1982-04-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the policies of the Liberal government are killing the initiative of Canadians, and scores-perhaps hundreds-are thinking seriously about leaving the country because of high interest rates, the national energy policy, the November 12 budget, the imposition of metric, etc., etc. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That this House urges the government to withdraw the budget, stop grabbing every cent it can get its fingers on, and replace its totalitarian concept of imposing policies on Canadians by reflecting the thinking of the people.
The new Constitution will be a hollow mockery if we do not have a Canada to govern.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, last week the CBC presented a documentary called "The Road to Patriation". The program elaborately described the role of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), and the news media, while the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) received perhaps a five-second voice-over. The parliamentary committee was not even mentioned, and Parliament itself was made to appear irrelevant to the process. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That the CBC be requested to document the role of Parliament, the parliamentary committee and the opposition, or else the committee to elect Jean Chretien as the next leader of the Liberal Party be billed for the production costs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter which is becoming more urgent and more pressing each day. As reported in Saturday's Le Devoir Ms. Anne Warren, an economist with CMHC, stated that the program of the government in support of rental accommodation construction is totally insufficient in light of the present policies of the government encouraging high mortgage rates. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this House agrees with the CMHC economist who says the government is failing in its support of rental accommodation and, in light of the inevitable crisis which will flow from this inadequacy, this House urges the minister responsible for housing to accept the responsibility vested in him and take immediate steps to provide Canadians with affordable rental accommodation which at the same time will stimulate the depressed construction industry and the related forest industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Because of all the basic work, organization, security measures, maintenance, logistic duties, etc. which went into making Saturday, April 17, 1982, a very memorable and successful day in the history

April 19, 1982
of Canada, which resulted in the final act of the patriation of the Canadian Constitution, which relates to the lives of all Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That the House of Commons go on record as extending our sincere thanks and deep appreciation for a job well done to the Speaker and Sergeant-at-Arms and their respective staffs, the security staff, the restaurant and cafeteria personnel, those who performed maintenance work, logistic support employees, transportation workers and the traffic division staff, and that the House of Commons also go on record as extending the same sentiments of gratitude and appreciation to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, personnel from the Department of Public Works, Secretary of State personnel, and all others not named but who participated.


Madam Speaker:: I am sure the House will want to show its appreciation by applauding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, Canada's Constitution has come home, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said that this is just the beginning. One of the cornerstones of a free and democratic society is the right to own and enjoy private property. This right has been left out of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All thinking and freedom-loving Canadians desire to have this right contained in Canada's Constitution. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski):
That the agenda at the initial meeting of the First Ministers of Canada to discuss amendments to the Constitution contain a recommendation that Section 2, headed "Fundamental Freedoms", be amended by adding after "(d) freedom of association" the following new section: "(e) freedom to own and enjoy property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law"; and that all Canadians urge the Government of Canada and their provincial governments to accept this amendment to Canada's Constitution.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PARLIAMENT
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. The 1981 census figures have been released. These population statistics indicate that there should
be an additional five representatives of the people of British Columbia and an additional six representatives of the people of the province of Alberta, not to mention the ten for Ontario. It is hoped there will be a federal election long before the dilatory, time-consuming and lengthy process can be finished under the present compromise legislation. The people of western Canada are likely to be left underrepresented in the next election despite their growth in population. If you are going to do it, get it done fast; if you are not, let it go. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan north (Mr. Dantzer):
That this House urge and instruct the government to bring in immediately a new redistribution bill that will speed up the process and ensure that the next federal election will be fought on a basis giving western Canadians the new seats the west so richly deserves.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In 1979 two former dredging executives, Harold McNamara and Sydney Cooper, were convicted of conspiracy in rigging bids on federal government dredging contracts, and sentenced to five-year jail terms. In view of the fact that both businessmen were released after serving only ten months, or one sixth of their sentences, and put on day parole to be served in their own homes, and in view of the fact that Cooper was allowed, while on day parole, to fly down to Florida and the Caribbean for a Christmas holiday, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House condemns the National Parole Board and the Solicitor General for this vivid illustration of the fact that there exists one law for the rich, powerful friends of the Liberal government, and another law for the poor.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR RESIGNATION OF MINISTER-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam
Speaker, the government and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have implemented a national energy policy that
April 19, 1982

has patently proved to be a disaster for the development of oil and gas recovery in Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. More recently it compounded this failure by encouraging the importation of foreign oil as a direct result of its import compensation scheme. 1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That this House condemns the government for its negligence in failing to rationalize the import compensation scheme to current energy realities and invites the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to resign because he has proved incapable of producing an energy policy which will benefit all Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRODUCTION OF WESTERN CRUDE OIL-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, the Alberta government recently announced sweeping changes to its royalty system in order to stimulate the conventional oil industry. However, benefits will be restricted until there is full production of shut-in crude oil from western Canadian fields. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the federal government take measures to ensure the production and sale of this shut-in oil and to encourage the export of such shut-in oil until such time as imports are eliminated or until all shut-in crude oil is being produced.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, in 1971, Donald Marshall, then 17 years old, was convicted of murder by a jury of his peers in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, notwithstanding his protestation of innocence. For 11 years this native person languished in prison, but now his guilt has been questioned. The Minister of Justice has the legal power and authority to resolve the case and remedy any injustice. Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That this House direct the Minister of Justice, who allegedly advocates civil rights for all Canadians, to consider the civil rights of one real Canadian and resolve forthwith the case of Donald Marshall and remedy any injustice done to him.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Last week the president of the B.C. Council of Forest Industries predicted "significant additional lay-offs and forest company bankruptcies" in our already hard hit lumber industry unless there is soon a stimulus to housing starts. Meanwhile two major Canadian banks announced last week unjustified one quarter per cent and one half per cent increases in their already high mortgage interest rates, thus killing the desperate hopes of our number one industry. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis):
That the Minister of Finance immediately change course, call in the presidents of these chartered banks, together with Mr. Bouey, and demand that these industrial saboteurs cease and desist their fifth column activities, reversing their usurious and destructive high interest rate policies in order that Canadian home builders and woodworkers can get back to work and put our economy back on the road to recovery.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It is now obvious that the minister's budget of November 12 is proving to be a disaster for the Canadian economy. As far as businessmen, farmers and the average taxpayers are concerned, it is creating nothing but confusion and uncertainty. It is complicating their ability to plan for business and to file federal income tax returns.
The minister has now admitted to yet another mistake by backing down on the application of the sales tax proposal, which, incidentally, now results in some 30 to 40 changes to his

April 19, 1982
Oral Questions
budgetary provisions. The original proposal involved some 163 technical amendments to the Income Tax Act.
What does the minister propose to do to end this continuing uncertainty and confusion? Is the minister planning further changes? Is he planning to proceed with the implementation of the budget as is? If so, can the minister indicate when the necessary legislation will be introduced in the House? Or will the minister show some courage and common sense, withdraw the budget, and bring in a new economic program so that we can get the country working again?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, one would need to be participating in the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne in order to cover the waterfront which has been laid out by the hon. member in his question. Just let me deal with one point in the hon. member's question. With respect to the decision to delay the implementation date for the manufactu-ers' sales tax, that suggestion was made weeks ago by the hon. member for Edmonton West. It has subsequently been made by various business groups who wanted to have more time to examine this major change.


Mr. Clark:: Why did you put it in there in the first place?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It seems reasonable to me that one ought to accommodate that type of reasonable request.


Mr. Huntington:: Why was it in there?


Mr. Wilson:: Just another blunder.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would expect that the hon. member should give some marks for the willingness to take into account representations received from some hon. members and from the business community.


Mr. Nielsen:: Why did you put it in there in the first place?


REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO ASSIST OIL AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, that in no way alleviates the confusion and uncertainty. That change, as well as the 30 or 40 other changes which the minister has proposed, simply adds to the confusion and uncertainty. Added to that, the combined effects of the minister's budget and the National Energy Program are cirppling the agricultural and energy industries, particularly in western Canada. Oil production in the west is shut in. In the meantime Canada is importing some 500,000 barrels of oil a day, causing layoffs, bankruptcies, and further aggravating our balance of payments. In the agricultural area, the huge increases in the price of fuel and fertilizer caused by the National Energy Program and the minister's budget are crippling that industry.
What positive measures is the minister proposing to take to alleviate these difficulties and to get these two major and very important industries in Canada working again? Will the minister take some positive steps now or in the next few weeks
to alleviate the hardships imposed upon those two very important sectors?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member again has covered the waterfront in his question. Let me just take one point and remind him that it is rather common for hon. members in the House to attribute difficulties that are being faced in the oil industry, for example, and the energy industry, either to the National Energy Program or to the budget provisions. He might look around the world, into the United States, for example, and ask how-


Charles Joseph Clark: That is where all the rigs are.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -the Canadian budget could possibly affect conditions there. Canadian rigs, having gone down there, so it is alleged by hon. members opposite, do not find the amount of work they expected in the United States. Hon. members ought to realize that there are more things at play at the present time in the energy industry, including a rapid fall in world demand for the product, and falling world prices. It seems to me that these are the underlying factors which are influencing the situation, not the National Energy Program.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONSUMER CONFIDENCE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, it is rather strange that the minister is so short of answers today. During the election campaign of 1979-80, he and his Prime Minister said that they would manage the economy in such a way that interest rates would come down, because the economy would be administered in a sound manner. Where are all the answers now? They had the answers then, but he has not been able to answer one question which I have put to him. I have asked him to bring forth some explanation to alleviate the uncertainty and confusion.
Since increased consumer spending is the key to economic recovery, and since the Conference Board of Canada indicated that consumer confidence in Canada is "incredibly bad", what specific measures will the minister take to restore consumer confidence, something which his current policies have in fact destroyed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, in the last few weeks I have been consulting with a wide variety of private sector organizations. I have not found a single representative of these organizations who did not support the notion that the main cause of uncertainty in the country at the present time, including-


Erik Nielsen: Is the government-
April 19, 1982


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -declining confidence, is the high rate of inflation. To fight inflation is the policy which is required in present circumstances to be implemented in order to improve confidence in the country.


TIMING OF INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. It is supplementary to a question which the hon. member for Vegreville just put to him. Departmental officials have advised me that draft legislation on tax provisions in the budget will be brought forward in about a month's time, following which there will be consultation with the private sector, and that the final legislation is not expected to be put before the House until autumn. Would the minister confirm whether in fact that is his intention?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I want to bring in the draft legislation, the comprehensive Ways and Means motions, just as soon as the drafting is completed. An all-out effort is being made in the department to produce that legislation as soon as possible. It will be made public just as soon as it is finished. Then I would like, as I indicated earlier, to have an opportunity for the public, for interested groups, to make comments on the draft legislation before it is brought into the House as a formal bill. That will be done as soon as possible. I am not in a position to put any firm time schedule on that process today.


EFFECT ON SENIOR CITIZENS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, departmental officials are advising many people of this. I was giving the minister an opportunity to try to relieve the obvious uncertainty that the rumours emanating from his department are creating. Let me focus on one very clear area of uncertainty, that is, the impact of the budget on pensioners or on senior citizens. There are seven individual items in the budget which can result in increased taxes for senior citizens. Would the minister today relieve the uncertainty of these people on fixed incomes by saying that the bill show some compassion and make some changes in these seven items in the budget in order to avoid these increased taxes on senior citizens when he brings forth the draft legislation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 dispute the statement of the hon. member. There have been a number of questions raised over the past several months with respect to pension effects.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Read your budget.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As 1 recollect, in each case I gave a positive and sympathetic answer, including the questions which
Oral Questions
were raised by the member for Halifax soon after the budget. I think that the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre is very late in raising these matters which, as far as I am concerned, have already been dealt with in question period.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. On the weekend, we finally patriated the Constitution and at long last achieved legal independence in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Simultaneously, Canadians have noticed a series of advertisements across the country with reference to the Constitution stating that the future belongs to us.
Considering that 53 per cent of our manufacturing and 63 per cent of our mining is foreign controlled, will the minister assure the people of Canada that the Government of Canada will embark on the serious task of patriating the Canadian economy which has much more relevance to the daily lives of most Canadians than does the Constitution?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, here again the proposals of the government with respect to the oil and gas industry were laid out in great detail-


Mr. Waddell:: Too little, too late.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -in the National Energy Program more than a year ago. These still are the valid objectives of the Government of Canada. I would hope that the New Democratic Party could give us some support on the implementation of the National Energy Program.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, as usual, the minister iy not informed correctly. We voted on the one matter of substance, which was the expansion of Petro-Canada.

FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY \


ELECTION CAMPAIGN PROMISE
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, considering that on the weekend one Canadian out of three expressed the disturbing view that he or she thinks they may lose their job because of a general insecurity about the economy, and considering that government documents produced last fall show the government is aware that foreign-owned firms in Canada are responsible for the loss of thousands of jobs, precisely because they do more sourcing abroad than do Canadian firms, how does the government justify backing

April 19, 1982
Oral Questions
down on its commitment made in the 1980 election campaign to expand the power of FIR A over foreign corporations operating in this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I must say that I am increasingly surprised at the line of questioning being followed by the leader of the New Democratic Party. He is advocating job creation and greater investment in the country and, at the same time, he is undoubtedly raising questions which would have the very serious effect of adversely influencing much needed investment in this country. I cannot think of a worse contribution to make in present circumstances than to advocate additional interventionist measures in the economy which would have the effect of creating even greater discouragement and disincentive in the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The minister cannot have it both ways. In his first answer he cannot say to the House that the government is interested in dealing with foreign-owned corporations and say in the second answer that the government is not interested at all. That is the kind of hypocrisy we see too often in the Liberal government.


ACTIONS OF FOREIGN OWNED CORPORATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, will the minister deny an assertion made in the government's own documents that we are losing thousands of jobs in Canada because foreign-owned corporations here source more out of our country than do independently Canadian-owned firms? If he does not deny that, why does the government not move ahead and exercise authority over these firms to ensure that they produce more jobs in this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, what I said to the hon. member in reply to the second question was that the government does not plan any additional measures at the present time. In the National Energy Program we have laid out a very ambitious series of steps in order to increase Canadian participation and ownership in that important strategic sector of the Canadian economy. That is our policy, and we continue to support it. However, it was also stated in the document tabled at budget time, entitled "Economic Development for Canada in the 1980s", that it is not the present intention to extend that policy to additional sectors of the Canadian economy.


John Horton McDermid: Thank God for small mercies.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is not having it both ways; rather, it is moving in a timely way in order to achieve the major objective of the government at the present time, namely, concerning the field of oil and gas in the country.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF FEDERAL MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR OF AUSTRIA
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour of drawing the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Erwin Lane, the Austrian federal Minister of the Interior.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the minister responsible for the Metric Commission, and several of his colleagues, are on record as saying that the government does not intend to use heavy-handed tactics of fines, seizure of equipment and even imprisonment to force its mandatory metric conversion orders in several sectors of the Canadian economy.
I have been advised that very shortly names and signatures will arrive in this House, attached to a petition from over 100 businessmen which states:
We refuse to convert our business operations to metric measurement as long as the compulsory features of the (Weights and Measures) Act are in force.
What does the minister responsible intend to do then? Does he intend to add refusal to go metric to the dozens of government-caused reasons for Canadians going out of business in droves, or does he intend to put Canadians in jail for using Canadian measurement?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: No, Madam Speaker. I think the hon. member should know that the reason that aspect of the program has become compulsory is because of the request of the industry itself. It is the industry which has recommended that it be done in this manner.


Mr. Siddon:: Talk to the little guy.


André Ouellet: We have said before that we do not intend to send people to jail. We are very confident that, in fact, a large majority of the population will recognize that this convention is in the best interests of Canada, in terms of our economic situation with regard to sales not only in Canada but also abroad. I have every reason to believe and hope that citizens will follow the law and will not disobey it.


JUSTIFICATION FOR CONVERSION PROGRAM
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, if the minister had done his homework he would know that the sector dealing with grocery stores asked the minister not to implement metric at this time since the United States decided not to
April 19, 1982

move. In that case, the minister will be glad to know that the little group which he deems to be fanatics-those opposed to metric-now includes not only the governments of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, but will shortly also include the new Progressive Conservative government of Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: How can the minister possibly reconcile the costly and needless federal program which is so much at odds with a steadily increasing number of provincial governments, not to mention the dozens of firms and industries which oppose it, and the hundreds of thousands of ordinary Canadians whose appeals so far have apparently fallen on deaf ears, at least on the other side of this House?


Erik Nielsen: Deaf ears and fat heads.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, from the hon. member's words it is clear that even he is qualifying people who are against metrication as conservatives. The hon. member obviously prefers to live in the past instead of looking ahead. He refuses to acknowledge that metrication is in the best interests of Canada and that the decision to go metric was made not only at the request of Canadian companies but also following a federal-provincial conference where the Government of Canada and the ten provincial governments supported metric conversion. It was a unanimous decision by the 11 governments.


CRIMINAL CODE
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice. I would like to point out to him that we may now have a Constitution and we may now have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but in many major Canadian cities, residents cannot go to the corner store or go to church, or take their children to daycare centres, without being hassled by hookers and their customers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: The minister has given me a written commitment that he has referred this issue to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The steering committee has instructed the minister's parliamentary secretary to discuss this issue with him. Since the minister agreed to refer the matter to the justice committee, and since the justice committee is prepared to discuss it as soon as possible, when will the minister present a reference to the House which gives the justice committee the authority to examine this matter and
Oral Questions
suggest amendments to the Criminal Code to deal with this problem?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, a long time ago I said that I wanted the committee to study the problem at the same time it studies Bill C-53. I do think that we are making our best effort to refer it to the committee and authorize the committee to make some suggestions while studying that bill. However, it is the hon. member in the other party who does not want to make that compromise, who insists on having a-


Mr. Paproski:: Svend Robinson.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, no. It is the hon. member in your party, Sir and Madam, who is insisting that there be a formal reference. If hon. members do not want to do it in the normal way in the committee while discussing a bill related to that type of problem, I will certainly try to get a formal reference to the committee. However, I thought that the hon. members opposite would offer themselves the opportunity while studying Bill C-53. However, the hon. members of your own party, Madam, are the ones who have become too sticky on procedure and have not wanted to deal with the substance of the matter.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I thought it was Svend Robinson.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTRODUCE AMENDMENTS
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Justice, who has made allegations against hon. members of our party who are unfortunately not in the House today. However, I know that it was our justice critic who moved the motion in committee to set up a sub-committee on prostitution. Therefore, since it was our party which moved the motion to ask the committee to deal with this subject, we are hardly in the position of obstructing it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: The very simple fact is that in spite of two years of waffling on this matter by the Minister of Justice, he made a commitment to the residents of the West End in Vancouver and to two B.C. cabinet ministers that he would bring in the necessary amendments by the fall of 1980. This is the spring of 1982. Therefore I would ask the minister if he is prepared to deal with this matter in the justice committee. His answer certainly confuses me. It is not at all clear whether he will discuss it in the justice committee. If he is not prepared to deal with it in the House of Commons, will he honour his commitment to bring in amendments to the Criminal Code?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I think that if the hon. member feels so strongly about the matter, she

April 19, 1982
Oral Questions
should take the time to go to the committee to see what is going on there.


Pat Carney: 1 have been.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I must say that in January I made an offer in writing to the justice critic in her party. He is the one who has always insisted that there be a formal reference, while the subject matter is already discussed in Bill C-53 in broad terms. However, if he continues to nitpick and insists that there be a formal reference, I will try to organize it. However, the procedures of the committee are the responsibility of the committee, not of the Minister of Justice.


Charles Joseph Clark: Not the reference.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Of course, if the hon. members want to use this type of tactic, I want the problem to be discussed in the committee. I felt that it would be nice to deal with it through Bill C-53. If hon. members want to have another reference to further delay, I will give them another reference.


Charles Joseph Clark: Good!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Tory party will have once again utilized procedural technique to ensure delay, because if it wanted to deal with the problem in Bill C-53, it could be dealt with right away.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


DISASTERS
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council, who is also responsible for emergency planning in Canada. In view of the flooding that has affected a number of towns in the Eastern Townships on the weekend, and I would mention especially Sherbrooke, Lennoxville and Richmond, and the considerable damage caused by the flooding, which is estimated at several million dollars according to preliminary estimates, could the minister inform the House whether the areas affected by this disaster will be able to obtain some form of assistance from the Canadian government?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, we are of course quite aware of the situation prevailing in the area described by the hon. member as well as in other areas. I can assure the hon. member that under its program for compensation in case of natural disasters, the federal government will, as soon as the province of Quebec so
request, provide compensation and take appropriate action to assist the areas affected.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On March 30 of this year he met with representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress and listened to a request by them that there be an extension of the remission order on the taxation of northern benefits until the government comes up with a policy on what kind of tax benefits people in northern Canada should have. He also promised that he would get back to the representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress once he had met with other cabinet ministers who are on the cabinet committee concerned with the matter. Does the minister have an answer for the millions of workers across Canada who are very concerned about this taxation policy?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: No, Madam Speaker. I do not have an answer to many of the submissions put to me by the Canadian Labour Congress the other day, outside of the initial response I gave, namely, that many of the recommendations were already being seriously considered, that they parallel those in the mining community, that that study would require some considerable time and during that time we would be getting back to them for further refinement of their views and exchanges. That process is going on. The meeting with them was only three or three and one half weeks ago. It is premature to have a decision at this time.


EXPIRATION OF TAX REMISSION ORDER
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, my concern and the concern of a number of other people who live in northern areas is that this taxation policy was announced years ago. It was again announced in the budget of last November. The minister just responded that it will take a lot longer before the government has its own policy in place. The remission order on taxation of the benefits expires this year. Those people in the various unions in northern Manitoba have to know what they are going to be negotiating this year. If the government does not come up with the policy soon, how can the workers know what to negotiate when their collective agreements expire? The cost of housing there is high. The cost of transportation there is extremely high. They have to know what the hell the government is going to do.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John Carr Munro: As the hon. member knows, Madam
April 19, 1982

Speaker, in the hope of being helpful we have extended this remission order each year pending the finding of a solution that is more equitable, in other words a solution that will assist those northerners who do not have benefits that are nontaxable. Many who do not have collective agreements do not have benefits. The remission order does not help them one iota because they do not receive any benefits. That is obviously inequitable and unfair.
While we are considering submissions from those such as the CLC, the mining companies and others, for the extension of the remission order or some other policy that will help those employees who receive benefits, we are also under an obligation, as a government, to try to help all those northerners who are not even fortunate enough to receive any benefits. That takes some time. We are trying to find an equitable means to do that. May I say that some of those people who receive no benefits do not have the benefit of any organization whatsoever to speak for them. It is a complex matter. I fully realize more notice or as much notice as possible is required for collective agreements. We will try to have a solution as soon as possible.


PRESS CONFERENCE CALLED TO ANNOUNCE MEASURES AFFECTING NORTH
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question with respect to the taxation policies of the government in northern Canada. An announcement has been made that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will be holding a joint press conference this afternoon at 3.30 for the purpose of announcing what they term new energy initiatives in the two northern territories and in other northern parts of Canada. I assume part of that announcement will include the extension of the subsidization program put in place by the previous administration. What other new initiatives are going to be announced at that conference by either the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development? I would hope the minister would take Parliament into his confidence and tell us prior to 3.30 this afternoon.


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I would advise the hon. member for Yukon that part of the reason for the timing with respect to these announcements is to accommodate the media with respect to disseminating the information-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blenkarn:: Parliament does not count any more.


John Carr Munro: -with respect to accommodating the media as it serves northerners. If the hon. member wishes to be consistent, I think he will be the first to agree that news of this kind, which has such a tremendous impact on the north, should be communicated first to northerners rather than hear it in the south-
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: -again putting northerners in the position where they are the last to hear about policies wich affect them. That is something we would like to avoid. I am sure the hon. member for Yukon would agree.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE POLICY ANNOUNCEMENT IN PARLIAMENT
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, there is a northern member here from Yukon, one from Western Arctic, and one from Nunatsiaq. The media in the north are up. It is now almost 12 noon in Yukon. It is one o'clock in the Northwest Territories; in the eastern Arctic it is two o'clock. I wonder if the minister could answer my question and inform not only the pure northern members but those members on all sides of the House who represent northern ridings in the provinces throughout this country. Will he take the House into his confidence and tell us what he is going to do?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I strongly suspect that the hon. member for Yukon may very well know what is in the package, mainly from the point of view that this government has involved itself in a policy where we brought into our confidence the members of the Yukon government and the territorial government in a task force to study the whole energy question. The policies we are announcing now reflect that type of input.


Erik Nielsen: What about the northern portions of the provinces?


John Carr Munro: The last I heard, it was a Conservative government in the Yukon. In terms of avoiding unnecessarily offending any of the members of this House, I am sure my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, would agree we would be more than happy to get the press kits with all the details over to hon. members as quickly as possible before the press conference. 1 reiterate that I think they are well aware of what is in the press kits.


REASON FOR NOT MAKING ANNOUNCEMENT IN PARLIAMENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is to the acting Prime Minister who, I assume, takes responsibility for this determination to hide from Parliament information-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: hide from Parliament information which will be made available to the press outside Parliament, denying the opportunity for questions later this day. A question has been put regarding a policy that has already been set and published. The only question is whether it will be made available to the elected representatives of the people of Canada here in the

April 19, 1982
Oral Questions
House of Commons of Canada, or whether Parliament will again be avoided. Will the acting Prime Minister tell us why this government insists on avoiding the House of Commons on this question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the government obviously does not avoid the House of Commons. It is on deck every day dealing with questions raised by members of the House. We do it day after day, week after week, and the opposition takes full advantage of that opportunity. A question has been put by an hon. member to the minister, and he has answered fully in accordance with the practice and the rules of the House.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF PROPOSED ANNOUNCEMENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources the detail of what he is going to be announcing to the press and what his colleague refused to announce to Parliament? Will he tell the House of Commons now what he proposes to tell the press at 3.30 p.m.?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, indeed I would be very happy to announce what my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, will announce. It is very significant, a major program for help to remote communities and particularly northern communities. That program involves the expenditure of some S24 million for energy studies and demonstration programs in remote communities. Out of this there will be at least $10 million for the Yukon and Northwest Territories.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, you see, that was not difficult, was it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, let me put another question respecting Parliament to the President of the Privy Council. The President of the Privy Council has spoken about his interest in parliamentary reform and his determination to have this institution play a more prominent role in public business in the country. I wonder if he would agree to take a step in that direction by referring to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture the proposed appointment of Mr. Pierre Juneau as President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, in order that Parliament
can, in this instance, begin the practice of confirmation hearings on important public appointments.


Yvon Pinard: There are many steps, Madam Speaker, that we are prepared to take, but we would like to take them in the right direction. I can assure the right hon. member that all suggestions relating to improving the functioning of Parliament will be considered very seriously. He knows we are now having discussions at the level of House leader, on the substance of changes that could be brought to parliamentary procedure. It that does not work, we will see what we can do in due time. In the meanwhile, if he has steps to suggest, we will consider whether they are in the right or in the wrong direction. I would hope that he has better suggestions to make than the one he has made now.


PARLIAMENTARY DISCUSSION OF APPOINTMENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, will the President of the Privy Council explain why the House of Commons, why members of this Parliament, should not be allowed to discuss the appointment of the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, before that appointment is made?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has been asking me questions about parliamentary reform and he is now asking a supplementary regarding an appointment by order in council. That is the prerogative of the Prime Minister, who, I am sure, can provide every justification for the appointment of Mr. Pierre Juneau, a person who enjoys considerable respect throughout Canada, and we are in fact delighted with his appointment as President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. As for the procedure to be followed with appointments by order in council, that is the responsibility of the Prime Minister, and it is a matter of government organization, not a parliamentary matter.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Government of Canada has applied economic sanctions, for example halting credit for exports, against Argentina during the Falkland Islands crisis. Atomic Energy of Canada has 71 Canadian specialists who now are finishing the Candu reactor in Argentina. Has the government recalled these experts?


Marc Lalonde: Non, madame le President.


An hon. Member:: Why not?
April 19, 1982


REQUEST THAT TECHNICIANS BE WITHDRAWN
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, the minister is aware that a senior official to the Argentinian president, Dr. Ussher, admitted to the American writer, Amory Lovins, that the Candu reactor was chosen for "military and strategic reasons." Not only that, but Dr. Ussher said that Argentina has two plutonium separation facilities-and not one as we were led to believe-meaning that Argentina will soon have weapons-grade plutonium enabling it to produce its own nuclear weapons. In other words, we will have another big bang from Argentina like the one we got from India. Will the government stop being hypocritical, offering peacekeeping on the one hand, and supplying material for nuclear weapons on the other hand? Will he now order the withdrawal of the 71 technicians from Argentina?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, if the quote from this particular Argentinian is correct, I would advise my hon. friend that Argentina has certainly made the most stupid decision ever made-if they bought a Candu thinking that would help them for military purposes, because it is the most expensive and circuitous way of achieving military purposes. As far as the other point raised by the hon. member is concerned, he is very much in the same category as the Argentinian commentator to whom he has referred.


FISHERIES
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. As the minister will remember, last week I was able to send to him letters on two matters in British Columbia. The first was the recommendation for a net-buy back provision and compensation for Fraser River fishermen, in view of the fact that they will not be able to fish. I would like the minister to respond on whether that will be accepted by the department.
The second point concerns salmon licence regulations which were passed last year and only referred to last year and do not refer to this year. Yet the department has notified fishermen that if they do not have a licence-which they cannot legally apply for-they will be prosecuted and their equipment seized. Would the minister straighten up these difficulties?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I have received the hon. member's note and I have asked that information be assembled for an answer. On the second point, I am told that there was an error in the draft regulation but that it is being corrected now, if that has not been done already. I know that I have signed the order.


