1983-09-21

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, it has come to my attention that Canada Post plans to cancel its highway service deliveries to small communities in Ontario on Saturday and Sunday, effective October 1, next. This will mean that residents will have to wait until Monday, and in some cases Tuesday, for their mail. Many of these residents receive their unemployment and pension cheques on Saturdays. It is unfair for these people, who are already in a tight financial situation, to wait any longer than is necessary.
I believe that Canada Post will eventually close down its Saturday wicket service, using as logic: why stay open when there is no incoming and outgoing mail?
While 1 can understand that Canada Post is trying to eliminate its large deficit, I do not believe that residents in smaller communities should be made to suffer. Surely there must be other alternatives, besides reducing this vital service.
1 strongly oppose the proposed cancellation of highway service deliveries on weekends and 1 would encourage my colleagues in Parliament, and residents of Ontario, to take the necessary measures in order to ensure the reversal of this decision.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, this Liberal Government confiscates money from a private bank account without notice to the owner, loses or steals $1,000, destroys the departmental records, and then glibly declares, "The case is closed"!
In 1975 a Canadian citizen, through the Mercantile Bank in Calgary, mailed a $1,000 cheque to Revenue Canada as an instalment payment. The cheque was stamped by Revenue Canada and credited to his account. Then someone in the Department decided that the cheque had been credited to the
wrong account, and so it was transferred. The citizen and his accountant notified the Department of the mistake, and continued to do so for several weeks, and were told that it was a simple computer mistake and would be corrected shortly.
It was corrected shortly all right, the Liberal way. Revenue Canada, without notice to or approval of the citizen, took $ 1,000 out of his account and credited it to his taxes.
During this dispute the records of Revenue Canada moved from Calgary to Winnipeg, and the citizen was told that the records had been destroyed and the case was closed.
The Minister of Revenue now parrots the statement and tells me that the case is closed. This is a complete cover-up by someone in Revenue Canada; no file should be destroyed when it is in dispute. The Government has a responsibility to replace this $1,000. Everyone knows this Liberal Government is money-hungry, but has it sunk so low as to condone the theft of $1,000 from an ordinary hard-working citizen, or to make him pay the same bill twice?
Honesty, honour, justice, are all I ask.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, the Government will undoubtedly be aware of last week's Nova Scotia Supreme Court decision which basically gave the green light to both the provincial Government and the forest industry of Nova Scotia to recommence widespread spraying with 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T over populated areas in order to combat spruce budworm infested forest areas. This decision has obvious and serious forestry, environmental, and health implications, not only for Nova Scotia but also for the forest industry and related communities and regions across Canada. Yet the silence from the Government has been deafening.
Surely the Minister of Environment (Mr. Caccia), who is also responsible for forestry, has at least been able to consult with himself in his two separate roles, and hopefully he has also discussed this serious matter with his Cabinet Colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). If so, why have we not heard a word from him? Perhaps one of the reasons is the schizophrenic nature of his portfolio, which includes both forestry and environment.
1 hope that the obvious contradiction of having these two Departments under one Minister will cause the Government to reconsider the many submissions from the Canadian Institute of Forestry, the Canadian Forestry Association, the IWA, and

September 21, 1983
the Forestry industry, concerning their request for a separate Ministry of Forestry or Department of Renewable Resources as has also been suggested by both this Party and the Official Opposition.

The Minister spoke of an attempt to re-establish the credibility of VIA. Finally we have an admission that his predecessor dealt a blow to its credibility. Restoration of two lines does not go far enough, however. Hundreds of jobs were lost, terminals were closed, lives were disrupted, and economies severely affected.
[ Translation]


FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Pierre Gimai'e! (Lac-Saint-Jean): Madam Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to take advantage of these few seconds and draw the attention of the House to a political truth that has just dawned on Quebecers. Recently, we heard from members of the Levesque Government's Cabinet that they intended to extend their sessional leave by one month, which means that they did not intend to sit until mid-November. They later changed their minds, and so on, but in any case, Quebecers now realize that since the Quebec Government came to power, provincial members have been sitting 40 or 50 days a year, Madam Speaker. That is the shameful truth that has now dawned on Quebecers. The people who accused us of not doing our work here in this House are the same people who have been sitting about 40 days a year for more than three years, while we federal members sit about 180 days in a year. They have failed to understand that their first duty and what they are being paid for-is to represent their constituents in the National Assembly. We, on the other hand, are fully aware that our duty consists, not in playing politics in our ridings but in representing our constituents in the House and protecting their interests. Today, Madam Speaker, I would urge Quebecers to advise their Government in Quebec that its duty is not to try and sell them a new country and a new flag but to sit in the Assembly and represent the people who elected them for that purpose.
* *
*

Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, a century ago Sir John A. Macdonald united this country by building a railroad from coast to coast. Two years ago the Grits began the process of dismantling that symbol of national unity when they announced a sharp reduction in passenger rail service.
The announcement by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) that the Government is considering restoring service on two VIA Rail lines, one originating in his own constituency, is an indication that we are fast approaching an election. Canadians who were affected by the cuts will not forget the manner in which the disruptions were unilaterally imposed without parliamentary debate.
If the Minister is serious about demonstrating his good faith he will restore service to all lines that were cut, forgetting any silly review process. He will also open up the books of the public railway to the Auditor General, notwithstanding the recent remarks of Jack Horner.
Other countries are improving their rail service and conserving fuel, while this Government persists in promoting the most costly and energy wasteful forms of transportation. My constituents in Simcoe South know full well what it feels like to be deprived of a vital transportation service after losing the Barrie to Toronto run.
Canadians demand a restoration of an efficient national passenger rail service and they want it now, not when it suits the political ambitions of the Grit Party.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, last night members of all three political Parties took part in the playing of a new game called "Poleconomy"-the game of Canada. The results of this game were such that I feel a responsibility to inform all Members of the House and the people of Canada of its outcome.
The Conservative Party was represented by the former President of the Treasury Board and the previous Finance critic, the Liberals were represented by the Chairman of the Finance Committee, and the NDP was represented by the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) and myself.
The stage is set. The national political party representatives go head to head in a test to solve our country's economic problems. The Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) becomes the Prime Minister and immediately he and his Tory colleagues enter into a sweetheart alliance with the Liberals to form a coalition government against the NDP. The NDP immediately embarks on a comprehensive program bringing business, labour, and government together in a new era of co-operation. We presented solutions and alternatives that were heralded as nothing short of brilliant. However, just as we were about to achieve economic and financial success, the Prime Minister, the former President of the Treasury Board, announces that he has bankrupted the federal treasury-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
September 21, 1983


Nelson Andrew Riis: -and that the Government and country are bankrupt. With that, the game was brought to an end.
I would submit that this game is a true reflection of reality in Canada and that, together or alone, the Liberals and Tories will bring economic and social chaos to this country, and that only the NDP can provide the necessary leadership and policies to meet the challenges of the 1980s.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The ball game is over.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, there is a saying that the price of peace is eternal vigilance. There are groups in Canada who think our present equipment for maintaining that vigil is not adequate. Surely there is no group more qualified to judge the merits of our military organization than our war veterans as represented by the Royal Canadian Legion. On behalf of that group and other concerned Canadians I would like to add my support to their requests for an immediate review of our defence capabilities.
The Royal Canadian Legion, in a letter to me this month, invited me to share with the House their concern that the Armed Forces at this time are extremely undermanned and lacking in modern arms and equipment. As well, they are deeply worried that we may not be able to meet future obligations with regard to defence. 1 submit that these concerns are real and valid, and that the Minister of Defence (Mr. Blais) should give serious consideration to the representations 1 have mentioned. With recent events giving tragic proof of the hostile intentions of the U.S.S.R., there is an urgent need to attend to the security of our country.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION POSSIBLE APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN TELEPHONE TARIFFS
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, at the moment Bell Canada and all other Canadian telephone companies charge their subscribers a fixed monthly rate for the right to make as many local calls as they want. Although a high percentage of households are quite comfortably able to pay for flat rate service, basic rate make a private phone for some Canadians prohibitively expensive. For this reason, apparently, the phone companies are continuing to consider introducing usage sensitive pricing, or local measured service, in which local calls would be billed according to one or more of the following factors: the number of calls, their duration, the time of day, and the distance.
If low income households use the phone sparingly, as the theory goes, then under usage sensitive pricing their phone
Oral Questions
bills could be much lower than under the present flat rate service.
My concern is that usage sensitive pricing will not provide less expensive phone service to the elderly and the poor since they have a greater need to use their phones as a vehicle to keep in touch with relatives and friends, to seek employment, and so on. Therefore I feel that extensive research should be done by the CRTC before it considers any application by Bell Canada to use the USP system, in order to ensure that the poor and the elderly will have adequate telephone facilities at a price they can afford.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The Chairman of CN has suggested that the Auditor General of Canada has no business auditing the books of CN. Is it the Government's position that the Auditor General, through whom the House guarantees accountability to Canadians, should not have anything to do with the books of the CN or have any access to them?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, to begin with, I am not aware of the statements made by the Chairman of the CNR.


Mr. Nielsen:: Why not?


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 will certainly make an effort to determine what, in fact, his statements may be relating to this particular issue. As the Hon. Member knows, all Crown corporations have their own auditors and their statements are made public.


POSITION OF GOVERNMENT
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, the Auditor General is the servant of the Parliament of Canada. He is the servant of all Members here and of all taxpayers. It is through his audits we guarantee to the people of Canada that we are accountable for the money they are giving us to spend wisely. What does the Government have to hide by refusing the Auditor General of Canada access to the books of CN?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised at the suggestion made by the Hon. Member that some of the most reputable chartered accountant firms in this country, which have the responsibilities for doing the audits for major Crown corporations, would

September 21, 1983
Oral Questions
not do their job. I think the Hon. Member should not be denigrating the professional competence of such distinguished firms because we certainly trust in the private sector and the ability of those firms to perform these services.


Erik Nielsen: Like Harrison.


GUARANTEE SOUGHT ON USE OF COMPANY RESOURCES
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, the Chairman's statement in his speech to the Canadian Women's Club in Alberta is that CN's internal auditors report to management, but that is the very management which is denying the Auditor General access to CN's books. What guarantees do the people of Canada have that the resources of CN are being used efficiently to the benefit of all Canadians?


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Like value for money.


Mr. Nowlan:: Like CAST.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as I said, 1 have not had the benefit of reading the speech given to the Canadian Women's Club. I would point out to the Hon. Member that on more than one occasion the President and Chairman of CNR appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport. CN's full audits and its examinations are available for discussion by that committee.


Mr. Forrestall:: That is not true and you know it.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is the place where the accountability is aired. Again, 1 would be pleased to undertake to look at the statements made by the Chairman, but 1 think that the Hon. Member is beginning to make suggestions that are not borne out by the facts.


VALUE FOR EXPENDITURES
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Having regard to the massive infusion of public funds that will accrue to the CNR under the auspices of the Crow Bill, and having regard to the attitude of the Chairman of CNR toward the Auditor General, who made reference to the fact that the Auditor General was a threat to the managerial autonomy of Crown corporations, can the Minister say anything in the House today that would assure this House and the taxpayers of Canada that this massive amount of money to accrue to the CNR will be spent in the most cost efficient manner, and that there will be value for money received by the taxpayer of Canada? What assurance can the Minister give, over and above the rhetoric of the Chairman of the CNR?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has been participating in the hearings of the Crow committee for the past three or four months. He should be aware that the Bill before that committee contains a number of clauses that hold the railways
accountable on a variety of guarantees, and that the kind of funds being allocated by the Government of Canada to bring about major railway expansion are also conditional upon both performances and the kind of evaluation that the CTC will be doing. As well, the Minister of Transport has the right to withhold funds if such performances are not lived up to. It seems very clear under the legislation, as both originally presented and amended, that there are very sound obligations for CNR to perform as we would expect it to perform.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Most of these guarantees are of a notional nature. Quite frankly, the Auditor General has pointed out the deficiency in the measurement of cost efficiency and value for money received in his previous report. If the Minister would like to inform himself, he might read page 426 of last year's Auditor General's report.


CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT-MINISTER'S POSITION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, is it the Minister's position that he supports the view of the Chairman of CN that the Auditor General should not be involved in any way in the auditing of the books of CNR "because", to quote the Chairman's speech, "it would involve a loss of the independence from political interference that is vital to any corporation operating in a competitive environment"?
Is it the position of the Government that it does not want the Auditor General to interfere or audit the books of the Crown corporation because it may prevent the Government from interfering with the corporation in a political manner?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as I pointed out to the previous questioner, it is not possible for me to support, endorse, or deny a statement I have not read nor have the full contents of. I will make an effort to receive that speech, read the statement of the Chairman and discuss the matter with him, at which point in time 1 would be glad to respond to the question of the Hon. Member.


CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice. It is clear that the Government of British Columbia intends to go ahead with its highly repressive legislation. Bill-2 currently before the British Columbia Legislature so restricts the right to organize, and the freedom of association as to be in clear violation of two international treaties signed by the Government of Canada, one in 1935 and one in 1948. Has the Government of Canada officially pointed this out to the Premier of British Columbia? Has it made an
September 21, 1983

official request, either for fundamental change in this legislation or for its complete withdrawal?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, the legislation presently before the Legislature of British Columbia has concerned the federal Government in a number of ways. A number of individual Ministers, depending upon their responsibilities, have made representations to the Government of British Columbia, some by telegram. At the conference on human rights a week or two ago, I spoke about our concern that the human rights code would eliminate all the mediatory aspects and leave merely the legal skeleton, which is an enormous step backward. This Government is making its views known to the Government of British Columbia. Of course the legislative process is under way in that Province and there may very well be changes to that legislation in the course of its consideration there.


John Edward Broadbent: Speeches are one thing, telegrams are another. Neither is to be completely dismissed, but formal and official action is quite another matter.


CIVIL LIBERTIES OF BRITISH COLUMBIANS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, considering that the Government of Canada, when confronted with equally repressive legislation in the Province of Quebec last spring, entered into a formal legal arrangement in support of university teachers objecting to the legislation, what comparable action or what formal testimony to its good intentions is it prepared to show in the British Columbia case? Is it prepared to show as a Government that it is as concerned about the civil liberties of people in the Province of British Columbia as it is about the civil liberties of people in the Province of Quebec?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, my colleague, the Secretary of State, has already granted funds to at least one group in British Columbia to consider the implications of the legislation and to engage in public education with respect to it. But my hon. friend has to take into account that in the case of the legislation to which he referred in Quebec, it was passed before the Government took action. It would not be appropriate for the Government of Canada to take any form of legal action in the courts until the legislation was actually in effect. In that case, of course, what we did was to intervene on behalf of groups in the Province that were appealing.


POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, we are asking for some public and serious initiatives before the legislation takes effect. I come back to my first question to the Minister of Justice. Is the Minister aware that Bill-2 in the Province of British Columbia, which is currently being debated, violates at least two international agreements signed by the Government of Canada, one in 1935 and one in 1948? If the
Oral Questions
Minister agrees there is such a violation, why does the Government of Canada not approach, directly and officially, the Government of British Columbia and ask for changes in that legislation?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, my colleagues and I have this matter constantly under review. We will look at the matter again. I will be in British Columbia this weekend. If further representations are required, I am prepared to make them. 1 will be meeting the Attorney General of British Columbia tomorrow. I can assure the Hon. Member that we will be discussing the legislation which is before the British Columbia Legislature.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister knows that we are all distressed by the daily news of tragic events taking place in Lebanon, and the Minister is also aware that we are in favour of the withdrawal from Lebanese territory of all foreign troops and armed factions, and that we want to help the Lebanese and their Government to establish their country's sovereignty over all Lebanese territory.

