1986-11-05

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is planning to discontinue the special assistance which has been available to weekly newspapers in Canada for over 70 years. This decision will have a terrible effect on the hundreds and hundreds of weekly newspapers which have an annual circulation of over 200 million, most of it in rural Canada. These newspapers play a vital role in the community life of Canada. They help the communities and the districts they serve to function, to grow, to mobilize community spirit, and to build a more vigorous and informed society.
This postal assistance must be retained for newspapers or we will see many of them destroyed by this vicious action by an insensitive Government. I call on the Government to withdraw this irresponsible plan which threatens to destroy many of our rural and community newspapers.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Fernand Ladouceur (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, national reconciliation is one of our Government's priorities and we have already achieved promising results. It has to do as well with municipal administrations, a Government level which deals directly with ratepayers.
Last Sunday, November 2, was municipal election day and a number of new municipal councils were elected to office. My constituency of Labelle includes 37 municipalities whose mayors and councillors promote the well-being of the same citizens whom I represent here in the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, ever mindful of the aspirations of our common electorate, I offer them full support in the discharge of their responsibilities.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, for the third time in recent years CMHC is increasing rents in its Toronto Main Square apartment complex by excessive amounts. The federal Government should show leadership in providing affordable housing. Instead, it is taking adantage of its immunity from provincial rent review law to hit these tenants with unfair rent increases.
Those increases have nothing to do with increases in actual costs. The Government is trying to catch up after the six and five legislation of a few years ago.
The Conservatives, when in opposition, supported that legislation. The Government is now stating that while it supported what the previous Government did, it does not accept the result, and is reaching back over the years to retrieve the difference, and more.
The Minister should open up the process to public scrutiny. He should state clearly that rent increases will be within provincial guidelines. He should order CMHC to roll back the latest 10 per cent increase and force officials in his Department to justify any increase before Ontario's Rent Review Board.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from a 12-year-old girl from St. Catharines who asks: "How in the world, these days, can a person be sent to prison for seven years plus five years in exile for simply trying to re-establish the right to meet in common prayer?"
Josyp Terelya is only one of many openly declaring their religious faith and opposition to the Soviet Government's denial of basic human rights. Many more are burning their passports, knowing the consequences of being caught without one. They take their strength from their faith and commitment to freedom and justice.

November 5, 1986
That same cause is why our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is in Vienna today emphasizing human rights as a high priority and in the knowledge that without these basic rights and freedoms there can be no peace, either within a country or the world.


REASON FOR GASOLINE PRICE INCREASE CONFINED TO QUEBEC
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, Quebecers learned the sad news that Ultramar, with service stations in Quebec, Ontario and the Maritime Provinces, has decided to charge 2 cents more for a litre of gasoline, but only in the Province of Quebec. Today we have heard that Shell is planning to take similar action.
Mr. Speaker, alleging that the price of crude oil has gone up, these two companies will add 2 cents to the cost of a litre of gasoline in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would ask the multinationals whether Quebecers are the only ones who use crude oil, and how they can explain that the increase applies only in Quebec. Why not charge the same price from coast to coast?
May I remind the Elouse that 11 months ago the Conservative Government let Ultramar shut down the Montreal East Gulf refinery, and that during a press conference the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs warned that Quebec consumers would suffer from this reduced oil production capacity.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, on October 25 and 26 of this year, I had the privilege of attending a seminar organized by the Limoilou Economic Development Corporation. I would like to extend my warmest congratulations to the organizers of this business meeting which was very successful.
The purpose of the seminar was to bring together business people in order to help them find ways to enhance their visibility and their ability to compete and thus better serve the people of Limoilou.
Participants knew that by exchanging information and ideas, they might be able to develop a joint solution to their problems. In fact, both business and the people of Limoilou
will benefit, since a number of positive measures were taken by the entrepreneurs following the seminar.
Mr. Speaker, this brainstorming weekend for Limoilou business people and the results it produced demonstrates what solidarity can do to enhance the lives of the people of Quebec East. Mr. Speaker, they have my unqualified support.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, Premier Pawley, in expressing his opposition to the awarding of the CF-18 contract to Canadair rather than to Bristol in Winnipeg, is supported in that opposition by people from all sectors in Manitoba. They resent very much the claim of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) that Premier Pawley is a crybaby. They especially resent it coming from a Minister who said: "Anyone living in the Atlantic Provinces is 1,000 per cent luckier and better off than if they were living in one of these Third World countries". He went on to say: "We should not always be looking at southern Ontario. It is very healthy occasionally to look at Haiti or Sri Lanka . . . ". The people of Manitoba do not want to be compared to Haiti; they want to have the same standard of living as people in southern Ontario.


NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION WEEK
Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with National Crime Prevention Week, I would like to talk to the House about the initiative taken by several police forces in the riding of Chambly, as part of their campaign against child disappearances.
With the co-operation of community groups in my riding, the police sent out kids' passports which, in addition to sensible advice for parents, contain a description of the child registered with a photograph and fingerprints.
Mr. Speaker, the disappearance of a child is such a tragedy that we must do everything we can to prevent it. We can only hope it will never happen. However, when a child does disappear, the kid's passport is a formidable research tool which makes the work of the police much easier.

November 5, 1986

The feedback in the riding of Chambly is excellent, and I would urge all Members of this House and all Canadians to support their police forces in similar projects.

[DOT] (M10)


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, there is a growing concern in the Toronto area about the Government's plans to hand over important parole functions to the John Howard Society. The federal Government's privatization program in Toronto would transfer operations of the 40-bed Keele Street Centre and the 15-bed Montgomery Community Corrections Centre to the John Howard Society. As a result, public safety will in fact be jeopardized and compromised.
The John Howard Society has traditionally been an inmate advocate group using the services of volunteers, students, parttime workers, and ex-offenders. In contrast, parole officers are professional law enforcement officials whose mandate is to protect the public. Parole officers are also directly accountable to the federal Government.
Despite the fact that the privatization of parole services represents a significant departure from present government policy, there was no consultation with the Metropolitan Toronto Police. There has been no consultation to date with the Union of Solicitor General Employees, and no consultation with Members of Parliament. I call upon the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) to refer this matter immediately to the Standing Committee on Justice for further consideration.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, the Challenge '86 program was very successful in providing quality work experiences for thousands of students across Canada. It appears that more than 75,000 students obtained jobs under the summer employment SEED component with the help of federal funds.
SEED is one of a number of initiatives which have helped student unemployment decrease from 17.9 per cent in 1983 to 14.1 per cent in 1985. In Erie riding, 82 employers were selected for this program, accounting for 199 jobs. The returns
of a questionnaire I sent out requesting an assessment were more than favourable and pinpointed the success of the program.
Nearly 80 per cent of the respondents stated they would not have hired someone this past summer if it were not for SEED. Everyone believes the work experience gained on the job will help prepare students for employment. Their comments included: "The SEED program is an excellent tool for employers and students". "Very beneficial", they said. "We applaud the Government's effort in this area", they said. "Anything helps, especially those-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


SHIPBUILDING
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, all parties support the building of a world class ice-breaker to service northern ports and protect Canadian sovereignty. New Democrats have advocated this for years and have been concerned at government delay.
Recent contracts for frigates have gone to Maritime and Quebec shipyards giving a much needed boost to eastern yards. In British Columbia three shipyards have closed while skilled workers are unemployed. B.C. shipyards are in desperate need of contracts to keep their operations alive.
Members of Parliament from British Columbia, of all Parties, are confident that our world class workforce and expertise in shipbuilding can meet the requirements for constructing the Polar 8 ice-breaker. We eagerly await a government announcement that it will be built in British Columbia.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, the boundary commission will be holding hearings in Sudbury tomorrow. I will be speaking on behalf of those residents of Timiskaming; from Moosonee, Moose Factory, Verner, Black River-Matheson and Temagami. Those households, those who are involved in farms and business, want to be heard. They want to speak out loudly that Timiskaming must remain the way it is today.

November 5, 1986
Oral Questions
It is vital for Timiskaming to have the same boundaries after the hearing as it has today. Eleven voices in northern Ontario are very important.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Government ignored the request we made to help the workers at the CN shops in Moncton, despite the rhetoric of the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister's promises made on his recent visit to Atlantic Canada. Today my question relates to northern Ontario.
The Conservative Government announced a widely heralded recovery package for northern Ontario, yet it has revealed no details. Why will the Government not be more specific? Why will it not come to the aid of some of the endangered workers at the Algoma Ore mine in Wawa, Ontario?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House last week, this federal Government, perhaps unprecedented in recent times, has recognized the unique difficulties in northern Ontario. The Government is prepared to address those difficulties. We have had meetings in northern Ontario. Led by the Solicitor General an economic plan is being considered. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated in the House the other day, as did the Minister of Transport, the specific question relating to Wawa is currently being considered by DRIE officials, and by others. I can tell the right hon. gentleman that this Government, unlike the Government of which he was a member, is prepared to deal with the very critical and serious problems that affect northern Ontario.
[ Translation]


FUTURE OF WAWA IRON ORE MINE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Deputy Prime Minister that I was in Geraldton, Ontario last week, and that Northern Ontario is sick and tired of the empty promises and false hopes held out by the Government.
Why did the Government announce a recovery plan without even revealing the details? And why isn't the Government prepared to provide assistance to the railways to help maintain mining jobs in Wawa?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, because, unlike the previous Government, we sit down and work these problems out with those who are directly affected. We think that northern Ontario, by virtue of its basic strengths, can build on those strengths and together we can develop the kind of comprehensive program to which the Hon. Member refers.
I can tell the right hon. gentleman that at a meeting in Sudbury a couple of weeks ago there was great enthusiasm shown for the approach the Government is taking. 1 can assure the Hon. Member that if he is patient he will see the type of policies and programs that he wishes his Government had come up with when it was in office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALGOMA CENTRAL RAILWAY-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the Deputy Prime Minister is beginning to test my patience. He has certainly tested the patience of the people of northern Ontario.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Last week in response to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior, the Deputy Prime Minister said, in respect to northern Ontario: "Just watch us". He made the same type of commitment to the CN workers in Moncton, which shows how much that particular engagement is worth.
The Minister knows that the Algoma Central Railway is subsidized for passenger and tourist travel. Why not give some aid to the railway in order to preserve those jobs in Wawa, those jobs which concern 300 to 350 miners, 350 railway workers, and the health of the economy from Sault Ste Marie right up to Wawa on the east end of the lake?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it has been said before, and I will repeat it, there is a program that is being considered under the auspices of DRIE. Ministers have met with representatives of this particular area. I am sure that there will be a satisfactory solution. When the Right Hon. Member talks about patience, I can only tell him that in the last election those people up there lost their patience with the Liberal Government, which is why they elected so many Tory MPs, which is what they will continue to do in the future.


POSSIBLE LOSS OF JOBS TO MICHIGAN
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is he aware that, because of the lack of assistance for the Algoma Central Railway, hundreds and hundreds of miners in Wawa will lose their jobs because those jobs will effectively be transferred
November 5, 1986

from Wawa to mines in northern Michigan? Why is the Government not prepared to make a commitment today to make sure that those jobs stay in northern Ontario rather than move to northern Michigan?


John Napier Turner: Oh, now we're in trouble.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentlemen are interested in listening to the facts, they are these. In so far as the railway operation is concerned, there is no present policy that will permit for any general assistance to the Wawa railway. That has been recognized by the railway company and by Algoma Steel. They are seeking general assistance from the Province of Ontario which has a very heavy responsibility, and they are asking the Government of Canada to assist as well by seeing what kind of an assistance program we can come up with on a fifty-fifty basis. That has been discussed by the Minister of DRIE and his officials with the Province of Ontario. As soon as those discussions are concluded, I am sure steps will be taken in accordance with the work of the Solicitor General who has been working on this issue for weeks. He began long before it ever came to the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite.


RAILWAY'S TOURIST SERVICE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that the closure of the Wawa Mines would also shut down the Algoma Central Railway tour train which brings
100,000	tourists, mostly from the United States, to northern Ontario every year? The Province of Ontario has already made a commitment to provide assistance. Why is the Government of Canada procrastinating in making a decision, leaving everyone in the lurch as to whether or not there will be assistance to maintain the mining operations and the jobs in tourism?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the value of the railway and the fact that it brings in very heavy tourist traffic to the area. This Government is also prepared to render assistance and will do so in conjunction with the Province of Ontario when discussions are concluded. The Hon. Member need lose no sleep on that matter. The Solicitor General began looking after this long before the Hon. Member ever brought the matter up. The necessary assistance to be provided in conjunction with Ontario, once it is agreed to, will be put in place. We are determined to see that northern Ontario is helped in its time of need.
Oral Questions SUPPLY AND SERVICES


CF-18 FIGHTER AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE CONTRACT-REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO AUDITOR GENERAL
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Important questions have been raised about the Government's claimed costs and benefits associated with technological transfer in the CF-18 maintenance contract. Pertinent among these questions has been the relevance of a Defence Department document that was known to the Government in August, 1985. In order to clear up all of these questions and in order to clear the air completely, will the Government now agree to refer all pertinent documents to the Auditor General?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to answer my hon. colleague by saying that, since taking notice yesterday of the telex that was raised in the House, I have made extensive investigations with people responsible for the evaluation team. I can assure the House that the costs that were quoted of $100.5 million in one case and $104 million in the other case included all technology transfer costs and that not one penny in additional costs will be borne in any way, shape or form by the Canadian taxpayer.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering that many people objected- not simply the company that did not get the contract, which is perhaps understandable; not simply the Government of the province that did not get the contract, which is perhaps understandable, but other disinterested citizens-including Conservative members in the Minister's own Party who have raised questions about the figures used to get final assessments upon which the decision was finally reached-given the uncertainty that rests over all this, I ask the Minister why, in order to make the Government's own case, does it not refer this data to the Auditor General?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert René de Cotret: would like to emphasize once again that the evaluation team was composed of some 75 officials-


David Orlikow: Whom you didn't listen to.


Robert René de Cotret: -representing the Department of National Defence, the Department of Supply and Services, and the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. The results were made public. The results were very close between two highly competent groups of companies. We had a choice. We made that choice. It was a policy decision on the part of this Government, and we stand by it.

November 5, 1986
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT POLICY


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say, with respect, to the Minister that he knows very well that all the figures that went into its own assessment were not made public by the Government. He also knows that at least two companies that have a good public reputation have issued statements that fly in the face of what the Government is claiming to be the case. I repeat that if the Government has confidence in its own case, what has it got to lose by referring these documents to the Auditor General?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple. We have nothing at all to lose by referring all relevant documents to the Auditor General. The Hon. Member for Oshawa ought to know that the Auditor General is a servant of this House. He will perform his duties in the normal way, and I should be very surprised if the Auditor General did not examine a contract as important as this one. And when he does, as always, the Government will be at the disposal of the Auditor General, to give him the information to which he is entitled.


John Edward Broadbent: A year from now.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Canadian General Electric has always been welcome in Moncton. I remind the Minister that the Save our Shops Committee passed a unanimous motion stating that the CGE deal was not enough and did not meet the needs and expectations of the workers and the community. Is the Government looking for alternatives to compensate for the hundreds of jobs that will still be lost even if the CGE deal goes ahead?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, nothing but superhuman efforts would fit the bill. That is the type of efforts that have been made with respect to the Moncton situation. I am happy to advise the Hon. Member that to date CN has accommodated 551 persons. That is in excess of half of the people involved. If we can resolve the Canadian General Electric situation there will be a further 303 persons looked after. CN is making a major effort to see that all of the 1,022 workers affected receive this type of treatment.
In addition, the Government and CN have allocated $4 million to help the people of Moncton attract other industries to the city of Moncton. That is $4 million more to assist in that situation, apart altogether from every other government program that exists today in New Brunswick and Canada.
That is what we are doing. What is the hon. gentleman doing except criticizing and trying to impede what has been done?


MINISTER'S POSITION
Fernand Robichaud: My
supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The fact is that even if the CGE deal goes through 662 jobs will be lost.


John Napier Turner: Those are the facts.


