1982-05-27

Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, four months ago I moved a motion in the House regarding farm bankruptcies and called upon the government to make the necessary amendments to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act to make it an effective instrument to be used by farmers to prevent bankruptcies. Since then, the government has taken no steps whatsoever in this direction. We now learn that primary industry and farm bankruptcies are up by 134 per cent over 1980, and in the first four months of 1982 over 3,600 businesses declared bankruptcy, including 158 farmers. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That this House call upon the Prime Minister and his cabinet to open their eyes and recognize the harm they are inflicting upon Canada's business and farm communities. We urge the government to adopt policies immediately to allow farmers to keep their land and continue to produce food for Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, the sinking of the British warships in the Falkland Islands ought to be a valuable object lesson to our Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne). These modern British warships, with aluminum superstructures and poor missile defences, are woefully inadequate against sophisticated missile attack. The minister has stated our navy's role is one of anti-submarine warfare, but how can Canada's ships carry out their assigned NATO anti-submarine defence if they have been sunk by an Exocet-type missile fired from some 30 to 40 kilometres away?
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That Canada's naval ships presently under refit to the tune of $200 million to $300 million, yet still missile defenceless, be assigned the highest priority to ensure their capability to defend themselves against sophisticated missile attack and to provide the utmost in protection for the lives of our fine Canadian sailors.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, it has recently been reported that yet another tank car containing yellow phosphorous, a highly dangerous and explosive material, was found to be leaking in the Hamilton rail yards. This most recent incident, when taken together with the many similar incidents which 1 reported to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) on February 26 and March 2, 1982, clearly indicates that the procedures used to ensure the safety of residents and workers in areas immediately adjoining rail lines and yards are inadequate. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the minister require that each and every railroad car used in the transportation of hazardous or dangerous materials be inspected immediately and that a program of inspection at the point of loading be instituted forthwith in order to avoid what can only be described as a potential catastrophe from becoming a real catastrophe.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask this House to take special notice of the recent anti-social behaviour of the Prime Minister while in this Chamber. His challenges and

May 27, 1982
taunts are demeaning to the conduct of this Chamber. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie):
That members of this House refuse to take the Prime Minister's actions seriously as it appears he is saying, "Two of you hold my coat and one of you hold me."


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Bow River.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, Canada's Liberal federal government has no credibility left at all. Canagrex was introduced as a federal co-ordinating body to increase Canada's agricultural exports, but Bill C-85 goes way beyond this function. Wide sweeping powers will permit this corporation virtually to control and take over agriculture, even to the point of telling farmers what they must grow, to say nothing about eliminating the existing export organizations in Canada and, if passed, as stated in Macleans magazine this Crown corporation could grow "like a cancerous cell" and "multiply and eat away at the country's food industry". Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That this House deplores this back-door method designed to socialize the farms of this country and demands that the bill be axed along with the responsible minister and the government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion arising from discussions being held between the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and her provincial counterparts.
Whereas user fees charged Canadians by hospitals or doctors, or opting out by doctors from provincial medical insurance plans, violate the promise of medicare to guarantee Canadians from all income levels free access to a comprehensive range of prepaid health services, and whereas the reduction of federal contributions to hospital and medical insurance plans through cuts in transfer payments has led to the increasing by the provinces of user-pay fees, and to an increasing number of doctors opting out in order to increase their income
over what they receive from the provincial medical insurance plans, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
That this House call on the government to return to the former system of sharing the cost of hospital and medical insurance plans and to work with the provinces so that user fees and opting out by doctors can be brought to an end.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR TABLING OF AGREEMENTS ON BEAUFORT SEA EXPLORATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, on May 10, 1982, the government announced with considerable fanfare that it had concluded six agreements with Esso Resources Canada Limited covering $600 million worth of oil and gas exploration in the Beaufort Sea. The timing was presumably intended to take the heat off the government for its failures with the Alsands and Alaska gas megaprojects. Whereas it would now appear that no such agreements exist, save for some letter of intent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington):
That the government either table these agreements if they exist or admit that it has misled both this House and the Canadian public.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, student summer unemployment in the coming weeks is expected to skyrocket to 200,000, or to 16 per cent. This disastrous situation will compel many young people not to return to their education in the fall because they will be unable to pay their tuition, which most colleges and universities are having to hike following federal government funding cutbacks. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration immediately convene a meeting between himself and his provincial counterparts in order to devise a
May 27, 1982

strategy to assist the private sector to hire summer students during the current employment and education crisis.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, I wish to present a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Having received reliable information yesterday from the Department of Employment and Immigration to the effect that by December 31, 500,000 Canadians will have no other alternative but to go on welfare, since they will have exhausted their entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits, and whereas the minister responsible has refused to either confirm or deny this information which was obtained from his own department, I move, seconded by the member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the House unanimously urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) to publish as soon as possible the approximate number of Canadians who will no longer be entitled to unemployment insurance by December 31, and a negative reply will merely give my statement greater weight.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


KENT ROYAL COMMISSION
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the government's response to the Kent Commission legitimizes the problem rather than resolves it, and whereas the hysterical response of some of the nation's publishers committing themselves to fight-in the air, on the land, and the sea, and in the gutters of Canada-the provisions of the government's response, and whereas it is unlikely that a newspaper act will ever appeal before this House of Commons or will ever be passed by it, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
Oral Questions
That the minister responsible for the Kent Commission withdraw the proposal for a newspaper act for the time being and consult with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with a view to bringing in amendments to the Combines Investigation Act and establish a special media branch for the time being within the bureau of competition policy to develop a framework for a competitive Canadian communications industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, the cases of Neil Fraser and Paul McNeill have exposed the existence of codes of conduct governing the personal behaviour of federal public servants. The Canadian Human Rights Commissioner indicates those codes of conduct violate freedom of speech in Canada. 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That the Minister of Justice give real meaning to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by reviewing codes of conduct governing federal public servants and determining whether the code provisions violate freedom of thought and expression and are thereby unconstitutional.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen). The minister, in his budget statement on November 12, predicted that the unemployment rate this year would be in the order of 7.8 per cent. The minister knows and, indeed, the country knows, that the rate is now 9.6 per cent, and that is in the order of one and a quarter million Canadians out of work and walking the streets looking for it.
Yesterday the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) in a statement to the Mining Association of Canada, said, "Lay-offs are continuing at a relatively high level and we must face the likelihood that high unemployment will persist for some time to come".

May 27, 1982
Oral Questions
Clearly the government's understanding of the economy is in disarray. Does the Minister of Finance believe that increased unemployment over the next few months is the only answer the government can give?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure I understand the hon. member's question. I am not sure if he is referring to the announcement made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration extending additional funding for the work-sharing program, which has been a real success in the country. If he has that in mind when he asks me whether that constitutes the government's approach to unemployment, I would say that that, among other specifically targeted approaches, has been the way we have attempted to deal with the unemployment problem.


REQUEST THAT TAX BE REMOVED FROM BUILDING MATERIALS
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, even the Minister of Finance must blush when he takes credit for a program that was designed to be temporary and short-term in order to deal with a situation created by his government. That situation is no longer acceptable to the people of Canada. The minister knows that the Canadian Construction Association predicted for this year alone an unemployment level of 20 per cent. That is 150,000 workers out of work. Time and again the Construction Association has asked the government to take the federal tax off building materials. Why does the minister refuse to continue to take off that tax, something which would help put the construction industry on its feet?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As the hon. member knows, Madam Speaker, the removal or imposition of a tax is a budgetary matter and these changes are not normally announced or dealt with in questions on the orders of the day.


LEVEL OF INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, everyone knows that a fundamental key to any recovery in growth over the next decade in this country depends very much on our investment in research and development. Despite the government's pronouncements, Canada still has a record which is second to last of all industrialized nations for investment in research and development. How can the minister take pride in that record? If he cannot take pride, why does he not now increase investment in research and development so that hundreds of thousands of jobs can be created?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has raised a third subject in his series of questions on the orders of the day. All of them have been very good. They have pointed to various areas of the economy where he is suggesting that the government intervene to provide more support, in one case through the removal of taxation which would mean declining
revenues for the government. In another case he suggested increased grant incentives for research and development. As the hon. member knows, all of these proposals, however worthy in themselves, have financial consequences. They have to be financed either through increased taxes or increased deficits. It is not my impression that his party, or his financial critic, has advocated that one of the methods of dealing with the current situation is to set out deliberately to increase financial deficits in Canada.


FORESTRY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for International Trade. The minister is aware of a commission that has been meeting for some time in the United States regarding the possibility of imposing an import restriction on Canadian lumber. The commission has now reported without recommendations. The decisions will be up to the administration and politicians to make as to whether such restrictions should be imposed by the United States.
First of all, has his department monitored the hearings of the commission? Second, has his department offered help to the companies which defended the Canadian position, including the government's position? Third, what is the minister doing now through the Department of External Affairs to assure that the Canadian position is put properly and that such restrictions will not be imposed on Canadian industry?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, in response to the questions put by the hon. member, first of all we have monitored the situation very closely, not only here in Ottawa but also on the west coast where the hearings were held, and also in Washington. In reply to the second question, we have not offered any financial assistance to the industry with respect to their representations. Third, we think that the information presented, based on the witnesses, shows that there is no evidence that Canadian firms were dumping into the United States market. It is a North American problem and we hope that the authorities in the United States will agree with the recommendations of the commission.


REQUEST THAT CANADA MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO UN ITED STATES AUTHORITIES
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, it is quite clear from reports that we are receiving from Washington that the decision made there will be a political one, and that the whole question is overshadowed by current events or by other events which relate to the National
May 27, 1982

Energy Program, FIRA and so on; and that the Americans will be looking for a way to punish this government and Canadians generally for some of its other anti-American actions. There is a clear need, the companies have told us, for our diplomats and our government to intercede at this point, to intervene in the interest of Canada and in the interest of this important industry which is already on its knees.
What is the minister doing? What can he tell us today? Will he give instructions to the embassy in Washington? Will he dispatch his officials? Will he himself meet with his counterpart in the United States to assure that what he asserts with respect to this report will actually coincide with fact?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, obviously I cannot make an assurance on behalf of the United States government. We have made representations at the political level, at the diplomatic level, and at the administrative level. We are very confident, Madam Speaker, based on the information given during those hearings and regardless of some of the political statements made by certain congressmen in the United States, that the United States special trade representative will not find any grounds for imposing sanctions as suggested by some of the political leaders in the United States.


HEALTH CARE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. For three years the minister has talked tough inside and outside the House about the need to remove extra billing from our medicare system, arguing quite correctly that this was contrary to the principle of medicare itself. Yesterday she had the chance to deliver. Considering that she began yesterday's meeting once again by asserting that extra billing was contrary to the spirit of medicare and that steps had to be taken to remove it, my question is straightforward. Why did she cave in?
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Madam Speaker, that same minister has the pleasure to announce to the House today, and to all Canadians, that she has now the agreement of all the provinces, the agreement in writing of all the provinces, that the question of extra billing-which in a way she was alone in speaking on, at times-the question of extra billing is now one which will be addressed and that the control of it will be part of conditions to make sure that medicare remains universal, which has always been our objective. I am very pleased with the co-operation of all the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister has said no more in her words now than she said for three years, no more than she conceded yesterday. 1 would like to begin my question with this. Just last month she said:
If you permit additional surcharges in the system for Canadians who can afford to protect themselves against it... you are back to pre-medicare days and very rapidly the whole system will collapse. Do not kid yourself, this is abolishing the universality of the program. You cannot have it both ways.
That is what the minister said. I agree with her. Considering that yesterday she said something which flatly contradicts this, namely, she is accepting the principle of extra billing but simply wants to control it, I say to her that she cannot control it both ways. Will she have the integrity to resign?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I could give the hon. member a long list of Hansard quotations in which 1 answered his colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, that a ban on extra billing could not be imposed unilaterally by the federal government. The hon. member prefers to call it a ban. I have not requested a ban on extra billing from provincial ministers. I have expressed to them word for word what the hon. member quotes as something I have often said to Canadians. 1 suppose I have been pretty convincing, because control of extra billing is now part of the dossier of negotiations. This is a great stride toward strengthening medicare for all Canadians once and for all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The minister is a master of linguistic solutions to the problem. She used to talk about removing extra billing. Now we hear hypocrisy; she is talking about controlling extra billing. That is very different.


PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSALITY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister has just said the federal government does not have the necessary authority. I would like to act with the provinces in this area. The minister's boss, the Prime Minister, said in 1980:
-the federal government must use its powers to bring the provinces back to the principle of universality.
That is what the Prime Minister said. Is the minister now saying that the Prime Minister was wrong? If the Prime Minister was right, why does the minister not get up and say that the federal government will bring the provinces into line?
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Madam Speaker, to a master of rhetoric I would like to say that I cannot do that for a very simple reason, and that is that there is a Constitution in this country. We helped to bring it about, and we respect it. The ten provinces happen to be in charge of administering health services in Canada, and we happen to distribute about half the cost of those services

May 27, 1982
Oral Questions
based on five basic standards. We achieved something remarkable yesterday, of which I am very proud for Canadians, and that is that surcharges and user fees on the one hand, and extra billing on the other, are now part of the dossier and will be looked into. Parameters and conditions will be developed in order to strengthen medicare and keep it universal. That is remarkable and very important, and 1 think the hon. member should help us achieve that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE JUDICIARY
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In another context the Prime Minister characterized the ways of the Solicitor General as being unforgiveably naive and showing poor political judgment. Within the context of the English case and the Arrindell case, the Prime Minister knows that in one case the Solicitor General knew the accused indirectly and that in the other case his knowledge was not extensive. There were two counts of robbery relating to two different cities. A loaded gun was used. The Solicitor General put the prestige of his ministry on the line by using the Solicitor General letterhead. Will the Prime Minister agree in these circumstances that the Solicitor General used poor judgment?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, 1 dealt with the substance of the issue yesterday. On the matter of judgment, I would say that is a question of judgment.


Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, that type of attitude and answer demonstrates how blunted the ethics of the Prime Minister really are.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUERY RESPECTING PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, my second question arises from an answer the Prime Minister gave two days ago in which he said:
-I think it is more important that justice be done than that it appear to be done.
If it is more important that justice be done than that it appear to be done, how does the ordinary citizen have any faith in a system of justice in which justice does not appear to be done, as in the case of English and Arrindell?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it seems to me my statement is self-evident. Certainly justice has to be done, and that is the basic principle. If it can
also appear to be done, so much the better, but I realize you can never make a good case sound like a good case in front of members of the opposition because they have pretty poor judgment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER SEEK RESIGNATION OF SOLICITOR GENERAL
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question for the Prime Minister concerns the role of the Solicitor General as the minister responsible for the administration of penitentiaries. It raises a very serious question of conflict of interest, not to mention the bad judgment of the Solicitor General. The two accused persons are now serving sentences in the penitentiaries of this country which are under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General. Clearly he is in conflict of interest because there was an intervention by the Solicitor General before the courts on behalf of these two people which was clearly in conflict with the guidelines. That would seem to put them in a rather privileged position vis-a-vis their supervisors and caretakers who are accountable to the Solicitor General.
Given that clear conflict of interest, and forgetting all about bad judgment, will the Prime Minister not now ask for the resignation of this accident-prone minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I apologize, because I did not understand the reasoning of the hon. member's suggestion of a conflict of interest. If he is saying that the actions are contrary to the guidelines, that is the issue in the debate with which I dealt yesterday to my satisfaction.


REQUEST THAT SOLICITOR GENERAL BE RE ASSIGNED WITHIN CABINET
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could put the question another way. The letters that were filed with counsel and with the court on behalf of these two accused persons who are now serving sentences, are on their records. They will emerge during the process of parole and they will emerge during the process of classification within the penitentiary system. That is clearly a conflict of interest situation. If the Prime Minister cannot see that, then there is something wrong with his judgment. Consequently, I would ask, forgetting about the guidelines, if he is not prepared to ask the Solicitor General for his resignation would he at least have him assigned to a less sensitive portfolio?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the answer to the question is no.
May 27, 1982

[ Translation]


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE OF BULGARIA
Madam Speaker:: 1 have the honour of bringing to the attention of the House the distinguished presence in our gallery of Mrs. Svelta Daskalova, the Minister of Justice of Bulgaria.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, may I put a question to the Prime Minister. Since he has now found that it is perfectly acceptable for the Solicitor General to attempt to influence a judge in his consideration of sentence, will he apply the same standard and find it acceptable that the Solicitor General can make similar representations to the National Parole Board?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not think that would be exactly the same situation. I would have to give consideration to the hon. member's request or question. The Parole Board comes directly under the authority of the minister, and the courts of justice do not, of course. If he were to make an application to the Parole Board through some open process wherein the Parole Board asks to hear character witnesses, I would withhold my judgment. Obviously if it is a communication directly to the Parole Board on behalf of another person, then he would not be acting in parallel to the case in the courts, where he acted in open court in a precise way.
I would have to hear more about the hypothetical situation from the hon. member. Is he asking if the Solicitor General could be a character witness in some hearing by the Parole Board, or is he asking if the minister could phone a member of the board directly and try to influence him?


RESPONSIBILITY FOR APPOINTING NEW MEMBERS
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister seems to be in some doubt about the propriety of making such representations by the Solicitor General to the National Parole Board. Since the Solicitor General today on departmental stationery-at least it was received in the mail today-announced the appointment of, I believe, four or five new members of the Parole Board, and until the Prime Minister has come to a crystallized decision on the propriety of that kind of representation, would he not consider that it might be advisable to remove the responsibility for appointing new members to the Parole Board from the Solicitor General, in the interim?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 do not think that is a constructive course because the Parole Board operates for hundreds of cases which have nothing to do with this one. I would not suggest it would be proper to hold up the process of parole for some prisoners who might be deserving of it, just because of a hypothetical question asked by the hon. member.
What I am prepared to do, as I suggested the other day, is to discuss a revision of the guidelines with anyone who is interested to see whether in the future we want to prevent ministers in any way from testifying in open court on any subject, or as character references. That is why I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. member.


REQUEST THAT MINISTERIAL CONDUCT GUIDELINES BE REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, since the matter has raised considerable interest and a fair degree of doubt, would the Prime Minister consider referring the question of the revision of the guidelines dealing with the conduct of ministers in this particular instance to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs so that recommendations could be made to the House and to the government with respect to updating them? This would ensure that every vestige of doubt about the propriety of conduct of ministers in situations like this would be removed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to receive the advice of opposition members and members of my own party about revision of the guidelines as they apply to the future.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY QUERY RESPECTING TWINNING OF LOCKS
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Some months ago a joint committee was set up between Canada and the United States to study the shipping traffic between the two countries using the Welland Canal. I am told that that report has been completed and that there will be a substantial increase in the traffic. Can the minister tell the House if active consideration is being given to twinning the flight locks either at Thorold or Port Colborne at present or in the very near future?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, there has been quite a debate on that subject to which 1 have already referred. Some analyses, like the Misener report in Ontario, sees that dramatic jump into the next phase of the history of the Seaway as coming within five years, others say ten years. There is a joint study between Canada and the United States which says 18 years.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: What do you say?

May 27, 1982
Oral Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: I say we are not there yet. I expect that quantum jump to take place in early 1990s. In the meantime, and this is the important thing, a number of things are being done such as a number of widenings of the Welland Canal in places to permit the passage of two ships, and a number of improvements in the traffic system by the use of electronics. The tariff has been changed also to favour the longer ships. Therefore number of things are being done on a progressive basis to meet with the growing demand on the Welland Canal.


HEALTH CARE
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my question follows on those that my leader put to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. For the first time the minister has indicated to the House that she has altered the government's position from one of eliminating extra billing to a position where the federal government now appears to think it is going to control extra billing. May I ask the minister what the federal government's position is? Is it to eliminate extra billing, or is it to control extra billing?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member makes a mistake in the first part of his question. The goal of the government as it has always put forward to the public, to the different parties or to the different players, has remained the same. It is the strengthening of medicare by the clarification of the five basic standards or conditions which have been in the act for more than 20 years. That has always been the purpose. Two of these conditions in particular, universality and accessibility, have appeared to be threatened in the last three years by two avenues that no one can ignore, namely, extra billing and user fees. Both of these have been recognized as part of the process of negotiation which started yesterday with a very successful meeting toward controlling it. The purpose is to strengthen medicare.


QUERY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, in the process of trying to strengthen medicare will the minister recall her own statement to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs not a month ago when she said, "If you permit additional surcharges in the system for Canadians who cannot afford to protect themselves against it, you are back to pre-medicare days and very rapidly the whole system will collapse."
I ask the minister, and I would appreciate a straight answer, is it the intention of the government to abdicate the long-held position that there should be no extra billing, or is it simply the intention of the government to find some way to control it?


Monique Bégin: Of course, Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I have said and will continue to say across Canada. I would like to see extra billing reduced to zero. I have explained often to the official health critic of the NDP, who does not seem to understand how the system works, that the federal minister alone cannot ban extra billing, and that a provincial minister cannot ban extra billing if he or she loses doctors to neighbouring provinces. That is the problem. We addressed it in a very realistic way yesterday, and I am very pleased about that. 1 still do not see why the member plays with words. The idea is to keep medicare universal, and we will succeed because this is a program which all Canadians love best.


THE JUDICIARY
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, will the Solicitor General tell us whether, when he wrote the Arrindell and English letters on his stationery in his capacity as Solicitor General, he expected and intended that the content of those letters would never be communicated to a judge?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, the letters indicate quite clearly that I was intending to offer my evidence to the lawyers for them to use as they saw fit, including in court.


APPLICATION OF CABINET GUIDELINES
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, since the Solicitor General has now indicated he wrote the letters with the intention that they be communicated to the court, will he tell us how he finds that action to be consistent with the guideline of the Prime Minister which says:
-no member of the cabinet may communicate with members of the judiciary concerning any matter which they have before them ... ?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Prime Minister answered that yesterday, but I take that guideline to apply to informal, off-the-record contact between members of the government and judges, and not to evidence given formally in open court.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Three weeks ago, in answer to a question, he advised me that the decision of the National Energy Board allowing Ontario Hydro to export power to the United States from its Nanticoke plant would be coming before cabinet for consideration. I ask the Prime Minister if
May 27, 1982

that has taken place and, if so, did the government decide to reverse the NEB decision until it received a satisfactory guarantee from Ontario Hydro that it intended to instal machinery at that plant capable of greatly reducing emissions which create acid rain?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the matter has not yet come before full cabinet and therefore there has been no decision taken, conditional or otherwise.


INSTALLATION OF ANTI-POLLUTION DEVICES
George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, knowing how cabinets work and that matters which are desired to be brought before cabinet are done so very quickly, and that it now appears the government is simply not dealing with the matter in the hope that it will go away, does the Prime Minister not think it is incumbent upon him and his government to stop trying to duck this issue and face up to their responsibility of convincing the American government and people that this country is willing to adopt the same anti-pollution measures we have been so strongly urging them to adopt during the last year or two, and in this way make it possible for our two countries to wage war against acid rain successfully?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I want to inform the hon. member that he is misrepresenting the strength of his case if he thinks 1 assume the matter will go away. I know as long as the hon. member is sitting in his seat the matter will not go away, and 1 hope that will be forever. In the meantime, the ministers most directly involved, the minister responsible for energy and the minister responsible for the environment, are discussing the matter with the intention of bringing a joint position to cabinet. Naturally, the very sound and sane representations of the hon. member will be taken into account in that deliberation.


George Harris Hees: Big Brother will be watching.


NATIONAL UNITY
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and relates to an expensive and glossy publication put out by the Canadian Unity Information Office in April of this year, which contains very large extracts of comments by the Prime Minister on the Crowsnest discussion in a speech to a Liberal fund-raising campaign on March 18, 1982, in Regina. Part of this document indicates that the Prime Minister said:
The NDP, I understand, has been going up and down the province claiming that variable rates would be a part of any new formula, that the decision has already been made. Well, that is simply not true.
Ora! Questions
How can the Prime Minister justify the distribution, at public expense, of highly partisan Liberal propaganda, especially during the month in which there was a provincial election campaign?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the truth of the matter is that there were in the west at the time a number of people who thought the decision on variable rates had been made. The Prime Minister's purpose was to indicate that was not so. I remember that the paragraph quoted goes on to say that if western farmers do not want variable rates, they will not get variable rates. That was meant to be a reassurance to the western farmers that their views would be taken into account in this matter. As a matter of fact, if my friend reads the communique on the statement I made in Winnipeg on February 8, he will realize that part of it was left to Dr. Gilson to negotiate with the interested parties. This is what is going on now, and we expect a report in a few days.