Has the Government made its position clear on the tragic events which are occurring in Lebanon? What is being done to assist those Lebanese who are suffering most as a result of the fighting?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, just a few days ago I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the Lebanese community in Canada. I expressed to them, as I do today, the distress we feel at the continued violence and fighting in Lebanon. We have consistently urged that all forces withdraw from Lebanon. We have supported the present Government in its efforts at reconciliation, and we have consistently supported the independent and territorial integrity of Lebanon. Obviously we regret that the mediation efforts under way have not been successful.
With the indulgence of the House, I would make one further point. That is to reply to the Hon. Member's request or suggestion that we assist those who are suffering in Lebanon. This year we have already provided several hundred thousand dollars to the International Red Cross. Just recently we received an appeal to which we responded by providing an additional $500,000 to help those currently affected by the violence in Lebanon.

September 21, 1983
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It is prompted by an exhibit in the trial of Southam and Thomson Newspapers, i wish to stress that my question, and I expect the Prime Minister's answer, will obviously have nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the memorandum that was filed this morning, signed by George Currie, who was the President of FP Newspapers, there was reference to two people. One was the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Jack Horner, and the other was Gordon Fisher. With regard to the Ottawa situation and the Ottawa Journal, the memorandum stated as follows:
Gordon thought that the proposed amendment to the Competition Act could be quietly forgotten by the Government.
I am quoting exactly from the memorandum. I again quote:
Jack Horner (then federal Industry Minister)-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's quotation is much too long. No quotations should be used in questions. I would ask him to go immediately to his question.


Chris Speyer: It is alleged that Jack Horner had a meeting which was quietly forgotten by the Government, with respect to an amendment to the Combines Investigation Act. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he was aware of any such communication between Jack Horner and any officials of FP or Southam. And secondly, if the Prime Minister was aware of that, were any enquiries instigated by the Prime Minister regarding what Jack Horner said or did with respect to any amendment under the Combines Investigation Act?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, Mr. Horner has not been a member of this Government for quite a while and I have no recollection of the facts that are referred to, but it seems to me that the Hon. Member, though he took some precautions at the beginning of his question, is asking me to comment directly on evidence in a trial which is before the courts. I think, Madam Speaker, with respect, that that is highly irregular.


INQUIRY RESPECTING MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE OF ALLEGATIONS
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Justice, or, in his absence, to the Acting Minister of Justice. Was the Minister of Justice, who instructs counsel for the Attorney General of Canada, aware that allegations were being made on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada as to the conduct of Mr. Horner concerning the Southam and Thomson newspapers?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, 1 have no personal knowledge of the matter but I will bring it to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Justice.


VIA RAIL
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and deals with something which is very much within his personal knowledge. I refer to the interesting remarks he made over the weekend when he underwent a remarkable conversion by going to VIA's side and confessing that the Progressive Conservatives were right and that his predecessor was wrong in unilaterally chopping off 20 per cent of the VIA Rail routes. Since the Canadian Transport Commission was not involved in the initial decision or in the Minister's weekend announcement, could the Minister please advise us of what criteria he intends to use in resurrecting those abandoned lines other than the geographic requirement of being within Liberal backyards to save Liberal hides?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the last sentence of the Hon. Member's question points out why I have never in my life said that members of the Progressive Conservative Party were right about anything, and I certainly did not say so last weekend. The Hon. Member's suggestion that we were in any way endorsing what Progressive Conservative members had to say about VIA is, of course, not true. We did indicate, however, that my predecessor had said that after a two-year period certain reviews would be made. We are now undertaking to make those reviews because conditions during that period of time have changed.
We are looking at the representations made by certain groups in the areas of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, as well as in New Brunswick, all areas which contain ridings of members of all partisan persuasions and beliefs. We believe that we, as a Government, do not think in the same terms as does the Hon. Member who is thinking purely in partisan terms. We try to think in terms of the national interest.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, the Minister's conversion makes Paul on the train to Damascus look like a piker.


Some Hon. Members:: Author? Author?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is how big of a flip-flop his conversion was, and to try to indicate that it was not a flip-flop-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member is again engaged in one of his speeches. He should ask a question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Absolutely, Madam Speaker.
September 21, 1983


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In order that we may try to see if there is any substance to this one or two-year trial period that will safely bring the Minister past the next election, can the Minister show some good faith and table the paper and the Bill on VIA that were promised by his predecessor for last Christmas?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that if I were to choose a biblical allegory, I would say that the Garden of Gethsemane was not on the road to Tarsus.
1 would like to point out to the Hon. Member that, before any paper is presented, we must first have serious discussions and consultations with Canadians who are interested and affected by the whole question of the movement of passenger traffic in all modes, rail, bus, and air. I happen to believe that one very important priority is to ensure that we get good, safe, cost-efficient transportation for people. We are now engaged in those kinds of discussions. When they are completed, the Hon. Member will be one of the first to find out.


FUTURE OF SERVICES IN SASKATCHEWAN AND NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question also concerns VIA Rail. Two years ago, through an Order in Council for what might be called the "Great Train Robbery" in this country, the Government eliminated passenger rail service to many parts of Canada. That took only three months to accomplish.
The Minister referred specifically over the weekend to the possibility of restoring the service on the Saskatoon-Melville line in Saskatchewan and the Edmundston-Moncton line in New Brunswick. I would like to ask the Minister whether or not he can now assure the House that passenger rail service will be restored on these lines within the next three months; in other words, as quickly as they were eliminated. Will we have those trains back on the track before Christmas?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would point out to the Hon. Member that we are considering a number of options related to the whole issue of the movement of passenger traffic. We felt in the case of the particular VIA line that he is talking about, the Melville-Sas-katoon-Edmonton line, not only were a number of representations made but the judgment of some of the experts who looked at the situation was that the clientele and the conditions of markets had changed. Therefore, we would be prepared to review the situation to see whether that line might possibly be reinstated. However, we would first have to examine the position of VIA Rail, and we would also have to take such matters back to the Canadian Transport Commission. Therefore, I cannot give the Hon. Member an actual time line, but I can point out to him that we are giving the matter some active and very strong consideration.
Oral Questions


TYPE OF SERVICE TO BF. RESTORED
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, one very important consideration is the kind of service that is restored in terms of the proper speed of trains, the frequency of trains, the connections and so on, if we do indeed get this service restored. In view of the fact that the Government once promised that the next order of LRC trains would be used in western Canada and the Atlantic Provinces, can the Minister assure the House that he will do what he can to make sure that the Melville-Saskatoon line will have an LRC service so that people can use that train efficiently and quickly?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member asks what kind of service would be restored, and I agree with him that what is perhaps essential to any good passenger movement system is the quality that is provided, both by the equipment and by the personnel. I would like to point out to him that my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and DREE, has been working very closely with the Hawker Siddeley group in Thunder Bay to develop new forms of passenger traffic vehicles that might well have application on other routes. As that is still in the experimental stage, it obviously would have to go through various prototype stages.
I would like to point out that we are committed to looking at how quality service can be restored within our fiscal framework, because it is also important that we maintain accountability and responsibility in that area.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Some months ago before he held the portfolio of Minister of Transport, great consternation and dismay were caused in the Atlantic region by the appointment of consultants. The word was out that those consultants were going to recommend that freight rate subsidies which are so vital to the Altantic region and the Maritime Provinces in particular, would be cut back. Since it is vital that the uncertainty be ended immediately, can the Minister give his assurances to the House-and I hope that he can-that there will be no cutback of any kind on subsidies going to producers, the small and medium-sized businessmen, in the Maritime Provinces? Can he give us that assurance today, please?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would be very pleased to answer the question of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. However, his question is about seven hours too late because this morning I was in Moncton and met with members of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission and told them at that time that the subsidies that are provided to the Maritimes will be maintained.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

September 21, 1983
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, we in the Maritime Provinces are grateful to receive the smallest of blessings from the Government at any time. Those blessings come so rarely and so infrequently. We were aware, and 1 commend the Minister for it, that the Minister had taken some initiatives this morning. 1 am surprised that he had not announced them in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT SUBSIDIES BE INCREASED
Martin Brian Mulroney: In light of the concerns that were brought forward by the four Atlantic Premiers and by the people with whom the Minister met this morning, has he put in train a plan which will enhance those meagre subsidies to Maritime producers, who need much more than the small amounts being handed out by the Government?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am not sure how the Hon. Leader of the Opposition goes about measuring what is meagre or small.


Erik Nielsen: He just looks at the Cabinet.


Lloyd Axworthy: In the last fiscal year the Government introduced over $650 million worth of transportation subsidies and programs to the Atlantic Provinces. The subsidy under the freight rate is $67 million this year. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition may ask, "What's $67 million?" We happen to think it is a lot of money. We also hope that the Leader of the Opposition will reconsider some of his propositions about cutting the deficit because that is what the people of the Atlantic region would be afraid of-his proposal to cut the deficit would cut their subsidies.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I am in no way minimizing the impact of $67 million.


Mr. LeBlanc:: You were.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It represents the cost of three weeks' UIC with the massive unemployment costs generated by this Government. Any amount is handsome; we will accept what we can get.


ASSISTANCE FOR BUSINESSMEN
Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, has the Minister put in train a program which will enhance the amounts granted to small and medium businessmen in the Maritimes who desperately need these amounts of money to lay down products at competitive prices in central Canadian markets? That is the question.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, we are glad to see that there has been such a quick conversion on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. Now he wants to spend money rather than to cut back.
I should like to answer his question by saying that in my discussions this morning with the business community of the Atlantic Provinces, I issued an invitation to them to look very carefully at the analysis contained within the Hickling study that we will release next week. I invited them to come back to me with recommendations, and said that we would look at the possibilities for the future of transportation.
My colleague, the Minister of State for Economic Development, is in the Atlantic Provinces now, negotiating a series of agreements under the new Industrial Regional Development Program in which transportation could provide sub-agreements. I say to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition that things are progressing very well.


Some Hon. Members:: Joe! Joe!


Some Hon. Members:: More! More!


Mr. Chretien:: We want Joe.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Has the Minister reviewed the evidence produced at the combines trial in Toronto which contained serious allegations of improprieties and possible obstruction of justice by his former colleague, the former Minister of Trade and Commerce, now the Chairman of CN? If so, what action does he propose to take? Can he tell the House if he has discussed the matter with the Right Hon. Prime Minister?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I can say that that matter has not yet come to my attention. I have not discussed it with anyone, including, of course, the Prime Minister.


MINISTER'S POSITION
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, in his capacity as Attorney General of Canada, could the Minister of Justice explain how he can express no knowledge of this matter, since he has the responsibility of instructing Crown counsel in this case? How can he explain his abysmal ignorance in this matter?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, as I imagine my hon. friend knows, most legal actions taken in the name of the Attorney General are not taken with
September 21, 1983

his knowledge or his direct personal authority. They are taken under his authority but not with his personal knowledge.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it centres on the Canadian Development Investment Corporation, specifically the mother of Canadair and de Havilland, at the present time. Would the Prime Minister indicate if any decision has been made-Senator Austin said it was under consideration-as to whether the Auditor General of Canada will be given the responsibility of auditing CDIC, Canadair and de Havilland, or, in fact, is Chairman Horner's statement the prevalent view of the Government?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, the Minister responsible for the Corporation has already indicated that when the House considers the provisions of the legislation governing the Corporation, we shall give special consideration to this aspect of the question. Up to now, the legislation has not been examined and no final decision has been made with respect to this aspect of the question.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S STATEMENT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same stand-in Minister who undoubtedly knows that Auditor General Dye stated in committee on June 9 this year as follows:
In the Canadair case, the taxpayers have suffered a staggering financial loss. What we have here is a costly experiment about which Parliament and the public receive little relevant or little realistic information.
Would the Minister indicate if he agrees with the Auditor General's statement with respect to the $1.6 billion loss run up by subsidiaries of CDIC, or does he agree with Chairman Horner's statement on behalf of CN and all Crown corporations?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, 1 have no wish to pass judgment on the comments of the Auditor General or those of the President of CN. 1 would like the Hon. Member to consider the very substantial benefits accruing to this country as a result of the fact that the Government had the courage to invest, through Canadair, in the development of a specific prototype plane, and 1 would also suggest that the Hon. Member take note of the latest comments made by companies using the Challenger, which indicate the level of quality and effectiveness this aircraft has reached. As soon as he has considered the benefits that will accrue to Canada if the program is continued, and the
Oral Questions
substantial economic advantages involved, perhaps he will see the statements to which he referred in a new light.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Madam Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh! Oh!


Roger Simmons: It is all right; I am just filling in the time while your Leader opens his mouth to change feet; that is all.
Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He will be aware that many thousands of Newfoundland inshore fishermen and their families are facing a pretty bleak winter because of very poor fish catches this summer. In many cases the catches were so low that they cannot even qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. Would the Minister indicate to the House whether he and his Department have addressed this problem and what kind of response they consider making to it?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, when I visited Newfoundland three or four weeks ago this problem was brought to my attention quite forcefully by some of the fishermen. I therefore asked my officials to prepare a report for me.. There appears to be a danger that some of the fishermen will not have sufficient catch to qualify for unemployment insurance. It is possible, as we have done on occasion in the past, to have a change of regulations to take this special problem into account. I would be prepared to do that once we have an understanding by the end of the season of the full extent of the problem and what would be the most appropriate way to respond. I am determined to respond, but I cannot really do so until we fully understand the dimensions of the problem.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Transport, supplementary to those put by the Leader of the Opposition.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You have to earn your salary.


Mr. Ouellet:: It is a reflection on your Leader.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

September 21, 1983
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order.
[DOT] (M50)


Erik Nielsen: Now that the Minister of Transport has described in such glowing terms the so-called largesse that he is laying on the Atlantic Provinces, and which is welcomed by all Members on this side, can he tell us whether he will convince the Government of Canada to be as generous with the western farmers by agreeing to the three-year freeze on the Crow proposed in committee by Members on this side of the House?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, if the kind of assistance we are now providing to help in the economic development of the Atlantic Provinces through the maritime freight rate is generous, I would say the $3.6 billion the Government is putting into western Canada for a major railway expansion is doubly generous.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General who knows that the names of current RCMP Security Service employees are regularly revealed in the RCMP Quarterly, a practice which would land the editor in jail for five years under Clause 12 of the Minister's new security legislation. Will the Minister clarify Government policy in this area and further explain the apparent contradiction in this policy when the RCMP reveals these names yet refuses to reveal to the taxpayers of Canada the annual budget for the Security Service?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member's problem is that he has constantly misinterpreted Clause 12 of the Bill to establish the Security Service.


John Edward Broadbent: So has everyone else in the country but you.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That Bill does not provide blanket requirements for non-disclosure of the identify of members of the Service. In fact it provides that only persons engaged in covert operational activities of the Service are covered by the provisions of Clause 12 in that Bill.
I am informed by the RCMP that no covert operational activities of the Service have been prejudiced by the reporting which takes place in the RCMP Quarterly.


SECURITY SERVICE BUDGET
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, the Minister, of course, refused to answer the question concerning the annual budget. I have before me an RCMP bulletin seeking applicants for positions within the RCMP Security
Service headquarters in Ottawa. This document reveals for the first time that the current annual budget of the Security Service is the astounding figure of $67.7 million. I want the Minister to confirm this figure in a bulletin of his own Department, and explain to the House and the people of Canada the recently unannounced change in policy which has resulted in its publication?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to see that bulletin before 1-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: 1 bet you would.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -before I decide whether it would be proper to make any comment at all about it.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Member in Cabinet who represents western Canada, the Minister of Transport, and who did not answer the question put to him by the Hon. Member for Yukon, whether he is prepared to accept the proposal by the Progressive Conservative Party for a three-year freeze on the cost of moving grain? He said there was $3.6 billion being put in for the railroads, mining companies, coal producers and the construction industry, but not one nickel for the producers of grain in western Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, for a Member of the House who is as knowledgeable about the grain industry as the Hon. Member who has just spoken, that statement does not do him justice. He knows full well that what is of critical importance to the western farmers is to have a modern railway system to move their product to export markets so that they can expand and grow. In the last 20 years, because of the freeze of the Crow rate and the inability to provide for major capital investments, the main lines and branch lines have not been improved, they have deteriorated, and we will be running short of capacity within a matter of two to three years. It would seem to me a matter of extreme importance that this Government go ahead, as we intend to do, to help the western farmer move his commodities to market.


