1986-11-06

Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to remind Hon. Members and all Canadians that next Tuesday is Remembrance Day.
November 11 will have a special personal meaning for veterans and their dependants. For some it will be an occasion for painful memories as they reflect on the sacrifices that have affected so many families. All, however, will be bound by feelings of pride. Hon. Members, I very much hope that all of us, and indeed all Canadians, will share this pride.
1 get many letters from men and women who are concerned that the passage of time is robbing Remembrance Day of its stature. I share these concerns. For nearly 70 years Canadians have been marking Remembrance Day. It could be that familiarity has gradually been breeding apathy. If so, this would be a national shame.
Certainly overseas the contribution of Canadians to the cause of freedom is very well remembered. Every year thousands of French men and women join with us at the Service of Remembrance at the Vimy Memorial in northern France. In this, the fiftieth anniversary of the unveiling of the Vimy Memorial, we will again share in a silent tribute to those who won our country so much honour.
On a smaller but very human scale, I think of the British school children who climb up a hill every Remembrance Day so they can place hand-picked flowers on the lonely grave of a Canadian airman.
Here at home, this Parliament has greatly assisted many members of our veteran population. This population includes some 650,000 veterans of the two World Wars and Korea, approximately 280,000 widows of veterans, and another
350,000	dependants of veterans. On their behalf I want to thank my cabinet colleagues and all Members of the House and Senate for their generous support of the measures the Government has been able to introduce. These measures were directed toward very special Canadians-veterans and their families. I can assure the House that such non-partisan cooperation was and is very much appreciated.
Hon. Members, Remembrance Day must never become a day just for veterans and politicians. It should be a day when all of our nation pauses to reflect on the many blessings we
have inherited from those who lie buried in 70 countries and the seven seas.
Let us never forget that they gave their lives so that we might know peace.
When King George VI dedicated our national war memorial in 1939, he said:
The very soul of the nation is here revealed.
I think the same can be said for all the cenotaphs and war memorials that grace so many of our towns and cities in this country.
My sincere hope is that wherever or however Canadians observe Remembrance Day they will not regard it as a routine duty but as a very special privilege.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, as spokesman for the Official Opposition, l want to join the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) in urging all Canadians to observe Remembrance Day with respect and gratitude.
As a nation, we certainly have every reason to be grateful to those who represented this country during the two World Wars and the Korean War. More than 100,000 Canadian men and women made the supreme sacrifice, while among those who did return, some will suffer the effects of the war for the rest of their lives.
The Official Opposition has been only too pleased to support some fine legislation which has been presented to Parliament. The amendment last spring to increase benefits for those who were forced to suffer for so long in prisoner of war camps was particularly welcome. I also applaud the Minister for immediately recognizing the merits of the Veterans Independence Program, introduced by the Liberal Government, and for becoming one of the program's most enthusiastic boosters.

In the Speech from the Throne, it was announced that 6,000 World War 1 veterans would qualify immediately for this very progressive program. I was very happy to hear this, and 1 know that the Minister and all the Members of this House earnestly hope that the remaining 25 per cent of World War 1 veterans who are not yet eligible for benefits under the Veterans Independence Program, will be given that opportunity as soon as possible.

November 6, 1986
Tabling of Documents
Mr. Speaker, the men and women in this group are the last of a legendary generation of heroes. In a book he just published on the Battle of Vimy Ridge, author Pierre Berton describes the horror, suffering and bravery observed during a war in which Canada fought with such distinction.
Mr. Speaker, to all Canadians who have not yet had an opportunity to do so I extend an invitation to visit the imposing Vimy monument, the only silent testimony to the commendable conduct of these 11,000 valorous Canadians who will be resting for ever in that part of French soil.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we are only too acutely aware that these courageous men did not take part in what might have been the last war. Indeed, responding to the quest for freedom and the call of the nation, other Canadians had to leave their loved ones, pack up their meagre belongings, and face danger and death during World War II and the Korean conflict. The strategy and weapons used during these two wars may have been different from those of World War I, but the gravestones which mark the final resting place of the many Canadians buried overseas have remained unchanged.
Mr. Speaker, the Remembrance Day poster distributed by the Department of Veterans Affairs bears these words: "THEY GAVE US PEACE". It is true, and this alone is the best reason why, in silence, we should pray and thank God next Tuesday.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I am honoured to join with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) and the spokesman for the Official Opposition in reminding Canadians that Tuesday, November 11, is Remembrance Day.
Over the years of membership in this House, and as a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, I have been pleased to note that political partisanship becomes less acute when it comes to matters affecting veterans and their families. This is as it should be because the achievement of our veterans has benefited us all. I commend the Minister on his willingness to listen to the views of veterans and those who represent them. Much progress has been made, but as the ranks of veterans decline, perhaps we could do more for those who remain. Many are of an age where they increasingly need assistance. In this regard, I certainly support the recent decision to provide immediate eligibility for the Veterans Independence Program to First World War veterans who would otherwise have had to wait until 1987 or 1988 to apply. These veterans now have an average age of 90 years. They have waited long enough, and I am glad it has now been recognized.
Our purpose today is not to glorify war. Those men and women whom we remember especially today, fought not for personal gain or glory. They served together to preserve democracy, liberty and freedom. Their sacrifice was such, that people everywhere said that never again should wars be
permitted. These were wars to end all wars, it was said. That was the hope of those who fought in those times. Achieving that goal would indeed be the finest remembrance we could offer to their sacrifice.
The recent meeting in Iceland between the leaders of the two most powerful nations in the world was an occasion for high expectations that good sense would prevail to bring an end to the arms race and resultant global tensions. Instead, as we all know, the negotiations broke down. The memorials to the war dead at Arlington, Leningrad and here in Ottawa, all sadly remind us of what can happen when nations stop talking to each other to resolve differences.
All nations should spare no effort to ensure that those military powers will continue their negotiations to de-escalate the arms race. It is a race that no one can win. This is also a moment when we should give thought to the thousands of our fellow beings in this world whose lives are ones of intense suffering. They look to us for assistance and relief and we in Parliament should not lose sight of the need to develop an economic order throughout the world which would eliminate poverty and want for all people, and to that end, eliminate the need for war.
They served and we remember them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: At this moment 1 would ask all Hon. Members to rise for a moment's silence.
[ Whereupon the House stood in silence.]



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to table in both official languages a copy of the 1985-86 annual report of the Department of Justice.
* *
*


LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF CANADA
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages a copy of Report No. 29 of the Law Reform Commission of Canada. This report, Sir, deals with the subject of arrest.
November 6, 1986


CANADA-NEWFOUNDLAND ATLANTIC ACCORD IMPLEMENTATION ACT PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-6, an Act to implement an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on off-shore petroleum resource management and revenue sharing and to make related and consequential amendments, with amendments, in both official languages.


STRIKING COMMITTEE
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the Fourth Report of the Striking Committee, in both official languages.


PRESENTATION OF FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the Fifth Report of the Striking Committee, in both official languages.
Mr. Speaker, if the House agrees, I intend to move concurrence in the Fifth Report later this day.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings for above reports.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to present a petition to the House signed by constituents of mine of Lebanese extraction 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 the Christian areas of Lebanon; whereas Lebanese people are harassed by the Syrian road-blocks and guards; and whereas Lebanese people are charged a fee upon entering and leaving the Syrian border; and that no foreign money is allowed to pass through Syria, the Canadian Government remove the Canadian Embassy from its location in Syria and move it to a location in Cyprus.
Petitions


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians who express their opposition to the Government's declared intention to introduce legislation which will change the Patent Act, the results of which will be to increase the cost of drugs to Canadians by many millions of dollars each year.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of people in my constituency who say that the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 106 I have the duty and pleasure to present a petition signed by a number of citizens of Canada who are protesting the raid on the pockets of the sick and the poor by the proposals of the Government to make changes to the Patent Act which would allow increases in the price of drugs in Canada. These people call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the House signed by some 70 or 80 people from the great riding of Yorkton- Melville. It is a petition which opposes the changes to the Patent Act. The people who have signed this petition state that they are afraid that this move will result in higher drug costs to provincial Governments and to Canadians in general. They are calling upon Parliament to reject the proposals that are about to be made which will increase prescription drug costs for Canadians.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, duty and pleasure to present a petition on behalf of senior citizens in La Pas and Flin Flon, Manitoba. In their petition my constituents express their concern with the federal Government's intention to increase the cost of drugs. They point out that this will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose ongoing health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on a continuing basis.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure it is merely a slip of the tongue of Members opposite. However, under Standing Order 106 all petitions must be properly certified by the Clerk before presentation. If they are-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They are!

November 6, 1986
Petitions


Philip Derek Lewis: -and if Hon. Members could point that out when they submit them, then I think they will be in order.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the same point of order. Any petition presented by a member of the New Democratic Party, and every petition that will be presented today, will certainly have been certified through due process.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. 1 have just checked with the Table on behalf of my Party and the Government as I wanted to examine these petitions. There are none available.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You do that at your leisure.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Quite frankly, I think we have the right to know if the petitions are consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 106.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Are you getting nervous?


Mr. Speaker:: A point has been raised by the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) which is with respect to a matter of order. If there is an appropriate reply to be made by the other side, then I would ask the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) to rise again if he has something to say. However, Hon. Members know that it is not appropriate for them to be calling across the aisle on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought 1 made my point clear to my hon. friend earlier. All petitions which have been presented in the past and all the petitions which will be presented today have been duly certified by the Clerk. That is the appropriate way of proceeding with the presentation of a petition. That is what the Standing Order calls for, and that is what we have done. I do not know what the Hon. Member is attempting to do in terms of holding up this process.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not arguing the point. However, as a matter of courtesy 1 think I should have the right to see the petitions. 1 do not have that right now;
1 am being denied it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You must go to the Clerk and ask to look at them.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: They are not there.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The page is still picking them up.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap has assured the House that the petitions are in order. I know that Hon. Members will accept his word in this regard. On the other hand, the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister says that he would like to see the petitions. I understand from the Table Officers that they will be available shortly.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You can't see them until after they've been presented.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not want to get involved in this debate but-


Mr. Keeper:: Then sit down!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -this is an important point which has to be made. Since when is the Government entitled to look at petitions that are duly presented pursuant to Standing Order 106?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. It would be very hard for Members of Parliament to present their petitions to the Government before we actually have a chance to present them in the House. Before these dubious points of order were raised by Members on the Government side, that is exactly what members of the NDP caucus were trying to do.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition from quite a number of citizens from the Province of Manitoba and these people call upon Parliament to reject proposals to change the Patent Act which would increase the cost of drugs significantly and hurt many Canadians and they resent the fact that concessions are being made in the U.S. free trade negotiations.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition that has been certified as correct by the Table. The petitioners live in Flin-Flon, Manitoba, and state that the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject those proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour of presenting a petition that has been scrutinized by the Government House Leader and found to be acceptable. It too is on the subject of the Government's proposal to harm severely senior citizens and many other Canadians by providing for unlimited increases in drug prices. The petition is of particular interest to the House because it comes from a Conservative-held riding, Cariboo-Chilcotin, and the people of that riding are outraged and concerned about this matter. The petitioners are from places like Quesnel, Alexis Creek, Williams Lake and many other communities. These people are expressing their concern to government Members and ask that the Government withdraw this odious proposal.
November 6, 1986


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of people from my constituency who live in the communities of Paddockwood, Northside and Christopher Lake. The petitioners express their concern at the Government's proposal to change the Patent Act and the effect that this will have on the cost of necessary prescription drugs. They call upon Parliament to reject any such proposal which would increase drug prices for Canadians.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which has been certified according to Standing Order 106-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Did you check with Maz?


Cyril Keeper: No, I have not submitted it to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). The petitioners point out that the Government has caved in to the lobbying of multinational corporations and that this proposal the Government is presenting will cost Canadian taxpayers and consumers. The petition calls upon the Government to withdraw the legislation.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 106, it is my privilege and responsibility to present a duly certified petition from Canadians who are very concerned about changes to the Patent Act which will result in higher drug costs and will impose burdens both on individuals and on provincial drug plans. The petition calls upon the House of Commons to reject that legislation, and we intend to do just that.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition which, pursuant to Standing Order 106, was certified as being correct as to form and content on October 7, 1986, by Clairette Bourque, the Clerk of Petitions.
I would be most happy to have the Government House Leader read this petition and consider it very carefully as soon as it has been filed with the Clerk according to the Standing Orders.
The substance of the petition is that these residents of Canada, mostly from Toronto, object very strongly to the Government's proposal to change the Patent Act so as to increase the price that most Canadian citizens will have to pay for drugs. They point out that it bears particularly upon the aged and infirm and upon any who need drugs on an ongoing basis and that the profits will go primarily to the United States and not to Canada. Therefore, they urge Parliament to reject these proposals that will impose hardships on all Canadians.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I wish to table a petition which was certified on November 6, 1986, by the Clerk of Petitions. The petitioners raise their objection to the proposed Patent Act changes relating to prescription drugs, changes which they believe will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers. They point out that it will result in higher costs for provincial government drug plans throughout Canada and that
Petitions
it is another example of Conservative Government concessions to the United States in the free trade negotiations at the expense of average Canadians. Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition which it is my pleasure to present. It is a petition which was certified pursuant to Standing Order 106 on November 6, 1986, by Clairette Bourque, and this petition too stresses very strongly the concern of residents of Manitoba about the proposed changes to the Patent Act which the Government is on record as intending to introduce. The petitioners feel that these measures will hurt Canadian health needs and they also have a very strong sense of resentment over their feeling that this is a concession to the United States with respect to our free trade negotiations. They call upon the Government to reject clearly this proposed course of action.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour of tabling a petition that has been properly certified under Standing Order 106 by the Clerk of Petitions, Clairette Bourque. It has also been vetted by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), as you may have observed, Mr. Speaker.
The contents of this petition are similar to those tabled previously. My petition comes from the Windsor area. It is, of course, representative of the feelings of affected people all over the country. Of course, it protests the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to change the Patent Act in a fashion which will increase the costs of prescription drugs to many Canadians who need such products for their health. The petitioners protest as well the fact that this legislation is a product of American blackmail, and they demand that the Government withdraw any future consideration of tabling legislation as threatened-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member is certainly making clear to all Members of the House that he has a petition and the thrust of that petition is apparent. The Hon. Member is now going beyond presenting the thrust of the petition and entering into a debate, which other Hon. Members seem to want to get into. I would ask that the Hon. Member conclude reading his petition.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, those who have signed this petition humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposals which will increase the prescription drug prices. If anybody has missed the point as illustrated by the behaviour of government Members on the submission of these petitions, then they will see that this is only the beginning of the fight.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 6, 1986
Petitions


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the honour, the privilege and the duty to present to this House a petition duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions.
[English]	'
This petition calls upon the Parliament of Canada to protect Canada's drug consumers, particularly senior citizens, from the adverse effects of changes in the Patent Act which would essentially deny access to drugs at a moderate cost that [DOT] Canadians have heretofore enjoyed.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the honour to present a petition which has been certified as being correct as to form and to content by the Clerk of Petitions. This is a petition which has not been vetted by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), will never be vetted by the Deputy Prime Minister, and should not have to be vetted by the Deputy Prime Minister.
It is a petition of the residents of Winnipeg calling upon the Parliament of Canada to reject the federal Government's proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs, which will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers, and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. This measure would unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis, which would result in higher costs to the provincial Government drug plans. It is another example of Canadian-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members are making their point. They are trespassing on the rules. Would the Hon. Member please close his remarks.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The message is clear that Canadians reject the proposals of the Government to change the patent drug laws. We in the New Democratic Party are going to make that absolutely clear in the coming weeks and months.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present on behalf of a number of western Canadians a petition which, pursuant to Standing Order 106, has been certified as being correct and appropriate in terms of form.
Very briefly, the petition is against the Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs. It will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy the necessary prescription drugs. Therefore, I also use the opportunity to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the said motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: for leave to introduce Bill C-21, an Act to exempt certain shipping conference practices from the provisions of the Competition Act, to repeal the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1979 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.


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.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto.
Introduction of Bills


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
It being after one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as you probably know, ozone can pose a serious problem to human health in our urban centres. In Montreal, for instance, ozone levels are frequently higher than the standard considered safe for human health. Ozone can impair breathing by harming lungs and it can cause damage to crops and vegetation. The Montreal group STOP recommends that "Environment Canada and Environment Quebec work together to monitor ozone levels upwind and downwind of Montreal, and in rural areas of Quebec" and to "measure the amount of airborne pollutants inhaled by pedestrians in downtown Montreal".
I urge the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) to approve STOP'S proposal to establish an ozone control strategy for Montreal to determine what actions are required to eliminate the hazard to human health posed by high ozone levels.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember a continuing war, namely, the systematic persecution of the Baha'is, the largest religious minority in Iran. This horror story has been going on since the hateful Ayatollah Khomeini regime took power in Iran seven years ago. The matter is especially urgent at this moment since the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is this week drafting a resolution in New York for the General Assembly.
Continued pressure and international monitoring of the situation in Iran have helped keep the number of executions down, but thousands of Baha'is, including elderly people and young children, are still suffering physical intimidation. Livestock and crops have been plundered by Iranian authorities. All Baha'i property, including cemeteries, has been confiscated.
Canada has been vociferous in protesting this campaign of terror. Now we must take one step further at the United Nations. I ask the Government to consider instructing the Canadian delegation to move a human rights resolution on Iran.
* *
*




Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, to continue in the same vein as the Hon. Member for Hamilton- Wentworth (Mr. Scott), I want to point out that action is urgently needed by Canada at the United Nations to help members of the Baha'i faith in Iran. There are 300,000 Baha'is in Iran, none of whom have legal status as "persons" under the Constitution, because the theocratic regime considers them to be "infidels".
Their refusal to give up their religion has led to the judicial murder of 207 Baha'is and the imprisonment of 700 more, including children. Many of these prisoners have been mentally and physically tortured.
The more fortunate Baha'is who have kept their freedom are denied the right to work. Many of those fired have been ordered to repay their salaries from years of employment, and their children are either denied public education or mistreated in school. Widows and children of executed Baha'is have their property confiscated by the state.
The Canadian Government must act now at the UN to sponsor a resolution condemning these atrocities, and reassure
November 6, 1986

the Baha'is of Iran that the international community has not forgotten them. Without such leadership by the Government we are leaving the Baha'is entirely at the mercy of the fanatical Government of Iran. We are giving that Government the freedom to persecute these people even more harshly than it has in the past. International pressure has helped the Baha'is before, and we must ensure that it helps them again.