TIMING OF PUBLICATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I think the minister missed the whole point of my question, which is that this is clearly a partisan political position being put forward on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada at public expense. I am not a defender of Premier Blakeney, but I resent public moneys being used in my province for the purpose of putting the Liberal line across. We saw the results on April 26.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That brochure also says:
Understandably, Premier Blakeney now finds this to be an inconvenient time to display this earlier realism.
Is it the Prime Minister's intention to have this kind of publication put out in each province before each provincial election, so that the Liberal Party's position can be put before the electorate at public expense?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is misinformed. I am informed that this publication came out after the election, not during it as the hon. member has suggested.


FINANCING OF GRAIN ELEVATOR AT PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport regarding the problems the Prince Rupert grain consortium is having in obtaining financing for the elevator at Prince Rupert. As the minister knows, that consortium considers the likelihood of obtaining that financing to be only 50-50. Since Alberta is carrying 75 per cent of the cost with a $200-million loan at 11.5 per cent, and $25 million of the cost in excess of $260 million, would the minister be so good as to advise this House what luck he has

May 27, 1982
Oral Questions
had with his representations to cabinet in the past week to find further funds? Does he have another $10 million to make the grain elevator go, or does he consider it certain that it will go without any further support?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have already indicated that the consortium has come to see us asking for more money on top of the $32 million, increasing to $37 million, which has already been committed to that enterprise. I have already told the House that they had two ideas in mind. The first one was for the consortium to try to find out from the bidders if they could get a reduction on the bids they received, and I understand that they have accomplished that. The second possibility was that the consortium could cut off some "unnecessary" part of the elevator, and they are working on that now. They would then come to us with that information and they would ask for the $10 million which they suggested we might add to the previous amount. This is where we are now. We expect them to knock at the door very, very soon in order to put a case for an added amount of money.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, it is an interesting time for the government to start playing hard to get on getting money. Eighteen months ago it offered $100 million to the same consortium, interest free, to build a larger elevator. Here we have a smaller elevator and they are asking the consortium to chop it even smaller. They are getting rid of the surge capacity. They are getting rid of all the footings. The $65 million Falls River hydro project to provide power to Ridley Island has been cancelled. The CN bridgework between Terrace and Prince Rupert has been cancelled or indefinitely delayed.


REQUEST FOR SUPPORT
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, will the minister support this project? If necessary, will he take an equity position in the elevator to ensure that it goes ahead? Is it or is it not in the Canadian interest?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am confused


James Ross Fulton: That is right.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -and I think 1 have good reason to be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member is mixing his provincial chickens with his federal eggs. He is throwing it all at us now in a hodge-podge manner, not making a distinction between what the federal government and what the provincial governments are doing in this matter. The federal government is doing tremendous things for the port of Prince Rupert. My
friend should recognize that, and usually he does, but today he is in a pugnacious mood. We have provided money for the three growing facilities there-one in grain, one in coal, and a coming one in petrochemicals.
The judgment as to whether $37 million is enough or whether it should be $47 million is one which is debatable, but one on which the government has to make a decision in relation to other investments it has made in that port and has to make elsewhere. This is not a question of philosophy; this is a question of quantum.


EXPORT OF POWER BY QUEBEC HYDRO-POSSIBLE DIFFICULTIES
Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and concerns the statement made yesterday before the Special Committee on Energy by the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Hydro-Quebec, Mr. Joseph Bourbeau. Could the minister inform the House and the Canadian people whether he has been advised of Mr. Bourbeau's statement that an amendment to the National Energy Board Act, namely, Bill C-108, might create certain problems for Hydro-Quebec, since the proposed legislation would make it possible to modify a power export licence for reasons of public convenience and necessity, and might cost Hydro-Quebec $10 billion, and could the minister also inform us whether he has heard that Mr. Bourbeau stated he could not care less about the power corridor between Newfoundland and the United States?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I have, in fact, been advised of Mr. Bourbeau's statement. Some time ago I heard that Hydro-Quebec was worried about a specific provision to which the hon. member is referring. I asked my officials to get in touch with Hydro-Quebec and obtain further details. Unfortunately, we have been unable to get additional information as yet. We have also been in touch with a number of public utility companies in the United States, and we have received no indication that the proposed provision might create any problems. However, I can assure the hon. member and the House that the government will not allow a provision that would cause such prejudice, if that is is indeed the case, to remain before Parliament. If after consultations, which I hope we shall soon be able to have with the appropriate authorities, it is concluded that prejudice is a possibility, we shall not hesitate to amend the bill to ensure there is no prejudice to the Hydro-Quebec contract.

May 27, 1982


FISHERIES
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The minister will remember that in early April, and then again in committee, I asked him what possible means could be taken to assist the gillnetters in the lower Fraser River. Also the minister will remember that there was a proposal put to the department for a net buy-back program and also a sum of money per fisherman to take them out of the industry, given the fact that it is very, very difficult for them to fish at all because of the need to protect chinook stocks. The minister knows that there will be a meeting this Sunday in New Westminster of the gillnetters. I ask him again whether he has had an opportunity to discuss this further with his officials and whether he is prepared to give any kind of an answer to these gillnetters?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member in committee, the fuel proposal did not appear to be one which could be administered with efficiency and with realism. The question of nets is still being discussed. I understand that my officials are also trying to find, as they did last year, some additional fishing space in the fishing plan for the coming season, but I have no easy solution to offer the hon. member.


REQUEST THAT DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS ATTEND MEETING
John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, the minister knows that at least to some degree, and perhaps to a greater degree in some cases, these gillnetters in the Fraser River need income from fishing. The minister realizes that, in taking them out as a conservation measure, they are put in a very difficult and unequal position. I am not saying unfair; I am saying "unequal". Would the minister undertake at this time to ensure that he has officials of his department at the meeting on Sunday in New Westminster to hear the comments of the gillnetters, to respond to those comments, and perhaps to come up with some solution which is equitable with respect to the livelihood that these particular fishermen are having to give up?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I fully recognize the difficulties which are imposed upon the groups of fishermen who, for conservation reasons, are restricted in their activities. It is difficult for us always to ensure that for each dislocation there will be some form of compensation. We try to average over a number of years and to find a way to keep the incomes of fishermen within reasonable levels. As the hon. member knows, if a group of fishermen has an income loss which is unusual, and if the prices support board concludes that the income has been reduced very substantially, then the board, which is an
Oral Questions
independent body with fishermen representatives, makes recommendations to the minister.
As to the question of the meeting on Sunday, if it is a meeting to which my officials are invited obviously they will, as usual, be present. However, if it is a meeting to demonstrate, I hope the hon. member will understand that no useful purpose will be served.


FILLING OF VACANCIES
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He will have a vague recollection that there are three vacancies in the House of Commons. Would he not consider that the residents of these three constituencies should have representatives in the House of Commons and, if not, why not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, I do consider that they should, and indeed Parliament made this quite clear in an amendment to the law some years ago when it indicated that the government would have to declare the date for a by-election within six months of the vacancy being recognized.


Frederick William Wright: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has not given us any good reason why these by-elections should not take place.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Frederick William Wright: Madam Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister again: is he not a political coward for not holding these by-elections?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Madam Speaker, if I am a coward, obviously every member of the House is a coward because we agreed in the House to give any government six months to-


Erik Nielsen: How about Spadina?


Frederick William Wright: Call it right now!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He wants me to "call it right now". I will not do it right now, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister responsible for unemployment insurance is aware that 500,000 unemployed Canadians stand to lose their

May 27, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
unemployment insurance benefits if they cannot find sufficient work over the next six months in order to requalify. Yesterday, the minister stated that he is more interested in finding solutions than in making predictions. Is the minister prepared to take the preventive action now of extending the period during which Canadians can collect unemployment insurance, until unemployment comes down to 4 per cent?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I believe that the circumstance of being unemployed is serious enough without having hon. members of the House, such as the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James, engaging in false scare tactics to try to inflame and enrage a circumstance which is already quite grave. I do not think he should be following the example which was set in the House yesterday by the hon. member from Joliette. It was really uncalled for.
What we are concerned about is that we are monitoring the situation very carefully. We will continue to provide a number of programs through the Unemployment Insurance Act to help those who are unemployed and we will continue to show the kind of sensitivity required for the plight of the unemployed, rather than engaging in the kind of scare tactics that the hon. member is patenting as his own particular product and contribution to this problem.


QUERY RESPECTING STIMULATION OF ECONOMY
Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, a few days ago the President of the Treasury Board described any move toward a fiscal stimulus to create new jobs as dangerously counter-productive. Yet the Minister of Employment and Immigration stated yesterday that he is much more interested in putting people to work. Will the minister tell the House whether he is now prepared to support stimulating the economy to put Canadians back to work, or does he agree with his colleague that stimulating the economy is dangerously counter-productive?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, we have had a number of exchanges on this. However, I would point out to the hon. member that at the present rate of expenditures in my department alone we are providing assistance to over half a million Canadians, to provide them with either direct employment or opportunities to be retrained during this difficult period. That,
I believe, shows a very clear and continuing commitment by this government to help those who have needs.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: I am prepared to rule on the question of privilege which was raised the other day by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). 1 realize that he is not in
the House. The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) is in the House.
I am in the hands of the House. I usually do not rule in the absence of a member who has raised a question of privilege but I do not like to delay my rulings. Perhaps I could ask the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) if he would prefer that I rule today or delay it until the hon. member for St. John's West comes into the House.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, under the circumstances, I think perhaps it would be convenient if you rendered your ruling today.


Madam Speaker:: On May 20, 1982 the hon. member for St. John's West raised a question of privilege alleging that on May 18, 1982 the Minister of Justice deliberately misled the House in certain answers he made to certain questions.
The procedure on a breach of privilege is well known to this House. A member complaining of a breach of privilege must do it at the earliest possible opportunity during the course of a sitting if a question of privilege arises out of proceedings in the Chamber, or by giving notice to the Speaker at least one hour prior to the opening of the sitting. The member must conclude the statement on a question of privilege with a motion providing the House with an opportunity to take some action which normally is the reference of the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for examination.
The role of the Speaker in these cases is to determine whether the case meets the conditions which would entitle debate on the motion to take precedence over all other business.
I would first of all like to review two important precedents relevant to the case before us and which were referred to in the presentation to the House. The first is the Lawrence-RCMP case of November and December, 1978; the second is the Profumo case at Westminster in 1963. The House will recall that in the latter case Mr. John Profumo had made a personal statement to the House which contained words which he later admitted not to be true. Subsequently, the House resolved that Mr. Profumo was guilty of a grave contempt of the House. This is the episode which gave rise to the citation in May's Nineteenth Edition at page 142 that:
The House may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.
The other precedent, one of our own, involved correspondence between the then Solicitor General and the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, as the constituency was then called. The member had been in correspondence with the minister on a certain matter involving the RCMP and the minister's reply had been drafted by RCMP officials. The former Commissioner of the RCMP later admitted before the McDonald Royal Commission that "the practice was very often minister's letters were not exactly drafted on precise statements of fact". I refer to the House of Commons Debates of November 3, 1978, at page 778. In this case, my predecessor, Speaker Jerome, found that, prima facie, a contempt had been committed and said:
May 27, 1982

-I cannot conceive that there is any one of us who would accept the argument that this House of Commons has no recourse in the face of such an attempt to obstruct by offering admittedly misleading information.
These two precedents are clear and unequivocal. In each case there had been evidence, an admission in fact, that a deliberate attempt had been made to mislead and that this was the condition precedent to the prima facie finding of privilege. In the Profumo case, the member himself admitted that he had attempted to mislead the House; in the RCMP case, the admission was made by the then Commissioner in evidence before a Royal Commission.
Having reviewed precedents relating to the matter, namely the deliberate misleading of the House, let me take a little time to review the precedents relating to the procedure being followed.
In the course of debate on the evening of February 22, 1978, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) stated that the then Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) had "intentionally, deliberately, overtly and openly" misled the House. The next day he gave the Speaker a notice of his intention to raise a question of privilege "respecting the manner in which the Minister of Finance deliberately misled the House ... ". During the discussion of the question of privilege the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham withdrew unequivocally the unparliamentary language he had used the night before.
Later, on February 23, 1978, at page 3295 of Hansard, Mr. Speaker, Jerome struck down the notice of privilege given earlier by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham because it contained the word "deliberately", and he did so without prejudice to the hon. member to raise the matter again in a substantive motion. The congruity of this case with the present one is clear but one ought not to draw the wrong conclusions from either. We are precisely following the procedure which emerged from the precedent my predecessor so clearly established.
The use of unparliamentary language in debate was dealt with in both cases in accordance with the practices of the House. The notice of privilege was drafted in such a way as to avoid the use of unparliamentary language. The House insisted in both cases that unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of members. These principles are at the very heart of Speaker Jerome's approach to the problem which confronted him in February, 1978. They are the principles by which the Chair was guided last week in the preliminary discussion of the present question of privilege.
Let me deal for a few moments with the issue before the House. Members will appreciate that the Speaker is not called upon to determine the substance of the case. The Speaker, in other words, does not sit in judgment upon hon. members. To do so would be to usurp a power which only the House enjoys. The role of the Chair is to determine the narrow procedural issue of whether or not the complaint meets the conditions which justify its taking precedence over all other business. That is, was it raised at the earliest opportunity and does it, on
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
its face, appear that privilege is involved? I refer to Beau-chesne's fifth edition, Citation 84.
Citation 84(2) is clearly drawn from a passage in May's nineteenth edition at page 347, which reads as follows:
It has often been laid down that the Speaker's function in ruling on a claim of breach of privilege is limited to deciding the formal question whether the case conforms with the conditions which alone entitle it to take precedence of the notices of motions and orders of the day standing on the order paper of public business; and does not extend to deciding the question of substance, whether a breach of privilege has in fact been committed-a question which can only be decided by the House itself. The conditions with which a claim of privilege must comply in order to be accorded precedence are those mentioned above, that is,
(1) a prima facie case of breach of privilege must be made out and (2) the matter must be raised, of course, at the earliest opportunity.
It should be quite clear that the Speaker does not decide, in substance, whether or not a matter shall be debated in the House. Provided a proposition meets the procedural requirements established by the House, the House disposes of the matter as it sees fit, and on this point may I offer for the consideration of hon. members another passage from May's Nineteenth Edition at page 349.
Many motions, more or less affecting privilege, have been brought on in their turn, with other notices of motions; and on occasions matters to which the Speaker has refused precedence as a matter of privilege, have been raised on a motion moved at a later date.
Therefore, 1 am satisfied that the Chair ought not to interfere in the substantive issue which has been raised by the hon. member for St. John's West but only in the procedural elements: was it raised at the earliest opportunity, and does it appear, on the face of it, to involve privilege? If the answer to both questions is yes, the motion will be given priority and the House will decide. If the answer to either question is no, the motion can, of course, still be offered to the House at some other time, but it will not enjoy the priority with which a prima facie finding of privilege would endow it.
Setting aside, then, the substance of the issue which does not fall within my purview, I can easily dispose of the first of the procedural elements. The matter was raised at the earliest opportunity.
I have somewhat greater difficulty with the second, for I have before me two contradictory assertions made by hon. members. The hon. member for St. John's West in his motion asserts that the minister misled the House deliberately. The minister says he did not. Hon. members know that the House must accept the word of an hon. member, as stated in Beau-chesne's fifth edition, Citation 322, and I quote:
It has been formally ruled by Speakers that a statement by a member respecting himself and particularly within his own knowledge must be accepted, but it is not unparliamentary temperately to criticize statements made by a member as being contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible. On rare occasions this may result in the House having to accept two contradictory accounts of the same incident.
1 cannot attach greater credibility to the word of one hon. member over another. The Speaker cannot interpret statements made by hon. members which must be accepted at face value. The hon. member for St. John's West claims he had been misled. I accept that. He claims he has been deliberately

May 27, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
misled. I accept that too, but as an assertion, not as a fact upon which I could find privilege; because the minister, who has the same right to have his word accepted in this House, says there is no attempt to mislead, deliberately or otherwise, and 1 accept that, too.
Herein lies the dilemma. The Chair cannot give precedence to a motion offered under the head of privilege unless it can be determined, prima facie, that a contempt has been committed. Such a determination cannot be made in this case without an inquiry. Therefore, it seems to me that it is less than satisfactory to approach this case through the procedures of privilege, that some other route ought to be examined. 1 refer hon. members to the passage from page 349 of May's Nineteenth Edition cited earlier, and also to those comments of Speaker Jerome when he struck down the notice of privilege of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham in February, 1978. Again, the parallels between the two cases are clear. I quote from page 3295 of Hansard for February 28, 1978-and here I am quoting my predecessor:
I would think, therefore, that the action would be to strike out the hon. member's notice of privilege because it contained the word "deliberately", on the basis of clear precedents. It is entirely without prejudice to the hon. member to raise the matter again in a substantive motion after he has had the opportunity to consult these precedents. Whether or not that course is open, in the light of the interventions that have already taken place by the Minister of Finance in the proceedings to this date, in which the Minister of Finance indicated that he did not mislead the House on those occasions, would have to depend on other precedents in which, when matters of this sort or similar to this have been raised a minister or a member has risen in his place in the House and said that the House was not misled, or if it was misled, it was certainly not done intentionally. Under the practices of this House his word has always been accepted, and the matter has always been finalized. Since the minister has already said that, whether the matter ought to go further is something only further reflection can determine.
Finally in this connection, let me refer to the Rykert case of March 11, 1890. Four allegations were made against Mr. Rykert, the second being to have made a false statement to the House calculated to mislead. The House dealt with that matter, not as privilege, but under a substantive motion on notice. 1 refer to Hansard for March 11, 1890, as reported at page 1714. The motion was debated and amended, the matter was sent to a committee which reported, and the report was concurred in.
In conclusion, then, let me summarize. The Speaker cannot determine whether a contempt has been committed. That determination is for the House alone. Assertions have been made to that effect, but they remain assertions, and as such do not provide grounds for the Chair to find a prima facie breach of privilege. They can be proved or disproved only after an inquiry which the Chair cannot make. On the other hand, our precedents provide another route to follow if the House wishes to pursue this matter, not through the claim of privilege in which the Chair can do nothing but uphold the well-established rules and precedents, but by way of substantive motion on notice. Since such a motion would by its very nature call into question the conduct of a member of this House, the House itself may choose to give priority of debate which the Chair cannot give under the rules of privilege, since, as I have
said, I am not satisfied that a prima facie case has been established.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Thursday, May 20, 1982, and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate what the order of business will be for the coming days. The representatives of each party have agreed to dispose of the three stages of Bill C-114, relating to unemployment insurance, tomorrow, Friday. If time remains after we have disposed of the three stages of Bill C-114, we will start debate on second reading of Bill C-115, concerning occupational training.

As far as the business of the House for next week is concerned, on Monday we shall proceed with second reading of Bill C-109 which provides for assistance in respect of dwellings with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. Tuesday will be an opposition day, and on Wednesday, we shall proceed with consideration of energy Bills C-102 and C-107 which are reported by the Special Committee on Energy, in that order. On Thursday, we shall be considering further energy bills, in the following order: Bill C-103, provided the bill has been reported from committee, and Bill C-104. If Bill C-103 has not been reported from Committee in time for consideration on Thursday, the House will not be considering energy bills on Thursday but Bill C-109 on urea formaldehyde instead, and if there is still time after completion of the debate on the latter, we shall resume debate on Bill C-l 15 on occupational training.
May 27, 1982



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Deniger: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Tenth Report of the Standing Committee on Transport.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition signed by 1,331 residents of Prince George, British Columbia. The petition advances a protest that, by virtue of the work-sharing program recently implemented by the federal government, unemployment insurance claimants who are unable to participate in this program and who are yet allowed to earn only 25 per cent of their weekly benefits without penalty, are unfairly discriminated against. These workers are not only receiving substantially less income than the program beneficiaries, but are penalized if they secure part-time employment of any substantial nature outside the program.
The petitioners hope that in your examination of the petition, Madam Speaker, you will find it in order and that you will exercise the discretionary powers vested in the office of the Speaker of the House of Commons to allow discussion and referral to the appropriate committee at the earliest possible time, in order that inequities arising from an otherwise constructive use of public funds be redressed.
* *
*


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: 2,834, 3,616, 3,617, 4,153, and 4,240.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the education leave costs recorded by the Department of the Secretary of State for the National Museums of Canada at page 13.6, volume I of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, what guidelines were used
Order Paper Questions
to determine (a) which employees should obtain educational leave and whether such employees should be granted (i) leave with pay (ii) travel expenses (iii) payment for tuition (b) whether the skills to be acquired were needed on a permanent basis?
2.	What percentage of the education leave cost of $64,811 was necessitated by the acquisition of new equipment and by the need to have new skills in order to use the equipment?
3.	What percentage of the education leave was necessitated by reason of job redundancy because of the (a) acquisition of equipment (b) change in the role of the employing agency (c) change in the capabilities of employees?
4.	What percentage of employees granted such leave in the past three years have subsequently left the public service?


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the National Museums of Canada as follows:
1.	(a) and (b) Please refer to Treasury Board Policy, Personnel Management Manual, chapter 110-5, "Conditions governing education, training and development, including subsidization".
2.	While statistical data in National Museums of Canada does not enable us to determine whether education leave costs were necessitated by the acquisition of new equipment requiring new skills from employees, it should be noted in this regard that no high technology equipment requiring special training was acquired by the corporation during the period in question.
3.	Nil.
4.	Statistical data compiled for the annual training and education review for any given year does not include a review of what educational leave a departing employee may have enjoyed while with the corporation.


Mr. Herbert: Under the Canada Assistance Plan, by province, what is the annual per capita government contribution to day care centres?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The following schedule represents, on a per capita basis, the federal contribution under the Canada Assistance Plan, towards the cost of provincial and territorial day care services. The federal contribution to provinces and territories does not represent 50 per cent of all costs incurred by the provinces and territories for day care services, as certain day care programs, clientele and costs are ineligible for cost sharing purposes as determined by the Canada Assistance Plan Act, regulations and guidelines.
1981/82 Canada Assistance Plan Contribution Towards
Day Care Services
Costs	Total Population*	Per CapitaNewfoundland	$ 300,000	585,000	$ 0.51Prince Edward Island	200,000	125,000	1.60Nova Scotia	2,800,000	857,000	3.27New Brunswick	400,000	710,000	0.56Quebec	10,500,000	6,340,000	1.66Ontario	23,700,000	8,625,000	2.75Manitoba	3,500,000	1,055,000	3.32
May 27, 1982
Order Paper Questions
Costs	Total Population*	Per CapitaSaskatchewan	2,400,000	980,000	2.45Alberta	7,000,000	2,160,000	3.24British Columbia	10,500,000	2,710,000	3.87Yukon Territory	100,000	22,000	4.55Northwest Territories	100,000 $61,500,000	43,000 24,212,000	2.33
Source: June 1, 1981 Inter-census figures. Statistics Canada


Mr. Herbert: What is the estimated number of pre-school children presently in day care centres and, of these, how many are in centres that are cost shared by the government under the Canada Assistance Plan?


Royce Herbert Frith: The National Day Care Study in 1980 indicated that 92,423 pre-school children (12.16 per cent of children under six years whose mothers worked outside the home) were in approved day care spaces*, including family day care spaces. It is not possible to give a precise number of children in centres being cost shared under the Canada Assistance Plan but it is estimated that at least 60 per cent of the above-mentioned number of children (that is, 55,454 children) were in such centres.
'Approved day care spaces refer to spaces in provincially approved or licensed centres as opposed to private or casual day care arrangements.


Mr. Mazankowski: For the fiscal years 1980-81 and 1981-82 (a) what amount did the government pay in total to subsidize oil imports and what amount did it pay by company (b) what were the average (i) gross costs (ii) subsidies per bbl for each company?


