has taken money out of the pockets of people. If all the taxes which have been enumerated a number of times already could be totalled and were left in their pockets, we would find that consumers would be doing all right. If the money which has come out of the pockets of oil companies had been left there, they would have been able to make it on their own rather than go bankrupt. If the government continues to extract and extract from companies, whether small or big, and to expect them to stand on their own, it will simply defeat the purpose and drive them into bankruptcy. This is exactly what the national energy policy has been doing. They have penalized consumers through taxation on their heating oil. Not only have they penalized those who are working, but those people who are unemployed, crippled, or senior citizens. These people are being penalized because of excessive taxation. Every pocketbook in the country is affected by the National Energy Program, the disastrous budget and high interest rate policies.
I will not make comments about others who believe differently than I do. One's argument is not very good when one starts to ridicule, to call other people stupid, and so on. The country was built by free enterprisers and the vast majority of Canadians today are free enterprisers. I make no apology for being a free enterpriser. Free enterprise, without the shackles of government through excessive taxation, can give the people of the country the highest possible standard of living. In fact, it
June 10, 1982

has given Canadians a high standard of living and can continue to do so, if the government does not continue to shackle it and prevent it from working. Of course that responsibility is on the government.
I hope there will be no ecological disaster in the great north. I do not agree with the current policy, but public money is being spent and I do not want to see a disaster in the north. The government should have realized that the money would have been safe and would have almost immediately brought in returns if it had been used in the area of conventional oil. The situation is entirely different when one looks at the far north. In the area of the Arctic islands tankers are faced with 20 feet of packed ice. No way has yet been found to extract the oil. There might be icebreakers which are big enough, but they have not yet been invented or found. I think they can be found if we are given the time. The industry must find a technical way of raising the oil to the surface, of putting valves in place and keeping them there; of protecting the valves when the ice moves so that the well is not wiped out, of getting the tankers in to load them and of getting them through the northwest passage to market. There are some gigantic problems. I do not begrudge the spending of this money in the north, but some of it should have been spent on conventional oil. It would have kept thousands of people working and scores of companies from going bankrupt both in the oil industry and others.
As I see it the policy has been a disaster for Canada. The effects of the National Energy Program will be felt for a long time before people can start producing and have faith in the government again.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-104. First I should like to compliment the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) who worked very hard in committee. Also I should like to refer to exactly what is happening in regard to this energy debate. We are talking about billions of dollars going to the oil companies. We know at election time that the oil companies give equal amounts to the Conservative Party and to the Liberal Party. We know the oil companies have directors sitting on various boards of banks across Canada. Let us not fool anyone as to who is representing whom and who will be given the biggest grants in the programs offered to the oil companies.
1 am pleased and proud of the approach of the New Democratic Party in this matter. On behalf of the almost two million people unemployed across Canada, I should like to indicate to the House that they are finding it very difficult to obtain jobs, to save their homes or the environment around them. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) came into the House and presented a statement which gave an additional $2.5 billion to the oil companies. This was at a time when there were real needs in the lumber industry, in the mining industry and in the automobile industry across Canada. I hope the minister is paying attention to what I am saying this evening. 1 should like to refer to a letter I wrote to him on April 29, 1982, to which I have not received the courtesy of a reply. First, I should like to build up to the reason for writing this letter. On February 10, 1981, Bill C-60 received first
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
reading in the House. On March 6, 1981, it received second reading, was considered in Committee of the Whole and received third reading in the House. Then it went to the Senate where it was amended, and the Senate actually held up the bill with the approval of the minister from April 8 to December 11, when the minister finally had the courage to bring the bill back to the House. On December 11 the House unanimously agreed to the amendments, and then the bill returned to the Senate. On December 18, 1981, Bill C-60 received royal assent. To this day the minister has not given my constituents the privilege of using the provisions of the bill.
Therefore, on April 29 I wrote the following letter to the minister:
During the past year and a half, some constituents in my riding have been trying to negotiate a settlement with the Foothills Pipe Line Ltd. for trespass and damage to their property during the construction of the pipeline in southeastern British Columbia.
I have raised this matter in the House and you are aware of these grievances which the residents wish to pursue through the provisions of Bill C-60.
Bill C-60 received royal assent in December 1981, and I feel it is imperative that your government proclaim this bill so that my constituents can have the opportunity to have their cases heard through its provisions.
If the minister is so concerned about oil companies and ongoing programs, he should take a look at the provisions of Bill C-60 and ensure that the grievances of my constituents, whose property was trespassed and damaged by this company, will be settled. They should be given an opportunity to be heard and to put their case. I urge the minister to proclaim Bill C-60, which amends the National Energy Board Act, so that my constituents will have their day to present their case in a fair manner. I think it is unfortunate that the minister sits on this bill when not only has it been approved by the House but by the Senate. It is now just waiting for the will of the minister to proclaim it and have it gazetted, so they will be given the opportunity to use it.
I also want to say something on behalf of our senior citizens on fixed incomes who have seen their energy bills increase. We have heard some of the proposals presented by the minister with regard to assistance under the conversion program. While he is doing this we are seeing electrical costs in British Columbia going up by as much as 40 per cent. I believe if we are to look at programs that will be of assistance to various groups, we should look at their incomes so that the assistance to be provided can be created by better policies of this government.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have a few moments to make a few remarks about the energy debate and the energy problems which face Canada and the world. For almost the past year, many hours have been spent in the House on the energy debate. There have been many opinions expressed, many ideas and suggestions developed, which I am sure each member delivered with the truth as he saw it.
Since it will only be a matter of minutes until this debate is finished and the whole energy question will be settled for this

June 10, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
session, I would like to go on record as speaking about the future. I do not mean the future six months, six years or even 600 years from now, I am talking about the future of our planet and of the people who will live on it. I feel that as we vote on this energy bill tonight and then proceed with our lives for whatever number of years each of us has left, we must remain concerned about energy. Let us think for a few moments about the people who are to follow us generations from now. What we are doing tonight will affect the lives of all those billions of people to come.
This week I received a petition from a group of people in my riding. The petition began, "We are parents and grandparents-That petition asked that 1 present to the House their concerns about the lives of their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and 1 have presented that petition. These people did not want their future generations wiped out or destroyed by atomic war. Of course, I am totally in accord with this.
Let us put into perspective this $8.9 billion we are considering handing out to the oil companies in order to preserve, in a sense, the future with respect to energy. I do not believe that $8.9 billion will accomplish that or that all the oil companies in the world can do that unless the people of this planet, including people like myself, all hon. members, every Canadian and the rest of the world, decide that we do only have a limited amount of energy available. Let us not kid ourselves when we talk about new oil and old oil. Relatively speaking, all oil is old. It takes 500 million years for our planet to process and evolve one drop of oil. Oil which is now being formed on our planet will evolve 500 million years in the future. Yet there seems to be almost a madness which, I must confess, 1 share myself about using it all up as quickly as possible. There seems to be a feeling of unconcern about future generations and a feeling that we are entitled to use it all ourselves. I was born into a society which felt that there are no limits. 1 realize now that there are limits.
The oil industry in Canada has evolved during my lifetime. I can remember Leduc and the first pipeline across the prairies. I worked on it. It has not been that long since the industry began to develop. Oil in Canada is a new commodity.
This morning, as I came to the House of Commons, I drove my car. It is a small one.


Harvie Andre: Japanese?


Robert Joseph Ogle: Not a Japanese car, a small Canadian car. The fuel which went into that car was refined from a process which began almost 500 million years ago. It was burned up and no one will ever use it again. Tomorrow, when many hon. members return to their ridings in an airplane they will see the vapour trail left behind. The fuel which takes us home tomorrow will be finished and never used again. Therefore I must ask myself the moral question of how much energy can I or anyone use if we are to concern ourselves with the plea of those parents and grandparents to look after the future of their children and to leave something for them.
The idea that was common when I was young-although I am not that old yet-that there are no limits to resources is being challenged today. The confidence that there were no limits to resources was prevalent not so long ago. I have seen forests that seem to have no end. However, if one visits the Amazon forest today one realizes it has a limit and an end and is being chopped down very, very fast.
The purpose of my small interjection into this energy debate, which I want to share with my colleagues and anyone else who is interested, is to somehow bring myself to task and to ask others to realize the need to conserve a little bit of what is on this planet for the people who have not yet been born. New sources of energy are just not evolving fast enough. It may not be the most significant interjection in a debate which is to decide how to spend this money, but I would like to see some that $8.9 billion being spent to encourage a company to find more gas to create more traffic jams put to better use. It is said that the world will end in a traffic jam. 1 am inclined to believe that. As you drive on the road today you see one person sitting alone in 2,000 pounds of steel. There are thousands of people who sit in their cars by themselves. Everyone is stopped at a red light with their motor running. It is the beginning of the end.
I would like to end on a slightly different note. 1 had the privilege to represent our party when a Canadian delegation went to Rome for the beatification of Brother Andre and several other people. The leader of our delegation was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). Although we did not discuss energy, it was an experience which I think we can share. It concerns the city of Rome, one of the great and beautiful cities of the world. I have been to Rome many times in the last 25 years. Rome has changed. There is now a perpetual traffic jam there. People no longer park their cars in single rows. Every street now has a double row of parked cars. You cannot go anywhere in Rome without being in a traffic jam. The beautiful skies of Italy are now smog, and the same situation is true in Rio, Tokyo, New Delhi and Lagos. That is what has happened to the world. While the automobile and the use of its fuel has given us the service which we all appear to want to sustain, we must see what it has done to the planet and our environment at the same time.
Those were a few of my thoughts which I wanted to give the House before we come to the final votes on these bills tonight. Whether we like it or not, these pieces of legislation will influence the lives not only of Canadians today but of their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and all our future generations in the centuries to come.
*0)


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
June 10, 1982


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD ACT (NO. 3) MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-108, to amend the National Energy Board Act (No. 3), as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House may now wish to consider Bill C-108 and motions with respect to the amendments thereto.


Harvie Andre: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-108, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act (No. 3), be amended in Clause 11 by striking out line 27 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"of the Governor in Council and subject to relevant provincial laws and
regulations, make regula-"


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just so that we can clarify this situation with regard to Bill C-108, 1 would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to enter another two amendments. 1 understand that the mover of the first motion will get the chance to speak first, and then 1 suspect the minister may be speaking. Perhaps what I could do is to speak to my amendments when it is my turn to speak. However, those will be the only amendments, other than the ones printed here. 1 understand that there is Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), then Motions Nos. 2 and 3 standing in my name. I would like to move two other amendments which would really follow Motion No. 1. As a matter of fact, the first one really deals with Motion No. 1.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps it might be appropriate and in keeping with what we have done concerning other bills, as I understand it, if the minister would seek unanimous consent for his motions and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) would do so, then we could have all the motions before us.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harvie Andre: As I understand it, the number of hon. members who will speak is relatively limited in terms of the parties concerned. It may be more expeditious to follow the procedure of general report stage debate and then deal with motions seriatim at the end.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The proposal of the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) sounds very reasonable.