FUNDING OF RAILROADS
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, it is very obvious from the Minister's answer that he is not prepared to do for the grain producers in western Canada what he has done for Canadians in the Atlantic part of Canada. That 1 guess we can accept. But if he will look at the proposal put forward by our Party, investment in rail capacity would continue. Our proposal was that $216 million
September 21, 1983
of profit be withdrawn from the railroads, which is the amount the Minister of Finance spent in a photo opportunity.


Madam Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have a question?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Well, 1 did not hear a question.


Lloyd Axworthy: I have not heard a question either, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board who is responsible for freedom of information. He may very well know that federal public servants have refused to release the publicly paid salaries and benefits of ten heads of Crown corporations and a federal agency, after a request was made under the Freedom of Information Act. The gentlemen involved are Canadians like Mitchell Sharp, Michael Warren, Joel Bell, Maurice Strong, Claude Taylor, Rene Amyot, Jack Horner, Maurice LeClair and others.
All of those records, Madam Speaker, are in the hands of the Privy Council Office, which is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Upon what possible ground can it be justified that information which is clearly in that category is withheld from the people of Canada who pay the salaries of these gentlemen?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, the Act passed by this House on freedom of information and the Act covering privacy provide for the withholding of certain information of a personal nature. The letter in answer to the inquiry of the journalist which gave rise to my hon. friend's question said that the information in question came under that category.
However, I understand the Privy Council Office is in a position to give some of the information in question and I will be happy to get further information for my hon. friend, because certainly we want to comply with the Act. But the House has passed it in a certain form which has to be respected.


PROVISIONS IN LEGISLATION
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, one of the things in that statute which was supported by this Party, 1 remind the hon. gentleman, was that the Minister responsible always had the right to release information if it fell
Oral Questions
within the jurisdiction of that statute. This is one of those cases. When the Minister is speaking to the public servants, will he also talk to himself and remind himself about the importance of that section of the statute?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is quite right in his reference to the particular section, although there are other sections wich do not give the responsible Minister that authority. But the Act says that the Minister responsible is the head of the institution from which the information is sought, and in that regard I would suggest my hon. friend direct his question to the President of the Privy Council.


Walter David Baker: Why don't you talk to your friend?


FISHERIES
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. This will be the second winter since the Pearse Report that no buy-back program has been established on the Pacific coast. Can the Minister tell the House how much money will be available this winter or in the spring for a buy-back program, and will he tell us to what degree he wishes to diminish the number of boats presently in the fleet?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: would like to remind the Hon. Member that the position that I have taken, both on the Atlantic Coast and on the Pacific Coast, is that the Canadian Government will not use taxpayers' money to buy surplus assets. Whether we have boats or plants, this is not, I would assume, what should be done with taxpayer's money, to buy surplus assets. However, what 1 have said, particularly to the Minister's Advisory Council on the Pacific Coast, is that 1 would listen with great interest to any recommendation concerning the establishment of a legal mechanism whereby those who will remain in the fishery will finance those who would like to get out. But again, 1 do not think that the wisest means of using taxpayer's money is to buy the surplus assets of any Canadian.


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, the Minister means well, but he does not know what he is talking about.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Allen Fraser: On the Pacific Coast we have a very severe problem. It is just the old problem of too many fishermen catching too few fish. Why is the Government absolutely afraid to use any up front money to get the excess catching capacity out? The stocks of fish are at



September 21, 1983
Petitions
stake and the Government, led by this Minister and the Minister before him, does not seem to be able to know how to act. Will any money be put up as up front money, or is the Government just going to go on and do nothing?


Pierre De Bané: I have never said that the option to which the Hon. Member has alluded has been rejected by the Government. I would like to remind the Hon. Member that the 17 associations that compose the Minister's Advisory Council on the Pacific fishery have promised to come to me with their own plan for the reduction of the fleet not later than November. They extracted from me a commitment that I will not come with my own plan before they have a chance to present their own. So, please respect the fishermen on the Pacific Coast a little bit.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present a petition signed by some 20 residents of my riding, in which they petition the House as follows: That toxic chemicals are posing an increasing threat to the potable waters of this Province and that there is presently no legislation which will guarantee the safety and healthfulness of those waters, and that Canada's neighbour, the United States of America, has legislation entitled the "Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974"; wherefore we, the undersigned, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact a safe drinking water Act which will protect and enhance drinking water quality in all areas of Canada.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of pleasure today in being able to present to the House a petition signed by almost 300 residents of the town of Meadow Lake in my riding and the surrounding area, all of whom support a granting of a National Hockey League franchise for the City of Saskatoon. The petition sponsored by a local newspaper and more than 30 local businesses was signed just prior to Parliament's adjournment to the summer. This is my first opportunity to bring it to the attention of the House of Commons.
The petition shows that the people of Meadow Lake who reside some 200 miles north of Saskatoon are among the many who have shown their overwhelming support for an NHL franchise for the City of Saskatoon, this overwhelming support coming not only from the City of Saskatoon itself, but also from rural areas throughout the Province.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,909, 4,906 and 4,973.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the Professional and Special Services recorded by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology for the Science Council of Canada at page 32.31, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to Data Processing Services (a) how does the Council explain the 102% increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000?


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the Science Council of Canada is concerned:
(a)	Council expenditures in certain Professional and Special Services items, such as in data processing, may fluctuate from year to year due to the changing nature of studies being carried out, which may or may not require such services. In 1979-80 a Feasibility Study on Bibliometrics accounted for almost the total expenditure reported under data processing.
(b)	National Research Council, Ottawa-$24,253.


Mr. Miller: 1.	Has the budget allocated for Department of Fisheries and Oceans observers on foreign vessels fishing hake off the west coast been adequate over the past few seasons and, if not (a) has this resulted in any periods during the fishery in which there were no observers present on the foreign vessels (b) has the size of the catches and of incidental catches been monitored sufficiently to ensure that the stocks are not being placed in jeopardy?
2.	Did the Department take any action on reports from the UFAWU that hake caught by foreign vessels in the national hake fishery is actually being sold back into the North American market in contravention of the international agreements?


Pierre De Bané: 1. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans does not fund an observer program in the Pacific Region, (a) Yes. (b) With the best information the Department has at this time there is no fear of the stocks being in jeopardy.
2. The Department did investigate the UFAWU reports. From the information gathered there is no reasons to believe that there has been any contravention of international agreements.


Mr. Orlikow: 1. What is the composition of the Board of Directors of the Petro-Canada and what is the address and occupation of each individual?
September 21, 1983

Relations with Taiwan
2. What is the compensation and what are all the benefits paid to the chairperson, directors, president and vice-presidents of the Petro-Canada?


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Petro-Canada reports as follows:


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Name	Address	OccupationJames T. Black	2 International Blvd., Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 1A2	President and Chief Executive Officer, The Molson Companies Ltd.Richard J. Cashin	44 Torbay Road, St. John's, Newfoundland, A1C 5V5	President, Newfoundland Fisherman, Food and Allied Workers Unionlone J. Christensen	26 Takhini Ave., Whitehorse, Yukon, Y1A 3N5	President, Hospitality North Ltd.Marshall A. Cohen	Place Bell Canada, 160 Elgin Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A0G5	Deputy Minister, Department of FinanceJerahmiel S. Grafstein	Suite 600, 111 Richmond St. West, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2H5	Partner, Minden, Gross, Grafstein and Greenstein, Barristers and SolicitorsJean Claude Hebert	17th floor, 1 Place Ville Marie, Montreal, Quebec, H3B 3L9	Deputy Chairman of the Board, Petro-Canada and Business ConsultantWilbert H. Hopper	P.O. Box 2844, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 3E3	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Petro-CanadaEdward M. Lakusta	P.O. Box 2844, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 3E3	President and Chief Operating Officer, Petro-CanadaH. Harrison McCain	Florenceville, N.B., E0J 1K0	Chairman of the Board, McCain Foods LimitedDavid McD. Mann	Suite 800, Barrington Tower, Scotia Square, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 3E5	Partner, Cox, Downie, Nunn and Goodfellow, Barristers and SolicitorsJ. Robert Ouimet	8585 Jeanne Mance, Montreal, Quebec, H2P2S8	President and Chief Executive Officer, The Ouimet Cordon Bleu GroupThomas K. Shoyama	Room 259, Visiting Professor, McPherson Library Bldg., School of Public University of Victoria, Administration, Victoria, British Columbia, University of Victoria V8W 2Y2	Ian A. Stewart	Jackson Bldg., 122 Bank St., Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 1E7	Senior Adviser, Ministry of State for Economic and Regional DevelopmentPaul M. Tellier	21st floor. Sir William Logan Bldg., 580 Booth St., Ottawa, Ontario, K1A0E4	Deputy Minister, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources


John Leslie Evans: 1 would ask, Madam Speaker, that all notices of motions for production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the notices of motions for production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2( 1).\nAt 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Thursday, September 22, 1983']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Shall all items listed under Private Members' Notices of Motions proceeding No. 88 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should facilitate the growth of commercial, cultural and other forms of contact between the people of Canada and Taiwan through (a) the establishment of a bilateral, non-diplomatic presence between Canada and Taiwan, including the issuance of visas directly in Taiwan and Canada thereby adopting the practice of Japan, the United States and most other western industrialized nations (b) the enhancement of trade links between Canada and Taiwan, including (i) the encouragement of export trade by Canada to Taiwan through the granting of credits and other forms of support to Canadian businessmen (ii) the establishment of direct air links between Canada and Taiwan by non-flag carrier airlines (iii) the adoption of any other practical mechanism to encourage industrial and other non-diplomatic contact between Taiwan and Canada.
2. Information is proprietary to Petro-Canada.


John Leslie Evans: 1 would ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the reasons for recommending, debating and making suggestions related to the motion are quite obvious. I would like to take the opportunity today to expound upon them. Unemployment, as we all know today, is our number one problem, and international trade plays an important factor relating to that problem. In fact, according to statistics provided by both the Canadian and the U.S. Governments, for every $1 billion in trade, approximately 25,000 new

September 21, 1983
Relations with Taiwan
Canadian jobs are created. Unfortunately, unlike most other countries, Canada has not reached its full potential for a variety of reasons, one of them concerning Taiwan.
Taiwan has the fastest growing economy in the world today. Although not recognized diplomatically by many nations including Canada, virtually all non-communist industrialized countries have established some form of bilateral nondiplomatic presence with Taiwan for the sake of promoting trade, but Canada has not. Canada, along with Italy, stands virtually alone in not taking advantage of the tremendous trade potential that exists between the two countries. That is why, for example, in 1982 Canada had a trade deficit with Taiwan of $363 million and a total trade figure of only $900 million. I say "only $900 million", because if one compares the trade figures with, let us say, the United States, the difference is staggering. We are speaking of $900 million worth of trade in Canada, whereby in 1982 the United States' trading figures with Taiwan amounted to over $15 billion. Japan, Germany, Australia and other industrialized nations are also far ahead of us. The reasons are simple. These countries, although they do not recognize Taiwan diplomatically, realize the importance of not shutting out a country whose economic growth is so far ahead of Mainland China, for example, that the per capita income in the last ten years increased by some 500 per cent in Taiwan, while communist China remained constant at approximately $400 U.S. per year per capita. It is difficult to comprehend, therefore, why we in this country not only do not promote trade with Taiwan but, in fact, create obstacles that prevent improved trade relations.
Of course, a glaring example is the visa situation. It is very difficult and inconvenient for businessmen, and in fact anyone travelling between the two countries, to obtain visas. A Taiwanese businessman wishing to come to Canada must fly to Hong Kong and apply for a visa through the Canadian High Commission there, usually with lengthy waiting periods.
In fact, Mr. Ken McGillvery, a Canadian group organizer living in Taipai, writes:
Canadians in Taiwan are irked by the present uncomfortable and sometimes offensive treatment we receive from the Canadian High Commission in Hong Kong. We have almost exhausted our patience and lost nearly all our confidence through experiences in recent years. The High Commission in Hong Kong has repeatedly made their attitude clear that Canadians living in Taiwan are a nuisance to them and they just wish that we did not exist. We get no service at all in the form of information or even a suggestion of concern for Canadian interests here. There is no channel to which we can turn should we need protection, legal advice or assistance. All these fundamental flaws of policy and administration are the making of the External Affairs Department as interpreted by the Canadian High Commission in Hong Kong.
Mr. McGillvery goes on to say:
Chinese nationals from Taiwan are singled out for insulting and often degrading treatment by petty 'secretaries' in the Hong Kong High Commission.
Businessmen have frequently been given a one-month visa after many delays when they have needed much longer to properly complete their essential business.
Those are comments from a Canadian living in Taiwan who sees firsthand some problems that Canadians and Taiwanese
businessmen who want to do business with Canada face under these conditions.
On the other hand, Canadians wanting to travel to Taiwan, of whom there are many, must apply for visas in the United States. In fact, last year 6,000 visas were issued to Canadians travelling to Taiwan. They must apply for these visas in the United States because they cannot do so in Canada. This procedure is not only costly in terms of money but, more important to a businessman, in terms of time. Canadian businessmen deserve better. We as Parliamentarians owe it to our business community to improve this situation and we need not look further than the United States for an example.
Although the Americans do not recognize Taiwan diplomatically, as we do not, Americans can obtain their visas in many major U.S. cities such as Chicago, Boston, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, just to name a few. The Taiwanese can have their visas processed in Taiwan at the U.S. office called the American Institute in Taiwan.
That brings me to another crucial problem facing Canadian businessmen which is, as I said earlier, that Canada is virtually alone in not having an office in Taiwan for the benefit of promoting trade, facilitating the growth of commercial, cultural and other forms of non-diplomatic contact between the people of Canada and Taiwan and generally assisting Canadians visiting Taiwan both on business and pleasure.
Why is it that other countries have taken steps for their own benefit without, I emphasize, any major repercussions from communist China while Canada is again losing out in this regard? It is not only the United States which has established these non-diplomatic relations with Taiwan while holding diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China at the same time. Other countries include New Zealand, Great Britain, West Germany, France, Greece, Japan, Australia, Austria, Argentina, Brazil, Spain, Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland, and the list goes on. All have some form of a bilateral, non-diplomatic contact between their two countries for the benefit of their respective businesses, economies and peoples.
Yet with these and other obstacles in the way, 1 am pleased to announce today that a delegation of businessmen from Taiwan led by Mr. Vincent Siew, Director General of the Board of Foreign Trade in Taiwan, will be signing contracts for the purchase of over $150 million worth of Canadian goods and products later this year. The delegation of 14 business representatives is scheduled to arrive in Toronto on November 9 for a 15-day visit, which will include stopovers in Sudbury, Ottawa, Saskatoon, Vancouver and, of course, Toronto. They will purchase such diversified products as wheat, potassium chloride, coal, sulphur, and nickel while at the same time looking at such potential requirements as our high-tech industry, communications, transportation and so on, all of which can be sold to Taiwan with just a little bit of co-operation and encouragement.
This gesture of goodwill by the Taiwanese business community obviously goes a long way toward reducing the trade deficit with that country. But it is just a drop in the bucket
September 21, 1983