Marc Lalonde: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows:
(a) Oil Import Compensation Payments
Company	Payments	
	1980-81	1981-82
		($)
BP Canada Ltd. Ultramar Inc. Gulf Canada Products Company Imperial Oil Ltd. Irving Oil Ltd. Murphy Oil Que. Ltd. (Spur Oil) Petro-Canada (formerly Petrofina) Shell Canada Ltd. Sunoco Inc. Texaco Canada Inc. Total (crude oil)	75,144,866 320,120,774 348,180,832 731,681,434 800,765,665 10,706,716 80,304,251 297,318,715 46,144,377 324,129,543 3,034,497,173	151,744,807 409,092,460 298,201,811 716,709,403 693,275,510 4,317,255 165,741,922 361,456,336 131,526,286 377,937,663 3,310,003,453Compensation payments for petroleum products	127,209,986	128,226,155Total payments	3,161,707,159	3,438,229,608
(b)(i) and (ii) Pursuant to section 92 of the Petroleum Administration Act, the requested information is privileged and, therefore, cannot be released to the public.


Mr. Herbert: Are eight provincial health ministries participating with the government in the funding of the development of management information systems for health institutions and, if so, which two provinces are not participating and were reasons provided for non-participation?


Royce Herbert Frith: Yes, eight provincial health ministries and two territorial ministries are participating with the government in the funding of the development of management information systems for health institutions. British Columbia and Quebec are not participating. Yes, reasons were provided for non-participation.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 2,666 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 2,666 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	What are the job classification titles under which an individual would be employed in the Customs and Excise Branch of the Department of National Revenue?
2.	For each classification, in 1979 and 1980, how many individuals were employed in (a) Cascade, Delta, Courtney, Douglas, Vancouver, Victoria and Penticton in British Columbia (b) Calgary, Cardston, Coutts, Edmonton, Lethbridge and Medicine Hat in Alberta (c) Carievale, Estevan, North Battleford, Regina and Saskatoon in Saskatchewan (d) Churchill, Gretna, Lena and Winnipeg in Manitoba (e) Belleville, Cochrane, Cornwall, Kenora, London, Ottawa and Toronto in Ontario (f) Clarenceville, Lachute, Levis, Montreal, Nicolet and Trois-Rivieres in Quebec (g) Bathurst, Edmundston, Campbellton, Fredericton, Moncton and Saint John in New Brunswick (h) Bridgewater, Chester, Halifax, Middleton, Sydney and Truro in Nova Scotia (/) Burgeo, Corner Brook, Channel-Port aux Basques, Grand Banks and St. John's in Newfoundland (j) Charlottetown, Montague and Summerside in Prince Edward Island and what was the (i) range of salary (ii) average annual salary?
3.	Under each classification in each office in part 2, did any individuals (a) request a transfer to another province and, if so, how many and to which province
May 27, 1982

(b) resign and, if so, how many and for what stated reason (c) have their employment terminated and, if so, how many and for what reason?
Return tabled.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 4,291 ?


Mr. McGrath: 1.	Do either the local or national Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation offices have any information about the application of the program announced by the Minister of Public Works to reimburse repairs on existing homes and, if not, can the Minister say on what date detailed information and application forms will be available, in view of the fact that the building season is now getting under way?
2.	Can the Minister indicate in what specific areas of the country the plan will be applicable, so that Canadians who wish to renovate can begin to make plans?


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, further to the question put by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) which was essentially as follows: Do either the local or national Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation offices have any information about the application of the program announced by the Minister of Public Works to reimburse repairs on existing homes. The reply is as follows:
The National Office of CMHC has complete information about the Canada Home Renovation Plan. Distribution of detailed information and application forms to local offices began on April 21. All offices are now in a position to provide information and application packages.
The Plan is available in all areas of the country, but funds will be targeted to areas experiencing high unemployment. The Atlantic and Quebec Regions will therefore receive a large part of the total allocation.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Beatty:: Madam Speaker, on February 19, I placed question No. 4,041 on the Order Paper. In that question I asked:
1. What action (a) was taken (b) is currently planned by the government on each recommendation of the (i) Second Report of the Second Session of the 30th Parliament from the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other
Taxation
Statutory Instruments (ii) Fourth Report of the First Session of the 32nd Parliament from the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments (iii) Report of the Task Force on Regulatory Reform (iv) Reports of the Regulation Reference of the Economic Council of Canada?
I am informed that the answer to that question was made available by Treasury Board to the Privy Council office some weeks ago. There seems to be a delay in the Privy Council office in answering that question. Several months have lapsed since February 19. Can the parliamentary secretary tell the House, first, the cause for the delay in the Privy Council office and, second, when the answer to that question will be made available to the House?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I do not know the answer to that question offhand, but I will be happy to make inquiries and see if I can expedite the tabling of the answer.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Yvon Pinard: that Bill C-112, to amend the statute law relating to certain taxes, be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to begin the third reading debate on Bill C-112 on behalf of the official opposition. This bill is part of a large number of energy bills arising from the National Energy Program. They caused some difficulty when they were originally incorporated in a large package. They have now been broken down into bite size so that we can more easily digest, scrutinize and provide constructive criticism.
We are now dealing with Bill C-112, the major taxation device of the National Energy Program. It contains several aspects which are responsible for drawing large amounts of money into the government treasury from consumers all across the country.
An interesting feature of the taxation changes occurring as a result of this bill is that we are faced with this bill and the whole National Energy Program at a time when the rules provided by successive Liberal governments were felt to be inadequate to deal with the situation that developed in energy and also with regard to deficits and the financing of government operations.
These rules, all of the taxation regimes and all of those things which control energy companies in Canada, had originally been provided by Liberal governments. This was for all companies which had their head office in the United States or some other country or those which had a branch corporation in

May 27, 1982
Taxation
Canada or an enterprise active in Canada. These rules were put in place because the government obviously felt they would be adequate to deal with the amount of control and taxation that was required for energy.
All of a sudden we have had a major change in the rules as a result of the National Energy Program. What the companies find frustrating is that the rules were changed in the middle of the game. They were changed arbitrarily by government to suit the purposes of government that had been controlling all of their activities up to that time for their own purposes.
Whether you call it unfair or not, it is at least a grand confusion and a grand difficulty. A great deal of insecurity has arisen because the rules were changed in the middle of the game. As a result of Bill C-112, there are some specific changes.
1 would like specifically to mention two changes that should be questioned on the grounds of constitutionality. The first is raised by Clause 3(1). Referring to the natural reservoir in Canada, the bill provides:
" "offshore area" means Sable Island or any area of land that belongs to Her Majesty in right of Canada or in respect of which Her Majesty in right of Canada has the right to dispose of or exploit the natural resources and that is situated in the submarine areas adjacent to the coast of Canada and extending throughout the natural prolongation of the land territory of Canada to the outer edge of the continental margin or to a distance of two hundred nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of Canada is measured, whichever is greater;"
This same type of clause is included in other bills, specifically Bills C-106 and C-103. The important point on the question of the appropriateness of that clause is whether or not, at a time when the Supreme Court of Newfoundland has been given this question of control to decide upon on behalf of the province, and also when the federal government has put the same question before the Supreme Court of Canada, we have a right to incorporate a clause like this in this or any of the other energy bills we have before us now. That is a major question. It is certainly a major concern of the government of Newfoundland. I would think it is a major concern of the Government of Canada, which has given the Supreme Court of Canada the job of making a decision on who does control those offshore resources.
Until that decision is made, what we have here now, in this and other bills, is almost a prejudgment on what that decision will be. A bill that is really predicated on the basis that the Government of Canada will control all those resources in their own way cannot but be offensive to the people of Newfoundland, It cannot but be a difficulty if the Supreme Court of Canada looks at it and says, "What are we doing here? We have statutes of the federal government already in place which already assume the decision that we are going to make." 1 think that is the first question to ask in terms of constitutionality.
The second question is a little more technical. Equally as important probably for the purpose of the bill is Clause 10. Under Clause 10, new Section 47.1(1) says:
Where any marketable pipeline gas has been exported after September 30, 1981 and before January 1, 1987, from Canada for use outside Canada pursuant
to a licence issued under Part VI of the National Energy Board Act or pursuant to any other authority under that Act and the tax imposed by Part IV. I has been paid in respect of the gas, the Minister may-
And here is the important portion:
-on application by the exporter in such form and manner as the Minister prescribes, made to the Minister within four years from the time the gas was exported, pay to the exporter an amount equal to that tax.
The important point here is that the money that has been garnered through the tax revenue going through the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources will in fact enter the consolidated revenue fund. By entering that general revenue fund, the minister is then losing control over it. In order for the minister to pay back or return those quantities which are described in this section as amounts of money, he really has to have a royal proclamation in order to give him that authority. That is not included in this bill.
As I understand it, that is a legal requirement before the minister has that right or that authority to do it. That should be questioned on the grounds of constitutionality. That is something that one of the government speakers might answer on behalf of the government when they respond during this debate.
When we come down to the real nuts and bolts of the bill, Mr. Speaker, and what really happens in terms of this taxation device, we have three parts. We have two parts that can be discussed separately, the natural gas and gas liquids tax. For the sake of identifying how important this is or what it really means, I have an estimate of what the revenue from this tax to the Government of Canada will be. This means that by taxation imposed on natural gas and on gas liquids, the Government of Canada-these are estimates, now-stands to gain in 1981-82 slightly over $1 billion; in 1982-83, approximately $1.5 billion; in 1983-84, approximately $2 billion; and then by 1984-85, $2.5 billion in that year. That is the amount of money that will come from this specific tax.
In fact, through specific measures in the bill, the minister is given the discretionary ability to provide the maximum allowable tax of approximately $4 billion permitted to him, which will allow the government to receive a maximum of $8 billion in one year from the revenue from this taxation. That is a massive amount of money. That is an imposition on the pricing machine that may have a lot to do with how competitive we are, how much gas we are able to export, how much of the market we will have or be able to develop for our natural gas.
The provision for the government by order in council to levy this tax-and many speakers have made mention of this-was one of the critical aspects of the opposition's position at the time the government brought in the omnibus bill. The order in council is a unique and unusual way of levying tax. The power that they will have to do this will not give us the opportunity in the future, until we pass this $8 billion per year mark, of scrutinizing or questioning the government on the appropriate level of taxation or indeed on what use the government is making of those tax dollars.
May 27, 1982

The other thing that happens because of specific clauses and articles in the bill is that there really is no guidance that the governor in council has as to when and under what circumstances he might levy this tax. So the discretionary power again is something of major concern. Parliament really has no control. The tax statute does not provide control as to when those taxes will be levied-not only the amounts, but when and under what circumstances.
There is a final point that can be made under this specific section, and this might worry all Canadians, Mr. Speaker. It is that the maximum amount of tax that can be levied would actually relate to other provisions in other areas, to a price of oil at $100 per barrel. I do not know whether that means that the government is expecting that by 1990, or whenever, we will be facing a $100 a barrel price for oil. It is pretty clear in the last year that we cannot fully anticipate what prices will be charged for oil, what the international circumstances might do, what the cartel might do, which would affect oil prices and subsequently affect the price of natural gas in Canada and, subsequent to that, affect the taxation levels that might be imposed by a government.
The second part of the major taxation section of this bill relates to the PGRT, the petroleum gas revenue tax, and to what is called the IORT, which is the incremental oil revenue tax. For a perspective on these, Mr. Speaker, we can look at the amount of revenue that the government can expect to achieve from these two taxes.
There have been some changes-1 think that should be noted-in the oil agreements made between the government of Alberta and the federal government last September. Changes have been made which were not exactly the same as provisions in the National Energy Program. From the changes and from where at best we can estimate these changes will take us, the kind of revenues we are looking at are: for 1981-82, in November 1981, $1,180 million; for 1982-83 in November, $3,760 million; for 1983-84 in November again, approximately $5 billion-and that is in one year, Mr. Speaker, $5 billion to the federal treasury; and for 1984-85, $6,115 million. That is revenue from that single tax on petroleum products.
Whether that is an appropriate level of tax is only one part of the discussion. I think one of the things we should also look at while we are looking at that massive increase in taxation and that massive flow of funds to the federal government-and I think this is important for people to understand-is what is happening, in the same time-frame, to the petroleum industry.
Returns to petroleum companies are called netbacks, and during that same period of time netbacks to petroleum companies in Canada will be a critical factor. Under the regime we have now, the netback in December of 1983 will not change in the same way as the tax. The federal government will receive increased revenues, but producers will receive very minimal increases in their returns. These are the people who actually
Taxation
are responsible for getting the product out. They are responsible for exploring, finding, producing and delivering petroleum products. Under the agreement, by 1983 the old oil field price will have increased by almost 50 per cent as a result of the IORT. The producer netback will increase by only about 10 per cent. The question is whether that is adequate. Events over the past year or two have clearly indicated that the returns are not adequate to achieve the level of exploration and development we need in this country. We have seen that demonstrated in many different ways.
What will be the effects of these taxes? We will see massive increases in taxation on petroleum products. What has happened in the short term? We have heard various things from various people in the industry. The comments of large producers have varied from those of small producers. I would like to quote Mr. Bill Elser, president of the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada, in relation to the way he sees the situation, as follows:
-the industry needs further stimulations, beyond the Alberta action-
That is a reference to concessions which have been made recently by the Alberta government.
-to alleviate unemployment as a result of lagging investment in the oil and gas industry. Obviously this is a responsibility of the other producing provinces, but primarily the Federal Government-
Issues of particular concern to the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada include:
-the early opening up of long term competitively priced natural gas export
markets, and,
-an improved financial position for Canadian independents that will encourage
investment in this sector of the industry.
I suppose the most vivid and apparent examples of what has happened in the industry relate to large companies. There have been successive events involving large oil companies which have made it obvious to Canadians not only in western Canada but also in Ontario and eastern Canada that it is not possible under the taxation regime of the federal government for megaprojects like Alsands, Cold Lake and the proposed natural gas pipeline to go ahead and become part of our Canadian national energy scene. Those events are probably the most dramatic examples of what has happened because of the National Energy Program, pricing policy, retroactivity and changing the rules midstream. An hon. member shakes his head. Before he shakes his head he should look at the evidence and find out what the bottom line is. Can he tell me that Alsands would not have gone ahead if the Liberal government had not delayed coming to a pricing agreement for nearly two years?


Mr. Fisher:: Read yesterday's Globe and Mail. It is the government of Alberta.


Gary Michael Gurbin: The government of Alberta might be taking somewhat of a defensive position because, unfortunately, it is seen by some of its constituents as being in bed with the Liberal government, and it is felt that that has caused a great deal of difficulty across the country. Like the NDP, the government of Alberta knows what a great problem that might create at the political level.
17830

May 27, 1982
Taxation


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. 1 know the hon. member would not want to mislead the House intentionally, but the fact is that his party has voted with the Liberals twice as many times as the NDP. Every time he makes this statement, we are going to rise on points of order and point that out.


Mr. Siddon:: Why are you so sensitive?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Who is in bed with whom? Get the record straight.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure what the hon. member has said.


Mr. Blackburn:: Check the voting record.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Obviously something has happened to upset him. It is not unusual that we cannot understand what members of the New Democratic Party say because they change their minds so often. They have done so in relation to the Constitution and in relation to energy prices. Just the other day I heard the hon. member say he finally understood what was happening in relation to the cash flow problems of small independents. It is about time members of the New Democratic Party understood some of the things happening in the oil industry. It is a little late, however, for the oil rigs which have left the country. It is a little late to make up for lost production. We could have had that production, and that would have helped to make us secure and self-sufficient in energy. Because of the single-mindedness of the NDP and the Liberals, they want centralized control. They want to take away from the industry the cash flows it needs to be competitive and to undertake the development necessary to achieve the production levels we need.
Even if 1 am not absolutely correct, 1 must be somewhat correct because I am upsetting members of the New Democratic Party. When they are upset, that usually means we are on the right track.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Just go back behind the bushes.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Saskatchewan haunts them a little bit.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Check the voting record.


Gary Michael Gurbin: There is obviously a difference of opinion about energy self-sufficiency and how we will achieve the goal which has been stated by all parties. The previous national government made a major effort to bring about energy self-sufficiency. Canada has the ability to produce synthetic petroleum products, and if we did that, we would be self-sufficient. That would take us out of the international scene, where we are vulnerable to developments over which we have no control. We should be developing our own resources and generating the employment, the income and all the industrial activity we need not only in the west but also in Ontario and other parts of the country. Progress toward that goal of energy self-sufficiency has been stopped.
When hon. members opposite talk about the goal of energy self-sufficiency, they point with pride to their conservation
efforts. I was struck by one specific point the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) made in committee several weeks ago. He was talking about how well recognized the Canadian conservation program is at the International Energy Agency. Two years ago I was at the International Energy Agency in France, and it was agreed that Canada seemed to be coming along with its conservation program. I was also told that was appropriate because we had previously had the worst conservation record. That was in 1979 and 1980. We had been wasting energy for so long that our record was among the worst of all the nations which are part of the International Energy Agency. Indeed, we need a comprehensive and effective conservation program, and now we are getting some parts of such a program.
On the other side of the coin we have CHIP. CHIP was improved recently, and that was applauded by members of all parties, including members of the NDP, who are often on the wrong track. In this case they might have the right idea. However, 1 honestly question whether including CHIP is fair. The government brought in the National Energy Program in November, 1980 but surely they cannot expect the official opposition to believe that the CHIP program is the National Energy Program or a major part of it. CHIP has been an important part of conservation in Canada since at least 1975. It is a good program which we have supported and will continue to support, but surely the government would not expect Canadians to believe that the National Energy Program was responsible for CHIP. It was in effect a long time before the National Energy Program.
I have heard the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) speak with pride in this House about the nuclear program in Canada. The major part of our nuclear program falls to Ontario Hydro and it has been in effect since at least 1965. Even before that, the groundwork was laid for a 250 megawatt plant by John Diefenbaker and John Robarts. In face of the failures of Alsands, of Cold Lake, the Alaska pipeline and now perhaps the pipeline from Quebec to Halifax, would the government have the Canadian people believe that nuclear energy is part of their National Energy Program? That is a contention of dubious honesty, Mr. Speaker.
Self-sufficiency is our common goal, Mr. Speaker. It will not be achieved, however, if oil rigs and investment continue to leave the country. The industry lacks the confidence to do the things that need to be done. It looks as if by 1990 we will be exactly where we are stuck now, having to import between 20 and 30 per cent of our petroleum requirements. It is unfortunate that we will continue to be in that vulnerable position until beyond 1990. Things could change if steps were taken to improve the investment climate in this country instead of the kind of actions that are identified with all the different parts of the National Energy Program.
May 27, 1982

When 1 think of the Petroleum Monitoring Agency I think of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) telling the House today about the things that she is going to do. She knows that she hold a dub over the provinces; she knows that she is going to require more and is going to give less. She is using the club to try to gain a kind of centralized control and influence that would be a detriment to all concerned.
Through its control of energy development and its control of our magnificent resources, the government has got us into the mess we are in today. Responsibility for that cannot be laid on the oil companies or on the United States. The government must take responsibility because it is supposed to have been in charge, but it would have us believe that the fault lies elsewhere.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has said that the oil companies are not concerned about the monitoring aspects of the National Energy Program. How many companies would invest in research and development in a highly technical area knowing that all their work could be monitored by the minister who has access to all financial and production figures and is also in charge of Petro-Canada number one, number two or number three or, as we learned in committee this morning, possibly Petro-Dome or some other company? It is clear from the energy legislation that the Government of Canada-the minister-acting without a Crown corporation, can buy shares in Canadian or foreign companies. That would increase public ownership in the energy field. It will be interesting to see what happens with Dome and some of the other Canadian energy producing companies.
The minister has discretionary powers and has access to the details of every operation in Canada. This information, which is important for the vitality and development of individual companies, can be passed along. Does the government really expect that capital will continue to come into the country under those conditions, when Petro-Canada will know what other companies are doing? I do not think the industry will have confidence in the country when this kind of influence is present.
A great deal has been said about the effect of taxes and foreign investment in the energy industry and that this accounts for some of the difficulties we are experiencing. When the National Energy Program was introduced there was a massive outflow of capital from the country because investors lost confidence in the government. When investors saw the retroactive, confiscatory and control aspects of the program they took their money out of Canada and indeed, they continue to do so because they have no confidence in the country.
That draw on our capital has been one of the single most important factors in the high interest rate policy that is in effect today. In order to attract foreign capital, a high interest rate is necessary. An hon. member opposite shakes his head in a negative manner. I can only say that if he knew what the answer is, perhaps we would not be in the mess that we are in today. It is pretty clear that his caucus does not have the answer either because the government's policies just are not
Taxation
working. If the hon. member does not know that the business community cannot accept the present interest rates and that the major part of the problem is that there is no confidence in the country and that capital is leaving, then I fear for our future; because the hon. member should have access to some information and should be able to influence policies.
Because of the National Energy Program we have high interest rates, a loss of employment and high inflation. What are we going to do with the $5 billion or $6 billion in taxes that we will receive in one year? What will we do with those tax dollars? That is the question Canadians should ask themselves. They might be paying 60 cents or 70 cents in federal taxes on a gallon of gasoline, or 40 cents on diesel fuel. What is happening to that money now? That is the other side of the coin.
The government is spending $250 million a year on advocacy advertising to sell programs which are unacceptable unless they can be put out in a public relations way to try and make them look good. Canadians know what the problems are, they feel them individually. The government may not, it may be too insulated and unable to understand, which is unfortunate. The government is not going to spend any more money on health care; it has already told us that. The minister has already said there will not be an increase through the established programs funding to the provinces. She wants more control but is certainly not prepared to transfer more money to the provinces. The money is not going there; it is not going into tax credits in order to relieve the burden on low and fixed-income people or to those 1,250,000 people who cannot get a job. The money is not being used to develop our energy resources. So what are they doing with it?
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that members opposite will point proudly to this 7 per cent reduction in petroleum requirements. I will give the government credit; the oil conversion program is a good one which should be expanded and made to work better.
Mr. Speaker, one out of five is not a very good record but I guess the government has to find some comfort somewhere. The government fought an election on the basis that price should not be used as a technique to conserve energy. The government says the real results have been through the conservation program, CHIP and other programs, which have resulted in the 7 per cent reduction in energy use. I think that should be challenged by any thinking Canadian. It is the economic downturn and the increase in the price of energy which have created this reduced requirement for petroleum. It is good that demand is down because we certainly are not doing very much to achieve self-sufficiency. However, in looking at these various programs I think we owe it to Canadians to look also at the taxation system and what it has done to them in relation to inflation and higher costs. They should ask themselves whether the system is well managed, whether the taxes are achieving the goals we want for Canada, and whether this government is on the right track. I suggest not.

May 27, 1982
Taxation


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak for the NDP on third reading of this bill. However, 1 ask myself, how many times over the past 18 months have we debated energy, indeed this bill, in one way or the other? I debated this bill on May 13 and February 18, 1982, and in a number of speeches before that. That indicates to me that in some way we could reform this institution so we could have shorter speeches and better debates. Look at this place this afternoon. We have a few tourists in the gallery and a few members in the House. If we wanted to debate energy we could concentrate it in a smaller area, with quicker resolution, and generate some interest in it. I bet many people do not understand this bill because it is complicated. However, once you go through it you find it affects every one of us because it places taxes on all of us.
I wonder if anyone listens to these speeches. I am not going to give a long speech today because I do not think many people will listen, certainly not the government. You can talk until you are blue in the face and they change very little of their legislation, although they did change one aspect of this bill which I will come back to. But 1 wonder if the people listen, Mr. Speaker.
Before you rule me out of order, I might wonder that aloud. I know our speeches go right across the country by cable television, and I suppose out beyond those TV cameras people are watching. So I ask those people out there, if they are watching, to contact me. Send a letter to Ian Waddell, House of Commons, Ottawa. They do not even need a stamp. I would like to get their views on what they think of this particular energy bill and the National Energy Program.
1 know this is rather irregular, Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Edward Siddon: It sure is. It is called grandstanding.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -but I would like to see whether we get any particular reaction. Likely not, but we will see.
Let me just go through my speech, and with respect to the hon. member from Newfoundland over there, I will mail him a copy. There are four aspects to this bill. First of all, it changes the price of gas consumed domestically so it affects everyone who uses gas. Secondly, the bill brings in what is called PGRT and IORT, the petroleum and gas revenue tax and the incremental oil royalty tax. That is a mouthful, but they are really taxes on the industry resulting from the deal between Ottawa and the producing provinces. Thirdly, the bill touches on the National Energy Program; 1 want to discuss that from the point of view of the consumer and producer, and where we are going with the NEP. Finally, I want to talk about some positive options, about where I think we can go.
This country is in a real mess, Mr. Speaker. It is in real trouble. It is up to the parties and members of this House to get down to business and stop some of this nonsense which has been going on in Ottawa in the past couple of months-the what I call almost fascist tactics on the part of the official opposition, the Conservatives, and the incredibly negligent inertia on the part of the government. 1 want to offer what I
think are some positive options and I invite the other parties to offer their suggestions.