QUERY RESPECTING FUEL SUBSIDIZATION FOR TUNA FISHERMEN
John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the minister could tell us whether as a result of the
Oral Questions
discussions which were held earlier between the minister's officials and fishermen on the west coast interested in getting into tuna fishing and who have requested that the government consider oil subsidization, fuel subsidization, in order to take these very efficient boats from the badly depleted salmon stocks over to the tuna, any decision has been made by the government with respect to that? That decision, of course, would be primarily a conservation decision and probably would be supported by most Canadians.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, the reaction to the suggestion of fishing for tuna was very positive. We have had discussions with the fishermen's group and we are trying to come up with a solution. If we can move that way, it will be a good conservation measure for the Chinook salmon, which are in rather difficult shape.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The fact that the National Energy Program is more than a disaster is recognized by almost everyone in Canada, with the possible exception of the minister and some of his officials, and apparently the Minister of Finance. In an attempt to mitigate some of the disastrous results, last Tuesday the province of Alberta announced some very important royalty reductions. While most observers feel that the Alberta changes are important and useful, they also feel that it will be necessary for the federal government to match this reduction in royalties by reducing the PGRT and NGGLT in order to enable this industry to get back on its feet. Will the minister act as responsibly as the government of Alberta and make similar arrangements on behalf of the federal government?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. friend that under the National Energy Program we have achieved a rate of conservation of energy and a rate of substitution in favour of natural gas and electricity and other forms of energy, which is as high as had been forecast and we have met with great success. In the area of Canadianization under the National Energy Program we have succeeded in reducing foreign ownership by as much as 6.5 per cent in a space of a year, and in the area of pricing we have achieved an agreement with the government of Alberta which will mean cheaper prices to the consumer than would have been the case under the Conservative government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 19, 1982
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: These, Madam Speaker, have been achieved under the National Energy Program. I would like to remind my hon. friends that a study by the United States Department of Commerce came out in the last few days indicating that the United States affiliates in Canada in the energy field are going to increase their expenditures in 1982 compared to 1981 by 28 per cent, while they are going to increase their expenditures in other countries only by 18 per cent. That is the kind of show of confidence that has arisen out of the National Energy Program and the agreements we have had with the province of Alberta, the province of Saskatchewan, and the province of British Columbia.
I suggest to my hon. friend that he look at reality and at comments in today's press saying that the industry expects a very bullish year and a very, very active year in 1983.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Then I wonder why people in Detroit can buy gasoline cheaper than people in Windsor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TAKE ACTION
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, as a result of the National Energy Program half of this country's petroleum drilling industry has left the country. Thousands of people have been laid off. Dozens of companies have gone into bankruptcy and receivership. Three hundred thousand barrels of Canadian production per day are shut in. Seventeen billion dollars of capital has fled the country as the result of the National Energy Program.
The government of Alberta has recognized something is wrong. It has moved to take action. It has taken some important initiatives. Will the federal government act as responsibly? That is the simple question.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the government of Alberta has acted in response to a commitment it gave when we reached an agreement last September. The government of Alberta agreed to review its royalties. Alberta recognized that something had to be done with respect to its royalties, and I expect the government of Saskatchewan and the government of British Columbia will follow soon. What the government of Alberta has done had been to honour the commitment it made under the agreement.
In the meantime, we have gone even further than required under the agreement with regard to taking measures to reduce the amount of shut-in oil in Alberta and Saskatchewan by expanding the price for new oil to categories of oil which were not covered under the agreement. These are things we have done, and they have meant significant benefit to the industry. I invite my hon. friend to look at them.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the two hundred and eighteenth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) on Thursday, April 8, 1982, and finds that the petition does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Mr. Penner.
[Editor's Note: For text of the above Report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege and, indeed, my duty to present a formal petition on behalf of my constituents. The purpose of this petition, signed by 12,689 citizens of my home city of Medicine Hat and Redcliff, is to indicate to the government the crisis now being experienced by every home owner and resident due to the natural gas taxation policy of the National Energy Program. The nature and purpose of this petition is to demand that the government's budgetary policy respecting these punitive natural gas taxes be reassessed in view of the ensuing hardships and illegality of these natural gas taxes.
My constituency petitioners hope and pray, Madam Speaker, that you will find their petition in order and that you will note the urgency and desperation of their plea due to more than a 100 per cent increase in their utility bills, and that you will allow discussion and referral to committee at the earliest possible date.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,259, 3,621 and 4,100.
April 19, 1982


Mr. Heap: 1.	Does Loto Canada have an office in Toronto?
2.	Does Loto Canada have four directors and, if so, in each case (a) what is his/her name and the amount of remuneration (b) what are his/her duties?
3.	What are Loto Canada's present debits and credits?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: 1. No.
2.	Loto Canada has four directors at this time. A per diem amount of $250 is paid to all board members to attend Loto Canada board meetings, with the exception of Mr. Gordon Kritsch who is a public servant and does not receive that remuneration. The names of the directors are as follows:
(a)	Miss Danielle Desbiens, Montreal, Quebec, Mr. Andre Gauthier, Chicoutimi, Quebec, Mrs. Dorothy Pratt, Ottawa, Ontario, Mr. Gordon Kritsch.
(b)	The duties of the board members consist of overseeing the affairs of Loto Canada in the winding down of the corporation and are in accordance with the provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act.
3.	Loto Canada's present debits and credits are as shown in the following balance sheet as at March 31, 1980.
Loto Canada Inc.
(Incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act)
Balance Sheet as at March 31, 1980
Assets
Cash and deposit certificates
Funds reserved in prize account	$
Funds available for general purposes
Accounts receivable and advances
Due from Receiver General for Canada Other
Deferred expenses

Liabilities
Unclaimed prizes-completed draws	$
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities Provision for prizes-future draws Deferred revenue
Receiver General for Canada account
1980	1979
3,129,869	$ 26,739,285
15,540,732	11,098,581
18,670,601	37,837,866
	2,108,543
56,412	1,004,324
56,412	3,112,867
-	463,522
18,727,013	$ 41,414,255
3,129,869	$ 20,727,986
2,698,964	14,674,528
-	3,237,990
-	2,773,750
12,898,179	-
18,727,012	41,414,254
Shareholder's Equity
Capital stock -I common share
authorized issued and outstanding	1


[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions OLD AGE SECURITY
Mr. Herbert: 1.	What is the maximum amount that a person receiving old age security pension may receive in earned income and still be eligible for the full guaranteed income supplement?
2.	At what level of earnings does this person lose all payment under guaranteed income supplement?
3.	What is the maximum if the income is from investments?
4.	What are the comparable figures for a married couple who both receive the old age security?
5.	What would be the estimated cost if the basis for reducing the guaranteed income supplement payments were changed to one dollar deducted for three received?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. For a single pensioner, the maximum guaranteed income supplement is payable as long as yearly income is less than $2,400. This means any income apart from old age security benefits, whether the income is from earnings or other sources. For a married old age security recipient whose spouse is not eligible for either the old age security or spouse's allowance benefit, the maximum guaranteed income supplement benefit is payable (in the quarter January to March 1982) as long as the combined yearly income of the couple is less than $2,780.76. This amount increases quarterly in line with increases in the old age security pension.
2.	For a single pensioner, eligibility for a guaranteed income supplement, in the quarter January to March 1982, would cease when yearly income reaches $5,496. In the case of a married old age security beneficiary whose spouse is not eligible to receive either the old age security benefit or spouse's allowance, the guaranteed income supplement would no longer be paid when the combined yearly income of the couple is $13,724.76 or more. The income level at which entitlement ceases rises every quarter in line with increases in the maximum supplement.
3.	Same as 1 and 2 above.
4.	For a married couple who both receive the old age security pension, the maximum guaranteed income supplement would be paid to each spouse if their combined yearly income was less than $4,800. A married couple, in the quarter January to March, 1982, would continue to receive at least some guaranteed income supplement until their combined yearly income reached $8,496.
5.	If the basis for reducing the guaranteed income supplement were changed to one dollar deducted for three received, it is estimated that program expenditures would increase in the order of at least three-quarters of a billion dollars per year.


Mr. Herbert: With reference to the answer to question No. 3,721, are there offices in the province of Quebec with large numbers of employees that might distort the figures on the percentage of English and, if so (a) at what locations and how many English and French language employees are engaged at the locations (b) what would be the percentage of public servants working in the Department of

April 19, 1982
Energy Monitoring Act
Energy, Mines and Resources in Quebec who indicated English as their first official language, if such locations were excluded?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: Yes.
(a)	At the Technical Field Support Services Division of EM and R in Hull, Quebec, there are 22 employees who indicate their first official language as English and 18 employees who indicate French as their first official language.
(b)	It is 18.5 per cent.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 3,769 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 3,769 shall be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Beatty: With reference to the answer to question No. 3,522, what was the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources) moved that Bill C-106, respecting energy monitoring and to amend the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, 1979 and the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act, be read the
second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.	*
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I rise today to speak about the legislation before us, I want to take a moment to reflect on the historic steps this Parliament is taking.
We have just received our Constitution from Great Britain. The Canada Act, which is ultimately a modern expression of the commitment to nationhood we made more than a century ago, now rests where it belongs. It does, in a legal sense, provide a certain formality to the independence we have enjoyed for many years. But, more importantly, it signals to all Canadians that we are truly, and in all ways, a sovereign and independent country. I look forward to seeing a heightened pride among all our citizens, and a new era of national enthusiasm.
Historians will undoubtedly decide that the Constitution was the major achievement of this Parliament. But they will also surely decide that the National Energy Program marked a significant step forward for Canada as a strong and rigorously independent nation. A significant portion of this program is now before us as proposed law.
Much of the legislation on our parliamentary agenda this spring, including this monitoring bill, was tabled last June as draft legislation. The revised version is the result of extensive consultation with the industry and its associations, provincial governments and major financial institutions. Their advice has been seriously considered and taken into account.
The legislation follows a commitment made by the leader of our party, the current Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in a speech in Halifax during the last election campaign. It was during that speech that he unveiled the National Energy Program, including the promise of a petroleum pricing and auditing agency. The agency was to keep a watch on industry costs, profits and operations. We followed that by referring to the agency again in the last Speech from the Throne as a device not only to monitor industry revenues and expenditures but the levels of Canadian ownership as well.
[Stage Direction]
Let us now consider for a moment the raison d'etre of energy enterprise monitoring. Once again I would refer hon. members to the goals of the National Energy Program. We want at least 50 per cent Canadian ownership of oil and gas production by 1990, because the oil and gas sector is vital to this country's economy. To achieve this goal, we must obtain information on the industry and on the manner in which it is developing our oil and gas resources. We want to be sure that there is a real increase in the number of Canadian participants and not merely concentration of power in the hands of a few large companies operating in Canada. Canadian ownership through Petro-Canada, for instance, will balance the range of ownership in the industry.
[Stage Direction]

April 19, 1982
[Stage Direction]
The Petroleum Monitoring Agency was established in August, 1980, for the purpose of collecting this information. In the National Energy Program, its role is defined as follows, and I quote:
-to monitor and report on the activities and financial performance of the petroleum industry in Canada ... It can ... carry out its duties and provide advice to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It will also provide independent comment on information that is essential to the Government's energy strategy and to the public's understanding of energy issues ... The Agency will receive information secured under the Petroleum Corporations Monitaring Act concerning costs of production, profitability, research and development efforts, and reinvestment behaviour. It will also monitor and report on ownership and control in the industry. The Agency will issue reports on a regular basis that will permit the Government and the Canadian public to be assured that the revenues resulting from higher oil and gas prices are being used in ways that enhance Canada's energy security".
Before bringing in the National Energy Program, the government had already realized that it needed timely and accurate information on the industry, an information requirement emphasized in a document called "Energy Strategy for Canada", published in 1976. How else could Canadians judge whether government policies on management of Canadian oil and gas resources had positive results? Clearly, a monitoring agency is of vital importance. The agency in question has the authority to monitor about 120 major oil and gas companies.
Indeed, our country and Parliament need to be informed and must have all the data on activities being carried out in this major sector of our economy, the oil and gas industry. The energy monitoring bill now before the House is aimed at expanding and further developing the role of the Petroleum Monitoring Agency. The agency advises and reports to the minister, but may also publish its own reports.
Only enterprises with gross oil and gas revenues or assets in excess of $10 million must file a report. Previously, companies with assets of $5 million came under the jurisdiction of the agency. This amount has been increased to avoid burdening smaller companies with the administrative work involved in filing returns.
Companies will have to provide information on their revenues and exploration expenditures according to the type of petroleum or gas being produced. Data will have to be provided not only on ownership and control but also on subsidies obtained from the government, oil-derived funds leaving the country, research and development projects in the industry and production levels. The companies will also have to provide accurate tax data which will be used to evaluate the impact of future tax changes on the industry's operations and their cost.
The agency will also monitor the oil and gas activities of individuals, trusts and partnerships that meet the financial thresholds of $10 million per year in revenues or $10 million in assets. As well, public sector participation in the industry will come under scrutiny. The structure of the industry is changing and for a complete picture to unfold through the Petroleum
Energy Monitoring Act
Monitoring Agency, these additional players in the industry had to be added.
The government is anxious to minimize the reporting burden faced by the, industry. It is sensitive to the costs that can be involved in supplying all of the information governments seek to collect. It is for that reason that information supplied to the monitoring agency will be made available to the Department of Finance and to Statistics Canada. The Department of Finance will get information solely to formulate or evaluate energy taxation policy. By judiciously sharing this information, we can make it possible for companies to report only once and still meet the data collection requirements of a number of government departments and agencies.
The industry, of course, is anxious that some of this information be treated confidentially-and it will be. To ensure the confidentiality of this information, restrictions against disclosure will also apply to the two other departments along with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources that can receive the information.
Should the need ever arise, we want the government to be in a position to monitor other sources of energy, namely coal, uranium and thorium. It is impossible to know today what quantities of these three commodities will be needed to supply energy in the future. We cannot predict with certainty the structure of energy supplies in the decades ahead. But we can plan for the future, and so we have included these three potential candidates for monitoring down the road, depending on the use we make of them and the nature of ownership and control patterns within each. We would be shortsighted indeed if we did all of the work we are doing to increase Canadian ownership and control in the petroleum industry but ignored those factors in other resource areas which some day could be far more important.
This legislation includes two lesser groups of amendments. The first concerns the Energy Supplies Emergency Act. A number of housekeeping changes are being made, covering everything from definitions to the board's authority to delegate its workload. Second, we are amending the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act, largely to enable us to meet our obligations under last November's agreement with Alberta to expand natural gas markets. The agreement includes incentives to undertake sales and promotional activities and we have to broaden the authority of the legislation to do that.
I will not take the time of the House now, Mr. Speaker, to describe the legislation before us in any more detail. We still have a great deal of work to do before it can be finally approved and members will want detailed information at the appropriate stage of legislative consideration. But I do not want to take my seat without emphasizing the importance of the principles involved here. The National Energy Program will create the conditions that will enable Canada to achieve energy self-sufficiency and security. Canadians have shown their strong support for this goal. In Parliament, we took an important first step with the Canada Oil and Gas Act, which established the ground rules for petroleum development in our
[Stage Direction]
April 19, 1982
Energy Monitoring Act
exciting frontier areas. We are now about to continue that work. The energy monitoring act will give us the tools, through the already established Petroleum Monitoring Agency, to gather the information we need.
The act has been drafted in such a way as to avoid imposing reporting requirements on small firms; but in the interest of gathering the complete story, reporting requirements must be extended to the large new players in the game and must draw out facts and figures on a wide variety of subjects.
The energy monitoring bill is an important part of the legislative package before us. It will enable us carefully to monitor progress toward the major goals of the National Energy Program.
With these words, Mr. Speaker, I conclude by hoping that the legislation before the House can be disposed of efficiently and expeditiously.
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by saying that I am sure members on all sides of the House share the minister's hopes for a happy future in Canada and would like to mark the milestone that was achieved on Saturday with that thought. I should add very quickly, though, that on this side of the House in particular, we hope that the kind of future we see for Canada is not the one which the minister and the government would give us with the sort of legislation presented today and the economic and energy planning we have had over the past two years. I do not think Canada can stand much more of that kind of planning if we are to have a future. I hope the government's successes will not be along the lines of the kind of legislation which has been passed to date over the last several years.
Bill C-106 is before us now. It is an interesting sequester from Bill C-94, the omnibus bill with which we were presented first. We might call this bill a "minibus" because it is really the bottom of the barrel. It has three different, separate and distinct parts to it, any of which in their own way could have a significant impact on the energy scene. I think each needs to be dealt with individually and looked at reasonably closely.
With each day the number of Canadians without jobs rises, with continued high interest rates and an increasing number of bankruptcies, all of which points to the lack of competence on the part of the Liberal government. The National Energy Program which should be called the Liberal energy program because the real question is whether national interests are being served by the program as it stands now.
Many difficulties have been created and not solved by this program in different regions and provinces. Most Canadians, if they had a chance to get an insight into the consequences of this whole program, would have serious reservations about it. Reservations about the oil industry have been there over the years with consumers feeling ripped off, etc. The main activator in the oil and gas industry has been the amount of exploration and development that has taken place and is a reason why western Canada has flourished. But this industry is feeling the first impact of the National Energy Program and is now being presented with yet another piece of legislation which will
influence directly the amount of control the federal government has over its day-to-day activities.
The first part of the program is the energy monitoring act. This bill as described by the minister will ostensibly allow the government to look at what is happening in the industry. But through a number of devices, it goes much further than that. I think there can be no argument that the federal government should know what is happening as far as energy related activity in the country is concerned. The real question is how much control will fall into the hands of the federal government. What is the government going to do with the information it receives? What will Bill C-106 accomplish?
What we have seen so far up to 1981 in terms of government involvement is the loss of 8,000 jobs in the energy exploration area in Alberta. I do not know if we have figures for the last several months but we can assume that trend will continue, at least for a while. That not only affects the people of Alberta but the economy of Canada as a whole. All this has been a direct result of the legislation thus far brought in-legislation which has also had a severe impact on consumers across Canada.
The National Energy Program has resulted in energy prices arrived at by the federal government, including large increases in federal taxation, that have caused a substantial increase in costs to consumers. These costs will continue in the years to come under the provisions of the bill so far described.
Let us look at the effect this monitoring agency will have. What has happened since the first part of the energy program came into being? The most recent figures show that oil well completions have dropped 25 per cent, exploration drilling has dropped 19 per cent and development drilling has dropped 28 per cent. All of these things have occurred because of increased government involvement in, and influence on, the oil and gas industry.
The minister spoke about the government not wanting to do anything but look at what was happening in the industry. But two specific things will happen. First, this bill requires any energy related industry in Canada-specifically oil and gas, although the minister has indicated that coal, uranium and thorium are also included-to give full disclosure of all activity, including financial statements, etc.
The amount of regulatory and other control which might come out of this process is of very great concern. There is provision in the bill for some smaller industries to be excluded, but that is not written in stone. The suggestion is that any industry could be required to conform. The amount of extra paper burden and work required by the industry in order to live up to the regulations provided by this type of bill are of serious concern to the industry. They are yet another blow to the ability of the smaller enterprises to continue. They are a very real concern to businessmen who would like to carry on business activity in Canada and be able to do it relatively free from the kind of government involvement implied by this bill if it goes through.
April 19, 1982

In looking at this bill there is another concern; that is, the definition of Canada for the interpretation of the bill. It includes a definition of Canada, the federal government, with a 200-mile control area beyond our coasts. I wonder whether it is really appropriate for that definition to be included in a bill like this in view of the lack of co-operation between the federal government and provincial government of Newfoundland and the fact that the matter is before the courts right now. Obviously the 200-mile limit is a contentious point with the government of Newfoundland. It is a point, I think, which should be reconsidered by the minister.
Not only are the producers, the so-called bad men in the oil industry, being affected by this bill but also the dealers and distributors. These are the local people, many of whom are friends and neighbours who are involved in carrying on economic activity in towns or villages. These people too are susceptible to this type of regulatory control. They can be required to provide the kind of documentation the minister says he needs in order to maintain control. This is another serious imposition on the conduct of free business activity in a favourable environment in Canada. For the above reasons my party has very grave doubts about this bill, and I do not think we can see ourselves supporting it without some significant restriction on the amount of actual power and control which the minister may have if this bill is passed in its present form.
Another point is that the minister again provided himself with many discretionary powers. Of course, this is one thing about which we have grave concerns. Many things are possible through ministerial discretion and orders in council which individual Members of Parliament will not have an opportunity to scrutinize. These matters are of continuous concern. There are many examples in the bill of how that power will be implemented and used. Questions should be asked of the minister as to how far he will go in carrying out these discretionary powers. How many more orders in council can we expect in trying to implement this control?
The second part of Bill C-106 attempts to amend the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, 1979. It is interesting to note that there is not much difference in the present amending process, but the act itself should be considered to find out whether or not other amendments are appropriate and whether the act will actually provide the security about which the minister spoke so fondly a few moments ago. With or without the amendments, the act itself is of little benefit to the security of Canadians who will be faced with energy shortages, especially those east of the Ottawa Valley, if there is an international crisis or difficulty in securing energy supplies from other countries.
It was not until the 1970s that the government seriously considered the situation. It was increasingly clear to most people in the country that the situation in the Middle East was very volatile and that we could be facing difficulties in terms of supply sources from the area at almost any moment. Discussions took place and arguments continued. Finally in 1978 a
Energy Monitoring Act
government document was prepared, which was followed in 1979 by the Energy Supplies Emergency Act. The act provided definitions as to how energy would be allocated, what was of prime importance and what was of secondary importance. Also it provided a rough distribution system in the event of a crisis and a shortage of supply. Now we have just an explanation of the allocation process wherein the Canada Post Corporation is defined as the system which will distribute the rationing coupons and wherein the government is described as being able to affix whatever price is necessary to the actual coupons.
The question is whether we have moved any closer to security of supply in the event of an emergency. The minister made reference to the National Energy Program, but if we take a look at it and at what has happened to date, we will realize that there is no better day than today to look at what is happening in the western and eastern parts of the country. In the west today at least 80,000 barrels of oil are locked in. By this summer there will probably be 200,000 barrels locked in because they cannot be distributed. In reality we have not gone any farther toward providing security of supply for eastern Canada. In fact we have taken a giant step backward in that we have the production capability but are not able to distribute in a reasonable manner to the eastern part of the country.
This is costing Canadians a lot every day. It is costing them about 16 cents per gallon for unleaded gasoline at the pumps. It is costing the country because we are spending $18 per barrel in compensation charges and giving this money to other countries. We are still very vulnerable, almost totally vulnerable, on the eastern coast to international situations. We have a distribution coupon system through the revisions to the Energy Supplies Emergency Act in order to distribute resources that we have either not developed or that are locked in. We cannot distribute supplies reasonably to the eastern part of the country.
Interestingly this holds true for natural gas as well. We have talked a long time about extending the pipelines to the east coast so that we can distribute natural gas, which is very plentiful in western Canada, into markets that we know exist in Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. The difficulties have been partially created by the federal government and its energy program. We are just as vulnerable today as we were ten or 12 years ago. It will be a long time into the future before we are in better shape.
Another question is why we have been paying compensation charges and going through the whole energy program. Do we really have anything to show for it? Do we have the security we should have? In 1981, compensation charges cost about $4.5 billion. The government collected over $5 billion in compensation charges, but we still do not have security or the reservoir of 140 million barrels of oil which the Americans have put away for use in the event of a crisis. Where is ours? We have talked about caverns and storagability, but what have we done about them? Not much. We are dedicating ourselves to maintaining good relations with companies and countries with which we are bargaining for imported oil supplies. When

April 19, 1982
Energy Monitoring Act
a crisis comes about or there is an emergency, we know we will be vulnerable to allocations through the International Energy Agency. For what are we paying? Is it really to our benefit to maintain such relationships or to continue such activities? I think not.
The amendments to the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act are contained in the final part of the bill. The act has two major sections. There is conversion from oil or the oil substitution program, and the so-called DSEP, which is an extension of the services for taking laterals and distributing natural gas or other supply lines into smaller communities.
There is no question that the first part of the program has been successful, probably more successful than the government could have hoped for in the first instance, but it has created problems. One reason for its success has been the fact that the management of the conversion program is left to the utilities when it involves electricity and natural gas. Much of the administrative work has been carried out efficiently and effectively. This is all well and good. On the other hand, there has been great difficulty with conversions other than to electricity or to natural gas. These have fallen within the purview of the federal government.
It has taken the government a long time to get its act together. It is lagging behind, and there are many difficulties in the program. We all hope that many of those administrative problems will be worked out, but there is a real question as to whether or not in terms of improving the balances the objectives are being achieved so far as renewables and other alternatives from electricity and natural gas are concerned. I think that is a debatable question. I believe there can be much more effort applied in that area to improve those balances and to provide as many conversions as possible in those areas which are indigenous either to a region or a province. This should be done in a manner which is equitable to all Canadians.
Alberta is an excellent example. In many cases, people cannot take advantage of programs such as this because there is not the necessity for energy sources other than gas. Therefore, they do not benefit from this program which was meant to benefit all Canadians.
Since the Northwest Territories do not have natural gas or electricity, this program will not benefit them. While I appreciate that they have additional opportunities, many more steps could be taken to improve conversions in that area.
The DSEP program which was announced in March of this year has two main problems, which were created, partially due to delays, and also by the limitations which were placed on the program when it was introduced. The program as it now exists will likely serve only urban interests. The rural parts of Canada which were unable to be supplied with natural gas will still probably not be serviced by gas companies and public utilities. The reason is that the amount of the contribution to these companies to put these laterals out and extend services into smaller communities is so limited that they will only be
able to service areas within a mile of their trunk lines or the areas they now service. Obviously, that is a severe restriction and will result in very few rural areas in either Quebec or Ontario obtaining service. Although this program marks a beginning and steps have been initiated, these deficiencies must be considered. The program will have to be improved in order to accommodate the needs of many people in rural parts of Canada.
Another problem concerns the lead times which were given to the companies to submit their programs and suggestions. The time is so short that many companies may not be able to comply within the time period which has been set by the government. Both these areas should be improved, but at least we have a beginning. Both programs are supported by this side of the House.
One of the main questions when studying the amendments to the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act is whether or not the emphasis has been changed. If the minister reads Section 4 on page 16 of the bill, a question which he might answer concerns the way in which it has been defined. While on one hand it might be argued as being very beneficial, the question is whether indeed there has been a change in the emphasis of the whole program. The way in which the amendment reads, it stipulates in most cases "other than oil". In many cases it has excluded electricity and gas but has not defined or stipulated any other energy source or activity. The question is whether, by exclusion, the minister is suggesting that he will not consider other alternatives to the same extent as gas and electricity. I believe that is a reasonable question to ask the minister. I can see some advantages in how this definition is worded, but at the same time there are some reasonable doubts which warrant a more detailed description.
Another question to be considered is: How does a piece of equipment, such as a heat pump, fit into this program? The heat pump is becoming an increasingly viable and valuable option in terms of energy, and when one reviews this description, I am not sure whether it can be included or whether it is meant to be included under "other energy sources" or other types of energy transmission. One of the main concerns we have when reviewing the whole energy program is that there never has been a basic understanding of the need to define what alternatives or options would be in the best interests of Canadians in the long term. This concern is not only raised by Bill C-106 but is seen as a common thread throughout the whole legislation, whether in research and development, or in specific energy activities we see within the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, or in the Department of Finance when making its revisions to the taxation regime.
For example, in terms of conservation, if we look at the measures in this bill to convert away from oil, if we convert massively to electricity-which has happened in many areas of Canada, such as in Quebec and Ontario-and create another set of problems for ourselves, we would have given ourselves a short-term solution but an increasingly long-term problem. These areas have never been defined accurately or considered
April 19, 1982

intelligently. The entire question of efficiency, which is important and necessary in the relationship of different energy activities, has not been described.
The minister will know that the special committee that reported to the House as well as to him made many recommendations on how to deal with the meaning of conservation in a comprehensive way. Apart from the negative implications created in the minds of people when we talk about conservation, the fact is that conservation is an efficiency which could benefit not only the lifestyle of Canadians but Canada as a whole. These facts are continually overlooked when individual departments do separate studies in isolated and unco-ordinated ways.
I would strongly urge the minister to undertake to study some of these basic questions and deal with them in a comprehensive way so that we may look forward to a future which would not be left with a crisis such as we have now as we attempt to deal with our energy needs in Canada.
In conclusion, the basic question we have concerns the direction in which we will head in managing energy affairs in Canada. The course the government is obviously following with this measure, which was initially included in the omnibus Bill C-94, is a course which means an increasing and continuous government involvement in all levels of the energy sphere. While this may be reasonable and debatable in some areas, in other areas, particularly where business activity is involved, the government has proven, through its daily demonstration of its management of its own affairs and that of the country, that it cannot and should not have the confidence of Canadians and should withdraw from many of these areas to allow those individuals who are knowledgeable and capable of making their own choice to become involved in the sort of activities which will generate economic wealth for all of Canada.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on an act respecting energy monitoring which will also amend the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, 1979 and the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act. I wish to put that on the record so that the minister will be sure I am speaking to the right bill.
One thing that I think I have learned-some members may suggest it is the only thing-during the last two and a half years I have been in the House is that the Liberal Party will never do anything by halves which can be done by quarters. This act is an outstanding example. I would not give it such an exalted title. I would call it the "Powder Puff Act". When the Liberals have a problem, they want to study it. If it is a bigger problem, they will monitor it. As long as one can continue to study and monitor it, one just kind of hopes that the problem will go away. It is called the Mackenzie King theory of government, and it is ably practised by the party across the aisle.
This agency is like the chicken monitoring a den of foxes. It is really kind of useless. It reminds me that in many speeches
Energy Monitoring Act
in this House, in Saskatchewan and elsewhere, Tommy Douglas used the line about everything being equal. It is capitalism, every man for himself. He said it is similar to what the elephant said when he was dancing among the chickens. This bill is like having one lone chicken dancing among the elephants. I want to tell the minister why. I hear the minister yelling across from me. I want the minister to look-


Mr. Lewis:: Tell us about oil.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If the hon. members to my right would just listen for a moment, I might show them something they may be very interested in.


Philip Derek Lewis: Doubtful.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I have in my hand an excerpt from a Liberal campaign ad. I know how much the Liberals like these ads. In The Globe and Mail of February 2, the ad stated:
To ensure fair costing, there will be a petroleum pricing and auditing agency.
Does the minister remember that? It continued:
A new permanent petroleum pricing and auditing agency would be established to investigate and report on industry costs, profits and operation.