compared to the potential that exists. It is up to us to take the necessary steps to be able to reach that potential.
An obvious example of that potential, other than the areas 1 have mentioned, is the Candu. As everyone knows, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is experiencing serious difficulties due to the lack of orders. As a result, jobs are being lost and others are in jeopardy. In a recent report, Andrew Horvat, a Southam News reporter in Taipai, stated:
Taiwan's Power Corporation has been begging Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to sell it a pair of reactors, but AECLs answer has been a consistent "no Candu", even though it would inject more than a billion dollars into the comatose Canadian nuclear industry.
In fact, Taiwan requires an 8,000 megawatt production in the next 15 years. That is seven times more than the James Bay project alone. They want our Candus, and they are willing to comply by any or all international safety and other regulations, as they in fact do with the U.S., France and others from whom they are currently purchasing nuclear reactors. In fact, there is a trial Candu reactor in Taiwan which is under the control of the United States. Yet we refuse to sell them more Candus even though the sale of each Candu would inject $1 billion into our economy and create 25,000 new jobs in Canada.
Under these economic conditions and with the unemployment level which exists in this country, surely some of these options should be considered by Parliament. 1 understand the sensitivity of having our Government deal directly with that of Taiwan, but this does not have to be the case. Atomic Energy could negotiate with the Taiwan Power Corporation or, if need be, through a third intermediary such as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. In fact, it is precisely such an organization that could establish itself in Taiwan as a non-diplomatic office serving Canadians in processing visas in conjunction with the High Commission in Hong Kong. But they need some encouragement from this Parliament.
In fact, whether it is the Chamber of Commerce or some other organization, it could be structured along the lines of the American Institute in Taiwan. The AIT is a non-profit organization licensed in the District of Columbia and established for the purpose of carrying out U.S. transactions in Taiwan. As a result of that office the Americans are benefiting from the tremendous growth that is taking place in that country.
The time is long overdue for Canada to do the same as the United States and the other countries I have mentioned instead of continuing to miss the boat and these great opportunities, as we are currently doing, while other industrialized nations are taking full advantage of the economic phenomenon that is taking place in Taiwan.
These are just some of the things that this motion which we are debating today recommends. At the outset you read the motion, Mr. Speaker, but let me repeat it very briefly. Its purpose is for the Government to consider facilitating:
-the growth of commercial, cultural and other forms of contact between the people of Canada and Taiwan through (a) the establishment of a bilateral, non-diplomatic presence between Canada and Taiwan, including the issuance of visas directly in Taiwan and Canada thereby adopting the practice of Japan, the United States and most other western industrialized nations (b) the enhance-
Relations with Taiwan
ment of trade links between Canada and Taiwan, including (i) the encouragement of export trade by Canada to Taiwan through the granting of credits and other forms of support to Canadian businessmen (ii) the establishment of direct air links between Canada and Taiwan-
-(iii) the adoption of any other practical mechanism to encourage industrial and other non-diplomatic contact between Taiwan and Canada.
Having said that, I want to emphasize that in no way are we suggesting getting embroiled in a diplomatic situation. We do not have to get embroiled in a diplomatic situation. We recognize Taiwan diplomatically. We are suggesting that we take full advantage of the opportunities that exist in Taiwan.
I know the thrust of this motion is supported by many Members on both sides of the House. In fact, the motion was drafted earlier this year by members of the Canada-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Committee, of which there are 60 or 70 bipartisan Members of this House and of the other place.
Let me reiterate that what we are recommending is not new from an international standpoint. It is not a precedent-setting idea, far from it. I will repeat again, because I have to, that what is being suggested is for Canada to follow the lead of most other non-communist industrialized nations. These nations, which took positive steps before we did, continue to build and to enjoy diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China without any loss of face or trade potential, whatever it is worth, yet their economies grow as a result of their increased trade with Taiwan.
We believe that, should measures of this nature be adopted for Canada, it would lead toward realizing and utilizing the full potential that exists, a potential able to create tens of thousands of jobs in Canada and that would inject billions of dollars of much needed capital into our economy. To this end we urge the Government to join virtually all other non-communist industrialized nations in establishing a non-diplomatic presence in Taiwan so as to take full advantage of the tremendous trade potential for the benefit of all Canadians.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say a few words on the Bill that has been proposed by the Hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek). I believe it is a Bill that brings a good debate to the House of Commons.
I have never had the opportunity to visit Taiwan. The special passports that Canadian Members of Parliament have are not valid for that country.
1 want to say a few words about how I see some of the difficulties which this Bill could impose on Canada's long-term relations with China. I believe our relations with China in all areas, particularly trade, cultural exchange, aid or in whatever other way they may take place, are extremely important. I speak as a Member from the Province of Saskatchewan. The Province of Saskatchewan has long-term trade relations with China, particularly in the areas of wheat and potash. These relations, which grew under the leadership of the former NDP Government in Saskatchewan, are continuing and being pursued by the present PC Government in power. The Premier of Saskatchewan, the Hon. Grant Devine, is going to China soon

September 21, 1983
Relations with Taiwan
to continue discussions on the possibility of extending trade with China, in particular in the areas of wheat and potash.
Canada does have trade relations with China and these relations are developing. On the other hand, I think it is important for us to be aware that Canadians in general, myself in particular, do not completely understand or sense the tremendous political, cultural and historical problems that exist between China and Taiwan. 1 had an opportunity to visit China several years ago. I had discussions with the Chinese. They do not see Taiwan as an independent country. They simply see it as one of the provinces of China that, in a sense, is acting illicitly. The Government of China expects that province in due course to come to its senses and to return to being part of the mainland. This is, of course, an extremely complex and difficult situation. The sensitivities of the Chinese Government and the Chinese people are such that infringing in whatever way into an increased presence in Taiwan now could lead to a deterioration in the relationship which I feel is very important with Mainland China.
Ten years ago many people probably would never have heard about Taiwan. 1 think that is a possibility. 1 think ten years ago many people would never have used anything made in Taiwan. They would have looked upon it as something that was impossible. I think Canadian labour, Canadian management and industry in general has to be very conscious of countries like Taiwan that have made a jump into the industrial world, bypassed many of the traditional industrialized countries and, in a sense, have run ahead with much of their technology. It is essentially based, 1 believe, on the fact that Taiwan has had the management ability to see into the future, but at the same time it has had massive cheap labour.


Mr. Siddon:: Cheap labour?


Robert Joseph Ogle: 1 would say Canadian industry, labour and management have to be very careful to look at what would happen if an increased trade relationship took place with Taiwan. What would actually happen? Would it truly result in Canadians having more jobs, or would this just build up a trading possibility in Taiwan that, in the final event, would take away from what Canadians are already doing and what Canadians are already exporting?
1 thank the Hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) for bringing this discussion to the floor of the House of Commons.
I would very much like to indicate some areas that have not-


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) aware that the per capita income in Taiwan is ten times higher than it is in Mainland China?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I might explain to Hon. Members that the Chair usually accepts an intervention called a point of order in which an Hon. Member seeks the consent of the Member speaking to put a question. But to stand on a point of order and put a question does not constitute a point of order.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I would have no difficulty accepting a question. 1 would continue discussing what the Member has put forward, which I believe is a good intervention.
As to the relativity of the labour income, the Taiwanese have a higher rate than China. 1 was making comments about the relative income of Taiwanese labour and income in Canada and the industrialized West, and the income in Taiwan is much lower. We have to relate as Members of Parliament to people who are thinking about incomes based on historical precedent in this country, not to incomes in a country where they are much lower than we have experienced in our past.
Finally on the question of the exporting of Candus to Taiwan, I would have to express real concern myself. I do not personally believe that the Candu reactor or any kind of atomic energy put into the world community today is the way we can face future energy possibilities.
On the last point made by the previous speaker, I would just say 1 do not see the export of Candus, which have not proven economically to be a good thing for Canada as far as I can see, would be a means of bringing about this trade which the Hon. Member is advocating. I thank the Chair for enabling me to make these remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Standing Orders do not provide for an opportunity to ask questions, but there is no difficulty in Hon. Members seeking the consent of the Hon. Member who had the floor and presumably, in an implied way, the consent of the House to ask questions. The rules are such that there is no provision for a ten-minute question and answer period.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) which relates to the one of the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). Is the Hon. Member aware that the standard of living in Taiwan is on an order of magnitude that is higher than that on the communist Mainland? Would he not agree that this has something to do with the free enterprise nature of the economy of Taiwan as opposed to the communist doctrine under which the Mainland Government operates its industries? Also, is he aware of the fact that productivity bonuses are paid to workers in industries such as the large new steel company at Kaosiung in southern Taiwan, to the extent that there are no work stoppages? There are recreational facilities on the plant site; in fact, workers are receiving considerable productivity bonuses each month as an initiative to ensure that they earn their $6,000 to $10,000 per year income.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to discuss that point with the Hon. Member. I appreciate the statistics which he has given. He clearly outlined, as I indicated in my argument, the difficulty of the philosophical understanding of the culture of another place. I appreciate the fact that he talked about an imposed new form of economic structure in a country. I have seen the same kind of economic structure imposed on many other countries as well. I would take Latin America
September 21, 1983

as a good example of that. When transnational companies move into a cheap labour place, they naturally have to raise the expectations of those people who live there. Basically what they are doing is setting up situations in which their transnational products will be able to compete against those in the places where the headquarters of the transnationals are situated, which happens to be North America or Europe.
I repeat that it is important to realize we are talking about relationships from our point of view, from the point of view of Taiwan and from the point of view of China. They are all different points of view, but the possibility of transnational companies setting up a new form of economics in another country and going into a cheap labour market finally works against the people living in that country. 1 could back that up with many examples.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder whether the Hon. Member would permit a question. Would he agree that the free enterprise in Taiwan is far closer to our way of life than the communist system of Mainland China?


Otto John Jelinek: And therefore more successful.


Robert Joseph Ogle: 1 am pleased to continue to conduct this class, but the model introduced in Taiwan is naturally closer to that in parts of North America. If we look at the North American model, we have to be very careful to look at its final effects, one of which I have noticed particularly in North America, that is, the deterioration of the living conditions of people. 1 could point to the recent experiences in Detroit, Chicago and Gary, Indiana; in places where the industrial revolution took place it left jungles. We have examples of violence taking place in those cities now which I do not think takes place in China. 1 do not think the quality of life in China has reached that point. At least my limited experience has not shown that. When one gets into a situation basically built upon per capita income, one witnesses a breakdown of society. It is a value thing about which I talked in my first argument. 1 just have an opinion on it, but it is something which we must look at when we are discussing true development.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Unless instructed otherwise, the Chair is operating on the notion that there is implied consent of the House for Hon. Members to put questions to the Hon. Member who just spoke. 1 will know that the implied consent is terminated when some Hon. Member indicates that we should recognize the next Hon. Member for the purpose of debate. 1 might add that certainly debate is made more interesting by the ability and competence of the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) who is answering these questions. But it is on his consent and on the unanimous consent of the House that we proceed, in no other way.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member aware of the fact that the per capita income in Taiwan over the last ten years has increased by 500 per cent, whereas the per capita income on Mainland China has remained constant at approximately $400 U.S. per year? It seems to me that he is against the development of any new jobs in Canada.
Relations with Taiwan


Robert Joseph Ogle: Previously 1 thought 1 made the argument that if jobs go to the lower paid transnational sites of companies-


Otto John Jelinek: 1 am talking about jobs in Canada.


Robert Joseph Ogle: -they finally take away from jobs in Canada. One of the basic reasons there are high levels of unemployment in the industrial West right now is that jobs traditionally held in western developed countries are now going to places where cheap labour has been established and where transnational companies have set up new companies or new sites to manufacture exactly the same products that were formerly manufactured in the West. My hon. colleagues in the House of Commons today are probably all wearing watches that were made in a country which probably did not manufacture such things 25 years ago.


Thomas Edward Siddon: What is wrong with that?


Robert Joseph Ogle: There is nothing wrong with that at all, as long as we are able to build something equal we can trade and at the same time provide the quality of life for workers here to which they have become accustomed. I do not think we could possibly tell North American workers that they have to return to the level of a worker in Taiwan. I do not think that will happen. Perhaps the Hon. Member has different people in his riding than I have, but I do not think it will happen.
The basic question of the North-South relationship has been studied by a task force of the House. It pointed at the fact that a recession would take place in the North unless there was co-operation with the South or with the developing world. The relationship of income to life is a good point, except that there are certain areas in the world-and China is one of them-in which I do not see any possibility of the standard of life now accepted by us ever being reached. For instance, if everyone on Mainland China had a car, I have been told that the steel resources of the world would be all used up. We have to look at what standard of life is possible and how people, wherever they happen to live, relate to their standard of life.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. Does he realize, for example, that presently Canada imports more from Taiwan than we export to Taiwan? There is an imbalance of trade. Also, does he realize that we are exporting more to Mainland China than we are importing? Does he know about the present involvement of Petro-Canada off the coast of Mainland China? We as a country are being barred from supplying offshore rig technology because it is available in the shipyards in Korea. The other technical expertise is available in Singapore and Hong Kong, but the dollars of Canadian taxpayers are going through Petro-Canada to the offshore in a very risky venture from which we may not be able to obtain a return on our investment or indeed get our investment back. In other words, we are dealing with a closed society on Mainland China and a more open society in Taiwan. How does the Hon. Member square his remarks with those comments?

September 21, 1983
Relations with Taiwan


Robert Joseph Ogle: I want to make clear to the Hon. Member that I never said we should cut off trade with Taiwan. I am unable to say that 1 know all the facts he presented. I just accept that the Hon. Member researched them. I never said anything about cutting off trade with Taiwan. I said that in trading with Taiwan, it is extremely important to consider the cultural, historical and political reality of what that means to China. 1 believe that our role with Mainland China in the long run will be much more important than our role with Taiwan. That is a historical fact. 1 do not say it is better, worse or whatever. It is a fact that our role with China is much more important. 1 repeat that I never said we should cut off trade with Taiwan. All 1 said is that in the discussion today many aspects have to be looked at that are not in dollars and cents.


Mr. Dupras:: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speeches of a few Hon. Members. 1 would like to ask the Hon. Member who proposed the motion whether he has addressed himself to what role Canada can play to reunite Mainland China and Taiwan. 1 have yet to hear of any suggestions by Parliamentarians who have been in Taiwan as to whether this will be possible. I know it would be a very honourable objective for Canadians to aim for, since it would be better for both countries. I would like to hear the Hon. Member's views and whether he has addressed himself to this problem.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to answer that question. The Hon. Member probably has not read "The Three Principles of the People" by Dr. Sun Yat-sen. 1 will be happy to send him the book. It would take too much time in this debate to state all the facts in those three principles. However, 1 would support, as I believe the majority of the Members in this House would support, Taiwan's wish to reunite the two Chinas. We are certainly supportive of that and support the three principles of the people as written by Dr. Sun Yat-sen.
[ Translation]


Mr. Yves Demers (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you for recognizing me after a lengthy question and answer session, and it is with great pleasure that I express my agreement with the motion put by my colleague on the opposite side of the House. It shows that in this House, all of us, even Opposition Members, have the same goal which is to improve the well-being of the Canadian people, and if the motion proposed today were to be implemented, I sincerely believe this would promote increased trade between Canada and Taiwan, and as a result, create several thousand jobs in Canada, for the most part in high technology areas where salaries are high. When we are talking about CANDU, we are also talking about high salaries and high technology, and many Canadians would stand to benefit.
The previous speaker mentioned earlier that one of the reasons for the recession being felt in northern countries is the inability of the poorer countries in the south to buy our
products. The proposal in question would help countries in the south to raise their standards of living and to buy goods from the north. It would also promote the creation of jobs here in Canada. Fortunately, China, as the Hon. Member mentioned earlier, does not intend to buy cars for all its people, because in that case, there would not be enough steel to go around, and we probably would not have had a new Opposition Leader. The Iron Ore Company would still be in business, and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would still be president.
To get back to Taiwan and the kind of country it is, I would say that it is a democracy. I visited that country and saw its industry and its people, I asked a lot of questions, and I had a lot to think about. When visiting that country, we realize that its people have an enormous will to succeed, to make their way in the world and to get their own place in the sun, and that they are very hard workers. They are good workers in industry but also in their schools and universities, because the level of education is rising very rapidly, a sign of considerable ambition. This eagerness to work and to study has, as my colleagues mentioned earlier, resulted in a very substantial increase in the standard of living of the people of Taiwan. At first, the country had trouble even feeding its people, and today, the people are not only being fed but offered the luxury of having better doctors, improved medical care, and a better education, and I think this is a trend we Canadians would agree is a fortunate one that we would like to see in all countries throughout the world.
It is sometimes difficult for us Canadians to promote trade with Taiwan, because the situation is somewhat tense between Communist China and that country. However, when we are doing business, do we have to go into all the differences that often exist between the people of a country who have gone their separate ways? Today, we are selling a host of goods to the USSR, and I have no objection to that, although I am sure that many Canadians do not agree with the political system in that country. However, whatever the Soviet political system may be to us, we are selling them wheat, raw materials and many kinds of finished products, while they are selling us cars and a number of other commodities. So in the case of China and Taiwan, I think we should let those countries settle their own differences. They are mature people who are capable of governing themselves. However, we, as the Canadian Government, must take advantage of the opportunities we are offered and sell as many products as we can to this country. In fact, today, and it has been the case for many years, Taiwan exports a large number of products to Canada, and all consumers in the House or in the visitors' gallery will certainly agree with me that we see a lot of items made in Taiwan in the stores. Other countries, very important countries such as the United States, Japan, France, Germany and most industrialized countries have solved this problem. They have not officially recognized Taiwan at the diplomatic level, but they have sent commercial attaches there in order to promote trade, and
September 21, 1983

when we promote trade, it very often works out to the advantage of both countries.
I feel that Canada should establish links with Taiwan by sending commercial attaches, by facilitating the issuance of visas and by encouraging contacts between business people in Canada and Taiwan with a view to establishing the requirements of our respective countries and to promoting trade. I am convinced that what we have here is a desire to open our minds to a more liberal view of the world as a whole.
As far as our workers are concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that Taiwan needs raw materials, as my colleague mentioned earlier, but more importantly, Taiwan also needs finished products, and especially nuclear reactors. It is not up to us to decide whether in the future, energy will be produced by nuclear means or otherwise, but that country needs electric power and is prepared to buy nuclear reactors. It has already done so in other countries. Whenever Canada sells a reactor for $1 billion, several thousands of jobs are created. The city of Taipei urgently needs to improve access to the city by subway and by train. We have Canadian companies that are among the most advanced in transportation technology, and I can think of one example, namely, Bombardier, a company that is located in Quebec, and which not long ago was awarded a contract to manufacture subway cars for New York City. I want to emphasize that as far as advanced technology is concerned, we could export our skills and our manpower. I am convinced that if we stand firm, Communist China will understand the situation and continue to buy commodities it needs in Canada.
Finally, I want to say that I agree with the motion, and that I intend to work to have it accepted. I think all Canadians stand to benefit.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I believe that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) was rising on a point of order, is that correct?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: No, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to participate in the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In that case, I think it is appropriate to recognize the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates).