John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, the sad state of human rights in Iran will be on the agenda of the 41st Session of the UN General Assembly. Executions, mass arrests, and torture, tacitly approved by the Supreme Court of Iran and other Government institutions, continue.
The Baha'i religious minority in Iran continues to bear the brunt of a state approved persecution campaign with the apparent goal of elimination of this religious minority. Last month Mr. Mihdi-Nizhad, Mr. Habibu'llah Muhtadi, and 16-year old Bijan Talibi were killed simply for not recanting their religious beliefs.
There is an urgent need for decisive action by the Government of Canada. It should instruct the Canadian delegation to the UN to work post-haste to ensure widespread support for the UN resolution currently being drafted on human rights in Iran. We in the NDP join with other Members in this House in asking that Canada be the main sponsor of the resolution to show our deep concern over the lack of civil rights in Iran.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba Government has developed the bad habit of blaming all its troubles on the federal Government. It should look in its own backyard and start guaranteeing adequate services for people in southwest Manitoba.
Rural residents of my constituency fear for their safety because Manitoba's provincial Government has decided to cut costs by closing RCMP detachments in Deloraine and Reston. Over 1,200 people have attended protest meetings in these two communities in the last few weeks. Because of the long distances between communities, neighbouring RCMP detachments will be forced to cover a wider area. That means it could take the police up to half an hour to respond to a call.
Although the federal Government will pay about 30 per cent of the bill for RCMP services in Manitoba this year, we
unfortunately seem to have little say on how this money is spent. When the current 10-year federal-provincial agreement on RCMP services expires on March 31, 1991, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) should ensure that the federal Government has some genuine authority over the question of how the provinces administer RCMP services in the future.



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, now we see it. The Government is cowed, has bowed and kowtowed to the American multinationals on the drug question. We heard the response of senior citizens when the Government tried to cut back on pensions. We are going to hear from the senior citizens, the disabled, and other people across this country who believe the price of free trade is too high if we have to give up the competitive pricing system we have in the drug industry at the moment.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal Party, that we are going to be fighting this move in the House and in our constituencies. The Government is going to be made to back down on this issue in the same way it was forced to back down on the senior citizens' pension cuts. Someone has got to speak for the seniors and we are going to do it.



CHILDREN


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Government on a series of strong measures governing missing children and child abuse. These initiatives are good news for all Canadians. In August the missing children's registry was officially opened. That vital program enables the RCMP to work in a co-ordinated search with police forces across Canada. Having access to the computerized data base of missing children at police information centres is a further step towards a safer society, one which will protect our youth.
I also applaud my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), for introducing Bill C-15 to protect Canada's children from sexual abuse and exploitation. The Government recognizes that such protection provided by the Criminal Code will require the support of community associations that are committed to assisting with these problems.

November 6, 1986
I urge all levels of Government and organizations to collaborate on these initiatives to protect our youth and the social fabric of Canadian society.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, one of my Thunder Bay constituents sent me the following letter a couple of weeks ago:
I recently saw Prime Minister Mulroney speak on national television, stating he had created 560,000 jobs since his election in the fall of 1984.
I would like to remind him on behalf of the unemployed youth of Canada that many of those jobs pay minimum wage and are often temporary.
Since 1984 I have personally been employed through not one but four Government programs (it was not due to incompetence that I was released from these jobs, but simply because the organizations I was employed by already had a ''permanent" staff and could not afford to hire an extra worker).
It makes one wonder how many other Canadian youths have been nickled and dimed to death by Mr. Mulroney's "job-creation programs", and yet he's so very proud of himself for creating so many jobs.
This critical letter speaks for thousands of young Canadians whose hopes for good, permanent jobs have not been fulfilled. They are angered by a Government that spends more energy taking the credit for jobs that low-interest rates have created than it does taking the actions that remain necessary if young Canadians are to find the work they want and deserve.



CREDIT UNIONS


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, this spring our Conservative Government took courageous action when we rescued and saved deposits and pensions of many credit unions, co-ops, farmers, and labour unions when two western banks collapsed. Contrast this courageous action with the anti-credit union, anti-labour and anti-business action by the Liberal Ontario Government when its Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Monte Kwinter, indicated in public forums that he will take away hard earned profits and share dividends of Ontario credit unions.
Located in my Willowdale riding are the DUCA Community Credit Union, the Municipal and Police Credit Unions. These and the Polish and Ukrainian Credit Unions resent the attempts of the Ontario Liberal Government to legislate away
these hard earned profits and dividends to cover fees, insurance premiums, reserves and interest charges.
My constituents and I urge the federal Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) to tell the Ontario Government to stop these anti-union, anti-caisse-populaire and anti-business actions immediately.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for Canada Post announced that the matter of postal rate increases would be referred to a committee of the House for review. Why did he not include the matter of the new community super mailbox for review? If yesterday's announcement is not a farce, why does the Minister not refer the whole corporate plan to the House committee for review?
[ Translation]
Why is the Minister refusing to do anything for the many communities who have no door-to-door delivery service, as in Saint-Leonard and Ville d'Anjou, on Montreal Island, in the ridings of Mercier and Longueuil and in so many other communities? Why doesn't he give them door-to-door delivery? Is he going to tell them they are second-class citizens?



RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, when our Government made the decision to turn our Canadian pharmaceutical sector into a dynamic and first-class industry, leading to an unprecedented increase in the number of jobs in research and development, Le Devoir Economique of October 1986 mentioned 3,000 high-level jobs and $1.4 billion in investment. And now, the Leader of the New Democratic Party sends a three-page letter, in English only, to all Canadians, except Quebecers, to object to this plan.
This is one more NDP inconsistency. Their party doesn't want 3,000 new jobs and prefers to ignore 27 per cent of Canadians: six million Quebecers.
It is also an insult to Quebec's economy, Mr. Speaker, and Quebecers will never forget this affront by the socialists.
November 6, 1986



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the Government's cave-in to the United States on the question of drug prices. It has used the sick and elderly as a pawn in order to maintain the currency of the free trade negotiations with the United States. Was it not enough to attempt to deindex pensions for our older people? Was it not enough to impose taxes on non-prescription drugs? Why must the weak and the elderly be used as pawns in order to maintain these negotiations with the United States?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the previous Liberal Government in June, 1983, announced, as government policy, the decision to restore patent protection for drugs. The Hon. Member for Papineau was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs at the time. If the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is now saying this has something to do with trade talks, perhaps he can enlighten us as to what trade talks the previous Liberal Government had under way at that time?


THE SICK-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, chief American negotiator Clayton Yeutter listed drug manufacturing companies among the five priorities of the United States. Those are the answers.
My question is this, Mr. Speaker: Abandoning our lumber industry was bad enough, so why abandon sick Canadians now just to salvage these negotiations with the United States?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman believes we should have research and development in this country, and if he believes that the 8,000 jobs the Le Devoir Economique estimates for Montreal alone are something we should disregard because some mischievous people might make this false association between what we are doing in Canada, for Canada's benefit, and the trade talks, he is entitled to his point of view, but it is not a view shared by this Government, nor by anyone who has the welfare of our young scientists in mind.


John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister, 1 notice, is not answering these questions.
Oral Questions COST OF MEDICATION


John Napier Turner: We
may have been prepared to accept independent inquiry recommendations, but the Government has gone far beyond that. The Government went further at the risk of our sick and our elderly. What about the price of heart medication, arthritic pills, antibiotics-just to satisfy the American Government on this particular issue?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, for one thing, those pills the right hon. gentleman is talking about, those drugs, will remain on the market. The legislation does not affect them one little bit. The hon. gentleman ought to examine the Bill before making those kinds of judgments.
Second, the people he talked about are covered by drug plans. Over 85 per cent of Canadians are covered 100 per cent by drug plans.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Who pays for that?


Harvie Andre: Whatever cost there might be in terms of drug plans will be way more than offset by the thousands of jobs, high-tech jobs in biotechnology, which will be generated.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We have heard that before.


Harvie Andre: Any reasonable person will reach a conclusion that this is a good package.


INQUIRY CONCERNING DEMAND FOR LEGISLATION
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The provinces, retired Canadians, welfare recipients, the generic drug industry and the Consumers' Association of Canada have all spoken against the Government's proposed drug patents policy.
My question is quite simple: Who is in favour of this legislation which could prove to be very costly to ailing men and women throughout Canada?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, for one, the Government of Quebec, because under the Liberal and PQ Governments there were unanimous resolutions passed in the National Assembly asking the federal Government to do what we are doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: And I repeat if one examines the legislation and the program, one will not be able to substantiate the accusation that drug prices are going to rise.


John Edward Broadbent: Oh?

November 6, 1986
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: The fact is there will not be any rise in drugs on the market now, and in terms of the future we have all kinds of safety mechanisms-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We don't trust you.


Harvie Andre: -to ensure that consumers are not affected badly by this legislation.


PRICE OFGENERIC DRUGS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is telling us that prices will not go up.
Does the Minister know that the multinationals sell their valium for $80, whereas the same product is available from generic drug companies at $2.31 7
How can the Minister justify his decision when we know that, if this legislation is passed, an ulcer treatment drug called Zantac which sells for $89.69 will never be available as a generic drug which would cost only $9?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the drugs-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Who's on drugs, Harvie?


Harvie Andre: -about which the Hon. Member speaks will remain on the market. There is no change in terms of those particular drugs. The savings that she talked about will remain for consumers. It is simply false to suggest that there will be an increase.
I also remind the Hon. Member that, on average, it takes 11.5 years for a generic drug to be brought into competition with a brand name drug. We are proposing a 10-year exclusivity period. On average, the period of exclusivity will be less than what it is now for competitive generic drugs.


UNITED STATES POSITION ON PATENT LAW
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. One thing Canadians do know is that at present we pay 20 per cent less than do the Americans for drugs. That is fact. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that at the "shamrock shuffle" President Reagan asked that this item be placed on the Canadian agenda, that Special Envoy Yeutter complained about Canada dragging its feet in terms of changing our patent law, and that last spring when Vice-President Bush was here he also urged the Canadian Government to change this law in order that multinational American drug companies could gouge Canadian consumers the way Americans are gouged at home?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party should be aware that drug prices in Canada, where there is no generic competition-and this involves the innovative drugs-are 20 per cent less in Canada than in the United States. It is as a result of the difference in the market here and not as a result of the patent law that this has resulted in savings to Canadians. The Hon. Member should not make that jump, which is illogical if he were to look at the facts.
With respect to who is pressuring us, since 1969 the whole of the industrialized world has been criticizing us for having patent laws that are out of step with the rest of the world.


MULTINATIONAL DRUG COMPANIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister admit that the leading voices for change to this legislation are the multinational drug companies? Will he admit that the pressure did indeed go on with the former Government and that all consumer and all pensioner groups- all those concerned with keeping drug prices down in Canada-are completely opposed to what the Government is trying to do?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the leading proponents of restoring patent protection for inventions in this very important area are members of the academic community, the young scientists who want to work at research and development in Canada.


David Orlikow: That is nonsense!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Talk to Frank Oberle.


Harvie Andre: I invite the Leader of the New Democratic Party to accompany me to the academic institutions which I will be visiting as we announce major new research and development investments. I invite him to talk to any professor of pharmacology-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to go to every campus in Canada right now after what the Government has done to research and development in this country. I will go any day with the Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
I Translation]


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister. Canadian consumers would have to spend $650 million more as a result of the action of this Government, so why such an unfair measure?
November 6, 1986


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, that figure is absurd-absolutely absurd. The Hon. Member proposes this absurd figure and asks us why.


John Edward Broadbent: We'll give you the figures for that.


Harvie Andre: My question is why the Hon. Member has such a vivid imagination and why will he not look at the facts as they are there. He will see that it is a good Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a report from CP wire service in which the office of the Minister reponsible for Canada Post is quoted as stating that the Minister still expects the price of a first-class stamp to jump to 36 cents from 34 cents by next March despite opposition from the Government's own back bench. Why did the Minister mislead his own caucus, the House, and all Canadians yesterday by referring the rate increase to a committee when he already says that in March he expects an increase?
[ Translation]


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is this Government's concern to respond to the needs of Canadians by providing a better and more reliable service at affordable cost. That is why we set up the Marchment Committee which, after examining the issues and travelling across this country, submitted 29 representations. We have adopted 28, so we are indeed responding to the needs of Canadians.


INQUIRY WHY ALL PLANS OF CORPORATIONS NOT REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, if yesterday's announcement was not a total farce, why doesn't the Minister refer all Canada Post's plans to a committee instead of just the postal rate increase? If the Government is being serious about this, why doesn't it let Parliament have full scrutiny of these plans?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, 1 repeat that if the Hon. Member had read the recommendations in the Marchment Report, he would have noticed that the report recommends providing either alternating services or installing community mail boxes. The Government has looked into the matter, and we decided to go with the community mail boxes and support the recommendation made by Canada Post.
Oral Questions


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who just recently referred to the point made by the Leader of the NDP about the $650 million additional cost to Canadians and said that it was an illusion and a fabrication of his imagination. Does the Minister not agree that this figure came from Currie Coopers & Lybrand, one of the biggest chartered accountant firms in Canada? Is the Minister questioning the figure presented by that firm, which is likely a Conservative firm?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, 1 would ask the Hon. Member to show me a clause in the Bill that will cause the rise in price of any drug currently on the market. I do not know how Hon. Members can talk about an increase in the price of drugs not yet discovered. An increase over what price?


John Edward Broadbent: Why do you think they want the change?


Harvie Andre: If the Leader of the NDP would allow me to answer, 1 would say that the Drug Prices Review Board which will be headed by Dr. Harry Eastman, the nation's expert in this area, will ensure that prices are reasonable and do not get out of line. Again I remind the Hon. Member of the fact that it has taken on average 11 and a half years for generic competition. We are proposing 10 years of exclusivity. That elementary fact would seem to indicate that there will not be the kind of dramatically high prices about which he is speaking.


TIMING OF MINISTER'S PRESS CONFERENCE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister explain why he thought it was appropriate before a Bill was tabled in the House of Commons to discuss the specifics of it? Why is he doing the bidding of the Americans? What is the rush? We have lived under existing legislation which has benefited Canadians for 17 years. What is the hurry? Why did the Minister have to call a press conference before the Bill was even introduced in the House of Commons?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible that for the first time in history a Party would not allow us even to consider first reading.


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, go ring a few bells, Harvie.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You rushed the Chair to stop the process. Bell ringing for weeks on end.


Mr. Crosbie:: Weasels and hypocrites.

November 6, 1986
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: I would invite Hon. Members-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, this winter thousands of Canadians who live in modern neighbourhoods will go out into blizzards trying to get their mail without having it blown away by the wind and without slipping and breaking their necks. They will not forget Cold Cote.
How could the Government approve of a postal plan that removes the equality of service within a given area, a tradition of the post office for decades?
[ Translation]


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, 1 may remind the Hon. Member that the decision to establish two delivery classes, and the responsibility for that decision, lies not with this Government but with the previous Government, which started implementing these procedures in 1974 when it set up the green boxes. It is their responsibility, and now we have to clean up the mess.


UNIFORMITY OFSERVICES
George Baker: This reduction in postal services cannot be tolerated! Don't you think you have a responsibility to Canadians to be fair and to give the same service in the same region, from door to door and not from box to box?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, 1 will answer that by saying that this Government is committed to providing a higher quality of postal service. I think that everyone knows that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Axworthy:: It comes as a real surprise.


Michel Côté: The plan tabled yesterday answers the needs of Canadians to have a better postal service at an affordable cost.


Mr. Speaker:: All Hon. Members will know that that is a hard act to follow.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NEW BRUNSWICK MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Speaker:: It might be appropriate to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Robert Jackson, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment for the Province of New Brunswick.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office. Canadians need some information to understand what he means by a full opportunity to review the rate increase. Will the Committee be given adequate time to do the review, or will it be limited to the month that Donald Landers talked about? Will the Committee be given all the information that it needs, such as full pricing information, or will it be limited to the document that was tabled yesterday? Will the Committee have sufficient scope, or will it be limited simply to examining the 2 cent increase?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the increase in postal rates is an integral part of the corporate plan that was tabled yesterday. Cabinet has decided to refer consideration of the rate increases to a parliamentary committee, before proceeding with publication, and it did so in the very best spirit of parliamentary reform. So again, we are supporting objectives announced previously.


CONDUCT OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has failed to take the opportunity to provide the type of information that would assure Canadians that the review is going to be full and adequate. He leaves us with no other conclusion but that this is going to be an opportunity for back-bench Tories to blow off steam, and a roast for Donald Landers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have not found a question there yet. Perhaps the Hon. Member would put his question.
November 6, 1986


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question is this. The Minister said in the House that the plan which was presented yesterday answers the needs of Canadians at an affordable cost. Having put his stamp of approval on this plan, how can Canadians have any confidence that the review is going to be meaningful and have any impact on policy made by the Government?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians know that they were consulted when the Marchment Commission was created. The Commission travelled all over the country, visiting 14 cities. It made 29 recommendations, and we are in the process of putting in place 28 of those recommendations. This is full consultation with Canadians, Sir.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: What about the committee?


