1986-03-21

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, today I want to read a letter to the House from Mrs. Pagano of St. Leonard sent to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. She is complaining about not receiving mail at her house. She writes:
Am 1 not a taxpaying Canadian? Do 1 belong to a different class of citizen? Why should I be deprived of a service enjoyed by every Canadian? Is it because I put in the extra effort to purchase a new home thereby encouraging the construction industry and helping to create new jobs?
In closing, she says:
Mr. Cote, it has been 21 months since we had the pleasure of opening that mail-box, which we proudly installed on the wall of our very first home and find an envelope in there addressed to "Mr. and Mrs. M. Pagano". I think we have waited long enough!


APARTHEID
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, marking the twenty-first anniversary of the Sharpeville Massacre in South Africa, I bring to the attention of the House and of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) that Petro-Canada is supporting South Africa's racist apartheid regime through its continuing sales of sulphur to South Africa.
I call upon the Minister of Energy to instruct Petro-Canada to halt these sales. Let me point out that the Minister is in receipt of a March 7 letter from the Anti-Apartheid Network of British Columbia enclosing Petro-Canada's response on this issue. Petro-Canada's position is that it is continuing the sulphur sales because there is no Government policy to the contrary.
The irony is that today the Minister of State for Multicul-turalism (Mr. Jelinek) is to announce that his Ministry has been designated as the Government's main tool in the second decade against racism, while another Government agency, to wit, Petro-Canada, is directly profiting from institutionalized racism by continuing to sell sulphur to South Africa.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, a number of regions in Quebec are being severely affected by the acid rain problem. Beauce, the world capital of maple syrup production which I have the honour of representing, is in one of those regions, and the decline of its sugar maple stands is seen as a major problem.
This week the UPA met with Ministers of our Government, together with a number of Members, and I was present at that meeting. They were encouraged by our comments and by the agreement on acid rain concluded by the U.S. and Canadian governments.
Yesterday we also heard that researchers at Laval University in Quebec City have found a way to stop this decline.
Canada's maple bush operators can take hope from the attention being focused on this problem by provincial governments, the federal Government, our universities and all other parties concerned who are seeking a way to correct a problem that is having such a severe impact on this natural resource.
Mr. Speaker, the leaf of the maple tree, of which Beauce is a prime habitat, is Canada's emblem. We will spare no efforts on this side of the House to preserve this national heritage.


TOURISM
Mr. Ken  Janies@Sarnia-Lambton: Mr. Speaker, as you and
other Members of the House are aware, my riding of Sarnia-Lambton has been plagued with extremely negative press. Being known across the country as "the home of the blob" has done little for the country's perception of our home. Yet, once again the community, business, and industry in the Sarnia-Lambton area have banded together to overcome this negativism.
January 29 saw the kick-off of the "Celebrate Sarnia" campaign. The agenda for the upcoming year features numerous and varied activities to promote and attract business and tourists to the Sarnia-Lambton area. The "Celebrate Sarnia" logo is now featured on the letterhead of all mail emanating from City Hall, as well as appearing on the advertising and

March 21, 1986
letterheads of various boards and agencies. Our Lambton College is using the logo as a major marketing tool to attract students to the college. Bumper stickers, balloons, and parades are all in the works.
My riding realizes that the time is long overdue to celebrate, publicize, and enjoy the multitude of positive aspects of our area, and we invite all to help us "Celebrate Sarnia".


CONSERVATIVE PARTY ELECTION PROMISES
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign the Conservative Party made several promises to the Canadian people. As a matter of fact, you will recall that 1 brought 338 such promises to your attention. Today 1 would like to read to you some promises which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made to the youth of Canada.
The Conservative Party promised to create, at the national level, a Canada Opportunity Development Board, and to examine the feasibility of allowing unemployment insurance and welfare benefits to be used as start-up funds for new businesses for our youth. It promised to encourage local youth to organize local youth councils voluntarily, and to supplement the Ministry of State for Youth. The Conservatives promised to create a national registry for exchange of job information for youth, and to place a high priority on the establishment of professional counselling for the youth of Canada. The Prime Minister and the Progressive Conservative Party have betrayed the youth of our country.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: It was with regret that I read this morning that Imperial Oil intends to lay off over 1,200 employees. On numerous occasions the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) have stood in the House and said that the low world oil prices are a temporary condition; yet these people are being laid off on a permanent basis.
I call upon Imperial Oil, which has been making a good profit in the last couple of years, to be a good corporate citizen with regard to the way in which it treats its workers. I also call upon the Government to meet immediately with the company and representatives of the workers to avoid unnecessary layoffs which will not only harm the employment prospects of these people, but will cause an unnecessary financial hardship on the people affected.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, since the election, 577,000 jobs have been created. The unemployment rate was 9.8 per cent in February, compared with 11.7 per cent on election day. In January it was the first time the unemployment rate dropped below 10 per cent since 1982. The rate at which jobs are being created in Canada is higher than in any major OECD country. Comparatively speaking, jobs are being created 75 per cent faster in Canada than in the United States. The number of jobs for young people has increased by 50,000 since the election, compared with a net loss of 285,000 under the Liberals. Today, the number of working women is 306,000 more than it was in September 1984. The number of unemployed has dropped by
1,000	since January and February 1986, and by 204,000 since September 1984, and the employment rate has gone up in all provinces.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Edward Ndlovu, an opposition Member of Parliament in Zimbabwe, is being detained against his will in jail and is gravely ill. In its annual report Amnesty International describes Zimbabwe as a nation in which enforced starvation, widespread detentions, beatings, torture and killings of civilians are the order of the day.
According to his wife, a Toronto woman of a former CUSO worker, Mr. Ndlovu's health is rapidly failing. Mr. Ndlovu's right side, where he received a new kidney in Ottawa in 1978, is becoming numb and requires dialysis treatment which cannot be procured in prison.
As fellow Commonwealth parliamentarians, we in this House must do everything possible to ensure that Mr. Edward Ndlovu is released. Democracy cannot tolerate such abuses.


THE ECONOMY
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I am very enthusiastic about the excellent news heard this morning: the economic growth continues unabated and interest rates are declining.
March 21, 1986

On election day in 1984 the Bank of Canada prime rate was 12.38 per cent, 11.84 the day the 1986 Budget was tabled, and it now stands at 10.11 per cent. The chartered banks' preferential rate was 13 per cent on election day, 13 per cent on Budget day, and 12 per cent today. Residential five-year mortgage loans were at 14.24 per cent when we were elected, 12 per cent on Budget day, and they are now down to 11.5 per cent.
For the first time in many months the deficit is going down. Mr. Speaker, all those indicators show that we are on the right track and that, as promised, the Mulroney Government is living up to its commitments.


KATIMAVIK PROGRAM-SENATOR'S COMMENTS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, of all the youth who appeared at the hearings across Canada, it was the young people trained under the national youth program called Katimavik who made the strongest impression. These young men and women unquestionably displayed the fine qualities of leadership which are so needed in our country at this time. We studied the Katimavik program and came to the conclusion it was a positive and constructive force in Canadian society. The Government should establish a young Canadians' community service program, either by using Katimavik as a model or by giving it the means to expand. It was most unfortunate, therefore, that the Government decided to cancel the Katimavik program a week before the Senate youth report was tabled. I believe the Government should have waited a week for the report before making its announcement to cancel the Katimavik program.
Those are the words of the Progressive Conservative Senator Paul Yuzyk, Deputy Chairman of the special Senate Committee on Youth.
Hinch suggested to one supervisor that he help, he was ignored. At the second stage of Customs only one person was on duty to clear everyone.
Having to pay for luggage carts is another annoyance unique to Canada. It is clear these issues need to be resolved so that everyone visiting or returning to Canada will receive courteous, fast service.
* *
*


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, there has been more than one slap in the face in Washington recently. The poor old foreign minister, the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), was not even taken along. He had to admit yesterday that he did not know what questions came up in the Prime Minister's meetings with Members of Congress, specifically, whether the Canadian position on military aid to the Contras was given. The Minister's place was apparently taken by the Prime Minister's wife's executive assistant and a couple of people from his own Department. Why is the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) again systematically sidelining his Secretary of State for External Affairs? For that matter, why were other Ministers not there- the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson)? It was a Mickey Mouse delegation if ever there was one-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pauline Jewett: -and proves once again that the Prime Minister wants to be the bride at the wedding and the corpse at the funeral.
*
* *
* *
*


AIRPORTS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, the service at Pearson International Airport must improve if we expect to increase the number of tourists and business people visiting Canada. A constituent of mine, Mr. Gordon Hinch of Wallingford Road, returned from an international trip on March 6 and it took him over an hour to clear customs. There were four international arrivals, yet only six people were working on Customs.
In other cities supervisors pitch in and help during peak periods when regular workers take breaks. However, when Mr. TRADE


LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, scores of communities throughout northern Ontario today are deeply apprehensive about the get-tough attitude of the U.S. Congress and administration toward Canadian lumber imports. What we need, Sir, are assurances that this essential U.S. market for our lumber will be maintained. The question being asked throughout northern Ontario is this. If the U.S. is open to a policy of free trade, as the Government suggests, why then, as we approach those free trade talks, is it taking such a hard line on Canadian lumber imports?

March 21, 1986
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister of which he has been given notice. Yesterday or today the Prime Minister received a letter, 1 understand, from Senator Jacques Hebert in which the Senator says in part as follows:
My action is intended to draw attention to the desperate plight of unemployed youth-
Since the Government has said it is developing new programs for youth, will the Prime Minister make an announcement of these programs today?


Right Hon. Brian Muironey (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated on March 3 and March 11 in the House and in other circumstances to the press that at an appropriate time, at or about the end of the fiscal year, and in appropriate fashion the Government would be announcing new programs, including programs that deal with the problems affecting Canada's youth.
1 am honoured to be able to say we have made substantial improvements. We inherited an unemployment situation that was at 18.4 per cent when we came in, and we reduced it to 16.4 per cent. Two hundred and eighty-five thousand jobs were lost for young people in the previous four years, and we have already created a net 50,000 new jobs. This is not perfection, but this is steady, considerable progress on behalf of Canadian youth.


SENATOR'S LETTER
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the Prime Minister. Senator Hebert concludes his letter by saying:
I am appealing to you, Prime Minister, to consider once more the purpose of my efforts and to exercise all the political will at your command to bring back hope to the youth of Canada.
1 want to ask the Prime Minister will he exercise that political will and announce the action he is talking about not at the end of the fiscal year but today.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I indicated publicly in this House on a number of occasions that it would be our intention to announce, at or about the end of the fiscal year, our intention in this regard. 1 will check with my colleagues and officials and see where we are in regard to that. I have not personally gone through the Senator's letter but I will be happy to do so after Question Period, and to respond as I did in the past.


TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we understand the Prime Minister's difficulties in this kind of matter, and I note what he has said. I would ask him again to do everything possible to look at the matter of timing with respect to the programs his Ministers have said they are preparing, and make an announcement if at all possible today or very soon thereafter?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of my hon. friend and I understand and sympathize with many of the motives. I do not think anybody in this House, irrespective of political persuasion, is happy with the youth unemployment situation, which has been improved under this Government. It is far from perfect and we have a lot to do.
1 would point out to my hon. friend, and 1 think most fair-minded people would acknowledge, that the election, among other things, brought about a change in approach, not necessarily perfect, but a change in approach to some of these programs. On further reflection it is our belief that the private sector, under proper conditions, plays a vital job-creating role for youth as well.
I was deeply encouraged again by a drop in the CPI this morning by three-tenths of a percentage point. Yesterday the bank rate dropped more than half a point. In the last few weeks it dropped 1.75 per cent, and that is good for youth, and good for the economy and job-creation.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF PROGRAMS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister.
Now that the Prime Minister has admitted he will announce a program in a matter of weeks, by the end of the fiscal year, he could perhaps, in the name of human and Christian charity, visit Senator Hebert and perhaps take him into his confidence and give him the assurance that by the end of the month a program will be announced. I assume the program is ready?
Please, Mr. Prime Minister, isn't there a way to do this? I know how seriously you are taking Senator Hebert's gesture. This is a matter that is above all political partisanship.
Would it not be possible for the Prime Minister to go and give Senator Hebert his assurance, so that he can end his hunger strike, because I think everyone in Canada would like to see-


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend mentioned the absence of a partisan dimension, but on the other hand he started his question by saying that the Prime Minister admitted something today. 1 did not admit anything.
March 21, 1986

I said in the House three weeks ago, on March 3, and I said it again on March 11 and in other circumstances even before this matter was raised, that the Government intended to take action at a given time, towards the end of the fiscal year.
1 answered the third question from the Leader of the Opposition in the House, saying that I would officially take note of the Senator's letter and that we would try and act on it as soon as possible. And that is all.


SENATOR HEBERT-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Prime Minister for his gesture, and 1 hope that thanks to his intervention, perhaps at some time within the next few hours we will be able to put an end to the situation now existing in the Senate. I urge the Prime Minister to meet with Senator Hebert and to take him into his confidence.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to make this kind of humane gesture?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in a column by Alain Dubuc that appeared in yesterday's La Presse, there was a reference to Katimavik, and to show you how widely opinions differ, it said:
Katimavik: Symbol of defeat.
In the column, and this is not necessarily my opinion, here is what the observer says:
It took a heavy blow: their unemployment rate jumped to 18.8 per cent in 1982 and 19.9 per cent in 1983-
Generally speaking, with the catching up done in the last two years, the number of young people between the ages of 15 and 24 who have jobs is higher-
-today-
-that in the seventies-
The process of deterioration was reversed in 1983 and 1984.
That is good news for Canadian youth, and I can assure my hon. friend that we are going to work harder to create permanent jobs for Canada's youth.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns his visit to the United States. Six years ago President Carter acknowledged on behalf of his people that acid rain was a problem common to both countries and said that something ought to be done about it. Regrettably for those concerned about acid rain, he was out of office within a few months.
Oral Questions
Five years ago President Reagan said in this House that there was a concern about the problems of the same pollution and committed himself to take action, but has done absolutely nothing in the past five years. Why should we now believe that President Reagan, a lame duck President, will do in the next few years what he completely failed to do in the past five years?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find some people in disagreement with the notion that President Reagan is a lame duck. He was looking well and vigorous the last time I saw him, and he asked me to send his affectionate regards to the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
My hon. friend referred to the views expressed by President Carter and Prime Minister Trudeau. He is quite right. He also observed that President Carter was out of office a few months later. When we came into office we were called upon to deal with a new situation and some facts.
Notwithstanding the view expressed, when we looked over the five-year period there was no progress in tangible terms.
Second, we were called upon to deal with an American administration that expressed a view in regard to acid rain and the environment that was at deep variance with that held by the Government of Canada. So we began two things; first, cleaning up our own act here in Canada and, second, dealing with the United States to obtain two important views, hopefully, (a) that this problem was transboundary in creation and must be so dealt with, and (6), a comprehensive program to clean it up. That was the Drew Lewis-Bill Davis report, and I believe the wholehearted endorsement of that report by the President, undertaking to seek the funds, and my meetings with Congressional and Senatorial leaders to help ensure that those funds are available, represent substantial progress by Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by complimenting the Government for its action here in Canada. I have said that before, and I repeat it. This Government has taken action on acid rain which was not taken by the previous Government. I compliment the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
John Edward Broadbent: My question pertains to what the Americans are or are not doing. Since the President of the United States said five years ago it was a common problem-that's not new-and since he said five years ago that something ought to be done and nothing has been done- and there is nothing new in that regard-and since the Prime Minister's own Minister of the Environment said: "What is good for the goose is good for the eagle", did the Prime Minister even ask President Reagan to make specific commitments to the reduction in levels of acid rain of the kind the

Oral Questions
Canadian Government is making here at home? Did he ask President Reagan to do that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: But of
course, Mr. Speaker, and in fact the structures are now in place because of the Lewis-Davis report. I cannot persuade the unpersuadable-


John Edward Broadbent: Right.


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 acknowledge that. But perhaps other people can. I give the Hon. Member the view expressed last week by Adele Hurley, the co-ordinator of the Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain. She was quoted in Maclean's of March 24, 1986, as saying:
The study found that acid rain is a serious problem and that Eastern Canada suffers from U.S. emissions-points the Reagan administration has never conceded. "If the Prime Minister can get Reagan to endorse that," said Adele Hurley,-"I'll tip my hat to him."
This is the first time it has been done. And to confirm Miss Hurley's view, I know the Hon. Member would not disagree with the view of the Washington Post which stated yesterday:
President Reagan bowed to strong-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -lobbying by Canadian Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, yesterday-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and acknowledged for the first time that acid rain, threatening the environment on both sides of the border-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -is caused by man-made pollution.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to quote for the Prime Minister all kinds of American elected officials, as well as environmentalists, who believe the Canadian Government sold them out in their battle with President Reagan. That is what they think.