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, 1 shall be very pleased to assist the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) in order to allow him to participate in the debate before its conclusion. However, I would first very much like to offer my congratulations to the Hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek). He is a long time friend of Taiwan and a realist about international business.
One of his frustrations, and one of my frustrations during the period of time since we recognized the People's Republic of
Relations with Taiwan
China and stopped recognizing the Republic of China on Taiwan, has been the inability of our business community to utilize fully the opportunities that could be available to them in Taiwan.
The statistics that were referred to by the Hon. Member for Halton are a shocking example of just how out of kilter things have become from a trade point of view. There is no realistic reason for that to have happened. The Hon. Member for Halton indicated, by referring to numerous countries around the world, that indeed there are very few that do not have a realistic commercial arrangement with Taiwan. If that were the case with Canada, businessmen who know no boundaries in their efforts to secure business opportunities could move between Canada and Taiwan with the least possible delay and with the greatest possibility of securing the business opportunities that exist there.
The Hon. Member for Halton pointed out that a trade delegation from Taiwan was coming to Canada very soon and would be bringing with it contracts worth something in the order of $150 million. That is just one of many examples of the possibilities that exist in Taiwan for our business community.
It pleased me very much to hear the Hon. Member for Halton pose a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the House earlier this year in order to secure from the Prime Minister a somewhat different approach than has been taken concerning the sale of Candu nuclear power stations since the time we withdrew recognition from the Republic of China. It is my hope that in the days ahead we will be able to work out a business arrangement so that we can assist the Chinese people to diversify their energy possibilities through the use of a Candu nuclear power station.
Regardless of whether one is in favour of or against nuclear power, it is a reality today and, in my opinion, the Candu reactor is the safest and cheapest nuclear power station in the world today. If we are interested in safe forms of nuclear energy, then the Candu reactor is certainly the best vehicle to produce that for the people.
In April of this year, it pleased me very much to join the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) at the opening of a nuclear power station in Korea. We are hearing about the possible constructin of two nuclear power stations in Romania. Well, we may not like what is happening with the Chinese people, but surely to goodness we do not endorse the kind of Government that exists in Romania. Yet we are willing to sit down and do business with Romanians by selling them a nuclear power station. If the Government of Taiwan is willing to provide us the same safeguards as is the Government of Romania, then why are we not selling nuclear power stations to the Government of Taiwan? There is no realistic reason for that.
At this time, we realize that there is a junta in control of Argentina. That is not the same form of government that we have in Canada, but we have just recently opened a new nuclear power station in Argentina. That does not mean that we endorse the form of government that exists in Argentina, but it does mean that we know that Argentinians will buy a

Relations with Taiwan
nuclear power station from somebody. If they do not buy it from us, then they will buy it from Germany or from France or from the United States. Well, why not buy it from Canada so that we can be of assistance in maintaining and improving the possibilities that exist for a nuclear industry in Canada? As far as 1 am concerned, those possibilities are vital to our country as we move toward the twenty-first century.
The suggestions contained in the motion of the Hon. Member for Halton are very realistic. It is very frustrating for a businessman from Canada or a businessman from Taiwan to try to move back and forth between Canada and Taiwan. That is stupid. There is no other word for it, it is just plain stupid.
A very significant celebration will take place in Taiwan next month. It is called "Double Ten" and occurs on October 10. It is a most sacred and very special holiday for the people of Taiwan. I will bet money, Mr. Speaker, that there will be Governors from at least 25 States of the United States present along with members of their various business communities with their order books who will be doing business. Where are we? We are trying to work out an arrangement whereby a businessman can get a visa to visit Taiwan. How are we to meet the competition if that sort of thing is allowed to happen?
It does not surprise me that members of the NDP are concerned about communist China and our relations with communist China. If we are concerned about that, what about almost every other nation in the world that has worked out a realistic commercial arrangement that allows businessmen to move back and forth without difficulty? Are their business arrangements and diplomatic relations in jeopardy because they allow this? That is just a lot of hogwash, and one can only expect that from the socialists who are trying to stick up for the communists. Well, I am not trying to stick up for the communists, neither here nor in China nor anywhere else. At least in Taiwan there is a democratic Government, and that is what I stand for. I want to help democratic Governments wherever they happen to be. I am not worried about communists.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: Our socialist friends are concerned about human rights. I have heard how they abhor capital punishment. I believe that only a week or so ago 1 read in the newspaper that the Chinese communists put on a big show. They invited all of the people and they lined their own people up against the wall and shot 30 or 40 of them at one time simply to make an impression on the rest of the people in that country. Well, if that is what they endorse, that is fine and dandy but that is not what I endorse. If I have to make a choice between supporting the people of Taiwan or supporting the People's Republic of China, then I am on the side of Taiwan today, tomorrow and the next day.
I think most Members of the House-at least Members of the two major Parties in the House-feel exactly the same way. We stand for democracy. I am not sure where Members
September 21, 1983
at the end of the Chamber stand. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville, whom I remember meeting after a visit to communist China, would give us the benefit of some of his ideas as a result of visiting that country and tell us how well off the people were, as he saw during his travels.
I have not gone to communist China but I have gone to Taiwan a number of times. I do not want to go to communist China, thank you very much. I hope to go back to Taiwan sometime, however, and see the free enterprise system working effectively and well.
We heard about the North-South dialogue. Taiwan would rank high in a list of the best agricultural economies in the world. Besides producing three times the amount of food on the same amount of land, since 1949, it has established one of the finest agricultural colleges in the world. It has special programs to bring people from the developing nations to Taiwan to assist, through educational programs in that college, the development of their agricultural industry. That is the type of thing that is happening in Taiwan today and it is of real benefit to the people. I endorse that type of thing totally.
Again, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Halton. It is a long time since we have had a debate on this subject in the House. The Hon. Member is to be commended for making it possible, and I enjoyed taking part in the debate.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of debate, I wonder if I could ask the Hon. Member one question?


Robert Carman Coates: Agreed.


Robert Joseph Ogle: I was very interested in his remarks. I appreciate his position and in no way want to change it. As a Member of the Progressive Conservative Party, which has so many people in favour of capital punishment, I would have expected that he would have brought the argument around the other way in favour of China which is carrying it out publicly. If you were going to have it, you should have it as they do, for all the people to see. I make this point because-


Otto John Jelinek: The next thing you are going to want is public flogging.


Robert Joseph Ogle: The point I am making, in the same spirit as the point was made to me, is that I believe the Hon. Member should have come down on the other side of the question. If I could, I would suggest to him that he should take the opportunity to visit China some time. He does not have to agree with what they are doing, but over one-quarter of the people of the world live there.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member what model of development he would use to develop China?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, that is very obvious-just use Taiwan as an example. The free enterprise system would produce for the billion or so people in China a much more realistic future than exists at the present time. The Hon. Member for Halton pointed out that in ten years Taiwan has increased the level of income by 500 per cent, while in
September 21, 1983

Mainland China it has remained the same. If that is the example you want to use, then communism does not work there or anywhere else. That is exactly the way I feel about it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, 1 was interested in the remarks of the previous speaker who implied that if one happened to visit China, then one was a communist or a communist sympathizer.


Robert Carman Coates: I did not say that.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 1 said you were implying that, I thought, in your remarks.


Robert Carman Coates: Never.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am glad that he was not implying that, Mr. Speaker, because if he was, there would be another communist sympathizer, namely the Premier of Saskatchewan, Grant Devine. He will take off for China in the next few days. Peter Lougheed has been there, of course, and the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has been to China.
1 never thought I would be defending the Premier of Saskatchewan against his own Party, but perhaps I have to. He is going to China because it is very important to the economy of Saskatchewan. I come from that Province and in the House I represent the people of that Province. Saskatchewan exports over half its commodities to China, including wheat and potash. That country happens to be very important to the economic well-being of my constituency. That is a major reason why the Premier of my Province is going to China.
What is important to the economy of Saskatchewan is very important to the economy of all of Canada, including that part represented by the Member who moved the motion, the Province of Ontario.
1 want to make that point because if we are going to talk about more trade with Taiwan, we must realize the political sensitivity of the situation with the People's Republic of China and the importance of maintaining very good relations with that country.
I happened to be listening to an open-line radio show the other day and heard the Premier of Saskatchewan say that he wanted more cultural exchanges between China and Saskatchewan, a greater exchange of farmers with Chinese farmers coming to Saskatchewan and our farmers going to China and an exchange of young people from the universities. That is the "commy" Premier of Saskatchewan speaking, the Conservative Grant Devine.
Some of these dinosaurs off to my right are so out of touch with reality that they should crawl back into their cage. That is the better place for them.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville is not discussing the motion. It does not state that we are against communist China. It recommends that Canada join the rest of the industrialized world in increasing trade with Taiwan. The Hon. Member is
Energy
not relating his remarks to the motion. He is talking political-1 do not want to use the words that are in my mind.


An Hon. Member:: Hogwash.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville. Perhaps I should indicate that the time allowed for debate of this particular motion expired at 4:07. Because there was a point of order, the Chair will extend a moment to the Hon. Member to complete his remarks and then seek consent for the next item.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) said, we are not talking about cutting off trade with Taiwan. What this Party and my Province say- Conservatives and others as well-is that when we talk of increasing trade with Taiwan, we must realize that there is a very sensitive political situation regarding China. It is very important that we do not alienate China and lose trade with that country. It happens to be exceedingly important to my Province and my people. I want to make that point very emphatically to other Members of the House.
It is not just this Party that is concerned. The Conservative Premier of my Province is going to China within a few days as the head of a delegation. I think that shows the importance of visiting China and the importance of trying to strengthen ties between Canadians and the Chinese.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2) and considering the time as 4.09 this afternoon, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.
Shall all items under Private Members' Notices of Motions (Papers) preceding item No. 23 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Jack Wendele Shields: That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all papers and studies done for any department or agency concerning the economic impact to Canada of a one-year delay in the development of the Alsands project in Fort McMurray, Alberta and the Imperial Oil project in Cold Lake, Alberta.
He said: Mr. Speaker, 1 think anyone familiar with my activities in this House, particularly as they relate to the national energy policy and the resulting destruction of the tar sands and oil industry situated in my riding, will understand, when reading the order I have put forward, that I ask for

September 21, 1983
Energy
copies of all papers and studies done by any department or agency concerning the economic impact on Canada of a one-year delay in the development of the Alsands project in Fort McMurray and the oil sands project of Imperial Oil in Cold Lake. This was done on December 22, 1982. At that time, if you will remember, the announcements coming out of northeastern Alberta were pretty much gloom and doom as they relate to the oil sands industry. Alsands had announced its consortium had collapsed and it was not going to proceed with the $12 billion project. At approximately the same time it was announced that the Imperial Oil project in my riding was not going to be proceeded with.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, statements were made by the Alsands consortium and Imperial Oil which indicated these projects were not economically viable, but always with the proviso that this was so because of the present fiscal regime existing in the national energy policy, particularly the petroleum gas revenue tax. That tax represented a massive grab from these very sensitive and very marginal operations, taking money from the investors and the production at a time when it was risky business to develop these projects. Indeed, in some ways it is still a risky business to develop them.
The Alsands project presents a massive infusion of capital to buy the equipment and machinery, to build the complex necessary to mine the sands because in the open-pit mining process there are vast amounts of overburden which have to be removed in order to get at the oilsands. Syncrude and Suncor are doing this now. It is remarkable to note that 20 years ago Suncor went into that very speculative venture, the mining of the oil sands, to develop a process for extraction and upgrading of this very heavy bitumen into a very high quality synthetic crude. In fact, it is of such high quality that it is in demand virtually everywhere.
Learning from the experience of the Great Canadian Oil Sands plant, which later became Suncor, Syncrude went into developing a project which cost $9 billion. Again learning from their predecessor across the road, they developed and are now producing probably twice the capacity of the Suncor plant. The reason I am giving you the background on this, Mr. Speaker, is that I want everyone to understand that the Economic Council of Canada indicated two years ago in a study that $260 billion must be spent between now and 1990 if Canada is to reach oil self-sufficiency. Remember that at that time there was also the fight over the energy agreement between the Province of Alberta and the federal Government. When it was struck, the petroleum gas revenue tax included in the new national energy policy was so devastating that both Alsands and Imperial Oil at Cold Lake said no, we cannot risk $12 billion to invest in these massive projects because of the massive tax grab by the federal Government. That is in effect what they say.
Now, the Minister of Energy at that time and the Minister of Energy (Mr. Chretien) today will deny this. The various Parliamentary Secretaries and Liberal backbenchers will all deny this. They say it costs too much, it is inflation, interest rates. They go through all of that, but when you come to the
bottom line the companies themselves state that the PGRT was too big a bite and it now becomes too risky.
What was being risked, Mr. Speaker? Let us look at Imperial Oil. We were asking Imperial Oil, with a total capitalization in Canada of less than $ 12 billion, to gamble all of its assets in Canada on one plant in Cold Lake. That is what it amounted to. The mining of the oil sands in the Cold Lake area is different from that in Fort McMurray because it is not strip mining. There are various methods they are trying to develop such as drilling holes and pumping gas or hot water to heat the sands and then pump up the crude. The overburden is much too heavy or thick to remove.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a giant research and development project. Not only does it create jobs and contribute to our energy security and our balance of payments because we replace offshore oil with that from the oil sands, but it is developing technology which is needed in places like Venezuela which also has oil sands. I had a discussion with the Ambassador from Venezuela the other night. When he heard that I was from the riding of Athabasca he immediately recognized that as the area where research and development was taking place which he and his countrymen are very interested in. But we must consider the costs and the recovery of those costs is enhanced when a plant like this goes ahead.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that some Member from the Liberal side is going to stand today and say that the plants, these megaprojects, are dead, they are too expensive, or that the Hon. Member for Athabasca knows full well that the cost of oil was dropping and therefore they could not recover their investment and they became too risky. Before those statements are made, Mr. Speaker, I would only say that that is balderdash because the companies clearly indicate in press releases that it was the fiscal regime put in place by the federal Government which made the venture too risky.
Surprisingly enough, yesterday in Calgary the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, with the Minister of Energy for Alberta, announced that new life is being breathed into the Imperial Oil Project at Cold Lake. In the official press release from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, the Minister noted, "At the peak of the construction, 700 direct jobs will be created and will be filled primarily by residents of the Cold Lake region. Another 90 permanent jobs will result from the operational phase of the project. Three hundred million dollars is being invested for 700 construction jobs and 90 permanent jobs." What was originally proposed at Cold Lake was a project which, at peak construction, would provide 7,500 jobs, which would translate into 3,000 permanent jobs, from one plant alone. Double the figure, because the same type of investment was to be made north of Fort McMurray with the Alsands project. Can one imagine the effect there would be on the economy of the country today, the effect on the unemployment figures of 1.5 million people, had those two plants been allowed to continue? The unemployment figure would have been reduced by at least 500,000 to 700,-