Fernand Robichaud: I ask the Minister will he start looking for alternatives to the loss of these jobs, or is he just simply going to point the finger at the unions and blame them for what he as a Minister has failed to do, that is, find alternate employment for the workers in Moncton?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is a dialogue with the dead. I have just given the figures: 551 persons so far have been found other employment by CN. If the CGE situation is resolved that is another 303, and that will be 854. The others, if we cannot find them employment, are being offered generous retraining and settlement provisions and the like. That is what has been done.
There is still a healthy chance that the situation with Canadian General Electric might be resolved. CN is still interested in doing all it can to resolve this matter with the unions. Matters are proceeding behind the scenes about which I cannot speak here and now. I hope that situation will be resolved and, when it is, I hope the hon. gentleman will be more pleased than he now indicates he is with the 551 jobs which have already been found.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF GOVERNMENT LEADER OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in the gallery today of the Hon. Nick Sibbes-ton, Government Leader of the Northwest Territories.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER FOR GREENLAND
Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Tom Hoyem, Minister for Greenland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 5, 1986


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKER OF THE CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF GUATEMALA
Mr. Speaker:: As well I wish to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Dr. Luis Alfonso Cabrera Hidalgo, Speaker of the Congress of the Republic of Guatemala.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It concerns the answer of the President of the Treasury Board to the question of whether or not to refer all relevant documents to the Auditor General. Surely the Prime Minister realizes that the time to clear the air about the contract is now, not next year when the Auditor General might look at the contract in due course. Would he agree to having that documentation and the contract referred to the Auditor General, as was requested by my Leader?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the Auditor General reports to this House. If we on the Government side were to try and influence the Auditor General, I think my hon. friends opposite would be the first to protest such action. The Auditor General is perfectly free to scrutinize these documents in the course of his duties, and I am sure he will do so.


REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE REFERRAL
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, that answer is complete rubbish. My first question was directed to the Prime Minister who has made much-and rightly so-of the issue of national reconciliation. Given that this issue has exacerbated regional tensions in the country, and in the interest of national reconciliation, would he not have the air cleared now in respect of the integrity of the Government's position in the matter and agree that the Auditor General look into it now, not next year?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, despite fear of repeating myself, the Government does not direct the Auditor General. The Auditor General is a servant of Parliament. He is free to act as he so chooses. This is an important and complex issue. I am sure he will be very interested in looking into all the details. As a Government, as we have always done, we will be most co-operative in making the information available to him.
Oral Questions


BID SUBMITTED BY IMP OF HALIFAX
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He must be aware that on October 24, 1986, the Minister of Public Works, through the media, informed IMP of Halifax that it was still in the running. To the dismay of that particular consortium and the people in Atlantic Canada, we found out from the President of the Treasury Board that its application had been dismissed because of technical insufficiencies months before that date. In view of the knowledge about the Minister of Public Works misleading the people of Halifax and IMP, what is the Prime Minister prepared to do about it?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to the part of the submission process which had to do with repair bids. Initially we had asked three consortia to present bids to the Government for this important contract. The three bids were found to have some technical defects. Some were more serious than others, I will admit. However, in the sense of fairness and equity, and since we were asking for a repair bid, we thought it only equitable that we ask all three, after explaining to each one the details of the deficiencies, to try to bring forth a repair bid that would address those deficiencies. That is why we included all three throughout the process.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister wishes-and I am certain he does-to protect the integrity and confidence of the bidding process with regard to this particular contract and future contracts, does he not think it fair and appropriate, under the circumstances and because of the many unanswered questions, that all documentation either be referred to the Auditor General as requested by my colleagues, or that the Minister and all documentation be presented before a parliamentary committee so that Canadians will have an opportunity to review firsthand all unanswered questions regarding this most important tool of economic development?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I have conscientiously answered all the questions put to me in the House. As I said before, I am willing to make available any information that is not protected by a business confidentiality clause.
Mr. Speaker, a decision was made by the Government, a decision that has its merits, and if you are against that decision, I wish that once and for all, you would announce your position one way or another and let Canadians know where the Opposition stands on this issue.

November 5, 1986
Oral Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I think he will know-and his predecessor knows it-that in order to keep the CNR shops at Point St. Charles busy and fully employed, Point St. Charles was to be allowed to tender for contracts to repair railway equipment of other U.S. and Canadian railroads. Will the Minister call upon CNR to allow the shops at Moncton to do exactly the same, to keep employees not taken on by CGE employed at the Moncton shops?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. gentleman knows the answer to that question. A decision was made and announced last June by CN, not by the Government, which since 1978 had been directed by the Government that it must stand on its own feet. As a result of studies it had done-and it had three heavy shops-it had to shut the shops in Moncton if it was to continue to be efficient and productive. At the same time it announced that all repairs of CN heavy equipment would be done at the Transcona shops in Winnipeg and that the Point St. Charles shops would be turned into a contract facility. That is what it is doing.
There is no chance that CN can reverse that decision; the decision is made in connection with Moncton. What we all now have to try to achieve is for other manufacturing and repair facilities to go to Moncton, and it is on that we are working.


COMPANY'S POSITION
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister still has not explained, nor has CNR, why the same opportunity to tender for repairs of railway equipment from United States railroads given to the shops at Point St. Charles was not given to the shops at Moncton.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as a result of this study, and for reasons of its own internal economy and efficiencies, the decision was made that it would have to close the Moncton shops and that, since 65 per cent of all the business of CN is now done in the West, it would have to concentrate its heavy repair work in the Transcona shops in Winnipeg. If the hon. gentleman is against that, it is inconsistent with what his Party is screeching and screaming about in the last few days in connection with Winnipeg and work which will be done in Montreal by Canadair. Make up your mind which geographical section of the country you are going to support.


COPYRIGHT
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Staff in community colleges have brought to my attention that copyright and its application often poses serious problems for educators. Will the Minister ensure that the new copyright Bill addresses the issue of in-class use of inexpensive and readily available videotapes and such material?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, when the parliamentary subcommittee examined copyright revision it made a recommendation that classroom use of copyright material should be exempted from the copyright legislation and so stated in the copyright legislation. In fact, when the Government responded in February to the subcommittee's report, the Government indicated that it accepted the subcommittee's recommendation and indicated that the legislation would so state.


INQUIRY WHY ULTRAMAR WISHES TO INCREASE PRICE OF GASOLINE
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. 1 may remind him that yesterday, Ultramar announced it was going to increase the price of a litre of gas by two cents. This will, of course, affect the entire market, especially in Quebec.
Could the Minister explain why we are getting this increase from Ultramar at a time when, according to the VicePresident of the Gasoline Retailers Association, the multinationals have yet to pass on all the benefits of the drop in the price of crude to consumers?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is well acquainted with the fact that price controls per se are not within federal jurisdiction. They are within provincial jurisdiction. If the Hon. Member wants price controls, he should talk to his colleagues in Quebec City.
In terms of federal responsibility, we have the responsibility to ensure a fully competitive market. The market in petroleum products, gasoline, is being monitored by the Director of Investigation and Research under the competition bureau. If the Hon. Member has any evidence of collusion or any evidence that any company is trying to influence the market to
November 5, 1986

the detriment of consumers, he should let us know and we will act immediately.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ASK PETRO-CANADA TO MAINTAIN PRICE OF GASOLINE AT REALISTIC LEVEL
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, it was this Government that gave permission to close down the Gulf refinery in Montreal, which reduced competition and created the conditions in which today, the price of the gas sold by Ultramar can go up.
I want to ask the Minister to explain to the House why he is letting Ultramar take this action, since this is the company that authorized the shutdown of Gulf in Montreal.
Since the Government controls Petro-Canada I also want to ask the Minister if he will ask Petro-Canada to maintain the price of its gas, at least to protect consumers and promote competitive pricing.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in order to encourage more competition, we passed a new Competition Act in June which gives important new powers to the Government. Under those new powers the Government is monitoring the situation. I repeat again that if the Hon. Member or any other Hon. Member has any evidence of collusion or undue influence on the market by any company, Petro-Canada included, please let us know and we will act, and act immediately.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, on behalf of prison guards, the Solicitor General's Employees' Union in Quebec urged the Government to put an immediate end to the Port-Cartier construction project before it is too late.
Here is my question to the Prime Minister: Can he respond to this urgent request and, more to the point, explain why he wants to build a new prison in Port-Cartier when his own correctional service expects there will be 400 too many maximum security cells in Quebec by 1992? It does look like a white elephant!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that question has been asked many times in the House and answered many times in the House. I would ask the Hon. Member to read
Oral Questions
Hansard once in a while. Sometimes he is unavoidably absent. Perhaps the Hon. Member might familiarize himself with the issue. The decision to build a prison at Port-Cartier was taken for very good and valid reasons, all of which have been substantiated.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members know that it is not the practice in the Chamber to refer to the absence of an Hon. Member at any given time even if, in referring to that absence, the benefit of the doubt is given. I would ask the Hon. Member to make the preamble to his supplementary question short.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister who may be here but who refuses to answer questions from this side of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


An Hon. Member:: Come on. Play fair, guys.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Tomorrow morning the Justice Committee of the House of Commons will be considering the recommendation of the all-Party steering committee that the Prime Minister appear before that committee and answer questions on Port-Cartier. My question is very straightforward. It is for the Prime Minister and not for one of his Ministers. Will the Prime Minister appear before the Justice Committee as the steering committee has requested and answer the questions, the answers to which Canadians are entitled?


An Hon. Member:: The muffler.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am truly amazed-


Mr. Rossi:: This is the butler.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am truly amazed at that question, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member has been around this House for some time. He knows very well that decisions are not made by a steering committee. Decisions are made by the standing committee. This is simply-


John Napier Turner: Get it under control.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -a recommendation by the steering committee. My understanding is that the standing committee will deal with it. At that time if there is a recommendation as

November 5, 1986
Oral Questions
per the Elon. Member's suggestion, it will be considered in that light.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services and has to do with the Port-Cartier project management.
We have just learned today that the contract award procedure concerning the Port-Cartier prison construction project management was such that indeed only one firm could even hope to be selected since it is the only one whose staff has had experience within the departmental correctional service.
Why does the Government still follow a contract award procedure which favours one company over another? And can the Minister confirm that this procedure was followed because the Government was afraid it might not be able to meet the Prime Minister's deadline?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services):: am the Minister of Supply and Services. All standard criteria were applied with respect to this tender call. We had a list of suppliers, 13 companies. Eight submitted bids, three qualified, and we chose the lowest bidder because the company has the experience and can do the work.


BECHTEL CORPORATION CONTRACT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see this Minister answering the questions this week. Another one was answering them last week. In view of the fact that Bechtel Corporation got its contract at the same time that one of its employees was on loan to Correctional Services Canada, does the Minister intend to launch an inquiry to determine whether or not there has been a breach of Section 49 of the conflict of interest code for public servants? If not, why not?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I am the Minister responsible for the administration of the guidelines. Allegations have been made of a possible apparent conflict of interest involving members of the Public Service. According to current established practice, a review will be undertaken immediately to ascertain the facts. That will be undertaken by Treasury Board under the mandate we have to administer the guidelines. I have already spoken to the Solicitor General who has requested that this investigation be done with the shortest delays and I can assure my hon. colleagues that that will be the case.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and only he can answer it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: That is the end of that. Next question.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: The Prime Minister's Office has been criticized for sexist attitudes toward a female member of the Press Gallery. Can he assure the House and the women of Canada that his staff will stop requesting dates when interviews are requested, whether or not in jest?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there were press reports, which I think can fairly be categorized as unsubstantiated, with respect to Mr. Gratton. I understand that Mr. Gratton is now consulting his lawyer. I do not think that further comment is appropriate at this time.


PRESS SECRETARY'S CONDUCT
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Since at least one reporter was apparently insulted by his tacky and hurtful act, will the Prime Minister instruct his press secretary to apologize to those he has offended by his unprofessional conduct?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member respects the principles of fairness. I think she understands that in this country a person is innocent until proven guilty. I do not think it helps to reinforce the other point of view by repeating unsubstantiated stories in the House.


APARTHEID
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for External Relations. I understand that she represented Canada last week at the funeral of the late Mozambique President, Samora Machel. While in Mozambique did the Minister take the opportunity to discuss with representatives of the front line states whether or not, or indeed how, Canada might come to their assistance in the
November 5, 1986

eventuality of economic or political reprisals from South Africa?
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I indeed represented Canada last week at the funeral of President Machel of Mozambique. During my trip, I was able to meet many representatives of front-line countries, including the President of Zambia. Naturally, they all told me of their concern about the sanctions imposed by South Africa and the retaliation which could ensue. The situation is certainly very tense.
Mr. Speaker, I naturally informed all the representatives of these countries that Canada would continue to offer them practical support, either politically or through development assistance programs.


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Why did his Government approve the appointment to the Human Rights Tribunal of Marcos supporter Antonio Arcangel in September of this year, when on August 15 specific allegations of subversive activities regarding an organization he headed were tabled at a meeting with representatives of the Department of External Affairs in Ottawa?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is raising these allegations on the floor of the House of Commons under the protections of the Chamber. I have taken notice of the allegations which were raised during my absence from Ottawa, on Monday, and those which she now raises. I am looking into the matter.


John Napier Turner: Will you report to the House?


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: I have a supplementary for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I would like to know if he is willing to respond to the telegrams he has received asking that the name of Mr. Arcangel be withdrawn because his appointment gives a very bad image to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Following the freedom movement for the Philippines, is the Prime Minister willing to respond to the requests that the name of Mr. Arcangel be withdrawn?
Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will answer that question although it was directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.


Sheila Maureen Copps: To the Prime Minister.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: To the Prime Minister. I apologize. The Hon. Member is afforded protection to make allegations freely in the House.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The meeting took place on August 15 at External Affairs.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: However, there is a principle involved which allows the person whose reputation is being impugned to state his side of the story.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You appointed him.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I would like to have the opportunity to look at both sides of the matter as I know the Hon. Member would in similar circumstances.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-U.S. COUNTERVAIL LAWS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. It was reported last week that Clayton Yeutter, the U.S. trade representative, speaking in Chicago stated that countervail laws are not up for discussion at the trade negotiations. The Minister has said that they are. Could the Minister tell us whether or not they are under discussion?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to correct the record. I have examined the text of Mr. Yeutter's speech. He did not make the comment which the media have attributed to him. Contingency protection measures, which include countervail and antidumping measures, are very clearly on the negotiating table. These are the new trade rules and regulations which we are hoping to achieve through the negotiations with the United States.


CODE OF CONDUCT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.

November 5, 1986
Oral Questions


Mr. Murphy:: The invisible man.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Does the Prime Minister not agree that it is totally inappropriate for the wife of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to be using the Minister's staff for her own private gain?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there has been a correction issued in this regard.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: By whom?


Pat Carney: It has been stated that the person in question is a part-time employee on the staff of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and that Ms. McTeer pays her for any work she does on her behalf, which is consistent with the practice carried out by many people.


Mr. Beatty:: Apologize.


Mr. McDermid:: Check your facts.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am certainly not going to do any apologizing.


TREASURY BOARD GUIDELINES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my information is that a ministerial assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been seeking information to assist the Minister's wife in her private affairs. Will the Minister look into this situation? If there has been a misuse of public funds, will the guidelines of the Treasury Board be adhered to?


John Horton McDermid: She just answered that.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


Nelson Andrew Riis: She was wrong. She doesn't know what she is talking about.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, it is odd to hear such allegations made by a Party which publicly says that it supports work for women and working women.


John Edward Broadbent: I can't believe that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Sit down.


Rodney Edward Murphy: She calls from the External Affairs office.


Pat Carney: Now they do not even want to hear the answer.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Well, not that kind of answer.


Pat Carney: I can assure the Hon. Member that I have looked into these media reports and that no guidelines or rules have been breached through the use of a part-time worker for this purpose.


Rodney Edward Murphy: She did it from the External Affairs office.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration. Yesterday the Minister justified the granting of a special permit to an individual with over 20 criminal convictions on the basis that he admitted to his record as opposed to having denied it for the last eight years. This is completely unacceptable reasoning.
Why did the Minister extend special privileges to this individual for simply admitting to the record, disregarding the advice of his Department and three previous Ministers who concluded that such a criminal record means that this candidate is both inadmissible and unwanted in this country? What are the real reasons behind his judgment?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, it is a consistent policy that this country, supported by our Acts, permits rehabilitation. This is a very delicate issue. We are dealing with the rehabilitation of a human being.