UNITED STATES PRESIDENT'S COMMITMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Considering that when President Reagan takes some political item seriously, as he did with funding the Contras in Central America, he goes to Congress with a very specific timetable asking for action and for funds, could the Prime Minister tell the House why President Reagan did not commit his administration to go to Congress with a timetable for reductions in the level of acid rain emissions in order to clear up this problem once and for all on this continent? Why did he not get that from the President?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I would ask my hon. friend to read the President's endorsement in the
context of the full report and all of its recommendations. The Hon. Member referred to elected officials. He mentioned the President and the Congress. The Congress controls the flow of funds-


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, yes.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and I think the evidence of that is that the President was unsuccessful in his initiative in regard to the $100 million-


John Edward Broadbent: But he tried.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and not only is he going to try, as indicated, but I myself went to meet with the leadership of the Senate and the leadership of the House, including the Speaker, Mr. O'Neill, and the Majority Leader in the Senate, Mr. Dole. We have their views that they will be helpful to Canada and to the United States on this issue. I said to the Americans: "Don't think you're doing Canada a favour, this is your problem as well". The United States Congress must fund this project. I received assurances that it will.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE ANNOUNCEMENT OF PROGRAMS
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. I would like to pursue the questions of my colleagues. The Prime Minister recites the progress in bringing down unemployment. All of us who care about our country and our youth take heart in that progress. The Senate, though, said that even with the progress the situation of a great number of young people in Canada is intolerable-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Question, please.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Limit the other side, too, with their long answers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is true that sometimes questions and answers become too long by all of the Leaders. Question, please.


David Berger: Seeing that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet recognize that more has to be done, why wait for the end of the fiscal year? Why will he not announce today, immediately, the programs which he said he has?


Mr. Speaker:: Could the Hon. Member phrase a question which is not simply a repetition, please? I think he can ask that question in a way that is not exactly the same as the previous one.
March 21, 1986


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, I think, recognizes the gravity of the problem. Why must he wait for the end of the fiscal year? Why can he not announce immediately the programs which he said he has?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have not waited until the end of the fiscal year. We continue to take very substantial and serious action. For example, in the current fiscal year we have committed $700 million directly to youth employment and job-training programs, this at a time when we have been forced, because of the profligacy of our Liberal friends, to cut back and to bring some sense of sanity to the public finances. This $700 million represents 37 per cent of the entire budget of the Department of Employment and Immigration and 44 per cent of the clients served by that Department. Some 219,000 young Canadians will benefit from that. That is good news.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: A very short supplementary, and not a repetition, please.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Youth said on February 3 in the House that there will be new programs announced very soon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Berger: My question to the Prime Minister is-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please ask a question immediately?


David Berger: "Very soon" was six weeks ago. Will the Prime Minister immediately announce the new programs the Government says it has?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. When the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans resigned over the tuna matter-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: -were the circumstances as were stated at the time, that the Minister offered his resignation and it was accepted, or is the new version the correct version as stated by the Prime Minister in an interview with The New York Times that "When it was brought to my attention, bang! Immediate-
Oral Questions
ly the Minister's resignation was secured". Which is the right version?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know I am back in the House and members of the NDP have their priorities right.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yesterday the bank rate dropped another one-half point, down one-and-three-quarter points in two weeks. The CPI drops today and the boys are wrestling with something that happened, which was on the public record since September of last year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CIRCUMSTANCES OF RESIGNATION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, why did the Prime Minister state that the Minister's resignation was secured immediately after he discovered the matter, when he knows full well that he said in the House of Commons that the Minister offered his resignation and it was accepted with regret? Why does the Prime Minister embarrass that Member further by drawing his integrity into question?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have never embarrassed any member of my Party-


An Hon. Member:: Ask Joe Clark!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Nor have I embarrassed an Hon. Member on the other side. My friend, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South, is an outstanding Member of Parliament.


Ian Deans: That is right,I agree.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If the divergent-

And speaking of divergent views, where is Mr. Chretien today? What a shame he left! You may be glad to be rid of him now, but I would be careful if I were you.

I acknowledge that there may have been divergences in regard to interpretations placed upon your resignation.


PRIME MINISTER S POSITION
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to follow up on the same question as that asked by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister obviously becomes very sensitive when he gets caught in his own trap of giving two conflicting reports. Will the Prime Minister now admit to the House-


Mr. Nunziata:: He's a liar.

March 21, 1986
Oral Questions


George Roland Henderson: -that the former Minister of Fisheries was pushed out of the Cabinet


Some Hon. Members:: Oops!


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


George Roland Henderson: -by a Prime Minister who is trying to cover up his own blunders?


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Withdraw, Nunziata, withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members have apparently heard something which I did not hear. I was listening to the Hon. Member for Egmont.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: One of the jerks sitting next to him! Not that jerk, the one over there.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members may wish to raise something after the Question Period. The Hon. Member for Egmont.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think I said anything unparliamentary in my question. I wish to repeat my question. The Prime Minister gets caught sometimes in conflicting reports, his own reports. Will the Prime Minister now admit that the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was pushed out of the Cabinet by a Prime Minister who was trying to cover up his own mistakes and blunders?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the matter is on the public record and it is resolved.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary.


INQUIRY OF THE PRIME MINISTER
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, it is nothing new for the Government to give one message to Canadians and a different message to Americans. Why does the Prime Minister continue to try to undermine the credibility of the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who has served this House for a number of years and who is a very credible individual? I may have some problems with the former Minister's judgment, but his character is A-l. I want the Prime Minister to admit that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for New Westminster-
Coquitlam.


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE COMMAND
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and the President of the United States in separate written statements in Washington stated this week that the
renewal of the NORAD Agreement is, and I quote, "fully consistent with the ABM Treaty". Will the Prime Minister elborate for us today? Does his statement in Washington clearly mean that Canada will not become involved through NORAD, or in any other way, in an active ballistic missile defence?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that has always been clear.


John Edward Broadbent: We couldn't hear you!


Mrs. Mailly:: Use your hearing device!


ABM CLAUSE INQUIRY
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Prime Minister said yes, that that was the meaning of the statement in Washington, that is, that Canada would not become involved in any way in an active ballistic missile defence. Therefore, why was that clause-and I have used the exact words-not reinserted in the NORAD Agreement where it would really count?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, this seems to be the day for repetition. The Hon. Member, and others in the House, have put that question on several occasions. She knows the answer is that the former Liberal Government-


Pauline Jewett: You weren't even in Washington!


Charles Joseph Clark: -took that clause out of the
treaty because circumstances have changed.


John Edward Broadbent: It certainly is a day for repetition!


CANADA-UNITED STATES DISCUSSIONS
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, just to pick up on the point raised by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, indeed the clause was taken out because the ABM was not in issue. It is now in issue again. Did the Prime Minister try to convince the President to reinsert that clause in the NORAD renewal agreement? Does the Prime Minister not consider its absence a serious omission?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I was involved in those negotiations-


Jean-C. Lapierre: You were not there!


Charles Joseph Clark: -I was involved in the discussions which resulted in the statement by the Prime Minister and the President during the Summit in Washington. The concern that existed in Canada was that there might be some question raised about the integrity of the ABM system. That was clear from the report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence that was tabled in the House.
March 21, 1986

We took account of that and secured from the President of the United States through the direct intervention of the Prime Minister at the Summit the affirmations that were stated by both leaders.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, with all respect to the Secretary of State, I am sure you would like to know, as we would, what actually transpired at the meeting at which the Secretary of State was not present. Let me ask the Prime Minister, after what he considers his triumph in convincing President Reagan that acid rain is a problem, did he try to convince the President that the Nicaraguan policy is also a problem, and did he tell the President that Canada is firmly opposed to military aid to the Contras? I know the Secretary of State was not there so I would like to hear the answer from the Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I never said that the results of the acid rain discussions were a triumph. They just appear to be a triumph given the lack of action by the Liberals over five years. That is the difference.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: What we said was that there was very serious and substantial progress made and that they will-


Jacques Guilbault: Just a giant step.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Our Liberal friends are mortified by their own record, as they should be, and I know-


John Edward Broadbent: Right.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Leader of the NDP agrees. This is a rare day.


John Edward Broadbent: It's my birthday.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is his birthday now.
This is solid and steady progress. This is a problem that has developed over many decades and is not going to be cured over night, but we have now in hand a mechanism that will deal with it-


Donald James Johnston: Nicaragua is the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: He would like to hear from me on
Nicaragua.


Donald James Johnston: That was the question.
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: The answer is that I, of course, raised Canada's position on Nicaragua with the President and with Secretary Shultz and others in Washington.


NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is reported in this weeks Maclean's that the Minister cut a backroom deal with George Shultz on the voyage of the Polar Sea through Canada's Arctic and in fact in Washington agreed on the terms for such a voyage three months in advance. Having perhaps not been entirely candid with Canadians about the Polar Sea incident, how can British Columbians find any reason to trust that the Government has not already cut a deal on the AB Line, the Beaufort Sea and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, in the interests of the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for asking that question because it provides me with the opportunity to place on the record the fact that the report in Maclean's magazine was totally false. With regard to the concerns of the Nishka people, the other day I had the opportunity, as the Hon. Member knows, to meet with representatives of the Nishka people who are concerned about their traditional rights to offshore British Columbia. I found it to be a very valuable conversation, and I think they found it reassuring.


OBJECT OF DISCUSSIONS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the article in Maclean's is not an editorial. It quotes Canadian officials. I wonder if the Minister would explain to the House why he and the B.C. Government are discussing the movement of West Coast Canada-U.S. boundaries like the AB Line. Dos not the axiom "if it isn't broken, dont't fix it" hold in the case of Canada's sovereign boundaries?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is often difficult to know if opinions put forward in Maclean's magazines are stories or opinions. Whatever they are, this one was false.
With regard to why we are discussing with the Government of British Columbia whether or not it would be useful for us to discuss with the United States a negotiation to bring clarity to a situation about which there is now dispute, it is precisely because clarity is better than a lack of clarity. I made it very clear on several occasions that if it is not in Canada's interests to enter into those negotiations, we will not do so. If, once in those negotiations, we will not do so. If, once in those negotiations, it is not in Canada's interests to conclude an agreement, we will not conclude an agreement.

March 21, 1986
Oral Questions


CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and deals with the procedure of selling Canada Savings Bonds. Residents of my constituency were approached by financial institutions and dealers in 1985 with the idea that the individual take out a loan for CSBs from the institution at a preferred rate of interest, using only the bonds as collateral. The individual signs over the bonds after the new year, realizing a tax deduction-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a very long question.


Kenneth Albert James: Given that close to $3 billion in CSBs have been cashed in during January and February, 1986, could the Minister inform the House if the high redemption of CSBs can be attributed in any way to the CSB sales scheme that I described, a scheme that I know the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order. This is far too long.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has raised this matter in the House before, and since he has raised it with me I have instructed the Bank of Canada to investigate it. That investigation is being carried on right now and I appreciate receiving this further information from the Hon. Member. I will ask the Bank to look into that as well. I should say that I think a large part of the redemption of the CSBs during this period has been related to the increase in interest rates.


WORLD OIL PRICES-LAY-OFFS ANNOUNCED BY IMPERIAL OIL
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Imperial Oil has eliminated 1,800 jobs in the energy industry. If Imperial Oil has done that, you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, what is happening to small Canadian companies. Does the Government still want to wait and see what is happening to world oil prices before it takes any action? How many jobs have to be lost before the Government does something?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member and all Hon. Members of the House that ongoing discussions are taking place between the producing provinces and the Government of Canada, keeping a watching brief on the situation. It is not a time to panic or make knee-jerk reactions like the Opposition would have us do.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is likewise directed to the Prime Minister. With all due respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, this situation is becoming very serious. I would like the Prime Minister to treat it as such and to answer the question. What does the Government plan to do to save the energy industry in Canada?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, this Government has done more for the energy industry in Canada in the last 18 months than any other previous Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member knows full well that we have been meeting with the energy industry, and the energy industry is asking us to maintain a watching brief. It is keeping us informed. It is not asking us to take any drastic action at this particular time. When action does take place, it will take place in co-operation with the provinces, the kind of co-operation that we have seen over the last 18 months but was not evident before this Government came to power.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. During his meeting with U.S. officials, we understand that the Prime Minister raised the issue of the devastating effects of the U.S. Farm Bill on Canadian grain producers. Did the Prime Minister receive any commitment from the U.S. that it would cease to disrupt the international markets in grain by giving away grain free, or by selling heavily subsidized grain on the world market?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I had an excellent discussion on the problems of agriculture with both the President and the Secretary of State, and also with the Senate leadership at some length. The view of the Senate was expressed in large measure by Senator Kassebaum.
I indicated to the Senators that, in our judgment, Canadian farmers were not getting either a fair price or a fair shake, and we wanted to make absolutely certain that they got both, including the unfettered access to those new markets that would give them a fair break internationally. We said we were going to be helpful to them in that process, and we sought the understanding and co-operation of the American administration.


PRICE OFGRAIN
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, since we did not get an commitment from the United States officials
March 21, 1986

that they would cease to disrupt the international markets, will the Prime Minister give a commitment to the farmers of Canada that they will receive a price similar to that received by U.S. farmers when they sell their grain on the international market?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we had an excellent discussion, one that 1 think was very helpful to Canadian farmers and will continue to be so. We have given this extremely high priority. We will continue to do so with the support of all Members of the House.


John Edward Broadbent: And it is a nice day out, too.


FINANCE
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Interest rates went down 1 per cent last week and 0.5 per cent this week. Here is my question. Can the Minister of Finance explain what this sharp drop in interest rates means to Canadians with a $50,000 mortgage, for instance? How do they stand to benefit?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this downward trend in interest rates will spur Canada's economy. As to mortgage rates, they have declined from 13.25 to 11 per cent, which translates into a $1,000 annual saving for a Canadian mortgagor.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence.
Recent media reports have stated that the low level air defence system may be scaled down by 50 per cent, or that the Minister of National Defence wants to eliminate the program or at least postpone it. This program is vital and important to Chatham, New Brunswick, and to our Canadian Forces bases in Lahr and Baden in Germany.


Mr. Speaker:: A question, please.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Can the Minister confirm or deny these reports?
Oral Questions


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Actually, neither, Mr. Speaker. The reports are speculative and decisions on that are currently before the Government. They will be made in due course.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: When?


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my question was when will the decision be made, and will the Minister give his absolute assurance that this program will go ahead as originally designed and in the timeframe originally announced?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add beyond my original answer. The matter is being considered, and a decision will be announced in due course.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Will he confirm to the House that he has received inquiries from the new Aquino Government of the Philippines about the assets of Mr. Jose Campos of Vancouver and Manila, and other Marcos cronies in Canada?
Will the Canadian Government co-operate with Mr. Roy Sangil, representative in Canada of the Philippine Presidential Commission, to reclaim assets in Canada stolen from the Filipino people?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that contact in that particular case.
I can tell the Member and the House that when I learned there were stories of an interest on the part of Philippine authorities in recovering assets that might be in Canada, I instructed our ambassador to the Philippines, Mr. Davidson, to meet with senior officials of the Philippine Government to indicate that Canada would co-operate fully within the constraints of Canadian law with Philippine authorities. That meeting has now been held.
My understanding is that an official request has not yet been received, but the Philippine authorities certainly understand that if such a request is issued by those authorities, it will be responded to positively by Canada.

March 21, 1986
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR RCMP INVESTIGATION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 am informed that what the Filipino people need here in Canada is trained investigators, investigators whom they do not have.
Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs be prepared to make available the RCMP commercial crime squad, the Mounties, to help them investigate these assets?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would want, as the Hon. Member would expect me, to consider all of the precedents that would be involved in that kind of a response.
If those precedents allow a response of that kind, and if indeed there is a request of that kind from Philippine authorities, I think our disposition would be to respond.
The bottom line, Sir, is that we want to help the Government of the Philippines recover assets that are legitimately theirs that might be in Canada.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications, but in his absence I will direct it to the Parliamentary Secretary. On March 7, 1986, a reporter with CBC's Journal said:
You can buy a gallon of gas in Detroit for 95 cents. That's about 20 cents a litre.
He neglected the conversion to Canadian dollars and he neglected the conversion-


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


Bill Attewell: Yes, Mr. Speaker-from an American gallon to a Canadian litre.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bill Attewell: When will this Crown corporation be mandated to report to Canadians in an unbiased, balanced manner?


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as one who has spent a little time in a press gallery I can understand how mistakes can happen. That is, however, a pretty big mistake.
As the Hon. Member is aware, programming decisions, including programs selected and new content are the direct responsibility of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation management and its Board of Directors. I will take the Hon. Member's question as notice and assure him that the CBC executive will be informed of his concerns.
[ Translation]


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. It has been confirmed that six Progressive Conservative Members are now in South Korea, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works. We know why the Minister is not here. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Simcoe South, had the authorization of the Government to travel, is he now on Government business in South Korea?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary is a Member of Parliament, as any other Member of Parliament.
With respect to the question of the Government's sanction, I think the Deputy Prime Minister answered that quite adequately earlier this week.


REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION OF PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is again for the Prime Minister. Given that answer, will the Prime Minister do the honourable thing, ask the Member when he returns-or order him back and ask him-to resign his post, and name a Parliamentary Secretary who will do the job here?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like an understanding of why the Hon. Member suggests that that kind of request be made.
Does he suggest that he himself as Whip of his Party should be stuck here in Ottawa morning, noon, and night because he is an official of his Party? What is the basis of the Member's request?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He replaces the Minister.

[ Translation]


TEXTILES AND CLOTHING
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Can the Minister confirm the statement he made in Sherbrooke last Wednesday, namely that he endorses the recommendations of the Textile and Clothing Board? Can he also confirm the statement to the effect that the four Departments involved have now agreed on the need to implement the measures suggested by the Board to ensure the survival of this
March 21, 1986

major industry, regardless of the statements made last week by the Conservative caucus and the textile industry?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, once again the Member is admitting that he has made erroneous statements in the past. He has simly repeated what has oft been stated before as the government position with respect to the textile and clothing industry. We have the board recommendations. We agree in principle with those recommendations. We want a viable textile and clothing industry in this country.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT MEASURES
Michael Morris Cassidy: 1 have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister was made an honorary life member of the le Comite de survie du textile de Sherbrooke, and since he indicated that the relevant Ministries are now in accord with what to do and have reached a consensus, can he tell us when the specific measures to ensure the maintenance of this industry which will stop the potential loss of 50,000 or 60,000 jobs in Ontario and Quebec will be announced?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the Hon. Member has noted I am now a life member of that survival committee. It was an honour conferred on me obviously because of my role. It was not conferred on the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I know Members are going to be very pleased with our policy on textiles and clothing, which will be announced quite soon.


Mr. Speaker:: The Member for Cochrane-Superior. One question.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-CANADIAN LUMBER EXPORTS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Right across northern Ontario today there is a great deal of apprehension about renewed reports that the U.S. Congress and administration will get very tough on Canadian lumber imports. Having just returned from Washington, can the Prime Minister give the House, and the region from which I come, any assurances at all that this vital U.S. market for our lumber importers will be maintained and not diminished?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I did so in a number of ways and on a number of occasions.
Committee Reports
Some American Senators and Congressmen have been taking the position that an essential precondition to any trade talks was the resolution of lumber issues in their favour. The answer was that there would be absolutely no preconditions of any kind.
Second, I told them in the Congress, in the Senate, and in the White House, that with particular regard to the forest industry Canada was a fair trader. We met all the objective criteria of the GATT and any bilateral requirements. I said that we are competitive and want to compete more. I said that we wanted a bigger share of their market and that 1 thought the quality of our products deserved it. I said that we would compete fairly and expect reciprocity in return.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 67(2), and on the occasion of the International Day for the Elimination of Racism and Racial Discrimination, I am honoured to table, in both official languages, a progress report on the response of the Government of Canada to the House of Commons Special Committee report on Visible Minorities entitled Equality Now.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, with amendment.


REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS-FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report, Statutory Instrument No. 32, of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments on behalf of the joint chairmen of that committee.

March 21, 1986
Petitions
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I assume Members are presenting certified petitions.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the petitions are indeed certified.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present six petitions signed by many Canadians, young Canadians, in support of Senator Hebert's demonstration to convince the Governement to relent, create jobs for young Canadians, and re-instate the Katimavik program.
These petitions come from Sainte-Scholastique, Sherbrooke, Ottawa-Vanier, Saint-Romuald near Quebec City, Beauport, and a number of towns and villages in the Gaspe Peninsula.


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from many Canadians asking for the re-instatement of the program which enables young Canadians to get better acquainted with their country and the language and culture of its inhabitants. They urge reconsideration of the decision to end the Katimavik program.
Mr. Speaker, the petition was signed by residents of Lac Saint-Charles and Notre-Dame-des Laurentides.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to present three petitions concerning the Katimavik program and the action of Senator Hebert.
The petitions bear the signatures of people from various regions: Sainte-Foy, Bellechasse, Mirabel, Lachute and the Sherbrooke region.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I have a duly certified petition in which over 200 residents of Cochrane, Ontario, have indicated that they want the Government to take Firm and effective action to lower gasoline prices.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I also want to present another petition concerning the Katimavik program.


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions to the House today. The first petition is signed by many residents of Mississauga and calls upon Parliament to consider a reduction in gasoline taxes so that savings can be passed along to Canadian motorists.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition signed by many concerned residents of Mississauga which calls upon Parliament to do everything in its power to ensure that the Metropolitan Toronto police force continues to lay charges under Section 251 of the Criminal Code to prevent any further illegal operation of the Morgen-taler clinic.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present which have been duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions. The First petition is signed by residents of Corner Brook in the riding of Humb-er-Port au Port-St. Barbe who are protesting the changes in the unemployment insurance regulations which cause pension income to be deducted from UIC. The pensioners request that the Government reconsider this change and restore the UIC program to its former process.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents of the riding of Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe, specifically from the northern peninsula, protesting the elimination of the Katimavik program. The petitioners request that the Government of Canada re-establish this program as requested by Senator Jacques Hebert.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from residents of the federal riding of Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe with regard to the Katimavik program. This petition is from the northern peninsula portion of that federal riding. It also requests that the Government of Canada restore the Katimavik program to its original funding level as requested by Senator Jacques Hebert.
I have a petition from residents of the Three Rivers area of the Province of Quebec. It is protesting the cancellation of the

March 21, 1986

Katimavik program and asks that it be restored to its full funding level as quickly as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from the Province of Quebec with regard to the Katimavik program. The petitioners again ask that it be restored to its full level.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that when he has multiple petitions with regard to one subject all he need do is say he has more than one petition. 1 think he can conclude briefly.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I have multiple petitions with regard to the Katimavik program from residents of the Province of Ontario. The first petition is from residents of the Ottawa region, the second from residents of the Ottawa and Toronto area, and the third is also from the Province of Ontario. They all protest, in large number and clear voice, the cancellation of Katimavik and ask the Government to restore it to its previous funding level.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition from Montreal region residents who claim that the Katimavik project was a success and want the program to be maintained.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, join my colleagues in presenting a number of petitions collected throughout the Province of Quebec. They come from young and old residents of about 20 ridings who are expressing their support for the courageous stand being taken by Senator Jacques Hebert. They request the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), to restore full funding to the Katimavik program which offered a sense of vision and future for young Canadians across the country.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House of Commons a petition asking the Conservative Government to reconsider its decision to cancel the Katimavik Program.

The petitioners are requesting the Government of Canada to reconsider its ill-conceived and insensitive move to cut Katimavik. This petition is in addition to the thousands of others which have been presented in this House.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I have ten petitions signed by some 250 people throughout Quebec. The petitioners ask this House to reconsider the decision about the Katimavik Program.
Petroleum Incentives Program Act


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, question No. 515 will be answered today.


Mr. Young: 1.	In 1985, how many applications did the Department of Insurance receive from pension plan sponsors to recover surpluses from pension plans registered under the Pension Benefits Standards Act and (a) how many were approved (/>) what was the total amount recovered?
2.	What amount did plan sponsors propose recovering from pension plans registered under the Act?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: 1.
Twelve, (a) eleven, (b) $30,023,343. 2. $30,067,455


John Horton McDermid: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The question specified by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-85, an Act to amend the Petroleum Incentives Program Act, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be read a third time and passed.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues from the Liberal Party and the NDP will also participate in this brief debate this morning on third reading of Bill C-85.

March 21, 1986
Petroleum Incentives Program Act

You will probably recall following my preliminary comments in this House at the second reading stage of this Bill that the phasing out of the Petroleum Incentives Program is an important element of the commitment of this Government to the Canadian people as concerns national reconciliation, economic renewal and social justice.

The purpose of Bill C-85 is to provide a legislative framework for the orderly phasing out of the Petroleum Incentives Program, commonly referred to as PIP. This is but one element of our Government's new frontier energy policy announced on December 20, 1985. The Bill was referred to a legislative committee on January 27, 1986. Hearings were held and representations made by the Canadian Petroleum Association, the Independent Petroleum Association, and representatives from Canadian companies such as Husky-Bow Valley. The committee, under the very able chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow), then reported back to the House on March 7, recommending passage of the Bill without amendment.
It should be noted that the phasing out of PIP comes at a time when the frontier is moving from a phase characterized by high levels of Government intervention, to one which relies more heavily on market forces and private sector decisions; a phase of wildcat exploration to one which is more development oriented. In Hibernia we are now ready to move into the start of the production phase, which is very, very important. The finds experienced in the Beaufort, which are very exciting indeed, will of course move to the development stage in the not-too-distant future. I do not think there is anything that will help exploration in our frontiers more than the development in our frontiers. In other words, nothing provides more of an incentive to further exploration than to see the fruits of previous exploration being realized in this great country of ours. Development of Hibernia is a priority with us. Construction of production facilities and drilling of development wells will have an important and positive impact on the economy of Atlantic Canada in general and Newfoundland in particular.
I had the good fortune to visit Stavanger, Norway to look at the offshore developments which will be comparable to some extent to what we will see off Newfoundland. I was impressed by the number of construction jobs created by this project. The platforms were very impressive and their immensity is very difficult to describe. They are huge. I visited one platform, about one-eighth of which contained a 200-room hotel fully equipped with theatres, exercise rooms and restaurants. You can imagine the immensity of these projects. This all bodes well for our future, especially the future of Atlantic Canada is general, and Newfoundland in particular, where the spin-offs will be tremendous.
To encourage this trend in development the Government has introduced a new frontier energy policy. The main thrust is to remove all the National Energy Program taxes, including the phased elimination of the PGRT. That tax has dropped to 10 per cent and will disappear as of January 1, 1989. We have
implemented a royality regime which is more profit sensitive. We have introduced a royality investment credit and exploration tax credit to assist companies in financing their exploration activities. There is new legislation to simplify and improve the management regime for Canada's energy frontiers. This is reflected in the proposed Canadian Petroleum Resources Act, Bill C-92, which we hope will receive and second reading in the not-too-distant future. Since it was printed representations have been made by various private sector groups and organizations, and Governments for that matter, who will want to make representations on that Bill.
There has been some concern expressed that this Government is abandoning the frontier to the multinationals. I do not think that is a fair criticism. This Government has stated many, many times, and made it very, very clear, that we want both the multinationals and Canadians on the frontier. There is room for both. As a matter of fact, the multinationals have tremendous financial resources and a much broader base than our Canadian companies, so we need them. We as a Government welcome their participation and their investment because it means jobs. It is as simple as that. It means jobs in Canada. We have made it very, very clear that we want them to participate in exploration and development of our frontier.
There are now a number of sizable Canadian-controlled companies active on the frontier as well. We want a partnership of these two interests. We think we can have a partnership. Not only do we think, we know we can have a partnership between these two interests. The capital and expertise such a partnership can provide is important to the enhancement of frontier exploration and development.
Bill C-92, which we will be discussing later in the year, requires as a necessity 50 per cent Canadian ownership of post-1982 frontier discoveries once the production phase has been reached. We are encouraging the multinationals to join the partnership with Canadians to develop our frontiers. The Petroleum Incentives Program, the PIP regime, that will be in place from April 1, 1986 to December 31, 1987 is the result of extensive consultation with the oil and gas industry and honours industry commitments in place at the time of the Western Accord, commonly referred to as grandfathering.
We understand that on the frontiers the lead time for exploration, for planning and for commitments is much longer than that of conventional plants? Therefore we are allowing a period of time for those companies who have signed commitments in place at the time of the Western Accord to carry out those commitments. The Government will be spending in that period of time from April 1, 1986, to December 3, 1987 about a billion dollars. We are not talking about a small amount of money, we are talking a billion dollars. That will be spent for those firms which qualify through the grandfathering rules that form the basis of this new regime. We feel that it is fair. We feel there has been extensive consultation with the companies. During the committee hearings we read off the lists of the numerous meetings that the officials and the Ministers held
March 21, 1986

with the industry on this particular grandfathering clause in the PIP regime.
Some companies have expressed concern that it is not enough, that they would like to do more exploration and they would like more money in that period of time. That is only natural. When a program is about to close everybody wants just a little more. I can remember when it was announced that the CHIP program would all of a sudden close a year early there was a mad flurry of applications. That is human nature. People tend to put off things until the very last moment and then all of a sudden they want more and more and more. I understand that, that is a way of life. I put off renewing my licence till the very last possible day, until my birth date. I know 1 am being chastised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) for doing that, but I think it is human nature and that is what we have seen here.
We feel we have struck a fair deal with the industry on the grandfathering clause, that there will be activity in the frontier and this will cushion that period of time until we get into our new regime of exploration on the frontier. I am sure that my colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) will have more to say on that when he makes his contribution to the debate on third reading of this Bill.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I might thank the Hon. Member from Cape Breton-The Sydneys as I know that in order to be here this morning he had to make some special arrangements, and 1 do appreciate him doing that. I trust that he will take my best wishes back home to his mom, who I know is not feeling well. I am hopeful that she will be up and around in the not too distant future.
We are pleased with this Bill. It fulfils the campaign promises made by this Party before the election, and the policies of this Government regarding energy and dismantling the National Energy Program and to bring in a new energy program. We feel it is going to be far more receptive to the warrants and the requirements of a very vital industry. We are going through a period right now of low prices, a matter of great concern to this Government, which is affecting adversely one province especially.
I can tell the Hon. Members here that what we are talking about is frontier exploration. We are talking about bringing supplies onstream, probably four, five, six years down the road. As James Schlesinger, the former Secretary of Energy, said recently in Ottawa, projections are difficult, especially if they pertain to the future. What we have to do at this particular time is project what is going to happen in the world of energy, in the world of hydrocarbons, four or five years down the road. The industry is doing that. They have confidence in the frontier and have assured us that they are continuing their exploration and their development work.
I conclude by saying that we are extremely pleased that we have brought Bill C-85, the Petroleum Incentives Program Act, to this stage. We are seeing it pass through with grandfathering clauses in place to take care of those signed commitments that were in place at the time of the Western Accord. It is part of our over-all package which will be continued with
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
Bill C-92 in the not too distant future. I look for speedy passage of this Bill so that we can send it on to the Senate and Royal Assent. Thank you very much, Sir.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his kind comments regarding my mother, and I appreciate it.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-85 is one that, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, has gone through first and second readings and through committee. This Party has not agreed to the Bill. It feels that the Bill is particularly harmful to the energy sector and to the people of Canada. Not only that, this Bill is harmful to the credibility of Governments in general. I think we have a situation where this Government is not honouring commitments made by the former Liberal Government. It is going to speak very badly for continuity of investment in Canada if the energy sector and, indeed, the business community look upon Canada as a place where you have to get in and get out before the Government changes. That is going to be very unfortunate, but that is what is happening, and that is what foreign companies, multinational companies, and Canadian companies are looking at.
This Bill also does a great deal of harm to frontier development. I will speak considerably more about that as I continue in my speech. What we are doing is really very harmful for the future. We are literally sabotaging our security of supply of oil and gas in this country. We are going to be very sorry and we are going to regret the day that we allowed this Act to pass.
What is going to happen to the very important question of Canadianization, to Canadian companies that under the Petroleum Incentives Program were able to receive 80 per cent funding even if they were in a non-taxpaying position? Under this Bill they will only get 10 per cent financing. We are going to have Canadian companies that will not be able to participate. It is a very serious situation. I would like to just go through, if I may, some of the things that were discussed in committee, some of the points that this Party feels must be made so that this Government if it passes the Bill is forewarned that it is passing something completely unpalatable to this Party, unpalatable to the energy sector, and I think unpalatable to Canadians who know about the situation.
One company in particular, Husky-Bow Valley, filed a drilling program with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in 1983. It believed at the time that, on the basis of that plan and its acceptance by the federal Government, it could drill the wells it anticipated. In the belief that it was assured of these wells, that it had an agreement and the support of the federal Government, Husky-Bow Valley took upon itself to build two drilling rigs that would be designed exclusively for East Coast drilling, although they could be used in other parts of the world. These two drilling rigs cost the Husky-Bow Valley consortium $430 million, which they paid in anticipation of being able to drill the proposed wells it laid out in its program, and to which the Government agreed.