Marc Lalonde: I would like to support the proposal of my friend the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre).
1 would like to indicate that I also have two amendments which 1 would like to propose, with unanimous consent, and which could be debated as part of the general report stage debate. So if that is agreeable, we will put these amendments
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
forward together with the other amendments of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. minister seeks unanimous consent to put forward two amendments. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marc Lalonde: That clause 32 of Bill C-108 be amended
(a)	by striking out line 31 on page 20 and substituting the following:
"33. (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act or any provision thereof shall"
(b)	by adding, after line 33 on page 20 the following:
"(2) Sections 12, 13 and 32 shall come into force on a day to be fixed by
proclamation but no proclamation issued under this subsection may purport to
have been issued on a day that is prior to the day that is six months after this
Act is assented to."
He said: I also propose the following:
That Clause 31 of Bill C-108 be amended by striking out line 15 on page 20 and substituting the following:
"province."
32. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after
Section 90 thereof, the following heading and section:"


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Table officers will consider the admissibility of the two amendments proposed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), and one presumes that, in all probability, they will be in order.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has stated that he wishes to renumber certain of the motions standing in his name. I believe he indicated that Motions Nos. 4 and 5 ought to be placed for consideration after Motion No. 1. I do not think the House wants to discuss which motions ought to be placed in which order, but if any hon. member or minister wishes to indicate that some of these motions should be considered in a certain order, the Chair will be pleased to listen to that advice. If there is no intent on the part of hon. members to renumber motions, the simplest solution would be to take them as they now stand, and Motions Nos. 1 through 5 and the two amendments suggested by the minister would become Motions Nos. 6 and 7, and we would debate them seriatim.
Shall we agree to this, or do we have other suggestions from hon. members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Accordingly, Motions Nos. 6 and 7, attached to Bill C-108, will be two amendments proposed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As I have indicated earlier, we will check the admissibility of the motions which, I presume, will be in order.
Therefore, the Chair will hear those who wish to enter into debate on Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre).

June 10, 1982
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as I understood my hon. friend, we will consider this first stage as a general debate at report stage on the various amendments, with Your Honour's indulgence. I listened with great interest to the previous debate that took place and to the exchanges that flew between the Conservative, and the New Democratic Party members in the House on the previous bill. 1 followed it with great interest when I saw those two extremes on the political spectrum shooting at each other. If we on this side did not intervene much in that debate, it was because, as we say in Latin, in medio stat virtus. We can easily come to the conclusion that the policies pursued by the government stood between those extremes. They were not for absolute, unbridled free enterprise which could exploit people, but, at the same time, we were not out to nationalize the oil and gas industry. We believe that in this country there is room for both a public and a private sector and that the private sector must be kept in a position where it can do what is required in the oil and gas field to ensure that this country will have the security of supply that it needs.
The hon. members of the NDP spent a lot of time referring to $8.9 billion. What they did not mention is that those amounts, spread over a period of five years, are in substitution for tax concessions which existed before. In effect, these figures illustrate a system whereby we will be able to encourage the growth of Canadian enterprises in the oil and gas industry. Moreover, we will not put it all into the Canada lands, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) suggested. As a matter of fact, as he well knows, I spent much time referring to the heavy oil industry in Saskatchewan and all of that, and the PIP grants will go to Saskatchewan and will go to the hon. member's native province of British Columbia. They will not be reserved for the Canada lands.
These are some of the points we could have gone into at great length, but I thought I should at least point out to my hon. friend that he is certainly not adequately representing the reality of the situation by talking as he did, but I am sure that energy is a constant subject of reflection and debate. We will have other opportunities to debate these issues. Obviously I am looking forward to other opportunities to debate with my friends issues with regard to the National Energy Program, the objectives we are trying to achieve, and the assurance that we want to give the Canadian people in regard to fairness of prices and security of supply, and full participation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Is that when you are minister of finance?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing Bill C-108. This bill has been considered in committee and has been the subject of representations and testimonies by a number of
people, including the Newfoundland Minister of Energy, Hydro-Quebec, the Independent Petroleum Association and several other persons and groups. It has been the subject of debate within the committee and has been amended on a number of points, following representations made before the committee and proposals that were put forward. I believe we now have a bill that is a considerable improvement over the bill we introduced initially, and I wish to thank those who appeared before the committee to express their views, and I also wish to thank committee members for their contribution to the debate on these bills and especially on Bill C-108.
I may recall that one of the basic objections raised, and I am thinking especially of the president of Hydro-Quebec, concerned a provision that would have allowed the National Energy Board to modify existing export licences if public convenience and necessity so requires. The case against this provision was examined very carefully, and we reached the conclusion that the point raised by Hydro-Quebec was a valid one, and that in view of this very serious objection we should amend the bill accordingly. I feel that the subsequent amendment, which removes the electric power matter completely from the purview of the National Energy Board, will settle this particular contentious point.
A more emotionally and politically charged question was also raised, namely, the provisions in the bill that allow the National Energy Board to authorize construction of power lines for interprovincial transmission and which provide new authority with respect to international transmission lines. I referred to the debate as being emotionally and politically charged, because without wishing to give these adjectives a negative connotation-they are a fact of life-I am especially reminded of the testimony given by the president of Hydro-Quebec who appeared before the committee and was asked by my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway what he thought about this feud between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Newfoundland. Very wisely, President Bour-beau said in his testimony on May 26, 1982, before the committee, as reported on page 2715 of the proceedings, that as far as the so-called power corridor was concerned, he could not care less, implying that it was not a real problem, and that for all practical purposes, it was not a matter of any concern at all to Hydro-Quebec.
Understandably, there have been some wild and wonderful things said on the subject. In Quebec, the Parti Quebecois presented a motion in the National Assembly. There was a long debate and an attempt to raise public sentiment by telling everyone who would listen that Quebec's territory was being violated and that Quebec's autonomy and the inviolability of its borders were in danger. Fortunately, I think the vast majority of the people kept a clear head throughout this debate, and realized that the whole discussion really could not be taken seriously, when the Parti Quebecois claimed that attempts were being made to violate Quebec's borders, to take
June 10, 1982

over its territory or to extend Newfoundland's territory across Quebec, and so forth. Those were, if I recall correctly, some of the expressions being used. As I said in my speech when we first considered this bill, there is no legal difference between the construction of an oil or gas pipeline like the ones being built right now across Quebec and the construction of an electric power transmission line.
These are two techniques for transmitting energy, and following representations which included those by Calgary Power in Alberta and by the Newfoundland government, we had to deal with what the Premier of Newfoundland qualified as flagrant injustice, namely, that we did not put the transmission of electric power on the same level as gas and oil pipelines. In fact, in conferring powers on the National Energy Board, we did not go as far as we did with respect to the transmission of gas and oil. That being said, we still wanted to take into account the actual situation, since we had to deal fairly with the citizens of Newfoundland and Alberta who made representations on the subject, but at the same time, as I said before, the Government of Canada is generally in favour of a negotiated solution and feels that the only valid solution to the differences separating the government of Newfoundland and the government of Quebec is a negotiated agreement between the two governments, and that any other solution, though theoretically possible, would be an absolute last resort, and only if all other avenues had failed would the Government of Canada, the National Energy Board in this case, be called on to intervene, and that all things considered, if the provincial governments were able to reach some kind of agreement, the government would certainly prefer this arrangement to any other kind.
In recent months, I had a number of meetings with my Quebec colleague, Mr. Duhaime, and with my Newfoundland counterpart, Mr. Marshall. I had an opportunity to explore this question with them in detail and I tried to persuade them to come back to the negotiating table and try to reach an agreement. In fact, my colleague, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), urged me to do so, and pointed out that we had to persuade both provincial governments to settle their differences. I understand the hon. member perfectly, because having seen the attitude taken by his own colleagues from Newfoundland, who refused to vote either for or against this bill when the Progressive Conservative Party voted against it on second reading, it is clear that there are considerable regional differences of opinion in Canada on this subject. As the Government of Canada, we felt that we had to recognize our responsibility in this area, and that we did not have the right to hide behind the curtains or remain seated when there is a real and serious problem that is causing Quebecers and Newfoundlanders to lose hundreds of millions of dollars every year and also thousands of jobs which would otherwise be created by construction projects for dams on the Churchill River or on the North Shore rivers.
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
During the debate in committee, the hon. member for Joliette urged me to try to get the parties together and to give them time to settle down to negotiations. At second reading he had already suggested a six-month postponement, and in committee he asked whether it would be possible to allow for more time, so that the parties would have another chance to meet and carry on negotiations. Mr. Speaker, in the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation, May 27, 1982, on page 2921,1 said, and I quote:
If you agree, I will consult my cabinet colleagues and the caucus; we will propose the amendment you have put forth, namely, to postpone enforcement of this part of the bill for six months.
Is your party ready to support such an amendment?


Roch La Salle: Yes.


Marc Lalonde: Are you ready to support such an amendment?


Roch La Salle: Yes.


Marc Lalonde: I want that to be recorded.
Then, on page 2922,1 stressed my point when I said:
My question was quite clear: an amendment which would provide that that part of the bill would only come into force six months later.


Roch La Salle: Yes.


Marc Lalonde: Yes, that was it.
We must add to this the discussions which I had with my colleague, Mr. Duhaime, during the weeks before and after the report stage of this bill, that is during these last few weeks. Once again, Mr. Duhaime asked me to postpone if possible the coming into force of this bill so that he and his Newfoundland counterpart could sit down and negotiate. In view of these representations and as evidence of the wish of the Canadian government to promote an agreement between the two governments on this issue, we decided to introduce an amendment which I hope will receive the support of all the parties in this House so that, when this bill is proclaimed, if it is approved by Parliament, the provisions relating to power transmission lines would come into force only six months after proclamation to allow the two provincial governments additional time to sit down and make a genuine effort to come to an agreement, because as I have noted, the Canadian government is convinced that it is through a negotiated settlement of all the problems which now oppose these two governments on this issue that this matter can be settled the most effectively.
Obviously, if the two provincial governments cannot come to an agreement after a new effort and a further attempt at negotiation, we shall not indefinitely let billions of dollars' worth of hydroelectric power which is greatly needed by the people of Newfoundland and Quebec flow into the ocean, we shall not indefinitely allow people to remain unemployed when they could be put to work building dams on rivers, we shall not indefinitely deprive the Canadian economy of the very substantial economic benefits this could entail.
I therefore wrote today to my two counterparts, Mr. Duhaime in Quebec, and Mr. Marshall in Newfoundland,

June 10, 1982
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
telling them of the government's proposal and informing them that the government was giving them another six months to come to a definite agreement. We believe that, with good will from both sides, the two provincial governments could find a beneficial solution. Indeed, it would appear that the two governments should meet to discuss all the aspects which now divide them, and this includes the Churchill River and the rivers on the Quebec North Shore. Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to table immediately copies in English and in French of the letters to Mr. Duhaime and Mr. Marshall with the consent of the House.