Marc Lalonde: Right.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It continued:
This will also see to it that money earned in Canada will be reinvested in Canada to find new sources of energy.
It seems to me that in this bill the Liberals are downgrading the concept of a strong, independent monitoring agency. In fact, the ad of the Liberal Party gave the impression during the campaign that this would be a pricing agency to ensure fair costing. It is far from that. It merely gives a statistical survey of the industry. That is what it does. It is a toothless tiger. It is a powder puff. That is why I called it the powder puff bill.
Therefore, what I am saying to the minister is that during the 1980 election campaign he and his party gave the impression that they would do something about industry rip-offs. Had not the Bertrand commission at least alleged that the industry had ripped off something like $12 billion in price-fixing over a period? It is an example of the government pretending it would do something with a tough monitoring agency. It really did not do anything.
The gist of my opposition and the crux of our party's objection to this legislation is that it is really a toothless monitoring agency. If we had the chance, which we may hopefully have in the future, we would set up a commission on oil prices and profits. We would call it "COPP", because it would act like a good cop and it would have the power to investigate prices and profits. It would have the power to roll back unjustified prices.
Nowhere in this bill is there power given to the Petroleum Monitoring Agency to do what I suspect people would really like it to do, that is, to examine oil prices and, if there were rip-offs, to roll them back. My friend the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) will speak a little later for our party on that aspect of the Bertrand commission and the

April 19, 1982
Energy Monitoring Act
present rather farcical hearings into oil price fixing which are now being held across the country.
Once again, the Liberals study a matter, monitor a matter or hold hearings. I see that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) is present. After he deflected Mr. Bertrand, he deflected the Bertrand report into these hearings going on across the country. I appeared before the commission in Vancouver and advocated that it recommend a petroleum monitoring agency which would have some real powers, unlike the one in this bill. That commission has just announced that it will not consider the rip-offs that have occurred in the past; they will look only into the present circumstances. So we can just forget about all of the past rip-offs. It is a perfect example of the minister getting out from under the tough duty of rolling back prices. That is really the gist of our criticisms with regard to this bill.
I want to deal with some of the background notes in the bill and make some comments about some proposed amendments. When we come to parts of the bill which I think are good, I will say so. Never let it be said that we do not congratulate the government when it brings in something good. It is simply that we are prepared to criticize the government when it brings in something which is as Mickey Mouse as this, something which is a powder puff or a toothless tiger, when there is really a job to be done out there.
According to the notes put out by the government, the new Energy Monitoring Act will replace the Petroleum Corporations Monitoring Act. It will enable the federal government to obtain, on a regular basis, complete information on the activities and financial performance of enterprises which have more than $10 million in oil and gas revenues or $10 million in assets. The new legislation will require enterprises above the threshold size to file additional information, as I understand it, such as the following: first, revenues and operating costs of producers by type of oil and gas, by method of production and by geographical location; second, ownership and control of companies; third, petroleum incentive payments and tax-related benefits to the industry; fourth, research and development activity of the oil and gas industry; fifth, value and volume of production statistics; and, finally, the flow of funds between Canada and other countries.
I have no objection to the government requiring this information provided it obtains it by the least bureaucratic method possible. Presumably, this information will enable the federal government to monitor and assess the impact of the various components of the National Energy Program. It will apparently also give the government the means to formulate ongoing energy policy. I understand that the information collected will be confidential, subject to certain exemptions. Perhaps more could be said about this in committee with respect to how the freedom of information legislation would fit in, if we ever get that legislation.
I understand the minister will make the information available to the department for policy formulation and to the Petroleum Monitoring Agency for analysis, and that the regular publications of the Petroleum Monitoring Agency will provide Canadians generally with an overview of the activities
and financial performance of the petroleum industry in Canada. That is fine. I think we do need an overview of the activities and financial performance of this industry because it is a strategic industry. It is a strategic industry which, as Your Honour knows, is, by and large, controlled and owned by foreigners. No other industrial country like ours would permit such a strategic industry to be so controlled by forces outside the country. Certainly, Norway did not do that when it opened up the North Sea. Certainly, the United Kingdom would not go for that. Indeed, the person who originally advocated a government window and some government direction to a strategic industry like oil was Sir Winston Churchill. I do not hear my friends to the right heckling me when I say that. It was Churchill who advocated a role for the British government in petroleum after the First World War. That is why that country became involved in British Petroleum.
The Petroleum Monitoring Agency was established under the Inquiries Act on August 1, 1980. We have this agency and now the act is bringing it in. It is sort of ex post facto. The original agency is going to be continued in name under the Energy Monitoring Act. The agency will consist of a chairman appointed by the government and two members appointed by the minister. It will monitor the industry, advise the minister upon request, publish reports, conduct special studies and inform the general public on industry related matters.
That is fine as far as it goes. It does not do anything about rolling back unjustified price increases and so on. The Canadian people are not interested in monitoring; they are interested in action if there has been some wrongful pricing.
There have been some changes from the draft bill which preceded Bill C-94 and this bill. The government has been more lenient in its requirement of what companies have to report to the Petroleum Monitoring Agency. Originally companies with $5 million in assets were required to report. Under this bill, the ceiling has been raised to $10 million. This obviously means that fewer industries will be scrutinized by the Petroleum Monitoring Agency. We intend to move an amendment to restore the $5 million ceiling. If you are going to monitor, you might as well monitor completely.
Also, the size at the Petroleum Monitoring Agency has been reduced. In the draft bill, the agency consisted of a chairman and up to six members. We must undestand that there was a draft bill last year. Then there was bill C-94, the Energy Security Act, the omnibus bill. Then the bills were split into eight bills. This is the sixth, C-106. Under this bill, the size of the Petroleum Monitoring Agency has been reduced to two members besides the chairman. Is the government downgrading the concept of a strong, independent monitoring agency by reducing the number of members on it? We can examine that in committee, presumably when the chairman of the agency is there.
I made reference to the Liberal campaign ad. The campaign ad gave the impression that there was going to be a rather
April 19, 1982

toothy agency that would do something with pricing rather than just monitor. The ad also said that money earned in Canada will be reinvested in Canada to find new sources of energy.
That ad was published February 2, 1980. It is interesting to note in the latest petroleum monitoring agency report that for the first six months of 1981, capital expenditures by the oil industry increased by 55 per cent, from $429 million to $663 million. In 1980 investment abroad increased by 63 per cent. So much for the promise that money earned in Canada would be reinvested in Canada. It is nothing new for the country or this House when the Liberal Party does not keep campaign promises. However, it is our duty to keep pointing out the list of broken campaign promises. I would like to reiterate our objections to the Petroleum Monitoring Agency, how it has been operationg and how it highlights the profitability of the industry by emphasizing the net income after tax, which includes deferred tax which will never be paid.
The PMA is underestimating the true profit picture of the industry. A more accurate estimation of profit is profit after income tax only, as was done by Energy, Mines and Resources prior to establishing the Petroleum Monitoring Agency. It seems to me that the PMA underestimated the profit picture of the industry in 1980 by $1.5 billion.
That is a serious matter because if we cannot get a toothy agency with a little power to roll back prices if need be, at least we can get a monitoring agency that will monitor properly. I say that the Petroleum Monitoring Agency is not monitoring properly. That is another aspect that has to be examined in committee.
My friends to my right talk about the difficulty the energy industry is going through in terms of profit picture and so on. I agree that small Canadian companies are having difficulty. We have to look back over the past three or four years at the profitability of the industry. We must do that properly. It is very instructive when you do that. For example, I learned from looking at those figures that one of the central problems the industry now has is this: the industry was making so much profit in 1980-81, and perhaps 1979-80, that it was unlike other industries in Canada. This can be seen if you read carefully the National Energy Program. A building block or basic premise of the National Energy Program was that the industry was doing so well that it could take all its cash flow and reinvest it. That is where its investment came from. Other industries such as manufacturing were not so lucky; they had to go to the bank to borrow and raise capital when they wanted to reinvest. They could not take it entirely from their cash flow.
What happened was that under the National Energy Program taxes were being put on the industry. That had to be because windfall profits were being made. The industry kept right on trying to invest from its cash flow. When it did not have the cash flow, it went to the bank.
The industry in the west is in the same position today as many small businessmen and ordinary people in Canada. They
Energy Monitoring Act
have real problems borrowing money from the banks. They are in hock to the banks. Members might want to look at this pattern of investment in the oil industry in order to really understand what is going on.
The point I raised with respect to the Petroleum Monitoring Agency looking at the industry's accounting method is important. I wish to put on record a letter I wrote to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) on September 10, 1981, regarding this problem. I wish to put it on record so that when this bill gets to committee Mr. Renouf, the chairman, or whoever appears for the agency, will have an opportunity to read it and comment. I quote from the letter:
Dear Mr. Lalonde:
I want to draw to your attention an underestimation of the true profit situation of the petroleum industry as described in the Petroleum Monitoring Agency's report for 1980. This is the first annual report by the new agency and it has chosen to change how it reports the industry's profits. In 1979 when the monitoring survey was conducted by the financial and fiscal analysis branch of your department, the profitability of the industry was stated in terms of cash flow and profits after current income tax. In the PMA report of 1980, profits are defined as net income after tax which includes deferred taxes. Consequently the PMA underestimates the profitability of the petroleum industry by $1.5 billion had the same methodology been used as before.
The Canadian Petroleum Industry Monitoring Survey 1979, under the title "Highlights-Profitability and Sources of Finance" stated that profits after current income tax rose 53.8 per cent to $4.7 billion in 1979 ..." Net income is not highlighted as it is in the 1980 PMA report.
The 1979 report states under the heading "Profitability" on page 17 that:
"This section endeavours to estimate rates of return for the petroleum industry. However, this is difficult because the resource industries in Canada enjoy certain tax advantages and follow accounting practices which are different from those in other industries. As a result of certain tax advantages, the petroleum industry has a higher proportion of deferred income taxes to total income taxes than other industries.
Moreover, many petroleum companies expend some of their exploration and development investments. Both of these factors have the effect of depressing 'book' net profits, even though the cash associated with these items is available for investment and, to an extent, for distribution purposes. A more accurate picture of profitability requires that they be taken into account."
And again the 1979 report states on page 4 that
"due to the nature of petroleum operations and associated accounting methods used, it is customary and more meaningful, in analysing the industry's performance, to use internal cash flow rather than net income."
The 1980 PMA report portrays deferred taxes as a liability thereby reducing income after income tax. In reality these taxes are interest free loans which will never be collected. Hence a more accurate reflection of profits is the income after income tax has been deducted, but before deferred taxes have been deducted.
Therefore using the more realistic 1979 report's methodology instead of the PMA's, the 1980 assessment of the industry's profitability should have stated that profits (income after income tax) rose 30 per cent to over $6.2 billion, not 31 per cent ot over $4.7 billion.
I would also like to object to the decision by the Chairman of the PMA, Mr. Harold Renouf, to delay the release of the 1980 report until after the federal government and Alberta energy negotiations had been completed. I consider this deliberate obstruction of the Government's and public's right to know the facts. The decision to withhold publication raises serious doubt about the independence and impartiality of this agency.
In view of the above I ask you to instruct Mr. Renouf to use the previous methodology of your department as in the 1979 report in stating the industry's true profits, and that he not again delay publication of his agency's reports.

April 19, 1982
Energy Monitoring Act
I never got a satisfactory answer to that letter and I propose to press on until I do get a satisfactory answer. If I can translate that into English, Mr. Speaker, it means this, that in 1979 the department had a way of looking at industry profitability which was different from what the monitoring industry did in 1980. If it had used the 1979 way of looking at it, the industry profits would have been $1.59 billion greater. Why is that important? It is important because if we are going to have a monitoring industry it might as well work and it might as well have an accurate picture of the industry. I set that out, Mr. Speaker, for more argument in committee.
This bill also deals with amendments to the Energy Supplies Emergency Act; and the hon. member who last spoke dealt with this matter. I note the report states that:
The technical amendments to the Energy Supplies Emergency Act have been made to ensure that there is clear authority for the steps necessary under that act in the event of an emergency that would warrant use of this legislation.
For example, the present act enables the Energy Supplies Allocation Board (ESAB) to make regulations to authorize banks to perform functions relating to the issuance of rationing coupons.
This must be one of the only requirements that this government has ever brought out about getting tough with the banks. If there is some energy emergency, it may force the banks to issue rationing coupons. I note that this report continues:
With the amendments, this responsibility now is extended to apply to trust companies as well.
As far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, these amendments are non-controversial and can be supported.
The third act, Mr. Speaker, which is amended by this bill is the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act, which was enacted in 1981. That act provides the government with the means to implement a number of oil substitution and conservation measures proposed under the National Energy Program.
We heard the minister, in answer to a question from the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) today, say that he felt that there had been some success in Canada in terms of substitution. Now, there had been success, but I wonder whether it is because the government has run the economy into a recession that we are having conservation, or is it really because the government has brought in wise measures that have forced Canadians to conserve? I am not sure. I think it may be the former rather than the latter.
In any case, as a result of the Canada-Alberta energy agreement in September, 1981, the Alberta government agreed to pay moneys to the federal government in order to assist programs for expanding markets for natural gas in the provinces east of Alberta. The amendments to the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act provide clarification of the necessary authority in respect of such programs.
We generally support the substitution away from oil, Mr. Speaker, but it seems to me that the government program is incomplete here in two ways. One is that there is incredible pressure on the government, and there will be soon again, to export natural gas. I sometimes feel I am the only one in the country who seems to be noting that there is this great pressure all over the country to export our natural gas. I draw the government's attention to this problem. If we pass a bill like this, it will encourage substitution of natural gas-which we
are supposed to have in abundance-for oil, which we sold out shamelessly in the late 1960s and in the 1970s when we were at one point exporting one-half of our daily production. Let us not do the same thing with gas. Let us not build a series of pipelines and connections to people's homes for natural gas and then turn around in 15 years and say there is a natural gas shortage. That would be a real tragedy. That is what we did with oil. People have said that it cannot happen again. It happened with oil and it could happen again with natural gas. It is important that this be pointed out.
This was one of the bases, Mr. Speaker, of our trust in the pre-build of the Alaska pipeline. We said "Do not pre-build a section of this line and export a lot of natural gas forever through it; hold out for the whole line to be built up to Alaska and be careful with natural gas exports." There are other ways in which this problem can be handled of shut-in natural gas and the demand for cash flow from small companies that have found natural gas. Let me suggest two. One is a natural gas vent, a suggestion of mine which I think was taken up in the National Energy Program. I have not seen much happen to it since it was announced, until now.


Marc Lalonde: A suggestion about the National Energy Program. It was too late.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The second suggestion was that they might consider a proration system of gas in Alberta so that the small gasoline companies can share in some of that market with the big boys. That might alleviate their cash flow problems and therefore perhaps fine down a little bit their demands for the export of our gas.
This bill will make reference to COSP, which is a substitution program that pays people to substitute. In committee, it might be useful if we examined this program. I know that we do not have time for very many questions in the House of Commons, and if we ask them we are liable to get insulting answers anyway. There need to be more questions put and answers obtained in committee as to why it is taking so long for the government to get applications from people for conversion to natural gas and so on. Why is it taking so long for these applications to be processed and why is it taking so long for the government to get cheques out to people? I think we can pursue this in committee.
The government released what they call a DSEP background in which they talked about the Canada oil substitution program and the conversion assistance program and the distribution system expansion program. In Ottawa one has to be an expert in all these terms-COR, PIP, DSEP, COSP and so on. One has to be careful about what they all mean!
I noticed on the DSEP background, page 2, something which I find rather interesting:
In addition to contributing to the off-oil goal of the NEP, DSEP expenditures this year will generate new jobs and economic spin-off benefits as expansion projects proceed. Economists predict that direct employment, primarily in construction, will reach 2,000 person years. It is estimated that total employment, including indirect and induced will reach 7,500 person years. This includes
April 19, 1982

the spinoffs that will come from the purchase by utilities and their suppliers of required raw and refined material.
We have been trying to make the point throughout this grand debate on energy security that the government should emphasize conservation and alternate energy much more than it has. For example, the government is spending $6.5 billion on PIP grants to private industry. It is spending $35 million to upgrade its alternate energy corporation, Canertech. There is a tremendous gap between what the government is prepared to pay on the supply side and what it is prepared to do on the demand side to reduce the demand for this resource. What the passage I quoted made me realize is that there are many more jobs-and this is an issue we really must debate further in the House of Commons-in connection with conversion from oil to gas and other alternate methods of heating, the insulation of people's houses, the provision of rapid transit, conservation and so forth.
Instead, what we have talked about almost every day in this House when we-and the press as well-have talked about energy is that Alsands should go ahead at a cost of $13 billion, Cold Lake should go ahead at a cost of $10 billion and the Alaska highway pipeline should go ahead at a cost of $40 billion. We talk about these megaprojects and jobs on these megaprojects, but if we really analyse the situation, we see that there are many more jobs in projects of smaller scale, including conservation and alternatives. That is something which has never really been debated enough in this House.
The hon. member who spoke previously mentioned the report of the all-party committee on energy alternatives. It was a fine report but it was simply ignored by the government. I think we will have to debate that in the committee.
I want to state again very briefly our position on this matter. The monitoring agency which is the heart of this bill is really a paper tiger. It monitors, collects statistics and looks around, but it has no teeth when it comes to being able to roll back prices if there are rip-offs. The hon. member for Comox-Powell River will speak about what is happening in relation to combines legislation and in relation to prices.
This monitoring agency is like a person wearing a blindfold. It hears no evil and speaks no evil; it just reports. That is not good enough. We want a monitoring agency we would call COPP, a commission on oil pricing and profits. We felt the name "COPP" would convey to people what it would do; it would have some real teeth and real power not only to monitor but also to take decisive action if decisive action was required.
I will conclude by saying what I said in opening my speech. I have learned that the motto of the Liberal government is quite clear: do not do anything by halves if you can do it by quarters. If you can give an agency teeth, do not do it. If you have a Bertrand report, just shuffle it off. If you have problems with oil company profits, just set up a monitoring agency. If you have problems with northern energy, just study it, monitor it, look at it, shuffle it and put it off, but never act. That is the position of this government, and that is why we in the New Democratic Party oppose this bill.
Energy Monitoring Act



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier);: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-Energy-Nova Scotia offshore development, (b) Measures to assist development; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman)-External Affairs-Plight of Nicaraguan refugees in Honduras, (b) Request for human rights investigation; the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin)-Energy-Inquiry whether representations will be made to Quebec to reduce impact of gasoline retailers' strike.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
MEASURETO establish petroleum monitoring agency AND TO AMEND CERTAIN ACTS
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-106, respecting energy monitoring and to amend the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, 1979 and the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in participating in this debate at second reading of Bill C-106, which relates to energy monitoring, supply and conservation, is to underline the special interest and concern of Atlantic Canada and those areas of eastern Quebec which do not now have access to Canadian oil and gas supplies.
It is quite obvious to residents and governments in Newfoundland, the maritimes and Quebec that we have both a special problem and a clear vulnerability with respect to energy supplies. This special status is reflected in the cost, in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, of electrical energy. The consumers in those provinces pay the highest electric energy costs in Canada. It is the hope and aim of the government of the province of Nova Scotia, for example, that energy costs can be kept at a level equal to the average across Canada and, in trying to carry out that aim, the government of Nova Scotia has experienced cost-deficits in the area of $100 million just to maintain electric energy supplies to consumers at a cost equal to the average enjoyed by other Canadians. It is a very difficult and very serious problem on the east coast of Canada and in the province of Quebec, brought on by the lack of access to Canadian supplies. We view the matter of energy

April 19, 1982
Energy Monitoring Act
monitoring, mergency supply of energy and conservation from a very special base.
Let me review very briefly the history which has given rise to this special problem. First, in the 1960s the far-sighted government of the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker wanted to develop the Canadian petroleum industry and, in order to do that, Mr. Diefenbaker's government had to encourage Canadians to make use of Canadian oil supplies. In order to bring about that situation, industrial and other consumers in effect had to be forced to use Canadian supplies in the sense of having been cut off from cheap foreign sources of energy in the form of Middle East oil and other sources of foreign crude oil. In those early 1960s there was established a line across Canada known as the Ottawa Valley line beyond which Canadian oil supplies had to be used. This system worked very well and had the effect of developing the Canadian petroleum industry in the face of the unfair competition of foreign oil supplies which were available at much less production cost.
This policy worked well until the early 1970s when the OPEC cartel was formed and the price of foreign oil was artificially raised to a point where it was much greater than the cost of Canadian oil. At that point it was too late to take any immediate action to make Canadian oil available beyond the Ottawa Valley line and particularly to the maritime provinces and eastern Canada. The only position the government could take to equalize the situation across Canada was to embark upon a program of subsidization. Over the years, since the early 1970s that has imposed on the Government of Canada and the taxpayers of Canada a tremendous dollar burden which has, in turn, affected the whole financial wellbeing of Canada in the sense that it adds on an annual basis to the already overburdening deficit we have in Canada.
Just to put the matter in clear and more up-to-date terms, in 1978, when the revolution occurred in Iran and overnight, there were two million or three million barrels of oil a day lost to the world market. The price of energy rose even more dramatically so that the world price for oil greatly exceeded the Canadian price, to the point were it imposed a great hardship on those Canadians who were forced to utilize foreign supplies of oil at world prices. The statistics I have indicated show that in the late 1970s and early 1980s the price differential between world oil and Canadian oil was in the area of $43 a barrel for foreign oil and $17.75 for Canadian oil. The burden on the government, in order to subsidize that difference so that all Canadians would have oil supplies available at relatively equal cost, was close to $5 billion annually. Consumption at that point in those areas where there was no Canadian oil available amounted to 450,000 barrels a day.
When we look at statistics like that, we realize what a serious problem there is, not only for consumers and those who do not have Canadian oil supplies available, but also for the treasury of the national government, which must take steps to alleviate this difficulty. It is in the context of our knowledge of the dangers of exposure to foreign oil prices, bearing in mind the OPEC cartel, and in the context of being assured of a
continuing supply of energy at reasonable prices, that we on the east coast view legislation relating to energy.
The program that was announced by the government in 1980, the National Energy Program, had as its aim and goal self-sufficiency in energy for Canadians. In simple terms, selfsufficiency involves two important aspects: the first is security of supply; the second is price. Once the supply is secure it must be available to all Canadians at a fair price. To the extent that the National Energy Program had the rightful goal of sufficiency in energy with security of supply and a fair price, it could be endorsed by all Canadians. We have come to question whether that is really the goal and aim of the National Energy Program, however.
It included another concept which has caused a great deal of difficulty on the east coast, and that is the concept of Canadi-anization. Who in this House or anywhere in Canada would find fault with the concept of Canadianization of our industries, particularly such a vital industry as energy and petroleum? But is that really what the government intended? Has the Canadianization process taken place in the sense that we are turning control of our energy industry over to Canadians as individuals and as investors, or are we turning it over to the Government of Canada? In my view, that would not be Canadianization but would be nationalization; that is to say, making our energy industry a simple department, branch or agency of government.
I do not believe, and I am sure most members of the Progressive Conservative Party and indeed most Canadians do not believe, in the government's policy. This country embraces the principle of free enterprise. It was built on the principle of free enterprise, and if it is to succeed it will be on the basis of that principle of free enterprise. I want to highlight that point in my remarks because we have to consider the basic principles of our Canadian system if we are to assess Bill C-106.
There is a principle that is new to the Canadian government, and that is the principle embodied in the Constitution Act which was adopted at the weekend with much fanfare at an event which was graced by the presence of Her Majesty the Queen. Such events appeal not only to our sense of nationality but to our sense of tradition, which is based on our British ties and our involvement with the monarchy. The principle in the Constitution Act and in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is that of equalization and the removal of regional disparities. The Government of Canada, through the Constitution Act, embraces that concept of equalization across Canada and accepts the removal of regional disparities as a challenge and a goal to be achieved.
How can the government do that unless it has the goal and aim of establishing fair energy prices for all Canadians? If it is going to sacrifice that goal of fair energy prices for all Canadians on the altar of a concept it has created and which is known as Canadianization, then it is not going to work to the benefit of people in eastern Canada. I want to warn Canadians about that.
April 19, 1982

What is Canadianization, Mr. Speaker? Basically it involves the specific goal of 50 per cent ownership of the Canadian energy industry as announced in the National Energy Program. According to an article which appeared in The Globe and Mail of Thursday, May 28, 1981, Professor Donald Daly of York University believes that, in the decade which began in 1980, Canadianization could cost Canadians $56 billion. At a time when Canada cannot muster the resources to launch the Alberta tar sands project or to explore the Atlantic offshore for the energy supplies we know are there, how is it going to muster $56 billion to buy into the Canadian petroleum industry? What does the government do in order to achieve this objective? It buys a private concern at a cost of $1.4 billion. And where is the money for the purchase to come from? It will come from Canadians through the price they pay for gasoline.
On the east coast and in the maritimes the problem is that the price of energy is too high, whether it be in the form of gasoline for transportation fuels or oil for home heating. That is the problem, but will that problem be solved by adding to the price of energy supplies at the consumer level in order to buy back the industry and get control of it? There is no real evidence that such control will benefit the people of Canada and there is no real evidence that the present practice is against the interests of Canadians. All we are going to do is buy back an industry that is now available to all Canadians- make Canadians pay for it and then force them to subsidize the industry because our resources have been exhausted through buying it back.
I know I am going around in circles, Mr. Speaker, but so is the Government of Canada. What gives it the right to do this? It was elected on a platform of keeping the price of energy, and particularly of gasoline, to the consumer at a lower level than that proposed by the Progressive Conservative Party. In fact, I have here an election campaign folder issued by the Liberal Party of Canada in which it made the promise that, if elected, it would keep the price of gasoline at the consumer level below the level proposed by the Progressive Conservative government. That promise was made at a time when the price of gasoline was less than $1 per gallon, but today, Mr. Speaker, no Canadian on the east coast can buy even the cheapest kind of gasoline at less then $2 per gallon. That is how the Liberal Party keeps its promises on energy. Now it asks us to approve new energy legislation to monitor energy companies and to provide for security of supply.
The fact is that the people of Canada have lost faith in the government delivering on its promises. They are not really interested in monitoring the petroleum industry and they are not really interested any more in the Canadianization of the oil industry because they know it is going to cost them more money. Who is going to pay for monitoring the oil industry? How is it going to be paid for? Where are the funds going to come from to pay for the inspectors, the boards, the commissioners, the inquiries? The money is going to come from the Canadian people, through the price they pay for gasoline, home heating oil and other energy supplies. It is as simple as that, Mr. Speaker. There is no way around it. All the costs of carrying on the business, all the costs of monitoring the
Energy Monitoring Act
business, all the costs of government intervention in private industry have to be borne by the Canadian consumer, who is going to fork it over in the form of a tax on gasoline and energy supplies at the retail level. We would be failing the Canadian public and this House if we did not make that very clear when we talk about monitoring the petroleum industry.
The minister spoke of making plans for emergency energy supplies, but this too will be paid for by Canadians, Mr. Speaker. The price of Canadianization is great and it is unfair that the government wraps its aims in a nationalistic spirit which we all want to embrace. Every Canadian certainly wants the nation to grow, to advance, and wants the economy to become perfected. But at what price and for what purpose? In this respect the government is trying to fool the Canadian people by masking its mistakes in new programs, new concepts, new ways of doing things. These approaches are not new at all but are simply revisions of past policies. Each time the government runs through this exercise the cost to the consumer is increased, yet Canadians on the east coast and in eastern Quebec still do not have access to Canadian oil supplies and so are forced into the world market to obtain energy. As a result, they have to go begging to the Government of Canada for help.
I can say with some pride, Mr. Speaker, that I rose in this House at a time when the consumer price of gasoline in my constituency of Halifax West, Nova Scotia, was in the area of 75 cents per gallon. I said on that occasion, February 15, 1979-and hon. members can find my remarks in Hansard for that day-that if the government did not take prompt and effective action it would not be long before Canadians would be paying $2 a gallon for gasoline. How right I was. Today, Canadians are paying $2 a gallon for gasoline and more. The unfortunate part is there is no hope for any reduction in price in the future. At the same time, however, our neighbours to the south in the United States of America who had exactly the same problem we had moved to correct their problem. They are now paying less for gas in the State of Maine than we are in the maritime provinces.
That is the kind of effective action the Americans have taken. I have an article here before me which indicates the Americans have their problem well in hand and are winning the energy battle. That is the difference. The Americans are using the free enterprise system. They are using the resources of the people of the United States to win the energy battle. On the other hand, we are using the resources of the federal bureaucracy and the Government of Canada in a nationalization program which is causing us to lose the energy battle. That is why we have to resort to this kind of flim-flam legislation and all this nonsense about monitoring and alleged security of supply.
We are losing the battle and I can give one example. Through the National Energy Program, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), backed by the

April 19, 1982
Energy Monitoring Act
Government of Canada, told the maritimes people that they would have natural gas in 1983. The year 1983 is only a few months away and we do not even have natural gas in eastern Quebec. How will natural gas be delivered to the maritimes by 1983? Natural gas will not be there by 1983, 1984 or 1985. I doubt that this government will ever be able to deliver natural gas to the maritimes. Again, this is just a charade; going through this exercise of trying to fool the people because this government will not face up to the facts. This government will not face up to the fact that in Canada you have to rely on the resources of the people. You have to rely on private industry to get things done. If you do not, Mr. Speaker, you are in a great deal of trouble.
I just wanted to put those few remarks on the record. I want to warn the Government of Canada again that it should become realistic about its approach to resolving problems in Canada. It should not rely on myths but on substance. It should not rely on theories such as Canadianization. It should be relying on the capability and capacity of Canadians to resolve the problem. If it does not do that, then the government is leading us down that long road which the Right Hon. Mr. Diefenbaker said has no ash cans. That is the road we are on today with Bill C-106 that is before us; we are going down a long road that has no ash cans. That is no solution to this problem.
The solution to the problem is the capacity and capability of Canadians. That is what we have to rely on. We should not rely on a bunch of government bureaucrats who claim through the purchase of Petro-Canada and the reversal of policies on offshore development that we can lighten the energy problem. We cannot. There is all kinds of evidence to show that this government does not know what it is doing. What about the oil rigs that are leaving the east coast exploration grounds and returning to the shore and not going back? Just this week in Halifax a most important energy exploration program to be carried out under the auspices of Shell Oil involving $200 million was delayed for four months because the government's Department of Energy, Mines and Resources did not sit down with the officers and engineers of Shell Oil and come to some sensible arrangement and agreement on how the exploration is to be carried out.
That is illustrative of the burden Canadians will have to bear under this kind of legislation and government interference, which goes against the principles of the free enterprise system and the principles of Canadian industry. It will have no good result.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, one of the rare treats in the House of Commons is to hear a Tory member speak. What is said is generally anything but informative. The previous speaker has probably given one of the best examples that I have heard in a long time. The report entitled "The State of Competition in the Canadian Petroleum Industry" does not exist for the Tories.
It is interesting to note that in that report there are a number of factors which stress the benefits of the free enterprise system, the unregulated free enterprise system. I want it
clearly placed on the record that the previous speaker has come out in support of one of our primary movers and shakers in this country, namely Imperial Oil. This report brands Imperial Oil as one of the prime movers in restricting and stifling competition in this country and failing to give a fair break to consumers.
The hon. member suggests that we should provide more deregulation of that industry. There is Shell Oil, Texaco-


Howard Edward Crosby: What about the State of Maine?