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. I have here a document which was prepared by the Bristol Aerospace consortium as part of its bid. It states that technology transfer will form a significant part of the task, and the current familiarity with many of the CF-18 systems will minimize the time and cost of the transfer. Why did the Minister say yesterday that there was no such documentation when it is clearly there? Why is he so ignorant of the proposals put forward by Bristol on the crucial issue of technology transfer? Does this not now give superiority to that particular proposal and, therefore, should not the recommendation be reconsidered?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed all the information once again, after many times. There was no written offer of any type of free technology from that consortium. The amounts quoted by both firms, and evaluated by the 75 officials of the evaluation team-


David Orlikow: And they blew that.


Robert René de Cotret: -showed the difference. They included that. Giving one consortium the go ahead rather than another means no additional money for the taxpayers of Canada. By that I mean no additional cost. I am satisfied by the answers I have given so far that the process was carried out adequately.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to advise Minister that there are a lot of Canadians who are not satisfied with those answers. I want to
Oral Questions
challenge the Minister about saying in this House that there would be no extra cost when neither he nor his Government has finished negotiating with the various companies that hold the rights to the technology that must be used in the maintenance plant. You have not even finished negotiating, so you do not know what the cost will be. Therefore, there will be an extra cost. How do you answer that?


An Hon. Member:: Order. How long have you been in the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. An experienced Member of Parliament will know that if he continues to use the second person pronoun, perhaps the Chair will proceed to another Member and the Minister will not answer at all. I am sure that the Hon. Member would not repeat the incorrect use of the word "you" when the question is being asked.
The Hon. Minister, please.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, through you I would like to inform my hon. colleague opposite that the whole preamble to his question is totally spurious. The Government is negotiating for that transfer of technology. Whether any one of the three consortia received the successful bid, the cost would have been the same. That negotiation is being undertaken by the Government with McDonnell Douglas and the cost would have been carried through to the winning bidder. That was clearly put out in the submissions that were received from the evaluation team.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The vision system developed in connection with Canadarm is one of the few scientific accomplishments to have been commemorated in a stamp issue. What is the logic behind the cuts to the NRC that leads to the demise of this most outstanding program, not only in basic research, but a program which, among other things has benefited robotics in industry?


Hon. Frank Obcrle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, as I have said repeatedly in the House, it is the intention of the Government to conduct an examination into the so-called cuts that the Hon. Member mentioned to ensure that no injury is done to public safety, to health, or to announced government priorities. The space program is such a priority. 1 will be in a position within the next few days to make an announcement or statement in the House on the method that will be used to conduct this examination.

November 6, 1986
Oral Questions


CANCER TREATMENT PROGRAM
Howard Douglas McCurdy: My
supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Will the announcement include a correction of the situation with the TRIUMF program which is involved in cancer treatment, and all those other programs that we have mentioned that impinge upon the health and safety of Canadians? If it is his intention to re-examine all of those programs which we have mentioned one by one, is it not about time that the whole process of cutting NRC be stopped right now in its tracks before any more damage is done?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not for a moment accept the Hon. Member's assertion that damage has been done to the integrity of the NRC. As I have said, there will be an examination in light of Government priorities and public health. That examination will proceed reasonably swiftly. Let me relieve the Hon. Member's concern about TRIUMF. 1 am told that there will be no injury to the programs of TRIUMF, and that the allocations made there have nothing to do with their programs but have to do with their future planning.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Last weekend in British Columbia the Minister announced that he would be doubling licence fees for commercial fishermen to help pay for phase two of the Salmonid Enhancement Program. Why would the Minister single out one sector, or does he plan to share the load with other resource users of this West Coast fishery?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada or the taxpayers of Canada have invested over a quarter billion dollars in the Salmonid Enhancement Program on the West Coast over the past 10 years. At the time the program was started there was a commitment made that when it began to produce dividends to commercial and recreational fishermen, the users who benefited would begin to pay a portion of the cost. These increases would raise about one-tenth of the total cost of maintaining the program, and I think it is a fair contribution to ask of the commercial and recreational fishermen of British Columbia.


MINISTER'S CONSULTATIONS
Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should know that there is a great deal of anxiety and concern on the West Coast about this matter. Where does the consultative mechanism come in here? The Minister is disbanding his advisory council, while at the same time announcing new methods of SEP funding. Whom is the Minister consulting these days?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, 1 think this is an important supplementary question. In fact the subject of user fees and the future of the Salmonid Enhancement Program have been discussed over the past 12 months with the Minister's Advisory Council, albeit in somewhat of a vacuum because several user groups-in particular native people, commercial trollers, and latterly sports fishermen-have withdrawn from the Minister's Advisory Council. 1 felt it important to create a new policy advisory group known as the Pacific Regional Council. All user groups will be represented as policies of this nature are developed in future.

[ Translation]


RAILWAYS
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In answer to a question yesterday the Minister implied that 551 persons would remain employed by CN in Moncton. Today, calmly, can the Minister give me more details concerning these 551 persons, that is how many will work in Moncton, how many will be transferred elsewhere, and how many will take early retirement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be too lengthy, but 1 never said that 551 people would be retaining jobs in Moncton. I said that accommodation had been found for 551 people. There are 165 in the CN Moncton shops complex; 152 in the CN Moncton Gordon Yard; 116 have been offered and accepted jobs at CN in Winnipeg; 34 at CN in Montreal; 9 at CN in Toronto; 6 at VIA Rail in Toronto; 3 at VIA Rail in Windsor; 2 at VIA Rail in Montreal; 54 are eligible for early retirement in Moncton; and 10 come under the category of "various other".


NUMBER OF JOBS RETAINED IN MONCTON
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, transfers and early retirements are not jobs for Moncton workers; those are jobs lost to Moncton. How many of the 551 will actually stay in Moncton?
November 6, 1986


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, 1 just gave the list. Clearly it is 165 at the CN Moncton shops complex-that is in Moncton, and 152 at the CN Moncton Gordon Yard-that is in Moncton. If the hon. gentleman will add up those two, he will get the answer to his question.


Fernand Robichaud: What about the rest?


John Napier Turner: That is really funny, John!


Mr. Nunziata:: You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


John Carnell Crosbie: If the Leader of the Opposition will permit me, and his sidekick with the moustache-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Earlier in Question Period he inferred that negotiations which the Government has to undertake in order to get the technology for the maintenance of the CF-18 would be necessary for all three companies which made bids. Will the Minister not rise in the House and admit that the Bristol consortium already owns or has access to much of that technology and therefore there could be a great savings to the taxpayers of Canada?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is very short and very simple. The Bristol consortium has access to some technology. The Canadair consortium has access to equivalent CF-18 technology. In the view of the evaluation team it is not even certain that the technology which either consortium has is applicable to the contract under negotiation.


Lloyd Axworthy: It gets worse every time you answer.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It is amazing that the Minister would get up and say that the evaluation team would not recognize whether or not the technology available is the technology which is necessary.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO AUDITOR GENERAL
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday he was asked a number of questions on whether or not he would refer the matter to the Auditor General. In order to reduce regional differences in the country, will he do that?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question yesterday. The
1 143
Oral Questions
Auditor General is responsible to the House. The Auditor General will undertake all investigations or all reports which he feels are necessary. In a contract of this nature, I am sure the Auditor General would want to get to the bottom of the facts. We will, as always, co-operate with him to give him all the information.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Within a two-week period we have learned that an Hungarian resident, who turned over politically sensitive information on other Canadians to Hungarian secret police, and an individual with a record of over 20 criminal convictions have both received special ministerial permits to allow them to remain in Canada. Why is the Government extending the welcome mat to such undesirable individuals, when thousands of meritorious immigrants are being kept out? Why do you refuse to rescind two such outrageous and indefensible decisions?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am extremely surprised that the Hon. Member personally should think he is in a position to judge applications which are pending and about which the Minister of State has made recommendations on the basis of existing legislation. There is nothing special in the fact that the Immigration Act is being administered.
i would suggest this is quite normal. The Government is simply following existing regulations and I challenge the Hon. Member to say before the House that he is opposed to any kind of rehabilitation for prospective immigrants to Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Hon. Member for York West puts his supplementary question I would ask that he be careful about using the word "you" and make his remarks through the Speaker.


REQUEST THAT TWO APPLICANTS BE REJECTED
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the senior Minister of Employment and Immigration. I think the Minister should stop waltzing around the issue and admit two serious errors in judgment. Is the Minister prepared to assure Canadians and the House that this Hungarian spy and an individual with 20 criminal convictions should be inadmissible according to the Immigration Act, and that he will say no to giving them permanent resident status in the country?


I 144 COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
November 6, 1986
Oral Questions
Benoît Bouchard: As Minister of Immigration, Mr. Speaker, 1 have no pretention to act for judges whose role it is to consider the applications of prospective immigrants to Canada.
I would especially urge my colleague to respect the existing Immigration Act mechanisms which are responsible for the fact that this country can welcome outstanding immigrants.


APARTHEID
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He will know that 87,000 litres of South African wine have arrived at the Port of Vancouver, clearly in contravention of the intent of Commonwealth sanctions issued on August 5. The Premier of B.C. is meeting with the South African Ambassador in British Columbia tomorrow.
Has the Prime Minister discussed with Premier Vander Zalm this blatant violation of the federal Government's sanctions policy, or is the federal Government only going to pay lip service to the policy itself?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the story to which the Hon. Member is referring. From my reading of the story I believe that the wine in question would have been shipped before the sanctions were put in place. Therefore, I have no other comment at this time.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that it is not clear that the wine was shipped before.


GOVERNMENT'S SANCTIONS POLICY
Pauline Jewett: In
any event, will the Prime Minister or the Minister ensure that the wine does not appear in B.C. liquor stores? Tomorrow the Premier is meeting Ambassador Babb, who is out making a thank you call. Will the Prime Minister discuss with the Premier the nature of the federal Government's sanctions policy?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: Stranger in the House.


John Edward Broadbent: Remember, there is no supplementary.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Let Hansard show that the NDP responded with affection.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: With surprise.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I believe that the policy of the Government of Canada with regard to the actions of the Government of South Africa is well known. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, I, and others have articulated on many occasions that we are in the process of putting in place further sanctions to demonstrate the revulsion of all Canadians with regard to the policy of apartheid. The position of the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada is well known to all Canadians, including Premiers.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Last week the Minister released the plan for the cleanup of toxic chemicals moving into the Niagara River from the dump sites. When can the people in the Niagara Peninsula expect the cleanup of the toxic chemicals to begin?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I assume the Hon. Member for Davenport has read the Niagara River Toxic Management Plan. That report states that by July, 1987, we hope to be able to set targets and schedules for the actual cleanup of the river based on the scientific information we are seeking through the process put in train.


START OF OPERATIONS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister be less vague and give us a specific date? In May of this year in this House he said: "We are to begin immediately to clean up the toxins in the Niagara River from the dump sites''. Rather than postponing until next July, could he tell us exactly when the cleanup operation will begin?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I just said that the four jurisidictions concerned, New York, Ontario, the Government of the United States and that of Canada, have mobilized their scientific resources to monitor the river, to assess the extent of the pollution, to identify the specific pollution sources, and to quantify the relative amounts of toxins going into the river from all sources. By July, 1987, we hope to be able to set a specific date by which we will achieve the cleanup.
November 6, 1986


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, for whom the NDP does indeed have affection this week because on Monday, at the United Nations General Assembly, Canada voted to endorse the World Court decision condemning United States terrorist attacks and mining of the harbours of Nicaragua.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: That is for you, Mr. Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister now assure this House that he will call on his good friend, President Reagan, to stop funding any more terrorist attacks on Nicaragua? Will he warn El Salvador and Honduras that if they continue to allow their territories to be used for these attacks of the President on Nicaragua, Canada will cut off bilateral aid to them?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will call on my good friend, Ambassador Stephen Lewis, to continue to represent Canada with the degree of independence and effectiveness with which he has done so at the United Nations. I believe that an examination of Canada's voting record over the last few years at the U.N. will indicate an unusual, and perhaps unprecedented, degree of independence at all times. It is our judgment that it is important for us to assert that independence and sovereignty in all fora, including the U.N. There will be other occasions for us on real grounds to do that. Our alliances and friendships and our support of common values are not in question, but the independence of Canada shall be constantly asserted by this Government at all times.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISER MEET VICE-PRESIDENT OF NICARAGUA
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the sentiments which the Prime Minister has expressed. I hope he can dispel the rumour which has arisen today that he is alleged to have snubbed the Vice-President of Nicaragua, Sergio Ramirez, by refusing to meet with him. It is suggested that perhaps our Prime Minister does not want to encourage any more displeasure from Mr. Reagan. Will the Prime Minister dispel that rumour by announcing very soon that within this year he will arrange a meeting with Vice-President Sergio Ramirez of Nicaragua?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I have to dispel any rumour. I set out the policy of the Government of Canada in regard to Central America quite clearly in a speech to the Hemispheric Press Association in Vancouver in September. I believe that was a fairly straightforward and appropriate approach which I understand was commented upon by other Members of this House.
Oral Questions
The Government of Canada, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has constantly been available to meet with leaders from all walks of political life. We, of course, remain available to do so with courtesy with anyone who is interested in visiting us.


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Justice. Earlier this week allegations were made in this House with regard to the integrity and qualifications of a member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, one Antonio Arcangel. Has the Minister had an opportunity to investigate those allegations? If so, what has his investigation revealed?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to consider the matter. Today 1 received a telegram from Antonio Arcangel in which he indicated that he is withdrawing his name from the list of members of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal because "... Ms. Sheila Copps' unfair remarks and unjust allegations have seriously impaired my ability to serve effectively as a member of such a Tribunal".


Lloyd Axworthy: Good.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have accepted his decision in that regard.


John Napier Turner: Did you ask for his
resignation?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's phoney.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Why don't you clean up your act?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That's an assassination.


John Napier Turner: You asked for his resignation, that's what.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Come on!


INQUIRY WHY GASOLINE PRICES INCREASED ONLY IN QUEBEC
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but in his absence, perhaps I may direct it to the Prime Minister or the Acting Minister.

November 6, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Gauthier
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Conservative Caucus bragged that they managed to stop the two-cent increase in postal rates announced by one of our Crown corporations, Canada Post. Meanwhile, another Crown corporation, Petro-Canada, raised the price of gas on the Quebec market by two cents a litre.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister: why the inconsistency? Why, in the case of Canada Post, did the Conservative Caucus get terribly upset and block the increase, and why is Petro-Canada, also a Crown corporation, allowed to increase the price of gas by two cents a litre, and to do so-and this is particularly outrageous-only in the Province of Quebec?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I have explained to the Hon. Member, there is no constitutional authority for the federal Government to set prices. That is a fact; that is the reality. We have to live with that. We have a responsibility to ensure a competitive market, which we are trying to do to the best of our ability. If the Hon. Member has any evidence that the market is being manipulated in some fashion to the detriment of consumers, let us know and we will act immediately.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT REVIEW CERTAIN INCREASES SUGGESTED BY CROWN CORPORATIONS
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has a responsibility to monitor this kind of thing. There is nothing in the Canadian Constitution, however, that says a Government cannot tell a Crown corporation that falls under its jurisdiction: You can't raise your prices. So again, I want to ask the Minister, and it seems to be the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, no connection with consumer protection: Why is the Government so inconsistent? They stopped a two-cent increase in postal rates proposed by a Crown corporation, but they refuse to take action when another Crown corporation raises the price of its gas.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal Government established Petro-Canada it said the company should operate in the commercial market-place as if it was a commercial corporation. As such it is under the jurisdiction of the Competition Act which is there to ensure that Petro-Canada, Ultramar, or anyone else acts in a proper fashion.
1 repeat, if the Hon. Member has any evidence that Petro-Canada or anyone else is not operating in compliance with the Competition Act, let us know and we will take action.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby, one question, please.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. A recent report of the Official Languages Commissioner and many people at Division C have condemned the administration of the RCMP by saying that, for all practical purposes, English is virtually the only language of work at Headquarters. My question is this: What action will the Minister take to put an end to this discrimination, not to say this unacceptable racism, on the part of the RCMP?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, 1 have already asked my colleague the Sollicitor General to present to me as soon as possible an action plan to ensure that the bilingualism objectives for this agency will be met in the prescribed time limits.


POINT OF ORDER
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) referred to a telegram he received from Mr. Arcangel. Since he read from that telegram I request that it be now tabled.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Wait a second. Your Whip has already spoken.


John Napier Turner: Before you table it. When the hon. gentleman tables it, will he say whether he asked for that resignation.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, this is highly unusual. I will simply say that I did not ask for this resignation-


Raymond Garneau: Somebody else did.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -and 1 am glad to table the telegram.
1 think the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) should take care in using the protection of this House in making allegations concerning citizens of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: You should, too.
November 6, 1986


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is not becoming, John.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister wishes to table the document and has done so.