September 21, 1983
000. That would be the impact of those two plants across Canada. It would have created an economic stimulus in Ontario alone of close to $7 billion in continual spending over the life of the projects.
However, when one turns the press release over, there is one statement that really points to where the Government is at: "The federal Government will provide earned depletion allowance". That is one thing that the Government denied both plants. The Government said that one cannot have earned depletion allowance. It further states that there will be "a waiver of payment of the petroleum gas revenue tax until the company has recovered its capital cost in accordance with the federal budget provisions announced in April 1983". In other words, when both the Alsands consortium and the Imperial Oil project at Cold Lake were prepared to invest $12 billion in each plant, a total of $24 billion, the Government said, "No, you will not receive depletion allowance. Yes, you will pay petroleum gas revenue tax from the moment you start pumping oil into the pipeline". But now Imperial has come back, and to encourage Imperial to invest $300 million, which may develop into $1.5 billion over the next three years, the Government has done exactly what the oil companies and the heavy oil industry said needed to be done in the first place. 1 would suggest that it is exactly two years too late.
If the Government had not been so concerned with grabbing from the goose that was laying the golden egg, if it had not been so concerned that someone might make a dollar, there would be two plants in northeastern Alberta ready to come onstream, probably in 18 months, producing 280,000 barrels of oil per day, which would amount to approximately 14 per cent of our total national supply of oil. Employment would be created across Canada in virtually every Province amounting to over 500,000 jobs, and probably closer to 700,000 jobs. We would not be buying oil offshore. We are presently importing under 200,000 barrels a day and even paying spot prices in some cases which are higher than world prices, adding to our deficit in foreign trade, which affects the dollar and employment in a vicious cycle. We would have already saved at least $5 billion in unemployment insurance benefits that have been paid out because the jobs were not there. We would have saved untold misery across the country to those men and women who are unemployed and who have now exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits, those who have sold their homes, cars, personal belongings and have gone onto welfare. God only knows how much damage we would have saved the children who are witnessing traumatic kinds of confrontations that they have never before seen happening in their families. We do not have to be all that intelligent to understand what happens when a man walks into his home-or a woman-and sees children for which he cannot provide because he cannot find a job in a stagnant economy. It does not take much to imagine the kinds of things that go on in that home. It would have saved small companies and even larger companies. Tar Sands Machine and Welding was a company in Fort McMur-ray owned by an individual who had invested his time, his life savings, and who was doing a superb job in the heavy oil indus-
Energy
try. However, with the collapse of Alsands, of course, he collapsed. He had about 65 employees who all lost their jobs. I could recount numbers of different companies all over northeastern Alberta to which this happened primarily because the Government would not clear the smoke from its eyes. The Government was so concerned because it thought Alberta was being greedy and pitted the rest of the country against certain people in the oil industry in Alberta. This cash-starved Government was so concerned with grabbing as many dollars as possible, spending like a drunken sailor with no accountability to the House of Commons, that it killed two projects that are needed today as they were needed then and will be needed tomorrow for our own security. The security of our country is at stake because we do not have a secure supply of oil. Yet we have Petro-Canada, which receives a stipend from the Canadian taxpayer, investing $.5 billion in offshore China to develop oil reserves there.
When questioned as to why this is being allowed to happen, the answer comes back, "It will be a supply of oil for Canada". My God, we have reserves in the tar sands which surpass the known conventional reserves in the Middle East. We have an abundance of oil and we have the ability and technology to extract it from the tar sands. It could create jobs in Canada and thereby decimate the unemployment lines. It would keep dollars in Canada instead of their being spent offshore for oil. It would create a healthy economy. It would bind the country together because when there are jobs in northeastern Alberta, people would come from every Province to that area. God bless them for it because it creates a mix of Canadians in the region. When Hibernia finally develops people will migrate to the region from one end of the country to the other and there will be a mix. That is how we build a country.
My motion is very simple. 1 only want to see the papers and the studies that were done. To my knowledge, these studies were done and indicated to the Government and the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, before he brought down his National Energy Policy in Bill C-48, the drastic consequences if those plants did not come onstream. Yet he ignored it.
My final comment is that we were looking at an outside investment, not Government investment, of $24 billion. The Economic Council of Canada stated very clearly in their studies that $260 billion must be invested in the energy sector if we are to have energy self-sufficiency by the year 2000, not 1990.
I hope Hon. Members will join with me and force the Government to table these papers so that everyone in the House of Commons and all Canadians can see why and how the Government came to its decision with the petroleum gas revenue tax.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to speak in this debate because it deals
27350

September 21, 1983
Energy
with what I believe is a very important question, oil sands development and particularly the Alsands project.
Before 1 commence with what I intend to say, let me suggest that the demagoguery of the Hon. Member who just spoke is just incredible. To suggest as he does that the federal Government alone is responsible for the fact that the Alsands project did not proceed is to continue in the same kind of demagoguery, and what I would characterize as garbage, that we hear from Members on that side of the House when it comes to energy issues. Whenever the federal Government becomes involved in policies on national issues, some Members, particularly in the Conservative Party, think that it is sacrilege.
The Hon. Member should know and have the honesty to tel! the public that the timing error for the Alsands project occurred when Premier Lougheed and his Government decided to use the Alsands project as a hostage in the negotiations for an oil pricing agreement. This was in the winter of 1980 and 1981, well before the Alsands project was finally cancelled by the companies involved after the very attractive offer both Governments made in the spring of 1982. That is when the mistake was made. It is unfortunate.
Premier Lougheed decided that this was one of the projects he would hold up. He could have found a fiscal regime in the fall of 1980 and winter of 1981 for the Alsands project. The federal Government and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources at that time kept answering questions in the House and saying publicly that he was ready at any time to sit down to get an agreement on a fiscal regime with the Province of Alberta for the Alsands project. However, the Premier of Alberta decided that he would not have it so. That was well before the oil pricing agreement was arrived at in the beginning of September or end of August.
Premier Lougheed had used the Alsands project as a pawn in very tough negotiations. I am not saying he was wrong in using it that way because he is very effective at protecting the interests of his electorate. He made the political judgment that he would not let that project go ahead and would not negotiate the fiscal regime with the Government of Canada or with the companies before he had an oil pricing agreement. That is all right, but he made that decision, not the federal Government.
I distinctly recall the discussions we had in our caucus and the discussions that were held elsewhere when we were pleading with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to do more to ensure that the project would go ahead, because, as the Member said, it was not only very important in terms of energy supply, the security of supply for the future of Canada, but it was very important because of the industrial benefits it would have provided across the country. But the Alberta Government refused to negotiate a fiscal regime before there was an oil pricing agreement.
That error was made and it is unfortunate. We all know what occurred subsequently. As we got into 1982 the pricing situation became uncertain. Despite the very attractive offer on the part of both levels of Government, the companies decided not to proceed. At that time both Governments did all they could but unfortunately it was too late. The offer that was
presented jointly by both Governments first assured private sector participation would be at least 50 per cent, but in view of normal tax write-offs the two Governments would provide guarantees for 68 per cent of the private sector expenditures in the pre-production period. Second, no repayment of interest or principal would be scheduled until after start-up. Interest on the guaranteed loan could be capitalized and added to the oustanding loan balance and the guarantee increased accordingly. After production start-up, 58 per cent of the net revenue accruing to the private sector would be paid on the loan guarantees. Net revenue was equal to gross revenues minus 110 per cent of the operating costs, minus capital additions, minus the Alberta 5 per cent gross royalty.
I could go on, but I think it has all been said publicly already. The result was that private oil firms withdrew from the project despite the Government offer which would have removed a large part of the financial risk from the private investors. They would still have maintained 50 per cent private ownership. All told, the direct and indirect support by Canada and Alberta would have covered 84 per cent of the project costs then estimated at $13.9 billion. That was in 1982 and 1 suppose that investment would now be well over $14 billion.
The Hon. Member has talked about the petroleum gas revenue tax. Again, they consider it a sacrilege to have the federal Government raise a tax from the top. They say that is terrible because it goes directly at the cash flow. However, provincial royalties are taken directly from the top and that seems to be all right. Simply because the federal Government would decide to have a tax mechanism which takes money from the top, it is supposed to be bad. Apparently it is all right to be used as a policy instrument for provincial governments. 1 do not know how Hon. Members can reconcile that unless they only want to continue to oppose anything the federal Government does.
The PGRT would have become effective only after the guaranteed loans would have been repaid. The rate of tax would have been 16 per cent, but now, with changes that have been announced recently, would be less than that. Unless somebody opposes the PGRT for everything, which I know is the honest position of some of the Members, then one cannot say that the PGRT alone was the only reason this project did not go ahead. The PGRT would have become effective only after the guaranteed loans had been repaid.
I wanted to intervene briefly in this debate. As the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) said, it is a very important debate. I am happy now that some projects are going ahead. 1 am happy the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) has made sure that some changes to the fiscal regime have been made and that Petro-Canada as an instrument of public policy is involved in the Alsands development and in heavy oil. I believe this is important for the security of supply of energy in Canada. I believe it is important because of the industrial benefits which these massive projects will bring to the rest of the country.
September 21, 1983

As I have said, to suggest that the federal Government alone is responsible that the Alsands project did not go ahead, to use such language as to say the federal Government killed the Alsands project, is to hide from the truth. The time to go ahead with the Alsands project was the spring of 1981 or even in the fall of 1980. The construction of the projects would have been so far ahead that by the time the pricing situation became uncertain in the world it would have been too late for companies to cancel.
The fiscal benefits were always available from the federal Government. The federal Government was always ready, during 1981 and before that, to sit down with officials from the Province of Alberta and negotiate a regime. The Alberta Government refused to do that.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member answer a question?


Herb Breau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions. First, I know the Hon. Member from the other side of the House would not want to mislead this House in any way. He just stated that the fiscal regime was always in place for the oil companies, meaning that the deal was in place so the companies could go ahead with the investment and the development of the oil sands. He must realize that this is not so. The fiscal regime was agreed to probably the day before yesterday, and announced yesterday, in which the petroleum gas revenue tax would not be collected until all of the capital costs were recovered by the investor.
Second, the prior offer to the Alsands project was that it would still have to pay 16 per cent. What we are talking about is 16 per cent to nothing. That is the first question.
While the Hon. Member is on his feet, could he answer a very simple question? Did he know the Alsands project collapsed after an energy agreement was signed between the federal Government and the Government of Alberta, not before? It was two to three months after because the fiscal regime could not go into place. Did the Hon. Member know that?


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question, I never said the fiscal regime was in place all the time. I said the federal Government was ready in the fall of 1980 and through the winter of 1980-1981-in the spring of 1981-to negotiate a fiscal pricing regime with the Government of Alberta. It was the Government of Alberta that would have no negotiations at all before an oil pricing agreement was arrived at. Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker.
I could go back and research for the Hon. Member answers to his own questions in this House. He kept asking questions, as was legitimate, because the economic development of his region was crucial. I remember very clearly that many many times the questions he put, questions the former Leader of the Opposition put, questions the energy critic put, and the Minister kept saying: "I am ready at any time to meet with Aiberta
Energy
and negotiate a fiscal regime." 1 never said that the fiscal regime was in place. I said that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources at the time was ready to negotiate one.
1 am sorry, I forgot the Hon. Member's second question.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I want to know if the Hon. Member knew that the Alsands project collapsed after an energy agreement was reached with Alberta.
While I am on my feet, I just want to caution the Hon. Member. He is talking about a fiscal regime in place. The fiscal regime, as I am referring to it, was a deal with the oil companies or a developer. That is what we refer to as the fiscal regime. We are not talking about an energy agreement between the Province of Alberta and the federal Government. The fiscal regime, as it related to the Syncrude, the Suncor production, the Alsands consortium and the Imperial Oil project, was not in place. No negotiations were taking place to remove the petroleum gas revenue tax.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, to deal with the original second question posed by the Hon. Member, I said earlier that the deal had collapsed in April, 1982. I know that. It collapsed six months approximately after the oil pricing agreement. At the time the pricing situation in the world had changed, it was too late. What 1 said was that before the oil pricing agreement there was no need, intellectually speaking, to link the negotiations for the fiscal regime for the Alsands project with an oil pricing agreement with the Provinces. There was no need for that. The Alberta Government linked the two. By linking the two, the Province of Alberta made a timing error. By the winter of 1982-April of 1982-despite the very attractive offer of guaranteeing about 84 per cent which both Governments offered the private sector, it was too late. They lost the project. We all lost the project, not them. The country lost the project. That is the problem.
I realize that the Alsands project collapsed in 1982. The Hon. Member is trying to confuse what 1 mean by the negotiation of a fiscal regime and the oil pricing agreement because he wants to get out of the confusion that he created earlier. I realize that the negotiation of a fiscal regime for any particular project or a series of projects between the two Governments and the private sector, the entrepreneurs, is one thing and the oil pricing agreement is another. It was the Alberta Government that would not realize that. It was the Alberta Government that linked the two. By linking the two, it really used the Alsands project as a pawn to pressure the federal Government and the rest of the country because of the industrial benefits to the country, because of the security of supply to the country. It was Alberta that took the calculated risk of delaying the Alsands project, hoping it would pressure the federal Government into a better oil pricing agreement or an oil pricing agreement more favourable to Alberta. The Province of Alberta calculated that risk. They took it. It is too bad they made a mistake.

Energy


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, 1 have only one question. Does the time we have allocated to this question terminate at 5.09 p.m.? Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It will be 4.52 p.m.


Jack Wendele Shields: We will not be able to resolve this question. 1 think there is an easy way to resolve this question, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I am sorry, I thought the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) was asking how much time the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) had left. His time terminates at 4.52 p.m., but the debate will terminate at 5.10 p.m.