APPLICANT'S REHABILITATION LETTER
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, not only is the Minister facilitating the special entry of this individual, he also interfered with the rehabilitation letter. Since his own official, Mr. Westerberg, has confirmed that the rehabilitation letter was redrafted and retyped in the Minister's own office, why did he doctor this important letter to justify his own personal decision? Why the political indecision or interference in such an independent rehabilitation process?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with .the rehabilitation of a human being, a father, a husband, and a case in which a child is involved. There is wide community support, including the clergy, businessmen, professionals and national organizations. He has admitted his guilt. Those are the things that might have disqualified him. I have proposed him to the Minister of Employment and Immigration as a candidate for admission.


NARCOTICS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Yesterday I mentioned in the House that American Motors of Canada was
November 5, 1986

insisting that new employees pass a mandatory urine test for drugs. This is the latest in a list of Canadian organizations that require this kind of test for employment purposes. Does the Minister agree with mandatory tests for drugs as a condition for getting a job in this country, or does he agree with many Canadians, including many experts, that this is a possible violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think a couple of things should be made quite clear with respect to the question raised yesterday by the Hon. Member. It is imporant to understand that AMC is under provincial jurisdiction in this matter, so that it is not a matter of federal jurisdiction. In terms of our national drug strategy, I think it has been made quite clear by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and other spokespersons on behalf of the Government that mandatory testing is not part of our drug strategy and will not be part of it. I believe our position with respect to this issue is quite clear.
Petitions
Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 5th day of November, 1986, at 5.00 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to one Bill.
Yours sincrely,
Leopold H. Amyot Secretary to the Governor General


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for Canada Post is unavoidably detained. With unanimous consent, may we revert to that item later?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
* *
*

John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are outraged and find it unconscionable that the Government should be paying the legal fees for the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion at the Parker Inquiry. I learned today that the Government is considering paying Mrs. Noreen Stevens' legal fees. Will the Government assure the House and Canadians that under no circumstances will it pay Mrs. Noreen Stevens' legal fees at the Parker Inquiry?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is simply a hypothetical question and I think the Hon. Member knows it. If such a decision is made-which I do net believe is contemplated-he will certainly find out about it in due course. I do not anticipate that such is the case.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary-Sud):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the First report of Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, in the two official languages-Mrs. Sparrow.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings for the above report.]
* *
*


PETITIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Students, signed by 67 students from eight different provinces, calling upon the Government to request a First Ministers Conference to renegotiate a fair and equitable and progressive agreement for the funding of postsecondary education.
* *
*



MISSING CHILDREN LEGISLATION-EFFECT ON POLICE INITIATIVES THE ROYAL ASSENT

['Agreed.']
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa,
November 5, 1986
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Brian Dickson, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the parents of Tecumseh Elementary School, Home and School members and citizens of London-Middlesex. This petition deals with missing children and Bill C-70, which, for financial expediency, considers children missing after six months to be dead. They want assurance that this Bill will have no bearing or effect on police department initiatives and efforts to find any missing children, and in fact calls upon the Government to enhance programs to facilitate the identification and recovery of missing children in Canada.

November 5, 1986
Introduction of Bills



Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present four petitions from my constituents who humbly pray and ask the House that whereas the access to the Canadian Embassy in Syria is very difficult for people who are born or brought up in Christian areas of Lebanon; whereas Lebanese people are harassed by the Syrian roadblocks and guards; whereas Lebanese people are charged a fee upon entering and leaving the Syrian border, that no foreign money is allowed to pass through Syria; these people request that the Canadian embassy be removed from its present location in Syria to a new location in Cyprus.


REMOVAL OF POSTAL BOXES FROM SOUTH PARKDALE AREA
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House a petition on behalf of the residents of Parkdale-High Park, protesting the removal of postal boxes from the South Parkdale area.
The petition expresses their frustration with the level of service being offered by Canada Post, and I wish to add my endorsement to their demand for the return of the postal boxes to the neighbourhood.


SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Donald Frank Mazankowski: for leave to introduce Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.


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. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 6 and 18. [Text]


Mr. Crofton: For the Fiscal year ending March 31, 1987, has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation made or planned capital expenditures over $50,000 and, if so, by location, what were the amounts?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: 1. I
am advised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
It is the CBC's understanding that the Honourable Member is asking, in the context of the Corporation's overall capital budget, for information as to what expenditures in excess of $50,000 the CBC has made of plans to make, by location, in the extension of transmission service.
Of the very few remaining coverage extension projects, all of which were started before the budget cuts of December, 1984, only one will entail the expenditure of more than $50,000 in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987. That project involves an affiliate replacement and is for an FM transmitter at Elk Lake, Ontario, which will broadcast the CBC English radio AM service.
As for the Corporation's over-all capital expenditures for 1986-87, they comprise:
($ millions)
Additions and replacements to plant and equipment-primarily involve replacement of obsolete production facilities and in some cases improvements to existing facilities to maintain an efficient operation.	46,115
Replacement of obsolete transmission facilities and extension of the broadcasting service-includes only those extension or affiliate replacement projects that had been started before the announcement of budget cuts in December 1984.	18,140
Consolidation of plant facilities-planning and engineering costs for the proposed consolidation of Toronto CBC facilities.	4,173
Total:	68,428


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haiiburton): 1.	Since September 4, 1984, have any sponsors in the Constituency of Victoria-Haiiburton been approved to create jobs under Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act and, if so (a) how many (b) how many jobs have they created?
2.	What was the total funding involved in the Constituency?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1.	Yes
(a)	15
(b)	76
2.	$514,914
November 5, 1986


Philip Derek Lewis: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I 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 be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-17, an Act to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act and the Income Tax Act and to repeal the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the third occasion the House has been asked by the Government to consider changes to the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act. I am pleased to tell Hon. Members that this will be the very last time.
In September of 1984, my predecessor, the former Minister of State for Finance, was assigned the task of carrying forward a number of ad hoc changes to this tax which had been left over as unfinished business of the previous Government. Early the following year the Government was able to negotiate a new energy pricing and taxation deal for western Canada. This new deal, the Western Accord, began the process of healing the enormous economic and political damage done by the National Energy Program. In the Western Accord, the federal Government agreed to the general phase-out of the PGRT by the end of 1988. It also agreed to its immediate elimination for new production and a number of other relieving changes.
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
The amendments Hon. Members are now being asked to consider follow the spirit of that historic agreement. Hon. Members are being asked to approve legislation which will accelerate the phase-out, terminating this unpopular and inappropriate tax on all revenues attributable to production after September 30, 1986.
Let me remind Hon. Members of the political and economic importance of the legislation before us. This legislation will mark the end of the petroleum and gas revenue tax, a tax which has done more to alienate western Canada than any other single measure since Confederation. It was a tax which imposed an unjustifiable burden on the petroleum industry when it was enjoying prosperity and was threatening to strangle it in today's environment of much lower crude oil prices. My party recognized the inequity of this tax and promised in 1984 to abolish it.
The previous Government designed incentive systems which gave with both hands. It provided both income tax incentives and direct grants. At the same time, the PGRT and income tax systems were taking money from the petroleum industry with two hands. We have fulfilled our commitment to abolish this tax and we have done so in a fiscally responsible manner.
The decision to remove the PGRT immediately rather than follow the originally agreed upon schedule was not taken lightly. The decline in international oil prices had already reduced the Government's expected PGRT revenues in the fiscal year 1986-87 by some $425 million. Earlier this year the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced increased relief targeted to small producers by increasing the small producer credit to $2 million per year. The continued slump in oil prices necessitated additional action. My colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), although very new to his portfolio, met with his provincial counterparts and industry representatives in August of this year. After these meetings and the assurances obtained, it became possible for the federal Government to immediately eliminate the PGRT.
The cost of this elimination is not cheap. It will cost $150 million for the remainder of this fiscal year. But it is money well spent because it will help to save the jobs of Canadians and because it reaffirms to western Canadians that this Government truly cares about their current economic problems and stands ready to help where it can. These are difficult economic times with our large deficit, but we are taking $150 million out of our own treasury in order to hasten the schedule of abolishing the PGRT.
I have spoken about why it was necessary for the Government to accelerate the PGRT phase-out. My colleagues from western Canada have pointed out on many occasions how the National Energy Program in general, and the PGRT in particular, was responsible for so much economic and political damage to this country. I would like to now bring to the attention of Hon. Members one of the less well-publicized provisions of the legislation we are considering. I would like Hon. Members to consider the treatment of the smaller corporations who receive royalty income. Many of these

November 5, 1986
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
corporations typify the spirit of private entrepreneurship and risk-taking which the Government is attempting to encourage. These corporations were ignored by the previous Government in the design of the small producer tax credit. They were left out.
My colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), met personally in July with representatives of these companies in order to understand their concerns. This has never happened since the tax was first imposed on the country in 1981. Several Hon. Members from Alberta provided valuable imput. The result of this combined consultative effort is an amendment which will permit these smaller corporations to claim a credit against the PGRT on royalty income effective January 1 of this year. In dollar terms, the cost to the Government is small, but in human terms, the benefits are large. It will help many smaller operations through these most difficult times. It is also a concrete example of how well representative Government can function.
In addition to these two important measures, the elimination of the PGRT and the retroactive relief, the Bill contains several items of a housekeeping nature which are consequential on the removal of the tax. I will not take up Hon. Members time with details on these measures. I do, however, want Hon. Members to consider the Bill as expeditiously as possible, and I urge the committee to report back at an early date. I am pleased to tell Hon. Members that with the passage of this Bill, it will be the last time we will ever have to consider changes to the petroleum and gas revenue tax.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-17. I would first like to make a few comments with regard to the words of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) who said that the Liberal Government gave with both hands, as if that was a failing at a time of downturn in the energy sector. It seems that the present Government is not giving at all but merely taking away with both hands.
Members of the Government talk about doing away with the petroleum and gas revenue tax, a measure which will cost the federal Government $150 million. They say it as if they deserve a pat on the back, when they are really just giving back to the oil companies their own money. It is of small comfort to the energy sector which is undergoing the difficulties it is undergoing at the present time.
The Bill states that no petroleum and gas revenue tax will be payable with respect to revenues and royalties attributable to production of petroleum or gas after the end of September, 1986.1 think that is a good provision. The Bill also implements tax relief for oil and gas producers, something which was announced earlier by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). The legislation also exempts the PGRT up to an amount of $1.5 million in terms of royalty income earned by corporations, a measure which was announced on September 17. This
provision has now been broadened to include individuals who earn up to the same amount of money.
Our Party would not have chosen to give top priority to doing away with the petroleum and gas revenue tax. We felt, and we still feel, that the major need in the energy sector right now is in terms of small producers. These are the people who are vulnerable. In times of a downturn in the energy sector we must not only deal with making life more comfortable for oil and gas companies but we must deal with their very survival. The problems now being experienced by the small producers could be critical to a great many.
It has been said that these small producers brought on their own problems, that they took advantage of the upturn in the economy when things were booming and that they went out and spent. That is not completely true. Of course some did that. Perhaps others spent unwisely or a little too much and became over indebted to the banks of the country. However, a great many companies in the oil patch in difficulty right now are companies which have been in business since as early as the 1930s. They are family businesses, businesses in which the presidents, chairmen and senior executives know all their employees on a first name basis. They know the families of these employees and are often on good terms with most of them, not only in a business sense but in a social sense as well. One can imagine the heartache caused to these managers and executives when they must cut back on employees whom they have had for as long as 20 or 25 years. I ask Hon. Member to imagine being in the position of knowing employees as these people do, and their families, and having to put them on the unemployment rolls. It is not an easy thing for these people to do. It is unfortunate that it has to be done at all. That is why we in the Liberal Party say that priority must be given to helping these small companies.
Most of these small companies are Canadian companies. If the Government feels, as it says it does, a certain sense of urgency and priority toward the principle of Canadianization, then we must protect these Canadian companies. This is Canadianization where it counts most, in the sector which actually produces oil and gas, where it is most important to our economy and to the whole theory of Canadianization.
Most of the beneifts which will accrue from doing away with the petroleum and gas revenue tax will go to the 10 to 15 largest companies, including the multinationals. However, a great many benefits will accrue to smaller companies which put together land purchases and farm them out to larger companies under a drilling contract for a royalty share of production. By doing away with the petroleum and gas revenue tax we will be helping a certain number of small companies, which is why our Party does not oppose this Bill. Because of the difficulties which exist in the energy sector right now, even though the programs which we think would be the most helpful have not been put in place, we will not vote against a Bill that will be of some help. The fact that we can give something to this hard-pressed sector is of tremendous importance.
November 5, 1986

What will flow from this legislation and how will the provisions of it be implemented? The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) tells us that he will do away with the petroleum and gas revenue tax but that he will ask the Petroleum Monitoring Agency to review and check up on these companies to ensure that the money they are saving from not having to pay the PGRT will be reinvested in the economy. I see that as a kick in the teeth to the energy sector. The Government would not ask General Motors or Litton to report to the Petroleum Monitoring Agency to ensure that their money is reinvested. What the Government is saying to these companies, which it says are so important to the economy and in which it has so much trust, is that it really does not trust them. It is either that or that the Government has a deep fear of the energy sector and no respect for the major companies themselves.
We in the Liberal Party feel that there must be certain measures taken to protect the energy sector. We would not go so far as the Government has gone in this respect. However, we say that in the interests of Canadianization, and not dealing with any particular size of company whatsoever, the Petroleum Monitoring Agency should take time from looking through the keyholes of the major oil companies to see what they are doing, and to monitor and check the transfer of assured supplies of oil and gas. This is the major concern as we see it.
With this downturn in the energy sector so many of these small oil and gas companies in financial difficulty will now become vulnerable to bankruptcy or takeover, not only by major companies but by other companies as well. We saw that Interprovincial Pipe Line purchased Home Oil's reserves of oil for a mere $4 a barrel. This will be a sky-high price in a few months' time if the downturn in the energy sector continues. In a short period of time we will see proven reserves of oil being purchased for as little as $1 a barrel, if these difficulties continue.
So what can happen? If one company buys another we know that a transfer has taken place. However, if one company only buys the reserves of another there is no way of knowing that the transfer has taken place. We have no way of knowing in whose hands lie our very valuable reserves of oil and gas. So we are asking the Petroleum Monitoring Agency to check and tabulate any transfer concerning the ownership of proven reserves of oil and gas so that we will have this information which can be published on a regular basis.
We are in favour of the elimination of the petroleum and gas revenue tax. By doing away with it the Government has said that it is in favour of that as well. When was this measure taken? It was taken on September 8, right in the middle of a by-election campaign in the constituency of Pembina. When did the crisis in the energy sector begin? It began in the latter part of January of this year. What has changed between January and now? Nothing at all has changed. It is just that
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
the problem has existed for considerably longer than anyone would have expected. Nothing has changed. It is just that the energy sector is still in this economic abyss into which it has fallen. The problem has existed month after month and each month it gets worse. It increases not in an arithmetic progression but in a geometric progression.
We had to suffer for practically nine months before the Government realized that something had to be done. Why could the Government have not done something earlier? Why could it not have given the energy sector the benefit of the removal of the petroleum and gas revenue tax earlier? The Government came close to doing it in August when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources went to Calgary to speak at a luncheon. All the senior executives of oil companies were there to listen. They all expected that the Minister would announce the end of the petroleum and gas revenue tax. However, he did not announce it. He said that he would do away with it if the province reduced its royalties and reinvested the money in the energy sector, and if the companies could agree to put money back into the energy sector. What unmitigated gall and audacity it took to say that he would give the oil companies back their own money only if they did something else. The Government did not have a heartfelt belief that something had to be done for the energy sector. It only did something for the energy sector because the by-election came along and because the Government realized it was in difficulty. It wanted to do something to win the by-election.
The Hon. Member for Pembina (Mr. Van de Walle) is present in the House today. I would like to congratulate him on his victory. The by-election was not won by the Government doing away with the petroleum and gas revenue tax, it was won by the Hon. Member himself and the campaign he waged. However, the Government did not know that that would be so at the time. It thought that this measure would be very instrumental in the winning of the election. The Government was wrong. This just shows that there is not a commitment on the part of the Government to do something for the energy sector.
We have said that we support the eliimination of the petroleum and gas revenue tax. It is something that will help the energy sector. However, we wanted as well a cash flow stabilization program in conjunction with provincial Governments. A cash flow stabilization plan is something that would be entered into by both provincial and federal Governments and would help the small producers.
I think we in the Liberal Party might have made a mistake by saying that we are in favour of the cash flow stabilization plan. Because of the vindictiveness of this Government, if another Party announces that it is in favour of a particular program the Government then feels it cannot get the credit for it. If the Government cannot get credit for it, why put it into effect? Helping people is of no importance. The only thing that is important is to get credit for the programs. We in the Liberal Party may have dealt a death-knell to the federal Gvoernment's participation in the cash flow stabilization