PRIVILEGE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Earlier today the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) called a press conference and provided detailed information regarding a Bill which had not yet been introduced in this House. In the information presented to journalists there was an indication that a Bill had been introduced. It went on to detail very specific amendments prior to any Member of Parliament having an opportunity to see the Bill and review its contents. I simply bring this to your attention and ask that you examine the information presented at the press conference to determine whether or not there has been a breach of the privileges of every Member of this House.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as those of us who have been here for some time are aware, the Standing Orders exist to cover the basic operations of the House. In addition to that, however, there are numerous practices which are unwritten but nevertheless essential to the proper operation of the House. One of those practices, which at least this Government applies as a matter of courtesy, is to give the Opposition advance warning of the Government's intentions. We do not have to do that according to the Standing Orders but we do it. In keeping with that tradition, and in trying to maintain decorum and order in the House, as well as a certain amount of respect for each other's opinions, I arranged for a representative of the NDP and representatives of the Liberal Party to be briefed on the Bill at ten o'clock this morning in advance of our introducing it. I thought it was a matter of courtesy so that they could respond to it. The net effect of that courtesy was that they were able to assemble various techniques to prevent us from introducing the Bill.
If it is the decision that we should not extend that courtesy to the Opposition any longer, that we should just sneak up on them so to speak, then so be it. However, the institution will lose. I question whether the House Leader of the NDP thinks it is right, after we extended the courtesy of briefing his official critic, to use that information to try to frustrate the Government in its attempt to expose this legislation to the public.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House that the
Point of Order-Mr. McKinnon
Government gave notice on the Order Paper, on November 4, that this Bill was forthcoming.


Harvie Andre: Any day.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If the Minister will listen, we had notice 48 hours ago. The second point is that until the House has pronounced itself on whether the Bill will be read the first time or not, I do not think the Minister has the right to prejudice that decision which we made today.


Harvie Andre: 1 just want to make it clear, lest there be some misinterpretation, that except for members of the Opposition who were briefed this morning, no one else has been given a copy of the Bill and there was no intention that anyone else would get a copy. The legislation we would like to introduce and expose to the public if we can is, as I have said in this House on many occasions, essentially the same as the draft Bill exposed to the public on June 27. The fine tuning we talked about is relatively modest. The Bill has not been shown to anyone else except to members of the Opposition as a matter of courtesy, which apparently they do not want.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has listened with interest to the exchange and I think it would be appropriate to consider the matter carefully and return to the Chamber with comments at an appropriate time. The Chair will be in touch with Hon. Members.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the usual business question. I wonder if the Government House Leader could inform the House what Bills he intends to call tomorrow. As well, given that the House is not sitting next week, can he give us the agenda for November 17?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that. Today we will continue with Bill C-17, the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax, followed by Bill C-14, the Excise Tax Act, followed by Bill C-16, amendments to the House of Commons Act. If we conclude with those, we will move to the unemployment insurance Bill.


POINTS OF ORDER
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have reason to believe that the actual wording of the petition tabled by the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
November 6, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. McKinnon
McCurdy) varies quite considerably from the language used by the Hon. Member when he presented it. 1 was unable to raise a point at that time, although I was skeptical about the wording he was using, because I was unable to get a copy of the petition which I now have. 1 want to point out that according to the electronic transcript, the Member said: "The petitioners protest as well the fact that this legislation is a product of American blackmail". Very close examination of the petition gives no indication whatsoever that the petitioners said any such thing, and I believe that the Hon. Member has probably unwittingly misled the House and misrepresented his petitioners. I would ask if the Speaker would be kind enough to review the "blues" and tomorrow's Hansard, and the petition, to see what representation we should make and what we should do in the way of ensuring honesty and courtesy in the House.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. At the same time as you are examining the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) and the wording therein and the words he used in presenting the petition, 1 would also draw your attention to the words used by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) who stated very clearly, according to the "blues": "They point out that it bears particularly upon the aged and infirm and upon any who needs drugs on an ongoing basis and that the profits will go primarily to the United States and not Canada". I have examined the petition, the wording of these petitions all being the same, and those words are not contained in that petition.


Cyril Keeper: They are not all the same.


Philip Derek Lewis: We have not had a chance to get all of them and 1 say with specific reference to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper), that when he presented his petition he said very clearly: "The petitioners point out that the Government has caved in to the lobbying of multinational corporations". That is not in the wording of the said petition. I would ask you to examine that as well.
Now we go to the petition presented by the Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) who has recently returned to the House from an unfortunate experience in British Columbia. He says: "The petition states that it is on the subject of the Government proposal to harm severely senior citizens-". That is not in the petition: "-and many other Canadians by providing for unlimited increases in drug prices". Those words are not in the petition either. He goes on to take a shot at my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway), and says the people of that riding are outraged. Those words are not in the petition either.
There is nothing more basic to our democratic tradition than presenting a petition from the people of the country. For a Member of Parliament to get up in the House and misrepresent deliberately or unwittingly what petitioners say in writing
is an absolute outrage. I would ask that you examine what was said on flights of fancy and compare it to what is very clearly written and brought forward by the petitioners. If you find, as I have, that there has been a complete variance, I would ask and suggest that it is appropriate that those Members apologize to the House.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. It is interesting that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis) should be getting up again to try to stall, prevent and thwart the wishes of Members of Parliament who wish to present petitions to the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We are trying to hold you guys accountable.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It was interesting that before the lunch break the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) was trying to insinuate that he should have prior access to all petitions that are presented in the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. That is absolutely incorrect. All I asked, and all I sought-and you were in the chair-was to look at the petitions which were to be deposited on the Table.


Cyril Keeper: No, you did not.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The point that is being debated here, to which the Chair must address its attention, is whether Members, at the introduction of their petitions, went beyond what in fact was the substance of the petitions when describing those petitions. I would ask Hon. Members, all of whom have the right to make a contribution in this debate, to confine their remarks to that issue.
That is the issue with which the Chair must deal. Certainly the Chair is not assisted by Members wandering away from that particular central point. The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, in his point of order the Parliamentary Secretary talked about a number of clauses and other concerns. He said that the petition itself does not mention pensioners. That may be true, but the petition does say that the measure will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. I submit that many people across this country to whom this applies are indeed pensioners. 1 know for a fact that the people who signed the petition that I presented in the House were pensioners from my riding. An Hon. Member certainly has the right to rise in the House and say he is speaking on behalf of pensioners.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that we were referring to blackmail by the United States. That may be a term which he finds offensive, but the petition itself states: "The proposed changes are another example of Canadian Government concessions to the United States, at the expense of average Canadians, in the free trade negotiations".
November 6, 1986


Philip Derek Lewis: Where is the word "blackmail"?


Rodney Edward Murphy: The point 1 am making is that there are clauses in the petition which directly relate to the statements made by members of the New Democratic Party caucus in presenting these petitions on behalf of their constituents. They have the right not to read word for word what is in the petition, but to follow the themes that are presented in the petition. For example, quite often those who would need to use prescription drugs on an ongoing basis are pensioners, and that this issue is something that we and the people who signed the petition deem to be related to the Government concessions on the matter of the free trade talks.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was a longstanding practice in the House that a Member who has not debated a motion or resolution could not get a copy of the preliminary transcript, which is better known as the "blues". In the past I wanted to know what some Member said in the House and attempted to get the "blues". 1 was told that another Member is not allowed to see them before they were sent to the Member who made the statement in the House.
I have been watching this debate very closely and I noticed that the Hon. House Leader is in full possession of the "blues", referring to a debate that just took place.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No.


Marcel Prud'homme: Not the House Leader, but the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. I apologize to the Hon. House Leader.
1 do not know where they are now but the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader was in full possession of the "blues" dealing with something that took place moments ago. I have always been led to believe in the past that this was not allowed because the "blues" belonged to the Member until they were released.
Of course, now we have television and this can be revised. However, while this is a serious matter, if there is a more furious debate in the future, it may be beneficial for the Speaker, who is held in esteem by all Members of the House, to take this into consideration or rule today on the propriety of a Member being in possession of the "blues" of another Member.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is something you may want to examine in view of my hon. friend's point that we now have the benefit of television in the House. One can easily recall that particular moment on the television screen and then inscribe it and we would have the same thing. I think you might want to take that into account, Mr. Speaker, when you consider this matter.
1 appreciate the fact that I have already spoken once on this matter, but the key to our argument is that there are two very important words in a petition which is presented, "humbly showeth". If one says: "I am presenting a petition which
Point of Order-Mr. McKinnon
humbly showeth-", and the petition, in writing, shows what the petitioners mean, then it should not be misrepresented in the House. The point 1 am making, and the point 1 think the Chair should zero in on, is whether or not when a Member of Parliament presents a petition, he or she should stick strictly to the wording in the petition which the petitioners themselves have signed and not go off on a flight of fancy.
1 have no difficulty whatsoever with Hon. Members presenting petitions. However, 1 do think if petitioners sign something and point to the prayer when they sign it-and, after all, we have had some discussion on whether or not that prayer has to be on every page-then anyone who comes into this Chamber and alleges blackmail in writing, had better be darn sure there is blackmail in writing and it is not just an allegation or flight of fancy.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to join in this debate because 1 think this is a matter of utmost seriousness and importance. When a Member of this Parliament rises on a Bill the principle of which we are debating, we are all subject to puffing on a number of points. However, when I rise and speak on behalf of my constituents in presenting a petition, it is incumbent upon me in this highest court of the whole land to present it accurately. You practised in the courts for many years, Mr. Speaker, and you know that the court is the search for truth and the judge must be able to rely totally on the words of the officials who have the right to be there, such as lawyers who are representing their clients. A judge cannot tolerate for an instant people misrepresenting the facts. That is a contempt of court for which people can be suspended and disbarred.
I submit that with respect to petitions, it is exactly the same. The New Democratic Party has gotten carried away with its flight of disinformation, as it tends to do, but that should not be done on petitions. In debate, it is one thing, but with respect to petitions we have to be exactly specific. I believe this matter has to be referred to the appropriate committee for follow-up.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Hon. House Leader referred earlier to the "blues" as he was making his presentation. I would ask the Hon. Member to table those "blues" so we can examine the date in terms of the point made earlier that in fact these "blues" only go to Hon. Members' offices. I am simply asking, if he believes in what he is saying, that he simply follow the typical process of the House and provide us with the date.
1 want to refer to some of the wording used by my colleagues in the presentation of their petitions. The Hon. Members opposite, particularly the House Leader of the Government, indicated a concern about the language used in the presentation of petitions. I simply want to bring to his attention that if he thinks the language used by my colleagues in the presentation of petitions was strong, he should have heard the language of the people signing the petitions.
1150

November 6, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. McKinnon


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy House Leader made the claim that when I presented my petition in the House today I misrepresented that petition. He also mentioned something about "sticking to the words". Are we to say, therefore, that the only way to represent a petition accurately is to stick to the exact words, or is there another test, that being the communication of the meaning of the petition?


Philip Derek Lewis: Oh, I see, the interpretation.


Cyril Keeper: This is the fundamental question of what is "representation" and what is "misrepresentation". I would suggest that the accurate communication of meaning is a fair representation of a petition. With that in mind, I will read from the "blues" which I had to get from the Deputy House Leader, through whatever magical powers he has. These are the words he quoted: "The petitioners point out that the Government has caved in to the lobbying of multinational corporations", and I will read the exact words which were in the petition which was signed by my constituents:
WHEREAS, the proposed changes are another example of the Conservative Government serving the interests of multinational corporations and increasing their profits, at the expense of Canadian consumers.
1 ask you to consider, Mr. Speaker, whether that accurately represents the meaning of the words I used, to which the House Leader objects, which were "caved in".


Philip Derek Lewis: Where are the words "caved in"?


Cyril Keeper: Surely that is what is meant by "serving the interests of the multinational corporations and increasing their profits at the expense of Canadian consumers".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Keeper: Surely that is an accurate representation of the meaning.
My hon. friend quoted me as saying: "the Government has caved in to the lobbying of multinational corporations". Every adult in this country knows that the way any interest group gains the attention of Government and gets the policy it wants from Government, is through a process which is commonly known as "lobbying". How else does the Hon. Member imagine that those people who signed this petition think the Government arrived at its conclusion? The petition states, wherein the proposed changes are another example of the Conservative Government serving the interests of multinational corporations, increasing their profits, at the expense of ordinary Canadians.
1 suggest that what I said in this House, Mr. Speaker, accurately represents the meaning of this petition. To the extent that those were the very words the Hon. Member himself used when he evaluated my words in this House, when he talked about misrepresentation and misleading, surely the same standard of test should be applied to him and his description of what I did and the way I conveyed the meaning in these documents.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I too feel honour bound to take part in the debate. As all Hon. Members of this House know, there are times when we must, on behalf of our constituents, table a petition in the House of Commons with which we may or may not agree. It may be something to which we are fundamentally opposed, but our constituents have asked us to submit a petition on their behalf. I submit that if we are allowed to stray from the wording of the petition we are tabling, we could undermine our constituents by adding or detracting from their statement. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) has made the point very adequately. I only submit this, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure you have had the experience, as I have, and as have all Hon. Members here, that when you submit a petition you do not agree with, you are duty bound to do so because your constituents have asked you to submit that petition.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I regret I was not present to hear the initiation of this debate. I listened very carefully to the intervention of my hon. colleague moments ago when he suggested certain problems might be created if we are tabling petitions with which we disagree. I would hasten to point out I could not agree more strongly with petitions which were tabled this morning.
I would like to mention that I understand that it is an abrogation of the rules of the House for someone to have acquired the "blues" in advance of their acquisition by the Hon. Member whose speech or utterances are recorded therein. I think that is a matter which should be looked into. However, it is my understanding that in the proffering of a petition Hon. Members ought to avoid repeating every word contained in the petition. That is a principle to which I tried very hard to adhere. In doing so I tried to paraphrase the contents of the petition in order to spare the House the unnecessary consumption of time. When I saw a phrase in the petition which states: "Whereas the proposed changes are another example of Canadian Government concessions to the United States at the expense of average Canadians in the free trade negotations", I could only think of one word to substitute for and summarize that phrase. That word was "blackmail".


Mr. Chuck Cook (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard enough of this nonsense. I simply say to the Chair with the greatest of respect that the duty of the Speaker in this regard, and I would like to go back to first principles, is with respect to the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). I think out of their own mouths members of the New Democratic Party have condemned themselves and, quite frankly, have pointed out that what they said was not what was contained in the petitions.
November 6, 1986

1 would also bring to the attention of the Chair that it is your duty, Sir, only to find a prima facie case, not to determine the matter. If Your Honour finds that there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege, and Members opposite have surely indicated with their own words that there is a prima facie case, then with the greatest of respect to the Chair it is your duty, Sir, to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that it may be investigated and so that a judgment on the Members' conduct can be made followed by censure or absolution.
To you, Mr. Speaker, I say enough of this nonsense. 1 honestly submit that Your Honour should refer the matter and let us be done with it.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, surely what we are dealing with here is a question of form and of proper procedure rather than a question of privilege. 1 would ask you, Sir, if you would investigate the rulings, and if there were not rulings then at least the requests, of former Speaker Mr. Lloyd Francis concerning a number of petitions presented in a similar manner by members of the New Democratic Party concerning the Crow issue. I believe at that time we were requested not to read out petitions but, rather, to summarize them, giving the gist of them. I ask Your Honour to review the earlier rulings and requests of a former Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious I should rise more often in the Chamber if Your Honour has a form of amnesia concerning the riding I represent.
Quite frankly, I was here this morning when these petitions were presented. I understand the reasons that they were presented. Frankly, 1 was amazed that someone representing the leadership of my Party did not rise, not to protest the first protest raised, but to protest the editorial comments concerning the petitions. I do not have to read the "blues", although they have been referred to. As far as I am concerned, I agree with my friend, the Hon. Member for North Vancouver- Burnaby (Mr. Cook). It is not the "blues" with which we are concerned but the fact that any person watching these proceedings will be totally blue and depressed at what has taken place here during the last half-hour. Not one Member, other than the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), referred to the Standing Order concerning petitions, which is Standing Order 106. In particular I refer to Standing Order 106(2) which states that every petition shall contain a clear, proper and respectful prayer. How in the devil can one have a respectful prayer if a great many editorial pejoratives are put forward?
The other point I wish to make is that Standing Order 106(6) states that Members presenting petitions shall be answerable that they do not contain impertinent or improper matter.
I think Your Honour should consider this issue so that we can avoid this type of farce in the future. This will ensure that petitions will be factual and that editorial comments from
Point of Order-Mr. Mazankowski
Hon. Members will not be permitted, in which case the petition should not be read.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has listened carefully to the representations, some reflective and some vigorous, which Hon. Members have made. It is appropriate for me to consider the matter with some care and return to the Chamber at an appropriate time.
The Chair is also concerned about the issue raised by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). Certainly, the practice at one time was very clear. Use of the "blues" was not to be made in the Chamber. At one time the "blues" were not to be given to another Member until the Member involved had a chance to scan the record. That is probably a matter that ought to be discussed among Members since with electronic recording that particular practice may not be as acutely necessary as perhaps it once was. However, the Chair is not making any ruling or decision on that point but indicates that through the appropriate process I will ask Hon. Members to discuss the matter further.
With respect to the debate on this issue, it is important that members of the public who watch the proceedings of the Chamber ought to realize that the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) raised what was a perfectly appropriate point of order. It was not a question of privilege but a point of order. The point of order is that he feels that those presenting petitions earlier in the day had said more about them and more about the contents of them than was in fact contained in them. That is the issue that is before the Chair. That is the issue that the Chair will consider. After having carefully considered the petitions and what was said, and if it is the sense in fact that the introductory remarks went beyond what the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) clearly points out are strict words in the rules, then the Chair will rule accordingly.
1 thank Hon. Members for their interventions. 1 know that the Hon. Members who presented petitions this morning are reflecting views that Canadians have expressed to them. These petitions are most appropriately brought to the Chamber. Those views, of course, must be vigorously espoused, as 1 think all Members will agree they were. The question is, was some of that vigour earlier today, perhaps on occasion, excessive? The Chair will consider that matter and come back to the Chamber to rule on the matter. 1 thank all Hon. Members for their interventions.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order. While you are reflecting on the previous issue, I ask you to consider something that has been developing over the past little while with regard to questions asked in the House that have a bearing on committee work that is going on. Citation 357 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition clearly outlines certain limitations on the putting of questions. I quote from the citation which states:

November 6, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Mazankowski
In putting a question a member must confine himself to the narrowest limits.
One of the limits has to do with subsection (hh) which states:
-seek information about proceedings in a Committee which has not yet made its report to the House.
In the past few weeks there have been occasions in the House on issues with respect to certain appointments to, in particular, the Human Rights Committee, when Members have raised questions about appointments and their reference to committees. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 103 provides for a review of all Order in Council appointments made by the appropriate committee.
The point I wish to make and ask Your Honour to consider is with respect to whether questions such as this are in order when they are before or have the opportunity of being before the appropriate committee and when they are presented in the House of Commons. I can refer Your Honour to some specific examples in this regard. The first is found at page 426 of Hansard of October 16, a question raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). Another example appears in Hansard of October 29 on Page 856 where a question was raised by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). Yesterday, a question was raised by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), and that question appears at page 1097 of Hansard. In Hansard of October 28, a similar question appears on page 819. Similar questions appear on page 855 of Hansard of October 29 and page 907 of October 30.
I raise this matter, Mr. Speaker, only to seek your guidance for all Members of the House, since 1 believe this matter could establish certain precedents which may not be in keeping with the spirit of Beauchesne's Citation No. 357 which in effect is the written rule by which we guide ourselves in the House, along with Standing Order 103.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the point made by the Government House Leader. 1 have some concerns about his reference to Beauchesne's Citation 357 and particularly about his indication that issues that have the opportunity to be before a committee ought not to be raised in the House. I suggest that an issue that has the opportunity to be before a committee could be almost any issue. Any issue may be before a committee or may be referred to a committee some time in the future.
The House Leader's suggestion that issues that have the opportunity to be before a committee should not be raised by Hon. Members during Question Period seems to me to be totally out of order and inappropriate. We would not have any opportunity at all to raise issues in the House, particularly since the new Standing Orders adopted as a result of the reform committee suggest that any committee may take up any issue it deems appropriate whatever its terms of reference.
It concerned me to hear the House Leader suggest that we ought not ask questions about an issue that may have the opportunity to be before a committee. Perhaps 1 will seek clarification from him. Did he mean what I have just indicated or was that simply an elaboration which he had not intended?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member raising the point and I might just clarify it. I was looking at the matter in the context of Standing Order 103 which deals with the review of certain Order in Council appointments. If he were to examine the examples I have given he would see that in most cases those particular issues are before their respective committees.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 find this interesting but I have difficulty following the logic of the Government House Leader. Indeed, I am not familiar with all the citations from Beauchesne's quoted by the Minister but I do think the spirit of them is to prevent repetition in Parliament. I believe they apply most particularly to legislation.
If a piece of legislation is before a committee, 1 could see the argument being made that that same subject matter could be the object of some duplication and therefore should not be raised in the House. However, I do not understand the argument of the Hon. House Leader when he says that Orders in Council could perhaps be the object of study in committee.
Personally, I feel that an individual's capacity to comply with the requirements of a job to which he has been appointed could be before a committee but the matter at hand, which is whether or not the individual in question was the object of a criminal investigation or something of that nature, is in the public domain and can be raised. The behaviour of that individual, for example, could be the object of questions in the House. I cannot see how we could avoid asking those questions.
1 would ask for clarification from the Minister as to what he means when he is talking about Order in Council appointments. The appointment itself is before a committee, not the behaviour of an individual at his job.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my point was to seek your guidance and clarification on this issue. I merely cited some examples to try to make the point. On reflection, I believe you will find that in many of those cases the issues raised on the floor of the House of Commons are issues that are currently under consideration in respective Standing Committees.
I agree that there must be a certain amount of latitude. I believe past practices would reveal that, notwithstanding the fact that there may be a piece of legislation before a Standing Committee, questions are not necessarily prevented from being asked in the House. That is quite normal. However, I think the practice has been increasing and if it is considered to be appropriate, that is fine. I simply raised it with you, Sir, to seek your guidance and clarification to guide us in the future.
November 6, 1986


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 have one brief point to make in addition to the points that have been well made by Members on all sides of the House. The time of Question Period is valuable. Members from all sides of the House who wish to ask a question and hold the Government accountable may do so during that 45-minute period. If there are things such as the appointments review, which all Members of the House have agreed would be more properly dealt with in committee, it seems to me we would be better advised to use the time of the committee rather than the time of Question Period.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members have contributed to the debate on this point of order, and I take with very good grace the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). The Chair might comment on the definition of a precedent. A precedent is something that happened once upon a time and that everyone decided to follow. Looking at a precedent in legal terms, it is usually the consequence of a decision made after argument has been proffered to the Chair or a judge on a certain point.
I would point out to Hon. Members that just because something may turn up in the record of this Chamber which seems to abridge the rules does not of course mean that it creates a precedent. It may be something that slips by because the Speaker did not notice it or the Speaker might very deliberately let something slip by, given what was going on at that moment. Sometimes, as Hon. Members know, it is advisable for the Speaker to not hear something or to let something go.
1 do not want Hon. Members to think that if something has happened and is recorded in the minutes of this Chamber, it necessarily creates a precedent. The Chair is sometimes in difficulty but sometimes guided on occasions when there has been a ruling made by a Speaker on a point that has been argued and which is apposite to the point that is causing the concern for Hon. Members.
The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister will know that 1 have not at this point been able to look at the references which have been put before me, but I will look at them. I am aware of some of them in any event because there were some questions which gave the Chair some momentary difficulty.
I might just make the following observation out of caution and out of concern for good manners and as much fairness as we can bring to bear in our deliberations, without impinging on the duty all Members have to speak fearlessly on matters of public interest. There is concern on the part of some Hon. Members in the Chamber about the fact that certain people, who may or may not be about to be appointed but who will go through the new reform process whereby their qualifications will be examined by all Hon. Members, are mentioned in
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
Question Period, sometimes not in a complimentary way. Perhaps that is something Members will want to consider. In any event, 1 appreciate the comments. 1 repeat that Members should not think that because the Chair may choose to let something go under certain circumstances in the interests of good order, common sense, and a happy relationship here, that necessarily creates a precedent. The Chair does not consider that it does.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I rise on a point of order and one that you have referred to when speaking in regard to the intervention of the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). It was mentioned by the Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) that it was apparent that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) was indeed using the "blues" of this House. It was my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that you did not say you would look at that matter, but that it was a matter that Members should look at. 1 would suggest that it is matter that you should look at.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps 1 can allay any fears. The Chair will look at that matter. The resolution of it may well involve a discussion with the Members. I take seriously the point that was raised a few minutes ago.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, may I seek unanimous consent to revert to Introduction of Bills for the purpose of introducing, under the name of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), an Act to amend the Patent Act.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister has asked for unanimous consent to revert to an earlier proceeding. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, November 5, 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. Speaker:: Resuming debate.

November 6, 1986
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act


Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lend my support today to the Government's decision to terminate the petroleum and gas revenue tax, better known as the PGRT. From the outset 1 should say that I do not know a heck of a lot about gas and petroleum production. There is no gas or petroleum production in my riding. There is no gas or petroleum production in the Province of New Brunswick. We do have a company which is well known both nationally and internationally that refines these products. I have always believed that what is good for one part of the country is good for other parts of the country. Therefore, I am delighted to be able to say a few words on this Bill.
About a year and a half ago I had occasion to visit the oil sands operation in northern Alberta with the Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). I had a chance to see first hand this gargantuan operation. When we were students in high school we heard and read about this operation, but you have to be there to appreciate its size.
For a while it was a booming operation. In the City of Fort McMurray with a population of around 35,000 over 7,000 were from Atlantic Canada. This means that we in Atlantic Canada have traditionally gone elsewhere to seek employment. We have travelled to central Canada and western Canada. Therefore, when I say what is good for one part of Canada is good for the other, that in great measure and essence is what I mean.
The heady days were short lived. Unfortunately, many of those from the Maritimes who went out west to seek employment and new opportunity had to return. As we now know, the National Energy Program was a disaster. It was a disaster for the West, and a disaster for the oil producers.
The prime effect of the PGRT was western alienation. However, it was not the sole effect. Equally appalling was the signal that it gave to industry. The Government collected taxes from western oil producing companies-collected on revenue not on profit-then proceeded to turn this money over to finance oil exploration in a different area of the country. This was saying, in effect, that you who are successful in generating revenue with oil are not smart enough to know where to search for oil. But we are, so we will appropriate the funds to do so.
This signals to industry that a successful and regionally critical industry had better watch out, because Ottawa will want a piece of that action, and will invent new ways to get it. That type of taxation also creates disincentives to growth. What business will want to expand and generate revenue when the very act of doing so will increase the tax burden? The thinking behind this tax was that a strong and profitable business can be abused by Ottawa. It means that they will get little support from the average Canadian voter. This is a very dangerous thought, and gives little credit to the sense of fairness held by the average Canadian. Sure, we do want industry to pay its fair share, but only what is fair. This is what Canadians want. Industry creates jobs. Industry creates employment. It needs incentive and not disincentive.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) is helping to prove that when it comes to sensible and fair treatment of the oil companies, the Western Accord is far superior to the National Energy Program. Continuous improvements will indeed bring us closer to national reconciliation.
Hon. Members know that the price of oil on international markets has created a climate in which the oil producing companies in western Canada need cash flow simply to survive this temporary world-wide situation. This situation was not created in Canada, but Canadians have to help to rectify it.
The House has been asked to approve legislation which will accelerate the phase-out in direct response to the immediate needs of the oil industry. 1 do not think that this is too much to ask to help our friends in a time of need.
Simultaneously, two areas of concern are being addressed in Bill C-17. First, the repeal of PGRT, which will be beneficial to the oil industry retroactive to September 30. Second, in the continuation of the spirit of the Western Accord, this legislation continues the process of healing the rift between the energy producing areas and the federal Government in the area of revenue and taxation. It is important to note that the federal Government's revenue expectations are down because of the fall in world oil prices. Although the removal of the PGRT will result in a further drop in federal revenues of $150 million, the Government has seen fit to finally shelve this offensive tax.
Most experts agree that the present price for oil will not remain low. Indeed we have seen the change in the leadership within OPEC and the signal which Saudi Arabia sent out to oil producing countries. Therefore oil producing areas of Canada can look forward to more prosperous times, and we hope it will be soon. It is a task of the federal Government, along with all others concerned, to ensure that our oil companies are still operating and functioning when that happens.
The removal of the tax will greatly improve confidence in the Canadian oil and gas sector. As we know, it is the real catalyst to economic prosperity in western Canada. It is very important to all Canadians that main industrial sectors in all regions of the country have equal chances to contribute to the over-all economic picture.
With petroleum products, agriculture, lumber, manufacturing, and fishing, we have diversification that is the envy of much of the world. We in Government must work to keep all these sectors strong and growing. One way to do it-and I believe it is a critical point-is by ensuring that no sector is asked to provide more than its fair share of taxes to Government. The reasoning is simple; not only will the industry itself be hurt, but all sectors will live under the threat of an inequitable tax system, which destroys confidence and goodwill among all industries.
November 6, 1986

The public must be made aware that we are not granting windfall profits and benefits to the oil and gas sector. We are simply returning to them what was theirs in the first place. For the first time in many years we have a Government which is actually doing something about fairness in the tax system at both the corporate level and personal level. As consultations proceed, the Department of Finance will bring before the House tax reform proposals which are of the same cloth as this action. That is what Canadians want.
We see a Government which cares enough to act, not just listen. Under the terms of the Western Accord, the PGRT was scheduled for phase out in 1988. This was not good enough, and the Government was willing to bring this action to the forefront, proving again that it is able to deal with the needs of all Canadians when the need arises. I am proud to be associated with a Government which has this attitude, takes the initiative, and responds in a responsible and determined fashion.
As the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi, my hon. colleagues may wonder what stake my constituents have in the matter. I alluded to it earlier. But all Canadians stand to benefit from decisions which lend strength and fairness to an industry as important as the oil industry. It is within the interest of New Brunswickers to see a strong and prosperous West. It is with great pride and fellowship that we in the Miramichi watched the world visit Expo 86 at Vancouver. Likewise, it is with trepidation that we watched the oil industry backed into a corner by the National Energy Program of the former Government. We know that such arbitrary policies could be directed toward the East as well as toward the West.
Two weeks ago I attended the opening of the $250 million mill in my riding, the most advanced of its kind in the world. As this new mill becomes the backbone of local economic activity, can I expect to see fairness and well thought policies with regard to the growth of that industry in my area? Yes, of course, I can expect this treatment with the present Government. This is why the repeal of the PGRT means so much to all Canadians from coast to coast, from east to west. It is a signal that industry will be rewarded for excellence, as it should be.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to make a short comment. I enjoyed the Hon. Member's discourse very much. I congratulate him on what he said and the manner in which he said it.
The Hon. Member was not in the House when the PGRT matter was brought in, so he did not hear the very strong debates by Hon. Members from Alberta and from other parts of the country against it. It was an unfair tax under the Liberals, and it is an unfair tax under the Progressive Conservatives. It was not any better under the Progressive Conservatives than it was under the Liberals. It was a tax on production, the only tax on production in Canada of which I know. It certainly did not apply to hydroelectric production in
Message from the Senate
Ontario or Quebec. 1 am glad to see it being wiped out. I agree with the Hon. Member that it should have been done immediately. I wish it had never been brought in.
Yesterday 1 was somewhat amazed by some of the comments of members of the Liberal Party who were party to bringing in this tax which utterly ruined an industry in the Province of Alberta.
Some time ago there was a very strong indication of support for the extension of a pipeline from Montreal into New Brunswick, into the Maritimes. Could the Hon. Member tell us whether there is still quite a demand for a pipeline to deliver oil and gas from the western part of the country through Montreal and into the Maritimes, or has that demand somewhat subsided at the present time?


W.R. (Bud) Jardine: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is quite correct that I was not in the House at the time of the PGRT debate. However, during my visit to the oil producing area of the West that topic came up time and time again. I really had to plead ignorance about it because I did not appreciate its full impact upon the industry. Whatever gathering I was at, whether I was visiting the companies or in a social setting, I heard the topic talked about. Indeed my colleagues from the West whom 1 accompanied spoke out on the subject. Indeed, the Hon. Member for Athabasca presented his case loud and clear, so we from the East had to become aware of it. I am sorry that I missed the opportunity when it was first raised a few years ago.
With regard to an oil pipeline, while it may not be hitting the headlines at the present time it is something eastern Canada would like to see. It would give those of us in the East an opportunity to benefit from the gas and oil which central and western Canada have been benefiting from for years.
As the Hon. Member will know, petroleum products are more expensive in the East than in the rest of the country, I dare say. With a pipeline, we would like to see not only access to Canadian products but also a drop in the price we are now paying.

[ Translation]


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-2. An Act to implement conventions between Canada and the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Canada and Japan and agreements between Canada and the People's Republic of China and Canada and the Republic of Malta for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

November 6, 1986
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE RAISED The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-financial management system; the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)-Crown corporations-corporation's undisclosed liabilities. (b) amount of liabilities; and the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Education- Student Loan Program-request for consideration of bursary program, (b) Minister's position.


[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.
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation to do away with the PGRT. The PGRT was part of the National Energy Program. This debate gives me the opportunity to remind all Members of the House, but particularly Conservative Members, that contrary to a great deal of the rhetoric to which we have had to listen since the introduction of the National Energy Program about how the NDP and the Liberal Party were as one with respect to it, if Members check the record they will see that the NDP voted against the PGRT. We said that it was an unfair tax and all the other things which members of the Conservative caucus said about it. Yet, year after year after the implementation of the National Energy Program we were subjected to inaccurate charges about our blanket acceptance of the Liberal National Energy Program. That simply is not true. It may have been a very effective political tactic in the West, but it was based on something which was fundamentally false. The PGRT is a good example of just how false those accusations about our blanket support of the NEP were.
In debate dealing with legislation implementing the National Energy Program I said that it was a mistake to speak about western Canada as though it was a homogeneous political society. I said that because often Members, particularly Conservative Members from western Canada, said that the National Energy Program was not supported by western Canadians. Yet, there were obviously many western Canadians who supported elements of the National Energy Program, as
did the NDP. Many western Canadians thought the 25 per cent backin provision was a good idea. They thought it was a good idea to have more Canadian ownership. They thought it was a good idea to strengthen the role of PetroCan. The point I am making is that there was legitimate difference of opinion among western Canadians about the best energy policies for the country.
During that debate I was bothered to no end by the insistent claim of western Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament that only they represented western Canada with respect to energy policy. They assumed that all western Canadians were in agreement with their every utterance on this subject. That was obviously not the case. It is time for that to be acknowledged by certain Members of the House. Events in recent days have proven me right on that.
During debates on the PGRT and the NEP I often said that when Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament spoke about western Canada they really spoke only about a segment of western Canada, only about a segment of the energy sector which was congregated in the board rooms in Calgary and Edmonton. I remember claiming that the people in the board rooms in Calgary and Edmonton did not speak for me as the Member of Parliament for Winnipeg-Birds Hill or for others from Manitoba.
The Progressive Conservative Party's definition of "western Canada" was becoming much too narrow. It was preoccupied with the energy sector. It is not bad to focus on that and care about it, but the understanding of Progressive Conservatives of the interests of western Canada was becoming very narrow.
We have seen the fruits of that narrowness of vision in the CF-18 decision. The Progressive Conservative Government believes it is able to respond to the oil and gas sector of Alberta, but it is not able to respond to the legitimate aspirations of the people of Manitoba. Aerospace is a major industry in Manitoba. The people of Manitoba have a merited desire not to have it unraveled and seriously damaged by a federal Progressive Conservative Government decision.
This decision illustrates the narrowness of understanding of western Canada which took root in the Progressive Conservative Party during the debate on the National Energy Program and the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax. It was at that time that the interests of provinces such as Manitoba began to be excluded from the Progressive Conservative vision of possibilities for western Canada. That exclusion has manifested itself in all kinds of decisions made to the detriment of Manitoba since the election of the Progressive Conservative Government. An example was the immediate deferral of the VIA Rail shop which was to have been built in Manitoba. The continued delay in the ordering of the transcontinental equipment affected Alberta as well as Manitoba and I cannot, therefore, understand why the decision has not been made. Other examples are the cancellation of the manufacturing technology centre in Winnipeg and the continued delay of needed construction of the new Transcona diesel shop.
November 6, 1986

1 could go on at great length, Madam Speaker, but I am sure that you would call me to relevance if 1 tried to articulate all the ways in which Manitoba has been unrepresented or badly represented since the Progressive Conservative Government took power in 1984. In all sincerity I believe that during the debate on the National Energy Program Progressive Conservatives reached the point of saying "western Canada" when in fact they meant only the oil and gas sector of Alberta. They convinced themselves at that time that they were the only legitimate spokespersons for western Canada and that those of us who may have disagreed with them on certain elements of the National Energy Program, although we agreed with them on others such as the PGRT, did not speak for western Canada. Yet we did speak for western Canada and we speak for western Canada now when we say the Government has not paid attention to the legitimate needs and concerns of the Province of Manitoba on the CF-18 contract. The effect of that decision in western Canada will be far-reaching.
I imagine a great many people in Alberta are concerned about that decision as well. For decades they were told by Progressive Conservative candidates that this kind of thing would happen only under the auspices of the big bad Liberals. If a Progressive Conservative Government were elected that kind of thing would never happen. So what have western Canadians, particularly those in Manitoba, found? They have found that these kinds of things happen under the Conservatives. For years they were told something that was not necessarily true. The worst of it is that they were told this by people who knew it was not necessarily true when they told them. It is for those reasons that I am glad to have had the opportunity in this debate to have said those few words.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments.