Mr. Kelly:: How long did you stall C-48?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The hon. member asks how long we stalled Bill C-48. We fought for Bill C-48, which dealt with energy in the Canada lands, in the north and offshore, so that we could obtain job spin-offs for Canadian workers. Goodness knows they need those jobs today. The hon. member will get his chance to discuss the bill with which I want to deal now.
The first item I want to discuss is the change in gas taxes. In fact it means that there is an excise tax on gas consumed inside the country. The government threatened to put a tax on gas going outside the country as well, but it backed off largely as a result of the position of the combined opposition in the House and the position taken by western provinces. It was a wise move to make, but it put a tax on gas consumed internally.
I raised this matter yesterday in the House when we were in Committee of the Whole on this bill. I asked the minister what it would cost individual Canadians and how it would affect those who cannot afford to pay, such as senior citizens, people on fixed incomes and poor people. These taxes are hurting those people. I am receiving letters from my riding and I am meeting with people in the east end of Vancouver. For example, people have come into my office and said that their hydro bills are going up much more than the cost of living or the pension they are receiving from government. They have asked what can be done about it. I put that question to the minister and he said that the government gives senior citizens a cost of living increase on their pensions which makes up for it.
I did some research last night and found that it does not make up for it. In my home province of British Columbia there have been the following increases in the price of natural gas. In November, 1980, the rates went up 13.6 per cent because of the federal excise tax on natural gas which we are debating. In May, 1981, it went up 6.1 per cent due to the Canadian ownership tax. In July, 1981, there was a 5.7 per cent increase due to an increase in the excise tax. In August, 1981 the wholesale price rose 25.5 per cent and operating costs rose 5.1 per cent. In February, 1982, the excise tax increased 6.1 per cent and the wholesale gas price rose 1.8 per cent. In April, 1982 British Coumbia operating costs rose 4.5 per cent and the price increased by 11 per cent. My source is British Columbia Hydro.
It is clear that there has been a substantial increase in the price of natural gas to consumers in British Columbia. Also it is clear that 31.5 per cent of the increases in British Columbia since 1980 is attributable to the tax which we are debating today-25.4 per cent was due to the excise tax and 6.1 per cent was due to the Canadian ownership rate. The minister is wrong when he tells me that the price of natural gas was increasing at the same rate as the cost of living. In fact, energy prices are going up dramatically more than other prices generally. This is hurting people.
May 27, 1982

Why is it a regressive tax? It is a regressive tax because it applies to everyone. It applies to the older woman in my riding who came to see me two weekends ago. She was receiving a pension of $400 per month, and she had to pay these increases. There is an ongoing bank inquiry in this building because bankers said that they were not making enough money. Senior executives of banks are only earning $200,000 per year! They are faced with the same energy price increases. Whether one earns $200,000 per year or $400 per month, one is faced with the same increases. That is why it is a regressive tax and that is why we in the NDP oppose it.
When the Conservatives were in office they suggested an energy tax credit. We have suggested a cost of living tax credit which is somewhat broader than the energy tax credit. Our suggestion would mean that when we take the money out of the pockets of people by the payment of hydro and gas rates, it would go to the government and then back into their pockets as a credit or a grant. This is what we should have, but we do not have anything like that from the government. That is why we say this tax is regressive. It is costing people more and more to heat their homes, and the government does nothing about it.
I should like to refer to some examples of what it costs to heat homes in Ontario. In the winter of 1980-81, the cost was $727. In the winter of 1981-82, it went up to $848. In Alberta it was $425 in the winter of 1980-81 and then it went up to $544 for the following winter. In British Columbia it was $447 and then it went up to $708. The point is that my constituents are correct when they tell me that their energy prices are rising more than the cost of living. The government is wrong when it disputes that fact. It is really negligent when it does nothing about it. All it does is bring in a tax. It does not recycle any of the money. The point I am making is a simple one, but it is important and it affects consumers all across Canada. They are the ones who are being hosed by the National Energy Program.
The second matter 1 want to discuss is the PGRT and the lORT. The hon. member who previously spoke, the hon. member for Moose Grey-


Gary Michael Gurbin: That is the name of a beer!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The hon. member must remember that I am from British Columbia and I sometimes confuse the names of beers; I am sorry. The hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) made the point well that these taxes were hurting the netbacks to small energy companies. He also said that I was rather late in changing my view. Well, I have changed my view on it. I think that it is affecting some of those companies. I do not have any brief for big oil companies in Canada, but I do have some sympathy for small Canadian-owned companies. We must remember that they were the companies that were supposed to be helped by the National Energy Program. The president of Imperial Oil, which is not exactly a small company-in fact, it is the largest oil company in Canada, controlled by Exxon-appeared before the energy committee. He said that he did not like the National Energy Program but that his company was getting by because it made profits in the
Taxation
downstream-refining and marketing. It also makes money in exploration and production, which is the upstream. The PGRT really affects the upstream. Small Canadian companies do not have the downstream, such as the small Canadian-owned gas station on the corner. Such companies have to rely on the upstream, on production. They are hurting because this tax grabs everything at the upstream. The government has created a paperwork nightmare, which I have been told by the companies that have to fill out forms in order to pay this tax, and also it has created a tax which is hurting small Canadian companies.
I am a social democrat, a socialist, and I am proud of it. I reject the notion that a socialist or social democrat should accept unworkable bureaucracy, should be blind or should not consider the fact that perhaps there are some small Canadian private companies which deserve a chance. I am prepared to consider them sympathetically and to give them a chance. In fact, I am going to Calgary tomorrow to consult further with these companies to see whether there are alternatives to the tax.
Now I should like to talk about some alternatives. It seems to me that there are positive options or alternatives for Canada. I have expressed my concern about this before and now I want to suggest a few alternatives. First let me talk about price because this is what consumers are concerned about. We should not slavishly follow the OPEC price which continually goes up and up. If we are to put up prices, then we should redistribute some of the income in the form of cost of living tax credits to people with low incomes and those on fixed incomes.
Before leaving this subject, I want to indicate just how serious it is. The government will give an increase in the pensions to senior citizens to cover the increase in the cost of living. As I pointed out, they need it. Look at the increase in energy prices. My province of British Columbia, which gives them a supplement, then takes the increase away from their supplement. People see the government giving it to them on the one hand and then British Columbia taking it back on the other hand.
We in the House may say that that is the way of the governments in Ottawa and British Columbia, but all the average citizen knows is that he needs the money and it comes from the government. The people find it wrong, as I do, that the government would give on the one hand and then take back on the other hand. This is happening in the tax area, the pension area and the energy area.
After we have redistributed some of the money to the people that need it, the next positive option is that instead of playing around with PIP grants-$6.5 billion to the oil industry to achieve a Canadianization program based on an unworkable bureaucratic scheme-we would make Petro-Canada the leading oil company in Canada. To make it number one we would take over one of the major American multinationals and let the Canadian oil companies do their thing. In the next

May 27, 1982
Taxation
couple of years we would have 50 per cent Canadian ownership and some government direction in the economy.
The hon. member who spoke previously talked about control of resources by Ottawa. I am a westerner and 1 realize that Ottawa and the western provinces have to work together, but due to the importance of the oil and gas sector there must be some direction in that industry.
There must be energy security for Canadians. In order to achieve that security there must be some direction, and it is our policy that this direction should come through Petro-Canada. I believe that Canadians support that policy.
The problem which exists in the House is that we are not radical enough for the people of Canada. We do not see any progressive initiatives taken. We listen to a few dinosaurs from a particular area who represent big oil companies and speak day after day in the House. But very few members stand up to speak on behalf of the Canadian consumer. I suspect that the consumer will opt and already is opting for an expanded Petro-Canada. The increasing sales of Petro-Canada service stations is evidence of that fact. 1 suggest that we drop some of these other tax programs.
As a westerner 1 would like to make another suggestion which I believe would be for the benefit of the western provinces. I believe the government is making an error in concentrating the efforts of the National Energy Program on exploration in the Beaufort Sea and the high Arctic. There is oil in Alberta and Saskatchewan that we have not touched. There is oil in the Lloydminster-Wainwright area and that is where we should be looking. Drilling rigs in Alberta could be working. I have a small button which is distributed by the energy services association in Alberta. That association is comprised of small entrepreneurs who help service rigs. Do you think they will get jobs in the Beaufort Sea? It will be the American multinationals that will go up there because they are the only companies that can afford to be involved in those kinds of plays.
We should be producing our oil in Canada. We can produce it cheaply and help the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan at the same time. I know that there is a feud, if you like, going on between the federal government and the Alberta government. The federal government is shifting all its explorations to the Canada lands in the north instead of Alberta and Saskatchewan. 1 believe that that is wrong and I will expand on that point later.
I would like to suggest another positive option, and that is to eliminate the PGRT and the IORT and just have a simple tax on the oil companies so they will not be burdened with filling out many forms for various governments. These companies should pay a royalty to the provinces and the provinces should share that royalty with the federal government. The difficulty which faces this option is that it requires co-operative federalism. That co-operation existed in this country and its principles were eloquently expressed by the Right Hon. Lester Pearson. I quoted him in a previous speech which I made on this bill in the House.
I say to Canadians that they must bring some pressure to bear on politicians in the country, provincially and federally, to
act responsibly. What happens is that a provincial government begins to "Ottawa-bash" and it gets re-elected. Therefore, it will keep doing that because it realizes it is a good way to stay in power. Of course, the federal government responds to this "bashing".
The present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said that cooperative federalism is dead. I think that is a sad statement. I believe that Canadians do not want to see co-operative federalism die. They want a tough federal government and a good provincial government which will stick up for their rights. Canadians do not want to see an end to co-operation because it is part of the federalism that we have developed in Canada.
As I said earlier, I would ask that the people of Canada give us, as legislators, some responsibility. Although this may not be popular with my hon. friends, I must say that I have had a chance to sit in this chamber and listen to some of the shenanigans that have been happening. I have seen the bell-ringing incident and the recent question of privilege brought by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). I feel that the official opposition will bring down the institution of Parliament. These acts have spread to Ontario where the Ontario Liberals have foolishly copied the bell-ringing episode. This is not how a government should operate in Canada. The country is in difficulty, people are unemployed and the oil and manufacturing industries are in trouble. We must see some positive measures introduced.
When I speak in Calgary tomorrow I know that some people will disagree with some of the policies I have enunciated, but at least we have made some suggestions. We are prepared to change some of them if they are not pragmatic enough and are shown not to work. However, the government is inactive and is not prepared to change its policies. Therefore, we end up with the National Energy Program.
One of the factors in our society is that conditions change so quickly. The National Energy Program is falling apart because it is based on the premise that oil prices will keep rising in the world market. However, there is a glut in the world market presently. This makes the agreement struck by Ottawa and Alberta unworkable and it will have to be reconsidered. There is nothing to prevent us from looking at the agreement again and there is nothing to prevent us from reviewing these taxes so that we can help small oil companies. Instead of the government remaining inactive while it is faced with a barrage of questions every day, there is nothing preventing it from saying that it will give the old and poor people a break, recycle some of that money to them and stimulate some areas of the economy. This can be done and people will respond to it. If I am wrong I will know when people write to me after I have made this speech.


Mr. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I wish I had time to respond to some of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), but I wish to talk about the offshore issue today. This subject continues to dominate events in Newfoundland currently. It
May 27, 1982

continues to be the main item of discussion, or non-discussion if you like, between the provincial and federal governments. This is rightly so because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador recognize the amazing potential for offshore development. It has the potential to improve dramatically our economic fortunes as a province, a potential to alter for the better our role as a fully participating partner in the Canadian confederation and to address the pressing needs for employment opportunities and improved social services as well as an adequate economic infrastructure.
Even more important than all of this is the potential to allow all of us as Newfoundlanders and Canadians to hold our heads high with complete dignity and unquestioned justification.
It is that aspect of the offshore potential which is little understood by those hon. members who do not happen to have the good fortune to be Newfoundlanders. It is the crucially important issue of dignity in this entire debate which goes to the very root of our commitment as Newfoundlanders, our unbridled determination to ensure we extract from that offshore resource every possible ounce of benefit. We will leave no stone unturned, no avenue unexplored and no possibility untapped to achieve that goal. The offshore issue is much bigger than moving oil from source to market and much bigger than moving it from Hibernia to the consumer. The real issue has more to do with hope, with opportunity, with the future and with dignity.
We as Newfoundlanders often talk about getting ready for a rainy day and having a little security down the road. We have seen a lot of rainy days, days when the head of the family had to leave home to work in the Arctic because he or she could not get a job at home; days when a son or daughter had to say goodbye and go off to Alberta where an employment opportunity was waiting, an employment opportunity which was not available back home in Newfoundland; days when the family business went under because the "now it's good, now it's not so good" Newfoundland economy was going through another of its not so good periods. As I have said, we have seen a lot of rainy days in Newfoundland.
Can we be blamed, then, if we are so determined to snatch a bit of sunshine? Can we be faulted if we see, in the offshore potential, an umbrella, a road to better things? That is the context in which we, as Newfoundlanders, talk about, dream about and fight about Hibernia. On that, we are all agreed. On the objective, the end goal, there is no division. That is not what divides us as Newfoundlanders. It is not the objective, not the end, but, rather, the means to that end which divides us. How we get there is the reason for the row, and it is a completely understandable row bearing in mind the stakes at issue.
Mr. Peckford, the Premier of Newfoundland, and I do not see eye to eye on every detail as to how we sort out this particular issue and how we reach our common objective, but it is a common objective. 1 am confident that our objective, mine
Taxation
and his, is one and the same. The fact that he disagrees on the means does not mean his commitment to the cause is any less than mine, or any more than mine for that matter. Our differences on the method, the way in which we get to that objective, should not suggest that he is any less a Newfoundlander than I, or vice versa for that matter.
All of us are determined to be masters in our own household.
I use that parallel, that particular analogy, quite deliberately. We are determined to be masters in our own household. A household is not a hermit's cabin tucked away somewhere up in the wilds, in the woods, with its back turned on the world. 1 am referring to a household, a vibrant, living, successful unit of itself, thriving not because of its isolation from the real world, but rather because its members are plugged into the real world, benefiting from that contact and contributing to the well-being of the world because of that contact.
It will come as no surprise to Your Honour that the overwhelming majority of Newfoundlanders live in the real world. Most do. Sadly, a few do not. That scattered few includes a couple of people who have the ear of the Premier of Newfoundland. He himself lives in the real world, but a couple of people who have his ear do not live in the real world. That scattered few who do not live in the real world are unfortunately still fighting yesterday's battles. Why does someone not tell them that the decision to join Canada was made by Newfoundlanders more than 30 years ago?


Thomas Edward Siddon: You tell them.


Roger Simmons: The issue was put to bed at that time. The future of Newfoundland and the future of Canada are tied closely together. Why do the scattered few not recognize that fact of life?


Thomas Edward Siddon: How many voted in the last election?


Roger Simmons: If only they would recognize the realities of today's world, the Premier, Mr. Peckford, would be getting much better advice than he is presently getting from such people.
I want to deal briefly with some of the misconceptions heard these days, especially in Newfoundland and Labrador, but to a lesser degree also around the country. Some of the misconceptions concern the offshore issue as it relates to Newfoundland, and some particularly relate to the federal government's role in the offshore issue to date. One of the current misconceptions, especially because of the reference by the Government of Canada of the Hibernia area issue, is that it was the federal government which first put the issue before the courts. The question concerning offshore, as it relates to possible court references, goes back a long, long time. But for the sake of brevity this afternoon, let me just deal with the last five years or so.
When the present Premier of Newfoundland was minister of energy in the Newfoundland government, he and the then federal energy minister, Mr. Gillespie, agreed to a joint court reference. That is right, Mr. Speaker; they both agreed that

May 27, 1982
Taxation
the most expeditious and sensible way to deal with this particular issue involving the legality of ownership was to put a joint reference, a Canada-Newfoundland reference, before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Unfortunately, subsequent to the date of that agreement in late 1977, Mr. Peckford changed his mind. The Government of Canada, acting on the agreement reached at that particular meeting of the two ministers, forwarded the draft wording of a reference to Mr. Peckford. The government is still waiting for the response, five years later, because there was a change of heart in the interim. There was a change of mind. Well, that is everyone's right.
The next time the issue emerged as the subject for court adjudication was a year or so ago, not at the initiative of the Government of Canada and not at the initiative of the government of Newfoundland, but, rather, at the initiative of a third party, the Seafarers' International Union. The SIU had been in the process of attempting to gain certification to represent some offshore workers in the Newfoundland area. In May of 1980, a couple of years ago, the SIU applied to the Newfoundland Labour Relations Board for certification as bargaining agent for the unlicensed employees of the Crosbie fleet of vessels supplying the oil rigs. Access to the fleet was denied to the SIU by the Newfoundland board; its application was turned down in 1980. So later that year, in September, the union applied to the Canada Labour Relations Board for certification. The board rejected the SIU application on the grounds that it did not have constitutional jurisdiction. The SIU did not accept that particular decision and placed it before the Court of Appeal. That is how the issue concerning the offshore, although it was a fairly limited issue at its outset, was introduced into court. It was at the behest or initiative of the Seafarers' International Union. In April, 1981, that union filed its memorandum of fact and law with the Court of Appeal. In it the union alleged that the Canada board had jurisdiction in these certification proceedings because Canada had exclusive jurisdiction over resource development on the continental shelf.
I am surprised that the union memorandum contained that kind of assertion. My view, and I believe that of most Newfoundlanders and many Canadians, is that no one knows for sure who owns the offshore, whether it is Canada or Newfoundland. I have some very strong views. I believe Newfoundland has a very strong case with regard to ownership. I may have time to get back to that issue later, but I was surprised that anyone would put in writing the kind of thing that showed up in the SIU memorandum of fact and law as far as jurisdiction over resource development is concerned.
I will deal briefly with the conclusion of the SIU case which had the effect of putting offshore jurisdiction before the courts. The SIU case was set on the court calendar for the hearing of argument by the Court of Appeal in February, 1982. Before that could be done, one preliminary but very important issue had to be dealt with by the court. At the opening of the argument on February 8, the Newfoundland government requested that the hearing be adjourned because Canada and
Newfoundland were negotiating in an attempt to resolve the natural resource issue. That was a legitimate request by a party In the case, the government of Newfoundland, which had a vested interest in the matter at hand, a very clear vested interest.
It is interesting to note what the other parties to the dispute did at that time. None of the other parties supported the motion of the Newfoundland government that the hearing be adjourned. Crosbie Offshore Services, which had been the ally of the government of Newfoundland throughout the proceedings, remained neutral on the issue. The Attorney General of Canada was instructed neither to oppose nor support Newfoundland's request that the hearing be adjourned. The SIU and the Canadian Merchant Service Guild, the other parties in the case, opposed having the proceedings adjourned. The court ultimately ordered that argument proceed and it did a couple of days later, on February 10.
I have given the sequence because it is important in light of some of the allegations now being made. To review, the SIU put an issue in court on a fairly narrow question, whether labour jurisdiction was federal or provincial. In the process the SIU-not the federal government or the provincial government-introduced the larger issue of jurisdiction over offshore development. The SIU introduced that important wrinkle.
There was a motion by the government of Newfoundland to have the matter adjourned because of ongoing negotiations between the two governments. The Government of Canada neither opposed nor supported the motion. Two other parties opposed the motion. The presiding judge in his wisdom decided to proceed with the argument and to allow the case to follow through to its conclusion.
I believe there was a very happy conclusion for all who have an interest in the offshore issue. I believe, as does the government of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada, that this issue of offshore ownership is not one that you should approach by the back door. The issue of ownership is so crucially important that it should be addressed in its own right and not as an adjunct, subparagraph or tangent to a labour jurisdiction issue or any other issue before the courts.
On March 5 of this year the court decided in favour of federal labour jurisdiction. It said it decided that on the basis of the navigation and shipping power which is versed in the federal government. The court said it could do so without having to decide the much larger offshore resource question.
I said there are a number of misconceptions about the Newfoundland offshore. That is understandable. However, it does not help find a solution when there are so many misconceptions.
One misconception is that it was the federal government which put the offshore issue before the courts. If you accept what I said as far as the SIU case is concerned, you will see that the federal government did not introduce it in the court at that time. That is clear. Not only did it not introduce it, but it made no effort to expand the issue to include offshore after it
May 27, 1982

had been introduced by a third party, the Seafarers' International Union.
What has happened since then? This case was completed on March 5. Even before it was concluded, the government of Newfoundland, which had said for many months that it wanted a negotiated settlement, put a reference to the Newfoundland Supreme Court on, I believe, February 12 of this year. In that reference it asked the court to adjudicate and give its determination on the question of offshore generally as it relates to the seabed off the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador.
In its wisdom, the Newfoundland government took the initiative and first put the question of offshore ownership before the Supreme Court. It is the right of the government of Newfoundland to take whatever steps it considers necessary to have the issue resolved once and for all.
If you accept that it was the SIU and not the Government of Canada or the government of Newfoundland which first put the issue before the courts, albeit somewhat by the back door, and if you accept the government of Newfoundland next put it before the courts in February of this year, it obviously follows that the federal government was neither first nor second in putting the matter before the courts. It was not until Wednesday of last week, the middle of May, that the Government of Canada took the issue to the Supreme Court of Canada.
We have two parties in a very important dispute, the government of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada. If one of the parties, the government of Newfoundland, takes a reasonable action and puts before a court of the land the question of ownership, is it any less reasonable if four months later the other party to the dispute does the same? Are there two sets of rules? Is not what is sauce for the goose also sauce for the gander? If one party in the dispute does one thing, is it entirely shameful that the other party does the same?
Earlier in my comments I referred to a very few people in Newfoundland, a very few, a scattered few, a minuscule minority, a handful, who do not live in the real world. I submit that it is that scattered few, a couple of whom have the ear of the Premier of Newfoundland, who are introducing confusion into the debate, an important debate that ought to be settled on its logical merits and its emotional merits. It has to be settled on both. It is that scattered few, unfortunately, who have elected to confuse the debate by introducing half-truths, by pointing the finger, by looking for scapegoats, by every means possible, because they have a real fear. They have reason to have fear, because they know the good sense of the overwhelming majority of Newfoundlanders, whatever they think in political or partisan terms about the Government of Canada, about the opposition parties in this House, or about the government of Newfoundland or the opposition party of the Newfoundland house. They happen to know, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is rising on a point of order.
Taxation


Gordon Edward Taylor: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I would hate to see him get into difficulty. Is this matter not before the courts now and consequently should not be discussed in the House?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Burin-St. George's.


