1985-04-03

Mr. Alfonso Cagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, last summer, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was seeking a mandate for "jobs, jobs, jobs". He told Canadians that tens of thousands of jobs would be created as soon as his Cabinet was sworn in.
That was six months ago, and what do we have now? No subsidies, plants are closing down and thousands of jobs have been lost. The list of projects dropped by the Progressive Conservative Government is getting longer every day. In Quebec, the situation is disastrous. People are afraid to read the paper because another plant might be about to close its doors, leading to more unemployment, as was the case with Melchers, Domtar, Wabasso, Oxysynthese, the Sherbrooke Mapping Institute and eleven plants in the Eastern Townships.
I wonder why Progressive Conservative Members, including those from Quebec, rise in the House to applaud the Prime Minister every time he smiles. From the back benches it sometimes looks like a Muppet Show.


THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it seems that nobody wants the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) any more. Liberals in Quebec do not want him. Just yesterday, Quebec Liberal Leader Robert Bourassa said, "Thanks, but no thanks" to his offer of active support in the next Quebec election. It would seem that the Leader of the Quebec Liberals would rather lunch with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) than with the Leader of the national Liberal Party.
Now it seems, Mr. Speaker, that even you are about to give the Liberal Leader the old heave ho. Today, Nicole Bosley was quoted in the press as saying that the right hon. gentleman has
overstayed his welcome at Kingsmere, the official residence of the Speaker of the House of Commons. "It's a matter of being firm and putting your foot down", she said. She went on to say that she wants you to tell the Leader of the Opposition: "Please leave, Mr. Turner. We have been very patient".
But wait, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition has said that he cannot move into Stornoway until yet another round of renovations is completed. The Department of Public Works yesterday released figures to show that these renovations ordered by the Leader of the Opposition and his wife are going to cost the Canadian taxpayers over $500,000; including $85,000 for a new kitchen, $31,750 for new wallpaper and paint, $112,210 for new woodwork, and $600 for a closet for their silver. Perhaps someone should tell the Right Hon. Member that he is moving into Stornoway and not Buckingham Palace.
Perhaps we could all take up a collection for the Leader of the Opposition so that he could afford to move into temporary lodgings-maybe the Holiday Inn. If he cannot afford that, perhaps we would consider buying a tent and setting it up on the front lawn of the Parliament Buildings. Then he might at least learn some humility.
I can only hope that all those people who are unemployed across Canada are watching today and can see how the Leader of the Liberal Party is spending their money.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, on March 24 an American officer, Major Arthur Nicholson, was shot in East Germany by a Soviet soldier. With this in mind, we must reflect on the Yalta Agreement made 40 years ago. This agreement resulted in the division of Europe into two hostile blocs. It set the stage for the cold war and marked the beginning of mounting tension in Europe.
The only thing this agreement achieved was a spread of communism world-wide, and 40 years of military threat. As this House is aware, we still have no security in Europe; great armies still face one another; Germany remains divided, and 125 million Eastern Europeans still face a life of Soviet domination.
As a free nation, we must recognize and encourage the Soviet Union to cease the continued denial of self determination and sovereign independence to so many historic European nations. That is a basic right laid down by the United Nations.

April 3, 1985
We must also encourage the participants in the Yalta Agreement to recognize and repudiate that agreement and then, can the 40 years of unjustice cease? At that time we might begin to see the beginning of a new era, an era of true peace in the world, without tension, where nations are truly free.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, the appointment last month of the Hon. William Davis as special envoy for acid rain abatement is welcome news for the people of Canada. I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) has demonstrated environmental concern and wisdom by naming the former Premier of Ontario to this important position. Mr. Davis has the high profile and sterling reputation needed to confer with officials in the United States.
As the Chairman of the new Subcommittee on Acid Rain, I hope Mr. Davis will meet with us in Ottawa in the near future to create a unified front. Acid rain negotiations with the United States require a great deal of diplomacy and tact, and our country now has the ideal vehicle for that purpose.
The appointment of Bill Davis as envoy is further proof that the Government is waging war against acid precipitation. In fact this Government has done more for our environment in the past two months than others accomplished in their entire terms. Never in the history of Canada has so much been done to achieve acid rain abatement. We welcome Bill Davis as an integral part of our contemporary program to save the environment.
The priorities before the Government are clear cut. The future will not control us; we will control the future.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has been appointing a Tory every three hours since it came to power on September 4. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) keeps telling Canadians that he is proud of his appointments.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: I can see that Conservative Members of the House seem to be equally as proud. If the Prime Minister is so proud, why does he always wait to make his deluge of appointments on the last hour, late on Friday afternoon, when there is no one left in Parliament Buildings except the person who is issuing the press releases?
Can we expect the Prime Minister to announce another deluge of appointments tomorrow afternoon, that the Easter Bunny will lay yet another golden egg, and that Tory faithful who have been patiently waiting in line to get to the trough will be able to "oink" with joy after getting their promised appointments?


COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, before returning to our ridings some of us will have the opportunity to attend the ACTRA Awards tonight, the only cultural awards in the world named after the creative people themselves, through their union, ACTRA.
Yet, with the Government's cut-back approach to cultural expenditure, especially for the CBC, we must wonder how many excellent programs will be produced next year.
The Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) will be announcing his broadcasting policy review next week when the House is not sitting.
As arts and culture critic for the NDP caucus, I share the concern of the arts community, and indeed of a considerable cross-section of the Canadian public, that this review be genuinely open to public participation; include men and women of vision and knowledgeable of broadcasting, from all political Parties and regions, in both official languages; and invite the participation of the creative community, individually and through their unions and professional associations. This review should consider ways to stimulate and require more quality Canadian programming in the private networks and stations, address the real funding needs of the CBC, especially for long term planning, and consider the desirability of moving to commercial-free public broadcasting.
Excellence in broadcasting requires excellence in funding; our artists have had too excellent an acquaintance with poverty for too long. The Government must realize that the arts community will be judging the Government's performance, its excellence or otherwise, in May when it brings down its first Budget.


TERRORISM
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak out in support of the Armenian community of Canada. They are 50,000 strong, and are making a real contribution to the growth of our country.
April 3, 1985

The abhorrent bomb threat in Toronto earlier this week deeply disturbed and outraged the Armenian community. They joined their fellow Canadians in condemning such cowardly and inhumane threats. As the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) reminded Members of this House on Monday of this week, the leaders of the Armenian community have offered a $25,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the individuals responsible.
I have had the opportunity to get to know many men, women, and children in the Armenian community. They are Canadians first, because they have chosen to live in this great country, but they also have a rich cultural heritage and are justifiably proud of their roots. So I know, Mr. Speaker, Canadians will want to join me in prayerfully supporting members of this fine community of Canada during this their critical period of need.


WESTERN ACCORD-ANTICIPATED BENEFITS IN ONTARIO
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, our Government's agreement with the western oil producing provinces, the Western Accord, is good for Canada, good for the Province of Ontario, and good for my riding of York East.
The Western Accord has two key elements. First, by eliminating a number of federal oil and gas taxes, including the Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax, the Petroleum Compensation Charge, and the Canadian Ownership Special Charge, the cost of gasoline at the fuel pumps should fall and consumers should reap the benefit of lower prices. Second, it is designed to stimulate investment and create jobs, hopefully some 225,000 jobs by 1990. Many of those jobs will be created right in my own riding of York East because there are some 63 companies in my riding that supply the petroleum industry.
The main concern of Canadians is jobs. The best way to stimulate investment and create jobs is by cutting taxes, and that is exactly what the Western Accord does.

[ Translation]


TOURISM
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, only a few days ago, the Quebec Minister of Tourism criticized the attitude taken by the federal Minister of Tourism (Mr. McMillan).
According to the Quebec Minister, "Mr. McMillan's visit to Quebec is inappropriate and constitutes an intrusion in our tourism milieu." He also said that the report Tourism Tomorrow is based on incorrect data and fails to consider Quebec's unique characteristics as far as tourism is concerned. This
implies that the federal Minister, who for weeks has been talking about consultation and nothing else, forgot to consult the provincial Ministers before publishing his controversial report on tomorrow's tourism.
In addition to telling the provinces and the tourist industry that they had been doing it all wrong in recent years, in addition to giving an extremely negative picture of the present situation in the tourist industry in Canada, and ignoring the agreements concluded at the Moncton meeting which provided that federal strategies on tourism were to complement measures taken by the provinces, in addition to all that, the Minister has started unilateral consultations.
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government's role is not to destroy what has been built up but to give the tourist industry the means to develop its potential.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS GOVERNMENT POSITION-ECONOMIC BENEFITS
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention an historic event highlighting relations between the Governments of Canada and Quebec, the first agreement ever between the two Governments specifically concerning the development of cultural facilities.
Canada's Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) has announced a $20 million contribution to cultural endeavours, namely the expansion of the Museum of Fine Arts, and the establishment of a cinema and television international city. This agreement stems from the Progressive Conservative Government's consultation and concertation process, and is a concrete measure inspired by confidence and reconciliation.
Agreements with the provinces will henceforth be possible because our Government does not act unilaterally. The proposed expansion of Montreal's Museum of Fine Arts will make it a world-wide attraction, therefore the most important institution of its kind in Canada.
The development of those two cultural institutions is very likely to have significant economic benefits.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, since February 4 I have been very involved with a broadly-based community group trying to reverse the arbitrary decision by Canada Post to close the National Postal Museum. I regret that for two months our efforts to gain Canada Post's co-oper-

April 3, 1985
Ora! Questions
ation have been rebuffed. Today, however, we held a constructive meeting with Judge Rene Marin, Chairman of Canada Post. Our group included Mayor Marion Dewar and Aider-man Holmes of the City of Ottawa, Shirley Carr and Ron Lang of the Canadian Labour Congress, the President of the Royal Philatelic Society of Canada, and Mr. Ian Kimmerley, a well-known stamp dealer and journalist.
A number of positive decisions have come from this meeting, although Canada Post was not prepared to reconsider its decision concerning the 14 museum employees whose lay-off notices expire May 2.
The City, Canada Post, the NCC and the Department of Public Works will meet to talk about potential sites for the National Postal Museum. Our group, hopefully with the participation of Canada Post, will seek to meet with you, Mr. Speaker, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), to try to continue the National Postal Museum in its present location until permanent quarters are found. We will meet again with Judge Marin in a month.
The attendance at this meeting is a sign of the broad public support which is developing for the National Postal Museum. I urge the Government and Canada Post to respond to that display of public support. I hope my fellow Members of Parliament and you, Mr. Speaker, will co-operate to see whether we can keep the National Postal Museum on Wellington Street just long enough until it can move into new, permanent quarters.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The oil agreement does not set a target date for bringing Canadian ownership up to 50 per cent. Why are the interests of foreign-controlled companies more important than those of companies controlled by Canadians? Why have specific benefits previously available to Canadian oil companies disappeared from the new oil accord?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, first let me point out a distortion in the House yesterday. Since then, Duncan Allan, the Deputy Minister of Energy of Ontario, says that his position was distorted, that the position is that the Accord offers great potential for Ontario, indeed for all of Canada, not only in lower oil and gas prices for the consumers in this province-


Some Hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -but in the investment and industrial activity that will subsequently flow. There is nothing in that agreement-


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Minister is not answering the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -that can be said to be adverse to Ontario's interest.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In specific response to the-


Don Boudria: What is he going to be appointed to over the weekend?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Give us a chance. In response to the specific question of the Leader of the Opposition, he will note that there is a provision whereby Canadian exploration and Canadian development expenses of companies can be applied against the PGRT in the event that they do not have taxable income. As the Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, Canadian companies are the ones which do not normally have taxable income, so they will benefit very clearly by this provision in the energy agreement.


CANADIAN OWNERSHIP ISSUE
John Napier Turner: Your Honour will note that the Minister bootlegged in a statement which he wanted to make that had nothing to do with the question. I have known Duncan Allan a long time, and I am sure he must have had his arm twisted right out of his socket this morning to get that particular answer for the Minister. I take the initial reaction of the Deputy Minister of Energy for Ontario when he spoke spontaneously in reaction to this oil deal.
Let me pursue the matter further. Article 7 of the oil deal gives no preference at all to the Canadianization elements of the former National Energy Program, nor does it move toward 50 per cent ownership of the oil and gas industry. Why is it that this particular deal sacrifices the primary interest of the independent Canadian oil industry to the multinationals?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, first might I ask whether the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is saying that Duncan Allan is not an honourable man, that he is-


John Napier Turner: Oh, no.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -being forced to say things that he doesn't agree with? He was misquoted, and now he has stated very clearly the position that he was going to take.
April 3, 1985

In response to the question of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, this Party needs no lessons in Canadianization. It was in 1977 that the Conservative Opposition stated as a specific objective of its energy policy that it wanted to see 50 per cent of the industry owned by Canadian companies. That is a policy that we stand by. This energy accord fully supports that. As my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, has said on many occasions, we are committed to achieving that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CREATION OF JOBS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, on a reading of that oil deal, that is not what it says. I can understand Mr. Allan having one isolated quote misinterpreted, but not a whole column of a story in The Toronto Star.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Not a whole column.
Perhaps the Minister of Finance, in his bootlegging mood, would like to explain to the House where the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources got that alleged list of jobs that were going to flow from this agreement. She cited from it spontaneously. Is that list going to be tabled in the House? Will the Minister table that, or has that list mysteriously disappeared to save the credibility of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? More than that, have the studies that his own Department is making on how consumer taxes ought to be placed on gasoline at the pump in order to make up the difference lost by the Treasury as a result of this oil deal to the multinational companies mysteriously disappeared, to preserve the honour of the Government of Ontario?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, surely the Right Hon. Member is not reading just The Toronto Star for this type of information. Surely he understands that there are other objective sources of information than one column in The Toronto Star. Let me read to him from the Economic Council, surely a very objective observer:
The impact of deregulating oil and natural gas prices without other changes in taxation or royalties was simulated. Based on this assessment, we concluded that as many as 100,000 jobs might be created. The Council also simulated various possible tax changes.
It goes on to say:
It is difficult to make precise comparisons, but it is well known that tax cuts usually have a stimulative effect.
In other words, it is saying that there are more than 100,000 jobs that were referred to in the previous work.


John Napier Turner: How about the 300 and
225?
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Maybe the 300 and 225 will be there as a result of the agreement. This did not take account of the agreement that was signed last week. This only called for 100,000 jobs. If the Right Hon. Member is patient, maybe we will serve him up the 100,000 or 200,000 jobs more than this.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister and sometimes Minister of Defence. Today in the daily newspapers around Canada, the Prime Minister is sharing top billing with a major defence contractor, extolling the vitues of increased defence expenditures for job creation. Furthermore, this defence contractor is presently in the bidding for a major defence contract. We would all understand and agree that not only is it improper for the Prime Minister to be lending his support to a company that is presently bidding for a contract, but it is a terribly insensitive act at a time when many Canadians are concerned about the proposed involvement of the Government in research in the star wars program of the United States.
Did the Prime Minister know about this ad? Did he or anybody in his office give approval for this ad to appear? In fact, is this ad part of a government program to get the defence industry to promote its interest in getting more heavily involved in defence contract work with the United States?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Did you ask that kind of question in the State Legislature in Florida?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say how happy I am to see the Hon. Member back in the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Tanned and fit.


Erik Nielsen: Tanned at least. He looks a great deal healthier than I am.
In direct response to the Hon. Member's question, let me read to him a telegram from Ronald R. Keating, President of Litton Systems Canada Limited, which I received late this morning.


John Napier Turner: You have been busy this morning.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, indeed I have. The telegram reads:
This is to confirm that the advertisement placed by Litton in today's Globe and Mail and Ottawa Citizen was done without the permission or consent of the Prime Minister's Office or any of his staff.
Yours truly, Ronald R. Keating.

April 3, 1985
Oral Questions BIDDING ON CONTRACT


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Minister I would say that I hope that he will take advantage of the next few days to acquire the same healthy point of view that I have been able to acquire in the last week or so.
Let me return to the point, because it is a serious matter. I think it reflects what is happening in the country as the Government moves toward its so-called economic stimulus through defence expenditure. Under this contract there is still a short list of some two to four bidders. Because this points toward a very clear conflict of interest and puts into jeopardy the whole process by which bidding on this contract would be decided, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister if the Government now intends to put on hold or freeze that contract until this can be examined by a parliamentary committee to determine the full facts of the case and the involvement of Litton Industries in this particular matter, a matter which creates a very serious conflict of interest.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is all wet. There has been no decision made with respect to the selection of the suppliers of the low-level air defence system. That decision will hopefully be made soon. Whenever it is made, it will be announced in the House of Commons.