Jack Wendele Shields: I think we could spend a great deal of time on this, Mr. Speaker. 1 would request the Hon. Member who just spoke to consult with his colleagues. Or if I could get unanimous consent to terminate debate at 5.05 p.m., and we could get the documents tabled in the House, all of us then will be able to see what is the truth. I am sure the New Democratic Party would like to know what the truth is. We on this side of the House would like to know the truth. Could I seek unanimous consent of all Members of the House to have the documents tabled so everyone can see the truth?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I presume the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) is making that request through the Chair. The Chair advises Hon. Members that a total of one hour and 40 minutes is provided for the debate. Today is the commencement of the debate and it cannot go beyond one hour, but following today an additional 40 minutes will be available. In any case, the Hon. Member has formulated a request for which I will seek unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I am astounded the Hon. Member would want to restrict Hon. Members from speaking on such an important issue. I cannot agree to that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I gather there is not unanimous consent.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I am in no way restricting the debate. I am asking that we terminate the debate today so that it will not be talked out, and I am asking that the papers be tabled in the House of Commons. Perhaps Mr. Speaker could seek unanimous consent once again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is there unanimous consent to have the debate terminated five minutes before the hour today?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herb Breau: No, I do not want to restrict Hon. Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: There is not unanimous consent.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this afternoon on the motion for the production of papers concerning the economic impact of the delay of the Alsands project in Fort McMurray, Alberta and the Imperial Oil project in Cold Lake.
I listened to the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) blame the federal Liberals for the collapse of these megaprojects. The Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) condemned the provincial Conservatives in the Province of Alberta for the collapse of these oil projects. I must say that I agree with them both. Not only should the blame be placed upon them for the collapse of these projects, it should also be placed upon the resource giants.
I agree with the Hon. Member for Athabasca that the federal Liberals did not and do not understand the oil industry. As a result they tried to compromise and change their position on many occasions, but they were unsuccessful because of what I believe was a true lack of understanding about the industry.
I do not know why the Conservative Government under the leadership of Premier Lougheed in Alberta was so stubborn in the negotiations to push the projects ahead. They would have been meaningful to all Canadians and provided self-sufficiency in energy by the end of 1990, possibly even sooner. Could it have been that he was tied so closely to the resource companies that he could not allow the projects to go ahead? I do not know. That is a question which remains paramount in my mind.
Returning to the issue of laying blame, the resource giants involved in these megaprojects have always been guaranteed an annual income or income on every project in which they have become involved. The oil industry is a high-risk business. That risk is not only minimized to resource companies; it is almost eliminated. Unless the risk is eliminated they do not want to participate in the marketplace. They want to be guaranteed an annual return on each project in which they participate.
An as alternative to the squabbling which took place, there could have been some public intervention because of the large amount of taxpayer dollars which would have gone into these projects. Sometimes taxpayers receive a nil return in terms of compensation paid to resource companies for projects which did not go ahead. Millions of dollars would have been spent on these projects.
I am keenly interested in this notice of motion for the productions of papers concerning the economic impact of the delay in these projects because my constituency of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake is adjacent to the Alberta border. Many people across Canada, and particularly those in my riding, are affected by the economic benefits of these projects with large capital input into local areas. I know many people who work as labourers in the construction phases. Some small companies have been hurt badly by the collapse of the megaprojects on
September 21, 1983

which the Government relied heavily for creating employment and helping the economy of the country, projects which have now gone astray. Small companies working in the oilpatch were hit harder than others by the collapse of the megaprojects. These companies made plans to expand, to improve and to develop new services which could have been offered in support of the building of the projects. Their plans were ruined and some of them went bankrupt. Many individuals had problems with their families and their companies particularly as a result of the collapse of the Esso Resources project at Cold Lake. Small companies had made plans, worked on their budgets and knew what they would have to charge to make a living and to provide jobs and some security for their employees. Those which survived and remained in the marketplace after the collapse of the projects did so by working for whatever company offered them work.
I see Esso Resources will go ahead with the development at Cold Lake, albeit a much smaller project requiring much less capital and providing fewer jobs than was the case with the initial megaprojects. As was pointed out by an earlier speaker, the original proposal at Cold Lake included the spending of some $12 billion to $14 billion. Now that it is hopefully planned as a phased-in project, in the two initial phases there will be a capital cost of some $300 million or about 40 times less than originally intended.
It is interesting to note that megaprojects seem very efficient and seem to provide a large number of jobs. However, 1 would like to refer to the statistics of Esso Resources included in a book which 1 received on July 6, 1983. They indicate that although Esso is spending 40 times less money in the project at Cold Lake now, the number of jobs has not reduced correspondingly. For example, in the construction stage of the heavy oil plant the initial projection provided for some 8,000 to 10,000 new jobs. Now it will be between 400 and 700 jobs, somewhat under the 40 per cent less of the spending they are projecting. In terms of permanent jobs that will be created by this project, the original plans projected some 2,000 to 3,000 permanent jobs. With the reduced model and the phasing-in proposal, some 90 permanent jobs will be created in the Cold Lake project, again somewhat more corresponding to the 40 times less money they are spending.
The point I am making is that for the dollars spent, more jobs are being created for the people of Canada by Esso Resources phasing-in proposal than would have been created by the number of dollars spent in the large megaproject. I thought that was interesting to point out in the debate this afternoon.
It is significant to note that in the original proposal, it would have taken 10 to 12 years to complete the entire project. With the smaller version coming onstream, it will be four years. That is important because we need these jobs sooner, not later. The sooner we have those jobs, the better it will be for the people of that area as well as for people right across Canada.
Energy
There is something else that has not been mentioned this afternoon on which 1 would like to spend some time, namely the environmental concerns of people living in the project area. Although controls have been put in place and Esso Resources has gone through the proper hearings to have their project approved, 1 ask them publicly to be good corporate citizens as they go ahead with this project and to assure us that the environment that could be affected by such projects will be protected.
The first concern about the environment is the emission of sulphur dioxide, the main component in acid rain. My constituency of Meadow Lake is downwind. Prevailing winds blow from the Cold Lake project across the riding that ! represent, carrying the sulphur dioxide. This may cause future acid rain problems. The northern part of my riding is vulnerable to the effects of acid rain or acid precipitation because it is on the edge on the Pre-Cambrian Shield. The area does not have the ability to withstand the effects as do some agricultural areas to the south. Environment Canada operates an acid precipitation testing station at Cree Lake which monitors the situation very closely. If Esso Resources or any other resource giant is not a good corporate citizen and is not taking care of the environment, we will know that. We would then have to re-evaluate what they do in terms of polluting the environment. I again stress that I very much want them to be good corporate citizens.
There is a second area of environmental concern on which I have received numerous letters from the Village of Pierceland and the rural municipal council of Beaver River. Their concern is the water drained off Cold Lake and the placing of that waste, although will be treated, back into the river systems of the area. The Beaver River system, which runs through a good portion of my riding, affects such places as Goodsoil, Pierceland, Meadow Lake and places down the line. These people are justly concerned about the effects on their water supply and the ecosystems that could be affected by the waste material from the heavy oil plants. There could be an increase of the sewage effluent into the Beaver River system. They are also concerned about the possibility of ground water contamination due to a deep well disposal of waste from the steam injection process which may be used as well.
1 lodge with the House of Commons and my constituents my concern about what could happen to the environment. 1 am sure that all of us, including Esso Resources, do not want anything to happen to the environment. At the same time, 1 appreciate the economic activity created by the projects, creating jobs for many unemployed people, as pointed out by the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), not only in the immediate area but all across Canada. These people will go there to seek jobs and a new future with some stability of employment. There is a great deal of spin-off with small companies which service the resource giants, megaprojects and heavy oil projects. Providing jobs has the benefit of giving dignity to the people and makes their communities better places in which to live.

September 21, 1983
Energy
The only area of disagreement that 1 have with the motion is that I would like to see the tabling of the documents affecting the economy because of the delay in the project. If there are documents that are not public, and I hope the Hon. Member for Athabasca will agree with this, documents which affect environmental safety and the environmental consequences of the project going ahead, I would like to see them tabled in the House of Commons this afternoon. 1 appreciate the opportunity of being allowed to intervene in this debate.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to say a few words in the time remaining on this subject matter. I have had the opportunity of hearing the Hon. Member who initiated this motion on previous occasions at both the committee level and when a number of us on an energy-related committee travelled through his Province. At that time he noted a number of concerns and has since reiterated time and time again how important these developments are, not only for the constituency of Athabasca and the Province of Alberta, but also for the people of Canada.
I would be less than candid if I said 1 agreed with him on that particular score. 1 believe all Members in this House would agree that those projects to which he refers are indeed important. However, all through the debate I have noted an omission; I do not suggest it was intentional, but nevertheless an omission. On each and every occasion that that Member has stood in his place to make reference to those projects, he has always blamed or pointed the finger at the Government of Canada. Never in this House or in committee or in my discussions with him have I heard him raise any doubt or questions about the involvement of the Government of Alberta.
On numerous projects that have come to the forefront, particularly in that Province, there has been discussion, consultation and negotiation between the two levels of government. In terms of Alberta's tar sands and heavy oil deposits, whether it be in the field of pricing, taxation or direct funding, the Government of Canada has done numerous things.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is important that these papers are tabled and I was wondering if you would ask the House for unanimous consent to see if the papers could be tabled-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. That question has already been put to the House and parliamentary practice prevents us from putting the same question twice in the same sitting. In any case, we are off the topic now.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding Order No. 374 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Charles Turner (London East) moved: that Bill C-574, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (n.s.f. cheques), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I feel personally compelled to thank my good friend, Mr. J. Larry Condon, the former Member for the Riding of Middlesex-London-Lambton, who spoke twice in support of my Bill since 1 was then holding the same position you are now holding, Mr. Speaker, and was prohibited from presenting and speaking on Bills.
I know that my former colleague, like all Members of the House, is very concerned about cheque frauds as it affects the consumer, who after all is the one who usually pays the shot because of increased prices of goods. As well, it affects the businessman who cannot afford to lose income because of n.s.f. cheques.
Many variety stores are now owned and operated by couples who have worked very hard at other jobs in order to save enough money to purchase a variety store. They do this so they can become independent and, by choice, work 14 to 16 hours a day in order to make less than a $12,000, $15,000 or $20,000 profit per year. In many cases these variety store owners have steady customers who pay in cash. However, the day comes when a customer is short of cash and the store operator in good faith accepts a cheque for goods purchased. If the cheque is returned marked "n.s.f.", the store operator does not have the time or money to hire a lawyer and lay a fraud charge which, I am told, is very hard to prove. The store operator absorbs the loss which is removed from his yearly profit.
No businessman, big or small, should be forced to take a customer to court to prove that that customer has attempted to defraud him. Surely the responsibility to make the cheque good within a reasonable period of time rests solely with the person who initially wrote the cheque.
This is why included in my Bill is the provision of a period of 15 days after notification by the bank in which to allow the person who wrote the cheque to avoid criminal liability by paying the debt off in full or by making the necessary arrangements to make restitution of the debt. In the event the debt is not paid off within that period, the defrauder would become liable to prosecution in the ordinary way.
September 21, 1983

This provision clearly places the responsibility on the shoulders of the person who has incurred the debt. In my opinion, the person who issued the cheque in the first place should be the one to prove that he was not trying to purchase goods by false pretence. If a person purchases goods by passing counterfeit bills or currency, is it not true that the police can be called and charges laid, Mr. Speaker? What is the difference between bad bills and bad cheques?
As an elected Member of Parliament for the riding of London East, I have for many years visited businessmen in their establishments who inform me that cheque fraud through the use of personal cheques has risen drastically during the past few years. Virtually every gas station, variety store, drugstore, etc., has displayed signs which point out that all services and merchandise must be paid for in cash, no cheques accepted. If the customer asks the proprietor why this is so, he or she will be shown a stack of n.s.f. cheques which have been passed to the merchant months or weeks before. This clearly indicates to me that something is wrong with our system.
For example, a furniture dealer recently advised me that he sold $3,000 worth of furniture to a customer and that furniture was paid for by cheque. The furniture was delivered the next day. The customer stopped payment on the cheque. To further make my point, another case involved gas stations that serviced trucks which hauled scrap metal from Windsor to Hamilton. At that time, some gasoline station owners allowed customers to pay their accounts by cheque. However, one of the drivers presented a $4,000 cheque to pay for the gas he had purchased with a credit card. The owner of the station got in touch with is customer's bank manager in Toronto who assured him that the account was good. A few days later, the cheque was returned n.s.f. The owner went to the police, to lawyers and to the courts and still received no justice because the incident was not considered to be one of obtaining goods by false pretence. I do not care what the lawyers say, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion, this method of business practice is totally dishonest and should not be tolerated.
It seems to me that the part of the Code under consideration, in its application and operation if not in its wording, puts Canadian businessmen and merchants through a great deal of unnecessary legal expense in an attempt to recover payment for bad cheques which were issued for nothing more than payment for goods owned by the merchants in the first place. The primary purpose of this Bill is to try to improve the present law so as better to protect the small businessmen, landlords and citizens who suffer most from receiving n.s.f. cheques. In the past, recipients of n.s.f. cheques have had no other recourse but to go to small claims court or the criminal law courts in an attempt to recover the money lost.
There are many good reasons for which people write bad cheques. In some cases, it is an honest error on the part of the drawer of the cheque, and in most instances he will redeem the worthless cheque promptly after notification that his cheque was dishonoured. In such cases, full payment or even an arrangement to pay on terms is sufficient evidence to indicate
Criminal Code
that the drawer of the cheque did not commit fraud as would otherwise appear to be the case.
During the past many years, those who have suffered most from n.s.f. cheques have been the small businessmen who on knowing the person and seeing that person-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, with all respect to the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Turner), I believe he is reading his speech. I believe it is against the rules of the House for a Member to read his speech.


Charles Robert Turner: -with the intention of paying the bill, took the word of that person as indicated by a piece of paper which indicates to the businessman receiving it that money is available when the cheque goes through the normal banking process.
Some people who make out such cheques have absolutely no intention of honouring them. Certainly the present law is not strong enough to protect the recipients of such cheques, and this has caused many problems.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Chair thought that perhaps the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Turner) would have wanted to reply to the comment made by the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. The Chair, of course, cannot participate in a debate, but from my point of view I was under the impression that the Hon. Member was referring extensively to the notes for his speech. Whether he was in fact reading directly from his notes or not is not for the Chair to judge, and certainly not from this distance. In any case, the Hon. Member for London East has the floor.


Charles Robert Turner: Thank you, Sir. I was just reading from a note.
As an example, a person who intends to rent an apartment often pays the rent in advance by writing three or four post-dated cheques. If the landlord advises the tenant that the first cheque has bounced, the tenant should have the idea that he will be put out on the street. However, due to the provisions of the Ontario Landlords and Tenants Act, he cannot be put out on the street during the months of October, November and December. This puts the landlord in the position of having to house the tenant for free. The landlord cannot collect the rent to which he is entitled without engaging in costly court proceedings. Usually he has to go to court.
Another vital problem we all find is when a person purchases goods. In the past, all governments have made an attempt to assist small businessmen and help them take the opportunity to expand and develop their businesses. But the latter has been restricted by the law under which it is possible for people to pay for their purchases by cheque. The small businessman depends on the local person to walk in, examine his goods and pay cash for the goods. This allows the business-