Roger Simmons: On the point of order raised by my friend from Alberta, it is, of course, in the courts. Everyone knows that and that is clearly acknowledged. But that has not prevented members of his own party from asking questions and expecting responses on the issue, so I take that as adequate proof that his party does not think there is anything wrong with discussing it.
But there is another reason why there is nothing wrong with discussing it while it is before the courts. The hon. member, before putting his question, should make a distinction between an adversary proceeding before the courts, which would be sub judice in this particular House, and a question before the courts which is put there for the purpose of seeking the court's opinion. This is not an adversary proceeding. There are adversary connotations in so far as another court proceeding is concerned; but in so far as it being put before the Supreme Court, it is put as a reference, not as an adversary proceeding where you have a defence and a prosecution. That is not the nature of the proceeding and I do not think the point applies at all to this particular case, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I think the hon. member is quite right. Furthermore, what has been discussed so far is not the subject matter that is before the courts but how it got to the courts; that is what we are listening to now.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about a number of misconceptions. The one that seems to be paramount in the minds of many people is one that I have dealt with, that it was the federal government who first put this issue before the court. I think I have given to the House sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the federal government did not put it first or second but put it third before the court, and in so doing exercised the self-same right that the other party in the dispute had already exercised four months prior. So I really fail to see any particular need for concern on that particular issue.
I was saying before the point of order was put by my hon. friend for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) that the overwhelming good sense of Newfoundlanders as a whole, regardless of what they think in terms of party partisanship, will have these few people I referred to see that there is nothing wrong, nothing unfair, nothing sneaky, nothing under the table, about asking the highest court in this land to adjudicate upon such an important issue.
On the same general subject, Mr. Speaker, in the last week or so we have heard the Premier of Newfoundland say the action of the Government of Canada in putting this issue before the Supreme Court of Canada will mean-and these are his words last Wednesday-"continued subservience".

May 27, 1982
Taxation
Now, Mr. Speaker, 1 hope he had a weak moment; I hope he really did not mean that. I am on his side on this point. I happen to believe that he has a very strong case. Is he already conceding it, Mr. Speaker? By saying that this action of putting this issue before the Supreme Court of Canada means continued subservience, is he saying that he has lost the case already? Has he thrown in the towel already? How can that be conceived to mean "continued subservience" when almost in the same mouthful he tells us, as he has over the years, and rightly so, that Newfoundland has a strong case? I hope he will retract those words and, in so doing, say that they were made in a moment of weakness, that he did not mean that. I hope he did not mean it.
Another misconception is that by the act of going directly to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Government of Canada has thereby done something which is without precedent. Again for those unlearned in the law, and I happen to be one of them, for the large body of lay people out there who do not follow all the cases, who do not necessarily get their jollies out of considering how many cases go before the federal government, when and for what purpose, I can understand that argument, that misconception, would be swallowed by a lot of people. They would say: "The Supreme Court has gone off and done this without precedent; it is going to clobber a province into the ground; it is going to sidestep them; the federal government is going to the Supreme Court of Canada while an issue is still being heard in the Supreme Court of a particular province." And in this case, they mean Newfoundland.
There are two points, Mr. Speaker. Point number one, Mr. Speaker, is that, as members of this House will know, if a province wants to make a reference to the court, it has to make a reference to the court in its own province. Newfoundland cannot make a reference to the court of British Columbia or to the court of Canada as a whole. Equally, if the federal government wants to make a reference, it cannot make it in any of the provinces, it has to make it directly to the Supreme Court of Canada. So I submit to you, first of all, Mr. Speaker, that in going to the Supreme Court the Government of Canada is going to the only court it can go to; and the government of Newfoundland in going to the court in Newfoundland is going to the only court to which it can go.
Secondly, is this a new departure? Has the federal government now gone and done something that has never been done before? Not quite, Mr. Speaker. If those who argue the other side want examples, I can give them a few. Many, many times in the past the Government of Canada has gone to the Supreme Court of Canada with a reference at the same time as there was a reference on the same subject before the court of the province concerned. I can give you, had I the time, Mr. Speaker, at least ten examples going from 1976, 1970, 1955, 1948, right back through to 1928. I shall deal with only one, and that very briefly, Mr. Speaker.
This is a case which was before the Court of Appeal in Quebec on the subject of who had radio jurisdiction. What happened in that particular case? What happened, of course,
was that while the case was still before the Court of Appeal in Quebec, the Prime Minister of the day put it in the Supreme Court of Canada and it was dealt with in that particular fashion.
Since we spend so much of our time, Mr. Speaker, talking about Liberals and Tories and other types in this particular dispute, it is interesting to note that the Prime Minister who put that reference to the Supreme Court of Canada while it was still before the Court of Appeal in Quebec back in 1930 was none other than a great Tory Prime Minister of Canada, Prime Minister Bennett, the Prime Minister of the day.
I could give more recent examples, Mr. Speaker, right up to 1976. There is the example of the anti-inflation board in the appeal court of Ontario. I could give you an example involving the breathalizer in 1975, involving another court in this land and a reference directly to the Supreme Court of Canada. There are many examples that put to rest the lie that somehow the Government of Canada is doing something that is without any particular precedent.
I realize it is five o'clock, Mr. Speaker, so 1 will conclude at this particular point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions.
There being no items on the Order Paper under the heading of private bills, the House will proceed to notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
All items preceding No. 87 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.
CARGILL GRAIN LIMITED-APPLICATION FOR DREE GRANT Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie) moved:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence and communications, including telephone submissions, regarding the application by Cargill Grain Limited for a grant from DREE towards construction of an oil seed crushing plant at Melfort, Saskatchewan.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the difficult position of having to introduce this motion today because of events which have transpired in the last year. Cargill Grain made an application to DREE for a $2 million grant for the construction of an oil seed crushing plant at Melfort. Cargill was quite prepared to put approximately $25 million toward that project. I am told that if that project were to proceed, it would create permanent employment for some 60 employees at the plant. Naturally, there would be other spin-offs in the city of Melfort and in the surrounding areas. Not only would there be spinoffs in the city of Melfort, but the farmers in that particular
May 27, 1982
[Stage Direction]
area would also benefit because they would have another crushing plant to which they could deliver not only canola but flax seed as well.
On numerous occasions I called the office of the former minister responsible for DREE in an effort to get some information from his executive assistant. However, that is all in the past. The minister is gone, so there is no use pointing those facts out. The minister refused to return my telephone calls. Is that co-operation from a government department? What we really need is freedom of information in legislative form so that we can have information made available to us upon request. With that information we could make progress. We do not serve ourselves; we serve our constituents and, in this case, the constituents of other areas because they naturally would have been delivering to this plant if it were built.
The present situation is quite unacceptable. There is a CSP plant at Nipawin. It serves that area, but despite the fact that plant is there, many farmers have to deliver as far as Saskatoon or Lloydminster, the town on the border between Saskatchewan and Alberta. That is 300 miles away. I suggest there is a better way out.
Cargill Grain made this application realizing that DREE had made a similar grant to CSP at Harrowby, Manitoba. In that case total federal-provincial grants amounted to something in the order of $5.8 million. A grant to CSP and not to Cargill naturally creates unfair competition.
There are those who believe that the pool is the only way to go. That is fine. I am not arguing about where the producer should take his grain; if the pool serves him, that is fine. If Cargill does not serve him properly, he can certainly stay away from Cargill and Cargill will go out of business. However, Cargill is prepared at this time to put in $25 million, and I would like to see that plant go ahead.
In an exchange I had with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), he said that Cargill Grain had made an application.
1 could not understand why the application was not accepted. He said that, being a multinational, Cargill Grain has all kinds of resources, and then he proceeded to tell me that he officiated at the opening of a storage plant in Quebec City for which a grant was given to Cargill Grain.
Mr. Benjamin:: That was wrong too.


Mr. Korchinski:: There is something illogical there. Cargill Grain is a multinational and I am sure it can compete if the competition is fair, but the competition is not fair. It is seen to be fair to provide a grant in Quebec. I do not argue against that; there probably was a need. However, there is also an equal need for an oil seed crushing plant at Melfort, Saskatchewan.
There must obviously have been input from some sources to the minister's office at that time. I know the mayor of Melfort supports this application. The Chamber of Commerce supports it. The rural municipalities, Star City, Porcupine Plains and, I presume, several other areas support it. I know the municipality of Nipawin passed a resolution supporting it. The members
DREE Grant
of that council represent farmers in that area. CSP is right at Nipawin. CSP does not mind. Farmers want a choice. 1 have received telephone calls from the Nipawin area, and I have been told that Cargill Grain is offering $14 a tonne more. I will not argue the merits of Cargill or CSP, but I say that the producers should have a choice as to whether to deliver.
On another occasion I approached the new minister responsible for DREE, who is responsible for applications like this, and the minister told me that after he had taken over he had been approached by Cargill Grain and that he was reviewing certain facts. He told me in the committee on March 23 that several weeks prior to that date he had been approached by Cargill Grain. We are well into May; several months have gone by. He must surely have had time to reflect upon the problem and make a determination. Just a few minutes ago I put in a call to the minister's office and 1 was told there has not been a reversal of the decision. I am not sure what that means. The department has not made a decision one way or the other, but there has not been a reversal! That means that the department is either dragging its feet or for some reason it is just coasting along.
The minister might have many reasons which he has not made known to me, but it seems to me what is necessary now is that the basis upon which the former minister made his decision be determined. 1 have indicated that support has come from several areas. I would like to know who opposed that application. Was it the CSP? Was it the pools, which are competitors? Was it the farm unions? Was it the individual farmers who did not want anything to do with Cargill Grain? Was it the rural municipalities? Was it the former NDP government in Saskatchewan?
In the Standing Committee on Agriculture the Minister of Agriculture said to me:
-Cargill ... has not received the approval of the Saskatchewan government, and that was one of the main reasons why 1 never approved it... they have been very wishy-washy on it in Saskatchewan-the Saskatchewan government.
That was the former Saskatchewan government.


Mr. Anguish:: The present one too.


Stanley James Korchinski: He went on:
They have made quiet objections to it, and then we have asked them to put it in writing. So we have exchanged one or two letters back and forth on it. I do not know what the position of the Saskatchewan government on it is at the present time, but they certainly did not endorse it at one stage of the game.
I would like to know from where that opposition came. I know there was opposition; that is quite evident. I see articles in the newspaper by leading New Democrats who oppose this. I have copies of those articles. Is the department handing out grants to co-operatives and socialist ventures and to no one else? Is that the approach the department is taking? We got rid of one socialist government in Saskatchewan, but we still have a socialist government here in Ottawa. It is bordering on communism because it has already gone beyond the socialist stage. It is past its infancy. It has grown up, and it is taking over industry after industry instead of encouraging them.

May 27, 1982
DREE Grant
Obviously I must try to get to the bottom of this matter. I put a call through to Cargill Grain and asked whether it would be proceeding. 1 was told, "No way, it is unfair competition". Therefore, Cargill will not proceed with the plan. New Democrats who tell me it is a good thing for farmers to deliver 300 miles have something wrong with them. When they say they are going to have farmers deliver for 300 miles, is that supposed to keep costs down?
1 have enumerated some of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, and 1 do not want to dwell on them. The facts speak for themselves. 1 have indicated that some negative responses have been received. I should like to know who the government listens to. 1 am satisfied that the minister has not completely closed the door but he certainly has not taken action.
This motion was put on the Order Paper some time ago. I would have been quite prepared to accept some sort of explanation but none was forthcoming. Chambers of commerce and farmers have tried to piece together the mystery of how this government operates, but the question will not be solved until we find out who the government listens to.
1 am satisfied that submissions did not come from individuals farmers, but chambers of commerce have supported the application. If the information were available it would clear the air and resolve the problem, and it would be beneficial to the NDP to say they endorsed it if a letter was sent. What harm can there be in producing evidence at this time? Surely all hon. members would like to be as informed as possible, but without the information I am seeking no member can decide whether the application was dealt with properly or not.


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, although 1 understand the hon. member's desire to clarify a situation he feels is ambiguous, 1 still think that raising one's voice is not particularly conducive to obtaining further information for hon. members, and what is important at this stage is to find out exactly why the department decided to set aside, for the time being, the application made by Cargill Grain Limited for a grant to set up a plant in Melfort, Saskatchewan.
First of all, just to get the facts straight, 1 think the hon. member is aware that, at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Regional Development on March 23 of this year, he had plenty of time to put questions to the minister and to senior officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion, in order to get an accurate picture of the situation. However, the hon. member has so far gone well beyond what the motion as such requests. The motion is quite clear, and requests only, and I quote:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence and communications, including telephone submissions, regarding the application by Cargill Grain Limited for a grant from DREE towards construction of an Oil Seed Crushing Plant at Melfort, Saskatchewan.
What the hon. member is asking in his motion is only that documents be made public. Now, he should know that in a case like this, the ethics of international and national trade, in terms of the free market principle, forbids the production of documents when the public funds requested have not yet been granted to a company. If the hon. member desires specific information on Cargill Grain's projects in that particular area, including projected investments and requests to the department and answers given by the department to the company in question, the hon. member knows perfectly well that his question should be put directly to the company because, at the present time, the Canadian government has not given any public funds to the company.
In fact, the case is being discussed with the management of Cargill Grain Limited and departmental officials, but the department has made it quite clear that if Cargill Grain Limited wanted a review of its application, it would have to provide some new information to support this. Now, in this case, the then Minister of DREE, the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), wrote to the hon. member, giving him a very specific answer concerning the refusal of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion, formerly DREE, and this letter which was dated November 2, 1981, is quite clear. It says very explicitly, and 1 quote:

After an exhaustive review of the case, I feel confident that Cargill can, and will, proceed with the project without assistance from DREE. The company is financially strong and the project appears to be a wise one from the company's point of view.

So that was the letter, and it goes on to say that since Cargill Grain Limited has the financial resources to carry out its project without government funding, it would perhaps be inappropriate on the part of the government to provide funds to a company which already has the means to carry out its project independently. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, Cargill Grain Limited applied pursuant to the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Act. The legislation is quite clear. It authorizes the department to grant funds to a company, provided it can demonstrate a real need. Until now-and here opinions may differ-according to the experts in this field, the conclusion is that Cargill Grain Limited is capable of building its plant without outside help. Now, when an application is sent to the department, the people who are there to find out whether there is a real need, take the time to make a thorough analysis of the case. In this case, the hon. member knows perfectly well that the department has several meetings with representatives of Cargill Grain Limited to find out what could be done under the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Act. The hon. member is also aware that the minister must abide by the law like any other member of this House and like any other Canadian citizen, and that even if the minister wanted to grant the funds requested by Cargill,
May 27, 1982

according to an analysis of the company's financial statements which was very positive and considering the fact that funds are available to Cargill for short-term use, the minister, on the basis of the evidence submitted to date is not authorized to grant funds to Cargill. If he did, he would be breaking the law.
The documents and the reply given to the hon. member are very clear in the letter he was provided with, and I therefore, feel his motion is more dilatory than straightforward. Perhaps the hon. member should rephrase it or take a different course of action, such as asking Cargill directly for the documents he is requesting from the department, since the latter is not allowed to make public statements on private financial interests. And I believe that any member of this Elouse would acknowledge the principle is sound. Cargill has never authorized the government to publicly divulge its financial statements or the nature of the application and financial requirements involved here. Cargill never asked the government to do so, and if the hon. member desires further information, I think his best bet would be to go to Cargill and ask for the company's complete financial statements.
When the hon. member met with departmental officials, that is, the minister responsible and all senior officials, on March 23 of this year, the hon. member drew comparisons with the Province of Quebec, where Cargill had been able to obtain funds for the construction of a warehouse in Quebec City. At the time, the minister explained that the situation in Quebec City was entirely different from the Cargill project in Melfort, Saskatchewan. At the meeting, the hon. member had plenty of time to speak with departmental officials. I feel the minister was very clear in his explanations, in terms of the Regional Development Incentives Act. In fact, the hon. member should realize that it is not a matter of the minister refusing to authorize a grant because for some personal reason he does not happen to like it, but that he cannot do so because the company's application does not meet the criteria set forth in the Act. This is a basic factor in the department's decision and its application of the Act. We would be the first to be blamed if the department were to start handing out money to companies who did not really need it. It would be a waste of public funds to distribute government grants more or less indiscriminately to companies with very positive financial statements and which are capable of carrying out such projects independently.
However, 1 may point out that the department is very conscious of the fact that a $25 million investment in an area such as Melfort, Saskatchewan, would considerably boost the economy in that area. In this connection, should Cargill be able to submit new facts or elements of information to the department, the latter is willing to review a new application by Cargill at any time, provided new information is submitted for consideration. This aspect is extremely important. Just because a negative decision is made on an initial application does not
DREE Grant
mean that the decision stands forever. Cargill may submit a new application at any time, and if new facts are presented, the case can be reconsidered and we can then see whether there are grounds to review the decision and see whether a positive decision can be made, but at this stage, 1 want to make it quite clear to the hon. member that no one is objecting on the basis of competition or personalities to giving a grant to Cargill under the Regional Development Incentives Act.
The department's present refusal to proceed with the grant under the present Regional Development Incentives Act is simply based on the fact that the company's financial statements give reason to conclude that the company is capable of going ahead with the project itself, a project which we on this side of the House support equally as much as the members opposite. Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may, add one more fact, namely, that the Regional Development Incentives Act is used on a wide scale to encourage investment outside the large urban centres in order to strengthen the country's economy. Cargill has previously taken advantage of such provisions and has been successful in other areas, obviously depending on where the company wished to expand and on the nature of its application. In this particular case, we are not concerned with analyzing applications to see what the government can do to help some company. However, the Regional Development Incentives Act has helped many areas in Canada to develop, and we, as a government, would be very happy to be able to contribute to further projects and even to a project like the one proposed by Cargill, provided we are not asked to do more than the law authorizes us to do.
That legislation was approved by Parliament and it is unthinkable that any minister or departmental official would disregard the provisions set out by the legislators to meet the basic purpose of the law, which is simply to provide federal financial support to various projects. After having reviewed myself the figures I was given, I readily realized that, in the case of Cargill, it would be neither fair nor equitable in the present circumstances to provide public funds to a company like Cargill. Once again, this company transacts business throughout Canada and is a highly responsible corporate citizen which has done a tremendous job in my own constituency in Baie Comeau, where it is located. I can sympathize with the request of the hon. member, but once again, we have to consider the facts and not simply intentions or projections. We must look fully into the facts submitted to the department before making a decision. I can assure the hon. member that if we had been able to find an appropriate formula to grant the subsidy, we would have been most happy to do so. However, we cannot take it upon ourselves, because of our natural generosity, to give a positive answer to this request at the moment. On the other hand, 1 remind the hon. member that if Cargill wants to rephrase its application and submit new data, the department will always be willing to take all aspects of the matter into consideration.

May 27, 1982
DREE Grant
To come back to the motion in which the hon. member asks for the tabling of certain documents, as 1 said at the very beginning, it would not be proper to agree to this, and 1 do not believe that confidential documents have ever been divulged in Parliament until the file has been processed or a positive decision has been made. I think that the hon. member understands quite well that the government cannot divulge parts of a private file which are of a confidential nature until the examination has been completed. I would not want the hon. member to think that the department is not acting in good faith in this case. On the contrary, it is trying to act as responsibly as possible, and, for instance, if tomorrow morning a competitor of Cargill applied for a grant, 1 am convinced that Cargill would ask to examine the financial statements of this competitor, and once again, our attitude would be the same, that is we would have to protect the confidentiality of the files. In such a case, these files are treated in the same way as data concerning personal income under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The confidentiality of the files is at the very basis of the security which the examination of information entails, and most important, of the trust shown by companies, businesses or individuals when they ask the government to deal with their affairs or provide expertise for their business.
I believe that it would create an unacceptable precedent for a government to divulge the contents of the documents requested by the hon. member in his motion. I remember quite well having replied myself publicly in this House not so long ago to the motion of the hon. member, and the reply was quite clear. It said that the documents requested were confidential for commercial reasons and that the government believed that publication of these documents might prejudice the competitive position of the company. We therefore urged the hon. member to withdraw his motion. This was not because the subject is not important or considered a priority. On the contrary, it is simply that at this stage, it would be improper to divulge documents which are of a private nature and be of no use whatsoever to the business the hon. member wants to help. The hon. member will recognize that at this point it would not be beneficial to the company.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member mind indicating whether the government would be prepared to reveal the communication which either supported or opposed it? I am not interested in any financial documents or any matter which may reveal the financial position of the company. I am not interested in the financial aspects. I am only interested in who supported it and who opposed it.


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, with respect to that very specific application, 1 do not have before me the names of the parties for or against that grant application by the Cargill company.
Decisions are not taken on the basis of objections or recommendations, but simply on that of the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Act. This is very important. Indeed, the letter from the previous minister, the hon. member for Matane (Mr. DeBane), is quite clear. That letter, dated November 2, 1981, made it quite clear that on the basis of a financial assessment of the Cargill situation, there was no authority under the Regional Development Incentives Act to subsidize a corporation that, according to the figures submitted at that time, was in a position to complete the project by itself. There was no question of heeding the representations on behalf of or against the project. It was solely on the basis of an analysis of financial records that the negative conclusion was reached. This I would like to assure the hon. member. It was not a matter of anybody being for or against. The decision was simply based on a financial analysis.
Certainly we have the minister's word, and better still the written confirmation of the then minister. If the hon. member has claims to the contrary, I would ask him to rise and submit them. But if he recalls the letter of November 2, 1981, it is written black on white that the minister concluded that the corporation, the Cargill company, had the financial capability to carry out the project without a federal grant. So this is exactly the basis for the department's decision, and I see no reason why the department should start considering representations on behalf of or against a project. The only reason why the department turned down the application is, fortunately, the sound financial position of the Cargill company, which is entirely to its advantage.
It is my view, Mr. Speaker, that were the government to start subsidizing companies whether they had a very sound financial structure or not, we would be irresponsible in granting subsidies. I appreciate that the hon. member wants to know all the facts but, with all due respect, I can only assure him that we have absolutely nothing to hide in the matter. The department is quite clear. If you have claims to the contrary, it might be interesting to make them in writing so that I could look at them at this stage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: 1 am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member explain how it is that Cargill Grain obtained a grant in Quebec based upon the same financial position?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The time allotted to the hon. parliamentary secretary has expired. He may entertain a question only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I can reply to the hon. member's question quite easily. Moreover, the hon. member put that
May 27, 1982

question to the minister at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Regional Development on March 23. The application made for the construction of a warehouse in Quebec City was quite different from that made for the construction of a plant in Melfort, Saskatchewan. The financial assistance requested was not the same and the financial statements submitted for the Quebec project were quite different from those submitted for the Melfort project. If ever the hon. member wants more information, I would be quite pleased to get his questions in writing, and we could answer him in writing pointing out the significant differences between both projects.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to say that we support the motion of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski). We would like to see this correspondence produced, but likely for entirely different reasons than those of the hon. member. We support the idea of a rapeseed crushing plant located in Melfort or somewhere in that area. There is no argument about that, but we part company with the hon. member and with the government when we say that not one nickel should go to an outfit like Cargill Grain. The government, in providing funds to Cargill in Quebec or anywhere else, is totally wrong. The government and FIRA, the toothless tiger for Canadian economic independence and sovereignty, should never have allowed Cargill Grain into the country in the first place when National Grain was bought out.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Mackenzie realizes that representatives of the outfit which he supports have been in court, fined and even jailed repeatedly in the United States. This is an outfit which was party to shortweighing American grain aid to starving people in Bangladesh and India by eight million bushels; this is the kind of outfit he is supporting.
] made careful note of the hon. member's remarks when he said that a grant to CSP, the co-operative movement in Saskatchewan, instead of to Cargill would be unfair competition. I will make sure that all co-operative and pool members in the hon. member's riding hear about that. 1 hope he is extra careful when he checks Hansard later this day. Is it unfair competition if a grant is paid to a company which is owned, controlled, developed, and paid for by grain producers themselves rather than to a multinational corporation in the United States? In fact, Cargill is the largest in the world. It has hundreds of millions of dollars to play with on any given day of the month. Are the people of Canada supposed to give a grant to Cargill, when its first objective is to make all the bucks it can off grain producers, particularly rapeseed producers in Canada? Its next objective is to destroy orderly marketing, the co-operative movement and the Canadian Wheat Board. It wants a free and open market; that is its next objective. Cargill is the outfit which indicated that one of the reasons it would not go ahead with the rapeseed crushing plant in Melfort was the Crow rate.
DREE Grant
I presume the hon. member, by pleading on behalf of Cargill, fully supports the fact that rapeseed producers in his riding will be receiving $20 less per tonne by 1986-87. Also I presume his pleading on behalf of Cargill means that he agrees rapeseed producers should receive $20 per tonne less. I hope he tells that to rapeseed producers of his constituency and to those in the entire area of Saskatchewan which produces rapeseed.
We do not necessarily need another rapeseed crushing mill at the moment. In its report of January 1982, the rapeseed industry projected that by 1985 the domestic and export demands for rapeseed oil would increase by something in the order of 150,000 tonnes, that the demand for meal would increase in the order of about 200,000 tonnes, and that we would need one or more additional rapeseed crushing plants. Surely to goodness Canadian taxpayers, rapeseed producers and flaxseed producers of Saskatchewan should not be called upon to put up money for a multinational grain corporation. Another of Cargill's objectives is to ensure that United States grain producers get priority over the grain producers in Canada with which Cargill might deal or in any other country of the world.
The hon. member also talked about 300-mile hauls for rapeseed. Where was he when his party was in power for nine months, when the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) was in charge of a committee on branch line abandonment and the line from Gronlid to Melfort was abandoned? Where was he? Did he appear before the CTC with a brief?