Raymond John Skelly: -and there is Gulf Oil, the group that has been criticized for involvement in an uranium cartel in other areas. So there again is the question of competition legislation. I am convinced, after listening to the previous speaker, that unregulated free enterprise under a Tory government would perpetuate the kind of rip-off that resulted between 1958 and 1972 in the removal of $12 billion from the Canadian consumers' pockets. That is the kind of policy the Tories and the gophers of the oil companies are advocating in this House of Commons.
Second, the Liberal government, literally their partners in crime, have always recognized the problems but never had the jam to come forward and really meet the needs of Canadians.
It is unfortunate that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) is not here any more. We are talking about protecting the Canadian consumer which, in the final analysis, is everyone's goal. But there are a few items here in which the minister of consumer affairs would be interested. He is the minister charged with protecting the interests of consumers and trying to maintain in the pockets of working Canadians, senior citizens and those on fixed incomes some reasonably fair share of the income they struggle to make in this high interest, heavy inflation period.
One interesting feature of the costs we are looking at is the dramatic increase in the price of gasoline and home heating fuel. Hon. members to my right are quite correct in saying that here is a government, during this very serious economic crisis, removing more money almost in an incongruous way from the pockets of consumers while we see prices dropping in other areas of the world.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is exactly what the Tories plan to do.


John Horton McDermid: Are you promising lower gas prices?


Raymond John Skelly: Let us go back for a moment and look at what should be happening. As a result of a number of individuals coming forward and indicating they were suffering at the hands of what appeared to be monopolistic practices in the oil industry, a report was issued. A number of points were dealt with in this report. The first covered the importation of oil in which the parent company transferring oil from multinational companies in Canada was found to be ripping off Canadians on the transfer price. A recommendation ensued which stated that legislation be enacted to prohibit the payment of artificially high transfer prices and that legislation be enacted to grant the appropriate authorities the necessary power to obtain
April 19, 1982

information that is stored abroad by the parent or affiliated company of a Canadian company. Another recommendation in the report pointed out that one third of the domestic crude oil supply in Canada was held by the same gang of four that had concentrated control over Canadian energy supplies. Also, the control of the pipelines by the same group blocked access of new entrants into the field, those which the Tories would see us bring onstream and which may be of great assistance.
But what is advocated in that report is action. Again we find recommendations that all petroleum pipelines under federal jurisdiction be actively regulated to ensure that anyone seeking to ship special or batched streams of crude oil receives nondiscriminatory access to pipelines in a fashion that ensures that communications between crude oil shippers regarding pipeline operations are reduced to a minimum. Also the report recommended that legislation be enacted requiring all major integrated oil companies to divest their holdings in existing pipelines which are subject to federal jurisdiction, and that no major oil company be permitted to acquire a controlling interest in any such new pipeline.
The Alberta petroleum marketing commission modified its limitation on the number of eligible purchases to Alberta crude oil. Then it dealt with the area of refining. Recommendations developed from there that legislation be enacted requiring that all refiners operating in Canada obtain the approval of the National Energy Board for all refinery supply agreements affecting interprovincial and international trade and exchange. Before approving such agreements, the board must consult with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as to the likely effect of the agreement upon competition. We have a minister in charge of energy, mines and resources who is governing energy aspects in Canada, we have four major oil companies which seem to be controlling the entire industry, and we have a Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who has done absolutely nothing to protect Canadian consumers.
Perhaps 1971 would be the starting point. At that time there was an attempt in the country to introduce a competition policy. Of course, the onslaught from the business community, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the oil companies ensured that the competition was buried very deep, along with the minister of consumer and corporate affairs of the day. There were several more attempts to bring forward effective competition legislation to govern the activities of oil companies and ensure that they did not destroy competition or other enterprises coming into the field with their market power. Those pieces of legislation went down under the juggernaut of Canadian business-the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, banks and major oil companies-and of course the support of the Conservative Party went with them. This put away forever an opportunity for competition legislation.
In 1979 when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was interviewed in Business Week magazine, he said that the business community should have no fear because
Energy Monitoring Act
competition, as far as the Conservative Party was concerned, was a backburner issue. I guess that was the last statement of the Conservative Party on the issue. Perhaps it would still see the concentrated efforts of major oil companies controlling Canadian business and exploiting Canadian consumers in the manner outlined inn the report on the state of competition in the petroleum industry.
Today we have the situation where we are looking for competition legislation in the House. For the last two years the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has been suggesting that he is interested in protecting the Canadian consumer. At one point he said in the House that if there were agreement on bringing forward the legislation, he would have it in the House within two weeks. The minister is nothing but talk. Canadian consumers will be left out to dry, because essentially the Liberal Party has no more intention to control the big four than the Conservative Party has.
As far as the interest of the government in protecting consumers is concerned, it is interesting to note that the report "The State of Competition in the Canadian Petroleum Industry," was dragged out until Bill C-48 was placed before the House. The report was ready for delivery months before it was presented. By presenting or even making that information public there is a certain amount of restraint placed upon the blatant activities of the companies. A certain courage has developed within those who have been exploited to come forward, to complain and to demand action. Presumably the minister, with the support of Cabinet, decided to delay it. We watched week after week as the Conservative Party went insane in the House, screaming and hollering about inequities of Bill C-48, and then suddenly defending oil companies from one week to the next. Then we saw the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs dropping this little jewel, the report on the state of competition in the oil industry, square on the Tory program of supporting the oil companies. Of course, it dropped them to their knees for several days.
This group of people in the House of Commons supported and advocated the benefits of more freedom of activity for a group of companies which essentially ripped $12 billion out of the pockets of Canadians consumers between 1958 and 1973, but only for two days. They managed to cover their tracks, tear the report to pieces and quickly move on. Rather than do anything constructive about the report, looking seriously at taking Imperial Oil into the Petro-Canada group and making it the strongest and most dominant oil company in the country, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs did nothing. Before doing anything serious about implementing any of the recommendations, the great jellyfish, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, turned around and handed the report to a travelling road show to lose somewhere in the backwoods of Canada. This is exactly what happened. The Restrictive Trade Practices Commission has been touring the country, thumping the drum and having a whale of a time. There is no one in the House who seriously believes, when the report comes back from the commission that anything will be

April 19, 1982
Energy Monitoring Act
done. The minister used it as a hammer to flatten the Tories, and then got rid of it before it ricocheted and flattened them.
In spite of the lack of resolve on the part of the government, an effective competition policy should be placed before Canadians. It is incredible that the government could watch concentration coming into the energy industry which it no longer controls. We listen to stories about control of our resources which indicate that we have enough for 900 years; then we hear stories which indicate that we are running out of oil quickly and that the prices should be jacked up. If the government had an ounce of resolve to protect Canadians, both those in business and consumers who depend heavily upon that material, we would have had competition legislation in the House long before now. I think the government knows for whom it dances-the banks and the oil companies. Literally we have seen examples of this in the Thirty-second Parliament. This is probably one of the most serious failures of the government. Also we had the Kent commission on concentration in the newspaper industry, and we lost that report. Rather than turning the petroleum inquiry out to the public, it was lost. This is an extremely serious problem.
There are a number of general policy goals in the energy monitoring act. One is to increase Canadian ownership. Another is to increase control in the oil and gas industry. The government should look at a method of increasing benefits to Canadians and ensuring that our resources maximize benefits to Canadians. This is the purpose of monitoring the activities of these companies and the industry; this is the purpose of Petro-Canada.
I have heard the Conservative Party criticize Petro-Canada by saying what a poor job it is doing and that it cannot be trusted. Can we trust the Liberals to run anything? A good job could be done.


An hon. Member:: That is the point.


Raymond John Skelly: My hon. colleague has conceded the point. What we are basically looking for is an assurance of Canadian benefits through this legislation.
We have heard many discussions in the House about major projects, megaprojects and the tar sands and how this area will be the one which will bail us out, employ Canadians and start the economy moving again. There are opportunities in offshore development. A subject we have talked about many times in the House is the need to monitor the activities of energy companies in Canada with respect to offshore development. There has been no attempt in Canada to develop a marine industrial strategy which would utilize the development of those resources to guarantee benefits, jobs and additional income for Canadians. We have seen companies like Dome Petroleum in the oil resource sector turn around and sell access to the oil in the Beaufort Sea to the Japanese. We have seen one quarter of that oil given over. We have watched the Japanese, in anticipation of obtaining that oil, build one of the world's largest icebreaking oil tankers. We are seeing opportunities going to the Europeans and the Japanese for sourcing the equipment required for projects such as the LNG, the
Arctic pilot projects and the Rim gas project. Of course, jobs flow out in that direction as well.
With respect to coal, Federal Commerce and Navigation are building their ships in Europe and the Orient. This is all free enterprise in action. Where are Canadians? Are the Conservatives standing up in the House demanding that they stop doing this? Where is the monitoring of the activities of the energy companies involved in coal, gas and oil while the benefits seem to be going abroad?
Whenever we ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Gray) what he is doing about jobs for Canadians shipbuilders, he stands up and tells us to look at the Burrard dry dock which cost $50 million. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, it was built in Japan. What about the floating dry dock that went into the Beaufort Sea for Dome Petroleum? Of course, that was built in Japan too. We are literally paying, through incentives and subsidies in this country, to send jobs for shipbuilders offshore. We are failing to develop one of the most advanced marine industries in the world by not capturing those benefits.
We are failing to do this through the energy monitoring act, monitoring the activities of those energy corporations and their organizations, monitoring the financial transactions to ensure that we capture the benefits and ensure that Canadians maximize those benefits. When we talk about maximizing benefits, we mean ensuring that the environment is preserved and enhanced and that social benefits accrue to Canadians- not just to central Canada and the major centres but to those traditional smaller and rural communities as well. That is vitally important. The hon. member from Atlantic Canada who just spoke I am sure would agree that there are many communities there which would want to share in that last bang at the resource and be left with a permanent and positive legacy.
The monitoring agency, the Canadian Oil and Gaslands Administration, has virtually left a vacuum in attempting to ensure that social and economic benefits are captured, retained and enhanced in Canada. With respect to the industrial benefits office, we listened to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources swear up and down before the committee to trust them. What a joke. "Trust me, I am from the government and I am here to help you", he said. That is the call of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Throughout Bill C-48 we found nothing but ministerial discretion and nothing in the history of that government since its inception on which any trust could be built. Nevertheless, the majority rammed it through. We were promised an office of industrial benefit comparable to the British offshore supply office which helped to ensure effective monitoring of what those energy corporations were doing and that there were transactions between the British free enterprise companies and
April 19, 1982

those multinational oil companies. It helped to ensure that those products which were developed were British in origin and were effectively exported. There are thousands of people in that office who are specialists and engineers.
Our agency is a joke. It is not the fault of the people involved who are working hard and with commitment; it is a result of the absolute lack of commitment by this government, in terms of person years and financial commitment to that office, to make sure that Canadians capture the benefits to be derived from a marine industrial strategy. It is an extremely sad situation. I do not know who in the government can take responsibility for its monitoring policies but there is nothing but inter-departmental chaos. It is an extremely sad situation where one department fights with another, with Transport, Finance, Industry, Trade and Commerce and National Revenue all working at cross purposes to each other.
It is vitally important that Canadians capture a full measure of benefits from this last bang at a major resource. I am sure all members of the House want to maximize those benefits for our children and future generations. The very clear message at the bottom of this is that it cannot be done at the destruction of the environment of many traditional communities, whether it be the east coast, north coast or west coast of this country. Those benefits must remain in Canada and the traditional communities must receive an enhancement.
Another question which must be resolved is where we must proceed with our monitoring policy and protection of Canadian consumers. If the government is going to proceed with this series of energy bills, it must bring forward companioned and coherent legislation. We must look at maximizing benefits and developing effective requirements, even if they are regulatory, and dictate how companies should deal with our resources. Basically, the theme should be the capturing of benefits and maximizing those benefits for Canadians. As well, we should have companioned or coherent legislation which would see effective competition policies in this country which would stop the combination activities of companies like Imperial Oil, Shell, Texaco and other multinationals such as we have seen between 1958 and 1973, and even continuing from then to the present. There are some officials in the government who say that those activities are still occurring today. We need the companion activities which go with this legislation and we need a strong commitment by both the government and the opposition to ensure those benefits come to Canadians and that we do not sell out this opportunity.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Energy Monitoring Act


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: 1 declare the motion carried. Accordingly, this bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is no bill before the House. I do not believe this situation is covered by any particular procedure; it is covered by House agreement. Therefore, I suggest that the House adjourn until eight o'clock and that we take the regular dinner hour, following which we can continue the debate.
As I understand it, the agreement covers only bills before the House. There is no bill before the House under the energy umbrella. Therefore, we should take our regular adjournment until eight o'clock.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would read the agreement, he would realize that he is entirely mistaken. We have an obligation to sit through dinner time, but in the heat of the debate, it was agreed by the House leaders present that we would be guided by both the letter and the spirit of the agreement, and it was indeed agreed to use the time at our disposal to maximum advantage.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I think we may be caught by technical circumstances here. Certainly as the government House leader has said, the spirit of the agreement was as he stated it. But my understanding of the House order is, from a technical point of view perhaps, more in accord with the hon. member who raised the question in the first place. Certainly the vote was not called until after six o'clock, nor was it completed until after six o'clock and no energy legislation was before the House at that time.
Without having the House order before me, my recollection of it was that the extended sittings between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. were to apply when energy legislation was before the House. It is a matter in the hands of the Chair, but I think, in the strict interpretation of that House order, the Chair might find itself bound by the technicalities of the situation and be required to adjourn until eight o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: For the benefit of hon. members I might point out that there was a House order on March 22. It set out that if energy legislation was before the House, the House would forgo the six o'clock to eight o'clock adjournment. We have forgone that adjournment now and it is my understanding and my interpretation of the agreement that
we have energy legislation before us and we should proceed with it.


An hon. Member:: Where is the bill?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what energy legislation was before the House at the conclusion of the vote after six o'clock?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we accept your ruling and we are prepared to proceed. I would also draw the attention of my hon. colleagues to a paragraph in the agreement that says that all parties should endeavour to ensure that the eight bills are disposed of as soon as possible. According to the spirit of the agreement there is certainly no doubt that you are absolutely right in ruling as you did.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have no quarrel with what the government House leader says. But I would put the question to the Chair for clarification. What legislation was in fact before the House at the conclusion of the vote after six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I do not believe I said that there was energy legislation before the House after the vote. There was when we cancelled the adjournment at six o'clock. Therefore, it is the understanding of the Chair that we are now sitting until 10.30 p.m. tonight. That is the Chair's understanding and interpretation of the House order. I am in the hands of the House if hon. members want to debate this point, but that is my interpretation.


PETROLEUM INCENTIVES PROGRAM ACT
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 second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to open debate on this very important piece of legislation, Bill C-104, respecting petroleum incentives and Canadian ownership and control determination and to amend the Foreign Investment Review Act.
One of my hon. friends on the Conservative side this afternoon asked what we would do to help the industry with some of its difficulties. One of the best answers to his question is contained in the bill which is before the House for consideration at the present time. Indeed, it is estimated that once the bill is passed and has received assent by Parliament, it will provide for payments to the oil and gas industry of close to $1
April 19, 1982

billion in grants during the course of the current year. This will significantly help the cash flow of the industry which at the present time is facing short-term financing difficulties.
I truly regret the amount of time lost by the House over the past few weeks. It could have been better spent studying proposals for energy security rather than ringing the bells. The delay created nothing but continued uncertainty for the industry. 1 think the uncertainty was best described last month by a leading member of the oil and gas industry from Alberta, Mr. John G. McDonald, chairman of Ranchmen's Resources (1976) Ltd., an Alberta-based independent oil and gas company. In a telex to members of Parliament dated March 16, 1982, Mr. McDonald said:
It is my duty to advise you on behalf of our shareholders that I consider the Tory boycott of debate on a motion of adjournment of the House of Commons that they introduced irresponsible. Our company is largely owned by Alberta investors, but a substantial number of our shareholders reside in Ontario and Quebec, and over 100,000 of them are workers represented by 25 Canadian pension trusts which have supported our collective effort to increase Canadian investment in Canada's petroleum industry.
He addressed the following to members of the Conservative Party:
Your caucus action is now costing our shareholders $5,000 a day in interest charges on unpaid petroleum incentive payments receivable for exploration drilling costs paid out in 1981. The longer you play political games, the less support you will receive from our shareholders. I am astounded that Tory Members of Parliament from Alberta, including your leader, are supporting this charade in the House.
This was just one of the messages I received from people in the petroleum industry who were angry and concerned about the Tory boycott of Parliament. They were angry and concerned that the millions of dollars we promised the industry in petroleum incentives would be delayed indefinitely, creating untold and irreparable harm to their businesses. The actions of the party opposite were inexcusable and very damaging, not only to Parliament but to the Canadian oil and gas industry. Fortunately, as events turned out, we now have assurances by the House that all legislative proposals contained in Bill C-94, the former energy security bill, will be approved by the end of June. We must now put that regrettable incident behind us and get on with the task of providing energy security for all Canadians.
Since last June when we first released the energy security bill in draft form, we have undertaken extensive consultation with the oil and gas industry, with financial institutions, with Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, and with provincial governments. As a result of the consultative process, I believe we now have an improved energy security package, of which this bill concerning petroleum incentives and Canadian ownership legislation is one of the most important elements.

Mr. Speaker, this Canadianization bill can be seen as the climax of all the measures taken by this government to establish a strong oil and gas industry, Canadian-owned and Canadian-controlled. It is another in a series of steps toward establishing a permanent framework for achieving the goals defined in the National Energy Program, which are: energy
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
security, opportunities for Canadians to share in the development of their energy resources and the establishment of a fair system for all Canadians. In addition to helping Canadians become masters of their own energy future, this legislation will also enable the government to meet a formal commitment made to this country two years ago, namely to provide it with a comprehensive energy program that would enable it to meet all its energy requirements.
Mr. Speaker, we have taken steps to meet this commitment, starting on the day we introduced the National Energy Program. We have made encouraging progress towards achieving each of our energy goals, and Canadians have shown very clearly that they want these goals to be achieved in the fullest sense of the word. We firmly intend to do so with the help of this legislation, which is essential to the success of our plans. In addition to generous subsidies for Canadianization, the bill also contains provisions for Canadian ownership and control determination. The aim of these provisions is to ensure that the subsidies benefit Canadian-controlled companies, other Canadian investors and foreign companies who wish to collaborate by allowing increased Canadian ownership of their enterprises. According to the provisions of the bill, certificates will be issued establishing the Canadian ownership rate or control status of applicants wishing to obtain subsidies. The certificates will also enable holders to benefit from other advantages provided under the National Energy Program. There are, of course, strict rules for determining ownership rate and control status. However, the subsidy program will be effective only if it succeeds in benefiting the Canadian investor. We must do everything within reason to ensure that eligibility is determined on the basis of real ownership and actual control. In the case of control status, the criteria are based on definitions taken from the Foreign Investment Review Act. However, we have realized that, especially in the case of smaller enterprises, it is desirable to simplify administrative procedures, which may be a considerable burden.
Regarding the Canadianization legislation, it should also be pointed out that we are introducing two amendments to two sections of the Foreign Investment Review Act. I wish to stress most emphatically that the amendments are in no way aimed at granting additional powers to the Foreign Investment Review Agency. The changes are minor and technical, and are aimed at clarifying the interpretation of relevant provisions of the act, the agency has implemented since it was established in 1974.

Let us look at the problem we found with respect to foreign ownership. In 1979 nearly 72 per cent of the upstream revenues of the oil and gas industry went to foreign-owned companies. The percentage was even higher when measured on the basis of foreign control; it was 80 per cent. Much has been made of the fact that Canadian ownership was increasing during the 1970s, but that progress was slow and might well have been reversed in the 1980s. This was because of the

April 19, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
dominance of foreign-owned and foreign-controlled companies in the frontier regions of Canada. The percentage of Canadian ownership was destined to drop as conventional oil and gas from the western provinces accounted for less and less of industry revenues. That represented a totally unacceptable prospect for Canadians and for the government of Canada.
We designed the petroleum incentives program to encourage exploration and development and, at the same time, help meet our objective of gaining a higher proportion of Canadian ownership of our energy resources.
Rather than relying solely on takeovers by private and public corporations of foreign holdings in the Canadian energy industry, the Canadian government has chosen to encourage the growth of a significant Canadian component in the energy industry through exploration and non-conventional oil development.
We could encourage this growth in two ways. First, we could have continued to fund exploration and development solely through tax incentives. However, the previous tax incentive system, including the super-depletion allowance for frontier exploration, favoured large and usually foreign-owned firms which could write off incentives against their existing taxable income. Thus, we had a system which unintentionally discriminated against small Canadian-owned Firms and newcomers to this attractive sector.
To solve this problem, in tandem with an already generous fiscal system, we offer special incentives to stimulate investment by Canadians in their own energy future.
The petroleum incentives program provides direct incentives for oil and gas exploration and development, and tertiary recovery projects for Canadian-controlled companies with at least 50 per cent Canadian ownership. For oil and gas exploration in the Canada lands, where the tax incentives of the former system had their heaviest impact, the Canadian government will pay for 25 per cent of all approved expenses for all companies, whether they are Canadian or foreign owned. Depending on Canadian ownership rates, however, payments to Canadian-controlled firms can go as high as 80 per cent of exploration costs in the Canada lands.
Foreign-owned companies continue to be welcome in Canada to explore for oil and gas and produce what they find. Thanks to the pricing and fiscal regime established in agreement with the producing provinces and our attractive resource potential, they can anticipate prospective returns which are competitive with those available in the United States, for instance. This point was a central issue in the debate on the Canada Oil and Gas Act. It is important for members to be assured on this point. We make available to all investors on the Canada lands a regime comparable or superior even to that available in oil producing nations such as Norway, The United Kingdom or the United States.
We continue to offer an excellent pricing and fiscal regime on provincial lands also. For example, let us consider the case
of an established foreign-owned producer in Alberta. Taking into account both federal and provincial incentives, that company's net costs per dollar of exploration would be as little as 28 cents. Suppose, instead, the company were to explore in Texas. Its net costs there would be 54 cents on the dollar. Clearly, we need to make no apologies for our commitment to increase our oil supply and, at the same time, to make the oil and gas business in Canada more Canadian.
The return we offer for successful exploration is generous in that essentially world level prices are provided for new oil. Certainly, we have in place a combined tax and royalty regime that in the provinces is more onerous than that applied in the United States-the basis for most comparisons. However, as most analysts have pointed out, Alberta offers a five-year royalty holiday for a considerable proportion of its new oil, and that province recently announced royalty deductions for conventional oil and gas. I hope that the governments of other provinces will follow the Alberta example.
The result is that in the crucial early years of production when the company is looking for the payback of its investment, the fiscal burden is light. The after tax netback in Alberta in these years is well above that available elsewhere. Thus, the economics of new oil in that province are highly competitive. In the Canada lands, both the incentives available to oil explorers and the fiscal regime for production are at least as good as elsewhere. This fact, which has not been refuted by the industry, is critical to our deliberations of the new incentives available to Canadians to help them enter the petroleum arena.
We do not deny the preference that we have built into the petroleum incentives program for Canadian-owned and controlled firms. Despite some charges that the petroleum incentives program is too generous to the petroleum companies, we think it is necessary in order to achieve energy security for Canadians.
The basic issue is whether, having provided attractive incentives to all explorers, it is reasonable for us to provide special additional incentives aimed specifically at Canadians. I believe it is. We are correcting and making up for the distortions of the previous system and stimulating Canadian private investors to help us achieve our modest goal of 50 per cent domestic ownership of the oil and gas industry by 1990.
Canada is certainly not the sole country to adopt policies which favour its national firms in some special sectors. Many OECD countries have found it necessary to introduce measures at variance with the concept of "national treatment" in order to achieve essential domestic social and economic goals. There is, to my knowledge, not a single OECD country that has allowed its key sectors to be dominated as heavily by foreigners as our oil industry is.
In pursuing our energy security and Canadianization objectives, we intend to implement our programs, including the petroleum incentives program and the Canadian ownership rating, in a fashion which is in keeping with our international obligations. We have repeatedly emphasized that this is a strategic sector for Canadians, with priorities and needs not
April 19, 1982

characteristic of other sectors. It is special to us and there is a national consensus that we must Canadianize the industry.

Briefly, Mr. Speaker, the Petroleum Incentives Program is the key factor in the success of the National Energy Program. It stimulates new Canadian investment in the industry and makes it attractive for new partners to work together with foreign companies on the cost-intensive development of Canada's oil and gas potential. This new program has already led a num=r of foreign companies, owning substantial amounts of land with excellent prospects, to conclude agreements with Canadian-owned and Canadian-controlled companies wishing to invest their money and that of Canadian taxpayers in the development of oil exploration projects.
The National Energy Program is a viable solution, not only because it has taken an effective and timely approach to the country's energy problems but also because its goals are supported by the Canadian people. In all provinces, Canadians want the industry to become more Canadian. For instance, the Alberta government will implement and finance the Petroleum Incentives Program in the case of expenditures made by the industry in that province. Since the eligibility criteria for the subsidies are to be laid down in the bill, this is clearly a matter of some urgency to the oil industry in Alberta.
Increased Canadian ownership, which will enable us to achieve our energy security and ownership goals, will also ensure that the benefits of industrial expansion are distributed more fairly. In fact, there is a fundamental consideration that we often tend to forget, namely that a fair share of the revenues and a fair-pricing system are essential in view of the massive contributions Canadians will be required to make as consumers, investors and taxpayers in order to ensure the development of this essential sector of the Canadian economy in the years to come.
In short, Mr. Speaker, the Canadianization bill now before the House will enable us to deal with and resolve many of the problems Canada is facing in the energy field. It will help this country become self-sufficient in energy by the end of this decade. It will help Canadians to achieve control of the industry. The legislation is a key element in the government's series of measures on energy security, and it is extremely important as it provides for the payment of substantial financial incentives that are needed by the Canadian oil and gas industry. There is an urgent need for this measure. The bill will enable us to meet our commitment to those Canadian companies, institutions and private individuals who are dynamic and forward-looking and are taking very seriously the National Energy Program's goal to increase Canadian ownership in the oil and gas industry. They have made plans and, in many cases, have made investment decisions based on the immiment availability of subsidies under the Petroleum Incentives Program.
We must meet our commitments as soon as possible. We already have tangible proof of the desire of Canadians to use
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
our incentives to play a more decisive role in the oil and gas industry. In less than a year, Canadian ownership has increased by more than 6 per cent, and the prospects are very good for realizing our goal, which is to achieve 50 per cent Canadian ownership in the industry by 1990, if not sooner.
This bill keeps another promise, a promise to the producing provinces, particularly Alberta, with which we signed those vital energy agreements last autumn. Incentives for developing petroleum supplies and Canadian participation and fairness in pricing and revenue-sharing are all there in those agreements, and they are here before us in this important legislation. Furthermore, with this bill we are keeping a promise to Parliament, a promise implicit in the passage of the Canada Oil and Gas Act last December. We told Your Honour that frontier exploration and development would be stimulated by a powerful new incentives system to complement the provisions of that act. We are now delivering the bill which will establish that system. Of course, there is no promise greater than that of Canada's rich and diverse energy resources. It is the promise of a secure energy future with a wide range of economic benefits for all regions of this country. Our petroleum incentives program will play a vital role in keeping the promise of our energy future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to put some facts on the record concerning this piece of legislation, the National Energy Program which gave birth to it, and the real objectives of the government in its pursuit of what is widely recognized across this country as an absolutely disastrous program. Indeed, I was watching a television program last night in which a reporter from Le Devoir said that a high official in the Government of Canada described the November 12 budget as a disaster. The adjectives that the official used to describe the National Energy Program could not be repeated because it was a public television program. Therefore, if the November 12 budget is a disaster, the National Energy Program is far, far worse.
The minister has cried for the third or fourth time about the battle of the bells and the fact that he had to break up his highly desired, large package, Bill C-94, into eight bite-sized chunks. Well, I certainly have no apologies to make for moving the adjournment. I have no apologies to make for that battle. The fact is that we were right on the principle and we were right on the issue. We enjoyed the support of the public. It was pathetic to hear the minister read out one telegram in support of his position. I certainly think that my colleagues and I could easily bring forward 30, 40, 50 or 60 telegrams supporting our position.
The minister could have seen this bill passed through all stages by now if he had responded positively to my letter to

April 19, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
him dated December 21, 1981. In that letter I specifically stated that the PIP program and the COR program were the only parts of the National Energy Program which had any time urgency and that if he would separate them, I would recommend to my caucus that the bill containing those programs be given expeditious treatment in the House of Commons. I made that offer in writing on December 21, 1981. His reply was a flat no.
The reason I made that offer to the minister was not that there was any political advantage to me or my party in assisting the government with its legislative program-far from it. However, I was aware that various officials in the government had promised the PIP and COR programs as long ago as April, 1981, a year ago. I was aware of some junior Canadian-owned companies which, on the basis of the assurances from officials in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, had gone out and expended considerable sums of money through loans from the banks to undertake exploration programs. They did this because they were promised by the Government of Canada that the PIP program would be in place and that they would be reimbursed for their expenditures. When they were not reimbursed, and when interest rates went up to 18 per cent, 20 per cent and 22 per cent, they started hurting. Their bankers started knocking on their doors and they started to consider bankruptcy as an alternative. They were concerned. They got precious little sympathy from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). They got some sympathy from me. That is why I made that offer to the minister. But his reply was a big, fat no. He was not interested. He would take it in his fashion; we would have one big bill, and that was it.