November 5, 1986
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
program by stating that we are in favour of it, thereby removing much of the possibility that the Government could take credit for the program. To heck with the people who would benefit from it.
The federal Government's neglect of the energy sector and its failure to participate with the provinces, and particularly the Province of Alberta which requested assistance through the cash flow stabilization program, will have a very serious effect on the energy sector. 1 cannot emphasize enough the difficulty in which this sector finds itself at the present time. It is estimated that over-all energy investments will be $900 million less than forecast last year by the Economic Council of Canada. By 1990, actual energy investments will be $3 billion less than initially forecast by the Economic Council of Canada. These are very serious statistics indicating that the industry is just hanging on by its fingernails.
What is the Government doing? It has eliminated the petroleum and gas revenue tax. We also heard some classic pronouncements by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In addition to taking away assistance from the energy sector, these pronouncements are actually trampling any hope the energy sector may have. The Minister recently said that self-sufficiency in the energy sector is on hold. What a thing to tell the energy sector now. It is estimated that in 11 years Canada will have used up all of its light and medium crude oil produced by conventional means. That means that we will have to import all of our required light and medium crude oil. What will the country do? We talk about security of supply but we will not even be able to supply ourselves with any light or medium crude unless we do something about it.
Right now Canada is a net exporter of oil even though it imports light and medium crude oil. We do, however, export more heavy oil than we import light and crude oil. This makes us a net exporter of oil, but each year we import more and more light and medium crude oil. By 1990 at the very latest, and probably as early as next year or 1989, we will be a net importer of oil. Why is this? It is because the Government is frozen at the switch. It does not know what to do. It is completely mesmerized by this problem, by the deficit and by polls. As a result, Canada's economy is fragmenting, particularly in the energy sector.
In deference to my friend, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), the agricultural industry as well is at the top of the Government's neglect list. Economic crises are occurring in Canada. The only part of the country which is doing well economically is southern Ontario. This is not the Canada we all envisioned. This is absolute neglect, this lack of planning or concern for anything. Things are adrift.
What is going to happen if we ignore the energy sector and do not have some thought for security of supply? I am not saying that billions of taxpayers' dollars should be poured into the energy sector, but certainly prudently stated fiscal regimes for the tar sands and heavy oils in the offshore can bring on
even a little more quickly than normal these other reserves, and foster the continuation of exploration, and will develop more quickly the potential of reserves that exist. It will help to prevent us from completely ridding ourselves of all our reserves of light and medium crude oil before we have something to replace them.
This is very serious and important. We are not talking about a band-aid approach here. We are talking about the long-term economy of the country. We are talking about an industry which we here in Ottawa, and governments and preceding governments, have encouraged and want to stabilize. The Government will say that it cannot spend money in the energy sector right now because the price is too low. When the price goes up things will be different. The price can go up and then the price can go down again, then we could be in the same position. If we do not level out the peaks and valleys in the energy sector there will never be any type of consolidated action.
The banks had a very difficult time in the last few years. They are going to be very jaundiced about financing additional activity in the energy sector. How will we deal with that particular question? The banks are a very important component. The only way we can deal with that concern is by presenting a program that will show that there is more confidence and stability in the long term in the energy sector.
It was recently announced by the Government that it is going to deregulate natural gas. If there was ever a misnomer it is the deregulation of natural gas. The only deregulation is in the price to the producers. Even the producer is not completely deregulated, because the poor producer has to carry on his or her back the cost of the surplus test. Prices are being rolled back on the producers.
The money that is paid to the producer is only one-third of the total that is paid at the burnertip in the household or in the manufacturing plant. A great deal of money is paid to the pipeliners and the carriers, such as TransCanada Pipelines, to carry the natural gas from the production site to the user. Once it is carried through the pipeline, then it is picked up by the distributors. The distributors are provincial public utilities. There is no control whatsoever over them by the federal Government or the National Energy Board. They have a set percentage that they are going to make. That set percentage would be at least 15 per cent more in most cases. They are not going to help the energy sector in its difficult time. We will not hear the distributors say they are going to cut back on their margin because times are tough in the energy sector. No. You will not hear that. The National Energy Board is now saying that we are going to cut back on the profitability and the intake of TransCanada Pipelines and the other pipeliners. They are not going to suffer either. Who is suffering? It is the producers that are suffering because they are going to get less for their product.
At a time when we need some cash flow and support in the energy sector the price to the producer is being rolled back. I have talked to producers who have been offered less than a
November 5, 1986

dollar a gigajoule on the spot market for natural gas. These people are only going to be working for the banks. They will not be working for themselves any more. How long can they hold on? Why is this happening? It is happening because of this Government's major fear of the word "regulation". It feels that anything to do with regulation is bad. If regulations exist, such as they do with the distributors and the carriers, then it ignores that they exist. It is blind to those regulations. This is deregulation regardless of how many regulations continue to exist.
What about the householder? What is the householder going to do? Right now natural gas is competitive with other types of fuels. It is competitive now even before deregulation. If the price of natural gas goes down substantially what is going to happen? First, it is going to make it much more competitive with respect to the alternate fuels. Do you mean to tell me, Mr. Speaker, that the provinces will allow natural gas to decrease further giving other energy suppliers an additional edge on their own public utilities, such as hydro-electric power? No, that is not going to happen. It is not going to be allowed to happen. Even though the producers are being gouged by the price they are being paid, the homeowner is not going to benefit.
What is going to happen is that the pipelines and the carriers are going to gradually increase their margin. The distributors are gradually going to increase their margin. The provinces, through taxes, are going to increase their take. This has happened already. The Province of Quebec announced an increase in its retail sales tax. The Province of Manitoba has placed a tax on the fuel used to transport the natural gas in the pipeline system as it goes through Manitoba. These are the types of things that are happening. Who is suffering? The producer is suffering, with no benefit to the householder.
What about transportation itself? Prior to this when all the natural gas was going through the pipeline, commercial natural gas was subsidizing somewhat the transportation of the natural gas that went to the retail homeowners. But now, because you have direct buyer and seller contracts, that is not possible. The total cost of the transportation of the natural gas through the pipeline system must be picked up by the householders themselves. This means that transportation costs are going to be greater. Deregulation is not going to wash. I predict very confidently that we will have an Alberta border price by the end of the spring of 1987. The situation is continuing to deteriorate.
I would ask the Government to please look at this sector again. Look at its problems to see what else can be done to help this sector along. So much needs to be done, not only in a monetary sense but from the point of view of building up the confidence of the producers in the oil and gas sector. By doing away with the adjacent border price, as was done recently, all that will result is cheaper gas going into the United States. More gas will be sold, but there will not be much more return, if any, in total revenue. The additional gas that is sold will not
Point of Order-Mr. Mazankowski
bring in enough extra money to make up for the reduced price of the gas per gigajoule.
Gas is being sold more cheaply to Americans than to the householders in Canada. That is not right or fair. There is a gas bubble in the United States that will soon dissipate and disappear. By selling this cheap gas to the United States we are inflating that bubble, making it an even longer sausage. The problem is that we are not going to get any more money by doing away with the adjacent border price. We are not being fair with Canadian residential consumers. We will lengthen the gas bubble in the United States, but we will put producers in a more difficult position, particularly the small ones, because they will receive less for the natural gas they sell. We are not helping them where they need help most, other than in a higher price by giving them access to the pipeline system. There is no prorating involved that would give small producers more of a chance to get into the pipeline system, thereby enabling them to sell their natural gas.
This is a very badly advised energy policy. Doing away with the adjacent border price has once again aroused the ire of protectionists in the United States who now think that it is unfair competition to sell natural gas in the United States more cheaply than it is being sold to Canadians.
Although we support the assistance provided by the Bill- and it is the only assistance the federal Government has given-we denounce the insensitivity of the Government in not developing a proper fiscal regime and energy policy for Canada. We further denounce the misguided programs the Government has brought into effect which hurt both Canadian consumers and producers.


POINT OF ORDER
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to an earlier understanding, I wonder whether we could revert to the tabling of documents and then statements by Ministers to allow the Minister responsible for Canada Post to table pertinent documents and to make a statement. I believe there is agreement to that effect with the other two Parties.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to this procedure, as long as it is within reason.
I was required to ask the critic of my Party to remain an extra three-quarters of an hour to accommodate the Minister who was late in making a statement; they are normally made at three o'clock. Is the document which was given to the Hon. Member at one o'clock today the document from which the Minister will be speaking? I also ask the Government House

November 5, 1986
Tabling of Documents
Leader to assure us that there have been no changes to that document, so that we do not have any surprises.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the conciliatory attitude of the Lion. Member. He is always that way, although sometimes he may not appear to be. He is very genuine and I appreciate working with him.
Essentially the statement is the same, but there is a slight deviation which has been discussed with his critic and with the critic from the New Democratic Party. I think he will find it to be consistent with what he hears from the Minister when he makes his statement.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in the same spirit, we are certainly prepared to co-operate. However, I ask for the indulgence of the House to wait perhaps a moment or two while our critic is making his way to the Chamber. We were standing by, and he decided to slip out for a few moments.
I know the Government House Leader feels that it is in our interest to work and co-operate with each other whenever possible. I simply want to remind him, in the spirit of cooperation, that we are always prepared to do that and always have. 1 would ask that he take whatever steps necessary to ensure that this co-operation is maintained in other precincts as well.
For example, I hold in my hand Bill C-6, a very complicated and lengthy Bill dealing with petroleum resources offshore Newfoundland. The Bill was before the legislative committee last night. There was an understanding reached by members of the committee that the Bill would be studied beyond yesterday and, as a matter of fact, that they would not sit beyond 5.30 p.m. Shortly after five o'clock the NDP critic left for another engagement, and the member of the Liberal Party left shortly thereafter, with the understanding that it would end at 5.30 p.m. and that deliberations would continue today. However, after the two opposition Members had left the members of the committee decided to extend the hours and complete consideration of Bill C-6 in terms of its evaluation and examination.
It is that type of action which sometimes makes it difficult to co-operate when we have requests for co-operation. If that is the way government Members on that committee see cooperation and working in a positive and co-operative way with opposition Members, then we require some further discussions to ensure that the business of the House is maintained and conducted in the most business-like fashion possible.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows, as we all know, that the committees are masters of their own house and make their own rules. Whatever agreements they may or may not make are certainly within their purview.
I am not aware of precisely what happened at the committee meeting yesterday to which the Hon. Member referred. I am not aware of any undertakings or understandings which may
or may not have been made. However, I can assure him that I will look into the matter.
I also want to take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation to the House Leader of the New Democratic Party and to the House Leader of the Liberal Party for their co-operation. It is a give and take business. So far, we have been able to help each other and to work toward dealing with the issues in a manner which behoves us all as representatives of the people and with the respect this institution deserves. I am most grateful to both of them.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader may be technically correct when he says that committees are masters of their own proceedings. However, the reality is that there is a majority on such committees of government supporters. For the Government House Leader to suggest that he is entirely without influence when it comes to government members of committees is something at which we could only smile. I suggest to him that in matters like the one involved in the legislative committee on the offshore Bill last night, he should be anxious to use what influence he has to ensure that there is fair treatment for all concerned. If that is not the case, it is bound to have repercussions in the House.
For example, in respect of the matter about which the Minister responsible for Canada Post will speak shortly, we offered our co-operation when, for reasons not yet explained, he was unable to make his statement during the time ordinarily set aside for such statements by Ministers. We also offered our co-operation in respect of the minor deviation in the text distributed in advance. However, sometimes our patience will have its limits. Therefore I suggest to the Government House Leader that he be not afraid to use his influence in a constructive manner when some of his caucus colleagues, perhaps inadvertently, forget about the elementary requirements of fairness in the proceedings of the House and its committees.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a very short comment in so far as my hon. friend's remarks in respect of the committee yesterday and using my influence are concerned. Even for me it is very difficult to use my influence after the fact.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister responsible for Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2) and Section 132(4) of the Financial Administration Act, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, copies of the corporate plan of the Canada Post Corporation for the years 1986-91.
November 5, 1986

Mr. Speaker, said report may be referred to the Standing Committee of the House on Government Operations.



Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today that the corporate plan of Canada Post Corporation for 1986-87 has been tabled in the House. The plan corresponds with the Government's concerns for improved and more reliable postal service in Canada and the need expressed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his budget speech earlier this year to achieve a financial break-even point in expenses by the end of 1988-89.
It has been developed to respond to the concerns expressed by Canadians to the Marchment Committee when that group travelled from coast to coast to re-examine the mandate and productivity of the Corporation. This committee, headed by Mr. Alan Marchment, examined the complicated problems which plagued Canada Post and presented its findings in an honest and comprehensive report less than one year ago. The Corporation has recognized the importance of its findings and will implement key recommendations in the corporate plan. The plan, Mr. Speaker, will set a date for the establishment of delivery standards for properly prepared first-class mail in line with those of the Marchment report: two days maximum for local mail, three days within provinces and four days from province to province between major centres.

Mr. Speaker, the corporate plan sets a date for the establishment of delivery standards for properly prepared first-class mail in line with those of the Marchment report: two days maximum for local mail, three days within provinces and four days from province to province between major centres.
The Corporation will also take into account in this plan the need to improve the public's access to postal services in the most cost-effective manner and will, therefore, expand on the current role of the private sector in providing these services at convenient times and in convenient locations as well. In meeting the target of balancing its operations, its operating costs and expenses by 1988-89, as outlined in the February Budget, the Corporation is required to avoid increases in the basic postal rate of the scale the public experienced in past years of the corporation's existence.
The Corporation may apply for rate increases, but in the case of the basic letter rate these increases must be justified on
Statements by Ministers
the basis of such factors as inflation measured by increases in the Consumer Price Index.
In order that the Corporation does not rely unfairly on rate increases, Mr. Speaker, an interdepartmental working group is reviewing now the possibility of establishing an effective neutral third-party regulatory agency that will ensure that any postal rate increases are justified.
In assisting the Corporation in meeting its financial targets, the Government has taken note of the Marchment recommendation that Canada Post should be reimbursed in full for services it provides free or at reduced rates in order to implement certain government policies. These services include the likes of free mail for the blind and the transport of supply to certain northern communities at less than cost.

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post will be reimbursed in full, so that the groups concerned may continue to benefit from the services it provides free or at reduced rates, for as long as this form of assistance is part of the Government's policies.

The Corporation is also expected to contribute toward keeping postal rate increases in line by reducing its spending, particularly its overhead costs and to continue improving its productivity and efficiency in all activities.
Progress has already been made in these areas by the reduction, for instance, of senior management by 26 per cent by the end of this fiscal year and operational changes, such as, color coding the mail to ensure speedy processing.
In the current fiscal year, the Government is expecting to fund the Corporation's operating deficit to the amount of $132 million as compared with $184 million last year. In the next fiscal year the amount of funding is expected to be $30 million and will be reduced to zero by 1988-89.

Since 1981, Canada Post has not invested sufficient capital to improve its facilities. Its fleet of vehicles (trucks and cars) has an average age of seven years, which we consider to be well above the normal replacement age.
So that Canada Post will have the capital it needs to improve its services-another recommendation from the Marchment Report-the Government has made provision for an increase of $103 million in funds earmarked for Canada Post for this fiscal year, and an increase of $161 million for next year.