Stanley James Korchinski: I made a submission.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Did he persuade the hon. member for Moose Jaw to keep that line? The grain producers in Gronlid now have to haul their grain another 20 miles.


Stanley James Korchinski: I made a submission.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Who did you make it to and what luck did you have with your own government?
I am surprised that the hon. member would go to bat for an outfit like Cargill when we need additional rapeseed crushing capacity in western Canada. It is our preference that it be in the hands and ownership of grain producers themselves, whether it is rapeseed, flaxseed or any other grain.
Second, I had hoped that the hon. member for Mackenzie would be in support of the recommendations of the Hall Commission. The courts ruled a long time ago that rapeseed was a grain, thereby making it eligible for the statutory grain rate, the Crow rate. Meal was subsequently considered a product because the statutory rates apply to grain and grain products. Since rapeseed is grain, rapeseed meal is a grain product and the Crow rate applies to rapeseed meal. Mysteriously, the statutory rate does not apply to rapeseed oil which is a severe handicap to the crushers in western Canada. In fact, it is no wonder that the Japanese want to buy only rapeseed, because they get the benefit of the Crow rate and then process

May 27, 1982
DREE Grant
the rapeseed to make oil in Japan, when it should be done here. That is what Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, who could hardly be called a raving socialist-he was appointed to the bench by Mr. Diefenbaker and headed three royal commissions and has the respect of the entire population of Canada-pointed out that his recommendations need to be implemented. I think that the hon. member should go back and do his homework. He should be telling his rapeseed producers, flaxseed producers, his own party and the government that the rapeseed crushing capability, like our grain handling capacity, must be in the hands and ownership and control of the grain producers themselves. He should say that Mr. Justice Hall's recommendation should be implemented in order to really help the rapeseed crushing industry.
Finally, he should quit weeping tears for the poor Cargill Grain Company. If we are to have competition in grain handling in Canada we do not need it from a multinational corporation which operates in 80 or 100 countries in the world. We do not need it from a corporation which has been guilty over and over again under United States law. We do not need it from a company that transfers cargo on invoices four or five times while it is out in the middle of the ocean in order to circumvent U.S. embargoes and anti-trust laws. Cargill has holding companies and trust companies in a dozen countries, yet the hon. member weeps tears for poor Cargill.
If this Parliament and the government have any national respect, that would be the first corporation we would deport from Canada. We need that company like we need a hole in the head.
In addition to the co-operative movement, there are many private Canadian grain companies. If there is justification for so-called competition in grain handling and rapeseed and flaxseed crushing, surely the private Canadian grain trade should get some attention ahead of an outfit like Cargill. We believe that priority attention should go to the grain handling and grain crushing industries that are owned, controlled and operated by the grain producers themselves. If the hon. member is not prepared to stand by that suggestion, I hope he gets up and says so again in the near future.
Obviously we need more rapeseed crushing capacity, and of course Melfort is an excellent location for such an increased capacity. There is no argument with that. The government is right in not giving aid to Cargill in Melfort, but it is wrong in giving help to Cargill in Quebec. I believe that states the case purely and simply.
I hope the government will accept this motion. I would like to see all the correspondence as well. If the hon. member for Mackenzie has any doubts, I invite him to read a weekly newspaper published in his own constituency. Perhaps he does not read it usually but I invite him to read the Melfort Journal of April 14. I suspect that he has read it, but I invite him to do so if he has not.
With respect to supporting an outfit, which does not need or deserve support from the people of Canada, let alone-the grain producers, I find it beyond belief that such support should be proposed. I never thought I would live to see the day
when an hon. member in the House, from whatever party, would rise to support a company such as the Cargill Grain Company. I find it incredible. I hope that the hon. member will cogitate, meditate and ruminate and by tomorrow morning will mend his ways and decide that he might be wrong about that corporation.
The capacity to grow, handle and process grain products in western Canada should be by right under the ownership and control of the grain producers themselves, and they should be given all possible support by the respective provincial and federal governments. We do not need any more unintelligent, mindless and senseless briefs on behalf of the Cargill Grain Company.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments made by the member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), who is always good for a rousing speech. However, I get the impression that he does not really like the friends of the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski). I thought I was listening to a Communist member just now when I heard the member for Regina West describe his fondness for Cargill and his impressions of the company. To me, as a member for Lac-Saint-Jean who is not very deeply involved in grain matters, I must say that the company has provided a very good service to Canadian grain producers. I think it has its place in our society, especially since it seems to be a viable company, which is a very important factor today, in these difficult times, when we realize that viable companies are the ones that are still operating. There are other Canadian companies like this one, for instance, Bell Canada, and they are continuing to provide work for thousands of Canadians, while other less viable companies are not as lucky, thus making it harder for some Canadians.
To get back to the subject at hand, the motion presented by the member for Mackenzie requests that copies of all correspondence and communications between the Minister responsible for Regional Economic Expansion and Cargill be tabled in the House. I asked for permission to speak on this subject, Mr. Speaker, because before becoming a member of the House, 1 worked for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as Executive Assistant for two years and before as an Assistant for three years. I therefore had time to become acquainted with the department and how it works, and especially how various companies approach the department. A motion such as the one presented by the hon. member becomes extremely negative on the following point.
When a department such as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion gets involved in a particular case, the initial aim is to provide incentives, in other words, the department was created for a specific reason: to fight regional disparity. There are two ways the department tries to achieve this goal; first, by assisting the establishment of companies in
May 27, 1982

certain areas of the country where a special incentive is needed for economic expansion. To provide such assistance, the department has two special mechanisms, the first being direct grants or the Regional Development Incentives Act, and the other consisting in agreements signed with the provinces under which the department is authorized to become involved in infrastructures for industry, tourism, agriculture or other purposes. Thus, the department is there to fight regional disparity. It creates incentives, so the department must be present. If it were not, the project would not get off the ground, but I would not go so far as to say that the department was created for the purpose of subsidizing every single project in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, certainly not! The department will help promote development in a given region- the Lac-Saint-Jean region, for instance-and award grants for that purpose. The Cargill case is very clear. Whatever the decision taken by the department, I do not feel that Cargill is interested in putting up its plant in Montreal because it is not really the place to mill wheat and it stands to reason that the plant should be where the wheat is produced. It is obvious as well that there are logistics advantages to selecting the site where they want to go and, unless I am mistaken, that is Melfort. Besides, the financial position of Cargill is strong enough.
But what I am driving at when I refer to the request of the hon. member and his work with respect to the department is that obviously, Mr. Speaker, it is possible that in a certain economic context the requests made by Cargill were not justified in the sense that the company could afford to go ahead on its own. But the economic situation changes so rapidly that over the years I saw the Department of Regional Economic Expansion reject outright some applications which were approved two years later. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, the department may very well make a judgment and decide not to award a grant for a given project because the company can afford to proceed on its own and the project will indeed be a paying proposition. I have seen that happen and the example I recall is Golden Eagle in Quebec which wanted to instal equipment to recycle waste oil, but the yield rate was 34 per cent. DREE never did go along with that project because it was a sure thing, it became self-sustaining after three years and that was that. Conversely, when a project cannot be successfully launched, that very fact shows that perhaps the department did not take into account each and every factor involved.
What I want to suggest to the hon. member is that if at first they do not succeed, just keep trying. The Cargill Company should keep trying. Earlier the parliamentary secretary stressed the fact that the hon. member ought to keep in closer touch with the company itself because, if Cargill Grain Limited does need help from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to prosper, create jobs in its region and facilitate grain handling operations and the production of milled grain, then the company should go back to the department-as it has done, if I am not mistaken-and explain in
DREE Grant
different terms the rate of yield of its operations. But the hon. member should not be asking the department to make public the information it has on Cargill. I cannot imagine, Mr. Speaker, that a department which wants to bring assistance to certain regions or make grants to some companies would feel justified to publish confidential information about Cargill or any other company. I suggest that members opposite would be the first to raise a fuss if the government were to release confidential information concerning a company which has applied for a grant.
The hon. member wants more information, as the Parliamentary Secretary was saying, he can also obtain from the company an affidavit which would authorize him to look into its whole file. If the company were to authorize him to make all the relevant facts known to the Canadian people, Department officials would then be in a position to disclose all sorts of information concerning Cargill Grain's financial structure, its soundness, its weaknesses and so on, but I feel it is not the responsibility of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to tell the Canadian people to whom Cargill Grain will sell the grains it will buy from Canadians, or to disclose potential markets which its competitors could secure tomorrow morning if they only knew they existed.
It seems to me that within the context of the Regional Development Act, an hon. member's role is very similar to that of a developer, in the sense that his job is to stregthen the ties between the Department and the company which would like to settle in his riding. And in this respect, he or she has every right and the opportunities are there to get in touch with the minister, his office staff and department officials who make no bones about working for the advancement of our country and who know Canada well. I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that DREE is the department which knows each and every area of our country best, and I do not mean only the provinces and the regions, but also the sub-regions within the provinces. No department, either federal or provincial, has as complete a knowledge of the economic situation of each and every Canadian region, its economic strengths and shortcomings, as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Its officials have developed a fantastic capacity for economic analysis due to their 12 years expertise in signing over 100 agreements worth billions and billions of dollars with the provinces with regard to tourism, agriculture, industrial and commercial development. There must be in fact some 150 agreements in force now throughout Canada, and the Department knows everyone of the companies now operating in each and every region.
That being the case, Mr. Speaker, it becomes obvious that, irrespective of political considerations and the need to hide anything, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, DREE has very good reasons to be careful in handling the taxpayers' money. The best proof I can give you of that, Mr. Speaker, is that by 1980, DREE's losses since its inception had come up to

May 27, 1982
Taxation
only 0.6 per cent of the grants allowed, a rate which is by far lower than that of the banks. DREE has very seldom made unwise investments, due to its outstanding analytical talents. So, let us go on working and treating whatever information the companies provide as confidential. I urge hon. members opposite to follow-up on the applications they get from their ridings, and never to hesitate in contacting the DREE people, whether they are officers of the department, the minister, his officials or his Parliamentary Secretary, the strengthen the ties between the department and their ridings and especially the companies that are interested in their ridings. Remember that DREE was set up by a Liberal government in 1968 to develop the country and fight against regional disparities, which it will continue to do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pinard (for the Minister of State for Finance) that Bill C-l 12, to amend the statute law relating to certain taxes, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the debate was interrupted at five o'clock this afternoon, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) had the floor.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the issue of Newfoundland offshore ownership is now before the courts because of two separate initiatives, the initiatives taken by each of the two parties in the dispute. In the first instance, the government of Newfoundland, one of the parties in the dispute, put a reference to the Newfoundland court of appeal in February. Last week the other party in the dispute, the Government of Canada, put a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.
As I noted earlier in the debate, in each case the respective governments did the only thing in terms of court reference they could do. They went to the court to which they would normally go to put down a reference, in the case of the provincial
government, the provincial court of appeal and in the case of the federal government, the Supreme Court of Canada.
The issue of the offshore is really two questions. The question of ownership is now before the courts in St. John's and Ottawa. Does the Newfoundland government own the resources or does the federal government own them? That issue will be determined in due time by the respective courts, and we will have a finding.
There is another issue quite apart from ownership. 1 believe it is the more important of the two issues. It is the issue of how the resource will be developed. What will be the share of management of the development between governments? Who will get the benefits? Who will be the real beneficiaries of any development of the Newfoundland offshore? There are two questions, two issues. First, who owns? Second, who will reap the benefits? How will it be developed and to whose benefit?
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, or to anyone listening to my voice at this time: if you own a house, as you probably do, and if, unlike me, you do not have a big hefty mortgage but have clear and absolute title, can you, unfettered, without consulting anyone, tomorrow morning, turn your house into a restaurant, for example? Can you renovate it without consulting the authorities and getting a permit or some other piece of paper? Can you put on an additional storey? Legally, can you even destroy it? You know the answers to those questions.
You may have the real ownership of a property, but having effective control over what happens to it is quite a separate issue altogether. Therefore, there are two issues, who owns, and who will control and to whose benefit?
I have always felt that the second issue was by far the more important. That is why I was so encouraged over the past months and years to note that both governments were addressing themselves to finding a partnership arrangement which would lead to a proper balance in terms of management of the development and address a proper and fair balance in terms of sharing the revenues that would be forthcoming from that resource development.
That is the way it should have been. Governments should have been able to continue to talk to each other and sort out, as members of the same family, an issue which affects the people they respectively represent in Ottawa and St. John's. That is the issue of revenue sharing and effective management of that resource.
I was encouraged to see both governments talking. Then the talking became less frequent, until it ceased altogether. Then came the disastrous period of confrontation. Everybody was talking about taking everybody else to court. I do not think that particular stance serves anybody's purpose. Of course, so far as the references are concerned, no one is taking anybody to court, they are taking an issue to court. The Newfoundland government is not taking the federal government to court, nor vice versa. They have both gone for references which are not of
May 27, 1982

the adversary sort, references seeking the determination, the opinion, of the respective courts.
I would have hoped that that question could have been left until the resource development and revenue-sharing issues had been addressed by way of an agreement between the two governments. A reasonable effort is being made, the effort has not come to an end. In my view, the effort has to be ongoing. It is encouraging that in the past few days spokesmen for both governments have said they want to get back to the bargaining table. I still live in hope that the actual agreement can precede any determination by either of the courts as to the actual ownership of the resource. I hope also that the pattern of the Nova Scotia agreement, at least one in particular, will be observed, that is to say, that there will be a provision in the Newfoundland-Canada agreement to provide that, irrespective of the outcome of any court determination as to ownership of the resource, irrespective of that finding at some future time, the agreement shall stand and that both parties will undertake to honour the agreement.
The Government of Canada for its part has declared publicly that it will stand by any agreement, irrespective of the ultimate outcome of any court proceedings on the issue of ownership.
So I say, Mr. Speaker, that we have two issues. We have the issue of who owns the resources, and we have the issue of revenue sharing and management sharing.
I come now to the second issue for a moment. I believe that any agreement must be one which gives the Government of Newfoundland a fair, a very effective role in the rate of development and how it is to be developed. The Nova Scotia agreement, to which I referred just now, gives the government of Nova Scotia a fair amount of management control. It gives it a fair amount of revenue. 1 am not here tonight to sell the Nova Scotia agreement. I happen to believe, as a Newfoundlander, that the Nova Scotia agreement is but the minimum, it is the starting point for any ultimate agreement between Newfoundland and Canada. How could we as the Government of Canada go in good faith to another province and offer it any less to begin with than it has already offered and entered into in writing with another province?
Therefore, I say, Mr. Speaker, that the very minimum that can be forthcoming in any agreement between Canada and Newfoundland is the ultimate provisions of the Nova Scotia agreement. That particular agreement is one that another well-known Tory, Premier John Buchanan, thought to be quite fair for Nova Scotia. He in turn managed to get a deal which returned more money per barrel to his province than another agreement which another great Tory, Premier Lougheed, was able to get his province of Alberta. So I say, Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Buchanan was able to build on Mr. Lougheed's agreement, 1 have no doubt that Mr. Peckford will be able to build on Mr. Buchanan's agreement. The end result will be an agreement which will provide generous revenue sharing and
Taxation
will provide an effective management voice by both governments. I certainly hope so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I was not very surprised when the hon. member who has just finished speaking said that the federal government gave another province in the east a better deal than they gave to Alberta. This is not surprising. We have been used to that, we have been getting that all through the years It is just living up to the standard that this Liberal government has set. That is one of the reasons why there is so much difficulty.
I am not going to discuss the items discussed by the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons). The British North America Act did give the resources to the provinces. When Alberta and Saskatchewan were created, we had to wait 25 to 30 years to get our resources, after a fight put up by the former U.F.A. government. We got our resources finally in 1930. When we got the resources, we got ownership and control. I do not think there is any doubt about that. That has been made quite clear in the new Constitution. We have a little water in the province of Alberta, we do not have an ocean but we have a considerable number of lakes and a considerable number of rivers, and the resources under the water still belong to the province. The people in the west have a difficult time to understand why the maritime provinces do not also own their resources simply because they are under water.
I do not want to discuss that matter further because I feel that it is bad taste to do so when it is already before the courts.
1 think the Canadian government would have gained prestige if it had waited until the Newfoundland court had ruled on the matter and then ascertained whether it was necessary to make an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, either by the Government of Newfoundland or by the Government of Canada. But the Government of Canada did not decide to do that, and I can understand the frustration and the way the people of Newfoundland feel in regard to that particular issue.
I think it was done in haste by the Canadian government and is in bad taste.
1 want to discuss this particular bill, Mr. Speaker. 1 want to read what it says, because I think the people of Canada will be rather astounded to find that they have been paying taxes that have still not been passed by Parliament. In the early days, representative government was established so that the king or the Crown or the government could not levy taxes without the consent of the people. I do not like the method this government is using, whether it is precedent or not. I just do not like it. 1 do not think it is sound and I do not think the people of Canada like it, either.
For instance, the explanatory note at the beginning of Bill
C-112 says:
This Part would implement the Ways and Means Motion to amend the Excise Tax Act (I) tabled by the Minister of Finance on November 12, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Excise Tax Motion').
That is right. The same thing applies to the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act and the incremental oil revenue tax.

May 27, 1982
Taxation
They are all now before Parliament to be rubberstamped. It must be there only to be rubberstamped because the taxes are already in effect, the government has been collecting these taxes for several weeks. I do not like this way of doing business. In my view, it is not democracy, it is simply making a rubberstamp of the House of Commons, and 1 object to being a rubber stamp.
I know what the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) said the other day. He said that a ways and means motion was passed. That is right. But what does Beauchesne say about a ways and means motion? I will read from Beauchesne's, page 174 of the fifth edition:
516.	(1) A Ways and Means motion is a necessary preliminary to the imposition of a new tax, the continuation of an expiring tax, an increase in the rate of an existing tax, or an extension of the incidence of a tax so as to include persons not already payers.
It goes on to say, on page 175:
517.	(1) The Minister of Finance will generally table Ways and Means motions relating to the changes announced in the Budget either on Budget night or shortly thereafter.
This he has done. It continues:
(2)	A Minister of the Crown designates a day for consideration of the Ways and Means motion under the terms of S.O. 60(2).
That was done. It goes on:
(3)	On the designated day, the Ways and Means motion is decided upon without debate or amendment.
It is a formality, it is decided on without debate or amendment. That is exactly what was done. Then Beauchesne goes on to say:
-then a bill is introduced based upon the provisions of any such resolution, given first reading, printed and ordered for second reading-
That is the proper parliamentary procedure. We pass a ways and means motion and, bang! At that point we start collecting the taxes from the people. Their representatives still have had nothing to say about it. We cannot debate ways and means motions, and that is completely unfair to the people who pay the taxes. We are acting like a dictatorial government would act, and that is why throughout Canada we now hear people calling this government a socialist government. Our friends, the socialists, call it a communist government. Whichever it is, it is a dictatorship whose laws are not receiving the stamp of approval of the House of Commons. It comes to the House of Commons afterwards and says, "Rubber stamp what we have been doing". That is not democracy, it is not representative government, and I think the people of the country should know that.
I want to deal with some of these taxes. The incremental oil revenue tax is a tax on windfalls or large amounts of money earned by oil companies. Those revenues come to the coffers of the government. I would have no particular objection to that tax if it were reasonable and fair. We all know we have to pay taxes. I do not know anyone who objects to paying taxes, but people object to paying unfair taxes, and they object when the burden is heavier on some than on others.
Most people say we have to pay taxes. Many people have told me that it is a pleasure to pay taxes, but that was before the last budget. It is a pleasure to pay taxes if a person has received money. I remember the coal mining days in Drum-heller. I was at a public meeting at which a chap was complaining because he was paying $250 in income tax. That was a lot of money in those days. I remember one miner leaning over to me and saying, "Boy, would I ever love to pay $250 in income tax." People used to get their money first, but not since the last budget. Now we pay taxes on money we never even see. We pay taxes on money which never comes to us. That is completely ridiculous.
I want to deal for a moment with some of the taxes which are being levied. I want to deal with one utility company and tell the House the amount of money it has to pay. It can pass the cost on to its customers. It is a utility company, so the people have to pay; otherwise, their utility is cut off. They have no choice. Many other small companies in similar circumstances go bankrupt. That is why today under motions under Standing Order 43 an hon. member from British Columbia, the hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer) spoke about the bankruptcies of many companies and farms. They cannot pass these costs on. The utility company about which 1 am speaking does pass its costs on. I am not saying those costs are passed on fairly because, as the energy critic for the New Democratic Party pointed out this afternoon, the burden is unfair.
I will deal first with distribution of revenues. I am not here to speak for companies, except for the companies in my riding. I feel it is my responsibility to speak for them, just as it is my responsibility to speak for anyone else in my riding, but 1 am not speaking for Shell or Imperial Oil. I am not speaking for multinationals. They can speak for themselves. They might suffer a little, but not very much. They still have enough revenue to keep themselves going, but small companies do not. Some small companies have gone bankrupt because of the additional burden the federal government has placed upon them.
I want to indicate to the House how the total revenues of one company in my riding were spent in 1980. Gas supply cost 45 cents of each revenue dollar. The company operations cost 25.3 cents. That was to pay the company's employees, etc. Five cents of every dollar was profit to the company, and the company paid taxes at 24.7 cents. About a quarter of every dollar the company made went to taxes. At that time the tax amounted to 11.3 cents for federal excise tax and 3.4 cents for income tax.
In 1981 the picture changed. By that time the Canadian government had dreamed up another tax called the Canadian ownership tax. The government did not ask the people. It did not campaign on that. After the election the government simply initiated this new tax because it wanted to buy Petrofina and another oil company. If Petro-Canada wanted to buy another oil company, it should have done so in the same way as any other oil company. It should not have been given
May 27, 1982

special consideration. The people should not have had to pay, especially those who could not afford it.
In 1981, the gas supply was down to 39.1 cents, largely because the Alberta government gave a rebate to keep the price of gas down so the people would not suffer too much. The company operations cost 23.3 cents. The company did a little slicing and cutting out some of the fat. Company earnings were also down to 4.5 cents instead of 5 cents. However, taxes were up. Taxes made all the difference. The federal excise tax went from 11.3 cents to 15.3 cents, and the Canadian ownership tax was 5.1 cents. Suddenly, out of the blue the company found itself paying a Canadian ownership tax. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) said that the people of Canada would be delighted to pay the Canadian ownership tax. I wish he would go into some people's homes and hear what they tell me. The people are not delighted at all. They are having a hard time making a living and making ends meet. In 1981 the income tax paid by this company actually went down a little, to 2.7 cents, instead of 3.4 cents.
Then we come to 1982, and these are estimates. The gas supply is costing 39 cents, the lowest yet, again because of the rebates offered by the Alberta government. This is an Alberta company in my Bow River riding. The company operations are down too, to 20.1 cents. Again I suppose the company is practising restraint. Company earnings are down to 3.7 cents of every dollar as against 5 cents and 4.5 cents in the previons two years. However, the taxes are up to 37.2 cents. The federal excise tax has now jumped from 1980 when it was 11.3 cents to 20.2 cents. Everything else is down, but the federal tax is going up, with the exception of the Canadian ownership tax, which has gone down slightly to 4.6 cents. The total is 37.2 cents as against 33.1 cents the previous year, and the income tax component is 2.4 cents. In addition to that, the company has a franchise tax of 10 cents, which is being levied right through the whole year.
What does this mean to the people? That is the point I want to make. The company can pass it on. I am not complaining on behalf of the company, although other small companies which cannot pass on these costs go bankrupt. Their employees go unemployed. However, this particular company is able to pass its costs on to the people.
1 have here statements made by a senior citizen who is 79 years of age. I do not know how old his wife is, but I imagine she is just about the same age. He says:
Just turned 79 years of age trying to keep my head above water, but with this gas bit, increases in town utilities, increase in taxes .. . barely existing-
His taxes jumped way up to $1,261 a year. Previously he was paying considerably less than that. The difference is all those federal taxes because everthing else has gone down. Increases in federal taxes have become a burden on senior citizens. They are becoming a burden on those on fixed incomes. And we forget about the wage earner, who is just barely making it. 1 mean the wage earner who is barely making it, who is trying to pay off a mortgage and raise a
Taxation
family or send a son or daughter to university. That is who is being hit hard, and that is what I object to.
This tax is also hurting small companies. It is not hurting Imperial Oil or Shell because those large companies can bear it, but the small companies cannot. I wish we could get that through the heads on the government benches, but that would be pretty hard, Mr. Speaker, because not one minister on the front benches is here tonight.
That is another thing that I object to in this House. I spent several years in the Alberta legislature and when a bill was discussed the minister was always in the House. That was a requirement imposed by the House and by the premier. The ministers of this government do not have time to read Hansard and maybe they think we do not have anything to offer, but they could at least be here out of respect. After all, every member of this House has been sent here by the people to speak for them, and that is what we are endeavouring to do.
Yesterday a member of the NDP questioned the minister about senior citizens and was told that they are being given a supplementary allowance. That is supposed to look after them. But, Mr. Speaker, the supplementary allowance does not look after the increases in federal taxes. It is no wonder that senior citizens are crying. The man I referred to earlier said he is just existing, and I believe him. I have been in the homes of many senior citizens and have come away with a heavy heart because 1 know they are not getting enough to eat. Some are living on soup or bread and sometimes even on dog food because they do not have enough money to last to the end of the month. We give them a cost of living bonus thinking that they can live on that. It is something like the times before the revolution in France when the people were crying for bread and an aristocrat told them to eat cake! That is what the government is doing here; it is not listening to the people.
There is no reason why this tax could not be reduced for senior citizens, for those on welfare and people on low incomes. If it were reduced for small companies as well, that would help keep people working. The government is hurting itself by trying to grab the last drop of blood, as Shakespeare put it in one of his plays.
I have a letter here from another senior citizen who says that she is taking "a cruel beating on her utility bills". This is a lady of 75 or so who spent her life trying to help others, and now she is being treated in this way and does not have enough to eat for the whole month. She knows the reason for this-it is the taxes imposed by the federal government.
The government does not need that money, Mr. Speaker. It made several billions of dollars on the agreement with Alberta, so why does it also have to levy these taxes? Saskatchewan removed the road gas tax of 46 cents, but the federal tax is 50 cents to 80 cents. The Saskatchewan government tried to help the farmers and workers and indeed everyone who buys gas for the car, but they are still stuck with the 50 cents to 80 cents federal tax. What is the federal government going to do about that?