March 21, 1986
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
The proposed wells in this program were identified as a result of a law passed by the then Liberal Government. According to this provision, Canadian companies-with their benefits-could be encouraged to farm-in on lease holdings of other companies. In this case the company was Mobil Oil, which was operating off the coasts of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Mobil Oil would sublease its well drilling rights obtained from the federal Government to other companies like Husky-Bow Valley. In other words, it would be a sublease, but in return for obtaining this sublease Mobil Oil and other companies giving the sublease or farm-in would often require those companies to drill additional wells besides those for which they had obtained rights.
In the case of the Husky Oil and Mobil sublease, the drilling of additional wells was a requirement of the farm-in provision. While Husky-Bow Valley agreed to these requirements, it wanted the right to back away from these additional wells if the initial wells drilled showed no likelihood of oil or gas in those areas. It would not proceed with the other wells, even though it could get 80 per cent funding. I believe that such an arrangement was a benefit to the Government and the Canadian people because the companies would not be drilling dry holes.
Other companies that granted these sublease rights required that additional wells be drilled regardless of whether the initial wells showed any likelihood of oil or gas.
According to the regulations introduced by the Government after the Western Accord, those companies which had an agreement that they would not have to drill additional wells unless the initial wells indicated that oil and gas deposits may be found were placed in a detrimental position. Since these were not firm commitments to drill wells, the Government said those companies could not receive funds under the Petroleum Incentives Program. Therefore, companies that acted in a business-like manner were being penalized and prejudiced under the regulations of the Petroleum Incentives Program. That is unfair because it was prejudicial to companies like Husky-Bow Valley. It had submitted its drilling program and acted in a business-like manner. It stated that it was interested in the frontier off the East Coast of Canada. It even spent $430 million on two drilling rigs as a show of its good faith.
Furthermore, the federal Government indicated that any penalty expense would not qualify for grants under the Petroleum Incentives Program. A penalty expense refers to those companies, Petro-Canada in particular, that were given particular rights, through a consortium, to a particular well through the back-in or Crown lands provision. This back-in provision would enable Petro-Canada to obtain 25 per cent of the drilling rights to a particular well and its production. If Petro-Canada backed out of the consortium, the new partner or remaining partners that would have to pick up the 25 per cent would not qualify for grants under the Petroleum Incentives Program. In other words, the remaining partners or new partner are being put into a prejudicial position.
The Government is asking companies in financial difficulty, particularly during this time of declining oil prices, to take on
an extra 25 per cent with no assistance from the federal Government other than the minuscule 10 per cent provided according to this Bill. It is incredible that the rules of the game are being changed retroactively.
Let me return to the case of Husky-Bow Valley. At the time of the Western Accord it was in a position to drill 10 additional wells, pursuant to the Petroleum Incentives Program. These wells were to be drilled in 1986 and 1987. The company owned two drilling rigs which enabled it to drill a limited number of wells at one time. If it did not use these rigs, worth $430 million, it would have to rent additional rigs at a cost of millions of dollars, while the repayment and recapture of its investment on its own rigs might go completely unreplenished. Therefore, the company wanted to make use of its own investment in order to drill the wells which they acquired on their own behalf and on behald of the people of Canada.
The Government makes matters worse by stating that the Petroleum Incentives Program grants are only available under the primary term, which it is limiting to the period from the Western Accord, approximately a year ago, to the end of March, 1986. Since Husky-Bow Valley would have to stagger its drilling in order to use its own rigs, that provision completely rules out the possibility of Husky-Bow Valley being able to drill its 10 wells with its own rigs. This was done by the Government, with full knowledge of the drilling program of Husky-Bow Valley because Husky-Bow Valley had to file its drilling program and did so in 1983. You can imagine, Mr. Speaker, the concern of a company which spends $430 million, plans to drill 10 wells to recapture the money invested and then finds out it cannot drill these wells.
The company immediately started to talk to the federal Government about drilling the 10 wells. In the fall of 1985 it met with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Department of Finance-and we have the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) here today-and was asked if it would accept seven wells. Husky-Bow Valley said it would accept seven wells at the urging of the federal Government. It agreed to reduce the number of wells to be drilled from 10 wells to seven. I think that is a quite a magnanimous move on the part of Husky-Bow Valley, even though it felt it should be able to recapture the expenditure by drilling the seven wells instead of 10.
Then in January of this year, the Minister of Finance put pressure on the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, saying the Government could not afford to let Husky-Bow Valley drill seven wells, so changes were made in the regulations under Bill C-85. But no one has seen the regulations. No one knows what they are. Certain regulations have been made known to Husky-Bow Valley and Members of the industry but no one has ever seen them in their entirety. No one knows exactly what they are going to be. They could be changed yet again.
By saying that it could not afford to let Husky-Bow Valley drill seven wells, the federal Government has taken these
March 21, 1986

regulations which only it knows-and perhaps even it does not know or perhaps it will change them yet again-and applied them retroactively, because they are going to be put into effect no sooner than April 1, 1986. That is when the grandfathering period begins. The regulations cannot come into effect before then, but the federal Government has taken these regulations and applied them retroactively, using cohersion through the Department of Finance to have the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reduce the number of wells because the Government wants to save money.
The Government is not worried about its commitment, or about the proposition in which it is putting Husky-Bow Valley and others. It is not worred about the future of offshore drilling and drilling on the frontier. The Government wants to reduce its Budget, a plan which it has had in its since it came to power on September 4, 1984.
For the Government to believe it does not have to honour the commitment of a previous Government is ludicrous and despicable enough, but, after it has been in power a year and a half, to say it is going to change its mind again on a program which was implemented and filed in 1983 is ten times worse.
What are the results of the regulations we have not seen? We did not see them in first and second reading or in committee. We are told by Husky-Bow Valley that instead of the seven wells-which it has reduced from 10 in order to be co-operative-it can now only drill two wells. That is all these new regulations will allow. What a stab in the back of this consortium. And the negotiations continued. By the time we had dealt with this Bill in committee we were told that it was probable that the federal Government would up the amount of wells drilled to four. It seems like there has been a flip of the coin or throw of the dice, but we were told that Husky-Bow Valley would be able to drill four wells. That is still down six from what it wanted and down three from what it agreed to in previous negotiations with the Department of Finance and the Department of Energy Mines and Resources. That is literally treachery.
After the last meeting of committee the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources decided she would throw a few nickels and dimes into the hat as well. She said that Husky-Bow Valley could go for four wells. It is still four. That is the most consistency we have seen for quite a while. It has been a whole two weeks with the same number of wells. Now the Government is going to throw in $20 million as a sort of sop because the company is going to get stung under the penalty expense, and because Petro-Canada is going to pull out. Petro-Canada is urging the cutting back on its expenses, and on the original commitment and intention of Petro-Canada to explore and develop energy sources, at the urging and instructions of the Government. But the Government tells Husky-Bow Valley that because Petro-Canada is going to back out and leave it high and dry, taking with it its 25 per cent right to funds under the Petroleum Incentives Program, the Government is going to allow the company $20 million as a sop. That is incredible.
It is no wonder that foreign companies which are watching the Government's actions are inactions, whichever way you
Petroleum Incentives Program Act want to look at it, are completely befuddled as to what is going to happen to our Canadian energy policy. This is no way to run a Government. It is no way to run our energy policy. This is not way to deal with an important economic sector.
What will happen now? Where do we go from here? We have the Estimates. According to the Estimates the Government is reducing the funding under the Petroleum Incentives Program for the fiscal year to $950 million. Husky-Bow Valley told us in committee that to drill its seven wells would cost in funds under the Petroleum Incentives Program approximately $300 million. The Government is allowing $950 million under the Estimates. The Government said initially the company could drill two wells because of the retroactive regulations. If we assume the first two, which were agreed ro under the clandestine activity of the federal Government, there are still five wells. The additional five wells would probably cost $225 million. The Government has allowed $950 million. The world oil price has completely skuttled whatever intention was left on the part of companies to come in and participate. Why could the Government not fit this into the $950 million? What the Government is doing is throwing out $950 million as Petroleum Incentives Program funds for drilling in the frontier, and then snatching it away by regulating the industry so that it cannot qualify. Even if it cost Husky-Bow Valley an additional $300 million for its wells, we could say that it would be half of what would be spent on the East Coast. Why do 1 say half? Because Husky-Bow Valley said in committee that on the average between April 1, 1986, to the end of the grandfathering provision on December 31, 1987, there would be an average of four drilling rigs, and that two of those drilling rigs would belong to Husky-Bow Valley. So we would assume it would be using half of the Petroleum Incentives Program funds. The other companies at the most would be applying for $300 million and, as a rule, 40 per cent of the Petroleum Incentives Programs funds go to the Beaufort. That takes us to $1 billion. We have $950 million allocated for this fiscal year. However, this fiscal year ends on March 31, 1987, which means there is still from April 1, 1987, to December 31, 1987, for the rest of the drilling program, when other funds could be allocated. It is a diabolical plot to frustrate activity on the frontier, to hold out money to Canadian companies and then snatch it away by not allowing these Canadian companies to qualify.
Husky-Bow Valley was the only one to testify before the committee. But there are other affected companies. Because they do not have an investment in drilling rigs, for which they have to recoup funding, they do not face the prospect of losing so much money. In this way they can walk away without suffering the tremendous financial loss which a company such as Husky Bow Valley will suffer.
The treatment which has been dealt to the industry in exploration and the frontier development area is unacceptable to my Party. In no sense of the word can the Government possibly say it is interested in increasing our country's security

March 21, 1986
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
of supply because it is clandestinely working against what it said it would do.
We heard yesterday that the Premier of Alberta telephoned Sheik Yamani to voluntarily put a limit on production in Alberta. What the Government is doing is exactly the same thing, but through different means. It is placing a limit on production in the country as a result of its policies and the way it is implementing them. It gives policies on the one hand, and on the other it takes them back; through the back door by regulations which are to be used and retroactively applied.
We are in a very vulnerable position in Canada because our conventional supply of crude oil will last only a few more years. Unless the Government recognizes that, and unless it is prepared to take a stand, then the country's future supply of oil will run out very soon. I believe today is the day the Minister of Finance said he would hold meetings regarding the Husky upgrader. This is an important project in Western Canada. It would provide a means to develop synthetic oil which can be refined and used in the same way as we use conventional crude at the present time. It is vital that the Government agree to go ahead with the original commitment of the former Government to provide the loan guarantee of $780 million and the $50 million in grants in order to help this program.
It is not the industry we are seeing backing down in terms of development and exploration. What we are seeing is the Government backing out of the commitment to the exploration and development sectors. It is the Government which has weak knees in terms of planning for the future in order to provide what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) has called the engine for growth. Well, the wheels have fallen off that engine. How have they fallen off? Not as result of the falling price of oil and not as a result of the industry backing away. They have done so as a result of the Government backing away from its commitments. Where is the policy now? There is just so much contradiction. Not only is there contradiction in terms of policy but there is contradiction in terms of dealing with the industry. This creates what I think is most damaging of all, uncertainty. No one in the country knows where the Government is going, least of all the Government.
What is this doing? There is a range war out there in the energy sector. What we see is vigilante law in the energy sector because the Government is afraid to make a call or send a telegram asking for prices to come down. It is afraid it will be accused of scrapping deregulation. It is saying, in effect: "Goods heavens, don't let us be perceived as having said anything to the industry". I cannot call the President of Petro-Canada and tell him that he must pay a fair price to Canadian producers. I cannot tell him to give Canadian retailers the same wholesale price he is allowing American retailers. Right now the wholesale price from Petro-Canada to American retailers is seven cents a litre less than it is to retailers in Canada.
This is our rapidly depleting resource which the Government is selling. There is nothing wrong with that. It is important
that Canada carry on in this regard. However, we have to replenish what is there. We have to plan for the future. The Government is not doing that. Not only is it not doing that, it is allowing the product to be sold to American retailers more cheaply than to retailers in Canada. The Government is allowing the consumer to be gouged at the pumps. The Government is allowing Petro-Canada to pay producers in western Canada the lowest price in the world for crude oil. It was paying the west Texas intermediate posted price up until January of 1986; but then in January of 1986 The west Texas intermediate posted price became higher than the west Texas intermediate spot price. Instead of sticking with the posted price, Petro-Canada offered producers the spot price, which is the lowest price in the world for crude oil. So at a time when small and medium-sized Canadian companies are going bankrupt laying off employees the Crown corporation is gouging them with the lowest price possible. This is reprehensible. It is not what we want.
Why is it happening? Because the Government wants the Canadian people to hate Petro-Canada so much that there will be no flack whatsoever when it is offered to the private sector in a share issue. It wants Petro-Canada to make as much profit as it possibly can so that these shares will be as valuable to wealthy Canadians as they possibly can be, regardless of the fact that Canadians already own the corporation. What will happen is that Canadians will have to pay a third time for Petro-Canada. First, they will have to do it through the takeover of corporations of which Petro-Canada is now formed. Second, they are paying inflated prices at the pump. Third, there will be a share issue which will have Canadians, or ones who can afford it, buying the company which they not only own but which all Canadians own.
I would like to ask the House and the Government to reconsider this Bill and the damage it will cause if it becomes law.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) now has the floor. It is close to one o'clock. Shall I call it one o'clock?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Let us call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House rose at 1 p.m. the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) was given the floor.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
March 21, 1986


Claudy Mailly: Stand up.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 am standing up. I will tell you a Friday afternoon story, Mr. Speaker. The first time 1 ever gave a speech in the House I was sitting way back in the far corner of the Chamber. I was the last Member in the House because my name starts with a "W". Before I went into the House to make my first speech I said to the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme): "1 need something to make me appear taller in the House," and he said: "Here, take this". It was the Ottawa-Hull phone book. I put it down on the floor and stood up on it and it was just perfect. Then the Hon. Member rose on a point of order and said: "Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is speaking on a Liberal platform".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Of course, that has changed, has it not?
I do want to speak on Bill C-85, the Bill which ends the PIP. It is a short Bill. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) dealt with the Bill in some detail. I would like to illustrate in a different way how the PIP worked by using a concrete example and illustrating some of the problems that exist.
In committee we dealt with the fairness of the provisions for grandfathering out the Petroleum Incentives Program, the grants to oil companies for exploration in the offshore and the Arctic. I made my position on this fairly clear in the House on Monday, April 19, 1982; on Thursday, June 10, 1982; and on other occasions in the past. On those occasions, I spoke against the Petroleum Incentives Program. Normally I would be in favour of a Bill phasing out the program since I was against the program in the first place. However, the position of NDP Members is that we oppose this Bill. We opposed the program in the first place because it was an expensive means to Canadianize the industry and it was open to abuse.
As reported in Volume 1, page 1:17 of the committee hearings, I asked how much the PIP cost. The answer was that in 1982-83 it cost $1.4 billion; in 1983-84, $1.5 billion; in 1984-85, $1.9 billion and the expected cost for 1985-86 was $1.5 billion. As well, it was expected that the grandfathering period would end with a cost of a further $1 billion. That means that almost $8 billion has been spent on the program. I thought it was too expensive and open to abuse and I will show how it was open to abuse in a moment.
We are going to oppose the Bill, albeit reluctantly, for four reasons. The Government has not given the program a decent burial and is not grandfathering the program honestly. There was one advantage to the program. It permitted medium-sized Canadian oil companies to play with the big majors on the frontiers. The top recipients of PIP grants were Petro-Canada, Dome Petroleum Ltd., Husky Oil, Bow Valley Industries, Canterra Energy, Norcen, Home Oil, Gulf Canada, Scurry-Rainbow and Trillium Exploration. Those grants enabled these companies to go out to the frontiers. We should treat them fairly now that we are ending the program.
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
I was convinced by the evidence presented at the committee hearings that the Bill is unfair to the Canadian companies that invested and worked in offshore. I would like to read an article from Oilweek of February 24, 1986. The article quotes Robert Blair of Husky, probably Canada's leading private oil man. It reads as follows:
"We lowered our sights to seven wells," Blair said. "Now we're fighting for our seven wells." He was referring to separate meetings the day before with the same two ministers in an attempt to confirm that the seven remaining wells would be grandfathered for full PIP grants under C-85. "Through December. 1985, Husky-Bow Valley believed these wells could be fully 'PIPcd' if drilled between April 1, 1986 and December 31, 1987," he said. "But, starting in January, we heard the number of wells we could drill would be reduced to two." If true, he said, it would devastate the companies' program.
"As of this morning, we have been assured there will be four fully 'PIPcd wells." This would keep the consortium going for several months but "wc still need the seven wells to salvage the program." He estimated the PIP eligibility of the seven at $290 million.
What we saw in committee, and this is the hub of the problem, is that if a company under these new regulations is brought in to replace one that drops out of a well under the existing drilling program, that company cannot receive PIP grants for its work. We were told by some of Canada's leading oil men who testified before the committee, including Robert Blair, Art Price and Doc Seaman, that they would lose the end of the program and it would be very difficult to restart. As a matter of fact, there would be bad blood between the Government and these private oil companies and the programs could never be started again.
The second reason we are opposed to this Bill is that most of the Bill is in fact in the regulations. Without seeing the regulations, we cannot judge the Bill. We were offered telexes by the Parliamentary Secretary but these telexes were not really of much help. Why should we pass this Bill when we do not have the regulations? We will simply be giving the Government carte blanche.
We have passed Bills containing regulations that are to be made later, but in this case the regulations will be so broad and all encompassing that there is really not very much in the Bill itself. All the Bill does is deal with a few definitions and phase out the PIP.
The third reason we are opposed to this Bill is that exploration off the Grand Banks and the Scotian Shelf would be killed too abruptly which would be too much of a shock to Atlantic Canada. There has been a strange silence in committee. We did not hear from the Nova Scotia Government and we did not hear from Petro-Canada, even though we asked them to appear. I think this Bill means trouble for the East Coast. In fact, in my view it means the end of gas and oil exploration activities in Hibernia and in the Venture gas field in Nova Scotia. When this Bill is combined with the lower oil prices, it creates a double whammy and it will end exploration. I think the people of Atlantic Canada are just beginning to realize this.
The fourth and final reason we are opposed to this Bill is that I am not satisfied that we heard the real story behind the PIP grants in committee. I would like to tell the House a little bit about that story and I will dwell on one company. East