In keeping with the Government's arm's length approach, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Canada Post Corporation will be holding a press conference today to explain in detail the directions and initiatives the Corporation plans. I believe that the plan developed by the Corporation's executive, in response to the clearly expressed opinions of Canadians and the orientation of Government guidelines, represents the best

November 5, 1986
Statements by Ministers
balance between the need to provide improved reliable postal services and the responsibility to ensure that postal services no longer operate at a deficit.
Canadians at large as well as Members of this Parliament of all Parties have expressed considerable interest in the development of this plan. I have accordingly felt that Parliament should have a full opportunity to review the rate increase components which the Corporation has assumed in the forecast included in the plan. I am, therefore, proposing to refer this aspect of the plan to an appropriate committee of this House. I would hope that this will be done as swiftly as possible.
This balance between improved reliable service and operational break-even is a delicate one. We all know that. The corporate plan put forward by Canada Post required that all Parties concerned, shareholders, management, labour and the general public make sacrifices in order for it to succeed. The shareholder appeals to both management and labour members to work together in an harmonious effort to restore their sense of pride of Canada Post.
The Post Office Department recorded surpluses on a regular basis in the first part of this century, and other postal administrations appear capable of operating on a profitable basis today. There is no doubt that Canada Post can achieve these goals provided we support its efforts.
The plan being presented goes a long way toward restoring these values in the postal service and toward moving Canada Post Corporation in a direction that helps it meet the requirements of the future. It may require new attitudes and approaches, but I am certain Canadians will support these well founded efforts aimed at ensuring that Canada has a postal service of which we can all be proud.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, it seems that producing this summary of the 1986-87 to 1990-91 Canada Post budget plan has turned out to be a painful exercise this afternoon. We have been promised this plan for months now, and today we thought we would finally see the light. I commend the Minister for respecting parliamentary traditions and sending us a copy, but five minutes later he called to say a corrected version was on the way, but unfortunately we had a hard time finding the change. Apparently there was none. At 3 o'clock this afternoon the Minister was not feeling well, so here we are at ten minutes past four, the media are standing by, the Canada Post press conference has been delayed, and I am wondering. Maybe the Minister will have better luck next time. This is the second time. He once had problems with his Bill on pharmaceutical products and now he is experiencing difficulties with the post office. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister better luck next time.
After listening closely to the Minister's remarks I must say I am very disappointed because the Minister seems to think he is still on the hustings. You have been in office for two and a half years and you ought to assume your responsibilities, you are
supposed to administer the country. This document is full of nice words, but nothing here gives us a clue as to what the postal corporate plan might be.
For instance, in his remarks the Minister did not say anything at all about community boxes, not a word on that, Mr. Speaker. Why?


An Hon. Member:: They would rather not brag about it.


Alfonso Gagliano: It says only that Canadians who already have home delivery will continue to have it. Others will have a service equivalent to or better than what is available from commercial carriers. What does it mean, Mr. Speaker? Why would the Minister hesitate to come clean and not say to people who live in suburban areas or even to those who just bought a house downtown: From now on, forget it, home delivery is a thing of the past. It is a fact. Why not admit it openly instead of pretending they will be getting improved services? Just what are improved services, Mr. Speaker?
In today's statement, the Government has just created two classes of citizens: one gets home delivery, while the other has to brave our Canadian weather to fetch the mail. And why, I ask you? Don't they both pay the same taxes? And now we have a two-cent rate increase, will people without home delivery get a discount or will the rate be the same? Why not give everyone the same service, Mr. Speaker, instead of dividing people into first and second class citizens, into people with and without home delivery?
Mr. Speaker, in the Budget Speech of February 26, 1986, we read on page 8-I'm not making this up-and I quote verbatim:
The Marchment Committee has recommended another five years to reach the break-even point. This is not acceptable.
Following discussions with the President of Canada Post, the Government has requested a new operating plan to improve productivity at Canada Post so that the Corporation will reduce its operating deficit to zero by the end of fiscal 198788.
Mr. Speaker, the Marchment Committee recommended that Canada Post's deficit and its corporate plan be spread over five years. As far as I can see, the only reason the Minister of Finance announced on February 26 that he wanted to reduce that deficit immediately is that he wanted to impress Canada's big corporations and the business world, since he was unable to set the Budget deficit below $30 billion. We were told after September that it would be impossible to reduce the deficit any further, and that it would actually be $2.5 billion more than forecast. That is the only reason, Mr. Speaker.
Today, Canadians are being asked to accept these cutbacks in services. This is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister will realize that this is so, because today, across the country, there are movements afoot to protest these cutbacks because they are unacceptable, and the Minister knows that perfectly well. He even came to my riding, where people told him that Saint-Leonard was not somewhere out in the bush! Mr. Speaker, there is a small area in that riding with 50 homes. Now what excuse is there for not providing home
November 5, 1986

delivery to 50 homes built in 1985, when 85,000 people get their mail delivered at home? How do you explain this? What kind of policy do you have? That is the difference between a Liberal Government and a Conservative Government. They are not aware of the needs of ordinary people. They took good care of bankrupt financial institutions and wealthy depositors, but the average Canadian cannot even have home delivery service. That is a fact, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: It is true.


Alfonso Gagliano: We definitely do not agree with the Government's plan. We believe that Canada's postal service is an essential service and that every Canadian has an equal right to that essential service. We do not accept the Government's creation of two classes of citizens, those who receive their mail at home and those who will, from now on, have to go to the corner of a street to pick it up. That is unfair because all people pay income tax, sales tax, and real estate tax.
The postal corporation is asking for a two-cent increase in the price of stamps. The people who will not receive home mail delivery will have to pay the same price for stamps as those who will. This is unfair. I am sure that Canadians across the country will remember this. I am sure that starting tonight the Minister will hear from groups which are already planning to protest because this Conservative Government policy is unacceptable.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, today Canadians are asking whether postal rates will continue to go up and whether service at the Post Office will continue to be cut. We did not receive a clear answer to that in the Minister's statement. However, like the mail these days, the Minister was late today. He was late because he had a struggle in his own caucus to get his plan approved. It is right that he had such a struggle because the Minister hopes to increase rates and cut service. His own caucus has put the brakes on this.
There is a difference between the statement which was distributed to us and what the Minister just said in the House. The addition was that the rate increase components of this plan will be referred to committee. I am happy that they will be referred to committee, but it was obviously the intention of the Minister to go ahead with rate increases. It is only because Members of the Government have been hearing that people will not put up with this and put pressure on him that it is being referred to a committee and that people will be spared, for the moment, a rate increase.
The plan before us is not what Canadians had been hoping for. They hoped for a blueprint for good, reliable, reasonably priced postal service. Before us we have a plan which will mean more postal rate increases and service cuts in the long
Statements by Ministers
run. I want to touch briefly on three aspects of this plan. The first is the process of how we got here, the second is service, which most people are concerned about, and the third is some specific things which the Minister said in his statement.
First, with regard to how we got here, the Minister mentioned the Marchment Committee Report. He has mentioned this many times in the past as a justification for the fact that he did not consult with people. He said that Marchment consulted. People have not been involved in the making of this plan. It was not done through an open process, but rather behind closed doors. That is why the product is so unsatisfactory-
In his original statement the Minister did not say what he was going to do about postal rate increases. He hinted about it but was forced to retreat from that aspect. He was trying to hide his intentions with regard to postal rate increases. He makes no mention of the Post Office's plan to spend money to try to sell the new plan to the public. How much money will be spent on advertising to try to sell this plan to Canadians?
With regard to service the Minister mentioned three things; service standards, the monitoring of them, and a neutral third party for rate increases. Like most Canadians, I am skeptical about whether the Post Office will actually live up to standards. We want to have standards established, but we want to see the goods delivered before we will have any trust in the Post Office. With regard to monitoring, it would be nice to have an objective third-party monitoring system, but what standards will they monitor and how will they go about monitoring them? The real monitors of postal service in the country are citizens. They know when their mail is on time and when it is late, like the Minister today.
I want the Minister to continue to review the third party mechanism for examining postal rate increases as he suggests in his plan. We want to know the scope and effectiveness of this mechanism, because if it is simply a way to fob off postal rate increases on a so-called objective body so that the Minister can remove the political pressure from implementing postal rate increases we will be stuck with deteriorating service and postal rate increases. Thank goodness that there was division in the Tory caucus and back-benchers on that side who heard from the Canadian public and were able to put pressure on the Minister to at least delay this postal rate increase and refer it to committee. I am concerned about a Minister who tries to fob off his responsibility for postal rates to a so-called neutral third party.
The Minister has failed to extend door-to-door service to the new suburban developments. He is continuing an arbitrary and inequitable approach to mail delivery. Furthermore, he promises to extend that inequitable approach to rural routes by putting super mailboxes in rural locations. Canadians want to know if this inequitable approach will be extended to Canadians in other areas who presently enjoy door-to-door delivery. When Canadians see the Minister treat people in suburban

November 5, 1986
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
developments in an inequitable and arbitrary fashion, they fear that the same may happen to them.
The Minister talked about reimbursing the Post Office for specific services and identified specific subsidies that go to the Post Office. That is fine as an approach, but it begins to appear that perhaps the Minister is attempting to rename the Post Office deficit and copy the American Post Office which has specific subsidies tailored in before it balances its books, in order to say it has arrived at financial self-sufficiency. It seems that this is the approach the Minister is taking so that eventually he can declare victory and say that he has won the war, while we are still subsidizing the Post Office.
The Minister also mentioned private sector counter services. We need more information about this. Does he mean more drug store Post Offices and less full service Post Offices in urban centres? He talks about reducing spending and improving productivity. Until now, that has translated into cuts in services. Is that what will happen?
The disappointment felt by Canadians as a result of the plan the Minister has put before us today is that it fails because it is not the blueprint that Canadians wanted for good service at a reasonable cost. Canadians want reasonable postal service, accessible postal service and equitable postal service. This so-called plan fails on all counts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As a result of the Minister's statement and the replies, today's sitting time will be extended for 25 minutes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-17, an Act to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act and the Income Tax Act and to repeal the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a Legislative Committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to put my stamp on this debate. I am about to deliver a long speech on the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act and on the deregulation of natural gas.
I notice that when I speak on the deregulation of natural gas people tend to yawn, as their eyes glaze over. Indeed, I do that myself, in spite of the fact that this is one of the most important subjects in Canada that deals with regional issues in many ways similar to the CF-18 contract, where there are producers in one part of the country and consumers in another. It is an
old Canadian problem of regionalism and trying to satisfy diverse regional interests.
This Bill eliminates the petroleum and gas revenue tax which was implemented as a result of the old Liberal National Energy Program. This tax was put on right at the wellhead rather than being a tax on profits. Oilmen said that this was a unique tax which did not apply to other resource industries where taxes were levied at the profit stage rather than at the wellhead.
The Province of Alberta almost declared a war over this tax by turning off the oil pumps that supplied eastern Canada. Peter Lougheed, the former Premier of Alberta, was called the blue-eyed sheik as a result of his response to the petroleum and gas revenue tax. He thought this was a provincial responsibility, not the responsibility of the federal Government, because it was a royalty, or tax, on the resource itself which provinces are allowed to impose under our system. He said that the federal Government had no business implementing this tax because it was not federal jurisdiction. The premier and the industry were upset about this tax and a seven-day debate ensued in the House, which I will discuss later. We soon forget that interesting period of energy wars, yet we may see it again in the future.
In spite of the criticism of the tax, it collected a lot of money from the oil industry which would rather find a way around paying tax. For instance, Shell did not pay any federal income tax in one year because it could reinvest all of its profits. Ordinary working Canadians pay taxes from their paycheque but sometimes the big oil companies can escape paying tax. However, the industry did pay a lot of money through the petroleum and gas revenue tax and that is why we are having this debate today. The Government indicated that it would phase out the PGRT in its so-called Western Accord which was entered into in 1985.
There has been pressure from the industry and the Government of Alberta as a result of the disaster in the industry out west from the drop in world oil price from $30 a barrel to $15 a barrel. There has been a shakeup in Saudi Arabia with the replacement of Sheik Yamani. We will no longer see a Canadian Prime Minister dance "sheik to sheik", as the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) once said.
The dramatic decrease in the oil price has brought on a crisis in Alberta, which produces most of the oil in Canada. It has called for help and one of the ways to assist the people and companies in Alberta is to eliminate the petroleum and gas revenue tax immediately rather than phase it out. That is the purpose of this Bill.
We in the New Democratic Party support the Bill, but we have some real concerns. I do not believe that it is really the answer to the problem of the oil companies. I have been the energy critic in my Party for six years now and have seen the ups and downs throughout the National Energy Program. I have learned certain things as a result of watching this happen, which I will talk about later. This Bill is not the answer. It is
November 5, 1986

just a disaster bail-out which does not really reach the Canadian producer in Alberta, who is the one we should be trying to reach. The Canadian producer really needs help, and it concerns me that in the weeks and months ahead there is a real danger that many Canadian producers could go under. The progress we have made is shared by all three Parties. I want the Conservatives to be honest when they talk about the National Energy Program and I will be honest when I talk about them. All three Parties, including the Conservatives, supported Canadianization of the industry. We have different ideas and philosophies about Canadianization but we all supported it. To put it broadly, we thought that Canadian companies, whether public, private or mixed, in many ways would serve the interests of Canada better than having a vital and strategic resource such as oil controlled by outsiders, and I will not put it any higher than that. 1 am afraid we are in danger of losing the progress we have made towards more Canadianization in the industry.
The National Energy Program wanted to have 50 per cent Canadianization by 1990. I think it succeeded. We are up there. But to have 50 per cent of one of our most crucial industries controlled by ourselves is no great shakes. Perhaps we should have more. Perhaps our goal should be higher. Certainly, if our Party were in power we would make the percentage of Canadianization higher.
1 do not believe this Bill will solve the problems of the western Canadian oil industry because I feel the only thing which will solve the problems of that industry will be higher prices. Oil prices are too low. It is as simple as that. What is needed is justice for the producer and for the consumer.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is not going to solve the problems facing the oil industry in western Canada. What we need is a policy which is fair to producers and consumers alike. For producers, it means a good price; for consumers, it means a competitive industry selling its oil products at a fair price.

Let me try to explain that in a little more detail. I think we have to be fair to the producer and to the consumer, and that means that when the prices are going through the roof, as they were a few years ago when OPEC under the former chief, Sheikh Yamani, pushed the oil prices up dramatically, the Canadian Government puts a ceiling on the price. So Canadians paid less for their gasoline than the Americans. That was given justice to Canadian consumers because it is our resource. But Canadian producers paid a price. They would have received artifically higher prices, forced up prices, but higher prices nevertheless. But they lost money, although when they exported oil, they did get the world price. Now that the price is going through the basement, what a fair Government would do is to put a floor on that price. My Party has advocated that. My Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), advocated it in Oshawa and in Calgary. One can criticize us
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
for the policy, but please do not say we are inconsistent, because when prices were going through the roof we said; "Let's have a made in Canada price".
In order to get the body politic-and in Canada that is often defined as the consumers in Ontario and Quebec-to accept it, it seems to me we have to do something in return. What we have to do is to ensure there is fair competition and the lowest possible prices at the pump level. We do that by changing the situation we have right now. We have a monopoly, an oligopoly, really, of a few producers who control these large companies, including Petro-Canada, who are integrated. They control the refining and the wholesaling of gasoline. The small independent person who sells gasoline is struggling to compete and sometimes he can get frozen out by various methods so that prices are forced up. Sometimes, and we saw it happen over the past year, when there is a decline in the world price for oil, it is not passed along so quickly to the consumers. I want to underline that. The small Canadian firms, the producers, are the ones with the real problems right now because their price has gone down so much. The large integrated oil companies can survive because they have what we call "the downstream". The upstream is the drilling for oil and producing it. The downstream is the selling, the refining, wholesaling and marketing at your corner gas station. In the downstream, the companies are doing all right. The Calgary Herald on October 29 published a story by Peter Morton. The headline reads: "Integrated firms' outlook brightest", and I will quote it in part:
The third-quarter results (of the integrated companies) were excellent relative to what others were experiencing.
Integrating means produce, refine, wholesale, retail, and that would be companies like Shell, Gulf, Texaco, Imperial and so on. And this was said by Phil Swift from Deacon Hodgson Inc., which are investment and oil analysts. He went
on to say:
Among the integrated companies, Imperial Oil Ltd., Shell Canada Ltd., Texaco Canada Ltd. and Husky Oil Ltd., all reported increases in downstream
earnings.
Most of the integrated oil companies were showing sharply higher earnings from refining and marketing operations because of the 90-day lag between crude oil supplies and refining output-
So in fact they were doing all right. I have another article from The Toronto Star on October 24, 1984. It reads: "Shell post gains after East Coast pull-out".
At the end of the article the President of Shell described the results as encouraging. He said that in view of the depressed oil price environment and the exploration write-off, the drop in resource profits was partly offset by some restoration of oil products results. That means refining and selling the gasoline and oil for automobiles. The Globe and Mail on October 29 said: "Imperial Oil's downstream profit in the last three months was $90 million compared with $16 million the year earlier and $93 million for all of 1985".
What is happening in Canada is that the large companies are squeezing the downstream and making money so they can

November 5, 1986
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
cover their behinds in the upstream at the expense of Canadian consumers. I can understand that. But the small Canadian companies in Alberta, which are the companies that get off their behinds and do the most exploration, do not have this lucrative downstream where they can milk the consumer. They only have the upstream, that is, the selling of crude oil and, of course, they have to sell at world market prices which are dramatically declined. That is why we have a problem in the oil industry. That is also why, incidentally, when Canadians drive in the United States, they are shocked by how low gasoline prices are. There are two reasons for our higher prices. One is that we have more tax, which does not tell the whole story. The second reason is that we have what is called an oligopoly. This is a big word which only the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) will know. It means that a few companies, about four or five, including Petro-Canada, control the refining and the marketing. The Government did not make it easy, by the way, by closing the refinery in the east end of Montreal.