WESTERN ACCORD-ECONOMIC COUNCIL'S JOB-CREATION ESTIMATE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In the last few days the Minister of Energy has been busy trying to persuade the people of Canada that the energy Accord will create some 100,000 jobs.


John Napier Turner: Three hundred thousand.


John Edward Broadbent: At one point it was 100,000, and at another point it was 300,000. She is rather casual with her figures. The point is that the Minister cited the Economic Council of Canada as the source for the statement that 100,000 new jobs will be created. The director of that institution has taken the unusual step today of issuing a clarification of the Council's position. He points out that their job-creation estimate was based on deregulation of oil and gas. Since the Government has done nothing about deregulating gas, will the Minister of Finance rise and admit that the figure of 100,000 new jobs the Minister provided the House actually misled the House, based on the source of her own information?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: John Rodriguez for Leader.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has stated, as is contained within the Accord, that the intention of the federal Government, working with the consuming and producing provinces, is to work very quickly toward the deregulation of natural gas. 1 do not know why the Hon. Member would not include that in the estimate made by the Minister. If the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party will read the same press release to which he has just referred, he will see that the work done by the Economic Council only refers to deregulating oil and natural gas prices without referring to other changes in taxation that have been called for by the energy agreement, changes in taxation which the Council goes on to say will clearly have a stimulative effect. If I can translate that for the Hon. Member, that means creating jobs. That is where we expect to see 100,000 to 300,000 jobs created-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


FORECAST INQUIRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Director of the Economic Council of Canada covered himself nicely by including that hypothetical tax change that the Government might make. The entire country knows, but the Government will not admit, that we are going to have major tax increases after the Ontario election. That is what the Minister of Finance has not denied.
Since one of Canada's distinguished economists from the West Coast, Mr. John Helliwell, has estimated that the removal of the PGRT would produce a mere 15,000 jobs, on what does the Government actually base its job estimates? One time we hear the 100,000 figure, and another time we hear the 300,000 figure. Will the Minister of Finance, whose Department ought to have done an assessment, produce figures, show us on what those figures are based and, in short, come clean with the people of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants an objective source of information I can only refer him to the Economic Council of Canada which has established a base of 100,000 jobs. I would remind him that taxes were cut as a result of the agreement, the PGRT is going down and other taxes are being removed. The whole mess of regulatory morass which was put in place by the previous Government has been removed to give the industry the incentives to create jobs, reduce the level of unemployment in Alberta which is currently about 15 per cent, and spread the wealth right across Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STUDY OF JOB CREATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has still not answered the question. He knows that the

April 3, 1985

estimate of the Economic Council of Canada was based on the deregulation of gas, which is not yet in effect. It was not in effect yesterday when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources gave us her figures. Because the people of Canada are interested in fair prices on the one hand, and job creation on the other hand, I ask the Minister has his Department done a study on the job effects of the energy accord? If so, will he produce the figures? If not, will he quit making up fanciful figures to mislead the people of the country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not making up fanciful figures; I am relating the words of the Economic Council of Canada which reports to Parliament. If the Hon. Member wishes to press the Economic Council, maybe he should go across the street and get the Economic Council to produce its figures. From a range of studies which have been done by the industry and by objective observers-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Who are they?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -it is very clear that the jobs will be created. I would tell the Hon. Member that if he has a little patience he will see them created very soon.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY
Mr. Speaker:: May I indicate to Hon. Members the presence in our gallery today of a delegation from the State Assembly of California, led by that State's Lieutenant Governor, the Hon. Leo McCarthy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


WESTERN ACCORD-JOB-CREATION PREDICTION
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources First adopted the figure of the Canadian Petroleum Association which said that up to 300,000 jobs could be created in the energy sector. Then she adopted the figure of the Economic Council of Canada which indicated that as many as 100,000 jobs might be created. The Economic Council is now saying that it did not carry out simulations on the new oil and gas agreement. On what basis is the Government predicting the creation of even 100,000 jobs?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I will take the Hon. Member through it very carefully. First, the Economic Council said in its statement:
Oral Questions
-the impact of deregulating oil and natural gas prices, without other changes in taxation or royalties, was simulated. Based on this assessment, we concluded that as many as 100,000 jobs might be created.
The Economic Council further stated:
-it is well known that tax cuts usually have a stimulative effect.
A number of tax reductions were made as a result of the energy agreement, plus a wide range of deadening regulations was removed. The combination of the 100,000 jobs which have been identified, plus the simulations which have been made, certainly put us in the ballpark figure. I make no apologies for doing something which creates 100,000 jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


JOB STUDIES
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, one would think that before the Government gave billions of dollars to the multinational oil companies it would at least do some studies on how many jobs would be created.
I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in December for the studies which were done by her Department, and I have not received anything. I do not feel that any studies were done. I ask the Minister of Finance were studies done? If those studies were done, will he table them in the House?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have got a study here, I have got another study here, and all sorts of studies have been done by the industry as well as objective observers. Surely the Hon. Member can accept the range of 100,000 to 300,000 jobs. That's pretty good for a country which is suffering with 1,343,000 unemployed, primarily as a result of the legacy of the previous Government.


DEPARTMENTAL STUDY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I have obtained one of those studies from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, which is dated February, 1985. It was done by the macroeconomic division of the Department and is entitled Comments on Recent Macroeconomic Studies on the Impact of Oil and Gas Price and Tax Changes on Employment. In that study it states:
Decontrol leads to higher employment in the ECC case but it is only temporary and most additional jobs appear to be in the non-energy sector. Moreover, the increase in jobs in the ECC simulation is mostly explained by a fall in energy prices.
Does the Minister of Finance have a copy of that study? Does he not agree that the study shows that there is some real doubt as to whether 100,000 jobs will be created? Does he think that the Economic Council of Canada is correct?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has identified one way of creating jobs, and that is by the drop which is expected in moving to world price, because there will be a downtrend in price. Surely the Hon. Member will agree that, if taxes are dropped, activity will be
80166	19

April 3, 1985
Oral Questions
stimulated in the energy sector. As that activity is stimulated in western Canada, people will buy steel from Algoma, and Stelco in Hamilton, and the instrument companies in Kitchener and Orillia, and jobs will be created. It is the reverse of what has happened over the last few years, since 1980 when the National Energy Program came in and we saw a drop in energy activity.


REINVESTMENT BY OIL COMPANIES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is a straight shooter. He knows that John Helliwell is saying that if the Minister adds on taxes to make up for the deficit we will have a net job loss, not a net job increase.
Will the Minister come clean with Canadians? He has given a windfall to the oil companies, he has abandoned Canadiani-zation, and he is trying to con the rest of us into believing that we will benefit from this. Has the Minister done any studies, or can he assure the House that giving $1.4 billion to the oil industry will mean that it will be reinvested in jobs, that no additional taxes will be placed on consumers, and the oil companies will not just take the money and run out of the country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has rolled a number of questions into one, all of which have been answered during the past two days. There is no question that we have not abandoned Canadianiza-tion. I responded to that specific question which was asked by the Leader of the Opposition. 1 responded very specifically last week to the impact which the energy accord would have on deregulation, the reduction of taxation, and the stimulation of economic activity in western Canada. It will affect all of Canada, including downtown Vancouver.


TRUST COMPANIES
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. On March 29 the Minister of State for Finance said in the House that the situation of the Canadian Commercial Bank was an isolated incident. At that time she said: "There are no other financial institutions in the country at the moment that are appearing to be insolvent in any way. On the same day, Western Capital Trust collapsed. Will the Minister explain why the House was given information that was not accurate?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, for some months now the Government had been working with Western Capital Trust to try to assist it in merging with another, stronger trust company. At the time the Minister made that statement it was expected that those merger
negotiations would be completed successfully. That is the basis for her comments.


MINISTER'S STATEMENTS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on February 12, in responding to a question about another trust company, the Minister of State for Finance said: "I would like to reassure the House with respect to other western trust companies that I'm not aware of any which are on the brink of collapse". The same Minister said yesterday, as the Minister of Finance has just said now, that her officials met continually over the winter months with the people from Capital Trust. Will the Minister make a statement under Motions today to clarify these conflicting statements?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 don't think they are conflicting statements in the context of the answer I have just given the Hon. Member.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the post office. Canada Post has moved to cut back on Saturday collections from mail boxes. This is a move which reduces working hours and, therefore, requires some 30 days notice to the union involved. Canada Post failed to give that basic notice under the collective agreement. That failure, on the back of 18 policy grievances by the union since last October, has provoked a wildcat walkout. Will the Minister call upon Canada Post to rescind that provocative action, to respect the collective agreement, and to meet with the workers of Canada Post?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will know, Canada Post and the union are going before the Canada Labour Relations Board this afternoon precisely to look at the legality of the walkout, which I believe is illegal, and to look at the procedures followed under the contract as well. Let me put it to the Hon. Member this way. Will the Hon. Member call upon members of the union to go back to work and do their job of providing a decent mail service which is being paid for by the customers of the Canada Post Corporation, in view of the fact that the people of Canada are entitled to have some assurance that their mail is going to be delivered?


MINISTER'S DISCUSSION WITH CORPORATION PRESIDENT
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Minister well knows that reliable mail service in this country requires good labour relations. If the post office had simply waited another 17 days, had given proper notice, it would have respected the collective agreement and could have talked to its workers.
April 3, 1985


John Edward Broadbent: Why didn't you ask them?


Cyril Keeper: Would the Minister consider speaking to the President of Canada Post and asking him to understand that he must have co-operative relations with his workers if he is going to be able to deliver the mail, and to rescind the provocative action?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I have already talked to the President of Canada Post and 1 have indicated to him, as I indicate to the Hon. Member, that I expect both sides to obey the law. There is no question about that. The Corporation and the union are before the Canada Labour Relations Board which will look at the whole issue of whether the contract has been met.
The Hon. Member may automatically take the side of the union in a case where service is being denied to the people of Canada. I am on the side of the people of Canada. I say they are paying for the service, and I say they are entitled to receive it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I am awfully glad you recognized me today since I married a Californian, and in honour of our visiting Californians I am happy to have the floor. I would like to go now from the California coast to the East Coast and direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture or, perhaps more important, to the Minister of Finance. When will one of those Ministers get off their duff and give an answer to the Maritime Farmers' Council on its legitimate, constructive, and positive request for funds for feed freight assistance in an emergency situation?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent question-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Wise: -and it was put in an excellent way. There is no question about that. It is a serious question, and I want to respond to it seriously. The Hon. Member knows that I am looking at the request made to us by the Maritime Farmers' Council. I have received representations previously from the Hon. Member. I have also received representations from Cabinet colleagues and other caucus colleagues. I want to indicate to the Hon. Member that my colleague in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board is presently carrying on a review of feed grain policy. It is an integral part of that study. Indeed, the first group my colleague met with regarding the study was the Maritime Farmers' Council.
Oral Questions


FINANCE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
The Minister is aware that his decision to grant only $110 million in supplementary equalization payments to Quebec was a great disappointment to the Premier of Quebec, while the Quebec Minister of Finance, Mr. Duhaime, declared in the National Assembly yesterday that he thought this unilateral and politically motivated decision to grant only $110 million to Quebec was most unfair.
Could the Minister inform the House why he refused the settlement offer made by the Government of Quebec which, since it was expecting a shortfall of $750 million over the next two years, suggested a settlement of $450 million, in other words, $300 million this year and $150 million next year?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, first let me remind the Hon. Member that the $700 million referred to by the Finance Minister of Quebec is the $700 million that Quebec would have received had not the previous Government put in place the 1982 formula, which is clearly hurting the Province of Quebec as well as the Provinces of Manitoba and Nova Scotia.
I suggest the Hon. Member speak to the previous Minister of Finance.


Mr. Gauthier:: Who is in power?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I will tell the Hon. Member about the present arrangement we have put forward. This is in negotiation. 1 do not think that Mr. Duhaime or Mr. Levesque expected to get everything they asked for, nor, in view of our own financial position, are we in a position to do that. So we have gone half-way. We had no legal obligation to do anything, but we have gone half-way to recognize its position, and we say, please recognize our position. We have a $35 billion deficit.


QUEBEC FINANCE MINISTER'S OFFER TO MEET FEDERAL MINISTER
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, Quebecers are starting to wonder why the deficit is mentioned when Quebec needs something, but is conveniently forgotten in the case of multinational oil companies.
I would like to know whether the Minister is willing to accept the offer made by the Quebec Minister of Finance to meet with the Minister before he brings down his Budget, in order to renegotiate this agreement and ensure that Quebec gets its fair share.

April 3, 1985
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear that under the basis on which we established this supplementary payment there was a very, very strong attempt made to be equitable as it related to all six provinces which receive the benefits of this agreement. I would say to the Hon. Member that Quebec has just been the beneficiary of an important ERDA agreement, the first Economic and Regional Development Agreement which has been signed with the Province of Quebec since 1974, which is for $1 billion. That recognizes the economic situation of the Province of Quebec. 1 think that if the Hon. Member spoke to Mr. Duhaime and Mr. Levesque, he would find that they are pretty pleased with that agreement.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines. Last Saturday, Falconbridge Nickel Mines Limited announced that it is going to spend S41 million on expanding its nickel refinery in Kristiansand, Norway. Furthermore, it will be purchasing nickel copper matte from Botswana to be refined in that refinery in Norway. In view of the fact that Falconbridge Nickel Mines Limited reduced its work-force over the last two years in the Sudbury basin by 900 workers, will the Minister intervene personally with Falconbridge to ensure that since the company has $41 million to spend on expanding its refinery offshore to refine Botswana nickel, it will spend the $41 million to build a nickel refinery in the Sudbury basin so we can refine Canadian nickel at the source where we mine it?


Hon. Bob Layton (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the Hon. Member's announcement under advisement. I will discuss it with the industry the Hon. Member has named. I would like to point out that Falconbridge Nickel Mines Limited, which has been brought to our attention, is one of those corporations which continue to be major investors in Canada on behalf of shareholders.


GRANTING OF EXPORT LICENCES
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely outrageous that the Minister of State for Mines did not know about this particular investment of Falconbridge offshore. Any self-respecting country does not allow its resources to be shipped out and refined elsewhere.
While the Minister is taking this under advisement, and as he contacts Falconbridge, will he ensure that Falconbridge is aware that the Government holds export licences? Will he inform Falconbridge that unless it is prepared to put that $41 million investment in the Sudbury basin it will not get the
export licences to send nickel matte out from the Sudbury basin?


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, the Sudbury basin has been one of the longest living sources of Canada's mining industry. Currently productivity in the Sudbury basin is being improved in spectacular ways. With regard to the specific question, it will be a part of the review which I will conduct.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom Hockin (London West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Justice. It does not refer to the State of California, but to the State of Michigan. What are the Minister of Justice and officials in the Department of Justice doing about a State of Michigan policy directive which prevents the transfer of mandatory life prisoners to serve their terms in their native lands?
This directive affects a former constituent of mine, Sandy Harrington, who appears to be prevented from serving his term in Canada by this directive. In my opinion this is a violation of the treaty between our two countries on this matter.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the distinguished Minister of Justice I will attempt to respond to my colleague's question. As he indicates, this appears to be a policy of the State of Michigan. While it could be in violation of the Transfer of Offenders Treaty between our two countries, I will convey the situation to the Minister of Justice. I can assure the Hon. Member that departmental officials are looking into this to discover whether in fact this is policy or something that can be worked out within the ambit of the Treaty.


CITIZENSHIP COURTS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Secretary of State. Last summer the Prime Minister said that his Government would be determined to reduce partisan political appointments. He said: "We are going to reform this instrument in our national life". How can the Secretary of State possibly square this with the appointment as a citizen court judge, at a salary of $46,000 a year, of still another Tory, Helga Paide, who for years has been the chief financial officer of the Conservative Party in Ontario?


Don Boudria: Helga was paid.
April 3, 1985


Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am interested to hear from the Hon. Member that this appointment has in fact been made. To my knowledge the nomination was proposed, but it was not completed. If the Hon. Member wishes to check with my officials he will find that that appointment has in fact not been made.


Don Boudria: Helga was not paid.


John Edward Broadbent: What happened? Who goofed? Has she a Liberal cousin or something?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Question please.


Roland de Corneille: The good Tory shepherd knows his good Tory sheep and is owned by them.


APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE HELEN GILLIS
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, last summer the Prime Minister, referring to federal appointments, stated that the overriding criteria would be "competence and a willingness to serve Canada". Therefore, why did the Secretary of State appoint still another Tory citizen court judge, Helen Gillis, a past president of the provincial Tory Party and a Tory candidate in the last provincial election? Does he think that serving Canada means serving the Tory Party first?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, if leadership in the United Appeal of Halifax, leadership in the Pan American Wheelchair Games, leadership in the St. Agnes Parish Council, and leadership in the industrial and trade development of Halifax are to be held against a person, I do not then know what is the dimension of citizenship.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Challenge '85 was announced as a program which would focus primarily on private enterprise for the creation of career-oriented summer jobs. However, our research indicates that most career-oriented jobs were created, not by business, but by non profit organizations. Will the Minister table a report in the House on the number of jobs created by private industry, and the proportion of these which were career oriented as compared to those in government and non profit employment?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to give all the details on this program when the applications have been finally processed. The Member has been attacking the program from
Oral Questions
the outset, so 1 know that he will be disappointed to hear that over 100,000 job offers have now been received for young people for this summer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Some 30,000 of those, Mr. Speaker, have been filed by the private sector. That brings an additional $50 million to the program.


CAREER RELATED JOBS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister insists on denying the fact that a half-baked program was announced late. After disparaging such jobs when they were funded by Summer Canada, can the Minister explain what kind of assessment of career orientation has led jobs such as lawn cutting and ice cream cone making to typify private enterprise jobs more than they do non profit jobs?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, 55 per cent of the job offers this summer are career related. This did not happen last year. That did not give young people an opportunity to gain a learning experience which will contribute to their development as they return to school. The balance of the jobs are indeed work experiences in other fields. The training component refers to 55 per cent of the job offers. That is a big improvement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC WORKS
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Keeping budgetary constraints in mind, can the Minister tell the House how much money Canadians will have to spend for renovating the residence of the Leader of the Official Opposition, not to mention the fact that he now lives in the residence of the Speaker of the House of Commons, which is an additional financial burden on Canadians?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: According to our information, Mr. Speaker, $500,000 have been spent on the residence of Leaders of the Opposition since 1976. I have also been advised that the committee responsible for official residences has completed its report. In light of that report on the future of our official residences-a report I have yet to see-I may be in a position to provide more figures.

April 3, 1985
Business of the House


TOURISM
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Tourism.
The Canadian Automobile Association maintains that increasing the price of gas considerably reduces the number of American tourists coming to Canada. The Tourist Industry Association of Canada has pointed out that a 1 per cent increase in the tax on gas means 200,000 fewer American tourists. Mr. Speaker, could the Minister give the House the assurance that after the oil pact, the tourist industry will not be hit by another increase in the price of gas, which would have a disastrous effect on the industry?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of State (Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question. [English]
In reply to that question I would simply say that we in the Government do not believe that factors like gasoline prices, taxes on alcohol, and taxes on accommodation should be looked at separately. Instead, they should be reviewed in the context of an over-all strategy or plan for the industry. We are approaching these individual questions in that manner. For example, as the Hon. Member will know, we recently released a major consultative strategy paper to consult with the industry, with our colleagues in the provinces and the public at large, so that each individual question, such as taxes of the sort he referred to, can be viewed in the context of the whole industry.
*
* *
have been considering prior to today, at least for Monday, when we return on April 15. I suggest that we consider Bill C-19 relating to the reorganization of Bell Canada, and if we make progress on that legislation we would move on to the Bill dealing with the Meat Inspection Act which will be the next item on the legislative timetable.
There will be other legislation introduced today relating to the equalization payments being made to provinces. Accordingly, I want to have an opportunity to discuss House business with the Opposition Parties to see what progress we can make in terms of expediting these important items of legislation, such as the one that will be introduced later today by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
Subject to further consultation, that will be the business at least for April 15. I will be contacting Opposition House Leaders about business for the rest of that week so that we will be fully occupied.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) on a question of House business?


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, the House Leader has mentioned future consultations. I think the House Leader will know that on Monday of this week there was an article in The Toronto Star which was based on a parliamentary committee report which has not yet been presented to the House. There is an implication in that report that a Liberal Member of Parliament provided it to the journalists. The House Leader would properly appreciate that that brings many of the processes of the House into question-


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, April 2, 1985 meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader what business we can expect for the House of Commons when we return after the Easter break.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to continue with the business we


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, would the Hon. Member relate this to the question of House business?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The House Leader mentioned that he was having consultations. In those consultations, would he bring up that matter with the House Leaders of the other two Parties?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the Member has a question of privilege which he wishes to raise, he should raise it as a question of privilege.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You cannot bootleg like that.


Mr. Speaker:: Bootlegging has come up as an issue again today. The Hon. Member may have a question of privilege and he may wish to raise it as a question of privilege, but such a claim is not a matter for discussion about House business, I suggest with respect.
April 3, 1985

Petitions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.

1 might say that the reports are somewhat different from those carried in this morning's edition of The Toronto Star.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
[Editor's note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition by a group of students at Laval University, asking this House to adopt measures that will help the development of small- and medium-sized businesses, especially in the field of research and development. Such measures would, among other things, help Canada improve its position in international economic relations, in addition to increasing the GNP and creating employment.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from electors from the Province of Alberta requesting the Government of Canada to respect the office of Governor General in all future visits of heads of state to this country.


PRIVILEGE
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I thought we might be able to resolve this through the normal consultation process, but since you have indicated that you think I have a question of privilege, I want to give notice that I will be rising immediately after the Easter break with a properly presented case based on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I accept the Hon. Member's notice. He knows that he has a right to give the Speaker notice of his intention, if he wishes to do so. I only rise to say that the Hon. Member indicated that I had suggested that he had a question of privilege. I made no such suggestion. I said that if a Member believes that another Member has done something wrong, the Member has a course of action to follow. The use of the House business question is not the appropriate means to discuss the matter.


CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator which covers the period of June 1, 1983 to May 31, 1984, and I ask that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


CLOSURE OF NATIONAL POSTAL MUSEUM
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by some 240 Canadian citizens from Brantford, Ottawa, Hamilton, Washington-not a Canadian citizen-and the Province of Quebec. They are petitioning the House to maintain the National Postal Museum and are asking the Minister responsible to intervene and ensure that the Postal Museum be retained, find a new location near Parliament if it must move from 180 Wellington, and that its staff continue to serve the public in their present capacities.


CHANGES TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of residents of the city of Windsor and surrounding regions, petitioning Parliament that all laid-off employees keep their severance pay and receive their unemployment insurance benefits without deduction of severance pay, as now being implemented by the Government.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, you will not be surprised to know that I am presenting a similar petition which protests yet again the unjust and mean-spirited changes which have taken place in the UIC system under the Minister.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of Canadians calling upon Parliament to reinstate severance pay and that it not be deducted from unemployment insurance benefits.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition representing the view of thousands of Canadians, specifically a number of Canadians

April 3, 1985
Petitions
from the community of Windsor. They are reminding us that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has announced that workers who are laid off after March 31 of this year will have their severance pay deducted from their unemployment insurance benefits, thus effectively eliminating the benefit of the severance package to the worker.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents of Canada who are asking Parliament to address the situation in which employees who are now laid off will lose part of their unemployment insurance pay if they had earned severance pay during their past employment.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar petition from a number of Canadians who are protesting the mean-spirited changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act. They humbly pray that Parliament will address their concerns and are presenting this petition despite the mean spirit of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and his colleagues.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the point of view of several Canadians on the matter of the very damaging changes being made in the UIC. Clearly a lot of Canadians are very concerned about this. I am presenting to the Government their petition, namely that all laid-off employees keep their severance pay and receive their unemployment insurance benefits without deduction of severance pay.
[ Translation]


UNIVERSITY OF SHERBROOKE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, 960 residents of Fleurimont, in my riding, wish to avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present this petition to the House and to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), acting through the Medical Research Council of Canada, to grant the School of Medicine at the University of Sherbrooke the financial assistance it needs to maintain its level of research and rate of development.


PRICE INCREASE OF GASOLINE AND HEATING OIL
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a genuine petition with 2,836 names of residents of the Province of Quebec. This petition was signed by people who, through the program Bonjour Montreal broadcast pn CJMS, are protesting the excessive and unnecessary increase in the price of gas at the pump and the price of home heating oil.
Your petitioners humble pray that Parliament ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) to intervene and settle this matter as soon as possible.
I herewith present this petition and urge the Government to respond to the request therein.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to point out that the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) said he was presenting a petition on behalf of thousands. He handed in one piece of paper. The names of eight people were on the paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The combination of Wednesday and the end of the session is deadly.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would suggest that the Minister table the similar petition that came from his National Economic Conference.


IMMIGRATION ACT, 1976 MEASURE TO AMEND
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: for leave to introduce Bill C-232, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 (determination of refugee status).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: This Bill formerly known as C-219, requires that all refugee applicants in Canada should have the opportunity, if they wish it, of an oral hearing before the Refugee Status Advisory Committee. At present the law does not provide for that. That is one of the reasons we have many thousands who are waiting to have their status determined. This Bill will not only provide fairer opportunity for judgment by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee but will also shorten the time of waiting to the benefit of both the refugee claimants and the staff of the Department.


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

Michael Holcombe Wilson: for leave to introduce Bill C-39, an Act to provide for the making of supplementary fiscal equalization payments to certain provinces for the period April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1987.
April 3, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 104, 123, 225, 242 and 248.


Mr. Rompkey: In the past calendar year, under the Industrial Regional Development Program, were applications received from Newfoundland and, if so (a) how many (b) how many were eligible for assistance and how many were approved (c) what was the average percentage of assistance to those applications that were approved (d) how many were in the tourism sector and how many were approved (e) what percentage of the total approved applications were in the tourism sector (0 what percentage of the applications were from the (i) fisheries (ii) manufacturing (iii) high-tech sector (g) what sectors were other applications from?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: From July 1, 1983, date of inception of the Industrial Regional Development Program (IRDP), to November 30, 1984, the reply is as follows: Yes. (a) 313 applications were received; (b) 259 were eligible; 86 were approved; (c) 27.0 per cent of the estimated eligible costs; (d) 95 were received; 14 were approved; (e) 16.3 per cent; (f) (i) 7.3 per cent (23 applications), (ii) 43.1 per cent (135 applications), (iii) 5.1 per cent (16 applications); (g) Agricultural industries, service industries incidental to agriculture, logging, mining, quarrying and oil wells, quarry and sand pits, service industries incidental to mineral extraction, trade contracting, other products industries, wholesale, business service industries, local government service, education service industries, accommodation service industries, membership organization industries.


Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Was the IRDP program for tourism cancelled and was a study carried out by the Government before cancelling and, if so (a) by whom (b) how long did it take (c) what were the principal questions of the study?
2.	How many businesses benefited from the IRDP in 1984?
3.	How much did the Government invest under this program in 1984?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: 1. No study was carried out before cancelling the tourism element under the Industrial Regional Development
Order Paper Questions
Program (IRDP). This change to the IRDP is the direct result of some 16 months of program experience which indicated that tourism was better assisted through sub-agreements with the provinces, as in the past, before the IRDP. (a), (b) and (c) Not applicable.
2.	During the calendar year 1984, 1,351 offers were accepted.
3.	During the calendar year 1984, an estimated amount of $336.6 million of Crown assistance was committed.


Mr. Howie: For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, by department, how much money was spent on advertising by the Government to promote its various programs.


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Departmental Advertising Expenditures Fiscal Year 1983/84
($000)
Department	Value of Expenditures
Agriculture Canada	$ 63.2
Department of Communications	71.2
Consumer and Corporate Affairs	544.4
Employment and Immigration	8,031.7
Energy. Mines and Resources	3,541.9
Environment Canada	286.9
External Affairs	922.9
Finance Canada	5,328.2
Fisheries and Oceans	2,711.7
Fitness and Amateur Sport	55.4
Health and Welfare	2,893.9
Indian and Northern Affairs	24.3
Justice Department	10,486.4
Labour Canada	197.9
National Defence	2,535.9
National Library	13.1
National Museums	26.8
National Research Council	50.1
Privy Council Office	94.5
Public Works Canada	5.0
Regional Industrial Expansion	24,749.1
Revenue Canada, Taxation	374.9
Science and Technology	39.2
Secretary of State	1,299.3
Statistics Canada	18.7
Supply and Services Canada	242.9
Transport Canada	2,235.0
Veterans Affairs Canada	58.0
83/84 Total	$ 66.902.5


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	From 1980 to date, which departments made grants, loans or other financial concessions to the Wabasso Textile Company?
2.	What was the (a) amount (b) purpose of each grant, loan or other financial concession, in each case?

April 3, 1985
Order Paper Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 
Mr. Nunziata: What is the projected cost to the Government of providing security for athletes, officials, dignitaries and competition venues for the 1988 Winter Olympic Games in Calgary?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Planning for the 1988 Olympic Winter Games is in the early stages. Further specific details on venues, visiting dignitaries, and participating countries are required before projected cost estimates for providing federal security can be developed.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 228 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 228 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Text]


Mr. Howie: 1.	In the year 1984, by department, how many (a) physically handicapped (b) mentally handicapped persons were employed by the Government?
2.	How many of these persons were hired under affirmative action programs?
Return tabled.
[ Translation]


Paul Wyatt Dick: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 3, 1985


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond) moved:: That this House condemns the government for its failure to create the jobs required to substantially reduce the excessively high levels of unemployment, either through its general economic policies or through its recently announced energy agreement, the job creation potential of which has made the Ontario Deputy Minister of Energy skeptical to the point where he has said that, in signing it, the Government "gave away the store".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I put forward this motion with great sincerity but also with great regret. I would have hoped as a Member of Parliament, notwithstanding the fact that I am in opposition, 1 would have an opportunity to debate in a meaningful way some of the positive things that this Government is alleged to have done.
The record, however, is quite clear, indeed. The accomplishments or lack of accomplishments of this Government have been very evident over the last six months, so much so that the Leader of our Party has characterized them, I think, in a very, very good fashion. He said: "This is a Prime Minister of what 1 call cosmetic politics where appearance takes precedence over reality, style over substance and package over policy. It is an approach to government that seems directed more by desire to placate a need to please, an urge to be loved, than the ability to order priorities and a willingness to make choices."
That submission characterizes the Tory Government. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) today stood in his place and questioned the integrity of the Deputy Minister in Ontario. Let me quote for the record, Mr. Speaker, what the Deputy Minister said. Before I do that, let me quote what Mr. Mercier said, the President of Universal Exploration.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Lots of style and no substance.


David Charles Dingwall: What did he say, Mr. Speaker? He said: "But from the point of view of a Canadian, I am really concerned we are giving away more than we have to". Of what is he speaking? He speaks of the agreement consummated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney)
Message from the Senate
and the producing provinces. It is an agreement that is a bail-out of the multinational oil companies. It is a lavishing decree against the consumers of this country. It is against the small producers in western Canada. It is simply a bail-out of the multinational oil companies.
What did the Deputy Minister say? This is what the Deputy Minister in Ontario, Duncan Allan, said about this so-called agreement, which is really an agreement to buttress the multinational oil companies: "I don't know whether they will simply use the cash flow to buy other companies. If that happens, all we will see out of this is an orgy of mergers or oil companies getting into other forms of business". Mr. Allan said that he was skeptical about whether the industry could create 225,000 jobs, and "if Ottawa imposes a gasoline tax to help pay for the energy deal, it will throw Canadians out of work", he added.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether the Hon. Member is quoting from the exact transcript or whether he is quoting from a newspaper article. Could he please tell us from what he is quoting?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that that is not a point of order.


David Charles Dingwall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Hon. Member will learn something about parliamentary procedure before he rises again.


Paul Wyatt Dick: What are you quoting from, The Toronto Star.


David Charles Dingwall: Yes, The Toronto Star. I suppose anyone who disagrees with the Conservative Government or with the Minister of Finance is either paranoid or is trying to make an unjustified attack against the Government. When Members say anything about the Government, that Hon. Member rises in his place and castigates them for making remarks which he knows to be true.


Paul Wyatt Dick: We don't believe The Toronto Star.


David Charles Dingwall: 1 suggest that this agreement does not provide benefits for consumers in all parts of Canada. What about the primary industry levy offset program? That program was part of the fuel tax rebate program for those in the primary industries-farmers in southwestern Ontario, fishermen in Atlantic Canada and those involved in logging, mining, hunting and trapping in northern Ontario. They were entitled to it.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member at this point in his speech.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this

April 3, 1985
Point of Order
House that the Senate has passed Bill C-38, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['I appreciate the sentiments that I think in honour lie behind the comments of the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). I think he will understand that the Speaker is put in a position by the rules of having to respond to the knock at the door. The Hon. Member may have a matter he wishes to raise with the reform committee. I can sense that he feels he has a grievance. I think he knows what he should do about that. He has taken the first opportunity to advise the House of his concern and I accept the reason he has chosen to do it at this time. I understand his concern.\nResuming debate.']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Bertha Wilson, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 3rd day of April, 1985, at 3.15 p.m., for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere,
Administrative Secretary to the Governor General.
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:


Mr. Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bill:
Bill C-38, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff-Chapter No. 12.



Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 am informed that it is very unusual, if not unheard of, to have a Royal Assent during an Opposition Day, especially at a time that would interrupt the opening speech of the Opposition on the motion in question. In fact, I am also informed that it is very unusual to schedule a Royal Assent in a way that would interrupt any business of the House. In the past it was generally scheduled so that it would happen right at
six o'clock in a way that the business of the House would not be interfered with.
While it may be technically correct to have the Royal Assent take place when it did just a few moments ago, I respectfully submit that it is contrary to the past practices and traditions of this House. In addition, it is a grave discourtesy to the Official Opposition, on this occasion, when it has a very important motion to present to the House.
I should add that I am informed that the Government House Leader is in a position to set the time for Royal Assent. I would say that he should be carrying out his duties in a more competent manner, especially in a way that recognizes the practices and traditions of the House when it comes to the importance of Opposition Days and the motions presented in them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the same point of order. The Opposition House Leader has expressed a desire for the Government House Leader to carry out his duties, I think I can phrase it, "in a more competent manner", which implies some degree of incompetence. The Government House Leader is not present in the Chamber. I find that opportunity to attack the House Leader in his absence and in that fashion to be totally reprehensible.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the sentiments that I think in honour lie behind the comments of the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). I think he will understand that the Speaker is put in a position by the rules of having to respond to the knock at the door. The Hon. Member may have a matter he wishes to raise with the reform committee. I can sense that he feels he has a grievance. I think he knows what he should do about that. He has taken the first opportunity to advise the House of his concern and I accept the reason he has chosen to do it at this time. I understand his concern.
Resuming debate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Dingwall:
That this House condemns the Government for its failure to create the jobs required to substantially reduce the excessively high levels of unemployment, either through its general economic policies or through its recently announced energy agreement, the job creation potential of which has made the Ontario Deputy Minister of Energy skeptical to the point where he has said that, in signing it, the Government "gave away the store".
April 3, 1985
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to continue my remarks, particularly the comments directed toward the agreement which was consummated by the Government of Canada and the three producing provinces. I suggest, as 1 did before you interrupted the proceedings, that this was an agreement for the benefit of the multinational oil companies without due regard or due respect for the consumers of this country or the small western Canadian oil and gas companies. This is a terrible benefit to the multinational oil companies. 1 will read some figures to substantiate my point.
1 wish to make it perfectly clear that in no way does Her Majesty's Official Opposition accept the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) that prices will not increase for the consumers. As I was saying before I was interrupted by your predecessor in the Chair, the primary industry levy offset program, which is a benefit of 1.8 cents per litre, the equivalent of eight cents a gallon, will be dropped as a result of the agreement to be consummated between the producing provinces and the Government of Canada. It will affect in a very real way the farmers of southwestern Ontario, the fishermen of Atlantic Canada, the loggers, miners, hunters and trappers in northern Ontario. It will have devastating effects.
The Minister went on to say that the agreement provides harmony, if you will. Where is the harmony? She referred to the compensation granted for the cost of moving domestic crude to refineries east of Montreal. Prior to this agreement, this domestic transfer compensation program provided a benefit. It was designed to create a market for western Canada shut-in crude, $2 a barrel subsidy on transportation by tanker from Montreal to the Maritime refiners. In 1984, this provided a supplement of approximately $44 million or 22 million barrels. This has now disappeared and it will be at a commercial rate. The subsidy will continue no longer. That is certainly very harmful and devastating to those of us who live in Atlantic Canada.
What about the Minister's claim that there will be lots of reinvestment? Where are the guarantees from the multinational oil companies? What guarantees have been solicited from them? Absolutely none. In fact, Gulf Oil's profits in 1984 went up by 41 per cent. Imperial Oil's profits went up by 60 per cent. Shell's profits went up by 59 per cent, Texaco's by 23 per cent and Suncor's by 8 per cent. With this agreement in place, not only will it not create the jobs that we all want but it will in fact add in excess of $1.7 million to the multinationals' revenues beginning in June, 1985.
There will be additional revenues for the multinational oil companies but nothing in the way of a continuation of the subsidies to those individuals in the Maritime provinces and nothing for those individuals who may be engaged in farming, logging or mining. I say shame on the Government for those policies.
Supply
The Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources did not stop there with its policies. It went on. We have seen the abolition of the Canadian Oil Substitution Program. We have seen the cuts in the Canadian Home Insulation Program. We have seen Canertech abolished by the Minister and we have also seen the cancellation of Q & M Pipe Lines. What about the natural gas laterals program for the Province of Quebec? It is out by $85 million.
Let us talk about another agreement that was reached several weeks ago. That agreement was referred to by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as being a milestone in a new Canadian era. However, Clause 54 of that agreement says: "Similarly, feedstock available shall be insured on commercial terms for new industrial facilities in Newfoundland and Labrador provided such feedstock is in excess to feedstock required to meet the demand of presently existing industrial capacity in eastern Canada." That means that Newfoundlanders will not have an opportunity to play meaningful roles in the oil and gas industry, particularly with respect to refinery capacity, until such time as other areas of the region have that opportunity. That certainly cannot be applauded by Government Members of Parliament and particularly by those from Atlantic Canada. That is certainly not in the best interests of the Atlantic economy. In fact, I think it is outright discrimination against the people of Newfoundland, and Liberal Members of Parliament who are from the Province of Newfoundland have said so.
I shall return to this other recent deal made with the multinational oil companies for just a moment. What about the Canadianization program? Under questioning by those of us in the Official Opposition, the Minister has refused to give us a firm date as to when she would like to have 50 per cent ownership of the oil and gas industry in Canada. There is no fixed date. The Government has abandoned the Canadianization program that we put in place. It has abandoned it so much so that section 7 of that agreement provides no incentive whatsoever to the small Canadian oil and gas companies in western Canada. In fact, they are to be treated equally with the multinational corporations that have had profits in excess of $200 million. Is that fair to the Canadian consumer who is facing an increase? Is that fair to the small Canadian oil and gas company? Certainly not, but it runs in line with the policies of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). He is the spokesperson for those individuals who reside outside of Canada, whether they reside in Philadelphia, Ohio or Washington, and he is the spokesperson for the select few from Bay Street in Toronto.
That is the elitism of the Conservative Party. There is nothing for the regions and nothing for the consumers, and the small-businessman in this country be damned. Government Members will pay the ultimate price when Canadians have an opportunity to vote against them in the next federal election.
The motion I have put forward not only touches on energy but on other Government Departments as well. Let us look for a moment at some of those who sit on the front benches. Most

April 3, 1985
Supply
of those individuals are not here, probably for good reason. Let us look at their performances.
The Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) takes his orders from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen). He is a Minister who brought in three political commissars to slash regional programming at the CBC. He is a Minister who was called "patronizing" and "smug" by representatives of the Canadian Conference of the Arts. What did he do to increase employment opportunities here in Canada? He cancelled money for the National Arts Centre, he cancelled money for the Canada Council and the National Film Board and he cancelled $7 million under the Capital Assistance Program. Unlike the Minister of Finance who can treat his big friends in the multinational oil companies well, this Minister has refused and is unable to provide needed assistance to the arts and cultural industry here in Canada. I say shame on the Conservative Government for abandoning that industry.
What about the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr, Merri-thew)? The only thing he will be known for is serving in Dick Hatfield's cabinet. He has done absolutely nothing as a Minister of State for Forestry. As a Minister from the Atlantic region, he has not even spoken out on any of the issues concerning Atlantic Canada.
What about the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser)? He goes around telling everyone that he wants to help them and that he is there to assist the fishermen. I will tell you how he has assisted the fishermen, Mr. Speaker. I will tell you how he has put more people on the unemployment rolls. There was an increase in licensing fees of $6.3 million. There was a reduction in fisheries development of $11.7 million. That Minister has a great claim to fame. He is the only Minister who has signed a treaty without even showing it to Parliament. Shame!
What about the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise)? He is another paragon of virtue when it comes to helping the working class in this country. What has he done? The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) questioned him on one particular program today. This is the Government that gave the farmers in western Canada, under the stabilization program and through the transportation assistance program, approximately $1.2 billion. We in this Party do not object to that but we do object to the Minister of Agriculture not being able to provide $13.5 million in emergency assistance to the farmers of the Maritimes so that we can continue with our job-creation programs. That is abandoning his responsibilities as Minister of Agriculture.
What about inspection fees? The Minister of Agriculture has done nothing about that. The Prime Minister gets a 54 per cent increase in his expense while the farmers of the Maritime Provinces have to pay a higher amount in inspection fees. I say shame on the Government.
Of course, I do not want to say anything about the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay), because I think he has done it all for himself. Not only has he caused embarrassment to his Party,
he has caused embarrassment to Parliament as a whole. That is what that Minister has done.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) is a lovely man and a great guy. What has he done with regard to employment opportunities in Canada? Nothing. If anything, he has added to the rolls of unemployment. He received an order about a week ago from the Deputy Prime Minister to fire different individuals in Air Canada and VIA Rail. That is all he has done. There has been no action and there have been no progressive, positive programs coming from the Minister of Transport. In fact, the only thing he was able to do was to provide cut-backs to the very important sectors of the Canadian economy. Those cut-backs do not affect the multinational oil companies, they affect the working men and women of the country. I say shame to the Minsiter of Transport.
Let us now move to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). There is the "flora". She is going to create all the jobs which Canadians need. The only thing that can be said of that particular Minister which is accurate, is what was printed in Chatelaine. That is the only thing. That Minister has lost every battle and every war in Cabinet to the Minister of Finance, who, by the way, is not really the Minister of Finance. He is the junior Minister to the real Minister of Finance, who is the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). The Minister of Employment and Immigration has lost her battles to him and to the Minister of Finance. But she has cut back. She said to the unemployed people of Canada: "Well, we don't really need you. We don't care. We are going to take your severance pay away. We don't care if that provides you with hardship." Yet she is the Minister who stood in her place when she was a member of the Opposition and practically cried before Canadians because not enough was being done. But at the first opportunity, what did she do? She slammed them. I say shame to the Conservative Government.
What about the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie)? He is incapable of understanding the rules which are applied to an Attorney General. He refuses to appeal a case without first seeing a transcript. He thinks that the Criminal Code should be used as a source for one-liners. Of course, he is always a friend to the provincial Premiers. We have seen what he has done in his capacity as Attorney General. He has added nothing to providing jobs for this country, other than bailing out some of his friends.
Now let us turn to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). There is a paragon of tourism! He was performing so badly that they had to send him to the Soviet Union. He might stay there.
What about the Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. McMillan)? That Minister is from P.E.l. He is the only Minister of all the Ministers in the Tory Government who had the audacity to send his picture to all Members of Parliament. I do not know what he is looking for, and I do not know what he is up to, but I do not want any part of it.
What about the Minister of Finance? Well, we should not be too hard on the Minister of Finance because in June of
April 3, 1985

1985 he will be leaving us. He will be leaving us because the Prime Minister will hang him out to dry when he brings down the next Budget. That is what will happen to the Minister of Finance.
Finally, let us talk about one issue which is of great concern to me-regional economic development. When the Government gave $1.3 billion to the multionational oil companies, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion refused to provide one cent for Domtar in the Province of Quebec. Shame on him. That Minister took $200 million out of the ERDA program. What did he do, after the Prime Minister assured me in Question Period that serious consideration would be given to new economic proposals in Cape Breton Island, which has the highest unemployment rate in the country? What did the Prime Minister and that Minister do? They set up a task force. It is a complete repudiation, a complete denunciation of the provincial Premier and the MLAs who live in that part of Canada. It is a complete denial of the suggestions which have been put on previous occasions.
I suggest that this Government, based on its performance to date, has failed to provide the jobs which it promised. It has failed, by the recent energy agreements, to provide consumers and small business with the tax relief which they ought to have. It has provided only one thing. It has provided untold millions of dollars for the multinational oil companies. I say shame on the Government. It will certainly pay the price in the next federal election.


Mr. McDermid:: Mr. Speaker, it was most enjoyable to sit here and listen to Allan MacEachen's clone. Certainly he reminds me of the Hon. Senator in his style, his tone of voice and the reasoning which he presents. We all heard it in 1981 when the then Minister of Finance presented his Budget.
Can the Hon. Member tell the House and Canadians why the energy industry should be treated and taxes differently from all the other industries in Canada, such as his Government did under the National Energy Program? Can he explain that to the Canadian people?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to receive a question from a former Minister of the Clark Government.


John Horton McDermid: I just got promoted!


David Charles Dingwall: I am happy that he has taken this occasion to ask a question with respect to energy. Perhaps he knows nothing about energy. That might be the reason he has been appointed Parliamentary Secretary, in keeping with the Prime Minister's guidelines.
He asked about the tax benefits which are being bestowed upon multinational oil companies and why they should be taxed differently. If one believes, as we do on this side, that Canadianization is a goal to which all Canadians subscribe, then I think it would be in the best interests of Canada- unlike the Hon. Member-to provide an incentive for the small companies in western Canada which want to make a meaningful contribution to that sector of our economy. The
Supply
Government should provide an incentive for the small companies in western Canada so that they can hire the individuals which we want them to hire and get Canadians off the unemployment rolls. But the Conservative Government is bent on bending over backwards to multinational oil companies to ensure that they are looked after handsomely. I would suggest to the Hon. Member that the consumers and the small-business sector of the country deserve an incentive as well. They too deserve a tax holiday, not just the multinational oil companies.


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member's Leader was in the private sector, he participated in a newsletter which was written by his law firm. As an author of that newsletter, he was roundly and severely critical of the National Energy Program. He accurately pointed out that it would cost Canada billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
In addition, when the Leader of the Liberal Party was running for the leadership, he made a number of speeches before Liberal delegates across Canada in which he roundly condemned the National Energy Program as an example of the historical Liberal programs and policies which have caused great damage to the country. That was something he was going to change when he became Leader. We find that he hasn't changed a thing. In fact, apparently he has been changed. I wonder if the Hon. Member can tell the House whether he agrees with what his Leader is saying today or what his Leader said when he was running for the leadership of the Party and was still in the private sector? Does the Hon. Member concur with those views that the National Energy Program has been an absolute disaster for Canada. If he does, would he not agree that undoing the National Energy Program, which was the effect of the Accord last week, should in fact restore some of the vigour and health which was previously there in a sector which provided so many jobs for so many Canadians from coast to coast?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, it is so nice to receive questions from Ministers of the Crown, particularly the minister of paper clips, pens and notebooks. I want to say to him that I take serious objection to some of the things he as well as some other Hon. Members of Parliament on the Tory side, have tried to promote in this House. I would point out that the distinguished Leader of the Liberal Party, the next Prime Minister of Canada, did not sign such a document.
However, I want to say to the Hon. Member who is responsible for paper clips and pens that he ought to be careful. Who said in 1981, what premier of this country, that the oil bonanza was not going to last and we as Canadians ought not to expect that it will continue as it was in late 1981? What Premier said that? The "premier ministre" of Alberta, Mr. Lougheed. Of course, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre) does not like to hear that. He does not like to hear that even some of his colleagues in western Canada who consummated agreements with the Government of Canada did

April 3, 1985
Supply
so honestly and intelligently, based and predicated on information that the world price of oil would continue to increase.
What that Minister fails to recognize, Mr. Speaker, is that there were two signers of those agreements. At every opportunity, as on previous occasions, which is characteristic of himself and his Party, that Minister will take every opportunity to try to get a political advantage, I suggest with all respect, which is to pit western Canadians against eastern Canadians. That is a proposition which we think is thoroughly disgusting, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gagnon:: Mr. Speaker, the Economic Council of Canada report Connections stated the goals of the national energy policy, and I quote:
First, the megaprojects were supposed to provide the federal Government with substantial revenues-
Second, these projects were to provide substantial economic spinoffs, thereby helping to further alleviate the problems of regional economic disparity. Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, for example, were to get jobs-
Third, all the capital inflows needed to finance this activity were expected to make the Canadian dollar buoyant.
It goes on further to say:
The agreement had a major flaw: it assumed that the real world price of oil would continue to rise substantially over the next few years.
The result of the national energy policy was two megaprojects which were cancelled, Alsands and Cold Lake, worth $25 billion. 1 asked the Hon. Member how many jobs in Windsor, in Orillia and in Hamilton were lost because his Party stuck this national energy policy down our throats?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I say to the very verbose Member of Parliament who has taken this opportunity to stand in his place and ask a question that no one put a gun to the heads of the western producing provinces to sign agreements. Nobody did.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Oh yes, they did.