March 21, 1986
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
Coast Energy Corporation. I referred to this matter in committee a number of times.
The evidence of the committee meeting of February 6, 1986, as reported on page 1:21 of the minutes of the committee, show that 1 asked how much money East Coast Energy got in PIP grants. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. McDermid) replied that it had received $1,726,466. Then, at the end of the committee hearings, I tried to get the committee to subpoena Mr. Edward Chaisson and Mr. Fred Doucet, the principals of East Coast Energy. This was voted down by the Conservative majority. I want to tell the House a little bit about-


John Horton McDermid: You said Fred, you meant Joe Doucet.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I meant Gerald Doucet and Edward Chaisson.
East Coast Energy was the only private Atlantic Canada company that got involved in the coastal exploration. All the other companies were from Alberta. It is very important why this company failed and why it was unable even with the PIP grants to continue its program. This failure tells us something about the PIP grants. It also tells us something about what I call the St. Francis Xavier gang and the cronies who operate the PMO. They are real operators, Mr. Speaker.
East Coast Energy got a piece of the offshore from its friends in the Nova Scotia Government. The company paid $8 million for 1 per cent of the Venture field off Nova Scotia. The principals in the company were the Doucet brothers, Fred who later became the chief of staff of the then Opposition Leader, Brian Mulroney and Gerald.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I should not use a Member's name. I meant the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Mr. Doucet is on the Prime Minister's staff.
Last Friday I was in the court house in Toronto and found some interesting documents. I would like to quote from the case of Walter Wolf versus Jean Alfred Doucet. Wolf is the plaintiff and Doucet the defendant. This action is in the Supreme Court of Ontario, court file No. 6354/85. On page 4 of the statement of claim it reads:
The Defendant, Jean Alfred Doucet, is a senior advisor to the Prime Minister of Canada, resident in the City of Ottawa, in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and was until in or about the autumn of 1983 the Chief Executive Officer, Vice-President, Secretary and a director of ECE.
The Prime Minister in the early 1980s had been in St. Francis Xavier and had raised some money. Actually, Mr. Doucet had done most of the fund-raising, about $11 million for St. Francis Xavier University, but the present Prime Minister got a lot of the credit.
Just after this, Mr. Doucet called back in some of those favors. He got a number of the Prime Minister's friends, including the Prime Minister, to invest in East Coast Energy. The Prime Minister invested $15,000.
In December, 1982, there was a share issue because the company was undercapitalized in drilling holes off Nova Scotia. Even with the PIP grants and with a 1 per cent share it cost lots of money. According to the court documents, Mr. Doucet was approached by Michel Cogger, another of the Prime Minister's cronies and a Quebec solicitor, and he got Walter Wolf, who says he is a friend of the Prime Minister, to invest $500,000 in East Coast Energy.
According to further court documents, Mr. Speaker, and a related law suit, the suit of McLeod Young Weir Limited plaintiff against Michael Cogger and Walter Wolf, Supreme Court of Ontario court file No. 1654-84.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is a pre-trial hanging.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am being very careful and only reporting from court documents that are public. The investment firm of McLeod Young Meir handled the shares and Don Ripley, another old crony of the Prime Minister, handled this deal for McLeod Young Weir.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I suppose that is in the court documents?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Who is Walter Wolf and why is he important to the story of the PIP grants and East Coast Energy? He is the mysterious offshore money that came in, according to Mr. Dalton Camp, to fund the downfall of the former Conservative Leader, Mr. Clark. Mr. Wolf said publicly that he gave $25,000.
In fact, my sources tell me that a sum of $6 million was spent by the present Prime Minister in 1976, 1983 and 1984 at conventions in order to win the leadership of his Party. Up to $2 million was invested by Mr. Wolf. Up to $2 million was invested by Paul Desmarais of the Power Corporation, and another $2 million came from other sources.


John Horton McDermid: Wouldn't that be nice if it were true? It would be nice if fund-raising were that easy.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Why is Mr. Wolf suing Doucet? According to the court papers, the shares Wolf said he bought were never listed on the stock exchange. In other words the share issue fell flat. Fred Doucet then decided that East Coast Energy needed more than just PIP grants, but conventional oil production and immediate cash flow from it. Mr. Doucet then had East Coast Energy buy Petroleum Royalites Limited, an Alberta company. This was a dreadful mistake. He tried to merge the two companies and go to the market with a huge equity issue to wipe out the joint debt. The deal fell through, of course, because no one wanted to buy the shares of companies that were so indebted.
Last July, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce called the loans of East Coast Energy to fold East Coast Energy. Mr. Doucet is now one of the senior advisors to the Prime Minister of Canada.
What did Mr. Wolf get for his investment in East Coast Energy and in the Mulroney campaign? The answer is not much, although there was the matter of a contract for $363,-

March 21, 1986
000 from Petro-Canada to Wolf Sub-Ocean Ltd. which is part of the offshore play.
Wolf Sub-Ocean was owned by Walter Wolf and Frank Moores. Gerald Doucet, who is Fred's brother and formerly of East Coast Energy, is now a partner with Moores in a lucrative consulting firm in Ottawa. Members are well aware of this firm. Also in the company is Gary Ouellet, an important Quebec organizer for the Conservatives. Eric Dorion, President of the Young P.C.s of Quebec and an organizer for that Party, worked for Mr. Moores, Quellet and Gerry Doucet.
What was done with Wolfs offshore money? It went to buy Quebec bodies to send to the Winnipeg convention. At one meeting, for example, 1,000 people were paid $10 each to choose six delegates who were paid $1,000 each to go to Winnipeg. You can see why this committee should have heard from East Coast Energy and its principals. You can imagine how this would be treated in the United States by a committee there if the Americans were examining PIP, offshore and the way moneys were spent, Mr. Speaker.
The first Wolf case was set down for trial July 10, 1985, but there is a 16 to 18 month delay in Ontario. The trial will be December, 1986 or in 1987. Then maybe we can hear a little bit more about what is going on. Wolf is suing Doucet for $300,000. McLeod Young Weir is suing Wolf and Cogger for $200,000. There is no honour among thieves.
There should be a royal commission appointed in this country to investigate East Coast Energy, its use of the PIP money, its connections to Walter Wolf and to the Prime Minister's office through Fred Doucet, and the extent to which East Coast Energy money or Wolf money went to purchase, first a Party leadership, and ultimately the control of the Government of Canada. Who says Canada is a banana republic?


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is there or is there not a 10 minute question and answer period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not a 10
minute question and answer period. I have given ample time to speakers.


Carlo Rossi: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe we are entitled to a ten-minute question period for the Hon. Member who is the New Democratic Party energy critic. I think we are allowed ten minutes of questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I was a little fast on the draw, I must admit. Standing Order 55(1) states that the first two speakers have unlimited time and the last Member has 20 minutes plus a 10 minute period for questions and comments. Therefore, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) on a question or a comment.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I know that was just an honest slip on your part. The rules have been changed so often since the convening of this Parliament that I do not know how any
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
Speaker can fulfil his function to meet these changes that have been made by the Government-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: -since it took office. I listened with interest to the hon. gentleman's speech. I want to ask him about the first couple of minutes of his speech which had nothing at all to do with East Coast energy companies or individuals.
He stated correctly that he and his Party, in this Chamber, opposed the Petroleum Incentives Program. Over the years New Democratic Party members labelled the program as a massive giveaway to large oil companies. The Member now recognizes that Canadian companies based in Alberta, other than the company to which he mainly referred in his speech, are now saying that they cannot continue drilling without those incentives, regardless of the price of oil. Given that fact, would he not agree that the incentives which were in place prior to this Government assuming power should be reinstituted for the next two or three years?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Member is perhaps politely asking whether I am not being inconsistent, having spoken and voted against the PIP and now speaking against this Bill which phases it out. I said honestly in my speech that I did that and I gave the dates when I spoke in the House. 1 said at the time that I thought the PIP was too expensive. What have we got for $8 billion? Do we have a barrel of oil or any gas from the offshore or the Arctic? We got a token shipment of barrels from Bent Horn. We got some exploration and a little bit of knowledge of what was out there. However, I thought it was pretty expensive and I am not sure it was worth it. I recognize that some Canadian companies were involved, and I gave a list of them. The problem is that we are now going to leave them high and dry.
The program had two purposes. The first was to Canadian-ize the industry by giving breaks to Canadian companies. The second was to find out what existed in the frontiers. The real reason for the program was that the former Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, was having a war with the former Premier of Alberta, Mr. Lougheed, and he wanted exploration to be shifted to the frontiers which the federal Government controlled. You will recall that the federal Liberal Government always insisted that it had power in the offshroe. That was part of the energy battle. It was a tremendous waste of money.
I wish we could examine the amounts of money which were blown on this program. For $8 billion we could have bought Imperial Oil and that would have instantly given us 50 per cent Canadianization. We could have invested it in the tar sands or the heavy oil where results were guaranteed. I think it was a waste of money.
To answer the Member's question specifically, I do not think the program should be extended, but we owe it to those companies to have an orderly phasing out. It is a great surprise for the NDP to stick up for Canadian oil companies, but they

March 21, 1986
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
are being treated unfairly and this program should be phased out differently. Therefore, it is consistent for me to say that and oppose this Bill.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago the hon. gentleman said that he felt his Party owed it to the companies. I think perhaps he meant they owe it to the workers in the offshore and the companies which keep those workers employed.
In view of his party's position, does the Hon. Member believe-Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. McDermid) to listen to the questions and answers because he would learn something. It is unfortunate that questions were not allowed after his speech because that would have been a most enjoyable ten-minute experience after hearing the statements that Member made in the Chamber this morning.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would be happy to answer any questions the Hon. Member may have. I was in committee for a week and I did not see him there once asking one question. He is show-boating.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Order! The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate has the floor for a question or a comment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is going to cost you. That's a dumb move.


Carlo Rossi: He is dumb anyway.


George Baker: Does the Member believe that the oil companies which drill in the offshore and frontier lands actually made money from the PIP? This is a very important question, Mr. Speaker. The Member has considerable knowledge in this field. Does he believe that these companies actually made money drilling under the PIP? In other words, regardless of the price of oil, would they have drilled under the PIP?
I ask this because he knows that companies from western Canada are now saying they cannot drill in the offshore, not because the price of oil has gone down but because they cannot get the PIP money. They say that if they got an 80 per cent return on their dollar they would continue drilling. With the present income tax structure the return is about 30 per cent, and they say they cannot drill under those circumstances. Regardless of the price of oil, does the Member believe that with the PIP in place the companies would have drilled? In other words, is he saying that the companies actually made money under the Petroleum Incentives Program?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I will first say that the Member is right in saying that we owe it to the workers employed by the companies on the East Coast to not let them go just like that. That is what will happen if we do not phase this out in an orderly fashion. That was the evidence in committee.
With regard to whether the companies are making money or could continue, I will quote Mr. Allan Ruffman, the Vice-
President of Geomarine Associates Ltd. He told a business conference in Halifax, Perspective '86:
Based on the stated intention of East Coast explorers, there will probably be a 40-to-50 per cent reduction in drilling and a 70 per cent drop in the number of active rigs for a 50 per cent decline in over-all activity.
That was before oil prices fell. He said:
With the elimination of the replacement of exploration grants by tax breaks, however, the smaller companies may be out of "the offshore game".
We had other witnesses who said that without the grants they would not be in there. Oil companies will go if you give them big grants or super depletion allowances. Of course they made money under the Petroleum Incentives Program. I wish the committee could have studied some of the abuses which I heard of under the program. Money was transferred from company to company. There were a lot of abuses, but they made money and they drilled. There was activity there, there is no denying that. However, if you put enough money in front of anyone, they will take it as encouragement to go ahead.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the Hon. Member's time has expired. Debate. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to discourage anyone from speaking on this Bill, but there were discussions between the parties on the basis of rearranging the scheduling of Business of the House to accommodate the Liberal Party energy critic and the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). I had a clear understanding that in order to accommodate the critics we would have one speaker per party. I would like to know if the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) was aware of that understanding and whether the Liberal Party is going to continue speaking on this Bill.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I was here yesterday when the Minister made a proposal concerning Bill C-85. My House Leader said he could not give his undertaking to whatever the proposal was because we did not understand it. There was a lack of communication. There must be another lack of communication because I understood that the Member from our party who spoke this morning on the Bill did not tell us there was an agreement that there would be only one speaker. He did tell me that the Bill would be voted on today sometime but I never understood there would be a restricted number of speakers.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I was involved in the discussions and the initial agreement was that the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) and I would speak today. Because of an illness in the family the Liberal Party critic would speak on Tuesday. As it turned out he very kindly said he would stay this morning so we would have one speaker each. I made that agreement with the critics who in turn spoke to their House Leaders. The Hon. Member filled his commitment this morning and has since left for his riding because of
March 21, 1986

an illness in the family. If they are going to break the agreement, then we will be very disappointed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am at the disposal of the House. I would like to help the cause but I see that there is going to be debate-


George Baker: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. This Bill ends the PIP program and exploration off the Newfoundland coast.


John Horton McDermid: No!


George Baker: I am going to put my words on the record here in this Chamber this afternoon regardless of any agreement. I do not know of any agreement, but regardless, I am going to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On that basis, then, debate. I would like to recognize the Hon. Member-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am here on a Friday afternoon when I generally go to my riding because I expect this Bill is going to be coming to a vote.


John Horton McDermid: Speak to your House Leader.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is not a point of order, it is debate. I appreciate what the Hon. Member has just said.


Brian Vincent Tobin: They are trying to shut us down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is debate and the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) has the floor.
[ Translation]


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly what transpired in a discussion by various Members of this House, but before I start my speech on Bill C-85, perhaps 1 should mention that this morning I was talking to my hon. friend from Cape-Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) about my speech this afternoon and along what lines it would be. He never indicated there had been an agreement on limiting the number of speeches.
Mr. Speaker, 1 believe that today we are beginning a very important phase in the way this country is going to manage its limited and non-renewable gas and oil reserves.
in fact, Bill C-85 is an almost definitive step towards the abolition of a national energy policy. This policy, with its weaknesses, strengths and shortcomings, had three objectives. The first was exploration; the second was to achieve increasing Canadian control; and the third was to protect producers and consumers against substantial price fluctuation.
Mr. Speaker, this objective was perhaps too ambitious. And it was perhaps difficult to achieve, not only in the North American context but also in the world energy context. The
Petroleum Incentives Program Act fact remains there was at least one very specific objective which was to provide for increasing Canadian control over exploration, distribution and Canadianization.
But why should we have a national energy policy in the first place, with, granted, its strengths and its weaknesses? First of all, because the market theory was no longer workable. In fact, since the middle seventies, a group of producing countries had decided to use production control as a means of artificially raising prices. So there was no more free market as we know it, that is, freedom for both buyers and sellers. Furthermore, the number of participants in the market was becoming increasingly limited. And the impact of the activities of this cartel was considerable in terms of excessive profits being enjoyed by an increasingly limited number of participants.
I want to get back to the national energy policy. It did have its weaknesses, which could have been corrected, I will not deny that. The national energy policy was perhaps too ambitious. If the Conservative Government had been willing, it could have limited the scope of the policy through legislation and Government programs. It could have changed or adjusted the policy.
But now, Bill C-85 creates a situation where there will be no Government of Canada to oversee the administration of this limited and non-renewable resource, which is now in the hands of a very limited number of producers.
Mr. Speaker, there will be no more national energy policy. And as for the law of the market, when people say; "Now the market will determine the price", do we really have a free market when producing countries decide to cut production in order to control prices? Do we really have a free market? Can we talk about market laws when four or five producing countries can determine the price millions of consumers will have to pay for this very important commodity? Is there a free market when independent producers are at the mercy of four or five buyers? Can we say the market place is working when we find ourselves in a situation such that the Premier of a province gets in touch with an Arab leader in an attempt to control production so as to boost prices?
Mr. Speaker, if we are to have an energy policy established by a few countries or a handful of producers, why should that policy not be set here in the House by the elected representatives of all Canadians? Mr. Speaker, do we want energy prices and exploration methods to be determined by OPEP members who may or may not agree among themselves? Is all that going to depend on the odd phone call between the Alberta Premier and Sheik Yamani?


Claudy Mailly: No, no!