May 27, 1982
Taxation
There is another point that I want to deal with, Mr. Speaker. I have a graph here which shows the annual natural gas costs for a household in my riding, assuming 200 gigajoules per year, in 1972. On that basis the gas supply costs were $20, the municipal revenue tax $10 and the company cost of service was $80 for an annual cost of $110 or 55 cents per GJ. That was before the federal government imposed a direct tax. In 1977 the provincial government's price protection plan shielded customers by $56 per year. The gas supply costs were $120, the municipal revenue tax $25, the company cost of service $95, for a total annual cost of $240 or $1.20 per GJ. By February 1, 1982, the provincial government's price protection plan shielded customers by $100 per year. In effect, the Alberta government was saying, "We are getting more for our gas so we will give you $100 per year back to help make up the difference in the cost." The gas supply cost was $240, federal excise tax $160, municipal revenue tax $60, company cost of service $170-in other words, 25 per cent of the total cost was going to the federal government. The total annual cost was $630 or $3.15 per GJ. The increase is largely due to the federal taxes. In 1980 this particular utility company had a total revenue of $257 million. The total tax on that was $8 million. In 1981 its total revenue was $338 million, and the tax for Canadian ownership and the federal excise tax amounted to $64 million. If the company had not passed that amount of tax on to the users, it would have gone bankrupt. It is no wonder that small businesses and farmers are going bankrupt when they face taxation like this which is completely unnecessary.
A few years ago, Mr. Speaker, a naturalist told me a story about seeing a huge bird come down out of the sky and grab something in its claws, then soar back into the sky again. Suddenly it looked as if the bird was in trouble when its wings started to flutter. A few minutes later it fell to the ground. My friend rushed over to where it was and there he saw a weasel sucking the blood of the bird. The Canadian people picked a weasel government in 1980, Mr. Speaker, and it is now sucking the economic blood out of the nation. It is time the government started to take stock of what is happening to the country if it wants it to hold together. When the National Energy Program was introduced in October 1980 the Minister of Finance said that it would reinforce the commitment to new supply development. 1 want now to deal with Alberta, not that Alberta is any more important than any other province. Every province is equal but I happen to come from Alberta and I am supposed to be speaking for the people of Bow River. What the Minister of Finance said was heartwarming to the people of western Canada. He said:
The National Energy Program is fair to Albertans. It is also fair to the government of Alberta. The people of Alberta will enjoy, as will all Canadians, the benefits of an energy program which will deliver energy security at reasonable, made-in-Canada prices.
Later on he said:
With the National Energy Program, Alberta's absolute and relative position will improve dramatically.
What is the situation under the NEP? Drilling rigs are down from 400 to about 55. A lot of workers with their expertise have had to leave the province because of lack of work. It has even been felt down in the small villages and towns of my riding. Instead of drilling crews living in hotels, eating in restaurants or buying groceries and keeping those businesses alive, they are now stuck with additional taxes and less business. This thing has just gone through the country like a nightmare. All across Canada we see the effect of the NEP, not only with the big jobs but with the little jobs. Then we have that agreement which was signed by Alberta in desperation because they wanted to get things moving. They left out conventional oil altogether because they wanted to concentrate on the oil sands, Cold Lake, Hibernia, the Beaufort and the Arctic. The government forgot about where we have been getting oil for years and years. Those people were left out in the cold without any work. Then, to make matters even worse, they made an agreement to buy 400,000 barrels of oil a day from another country. Our wells are plugged up, our people do not have work, some of them are hungry and some of our businesses have gone bankrupt, but we are buying 400,000 barrels a day of Mexican oil. Young men from every other province have left Alberta to go home because the work has dried up under the NEP. I wish anyone who says he is proud of the NEP, as one of the Liberal members did yesterday, would visit some of the homes in my riding in Alberta. He would not be very proud, I tell you. Things are drying up, there is hunger right in the midst of plenty. Maybe not as bad as in 1935, but still very bad.
The hon. member over there can laugh if he likes, but I tell you, when you are hungry, you are hungry. I have gone through the experience, I know what it is like, and some people are suffering in that way right now. The member there can wave his hands if he likes. That is the trouble with this government, it will not even listen to the facts. Well, the day will come when they might wish they had listened.


Mr. Corbin:: You are exaggerating.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I am not exaggerating.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Go out and take a look for yourself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Gauthier:: For the sake of exactitude, would the hon. member please back up his statement that we import 400,000 barrels a day from Mexico? Where the heck did he get that idea, just for the sake of facts?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has the floor.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are importing 40,000 barrels a day.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You said 400,000 barrels a day.
May 27, 1982


Gordon Edward Taylor: Forty thousand barrels a day. If I said 400,000,
1 made an error. But 40,000 barrels a day is just as bad.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Only Allan MacEachen could make an error like that.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes, I am making the kind of mistake that the Minister of Finance normally makes. I have been in the House too long already. Let me give you another comparison. You will not like this, but it is very real. But 1 do not care whether you like it or not; I am not here to please the Liberals. I am here to give you the message from the people who sent me here. I am going to do it whether you like it or not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: If you do not like it, you can lump it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, the Chair is listening attentively and his remarks are of course directed to the Chair.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. In 1932 and 1933 Stalin went into the Ukraine and forced the peasants into collective farms. The long-established methods of individual tenure were abolished. When the peasants refused, an artificial famine was induced because they were compelled, during a season of poor harvest, to deliver so much grain to the cities that whole villages died of starvation. At least three million men, women and children were deliberately starved to death and millions more deported to Siberia. History calls it "the artificial famine", brought on because the government was so hungry for taxes that it took practically all the food from those farmers. Look up the history and deny that! That is exactly what this government is doing today, taking so much of the produce front the people that senior citizens are going hungry, businesses are going bankrupt and there is no work. Look at the record, over a million people unemployed. Then you sit there and smile as if you had done something wonderful. Well, Mr. Speaker, the people do not think so.
Because world prices soared much higher than the Canadian price, Ottawa said it would introduce a subsidy to refiners who use imported oil so there will be the same price right across the country. When the international price fell one would assume that the subsidy would be reduced in such a way as to keep the domestic price at least competitive with the foreign price. Yet that is exactly what did not happen. It stays at the same price. The government pours out billions buying foreign oil it does not need. It says we have a contract with Mexico, but the government has a contract with the Canadian people also. You want to see the people of Canada going hungry while you make sure the people of Mexico are fed. Well, Canadians are getting fed up with that.
Then there is this ridiculous budget under which the government taxes people on income they have not even received. And it does that without legislative authority! There is no legislative authority to cut the capital cost allowance in half for the year of purchase. Yet that measure has closed up industries in Ontario, Quebec and the rest of Canada. I know one dealer who ordered eight combines last fall. When that budget was introduced he called the farmers who said they were not
Taxation
buying, they would make their old combines do. So what happened? He cancelled the order for eight combines, which meant a lot of people in Ontario and Quebec went without work. Then the government cancelled IAACs entirely. As a result, land purchases in Western Canada have practically stopped. A farmer's land is his pension, the only one he has. When he sells his land he has to get enough to live on for the rest of his life. He does not have a pension from a Crown corporation or the government. His land is his pension. He can sell his land to multinational corporations, but we do not want them owning our land. At one time he could sell it to his hired hand, his son or his daughter, and he would say, "1 know you do not have $250,000. It is my pension for working the land 40 to 50 years, but I will take $10,000 this year and put it in an IAAC; then you can pay me another $20,000 next year and the year following and so on." But now with the budget he is required to pay capital gains on the entire $250,000, money which he does not even have. Consequently he cannot afford to sell his land. People who should be retired have now had their nest eggs ruined by the budget. Today they cannot retire. They must continue working after having worked for several years to reach the point at which they could sell their land and receive a pension. Is that fair? Well, that is what the government's budget does. Hon. members opposite should go out to see some of the farmers who are experiencing this. They are having a difficult time. They are being taxed on money they do not even have. One chap who sold before he knew all the laws had to go out and borrow money at a high rate of interest to pay capital gains tax. It was money he had not even received, but the government must have its pound of flesh and every drop of blood. As I said earlier today, the government is so anxious to obtain every cent it can that it is actually sucking the economic lifeblood out of the nation. This is exactly what it is doing. It is not the only thing that is bad.
Look at the barrels per day of Alberta crude which could have been produced. About $5 billion is going out of the country. This money could have gone to Canadians to purchase trucks and groceries, or could have done many things in the country. The minister said that the government has made a considerable financial investment in the program which over the years amounted to several billion dollars. He also indicated that it represented a direct subsidy to consumers in eastern Canada, the majority of whom are Quebecers. Also he said that it was not difficult to imagine the additional burden which would have to be borne by every family in Quebec if it were not for this subsidy. He went on to say that between 1973 and 1980 Quebecers received $5 billion in payments under the program. We should have been buying crude oil from Alberta with this $5 billion, and Quebecers would have experienced the same prosperity, without it being taken out of the mouths of Albertans.
The National Energy Program is sucking the lifeblood out of the nation. I object to these bills coming before the House

May 27, 1982
Taxation
and the taxes being levied before they have had legislative approval. It is criminal that the country has reached the stage where the government goes ahead and levies taxes without the authority of Parliament, and then it expects other people in the country to obey the laws.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, would the House allow unanimous consent for the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) to answer a brief question before the next speaker is recognized?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's allotted time has expired. This would require unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Would the hon. member give us a brief explanation as to what the view of Liberal premiers in Canada would be on the topic we are discussing this evening?


Mr. Paproski:: What Liberal premiers?


Douglas Keith Anguish: Exactly.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, perhaps that is why there are no Liberal premiers in the country, and there will not be a federal Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who is Liberal, much longer.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy being in the House when the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) speaks because he speaks as a populist. Although I do not agree with many of the things he says, he speaks as someone who has been around for quite a while. In fact, he has been around in the Social Credit movement, but I think his views are quite different from those of most Tories who speak as if they and the multinational oil companies were one and the same operation. It is refreshing to hear the other side of the situation, however. 1 do not disagree with the hon. member that perhaps there is poverty and people who are poor in Alberta. I wonder how this has come about when the government of Alberta has probably the largest revenues per capita of certainly any government in the country and probably of almost any government in the world. It has a massive heritage fund, but at the same time the hon. member tells me that there is poverty and that people are starving. I wonder how that can happen in this land of plenty.
Also I heard the hon. member talk about this institution being non-democratic, a dictatorship, and so on. I cannot quite understand this. He said that the minister was not in the House for a couple of minutes and that he did not remember a situation in the Alberta legislature where a minister was not present all the time a bill like this one was being debated. As I recall the period when the hon. member was a member of the Alberta legislature, which I gather was approximately 25 years, there was rarely more than three or four opposition members. I cannot imagine a bill being discussed more than two or three days with only three or four opposition members, unless the government itself wanted to talk about it forever.
There have been 86 days of debate on the first part of the National Energy Program. There will have been 35 days on this part, and I do not know how many dozens of opposition days along the same line. We have spent at least two thirds of a year in the House or in committee on these bills. The hon. member for Bow River has spoken at least a half dozen or a dozen times. I would say half a dozen would be the minimum because I heard him speak many times. I have spoken at least a dozen times on these bills. How can anyone say that members of the House have not been given a chance to speak on these matters? How can anyone say that this place is undemocratic? It is beyond me. I have spoken at least a dozen times on this or on similar bills. If I sat down and added it up, I am sure it would probably be 20 or 25 times. I just do not understand the notion that this is not a democratic procedure. I do not think there is a parliament anywhere in the world where members would spend more time deliberating on legislation than we do in this Parliament. That is certainly not done in the mother Parliament in Britain where a bill such as this would go through in two or three sittings. It is amazing that hon. members of the opposition are attempting to convey to the public through the television medium that we are not democratic, that we do not have a chance to debate these bills and that they are rammed through. We have spent 86 days, another 35 days, as well as the opposition days, and we are still debating the same bill. I just do not understand.
I started off my comments by saying that the hon. member for Bow River has a different approach. I think it is because he has a different background and a different sensitivity than many of the other members of his party. It was perhaps a week or two ago when I heard the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) speaking to another related bill. He talked about Reaganomics and all of the positive events which were occurring in the United States. I repeatedly heard this from the Conservatives, so I read some of the speeches made by such hon. members as the financial critic, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson). They are all preoccupied with this notion of Reaganomics.
During this debate on the national energy bill I can see the same kind of attitude prevailing, namely that we have to cut taxes to safeguard one segment of our society. It is called the sparrow theory whereby if you feed the horse enough oats the sparrows will survive. That is the type of predominant attitude we find among the majority of members on that side of the House.
Since I am a convert to this particular party, I am familiar with other party philosophies. I have always felt since I have been a member in the House that the Conservative opposition members have a great deal of difficulty in becoming united because they basically do not have a central point of view. They have a large right wing, a very active and articulate left wing-what is called the red Tories-but with really nothing
May 27, 1982

to unite them. That is very different from the party that 1 belong to. Within the Liberal Party I see a very large centre with some people who move to the right and with some, like myself, who may move somewhat to the left. However, there is a very strong and coherent centre. That is what is lacking in the party on that side of the House.
During the energy debate over the past several weeks what we have heard is the very far right Reaganomic approach to the entire situation. This not only concerns tax cuts, it concerns, as well, matters such as the National Energy Program where the Conservative Party sounds very much like Mr. Brock, the United States government representative who constantly talks about the American government being very disturbed because we are attempting in various ways to achieve a 50 per cent ownership of our natural resources. He is touring the United States, and recently visited Toronto, condemning us for having the effrontery to try to get control of our major resource industry. He is disturbed that we are trying to achieve the modest goal of bringing that industry under 50 per cent Canadian control. That modest goal which we are striving for is difficult to achieve because there is great power and other factors against us. For example, there is the power of the very large global oil companies, there is the United States government, and the Reagan government in particular, as well as the objections we hear from the opposition. These factors make it very difficult for Canada to get control of those resources.
That is the essence of this entire bill. Through this bill we are trying to get control of our resources and, as a nation, attempt to conserve those resources in order to develop them not only for Canadians of today but for future generations. We have heard much about the evils of the National Energy Program having caused a decline of drilling activity in the west and the fact that many rigs have left for the United States. Hon. members say this is mostly due to the National Energy Program, but they ignore many other factors which come into play.
Between 1980 and 1982 when this government has been in power there has been a net decline of 8 to 10 per cent in the consumption of oil in Canada. That is a very desirable decline. Most of the hon. members opposite were here in 1978-79, but presumably they have very short memories. If hon. members recall the winter of 1978-79, there was an actual decline of 50,000 barrels per day in the production of oil from western reserves. That 50,000 barrels is the actual amount we are purchasing from Mexico today. If hon. members will remember this period, they will recall the deep concern about the fact that we were not going to be able to get through that winter, similar to the circumstances we faced the previous winter. They will also remember that when they were in power they were concerned about getting a contract with the Mexican government to purchase oil. They were unable to get an agreement with the Mexican government because instead of going there as a government, they sent Exxon to do it. The Mexican government was not having anything to do with multinationals, and therefore the Conservative government could not make a deal with that particular country. The ones who made the deal was our own Petro-Canada, the very
Taxation
company that that government wanted to get rid of. Those are the facts. That is why we were able to make that deal.
We may not need those 50,000 barrels of oil today and we may not be getting that oil from the western reserves, but it is not leaking away. The great myth that we hear from the other side today is that somehow that oil in western Canada will disappear if we do not pump it out and get rid of it as fast as we can. As I said, it is as if there were a hole below the earth's crust which will drain all the oil. That oil will eventually be produced. If we do not use that 50,000 barrels a day from western reserves today, it will be there for future generations. I do not understand the nonsense coming from the hon. members who say that we must get that oil quickly because we need the revenue from it. I suggest that every barrel of oil in the ground today will be worth a lot more to future generations than it is today, and it will be much more meaningful to future generations of Canadians. What is not pumped out now will be of untold value to our children and our great grandchildren. Therefore, I do not deplore the fact that we are not taking that oil out of the ground.
I believe it is an established fact that one of the reasons why there is not as much drilling taking place in western reserves is that there is not that much more oil left in western reserves. Drilling operations have not uncovered a lot of oil in those reserves.
In 1978-79 and during the time of the Conservative government, we were told that the production from the western reserves would decline to about 10 per cent of the production in 1980 by 1990. That is, in the 1990s production would be 10 per cent of the 1980s. I believe that those figures were somewhat pessimistic. Our consumption of oil has declined to such a degree that it makes that prediction impossible. Due to conservation we will receive a few more years of oil production from those reserves. Those western reserves will not be there forever if we pump oil out at the rate we have been doing it in the last 10 or 15 years.
Therefore, I believe that Canadians, after looking at the National Energy Program and the many other factors, including conservation, can say that the decline in consumption by 8 to 10 per cent in the last two years has been beneficial and not detrimental. If the people of Alberta are suffering at this stage, they had better look to their provincial government whose revenues are larger than any other government in history and probably any other government in the free world. If there is hardship in Alberta, Albertans should look to their government which has these large sums of money at its disposal.
1 have mentioned this significant decline in consumption which is due partially to conservation and partially to the various incentives that this government, through the National Energy Program, has developed over the last ten years. For example, the CHIP program has spent a lot of money in conversion from oil to gas which has promoted conservation in many ways. I would like to see this continued. One of the effects of conservation is the actual decline in oil consumption.

May 27, 1982
Taxation
Of course, another reason for the decline in oil consumption has been the general recession, it was very interesting the other day when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) did a little work and pulled out a few figures to indicate that this is a global recession and that it is affecting oil companies throughout the world. He quoted the figures and indicated, for instance, that in this country Gulf Canada, Shell Canada and Texaco Canada outperformed their international parents. I am sure that hon. members opposite do not believe that, because they maintain that the National Energy Program is destroying all of this industry, but in this country they outperformed their parent companies. The minister also pointed out that the earnings of some of the major oil companies in the United States declined in the last year. For instance, the first quarter earnings of Occidental were down 76 per cent over last year's first quarter, and Marathon was down 71 per cent. These are all United States companies. Standard California was down 65 per cent, Mobil was down 49 per cent and Texaco was down 44 per cent. These are the companies in the United States, many of them having large holdings in Canada, whose revenues are declining. Also remember that Exxon has abandoned the oil shale project on which it spent very large sums of money in the United States. So none of the companies in the United States are affected by the National Energy Program. It was not the National Energy Program which made the parent Gulf company do worse than the Canadian Gulf, or the Shell Canada or Texaco do worse than the Canadian companies. It was a series of other things. The National Energy Program has not hindered these companies. As a matter of fact, it has made it possible for us to develop a long-term program, and those companies and many others in this country are doing extremely well. So it is a,myth. This particular program is designed to bring those resources to Canadians, to develop them for the good of all Canadians and not to export the profits from these developments to some other foreign country. We should be duly proud of that program and not condemn it, as the hon. members opposite have been doing.
1 would like to refer to natural gas for a minute. I keep hearing the story that there is a tragedy out west because we capped about a thousand gas wells and that those wells could be pumping gas-I do not know where, but probably to the United States.


Mr. Kempling:: They do not pump gas.


Paul Edmund McRae: We could derive massive revenues from that. As I said before, one would almost think that there were some kinds of perforations in the caps so that the gas was leaking out, disappearing, and then all of a sudden, by the time we got around to it in three or four years, after pumping it out, there would be no gas left. 1 get the feeling that members feel that the stuff is evaporating into the air and that we are losing all of it. There is one way of getting rid of this gas in a hurry, and that is by pumping it across to the United States. But when that government of the party opposite was in power in 1979,
for a mercifully short period, it supported the National Energy Board in allowing for increased exports to the United States. The then minister was asked by the present minister, by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), by myself and by others, time and time again, "When is the cut-off, with the new discoveries and everything? When will the supply of the western reserve gas equal the demand for the western reserve gas?" The answer was "In 1997". In 1997, my son will be 40 years of age. At that stage, he may have a child of four or five years of age and we will run out of gas at that point or-


William James Kempling: When are you going to run out of gas?


Paul Edmund McRae: That is the figure that he eventually gave us after being asked four or five times in this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if the hon. senator, Senator Foghorn, could answer a question.


Paul Edmund McRae: I always enjoy questions. I would like to answer a question if the hon. member would like to ask one.


Jack Wendele Shields: I just wondered if the hon. Senator Foghorn would accept a question. Oh, he would, would he? I would ask how many days, how many weeks or how many months the hon. member has spent in the oilfields of western Canada, or in Canada.


William James Kempling: None.