David Charles Dingwall: And to suggest that we in the Province of Nova Scotia did not benefit from the National Energy Program is a total repudiation of the provincial Premier. There is no question but that benefits, as expected and wanted by western producing provinces and by the national Government, were not forthcoming. But that was because, as the Hon. Member, if he is candid enough, will admit, the western producing provinces signed that Accord-


Mr. Taylor:: Baloney.


David Charles Dingwall: -because they believed, as the Government of Canada did at the time, that the world price of oil would continue to increase. The truth hurts when Hon. Members hear it.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is baloney and you know it.


David Charles Dingwall: But those Hon. Members are quite prepared to sell out the consumers, the small western Canadian producers, and to give money to the multinational oil companies.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That's wishful thinking. That's what the Liberals think.


David Charles Dingwall: Shame on the Alberta Members of Parliament.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall). It is a motion which distorts what has been going on in this country over the past seven months, and it distorts what was in the energy Accord. I say that choosing my words very carefully, and I am sorry that the Hon. Member is leaving the House-


David Charles Dingwall: Point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) on a point of order.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who at one point in his career was noted for some form of integrity, would not impute motive to myself, or indeed any other Member of Parliament. I do not find anything frightfully wrong in going to the lobby to have a cup of coffee and watch his dismal performance on television, as thousands of Canadians-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 think the point is made.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened to the word "integrity" just used by the Hon. Member. If there is one person who has degraded the word "integrity" in this House today, it is that Hon. Member. I would invite him to come back and listen to these words directly because it is a serious matter to call into question the integrity of people outside this House.
I listened to the Hon. Member distort the words of the Deputy Minister of Energy in the Province of Ontario. He used a distorted press report yesterday as the basis for his speech and, indeed, it is the basis for the motion today. He knows that the Deputy Minister of Energy withdrew that statement. He said that it was a distortion, that it was taken out of context, and I am going to read the telex. I was absolutely disgusted when I heard the Hon. Member, in light of the fact that he knew that the Deputy Minister of Energy had withdrawn that statement, had stated that it was distorted, and persisted in repeating that statement to this House. That is the sort of action by Members of Parliament which degrades the reputation of this whole House. 1 say to the Hon. Member that he should stand in his place after 1 have finished my remarks and apologize to the Deputy Minister of Energy for calling into question the words which he said.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I would like to quote from a telex which has been made public. It was sent to my col-
April 3, 1985

league, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney). The telex is from Duncan Allan, Deputy Minister of Energy of the Government of Ontario. He stated that comments that were attributed to him were:
-used selectively in the article and it has distorted the position of the Government of Ontario, which position I fully endorse. That position is that the Accord offers great potential for Ontario and indeed all of Canada, not only for lower oil and gas prices for the consumers of this province but for the investment and industrial activity which will subsequently flow.
There is certainly nothing in that agreement that can be said to be adverse to Ontario's interests.
Mr. Speaker, I should not call the Hon. Member "honourable" because his statement is not an honourable statement. In face of that the Member persists in distorting the truth of statements made by someone outside this House who cannot defend himself in the House.
I would also like to quote the Economic Council because Hon. Members have today attempted to exploit the good name of the Council. 1 would like to read from a news release issued by the Economic Council this morning:
The Council has looked at a variety of scenarios... Among these scenarios, the impact of deregulating oil and natural gas prices, without other changes in taxation or royalties, was simulated. Based on this assessment, we concluded that as many as 100,000 jobs might be created. The Council also simulated various possible tax changes in addition to the deregulation of oil and gas, resulting in larger or smaller stimulus depending on the package.
They go on to say that they have not estimated the results of the Accord that was announced last week. They conclude by saying:
It is difficult to make precise comparisons... but it is well known that tax cuts usually have a stimulative effect.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the basis on which we have said that the energy Accord in Western Canada will result in between 100,000 and 300,000 jobs. That does not take into account the Atlantic Accord which is going to be so beneficial to Newfoundland as well as creating spin-off benefits in the other Atlantic provinces.
In Question Period this afernoon the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) made reference to a report which was prepared by the Ministry of Energy. I would like to bring to the attention of the House the substance of the comments made in that report. I am sure the Hon. Member can read this later on if he wishes to. It makes the key assumption that the jobs that will be created will be based on the degree of reinvestment.
Hon. Members know that the rate of reinvestment in the first half of this year was around 65 or 70 per cent. During the years prior to 1980 and the introduction of the National Energy Program, the rate of reinvestment was about 110 per cent. We are convinced that the increased revenues which the industry is going to receive as a result of deregulation will receive very favourable treatment by the energy industry. They will be reinvested in the economy to find the oil and gas in eastern and western Canada and to create jobs right across the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Supply


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Western Accord speaks directly to the question of reinvestment. The Minister has said that we will be monitoring this very closely. Due to discussions that the Minister, myself and other Ministers have had, the industry knows that we feel very strongly about the question of reinvestment. We will be monitoring it because it is a key element to the success that the industry will generate as a result of this Accord. We are convinced that there will be a substantial amount of reinvestment. The result of that will not be felt only in western Canada. Studies have been done which indicate that 35 or 40 per cent of the impact of that investment is felt in central Canada.
I wanted to get these three issues on the record to deal with the distortion and innuendo that has been floating around this Chamber this afternoon. I wanted to get them on the record to enable us all to understand the basis on which we are operating.
I will now turn to other parts of the motion that we are debating today. Last November I set out in the economic statement three elements of an economic strategy that we have been following closely. The first was that we would put our fiscal house in order by dealing with the tremendous problem of the accumulated debt in the country which has been growing two or three times faster than the rate of growth of the economy for 10 years now. Second, we said that we would redefine the role of government. Third, we said that we would create a positive environment for investment, innovation and international competitiveness.
I would like to read from a part of the economic agenda that I tabled last November. It is very clear that in relation to the energy industry we have done exactly what we said we would do. It is all laid out on page 65 where we noted:
The energy sector faces many rules, regulations and demands originating from federal and provincial energy legislation and regulatory bodies. There is little doubt that these, taken together, discourage activity in the energy sector. The federal Government will put its own house in order and begin discussions with the provinces on means of streamlining these regulatory requirements through such devices as the "single-window" approach.
We went on to say that we attach great priority to renegotiating energy agreements with Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan, and to pursuing accords with the East Coast with regard to the offshore. We set it out there, Mr. Speaker, and we have done what we said we would do. That will create jobs right across the country.
The last two months have clearly demonstrated that performance in that we have signed the Atlantic Accord and the Western Accord. They are an integral part of our strategy toward energy development. I would like to remind Hon. Members that energy investment accounts for 30 per cent of business investment in the country. There is a very direct correlation between business investment and job creation. That is why we have felt so strongly about this element of our economic program.
I would like to discuss what happened in the lead-up to these energy agreements. From September, 1984 to February, 1985 well completions in western Canada increased by 11 per cent

April 3, 1985
Supply
over the same period 12 months earlier. Seventy-one per cent of these were development wells and exploration activity has climbed 26 per cent. That demonstrates very clearly that the industry is responding, partly in anticipation to what we have just done, but also in response to things that we said in the economic statement. We increased the small producers PGRT credit, changed initiatives taken to ameliorate the shut-in oil problem, and provided for a more flexible export policy to generate a greater degree of cash flow in the industry. It is very clear that things are happening in the country because industry is responding to the incentives, enthusiasm and encouragement provided by the Government.
I have said on a number of occasions that Members in the Opposition walk around with a little black cloud over their heads. Let us look at some of the good news that we have had over the past few months. In the fourth quarter we had an improvement over what we had expected in the Gross National Product which allowed the year to finish on an up beat note, much higher than I had anticipated just a few months earlier. Eighty-four thousand jobs have been created. Manufacturing companies are going to increase investment this year by 26 per cent. The merchandise trade balance continues at the high level of $23 billion in the last quarter. Retail sales increased 12 per cent over the past two or three months. We have had an inflation rate below that of the U.S. for the past six months. All of these matters, Mr. Speaker, indicate to me that consumers and companies, large and small, are responding to the change in government and the change in atmosphere that we have in the country. That is what we are trying to generate.
1 will now return to the energy agreements. Earlier in the House I said that they would generate jobs in other parts of the country. Chase Econometrics has done a study which indicates that, next to Alberta, Ontario draws the greatest benefit from petroleum activity. Those industries which will benefit are metal fabricators of pipe, equipment, autos and trucks, electric and electronic manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, consulting companies and mining industries, because there will be increased demands for metal products. Some specific companies in Quebec which will benefit are AES Data, Canada Cement Lafarge, Canadian Marconi, Crane Canada, Dominion Bridge, Foxboro, Marine Industries, Inger-soll-Rand and Pratt & Whitney. That is a wide range of companies.
I see the Hon. Member from Quebec has just come in. He recognizes those companies. He has a smile on his face because he knows that jobs will be created in the Province of Quebec as a result of the energy agreement. He says "Bien".


Jean-Claude Malépart: Who is going to pay for that? The people of Quebec.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is quite clear. That is the best agreement for all of Canada.

Let us look at some of the immediate reactions. Imperial Oil plans an investment program for 1985 of $1 billion, compared with $700 million in the last two years. That company alone will create 30,000 person-years of employment. That is action which demonstrates that we are on the right track.
I am confident that that is only the beginning as a result of conversations I have had with a number of other people in the energy industry. Let there be no doubt that a stronger energy industry means a stronger Canadian economy. The whole country will benefit from it.
Let me quote from the Canadian Energy Research Institute in Calgary. It states that projects such as the Wolf Lake oil sands project now under way by BP and Petro-Canada will create 22,000 person-years of employment activity across Canada. It goes on to point out that industry in Ontario and Quebec is providing essential supplies to this project and accounts for 35 per cent of the jobs. The Hon. Member should be smiling again.
I listened to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) when he talked about a five-cent to ten-cent a litre increase in taxes. If he was in the House, I would challenge him to establish the basis for those scare tactics. If he can't provide me with the basis for those figures, perhaps I could respond; but I suggest that he is trying to scare the consumers and split the country in the same way the Liberals did under their previous leader. The present Leader has not learned anything more about what makes Canada tick than the previous leader who was kicked out.
We have accomplished a lot in the last six months. Let me outline some of those accomplishments. I heard the Hon. Member talk about job creation. We will not simply provide a three-month or six-month job creation program for Canadians. Our policy is to meld direct job creation with career development so that Canadians can have some confidence that when they take a job in one of these programs they are learning something that will help develop their career.
My colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) said that his Department has taken 42 initiatives to support the agriculture industry. For instance, the Farm Credit Corporation has dropped interest rates by 2.5 percentage points, I believe. The farm fuel tax rebate is one of the most significant parts of the economic statement of last November.
The Hon. Member for Quebec should realize that we signed the first Economic Regional Development Agreement with the Province of Quebec since 1974. That is an indication to Quebec that it can work with the rest of Canada so we can develop a strong Canada by working together rather than pushing the people of Quebec out of Canada.
Interest rates have gone down from approximately 12.5 per cent to the current level today. Hon. Members did not ask me a question about the fact that there was another drop in interest rates, down to approximately 10.5 per cent.
Consumer confidence and business confidence today is at the highest level we have seen in a number of years. The
April 3, 1985

reason for this is that they are responding to the programs, policies and the attitude of the Government.
Let me talk about small business and the impact upon it of the energy Accord. A spokesman for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has said that he foresees between 30,000 and 40,000 small-business jobs in companies that support the oil and gas industry. That energy services industry was absolutely decimated by the National Energy Program. I know that is the case because I visited those companies in the foothills of Alberta and saw the impact of the National Energy Program upon them. It is those small companies which will come back in a strong way as a result of this Accord. I can see that recovery taking place across the country.
The Canadian Association of Oil Well Drilling Contractors predicts that this industry will create about 20,000 jobs directly as a result of an increased energy industry.
Let me repeat the position of the Government of Ontario. The Government of Ontario represents consumers and very little oil and gas production in that province. The Government states that the Western Accord offers great potential for Ontario and indeed all of Canada, not only for lower oil and gas prices for the consumers of this province but for the investment in industrial activity that will subsequently flow. It says that there is certainly nothing in that agreement that can be said to be adverse to Ontario's interests.
So much for the Liberal tactic of division. Liberals, under their new Leader, are persisting in following its previous energy policies. They are still trying to divide the country. Surely Hon. Members understand the damage that was done to the country during the years 1980 to 1983 which saw the rise of the western separatist movement when the Liberals ignored the impact of their policy on the interests of western Canada. I urge Hon. Members to think very carefully about how they present their views in the House because they are falling into the same trap as the previous Government by ignoring the impact of their policies. We must avoid such an impact if we are going to keep this country together. Our Government has worked hard at bringing the country together and convincing Canadians that by working together we will build a stronger economy.
When Prime Minister Hawke spoke to the National Economic Conference here a couple of weeks ago, he said that the very important consideration we must always remember is that working together and understanding the points of view of all parts of the country is the way we create economic development. That is the way we create jobs and learn to pull together, rather than push apart. With the co-operation of the Opposition Parties, I am sure that we can continue this process and build a much stronger Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions, comments. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).
Supply


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on record some facts about Quebec which the Minister seems to forget. Concerning the energy agreement, he refuses like the Minister responsible for Energy to assure this House that this energy agreement will not be implemented at the expense of the consumers. When Quebec members suggest that we are concerned about that agreement, it is not because of the people out West: the Minister knows very well it is because of the multinational corporations. If he wants information about that, let him have a word with the Hon. Member sitting behind him, a Progressive Conservative member. In case he does not know him, the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) remembers very well that when the then Quebec Minister of Finance, Mr. Parizeau, partly reduced his elevator tax, the ones who immediately, the next day, took advantage of that reduction were not the consumers but the oil multinationals with whom the Minister is now cosily in bed. They absorbed that tax.
We, of the Liberal Party, support job creation, but what we want to know, and what the Minister will not say, is this: Who is going to pay for that? It is a disguised tax increase in his budget, if he cannot give that assurance today. And the Minister wants us to trust him. But, as he will recall, he himself admitted in a press report that, during the elections, he would not reveal his true intentions with respect to terminating social program universality, something he wanted to do afterwards. What guarantee do we have that he is not now cooking up something of that kind?
With respect to job creation, since the Minister hands out over $1 billion to the big oil companies, I would like to know why he should not set $250 million aside for needy senior citizens, for single, separated and divorced people. They too would have created jobs. Thanks to higher income provided through the amendment to Bill C-26, those people would have been regular consumers in need of food and clothing, and they would have created jobs. The oil multinationals do not hold a monopoly on job creation.
Concerning the agreement with Quebec, I might recall that the Canadian and Quebec Governments had signed the NEED agreement but, unfortunately, that agreement was broken by the Government of Quebec.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I said to the Liberal Member that nothing in that agreement will boost the price of gasoline.


An Hon. Member:: It is crystal clear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is crystal clear.