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member may take the floor anytime she wants, but she should refrain from interrupting Members who are serious about this matter. She should speak to her friend the Premier of Alberta.

March 21, 1986
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
Mr. Speaker, nobody can tell me that the dictates of the market place will prevail with respect to energy when we are facing a cartel and when a handful of foreigners can affect the price Canadians pay for their gasoline or heating oil.
Mr. Speaker, I would say allright, for I believe in free competition and in marketplace, but only when it works. That is why I agree with the marketplace, but I reject the interference of the cartel. If indeed foreigners can decide the future of Canadian consumers and independent producers, I say that if foreigners can do that the Members of this House not only can do the same thing but they must give it top priority. That is why I am a bit upset and quite concerned about the Conservative Government approach, and again I repeat that our national energy policy could have been amended and changed. Some of those benefits could have been limited if they had been deemed excessive, but because of the current world situation, I suggest that a joint intervention of the federal Government and producing provinces is not only desirable but necessary.
Mr. Speaker, why could we not decide ourselves to ensure that oil resources exploration and development-at least most of it, if not all of it-is carried out in Canada by Canadians? As representatives of the Canadian people as a whole, could we not decide democratically here and now, through our tax system and budgetary measures, what is good for our country, our consumers as well as our producers? Mr. Speaker, why could we not, through consultations with the producing provinces, achieve a consensus governing the exploration, development and distribution of these limited and non-renewable resources?


John Horton McDermid: That's exactly what we have done. [Translation]


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. McDermid) has said: "Exactly what we have done". What is it that they have done? They have turned over the whole administration to the private sector under the pretext of a free market system, something which actually does not exist. I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to argue today that competitive forces are at work in this country and are determining oil prices. I am going to use against him his own argument. It is said today that Petro-Canada is buying oil at the lowest possible world price and selling it to Canadians at the highest possible price. What is the purpose of this policy? To get rid of independent producers and gouge consumers of this country.


Claudy Mailly: That is not true!


Raymond Garneau: What is happening is that...


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please!


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, we will be entitled to a 10-minute period for questioning and comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order! Order, please ...!


Carlo Rossi: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) is interrupting all the time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Order, please. Order, please. There will be an opportunity for questions and comments after the Hon. Member finishes his 20-minute speech. I know it is Friday afternoon and everybody wants to go back to their constituency but I would like to hear the Hon. Member's speech. I would also ask you to hold your questions and comments until after the Hon. Member finishes debate.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I submit that Bill C-85- [English]


An Hon. Member:: Did you learn that in Quebec City?
[ Translation]


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


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


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member has insulted the Province of Quebec when he said that


Did you learn that in Quebec City? Mr. Speaker, we will not stand for that kind of rubbish.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is not a point of order. I don't know what happened there but 1 know that the Hon. Member has the floor. 1 would appreciate very much if Hon. Members would allow him to finish his debate and then 1 will recognize Hon. Members for questions and comments.
[ Translation]


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, what I wish to emphasize is that... I understand, Mr. Speaker, that it hurts the Conservative Members to realize that they are giving away something very important, namely our oil and gas resources. They are giving them away by allowing foreign interests to gain control over them, not in terms of ownership, but in terms of development because the present price of oil lets the cartels control the energy policy of Canada, even though this policy should be set by this very House.
Mr. Speaker, I submit with all due respect that by virtually cancelling all exploration programs and abandoning any national energy policy, we are placing this country at the mercy of decisions made outside Canada. I also submit that, to the
March 21, 1986

extent that there is no competition because of the number of companies involved, what the Conservative Government is now doing is to crush independent Canadian producers as, sooner or later, especially if the prices go down, these producers will have to sell out to the larger companies which have the required cash flow because of the fact that there is no competition and that prices at the pumps are high. Because of this and the attitude of Petro-Canada in this sector, the large companies will be able to liberate the necessary cash flow to buy out independent producers, who will be caught in a trap. Why are these independent producers now caught in a trap? Because one of the larger companies, Petro-Canada, must purchase 60 to 70 per cent of its oil from them. It buys this oil at a low price and resells it at the pump where it can control prices.
In this context, Mr. Speaker, I think that if decisions have to be made logically and democratically, it should be by this House and by the Government on the other side and not by players outside this place.
I would like to add another dimension to this debate and speak about Canadian unity. When international oil prices were high, the Liberal Government at the time naturally disagreed with the people opposite and said that it was abnormal for Canadians in general to pay excessive prices for heating oil and gasoline and for Canadian businesses to pay such high prices for their energy products because three or four producing countries had decided to set up a cartel. Naturally, at that time, certain producing provinces were asked to make sacrifices for the rest of Canadians. What I am suggesting today to the Government is that in that same spirit of Canadian unity, a point in time will come, if the situation continues to change, where the central provinces, Quebec, Ontario and other regions will have to send the elevator back to the Western producers because we cannot accept that for the purpose of allowing for a kind of free competition that does not actually exist they should tear down in a matter of two to three years' time what has cost so much time and money to build up, that is the Canadianization of our companies which are engaged in oil exploration and production. This is exactly what the OPEC cartel is trying to do, disrupt as much as possible our national self-sufficiency policies. And once they are disrupted, they will jack prices back up and we will find ourselves, in a few years from now maybe, with oil at $40 or $50 U.S. a barrel. And by eliminating with Bill C-85 important elements of the National Energy Policy, by completely deregulating a "free" market that is not actually free, they are trying to bring to an end the Canadianization of our companies and they will push Canada into a situation in which it will again have to depend on foreign producing countries for our supplies, if all exploration is to be stopped.
This is why I am arguing today, not so much to defend the petroleum incentive program as it existed. My aim is not at all costs to defend every aspect of the National Energy Policy. My aim is to tell the Government: "Watch out! Make no mistake!
Petroleum Incentives Program Act The approach you are taking might be the one that will kill free competition. It might prove to be the most damaging approach to private enterprise that could exist. And it might probably place this country back into situations of conflict between the East and the West."
Mr. Speaker, considering the reduced international price of oil and the fact that Petro-Canada because of its purchasing power is crushing independent producers, would the government intervene rather than withdraw from the management of that resource which is generally known as being limited and non-renewable.
I see all the Tory Members from Alberta. I understand that they are in a difficult position. However, I say today, having travelled throughout Quebec and part of Ontario, that you have supporters not only in Alberta but everywhere in Canada who realize that at a given time there should be a reversal.
I do not know when one should intervene, but I am concerned each time the minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mrs. Carney) says that we will have no intervention but free competition.
I am concerned and I say to the Tory Members, especially those from the West that they may have made some representations in their caucus. However, these will not be entirely inconsistent with mine because I do not want to take a partisan approach. However, if they want me to, I could well do so.
But when I talk about Canadian unity, will the Tory Members tell me that I am being partisan? When I say that there is no competition in the oil industry, am I being partisan? When I say we should help Canadianization and protect our producers, am I being partisan?
Mr. Speaker, at what point should I consider comments as insulting to my colleagues? I would invite them to understand that we are not talking about the corner store but about an industry where four or five major companies control product distribution. When there are only three, four or five buyers, how can you expect independent producers to survive if there is no Government to protect competition.
In fact, how can we have a free market when producing countries are openly getting together to try and limit production and make prices go up? I say that if anyone should set prices for oil and gas within Canada's borders, it should be the Government of my country, not the member countries of OPEC.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. Questions and comments.
The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly).


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, it is really too bad that in his first major speech since he was appointed.
11766

March 21, 1986
Petroleum Incentives Program Act the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) should serve up another one of those speeches full of lies and exaggerations. I would like to comment on certain points. However, he raised so many, Mr. Speaker, that in spite of ourselves, we reacted rather violently to what he was saying. For instance, when he said that we were letting this country's oil policy being determined by the premier of one of the provinces... He knows perfectly well that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) said that Canada's policy is created by the Government of Canada. He did not say that the Premier of Alberta had no voice in discussions on international policy or even the national policies of our Government. And he knows that. And that is why I maintain that what he said was a tissue of lies.
Second, he said we wanted to let the market decide the future-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Member opposite is not only conducting herself in an unlady like fashion with her "vomitting" phrases, she has now referred to lies. That is clearly unparliamentary and she should withdraw it as quickly as she should withdraw herself from the House.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Withdraw.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. This is not The
Young and the Restless. 1 realize that this is Friday afternoon. I have not head the Hon. Member because of the amount of conversation that is taking place.


Brian Vincent Tobin: She said "fabric of lies".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Member is are intimating this, I think you should withdraw your statement. I find that that is not parliamentary.


Brian Vincent Tobin: A point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: One moment. I did not hear the translation and I would ask the Hon. Member to say whether she used unparliamentary language. If she has, I would as her to withdraw it and if she has not, we will carry on with a short question and short comment. The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly).


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I did not use unparliamentary language because according to the Standing Orders we cannot call somebody a liar, but we can express doubts about the true meaning of the remarks of Hon. Members, and that is what I did. I pointed out that the remarks of the Hon. Member were a fabric of lies. I did not say he was a liar, I said his remarks were a fabric of lies.
Mr. Speaker, if I may-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Gatineau should wash her mouth with soap because her comments are absolutely ... She is indulging in semantics. If she says that the comments of the Hon. Member are a "fabric of lies", it is the same thing as saying that the Hon. Member is a liar. She must withdraw those remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It is a borderline case. The Hon. Member for Gatineau is causing the Chair a lot of difficulty by getting as close as she is to unparliamentary language. I hope she will refrain from that and carry on with a short question and comment, please.
(Translation]


Claudy Mailly: So, Mr. Speaker, I will continue. I was saying that the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) ... Mr. Speaker, I was saying-


Brian Vincent Tobin: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) clearly indicated to the Speaker and the House that she used the words "a veritable fabric of lies". Those were her words, referring to the speech of the Hon. Member who spoke from this side of the House.
When she goes further and tells you that she is doing it in that way because it might be an indirect and permissible way of calling someone a liar, her intention is clear and the Speaker ought to rule decisively.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You cannot do indirectly what you cannot do directly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Member used unparliamentary language, would she please withdraw and carry on with her question.
[ Translation]


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I went on to say that in his remarks the Hon. Member had claimed-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: l would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Name her.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the Hon. Member please withdraw her statement and carry on with her question or comment.
[ Translation]


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, since you are asking me to make a concrete gesture, I am pleased, to save you from an embarrassing situation, to make that concrete gesture. I regret having said it was a "fabric of lies" and I will simply rephrase by saying that he stretched the truth more than can reasonably be expected.
So, there you are.

March 21, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claudy Mailly: Now then, Mr. Speaker, to get back- [English]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: A point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 am ruling that the Hon. Member has withdrawn the statement she made. If the Hon. Member has a point of order, I will hear it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that when the Speaker orders a Member to withdraw, the rule is that there be an unequivocal withdrawal. That was not an unequivocal withdrawal and the Speaker knows it. If we want to set new precedents in the House, we can.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: An unequivocal withdrawal is very hard to get in this Chamber, I must say to the Hon. Member, who has been here for a long time. What the Hon. Member has done, as far as I am concerned and the Chair is so ruling, I consider to be a very fine withdrawal in this regard, particularly on Friday, March 21.


Claudy Mailly: For instance, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) is wrong when he says that we let the market place set Canada's oil policy and that it was harmful to the consumer. Indeed, had we followed the energy policy of the Liberal Government the consumer would not now be able to benefit from falling prices because the Liberal Government had set up a system of administered prices which would have prevented them from dropping since there was a compensation charge.
Second, he said that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) did not intervene in this case, but apparently he forgot-perhaps he was not in the House at the time-that when world prices first began to come down she told the oil companies' representatives that they would eventually have to pass on to the consumer any savings resulting from declining crude oil prices. Therefore it is not true to say that she did not intervene in this case.
On the other hand, when he talks about canadianizing the industry-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope that the Hon. Member will come to a question, please.


Claudy Mailly: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have been interrupted so many times that it is difficult for me to carry on with my question. However, I should like to mention for instance the fact that under the previous Liberal administration, the purpose of Canadianization was to force small Canadian companies to join huge foreign oil consortia to
Petroleum Incentives Program Act become eligible to the tax breaks under the National Energy Policy, which meant that instead of developing under a free market system, the small businesses were crushed by the foreign oil corporations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the Hon. Member has had ample time. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) may reply or rebut.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who has just spoken has failed to understand what is at the heart of the debate, as evidenced by her questions ... or rather her comments. She submits today that the Minister has intervened, while the Minister herself has indicated on several occasions in the House that she would not intervene in order from now on to allow free market forces to operate. She would weekly suggest to the oil multinationals to lower their prices, at a time when she herself, as a Member of this Government, is a shareholder of the company which refuses most stubbornly to lower its prices at the pumps, the same company which is paying our small producers the international price instead of the average Texas posted prices as before.
Which means that the Government, because of its decision not to intervene, will turn over the whole management of Canadian energy resources to four or five Canadian companies equipped with refinery facilities and a distribution network, and also to a foreign cartel which, through production control, may impose, more or less successfully, the prices which Canadian consumers will have to pay at the pumps, which brings me back to the gist of my remarks. If someone in this country is to determine the price which Canadian men and women will have to pay for gas at the pumps, it should be the Government of my country, because if I am dissatisfied, I may, together with other Canadian voters, change the Government; however, there is nothing anybody can do against the OPEC cartel or for that matter, against the presidents of Petro-Canada or Imperial Oil.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 will allow another two minutes or so with regard to questions or comments on the speech of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides. I would like to call upon the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) and then the Hon. Member for Gander-Twil-lingate (Mr. Baker). Will they make it brief, please?
[ Translation]


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the finance critic of the Liberal Party. He has referred to Canadian unity and to problems between Eastern and Western Canada. Would he be in favour of a floor price for oil producers in Western Canada?

March 21, 1986
Petroleum Incentives Program Act


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I said a while ago that at a given time there should be some intervention. I have not referred to a minimum price and the Member should know that there are other means. Taxation can be used but I do not want to suggest that this is the only approach. However, if the international price of oil keeps going down, if at a given moment we do not want to destroy something which has been so costly, as you and other Members have said, it has cost billions, of dollars to build up a Canadian oil industry controlled exclusively by Canadians. If we do not want to see that destroyed, there will have to be some intervention. It could be setting a minimum price or something else. This is why at present, I do not want to personally endorse a minimum price, because there could be some other solutions and I would like Government leaders and other authorities to suggest some sort of policy.


George Baker: Very briefly, as you said, Mr. Speaker, to correct the record, the fact is that American companies are purchasing oil from Canada cheaper than the refineries are purchasing Canadian oil. Canadian companies are then buying back a refined product and selling it in Canada cheaper than Canadian refined oil is being sold to Canadians. That is the bottom line. Canadian oil and gas are being transferred across the border and still end up being cheaper than what Canadians are paying for their own oil and gas. That is the question the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) should have to answer when she speaks to Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has now terminated. Debate.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-85 because of its profound implications for the country in general and for my home province in particular. What the Government did in its head-long rush to satisfy the whims of people in the corporate office towers and around the boardroom tables a year and a half ago when life was presumably a bit rosier in the oil patch than it is today, was to write an energy policy for them, which essentially made them very happy because it put back into their hands billions of dollars in tax revenues which, up until the election of this administration, belonged to the Government of Canada. At the same time, the Government's policy took away substantial amounts of taxpayer dollars which were being used as an incentive to develop Canadian oil and gas self-sufficiency. I am talking about the Petroleum Incentives Program, which is absent from Bill C-85, which was used to begin exploration on the offshore Hibernia in Newfoundland, my own home province, Venture in Nova Scotia, the Beaufort Sea, and so on. What has happened? When the Government announced its policy to abandon PIP, when it took that first Draconian step to destroy the notion of energy self-sufficiency and the development of frontier oil reservoirs, it said to those
companies operating in the offshore of Newfoundland: "Don't worry. We're going to honour our commitments made in 1983 through to 1987". That was in reference to drilling programs which were already in place, which were contingent upon receiving those Petroleum Incentive Program grants. That is what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said. That is how he reassured this House about offshore Newfoundland when he brought in his May, 1985 Budget.
What has happened since? Oil patch people and people concerned with the offshore in terms of development said that although it was not good news, they still had until 1987 to adjust. What happened in the interim? In the interim the Government decided that as of January I, 1986, it will not honour its commitments through to 1987. It will no longer make available PIP grants to the offshore.
What was the reaction to that announcement in the offshore of Newfoundland? By the time they get around to the offshore drilling season they will be lucky to have any activity left at all. That was the reaction. Every major player involved in offshore activity in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia has told the Government publicly that their programs have been destroyed. They have told the Government that the commitments they made a number of years ago based on the notion that PIP grants would be in place and maintained through to 1987 have been shattered. There will not be a drilling program worth calling a drilling program this year in the offshore of Nova Scotia. The Government has destroyed the offshore play. It has abandoned the notion of self-sufficiency.
What does that mean to an area such as Nova Scotia? What does it mean to a province such as Newfoundland? What does it mean to the riding of Western Arctic where the Fraser is used as a major transportation artery? What does it mean to the towns of Pine Point and Hay River from where goods and supplies are moved into the Beaufort? It is the equivalent of having one's heart ripped out while it still beats in one's breast. That is what it means.
Many people across the country involved in frontier exploration made commitments. These were commitments made not only of heart, fibre, soul and mind-not just commitments to a bright new day, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) likes to say-but commitments made in terms of dollars and cents. They were commitments made which involved substantial amounts of money. This money has been spent in anticipation based on the Government's word, which melts like snow in the spring.
In my riding of Humber-Port au Port-Ste. Barbe, one company, North Star Cement Limited, in anticipation of moving to production in Hibernia, has spent millions of dollars upgrading its plant. It is the only cement plant in Newfoundland. It has spent several millions of dollars developing a terminal on the other side of the island in St. John's in anticipation of being able to participate in concrete form development. What has happened? The Government which gave its word, which set out the ground rules and the promises
March 21, 1986