Mr.   de Corneille@Acting Speaker: Does the minister have unanimous consent to table the letters?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, once again, our position is clear. We are willing to take our responsibilities as the Canadian government, but, on the other hand, we want to make every effort so that the two provincial governments involved will use the time available to them to settle this question themselves. I can assure the House that if those provinces come to an agreement, we shall be the first to applaud and to rejoice since, unfortunately, this issue is now causing great divisions between two provinces which both have a very high rate of unemployment and a great many financial problems generally and which could reap great benefits from an economic development such as that which could result from such an agreement.

I would like to say that in proposing this particular amendment today the Government of Canada will ensure that the provisions of Bill C-108 concerning electrical transmission will not come into effect until six months after the passage and the proclamation of the bill. This is being done in order to give one more chance to negotiations during those six months. We favour a negotiated settlement between the two provincial governments. We believe that for technical as well as economic reasons a negotiated settlement for the integrated movement of power from Labrador through the Hydro-Quebec system is infinitely superior to any system of dedicated line transmission of power through Quebec.
From the discussions I have had with the Quebec minister in the last few weeks, 1 have had a very strong perception that Quebec is ready and willing to show flexibility and good faith in those negotiations. I have had an indication from the Quebec minister that as part of negotiations on the development of the lower Churchill River as well as the Quebec northshore rivers the Quebec government would be willing to improve appreciably the payments related to the upper Churchill power. In addition, the Quebec government would be willing to discuss arrangements under which Hydro-Quebec would not be the exclusive buyer of additional electricity produced in Labrador.
1 think these proposals from the Quebec government indicate that that government is genuinely interested in proceeding with dispatch to serious negotiations of the issues dividing the two provinces concerning the production and distribution of electrical power.
As I have indicated, we also believe that the only truly satisfactory way of resolving this dispute between the two provinces is through negotiations covering a broad range of issues dealing with the production and transmission of electricity. We are therefore giving some time-not an infinite amount of time, obviously-to the two governments to resolve the issues which are dividing them at the present time.
1 regret that the opposition parties have opposed this bill at second reading. I hope upon reflection-and in view of this particular amendment-they will revise their position and agree to support this bill which, I hope, we will be in a position to pass tonight, including the provisions concerning electrical power transmission. As I have indicated, in order to encourage both provincial governments to return in good faith to the bargaining table, the Government of Canada is asking Parliament to amend Bill C-108 so that any part of the legislation concerning lives for the transmission of electricity would come into effect six months after proclamation.
The spokesman for the Conservative Party in the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation stated quite clearly and categorically that his party would support such an amendment, and I hope that the New Democratic Party will see fit to do so as well.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, while we are encouraging both governments to return to the table and resolve their disputes, we have also indicated that if the two provincial governments feel that the Government of Canada can play any useful role in resolving the issue, we will be available to them.
These are the main points I wanted to draw to the attention of the House. I urge the House to give favourable consideration to these amendments and to support them and pass this bill with dispatch.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Would the minister permit a question?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister a double-barrelled question. The first part is, why did he sit around all evening in the House listening to the speeches without giving us a copy of this amendment? It is a significant and important amendment. This is an important issue, so why did he spring it on us at the last moment?
The second part of the question is what happens after six months under the minister's proposed amendment? Will this bill automatically go through with the corridor expropriation powers in it, or will it come back to Parliament for Parliament to decide?
June 10, 1982


Marc Lalonde: First of all, Mr, Speaker, if the hon. member and the NDP would stop using a lot of the time of the House to make histrionic speeches on Bill C-104 we would be further ahead. I was waiting to get to Bill C-108 so that I could introduce the amendments. I would remind the hon. member that 1 did not get any notice of the amendments he has introduced. 1 have not seen them.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I have a point of order. The parliamentary secretary got the amendments. They were sent to his office this evening.


Marc Lalonde: 1 apologize. If they were sent to my parliamentary secretary's office this evening-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Sent to him.


Marc Lalonde: What time was it?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: A couple of hours ago.


Marc Lalonde: There it is, Mr. Speaker. As far as the question raised by the hon. member is concerned, as I indicated in my comments in committee when we debated this issue, 1 asked the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), as is reported at page 29:22 of the proceedings, if the amendment would provide that that part of the bill would only come into force six months later. The hon. member answered yes. So that is clear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is in possession of seven amendments to Bill C-108. I want to indicate that the two amendments proposed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) have been found to be in order. For the purpose of making matters go forward more easily hon. members have agreed that rather than alter the number of the motions and attempt to relate them to one another, we would simply take them seriatim.
I think it is incumbent upon the Chair to indicate that hon. members need not feel that they must address themselves to the particular amendment which may be before the House. General reference to the bill will be considered adequate in terms of the rule of relevance.
That being the case, any hon. member may seek to speak at any time on any amendment without feeling he would be in any way out of order. I am therefore, if the House so wishes, prepared to put the question to the House on motion No. 1.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should tell you at the outset that 1 was pleased to hear the suggestion made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) concerning the amendment which had been discussed in committee. I am delighted to see that the government will implement a recommendation which I had made personally in this House and 1 would be even more delighted of course, as the minister pointed out, if there had been no need for this amendment and if the two governments were to agree to set their sights on the best effective and profitable objectives for
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
both provinces, namely Quebec and Newfoundland. Once or twice the minister has reminded this House of the remarks I made in committee to the effect that my party and 1 would support such an amendment. We said so ten days ago already and we are quite pleased to support the amendment this evening.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that as an elected member from Quebec I am especially interested in this bill. I know that the minister, who comes from Quebec, spoke twice, on second reading and earlier this evening, but I do not know of any other Quebec members having taken part in this debate, although I expect they will have an opportunity tonight to give us their views on this bill. 1 too would like to commend and thank the president of Hydro-Quebec who appeared before the committee and tabled a very interesting brief which caught the attention of the minister and enabled him to see some of the drawbacks of his bill. Indeed, with respect to Clause 25, the minister agreed to amend his bill to avoid the pitfalls which became apparent after the very relevant documentation presented by Hydro-Quebec. I might add that we on this side have deemed appropriate to introduce an amendment since the president of Hydro-Quebec was praised for his knowledge of the subject and since he was the one who pointed out another danger. 1 hope the government will support our amendment as readily as we are prepared to approve the minister's amendment.
It would seem that Clause 10 might generate conflicts with respect to the new provisions, having in mind the provincial legislation applying to the agricultural sector, that is the environment legislation. Besides, in light of the remarks, the know-how and the evidence submitted by the president of Hydro-Quebec concerning the technical aspects, it must be recalled that in his brief he did state that Clause 10 might conflict with the provincial statutes. Nobody has yet raised that issue. Finally, Hydro-Quebec is concerned over the fact that Clause 10 authorizes the National Energy Board to set environmental standards which differ from those of the provinces with respect to international power lines. The construction of those lines is already fully covered by provincial laws and regulations on environmental protection. According to Hydro-Quebec, Clause 10 will open the door to the establishment of different and conflicting systems and the utility company is afraid that certain line sections may be needlessly subjected to requirements which are totally alien to the entire network. That is why, considering that very relevant remark, the people in charge have shown their competence and deserve our full respect. This has prompted my colleague from Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) to move that amendment to force the governor in council or the National Energy Board to respect existing provincial legislation, considering the new provisions contained in this bill. 1 hope this amendment will gain support, if only to show respect for the true principle of

June 10, 1982
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
co-operative federalism, if only to show respect for provincial jurisdictions and provincial legislation. This amendment applies to all provinces, of course, not only to Quebec, let us not think for a moment that it is aimed solely at Quebec. I hope that my colleagues opposite will show no hesitation in supporting this amendment which would greatly improve this measure.
I listened to the minister who tried once more to reassure people by stating there was absolutely no danger of conflict with provincial laws, and I must refer again to his statement on second reading. The minister said that if we looked at the current pipeline experience in Quebec, for instance, we could see that the Trans-Quebec and Maritimes pipeline is now under construction and should reach Three-Rivers before the end of the year, and hopefully Quebec in the next year, and therefore, that the Trans-Quebec and Maritimes company who were building the pipeline under the National Energy Board licence were now expropriating to build that pipeline, and also that the Trans-Quebec and Maritimes company was operating in accordance with provincial legislation now applicable in Quebec, whether it be legislation on environment or protection of farm lands, and so forth. The case of the Trans-Quebec and Maritimes company over these last few months, over last year was used as an example. That company had to comply with applicable provincial acts regulating some forms of activity within the Province of Quebec. The same thing happened when a pipeline was built, whether in Quebec or elsewhere. When lines were extended, the corporation involved complied not only with federal laws but also with provincial laws that might be applicable. What was involved here, and I am still referring to the minister's comments, was that there was a proposal for granting in respect of transmission lines the same authority that now lies with the National Energy Board for pipelines. This meant that the practice followed in Quebec as I said for the gas pipeline by Trans-Canada and Maritimes was the same as in the case of an international interprovincial transmission line, and I shall come back to this.
I remind hon. members that the minister in respect of transmission lines referred to the same power that now exist. There was no problem when the minister spoke on second reading, and once again when he spoke last night before the proposal was accepted. He is now referring to existing authority. Mr. Speaker, under the existing authority the National Energy Board must comply with provincial laws. The legislation would enable the National Energy Board to ignore them, as proposed under Clause 10, which would become Section 11 of the amended act. Therefore, the minister is not quite honest when he states that the authority granted the National Energy Board in respect of hydroelectric power transmission is identical to the existing one.
The minister knows full well that the National Energy Board will have powers that will extend beyond those existing now and the House of Commons will not be in a position to
discuss whatever regulations the National Energy Board will establish. For that reason, and this is a point I feel members will understand, Section 11 of the amended act would enable the National Energy Board to regulate and make its own regulations on environment and farm zoning. Therefore, I will not be made a party to that kind of argument. As stated by Hydro-Quebec in their submission, this might lead to conflicts and will give the National Energy Board the power to establish new environment and farm zoning criteria. Therefore, if the government have any respect for the provinces they will have no hesitation in accepting an amendment to that clause to ensure that the governor in council complies with existing laws, whether in Quebec or elsewhere. This means that any project that might be implemented would need the agreement of the province where it is undertaken. Such an amendment is extremely important for any province and since the project involved concerns Newfoundland and Quebec, I believe that the six dozens of Quebec members will understand the importance of this amendment and will not hesitate to stengthen the powers of this House, because it has become increasingly clear that every piece of energy legislation which has been discussed here would give additional powers to the National Energy Board and therefore reduce the powers of the legislators. I therefore hope, Mr. Speaker, that the members from Quebec especially will understand the situation in this case, and I am also aware of the interest shown by my Newfoundland colleagues in this issue. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) recalled earlier that some of my colleagues from Newfoundland were not here to vote on the amendment which I had moved. I shall certainly not criticize the position taken by my Newfoundland colleagues about this project, but I would invite the members from Quebec to have as much courage and integrity concerning the interests of their own province as my colleagues from Newfoundland, and if they do, I am not worried about the results concerning this bill, Mr. Speaker.
I do not want to delay the proceedings on this bill. Once again, I have had the great pleasure to hear the minister move an amendment which could allow the governments of Newfoundland and Quebec to come to an agreement. The minister has repeated many times that the best solution would be a negotiated settlement between the two provinces. For our part, we, of course, ask the governments of Quebec and Newfoundland to come to an agreement as quickly as possible and to tax this great wealth for the benefit of the people of the two provinces. There can be no doubt that we agree in principle. Of course, we blame the government for forcing the provinces to do something which normally should be left to the provinces themselves. We have too much respect for provincial priorities and the provinces themselves to give them instructions and set deadlines for them. In the absence of a negotiated settlement, we now have an amendment which could allow the two governments to negotiate diligently, and I believe that both governments have expressed the wish to do so.
June 10, 1982