Marc Lalonde: Be honest. Be honest, Harvie.


Harvie Andre: The minister says, "Be honest". That is exactly what happened. I wrote and made this offer, and he said, "No".


Marc Lalonde: Read your own quote in Hansard.


Harvie Andre: You should read my quote in Hansard.


Marc Lalonde: You will see that what you are telling me is not correct.


Harvie Andre: The fact is that I had a discussion with Mr. MacLaren. He thought it was a good idea and said he would recommend it to you, but you told Mr. MacLaren, "No".


Marc Lalonde: No, you read what you said in Hansard. You said that I had agreed to having the whole bill treated with dispatch.


Harvie Andre: I am sorry, but you misread Hansard. I never said that. I said that I talked to MacLaren.


Marc Lalonde: Well, read Hansard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Remarks should be addressed to the Chair, not to other hon. members.


Harvie Andre: The minister would not recognize the truth if he saw it. His letter of January, 1982 states, quite specifically, "No". If he had, in fact, thought differently, why did he not put it in the letter?
The National Energy Program, when announced, made three great promises. It promised self-sufficiency, fair revenue sharing and Canadianization. Who could disagree with that? Who could disagree with those three noble goals? It would certainly not be this party.
Since the OPEC crisis, the Middle East war of 1973 and the resulting shortage, we have been solidly in favour of Canada becoming self-sufficient so that we are not held hostage t? political events in other parts of the world over which we have no control.
Certainly we agree with fair revenue-sharing. How could anyone oppose that? Governments need funds to operate and to do so-called good works. Industry needs enough money to justify carrying on, to reinvest, provide jobs and so on. Obviously fair treatment is required. I must add that the consumer should expect to receive fair treatment when purchasing the products of the energy industry. No one is opposed to that.
I really wonder whether fair revenue-sharing is what we have. The great election promise said, "Vote Liberal and we will keep gasoline prices down". Prices in Canada are supposed to be less than the world price. That is what the minister says. Anyone who crosses the United States border and fills up his tank will find that it is cheaper to buy gasoline in the United States than in Canada, and the United States is at world prices.
How can that be? It is very simple. In Canada, in addition to the crude oil tax at the wellhead, when the consumer fills up he must pay the petroleum compensation charge, the Canadi-an-ownership charge, the petroleum and gas revenue charge, the natural gas and gas liquid tax, federal sales tax and federal excise tax. I believe I have forgotten one.
By the time the federal government has laid on all of its taxes, when a consumer buys a dollar's worth of gasoline, two-thirds, and more in the case of Quebec, is in the form of tax. This is from a political party which said that an 18-cent tax would be an outrage, that it would not do such a thing. We were told that if we vote for them, we will pay $1.35.


Mr. Ferguson:: You are way off. In Ontario it is not two thirds.


Harvie Andre: It is 66.2 per cent. The hon. member has been reading the minister's press releases again. He should look at the truth. In Ontario, 66.2 per cent of the petroleum dollar goes to governments.
Mr. Fergusonr You are thinking of Saskatchewan and the insurance tax.


Harvie Andre: I am thinking of Ontario. That is not fair taxation. It is not fair revenue-sharing. It is a rip-off, a broken

April 19, 1982
election promise from a political party that cannot be trusted, and certainly a minister who cannot be trusted based on his record.
The National Energy Program called for increased Canadi-anization. The goal was to be 50 per cent Canadian ownership of the oil and gas industry by 1990. That is a worthy goal. It is a modest goal. In fact, it should be a higher percentage of Canadian ownership.
It is dishonest not to examine how we got to the stage we are at now. We should consider undoing some of the things that brought us to this point of such a high level of foreign ownership and see if in fact the Canadian-ownership percentage could be increased by undoing a few things.
In 1971, before I became a candidate in the 1972 election, I attended the founding meeting of and joined the Committee for an Independent Canada in Calgary. I joined because I was outraged about the fact that over 90 per cent of the oil and gas industry, the major industry in my city, was foreign-owned. I was particularly outraged because it was foreign-owned as a result of federal government policy. At that time an American could invest in Canada what amounted to pre-tax dollars. A Canadian could not. At that time an American could borrow money to make an investment in Canada and deduct the cost of interest on his loan against his income in the United States. A Canadian could not do the same in Canada.
The reality was that an oilman in Calgary, wanting to put together some funds to explore for oil and gas, was faced with the situation of finding investors in Canada who would invest with after-tax dollars or going to the United States to find somebody who would invest with pre-tax dollars. That was the situation that existed. Obviously someone in Calgary wanting to raise money would fly to Toronto and change planes for New York, Zurich or somewhere else. There was no use talking to Canadians.
This infuriated and outraged the people in the oil and gas industry. They came to Ottawa and pounded on the doors of Liberal ministers and the Liberal government. They said it was absurd that they could not compete with Americans in their own country for investment in this country. The Liberal government said it did not care who owned the industry as long as they could tax it. That was the reply from the great Canadian nationals, the Liberals. They did not care about the oil and gas industry. It was an insignificant industry in western Canada. Who cared? It did not count for anything compared to the important industries in the rest of the country.
Successive groups of Canadians from Calgary and other parts of the west came and petitioned the federal government for some equity. In return, all they got was a big, fat no. Colonials should stay in their place. What right did they have to come knocking on the doors of the great masters in Ottawa asking for treatment similar to the treatment the United States gave its citizens? As a result of that, by 1975 the industry was over 90 per cent foreign-owned, totally because of that reason.
The pressure continued and, to give credit where credit is due, finally the Hon. Donald Macdonald was able to convince
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
those idiots who frequented the bureaucracy of the Department of Finance that maybe the tax should be changed. They were not willing to make a permanent change. As a temporary measure, however, they did introduce that change. In the next four years, the degree of Canadian ownership went from less than 10 per cent to well over 20 per cent.
In the next five years, it was the Canadian companies that provided the growth. They provided the impetus that resulted in most of the wells being drilled. Canadianization was going on full blast from 1975 until October 22, 1980, when the National Energy Program was brought in. That program, more than anything else, has put an end to the Canadianization. The sad fact is that the National Energy Program, supposedly introduced to Canadianize the gas and oil industry, has in fact helped to de-Canadianize it. The National Energy Program with its horrendous new taxes-$8 billion brand new taxes from this one industry this year alone, an incredible tax load-while hitting all of the petroleum sector, is in fact hitting hardest the Canadian-owned independent oil and gas companies. It is the Canadian-owned oil and gas companies that paid the biggest price. The proof for that is available in the monitoring survey of 1981 for six months in the Petroleum Monitoring Agency. This monitoring agency, to which we voted earlier to give more power, showed that in the first six months of 1981 foreign-oil companies suffered a 28.5 per cent income drop in their Canadian operations compared to the first six months of 1980, while Canadian companies suffered a 52 per cent income drop for their Canadian operations, that is to say, foreign-oil companies, 28 per cent; Canadian-oil companies, 52 per cent. The reality is that the National Energy Program, in the name of Canadianization, has devastated the Canadian-owned oil and gas companies.
The consequences are that many of thes^ companies are in deep trouble and niost of those that' are not have transferred most of their activities to the United States, to Australia or to other countries.
The Petroleum Monitoring 'Agency again indicates that comparing the first six mqnths of 1981 with the first six months of 1980, Canadian controlled-these are Canadian-owned and controlled companies-increased their foreign exploration budgets by 247 per cent. So the National Energy Program caused the Canadian-owned oil and gas companies to leave Canada, to increase their foreign exploration by 247 per cent. And furthermore, the trend continued to accelerate.
That is just one example. Another is Ocelot Industries, a Canadian-owned company with a spectacular growth rate, one of those companies that was able to earn money as a result of the tax change in the fall of 1975, a spectacular growth in those five years, a real performer, a company that Canada should be proud of. In 1982, they are planning to spend 82.5 per cent of their exploratory funds outside of Canada. This is a Canadian-owned and controlled company, planning to spend 82.5 per cent of its budget outside of Canada this year as a result of the National Energy Program brought in by the

April 19, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
minister because he said he wanted to Canadianize the oil and gas industry.
The fact of the matter is that the nationalizing program is Canadianizing Williston, North Dakota; Denver, Colorado; Dallas, Texas; and a host of other cities. There are more Canadian-oil companies with offices in Denver, Colorado- that is, Canadian owned-than there were Canadian owned companies with offices in Calgary ten years ago. That is what we have done. We have Canadianized Denver with this marvelous Canadian-ownership program. That is the absurd thing we have done with this program.
The National Energy Program was based on the premise that the oil and gas industry was the big, fat cat that needed to be taxed. Well, this Petroleum Monitoring Agency shows that for the first six months of 1981 the petroleum industry earned 9.4 per cent on capital employed, in comparison with the manufacturing industry, which we all know is hard hit because it is located here in central Canada, an industry that earned 11 per cent on its capital employed. The petroleum industry earned 9.4 per cent; manufacturing, 11 per cent; and yet the petroleum industry is supposed to be the big, fat cat that can afford to pay the $8 billion worth of taxes that are being extracted from that industry this year.
It is simply too much, Mr. Speaker, for one industry to cope with. As a consequence of that, we find 400 people laid off at Gulf; 600 laid off at Turbo; 150 so far from Dome-scads of companies which depend on the large companies, which service them, which depend on them, which are now out of business. Three quarters of the businesses in Nisko Industrial Park south of Calgary, which service the oil and gas industry, have gone out of business.
The busiest people in these communities are the trustees in bankruptcies. There is carnage as a result of the National Energy Program. But it is "out there", it is miles away from those geniuses sitting over there in Tunney's Pasture saying, "We know what is good for the oil industry, we know what is good."
Because it happens in Brooks, in Drayton Valley, in Red Deer, little towns like that do not mean a whole lot to these super-intelligent gurus in their palace at Tunney's Pasture. It does not get attention, and the minister can do as he did earlier, stand up and claim what a wonderful thing he is doing. Well, I wonder how many of those 150 who got their lay-off notices from Dome Petroleum think he is doing a wonderful job. And how about those 170 young engineers, geologists and geophysicists who had job offers from Dome that they expected to take up in about two weeks when they finished their examinations, only to find they were withdrawn at the last minute? I wonder how many of those young Canadians are going to say: "Gee, you are right, Mr. Minister, you are doing such a great job for us and for Canada." How many of those are for Canadianization?
The minister read his telegram, Mr. Speaker. Let me read a letter. It is not a letter addressed to me, actually, but to Mr. Norman MacLeod, President of the Liberal Party of Canada. A copy was sent to me. A copy was sent to the Minister of
Energy, Mines and Resources as well. Gane Petroleum Corporation Ltd. is the name of this company. The president is Dr. Norman Fischbuck. He says in his letter:
Your Party has had ample opportunity ... to Canadianize our oil industry as was demonstrated by concerned citizens in 1973-1976 when the Committee for an Independent Canada submitted a petition of over 700,000 names for Mr. Trudeau to take action before oil prices rose. What was done? Nothing. Now when oil prices are astronomical the taxpayer has to foot the bill for Canadianization through nationalization.
As our Company scrambles around to stave off bankruptcy by drilling in the U.S. we see our Alberta reserves, that are shut-in of course, shrivelling in value daily. On the one hand we see . .. Petro-Canada receive concession after concession and on the other hand big government takes a bigger and bigger slice of our meager earnings. The ultimate result is obvious-our oil industry will soon consist of:
(a)	one or two large Canadian companies,
(b)	the multinationals (they always survive because of lobby-power and by
shifting money from one country to another),
(c)	Petro-Canada, and
(d)	even more direct intervention by the Government itself.
The president of this company, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Norman Fischbuck, was chairman of the Calgary section of the Committee for an Independent Canada. His credentials as a Canadian nationalist are as good as those of anyone in the House. He believes in Canada, he believes in Canadian ownership, he proved it by getting involved in an organization ten years ago that tried to do something. He feels offended, enraged, to find this Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources standing up, destroying his company, in the name of Canadianization. Canadianization has become a swear word to a man who considers himself a Canadian nationalist and who wanted to see something done about the high degree of foreign ownership. He has been abused, he feels abused by this country. The minister says: "Ah, we are doing great things for Canadianization."
Let me read you this little story, from The Calgary Herald of April 3, 1982:
A Canadian oil company which has operated almost exclusively in Alberta for 11 years is moving its entire operation to the United States-and government energy policies are the main reason for its decision.
"We don't see the economic and political climate here to be conducive to our investing money in Canada," Larry Krause, vice-president of Seaward Resources Ltd., said Friday.
Even though Seaward is 80-per-cent Canadian-owned and qualifies for maximum government incentives in Canadian drilling programs, Krause said, the U.S. is still a more attractive place to do business.
"The thrust of Canadian policies is in the frontier ... areas ... It doesn't do anything for an independent company."
"We feel at least we can market natural gas in the U.S. and there is a spirit of co-operation between the government and the industry."
Seaward was prompted to shut down its Canadian operations after operating a U.S. subsidiary. Seaward Resources Inc., for three years.
The program the minister is touting as a great panacea to help Canadians and to Canadianize our oil and gas industries has driven these Canadians out of Canada. How does that benefit Canada? How do we benefit from this small oil company's being driven out of Canada? Would somebody please explain how a Liberal can stand up and say we are
April 19, 1982

Canadianizing the Oil and gas industry when the evidence is overwhelming that we are de-Canadianizing it? Hon. members opposite are chasing Canadians out of Canada-out of western Canada, albeit, and maybe that is the difference. There is just plain, bloody ignorance about what is happening.
However, it is not just western Canada that is hurting through losing its companies and through losing some of its brightest and best. They are going to places where there is opportunity and where the government says they are welcome. From coast to coast we are all paying the price, and it is a very big price indeed.
In an article in a magazine dated October 2, 1981, William Mackness of Pitfield MacKay Ross said that the Canadianiza-tion program has set off an unprecedented exodus of Canadian capital, and that it is questionable that the Canadian economy can stand it. He said the method of calculating capital flow is not perfect and is subject to error but, nevertheless, he said, there is overwhelming evidence that the outflow of capital from Canada amounted to $17 billion in the last 12 months. In other words, from the date the National Energy Program was announced until a year later $17 billion of Canadian capital left this country. And this is supposed to Canadianize the oil and gas industry! Chasing out $17 billion is supposed to Canadianize the oil and gas industry. If that $17 billion had stayed here, it would have been used to buy pipe from Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie and trucks from the truck plant in Ste-Therese, Quebec. A few weeks ago the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) was abused in Ste-Therese by unemployed auto workers because the truck plant there has laid off its employees since it can no longer sell trucks. If that $17 billion had not gone south, some of those auto workers in Ste-Therese would be at work. That $17 billion would have kept a valve plant in Orillia going. It would have kept untold suppliers and manufacturers right across this country working rather than being unemployed at this point in time.
We are told this is all great because it is part of Canadiani-zation. We are told we are Canadianizing the oil and gas industry, that that is marvellous and that we should applaud the minister for what he is doing. Mr. Roger Hubley of the Conference Board of Canada estimates that by 1990 the minister's version of the Canadianization program will cost Canada $56 billion, $2,300 for every man, woman and child in Canada. That is an incredible cost. What kind of immoral, irresponsible government would permit that to happen? What kind of mentality allows backbenchers of the minister's party to say, "Aye, sir, aye, we agree?" What prevents them, for goodness' sake, from standing up and saying, "No more, we are not going to hurt this country any more by going along with these stupid policies?" What needs to happen to have common sense prevail?
Unfortunately, some people are saying that the Western Canada Concept is the only alternative. Unfortunately, some people are saying they have no alternative but to look at separatism. They are saying they have no alternative but to break off from these knuckle-heads here in Ottawa who would perpetrate this atrocity in this country we love which is being
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
destroyed and ruined by that kind of behaviour. In desperation and frustration people are turning to the very negative and mean alternative of separation. They do not want to, but they feel they have no alternative.
Last year the minister reported with great pride that his Canadianization program was working. I saw several of the householders produced for Liberal backbenchers proudly announcing that Canadianization was working. Those householders listed a number of foreign-owned companies which had been bought out. There were little flags to show companies which formerly were American but now were Canadian. Those householders were beautiful piebes of propaganda produced by those Orwellian bureaucrats at Tunney's Pasture. They listed such marvellous things as Sulpetro taking over Candel, Dome Petroleum taking over Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas, Husky Oil taking over Uno-Tex, Drummond Petroleum taking over Union Texas of Canada, CDC taking over Aquitaine, Turbo taking over Merland and before that Merland taking over Consolidated Natural Gas. Hon. members opposite have great pride in their Canadianization program, but the interesting thing is that almost every one of those companies is in deep trouble today. Almost every one of the companies I just named is in deep financial trouble. The minister and his officials telephoned those companies and telephoned the banks and said, "We want you to take over some foreign companies. We want to show the people of Canada that our Canadianization program is working." Unfortunately for many of those companies, they said, "If the Government of Canady wants us to do it and the bankers want to lend us the money,1 why not?" Now they are wondering if they can survive. We read about Dome Petroleum in the newspapers. How many hundred people do not now have jobs because Dome Petroleum accepted the blandishments of the minister? We read in the newspapers about the problems of Sulpetro, Drummond Petroleum and Turbo Resources.
We saw the height of hypocrisy when CDC took over Elf Aquitaine. That happened in June of 1981. The minister announced with great pride that the Canadianization program was working. CDC had taken over Elf Aquitaine, a 75 per cent French-owned company. Then in January of this year the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, speaking to the Canada-France Chamber of Commerce in Paris, said, "We welcome French investment, particularly in energy projects in Canada." The behaviour of the minister boggles the mind, and he does not even blush. I wonder what it takes. Perhaps pride gets in the way of the minister admitting that the National Energy Program is a disaster. I plead with hon. members opposite to lobby the minister and to lobby other cabinet ministers and get him to swallow his pride and make those accommodations for the sake of Canada. The program is not working and the country is paying dearly. Surely at some point members of the government have to say that the country matters more than one man's pride and that we all have to take our responsibility to this country seriously and demand changes.

April 19, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
This Canadian ownership rate program and the petroleum incentives program are ways in which the government goes about promoting Canadianization. It will provide grants to companies based on the degree of Canadian ownership, but the real motive of the programs is to put the bureaucrats from Tunney's Pasture in direct "hands on" control of what is going on.
If someone has to come to an official with an application form and ask for approval in order to get some money so that he can stay in business, then he is someone whose political behaviour can be predicted and controlled. Once people have to go to Mr. Edmund Clark or Mr. Mickey Cohen and beg for grants so that they can proceed, we know darn well that they can no longer publicly criticize the policies written by Mr. Ed Clark and Mr. Mickey Cohen. That is a nice state of affairs if you do not believe in democracy and it is a nice state of affairs if you do believe in Big Brother and in manipulation. The government that spends $70 million on advertising obviously believes in all that.
If that sounds unfair in terms of characterization, Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the House of a speech made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in Sherbrooke, Quebec, on October 22, 1981, when he said that a greater threat to Canadian unity than nationalism is the growing wealth in Alberta; that the threat is real and that it is necessary that we show our teeth. That is what the minister said, and it is an incredible statement. With his chosen few, the pointy headed bureaucrats in charge of that industry and that wealth, perhaps he can prevent the threat from harming the country.
What has been produced, Mr. Speaker? The result is absolutely incredible. There are 27 clauses in the bill which deal with Canadian ownership and determination, and they are all very complicated. Then there are guidelines about how the act is to be interpreted. There are guidelines respecting the effect of informal equity in the measurement of Canadian ownership rights. There are nine pages and 14 clauses of these guidelines. Clause 13 provides that the review requirement and measurement responsibilities of an applicant for the purposes of the consideration of informal equity will be subject to the general audit provisions of the proposed COCD act. You would need to be a Philadelphia lawyer to understand this, Mr. Speaker. Then there is the Canadian ownership and control determination regulations which consist of 53 pages and 44 clauses. Clause 43 provides as follows:
-for purposes of the first application or an amended application filed in substantial compliance with the act and regulations in the first year after the act comes into force, a trust that is a primary investor that does not own a large block of any publicly traded class of formal equity or does not own half of one per cent or greater of any other class of formal equity may elect that its Canadian ownership rate shall be-
A Philadelphia lawyer might be able to help with that one.
Then there are the interpretation notes for the Canadian ownership and control determination act, and the meaning of Canadian control status for partnerships, consisting of eight pages and 17 clauses. Then there are the interpretation notes
for the Canadian ownership and control determination act, and the meaning of Canadian control status for corporations, consisting of eight pages and 21 clauses. Then there is the Canadian ownership and control determination act guide to application forms, which consists of 68 pages and 65 clauses. Then there are the Canadian ownership control and determination act forms. There are only 26 different forms to be filled out. Then there are assorted other minor documents that have to be filled out in order to get a Canadian ownership rating.
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this material is produced by a government that actually has among its agencies an office for the reduction of the paperwork burden. It actually claims that it is in favour of reducing the paper work burden. It actually claims that it is in favour of deregulation. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) has an agency which every month or so sends me a newsletter about the wonderful things the deregulation agency is doing for us. What was it doing when these yahoos produced this mess? To try to help people through this mess, the government has been holding seminars throughout the country and has invited lawyers, accountants, geologists, engineers and others to appear.
I spoke to an oilman who attended one of these seminars. He sat for two days then walked out saying, "There ain't no way! 1 will move my operations to the United States. There is absolutely no way I am going to get tangled up with this lousy mess. What would happen is that instead of looking for oil and gas, which is the business of the oil and gas industry, I would be filling out forms." He said that if he had wanted to be a lawyer or an accountant rather than an oilman, he would have been a lawyer or an accountant, but that he wanted to find oil and gas. What did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources give him to help him do that? He gave him forms to fill out. Of course the minister is a lawyer, so his own profession has done very well out of this.
That is only the half of it, Mr. Speaker. You have to comply with the Canadian ownership regulations by filling out 26 forms and going through the incredible array of regulations, clauses and so on. Then, if you want to apply for a PIPs grant, you read the 34 clauses, 16 pages of the petroleum incentives programs act and the regulations that flow from it. Like all legislation it has clauses which say "and the minister shall do whatever he wants" by way of regulation. There are 44 clauses and 71 pages with how many schedules and how many forms attached at the end? I cannot count them all. It takes 21 different forms to get a PIP grant. If you are confused about how to fill out the forms, they have a handy-dandy guide which makes the income tax guide look like child's play. This from a government which says it believes in reducing the paperwork burden, to simplify things. I sincerely hope the program works, Mr. Speaker, but in all honesty you have to conclude it is going to collapse as a result of the paperwork. This program is one of those marvelous academic schemes dreamed up by those brilliant people over at Tunney's Pasture, but unfortunately it is just not going to work. I have talked to a
April 19, 1982

lot of people who have gone to these seminars, and you are going to have to pay $200 an hour for legal and accounting help with these forms. By the time you finish, there will be no money left to drill for oil and gas.
Another thing this government is doing that is unconscionable, immoral and indicative of the mentality of the minister is that the financing for PIP, at least as announced in the National Energy Program, was going to come from the petroleum and gas revenue tax. They said they would let companies net the PIP grants against the petroleum and gas revenue taxes. The only problem, Mr. Speaker, is that they are on different parts of the balance sheet. The tax comes off revenue, leaving net income; the PIP grant applies to capital, it has nothing to do with the revenue stream. The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants said it was not permissible to net PIP grants against the petroleum and gas revenue tax. To use that magic phrase which appears in audited financial statements, that would not be in accordance with accepted accounting principles. Well, you know what this great democratic minister said? He did not care what the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants said was right or wrong; he intends to change the regulations by order in council to permit this type of accounting in violation of the considered opinion of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. You have to wonder, Mr. Speaker, what kind of jackboot, brownshirt mentality would induce one to say: "I don't care if the accounting profession says this is the way it is supposed to be done; we are government and we are doing it this way. To heck with you guys and your professional standards, to heck with accepted accounting principles, we are doing it this way." I hope, Mr. Speaker, the accountants can stop that kind of mad behaviour. Someone has to prevent them from cooking the books that way.
This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is long overdue. But as I indicated in my letter of December 21, 1981, if this is the way the government wants to proceed, then they should bring the legislation forward and let us get on with it, although it is certainly not the way we would proceed. This party is 100 per cent behind the goal of increased Canadian ownership. We believe that in fact Canadianization was occurring at a dramatic rate, but the effect of the NEP is in fact to abort what was a tremendous growth in small Canadian companies, which companies have in the last ten years drilled 75 per cent of the exploratory wells. These companies were providing the creativity, the ingenuity, and they were discovering those new fields which brought excitement to the industry. They were making things happen, and they were clobbered by this minister and this program. Perhaps the PIP grants will help revive some of them, perhaps they will help some of them keep part of their operations in Canada rather than deserting the country totally. Perhaps it will prevent more people from joining the unemployment line. I sincerely hope so, Mr. Speaker, but I have serious doubts. I hear mutterings over
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
there from the socialist who stands up and says that government is outrageous, therefore what we need is more government. I have never been able to understand that logic, if it is logic.
We will be voting against this legislation, Mr. Speaker, because of the way they have approached it. We think it is a bad precedent and a mistake to put bureaucrats in control the way they are here. We think the country is going to pay a tremendous price for that. Our concern is that the program is going to be unmanageable due to its complexity, and certainly the accountants and lawyers are going tc get rich implementing it. If the government is going to go this way, they have a right to be wrong and we will permit them to do it.


Mrs. Appolloni:: Mr. Speaker, there are times in this House when we all get carried away by our own rhetoric. However, I am sure the hon. member would like to keep the record straight. Am I correct that he referred to the actions of the minister as immoral and accused him of cooking the books?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Absolutely.


Ursula Appolloni: As I was trying to say despite the rude interruptions from across the way, if my contention is correct, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member did use those phrases, I submit to you that they are at least unparliamentary, undemocratic and absolutely baseless.


Harvie Andre: I would just add that they are the truth.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It is even worse when they are the truth.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would have the record show that the minister was not in the House to defend himself. Perhaps you would be good enough, Mr. Speaker, if the minister finds it necessary, to allow the minister to defend himself at the first available opportunity against those absolutely abominable charges.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, since when can one member start raising a point of order for another member? If the hon. member's conscience is hurting her, fine, but she cannot raise a point of order for another member.


Mr. Blais:: The hon. member raises a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) on a point of order. Is the hon. member rising to speak?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is a suggestion before the Chair that has not been put into those words by the hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni). It deals with a formal notification being given to the Chair that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) may find cause to seek the attention of the Chair by way of a question of privilege concerning certain language used. I will deal with the objection raised by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) in that regard. If there is indeed a question

April 19, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
of privilege with respect to the remarks made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), the tradition is that the hon. member or minister who seeks redress against such vocabulary or expression has the right to raise the matter as soon as he returns to the Elouse. Until such time as he does arrive in the House wishing to seek some redress for the remarks, his right to bring a matter of privilege to the attention of the Chair remains untouched and is in no way lessened by the fact that he is not present at the moment.
The Chair was about to recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) to continue the debate. Is there another hon. member wishing to rise on a point of order? If the matter is in order and we are prepared to go ahead with the debate, I will now recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party on this important part of energy security. I listened very closely to what the minister said. It is too bad the minister did not stay to listen to what some other members had to say.
I will continue when I have some quiet, Mr. Speaker. As I said, I listened very carefully to what the minister had to say. We could summarize what he said into two parts. Simply, the petroleum incentives program is not too generous. The minister said it was necessary to provide energy security for Canadians. PIP gives $6.5 billion to the oil industry over five years. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask Canadians who are listening and watching this debate and who are paying some attention to the substance rather than to the clowning, the hijinks, the ringing of the bells and the reactions, is this really the way to have energy security in Canada? The minister said "PIP is necessary to provide energy security for Canadians." He is saying that more money should be given to oil companies, to be precise $6.5 billion, of taxpayers and consumers money is necessary for Canadian energy security. I do not believe that. I do not think that very many people in Canada believe that. The minister also said that not a single OECD country, that is the more industrialized developed countries, would permit an energy industry to be foreign controlled. But let me ask, who permitted that in the first place? It was the Liberal Party and government who for years have had it as a matter of policy. The same people who brought the tragedy and the situation are trying to take us out of it. Another point made by the minister was about Canadianizing the industry. How are we going to Canadianize it? We all want to Canadianize. But the minister wants to Canadianize the oil industry by giving $6.5 billion to the oil companies.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Some oil companies.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am concerned the minister is not here. I am concerned that this debate is not being paid the attention it should be by the press and the public, if it is not served by the
press. I am concerned that there are so few members in the House. Accordingly, I call a quorum, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has called a quorum, somewhat to the surprise of the Chair. I shall indicate to hon. members what the rules are with respect to a quorum.