This is why gas prices are high, and another reason is that the Conservative Government shut down the Montreal East refinery, and the New Democratic Party believes it was a mistake. This is why Canadian drivers, both men and women, have to pay more for their gas. Driving down to Vermont or New York, for example, one can see that gas prices are not the same.
I wish to suggest that what we need is a made in Canada oil price. It has been suggested by the small producers in Alberta that the Government should give them $20 per barrel for 500 barrels, the difference between that and the world price which may be even $15 per barrel, and they will pay the Government back in the future. It seems to me this is a measure which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) could have brought in. It is something which could have been considered. It could be something of a stabilization program. However, as the Liberal Member who spoke on this Bill said, perhaps the Opposition has used that word before. The Government could call it something different. It could be called a Conservative energy program, which could give a break to these small producers.
Getting rid of the petroleum and gas revenue tax will provide some relief to some companies. However, by and large, the relief will be provided mostly to the bigger companies and not to the small Canadian producers. This is the flaw in the Government's policy.
There is also a flaw in the Bill. I do not think I can put forward an amendment which will make any difference. However, I will share with Hon. Members what I think the flaw is. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced in a press release on September 8, 1986, that the Government of Canada will eliminate the petroleum and gas
revenue tax effective October, 1986. It is stated in the news release:
Mr. Masse said he had their assurances that the PGRT savings would be reinvested in exploration and development activity.
I ask Hon. Members, if they controlled an oil company and received a big saving what would they do with the money? Would they use it to pay off their debts? Would they use it to buy up some small Canadian oil companies? Some of these small companies are desperate. In fact, one of the companies in the association of small producers recently announced its bankruptcy. The Alberta company of the Leader of the Liberal Party has just announced its bankruptcy. These small pools of oil can be bought from these companies at $15 per barrel or less. Why reinvest by going into the ground? This is the flaw in the Bill. The money could be repatriated. For example. Imperial Oil could give it back to Exxon. Shell could give it to Texaco. Mobil could send the money to New York. One must watch that the money that we are not taking from the oil companies as a result of eliminating this tax is reinvested. The companies may take the money and run, if I can put it that way.
I have in my hand a release issued by IPAC on the same day as the Minister's release. IPAC is the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada which represents medium-sized oil companies. These companies state that they are pleased, of course, that the Minister removed the tax. They see it as a positive first step in a sequence of events that will restore viability and investor confidence in the oil and gas industry. The association's spokesman is Mr. John Howard, Chairman of IPAC.
Members of the oil industry are famous for saying: "Just give us this". Once they are given that they then say: "Give us this, which is a good second step. Now go to the third step". First, they wanted to get rid of the PGRT; they got that. They now want the royalties reduced; they got that too. They will then want something else. They will lobby for tax changes. They never get enough. My heart bleeds for these poor oil companies.
The Chairman of IPAC stated in his release:
My discussions with our member companies indicate that the bulk of the money saved by the elimination of the PGRT will be reinvested in the industry ... The industry response to the Western Accord in 1985 supported the position that most of the PGRT money saved will be reinvested.
Just wait one minute. The Minister of Energy has reassurances that PGRT savings will be reinvested. We now see that the industry says that "most" of the money will be reinvested. This will be determined by whom? Who else but the oil companies? There is nothing in the Bill which states that a company cannot just take the money and run. There is nothing that states that it has to be reinvested in the industry. What I am saying is that if we look at the situation of the industry we will see that there are a great many factors which may go against it in terms of reinvesting this money. It may not want to reinvest the money in exploration and development. That is the real flaw in this Bill.
November 5, 1986

The Minister says that it will be monitored. I do not know how the monitoring will take place, and I do not think it will be particularly effective. I have talked about the money that the integrated oil companies are making in the downstream and that the small producers are suffering.
I would like to read into the record an editorial published in The Toronto Star dated September 10, 1986. I think it is worth-while citing. It states:
No wonder Calgary oil executives clapped approvingly on Monday when federal Energy Minister Marcel Masse told them that the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax (PGRT) would be lifted effective Oct. 1. Masse was answering the prayers of Canada's oil giants-including multinationals such as Imperial Oil, Shell and Texaco-just when depressed international prices are pinching industry pocketbooks hard.
There can be no doubt which companies will benefit most from the Government's decision to accelerate by 28 months its plan to phase out the tax-at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion to the federal treasury. They are the biggest oil companies, the firms that make up the Canadian Petroleum Association, which lobbied heavily for the tax break and whose members account for 90 per cent of Canada's oil production, 76 per cent of the industry's workers and 80 per cent of PGRT revenues.
Yet these recipients of Ottawa's largesse aren't necessarily the neediest oil companies. As the Senate energy committee warned recently, the most distressed producers are the smaller, mostly Canadian-owned firms, which "drill the majority of Canadian oil wells" and are "more efficient than the larger companies at finding and developing small oil pools."
We don't argue with the need for Ottawa to assist the hard-pressed West in general or the oil industry in particular. Indeed, we have editorialized in favour of such assistance. But in scrapping the PGRT, the Tories are employing a shotgun when a rifle would have been preferable. Instead of targetting federal aid through loans or grants for individual firms and frontier energy projects, the Government has chosen to grant a broad tax break that will benefit the biggest firms most.
That was an alternative. The Government could have targeted loans or grants. It could have gone to frontier energy programs and even encouraged them. The editorial continues:
And the Government has failed to obtain firm guarantees that the resulting windfall will be spent on exploration for and development of new sources of oil and natural gas. Instead, the industry is given only bland assurances that it will re-invest the tax savings properly. But what's to stop the multinationals from using the money to buy up struggling Canadian oil firms at fire-sale prices, thereby undermining the longstanding goal of Canadianization, or from making non-energy investments that won't add one barrel of oil to our dwindling reserves?
Not the Progressive Conservatives, who cling to free-market ideology when there is no free market in oil, just a market manipulated by the Saudis and their allies.
Hon. Members might ask what I would do about this. I believe I have already said that the answer is that we need higher prices targeted by a stabilization program that would benefit the small producers and could be paid back later on as world prices rise. I do not know how much time I have left to speak but-


John Carnell Crosbie: Too long.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Too long for the Hon. Member for St. John's West. At least he is listening to my speech. I hope he is learning something.
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act


John Carnell Crosbie: I'm the only one here listening.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We will be hearing from many Conservative Members who will talk about the National Energy Program. I can just smell it coming. They are going to talk about how the National Energy Program of the Liberal Party destroyed the Canadian West. I can almost make that speech myself.
I would like to point out a couple of things for the benefit of those Hon. Members. We are dealing with a new reality. We are dealing with now. Let us deal with the situation out West as it exists now. Second, there are many myths about the National Energy Program. One such myth is that it was not popular. In fact, it was very popular in Canada. All the polls taken showed that it was a popular program except in certain areas.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Oh?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am sorry, the oil industry in Calgary is not Canada. It is an important part of Canada. All parts of Canada are important. However, the oil industry in Calgary does not make up the majority of Canada. We should be careful when we hear that the program was not popular. All the polls taken showed that the program was popular and that the expansion of Petro-Canada was incredibly popular and is still popular.
The second myth is that the NDP supported the Liberal Party in the creation of the National Energy Program. We did not support the Liberals.


Mr. Siddon:: You're still supporting them. You're arguing for a thing of the past.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is a great myth. If Hon. Members want to live myths, that is fine, but it will not help us deal with today's problems. The Hon. Member should know that. He was a Member of the House at that time. I would draw his attention to the debate on Bill C-57 which was held in May of 1981. At that time, I and the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) moved the various motions necessary to delete the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act from the provisions of Bill C-57. My motion was identical to that of the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre. It was voted on simultaneously and was defeated by a vote of 118 for the motion to 124 votes against.
Bill C-57 itself was passed a few days later by a vote of 132 to 84. The NDP voted with the Conservatives in their unsuccessful bid to defeat the Bill.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Why are you still speaking for Mr. Lalonde?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Why am I still speaking for Mr. Lalonde? The fact is that we said that the NEP was flawed because it would shift exploration away from the western sedimentary basin-


Thomas Edward Siddon: That's what we said too.

November 5, 1986
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It would take it to the frontiers at incredible costs. We acknowledged that there had to be some incentives to explore in the frontiers and that the program had to be a national one. We said that the PIP grants would be incredibly costly, and it turned out that they cost $7.3 billion.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Now he's talking the right way.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That expenditure resulted in a limited amount of Canadianization. We objected to the PGRT because we felt that it was really a provincial royalty. Westerners understand that it is not really a federal tax but is more like a provincial royalty.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Sounds like double-talk now.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I invite the Hon. Member to check the record. We also said that the National Energy Program would damage co-operative federalism. I suggest that the Hon. Member read House of Commons Debates of May 28, 1981. At that time, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) made that very point. Our finance critic, Mr. Bob Rae, made the same point and said we needed to help small Canadian oil companies. We argued against the Bill when it was before the House. We said that the PGRT would hurt western Canada. Western Canada was hurt by the National Energy Program but it was also hurt by a world recession which occurred at the same time.
This is where Conservative Members are the most vulnerable. I hope they will not rise and give us this rot about the NDP supporting the National Energy Program. They should study the votes and look at the facts. We do not agree with Conservatives. Obviously we differ. At least Conservatives are not like Liberals. We know where Conservataives stand and we honestly differ with them. We share the goal of Canadianization but Conservatives believe in doing it through private companies. We believe in doing it through a mix of public and private companies and we believe in using Petro-Canada as an instrument of Government policy.
We believe in Canadianization. With $7 billion, we could have Canadianized the industry much more quickly. In fact, we could even have bought some oil companies for $7 billion. However, we do not believe in a completely nationalized oil industry; we believe in a mixed industry. We believe in trying to let western provinces develop the oil industry so far as they can, but there must be a national energy policy because it seems to me that Conservatives kid themselves if they believe in the free world price of oil and the free market for oil.
In committee the other day, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) spoke of the free world market price for oil. The fact is that no energy analyst believes any longer that the market is not controlled. It will be controlled by a cartel like OPEC which shot the price of oil up twice in the last 15 years or, previous to that, by the multinational oil companies which controlled the price through oligopolistic practices, anti-competitive practices and control of production or by the state. In a sense, it was inevitable that the National
Energy Program should use the state to try to control one of Canada's most vital resources, namely, oil.
I predict that if it goes on for long enough, the Conservative Government will have an energy program as well. It cannot entrust the energy sector to the so-called world market. I suggest that any energy analyst worth his salt will tell Conservative Members that there is no real free market for world oil. Let us not hear the free market argument in this debate.
I would like to say a word about the deregulation of natural gas. The deregulation of gas was announced for November 1 as part of the energy accord signed by the federal Energy Minister and the Energy Ministers of the producing provinces, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. I believe that accord was signed in July of 1985. There have been problems with deregulation of gas. There was an announcement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources last week which I called short-term gain for long-term pain. I do not know where I borrowed that expression from, but I have heard it before in the House. I think it was changed a little bit.


An Hon. Member:: Mr. Crosbie may be the culprit.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Maybe 1 see the author over there. 1 will put my mukluks on and ask him.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why don't you stuff them in your mouth.


An Hon. Member:: It was the NDP.


John Carnell Crosbie: The gang that couldn't shoot straight shot down my mukluks.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He says "the gang that couldn't shoot straight". We managed to shoot down his Conservative Government all right. It didn't take long.
The problem, Mr. Speaker, is this: This deregulation of gas is supposed to be cheap gas for consumers in eastern Canada. The fact is that they are going to get some gas a little cheaper, but not $20 off their bills, as the Canadian Press story out of Calgary stated. They will get it a little cheaper, but in the long run they are going to pay more. The reason is the Minister announced this week that he is going to get rid of the surplus test for gas. We had a 25-year surplus for gas, and now it has gone down to a 15-year surplus. The National Energy Board looked at it and changed it to a 15-year surplus. Lo and behold, the Minister is now trying to get rid of that surplus. That will mean that we will export like mad our natural gas that we now have to the American market at cheap bargain basement prices. The industry will want to do that because they need money like mad. The result will be that we will sell that gas cheap, gas which costs a dollar a thousand cubic feet to find. After we have used all that sweet, cheap gas in Alberta, we will then have to go into the foothills and into the more difficult places to get the gas. It will cost five times as much, therefore, the consumer may pay five times more. It
November 5, 1986

may not be quite five times, but may be it will go up from $6 a thousand cubic feet to $15 a thousand cubic feet. That is the short-sightedness of this program.
The other problem is that it is going to hurt the small Canadian companies, because they will not have enough money to go and explore for that more difficult type of gas, which costs more money. The big oil companies will be able to get back in there and get a greater share of the exploration.
As well, it has allowed Canadians the opportunity to get rid of the border price. That means that Canadians should not pay more for Canadian gas than Americans living in California who are heating their swimming pools in Palm Springs, or running their air-conditioning, who will be paying less for Canadian gas than Canadians in other parts of the country.
I draw your attention to the 1984 Conservative campaign handbook, at page 44, which states:
We will adopt market-sensitive pricing for exported natural gas, while ensuring that Canadians always pay less than their American neighbours-
They have gone back on another campaign promise. We are really seeing a problem in the sense that we are exporting like mad our gas and our oil at cheap prices and then we will find down the road that we will be short. It is a stupid person that sells out Canadian resources at bargain basement prices for a cheap buck and forgets about the future. That is short-sighted.
My House Leader made a reference to the committee. I wish to tell the committee members who passed a Bill, in my view in breach of a promise to conclude their meeting at a certain time, that they should understand how Stalinism works. The way Stalinism used to work was that Stalinists would lobby to get on a committee. They would get on the committee and then they would ask for a minority voice in the committee. They would get a minority voice, maybe two people out of a five member committee, and then they would ask for a majority. As soon as they got the majority they would close down the committee. That is Stalinism. They should have a look at what they did after making an agreement and then, as soon as the Opposition is gone, breaching the agreement and going through a Bill that we were going to pass anyway today or tomorrow. When you cannot trust the word of western Canadian MPs, you have really hit a new low. But I hope we can remedy that.