I say to the Hon. Member that there was some criticism in his province when the change was made in the petroleum compensation charge back in November which resulted in a price rise in gasoline. Did the Hon. Member ever explain to his constituents why the price of gasoline had to go up? Let me

April 3, 1985
Supply
tell him why. The change that took place in November resulted from the fact that the previous Government, the Government of which the Hon. Member was a part, did not change the petroleum compensation charge. The result was a deficit running at $140 million a month. The Hon. Member shakes his head. He is displaying his total ignorance when he shakes his head. It was $140 million a month-


An Hon. Member:: How do you know?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I know, Mr. Speaker, what was going on. I will take the Hon. Member through the figures. The price of gasoline went up because we had to respond to the lack of action by the previous Government because it did not have the guts to change the price of gasoline when it knew it should have. The Liberals knew they were going to face the people in a couple of months and they could not face the music. Instead, the people knew. The people beat them. They beat them and they kept the Liberals out because of all the dissatisfaction that had developed over the years because of lack of governing, lack of understanding and the lack of being straightforward with the Canadian people.
Let me make one other point, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member referred in his question to our ignoring the interests of the people who are not well off in this country. Let me remind him that one of the key initiatives in the November statement was the $400 million spousal allowance that we brought in. The Hon. Member is shaking his head. He does not even know about that. I ask the Hon. Member for Montreal-Saint-Marie (Mr. Malepart) whether he has read the statement of last November. If he had, he would not be saying such stupid things.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have two short questions. First, there is a deficit in the petroleum compensation account of somewhere between $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion. Could the Minister tell me what the figure is? What is happening to that amount? Has it been swallowed into the general deficit or will the Government try to collect it at a future date?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Members' figure is a little high. I believe the most recent figure is $1.2 billion, which is a large amount. The purpose of this account is to protect consumers across the country from the excessive prices in gasoline.
We have said that we are committed to reducing that deficit, and at this point I would have to say to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) that that is something I will have to deal with in the Budget.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) is quoted as saying, when asked about the oil Accord, that we have a $35 billion deficit and we have to start from there. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) has suggested that the industry got something like $500 million a year over two years, which is about a billion dollars, in addition to which there is this deficit in the petroleum compensation account. Could the Minister give us a
figure? Would he agree with the Minister's figure that at least a billion dollars has been transferred over the next two years? Would he indicate to the House how he proposes to collect that, or does he propose just to let the deficit increase to correspond with that figure?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the Hon. Member that one of the results of the Accord is that excessive taxes on the industry have been reduced. That is clear and it has been pointed out by a number of people, including himself. Let me also point out that a number of expenses are reduced as well. For example, the petroleum incentive payments will be reduced. There are other things which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has reduced in energy expenditures relating to the off-oil program. One cannot isolate one element of a program and say that for this reason the deficit will go up. There are many elements that are taken into account in the broad government finances. That is the purpose of a Budget. I will be setting out how we deal not just with energy matters but with a wide range of matters including the spousal allowance, how we are going to finance it, how we will finance the farm fuel tax rebate, the veterans pension increases and a wide range of other things that I am sure the Hon. Member has applauded as he has watched us over the last few months.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister's reply had to do with the spouse's allowance for widows and widowers. He did not quite get the gist of my question. I agree on that point. But is the Minister aware of the fact that, by restricting eligibility for this program only to widows and widowers, he is penalizing 80,000 Canadians, mostly women whose needs are the same as those of widows and widowers? Those are the people I was talking about when I suggested he might have invested $250 million more. The Minister knows full well that he recoups in social assistance any money allotted to the elderly. I was referring to single, separated and divorced people.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the Hon. Member that we cannot rebuild Rome overnight. It takes time to undo the damage that has been done. We have taken the first steps in dealing with the spouse's allowance. There are other people in the country whom we would also like to help, but we have to deal with things as they come. They will not all be done at the same time.
I would ask the Hon. Member to recognize that while we can do certain things on the social side, we also have to generate income to pay for the programs. To generate that income we have chosen the energy industry as the industry which has demonstrated very clearly the capacity for a quick fix, if there is anything close to such a thing. I will just remind the Hon. Member of some of the figures. There is 65 per cent or 70 per cent reinvestment now. That percentage is growing fast and it will create jobs. If the industry can get back to the
April 3, 1985

110 per cent reinvestment that was there prior to the National Energy Program, that is where we will demonstrate clearly that anywhere from 100,000 to 300,000 jobs we have been talking about earlier in the House today will be created and that is how we will pay for those programs.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that last answer of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). That is my point. I want to deal with a couple of matters about which the Minister of Finance spoke and then I want to deal with the remarks of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall).
First let me deal with the Minister of Financ. I took notes when he was speaking. He said: "During the years leading up to 1980, to the National Energy Program, the rate of reinvestment of the industry was 110 per cent". The Minister just repeated that a moment ago. That is simply not true, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps unintentionally, he has distorted the facts. I want to give him the facts.
I made a point of asking the Petroleum Monitoring Agency, the Government's own agency, for the investment ratios of the petroleum industry in Canada. The agency replied by indicating that petroleum-related investment in Canada, as a percentage of internal cash flow from petroleum operations, that is capital expenditures upstream and downstream, in the years from 1971 to 1975 was 70.7 per cent for the total industry. As I deal with these ratios, I will note the Canadian part as well as the foreign part. The Canadian part was 93.1 per cent and the foreign part was 66.7 per cent. From 1976 to 1980, it was 75.3 per cent for the total industry, 84.7 per cent was Canadian and 72.7 per cent was foreign. For the years from 1971 to 1980, the golden pre-National Energy Program era about which the Conservatives like to speak, for the total industry it was 73.9 per cent, not 110 per cent. It was 86.6 per cent for the Canadian part and 70.8 per cent for the foreign.
Now 1 will deal with specific years. In 1978, it was 93 per cent for the total industry; in 1979, it was 82 per cent; and in 1980, it was 88 per cent. It is simply not true that they were investing 110 per cent before the NEP. As a matter of fact, the year in which they invested 110 per cent was 1981. It was 106 per cent in 1982 when the hated National Energy Program was in full swing. Let us not distort the figures. I say to Conservative Members from Alberta that we should not deal in myths. Let us try to deal in realities. I know the Minister unintentionally distorted the figures, but the fact is that his figures were wrong and I will give him a chance to correct them.
Referring to the figures of the Petroleum Monitoring Agency, in the first six months of 1984, the percentage of the total reinvestment was 68 per cent, as the Minister said. Of that, 76 per cent was Canadian and 63 per cent was foreign. This indicates that the industry reinvestment is lower than it used to be. Also it shows that Canadian firms reinvest more of their cash flow than do American firms, the large foreign multi-nationals.
Supply
Later in my speech I will show that the new Western Accord was a bonanza or windfall basically for the large American oil companies-Shell, Texaco, Imperial, Gulf and so on. I will send these figures to the Hon. Minister of Finance. I know he is a straight shooter. He should have the correct figures.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I have to go.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I know the Minister may have to go; I understand that, as he is a busy man.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I have to prepare my Budget.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, he has to prepare his Budget. Before he leaves, I should like to make the following point. I think he is basically-and he knows it too-proceeding on a hope and a prayer that the industry will suddenly reinvest a heck of a lot of money in jobs to make him look good, to save his bacon. If they do not do it, he is the one who will carry the can.


Mr. Siddon:: Let him take that chance.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He has to take that chance. He is the Minister. The Hon. Member is a government Minister; he is taking a chance too. This is a tremendous gamble. We simply do not have any studies to show how many jobs will be created. The figures vary widely, from 100,000 to 300,000 and so on. We simply do not have studies. In fact, the Department of Finance does not have particular studies to show that.
I will deal later with some of the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. However, I remind Hon. Members that through no fault of my own I had the benefit of sitting through all the committee meetings and debates on the Liberal National Energy Program. In fact, I saw all the Bills. Everyone else has been promoted. I sat at those meetings with the Minister of Finance, but I am still in my same position; I do not know what that indicates, but perhaps I know a little about the program. There are some things to remember about the NEP. Let us not deal with myths, let us deal with reality. The downturn in Alberta at that time was a result of many different things. One was that the economy generally was down. There was a recession. While the rigs were down in Alberta, so too were they down in the United States. They were down in that period as well. It was not entirely the fault of the National Energy Program.


Thomas Edward Siddon: They went to the United States.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If my friend looks at the realities and not at the myths, he will see what happened. The National Energy Program had some effect. It had a downturn. Some of those taxes were unfair and wrong. Let us be objective when we look at that program.
I ask Hon. Members opposite to be objective when they deal with the NDP position on the National Energy Program. The Minister of Finance, who is an honest man, is very careful when he deals with it. We in the NDP did not support that

April 3, 1985
Supply
program. I am tired of hearing Conservative Members during Question Period and at other times saying that we supported it. We voted against that program more than did the Conservatives; it was a broad program and it had many parts.
I should like to give the House a couple of reasons for not liking the NEP. 1 thought it was taking the exploration and action out of the western sedimentary basin and putting it in the Canada Lands. The Trudeau Government wanted to control the Canada Lands. It was a power play with the Government of Alberta. The national Government controlled the North and the offshore. Only the Liberals could invent a program in which 80 per cent was given in PIP grants and there was a 25 per cent back-in. I understand oil companies want to drill for oil. They do not want to fill out forms. That is part of the bureaucracy and is one of the problems in the National Energy Program. The NEP was effective in that it emphasized Canadianization as a goal and worked toward it. Also it was effective in that it emphasized conservation. Those two notions have been abandoned by this Government- Canadianization and conservation. This Government has a bad record on conservation and no record on Canadianization. We have to be fair when we deal with the NEP.
Also I point out to Hon. Members from Alberta that Premier Lougheed had a glass of champagne with Prime Minister Trudeau to celebrate the Accord of 1981. The NDP did not sign that Accord. I would tell that to the editors of The Calgary Herald if they were listening. That Accord went sour, basically because world prices went down instead of up. It was a gamble and it did not pay off.
I should like to repeat the motion before us today. It reads:
That this House condemns the Government for its failure to create the jobs required to substantially reduce the excessively high levels of unemployment, either through its general economic policies or through its recently announced energy agreement, the job creation potential of which has made the Ontario Deputy Minister of Energy skeptical to the point where he has said that, in signing it, the Government "gave away the store".
The phrase "gave away the store" sounds familiar. It was my phrase. I used it in the House on March 28. I still believe it. I think the Government was a patsy for the industry. It literally gave away something like $2.5 billion. Today I asked the Minister of Finance where he will find that revenue. I thnk it will be taken out of further taxes. We will have to wait until the Budget comes down to find out. I think the consumer will be hosed in that particular Budget.
Another point which we have to note with respect to the deficit and the windfall for oil companies is the fact that there is a double standard. As a result of the November 8 economic statement, we had a cut-back on environmental matters. We had to cut back the entire alternative energy division, the high-tech division of the National Research Council. We had to cut back on national parks, the wildlife service, the arts, all in the name of the deficit. We even had to cut back the 500 bucks that the average person gets to help insulate his house or the 800 bucks to convert his furnace from oil to another energy source. Why? Because of the deficit.
When it comes to the Western Accord, what happens? We can give the money to the oil companies with no strings attached. This is what the Minister of Finance was telling us this afternoon. He said he met with them and told them that we would need a better performance than that in the old days when they only invested 68 per cent of their cash flow. He said they have to reinvest, but there is nothing to require that. I think this was well put in an article by Jeffrey Simpson in today's The Globe and Mail. He said this:
The theory presumes that the $1.3 billion in foregone taxes will be translated into reinvestment in exploration, drilling and ultimately job creation.
He then asks what will require the companies to do that. They have not done that in the past. What is to require them to do it in the present?
I want to give some idea of the windfall that we are talking about. Let me explain it very briefly so that people can understand. Old oil, that is oil found before 1974, was found at a cost of about $3 a barrel. It is moving up. It is now about $26 or $28 a barrel. It is moving up to the world price. The holders of that oil will make a windfall profit. They won the "Lotto". The holders of new oil, which is oil found after 1974, which is a little bit above world price, will come down to the world price. The holders of new oil will lose some money.
Who holds the old oil? Who won "Lotto Carney"? Gulf, with 73 per cent old oil and 27 per cent new oil, will have a windfall of $59.8 million. Imperial, with 62 per cent old oil and 38 per cent new oil, will have a windfall of $50.9 million. Shell has 88 per cent old oil and 12 per cent new oil. It will have a windfall of $43.7 million. Taxaco is the big winner. With 75 per cent old oil and 25 per cent new oil, it will have a windfall of about $76.8 million.
If you are going to have a rational energy policy and you are going to reward someone in the oil patch, the last company you would award would be Texaco. It is a large American multinational company with a very conservative record of reinvesting its profits. It is the most conservative company in the oil patch. Why give it the biggest benefit? That does not make sense.
I see a Member from Quebec. I do not know whether he was present at the energy committee. The Canadian Federation of Independent Petroleum Marketers, a very admirable group of small Canadian oil companies in the downstream, said that it got 15 per cent of the share of the downstream. That is the marketing, the selling, the gas stations and so on. I quote the following from its brief:
Independents are generally cost efficient and provide the only true, effective competition in the market-place.
I say to the Conservative Members opposite that they should insist, as a corollary to this Western Accord, that the Government enter into a profit competition policy. You cannot give $75 million to Texaco and let it continue with its sort of restraint on competition that we have in the downstream market. If you want to have a free market, let's have a free
April 3, 1985

market. That is what Conservative Members should be pushing for, and I hope they will do just that.
In Question Period today, there was reference to the studies of the Economic Council of Canada with regard to what is happening. I notice a pattern here. The Deputy Minister of Energy for Ontario complained about the deal. He said that the figures were inflated. He said:
Energy Minister Pat Carney may be grossly exaggerating how many jobs will be created-
That was the gist of his remarks. I'm sorry, that was said by the director, the fellow who did the study for the Economic Council of Canada. The Minister of Finance stood up and said that we have a clarification. We had a statement by the Deputy Minister of Energy for Ontario and then we had a clarification. We had a statement by the head of IPAC a while ago and then we had a clarification. We had a statement from some official on defence and then we had a clarification. It is almost too much to be coincidental. When we do have an honest statement, the Government hammers on it and suddenly there is a clarification. That is the pattern here.
Mr. John Helliwell, a distinguished economist from British Columbia, says that you have to look at the effect of giving this big windfall to the industry. He said that if you do away with the petroleum gas revenue tax, it will create 15,000 jobs. However, he says that if you collect that amount in taxation to deal with the deficit to get it back, you will lose 40,000 jobs. Therefore, there is a net loss of 25,000 jobs.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Let's look at his assumption.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister says we should look at his assumption. I say to the Minister that the Government has been unable to produce any models or studies on what it has done. It is a hope and a prayer. That is shocking. I raised today the matter of a document that I received from the Government. That is all the Government has. It analysed the Economic Council model, the model of the oil industry, and the Ontario model, all of which were widely divergent. I quote the following from the Energy, Mines and Resources statement:
One should not attach too much importance to the numbers given because they are based on outdated and possibly unrealistic assumptions. Second, a conclusion is that given the variety of approaches followed and assumptions made, it is not surprising that different studies lead to different conclusions.
It says that there is no way you can tell. That is what the Minister of Finance, who is a straightforward fellow, got up and said in this House today, unlike the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney), who throws around figures of 100,000 or 300,000 jobs. Don't do a con job on the Canadian people. The Canadian people are not that stupid. The Canadian people know that if you are going to give $2.5 billion to the oil industry, you will have to get the money back somehow. They know where the money will come from. It will come right out of their hides.
I have about a minute remaining. I want to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that it should do some things. It will have to take another look at the Atlantic
Supply
Accord. With the PIP grants gone and the world price dropping, that puts it in jeopardy. It should look at the downstream competition policy. It should upgrade the Petroleum Monitoring Agency so that we know exactly what will be done with the money.
My prediction is that the oil companies will take the money and run. That is what they have done historically. They will repatriate it to the foreign shareholders. I regret that this Government has given up the better thrust of the NEP. That was Canadianization, conservation and an attempt to really get the energy industry to be Canadian-owned and working in an equitable way for all Canadians.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has been the critic for the New Democratic Party for quite some time. We can see some progress. We see that he knows more than he used to know. However, we sometimes wonder what he really does know. I would like to challenge the Member. He indicated that the biggest windfall for any of the multinationals will be $76 million. Yesterday, a number of newspapers carried, in a very tiny box, the story that one company operating in this country indicated that because of the National Energy Program's demise, its investment in the year ahead would go up from $700 million to $1 billion, a $300-million increase in investment, to create jobs. That is a 43 per cent increase. Can the Hon. Member tell us which company that was? If he is monitoring the situation, he would know which company made that announcement. Does he agree with the announcement? Does he like its flavour?
Second, if the Hon. Member has done his homework, he could probably tell us how much money the consumers of the country were saved when the Minister negotiated no price increase on natural gas not only once but twice. How much money were the consumers of the country saved by that step and which company increased its investment plans for one year by $300 million as reported in the newspapers yesterday?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, first, I am not going to play Trivial Pursuit with the Hon. Member. If he wants to come over to my house tonight, we will play Trivial Pursuit over a cup of coffee or a beer.
The Hon. Member might be interested in knowing that the companies have been reinvesting since the beginning of this year. Most of the reinvestment had already been made in anticipation of a great many things. This was just an additional windfall.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The change in the energy program.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, most of it was already made. We are not going to see a heck of a big increase. The industry was already beginning to be on its way up. If the Hon. Member were honest, he would admit that.
As far as natural gas is concerned, one of the glaring things about the agreement, as I predicted, is that the agreement does not deregulate natural gas.