Some hon. Members:: Just count.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Then we will follow those procedures. There are no points of order and no other points whatever can be accepted during the call for a quorum. I will ask the officer at the Table to count the members present. Any member who is in the House will be counted regardless of what seat he is occupying. Any member may enter the chamber during the count. Any member may leave the chamber during the count. The Chair will make a count. At the conclusion both the officer at the Table and the Chair will check the figures to make sure they are accurate. If there are 20 or more members in the House, including the occupant of the Chair, there will be deemed to be a quorum. There can be no points of order. There can be no questions of privilege. There can be no points of any kind raised once the call for a quorum is made.
I will ask the officer at the Table, the assistant deputy clerk, to count the members present.
And the count having been taken:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There being 25 members present in the chamber, not including the occupant of the Chair, accordingly, there is a quorum present and debate will continue.
There is another matter of concern to the Chair. It is whether or not the hon. member who called for a quorum would ordinarily again be recognized to continue debate.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair will recognize the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais). While the minister speaks the Chair will take counsel as to whether or not the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway should continue his comments in the debate.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to rise on a point of order to indicate to you that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) did in effect leave the House when the count was being taken for a quorum. Under those circumstances, having relinquished your sight, he can not now be recognized once more to continue the debate. As Mr. Speaker well knows, an hon. member cannot get the floor unless he or she is recognized by Your Honour. While the Clerk was counting the number of members in the House, Mr. Speaker could not recognize a member who, for any purpose, was not in the House. If Your Honour could not recognize him for the quorum count, how could you now recognize him to resume debate? Under the circumstances I suggest that the next hon. member to be recognized should catch Mr. Speaker's eye and
April 19, 1982

be recognized. I understand the hon. member of the official opposition who rushed into the chamber has now recovered his breath and is ready to rise as soon as I have concluded.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I have been here all the time.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) is always full of breath and of course is able to receive the recognition Your Honour will grant him at any time. Whether he will advance anything of worth is the question which must be determined.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in reply. Of course the minister does not have to tell the hon. member what he is; he is full of hot air and bafflegab. If he checks the rules he will find under Citation 210 that a member need not remain in the House after giving notice that there is no quorum.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Hon. members should listen. There is a difference between recognizing myself as a member on a quorum vote and recognizing myself to speak. I submit that I do not lose my right to speak and that I can continue since I was recognized previously.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, when an hon. member calls a quorum in the process of speaking and leaves the House, clearly he has terminated his remarks. This is what happened with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). He cannot have it both ways. He could have remained in the House and suggested to Your Honour that there was lack of a quorum, but he would have had to remain in the House in order to retain his turn as a participant in the debate. I have no quarrel with an hon. member who was not speaking rising to call for a quorum. If any hon. member who did not have the floor had stood and called for a quorum, it would have been a different matter; but the hon. member who was in the process of addressing the House called for a quorum and then left the chamber.
When an hon. member sits down in a debate or leaves the chamber in a debate, he has indicated to the House and to Mr. Speaker that he has finished his remarks. I see no conceivable way that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway could now continue his participation in second reading debate. He has had his opportunity. He relinquished his position in the debate. Of course he will have an opportunity at further stages in the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Kempling:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I think Your Honour should bear in mind in coming to your judgment that when the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) left the chamber, he took his fellow partymen with him. In other words, his manoeuvre was to try
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
to close down the House. I find that deplorable. In fact the last time this happened was when the then hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre some time ago during private members' hour brought the House to a standstill because there was not a quorum. I do not think the hon. member should be allowed to continue his remarks. Having left the House, he has no right to continue to speak.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You were not in the House.


Raymond John Skelly: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) was certainly in the process of addressing the House of Commons on an extremely important issue. The number of participants dropped to nine, two from the official opposition and an equivalent number from the government. This is unwarranted attendance in a debate on an extremely important piece of legislation such as this.
On the other side of the coin, when the hon. member called a quorum I noticed that Your Honour responded by rising and the proceedings were suspended. When they were suspended while the Chair took count of the members so that the House and the hon. member could continue speaking, he resumed his seat. Until the Chair completed the procedural function of taking the count, the hon. member's obligations were terminated for a temporary period.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Raymond John Skelly: He left the House, and it strikes me that there should be an opportunity once the procedural function is complete for him to resume. He is now in his seat looking for recognition. It strikes me that the fair thing to do would be to allow him to proceed now that we have a quorum.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Surely the principle of a quorum is that we demand attendance and interest in the House. That is why we have a quorum rule.


Roméo LeBlanc: But you left.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If we drop below a quorum in numbers, in legal terms we lose the jurisdiction of the House. Any hon. member is entitled to call for a count. If the House is able to respond, as it was in this instance when hon. members came running in from the corridor and became involved in the debate, the hon. member is quite justified in doing so. That is the principle of a quorum. I am clearly permitted under the rules to leave the House. That is why the rule is there. The rule on the quorum is there so that the hon. member who is speaking, or any other member of the House, can demand that the House give him the minimal level of attention and jurisdiction he should have. None of the hon. members have raised any substantial rulings indicating that I should not get the floor. They just want to punish me; they do not want to give any real logic.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether leaving the House in the middle of a speech is any worse than finishing a

April 19, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
speech and disappearing as does the minister every time he makes a speech. Perhaps we should bar him as well.


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention the fact that if any member of any party were allowed to call for a quorum and then have his party vacate the House, it would certainly be possible to call for a quorum virtually any day of the week. Having vacated the House after calling for a quorum, it seems to me that he could thereby create no quorum, as did the hon. member-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, no!


Fred Alward McCain: If that is permissible, the chaos which would result in the House as a result of this procedure would be absolutely unbearable and intolerable for his or any other party in the House.


Jean-Jacques Blais: It is nearly as bad as not showing up for your own vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has sought any and all assistance from hon. members. All members present will recognize that no hon. member rising on this point of order quoted any precedent which might be of assistance to the Chair. I would like to think that the essence of the problem faced by hon. members and by the Chair is that when the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has the floor and chooses to call a quorum, he has every right under the Standing Orders to do so. I would think once the motion for quorum has been called and the Chair has followed proper procedures that we would return to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway who had the floor. My problem, and this is why I made reference to that immediately, is that I think normally when an hon. member calls the quorum, his concern for the presence of members in the House would indicate that he himself would also remain to contribute to the quorum. The difficulty the Chair faces is that the Chair did observe that the hon. member first called the quorum and then left the chamber. Once the hon. member left the chamber the Chair is in a difficult position to decide whether or not his return constitutes an unbroken right to continue with the debate.
A proceeding intervened, a motion for a quorum, and during that proceeding the hon. member was not present. I have sought consultation and I have yet to find a precedent that covers the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Make one.


William James Kempling: The House is with you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The inclination of the Chair is to say that the motion for the Chair is to see whether or not there is a quorum is a right of any hon. member at any time, and whether he may or may not be present during the quorum call, I think, should leave matters undisturbed. At the end of that intervening proceeding, which is a very special proceeding, the Chair would return to wherever matters were previously. I am not content with the idea that there can be a
call for a quorum, that the hon. member can leave and then can come back and take the floor again. However, to me, the logic is that if we are going to return to the state of proceedings where we were prior to the motion for a quorum, then I have no choice but to recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, without prolonging the debate, I think that your ruling is very just. I hesitate to apologize that I put Your Honor in a difficult position but I did. I do think that perhaps the onus was on my hon. friends who took the other view to bring the proper precedent, and no doubt they may do that next time. Before I continue I would point out that there are many more members in the House and there is even someone in the press gallery.
I would like to continue and discuss the matter of the petroleum incentives program.
[ Translation]


Some hon. Members:: Hypocrite! Hypocrite, with a capital H!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: All right, just a few words in French.

I would like to deal with the petroleum incentives aspect of the energy bill because this is the most crucial part of the Liberal Canadianization program. This is what consumers are being asked to pay for every time they go to the pump. If there were an election called today this may be one of the main issues in the election and may very well be an issue in a future election. The government has said that it wants to Canadian-ize. The Canadian people want the government to Canadianize and, in my view, they are even prepared to forgive the government for not starting Canadianization in the years past.
As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) said a moment ago, the government permitted the oil industry to be more foreing-controlled than did any other OECD nation. Canadians are prepared to forgive them for that.
But are they prepared to pay money at the pump to give $6.5 billion more to the oil companies? That is the case that the government must make and it is a case which I do not think Canadians will accept.
The minister talked about energy security. He said that it is necessary to introduce these PIP programs to provide energy security for Canadians. Those were the words of the minister. My question is, energy security for whom? It is not for the consumer and not for the taxpayer because I believe that we are continuing to get hosed for this. What the government is proposing is to give money to its friends in the oil industry whose history it has been in the past to say that there is an energy crisis, "give us a tax break." The minister said, "No, we will not give you a tax break but we will give you a grant." The industry agreed to take a grant which it was supposed to use for exploration for oil. It then said that it had to export oil,
April 19, 1982

and the government permitted it to do it. The industry then says tha't there is a shortage, another crisis, and must go back to the government for more grants or tax breaks. That is a pattern which has been followed in Canada. I challenge any member in the House to argue otherwise historically.
During the early 1970s we exported one half of our daily oil production. What is the energy crisis in Canada today? We have enough hydro, coal and nuclear power. We have enough natural gas but we do not have enough oil.
It is not sufficient for any Conservative members to berate it. Their policy in the Clark government was exactly the same and, as a matter of fact, it was worse. I hope that some Liberal members will stand up to take part in this debate-now that they are all here-to say how the policy announced by the Clark government was worse.
I do not want to have to give the facts and figures because that is up to the Liberal members, but I can tell them where to find those facts. The Liberal policy is bad enough but the Conservative policy was worse. Hon. members can call me names but I suggest they look at the figures and at what the Crosbie budget proposed and what the deal with Alberta was, if there was one.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: You do not even know.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I suggest that those members review the convention resolution where the member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) and, I believe, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) took the position that the price should be 85 per cent of world prices.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Since when was a resolution a law?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: A resolution of a Tory convention is never law. Nevertheless it was there. What I am suggesting is that we review this Canadianization policy in detail. I propose a much simpler and more effective way to achieve Canadianization. Instead of putting $6.5 billion into a convoluted scheme, as the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) pointed out very well in his speech, we should take that $6.5 billion and give it to Petro-Canada to buy Imperial Oil. In this way we will get 15 per cent more Canadian ownership and no blackmail from the industry.


An hon. Member:: Where will you borrow the money?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The money is coming in. The government is just about to give $6.5 billion in grants. That is where it will come from. If you take that money to buy Imperial Oil there will be no need for PIP, COR or any other layer of bureaucracy.
We are not suggesting a take-over of the whole industry but that we should take a leading direction similar to that of Norway, Great Britain and many other countries. Those countries have indicated that in the tough world of international oil-not just a small company buyt the seven sisters-you must have a directing force, and this must be the predominant role of Petro-Canada.
You can ask anyone who has experience in the international realm of the oil companies. You can ask that of Bill Hopper. I
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
believe that a policy such as that would make sense. Since it would not cost $6.5 billion to purchase Imperial Oil, you could invest the remainder of the money in conservation and alternate energy. That is where our energy security lies.
During recent debates we discovered that $6,500 million, that is $6.5 billion, will go to the oil companies over five years as a result of this bill. However, $35 million will go to Caner-tech, the government's energy corporation in Winnipeg. When we see that imbalance, if more money were put into conservation and energy alternatives instead of going to megaprojects through giveaways and blackmail, we could create more jobs and achieve real energy security for Canada.
Perhaps you have read the words of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn when he said that it must be obvious to any village greybeard that a dozen worms can only gnaw at one apple for so long until it is all gone. I see my friend laughing, but I believe it is a very philosophical and intelligent statement. What Solzhenitsyn was saying was that we cannot keep using renewable resources or they will go. Canadians understand that.
As the minister said today in reply to a question from the hon. member for Calgary Centre in this House, there have been some successes in the NEP, one of them being that people are starting to conserve. They understand and they will conserve. With this $6.5 billion we could set up neighbourhood energy programs modelled after programs with which we have experience, such as the Neighbourhood Improvement Program, of a few years ago, under which local citizens improved their neighbourhoods. That was a program of this government. It was a successful program. It worked, and it would work on a neighbourhood level for energy. We could get some real conservation.
The government would then not have to give $8 billion to Shell to delay another month on the tar sands or $40 million to Imperial Oil to delay a few months on Cold Lake. It would not have to put $13 billion into this consortium to develop the tar sands which private industry will not touch. It would not have to do that. It would not have to put $60 billion into the Alaska pipeline.
There is another way of doing this. I am not saying that conventional oil cannot be developed. We must develop that. I would suggest we must go to Hibernia. I think the government is smart in earmarking Hibernia for development. I know there are tremendous technological problems, but there is oil out there which we can use and which we need. I am not saying we do not need oil. What I am saying is that we do not have to give $6.5 billion to Dome Petroleum and Nova for oil.
There was an interview of Jack Gallagher, the chairman of Dome Petroleum, on "The Journal" program. It was a most revealing interview in which Mr. Gallagher said, "We will develop the oil," and he will be one of the biggest recipients of these grants. He said, "We will develop the Beaufort Sea." He

April 19, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
was asked, "What will you do with the oil?" He said, "Well, we will export it to Japan." It is the same pattern, "Give us more money, we will find the resource and then we will export the resource."
Many hon. members in this House have said the industry can be regulated. It is the most over-regulated industry in Canada. However, if we look at the history we find that the industry can manipulate the regulator. The industry has had no problems manipulating the National Energy Board or the Government of Canada.
I feel sorry for a man I once knew years ago, Joe Greene. He was manipulated and misled by the industry. He stood up in the House and said, "We have enough oil to last 300 years." We are now told that we have enough conventional oil to last nine years. That is why we must go to the north and give grants, and why we must develop the tarsands. One sees that it is the same pattern. Now everyone talks about the late Joe Greene as the minister who stood up and said, "We have enough oil for 300 years." Poor Joe Greene. That is his legacy and it should not be his legacy. He was manipulated.
However, I would say something further about Canadianiza-tion and the way these PIP grants work. If we could get this message out to average Canadians, they would be appalled. The way the grants work is that a percentage of each dollar of exploration in Canada lands is returned to Canadian companies. However, this can be manipulated. Defining a Canadian company is like the old shell game. Look at the way Dome suddenly emerged as a Canadian company. These grants will be manipulated and there will be groups of companies which will say they are Canadian. They will get minor Canadian partners, but they will really be dominated by Imperial, Shell and so on.
A Canadian company, one that is Canadian owned, not Canadian controlled, can drive a truck through these COR provisions, as we have demonstrated in the committee and at other hearings. Some hon. members opposite have demonstrated this in relation to Bill C-48. At a minimum, there is a real danger that companies will be able to get around the Canadian provision. They will be able to say they are Canadian owned when really they are not. A Canadian-owned company receives 80 cents on the dollar, and if it pays income tax, it receives another 13 cents. Therefore, it receives 93 cents on the dollar for drilling. That is all for the poor oil companies, 93 cents on the dollar. What do we get back? We get back a 25 per cent equity. This is a pretty bad business deal. That is a pretty rotten deal. I do not know any businessman who would enter into that kind of deal, but the Government of Canada will enter into it. It says it is a radical program.
This Saturday I have to go to my constituency office on a working class street in Vancouver. People come into my office who are receiving pensions of $300 a month. This weekend I must deal with a case of a man who applied for a disability pension of a measly $350 a month, but he cannot get the pension. He is 58 and cannot work because of an injury. What does he get? He gets nothing from this government.
What does Dome get from this government? Its president earns $625,000 a year, and the government is about to give a
big chunk of the $6.5 billion to that company. That is disgraceful, it is obscene. Those are the kinds of things being done in this country. The ministers say that there is public support. There is not public support for that in this country. There is public support for Canadianization.
I suggest the government look at the work of the committee on Canadianization. That committee was originally supported by this government. It came to Ottawa and met, I suspect, under the auspices of this government. Someone allowed its members to use the old railway station, the Conference Centre and it came up with some resolutions which I would like to quote.
In a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the committee wrote:
-the majority of Canadians will support a determined and effective program to bring our energy resources under Canadian, particularly public, ownership and control which ensures that these resources are developed and utilized in the best interests of the nation-
Again, on January 24, 1982, it wrote:
-Canada's goal must be increased to at least 75 per cent Canadian ownership of the vital petroleum industry by 1985 with Petro-Canada the largest oil company in the country-
That is not what the minister proposed tonight. Does Your Honour know what the largest Canadian-oil company in the country is? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as you are from British Columbia and are well-acquainted with the affairs of the world, what is the largest oil company in Canada? Right now, the largest Canadian-oil company is Imperial Oil. The largest Canadian-owned company is Dome Petroleum, not Petro-Canada. People see the Petro-Canada signs in the east. Petro-Canada took over Petrofina in the west when it took over Pacific Petroleum, and the people think we have a real Canadianization program. They think that Petro-Canada is predominant and that we are doing something. However, that is not the case at all. As a matter of fact, Ambassador Towe, the former Canadian ambassador to the United States, speaking in New York said, "The government will not become involved in any more public ownership. It is finished." Therefore, Petro-Canada will not expand.
The committee to Canadianize, representing some really top people across Canada, urged the Prime Minister to achieve 75 per cent Canadian ownership of the vital petroleum industry by 1985.
I suspect that when the government listens every day to my friend, the Conservative energy critic, and to some of these other energy critics, it will get the wrong impression. There is support in the country. What I am trying to tell the government is that it should do more, go farther and seize this opportunity to make it of great concern. If Rene Levesque were the prime minister of Canada, Mr. Speaker, do you know what he would do? He would take over the oil industry and make Petro-Canada the predominant owner of the oil industry. He would get this country together by doing that. That seems an odd thing to say, but consider what Levesque and some of the Quebecers did with Quebec Hydro, and there was public support. This country is waiting for that kind of leadership.
April 19, 1982

The committee to Canadianize said, "We strongly urge the federal government to acquire one of the four major controlled companies as a new Crown corporation." It did a Gallup poll on that subject. I tell my Liberal friend, who follows the polls like a dog, that the poll conducted by Gallup on this very question indicated that 64 per cent were in favour and 23 per cent were opposed. One does not get that impression when one listens to the Conservative opposition. It says some good things about small Canadian-oil companies. However, when it knocks the general thrust of the National Energy Program, it is way off base. Concerning government take-over of one of the big four, 55 per cent said yes and 28 per cent said no. Canadians are way ahead of their government. Instead, what does the government give them? Does it give them a commitment to 75 per cent? It gives them a commitment to 50 per cent Canadian ownership by 1990. Mr. Trudeau promised that in 1972.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is too little. The Prime Minister promised that way back in 1972. It is too little and it is too late, according to the Canadian public. The people want more. They say that what the hon. member suggests is kind of radical, that he is just a socialist. I suggest they look at the Wednesday, March 24 edition of The Globe and Mail, an article by Jeffrey Simpson where he talks about the oil industry in Norway. I quote from that article:
-Norway has never had trouble attracting foreigners to the North Sea. Despite tax levels and government involvement undreamed of in Canada.
Where there is oil, the companies will go. There is oil in the Beaufort Sea, in the Arctic and the offshore. Members who take an interest in energy are well briefed on how much oil is thought to be there. I again quote:
The Norwegian government tax take, for example, is 85 per cent. In addition, Statoil automatically gets 50 per cent of any oil project in the North Sea, and the corporations participation can go as high as 85 per cent. It can also raise its share above 50 per cent at any time. Put simply, every concession awarded in the North Sea by the government gives at least half the action to Statoil. And the corporation has a bigger stake in all the most promising projects.
What does the Government of Canada propose? It proposes to give the oil companies 93 cents on every dollar for drilling and exploration and take back a 25 per cent equity. The position of the New Democratic Party is like that of Norway. If you are going to put that kind of money in, you should take equal equity out. You should take at least 50 per cent control, as they do in Norway.
There is another interesting quote from Mr. Simpson's article. Referring to what was said by one of the chairmen of Statoil, who has vast experience in the whole oil business in the North Sea and other places, he writes that-the logic of dealing with multinational oil companies demands that Statoil always be in the driver's seat.
The logic of dealing with these companies demands that Petro-Canada always be in the driver's seat. Time and again the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) has made the point that if you want to have industrial spin-off, you cannot trust a big American company in there, because it will
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
take it and go to Chicago or New York, not to the small Canadian who needs help. That is what they found in the North Sea. Britain found there has to be a program. The hon. member for Comox-Powell River almost stood on his head at the committee hearings on Bill C-48 to put these ideas to the Canadian government.
I see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) in the chamber.
I tried to ask him about industrial spin-off regarding coal in British Columbia. As Bob Rae, the former member for Broad-view-Greenwood, used to say about the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), it is not like Tinkerbell, you cannot wish it would happen, you have to plan it. We need Petro-Canada in the driver's seat.
This $6.5 billion provision is an obscene provision, at a time when we are cutting back on education and health benefits. We had a debate on this a couple of weeks ago. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) eloquently put the case for universal medicare and discussed the problems with medicare. With all these demands on the treasury, why give away $6.5 billion?
There is another reason why we should not give it away. I do not think it has been raised in this House other than in one question that I put to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The federal government thought it would get a lot of money through this deal with Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. It was really a tax grab, to be collected at the pump from the consumer. The governments of Ottawa and Alberta thought they had it made through this deal with Alberta.
The international price is falling because of a glut in the oil market. It was said we could not have anticipated that, although I am not sure. The Government of Canada now has a real problem. It is not going to get that money. It will lose something like $22 billion. Where will the government get the money for the $6.5 billion in grants to the oil companies? It will get it out of the hide of the Canadian consumer. That makes the system even more obscene. It is the same old pattern.
Tommy Douglas used to say in the House of Commons that the money is taken out of people's pockets and put in other people's pockets. In this case, it is being taken out of the taxpayer's pocket at the pump and being recycled through the government to the oil companies. This is the Liberal alternate energy policy. It is called recycling. You hose them at the pump and give the oil companies $6.5 billion. That is scandalous.
Let us look at the figures. For 1981-82 it is $940 million, 1982-83 $1,040 million, 1983-84 $1,150 million, 1984-85, $1,480 million and 1985-86 $1,850 million, totalling $6,460 million. That is $6.5 billion from 1981 to 1986.
I am sorry the minister is not in the chamber. I have his exact words from this evening's debate. He said it is necessary to provide these PIPs to obtain security for Canadians. He said these PIP grants are not too generous. They are not too

April 19, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
generous? They provide 93 cents on every dollar, $6.5 billion to an industry that is one of the richest in Canada. I wish the public could understand. I do not think they do. What will Liberal Canadianization mean? It will mean we will replace the Rockefellers with the Blacks and the Blairs, buddies of the Liberal Party.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The Blacks?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Just look around. Look where they give their campaign contributions. Look at their friends and associates. Look at the connections. Look at who is supporting the National Energy Program in Alberta.
You, Mr. Speaker, and I as westerners know what the National Energy Program was. It was a move to get around Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia and go up north to explore. That is where the federal government is the colonial power. It is not necessary to deal with premiers Lougheed, Bennett and Blakeney. The federal government can call the shots. That is ludicrous. We should be drilling for oil in Alberta and developing the Lloydminster area, enhancing the heavy-oil recovery there. We should be giving money to Saskatchewan for an upgrader for its heavy oil. That is the kind of program we would have if we had a sensible energy policy. I warn members opposite that they are dealing with a six-foot Napoleon. That is what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is. I watched him walk out of the chamber tonight after the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) spoke. He was arrogant.
If members opposite are interested in energy, they should look at what is going on. In many ways, the oil industry is throwing everything on the government. What can we expect from the oil industry. Big oil companies have always had their own way. They have manipulated the National Energy Board and the federal government for years.
I reiterate, I do not question the thrust of the National Energy Program. 1 do not question the thrust of trying to get Canadian control of the industry. As the minister said, it is a strategic industry, and Canadians support that, but why do it this way? Why do it with a bureaucratic scheme that is convoluted and unworkable? It is our oil. I quote from page 17 of the National Energy Program:
-in general, price and tax policies have provided the industry with the cash flow necessary to finance its expenditures. This means that the oil consumer and the Canadian taxpayer have financed virtually all of the substantial expansion of this industry.
I am not an expert in this industry. I have tried to understand the problems of the oil industry. I do not think they are that difficult. For years the industry financed all of its expansion from its cash flow, unlike other Canadian companies, such as those in manufacturing, which had to borrow money from the banks.
The oil companies, because of the PGRT and the taxes, have had to go to the banks, and because of the downturn, the recession, they are experiencing some difficulty. But that is not reason enough for the government to cave in on everything, on
the good part of the National Energy Program. What the government should do is get back to Canadianization of Petro-Canada. Within the last year, as a result of the NEP inspired take-over, we spent $6.5 billion, and we have increased Canadian ownership of oil and gas by 6 per cent. The minister said that in the House, and he was proud of it. I figure it was between 30 and 35 per cent.
This country, with its new Constitution, this proud and vibrant, healthy young country, now has an industry that is only 65 per cent to 70 per cent controlled by foreigners. The decisions in the Hibernia case are not going to be made in St. John's or Ottawa, they are going to be made in the boardrooms of Mobil in New York. The decisions on the tar sands are going to be made in the boardrooms of Shell. That is what we are facing.
I think I have clearly set out what alternatives there are, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to conclude by returning to the question: Energy and security, for whom? These bills are all part of a large package bill which was originally called the energy security bill. The Liberal answer seems to be energy security for the oil companies, companies like Dome and Nova. They have been drilling in Ottawa, and they have done very well. Government money is going to pay all the money. What do we get for the taxpayers and the consumers? We continually get holes. I very much think the government is going to face a major rebellion of these taxpayers and consumers when they understand just exactly what the government is going to do with their $6.5 billion.
It is no wonder Canadians are becoming cynical, Mr. Speaker, about this energy policy. It is not what was promised. The Canadian public wants Petro-Canada to be the major player. I think the Canadian public would want this $6.5 billion to go to Petro-Canada for expansion, instead of going to these oil companies. I think the Canadian public wants to expand conservation alternatives, and I think the Canadian public is away ahead of the government, and the opposition. I suggest to the government that it is really missing a great chance and a great opportunity for a real vision of Canada.
I know a little bit about your own background, Mr. Speaker, and I shall close with a biblical quote. You will appreciate that. I cannot remember what part of the bible it comes from, but I am sure you will know. It goes like this: "Your old men shall dream dreams and your young men shall see visions; and where there are no visions, the people perish."
What a vision, what a chance we had with the energy program, to make Petro-Canada the predominant, the major player; to get it into the driver's seat. Instead, we have chosen to continue the old program of giving money away to oil companies. I very much regret that. That is why we will be voting against this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The member from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) mentioned that this bill was bureaucratic, that it was unworkable, and that it entailed
April 19, 1982

massive expense. I say to him, Mr. Speaker, he is right. He has no idea of how much bureaucratic work there is involved, and not only work for employees of the Government of Canada. There will be a great make-work project here, and a great make-work project for accountants, for the lawyers, for the clerks and the estimators, as we go through the various forms and requirements of determining whether a company is Canadian owned, 50 per cent Canadian owned, 60 per cent Canadian owned or 57 per cent owned, or whatever ratio is required in accordance with Clause 10 of this bill.
I did not rise to speak on this bill in that regard, Mr. Speaker. I rise because I am very unhappy and very sad for Canadians, that we should have a government that, after about two years since the election, one-half years since the budget of October 29, 1980, with all the things that have happened during that period, should continue to press with this legislation.
It has become evident to every home owner, every farmer, every businessman, large and small, that the cost of this legislation and the cost of this program has and will be borne by Canadians paying, on average, 2 per cent to 5 per cent more per annum in interest on every debt they owe. We can tell you that this program is absolutely inane. It is driving foreign investment from Canada, and it is driving Canadian investment from Canada. We are having to correct our balance of payments by bringing in the hot money from around the world. And the only way we can bring it in is pay more and more in interest rates and pass that across the country to every home owner, to every small businessman, to every fisherman, to every farmer, and to you and to me. Sir, the program is deficient, wrong, inept, indeed crazy.
I thought members of the Liberal Party would have seen what has gone on over the past year and one-half as hundreds of drilling rigs have left the country, as people have taken their money from Canada to the United States and to other parts of the world to invest where they think they can trust the government and trust the economic system. As the governor of the bank said, in August, in order to finance the number of takeovers that occurred last year, principally in the oil industry, he had to raise interest rates deliberately by 5 per cent. We are now expected to carry on with legislation that continues to advocate pressing directly on the major business of the country to that end.
I was a member of the Committee for an Independent Canada. I worked on that committee. Like my constituents, I would like to see business and industry owned by Canadians. In 1970, or thereabouts, approximately 90 per cent of the oil industry was owned by foreigners. Prior to this program coming in, about 70 per cent of the industry was owned by foreigners. There was a Canadian take-over, a voluntary takeover, if you like, of at least 20 per cent of the business in that decade. The minister says that a further 6 per cent of the industry has now been taken over by Canadians. Presumably, if the minister is correct, approximately 65 per cent of the oil industry is foreign owned and about 35 per cent is Canadian owned. The take-over by Canadians of investment in Canada would have continued without this program and, indeed, if this
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
program were abandoned it would continue without any cost to anyone at all.
We have only to look at our history, to see a company like the Hudson's Bay Company, financed by traders from London, trading into the Hudson Bay. That company is today totally owned, by Canadians. There may be some foreign shareholding, but who cares, it is controlled, owned and operated here, with its head office in Canada.
Let us take a look at the Canadian Pacific Railway. It was financed totally by foreign investments for a while, aside from some free land it got from the Government of Canada, and perhaps a few dollars. Certainly it was financed and paid for to a large extent by foreign investment. That foreign investment has now been repaid and, by and large, the shares in that company are held by Canadians. That is what happens in business.
Canadians would rather own Canadian companies than foreign companies, all things being equal. If I have money to invest, I would rather invest in my own town of Mississauga than anywhere else. I would rather invest in my own country than in some other person's country. That applies generally around the world. Foreigners do not come to Canada unless they think Canada offers better opportunities than their own countries. Generally speaking, if Canada offers better opportunities, then Canadians will stay and invest in Canada.
Unfortunately, that is not what has been happening in the past year or year and a half. As we have seen, very close to $20 billion of Canadian capital and foreign capital in Canada leaves Canada. That capital leaving Canada has created horrendous balance of payments problems and has meant that every home owner, every fisherman, every farmer and every small businessman has had to pay considerably more for money than his competitor in the United States and, indeed, his competitor virtually everywhere in the world.
Where are we going with this bill? This is a bureaucratic piece of legislation which provides various means of determining whether a company is owned by Canadians and what percentage that ownership is. The bill is presented to us as necessary, because it is patriotic and it is good for Canada to own things.
It has been said that patriotism is the last refuge for the scoundrel. Let us look at the scoundrels who are proposing this bill and at what they are doing to the free-enterprise system. What are they doing? They are not running things in the normal fashion. They are running things by grants from the bureaucracy in Ottawa. Money is paid to companies provided those companies act within the regulations, orders and rules prescribed by the minister at his discretion, as set out in this bill and related statutes. The grants are not for everyone. They are only for those who apply and fulfil the requirements. They are only available if the drilling, exploration or development a company does is deemed by the minister, in his discretion, to be eligible. A company does not necessarily get a grant

April 19, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
because it is Canadian owned; it not only has to be Canadian owned, depending on the discretion of the minister in accordance with his very complicated and detailed regulations, it also has to have work which is eligible, in the mind of the minister.
Instead of a free-enterprise society, what we have is a state controlled society in which a minister and his officials in the ivory towers of Ottawa determine what work is to be done in Canada, who is to develop Canada, how it is to be developed, where it is to be developed and when it is to be developed. That is contrary to every concept of the free-entreprise system which has built our nation. This bill is socialism at its worst.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I am glad the hon. member agrees that this bill is socialism at its worst.