As I said before the amendment moved by my colleague from Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) would mean that provincial laws would be obeyed. I honestly believe that the members of this House should not hesitate to reflect on the purpose of this amendment which simply aims at bringing about the equity often mentioned by hon. members opposite and which would result in a truly just society concerning the respect of our rights and the system in which we function. I hope that hon. members will have no hesitation in supporting this amendment which would bring about the equity justly claimed by Quebec and which would be equally available to the ten provinces which make up this country. I do not believe this is a special situation. This is not a special condition or a special status; it simply recognizes the wish of all the provinces to have their views respected. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we shall have positive votes in this regard and that my friends from Quebec will give me their support, especially regarding the amendment moved by my colleague from Calgary Centre this evening. I repeat that I shall not hesitate for my part to support the amendment moved by the minister. I shall now give the opportunity to some of my colleagues to make their own comments.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, coming from British Columbia I thought I understood Alice in Wonderland politics. But when I hear Newfoundland and Quebec politics, I wonder if British Columbia isn't simple.


Some hon. Members:: Careful.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, there has been a substantial amendment to this bill tonight and I really do not understand the minister and the way he presented it. His problem is that he is too clever by half. He sat in this House for three hours listening to speeches with a substantial amendment to this bill in his back pocket. He then springs it on the opposition at the last moment, gives a speech and leaves the House. That is permissible. You can do it. Maybe it is good politics, but I do not think it is the proper way of working, and I think that is the reason the minister gets into a lot of trouble, whether with the oil industry in the west, with consumers in Ontario, with the Pequistes in Quebec City or with the Newfoundlanders in St. John's.
When this bill was introduced in the House the minister spoke and said that it did not affect the existing contract between Newfoundland and Quebec. That is what he said. He put out a press release to that effect. If it does not affect it, why is the minister now bringing in an amendment to postpone the applicable provisions for six months? There is something strange and inconsistent there. I am glad that he has postponed it, however. I would like to see Quebec and Newfoundland make a deal. I have been afraid from the beginning that this was an inopportune time to bring in a bill like this. I am not a
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
Quebecer. I am from as far away from Quebec as you can get. Maybe that makes me objective. Maybe it is an advantage. I have been listening to Quebecers and I have been reading this bill very carefully. It seemed to me bad timing to bring in a bill like this, given what went on between the government of Quebec and the constitutional accord. This bill could possibly inflame Quebec. I do not know whether Quebec is grandstanding, as the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) said: "Un gros show-" I know I met with some of the Quebec MNAs when they could not meet with other members.


An hon. Member:: That is a lie.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is what I understand. Hon. members will get their chance to reply. I do not understand whether or not they had a chance to meet with them. I know I met with them and I listened to some arguments on the bill. I listened to the minister tonight. He almost gave the impression that he and the Quebec minister of energy were in agreement. But that is not what I got from the Quebec minister of energy.


Mr. Dingwall:: What did you get?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will explain in a few moments what I understood was Quebec's point of view.
The minister hopes the opposition parties will support this amendment. He asked for certain good faith. But he did not come in with good faith tonight in the way he introduced the amendment.
I see the minister is now entering the House. I will repeat what I just said. I did not think the minister showed good faith in the way he introduced this amendment tonight without giving us any notice. He is too clever by half in my opinion. He is often inconsistent. He originally gave the line that it would not affect existing contracts. Now he says it may. If he wants to do a proper job with respect to this matter-and he is right, we should have a deal between Quebec and Newfoundland- why does he not bring in an amendment to postpone the matter for six months and then come back to Parliament after six months with a bill? That was the motion moved by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) on April 27. It is slightly different from this one.
I asked the minister what happens after six months. The answer he gave was that it was obvious from reading the text that the bill will just be proclaimed in six months, so it will not come back to Parliament. If the minister really wanted to be fair, reasonable and consistent, he would come back to Parliament. I think he is trying to put something over on us. I think-I say this as an outsider and I hope I am wrong-that the federal government is trying to play games with Quebec. It is like a continual battle or a blood feud between the minister, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Premier of Quebec. I hope for the sake of Canada that they will all cool it. I am sure I will hear from some of the Quebec members who will indicate the situation. Maybe 1 have missed something.

June 10, 1982
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
I see a number of problems with respect to the bill. I will tell you what they are, Mr. Speaker. One is that Quebec is concerned that the bill will not respect Quebec laws on environment and on agriculture. We offered an amendment to try to get the bill to respect Quebec laws on environment and agriculture. Our amendment is a little different from the amendment offered by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). If you look at our amendment, we say that where there is a conflict they have to look at provincial laws. If there is an overriding conflict, then they have to look at the law dealing with property and environment. A good example would be Ontario Hydro exporting power to the United States when it does not put in scrubbers in a coal-fired generator. Many Members of Parliament signed a petition with respect to that issue.
There is an issue respecting Quebec lands. We offered an amendment to help, and I think we should consider it. The minister quoted the chairman of Quebec Hydro. But he did not quote the chairman completely, he quoted him selectively. The chairman of Quebec Hydro said there is a difference between a pipeline and a hydro line. The difference is this: a pipeline goes through a province and you do not need other facilities, but a hydro corridor has to be part of a grid. That is the key difference. I think that is what the chairman of Hydro-Quebec meant when he said he is ni chaud ni froid, that is neither hot nor cold about the sovereignty issue. That is what he meant because he thought it would be impossible to build the corridor. If it is impossible, and if there is a difference between a pipeline and a hydro corridor, as hydro said, but which the minister does not agree with, why do we have this bill? As Alice in Wonderland said , "It gets curiouser and curiouser" why we have this bill.
[Translation\
Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on Quebec's concerns about the impact of Bill C-108. I have met quite recently with representatives of the Quebec government. I also listened carefully to the comments made by the chairman of the board of Hydro-Quebec, Mr. Joseph Bourbeau, when he appeared before the Committee on the Energy Legislation. Quebec has therefore stated its objections against this bill and I feel that those objections are worth considering by government members. Indeed, it is unfortunate that the Liberal members from Quebec, those self-styled champions of their fellow citizens' interests, persist in disregarding those concerns about the disastrous consequences of some provisions of the bill. For example, this bill would empower the federal government to build a hydro corridor on Quebec territory at the request of the Newfoundland government but without Quebec agreement. The Liberals may feel that they could thus settle the hydro dispute between Quebec and Newfoundland. We believe on the contrary that such action would not only go against co-operative federalism, but would only delay the resumption of negotiations between the parties involved. Obviously, such a dispute can only be settled through negotiation. Moreover, the bill gives a new regulatory power to the NEB. Quebec is concerned that such power might make it
more difficult to enforce the provincial laws on environment and agricultural zoning. In his speech on second reading, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) said he would respect Quebec laws. I hope then that he will support our amendment to that effect, which would give Quebec the assurance that its powers relating to conservation of the environment and farm lands will be safeguarded.
I apologize for my pronunciation, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Well done.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Basically there is the issue of trying to follow what the minister said on second reading, that as far as possible he was respecting the Quebec laws on territory, on environment and on agriculture. Perhaps it does not bother anglophones that the National Energy Board has these powers, but apparently it bothers the people of Quebec. Thus, why do we not respect them? It seems to me that that would be cooperative federalism.
My other amendment deals with the matter of deleting the words "public interest" from the power of the National Energy Board. The Liberals made a major amendment in committee. They tried to please hydro by changing the act so that it could raise money and obtain export contracts to the south. Hydro felt that the wording was dangerous, that the National Energy Board could change a contract on the grounds of public convenience and necessity. The government eliminated those words, so why can it not eliminate the words "public interest"? They are of great interest to hydro as well.
I have proposed two other amendments on which I would like to speak now and perhaps shorten the debate. The bill dropped the provision in the draft bill and the National Energy Program which promised that a degree of Canadian ownership of energy companies wishing to export oil and gas would be a factor in whether or not an export licence was issued. In other words, they were to consider whether a company had Canadian ownership before it exported gas. It seems to me that this is backtracking from the National Energy Program. It is not in the bill, and I have made the appropriate amendment to include it.
My other amendment concerns the fact that the bill still allows export licences for oil and gas to run for 25 years. In view of the dismal record of the National Energy Board supply projections, we think the maximum is too high. We think ten years would be more appropriate. We still have oil contracts which we are honouring when there is a shortage of oil. I may be wrong but I think there are still some. When we have these long-term contracts and we suddenly discover that the National Energy Board made a mistake in the amount of natural gas which we have, for example, we may not want such long contracts. Therefore I made an amendment on behalf of the New Democratic Party that we reduce the length of the contracts.
June 10, 1982

I should like to put on the record a telegram which was received from British Columbia Hydro. It is dated June 10 and is addressed to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation. Since the committee has concluded its work, I thought I would read it into the record of the House of Commons. It reads:
Re: Bill C-108, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act (No. 3).
British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority is greatly concerned with the provisions of this bill as they would affect the control, use and ownership of its land and other resources. I refer particularly to Section 90.1 and related sections which would authorize discriminatory treatment of interprovincial facilities and the press release which accompanies the predecessor bill entitled, "Energy Security Act" which clearly identifies British Columbia and infcrentially B.C. Hydro as a reason for the legislation. There can be no justification for federal intervention and interference to require access for a private utility in one province through another province to an export market in a country which has a common boundary with both provinces or by so doing interfering in interprovincial and inter-utility transactions based upon mutual support and recognition of respective interests. Everyone should be equally concerned with the constitutional and interpretive difficulties created by the drafting device used in treating a power line as a pipeline to justify the legislation in order ostensibly to base the amendments on political precedent. British Columbia Hydro also adopts and shares the concerns of Hydro-Quebec in its submission signed by its secretary and dated 7 May 1982 directed to "clauses" (sections) 25, 13 and 10 dealing with the uncertainty this legislation will introduce into export contracting.
It was signed by R. W. Bonner, chairman of B.C. Hydro and Power Authority.
We have come full circle. We have B.C. Hydro asking why we have this bill, and we have the government saying that it is to solve the problem in western Canada. Then we have the minister coming in and saying that it will not affect Quebec and that he will respect Quebec's rights and laws. Now he is bringing in an amendment which admits that it will affect Quebec, or at least it gives the illusion to Newfoundland and Quebec that this bill will affect the status quo. That is the danger with this bill, that is the problem with it. It is a most confused piece of legislation. 1 know hon. members will say that it is the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway who is confused, but there are many inconsistencies in the bill.