Paul Edmund McRae: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, how much time I have spent in the oilfields, but I guess it is certainly not as much as the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). He certainly spent a great deal more time there, and it is my hope that he spends a great deal more time there in the future. I have spent some time in the oilfields but not a lot. I do not know what that has to do with the situation. I have not spent very much time on Wall Street, either, but I think many of the people here know a little bit about some of the things going on in the world without being there.
I would like to talk about gas because 1 think this is an important feature. Basically, there is one way we can get rid of this gas that is capped. One way to get rid of it very rapidly would be to export it. That is a good thing. It would mean there would be export dollars coming in, and so on. But as I indicated, with that crossover line of 1997, which may change, it also means that when we sell or export today, we will not have it for Canadians in the future. I think that the future should be our chief consideration. That gas is not disappearing. That gas is being kept there for future generations of Canadians and there will be much more drilling going on at such time as we need more gas. I believe this to be the prime reason that there has not been the kind of drilling going on in the western reserves, both for oil and gas, that there was before. In one manner or another there was enough at a particular stage of the game to do what was done, particularly in the gas field, and these wells were capped. It is my opinion that we should
May 27, 1982

uncap them as the need arises, and the gas will flow, and then we can explore for some more. We created tremendous incentives in the mid-seventies to drill continually, but after the drilling it was said that we had to get rid of the stuff, that we had to sell it to the United States and quickly export it because we could not afford it. We spent all that money on drilling, but suddenly all the incentives were created for export purposes. This was not for the long-term future of Canadians, for the future generations who will have to keep warm and will need these fuels to survive.


Gordon Edward Taylor: 1 thought you wanted self-sufficiency in oil.


Paul Edmund McRae: It is important that we understand that under this National Energy Program we are attempting to do what should have been done years ago. It is what any self-respecting country would do. I am very critical of the governments which were in power in this country for 40 or 50 years and did not do this. However, I am very proud that I am part of a government which is now doing what should have been done years ago, that is, getting control of these resources for Canadians. It is ridiculous that the other side condemns us. It constantly condemns us because we have set up a national oil company. We bought out three companies. According to the other side, it was terrible that we should have done this. It suggested that in no way should we have done that and that we should depend exclusively upon the private sector to Canadianize itself. That will not happen that way. I was very pleased-


Mr. Stevens:: Why? Why will it not happen?


Paul Edmund McRae: When Petro-Canada bid for Husky Oil, I was very pleased. Husky Oil had some very good holdings in this country which will be very valuable in the long run, particularly involving heavy oil, when we get around to that. I was also very pleased when Petro-Canada did not get it and the bid went to Nova Corporation or Alberta Gas Trunk Lines which bought this company. It therefore became a Canadian company, allowing Petro-Canada to go out and buy Phillips a little later. It seemed to me that we got the best of all deals. We got the Canadian portion of two important American companies operating in Canada. One is in the private sector and one was obtained by Petro-Canada. That is the way Canadians are. They believe in a mixed economy, not Reaganomics. We do not believe that anything the state does is bad and anything the private sector does is good. That is not true.
I find it difficult when the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) talks about our ridding ourselves of Crown corporations and then talks about all the corporations initiated, acquired or built under good Conservative governments such as Ontario Hydro or PWA, which was taken from the private sector into the bosom of the Alberta government.
These kinds of things have been done in this country for a long time. Knowing Canadians, I am sure it will continue. It does not starve either the private or the public sector. They
Taxation
work hand in hand. The party opposite tries to drive a wedge between the private and public sectors, accepting the idea that is common with Mr. Reagan and the ultra-rightwingers in the United States that anything the state does is bad. It is something that party is introducing into the House of Commons. It is a bad thing. It is not because Conservative governments since the beginning of this country have done the kinds of things we are doing.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Not true.


Paul Edmund McRae: I have to defend that situation.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Tell the truth.


William James Kempling: You can't trust a Grit.


Paul Edmund McRae: Canadians are becoming more self-sufficient because of this ownership. We are acquiring the means to be self-sufficient.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You are nothing but a socialist.


Paul Edmund McRae: It is too bad I am deaf because I would like to hear what members opposite are saying. Canadians want to be self-sufficient, and we are moving in that direction. In the past two years we decreased by about 5 per cent our reliance on foreign sources. As I say, we are moving slowly in that direction. Canada is now about 81 per cent self-sufficient in oil. That is not better than we always were, but it is better than in the recent past. If we continue to do what we are doing, the situation will continue to improve. I think of the Hibernia and the Dome project in the Beaufort as areas where we will succeed.
Most members on this side were disappointed that the tar sands project did not go ahead. We hope that in the next three or four years it will proceed, possibly in a different way. One of the most significant statements regarding this project was made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). He talked about the type of technology that is developing. If we are going to do the job and get the oil out of the tar sands in large quantities, we must develop technology. The hon. member said it may be good that we did not go ahead at this point because technology could improve over the next few years. He said it may be cheaper, that we may get more out of it, and in the long run the country will be better off.
We must continue to develop these areas, but at a rate that we as Canadians can do it. We should not take all the oil out, export it and make future generations suffer. That is what would happen if members opposite were still in government. They are not concerned about future generations. They are concerned about the quick buck, and let future generations worry about themselves.
I now come back to the theme I have been developing throughout my speech. In the right-wing of the Progressive Conservative Party there is a large segment known as red Tories. They believe in Reaganomics, the whole sparrow

May 27, 1982
Taxation
theory of taxes. Those are the kinds of things they want for this country. It is that party that wants to be associated with United States interests.
The other day the hon. member for York-Peel condemned the government for the Bombardier-New York deal. I see that groups in the United States are now joining the hon. member in trying to prevent those 2,500 jobs from going to Canadians.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How many?


Paul Edmund McRae: Twenty-five hundred. Did 1 say 25,000?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How about the American jobs?


Paul Edmund McRae: We have an Export Development Corporation which the opposition spends much time condemning. The fact that we are doing what is being done in Japan, Germany, the United States, France and other countries, setting up financial deals in order to be more successful in our export trade, is something that should be praised, not condemned.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I am wondering if the hon. member will accept one more question.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, 1 felt the last question was rather frivolous. I assume this will be the same type of question. I would rather use the time in my own way.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. The hon. member referred to me two or three times in his speech. I am hoping he will entertain a question from me.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I will finish my remarks and then 1 will be glad to accept a question from the hon. member. We have an argument here that is rather important.
It is very important to sell on the export market, but that is very difficult at this time. A company in Thunder Bay, Hawker Siddeley, tried to sell on the export market. It did not lose out because of quality or price. It could not compete with the loan that EDC would make. Therefore it is tremendously important that we assist our export trade.
Those on the other side do not place the same importance on this. That is why 1 say there is a significant difference between the approach taken by this side and that of members opposite. We follow a middle-of-the-road approach in an attempt to rationalize the industry and bring it under Canadian ownership without going to excess.
This is a centre party. The Conservative opposition wants to move everything to the right. It wants to function with the sparrow theory of economics, cutting taxes and giving incentives to large corporations. The NDP wants to move too rapidly. They want us to do far too much. This country could not stand the strain of an ideological left or an ideological right. This country must be kept together, and this can only be done with a centre-type of government.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am glad to have the opportunity to ask this question. We will see whether the hon. member takes it as frivolous or not. Does the hon. member realize that yesterday in Edmonton the largest
auction sale of oil field equipment from the oil patch was held? It was the largest in the history of the oil industry. Does the hon. member also know that brand new drilling rigs worth $1 million were sold for $510,000 on an unreserved auction sale? Does the hon. member also know that the equipment-


An hon. Member:: What is the question?


Jack Wendele Shields: Does the hon. member also know that the equipment was owned by Canadians, that the sale went for a period of five or six consecutive hours, and that the buyers were all Americans and all Canadians were selling? That was caused by the energy policy of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, order. I recognized the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) on a point of order, but obviously there was not very much of a point of order. He asked, in keeping with our tradition, whether or not he might ask the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) a question. That is fine. If it is not going to be a point of order, at least let there be an attempted question, relatively brief. Does the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan choose to answer the question, or shall I recognize the next speaker?


An hon. Member:: No, no, give him a chance.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I have already heard the question and of course I know. The answer is, yes, and I know it because he has told me. 1 do not disagree with the hon. member. What he has said is true and since what the hon. member says is true, that these rigs are going for half or less than half what they are worth, then there cannot be such a demand from the other side or other areas for the same thing, otherwise they would be going for more than what they are worth. We are talking about international commerce. I find the question could easily include what I have been saying all along, that is, there is a decline all over in this business and it is true in respect of these sales.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, order. If the House chooses to pursue this question and answer business during the time of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae), then I should recognize the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave).


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk, in this third reading debate on Bill C-l 12, mainly on natural gas. There is good reason for that. 1 live in an area where natural gas has been part of my heritage, going back in our history for a hundred years. That is a long time in southern Alberta, I can assure you. Natural gas has been a part of my whole life, so I think it is appropriate to make some comments
May 27, 1982

about it and about the implications of this particular bill on that total industry, at least that side of the total oil and gas industry.
Yesterday I was privileged and pleased to participate in the Committee of the Whole House on this same bill. 1 found it was a very frustrating and quite unsatisfactory debate. Here we were discussing energy issues of vital concern to western Canada and especially to Alberta and especially on all taxation matters relating to natural gas. It was a disappointing committee stage, primarily because this bill is the official responsibility of the wrong cabinet minister. The hon. Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) is a very genuine and sincere minister. I worked with him a year ago on the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs when we were discussing the Bank Act.


An hon. Member:: Good man.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: That is when we were discussing the implications of agriculture on the Bank Act, a very important part of it. I would say his expertise is not in the area of oil and natural gas in all its various aspects, in our Canadian exploration and production. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) should have been the responsible minister for this bill. After all, it is totally about energy. He should have attended yesterday's committee stage and participated as well in this final third reading debate today.
Natural gas is historically part of our Alberta heritage. The city of Medicine Hat and most of southeastern Alberta is underlaid with rather vast resources in natural gas. Today we in the city of Medicine Hat and all of southern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan are deeply concerned about the negative developments following the introduction of the National Energy Program in the October 1980 budget.
The atmosphere in yesterday's committee stage was not conducive to a reasonable exchange of comments from opposition members and at least a genuine attempt at an answer from the Minister of State for Finance.
The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) participated with a speech only. He had no questions. 1 would like to respond in part at this time. Here is a direct quotation from page 17802 of Hansard of part of his speech:
I have a very vital interest in the National Energy Program and, more particularly, in the negotiations which were carried on, happily and satisfactorily to the benefit, or at least to the mutual credit, 1 would say, of the three producing provinces and the federal government.
Now present day circumstances in the oil and gas industry are certainly not in the "happily and satisfactorily" beneficial state. This was a very inaccurate statement. It is very well known by all of us from the west that our petroleum industry has been in a declining and worsening state ever since the introduction of the National Energy Program over a year and a half ago. If the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton had been anywhere in western Canada, he would be well aware of the real situation and he could hardly avoid the reality of our western situation now. A little later on in the same speech, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, in response to a question as
Taxation
to how he was received when he visited the west, had this to
say:
They received me very well because they are quite often surprised to hear that there is another side to the issue and that countries with oil production feel it appropriate when they sometimes give depletion allowances and, in other cases, capital cost allowances.
Now, listen to this:
They are all significant areas of federal tax positions which made it possible to discover this oil in the first place.
Well, that is quite a statement to make. Again, here is this very inaccurate and misleading statement, I must say. It is well known that it was American capital, and initially American expertise that made Alberta's oil and gas industry possible. It is a well known fact throughout the west. Without that United States capital financing we would still be waiting for federal and central Canadian capital funding.
Now a word about my own city of Medicine Hat. In my nearly ten years of representation of my home city and all of southeastern Alberta, I have never seen such serious concern and despair over any issue as we now have, due entirely to the punitive and discriminatory natural gas taxes in this legislation. Already over $15 million has been paid by the city of Medicine Hat to the federal government for these gas taxes. But they are being paid under protest. The city of Medicine Hat owns its own utilities, it has always owned them and has developed its own electrical power by the use of natural gas.
At present the mayor, Ted Grimm, and council insist that these taxes are both illegal and unconstitutional. There is at present a court case under way in Calgary to determine the legality of the application of that tax. Some citizens are so upset that they are refusing to pay the natural gas portion of their utility bills.
On April 19 last 1 was privileged and pleased to present a petition on behalf of 12,689 adult citizens of my city who strongly oppose these gas taxes, which are already causing an over 100 per cent increase in their utility bills, and that is only over a period of one and a half years. That petition also fully endorses the city's legal action against the federal government. I can assure hon. members that this is a very harsh reality to be faced by the elderly and retired citizens in my home city. There is a great number of retired farmers in my city, mostly from southwestern Saskatchewan, who for years have been moving to Medicine Hat for their retirement, primarily because of natural gas.
Now there is a special situation pertaining to Alberta's greenhouse industry which requires some special comments. Just a week ago today there was a special protest meeting, so to speak. It was a public meeting held in the town of Redcliff to discuss the situation and what the natural gas taxes have done to Alberta's greenhouse industry. It was a very significant meeting.
1 want to remind the House that Alberta's greenhouse industry is the fourth largest in all of Canada, so it is a very important one. It was founded primarily because of the

May 27, 1982
Taxation
availability of inexpensive natural gas, and it began close to 100 years ago. There are a few disadvantages, such as the distance between us and our markets. We supply primarily cut flowers to the greater part of western Canada, and there is the problem of non-availability of common carriers to transport those cut flowers. There are the costs of machinery and other imported goods and, of course, the cost of labour, but by far the greatest cost is the incredible increase in the cost of natural gas used for heating greenhouses.
The operator of one particular greenhouse operation, known as the Redcliff Greenhouses, made a statement at that meeting a week ago today saying that by the end of this year its annual gas fuel bill will be six times its bill of just a year ago. Redcliff Greenhouses has identified what its fuel cost figures have been over the last four years, and they tell quite a story. Very briefly, here it is; in 1979 the operation's natural gas cost totalled $9,130. That represented 1.3 per cent of its gross costs. In 1980 those cost had risen to $14,000, or 1.8 per cent of its gross costs. In 1981 the cost totalled $40,000, or 4.5 per cent of gross cost. However, its estimated 1982 costs are $83,800, or a 9.9 per cent increase. Is it any wonder that there is a very grave concern about the survival of the total greenhouse industry in my home city and, in fact, all across southern Alberta?
Now a word about the agricultural food cost aspect as it is affected by the additional costs of natural gas due to these taxes. They are already the largest single factor in the rapidly rising cost of food across the prairies. About 80 per cent of Alberta's 85,000 farmers now have natural gas service to their farmsteads. It is a significant accomplishment to have natural gas in almost every farm in Alberta. Across southern Alberta on our irrigated lands natural gas has become a major source of energy for sprinkler irrigation, especially the centre pivot type. Over the last two years this energy source has quickly become the most expensive, much higher in price now than diesel fuel and electrical power. Electrical energy is now the most economical, and not too long ago it was the most expensive.
On a province-wide basis the oil and gas taxes have increased the cost of farm fuels and fertilizers by staggering amounts. The end result, of course, is much higher food costs for both humans and livestock.
The oil and gas well servicing industry is a very important sector in Alberta. It is not a big multinational group including large Canadian-owned companies, but this sector, which services individual drilling operations, is a very important sector, and it is headquartered to a large degree in my constituency. It includes a wide variety of small equipment units, from the very large drilling rig outfits that sometimes require 40 or more trucks to move a single outfit to the individual single truck outfits such as water haulers. This total industry has been devastated by the National Energy Program. The town of Brooks in the northwest corner of my riding had a population of about 9,000 a couple of years ago. It has shrunk since. This area is probably the hardest hit service centre in western Canada, but the cities of Medicine Hat and Red Deer
and other smaller centres have also suffered and continue to suffer.
The tragedy is that almost all of these service outfits are Canadian developed and Canadian owned, and they are the original private enterprise outfits, although a significant number are no longer now operating, for reasons of bankruptcy, no work available or forced moves to other areas, especially to the United States, and some of them even to the continent of Australia.
Not too long ago the Alberta government announced a new and special assistance program amounting to over $5 billion which specifically recognizes the special circumstances and needs of this servicing industry. Yesterday at the committee stage I asked the Minister of State for Finance if he did not feel it appropriate that the federal government contribute a similar amount-at least some-and after a second prompting his reply was this:
About the natural gas servicing industry, I must admit to the hon. member that that proposal is not now under consideration.
That, of course, is a very severe disappointment to all of us in Alberta. I think there was an opportunity there for some joint action by both levels of government.
We have a situation in the heavy crude oil area of our energy production in southern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan on which I want to make a brief comment. While it is not generally known, there is a smaller but significant heavy oil industry in those two areas, the whole of southwestern Saskatchewan and in the Suffield military reserve. Most of these wells are closed in and not producing, mostly because they are not economic to operate. This is partly due to the long haul to the United States upgrader refineries where it must be hauled for refining, but the planned upgrader plant for Saskatchewan which seems to have been shelved for now- perhaps indefinitely-because of the uncertainties brought on by the National Energy Program, is a major reason why these are uneconomic to produce.
I want to make some special comments about mineral rights in western Canada and offshore rights. My colleague, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), has already referred to this item of prairie history, and it is an interesting part of our history. By 1905 the three prairie provinces were part of confederation, but what is not generally known is that our lands as well as our mineral rights were not ours to sell or rent for needed revenues until 1930, 25 years after Alberta and Saskatchewan were created. It is no wonder we were essentially bankrupt for our first 25 years. Then, after getting our land and mineral rights in 1930, we had to endure the next ten years of drought and depression. By comparison, Ontario and Quebec have enjoyed their land and mineral rights since confederation. In other words, they have enjoyed those rights from day one. In all fairness, is it not appropriate that today Newfoundland's offshore resources rightfully belong to Newfoundland? Newfoundland's claim is perfectly understandable and long overdue. Certainly all of western Canada feels like this about this issue. Members on this side comment
May 27, 1982

on it at every opportunity in light of developments in this House over the last few weeks.
I think it is most unfortunate that our history has left this unfinished business as far as one of our newest provinces is concerned, and 1 hope we have the good common sense to resolve it in a way agreeable to all.
There is one other matter on which I want to comment, and that is in reference to the natural gas and gas liquid tax in the provision regarding the production of natural gas in the Northwest Territories. Until 1987, any gas production that is exported from the territories will be taxed, while all production from the rest of Canada in the same period will not be taxed. This is an unfair situation and we should address ourselves to it. If any area needs encouragement in getting the gas flowing now, it is the Northwest Territories with its vast potential that is waiting to be developed. It is almost uneconomical to produce the amount that is at present being produced for export because of the application of this tax.
It has been my pleasure to contribute to proceedings in Committee of the Whole House and third reading debate, Mr. Speaker.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this bill, although my remarks will be brief as there are only eight minutes left in the debate.
I should like to point out to hon. members that the hardship imposed by the tax that this bill deals with was drastically illustrated yesterday when the largest unreserved auction sale in the history of the oil industry took place in Edmonton. There were drilling rigs, trucks and all types of oilwell-servic-ing equipment that were put on the auction block. The sad thing is that members on this side of the House, particularly those from Alberta, have time and again attempted to bring to the attention of the government the damage that the National Energy Program has done to western Canada and the once strong and viable oil industry.
Every piece of equipment at that auction yesterday was owned by Canadians who had invested their hopes, their future, their dreams, their time, their expertise and their money in developing one of the strongest and most viable oilwell-servicing industries in North America.
The development of this sector of the oil industry contributed to the research and development that the government is constantly saying is required in Canada, and it was done by Canadians. Because of the National Energy Program, however, this company found itself facing bankruptcy, and so had to sell off its equipment. These were drilling rigs that were designed and fabricated in the plant in Alberta and which had never spudded into a hole. They were brand new. The manufacturer felt that one particular piece of equipment would have to fetch at least $1 million in order for him to break even, but it sold for $510,000.
Taxation
I have been in my office listening to the debate on the monitor and I have also been here in the House listening to hon. members opposite discuss the implications of the tax on the oil industry and on the people of Canada. I must try to get across to them that this tax has dried up the cash flow of the very companies that we are asking to find new oil so that we can reach energy self-sufficiency within a reasonable time. It is absolutely impossible for this country to reach oil self-sufficiency by 1990, as any knowledgeable forecaster will tell you.
Alsands and the Imperial Oil project at Cold Lake have been abandoned, as has been the pipeline. We cannot even hope to explore the areas in the western basin that are reported to have oil. The enhanced recovery programs are not moving forward, yet we constantly hear that we will reach oil selfsufficiency because we still have Hibernia. We all know about the Hibernia fiasco and what is happening there. The government and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is now attacking Newfoundland in the way that it attacked Alberta.
The government also speaks of the vast oil exploration program in the Beaufort Sea, but knowledgeable people writing in the newspapers and business journals explain what is happening there. It has become clear that we will not get any great quantity of oil from the Beaufort Sea in the 1980s. Our only hope for oil self-sufficiency in Canada in the intermediate term was to develop the tar sands and the oil sands. The Cold Lake plant was one giant research project, but the tax that we are about to vote on hit investors so hard that they felt they could not go ahead with it. They did not have enough cash flow from other operations in Canada to support the massive investment of $13 billion that was required. The investment community has lost confidence in the government, Mr. Speaker. It must redesign the national energy policy and it must redesign the budget. It must get Canada moving again!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being ten o'clock, pursuant to the order made on Friday, May 7, 1982, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith without further debate or amendment every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.

May 27, 1982
Taxation


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Bussieres) which was agreed to on the following division.
(Division No. 180)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand	Dingwall	IsabelleAxworthy	Dion	JohnstonBachand	Dionne	JoyalBeauchamp-Niquet	(Chicoutimi)	Kaplan(Mrs.)	Dionne	KellyBegin (Miss)	(Northumberland-	Killens (Mrs.)Berger	Miramichi)	LachanceBlaker	Dubois	LajoieBloomfield	Duclos	LalondeBossy	Dupont	LamontagncBreau	Dupras	LandersBujold	Duquet	LangBurghardt	Erola (Mrs.)	LanielBussieres	Ethier	LapierrcCaccia	Evans	LapointeCampbell	Ferguson	(Charlevoix)(Miss)	Fisher	LeBlanc(South West Nova)	Fleming	LeducCampbell	Flis	Loiselle(LaSalle)	Foster	LumleyCampbell	Fox	MacBain(Cardigan)	Francis	MacEachenChenier	Frith	MacGuiganCollenette	Gauthier	MacLarenComtois	Gendron	MacLellanCorbin	Gimaiel	MaltaisCorriveau	Gingras	MarceauCSte (Mrs.)	Gourde	MasseCousincau	(Levis)	MastersCullen	Gray	McCauleyCyr	Guilbault	McRaeDaudlin	Harquail	NicholsonDawson	Henderson	(Miss)De Bane	Hervieux-Payette	Ouelletde Corneille	(Mrs.) '	ParentDemers	Hudccki	PennerDeniger	Irwin	Pepin
Messrs.
Peterson	Rooney	TousignantPinard	Rossi	TurnerPrud'homme	Roy	VeilletteRegan	Simmons	WatsonReid	Smith	Weatherhead(Kenora-Rainy River)	Tardif	WhelanRoberts Robinson (Etobicoke- La keshore)	Tessier
NAYS Messrs.	Yanakis-120.Althouse	Halliday	MunroAnguish	Hamilton	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Baker	(Qu'Appellc-Moose	Nickerson(Nepean-Carleton)	Mountain)	NielsenBeatty	Hargrave	NystromBenjamin	Hawkes	OberleBlackburn	Heap	OgleBlenkarn	Hnatyshyn	OrlikowBradley	Ittinuar	PaproskiClark	Keeper	Parker(Yellowhead)	Kempling	PattersonClarke	King	Robinson(Vancouver Quadra)	Korchinski	(Burnaby)Cooper	Kristiansen	SargeantCorbett	Kushner	ScottCrombie	La Salle	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Crosby	Lewycky	Scott(Halifax West)	MacDonald	(Victoria-Haliburton)Dantzer	(Miss)	ShieldsDeans	MacKay	SiddonEllis	Manly	SkellyFraser	Mayer	StevensFretz	McCain	TaylorFulton	McCuish	TowersGamble	McGrath	WaddellGilchrist	McKenzie	WenmanGreenaway	McMillan	WiseGurbin	Wright Young-73.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Madam Speaker:: It being past ten o'clock, the House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.26 p.m., without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 28, 1982