Mr. Miller:: Terrible socialism.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Socialism would have the government own; here it just controls.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Exactly. You've got it, Don.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We have a planned economy, and we cannot support that because we know what is happening and what has happened in other countries which have used the concept of the planned society. The Soviet Union cannot even feed itself, and we have to export grain to every planned country. Poland is an example. Poland used to be a breadbasket for the world. We now have to export food to Poland as a result of it having a planned economy. If we carry on with the philosophy of this bill, we will wind up with further central planning of our economy. It will be done under the guise of patriotism or Canadian ownership. Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Under the guise of patriotism, under the guise of Canadian ownership and under the guise of, "We are going to own the oil industry," what we really will be doing is allowing the minister and his henchmen to control the oil industry, just as they wish to control every business activity in the country with their central planning.
We have seen what has been happening with this government. This government has managed to run inflation up. It was 12.5 per cent last year. Perhaps it has slipped back to 11.5 per cent now. We have managed to run unemployment up to over 9 per cent. That is the government's figure. The rate of unemployment is probably well over 10 per cent, if we take into account those people who are no longer deemed to be in the work force, the 146,000 people who all of a sudden disappeared from the work force last year. I do not know whether they went to the gulag, whether they all died or whether there was a run on funerals, but that is the number of people who disappeared from the labour force last year. That is why we have only 9 per cent unemployment.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They are running for the leadership of the Conservative Party.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: On the basis of statistics long old, I can say that the planned society program of the government represented by this bill is the kind of program against which Canadians should rise up. It is not patriotism. It is not designed to promote Canadian ownership. It is designed to promote government control of our means of production and distribution. It matters little whether that control is by a state company like Petro-Canada or in the minister's office by ministerial regulation and direction.
Let us look at what is happening in the United States. The Americans have opted for the other way. They have opted for de-regulation.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: And a windfall profits tax.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They have opted to allow people to go out and make profits. My friends says a windfall profits tax. Yes, and they pay ordinary corporate profits taxes if corporations make profits. What is wrong with that?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Windfall profits.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: But they are allowed to go out and drill and develop and do things the way they want, and things are moving there in terms of oil self-sufficiency. Bit by bit, rapidly, that country is becoming much more self-sufficient than ever before, and certainly this has been so in the last ten years. That is the way we should be going. We should be getting rid of the burden of government. We should be getting rid of the bureaucracy of government, the taxes of government and the people who think that because they happen to live in this city of Ottawa, they know all, can see all and can regulate all. We ought to set the people who produce free from the chains of government and the chains of regulations so that they can do their thing and develop without controls, without grants and without incentive payments, buried, so to speak, under the guise of patriotism and under the guise of Canadianization. I say the National Energy Program should be buried. The National Energy Program has been a disaster for Canada. It has cost Canadians their homes, their businesses and their farms. It has caused monster unemployment and it has been a cause of inflation. Every economic group in the country that analyses such things as the banking industry and other groups that have looked at what is wrong with interest rates, has almost invariably pointed to the Foreign Investment Review Act and the national energy policy as being the two things that have tended to hurt Canada far more than help it.
Under the provisions of GATT we are already under attack by the United States. This bill favours Canadian companies over foreign companies to the extent that it is unfair and will work against us with respect to our own multinationals. We are proud of companies like Massey-Ferguson Limited, Seagram, CPR, Noranda, Hudson's Bay, Inco and so on which trade around the world, yet our own companies with head offices in Canada will wind up being discriminated against in
April 19, 1982

foreign countries if we continue to discriminate against foreign companies in Canada.
That could damage us in two ways, Mr. Speaker. Not only will it mean a loss of export markets for our manufactured goods in particular, but it will mean retaliation and a lack of investment opportunities for Canadians in the country. As Canadians see the government become more and more bureaucratic and dishonest in the name of patriotism, using regulation and control to influence their jobs, the means of production, the means of distribution, the pricing of labour, they will take their money and talents out of the country. This has already been done by a great number of Canadians, particularly in the oil industry, within the last two years or less.
I say to you and members of the House, Mr. Speaker, that we should examine this bill carefully and decide that it is the wrong course for Canada.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, other members of this party have pointed out that we in the official opposition are quite supportive of the concept of Canadians gradually taking an increased ownership and investment interest in the oil and gas industry, as indeed in all sectors of our economy. At the same time, however, we see no urgent need to put the oil and gas industry on such a crisis footing that we would want to exercise the brute force tactics represented by Bill C-104.
It is rather like having lost the keys to the car and going down to the local service station for a sledge hammer to open the door. It might be smarter to look for a coat hanger or a locksmith. We are using a brute force tactic, which is far more severe than the circumstances warrant, with regard to the distribution of equity investment in the oil and gas industry.
Aside from that, however, this party believes that it would be far more desirable to seduce-perhaps I should say encourage-Canadian investors, than to drive foreigners away who would also seek to bring money to Canada, take risks in our future and share in some of the benefits if the risks are successful.
It is ludicrous to suggest that Canadians do not own or control our natural resources. Under the Constitution adopted two days ago, ownership of the resources rests with the provinces. Control rests in the hands of the provincial governments and, to some degree, in the federal government. There are laws and a tax system which can be used to ensure that we direct our economy on a particular course if we so choose. We have bilateral tax treaties, which are to be respected and which can be amended from time to time, if we want to negotiate certain arrangements between ourselves, the United States and other countries.
There is a basic difference of philosophy, Mr. Speaker, ours emphasizes the importance of increasing the means of the production of wealth and the production of wellbeing of Canadians as opposed to the philosophy which is prevalent in the government party opposite-that which focuses on the redistribution of wealth without regard for creating additional wealth, additional employment and opportunities for our young people. That philosophy of redistribution, rather than
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
production, has destroyed the free economies of many countries and has led to the gradual introduction and intrusion of socialism and, ultimately, communism. Like other speakers for this party, I am alarmed at that tendency which we see evolving in our country today.
This party is not opposed to Canadianization but it is certainly openly and vocally opposed to nationalization of the wealth and the means of production which, as we have heard them state, is their ultimate objective of our colleagues to the left in this business. This would reduce the productivity of the country and would destroy the opportunities and freedom so cherished by individuals who came to this country from all parts of the world.
Bill C-104 is the bureaucrat's dream and the businessman's nightmare, Mr. Speaker. It requires forms and paperwork. It will provide work for petty bureaucrats for many, many years. They will be charged with determining what constitutes eligible Canadian asset costs, eligible development costs, eligible exploration costs, eligible persons, qualified persons- in fact, it might surprise some hon. members to realize that somewhere in this bill there is provision for Canadian persons to be controlled. On page 20, clause 38.(5) of the bill provides that where the minister designated to act as the minister for the purposes of the Foreign Investment Review Act has reached the opinion under subsection 4(1) of that act that a person is not a non-eligible person within the meaning of that act, that person shall, subject to subsection (6), be deemed to be Canadian controlled. That is very interesting, Mr. Speaker. I know it is just an inadvertent choice of legal language but we should note that the bill even provides that persons shall be Canadian controlled-not free Canadians, but Canadians controlled by the provisions of the bill and the philosophy of the government.
The dreamer who put together the schedule of eligibility for the PIP grants is much more of a mathematician and academic dreamer than a pragmatist. Clause 10 of the bill on page 7 provides that in 1981 eligible persons must be 50 per cent or more in the majority. I gather that ineligible persons are those who do not happen to live or to have lived in Canada. Persons who are 50 per cent in the majority or up to 65 per cent by 1986 will be eligible for a grant of some 10 per cent of direct development, exploration or asset costs. Of course, if you happen to be an eligible person and comprise more than 60 per cent Canadian content, rising to more than 65 per cent by 1986, then you are eligible for a 15 per cent grant to offset eligible development expenses and eligible asset expenses. If your Canadian ownership rate is 65 per cent or more, rising to 67 per cent in 1982, or 69 per cent in 1983, ultimately to 75 per cent by 1986, then of course you are eligible for larger grants to the extent of 55 per cent on eligible exploration costs and 20 per cent on other costs.
Mr. Speaker, these factors will have to be assessed every time the equity holdings of a company changes in any minor

April 19, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
way, within certain tolerances. It will mean that private companies will have to file applications and seek the minister's dispensation every time the investment structure of their company changes in any significant way. Furthermore, there are the onerous record-keeping provisions which provide, among other things, that these records will be held in confidence by the minister and may only be released to the courts if they are required in criminal proceedings related to fraudulent -abuse of this act. This will, in fact, invite fraudulent abuse because people can play with this schedule, manipulate the system, falsify information, and ministers and political hacks can exercise favouritism to benefit certain people who have access to friends in government.
This is another reason why the oil and gas and related industries have been alarmed by the provisions of this legislation. It is no secret that the value of oil and gas shares in Canada has collapsed since the introduction of the NEP. We have considerable data to justify that statement. I have a rather interesting quote from a very well known executive, the vice president of PetroCan, Joel Bell, who said in December 1981:
Let us look at the stock market, as something of a barometer with regard to whether the Canadian (taxation) regime is appropriate. When the National Energy Program was announced in late October of 1980, the stock market dropped. If you take a period of a year, from October 1980 to October or November of 1981, it has dropped by 22 per cent.
In fact, the oil and gas index has dropped on the Toronto stock exchange by some 1,300 points in 1981 as a consequence of the NEP. This program, along with FIRA and PIP grants, is having a tremendously detrimental impact on the industry, contrary to the allegations of the minister who read selectively from a telegram or letter from one company in Calgary which is friendly to him. The statistics show that this legislation is having devastating effects on oil, gas and mineral exploration. Well completions in the western Canadian basin dropped to 7,200 in 1981 from 9,500 in 1980. Canadian investment in the industry has dropped by 25 per cent, with a corresponding increase of 25 per cent in the United States. Wells drilled to the development stage dropped 28 per cent in 1981. And as we have heard many times in the House, some 226 drilling rigs have left Canada for the U.S. since October, 1980.
These PIP grants, Mr. Speaker really represent a supplementary profit to the oil companies fortunate enough to qualify. Because of the uncertainty involved and the typical delays of government departments in writing cheques and processing applications, the successful companies will have to predicate their investment decisions on the assumption they can make their goal without the grant. In other words, they will have to assume a certain profit on the initiatives they take, whether or not they qualify for these grants. They are, in other words, going to be padding out profits from 10 per cent to 20 per cent to enable them to apply for these incentive grants.
In that respect the companies with the inside track, the larger and well-financed financed companies, might well go for the program, but we have to remember that in a heavily regulated economy, in any sector, including the oil and gas sector, these uncertainties will ultimately lead to higher costs to the consumer. That will be the impact of these initiatives.
Smaller companies will find, in fact have already found, that the delays and unwieldiness which this legislation represents make the risk just too great to justify the investment. So we will find more and more of the larger Canadian-owned oil and gas companies diverting their investment to the south, as they already have. We will also see the larger companies which have access to the cabinet, those whose presidents can afford to come here in their Cadillac limousines and have lunch with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), will become top heavy and over-extended to the extent they may well collapse in the not too distant future. I do not need to name them, many of us know who they are. And ultimately the taxpayers will pay the cost.
We debated Bill C-48 in the House a few short months ago, and now the threats of more possible confiscation of exploration interests through that bill and other aspects of the NEP will impair, indeed have already impaired, our ability to achieve energy self-sufficiency. Contrary to everything the NDP energy critic has said, self-sufficiency means oil and gas. Energy experts the world over will concur in that. We have to develop our oil and gas alternatives within the western basin, the frontier lands, and the Canada lands north of 60. Because of the negative impact of the NEP we find an increased dependence on imported oil. Because of certain provisions in the NEP we have excessively inflated compensation charges to the refineries who refine that imported oil, even though they can buy it more cheaply. The point we have to realize, Mr. Speaker, is that when governments interfere with the forces of supply and demand, we are ultimately going to pay more. We saw that in the case of uranium where this government openly participated in an international cartel in order to prop up artificially the price of uranium. As a result, our uranium ventures are shutting down and our CANDU reactors are not selling because we pretended that somehow we could control the price, when in fact ultimately, and by natural forces, those prices will always be dictated by supply and demand.
This bill is ludicrous. In fact, it represents another great Liberal fraud being perpetrated on the people of Canada. On the one hand, this government wants to create the illusion of getting tough with the industry. The government has not allowed us to debate in the House the evidence, in whatever form it takes, on the so-called alleged excess profiteering of the oil and gas industry. The evidence has not yet been heard and the decisions have not yet been taken on all of the matters before the courts. But for some reason the government has decided to create the impression that the oil and gas industry is the great bogeyman within our country and not the important dynamo for maintaining our industrial economy which, in fact, it is.
The government has done this in an attempt to impress the public. But again, this is a point made regularly and rightfully by our colleagues to the left that the government wants to hand grants back to the industry through the back door. The government taxes the companies excessively, it gets tough with
April 19, 1982

the industry and taxes the consumer to help pay the price, and then through the back door the government returns money to the industry in the form of grants.
That type of approach, that focus on redistribution, has tremendous inefficiencies associated with it in addition to interfering with the natural forces of supply and demand. Instead of encouraging the production of additional supply, what we are doing is merely redistributing the investment needed to maintain the existing supply of energy sources that we need in this country and at the same time skimming a big chunk off the top. There is no Liberal member opposite who would not agree that the government's ultimate goal is to balance the budget, to try to offset the multi-billion-dollar budgetary deficits which the government has incurred because of squandering and spending on its own foolishness. For example, consider the stupid kit we received in our offices last week which no one in this House authorized. It was a fancy kit to proclaim the new Constitution for which our friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wants to take all the credit even though he had to be bludgeoned by the ten premiers and dragged screaming and kicking to the table of compromise.
I for one was quite offended not to have seen the premiers get adequate recognition last week from the government opposite in spite of the fact that, had it not been for those premiers who compromised and agreed and forced the Prime Minister to change, this country would not have had a new Constitution.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We would not have had a country.


Thomas Edward Siddon: This government opposite likes to talk about the evil doers in the private sector, the so-called profiteers. But in fact it is this federal government, the Liberal Party opposite that has been profiteering more than any other single group in the oil and gas sector and profiteering at the expense of the Canadian economy. We need only look at the breakdown in the price of a litre of gasoline. I will use the measurement of litres out of consideration for my metric friends across the way. We find that out of the Canadian average price of 42 cents a litre of gas, 14 cents goes to the Canadian federal government, or 33 per cent. This goes to the federal government by way of clear profit. It does very little to justify it. By comparison, the producing provinces receive only 16 per cent, less than half of what the federal government receives.
What is this great illusion about the private sector ripping off the people? The ones responsible for the greatest rip-off of all are those in the Liberal cabinet and their so-called friends to my left who condone this type of excess intervention in the private sector economy which is so important to all of us. It allows us to continue to enjoy the prosperity and benefits of this great country. On the one hand, the government wants to take-that is the philosophy of Bill C-104 and the earlier legislation that we have seen pass through the House-bigger and bigger chunks of the revenues without realizing what a mucky job it is to roughneck, what a risk it is to work on one of the offshore drilling rigs, or to put on your boots, set out across the mountains and tramp through the forests with a geophysical crew. The government opposite does not want to do that.
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
The government just wants its 33 per cent profit. Then the government will give it back, but it will be redistributed to its friends and to people who happen to suit the government's definition. Bureaucrats will skim off anywhere from 10 per cent to 50 per cent of the revenue by way of an unnecessarily costly, unproductive rigmarole of the sort this bill represents. That is what this government is doing. The ordinary taxpayer is being asked to foot the bill for all of this. How ludicrous it is. We all know that an excessively regulated economy, as this bill reflects, will only lead to higher consumer costs. That is what we will have to contend with.
Right now I can drive from my constituency 20 miles to Bellingham, Washington and buy gasoline at less than $1.20 a gallon, which is about $1.50 in Canadian funds. But I buy my gasoline in Vancouver at $1.85, $1.90 or $1.95 a gallon. That is what we have achieved because of this National Energy Program, and this spendthrift government believes that only the great gods in Ottawa can do anything right in this country.
I want to say something about a couple of the sectors that are indirectly affected by this policy. One is the Canadian mining sector. I know you will permit me a moment or two to comment on that, Mr. Speaker. In the Canadian mining sector, the junior mining companies at the exploration level have experienced a tremendous lowering of investor confidence and uncertainty because they do not know what the next move of the government will be. The Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) can proclaim all she likes the fact that it is different in the mineral sector because Canadian ownership is somewhat higher. But what about companies such as Inco which is not Canadian owned? What about the Iron Ore Company? When is the next shoe going to fall, and is it going to hit them on the head? While we are at it, if we really want to get into intervention, what about the grocery industry in which some of the major grocery chains are dominated from outside of Canada? What about the department store industry? Some of the department stores on Sparks street here in Ottawa are owned by Canadian investors and controlled by Canadian investors. What about the automotive industry? What about General Motors? Will they be next? Why just the oil and gas industry, Mr. Speaker? I do not understand this, unless it has nothing to do with common sense but is purely an exercise in politics.
The mineral sector, in addition to the concern and uncertainty about where this interventionist Canadian-controlled philosophy is going to lead, is being adversely impacted by the tax policies, as was most notably reflected in the November 12 budget of last year, and by FIRA and the attitude that FIRA is taking in the form of unwritten policy guidelines in denying foreigners and others the right to invest in our minerals exploration sector. If they want to invest more than $200,000 we are told they are not allowed to come to Canada. Or if one American-owned company wants to assign its assets to another American-owned company, we are told that in the mineral exploration sector it is contrary to FIRA policy and cannot be allowed.
16380

April 19, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
What we have is a tremendous lack of confidence in the mineral industry that is very important in regions like Quebec, northern Ontario and British Columbia. This is a direct consequence of the National Energy Program. I should point out that it is not only because of the National Energy Program, FIRA and the budget, but it is because many of these companies are affiliated with oil and gas exploration interests. Those oil and gas exploration interests have found mineral exploration to be a high risk. That is the part that has been closed down first. In the past few months we have seen Kennco Explorations (Western) close down in British Columbia. Shell Canada Resources, Gulf Minerals, Canadian Superior Oil, Norcen Energy and Union Oil have all withdrawn their exploration efforts in western Canada and elsewhere because, and they will state this very clearly, of the impact of the National Energy Program and FIRA.
I should like to quote from a letter which was sent to the Minister of State for Mines by the president of the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines, Mr. Robert J. Cathro, wherein he indicated:
Our analysis shows that these federal Canadianization policies will reduce 1982 mineral exloration spending in British Columbia and Yukon from the petroleum companies and the small (Junior) mining companies by about $31.4 million (49 per cent below the 1981 levels). This sharp decline is hitting us at the same time that lower metal prices are causing a cutback by major mining comanies of approximately $17.6 million (18 per cent below the 1981 level). The total decline in 1982 is estimated at $49 million (a 30 per cent drop from 1981). This translates into a loss of at least 200 professional positions and over 1,500 field and clerical jobs (including contractors). In addition, it will result in a substantial decline in revenue for aircraft and assay companies, equipment suppliers and the hotel, food and catering industry.
Then he went on to say:
The lofty aims of FIRA and NEP are resulting in reduced security and opportunity for the mining industry, which strikes us as a grossly unfair and foolish way to share the nation's rich resources.
We wonder why the government would not have considered a more constructive and gradual method to encourage more Canadians to invest in oil and gas and mineral exploration in the country. Why did it not first encourage foreign-owned companies to make more stock available for purchase by Canadians? Why did the government not negotiate a change to the bilateral tax agreements between Canada and the United States if it really wanted to effect a change in this area? Why did it choose to bring in a socialistic, bureaucratic solution to a problem which will ultimately hurt us all?
We must consider the impact of this legislation on Canada-United States relations. I am not only referring to the question of Canada-United States relations in terms of tax policy. I am talking about the over-all relationship with our strongest ally, closest neighbour and best friend-the United States of America. We must consider its impact in a political, economical and social sense. We must realize what we are doing to Americans who have regarded Canada for a long time as their closest friend and neighbour and as a source of secure supply of minerals, natural gas and other energy materials which are essential to the maintenance of their economy.
We are beginning to look like another banana republic to Americans. We have no one to fault but ourselves. One morning they may turn their backs on our country and say, "We will go it alone. We do not need offsets in the auto industry. We do not need concessions in the fishery area. We do not need to worry about how you feel about your water, the Garrison diversion, acid rain and various things, because of the way you are treating our genuinely motivated citizens who wanted to take some risk and make some investment in your country and to share in the adventure and the challenge it represents." Allan MacEachen, or I should say the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), will probably demand next year that the United States change its domestic policies regarding oil and mineral exploration because of the hurt those policies are causing us. Is that not what the Minister of Finance said about interest rates, that Mr. Reagan should solve the problems which his high interest rates are causing Canadians? Is that not ludicrous? Yet, because of the damage caused by the National Energy Program, we will hear the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister saying, "Those dastardly Americans have done it to us again. Why do they not clean up their tax structure and stop encouraging Canadian investment to go south because we need it in Canada?"
The statistics in fact show that investment is flowing south because investment and risk taking is rewarded there. Here it is penalized; the only thing that is important is whether one is a 50, 75 or 52 per cent eligible Canadian. We find that Americans are opening up reserve lands, restructuring their tax policies, emphasizing more exploration in their offshore areas and making it much more attractive than it was previously. They are asking Congress to legislate in terms of geothermal leasing and shale oil development. They are opening up wilderness areas in order to respond to the need to be selfsufficient in minerals and in oil and gas, because they can no longer count on Canada. In some respects one might imagine that there is almost an element of plot to the program, an element of plot against our American friends, and that they will say, "There will be no more security of supply for you, even if it pertains to coal, minerals or other resources which you need as much as we do, as do the Japanese, West Germans, French and everyone else." The government would rather be borrowing from the Saudis and the French, from the financiers of Wall Street and Bonn, in order to finance the patriation of the oil and gas industry. It would prefer to go to those countries to borrow money at secured rates of return with no risk and agree to allow our children to pay off deficits at 15, 18 and 20 per cent rates of interest for who knows how many decades.
It is not only a plot against Americans. It almost smacks of a plot against Canadians. Certainly it is seen as a plot against western and northern Canadians. The provisions of Bill C-48 do not allow the northerners any say or control over the development of resources. No northern heritage fund is being set aside so that the benefits of resources can be enjoyed by northern people for many centuries to come. Certainly it can be seen as a plot against Newfoundlanders and Nova Scotians
April 19, 1982

who want a more equitable resolution of the question of offshore ownership. The great and wonderful government opposite does not care about the cost to ordinary Canadians. It just cares about more bureaucracy, more form-filling and more redundant methods. It seems to assume that one just sticks a soda straw in the ground, sucks on it, and oil comes out. It has no conception of risk and investment costs, the complexity, the weather and the hardship which goes into developing resources.


An hon. Member:: What about hot air?


Thomas Edward Siddon: The hon. member will have his turn to speak. The government sticks taxes to Canadian-taxes on gasoline, heating oil and natural gas. It willingly consents to high interest rates, which are a hidden tax that we are all paying. The government is spending more than the country is earning and is driving away foreign investment at the same time. High interest rates are nothing more than a hidden tax on Canadians imposed by the spendthrift government opposite. There is a shortage of capital in Canada. In order to obtain enough to finance the government debt, it pays 19.5 per cent on Canada Savings Bonds. Over $6 billion worth of bond issues will come due next year, $6 billion dollars that was lent out at interest rates ranging from 4 per cent to 8 per cent. These will now have to be refloated at interest rates of 18 per cent. Who will pay for that? These are all the indirect costs of this foolish intervention by the government. In the final analysis it tells the Americans, the West Germans and the Japanese to take their money elsewhere because it does want it and can do very well on its own. How foolish.
The government then goes to the foreigners to borrow money as it did to purchase Panarctic and Pacific Petroleum to start Petro-Canada.
I read in the newspaper that Petro-Canada had a profit increase of 24 per cent in 1981. What is not mentioned is that after it has paid off its obligations under the term preferred shares arrangement with the chartered banks, who then remitted those payments to their foreign lenders, all that Petro-Canada had left was some $64 million on a total equity of about $2.5 billion for a return on investment of 2 per cent. That is what this great Petro-Canada company is earning for Canadians by running all of these fancy gas stations-a 2 per cent return on investment. That figure is not adjusted for inflation, it is the real return on investment. How foolish and ridiculous.
All that 1 can conclude is that if we cannot get back to providing a system of incentives to private sector investment of the sort outlined in the Crosbie budget of 1979 where, for example, contributions to registered retirement savings plans would be given special income tax status were they to be invested in Canadian common stocks, and where individual Canadians would receive tax benefits to invest in Canadian common stock investment plans up to $100,000 a person, those kinds of incentives which encourage more Canadians to invest
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
and take risks in the development of our country, I fear that our economy will go nowhere but down.


Mr. William Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by making some remarks on the confusion which seems to exist within the Progressive Conservative ranks. I thought that one of the initial demands which they made during the early stages of the bell-ringing occasion was that the PIP program come forward quickly so they could support it and have it passed quickly so they could get the money to their oil friends in Alberta and elsewhere. We now see them rising to oppose this particular program. Hopefully, the next speaker will clarify why there is this great inconsistency in the policy of the Progressive Conservative Party.
Although I am tempted, I will try to resist replying to some of the remarks made by the hon. member who just preceded me. However, in passing, I must say that I have never heard such unadulterated garbage in my life.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The feeling is mutual.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It would not pass some kind of grade six current affairs test with respect to any accuracy at all as to what might be appropriately called communism or socialism, liberalism or anything else. It is this sort of stupid and inaccurate garbage debate which is polluting and poisoning Canadian politics from one end of the country to the other; the kind of intellectual dishonesty and complete garbage that the hon. member was peddling before. I am no friend of the government or of the official opposition, but I believe that the least we can demand of members is to try to have a smidgen of intellectual honesty when they get up to speak.