Mr. Kushner:: You said it first.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 am not confused about the bill. It is a strange bill and it has other ends in mind; it is an unnecessary bill. Why do we have Quebec ministers and Quebec MNAs visiting Ottawa? They are obviously worried about the bill. Perhaps they are grandstanding, but they seem worried about it and they seem to have made a couple of good points. This is why we offer the amendment tonight and we urge the government to support it.
In conclusion I should like to say that the people in Quebec near Labrador share many things in common with the people in Labrador. It seems to me that they are both alienated from the government in Quebec City and the government in St. John's because they are in the frontier and away from the centre. They experience ups and downs, booms and busts. They do not need a fight between Quebec and Newfoundland. They need some regional plans and some help. Representatives from Quebec have told me that there are some local programs in that province such as Reynolds Aluminium at Baie Comeau.
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
There are regional developments but they are having problems because these are difficult times. The people in that area need some development. I think Quebec and Newfoundland would do better to get on with the job of development and to solve this particular problem. I do not think they need the federal government, least of all the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, sticking its nose into the situation. They need the federal government to stay out of it.
If the minister were really serious about adjourning or postponing this for six months to let the parties negotiate, he would not just make a proclamation, he would make an amendment to bring it back to Parliament so we could deal with it in Parliament.


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I heard a while ago my colleague apologize for the poor quality of his French; I can assure him that if all members of the House, including those in his own party, in the official opposition and in my own party were trying as hard as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) does to learn French, Canada would be a better place to live. 1 suggest that there is no need for him to apologize, for he is doing just fine. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid he is extraordinarily naive about the province of Quebec and its government, because when he refers to what Quebec and Quebecers want, he does not differentiate between what Quebecers want and what the PQ government wants. But I will come back to that in a little while, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the fact that this is probably the last or next to last day of debate on the energy bills, I should like first of all to thank all the people who have worked on this legislation for nearly eight weeks, the members of the Official Opposition, the New Democratic Party and the government, my colleague the hon. member for Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre), who devoted a lot of time and energy to this committee, and all the members of the opposition for their contribution to these eight energy bills. I should like to pay a special tribute to the chairman of the committee, who has done his utmost to ensure that the legislation was considered and returned to the House as expeditiously as possible, so that we may be able to pass these bills in early June instead of by June 30, as scheduled. Finally, I should like to pay tribute to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his officials for the work they have done during committee meetings and also for their willingness to consider the proposed amendments. During this process, Mr. Speaker, amendments by the dozens were presented in the House, including several from outside the House, 1 mean by organizations involved in the oil industry or by financial institutions, as well as members from both sides of the House.
As to the lobbying by the PQ government, I should like to say that these people oppose federal Bill C-108. The hon.

June 10, 1982
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
member for Vancouver Kingsway indicated that he had the opportunity to meet members from the PQ government this week, and also Mr. Duhaime a few weeks ago. 1 congratulate him, Mr. Speaker. He is certainly more lucky than we are, even if we represent the government and the majority in the House, because they never came to see us. I see that the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway are having a little conversation, but I suggest that they had better listen, especially the very naive member for Vancouver-Kingsway. As for the hon. member for Joliette, everybody knows that he is a lost cause anyway.
Mr. Speaker, when representatives of the PQ government come on a pilgrimage to Ottawa, they are not coming in good faith, for if they had wanted any changes in the bill, they would not have been dealing with members of the opposition, but with members of the government. Considering that we are not permitted to say that a member of the House is a liar, Mr. Speaker, we may nevertheless say that about a member who sits elsewhere; and it is a fact that the member-


Roch La Salle: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) means well when he says that the representatives of the PQ government should have met members from the government as well as members from the opposition. I should like him to know that these representatives tried to meet the Chairman of the Liberal caucus, the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier), but they were told that he was too busy to receive them.


Dennis Dawson: This is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker; the hon. member for Joliette is again making representations on behalf of his PQ friends. I am not surprised, but I should like to tell the hon. member for Joliette that Mr. Ouellet discussed the matter with me. In fact, I offered to meet him but Mr. Ouellet asked if it would be possible to meet us before the standing committee ended its hearings on Bill C-108. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Joliette made a bit of a scene in committee; he should know that the hon. members who sat regularly on that committee completed their work on Thursday last, and that Mr. Ouellet did not call from Quebec until Thursday morning asking me if we could wait for them before completing the deliberations of the standing committee on the energy legislation. I am sorry but I must say to the hon. member for Joliette that I had to tell him that we should have been pleased to meet them but that unfortunately the committee would be completing its work within the hour. So as far as that meeting goes, I must say that once again the hon. member for Joliette, considering his provincial aspirations and his friendship with the provincial government, is more concerned with pleasing the Parti Quebecois than fighting for the interests of his constituents.


Roch La Salle: They asked for a meeting!


Dennis Dawson: Indeed they did, Mr. Speaker, and we agreed to meet them. They came last Tuesday, and met the hon. member for Joliette. Big deal! They met with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. What good does that do to them. Mr. Speaker? There are 74 Quebec members. We would have been pleased to meet them rather than see them make a show in the House, give press conferences and speak to reporters. They could have come and discuss with the Quebec representatives and not with the member for Joliette. They could have come and meet the 74 Quebec members. Mr. Speaker, as far as the matter is concerned, certain things must be said. The PQ members have made a big fuss over the corridor issue and for the most part it will be settled through the minister's amendment which gives them six months to negotiate, but those were not the real Quebec claims. Those claims, Mr. Speaker, among others dealt especially with clause 25 which will probably jeopardize their exports and contracts abroad. In connection with the corridor, I would like to quote Mr. Bour-beau:

"I think that you mean corridor that could be built according to this law." I will say it in French.

Cela ne me fait ni chaud ni froid.
Is that clear? Such is the position taken by the president of Hydro-Quebec, as opposed to that taken by the PQ MNAs. It is not the position taken by the hon. member for Joliette, obviously. But since when does anybody think the hon. member for Joliette will do differently than the Parti Quebecois? Under the headline, "The Churchill Falls issue does not worry Duhaime, the newspaper La Presse published an item on May 31 in which Mr. Duhaime is reported as saying that whichever way the case goes, Quebec has nothing to worry about even if the Supreme Court of Canada rules in favour Newfoundland.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, the minister and the president of Hydro-Quebec say so. Of course, there are three or four PQ MNAs who want a little publicity, who want to make a show, as I said to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. But our purpose was to meet the needs of Hydro-Quebec and Quebecers, and this is why the Quebec caucus proposed changes, with the co-operation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). A second amendment has been moved this evening, and this will fully satisfy Quebecers. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to satisfy the PQ MNAs, it is a lost cause. Neither am I trying to satisfy the hon. member for Joliette, he is a lost cause. Our concern is with Quebecers, and if the PQ members really were sincere when they came here Tuesday night, they would have approached Liberal members, they would have approached one of us, we were two: the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre) and myself were sitting on the Committee on Energy Legislation. But they never met us. They told us: Delay
June 10, 1982

the bill for us, delay the development of Canada because we, PQ MNAs are extremely concerned with the quality of life in Canada. Of course, Mr. Speaker, everyone knows this is a farce.
Mr. Speaker, as far as the corridor as such is concerned, the minister referred earlier to conditions, the impact on TransAlta, the fact that we are simply trying to have uniform responsibilities in respect of both pipelines and the hydro corridor, on the environmental aspect, Mr. Speaker, at the Canadian government level. I listened to the Progressive Conservative member who referred to his amendment on environment. I am looking at the Minister of Environment (Mr. Roberts). Again, the federal government has absolutely no lesson to take from the Quebec government on environmental protection matters, whether Parks Canada, federal institutions under the Minister of Transport, or others. We have always respected environmental needs, and not only those of Quebec. We have much more severe restrictions because, for all practical purposes, we have no lesson to take from them.
Why an amendment to Section 25? I referred earlier to the representations made by the Quebec caucus. I also referred to the information we obtained, for instance from PASNY and the New York Hydro Power Pool, which were concerned that the export license might be withdrawn. However, further to the representations made by Mr. Bourbeau in committee, and I quote Clause 25 of Bill C-108, "Section 83 of the said Act is repealed", etc. he went on to state, we feel the phrase "public convenience and necessity" has a meaning that is difficult to measure or define, it can be interpreted in all sorts of ways. Clause 25 will complicate our export negotiations, especially excess power sales negotiations, in a situation where this is more and more a buyers' market. Mr. Speaker, the amendment put forward in committee on that aspect simply solves the problem and, for all practical purposes export licences are no more covered by the amendment. For all practical purposes, that was our objective.
Mr. Speaker, if we consider a little more closely the over-all question of the Quebec-Newfoundland negotiations on the development of the Lower Churchill, we find that once again the Quebec government, which for six years now has proved it is totally incapable of negotiating in good faith with anyone, has met with failure. It has proved its weakness during the constitutional negotiations. It has set aside the interests of Quebec and dwelt only on those of the Parti Quebecois. It has failed in its negotiations with its civil service, and we see what such a failure is forcing them to do now, Mr. Speaker. It has failed in all its endeavours, whether interprovincial or international, over that six-year period. Once again, I feel that neither the Liberal nor the Union Nationale governments which preceded them in power have any lesson to learn from that rump of a government. Mr. Speaker, we have seen it fail in its relations with the anglophones of the province of Quebec,
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
where once again in bad faith, instead of striving towards solutions to please the people, to achieve compromise, it acted in an arrogant fashion. We see this arrogance in the way they negotiate with the municipalities, the Quebec Urban Community, the Montreal Urban Community. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious they do not know how to negotiate in good faith.
What is important with regard to the Newfoundland issue taken as a whole, as the minister pointed out a while ago, is the fact that Quebec and Newfoundland workers want jobs and if no agreement is reached, those jobs will be lost. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, Quebec cannot afford to lose them. It is also true, with all due respect to my colleagues from Newfoundland, that their government has nothing to teach us as far as its negotiating talents are concerned. I think the Quebec government was every bit as flexible as the one in Newfoundland; unfortunately, the two governments have never been able to agree, not only with us, but amongst themselves and with their own employees.
Mr. Speaker, I trust that with the six-month extension the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has granted them, they will now manage to come to an agreement, because the major concern here is not the interests of the Parti Quebecois, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the hon. member for Joliette would have us believe nor the three or four members who came to Ottawa on a bit of a pilgrimage to visit with them, but rather the interests of Quebecers in this area, Mr. Speaker, as in all other areas, and the fact that those interests are best served by negotiating an agreement in good faith, and not by means of petty demagoguery.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is the first time I have heard applause from the other side for this side, and I turned to find out that it was the parliamentary secretary.