April 3, 1985
Supply


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: What about no price increase?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Elon. Member is yelling about price increases. There is no way, given the natural gas market, that there could have been any increase in price. We have a surplus in natural gas and we are selling out.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: How much was saved?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If the Hon. Member wants to listen to me, he can comment after.
The Hon. Member must know that we are selling out our natural gas at fire sale prices. We are exporting it to the United States.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Four hundred years' supply.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, 400-years' supply. A Minister of Energy rose in the House and said that we had a 300-year supply of oil, and that was when we were selling oil at $3 a barrel. That is why we are in this pickle today. We exported a lot of our cheap oil and we are still doing so. Now we are exporting natural gas. He must know that the oil industry in Canada, for its own purposes, wants to export. It wants more and more money and more cash flow. That is the pattern. However, that is not in the national interests of this country when looking at a long-term energy policy. The Hon. Member should face that fact and rise above being completely xenophobic. He should try to look at the entire nature of this country.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question. It was Imperial Oil, and I congratulate that company. In the last two years, it has invested about $700 million and this year, after the announcement was made, it decided to invest $1 billion, a $300-million increase. The industry, of course, was starting to rise with the election of a Progressive Conservative Government because it liked the tone, attitude and style of this Government. It liked the fact that we wanted the private sector to create the meaningful jobs. Naturally it began to invest in the last quarter. Today the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said that things improved in the last quarter and will continue to improve with the Atlantic Accord and the Western Accord.
The Hon. Member is a westerner. Why, despite the devastation of western Canada because of the National Energy Program, does his Party continue to support this piece of socialist nonsense that was perpetrated on the Canadian people? He does continue to support it. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.
Why does he condemn the Government for doing something that will not only improve the lot of western Canada but will improve the lot of my riding? In Brampton-Georgetown, there are 52 companies, each one of which I am personally aware, that directly supply the oil patch. It will mean jobs for them. There are 350 such companies in Mississauga and it will mean jobs for them. There are 2,500 companies in the Province of Ontario that directly supply the oil patch. Why is the Hon. Member attacking this so-called windfall to the multi-nationals when in fact that money will mean jobs right across the country?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) is deservedly acquiring a reputation for being one of the thickest and dumbest Members of the House of Commons. He literally did not listen to my speech. I would invite him to read it. If he had listened to my speech, he would have heard that we do not support the National Energy Program. I gave an analysis of the good points and the bad points of that program. Why does he not listen? I will do him the favour of listening to what he has to say when he has something to say.
I have already said that job-creation is a hope and a prayer. He can say over and over again that jobs will be created, but the fact is that the studies do not show that. It is a capitalintensive industry. Of course some jobs will be created, but we do not know that 100,000 or 300,000 jobs will be created. It may be better to invest that money directly in the Hon. Member's constituency than to invest it in the oil industry.


Thomas Edward Siddon: That's socialist.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They can yell socialist at me or they can yell whatever they like. They may not agree with me but 1 suggest that they look at the facts.
Imperial Oil is a better company than Texaco in terms of reinvesting. Texaco is one of the worst companies in that respect. However, there is still a problem with Imperial Oil. The latest FIRA communique indicates that Imperial Oil Limited of Don Mills, Ontario, which is controlled by Exxon Corporation of New York, New York, has applied to acquire control of the business carried on by Super-Park-It Limited, Toronto, Ontario. Imperial Oil keeps on expanding. We are giving it more money and it is going to expand and expand. Some of that money is diverted. It is not simply put back into the oil patch. It controls the downstream and all the small Canadian producers get squeezed out.
I would suggest that the Hon. Member read what 1 said about the National Energy Program. He should not talk to me about being a westerner. I am a westerner. The West is made up not only of a few multi-national oil companies at the Petroleum Club in Calgary, it is made up also of ordinary Canadians in Vancouver, Lethbridge, Edmonton and Calgary.


John Horton McDermid: Who want jobs.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Of course they want jobs, but we will not create very many jobs in Vancouver Centre by giving $75 million to Texaco. There are better ways of creating jobs, and the Hon. Member should look at them. He should realize why the Government was defeated in 1979. It was defeated because of that kind of head-in-the-sand attitude.


Paul Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) a few questions, but first I would like to make a couple of points for the sake of clarity. If the Hon. Member were to look at the drilling

April 3, 1985

record for the United States for the years 1980 to 1983, he would see that the decrease in drilling was 7.2 per cent. If he were to look at the same figures for Canada for the same years, he would notice that the decrease was 33 per cent. That is point one.
Point two, he says that there is no increase called for in the price of natural gas. If he were to read the Western Accord, he would find that the price of natural gas has been frozen. If he wishes to follow me, this is in Article 2, paragraph (i). The price was to go up by 25 cents. The addendum to the Memorandum of Intent dated June 30, 1983, in Article C, paragraph (iv), indicates that the price of natural gas was to go to 65 per cent of the TRAC price, and it is currently at 60.4 cents. It would have gone up 25 cents. The Elon. Member would know that because it is frozen, $450 million is coming from the producers and the people of western Canada to the consumers in order to create jobs. The Hon. Member would also know that there is to be a further $150 million decrease in the price of natural gas when the two taxes come off.
Having said that, I would like to ask a question of the Hon. Member. He keeps talking about doing something different regarding the Atlantic Accord because we are to lose PIP. Two months ago, he said that PIP was a giveaway. Now he is saying that we have to do something about it. He should make up his mind. Is PIP a giveaway or should we do something about it? What is his solution?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make three points. One, I accept the Hon. Member's figures on the decrease in drilling in the United States and Canada. He said that it was minus 7.2 per cent in the United States and minus 33 per cent in Canada. That is the point which I was making. I said that part of the reason for that general decrease in drilling, which was reflected in the United States but made worse in Canada, was the National Energy Program. I said that in my speech, and I accept his figures.
Second, with respect to gas, the price has not increased for some time. Basically, the Accord puts off the issue of gas. That issue is still to be negotiated. It is the big problem between Alberta and Ontario. It will be negotiated after the Ontario election, in the fall. It is a hard issue with which to deal. But gas has not yet been deregulated. If gas were deregulated, the price would fall. That would be a big windfall for consumers. But we will have to wait for that deregulation.
Third, he asked about my position with respect to PIP. I believe that my position is perfectly consistent. I argued from the beginning that PIP was wasteful and that it was not the proper way in which to go about Canadianization. But, PIP is going from the East Coast. If we read what the Atlantic Energy Ministers and other people are saying, it provided encouragement. It is the only way in which Canadian companies have been involved. It will now be dropped, so something will have to replace it. An incentive to explore is required. The world market price is too low for Hibernia or the oil sands. The companies will have to be provided with some sort of
Supply
incentive to drill. If it is not PIP, it will have to be something else.


Thomas Edward Siddon: How about profit?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Well, if the Member wants to go with no incentives at all, the companies will not do it because the world oil price is too low.
I have a couple of suggestions which I have made in the past. One is a tax-based system. The problem with that is that it can be abused just as the super depletion allowances were abused-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. Is the House willing to give him an extra two minutes so that he can complete his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There being no unanimous consent, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).

Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, it is with a feeling of sadness that I rise in the House today to speak to the motion moved by my Liberal colleague. The purpose of the motion is to condemn the Progressive Conservative Government for its lack of interest in fighting unemployment and its incompetence in concluding the energy agreement.
Mr. Speaker, let us recall the first action taken by this Government, or rather by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on November 8. First of all, job creation projects worth $4 billion were cut. Of these $4 billion, $1 billion would have been spent in Quebec. However, this measure was applauded by all Progressive Conservative Members.
If we look at a list of projects cut by this Government, we see first of all the $6.2 million cut from the dairy program, including $2.48 million in Quebec. At the CBC: $75 million cut, $ 18 million in Quebec. The purpose: to create unemployment. Research and development in the energy field: $60.8 million in Canada, $15.2 million in Quebec. Fisheries and Oceans: $11.7 million in Canada, $2.34 million in Quebec. In housing, and this is intolerable, in an area that is essential and very important to all Canadians, subsidized housing: $9.6 million, $2.4 million in Quebec. In the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, and I intend to give a few more details later on: $29.4 million, $7.3 million in Quebec. Regional industrial expansion, which is very important to Quebec's regions and to regions across Canada: $200 million, $50 million less for Quebec. At VIA Rail: $93 million and $23.25 million in Quebec. The VIA Rail maintenance centre that was

April 3, 1985
Supply
supposed to be built in Montreal has been postponed, and not a word from the Quebec Members about this.
As far as student loan programs are concerned, during the election campaign they said they were going to be very open and generous. That was the word used by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Today, Canadians realize it was a lot of rhetoric, because when it is time to give Canadians living on modest and low incomes what they need, he is not as "generous".
The student loans program: $5 million cut, $1.25 million in Quebec. Canagrex: $6.6 million, $1.65 million in Quebec. The manpower industrial traning program, a program that helps re-train workers on the job and introduce technological change in a humane manner: $40 million in Canada and $10 million in Quebec. The Canadian Home Insulation Program: $84 million, $21 million in Quebec. Cutbacks with a specific impact on certain regions in Quebec included $4.9 million that would have been spent on pharmaceutical laboratories in Trois-Rivieres and research laboratories in Victoriaville. The Quebec Members are applauding. At least I can congratulate the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay) who is fighting these cutbacks. I must say that Members who are doing so in the caucus over there are few and far between, and I think it is important to acknowledge the Progressive Conservative Members from Quebec who do have the courage to defend these interests. Hi-tech equipment at the CBC: $10 million, $2.5 million in Quebec. Natural gas lateral connections, and this is strictly in Quebec: an energy-related cutback of $85 million. Parks Canada: $19.5 million in Canada and $4.86 million in Quebec. Capital expenditures at Fisheries and Oceans: $18.1 million in Canada and $4.52 million in Quebec. The "Vieux Port" in Montreal and renovation of the marina in Chicoutimi: $3.5 million. The electrochemical institute in Shawinigan and the research institute in Edmonton: $3.6 million in Canada and $1.8 million in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, if we consider the total number of cuts in all these programs... When the Minister of Finance announced the cutbacks, he insisted at the time that there would be more job creation and that interest rates would go down. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker. What happened? The unemployment rate went up, and not just the statistics. In the newspapers we read that the real unemployment rate is 4 per cent higher, because in Canada we have 500,000 workers who are discouraged and have not been looking for work since September 4. All of this was accomplished by the Progressive Conservatives.
The Prime Minister has been asking Canadians to live within their means, Mr. Speaker. Was the Prime Minister living whithin his means when he received the President of the United States in Quebec? When he had this big party, this big show just for the Conservative Members, paid for with taxpayers' money?
Another newspaper article: When we need help, Ottawa does not show up. (Roger Dagenais, from the riding of Verdun); Le Devoir: Research spending-Quebec is falling behind Ontario. Via Rail is Montreal's loss and Toronto's gain. That is the result.
Mr. Speaker, I see the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote) who cannot even rise from his seat to speak to the House. All he does is shout, and the people of Lac-Saint-Jean say he is not looking after his riding.
Mr. Speaker, what was the Prime Minister's priority? The first priority of the Conservatives was typical of this Prime Minister: to go out and buy new uniforms for our Canadian Forces. I say typical, because the Prime Minister's philosophy is that appearances count above all else. As far as the rest is concerned, nothing has changed. And this wasteful exercise ignored the results of a survey in which 60 per cent of Canadians were opposed to this silly decision.


Mr. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: I am so glad.


Jean-Claude Malépart: used throughout Canada, in each and every riding, but it has been cut back to the tune of $29 million. Quebec was hit harder than any other province by that cut-back-35.74 per cent less for Quebec, only 9.5 per cent less for Ontario. One of these days some Members-and the Prime Minister first-will have to face the music. He will have to stop showing off and find answers to hard questions.
Here are some newspaper headlines: "Social Housing an Urgent Priority", "Federal Rehabilitation Aid Must Be Maintained". There are thousands of people throughout Canada- particularly in the Montreal and Quebec City areas-who are waiting for the Minister responsible for the CMHC to decide whether the RRAP program will be funded to build co-operative housing. Hundreds of projects are still on the drawing board, but they will never see the light of day if they decide to cancel this co-operative housing program. As a result of such a decision, co-operative housing will disappear in Canada, especially in Quebec where it is very popular. In addition, any social housing project carried out as cooperative housing will no longer be within the means of low and average income families, so they will be built strictly for richer people.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that with respect to this matter all Hon. Members in this House will urge the Minister in charge of CMHC to maintain the RRSP program in connection with co-operative housing.
Mr. Speaker, 1 came here prepared for a 20-minute speech, and I hope to get questions from Members opposite. This may be the only way to get them to rise so that people may come to know them a little. But I will conclude my remarks and let my colleague make his speech. I would simply say that on another important matter, there is still time to do something for all those Canadians, the 80,000 single, separated or divorced Canadians. This will not pass in committee-


Mr. Bernier:: Oh! Oh!


Jean-Claude Malépart: The Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier) does not know a thing about anything, he sounds silly when he says that. He does not even know how that works. He should enquire, and put pressure on his Minister in order that an amendment be introduced in committee, in May, to prevent discrimination. I am sure that even though the Hon. Member for Beauce likes to pitch insults through his hat, he himself agrees on that. But if he does not, I will send him the names of senior citizens who will be penalized by his decision. In the future, he will get to know what he is voting for.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy hearing my hon. rotund friend speak in the House. He always adds a little colour to the goings on here. I do not think there is any question in this House that Quebec in fact has and is playing its part and, I might say, contributing its fair share, in getting
Supply
Canada's fiscal house in order. But if all of these wonderful programs that the Hon. Member time and again stands up and talks about were so great, would he tell us why the people of Quebec so thoroughly repudiated the Liberal Government in the last election?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, usually the Hon. Member does a much better job with his questions. I am afraid this one shows some lack of judgment. The programs were in place before the elections. Tory members from Quebec, and the Prime Minister himself promised to do more. But those members would not be here if the Prime Minister had told the people the truth, if he had told them that those programs would be cut. That was the result of the last elections.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about truth. He was around in 1981, as I was, when his Party stood up and thoroughly condemned the then Government of the day for daring to suggest that it put a three-cents a litre tax on gasoline, and then when that Party was in government it proceeded to put 45 cents a gallon tax on gasoline in the next three years. If that Party is talking about telling the truth to the Canadian people, I wish my hon. rotund friend would level with them.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I therefore withdraw what I said. I thought he was a bright member, but he does not recall any difference between the tax and the oil price. The problem with the then Minister of Finance is not just the 18 cents a litre, increase, but what the Liberals opposed ... 1 see the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Ms. Jacques). Congratulations on returning from your trip. The people in your constituency are looking for you.
What I am telling the Hon. Member has to do with the 18 cents tax which we fought against. Never did the Liberals force any 18 cents tax on gas upon Quebecers and other Canadians. The Hon. Member recalls that Premier Bill Davis, a Conservative, if I am not mistaken, was against such a measure introduced by the then Progressive Conservative Government, and Quebec's Premier, Rene Levesque, who certainly is no Liberal but has a chance of becoming one if you insist on doing him in with your transfer payments, also disagreed with your decision at that time.


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member is exactly right, Mr. Speaker. The Premier of Ontario was opposed to that tax, but I can tell him as well that the Premier of Ontario was opposed to the 46-cents a gallon taxes-not price increase-that was placed by the Liberal Government on the price of gasoline at the pumps over the next three years. I might add that on June 1, a great number of those taxes, I am pleased to say, will be coming off and this will be reflected at the pumps.