Mr. Edwards:: Madam Speaker, this is a wonderful opportunity to try and set the record straight. I am very pleased that the Hon. Member gave credit to this Government for properly living up to its election promises to the people of western Canada, particularly regarding today's event which is a wake in honour of the death of the National Energy Program.
Does the Hon. Member not recognize that the electorate in western Canada has been pronouncing his party to be the party of reaction and the status quo? Does he not recognize that the Progressive Conservative Government of Canada has been responding to the needs of individual, small enterprise Canadians and workers in the oil fields without any kind of giveaway to the oil companies? Far to the contrary, the abolition of the PGRT is the final discharge of promises made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on July 6, 1984. At that time, in his famous red barn speech, he said the Liberal Government had decimated the western economy through the NEP.
Does the Hon. Member not recognize the total extent of federal financial assistance to western Canada, including Manitoba, over the two years this Government has been in
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
office? Does he not recognize that total federal assistance to agriculture is $4.5 billion compared to $2.8 billion during the last two years of the previous Government? That does not even take into account the $1 billion promised by the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago. Does the Hon. Member not recognize the relief a western Canadian farmer now experiences when he fills his 100-gallon tank with diesel fuel? An Alberta farmer paid $115 for that fuel in September, 1984. He will now pay about $40. That will save a farmer with 1,200 acres over $5,000 annually on his fuel bill.
1 wish to leave the Hon. Member a little time to respond to my questions but I would just ask him whether he will not acknowledge that this Government has done more for western Canada in agriculture and in the critical energy field than any Government since that of the late Right Hon. John Diefen-baker?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, very strange claims are being made by the Hon. Member. He claims the people of western Canada have been particularly mean to the NDP of late. I remind him that we got more votes than the Progressive Conservative Party in Saskatchewan. In the most recent Alberta election we made a major breakthrough and elected 16 Members. In Manitoba we were re-elected. We have the possible exception of B.C., which 1 would not like to exaggerate, but in the three prairie provinces it does not exactly look as if the NDP has been taking a beating.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: The farmers of the west have rejected you totally.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Member was not listening to the claim I was making. 1 did claim that the Progressive Conservative Government had lived up to the promises it had made to the oil and gas sector. 1 never quarrelled with that. What I argued was that that was too narrow a focus if you were interested in responding to the needs of western Canada.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: What about the farmers?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: 1 argued that the Progressive Conservative Government has paid absolutely no attention to Winnipeg. In fact, it has actively harmed its future. I notice the Hon. Member did not get up and try and deny that. That is the point I was making and 1 wish he would pay more attention in future.
He talked about all this federal money going to the provinces. What about the cut-back in transfer payments to have-not provinces like Manitoba? It is all well and good for him, being from Alberta, to not pay attention to that. However, provinces like Manitoba depend on equalization payments and EPF. What has been the behaviour of his Government in that area? It has looked for each and every way it could possibly find to cut back on transfer payments. Do not give me a lot of crap about how generous his Government has been to Winnipeg because it has not been. The Government's Manitoba Members might as well not even be on that side for all that has happened to Winnipeg since the Government was elected. We have been shafted left, right and centre and it is about time it stopped.

November 6, 1986
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: What about the farmers?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, I want to clarify the record for my friend opposite concerning equalization payments. He knows that the Liberal six and five program was the real cutback in transfers to the provinces. At a time when inflation was 12 per cent to 15 per cent, the former Liberal Government cut back to six and five. That was a real cut in transfer payments. What we did a year and a half or so ago was to reduce the increase in the amount being transferred from 7 per cent or 8 per cent to about 5 per cent when inflation was actually 4 per cent. The provinces are still getting much, much more than inflation would call for. As well, Manitoba received a special sweetener, a lump sum, from this Government. So 1 do not think he is quite correct when he says this Government has not been fair to Manitoba under the equalization program.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, 1 did not have time or I would have reminded the House that the Liberals also sought to undercut federal transfer payments to the provinces. The Hon. Member and I sat on a task force together which recommended the Government not do that. It went ahead and did it anyway. In any event, at that time the Progressive Conservative Party criticized the Government of the day for tampering with those arrangements. Yet it went on, when it became the Government, to tamper with those arrangements and reduce the amount the provinces would otherwise have received had the Government not amended its fiscal arrangements.
As to the special allocation for Manitoba, that was a result of the new formula which had a particularly deleterious effect on Manitoba. It was not some special gift given to Manitoba, it was a special compensation as a result of quirks in the formula which led to a drastic lowering of the money Manitoba would have received had there not been that special measure.
I agree that the Hon. Member is historically correct about what the Liberals did. However, despite the Hon. Member's arguments, when the Conservatives came to power they still proceeded to break their promises that they would not unilaterally change federal-provincial arrangements.
You were not here, Madam Speaker, but 1 remember the Conservatives spending hours in the House criticizing the Liberal Government for acting unilaterally on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. They reacted as if it were the most heinous sin on earth, but when they became the Government they changed the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements unilaterally.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I want to direct a question to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). I am sorry the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) is not here but I see several Conservative Alberta Members in the House.
1 want to return to whether or not the Government fulfilled its so-called promises. Will the Hon. Member remind the House of the attacks the Conservatives made on the energy policies of the Liberal Government when they were in opposition? They attacked the National Energy Program and said that by eliminating the National Energy Program and getting rid of all the regulations to let the market operate, everything would be fine.
The Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) who was Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, said that a Conservative Government would create 200,000 jobs in the energy sector, most of them in Alberta. We have seen the opposite, with the loss of 50,000 jobs. Let us get some facts on the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) on a short answer.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, of course one could say much about this, but the fact is that there is a great irony in what is happening in western Canada. The Conservatives always argued to let the market-place determine the future of the energy sector and that everything would come up roses if only the Liberal Government did not get involved in that sector. The fact is that the more the market-place has been allowed to operate, the worse the situation in Alberta has become.
1 acknowledge that the situation could improve some day. However, during the debate on the National Energy Program, Progressive Conservative Members from that province predicted that all would be well again if we simply let the market-place take its course. Everything is not well again.


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, the petroleum and gas revenue tax will probably be remembered by Canadians as one of the worst tax measures ever implemented by a Government. 1 say this first of all, because the tax was based on corporate revenue, not profits, so there was no connection with the actual ability to pay. Second, it came on top of the whole existing tax structure. Third, it was an important element of the Liberal Government's new energy policy which cost this country so many jobs and so much investment. Fourth, it was the very symbol of confrontation politics as practised by the previous Government in its dealings with the provinces.
Why is a Member from Northern Quebec speaking to this issue today? There are companies doing exploration work in the northwestern part of my riding, and those companies are creating jobs. That is why I rise to speak to a Bill that marks the end of an era of Government intervention in the business of oil companies, the end of a period during which Western Canada has felt alienated by federal policies.
November 6, 1986

Madam Speaker, I am also very proud of our Government's decision to move the date on which this tax will be eliminated up to October 1, 1986. This shows that our Government has the flexibility to adjust to the needs of Canadians and it also demonstrates our determination to respond effectively to the needs of regions across this country, in East and West, that are facing serious economic problems today. It also reflects the new climate of co-operation and dialogue with the provinces and industry which the Conservative Government managed to create since it came to power in 1984.
Madam Speaker, by immediately eliminating the PGRT, the Government is meeting its commitments in this area, which I would like to mention very briefly.
The commitment to reduce and eliminate Government intervention in the energy sector has been met by replacing a system for setting oil and gas prices with a system that is market-oriented.
The costly and interventionist grants system which guided drilling activity has been replaced. Another commitment made by our Government was to restore investor confidence in Canada by eliminating the 25 per cent retroactive Crown interest in the Canada Lands and by creating Investment Canada.
Another commitment made by our Government was to promote a climate of co-operation between the federal and provincial Governments, and I am thinking of the Western Accord, the Atlantic Accord and the Nova Scotia Agreement.
The commitment to provide a more equitable petroleum revenue tax system was met by this Government by raising the small producer tax credit as of November 1984, and by declaring that production after March 31, 1985 would not be subject to PGRT.
Furthermore, the Government has provided compensation for the PGRT to help companies without taxable income. Tax rates will be reduced as of January 1986, and there will be a $10,000 deduction for persons and companies receiving royalties after January 1, 1986.
Another point is that synthetic production will not be taxable after May 1, 1986. Small producers will benefit from a higher tax credit as of May 1, 1986 and, two more points. Madam Speaker, the $1.5 million retroactive deduction for individuals and companies, and the abolition of the petroleum and gas revenue tax on October 1, 1986.
The Government has honoured its commitments in the energy sector, and the decision was made in co-operation with the provinces. I am confident that the abolition of the PGRT and the political initiatives taken by the provinces will soften the impact which falling world prices may have had on the oil industry.
Another factor is the re-investment of these funds in exploration and development projects which will protect and create jobs in this vital industry.
This past summer. Madam Speaker, I had an opportunity to visit northern Alberta, and I went to Fort McMurray, Norman
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
Wells, and Inuvik in the Sea of Beaufort. 1 had a chance to meet with workers from Val-d'Or in my riding, about ten of them who went west under the previous administration. They stayed there because they have jobs.
This decision flows from lengthy discussions the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had with spokesmen for sector organizations and major companies who gave the assurance that savings resulting from the abolition of the PGRT will be re-invested in the industry.
Madam Speaker, this amendment will guarantee a fairer tax treatment for quite a number of smaller oil and gas companies which depend on royalties and which were unable to take full advantage of the recent tax credit increase available to them under the provisions of the PGRT legislation. This assistance attests to the leading role played by these companies with respect to development and job creation in certain industries throughout the country.
The Government has repaired the damage done by the national program established in 1980. Madam Speaker, wherever we may come from, including my vast riding of Abitibi, we all know that gas prices have been going up and down like a roller coaster, prices have always been going up and down since the early days of this country, just like a roller coaster.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments? Resuming debate.


Raymond Garneau: Madam
Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to this Bill, but 1 wonder who wrote the speech for the Hon. Member for Abitibi (Mr. St. Julien). It seems to me he should have checked his notes, which may have been prepared by others, before saying what he did. Basically, what the Hon. Member for Abitibi told us is that his constituents did not get any benefit from the national energy policy.
Madam Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Hon. Member for Abitibi what would have happened during the years 1982-8384 if there had been no national energy policy that made it possible for his constituents, and Canadians across this country, to pay far less for their heating oil than they would have if the market to which he referred had been completely free. We all know, Madam Speaker, that in the North, the price of energy, especially during the winter, has a major impact on the purchasing power of the taxpayer and represents a major expense for the family budget. If the national energy policy had not been in place for several years, Canadians, and especially Canadians in Eastern Canada and the Canadian North who have to spend a substantial part of their budget on energy for heating purposes, would have been in a very tight spot.
1 160

November 6, 1986
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
I am surprised that the Hon. Member Tor Abitibi, usually a diligent defender of the interests of his region, took this position in the House today.
Madam Speaker, the national energy policy was a series of measures. Today, we are talking about eliminating the petroleum and gas revenue tax, but this should be seen in its proper context. It was part of a whole. The national energy policy made it possible to promote Canadianization. Without this program, we would never have had so many Canadian enterprises getting involved in petroleum and gas exploration and development. Without our national energy policy, we would not have been able to spend the substantial amounts that were spent on petroleum exploration in the North and in our northern seas. Without the national energy policy and the assistance given energy development, we would never have been able to carry out oil and gas exploration in the East, especially in Newfoundland and other parts of the Atlantic region.
Ever since the Conservative Government, to all intents and purposes, eliminated the national energy policy, drilling rigs operating in the Maritimes have virtually disappeared. A few weeks ago 1 was in Halifax to deliver a speech and 1 put some questions to observers and journalists. It seems there is only one drilling platform left in Halifax harbour and it too is about to disappear.
Madam Speaker, another sector to which the Hon. Member for Abitibi did not refer and which has to be tied in with the national energy policy is the fact that the previous administration made a concerted effort to promote a home insulation program which was part of Canada's overall energy policy. In a recent address in Montreal even the present Minister openly admitted that the home insulation effort which was part of the national energy policy now accounts for an annual saving of 17 million barrels. Talk about a saving! This was made possible through the national energy policy.
Madam Speaker, if we were to consider this policy as a whole and prevailing conditions when it was implemented-oil prices were skyrocketing and most observers felt the price of a barrel of oil would go as high as $56 or $60-1 think it was normal that a self-respecting Government would intervene and not let multinationals alone set and regulate not only prices but also the over-all economic development policy as well as the canadianization of this industry, most of which was essential to us. These are some of the very significant achievements made through the national energy policy.
So now we have a Conservative Government in office, and they tell us that the only thing that really works is the marketplace.
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask you who creates the market for petroleum products in Canada right now? Is the price set by the Canadian companies? By the Government? By the producers, the smaller oil companies? Certainly not. All policies and prices are determined by a group of ministers from
what is called OPEC, who meet in Geneva and say that the price will increase or decrease.
The roller coaster mentioned by the Hon. Member for Abitibi (Mr. St. Julien) is not the effect of a well-balanced market, it is a monopoly controlled by a small group.
For my part, I have always said in this House, and 1 am still saying today, that if there is an efficient market, if a large number of producers and consumers are in competition each in their own sector and a fair price is set by producers who are not being forced to sell and buyers who are not being forced to buy, this is what a fair market should be.
However, this is certainly not the case here. That is not what is happening. Ten or fifteen Ministers from OPEC meet and decide that the price will go up or down. Now, our own Government says: As Canadians, we accept that. We have had enough of policies, of prices for consumers, of oil exploration, we are no longer going to bother with all that, we are getting rid of all those instruments.
We shall let the Kuwait Emir, the Arab Sheik, and so on, have their OPEC meetings and set the prices for Canadians. That is so true that this Government has neither the courage nor the political will to influence the decisions of its own Crown corporation, Petro-Canada.
I had some questions today for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), and in his absence, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) replied for him. Why is it that, in a situation where the market is for all practical purposes non-existent in my opinion, our national corporation Petro-Canada has decided to increase the price of gasoline in Quebec by 2 cents a litre even though the price was already higher in Quebec than in other regions of Canada?
The Conservative Government was more than ready to take the credit through its backbenchers for preventing a 2 cents increase in the postal rates. Imagine! At least, that is what the Conservatives said, but the Minister himself stated the same day that, rather than taking effect now, the increase would take place at the end of March. However, that is not the object of my argument. The fact is that we were told that the Conservative caucus could reverse the decision of a Minister to support the plans of a Crown corporation called Canada Post. It seems that the caucus blocked or at least postponed a 2 cents increase in the postal rates.
Yet, at the same time, another Crown corporation, Petro-Canada, is increasing the price of gasoline by 2 cents a litre in the province of Quebec, but this same Conservative caucus says that nothing can be done. These two Crown corporations belong to the same Government, are owned by Canada; in one case, the price increase for postal stamps is being blocked; in the other case, they say: If there has been collusion between the various companies, let the Hon. Member say so, and I will investigate.
November 6, 1986