Marc Lalonde: Infiltration.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I hope the hon. minister listens to what I have to say. First of all, I would like to point out that it was in second reading that the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) brought in an amendment for a six months' delay respecting the interprovincial power lines. That is on the record. No one can deny that. The next point I will be proving to the minister is that he had to make this change, this delay, and that he may have to make some more changes arising from what I am going to bring forward, because he must get provincial agreement.
Our amendment, which refers to subsection 39(2) of the NEB, would be amended by clause 11, which was clause 10 in the first reading, giving powers over the environmental and safety concerns, public and construction workers, for oil and gas lines. Section 41 extends this to international power lines and, by clause 19.1, would include the interprovincial power lines.

June 10, 1982
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
Hydro Quebec expected conflict between provincial standards and those standards to be set by the National Energy Board. Under this act, the provinces have extreme concern over the National Energy Board standards versus their own standards. Our amendment would have required the National Energy Board, when formulating regulations under subsection 39(2), to take into account any relevant provincial regulations or law. That is what we are discussing.
This amendment must be considered in the light of the means by which the NEB will exercise its new-found authority. Its main concern is environmental. The electrical fields omitted from power lines and how they affect car radios when cars travel under them should be considered, as an example. The National Energy Board has long been exercising a passive role in this area. International power lines have always been assessed by the National Energy Board experts to see if they meet prevailing standards. The problem is that the National Energy Board did not foresee the need to hire any new people for its new, over-all responsibility in the area of construction safety where our concern is being raised.
The National Energy Board has given no thought as to how it will implement and enforce its standards. It is hiring no additional people. It has taken all these new power lines and the responsibility for them. It does not see the requirement to hire any more people at this time. Even today, it does not employ any construction safety people. The provinces have had that jurisdiction until now. They will be able to apply existing standards, safety equipment and construction procedures, but they do not have the facilities to enforce these standards.
Once this bill has passed into law, the provincial authorities will have absolutely no jurisdiction. They will have no jurisdiction over the construction site of international and interprovincial power lines. At that point there will be an enforcement vacuum. This is something that we raised in committee. We tried to bring it to their attention, but we did not get down to the final point because the government kept ducking around it.
What is happening in this bill is exactly what happened in 1976 when the government put through the Atomic Energy Control Act. The federal government's responsibility was for the health of Atomic Energy workers, but no one considered the uranium miners. The minister will be aware of that. Those people were floating through the gaps in the floorboards. No one looked after them until, finally, the Atomic Energy Commission set the standards and reached an agreement with the provincial governments which enforced those standards. The National Energy Board has admitted that it did not take this into consideration when drafting the bill. It is a mistake and must be changed.
That brings me back to the first point I was making, that it needs those six months to clean up the mistakes and to sit down with the provincial governments and come to some understanding. This bill is another example of the federal government taking more and more power and intruding, more and more, into provincial rights. In this case, Mr. Speaker, they have left the construction workers at bay with no protection from anybody. They have made a serious mistake in this
bill and they must do something about it. The National Energy Board should already have the know-how today before this bill is passed, if they are going to enforce on-site standards. They do not have anyone employed to protect the safety of the workers; they have given no thought to the workers.
This is pretty common with all Liberal legislation. They do not care about the Canadian workers. This National Energy Program has put many of them out of work. Now they are bringing in legislation that will not protect the workers, and the National Energy Board does not have one person available today to look after that problem. The federal government has avoided this because it did not want confrontation with the provinces. Well, Mr. Speaker, they are going to have their fair share of confrontation with the provinces. They have made the mistake and they have left the employees of the provincial Crown corporations unprotected.
They could have had their agreement a long time ago, if this minister had had any belief in co-operation. They could have had the agreement with all the provinces, but the minister is bullying this bill through. It may be that it is his swan song, Mr. Speaker, but when he leaves I hope he remembers that all the electrical construction workers are totally unprotected by this bill. I will be supporting this, and I plead with the other side to support our amendment. I think it is very important. I believe that we must respect the provincial authorities, we must respect their rights, and I urge the hon. members opposite when we vote on this amendment to vote with us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I will not be taking up too much time of the House.


An hon. Member:: That is long enough.


Harvie Andre: I guess that shows that my remarks get through.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: The amendment in Motion No. 1 that we have proposed at this stage of the game is asking, in a sense, that the law reflect the reality, because the reality is that federal-provincial agreement is necessary to accomplish anything. In the last analysis, it really does not matter who has the upper hand in a legal constitutional sense, because both levels of government have within their capability the legal authority, the constitutional authority, to frustrate the other level of government, if that becomes the course of action that is decided on. Therefore, what we suggest by this motion is that when the federal government makes orders in council in regard to the provisions of this act, they be subject to provincial laws and regulations.
It is really asking that the law reflect the reality of Canada.
I think that having the law reflect that reality and having this House express that opinion will contribute to better harmony between the two levels of government, better responsiveness by
June 10, 1982

the government to the needs of Canadians and better government for Canadians.
The minister proposed a couple of amendments, one of which is fairly technical. One relates to a six months' hoist. That one is exactly the same as the amendment our party proposed on second reading, which the Liberals voted against.
1 am pleased to see that they can learn, albeit slowly, and have come around to recognize the wisdom of putting in at this point in time that period of six months during which it is hoped that sincere negotiations can occur between the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland and that that question of the Labrador power can be resolved in the way things must be resolved in this country-by way of agreement and not by the use of legal muscle, or electoral muscle, or otherwise.
The great preponderance of concern about this bill has dealt with the question of electrical power transmission, the export of electrical power and so on. That has been the issue which has dominated the public and private debate. There has been the expression in the House and elsewhere that the issue was one of the province of Newfoundland wanting a corridor across Quebec so that they could export Labrador power, and the province of Quebec resisting that. That really is not the truth, Mr. Speaker. The reality is otherwise. I have in my hand a copy of a telegram from British Columbia Hydro, which says that the British Columbia Hydro Power Authority is greatly concerned and objects to the provisions of this bill.
We had before the committee, tabled with the committee, a letter from the government of New Brunswick, indicating that the government of New Brunswick is concerned and opposed to this bill. We had representations-


Marc Lalonde: Not from the government of Nova Scotia.


Harvie Andre: -from Hydro Quebec expressing their concern. So we have a situation where we have the government of Quebec, yes; the government of British Columbia, yes; the government of New Brunswick, yes; all opposed to this bill. So it is simple minded, and I do not think it contributes to better understanding, to say that somehow this bill has to do on the electrical side exclusively with this Quebec-Newfoundland problem, and that the government is trying to respond to one of the legitimate concerns of the Province of Newfoundland in its attempts to develop its hydro-electric potential.
In all of this debate about the electrical power aspects of this bill people have missed the fact that this bill also affects the oil and gas industry very substantially. There are some provisions in this bill which, in my view, are undesirable, if not offensive.
Clause No. 17 in the bill as reported by the committee indicates that decisions of the National Energy Board under Sections 52, 53 and 54 to change the tolls or pipeline tariffs can no longer be appealed to the federal court. Up to now, when the National Energy Board made decisions respecting the tolls that a pipeline may charge for transportation of its gas or oil, there was the ability to appeal the decisions to the federal court as part of national judicial system of the country. This bill would amend that and remove that right of appeal. Why, Mr. Speaker? We never received any adequate reason
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
for that. Of course, if you are big brother, it is nice to know that your decisions are final and that no one can appeal your decisions to another body and have them overturned.
Clause No. 18 would allow the National Energy Board to order a pipeline or gas distributor to transport someone's gas on a common-carrier basis. That could be a desirable thing, but it could be abused, Mr. Speaker. There are situations where, because of the way the legislation is drawn, a municipal distribution company, for example, could find itself in the position of being ordered to transport someone's gas, to its own detriment. One can envision a large industrial consumer pruchasing its gas supplies directly from a gas producing company and having the National Energy Board order a distributor to distribute it. That could be very detrimental to the distribution company, other consumers and so forth. There should be some better definition of that part of those changes. It is not there.
Clause 26 of this bill contains provisions which can only be described as exceedingly offensive. The original bill given first reading in this House on April 7 of this year stated in Clause 25 that it would amend Section 84 of the old National Energy Board Act. Clause 25 says:
Subject to subsection (2) and the regulations, the Board may by order, with the approval of the Governor in Council, revoke or suspend a licence if
(a)	any term or condition thereof has not been complied with or has been contravened; or
(b)	in the opinion of the Board, the public convenience and necessity so requires.
This bill says that the governor in council can in fact cancel an export permit when the public convenience makes it necessary. What is the public convenience?


Mr. Deans:: What is it?


Harvie Andre: That is going to be defined by-


Ian Deans: I would like to know because 1 do not know. Nobody does.