for tomorrow, has changed the ground rules dramatically. It has walked away from offshore Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. This plant, in an area where there is 30 per cent unemployment, and which was able to acquire the financing from the banks in the first place, now passes every single day in dread of the news that the development which was promised will now be shelved. Because of the fiscal policies of the Government there is a sense in offshore Newfoundland that there has been a death in the family and that no one has bothered to announce the date of the funeral. That is the sense which pervades in the Province of Newfoundland. It is in that type of environment that 6,000 civil servants are in the streets in the Province of Newfoundland as we speak today.
The Government of Canada is not responsible for world oil prices. I do not blame it for something which is beyond its control. It is not responsible for the turn-around in the economy. That is also as a result of world economic factors and not as a result of the good policies of the Government. While it is not responsible for decreased prices, it is also not responsible for positive factors which have been generated by the world economy.
Let me tell Hon. Members for what this Government is responsible. It is responsible for changing the rules of the game. It is responsible for withdrawing funds which were committed and promised as recently as in the May Budget. It is responsible for breaking commitments which were given and upon which substantial investment in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia was made. That is what this Government is responsible for.
The Government continues with a market-place doctrinaire-driven mentality which would see the Government stand idly by while the oil industry of Alberta is destroyed. It is responsible for the market-place free enterprise philosophy to the extent that it will stand by to see the play off Newfoundland and Nova Scotia destroyed. It is worse than that. It is worse when one comes from a province in which we saw 84 men go down on the rig Ocean Ranger, 84 men who drowned at sea in an accident which was preventable. It is worse coming from a province in which we saw a federal-provincial royal commission on the disaster recommend certain changes and improvements at a cost of $20 million of taxpayers' money. It is worse coming from a province in which we have seen excellent recommendations designed to provide every possibility of rescue in the event of a disaster at sea. The Government has not moved on the major recommendations of the royal commission which looked into the Ocean Ranger disaster.
There was a Bill tabled in the House today, Bill C-75, a transportation Bill which contains within it the seeds of insanity. Despite the recommendations of the royal commission and the results of two Federal Court of Appeal cases, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) has refused to pass the jurisdiction with respect to rigs operating in the offshore over to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski). Why has she done this when the Minister of Transport has jurisdiction for every other vessel or type of equipment which floats in the nation's seas under the jurisdiction of the
Petroleum Incentives Program Act Canada Shipping Act? Why should he not also have jurisdiction over such an area? Why should the Minister of Energy maintain jurisdiction over such rigs? What sense does it make? There is a political personality fight brewing in Cabinet. The other day I had to sit through a spectacle in the legislative committee on Bill C-75 where I saw a phrase added to the Bill which states that with respect to questions of safety-those questions regarding the life and limb of people who work in the offshore-there will be unprecedented joint jurisdiction between a power-mad Minister of Energy and an empire-building-


Mrs. Sparrow:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 really wonder whether or not the address being given by my hon. friend is relevant to Bill C-85 which deals with the phasing out of PIP grants.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) is right. 1 believe the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-Ste. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) will return to making his comments relevant to the Bill before us.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal more particularly with Bill C-85. I am sure the Hon. Member from Alberta will appreciate my emotional response in which 1 have taken the opportunity to express my disgust at what is obviously a ridiculous situation resulting from petty personality politics.
Let me say to my colleague from Alberta, who has reminded me to speak more particularly to Bill C-85, that it must be frustrating for her-indeed, for all Hon. Members from Alberta-to see thousands of jobs, particularly in the last four or five weeks, disappear in the Province of Alberta quicker than the snow disappears in the spring, while the Minister of Energy says nothing more than-


Herbert O. Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My hon. colleague's remarks are still not relevant to the Bill which phases out PIP grants.


Brian Vincent Tobin: They are very relevant.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 am sure the Hon. Member still has a few moments to speak and I know he is going to get back to Bill C-85. I think he is trying to get to Bill C-85.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. It is relevant to Bill C-85 because it is part of the total fiscal regime for the energy plague. Whether PIP grants exist or not, what happens to the oil industry in the frontiers is very relevant to what happens in Alberta.
Perhaps the Hon. Member does not understand that it is part of the total fiscal regime, but I admire the Hon. Member. She is genuinely serious and sincere. 1 have heard her express her great concern for the lack of action on job loss in Alberta. If she does not understand what I am saying, then I ask her to take my word for it that it is relevant. It is indeed relevant

March 21, 1986
Petroleum Incentives Program Act because the same kind of attitude is being expressed toward the Province of Alberta by the administration as is being expressed by it toward the Province of Newfoundland.
We have a fiscal regime that is a recipe for inaction in the event of a made-in-Canada oil industry. Canadian companies operate in Newfoundland and those same companies operate in Alberta. Their ability to operate in Newfoundland, whether they make or lose money, impacts on their ability to make investments in more traditional kinds of exploration in Alberta.
Canadian oil companies are being destroyed because this administration has a non-interventionist policy at a time when the industry is very weak and susceptible to takeover by American concerns. The net result for Newfoundland is a denial of promise, a denial of opportunity, a denial of potential and a loss of hope for the future. In the case of Alberta, it is a loss of tangible jobs that already exist, not promised jobs. It is a loss of the backbone of the economy that keeps the whole fabric of Alberta society together.
As I see the promise of my province destroyed, I feel great empathy for those people in Alberta who are not losing just promises but are losing their bread and butter. There has been not a whimper, not a peep and not an indication on the part of the administration that it is going to intervene in any way, shape or form beyond slapping the Premier of Alberta on the wrist.
In desperation and frustration, because he sees no action taken on the part of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Premier of Alberta, called Sheikh Yamani of Saudi Arabia. What does it tell us when the Premier of one of Canada's provinces is ready to jump into bed with OPEC and is ready to join a cabal in desperation to try to stop the outflow of economic blood from his province? What does it tell us about the leadership at the federal level when the Premier of Alberta, a member of the Conservative Party, presumably a personal friend of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, gets on the phone to Sheikh Yamani Looking for answers to problems in Alberta, answers that he cannot find in Ottawa? The imagery is incredible.


Claudy Mailly: The price of oil is too low, that's what it means.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Hon. Member opposite says it means that Premier Getty has not got a good mind, if that is what he does.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, this is definitely not what I said and he knows it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I'm not sure what she said. Maybe I misheard it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. There will be questions and comments after the very personable and popular Member finishes speaking.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am not sure what she said. It was another unintelligible sound.


Carlo Rossi: She's a dumb dodo.


Brian Vincent Tobin: When a premier finds it necessary during a time of renewed federalism, as advertised by the Prime Minister, to take his problems to Saudi Arabia and tries to find sympathy, empathy or understanding for his difficulties in Saudi Arabia, when he goes to the heart of OPEC, a cartel operated in a despicable manner that is desperately trying to find solutions to the problems it has caused for itself, rather than picking up the phone to talk to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) who comes from Alberta, rather than talking to the Prime Minister who claims to have brought the West into Confederation, rather than talking to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who comes from British Columbia, that surely is an indication that we have a serious problem. All we are hearing from the Government is that free market forces shall dictate.
Let me say to Government Members that in their obsessive, doctrinaire approach to the lack of regulation and lack of management of the oil and gas industry, they are destroying the promise and potential of future generations of Canadians, particularly those in some of the poorest parts of this country. I speak in particular of Newfoundland. The Government has broken faith.
The Government signed an Atlantic Accord that turns out to be nothing more than a shallow, farcical bit of theatre designed for an election campaign that occurred in Newfoundland a year ago. The people of Newfoundland shall not forget. The people of Newfoundland shall not forgive. Before the last act of this sorry play has been presented to a desperate people, the Government shall rue the day it took its orders from the barons who occupy the ivory towers of New York and Holland rather than those people who are trying to build a Canadian oil industry in Canada.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Hon. Member and I would like to ask him one question. Does he think we should keep the PIP grants or not?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I come from a province where there is a very simple philosophy. When you give your word, Mr. Speaker, when you say to somebody: "I shall be there, I shall do something", then, providing you have legs to walk with and hands to work with and tongue to speak with, you deliver. In my province, it does not take an Act of legislation, a recording on tape, an announcement in the House of Commons or something cast in blood or stone, it simply takes one's word. In the case of the Government, its word has been cast in stone, said in the House of Commons, recorded on television and published in the newspapers, but it has all been shattered, crushed and thrown away like a word that was never seriously given at all.
Do we keep the PIP grants? Yes, the Government of Canada made a commitment upon which thousands of people rested some hope for the future, upon which thousands of
March 21, 1986

young people based a notion of their place in Newfoundland society, upon which hundreds of small business people relied to mortgage businesses and homes. They had the expectation that a word given would be a word kept. For all of those people, the Government should keep its word.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 don't know about that comment about tongues, hands and legs. In my province, if it has a tongue like a duck, hands like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
Perhaps the Hon. Member was being a little less than straightforward in some regards. His former Leader, Prime Minister Trudeau, was, in the words of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), dancing sheikh to sheikh with Sheikh Yamani when he visited Saudi Arabia.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member about this East-West thing. What does he expect the Premier of Alberta to do right now considering that the Alberta economy is falling apart and there is 40 per cent unemployment there and even double that in Newfoundland? Industries are collapsing. This guy seems a bit desperate. I know he is not as sophisticated as Premier Lougheed but what does the Hon. Member expect the Premier of Alberta to do in this present situation?


An Hon. Member:: Dance.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I find that an amazing comment from the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) who is quoted yesterday as having said that he believes the actions of the Premier of Alberta to be totally improper. In my province, if it has a beak and claws and scratches around and cannot make up its mind to speak clearly, we do not call it a duck, we call it a chicken.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Let me respond to the Hon. Member by saying that I did not, I am proud to say, participate in the election in Alberta of a solid wall of Conservative Members provincially and a solid wall of Conservative Members federally. The net result is that very few people were elected in Alberta to provide an effective Opposition.
As a Canadian who is concerned about my fellow Canadians in Alberta, I expect that what Mr. Getty really ought to do as Premier of Alberta is to put aside his Party loyalties and affiliations for a moment, and ask himself whether, as Premier of all the people of Alberta versus the Leader of the Conservative Party in Alberta, federal current fiscal policies and the notion of letting the market-place determine how low the price drops and how many people get laid off is acceptable to his people versus his Party.
He should ask himself whether his problems can be resolved by the late night desperate call to Yamani in Saudi Arabia or whether they are better solved by standing up as an Albertan versus hunkering down quietly as a Conservative and asking the Government of Canada, "If the price goes straight through
Petroleum Incentives Program Act the floor and every job be lost and every back be broken in the oil patch, is this philosophy really right?" Is this a long view approach to developing energy policy in this country? Does this in the long view ensure some sense of energy self-sufficiency? Does this in the long view ensure that there shall be a Canadian energy industry? Those are the kinds of things that I would be saying to Mr. Getty.
I hope that Mr. Getty will put aside phone calls to Sheik Yamani. 1 understand those are phone calls made in frustration and made by a man who does not know where else to turn.
1 know he is frustrated, but I am saying to him that the way to resolve the problem is by sitting down and doing some tough nosed bargaining and negotiation with the Government of Canada, speaking frankly as an Albertan and not as a Conservative on behalf of the people of his province.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I have a short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the Hon. Member then favour a floor price so that the price of oil for the Alberta producers, to use his phrase, will not go through the floor?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member favours a made-in-Canada energy policy-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You have to stand for something.


Brian Vincent Tobin: -and as is suggested by the finance critic for the Liberal Party, Mr. Garneau, there are a variety of ways, either through the tax system or through other means that we can use. We can sit down together and talk and not be locked into a doctrinaire position. We can develop ways to assist the industry in Canada. It will not be done, Mr. Waddell, by walking away from the problem and shaking-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It is the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) and the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).
Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) for the excellent presentation that he made. I can understand why he made the point, why he got rather riled up and why he became, at least so far as I detected, somewhat emotional. His voice was raised, and I believe that the reason the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe does that on occasion on certain issues-and I am being perfectly serious-is that he spends most of his day in his office doing constituency work on behalf of people who are either on welfare or on unemployment insurance, who are seeking pension income, are disputing a decision of the Government or are begging for a job at $200 a week.
That is a fact. This is what people have got on federal job creation programs for the last couple of years, $200 a week. You see a family man seeking a job and trying through every means possible to get work.

March 21, 1986
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe- and 1 suppose it is true for all Members from Newfoundland- saw the great carrot hung out in front of the people in Newfoundland, that is, offshore oil, and saw an announcement made by the oil companies that there will be practically no drilling this year, not even a guarantee of one well, because the oil companies claim that the federal Government has discontinued PIP grants under the Bill before the House. You can then understand, Mr. Speaker, why the Hon. Member from Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe would speak sometimes as loudly as he does and get so emotionally involved.
As he so correctly pointed out, the Minister of Finance in this Chamber last May presented a Budget. In that Budget the Minister of Finance said-and I am sure if you check the Budget Speech you will find this to be practically exactly what he said-that the Government of Canada will honour all commitments made under the Petroleum Incentives Program and will not phase out those grants until those commitments are met.
We have the major oil companies in western Canada in the news media in the Province of Newfoundland saying "We cannot drill. This is 1986. We had a drilling program up the the end of 1987 but we cannot drill now". You have 1,000 people working in that industry. Somebody might say that it is only 1,000, but it just so happens that they are well paid people. On thousand families are affected.
The Hon. Member from Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe also spoke about the business community that made investments. He mentioned the disaster in the offshore while this drilling was taking place.
Newfoundlanders are now asking where is the carrot? Where are the jobs now? People are asking, why, after all of this hoop-la by the Conservative Government in Ottawa and the Conservative Government in Newfoundland, are we looking at no jobs? What about the Ocean Ranger disaster? What about all of the statements that were made after that? Some politicians claimed that we had to come to grips with the problem, that that is the danger of working at sea. Some politicians said that these people worked for a great, glorious and bright future for all Newfoundlanders and Canadians. The Bill now before the Chamber, and the decision of the Government, mean that there will be no more drilling. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of Newfoundlanders today know that you just cannot find a job any day of the week, any month of the year, or any year.
They also remember what the Premier of Newfoundland said and what the federal Government said prior to getting elected. The Government promised a great new era of federal-provincial co-operation and that the great offshore would be developed for the benefit of all Newfoundlanders. They were told that there would be enough jobs, that they would not need to work in the seasonal plants, look for part-time work, or count on direct program delivery.
The Premier, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and certain Conservative Members complained that the Liberals created jobs for four months of the year paying $200 a week for 40,000 Newfoundlanders a year. The Conservatives said that they would create long-term jobs through the offshore agreement. They said they would give Newfoundlanders a great and prosperous future.
What is happening today with this Bill? What has the Government done recently? Well, it has done some incredible things. It introduced this Bill and a policy statement saying that it will not honour a commitment made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to honour the PIP grants. It is immaterial whether you think PIP grants are a waste of money, or whether you feel the companies will not drill without the PIP grants because they were actually making money on them, when you consider what is happening in Newfoundland.
The other policy for the offshore which really burns the people in Newfoundland who have read the legislation is the Atlantic Accord which the Government introduced in this Chamber relating to the offshore and offshore drilling. It should be called the Atlantic Discord. The Bill stipulates that the oil cannot come ashore to Newfoundland to develop any jobs. It cannot be used for refining purposes in the Province of Newfoundland. It cannot be used for petrochemical industries in Newfoundland.


John R. Rodriguez: Why not?