William James Kempling: Try it yourself sometime.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Tonight we are discussing the petroleum incentives program act which will replace the super-depletion allowance which was formerly available for frontier exploration and will gradually replace depletion allowances in both federal and provincial lands.
In the past, depletion allowances have permitted deductions from taxable income of 33.3 per cent of exploration, development and certain other costs in addition to the normal full deduction of those costs. Super-depletion allowed an additional deduction of two thirds of drilling expenses for wells costing more than $5 million. This incentive expired in the spring of 1980.
Under the former tax-based incentive system, maximum benefit went to the larger and usually foreign-owned corporations which have larger amounts of taxable income. As a result, they derived greater benefit from these particular depletion allowances. This tended to inhibit the growth of the relatively small Canadian-owned and controlled sector even though this was the more agressive sector of the industry.
It is our understanding that the new system is designed to encourage even more aggressive investment by Canadians, directed at both Canadianization and the petroleum supply development goals of the National Energy Program. It is said

April 19, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
that the federal share of the petroleum incentives program is estimated to be $940 million for the fiscal year 1981-82, which is up from the original estimate of $860 million in the draft bill. The government estimates that the PIP grants will total almost $6.5 billion during the five-year period from 1981 to 1986. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said earlier, that is $6.5 billion as compared to the $35 million to be put into Canertech, one of the government's paltry initiatives in the field of renewable energy.
The Canadian-ownership qualifications have been loosened since the program was first announced in the National Energy Program. Originally, a company had to be 75 per cent Canadian owned in 1981 to receive maximum grants. This has been reduced to 65 per cent with a phase-in to 1986 for 75 per cent Canadian ownership. In addition, a new ownership level three has been introduced. In this respect, talk about a bureaucratic nightmare is justified.
Canadian-ownership regulations may also be amended by ministerial discretion. We have no guarantee that there will not be further retreats by the Liberals bowing to industry pressure-in this case, the pressure from oil companies-in the same way that the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has bowed to the pressure from the railways with respect to the Crowsnest Pass rates.
It has been our position that we oppose grants to the richest industry in Canada unless we get more equity in return. Moreover, diverting some of this $6.5 billion to renewable energy development and conservation should be examined and, indeed, should be recommended as being more cost effective. Under this program, for example, even oil companies which drill a dry hole will still receive the grant.
The focus of our criticism on this collection of bills before us now is the petroleum incentive payments. We believe that the government is overly generous to the petroleum industry. All companies, regardless of the degree of Canadian ownership, will receive a minimum grant of 25 per cent of their exploration costs on Canadian land-that is to say federal lands. The grant can range up to 80 per cent of the cost. As taxpayers, we get little or no equity in return. On provincial lands, the federal government will give grants of up to 35 per cent of exploration costs but not take any equity or ownership in the projects. The grants can range as high as 80 per cent of the cost.
When the grants and tax breaks are combined, the result is that a 67 per cent Canadian-owned oil company in 1982 will only have to spend seven cents on every dollar for exploration. Taxpayers will be putting up the other 93 cents. This is a giveaway of immense proportion to what is already one of the richest industries in Canada in return for little or no ownership. What private investor would put up 93 per cent of the cost of a venture and accept a maximum equity of 25 per cent?
The PIP grants should also, in our view, be tied in with the phony Canadianization policy of the national energy policy. The grants are supposed to promote more Canadianization of the petroleum industry and help us to achieve oil self-sufficiency by 1990. The goal is only 50 per cent Canadian ownership,
not control. Under the program, the industry can still be foreign-controlled. Moreover, the rules determining what is Canadian ownership are discretionary on the part of the minister and have already been relaxed since they were first introduced. The Canadianization program of the Liberals means more private Canadian ownership rather than public Canadian ownership. There is no evidence to the effect that private Canadian companies will act any differently when it comes to blackmailing the government into higher prices, more tax concessions and more exports of our non-renewable resources, than the previous foreign-owned multinational corporations. Self-sufficiency is an elusive goal when the companies turn around and seek to export more. This is why we in the NDP argue that Petro Canada and other Crown energy corporations should have majority control of the whole industry so that policies can be developed in the public interest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The National Energy Program is phony. What is so hilarious in the debate is that such a phony program should be the cause of such paronoia and fear on the part of the Progressive Conservative Party. It is phony Canadianization because it leaves most of our energy industry in private hands; Canadian private hands instead of American private hands. Therefore, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) said earlier, we are merely exchanging Arthur Mellon for Robert Blair, Jack Gallagher and Conrad Black. It is phony because even where it does involve public ownership, it does not depart from the prevailing energy model. This is what I primarily want to speak about tonight. All that the National Energy Program does, to the extent that it does anything, is to change the ownership of the energy industry in Canada without changing the nature of the energy industry. The National Energy Program is still part and parcel of the old and increasingly destructive and futile policy of finding everything in sight, selling everything in sight and using everything in sight as fast as we can, with no care for tomorrow.
The National Energy Program does not face up to the fact that we need to see changes in our energy policies which go far beyond the debate which rages about private versus public ownership of the energy industry. Indeed, both sides of the argument as caricatured by the Liberals and the Conservatives show that this is a pathetic debate. The Liberals are realizing, far too late in the game, that they have sold the shop, that they have sold out the country. And now they might just be buying the whole thing back, to the extent that they are buying it back, and, as I have already said, that can be argued, when it could also be argued that it is worthless and that in a very short period of time the very companies that they want to replace will be moving on to other areas of concern. They will be trying to get control of other energy scenarios and thus, in a very few short years, they will be only too glad to give over to the Liberal Party their present interests.
April 19, 1982

Tonight I want to speak about the kind of energy policy that we could have if we had more, yet different, government planning than we are now offered by the Liberal Party of Canada. Our view of the value of public ownership is founded in our commitment to give ordinary Canadians more say in the kind of energy choices which will dictate the quality of their lives and of their children's lives in the future. In this respect, I would just like to make a comment about what we mean when we say that we want to give Canadians more control and participation in their energy industry.
The more I listen to my Progressive Conservative colleagues, the more it becomes clear to me that when they are speaking of more control and participation by Canadians in the oil industry, they mean that very small percentage of people in this country who invest in the energy industry and who buy stocks and that sort of thing. That does not apply to most of the people in my riding. When I speak about giving them more say in the energy future of this country, I am not speaking about creating some kind of tax policy which will permit them to buy what few stocks they can afford in some private Canadian-owned oil company. Big deal! It is absolutely meaningless to most of the people in my riding. They want to have a say in public policy. They do not want to have a few stocks shoved away in a closet somewhere. That is what we mean when we speak about giving ordinary Canadians more say, more participation and more control over the energy policy in this country.
As I said before, our view of the value of public ownership is founded in our commitment to give Canadians more say in the kind of energy choices which will dictate our future. The debate between the Liberals and the Conservatives is really only a debate over which set of bureaucrats will arrogantly and blindly impose their will on ordinary Canadians out of this energy model now before us. I mean, that is what is really going on here. We are not discussing anti-bureaucrats and bureaucrats. We are considering which set of bureaucrats will run the energy future of this country. That is what we are hearing when we listen to the debate between the Liberals and the Conservatives. What would the Conservatives do? They would leave the many, "i.e." Canadians in the hands of a few multinational corporations which have already demonstrated, to anyone with half a brain, that they do not have the public interest at heart. That is the set of bureaucrats which the Conservatives would like to see running the energy industry in this country. The Liberals would put the many in the hands of a few Petro-Canada bureaucrats, or ministerial flunkeys, who would have no more interest than Shell or Imperial Oil in involving ordinary Canadians in the formation of a sound and sustainable energy policy. That is the debate which rages on between the Liberals and Conservatives.
We do not see public ownership as the creation of a large monolithic government bureaucracy which is insensitive to people, insensitive to the environment and insensitive to the future. That is what public ownership means under a Liberal government. These Liberals have done more to give public
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
ownership a bad name than anyone I could possibly think of on this side of the Atlantic. It is no wonder that we have a great deal of anxiety about public ownership when we take a look at what has happened with the AECL, with the secrecy, arrogance and insensitivity shown toward almost anything one could ever imagine. However, let not the Liberals be the example of what is possible-


Mr. Evans:: NDP hacks!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -when Canadians put their minds to having a publicly-owned energy industry in this country.


John Leslie Evans: Tell us how you would run it?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: When we talk about public ownership, we are talking about a general name for an approach to our energy future which would take control of our energy future out of the hands of the powerful few, whether it be the powerful few in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, or whether it be the powerful few in Shell or in Imperial Oil, and distribute that control and design over our energy future in a pluralistic coalition of accountable Crown corporations. The one thing we must do if we want to make public ownership a worthy goal in this country is to make Crown corporations more accountable to Parliament and more accountable to people.


John Leslie Evans: How?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I say that we should renationalize the CNR and many other Crown corporations and make them act as they were intended to act. We see public ownership as a coalition of accountable Crown corporations, co-operative enterprises, neighbourhood conservation initiatives and programs, decentralized solar and other soft energy projects, all of which should be guided by certain perspectives, some of which I hope to outline tonight.
Energy sources on which societies have become dependent are being used up. It is as clear as that. In my view, the most obvious indicator of the poverty of the debate concerning energy in this country is that we can actually speak about an oil glut as if this were some kind of reality that we must address. In the long run, there is and can be no oil glut. We are referring to a finite source of energy. When we are talking about a finite source of energy, particularly when we are talking about it within the framework of an economic system that demands infinite expansion as one of its internal dynamics, to talk about an oil glut is just so much mirage, so much illusion. Yet we continue to allow those kinds of mirages to trick us when we are talking about energy policy in this country.
If we are to respond in something more than just a technical way to this reality, we must begin to talk about the ethics of energy use and not just the economics. When we begin to do this in earnest and not just be the prisoners of certain economic arguments, we will find that the two perspectives, the ethical

April 19, 1982
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
and the economic, are not contradictory but are rather complementary in the long run. They seem to be contradictory in some short-term considerations, but surely if we are here to be responsible, we are here to consider what is the right thing to do in the long run.
Priority in energy use should be given to the satisfaction of basic human needs such as food, shelter, health, clean air and water. Human dignity also demands the widest possible participation in policy decisions which seek to meet these requirements. We must consider not just the consumers of the present but the consumers of the future who are voiceless in this debate because they do not yet exist. Their interests ought to be represented more often than they are.
The other voiceless are fellow creatures, the animals, the birds, the fish, creation in general. In this respect, I would like to suggest some guidelines for an energy policy. The first thing we must say about any energy policy is that it must be safe. It must be protective of the human and natural environment and not threatening irreversible global damage. It must be appropriate to human nature, not requiring infallibility or error-free performance from humans or machines.
It must be flexible, that is to say capable of timely change, even reversibility, during development and use in order to adapt to unpredictable events such as unexpected health hazards. It must be non-destructive of the other necessities of life, for instance not taking good agricultural land out of production or polluting necessary water supplies. It must be resource saving, using renewable energy resources rather than non-renewable resources, for instance water power rather than oil. It must be resilient, capable of absorbing shocks, for instance oil embargoes or severe winters without causing major social disruptions. It must be fair, capable of having its benefits and costs allocated fairly to all, including future generations, for instance, not requiring one group to suffer genetic damage in order that another group may have electricity. It must be comprehensible, capable of being understood, with information freely available, so that those citizens who wish can participate responsibly in energy decisions. It must be nonviolent, difficult to use directly or indirectly as a weapon, for instance, not able to be easily made into a nuclear bomb. It must be employment producing, not replacing jobs with energy-intensive machinery, especially in areas of high unemployment. It must be pluralistic, assuring a diversity of options, cultures, lifestyles and opportunities, and encouraging a scale that permits choice and control by the users, by Canadians. It must be appropriate, most nearly matched to the society to be served by any particular energy format, for instance, small scale and local where the need is mainly in small communities, and producing the kind of energy most nearly matched to the work to be done, for instance, electricity for telecommunications and solar for hot water. Finally, it must be aesthetic, pleasing to the senses and enjoyable to work with.
These are the kinds of guidelines we must look at. We must support efforts to conserve energy and to use it more efficiently. Not using energy unnecessarily is the safest and cheapest energy resource that we have. Continued education about the necessity for and practical ways of saving energy is needed.
Laws and regulations deterring conservation and recycling of materials should be changed.
We must support publicly-funded energy-conserving projects designed in a way that will provide new skills and jobs for the unemployed. Such projects include winterization and insulation of homes, small scale appropriate energy technologies and public transportation, something promised by the Liberals in every election campaign as far back as we can think of, but never delivered.
We must support programs to limit fuel consumption that do not rely primarily on raising prices, which place an intolerable burden on the poor, the elderly and those on fixed incomes. We must support increased government research and development funding, subsidies and other incentives to expand the practical application of appropriate energy technologies based on energy renewable resources, such as solar energy, including wind and water.
We need to support a national energy policy which in the long run does not rely on long-term large increases in the burning of coal, particularly if it is to continue to be burned by companies that refuse to use existing technologies to scrub their emissions. Besides increased health and safety risks to workers and the general public from using more coal, extensive burning of fossil fuels may cause irreversible damage to the world's atmosphere, changing weather patterns and so threatening food production and the continued habitability of large areas of the earth.
However, we realize that some increase in coal use over the short term will be necessary in order to avoid increased use of nuclear energy and economic dislocation caused by severe energy shortages. Coal can be used as a transitional fuel until such time as we are able to bring onstream more of the soft energy options in a more comprehensive way.
Finally, we must support a national energy policy which will not need to utilize nuclear fission. Secure handing of nuclear wastes over thousands of generations and the safe operation of nuclear plants require that humans and machines operate without error. This is simply impossible over the long-run and is one of the reasons why we must abandon this option. Human beings are not infallible. They will make mistakes, and machines will fail. The result may be irreversible damage to the environment or to the human genetic pool.
These are some of the general guidelines which should be seriously looked at by the government. It should see if it could break out of the energy model which has prevailed in this country over so many decades. If it is nothing else, the National Energy Program is a colossal failure of the imagination. We need to think critically about the ways in which we have regarded energy use, consumption and production. The National Energy Program simply does not do that. It commits us to drilling more holes in the Arctic, ceaselessly and endlessly, trying to find the last drop of oil so that we can bring it to the consumer before the next election campaign. This kind of short-term policy will, in the long run, leave the whole country and indeed the whole globe bankrupt.
April 19, 1982



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, before I address myself to the question I put to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) on April 6, 1982, may I compliment the member from Manitoba who represents the New Democratic Party for so graphically and so forcefully demonstrating in this House why New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland do not have any New Democratic Party members in their caucus. He displayed, for everybody to see and hear, his opposition to coal development, his opposition to offshore drilling, his opposition to the Arctic Pilot Project and his opposition to Fundy tidal power. I hope the people of the maritimes and Newfoundland will hear about this and act accordingly when they are cold and freezing and in the dark. I will make sure that they will get the message.
On April 6, 1982, I questioned the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on the status of the development projects in the submarine lands off the Atlantic coast-a coast that, as I have already said, is free of New Democratic members and that will remain so for the rest of this century, I am sure, after that speech.
I asked the minister about the rumour of a delay in implementing the Shell Resources Exploration Project, which involves an expenditure of $200 million and the utilization of the SEDCO 709 oil-drilling rig. For the information again of members of the New Democratic Party, the SEDCO 709 was built in the Halifax shipyards at a cost of $74 million in 1975 and provided many man-years of employment, on that project and on the offshore rigs that followed or preceded SEDCO 709.
We had a marine development in Nova Scotia and in the maritimes before we embarked upon this Canadianization program involved in the National Energy Program.
The minister, when he responded to my concerned inquiry about the delay in offshore development projects, simply said that I was off base or offshore. That was the totality of his explanation. In this House we are used to the flippancy and the lack of concern of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources when it comes to the discussion of energy projects in the Atlantic area. What hurt most was the fact that I was correct about the delay. A few days later an officer of Shell Resources announced publicly that there indeed was a delay in the implementation of Shell's offshore development program and that in fact it would be another four months before the SEDCO 709 arrived on the east coast, and that if there were
Adjournment Debate
no improvements in Shell's negotiations with the federal government, it was in danger of cancellation altogether.
Unfortunately, that is not the only offshore program which is being delayed or cancelled. British Petroleum earlier announced that they were reviewing the situation. They have cancelled their 1982 program for offshore drilling.
Other petroleum companies who have received permits from the federal government and who are considering the possibilities of offshore development and exploration are now reviewing their plans. The situation at present is one of turmoil in relation to offshore development programs. No one knows whether the programs that were planned for 1982 and subsequent years will be implemented. The reason is not only the National Energy Program but the attitude of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and of the officers of his department towards private entrepreneurs who want to get into the Atlantic offshore to discover and develop our resources there. Unless we get a change in the attitude on the part of the minister and his department, offshore development is in jeopardy. Those development prospects are the hope of Nova Scotia and other Atlantic provinces for the future.
You cannot talk about the Atlantic provinces, Mr. Speaker, without reminding yourself of the drastic unemployment situation that exists there. There are approximately 1.2 million persons unemployed in Canada. A great proportion of those are in the Atlantic area. There are at least 138,000 persons unemployed in Atlantic Canada. Newfoundland has an unemployment rate of 14 per cent, Nova Scotia has an unemployment rate of 12 per cent, compared with the national rate of 9 per cent. We have to consider the plight of those unemployed persons. We have to take advantage of every opportunity that presents itself to launch job-creation programs. The best opportunity for job creation in Atlantic Canada, particularly in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, is offshore resource development.
Let us look very briefly at what Shell Resources planned for the offshore with its expenditure of $200 million. Shell was going to launch a deep-water drilling program approximately 200 kilometres south of Halifax and 65 kilometres from Sable Island at the point where the Scotian Shelf dips into the deep water. This would have been a first, as I understand it, in east-coast exploration. There would have been at least 60 persons employed directly on the SEDCO 709. There would have been additional service vessels employing a number of people in addition to the onshore establishment. This would have involved storage and supply, servicing of the oil rig and a great many other technical services associated with offshore exploration. All of that is lost in this delay and is in danger of cancellation.
I want to record the important point in this House. We on the Atlantic coast had hoped to have offshore developments take place in the future, but now we find that these developments are being jeopardized by federal policies. Unless those

April 19, 1982
Adjournment Debate
policies change and unless we can prevail upon the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his officers to change their attitudes, there is a danger that the offshore development will not go forward.
1 ask every person in this House on either side, and all those persons in Nova Scotia and elsewhere in Atlantic Canada, to exert pressure on the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to change his policy, to stop delaying and hindering development, and to encourage it and to work with those who want to develop the offshore.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government is very proud of the Canada-Nova Scotia agreement of March 2, as it guarantees to the people of Nova Scotia greater revenues, increased employment opportunities, the promotion of economic development and environmental protection. At the time of the signing of this agreement the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) commented that Nova Scotians would be the first to benefit from offshore development. The generous revenue-sharing system established under this accord would give the government of Nova Scotia potential access to revenues equal to, and in fact somewhat above, the national average accruing to provincial governments. With this agreement, exploration and development can move ahead under a unified management regime that is supported by both levels of government, and the resulting increased level of activity will have an important positive effect on the economy regionally, provincially and nationally.
I might mention one very important aspect of the agreement, and that is that it will allow energy reserves to be identified and flow to Nova Scotian consumers within the decade, thereby reducing the province's reliance on imported oil.
With reference to the hon. member's question concerning the refusal of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to approve inter-company agreements and proposals, I would like to point out that under the new Canada Oil and Gas Act all companies are required to renegotiate their federal exploration permits within six months to a year. One reason for delay in these proceedings is that some companies have not yet come to appreciate the Canada benefits requirement of the new legislation as set out in Section 76:
Before authorizing any work or activity under paragraph (l)(b), the Minister shall require the submission of a plan satisfactory to the Minister for the employment of Canadians and for providing Canadian manufacturers, consultants, contractors and service companies with a full and fair opportunity to participate on a competitive basis in the supply of goods and services used in that work or activity.
Some companies have not yet submitted appropriate documentation in this respect, and the federal government must receive such documentation before approval can be given.
In view of the concern expressed on April 6 by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) about the importance of job creation in the Atlantic provinces, I am sure he and all hon. members will recognize the necessity of ensuring that all
oil companies meet the requirements of the Canada Oil and Gas Act in the matter of Canadian benefits.
It is worthy of note that the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) is not only against coal development in Atlantic Canada but, like the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), he is also against the production of heavy water in Cape Breton. I want the record to show that.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-PLIGHT OF NICARAGUAN REFUGEES IN HONDURAS. (B) REQUEST FOR HUMAN RIGHTS INVESTIGATION
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, here we are in 1982, sitting late at night in the House of Commons of Canada thinking of human rights. Do they really matter? Do human rights really matter at this time when our country faces economic recession, inflation and high interest rates? How does this stand in our priorities? Does anyone really care? I hope someone still cares about these kinds of issues because they have a growing significance. As nations of the world become more nationalistic and more and more isolationist, there are fewer democracies and more repressive regimes on both left and right, and suddenly our freedom is challenged again as earlier generations saw it challenged.
In the generation of this parliament we have seen the genocide of Kampuchea when three million out of seven million people were slaughtered in the name of a better way of life. That seems so far away-30 hours from here by plane. As things occur closer to home they bring a new kind of reality. That is why we find severe human rights abuses closer to Ottawa than is Vancouver. Suddenly we have a new imperative and a new concern as the world shrinks and moves tighter and tighter around us.
Tonight I want to speak about one of those acts of repression that I witnessed personally. I saw an aboriginal group, older than any civilization in North America, fleeing from Nicaragua. I almost find it hard to believe that I am standing here speaking of the abuses I witnessed-and I did witness them- having to bring them to the attention of the House. Who knows of these Kampuchean and Miskito abuses? In a free democracy such as ours, with its humanitarian values and a respect for the sanctity of life, can we leave this in a vacuum? Can we isolate ourselves within "fortress Canada" and be indifferent to the inhumanity that exists beyond our borders?
During the Czechoslovakian crisis of 1938 the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, stated how horrible it was that Britain was trying on gas masks and preparing to go to war to defend a people in a far away land of which they knew nothing. He was quickly shown why Britain should have been prepared to fight for Czechoslovakia, for soon their problem was his problem and the problem of the world. Our shrinking world is only one reason for concern about people in the not so far away lands about which we know relatively little.
There is another, more important reason, and that is the basic ethic that this House of Commons stands for-that we are in fact our brother's keeper. When our brother is being
April 19, 1982

persecuted we have an obligation to stand up and say that we care, and to demonstrate that we do, by real and tangible means.
As John Donne said in 1624:
No man is an island, entire unto himself;
Every man is a piece of a continent, a part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less ...
Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind;
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee
Having heard the testimony of the Miskito people of Nicaragua, it is imperative that I should bring to this House of Commons the abuses that have been brought to my attention and to the attention of the representatives of the government, and call upon the Government of Canada to initiate an investigation at the international and at the Canadian personal level.
On March 31, 1982, I visited a refugee camp at Mocaron, Honduras. Mocaron is located in a mountainous jungle area in the vicinity of the Rio Coco in northeastern Honduras. Isolated within their highlands, aboriginals known as Miskitos have to some degree retained their cultural distinctiveness in a country that is primarily Spanish in language and culture. The refugee camp currently holds 7,200 Miskitos refugees, and the number growing at a rate of at least 150 people per day. The Honduran government, World Relief, Save the Children and U.S. Peace Corps volunteers, assisted by the United Nations, are attempting to alleviate subsistence level, sub-human conditions in the camp.
Miskito refugees allege that they are victims of gross human rights violations by agents of the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. They claim that 33 separate villages have been completely destroyed and homes and churches were burned to the ground; that their crops were burned, animals destroyed and many Miskito people, including the very old and young, the weak and the sick, have been killed. Some observers claim that people were thrown alive into wells; that people had their hands tied behind their backs and thrown into the river. Some were buried alive up to their necks.
Observers have specifically asked for investigation of an incident at Leimus on December 23, or December 24, 1981, where, in the presence of many witnesses, 15 people were lined up in a boat, shot and thrown into the river. A witness who escaped and arrived at Mocaron on March 29, 1982, claims that over 10,000 Miskito aboriginals are currently confined in a camp at Risco de Oro, the location of which I have given to the government, along with the names of witnesses who can be contacted for personal investigation.
It is claimed that in this particular concentration camp at Risco De Oro families are separated into groups of men, women and children and forced to labour in gold mines and on roadways. There are barbed wire enclosures with mines around the gate. There is physical and mental harassment by soldiers, with one plate of food per family, regardless of its size. Many innocent people who have not been charged or found guilty of
Adjournment Debate
any crime are being held against their will, and women are being raped by soldiers.
I could go on and talk about Nicaraguan experiments with a socialist democracy, because I do have concerns about what must be happening to cause these people to flee to sub-human conditions in another country. The Nicaraguan government gives me assurances; they say this cannot be happening. That does not seem to add up, Mr. Speaker. If it cannot be happening, why are they leaving, and leaving at an accelerating rate? Obviously they are fleeing repression, like the people of El Salvador, Guatemala and other countries throughout the entire region.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote Jose Esteban Gonzalez, the head of the Nicaraguan Committee for Human Rights, who wrote recently in the Washington Post:
We should stop romanticizing a revolutionary leadership that has turned against the democratic promises of the revolution.
He stated that the human rights record of the Sandinistas is more repressive than that under the deplorable Somoza regime, citing the number of political prisoners and the bloody repression of the Miskito Indians. He also says:
An international campaign for Nicaraguan human rights could have a very significant impact in Nicaragua and elsewhere.
I call on the government tonight to launch an investigation, not to just say it cannot become involved. We must in fact become involved; let us see whether the government's commitment is rhetoric, or whether it will carry it through. I demand, Mr. Speaker, in the name of the freedom and dignity of individuals, and the Charter of Human Rights of the United Nations, that Canada in fact act. To do anything else would not be to play a full role in the community of mankind.


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the violations of human rights of the Miskito Indians in Nicaragua, and we have expressed our concern. We have indicated to Nicaragua that our continued aid to that country will be conditional in large part on the proper treatment of the Miskito Indians. Mr. Masse, the president of CIDA, will be there this week and will reconvey our concern. We have no right to go into another country and conduct an investigation, but we are party to many different international groups and agencies which are monitoring the situation.
Apart from what is happening in Nicaragua, many of the Miskito Indians have been forced over the border and into Honduras. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees is the agency mandated to look after refugees. It recently sent a mission to Honduras which is looking into the facilities available to the Miskito Indians. We support that mission. Mr. Masse will also be visiting Honduras to look at the camps. This particular agency is supported financially by Canada.
In 1981, as well as paying our regular dues, we have an additional $500,000, the third highest in the world after the U.S.A. and Sweden. We will continue to monitor the Miskito Indian problem and we will continue to press our concerns.

April 19, 1982
Adjournment Debate
In closing, I find it passing strange that the hon. member is so concerned about violations in other countries, yet was so unprepared to entrench the very things he speaks about in his own charter and Constitution.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I am protected by common law here.


Ron Irwin: Protection from harsh and unjust imprisonment, the provision of juries and due process could not be entrenched, in large part, because the hon. member's party did not want them entrenched. That is the situation. While he says, look closer to Canada, as we go from Kampuchea to Nicaragua, I would hope that he looks to Canada and is as concerned about entrenching the rights of the Jehovah's Witnesses-


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Aboriginal rights and Indian rights, where are they in the charter? They were taken out.


Ron Irwin: -unions in Nova Scotia, the Japanese Canadians who were incarcerated, but would have been protected had his party stood up and been counted in his own country instead of looking at a country about which very few Canadians know. They know about their own country. They know that his party did not stand up when the bell tolled for human rights in Canada.


ENERGY ENQUIRY WHETHER REPRESENTATIONS WILL BE MADE TO QUEBEC TO REDUCE IMPACT OF GASOLINE RETAILERS' STRIKE
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, on April 5, I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) about the gasoline retailers' strike in Quebec and the resulting inconvenience to highway users from the Maritimes driving to Quebec and points west. In referring to the situation, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources pointed out that the tax on gas in Quebec was probably the cause of the mass protest actions to which Quebecers and inhabitants of neighbouring provinces were exposed, to varying extents.
On April 7, Le Madawaska, an excellent weekly which is printed in my riding, published a detailed story with a number of examples of the inconvenience experienced by travellers from New Brunswick and elsewhere in the Maritimes who wanted to go to or get back from Montreal or Quebec City.
The article said, and I quote:
-hundreds of travellers between Montreal and New Brunswick are stuck or out of gas ... one hundred vehicles have slowed down traffic on the Trans-Canada Highway.
The vehicles referred to were those used by gasoline retailers, who, to all intents and purposes, were blocking the Trans-Canada Highway. To quote the paper once again:
-at Lake Baker-Les Etroits on Saturday, protesting retailers seized jerricans of gas from the trunks of cars, promising to return them as soon as the dispute was settled.
The paper goes on to say, and I quote:
We note that the roadblock set up by the protesting retailers was illegal and was lifted following action by the Quebec Provincial Police.
Of course I understand why Quebecers are protesting as much as they can against increases in the tax on gas which are really enormous compared to the price of gas in neighbouring provinces. I certainly cannot blame the gas retailers, but I want to use this example, Mr. Speaker, to point out once again the vulnerability of the concept of free movement of citizens, goods and services in this country. Perhaps I may remind the House that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms-I have a copy here-says, and I quote:
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. (2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province;
That is the clause that I want to discuss tonight. We cannot and we must not condone either private or government action aimed at preventing the free movement of Canadians within Canada's borders. This is not the first time there have been unfortunate incidents involving New Brunswick and Quebec.
I still remember the case of students from New Brunswick who after several years of practical training in Quebec were turned down for jobs in Quebec because their home address was in New Brunswick. Well, this is also against the principle defined by the Charter of Rights, since Section 6(3) prescribes, and I quote:
The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other
than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province
of present or previous residence;
Of course, the events I just described occurred before the proclamation of the Charter of Rights, but the fact remains that there is a rather disturbing tendency among some provincial governments and more specifically, the government of Quebec, which is taking rather questionable action in wanting to restrict the basic and fundamental rights of Canadians because they are not from Quebec, they are not living in Quebec, and are not Quebecers. This kind of discrimination I find more than disturbing. I see it as a danger to the unity of this country. I realize that Quebecers have a government that wants to divide the country, not to unite it, but it turns out that when measures of this kind are imposed on citizens of New Brunswick, they are usually francophones, since they happen to live in the areas bordering on Quebec.
Quebecers, and especially the Parti Quebecois, cannot come to New Brunswick to preach a so-called independence for the Acadians if they also stop them at the border and prevent them from finding jobs in Quebec and use other tricks to prevent the
April 19, 1982

people of New Brunswick, whether francophone or anglophone, to bid for service contracts in Quebec, while New Brunswick gladly opens its doors to Quebecers who want to do business or live in our province. Mr. Speaker, this last example of the gas retailers' strike in Quebec shows how fragile our basic rights and freedoms are and how the governments must agree to take every action required to guarantee that these rights are applied equitably. This is what I expect as a Canadian, on my own behalf and on behalf of my fellow citizens.
[DOT]	(2225)


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the issue raised by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) is not only important to the government but, as he alluded, it is also important to the people of New Brunswick.
Since the serious matter of the gasoline retailers' strike in Quebec was raised, the strike has been settled and all gasoline service stations are now in operation. However, this strike was a matter of great inconvenience to the public, inasmuch as it extended throughout the period from April 5 to April 8 and affected a very large percentage of retail outlets in the province of Quebec. It was also beginning to impact on gasoline supplies to the public in the neighbouring province of New Brunswick. When the transportation of people and merchandise is impeded, it does not take very long to have a major impact on the economy of a province, and such effects were being felt in Quebec before the strike was terminated.
[DOT]	(2230)
As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) noted in the House on April 5, the best way for the
Adjournment Debate
Quebec government to have settled this matter would have been to reduce the excessively high tax on gasoline levied by the Quebec government. This ad valorum tax was doubled to 40 per cent on November 18, 1981. As a result, Quebec residents now pay 13 cents per litre on regular leaded gasoline compared with 6.3 cents in Ontario. Even Prince Edward Island, which has the second highest provincial gasoline tax, is far below the Quebec level, at 8.3 cents.
It is unfortunate that this issue had to be resolved through a price increase to consumers rather than a reduction in the Quebec government tax. During the past few days retail gasoline prices have risen by as much as 4 cents per litre in Quebec, with prices now well above those of both P.E.I. and Newfoundland, and, of course, higher than any other province.
Finally, I would like to note that the federal government has no direct jurisdiction over the retailing of gasoline. This is a provincial government responsibility. The number of retail outlets is controlled by licensing authority within a province, and a province may set retail prices.
The federal government is continuing to monitor petroleum marketing in all provinces to ensure the free movement of individuals and goods across the country, but, in the type of marketing situation that developed in Quebec earlier this month, this is a direct responsibility at the provincial level.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock.
At 10.33 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, April 20, 1982