However, I am not asking him to investigate, but to make a decision as a shareholder and to tell Petro-Canada, as a Crown corporation: You are not going to get in on this game, you are not going to follow the movement initiated by Ultramar and increase gas prices in Quebec. We are in a situation where we, as Canadians, have no longer any leverage or say in the area of energy. They abolished everything and now they are bragging . .. Madam Speaker, they have the gall to tell us that by getting rid of the PGRT, they are fulfilling an election issue promise.
Madam Speaker, when the prices for crude oil reached $27, then $28, and finally $30 a barrel in Canadian currency, this brought the Canadian Government over $1 billion in revenues. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said: No, we are not going to cut that. But when the price of a barrel of oil went down, the Minister of Finance realized that he would be losing over $150 million in revenues and said: We are going to get rid of it and fulfil our election promise. The only reason this Government is acting now is because the revenues are no longer there; since there are not getting anything anymore, they say: We are going to get rid of the PGRT, short for Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax.
Madam Speaker, this is really laughing at Canadian producers.
I say to this Government: If we want to help Western producers ... As a consumer from Eastern Canada, I have always maintained, both during and after the election, that the National Energy Policy had a built in adjusting factor. It could work both ways. When the prices were as high as $40 a barrel, the purpose of the National Energy Policy was to reduce slightly the profit margins of multinationals and offer Canadian consumers more equitable prices. But this factor had to play correctly. Now, the Conservatives have destroyed that mechanism so that it can no longer benefit Western producers. They are getting rid of the PGRT. When it brought in a $1 billion, they did not touch it; now they say it is going to cost $150 million. Who will benefit from that? Multinationals will to a great extent. And what is going to happen to small producers, to Canadian producers who took great financial risks? What is going to be done for them? Zilch, or just about! I maintain that if the national energy policy had been allowed to play the role it was supposed to play, today we could have used that policy to provide assistance to producers other than the multinationals or to producers with a daily production of so many barrels, so that at least those Canadian producers who responded to the appeal of the people of this country and the national energy policy, and who took the concept of Canadian-ization seriously, could be helped today. Now, what did we on this side of the House have to say about that? We must have a national energy policy that can cope fairly and flexibly with rising and falling prices. We cannot expect Western producers to let us take the icing off the cake when prices are high and expect them to take care of themselves when prices drop. What did our party have to say about this? We suggested that the
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
Government should have an energy policy that would guarantee Western producers-I am not referring to the multinationals but to the other producers who contributed to Canadianiza-tion-a minimum price for the period when the price of oil declines. That, I think, would have been fair to Western Canada. It would have been fair to Western producers, and especially to companies that rank as average and small producers.
However, this Government believes that our Canadian economy and the price of our petroleum products should be regulated from Geneva or Bern or the countries where OPEC holds its meetings. This Government has washed its hands of the whole situation. It has eliminated every instrument for intervention, so that Western producers are now at the mercy of decisions made by Arab sheiks or other members of OPEC, and the Canadian Government could not care less. What is particularly outrageous is, that while proposing that these measures should be eliminated, this Government is setting itself up as the saviour of the petroleum and gas industry in this country. Mr. Speaker, in a few years we shall see what the Conservative Government's lack of policies in this area will have done to Canadianization. This Government will be responsible for the fact that many of our Canadian producers will have to sell their oil reserves to the multinationals. It will be the only way to get out of this situation because the multinationals have cornered the refinery and delivery markets, and they stand to make huge profits right there. Sure enough, hardly a few days ago the profits reported by refineries and dealers in this market made headlines in the newspapers. They exact inflated prices from consumers, laugh all the way to the bank, but they simply will not pay Canadian producers a fair price for their products. If we had a Government which would stand up to them and not be afraid to step in when the long-term interest of Canadians is involved, we could have had this kind of measures. I simply cannot understand how western Conservative Members can make speeches such as we have heard when we know that the impact of the national energy policy has been the more encouraging of two trends which the Hon. Member for Abitibi (Mr. St. Julien) described earlier in his reference to a roller coaster ride. When prices went down they sidetracked the train so that we can no longer help these producers. One thing for sure, Madam Speaker, is that when there is nothing, not even a sound program to help the oil industry-especially Canadian producers-get through the doldrums, no-one can object if the Government should hand out a few goodies, which just about sums up this Bill. So how can we really oppose this minimum hand-out! However I must emphasize as strongly as I can that, by doing away with any Canadian energy policy related to the development of an extremely important natural resource which is vital to Canada, in the long run this Government will have done serious harm to the Canadian economy.

November 6, 1986
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I am absolutely amazed at some of the comments made by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). I take it that he was not in the House-and he should have found this out-when Alberta was shipping oil to eastern Canada, not at the world price but at a low price. The people of Alberta gave up at least $5 billion in doing that. If we could have charged the world price then we would not have needed any help from anyone else, not the producers or the Government.
If that were not enough, when we exported our oil they slapped on another tax bringing millions of dollars into the federal Treasury. Surely some of that money should now be given back to the people of Alberta who gave up so much- who shared, as the Hon. Marc Lalonde used to say, with other Canadians. How about sharing the other way? The Government of the day took millions of dollars from the sale of our oil, money which it would not have had had we not produced that oil. All we are asking for is a fair deal. We are not asking for anything special, just a fair deal. We are not getting one.
The Hon. Member suggested that the National Energy Program helped Alberta. It ruined Alberta, and it was intended to do so. Hundreds of our workers had to leave the country. With them went our drilling rigs and our expertise. I remember that the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) brought in a picture showing rigs lined up trying to get across the border because they could not stand it in Alberta any longer. We drove them out. The Liberal Government, with its National Energy policy, impoverished Alberta. I am simply amazed when I hear the Hon. Member talking about giving the producers a better price. If they had the proper price before and had not been taxed to death by the Liberals, then they would not need any help right now. They would be financially sound.


Raymond Garneau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has understood nothing in what I have said. In fact, the Hon. Member is partly right, but now that these $5 billion could have been returned to the West thanks to a national energy policy, you have abolished this policy. What instruments does the Government have now to help those producers? None. This particular oil crisis has developed since his Government was elected. Before, I was in the private sector. The Hon. Member says that there were no investments. Yet, Eastern investors rushed to finance the various projects. The big banks were putting up buildings in the West. Everyone was trying to invest.
What I was saying in my speech is exactly what the Hon. Member would have liked to see when we skimmed the cream off the top, because the prices were high, to distribute this wealth throughout the country and set lower prices for consumers.
What 1 am saying now is that this money should be returned to the West. But how can we do that? With what policy? You have destroyed the national energy policy! The funny thing is that the Conservatives are criticizing the national energy policy and destroying it at the very time when it could have played in their favour. What can I say? We have to be fair, and since we used the policy to benefit Eastern Canada, that is Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes, when the prices were high, we should have been able to reverse this policy when the prices went down. But now there is nothing. We have to ask the provincial Governments to reduce their royalties. The PGRT has been abolished when it no longer brings in any revenue for the Government, and once more, who will benefit? It will be the multinationals, not the smaller producers.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, as my colleague for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) said, perhaps we had well-prepared notes, but mine were personal notes and 1 was reluctant to them on to the page earlier because they were very poorly written and the Government would not have been able to read them. But any way, what I intended to say on that subject is, that it is easy to take notes because we have a good Government.
But as suggested earlier by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides, we will see in a few years from now the results of our Government's efforts as shown by this legislation.
The two questions I would like to raise with him are as follows. He referred to oil. I for one remember that in the East end of Montreal, when Ultramar was closed down despite union efforts to keep the plant open, 1 very well remember that under the previous Government a few years ago, grants were given to oil consumers. Many people in the East end of Montreal, and I know what I am talking about, because I was attending the College Roussin and I knew that this college had oil heating, converted to electricity. This is what caused those refineries to shut down. Those refineries were closed under the previous Government of course. This all started in 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, and kept going on.
I would like to ask him this question: Why did the refinery shutdowns start in 1981 in the East end of Montreal?
Here is the second point I would like to raise: when speaking of take-overs, what comes to mind is Petro-Canada first and foremost. And speaking of Petro-Canada, no Member in this House, not even the Member for Laval-des-Rapides can gain access to the previous Cabinet's confidential notes on the purchase of Petro-Canada. We would very much like to know who pocketed the profits, who was involved in the discussions. These are the two points I wanted to raise with him, and on which I would like to have his comments.


Raymond Garneau: Madam Speaker, one has to be really confused to come up with a question such as the one the Hon. Member for Abitibi (Mr. St. Julien) has just asked.
November 6, 1986

The national energy policy has had an extremely beneficial impact in his region. His was probably one of the regions most victimized by soaring gas and heating oil prices, remote as it is from major urban centres.
Imagine, the Hon. Member for Abitibi is pleased as Punch and tells us in his remarks: I come from a region where untapped natural resources are plentiful and I am very glad to see that the national energy policy is to be shelved, because this will be good for exploration.
Madam Speaker, today the Hon. Member for Abitibi urges the Government to scrap the whole thing-more than that, he is glad the Government does not intervene-yet the other day he made a speech in which he stated that the same Government had to step in to maintain flow through shares. That is Government interference on the market place!
The Hon. Member for Abitibi cannot have it both ways. If the Government does not intervene at all, then the Hon. member is in favour of abolishing flow through shares, because this is one way the Government can give money, as was done through the national energy policy, taking money with one hand and giving it with the other. He has to be logical.
Madam Speaker, with respect to the Canadian policy concerning home insulation and the switch to electricity or natural gas, these are two measures which were implemented.
I read the speech of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resosurces, and he was pleased about that. He said it had been a good thing because it made it possible to save a nonrenewable energy, oil and gas, by using instead a renewable energy, electrical power.
Well, the Hon. Member must at least try to be logical in his train of thought.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, I am absolutely delighted to speak on Bill C-17 because it finally marks the death of the PGRT and the National Energy Program. Finally we in the West are feeling a sense of justice, albeit very late. We are in deep trouble now, but a piece of legislation that was most unjust is being taken off our backs.
It was not only the PGRT that affected us so badly. I suspect that even most western Canadian Members forget that there were some five or six taxes imposed on the industry including the natural gas and gas liquids tax, the Canadian-ownership charge, the petroleum compensation charge and the incremental oil revenue tax. A whole series of taxes were imposed on an industry which was located in one region of Canada, a region from which there were no elected Members in the governing Party. That was most unjust.
At this time 1 feel it is appropriate for me as a Member from Alberta who lived through that period of time to express my deep personal appreciation for Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament from Ontario who, in those three years, voted directly against the position of the Ontario
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
Conservative Party, at least three times of which 1 am aware. They did this because they knew that the National Energy Program was not right for Canada. They knew it was inherently unfair and they voted against it even though the Liberal Government of the day described the program as being in the best interests of the consumers of central Canada. It was a deliberate, open attack on one region of Canada for the benefit of another region. It took three years for Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament from Ontario to get the people of Ontario as well as the people of Quebec and Atlantic Canada to finally realize that the program was unfair, unjust and not in their best interests either. I express without any hesitation my thanks to those Hon. Members.
What was the National Energy Program? History will show it to be the meanest attack on a region that has ever occurred in the history of Canada. It was a tax imposed on only one source of energy. There would have been no kicking and shouting from the West if the tax had been imposed on hydroelectricity and on energy across the entire country. It is fair and legitimate for a central Government to raise money but it should not raise money in an unfair way. Of course, we knew that there would never be a tax imposed on hydro-electric power because it is produced in Ontario and Quebec, provinces represented by then governing Liberal Members. That is why the National Energy Program was so wrong.
With great respect to my friend, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), I believe he was thinking of another figure when he said that $5 billion was drained out of western Canada. That $5 billion was drained out in a different way. These taxes drained over $60 billion out of western Canada. That figure is just incredible. The reason for this was to block British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and to a lesser extent, Manitoba from receiving the full difference between the world price of oil and the cost of producing relatively cheap western sedimentary crude. All of the difference was taxed away to Ottawa. It was a deliberate plan, as Marc Lalonde acknowledged, to prevent those provinces from becoming too rich as compared to the federal treasury.
The Alberta Heritage Trust Fund should contain at least $30 billion to $40 billion rather than the $10 billion to $14 billion it now contains. If the province and the owners of the resources had that money, Alberta would not be in trouble today. It would not have to turn to the rest of the country for help.
The PGRT hurt the oil companies. I can remember hearing Mr. Lalonde say in the House that we had to get the multinational corporations. That kind of statement always triggers an ideological response from members of the NDP who say: "Right-o, anything anti-American is fine, let's go after them". But it was not those six or seven multinational corporations that were hurt, it was the over 600 small Canadian oil and gas producers and the service industry composed of the people who do seismic work and the servicing of wells. Those are the ones who went broke by the tens of thousands in western Canada.

November 6, 1986
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
I have spoken to men and women who were 50 years of age and had gone into the oil industry at the age of 18 or 19. These people usually started out working for multinationals and then hived off by creating their own Canadian corporations. They built them up until they were worth $500,000 or $1 million and then they lost everything. The hatred that was directed toward central Canada is something I hope we will never experience again. The fires of separatism were fanned dramatically by this action. I can remember walking out of this House on occasion thinking that 1 should go home and devote the rest of my life to separatism. I felt that way because the actions of the Government were wrong. They were unfair. The only thing that kept a great number of us from doing that was the fact that a letter would be received from someone in Ontario, Atlantic Canada, or Quebec, saying that they agree it is unfair and will put pressure on our Members of Parliament. They did. That is why the Liberal Party was voted out of power as much as anything else. The people realized that it was truly an unfair attack.
I hope the Members of the House will get on side. The solution is simply an elected Senate which is weighted to the regions of this country. In this lower House represented by population it will be dominated by Ontario and Quebec because that is where the population is. That is a principle for which many of our ancestors fought and died. We need to have a balance to that, and that can be in the upper House. It should be weighted to the provinces; it should be elected, therefore, they are responsible. One of the deepest hurts I personally experienced was in watching the Alberta Senators appointed by the Liberal Prime Minister vote for the National Energy Program. It was an actual attack on their own region. That hurtful action which caused a great deal of pain to many people.
The National Energy Program was a whole new economic policy vis-a-vis energy. Before the National Energy Program the companies drilled for oil where their seismic and geological experts told them they would find oil. Under the tax system if they found oil and had revenue they would be able to deduct the cost of searching for that oil from whatever profits they had. Therefore, you drilled where you thought there would be oil, depending on your experts. After the National Energy Program it did not matter where oil might be found. You drilled based on a region of the country chosen by bureaucrats in Ottawa, and based on Canadian ownership. People literally drilled wells in regions where they knew there was no oil because of the way it was structured. It will always be that way when you take power and have people sitting in Ottawa trying to comprehend an industry. They were actually getting more than the cost of the well, because they could set up subsidiary corporations and have them supply goods and services. They would end up making 130 per cent or 140 per cent for drilling a well. They were not drilling for oil at all, they were drilling for the Government PIP grant, the Petroleum Incentives Program.
It also was centralization of ownership. Another branch was Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada could not make it in the oil industry and the Government had to ensure that it did make it, so year after year the taxpayers had to pump $400 million and $500 million into Petro-Canada. It spent it all around the world, but that was not enough, so the Government had to come back and give it a back-in. We had to give Petro-Canada the right to expropriate 25 per cent of the oil and gas that had been found by Canadian corporations. People bought shares, went out and did the work, would find oil and gas, and then Petro-Canada would come in and take 25 per cent off the top. It was an incredible program, but that is what it amounted to.
Over-all Canada was hurt by the National Energy Program. It is a tragedy that during those prior years enough money could have been built up in the provinces and the companies to see themselves through this time now when they are hurting because of a decline in world prices. Had we let them accumulate that money at that point it could be used now, rather than having to come hat in hand, down on their knees. Nobody in this country likes to come to another part of the country, get down on their knees, and beg for some help. That is not the way this country should be structured. That is why support for separatism in the West rose dramatically.
Canada does have serious problems. During that same period the Government of the day did the traditional trick of Governments, particularly socialist type Governments. It offered people all sorts of programs, kept a low tax, and built up a deficit and a national debt. Over-all Canada still is a land of opportunity, a land where millions of people want to come. Our population is educated. There is a political system that does respond. The lesson of the National Energy Program for me is that Parliament does respond, and the Canadian people do respond. They threw out the Liberal Government and put in a new Government. That is the strength of this country. We do have a stable political climate. We also have independent and ambitious people. We are tolerant and generous. We can be proud to be Canadians because the nation came through. I hope these values will be retained.
My greatest fear is that people will once again succumb to the blandishments of a Government that wants to centralize things. I always point to the NDP because they make no bones about it, they stand for a strong central Government that will take power. They say to people: "Vote for us and we will look after you". I know from my study of history, and talking to constituents, particularly those who come from the eastern European countries, that you can get sucked in by those votes. Once the Government takes over one area it has to take over another area, then another area. The laws then become more and more repressive. People lose their freedoms. That is why I hope people in Canada will retain their independence. When they have their independence they can snap their fingers at Governments. If they have $500,000 of capital gains property they do not need to turn to the Government and be caught by that old age penchant, if they do not obey this Government then the Government will cut down their revenues. They need not come with their hats in their hands and beg to anybody. They can say "we are independent".
November 6, 1986