Harvie Andre: That is right, nobody does. The public convenience will be defined by the minister and his minions. It can mean whatever they want it to mean. Understandably, there was a great deal of concern expressed about that provision that a contract could be cancelled. A company could get a contract to export some electricity or some natural gas and invest, these days, billions of dollars on the facilities to transport those energy commodities and then find that that export contract could be cancelled when the public convenience dictates. How can a company justify that kind of expenditure when a contract can be cancelled on the basis of what the minister and his minions decides is the public convenience? Ontario Hydro, Hydro-Quebec, the New Brunswick hydro utility company, the Canadian Petroleum Association and the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada all said this was a terrible provision. Showing how responsive it was, the Liberal Government of Canada amended that provision to read:

June 10, 1982
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)
-in the case of a licence, other than a licence for the exportation of power, the Board is of the opinion that the public convenience and necessity so requires.
The government exempted electrical power. On the one hand that, frankly, is an example of a responsive government. It is an example of another success as a result of the bellringing incident. If we had not had separate bills and opportunities for these utilities to make their views known in the committees, we would not have this improvement, which certainly is an improvement for electrical utilities. However, on the other hand, it is offensive, because it does not exclude natural gas. For goodness' sake, why in blazes can this government not be as responsive to the concerns of western Canadian gas producers as it is to central Canadian electricity producers? That is not to criticize the government for being responsive to the power utilities. That is an example of good government, but if we are to keep this blooming country together, and if this government is to be a national government for the whole nation-all of it from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island-at some point in time it must start to be as concerned about the problems and concerns of natural gas producers in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan as it is about electricity producers in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. We applaud the change but for goodness' sake why could the change not reflect the fact that this is the Government of Canada, all of Canada and not just central Canada or eastern Canada?
Clause 27 would allow the governor in council-again the minister and his minions-to set the prices for oil and gas exports. Again, how is the producer going to be able to negotiate an export sale of gas or oil when the governor in council can set the price? The United States has a deregulated oil and gas industry.


Marc Lalonde: Not gas.


Harvie Andre: Not gas yet. I am sorry. The minister is right, but oil is certainly deregulated, and soon gas will be. That means there is a marketplace. The price a producer can get for what he has to sell is the market price.


Mr. Lewis:: And it is getting lower.


Harvie Andre: Incidentally, it is coming down, while ours is going up.


Marc Lalonde: Not gas.


Harvie Andre: We will see. We will see. There is a marketplace. The price at which a commodity can be sold is the market price, so why in blazes put into law that the governor in council or the cabinet-the minister and his minions-will set the price? They might as well put it into law that the governor in council has the right to order that there shall be no rain on weekends. That would be a nice law and we would all approve, but the government is not capable of doing that. It is not capable of doing this either, but it can frighten potential buyers and make it more difficult for potential sellers. Of course, that is what the government is doing.
Clause 29 is even better in terms of big brother gone mad. This clause would set up a whole new part to the National
Energy Board Act which would give the National Energy Board the right to regulate all aspects of interprovincial oil and gas trade. Since 1980 and 1981 there have been various spokesmen for the government saying we have to change the Constitution of Canada so that we are at least a common market; if it is nothing else, Canada at least has to be a common market. No one argues about that. We should be a common market, but if we are a common market, then why in blazes do we have to have big brother regulating interprovincial trade in oil and gas through the National Energy Board? Is it trade when Saskatchewan Power buys gas from Alberta, or is that just persons in the same common market doing business with each other in the normal way? Is big brother going to treat Canada as some sort of collection of ten independent states which are to be regulated by the National Energy Board? Why is that in there? Why in blazes do we do that? The government will never admit it, but I think it has to do with federal-provincial conflicts. Big brother-the federal government-would like to have the legal authority to say to any province: "By cracky, if you want to sell your gas or your oil or if you want to buy some gas or oil, you are going to have to come through us." The federal government wants to control that. It wants to be in control of all aspects of interprovincial trade. That is offensive to my definition of Canada. That is offensive to any reasonable definition of Canada.
Hon. members opposite are getting a little bit impatient. I recognize that it is not their role to read and understand the legislation before they cast a vote. That would be an intolerable burden for backbenchers of the Liberal Party.
If I might be permitted an aside, Mr. Speaker, it is for that reason that we will probably never see electronic voting in this House so long as that party is in power. Could you imagine the chaos if hon. members opposite had to come up and vote electronically all by themselves without the example of their leader saying, "This is what to do; follow me."? They would have to think whether to vote for or against a particular motion. The situation would be chaotic if backbenchers opposite had to come here and listen to speeches now and again to know what is going on. That is, those who can read might have to do that.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that through the amendment the government brought in tonight-which was our amendment on second reading-calling for a six months' hoist it shows responsiveness by exempting electrical power from the cancellation of contracts on the basis of public convenience. However, by failing to show the same responsiveness to the concerns of oil and gas producers it has shown it is still not a Government of Canada in a complete sense, but a government of a very narrow part of Canada.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I want to correct a statement that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) made. He spoke about 25-year licences for the
June 10, 1982

export of oil. If he knew anything about the industry he would know that oil is sold on a monthly nomination basis and not by 25-year contracts. I keep trying to educate him. He is not in the House at the moment but I will keep trying and perhaps eventually he will learn a little bit about this part of our economy.
We will support the government's amendment, Mr. Speaker, and will look for a vote on our amendment. In total, although the bill is somewhat improved, it is still not sufficiently improved to justify our voting for it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has motions Nos. 1 through 7 in hand. 1 will watch in the event that any hon. member wishes to speak on a particular motion. The question is on Motion No. 1. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is now on Motion No. 2. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. Member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion is lost on division.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Waddell) negatived.
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on Motion No. 3. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. Member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Waddell) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on Motion No. 4. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. Member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Waddell) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on Motion No. 5. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.

June 10, 1982
National Energy Board Act (No. 3)


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. Member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 5 (Mr. Waddell) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on Motion No. 6. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Lalonde) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on Motion No. 7. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed will please say nay.
I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 7 (Mr. Lalonde) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The vote on Motion No. 1 (Mr. Andre) and the deferred divisions will be taken presently.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
Marc Lalonde: that the bill as		amended be concurred
in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Now!
June 10, 1982


Madam Speaker:: By unanimous consent, now.


Marc Lalonde: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Madam Speaker:: Call in the members. Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Mr. Forrestall:: Madam Speaker, I have a question of privilege. Because of the importance of this bill to Atlantic Canada and the fact that it deals with the corridor it had been my intention-and I withdraw that intention-to vote in favour of this measure, not against it. 1 was not recognized, and I simply want to record the fact that I am in the chamber to speak out for Atlantic Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. MacKay:: Madam Speaker, the same situation pertains to me as that which my colleague just expressed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my vote was properly recorded against this abominable piece of legislation.

June 10, 1982
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 31 last, I directed a question to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove). If you remember, my question dealt with Bill C-4, the Municipal Grants Act, 1980.
In evidence brought before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, it had been suggested that the minister set up a task force whose reference would be to consider the key factors having an impact on municipal budgets, especially as far as the payment of grants in lieu of taxes was concerned. The minister had undertaken to submit to a task force the issue of the right of appeal in cases of differences of opinions on the real property assessment. In addition, an important matter, the use of the minister's discretionary power was to be considered by the task force chaired by Mr. Pollack. We know that in several clauses of Bill C-4, especially in Section 3, it is provided that the minister will have an absolute discretionary power. This, according to several witnesses heard before the committee, would give rise to some considerable problems with respect to municipal revenues.
Mr. Speaker, in almost all Canadian municipalities, we find several buildings for which the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) pays grants in lieu of taxes. It can be easily understood under the present circumstances that those municipalities whose budgets are more restricted are especially sensitive about that issue. For some of them, a relatively substantial part of their budget is based on those grants and it seems essential that a consultation or appeal process in case of differences of opinions be set up to provide them with some assistance.
Besides, we have seen this week, Mr. Speaker, that economic matters were the main concern of municipalities. Indeed, everyone knows that the Canadian Federation of Municipalities held its 45th convention right here in Ottawa and that the theme of the convention was precisely "The municipalities and the economy". Various economic themes were discussed during the convention, including the financial imputability of municipalities, the drawing up of municipal budgets, housing, employment and energy conservation as well as technological change.
That is why, considering the concerns of the municipalities, I asked the minister last week, before the convention was held, whether the task force had made its final report and whether
the minister would table or make public, before the convention in Ottawa this week, what seemed to me as being the rather significant findings of that report. The minister replied that indeed the task force had completed its work and that he was looking into the recommendations. Since then, he has said that the report will be made public in the near future.
As the committee has already completed its work, if the minister could table the report shortly, the participants to this convention would have been able to read this report and return to their respective regions to study its content. Since the representations made by the municipalities to the Pollack committee dealt with increased consultation in the decisionmaking process on matters concerning them, I suggest the minister would be well advised to let them express their views on the final recommendations of the task force before they are implemented. That is why I urge the minister to make public this report which is of tremendous importance for municipalities as soon as possible. This would contribute to a healthy dialogue between the parties and result in a happy agreement between the federal government and the municipalities concerned.


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I shall, if I may, congratulate my hon. colleague from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on his foresight in raising this very important matter of grants in lieu of taxes. I shall now take this opportunity to provide a detailed answer to the question he put on May 31.
During the hearings held by the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works early in 1980, before the new Municipal Grants Act was passed, many representatives from the provinces, municipalities and various associations submitted briefs criticizing the absence of an appeal procedure-as the hon. member mentioned-which would make it possible to resolve differences of opinion, and also the minister's discretionary powers. At his suggestion, the minister set up a task force that would analyse the situation and submit a report to the minister. The task force, chaired by Mr. Isidore Pollack of Quebec City, had a work plan which included the following elements: a documentary research program on key factors affecting grants to municipalities, the development of various possible appeal procedures, an intensive program of field trips including meetings with recipients of grants and evaluating authorities, and finally, the drafting of a report to be submitted.
I have been informed that the task force has completed its mission and will submit its final report to the minister within the next few days. As the minister noted in the House on May 31, he will make this report available to members of the Standing Committee in due time. However, I can say at once
June 10, 1982

that this report will probably recommend, subject to certain provincial mechanisms, the setting up of some type of a review board to which the recipients of grants, including municipalities, will be able to submit their case. This board will then make recommendations to the minister.
According to information available to me, the Pollack Report will be substantial. I have to hurry, Mr. Speaker, since it is getting late. This report will deal with this issue and other related matters in detail and will provide all the facts, all the motives and every possible alternative. As I have already mentioned, this report will be made available to the members of the Standing Committee, where it can be the subject of an in-depth examination. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that in my opinion, this is an excellent initiative on the part of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), and I am convinced that the speedy action taken by our Department will meet with his approval.