April 3, 1985
Supply


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member allowing me to refer to the energy agreement that is prejudicial to Quebecers. He is saying to himself: Taxes are removed. However they are not removed for the benefit of the consumers, but for the benefit of the wealthiest multinationals, to let them make still more money. His Minister told us... The Minister of Finance earlier, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) his Minister, nobody can assure us ... The Minister would not assure us that in the agreement which he signed, no price control provision has been included. Even the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce), who sits behind you and is still a Progressive Conservative, says so. Ask the Quebec Retailers' Association. They will tell you they do not support that, as long as there is no mechanism to ensure that there will be no coalition, and no oil price increase to harm consumers.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I continually hear from the Liberals and the New Democratic Party that we are giving something away. Don't they realize that this money belongs to the oil companies? They have earned it. The Liberals took so much of it away that the companies could not even invest any. That is why we had a lack of jobs from the national energy policy. The producers earned the money. We are not giving them anything. We are only taking a reasonable amount from them as taxes rather than taking it all away so that there is no incentive. Look at what happened in Alberta with regard to incentive. This is how we differ from the socialists. They do not want to provide an incentive. They think everyone will work for the good of the state. It does not work that way. People need an incentive. They need to make something. That is why they are going to reinvest this money, because they can see the opportunity to make more money. They are not going to be robbed by the Government of every cent they make.
The oil companies came into Alberta in the ealry 1940s without 1 cent of government money. They invested millions of dollars and found scores, perhaps hundreds, of dry holes before they hit oil at Leduc. The incentive was there. They knew that once they struck oil they would make a profit and be allowed to keep most of it. They knew it would not all be confiscated from them as the socialists and Liberals are advocating.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, 1 am happy to hear the Honourable Member say that the Government did not take away all the money and that it should provide incentives for Canadians, but while I agree with that, the difference is that you want to give this money to the multinationals, to the wealthiest in our society, while I want to give it to middle and low income Canadians. That is the difference. I also recall what the Hon. Member did in the past. Did he rise to protect the 80,000 people who will be discriminated against because of Bill C-26?
I recall that when you, who have just spoken, sat on the side of the Opposition, you were against our making a change in the 6 and 5 program to help the recipients of old age security. What the Liberals did was to take money from the multinationals and redistribute it amongst those who needed it the most.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Mercier (Ms. Jacques) rising on a question or a comment?


Ms. Jacques:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) that the statement he made earlier to the effect that I was always on holidays and that I was never in my constituency was inaccurate, because I do work in my constituency and I also attend the sittings of this House. I also have comment about what the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie said earlier to the effect that we were having parties with the taxpayers' money. I would like to ask what proof he has of this, because we have not thrown a party yet while you have been partying for 20 years.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member on her second intervention in this House. The first had been written by the Office of the Prime Minister, but she made the second by herself and I am happy that I was the one to wake her up and to challenge the Progressive Conservatives. However, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier certainly does not know politics. She is wondering which parties I am talking about. The last one held in Quebec City for the President of the United States was hosted by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney).


An Hon. Member:: $300,000!


Jean-Claude Malépart: That party was only for Conservatives. How many people in your constituency were there? You were able to invite four or five people as a reward for their campaign work. The trip to Russia organized by the Minister of External Affairs was another big party, also some sort of a reward for Conservative Members! The Minister refused to be accompanied by Members of the Opposition, while there had already been another trip organized with representatives of the other parties. Mr. Speaker, there was a big bash for the Queen's visit, and there was another one for Christmas. Everyone remembers all the Christmas trees. There have been a lot of parties.


Clément M. Côté: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to reply to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Ville-Marie-


An Hon. Member:: Sainte-Marie!


Clément M. Côté: -because what he does in this House is not to make speeches, but to give us a deluge of words while being totally bankrupt of ideas. We have the impression of hearing a juke box. It is always the same song and the same old story. A while ago, he said: The people of
April 3, 1985

Lac-Saint-Jean do not see you in the House. The people of Lac-Saint-Jean are not interested in seeing me hold forth in the House as he does. If I dared speak in this House as he has just done, the people of Lac-Saint-Jean and of all Canada would be embarrassed.


Mr. Rossi:: Fine, hide behind the curtains!


Clément M. Côté: Two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I had lunch with some people from the Canadian Forum-


Carlo Rossi: That is not at all relevant, Mr. Speaker. He wants to tell us about his lunch.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) rises on a point of order.


Carlo Rossi: I suggest that the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote) should focus his attention on the current issue and avoid making constant digressions.


Clément M. Côté: As 1 indicated earlier in my comments, Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to deal with the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Mar-ie (Mr. Malepart) because he constantly moved from one point to the next. He never referred to the settlement... you know, the agreement. About the tax on gas, for instance, he failed to mention that they had defeated a Progressive Conservative government in 1980 by-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time allocated to questions and comments has now expired. Nevertheless, I am willing to grant 30 seconds to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) to reply but very briefly.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be quite brief. One member said that my comments are inconsistent. I will point out to him that I was re-elected in a much more difficult period than when he was elected. I was re-elected to defend the interests of 80,000 senior citizens. If the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote) wants to ridicule them, that is his business. 1 am here to protect the citizens in need of public housing. If the Hon. Member for Saint-Jean does not give a damn, that is his problem, but I was re-elected to defend their interests.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote) on a point of order.


Clément M. Côté: Mr. Speaker, I have never ridiculed the 85,000 persons mentioned by the Hon. Member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will resume debate with the Hon. Minister of State for Mines (Mr. Layton).
Supply


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion under discussion this afternoon, and particularly to represent my dynamic and forthright colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney), who is today in western Canada continuing her discussions with industry leaders and investors.
Major changes to Canadian energy policy have been announced by the Government in the past few weeks. First, the Atlantic Accord was reached between the Governments of Newfoundland and Canada just six weeks ago. Then the Western Accord was concluded by the Minister just last week with the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. These accords mark a clean break with the energy policies of previous Governments. Such a change was clearly required. The previous Government's NEP was, first and foremost, unfair to the Canadian oil industry. It represented an unwanted intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. It embarrassed Canadians internationally through blatant policies of discrimination and exploitation. It cost many Canadians their jobs and resulted in forgone economic prosperity. The economy as a whole was smothered.
These policies of the past have been replaced and now all Canadians will benefit. Of course, energy policy changes must fit within the Government's broad over-all policy approach.
As noted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) at the Regina Conference of First Ministers, this Government has two fundamental objectives: economic renewal and national reconciliation.
Further, as I have noted, previous energy policies and the policy development process itself conflicted with the foregoing objectives. They deprived the provinces of any strong say in energy management and crippled an industry that could have been a source of strength to the Canadian economy.
The new policies have already begun to work in turning this situation around. Key new intitiatives flow from both the Western and Atlantic Accords. For example, I have learned that my colleague, Miss Cavey, at a meeting in Calgary yesterday, was approached by one of the drilling organizations and told that it has already added two new drilling rigs, even without knowing the details of the Western Accord.
The Atlantic Accord establishes a co-operative regime for offshore resource management that will achieve a number of objectives, including increased energy security and economic prosperity for all Canadians but especially for Newfoundlanders. It will also provide for revenue sharing on the same basis as if these resources were on land. It will further provide a stable and fair regime for Newfoundland, rigorous protection of the environment and fishing industries, and will also improve safety for offshore work, all the while ensuring that the Government of Canada has the ability to achieve the national objective of energy self-sufficiency.
I recently had the pleasure of visiting Newfoundland to discuss the mining issues with the Hon. Gerry Din, the Minister of Mines and Resources of Newfoundland. While there as

April 3, 1985
Supply
his guest, we visited the Confederation Building and I met the Premier of Newfoundland, Brian Peckford. Of course, yesterday he celebrated his third victory in Newfoundland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert E.J. Layton: What pleased me was that I had observed a Canadian leader in Brian Peckford in the past who seemed to be bitter and unhappy with the relationship between Newfoundland and the rest of Canada. The man I met two or three weeks ago has become proud as a partner in Canada.
The Western Accord outlines three major areas of change. The first is deregulation of crude oil pricing in Canada. The current administered pricing system is inefficient and provides no benefit to consumers. Major energy analysts have noted that they expect prices to fall under this new regime. It therefore puzzles me why anyone would defend the old regime.
The new system will remove unnecessary regulation to free market forces with established provisions to protect consumers in the event of serious changes in world markets.
[Translation)
The second element deals with a complete review of the system in Canada as far as prices and marketing of natural gas are concerned. First the market price will be frozen as a step toward a market based system.
Quebec is very important for us. The price of gas will be 25 per cent lower than the level planned under the previous system. The opposition parties seem to be the only ones ready to defend it.

The final element of the Western Accord deals with the fiscal regime applicable to the petroleum industry. The changes have removed the discriminatory elements so evident and destructive previously. As well, powerful new investment incentives have been introduced. For example, the elimination of the PGRT on new production will create the atmosphere for reinvestment on a large scale in Canada. As was noted by the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) this afternoon, there has been a track record of reinvestment in Canada of over 100 per cent of annual profits, but during the past four years of the National Energy Program application, that rate of reinvestment plunged to one-half.
Elimination of the PGRT will increase industry cash flow and provide a strong incentive to explore and develop new oil and gas resources. It will mean that the major projects, such as Venture and Hibernia, the Alberta oil sands, the Beaufort Sea and the Vancouver Island projects of this country, will be able to attract the necessary capital to be commercially viable. Over-all, these energy Accords represent a major achievement in terms of the Government's objectives of national reconciliation and economic renewal.
It took the previous Government nearly two years of bitterness to strong-arm a pricing and fiscal regime, but we have established a common policy framework within six months,
and it is not a forced agreement. It was one which different levels of Governments supported.
Of course, the previous Government totally repudiated the basic aspirations of the people of Newfoundland and was never able to reach an accord with that province. During my visit, Premier Peckford assured me that the benefits to Newfoundland would be very sound and long-lasting. I met recently with the western provinces' Ministers, Paul Schoenhals of Saskatchewan, John Zaozirny of Alberta and Steven Rogers of British Columbia, all of whom negotiated with our Energy Minister. I am aware that they respect the good will which surrounded my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, as she presented, with characteristic firmness, the federal Government's position. It is no longer a contestation but a co-operative consultation which governs our country.
The Atlantic Accord gave Newfoundland and Labrador equality within our Confederation by allowing the offshore resources to be treated as if they were on land, in the interest of a strong, united Canada. The Western Accord maintains this spirit of Confederation by ending discrimination against the western provinces-discrimination imposed in a cruel and arbitrary fashion by the Liberal Government's National Energy Program.
Both accords are aimed at ensuring energy security for all Canadians by encouraging and developing our vital energy resources. These two Accords have settled many of the outstanding national energy issues. They are examples of a new process of national consultation and reconciliation.
The age of discord is over. I hope that the Atlantic Accord and the Western Accord will be remembered as symbols of the determination of federal and provincial Governments to work together for the benefit of all Canadians. While each of these Accords has a strong regional emphasis, the benefits are truly national.
I believe, with others, that these two energy Accords constitute the most dramatic achievement to date of the new Conservative Government. There is considerable professional analysis on the record of the immense employment impacts from a renewed energy industry. The industry has already begun to announce investments and revive and enhance investment programs. Potential energy investments are spread across the country, as we heard earlier in the debate, from the Vancouver Island pipeline, to Hibernia oil; Venture gas developments off the East Coast, to northern energy developments, and conventional gas drilling and oil sands development in Western Canada.
A renewed energy industry will mean increased investment across Canada. I remind Hon. Members that about one-third of the new jobs from a renewed industry will be created in the industrial centres of Ontario and Quebec. Thus, a healthy oil industry means renewed prosperity across Canada.
The original natives who made Canada their home brought their energy with them. The early settlers and the couriers des bois were energetic and resourceful. We have been blessed
April 3, 1985

with a storehouse of energy in all its forms. Let us put this to work together.
I would like to take this opportunity to advise the House that in my capacity as Minister of State for Mines I recently released a discussion paper to industry, labour and the provinces which outlines and develops the state of the mining industry in Canada. It raises the questions which must be faced in order to develop the potential that our natural resources have always had. With 20 per cent of our foreign exchange and 4 per cent of our Gross National Product, the mining sector represents one of Canada's strong resource-based industries.
I am pleased that we are already getting feedback from the provinces, from the industry and from labour representatives on how this industry can be structured and reinforced for the future. Our consultation process in the mining sector includes contacts with each of the Mines Ministers. It will be followed up with a second round of review here in Ottawa, shortly after the Budget. We will also be holding a Minerals Outlook Conference. This year's theme is structural change and economic renewal. For the first time this is a joint effort with the Mining Association of Canada. After the Minerals Outlook Conference, I intend to face a number of issues of concern arising from our consultations, to follow up the many private meetings that I have already held with the industry.
The Canadian mining industry needs investment. I think the slow nature of the world market for minerals plus the uncertainties of the regime and the policies of the previous Government have resulted in uncertainty in the mining sector. 1 am happy to advise the House that in those conversations across the country I have found a sense of a positive future for the mining industry. I am proud to be part of this Government to assist in that development.
As a first step we wish to foster the kind of investment climate that we so badly need. One of the first acts of this Government was to change the Foreign Review Agency and to create Investment Canada.


Don Boudria: Sell out Canada.


Robert E.J. Layton: We will continue to work toward making Canada a place where investment once more is welcome.
Because it is a first occasion for me as a Member to speak in this House, I thought I might express a special appreciation to all of those in my home, the lakeshore of Montreal, specifically in the riding of Lachine, for giving me the opportunity to serve in this Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert E.J. Layton: I know I will be expressing the feelings of everyone ever elected to Parliament when I say that I have a sense of responsibility and, to a certain degree, a sense of awe that 1 am here as a trustee in this place. 1 assure my constituents, I assure Members and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that with those experiences I have had in my life, I will be happy to
Supply
work in this Parliament toward making Canada a place for business, a place for oil accords, and a place for the mining industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with interest to the Minister's comments about consultation on his discussion paper. I would like to report briefly on a tour I took two weeks ago in northwestern Ontario. It was called past, present and future of one-industry mining communities. We started in Atikokan, a community that lost its main employer, an iron ore mine about five or six years ago. We went up to the Red Lake Ear Falls area which, as the Minister is aware, is undergoing the shut-down of one of its major employers, the Griffith Mine. We went on to Marathon to take a look at how that community and the community of Manitouwadge are dealing with the boom cycle of Hemlo. We found that as a society we have not yet learned to put in place the mechanisms that we need to protect those communities for the day when their resources, whether of the mineral type, the wood fibre type or even the fishing type run out. I invite the Minister to travel that route with me sometime during his process of consultation, to hear first hand from the men of Atikokan in the age group of 55 to 60 to 62 who cannot get a job in a community that has 40 per cent unemployment. I would like him to come to Ear Falls to talk to the families who are worried about the equity they have built up in their homes and who want to stay there. These people do not want to be relocated. Then I would like the Minister to come to Hemlo to see what we could do to protect that community for a time 10 or 20 years down the road when its resources run out. I would be very pleased if the Minister would consider making the tour with me.


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus). The conditions he described relating to certain mining communities, particularly across the remote North of Canada are serious. There are two cycles at work, as the Hon. Member knows. The mining cycle is very real. Ore is not an infinite source. Coupled with this is the economic cycle which is often completely beyond the control of the industry of which it is a part. It is often beyond the control even of our own Canadian authorities.
I acknowledge and welcome the opportunity to visit such communities with him. I have already had the privilege of visiting in the northern part of Ontario. I have been to Timmins, and to Kirkland Lake. I know there are serious problems also in the Eastern Townships of Quebec. We are addressing them as quickly and as effectively as we can. I know the area on the north shore of Quebec and what has happened to the iron ore industry there. I know that also is a particular concern. These communities, towns, their people and their families are all affected. Together with the other Departments of Governments that have a responsibility in these economic cycles, it is my hope we will develop a policy

April 3, 1985
Supply
that will address and respond to those very real concerns of people who live in a one-industry town, many of which are mining towns.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Minister of State for Mines (Mr. Layton) on his first speech in the House. It was very enlightening.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: I have a couple of comments on the energy agreement. Some figures as to job creation have been thrown around. The figure has been mentioned somewhere of from
100,000	to 300,000 jobs. All of these estimates have come from the private sector, from groups other than within Government which have taken a look at the impact on the National Energy Program and said that somewhere in this range job creation will happen. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) has been quoting those figures. I think the impact of the agreement will be very significant.
There is one other area of both energy agreements which has not had the attention paid to it that it should have. I am speaking of the unifying force which these agreements have had for everyone across Canada. Over the last 15 years we know that the Prime Minister of this country has loved a good fight. He was an antagonist. He was a pugilist. We have seen Newfoundland argue and disagree with the previous administration. We have seen the West argue, and we have seen Ontario disagree with everybody. We have seen Quebec upset about various agreements. It is interesting to note that the
agreements which have been signed have had a unifying force from coast to coast.
I know the Hon. Member is very interested in this subject because it is something about which he has talked over the many, many years he has served in private and public life. I would like him to comment on the unifying side of these agreements and what is going on in Canada today.


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid). Certainly in all of the discussions in which I have been privileged to share during the past months as Minister of State for Mines there is a sense of renewed goodwill. Confidence in Canada extends from one coast to the other. I made my very first visit to Newfoundland and I was pleased with the warmth that came from that province. This feeling applies right across the country to the West Coast. My colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, is also very much at home there.
I would like to conclude and to wish all my colleagues a happy Easter.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 62(11), proceedings on the motion have expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 3, this House stands adjourned until Monday, April 15, 1985 at eleven o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned.

Monday, April 15, 1985