Criminal Code
man to buy more goods, thus creating more jobs in making his products. When he makes more sales this increases his assets, thus expanding his business.
I think we have a moral as well as a legal obligation to protect businessmen and workers, such as the Maislin workers who were issued cheques which the banks would not honour when the cheques were first presented to the banks. Many hard-working people have lost pay money when their pay cheques were marked "NSF" and the company had gone into receivership. Our criminal law provides no satisfaction for the merchant, the landlord or the worker because the law does not provide automatic repayment of n.s.f. cheques.
Let us be honest about this n.s.f. cheque law because the present law does not deter others from committing the same kind of crime. The law is viewed at the present time as a licence to steal from our businessmen. These same offenders walk down the street using the argument that "if 1 can beat the system and get away with it, why not?"
French law certainly treats this as an offence and the severity of the punishment depends solely on the amount of money involved. The fraud is considered very serious. If the n.s.f. cheque is between $200 and $700, the penalty is from one to five years and a fine between $720 and $7,200. Some residents of Canada may think that this is harsh but every Member of this House has heard of cases where five years would be too lenient in an n.s.f. cheque case. Surely, Mr. Speaker, our business people, merchants, landlords and workers should have the best protection of the law which would prevent financial suffering through the loss of hundreds of dollars each year. We have been told that all credit card companies suffer millions of dollars loss annually from people who work the system. I ask you, is it not true that if n.s.f. cheques and credit card frauds were eliminated by a tough law, our Canadian cost of products and living would drop drastically?
The only altenative to cash for consumers is the use of the credit card. The risk of this form of credit is assumed by the bank, oil company or department store which issues the card and the cost of that risk is paid by all customers whether they use such a card or pay cash.
Nor has the merchant been slow to see the use of credit cards. He has learned that credit customers purchase 33 per cent more than cash customers because credit customers, unlike those who write personal cheques, are not compelled to determine whether or not they can cover the cost of the purchase from their available funds. Is it not correct to assume that credit card customers are merely putting a mortgage on their future income? Therefore, for the sake of counterfeit cheque writers, we are forcing the ordinary consumer to purchase on credit, to become a debtor, and too often a bad debtor who gets in debt over his head and loses everything. Is this what we want or are we prepared to put some larger and stronger teeth into the present law against cheque frauds before cheques disappear altogether?
Banks are endeavouring to get all their customers to use their new electronic machines, but recently we have been
September 21, 1983
advised by the news media that fraud artists have been taking money out of these machines from customers' accounts. In Vancouver recently $800 was taken in this way.
No matter how we look at the offence, or whatever the amount of the cheque, the elements of the offence are the same. First, issuance of the cheque; second, lack of funds at the moment of issue; and third, bad faith of the author of the cheque.
Just what is bad faith, you might ask. Bad faith does not suppose even the intention to cheat or defraud. It does not necessarily mean that the person who wrote the cheque knew there were insufficient funds. French courts assume that a person writing a cheque has a duty-and, Mr. Speaker, I agree-to know the state of his account, and therefore bad faith may be proven in the case of a person who, in doubt of his situation, writes a cheque without taking the precaution of verifying the state of his account. I do not think that is too hard to accept.
In France if the amount involved is less than $200, the offence is considered a breach of regulations. Not only is the punishment less severe, but the bad cheque speaks for the bad faith of the author of the cheque and off he goes to jail for writing a cheque without checking his bank balance. Mr. Speaker, this places the responsibility where it belongs-right on the cheque writer.
I understand that penal legislation concerning cheques is often temporarily altered because the courts are clogged with writers of n.s.f. cheques waiting for their turn in jail. If there is a surplus of n.s.f. cases, a period of ten days is allowed the author of the bad cheque from the time of the issuance of the cheque, during which he could make repayment. Thus a person who pays up is able to escape jail but is still liable to the payment of the fine. By contrast, Bill C-574 allows the cheque counterfeiter and any bad bookkeeper alike 15 days to pay what is owed, as evidence that they did not obtain something of value under false pretences. Anyone who believes that this treatment is too harsh should state why a Canadian crook deserves better treatment than a French fraud artist.
For the sake of the consumer in the marketplace and every merchant with whom he deals and who could, if he was not defrauded by these sharp cheque operators, lower the price of his saleable goods, I strongly suggest that there is a great need for a plain and simple Canadian law. It should identify and eliminate cheque counterfeiters and allow the police to bring about the evidence and allow prosecution by the Crown without requiring the businessman, the merchant, the landlord, or the little fellow in business, to weigh the cost and the benefit of trying to collect payments on account of bad cheques.
Let us as Canadians give the Canadian businessman the protection he justly deserves-the elimination of taking the n.s.f. cheque artist to court to collect his money if he can place the responsibility solely on the cheque artist and make him pay his bills or serve the consequences in jail or pay a heavy fine.
In my view the proposed Bill would provide and update such a law. I heartily support it and suggest that the Bill be passed
September 21, 1983

and that Hon. Members agree the subject matter be referred to the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to my friend, the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Turner), 1 am not too sure what side of the question he is on. His whole speech-which he read-inveighed against the bad cheque writer and all the harm he does. Yet the amendment that was proposed would open the gates to far more cheque fraud.
I do not know what the Hon. Member is driving at. When an offence is committed by the issuance of a cheque for which there are no funds or not sufficient funds, the police recognize the difficulty of successful prosecution, particularly where small amounts are involved. There must be an intent to commit fraud. Then if the payee temporizes with the fraudulent payor by an extension of time to pay the cheque, that converts it into a commercial debt and there is no more criminal element to it. That is the difficulty.
Subsection 320(1) of the Criminal Code provides:
Every one commits an offence who (a) by a false pretence, whether directly or through the medium of a contract obtained by a false pretence, obtains anything in respect of which the offence of theft may be committed or causes it to be delivered to another person;-
You can commit a theft with regard to money or goods; you cannot commit a theft of services. It goes on:
(b)	obtains credit by a false pretence or by fraud;-
That is the person who fails to pay his hotel account or his motel account, and I look here at my good friend, the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass). It continues:
(c)	knowingly makes or causes to be made, directly or indirectly, a false statement in writing with intent that it should be relied upon-
Well, one can almost get into a cheque there, but let us go down to the reference to obtaining delivery of personal property. Well, that is a suit. The payment of money, yes. Go into a bank, credit union or what have you and obtain some money by issuing a bad cheque. I can commit an offence by writing a cheque for which there are insufficient funds and giving it to a person who has sought a loan from me. Instead of giving that person cash I give them a cheque for which there are not sufficient funds. That is to establish the debt. There may be some money in the account, but if I issue a cheque for $1,000 because a friend asks me for a loan of $1,000, I enter into a contract with him that he owes me $1,000 on a particular date. Then he cannot obtain any money for it so there is a false pretence.
Then, Mr. Speaker, there is the discount of an account receivable. Oh, that is a good one! My friend, the Hon. Member for London East, must know that in dealing particularly with small service businesses quite often individuals will run up accounts. They may owe $75 and they come along and say to the chap: "If you will take $60 I will give you a cheque for it; give me a discount." That is a false pretence.
Criminal Code
Then there is the making, accepting, discounting or endorsing of a bill of exchange, cheque, draft or promissory note. That is the narrow application the Hon. Member wishes to consider in this Bill. This would be an indictable offence and that is serious. The person would be liable to imprisonment for ten years.
It has been my experience, Mr. Speaker, that this business of writing bad cheques means a loss either to the bank, the credit union or the cheque cashing agency if they are unable to charge it back to the payee of the cheque or the person who deposits the cheque in an account. Such cases run into the millions of dollars. If you are going to be so solicitous of the so-called little guy, giving him an extra 15 days to make good his cheque, what about the professional swindler who is a real bouncer of cheques? He is long gone at the end of 15 days. In this day and age an individual could go around bouncing cheques here in Ottawa to the tune of several thousands of dollars, and if my friend's amendment were to go through, which I hope it will not, nor even be considered any further with all due respect, the victim could find out the cheque was bad the same day or the next morning and yet according to this amendment there would be 15 days' grace after which a charge could be laid if the cheque were still unpaid. Well, in this day and age I think I could be lost in the Himalayas within 15 days. I could be in the centre of Africa or up the Amazon River in the jungle. In other words, absolutely long gone and no one could reach me because of this amendment. So 1 do not see it at all.
Where there is a bad cheque from an individual who rents a room, an apartment or a house, there is a small debt court available. No one is going to tell me that is a very difficult procedure. There are no lawyers, the fees are very low and that is recoverable as a civil debt. There is no criminal charge involved.
1 think my colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), who has had years of experience as a Crown prosecutor, knows that the police are very chary of persons who, in laying complaints about bad cheques, are trying to use the criminal court as a collection agency. Therefore, they say: "Go to the small debt court," because it is so very difficult to prove that at a certain instant there was not sufficient money. If there was sufficient money in the account at the time the cheque was written, that is a defence. If the individual who wrote the bad chque expected to receive money which he or she could deposit in the account to cover the particular cheque that was being written, that is a defence.
However, in this day and age of less than the Pony Express for a Post Office, there is a very serious situation concerning cheques on which people rely. How many people receive their monthly pension cheque, dividend cheque or retirement cheque by post with varying degrees of deliverability? They have issued cheques to their landlords for utilities and what have you.

September 21, 1983
Criminal Code
Therefore, this question involving cheque fraud is a very serious one. Both are defences and the Act already provides for those and for small debt action. Therefore, I do not see what the benefit of the amendment would be, with all due respect to the Hon. Member for London East, but it is an open sesame for the professional cheque bouncer, the fraud artist. Lord only knows the untold millions of dollars that are fleeced each year here in Canada and in the United States.
I know that the judges in the United States take a much tougher view concerning bad cheques than they do here in Canada. I know of many cases of Alberta citizens who were caught somewhere down in the States bouncing cheques, and not necessarily big ones, perhaps a few hundred dollars, and they finished up doing five years at McNeil Island. They were as regular as clockwork. Five years seemed to be about the minimum sentence for a cheque involving $300 or $400. That may be a little strong but, on the other hand, it is still a penalty.
I do not agree with the purport of the amendment. I would therefore ask the House to talk it out or reject it.
[ Translation]


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-574 is a step in the right direction. Its purpose is to give people who have written a bad cheque an opportunity to make it good after the fact. Such a provision would encourage people to pay their debts, make it easier to find a genuine and effective solution to the problem, and acknowledge the fact that the person who has been given a bad cheque needs the payment and is entitled to it. Looking further still, I consider that a reform such as the Bill before us today paves the way for a more balanced criminal law. Generally speaking, Canada's criminal law is too harsh when it comes to nonviolent crimes and offences. We need legislative and executive reforms. Police forces must spend more time investigating-


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Would Your Honour clarify the matter? I believe the Hon. Member is reading her speech. 1 do not believe we are entitled to read speeches in the House of Commons.


Maurice Dupras: I rise on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time this afternoon that the Hon. Member has risen on this question. I wish to inform my colleagues that in deference to the Hon. Member, who is reading a speech in French, I think the same deference would be shown to any Hon. Members who have the sense to read a speech in the other language of this country. I think she should be allowed to read her speech, her notes, in French.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Does the Hon. Member for Bow River rise on the same point of order?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think if that is what we want, we should change the rules. If we are to have a rule for
one, that we do not read a speech, let us have the same rule for everyone. If the Hon. Member wants us to read our speeches, then let us change the rules.


Maurice Dupras: On the same point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. 1 do not think we should engage in a protracted debate on this point or order. The Chair would invite the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood to respond to the point of order if she so pleases.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that greater latitude is allowed when one is not using one's mother tongue. 1 would hope, in due course, to be able to give extensive speeches in French without grammatical errors. I am not in the position to do so now and I would hope that I would be permitted to continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Certainly it is the Chair's intention to allow the Hon. Member to continue her speech. However, the Chair should remind all Hon. Members that there are frequent, if not numerous, occasions in the House when Hon. Members from both sides, if they do not inspire themselves from texts, certainly quote extensively from texts. Certainly, it is not for the Chair to decide to what extent an Hon. Member is quoting, looking at notes or reading directly, but that practice has been tolerated more and more in this institution. Perhaps it is an ancient rule, an ancient tradition to which the Hon. Member who raised the point of order referred, but over the years the practice has fallen by the wayside to quite some extent. The Chair has tolerated extensive references to written or prepared texts. We see it happening every day. In any case, perhaps we could allow the debate to proceed.


Lynn McDonald: Police forces must spend more time investigating serious criminal activities such as assaults, child abuse, outright business frauds, and driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. The sentences should reflect the seriousness of such crimes. At the same time, people should no longer be sent to jail for petty crimes and minor offences. In those cases, the sentences are costlier than the crimes and the taxpayers have to pick up the tab.

This is a very good Bill. It is a short Bill. It is a modest Bill. It is such an excellent idea that I wonder why it has not been thought of before. It does two things at the same time. First, it actually encourages people to honour their debts, their bad cheques.
I think the remarks of the previous Conservative speaker were quite fanciful. The possibilities he mentioned were extremely remote concerning professional criminals taking advantage of an amendment of this sort. As a professional sociologist and criminologist, 1 can tell the House that a far more likely occurrence would be that a large number of lesser criminals or people who, through some error, have given out

September 21, 1983

cheques without adequate funds in the bank would in fact pay up. It would mean that people would be paid. The real victims, small family companies, variety stores, the sort of people who very much miss the money denied to them as a result of bad cheques, would be helped by the amendment before us today.
The second reason I support this amendment is that it attempts to scale down the criminal law in the non-violent area. We have a criminal law in Canada which has very repressive means of enforcement. This means that many people go to jail for trivial and non-violent offences for which the taxpayers must pay enormous costs. There are people who go to jail in some cases for theft of a dollar or very trivial amounts of money. It costs up to $75 a day, depending upon the institution. It costs enormous amounts of money to keep them in prison. It is a stupid way to run a system.
There are people who are real victims, such as battered wives, abused children and the many people who are hit by impaired drivers on the road. They are the real victims of violence and do not receive the attention they need in the criminal justice system because it is going after many smaller offenders. There needs to be a fine-tuning of the system with greater severity where there are real dangers and less severity where the dangers are not so great.
I suggest that we ought to pass this Bill today. While we will be seeing far more comprehensive amendments, like comprehensive amendments everywhere they take longer to pass and who knows when we will be actually seeing them. While I want more comprehensive amendments to the Criminal Code, I am quite prepared to support any good measure that is introduced in the meantime. Let us take a step in the right direction and pass this Bill this afternoon.


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, 1 share the difficulty that the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has in seeing how this Bill would produce the effect hoped for by the Member for London East (Mr. Turner). 1 agree with him when he says that this amendment would in all likelihood open the gates to far more cheque fraud and therefore have the opposite effect from that intended by the Hon. Member for London East.
In his comments he drew to the attention of the House that the use of cheque fraud has increased in recent years. He referred to the plight of many variety store owners and the fact that many gas stations today do not accept cheques because of difficulties that have occurred in the past. He said that this proposal would place responsibility where it belongs, on the cheque writer. Again, I have difficulty in seeing how this would happen.
It seems to me that his proposal would have a contrary effect. At the present time, an offence under Section 320 is committed when a person purchases goods or offers in payment a cheque which he knows to be worthless. Some of us have had the opportunity to study law. We know what the
Criminal Code
concept of mens rea, or a guilty mind, is about. To be guilty of an offence under many sections of the Criminal Code, one has to know that one is committing a crime at the time it is being committed. It used to be very difficult to obtain a conviction under these circumstances with this particular section of the Criminal Code because it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused knew that there were not sufficient funds in his account at the time he gave the cheque. That is obviously a very difficult thing to do.
An ordinary citizen who normally has a couple of hundred dollars in an account may issue a cheque, as we all do, and make a miscalculation or expect a certain cheque to arrive in the mail to cover the amount of the cheque he wrote. He certainly can use arguments of this nature very easily to say that he felt that he had sufficient funds in his account at the time he issued the cheque. It is very difficult for the prosecution or anyone else to contradict an ordinary citizen under these circumstances.
Therefore, an amendment was introduced to what is now subsection 320(4) to cast the burden of proof on the accused that, when issuing the cheque, he had reasonable grounds for believing it would be honoured if presented for payment within a reasonable time.
In simple language, the ordinary citizen has the burden to prove to a court that when he issued the cheque he thought he had the funds in his account. Again, this was to avoid the necessity of providing that at the time the cheque was issued the accused knew that there were insufficient funds on deposit or no funds that would be placed in the account shortly. It was a means for the Crown to establish the guilty knowledge in the mind of the accused which is required for conviction.
The accused may simply rebut this presumption by establishing that at the time he wrote the cheque he had every reason to believe that it would be honoured by his bank. The proposal that is presented by the Member for London East is that a retail establishment, such as a variety store or gas station, would be required under this proposal to give credit, in essence, for a period of at least 15 days from the date upon which the person who wrote the cheque was notified by mail that the cheque was dishonoured. By the time the cheque was deposited in the retailer's account, refused by the bank upon which it is drawn and notification sent to the cheque writer, the total period of grace might be 30 days or more. In practice we know that retailers often provide such a grace period to a person to make good on a bad or n.s.f. cheque before taking action, such as reporting the matter to the police. Most retailers would be happy to extend such a privilege to an ordinary citizen and therefore accomplish the kind of result that the Hon. Member is seeking.
However, there are cases in which prompt action is required to apprehend the truly criminal offender. I agree with the Hon. Member for Edmonton West that an amendment of this nature would open the gates to far more cheque fraud. It would place an impediment in the way of prompt police action to protect other merchants or individuals from being victimized by persons issuing n.s.f. cheques on purpose.

September 21, 1983
Criminal Code
On a point of principle, the effect of this amendment would be inconsistent with the purpose of Section 320. Can we really justify saying to the public that it does not matter whether they knowingly have any funds on account to cover their cheque as long as they made it good within 15 days of being notified by the bank that it was dishonoured?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2( 1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, September 22, 1983