INDUSTRY-QUALITY OF RAILS PRODUCED BY SYDNEY STEEL CORPORATION. (B) IMPORTATION OF RAILS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is very difficult to get any degree of accurate information around this place concerning matters involving transport. We have seen this with respect to Mirabel and with respect to a number of issues, but the one I wish to discuss tonight is the situation involving orders for the Sydney Steel Corporation in Sydney, Nova Scotia.
On May 11, I attempted to raise some questions in the House. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) in his usual way, seemed to, as Allan Fotheringham would say, "fuzzify the modification". First, the minister said quite clearly that there was a problem with Sydney Steel as far as the quality of the rails was concerned. When outside of the House he said that, of course it was a mistake. There was nothing wrong with the rails. What has happened recently is that the people of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia are getting terribly concerned at what precisely is going on for the future of this vital regional industry. It is quite clear there is a certain amount of responsibility upon the government, whether it is on the basis of regional industrial expansion or whether it is on the basis of simply good transportation policy, to make certain that an institution, which is what Sydney Steel is, that over the years has received so much help and assistance from various political parties and levels of government is maintained in a reasonable way so that the 2,000 people who reside in that area can continue to earn a decent living.
The impression has been given, whether rightly or wrongly, by certain members and by the minister that indeed the matter is under control and that there is an order imminent for SYSCO from the CNR. I learned, much to my shock today, in the Standing Committee on Transport when I had a chance to speak and question directly the chief executive officer of the CNR, that, despite the impression that has been left in certain quarters, the Minister of Transport has not, and I repeat, has not in any way given a direct order or a directive to tell CNR
Adjournment Debate
to buy any amount of rails whatsoever from Sydney Steel. I think it is time this was clearly put on the record, and that is why I am doing this tonight.
In answer to his own colleague on June 7, 1982, the minister indicated, in his own inimitable style, that a contract is a contract is a contract. It reminds me of some of the statements he made about Mirabel. He cannot make a decision there either. The problem is that he wants to be all things to all people. He is sort of a parliamentary push me-pull me. He wants everyone to love him and to think he is great, but he never makes a decision. As far as Sydney, Nova Scotia, is concerned, there are many people-municipal leaders and ordinary working people-who are tired of misinformation. On June 7 he said that a contract is a contract is a contract, but that having made a commitment he was willing to press CN to honour it.
I found out in the Standing Committee on Transport today that he has not done a damn thing. He has not said a word to top management of CN. CN used to advertise itself as a business as well as a responsibility. I have no quarrel with that at all. If CN wants to run a hard-nosed business operation, that is fine. But it is a Crown corporation, it is ostensibly owned by the people of Canada, and it is controlled by the government. The Minister of Transport has the authority, as Dr. LeClair conceded today, to order CN to do something, and CN will do it.
The point is that the minister has not yet done a damn thing as I said, and an impression has been created in the House and in the province of Nova Scotia that something is being done. I fail to see why in the past it was necessary to import rail from outside of Canada when Sydney Steel Corporation had the capacity to do it. I fail to see why at the present time it is urgent that about 50,000 tonnes of rail be ordered from Algoma. I cannot understand that either.
I cannot understand why there is not some co-ordination between the Department of Transport and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, or whatever is the amalgam of these two hybrids now that we are rid of DREE. I cannot understand why the government will not take some step or why there is no co-ordination. I remember when a former minister of transport, now the distinguished Speaker in the other place, used to get headlines from time to time by saying, "Transportation is a component of regional development." Now we have a situation where a Crown corporation, which is receiving about $100 million in aid from the federal government, is being hung out to dry because the government would not spend $1.4 million and use its influence to ensure that some rails are purchased from that corporation.
Some $1.3 billion has been guaranteed to Canadair by the government to take the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce off the hook and so Russ Harrison can sleep nights; some $400 million is involved in a subsidy to Bombardier so that it can

June 10, 1982
Adjournment Debate
make railway cars to export, and that is fine with me; about $400 or $500 million is guaranteed to Massey-Ferguson, that great non-winner; but it is not possible for the Minister of Transport to make available $1.4 million, to use a figure which the minister himself used in the House of Commons, to guarantee the survival of about 2,000 people in Cape Breton, their jobs and their livelihoods.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, just last Saturday 1 personally visited Sydney and, therefore, I know how important this issue is to the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) and his constituents.
Indeed the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) made reference at the time of the hon. member's question to problems encountered by CN with respect to the capabilities of Sydney Steel Corporation to produce rail which would meet the requirements of CN. But the hon. member was present at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport where he heard from the CN president himself who confirmed that yes, there is a contract for 88,000 tonnes of steel. But he did make it very clear that in that contract is included soft rail, hard 136 rail and the alloy type of rail.
There have been discussions between CN and Sysco on this matter as recently as today. These discussions are continuing. We all hope that the problem can be satisfactorily resolved. 1 am also pleased to report on behalf of the minister that the government of Nova Scotia has agreed, by a telex yesterday, to meet the federal government's offer to pay half of the $1.4 million cost of advancing the 1982-83 rail order by two months ahead of the time when the shipment would normally be required by CN. 1 think that this is welcome news.
I would also like to indicate to the House that, as confirmed yesterday in the other place, workers who were laid off at the SYSCO plant, will, indeed, receive unemployment insurance benefits in accordance with applicable regulations.
I thank the hon. member for Central Nova for giving me the opportunity of bringing the House up to date on this important issue. I commend him, as well as the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), and the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) for their constant interest and intervention in this matter.


ACQUISITION OF PETROFINA-COLLECTION OF TAX-(B) CANADIAN OWNERSHIPCHARGE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, on April 27 I received a letter from Mr. Reynolds of Surrey. He says the following:
You may not have had time to look at your persona! hydro bills over the past nine or ten months, but they must be similar to mine as we both live in Surrey, although I do pay my hydro bills on an equal payment installation to spread the load and you may not.
Please peruse the attached copies of three of my hydro bills from June 81 to April 82 ("June, $45.00, September $66.00 and now May will be $72.00, a 50
per cent increase in ten months"), whereas, my annual negotiated settlement ranges from 8 per cent to 12 per cent last year, over the past few years.
My hydro bills may be low compared to some, but I have spent considerable monies on insulation and doublepane windows and 1 do not qualify for CHIP.
This hydro bill, along with the telephone increase, the car/gas increase which is ridiculous and the general increase in all items especially food is beginning to break the camel's back. What you can do about it, I don't know but someone has got to do something pretty soon.
The taxes he is referring to are the federal excise tax and the Canadian ownership tax. The first problem with the Canadian ownership lax is the accumulated squeeze of human misery that that tax, along with other federal taxes, is weighing down on the Canadian taxpayers.
It is because of that letter and others like that, and remarks made in the House on the evening of May 16 by one of the government backbenchers regarding the Canadian ownership charge, that I raised the questions on May 17 with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). At that time I asked:
Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Last Thursday, here in the House, the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex indicated that while the government is collecting the Canadian ownership charge to pay for Petrofina, it might well continue to collect that tax even after Petrofina has been paid for. Could the minister tell the House if that is indeed government policy to collect that tax after Petrofina has been paid for in order to pay the purchase of other companies it wants to take over, as the hon. member suggested might be the case?
That was the question. The minister's reply was:
-that is obviously a question which the government will have to decide when the time comes.
This is not a matter which is being considered at the present time.
We do have some slightly contradictory statements between that of the backbencher, who is a former parliamentary secretary, and that of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. What is common to the two answers, however, is the fact that the government is not ruling out the possibility that the Canadian ownership charge could well be collected beyond the time which the government has paid for Petrofina in full. It does remind one of that temporary tax which was placed on the backs of Canadians during the First World War. It was known as the income tax, which was also a temporary tax. All of us know how temporary that is.
It is that accumulation of taxes which loads on to the backs of Canadians the kind of human misery that is killing them. When the takeover of Petrofina was announced, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that the purchase may have to be made by the Canadian ownership charge, but no figures were given. Mr. Hopper of Petro-Canada said the whole deal would be financed out of taxes. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources also said that the deal would be financed over 25 months. But when the company is paid for, the average energy consumer will have paid $130, and all of those dollars will have flooded the country and have gone back overseas to Europe. They will have done nothing for Canadian self-sufficiency, they will have done nothing to increase our energy security, but they will have continued to increase the taxes on the backs of Canadians.
June 10, 1982

The second part that is offensive about all of this taxation is that the government has no mandate for it. All of us clearly remember the election campaign of 1979-80 when the Liberals strenuously campaigned on the commitment that they would not increase taxes on gasoline by more than 12 cents or 14 cents, and certainly under 18 cents. The Canadian ownership charge increases the tax on that alone by 4.5 cents per gallon of gas, and the total has been something like 60 cents already.
1 find it repugnant that the government will campaign on one issue and then assume that the elections it has won on that one issue gives it a mandate to lead in any direction that it wants to lead.
The third problem rises out of the question that I placed before the minister. What are the government's intentions with regard to the future of the Canadian ownership tax which is being loaded on to the back of the consumer for a very sterile investment? What is the future of that? The minister has not been clear in the House as to his intentions. Is he planning to continue that tax beyond next fall when Petrofina will be paid for? Will he continue collecting that tax? Can we have an assurance tonight that when Petrofina is paid for, the Canadian taxpayers will not be saddled with a continuation of that particular tax in order to make up a shortfall incurred and caused by deficiencies in other departments, but, rather, that that tax will be taken off so that there can be some relief for the Canadian taxpayer? Does the parliamentary secretary have an answer for my constituents tonight, and all other Canadians who are incensed at the imposition of a tax for which the government had absolutely no mandate?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be able to conclude this evening with a few remarks in answer to the questions raised by the hon. member. The first part of the hon. member's question, relative to the continued collection of the Canadian ownership charge in order to finance new acquisitions once Petrofina has been paid for, is obviously one which cannot be answered at the present time. When initially responding to this question during the question period, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) stated, "The government is not currently considering such
Adjournment Debate
policy and it is a matter which will have to be dealt with at the appropriate time".
With reference to the second part of the question as to whether we can afford to Canadianize the oil and gas industry,
I think the question ought to be rephrased and should read, "Can we afford not to Canadianize the oil and gas industry?" That is the substantive and, indeed, crucial question.
May I take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to remind the hon. member of the Canadianization goals as defined in the National Energy Program. One of the goals is an increase in the oil and gas sector owned by the Government of Canada. The National Energy Program also says that the Government of Canada intends to acquire several of the large oil and gas firms. To finance a company acquisition, a special charge, which the hon. member has referred to, the Canadian ownership special charge, is levied on all oil and gas consumption in Canada. The proceeds of this charge are placed to the Canadian ownership account, which is a non-budgetary trust account.
I might add that this particular piece of legislation was thoroughly reviewed before the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation, when Members of Parliament from all parties had an opportunity to question the government and the officials as to the intent of that particular account.
The Canadian Ownership Account was designed to ensure that the government's program of increasing public sector ownership would be self-financing. By imposing the Canadian ownership special charge as a means of financing public acquisitions, there is no drain on the general revenue fund. Canadians, the beneficiairies of the acquisition program, will be paying for the acquisitions through a special tax on their oil and gas purchases. The Canadian ownership account has already been used by the Government of Canada to finance the Petrofina acquisition.
I conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by reiterating that the government is not in a position at this time to state very clearly whether or not further acquisitions will be made.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. This House is now adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow morning.
At 10.51 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, June 11, 1982