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: Those were truly wonderful days. 1 can remember those bells ringing for days. That was a very aggressive act in a parliamentary democracy. Many of us wondered if it was the right thing to do. In fact, it was the right thing to do, because history has shown us to be correct. The Canadian people in central Canada, Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada did not find it to be a fair policy that attacked one region. 1 am delighted to be a Canadian. 1 am delighted to rise in this House and see the end of the PGRT.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, 1 could not help but note the suggestion by the Hon. Member that, unlike the former Liberal Government which always favoured central Canada- meaning Ontario and Quebec-this Government was fair to all regions. The Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) would not get much sympathy or support from the people of Manitoba who believe that for political reasons the CF-18 contract went to Montreal instead of to Winnipeg where the company submitted the lowest and best tender.
1 wish to ask the Hon. Member some questions. The Member is happy that the NEP has gone, and the PGRT taxes will be gone, and the other taxes. When those taxes were put into effect the price of oil was close to $30 a barrel. 1 ask the Hon. Member what is wrong with a Government trying to get what it considers to be a fair share of the profits? It was not just the federal Government, but the federal Government, the NDP Government of Saskatchewan, the Conservative Government of Alberta and, to a lesser extent, the Social Credit Government of British Columbia, all of which were trying to get what they considered to be a fair share of the huge profits that were being made. I do not see anything wrong with that. It is ludicrous to compare that objective by all the Governments with the failure of the federal Government to tax the hydroelectric systems of Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. Those were the three that the Hon. Member mentioned. Those are publicly-owned systems which provide power. Their instructions from their Governments-not a socialist Government in Ontario, it was a Conservative Government that started Ontario Hydro-under which they operate were to provide power at cost to the people they serve. To tax them would be to add cost to all the people who use electric power in those provinces.
When we talked about taxing the oil and gas industry, whether it be federal or provincial, we were talking about industries, with the exception of Petro-Canada, which were privately owned and making huge profits. 1 remind the Hon. Member that the price in the early 1980s was somewhere between $25 and $30 U.S. per barrel of oil. At that time all Governments-the federal, the Conservative Government of Alberta, and the NDP Government of Saskatchewan-
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
believed that the price of oil would go up every year until it hit $60 or $70 per barrel. This is why they were trying to get some of the profits for their needs. What is wrong with Governments trying to get a share of the profits?
1 have another question for the Hon. Member. He is happy that the Government is taking its hands out of the energy industry and letting it operate according to the market. I come from the consuming Province of Manitoba. Our people buy large quantities of natural gas. Does the Hon. Member support the idea that natural gas produced in Alberta, and probably in British Columbia, will be sold to customers in the United States at a lower price than it will be sold or is sold to Canadian consumers in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and probably Quebec?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, with regard to the profits tax, of course as the price of oil went up Governments at all levels shared in it under the system before the National Energy Program. Provincial Governments shared in the sense that land rents went up and in the sense that their royalties went up. Both the federal and provincial Governments shared by way of sales taxes and other direct taxes, because as the price went up oil companies searched for more oil and bought more trucks and cars. They also shared in the income taxes, federally and provincially. When we deduct all those extra taxes, there were not any real windfall profits.
I should like to refer to the second principle of self-sufficiency, which is even more important. Does the Hon. Member know that we are on the edge of the production of conventional crude that it will go down geometrically? I am sure the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) knows that the amount of oil we can produce from western sedimentary basins will drop precipitously. We needed the extra price rise in order to bring on tar sands plants.
1 can remember the Alberta Government issuing a guarantee to the rest of the country that if it were given world prices, enough synthetic plants would be on stream so that as the conventional dropped, the synthetic would go up and Canada would be self-sufficient.
The National Energy Program taxed away that money. It allegedly distributed it in PIP grants, but as I explained earlier, PIP grants were not finding oil. Thus we run into the problem where conventional is now dropping and we do not have synthetic coming on stream. Self-sufficiency for Canada is truly a problem with which we in Parliament will have to deal. It is much more serious than people realize.
With regard to natural gas to the U.S.A., a home in California at the burner tip will not be facing a cheaper price because transportation is a bigger cost. Some buyers in the United States may be able to get one cent or two cents off per thousand cubic feet because they guarantee to take a huge volume for a set period of time. That would be available in western Canada if some distributor wanted to do it.

November 6, 1986
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I have another question. The Hon. Member and members of his Party have spoken frequently about getting the Government out of the energy industry and letting the free market work. Given the world price of oil, have not all private energy companies in the United States, in Canada, and in other countries cut back drastically on exploration? One cannot blame them. They are in business to make a profit, and there is certainly no profit to be made with the present world price of oil.
If we want to start planning for the time when conventional sources of oil about which he talked are gone, and if we want to start developing new sources in offshore Atlantic, in the Beaufort, or in the tar sands, will the Hon. Member not face up to the fact that the free enterprise system is not working and will not work? Will he not face up to the fact that it will take Government support, possibly in the form of a floor price, for companies to have enough cash with which to operate? If the Hon. Member and his Party think that the free enterprise system works well when the economy is growing-and I question that-will they not face up to the fact that when the economy is in the doldrums, as is the case in the energy industry at the present time, it takes Government planning and support to get the industry to do what is needed?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that the Government will have to play a role in that regard. Our Party has never shied away from that historically, whether it was CPR, Air Canada or whatever. We see a role for Government, but the National Energy Program was not the mechanism. It was fundamentally flawed from the start. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is now trying to come up with a sensible program, but we will still retain those market principles so that we have the necessary flexibility. Whenever we let Government in, we lose flexibility.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


An Hon. Member:: Question.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I was under the impression that the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) was to rise. Those were the instructions 1 was given. I am sorry to see that some people-


Philip Derek Lewis: He is going to speak.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Either we have an agreement here and the Hon. Member for Edmonton South will speak or he will not. If not, I will speak.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I should explain the jack-in-the-box routine. When I saw Your Honour on her feet, of course 1 sat down.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to intervene, however briefly, in this debate. As was said earlier this afternoon, today we are observing the wake of a late but not lamented tax.
I should say one or two things about the situation in Alberta as it stands today. The result of the National Energy Program and the compounding effect of the plummeting world price of oil are resulting today in over 50,000 people being unemployed
in the oil and natural gas field in the Province of Alberta. As a result of the implementation of the Western Accord in the spring of 1985, it is true that 1985 was a banner year in the field of oil and gas in the Province of Alberta. It was an example of the kind of instant recovery which such an industry can stage given the proper tax environment.
When the world price of oil plummeted at the end of 1985 and the beginning of 1986, it was clear that the last vestige of the National Energy Program, the PGRT, would have to go.
Alberta Members of Parliament were assiduous in their campaign to have the tax removed, and of course we had support from all corners of Alberta society. They had support from the workers, the individual entrepreneurs who serviced the rigs and the hotel keepers who had to board up their hotels with the fading of activity in the oil patch. Those of us who spent the summer in our ridings heard stories of tragedy, of opportunities lost, of families destroyed and of people whose ancestors had come to this country as immigrants and had, in the second and third generation, hoped to build up old money, some kind of capital vestige with which other parts of Canada are familiar. All those opportunities were lost.
It is estimated that approximately $95 billion of potential investment capital was driven or sucked out of Alberta during the life of the National Energy Program. I would like to indicate what kind of lost opportunity that represents.
Speakers during this debate have referred to the situation in Manitoba. Those who are familiar with Manitoba history will be aware that the grain fortunes which were made in the early part of this century were readily convertible during the depression of the 1930s into the insurance industry. That opportunity was lost in Alberta because that $95 billion was not available for reinvestment and diversification.
I am proud of Albertans. 1 am happy that we saw evidence last summer and this fall of their resilience and determination to recover. There are those who say that the removal of the PGRT has been long in coming. However, thank God it has finally arrived. This is a banner day in the history of Canada and Alberta. I mention Canada because 1 have never seen such genuine understanding of the situation in Alberta as 1 have seen in Members of Parliament from the Government Party and in the odd one from the Parties opposite. They have recognized the interrelationship of the petroleum and natural gas industry of Alberta with industries elsewhere. There is a causal connection between the diminishment of activity in the oil sands plants in the Fort McMurray area and the shutdown of steel mills in Sault Ste. Marie. I am very proud of the 30 or 40 Members of Parliament from central Canada who took it upon themselves, on their own time and at their expense, to go to western Canada to see the facts for themselves. I congratulate them for their statesmanship and wisdom in supporting the removal of the National Energy Program and, in particular, the PGRT.
November 6, 1986

In conclusion, I would like to say something about the Alberta Heritage Trust Fund. There are those who ask why Alberta is not addressing this situation. There are two major reasons for that. One is that the Alberta economy is so devastated the Alberta treasury does not have the capability to respond in full. The budget deficit projected by the Alberta Government for the current fiscal year is $2.5 billion and it could go considerably higher.
Beyond that there is the issue of the Alberta Heritage Trust Fund. That fund has a liquidity of only about 18 to 20 per cent of its total value. It is true that it has deemed book assets of $13.5 billion to $14 billion, but that money is invested in hospitals, medical research and outside of the Province of Alberta in what I would submit is the Quebec heritage saving trust fund, Quebec Hydro, and the Ontario heritage trust fund, Ontario Hydro, and in similar low-cost loans to provincial Crown corporations and provincial Governments across the country. I think that is an excellent example of Canadian cooperation from coast to coast.
The death of the PGRT signals the happy salutory abandonment for once, and I hope for all, of an intrusion by the federal Government into matters which are totally of provincial jurisdiction. The ownership of a resource in the country, as defined in our Confederation pact, is with the province. For another jurisdiction to tax a provincial resource is heinous, wrong and a betrayal of Confederation. That betrayal is being rectified today.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to direct three questions to the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards). Around 1980 the industry was buoyant and the price of oil was around $30 a barrel. The Member said that $95 billion in revenues was given up. Is the Member suggesting that if the oil companies had been able to keep a large part of that money they would now be involved in major exploration with the world price of oil as low as it is? If he really believes that, would he explain why in the United States, which has never had a National Energy Policy and which, since 1980, has had the most conservative president it has had in the last 50 years, the oil companies which also operate in Canada have cut back on exploration as sharply as they have in Canada?
Finally, does the Member really oppose Government involvement in the energy industry? if he does, we can say goodbye to cxloration off the Atlantic Coast and in the Beaufort Sea. The Conservative Governments of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia would be very interested to know whether it is the view of the federal Conservative Government that, when the price of oil is so low that the private sector has opted out, the Government of Canada should not, through tax policies or subsidies, help maintain the exploration and development of the energy we will need in the future?
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, as always, I appreciate the very pointed questions of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). In response to his first question with regard to oil company profits, the issue here is not profits. However, I will say something about the reinvestment record of the oil industry in western Canada. I speak of the western sedimentary basin rather than nonconventional sources such as the oil sands, heavy oil, or the offshore. The record of the industry in that area is remarkably positive. It has varied over the last six years from'85 per cent of profits to as high as 110 per cent in certain years. It is not a question of putting money into the hands of the oil companies. It is, rather, an issue of $90 billion made up of $60 billion in subsidizing low-cost Canadian gasoline and another $30 billion differential between what Ottawa collected during the dying days of the Liberal regime and what it reinvested in Alberta. We are now talking about an issue of justice within Confederation.

Justice with respect to oil products, jurisdiction, the economy and employment-

We are indeed talking about Government involvement in the energy industry. I am happy to be able to say that Government involvement in the conventional energy industry in this country is not justifiable from the point of view of imposing federal taxes on a provincial resource. That is what is at issue here today.
If we examine the offshore, the oil sands and heavy oil, and if energy self-sufficiency and security of supply are the goals, of course there will have to be investment. However, let that be private investment and let us not add inordinately to our deficit by more state intervention and control.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I urge the Hon. Member to explain why the major oil companies have cut back such that there is virtually no exploration going on in the U.S. They have cut back exploration everywhere. Yet they were not harmed, hobbled or hindered, as the Hon. Member for Lethbridge- Foothills who thinks everyone to the left of Genghis Khan is a socialist, said, by a Liberal Government in the U.S. Therefore, why have they cut back so drastically?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, it is some hobbling when 472 rigs go south from Alberta to Montana, Wyoming and Colorado. It is some hobbling when they go down to Oklahoma and Texas. If that is hobbling in an unfettered environment, why in heaven's name did those rigs make the journey south at a cost of about $75,000 each?

November 6, 1986
Petroleum anil Gas Revenue Tax Act


David Orlikow: I ask the Hon. Member if he will join me in the parliamentary library. We can look through a recent issue of The New York Times and we will see a picture taken in a Texas field where hundreds of rigs are sitting rusting away. They will soon be scrapped. I am not talking about 1981 or 1982 when they moved from Alberta to the U.S. They are not operating now because there is no profit. Why would the energy companies be exploring in Canada now when the price is as low here as it is in the U.S. and they cannot see a profit in the foreseeable future?
Conservative Members of Parliament have to stop blaming the NEP and recognize that the world price, which was high then and is low now, plays a very important role in what these companies, private or public, will do.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has posed an interesting implicit question in his overt question. The only conclusion I can come to is that he appears to be in favour of leaving the PGRT in place. Coming from a Member from western Canada as he is, I can only put it down to ideological integrity on his part. I would never accuse him of anything else knowing and respecting his political stripe. However, to suggest that it would be wise to continue to inflict a front end revenue tax on companies owned by Canadians struggling to stay alive, many of them the backbone of the economy of Alberta, Saskatchewan and southwestern Manitoba, is irresponsible. It is also a suggestion which the electorate of western Canada would be most interested in knowing about.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member can check Hansard and he will not find where I said one word indicating that I am opposed to getting rid of the PGRT. What I am putting to him is that he should give serious consideration to the fact that, if we are to have an assured supply and energy sufficiency, given the low price of energy now, the only way we will get it is if the industry and Governments work together. Governments have to provide a tax system or floor price or some method by which the energy companies can operate rather than closing down and dying. That is something the Conservatives have never wanted to think about.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I would be most happy to check Hansard to see the Hon. Member's record. 1 will also be watching with great relish how he votes.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, I am aware of the agreement to complete consideration of this stage of the Bill by six o'clock and I will speak briefly.
This Bill before us, C-17, removes the PGRT of 1980. The tax was part of the NEP and one has to look at it in the context of related Bills dealing with things such as PIP grants and the Crown share. At the time this legislation was introduced energy prices were high. This was a tax on the net operating revenue of oil and gas producers after their operating costs were deducted. Through this controversial wellhead tax the federal Government sought a share of oil and gas revenues. Indeed, its share was considerable. The PGRT
collected large sums of money for the federal Treasury, about $6.6 billion in the period 1983-1985. For 1985 alone the figure was $2.5 billion. These funds were utilized for programs such as energy conservation, oil substitution, renewable energy, alternative fuels, and construction of natural gas pipelines. These initiatives were all designed to reduce Canada's dependance on oil. Indeed, the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) commented on the success of Canada's conservation programs. He said the amount of insulation installed in Canada over the last six years has given rise in 1986 to energy savings equal to approximately 17 million barrels of oil.
Since then the world has changed. The price of energy has collapsed. As well, the Government cancelled most of the renewable energy and alternative energy programs. This is what 1 wish to express concern about. I am in agreement, in a difficult time, with assisting the Alberta oil energy program, but I have concerns about security of supply because that goal seems to have been temporarily lost sight of.
It is popular to blame the Alberta recession solely on the National Energy Program, as did the Member who just spoke. However, we must remember that the oil industry in California and Texas, and countries dependent on oil such as Mexico and Nigeria, have also been pushed to the edge by the tight energy market.
I believe both sides of the House would agree that there is a need to provide assistance to the energy sector at the present time. However, we on this side of the House would have preferred to see the assistance directed to some of the small producers. This Bill is a tax break without strings. Most of those who will benefit from the removal of the petroleum and gas revenue tax will be the large multinationals, at a cost of $1.5 billion to the federal treasury. Admittedly, these multinationals account for 90 per cent of Canada's oil production, 70 per cent of the workforce and 80 per cent of PGRT revenues. However, these are not necessarily the neediest oil companies.
The Senate Energy Committee pointed out that the most distressed producers at the present time 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". If we are thinking in terms of security of supply and in terms of looking to the future when the conventional resources which are now well exploited by the multinationals are depleted, we should be looking to those small Canadian-owned producers. This Bill does nothing to help the very people who we may need most if we have to be concerned about security of supply in the near future.
We would have preferred to see a price stabilization program which would assist the small producers. That is also a proposal which has come from the Senate Energy Committee and, in fact, the Alberta Government.
November 6, 1986

My other concern is that the PGRT is removed without any conditions. The Government tells us that it expects that the companies which benefit will invest this money in the industry, but there are no firm guarantees. We have no assurance that the windfall gained by these large companies will be spent on exploration and development of new sources of oil and natural gas. The industry tells us that it will reinvest savings properly, but what does that mean? There is nothing to stop the multinationals from using their money to buy up struggling Canadian oil firms at low prices, or indeed from making nonenergy investments that will not add one barrel of oil to our dwindling reserves.
I hope that Members opposite, to whom the free market ideology is very important, will remember that we also have to consider very much the question of security of supply. We must look to the future because we are, in fact, very open to manipulation by the OPEC cartel. While the measure before us gives some relief to a prosperous sector of the oil industry, it does nothing for the small Canadian firms who have proved themselves to be more innovative at trying to find new sources. The Bill does not concern itself at all with the goal of selfsufficiency and security of supply. I am sure that Members opposite have the same concerns about this issue and I hope we will see it dealt with soon.
Members of an energy lobby group were warning that Canadians will be at the mercy of oil-producing countries in a very few years unless exploration for our own resources is increased.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, 1 found the speech by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) very interesting, and since we share the same philosophy, that of the Liberal Party, I know we will not object to adopting the second reading stage of this Bill. However, the Government that dismantled this energy policy has failed to replace it with appropriate tools. The Hon. Member mentioned security of supply for Canadians with respect to energy resources. Madam Speaker, both in the course of this debate on Bill C-17 and during the election campaign, we said we would be quite willing to see this policy modified or revised to restore a degree of equity to the way our resources are shared, so that the West does not feel alienated or deprived of its rights.
I would ask the Hon. Member to tell us briefly whether she would be agreeable to an approach that, while eliminating the PGRT, would give serious consideration to establishing a revenue stabilization program which we, as Liberals, would have liked to see the Government set up. Its purpose would be not only to guarantee security of supply for Canadians but also to maintain Canadianization, so that Canadians will have real control over their energy resources and will not, as the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) said earlier, be
Adjournment Debate
at the mercy of an OPEC that controls prices on the international market.
So my question is quite simple: Does she favour price stabilization as opposed to eliminating all these energy programs?


Aideen Nicholson: The answer is simple: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Mr. Hockin, seconded by Mr. Mazankowski, moves 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.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: May I call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.