An Hon. Member:: If you keep defeating NDPers.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You will be gone next time, my friend. Take a look at Pembina.
I will conclude by saying that we will not oppose this Bill. The Bill is a bit of a desperation attempt to help an industry that is in trouble. It may be helping the wrong part of the industry. It does not help the small producers, and it does not make sure that the money that it gives to the industry is going to be spent for drilling and finding more oil. They may just take the money and run. I think that we need other proposals from this Government and I urge them to bring them forth. They should start with a stabilization plan for the small
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
producers and give them a decent price for their oil. Eastern consumers will buy that if it is a fair deal. If it looks fair to the East and to the West, they will buy it.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, it is a particular honour for me as an Albertan to speak in support of Bill C-17, an Act to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act and the Income Tax Act and to repeal the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act.
This legislation will mark the end of the petroleum and gas revenue tax, which was a discriminatory, unfair, front-end, well-head tax that did more to alienate western Canada than any other single measure since Confederation. Why was the petroleum industry singled out in Canada to bear an unjustifiable burden? I can tell you why, and Marc Lalonde has admitted it. The Liberal Government did not want to see the West gain strength and thereby achieve financial independence. He wanted westerners to be second-class citizens. That is unfair, unjust, and discriminatory.
I will sit down now, Sir, as I believe that you have a messenger, and I will continue later.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
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.
[Stage Direction]
And being returned:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend the Right Honourable the Deputy to Her Excellency the Governor General in the Senate Chamber, His Honour is pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bill:
An Act to amend the Income Tax Act-Chapter 44, 1986.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-17, an Act to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act and the Income Tax Act and to repeal
1118
[Stage Direction]
November 5, 1986
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, it is a joy for me as an Albertan to rise to speak to the total elimination of the PGRT.
Why was the petroleum industry singled out to bear this unjustifiable burden? Marc Lalonde has admitted that the Liberal Government did not want to see the West gain strength and thereby achieve financial independence. He wanted westerners to be second-class citizens. That was unfair, unjust, and discriminatory. One industry in Canada was singled out to bear the burden of this well-head revenue tax which could not be deducted for income tax purposes. It was a tax on a tax. The previous Government was taking money from the petroleum industry with two hands.
Last April, along with my Alberta colleagues, I visited with the previous Minister of Energy and received agreement that the PGRT had to go. This was followed by visits and consultations with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). When I drew to his attention the disastrous situation for producing provinces and the total unfairness of this specific tax on one industry, an industry which was suffering dreadfully due to international world prices, the infamous tax was terminated, not just phased out.
I have not forgotten the deficit. We must support deficit reduction. It is the priority goal of the Government. We cannot leave this heavy debt load on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren.
In September, 1984 when the Conservative Government was elected, the forecast deficit was $38 billion and growing. In two years the Government, under the excellent direction of the Minister of Finance, will have the deficit reduced to $32 billion. Interest rates are down almost four full points. Inflation has levelled off at 4 per cent. The unemployment rate is now at a single digit figure. These are remarkable accomplishments, but there is much more to be done in this area.
I want to return to talking about small explorers and producers, the one, two and three man companies which use royalty income for cash flow. Royalty income has always been considered by many as a passive income not used for activity. How wrong that is. Activity is exactly where it is used. These small companies have that great spirit of the entrepreneur. They are the risk takers. These companies were totally ignored by the previous Government. Alberta MPs put the facts about the small producers before the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). We explained their dilemma and how the situation could be rectified. The Minister announced in mid September that these small producers would receive PGRT relief on the first $1.5 million royalty income retroactive to January 1, 1986.
PGRT taxed revenues, not profits. PGRT taxed one region of the country in order to subsidize exploration elsewhere. PGRT provided $10 to $10.5 billion in revenue to assist frontier exploration through the PIP grants.
PIP grants provided up to 80 per cent of the costs in the frontier for exploration. It depended upon the COR content of the company, that is, the Canadian Ownership Rating that a company had. According to the percentage you had, you could get up to a maximum of 80 per cent of costs written off. This forced or enticed Canadian companies that could ill afford it into the frontier, not based on geology, not based on economics but based on giveaway PGRT dollars. Western Canadian producers supported the frontier action, but no additional production has been achieved. Let me correct that because Amauligak in the Beaufort did produce some 300,000 barrels last summer, which oil was shipped out and sold to Japan. That was a pilot project and although closed down today, I must add that the Beaufort has great potential for future development and production.
Back to the PGRT and the PIP grants, Mr. Speaker. Western producers have paid some $10 billion in PGRT since its inception. PIP grants cost $7.2 billion. It is easy to see that western producers subsidized all the frontier exploration. Selfsufficiency and security of supply are Canadian issues, a Canadian responsibility and, therefore, should really be paid for by all Canadians.
This PGRT tax was introduced unilaterally by the Government of the day in October, 1980, a unilateral decision totally unacceptable to my Government. We believe in consultation with industry and with provincial Governments. National reconciliation is a must. But without consulting the provinces, the Grits, who did not have an elected Member west of Winnipeg, implemented the blatant revenue grab along with a made in Canada pricing regime. The National Energy Program contained many new taxes designed to bolster the federal coffers while reducing the provincial share and the industry's share of resource revenues.
In June, 1985, we moved to deregulation of oil. This came about by the signing of the Western Accord in March, 1985. It has worked extremely well and the western producers as well as all Canadians are very pleased.
On November 1, 1986, we moved to deregulation of natural gas. There are two major concerns here: the regional reference border price and the export surplus test. In the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) last Thursday, he addressed these two concerns. We must allow export licences in order to create cash flow and cash flow creates activity and future security. It is very important that we monitor this regional reference border price and that we allow gas exports. We can monitor and check on them twice a year, and if there is some sort of problem in that area, the National Energy Board or the ERCB within the Province of Alberta can certainly address the issues.
Last week the Province of Alberta made a statement. I congratulate the province for it. The Premier of Alberta and the Energy Minister announced a $1 billion assistance package intended to strengthen the viability of the energy sector, to
November 5, 1986

stimulate activity and investment, to create jobs and thus contribute to Canada's energy security. The package contains three components: help for producers, royalty reductions and royalty holidays. Western Canadians have been living under the National Energy Program for too long. In 1980 and 1981 living in Calgary I saw the exodus of drilling rigs. Drilling companies had three choices. They could move their rigs out of the country and find work elsewhere; they could stack the rigs and gain no revenue; or they could go belly up. We lost 30 per cent of our rigs and we lost 30 per cent of our human resources. This was a totally unacceptable situation. Obviously there was no exploration to find a replacement for the oil and gas being utilized.
Now we have the Atlantic Accord signed in February, 1985, and the Western Accord of March, 1985. We have deregulation of oil, and we are moving in the area of deregulation of natural gas. As I said, the Minister stated that he would look into the regional reference border price and monitor it. I believe the National Energy Board will be reviewing the surplus test, the 15 reserves to production. For security of supply, Mr. Speaker, the surplus test will not work. We need long term contracts. We need activity. The National Energy Program has gone. We have nailed it shut.
May I conclude by saying that working together through consultation, we can and we will build on the greatness of Canada not only for today but for the future.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow). According to the Hon. Member and her Party when in opposition, all the problems of the energy industry were created by the then Liberal Government which was responsible for the National Energy Program that destroyed the industry and led to the exodus. The people of Canada were not told that the problems which developed then and which have got worse since were caused by the calamitous drop in the world price of oil. We were told by the then spokesperson for the Conservative Party, the Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), who was for some time the Minister of Energy, that all we had to do was just to get rid of the National Energy Program, just to get rid of regulation, that the free market would work and that we would have 200,000 new jobs in the energy industry in Canada. But what do we see, Mr. Speaker? We see 50,000 layoffs in Alberta. We see the industry virtually shut down off the Atlantic coast. We see virtually no activity in the Beaufort. That is what happens when you leave everything to the free market. I do not blame the companies. They do not see any profit in the next few years and they will not invest their money.
When will the Hon. Member face up to the fact that the free market may work fine for the companies and even for Government when the price of energy is high, but it just does not work when the price of energy is low? Maybe what we need, if we are going to protect ourselves for a few years down the road when the price of energy is high again, is Government intervention. Maybe we need a floor price. You cannot have
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
that if you really believe in the free market. That is what we really need. Some of the independents in Alberta, who used to be great champions of an absolutely free market, are beginning to see that. I wish the Member would give some thought to that idea. In the United States they never had a NEP under the Reagan administration and the industry there is just as much in the doldrums as it is in Canada.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to review some history. The National Energy Program was introduced in October, 1980. At that time the PGRT was 16 2/3 of the wellhead. It was a front-end revenue tax and it destroyed the industry. Rigs left and there was very little activity. That was caused by a front-end tax which was used to fund offshore exploration. Offshore exploration for security of supply is a Canadian problem and should not rest on the backs of the producers in one industry. I am not advocating that hydro electric power companies should pay a front-end revenue tax on every kilowatt they sell. I am not advocating that every tonne of coal should have a 12 or 16 per cent front-end tax. I do not think any of that is fair.
The downturn which started in 1980 was due to the National Energy Program. Companies cut back to the bare bones. They had to lay staff off and cut wages. During the election campaign in the summer of 1984 the Progressive Conservative Party said that there would be no Government intervention in the oil industry. We believe in the free market system. At that time the oil price would have been between $30 and $40 U.S. a barrel, although I would have to check those figures because the price has been fluctuating so much. The Conservatives were elected because we said that Government would get out, there would be no regulation or intervention.
We got rid of the PGRT. We got rid of the 25 per cent back-in. Activities on the East Coast and in the Beaufort have been curtailed for strictly economic reasons. It is uneconomical today to produce in either Hibernia or the Beaufort. Some companies say it costs $20 to $22 U.S. a barrel to produce in the Beaufort and I believe it may cost a bit more in Hibernia. It will be very costly to bring Hibernia on line, although transportation will not be that costly. The Beaufort has the best reserves and production will not be nearly as costly as on the East Coast, but transportation will be a problem. We need a pipeline. We can build a pipeline from Tuktoyaktuk down to Norman Wells and perhaps tie into the Norman Wells-Zama pipeline. Unfortunately, that is only a twelve-inch pipeline and we would have to decide whether to twin it or to go for a twenty-four or thirty-six-inch pipeline. Pipelines are costly.
All Canadians realize the problem with the deficit. All Canadians realize that we must get the deficit down in order to keep interest rates down. Interest rates keep mortgage rates and inflation down, which has certainly helped the manufacturing industry in southern Ontario. There is no doubt about that.

November 5, 1986
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
The second kick which we got was the fall in the international price of oil. This was not a made in Canada price. It was due to an international situation over which Canada had no control. The industry wanted a total free market system and we gave it to them. A recent survey in Alberta showed that 51 per cent of producers contacted did not want a floor price or stabilization while 30 or 31 per cent of them would entertain such an issue. The majority of people only want a fiscal structure to bring into reality the true price of a barrel of oil or an mcf of gas. That which is happening today is an international problem. That which happened in 1980-81 was strictly the result of a Liberal Government policy to rape the west.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have two short questions which could be answered together. The Member said that Mr. Lalonde, the former Minister of Energy, was "unjust and discriminatory towards the West". How does that differ from the present Prime Minister's unjust and discriminatory treatment with regard to the CF-18 decision?
The Member spoke twice about lowering the deficit. By getting rid of the PGRT the Government will be unable to collect about $5 billion. Where is the Government going to come up with that money, or does the Member believe the Government should cut programs instead of replacing that money?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I rule the Member's first question out of order. It does not relate to the speech of the Member.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the CF-18 maintenance contract is not relevant to Bill C-17 which we are discussing today. The Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) talks about discrimination with regard to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I would like to review a few things which the Government has done in the area of agriculture. No Government has done as much as this Government has to support that industry. Including the SI billion deficiency payment, the Government has spent almost $7 billion to help all farmers across Canada.


Mr. Gormley:: That is more than any other Government.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: I do not think it is fair to say that there is discrimination. We removed the National Energy Program and got rid of the unfair discriminatory tax. We increased job creation funding in Alberta. We never received fair payments before. Things are changing. The Government is treating every area of Canada equally with regard to agriculture, energy, and job creation. That is the only way in which all Canadians can work together for a better country.


Mr. Schellenberger:: The Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) is doing so well in responding to questions that I thought I would ask her one as well. The Liberal and NDP speakers were both concerned about gas sales to the United States. Does the Hon. Member have these same concerns?
Will she explain how that will assist cash flow and help selfsufficiency rather than hurt it in any way?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's question. Gas sales to the United States are absolutely necessary and mandatory if we want security of supply. We cannot sit on the gas. We need activity. Companies need cash flow and in order to get it they must sell their product. We need the markets. As one of my colleagues indicated, the United States is going through a gas bubble. We need to be assured of markets. We need to sell our gas today in order to have supplies tomorrow.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the chance to say a few words on Bill C-17, an Act to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act. I was very interested in the comments of the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow). I thought it was interesting that she spent a lot of time telling us how great everything is with the Tory Government in power. That reminds me of a chap I met in Pembina during the by-election there. He had just come away from hearing the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazan-kowski) make a speech. He said that the Deputy Prime Minister had told them how great everything was and was going to be. He said, "If everything is so great, why do I feel so bad?" That summarizes the situation. The Hon. Member for Calgary South spent much time giving us national statistics. She did not spend much time talking about unemployment in Alberta which has not seen such a nose dive in jobs in at least three or four decades.
In June, the province expected to have an oil and gas exploration program worth up to $12 billion, but it was reduced to approximately $6 billion. There are usually 30,000 jobs per billion dollars of oil and gas exploration, and one must ask why the situation is so terrible if the Tory economic policies are so great. It is like the farmer who heard the Deputy Prime Minister make a speech in St. Albert and asked: "If things are so great, why do I feel so bad?" I think that is the way most Albertans feel about the Tory Government.
The Government may talk about billions of dollars and a positive situation, but we see on television that hundreds of millions of dollars in drilling exploration and development equipment is being auctioned off to the highest bidder. No one in Alberta has seen anything like it since the 1930s.
The Hon. Member did not mention that when the Petroleum Incentives Program was abandoned last spring, unfortunately at the same time that world oil prices were dropping dramatically, the PGRT which raised the money was only eliminated after a desperation call by the Tories working in the Pembina by-election. The Government did not want to give up the PGRT for two or three years, even though it had stopped the petroleum incentive grants in March. That program provided approximately 35 per cent grants in the western sedimentary basin in Alberta. The Government removed that at the very
November 5, 1986

time that the international prices were collapsing at record rates.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) visited Alberta in August. He was unwilling to eliminate the PGRT, but by early September when the screams were ringing in the ears of every Tory, particularly those in the caucus, the Minister took action to remove the PGRT. It is interesting to note that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) campaigned that he would remove the PGRT, but when it came time to actually eliminate it, it took the Pembina by-election and the loss of thousands of Tory votes for him really to do it.
I had the opportunity with a number of other Members to attend a presentation by the Syncrude organization which produces some 125,000 barrels of oil a day in the tar sands of northern Alberta. I thought the proposal was extremely reasonable. That organization has received some $82 billion from the Alberta Government to conduct pre-engineering and planning in order to double its production sometime after 1988. It has begun a program which would increase production by some 20,000 barrels a day, a rather significant increase of 15 per cent. It has already spent some $400 million this year and is taking a risk even though world prices were dropping.
Those capital investments in that syncrude project will increase its efficiency, capacity and production by some 20,000 barrels a day, on a plant of 125,000 barrels a day.
The proposal was simply to ask the Government to consider providing some security as a backdrop if world prices dropped below $15 U.S. a barrel. This would have allowed that organization to complete that project which will cost approximately $750 million. Syncrude was proposing that the provincial and federal Governments provide a back stop for a project which would create thousands of jobs that are desperately needed in northern Alberta where there has been a longstanding strike. If this proposal is not accepted, the project will be mothballed for several years, which will encumber the ultimate 50 per cent increase of that project.
I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if the Government would consider that proposal but I received the usual non-answer. There was no real commitment to do anything. It is a pity because it is a good project that would be very useful in creating jobs and the technology that would benefit the whole country.
The locked-in ideology of the Government seems to be preventing it from providing that guaranteed agreement. That is the kind of problem we will face in the years ahead.
Syncrude is not asking for a loan or funding, but simply a guaranteed agreement to assist it in the completion of that project. I was very impressed with the project because it could increase its production after 1988 by 50 per cent, or 75,000 barrels a day, to a total of 225,000 barrels a day. That is close to 20 per cent of Canada's oil production right now.
I had the opportunity to serve as Parliamentary Secretary when the Syncrude project was born in 1975. At that time
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
there was a requirement for federal Government investment, and I think the Government came in with three or four principal players with an investment of some $300 million, which Petro-Canada now holds. I do not believe that the Syncrude project would exist today without some Government involvement and confidence. The Government is making a serious error by not helping that project go ahead now. We saw the Government weasel back and forth on the removal of the PGRT. It certainly was quick to take away the PIP grants but incredibly slow to remove the PGRT. In The Edmonton Journal on October 29 there is an article entitled: "A real horror Tory". I quote in part:
There's only one catastrophe worse than the slump in Canada's oil and gas industry and that's the performance of Marcel Masse as federal energy minister.
Recently, Masse made the preposterous claim that the energy industry is not a job-creation sector. Then he broke one of Brian Mulroney's sacred election promises by placing Canada's goal of energy self-sufficiency on hold.
I think it is really interesting that the Government came to power talking about creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in the oil sector. Clearly, within two years, we are seeing hundreds of thousands of jobs in the energy sector lost. I am especially conscious of that because one of the major industries in my constituency of Algoma is Algoma Steel. It is one of the best steel tube pipe producing companies in the country. It normally employs about 800 people. It has a new $350 million tube mill coming onstream, running its first runs of tube right now, but it apparently will not operate for quite some time and we have 800 people laid off. They believed the Government when it said there would be hundreds of thousands of jobs in the oil industry. They did not realize that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost. Clearly, the policy of the Government has changed since the election campaign and since the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has become the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney). Her policy was to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. The new Minister says energy is not a job-creation sector. So it is a problem that travels from one Minister to another.
I suspect the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was appointed to be the Minister for International Trade because everyone knew that her policies were a total and complete disaster. She waved around the Western Accord. The problem with the Western Accord was the last paragraph. It is a little paragraph about an inch long. It says that if oil and gas prices in Canada rose or fell precipitously, consultations would take place. Well, the consultations may have taken place but there has been no result. We still have very little oil and gas exploration and development activity going on, which is not only hurting Alberta now but is going to hurt it more this winter. It hurts the entire Canadian industry because the flow through affects every company in the country which is involved in the manufacture of tubes, piping and equipment for that sector.
There was another decision made by the Minister in a recent speech which The Edmonton Journal described as "A real

November 5, 1986
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
horror Tory". The Minister abandoned the whole question of self-sufficiency during the first four or five years of 1980 that we had set as a period in which to become self-sufficient in energy production by the end of this decade. In fact, we achieved that by 1983 with exploration and development going on in the Beaufort Sea, in the Hibernia, in the Atlantic shelf, and the increased activity in the western sedimentary basin with the non-synthetic crudes from the Syncrude and tar sands. Two years after this Government came to power with its policy of self-sufficiency, it was abandoned by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources this fall. The editorial in The Edmonton Journal issue of October 29 said:
Now, after finally acknowledging that the "situation in Alberta is a catastrophe", he offers nothing but paternalistic smarm to comfort the 55,000 Albertans who stand to lose their jobs this winter.
"A catastrophe situation requires a response, but not just any response", says Masse the procrastinator.
Not prepared to consider Alberta's proposal for an oil price stabilization plan, Masse seems happy to let this province's oil patch languish until next January when he holds court over a federal-provincial conference of energy Ministers.
Masse's response is not just "any response"; it's no response.
I think that is the part that breaks the heart of the smaller producer. It is interesting that the Hon. Member for Calgary South talked about the people from Alberta. There was a poll taken which showed that 51 per cent of Albertans wanted a free market price. Everyone wants a free market price if it is high enough, but clearly many of the small producers-and Premier Getty of Alberta has said this many times-want to see a cash flow stabilization program put in place. When we look at the reduction of $1.5 in tax revenues over the two or three years, we wonder about the main benefit going to some 25 of the largest producers, the multinationals, which may send the money back to their parent companies in the United States or may reinvest and buy up small producers and oil and gas exploration companies. If we are able to forfeit that much in revenue, why could there not be some assistance for the smaller Canadian companies in a kind of petroleum stabilization program which the premier of Alberta has pleaded with the Government to establish?
I believe that this winter things will be so difficult and disastrous that the Minister will come on board and agree to that some time in January, perhaps, when the federal-provincial Ministers meet, but it is certainly a tooth-pulling exercise to get the Government to respond to these tremendous needs, which are not only destroying our movement towards self-sufficiency but are costing thousands of jobs not only in Alberta but throughout the Canadian economy. The oil and gas sector is important throughout Canada not just in the western basin. We support this Bill because it provides assistance to the industry. However, we think it is not going to provide the assistance which is needed for the smaller producer who employs a lot of people and who has the potential to assist this country in a desperate time for the oil and gas industry.


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to offer a comment on the debate today. Like many western Canadian Members, I am disappointed but not particularly surprised to hear the Liberals and their friends in the NDP lamenting the passing of the petroleum and gas revenue tax. This tax and its terrible implications on the oil business not only in Alberta, where it is characteristically seen as having done so much harm, but in my Province of Saskatchewan are very evident. For example, in my community we see that companies such as Gulf Oil and other large and small companies have had placed on them unjustifiable financial burdens. The fact is that the PGRT taxed revenues and not profits. The fact is it was arbitrary and unilateral. It was introduced without consultation. Western Canadians, and in particular those in the western part of Saskatchewan, will have seen the commitment our Government has made to the oil industry in general and particularly to the companies affected by the PGRT.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a few of my colleagues for the work they have done. First, I congratulate the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) on his remarks today. I also congratulate the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) who, through her work on the Energy Committee and in the House, has made clear to Canadians the reasons for the PGRT being removed altogether and why our Government has acted to this end.
I will now take my seat to allow other Members from my Party to speak further on the matter.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the comments of the Hon. Member for The Battlefords- Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley). I had an opportunity to visit his area last year about this time. I visited the Husky upgrader and saw the plans for development in the Lloydminster area. I would certainly like to see the whole project go ahead. As I have mentioned, in terms of Syncrude, there should be a regime in place to see that these types of production go ahead. These are long-term projects which cannot be started quickly and ended quickly. There has been a great deal of impressive research done in this area, especially by Husky. I was particularly impressed by the number of jobs that were created in the area. I hope that the Government will not only remove the PGRT but that it will provide the type of assistance and energy policy which will take us forward.
I recall being with the Hon. Member for The Battlefords- Meadow Lake at a dinner sponsored by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. One of the people at that dinner was an active member of the Progressive Conservative Party. This dinner was about one year ago. At that time this PC Party member and I were talking about the 1,500 or more gas stations the Government was purchasing from Gulf. He described to me how he had written to the Prime Minister, whom he had supported in the election campaign, stating that he could not imagine why Petro-Canada was buying out a
November 5, 1986

major oil company just to have thousands of more gasoline stations. The Prime Minister's response, which was breaking his heart since he had supported him in the election, was that Petro-Canada was really an independent organization and the Government did not have any say in it whatsoever. He said that the Government did not want to influence it in any way. I am sure that if many western Conservatives who voted for the Prime Minister in 1984 knew that he would allow Petro-Canada to operate completely separate from the Government with no direction or assistance from it, they would have been heart-broken. These people expected some leadership from the Government in this regard.
I thought I should relate this incident because I am conscious of how much oil is produced in the Hon. Member's area.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on the comment of the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley). How many times do we have to tell the Hon. Member that we did not support the PGRT when it was brought in? How many times do I have to tell him that we did not support the National Energy Program? I ask the Hon. Member to check the record.


John Carnell Crosbie: Methinks the Hon. Member doth protest too much.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I ask the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) to direct his question or comment to the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I was directing my question to the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake because he spoke about the PGRT. All I can say is that I invite the Hon. Member to read the speech I made today. I gave Members of the House the vote patterns in it, and I would like to address this issue.
The fact is we need a national energy program. It does not have to be called a Liberal National Energy Program. We need some sort of program. There must be an energy program in place for Canada. I ask the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) what we really received for the $7.3 billion that we gave in PIP grants. Does the Hon. Member think that was an effective method of Canadianization, given that all Members of the House share the same concept of Canadianization? I preface my remark by saying that I do not think the Hon. Member believes there is a free market for oil. Perhaps he believes there is. Perhaps he is like many members of the Conservative Party. Does the Hon. Member really believe that Gulf competes on the same basis as some small independent oil company in our system?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) asks several good questions of me. I have had the opportunity of serving on the Energy Committee with the Hon. Member for a number of years. The question the Hon. Member put to me is the exact question we
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
put to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Parliamentary Secretary when the PIP grant was being dealt with. It was delightful to hear the Parliamentary Secretary, who was carrying the PIP Bill, say: "Look. For the $7 billion worth of PIP grants which were given out during the period 1981-84, we identified some $90 billion or $98 billion of oil reserves, both in the East Coast offshore and in the northern areas of Canada". So it did not sound like a bad exchange to me.
We have heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) talk about getting rid of tax expenditures because we cannot control them and because we do not know where they are going. Getting rid of tax expenditures is like providing PIP grants as opposed to capital cost write-offs or capital cost allowances which the Government is bringing in with regard to the oil industry. I think it would be interesting to put such a question to the Minister of Finance.
If he really believes in this business of getting rid of tax expenditures and if the Government is to vote money, then Parliament should vote that money to individuals rather than having them claim it. If he wants to be consistent, then he might want to bring back PIP grants rather than putting in place capital cost write-offs or an expenditure system.
The Hon. Member wants to know if there really is a free market. The market is decided by OPEC, the U.K. and a few other countries around the world.
I find it interesting that certain people do not want the Government of Canada, a freely elected Government even if it is a Tory Government, to set prices but they do not mind having the 15 or 18 OPEC countries set the price of oil. Unfortunately for the oil producing industry, those countries are not very successful at setting prices at a level which will allow us to take our oil out of the ground, particularly in the frontier areas.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is really an expert in agriculture. He knows a great deal about agriculture and markets, much more than I do.
In a pure free market with pure free trade in oil, what would happen to Saudi Arabia and Alberta? Where would all the money go?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I would not attempt to deal with such esoteric arguments as the Hon. Member has made. There really is no free market. The market depends on the interplay of dozens of countries and on how tough those countries are willing to play the game.
It seems to me that projects like Syncrude and the heavy oil operation at Lloydminster as well as projects on the East Coast should have the benefit of a much better energy policy than the one we have now. The present policy is seeing the industry shut down. The Minister of Energy has admitted publicly that he has abandoned the concept of the energy sector being a job-

November 5, 1986
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
creation sector. As well, he is abandoning the concept of selfsufficiency.
A recent editorial in the Edmonton Journal disapproved strongly of the Government's policy to abandon the goal of self-sufficiency and the concept of job creation in the energy sector. Those concepts formed the central mantlepiece of the Government's economic policy in its first year in office.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, this late in the day, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-17, the legislation that will terminate the petroleum and gas revenue tax. I have listened with some interest to the earlier debate. Of course, it is a very happy day for all of us in the West. I was pleased to hear the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow). I know of the tremendous amount of work she and her colleagues from Alberta have done toward the elimination of the PGRT and the dismantling of the Liberal National Energy Program.
Indeed, today we are taking the necessary steps that will put the final nails in the coffin of an unjust tax. We are burying for good an inappropriate creation of the previous Government. We are burying a tax that threatened to do irreparable damage to federal-provincial relations. We are burying a tax that was choking the petroleum industry in a period of low oil prices. We are burying a tax that has been compared to a dead skunk under the front porch: this tax had to be removed in order to make the house habitable. Now that the tax has been removed, the oil industry will be able to breathe easier.
I am not telling Hon. Members that all is well in the oil industry or that the removal of the PGRT is a cure-all. We know jobs are being lost daily and the economic impact of the problems facing the industry is being felt across Canada. However, I can tell Hon. Members that the removal of the PGRT is an action that is both politically and economically justifiable.
We are not giving the oil industry windfall benefits. We are returning to the industry a small fraction of the revenues that should never have been taxed away in the first place. Removing this tax removes a penalty on the industry, a penalty for having been successful in the years prior to the NEP. Eliminating this tax has been compared to stepping on one's foot and then expecting eternal gratitude for finally agreeing to take the foot off. The PGRT is gone and it is good riddance to an unjust tax.
When thinking of the impact the PGRT had on the oil industry, I am reminded of the 1970s when, in my own Province of British Columbia, the NDP Government imposed unjustifiable taxes on the mining industry. That had a terrible impact on that industry. Surely we can learn from such examples. When a Government becomes too greedy because it thinks one industry or another is benefiting from international prices, it tries to take that benefit away unjustifiably. The effect of that on the lowering of confidence and investment is so detrimental that it is just not worth it.
I lived in Calgary in the years just prior to implementation of the PGRT and then for a period of time after it was implemented. I worked with the oil industry and I recall what happened to it. It went from optimism, jubilance and perhaps in some cases over-investment to darkness in only a couple of months. We all know what resulted in the years that followed until our Government came to power two years ago and began to dismantle the National Energy Program. Today, the Government has put forward a Bill designed to do away with the last vestiges of the really unfair PGRT.
The purpose of this Bill is to eliminate the PGRT or, as it has sometimes been called, pigs gathering round the trough. The revenue trough is empty now, but what happened to all the money that was scooped out since the PGRT was introduced in 1981? The money that was taken from western Canada was poured into 80 per cent PIP grants designed to entice companies to drill primarily in the offshore. How many new oil and gas discoveries were made with the PIP money? A few, but not many. How many Canadian oil companies were encouraged to over-extend themselves disastrously to qualify for grants and artificial enticements? How many Canadian consumers paid extra money at the gas pumps so that Petro-Canada could buy Petrofina at an inflated price? In the answers to these questions, we can see the legacy of the National Energy Program.
This legislation puts an end to an inappropriate intrusion of Government into the private sector. The end of this tax combined with the other energy policy initiatives already taken means that the petroleum industry will be able to function in a free market. The industry is facing tough times today, but in the long run it will be stronger. We know that international oil prices are low but at some of the meetings I have attended, I have sensed optimism. Predictions have been made that oil prices will rise again to the $18 to $20 range.
In the long run, the Canadian industry will be able to compete without being strangled by taxes or being enticed into poor investments by Government grants that are too rich to be refused. In the future, the petroleum industry will be treated more like other industries. In the view of our Government, that is the way we should approach industrial strategy.
I urge all Hon. Members to give speedy passage to this Bill. I see it as being a part of a continuum of efforts made by the Government to fulfil its commitment to the Canadian people. In the last three weeks, I have had the pleasure of speaking on three different measures, all directed toward that goal. I spoke on the rebate of the child tax credit, on the amendments to the Criminal Code dealing finally with child sexual abuse, and on today's Bill which finally does away with the petroleum and gas revenue tax.
The legislative record of the Government has fulfilled our commitment in the Speech from the Throne to a modern, tolerant and caring society, a society that treats all its citizens with fairness. Today, we end the era of unfairness in the PGRT. I can assure all Hon. Members that we will continue to ferret out unfairness in all areas of Government so that we
November 5, 1986

may do away with it. Today we end the era of unfairness in the PGRT. I can assure you we will continue to ferret out in all areas of Government unfairness and inequity and do away with those as well.
I join with my colleagues in being pleased to have this opportunity and I look forward to the speedy passage and the end of this infamous and unfair intrusion on an industry which is an important, integral part of the Canadian economy, and particularly to the western economy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On questions and comments, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus).


Mr. Angus:: My question is directed to the Hon. Member. One of the things that supposedly was promised was a better deal for consumers. Today in Toronto I appeared at the Ontario Energy Board hearings into an application by one of the Ontario natural gas distribution companies. Part of the discussion today-I cannot say evidence because there was debate about whether it could be considered as evidence-was the fact that TransCanada Pipelines and ICG Ontario Limited had entered into an agreement on rates that are confidential which would give to major Ontario consumers- big companies, in other words-very cheap rates.
Given the scenario where one group in Ontario is going to get preferential rates for natural gas, primarily Alberta natural gas, at the expense of the ordinary consumer, does the Member feel that this was the goal of her Government's policies as it related to deregulation of the energy industry in western Canada?


Mary Collins: I thank the Member for his comments. I am not familiar with the particular case that he presents or the hearings that he has attended today. But I do say that
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
consumers across the country are certainly benefiting from lower oil prices. That is not only due to the fact that international oil prices are low, but because we are reducing the taxation level. Every time we go to the gas pump the evidence is right there. It costs a lot less to fill up. I would say that the initiatives that this Government has taken have indeed been beneficial to the consumer of energy in this country.


Iain Francis Angus: I have a short supplementary for the Hon. Member. In her response right now she talked about the price at the pumps. I would like to ask her whether you can still buy Canadian gas at American pumps cheaper than you can in Canada?


Mary Collins: I have not filled up at any American gas stations with Canadian gas so I cannot give you the actual facts. I just know that when filling up at Canadian gas stations in some cases it is $10 less, if you have a big gas-tank car.


Iain Francis Angus: Tell me where these places are.


Mary Collins: I do not buy very much gas myself, because I do not drive very much. But I have noticed the difference. There has been quite a change in gas prices, particularly over the last eight months.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, may I take part in the debate?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but there is not time left. [English]
It being 6.25 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11.00 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, November 6, 1986