George Baker: The Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) asks why not. I will tell him why not. There is a clause in the Bill, which I believe meets the Conservative philosophy, which says that if an offshore drilling company has sales contracts for offshore oil anywhere in the world, those contracts must be honoured before any oil can come ashore anywhere in Canada. It says that anything in excess of that will go to existing refining capacity. Quebec is excluded from that Bill. It refers only to existing refining capacity in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia. The first contracts which must be fulfilled are those for sales anywhere outside of Canada.
Let it be clear on the record that there is to be no drilling because the companies are not going to get any money. Under the new income tax system, the companies will get back about 30 per cent of what they invested. They previously got back 80 per cent. The Canadian oil companies are saying that they cannot drill this year. It is those companies that actually employ people in this country.
The Government of Canada then said that perhpas it would allow them to drill two wells or four wells. When one looks a the contracts of these companies one can see that they must drill five to seven wells in order to retain their rights to the drilling permits. In other words, if they do not drill the wells by the end of 1987, they will lose their leases for over 2 million acres offshore.
This Government and the Government of Newfoundland are like two peas in a pod. They promised so much. If Newfound-
March 21, 1986

landers could eat promises they would all weigh 400 pounds. Those two Governments approved a Bill to be introduced in this Chamber which says that any oil from the offshore of Newfoundland must first be used to fulfil any contracts which the drilling companies have. You know, Mr. Speaker, who those drilling companies would be.
When we review the record we see that the oil companies and the Governments were saying that it was necessary to receive $40 per barrel in order to exploit Hibernia. A year went by and then they said they really needed $35 a barrel. Approximately a year and a half ago the break-even price decreased to $28 a barrel. It later decreased to $24 a barrel, and the other day the break-even price went down to $24 per barrel. You and I know, Mr. Speaker, where the truth perhaps lies.
The Government of Newfoundland said that it was a good idea to discontinue the PIP grants because the Conservative Government would have a better scheme when it assumed office. The PC Party handbook said that there would be more money through the taxation system and incentives built into it. When the new Atlantic Accord was presented and the new Bill on the offshore was introduced in this Chamber, the Premier of Newfoundland said it was a bright new day for Newfoundlanders. If you are a Tory Premier, Prime Minister, or cabinet Minister, you must never disagree publicly.
Now, of course, all Newfoundlanders know the truth. They have read it in the newspapers, seen it on television and heard it on the radio. They have been told there is to be no drilling. The great Tory Government promised the oil companies that it would not renege on its commitment. The oil companies believed they had a commitment for a drilling program from 1982 to 1987.
We now see the aftermatch of the great promises that were made for the Newfoundlanders who actually believed what the Government was saying. I do not fault them for that. If you were to sit down in front of a television set and watch the Prime Minister campaign and watch him on other occasions, you would just have to believe what the man was saying.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Used to believe.


George Baker: You would have to believe what the Premier of Newfoundland was saying. He was elected at least three times on the same issue of offshore oil, drilling and jobs. Yet we knew, and we dare not object, that the policy was completely misplaced. We knew that Newfoundland, for always and a day, exports all of its raw materials.
So what is new about this Bill before the House not allowing any development in Newfoundland? We send 80 per cent of our fish to the U.S. in a frozen state to be thawed out so as to create jobs. We have always done that. We send away most of our minerals and forests and other raw materials. It is the same old story, and Newfoundlanders today are grabbing after jobs which pay $200 a week. Then their Governments turn around and agree to do away with the only incentive to drilling
Petroleum Incentives Program Act
for oil in the offshore. Newfoundlanders watch their Governments sign an agreement which says there will be no industrial development for all time on everything on the continental shelf around their province. They watched the champagne celebrations of their Governments as they clink glasses and try to convince everyone it was a great deal.
We are here to tell you today, Mr. Speaker, that it was not a great deal. We are here to tell you that this Bill is not a great deal. We are here to tell you that the policy of the Government as it relates to this Bill and its regulations is not such a great deal at all. Newfoundlanders are thinking about something else. I will tell you what they are thinking about. They are thinking about the day when they will have the opportunity to vote out that Tory Government in Newfoundland, and the day, hopefully soon, when they can also vote out this federal Tory Government.
I notice you are giving an indication that 1 have only one minute left. I suppose Members of this House from Newfoundland will go back to their offices in a few minutes, sit down and start working on unemployment insurance appeals for the weekend.


Mr. Holtmann:: Go to the Press Club, more likely.


George Baker: The Hon. Member over there does not really understand what I am talking about because he does not represent the ridings we represent. Perhaps when someone phones him about a welfare problem, he says, no, phone the provincial Government, that is their responsibility. The fact of the matter is, as the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe knows, we are the ones who have to go before the umpires and federal judges on unemployment insurance appeals. The people concerned cannot afford to pay for lawyers and legal aid will not pay for it. We are the ones who get phone calls every single day from someone who got only nine stamps. A lot of Members would not know what nine stamps are. We know.


George Roland Henderson: Nine stamps, nine letters.


George Baker: They think it is nine letters. It is, of course, unemployment insurance stamps, as you would know, Mr. Speaker.


John Horton McDermid: This is a very long minute.


George Baker: The bottom line is that this Government has betrayed the offshore workers of Newfoundland and other parts of Canada. The Government has also betrayed the hopes, wishes and dreams of Newfoundlanders on offshore oil for a long time to come.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, as a colleague of the Hon. Member who just spoken and a fellow citizen of Newfoundland, I have never heard-


John Horton McDermid: A mutual admiration society.

March 21, 1986
Petroleum Incentives Program Act


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is not a mutual admiration society, it is a mutual survival society. Though we are few in numbers on this side, particularly from my province, let me say that when I hear the Hon. Member speak I learn something. Although we are few in numbers, we shall speak with a loud and clear voice on behalf of our people.


John Horton McDermid: Well done, Brian.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Members opposite would not understand that, Sir, because they spend more time exercising their lungs saying, "Aye, aye, boss" when it comes time to vote than they do exercising their minds to develop their own points of view or exercising their lungs to make their voices heard to represent the views of their constituents. I understand Members opposite because they get most of their exercise running back and forth to the House at the crack of the whip, voting the way the Government tells them.


Felix Holtmann: What is this, a question or a comment?


Brian Vincent Tobin: This is a comment and a question as allowed under the Standing Orders. Members opposite would not appreciate that either because they sit there to provide a peanut gallery for those of us who are serious about debate. I want to say to the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate that he has very accurately and with great eloquence-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: -outlined the dilemma facing not only the average citizen but the business community in Newfoundland who put a great deal of stock in a promise or commitment. Does he believe at this time that the business community in Newfoundland should have or can have any confidence in the word of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in the future with respect to the offshore? Can they have any confidence in the Atlantic Enterprise Program announced in the Budget, given the brutal and callous manner in which the Government broke its commitments? What bothers me is not that they broke their word, because I am used to that from this crowd. What bothers me is the ease with which they broke their word. What bothers me is not that they walked away from a commitment. What really bothers me is that they have not even bothered to pause and say, "I am sorry". What advice would the Hon. Member give to those people in Newfoundland who may see any prospect of benefits from something like the Atlantic Enterprise Program announced by the same Minister whose word on PIP grants was broken?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is a very, very serious question. He is asking if there is any real future in Newfoundland with this Government and the Government of Newfoundland. I suppose my few remarks now would apply to most of the areas which are far from the centre, but I would say that the cut-backs presently taking place, along with those recommended in the task force review, as well as the statement made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) that he will give bonuses to managers who cut more people from the Public Service, will have a greater effect on Newfoundland
and Prince Edward Island than they do on any other province in Canada. The reason for it is that we do not have regional offices or central offices, although we have a couple but nothing worth talking about. Usually when cuts are made they are passed down the line. The very programs the federal Government is cutting back on are the ones that affect the extreme rural areas.
When you ask about the future of Newfoundland as of today, there are 100,686 people who are what they call U1 claimants in Newfoundland out of a workforce of 224,000 people-that is 48 per cent whom they classify as UI claimants. Now that does not mean they are collecting unemployment insurance. That means they have claims to the unemployment insurance. When you look at the decrease in the workforce from December to January to February that went down $3,000 a month, you will know that the definition of Statistics Canada, if you are in the workforce, means that you have been unemployed for 26 weeks and have not found work, but when you go beyond 26 weeks you are taken out of the workforce by Statistics Canada. So there is a drop in Newfoundland of 3,000 a month now.
When you look at the future and you look at all the cuts that have been made, the cut-backs in the direct employment programs, cut-backs in direct payments to individuals, it is not a very bright future that Newfoundlanders have to look forward to. The only thing that I can see is some sort of a massive demonstration or a general election.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the Hon. Member a question. At a Commons committee meeting on this Bill the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid), a PC Member on the Government side, was quoted as saying that it does not matter when the PIP grants are removed. He suggested that companies will soon be drilling wells without the aid of the PIP. Does the Hon. Member agree with that Conservative Member on the Government side that this is going to happen?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. It certainly reflects the obvious answer that the hon. gentleman gave who asked the question in the committee. Yes, of course, you can drill in the offshore and we will have those offshore companies drilling. There would be no problem at all if the price of oil had continued going up. You would have had economic development in the offshore if you could have convinced the financiers, the people who had some in with the sheikhs, as the hon. gentleman referred to them, to find out which side of the bed they get out on in the morning. There would be no problem if you had some in with the international financial community, which would then risk the money that is needed for the long term for the development of the offshore. It is the same problem that the hon. gentleman who is the energy critic for the New Democratic Party has in British Columbia with the great hydro projects that keep getting proposed in that particular province. When you are talking about that kind of investment, you have to have a financial
March 21, 1986

community that says yes forever and a day. You have longterm contracts that mean that that money is going to be returned.
The same thing applies in the Province of Quebec where our critic on finance is from, the hon. gentleman in front of me. We have a $30 billion proposal by that Government for hydro development. That money is dependent upon the same expectation and facts in the international financial community. So if the price of a barrel of oil were increased maybe to $50 a barrel as the Conservatives would like to see it, no doubt about that-I do not know a Conservative Member who would not like to see $50 a barrel-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must say that questions and comments are now terminated. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1986-87 MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, March 17, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall, that Bill C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be now read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Deans (p. 11570).
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part once more in the debate on the Government's borrowing authority Bill and on our proposed amendment to give this Bill a six months' hoist, something that is totally justified by the completely inept economic performance of this Government as it faces the challenges of 1986.
Perhaps the ineptitude, the lack of knowledge, the basic ignorance with which this Government approaches economic policy has been nowhere better demonstrated than in the area of its free trade negotiations, which it seeks to carry forward with the United States. In particular, I was transfixed by a speech made last night in Sherbrooke by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) who demonstrated his general lack of knowledge, both of the free trade argument and of the constituency from which I come.
This Minister, who is supposed to be one of the primary economic spokesmen of the Conservative Party announced, first, that we can all feel faith in free trade because the auto pact had proved itself to be such a great success, not recognizing that the auto pack is the very opposite of free trade. Within the auto pact there is, first, a commitment by the companies that benefit from the auto pact that they will sell as many cars in Canada as they produce in Canada; and, second, and more important for the jobs of Canadians, a promise that 60 per
Borrowing Authority Act
cent of the value added of each vehicle made in Canada will come from Canadian value added. It is, in short, a trade pact with safeguards, exactly the sort of thing that we in this Party, and the trade union movement in this country and the thousands and even millions of people across the country who oppose bilateral free trade, are looking to achieve. They are safeguards in sectoral trade which will give Canadian workers guarantees of jobs for the future.
Unfortunately, the Minister did not seem to know that. That level of ignorance was accentuated in his net statement as reported by the Journal de Montreal from Sherbrooke. The President of the Treasury Board indicated as well that the strength of the auto pact was also shown by the fact that: "Windsor in Ontario, where the auto pact has succeeded so well, was a city where one found the lowest rates of unemployment in the country".
Unfortunately, the President of the Treasury Board had not bothered to consult his own Government's statistics. If he had, he would have found, according to the most recent month, that 9.5 per cent of the workers of Windsor are out of work. He could have compared that the Halifax where 8.7 per cent are out of work; to Quebec City where 9.2 per cent are out of work; to Ottawa where 8.8 per cent are out of work; to Toronto where 5.5. per cent are out of work; to St. Catahrines-Niagara where 7.7 per cent are out of work; or indeed to Kitchener-Waterloo-where I spoke on free trade last week-where 6.8 per cent of the workforce are out of work.
In fact, no fewer than nine Canadian cities across the country have lower unemployment rates than Windsor. The Government has again demonstrated its complete lack of sensitivity and knowledge as far as my City of Windsor is concerned. It is no wonder that the Conservatives never manage to win constituencies in Windsor. If they succeeded in getting one fact about my city correct, they might be taken seriously by some of the people of Windsor. However, so long as they perpetuate ignorance and an incapacity to understand reality they will continue to be the laughing stock of my community.
The communities of my constituency have recognized both the severe dangers of the free trade thrust of the Government and the complete lack of knowledge of the Government with respect to my community. Let me quote from two documents. The first is a resolution from the town council of Amherstburg, the second largest community in my constituency, which was passed on February 14. That is the day that groups representing over 8 million Canadians met in Ottawa to protest the Government's approach to free trade with the United States. On February 14, the Town of Amherstburg passed a resolution against free trade.
The resolution states that all members of the community would be affected by a free trade agreement. Second, the infiltration of foreign products into our market-place would

March 21, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
result directly in an increase of the unemployed, and under a free trade agreement with the U.S. we would be unable to retain our social programs and our cultural heritage and, most important of all, the sovereignty of Canada as a nation. The resolution concludes that the Municipal Council for the Town of Amherstburg fully opposes any bilateral free trade agreement between Canada and the United States.
This week the City of Windsor indicated its opposition through Resolution 1099/83 to such a free trade agreement. It states that such a free trade agreement is expected to cause severe and widespread dislocation of industries, as well as placing hundreds of thousands of jobs in jeopardy. It suggests as well that negotiation for a free trade agreement will include demands from the United States for the elimination or weakening of vital social programs and that U.S. demands for a "level playing field" will mean an end to Canadian government programs which encourage regional development and job creation.
In short, the opposition to free trade is growing as the lack of knowledge and sensitivity of the Government continues to be demonstrated. It is for this reason that we believe the vote to give the Government yet more borrowing authority for future use must be put off as long as possible.
The Government has retreated to insult instead of reason in its attempt to sell free trade to Canadians. We have a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who travels across the country talking about free trade opponents as being timorous and fretful.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I apologize. I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Steven W. Langdon: May I finish my sentence, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Certainly.


Steven W. Langdon: We regret the sense of insult on the part of the Prime Minister and have called on him to attempt to treat the serious question which greatly affects the future of our country with the honesty and openness which he has so far lacked in presenting his case to the people of Canada.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker,
I would also like to say a few words this afternoon in the debate on the Government's Borrowing Authority Bill.
First of all, I would like to draw a parallel with the situation where a person goes to the bank to borrow money. The first thing the manager does is the analyze the facts and information he is given to ensure that those facts and that information are not just a fa?ade and that they have real content and substance.
Today, if this Government had to undergo the same kind of test and examination it would fail. And this is because we are dealing with a Government that is terribly concerned about appearances, and when we look behind the fa9ade, behind the public relations act, there is nothing, no content, no substance.
All you have to do is analyze the Nielsen Report. In the fall of 1984, it was announced with a great deal of fanfare that a group of professionals, Canadian businessmen working without remuneration, would carry out a study to examine the Government's programs, and we were told that this was a really serious study. And now, after nearly a year and a half, we have twenty-one volumes, not one book but twenty-one books, and after some quick scanning-it would take months to read them all-we found there was nothing new. We knew it already, even before the study got underway.
The sad thing about this report, Mr. Speaker, is that most of the so-called options or recommendations have already been adopted. Just look at Bill C-80, which arises from the Nielsen Report and which was in the May 1985 Budget, and a Bill that was passed not long ago. I can name at least two items from this legislation, including removal of the sales tax exemption for drugs. Today, if we don't have medicine and we need aspirin, we have to pay federal tax. It is no longer exempt. This measure, for instance, raises $510 million.
And what about construction, Mr. Speaker? In three years, construction materials ... They are going to bring in this new tax, and in eight months they got an 8 per cent tax increase which is going to give the Government $1.5 billion in three years.
Of course, the report dealt with the possibility of taxing footwear and clothing, but they could not deal a new blow to the industry every month. In November, they had abolished the quotas on footwear, and if they had also imposed a sales tax on footwear and textile, I wonder what would have happened to the industry.
That it is all, Mr. Speaker. In the Budget of February 1986, the Minister announced new taxes. There had been a preliminary study on the value added tax. Its name has now been changed to business transfer tax, but if we look closely, we find that it is the same thing. Only the accounting has changed a bit, but we shall be able to examine all this in detail when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) presents his great White Paper, which, thanks to the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), we now know will be tabled on April 15, and as soon as October 1986, we can expect a new 7 or 8 per cent tax.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the Minister announces what will happen bit by bit, but it is always the same. It is quite easy. The Government says that it is reducing the deficit. However, when we look at how this is going to be done, some serious questions should be raised. There are two major sources of revenue. First, there is oil, for which the Budget gives an estimated price of $22.50, and we all know how low prices have fallen. As for interest rates, the Minister expected them to be at 9.5 per cent and they are still at 12 per cent. Again yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I received from the Minister of National Revenue a communique announcing that, from April 1 to June 1, 1986, interest rates on taxes payable by Canadians
March 21, 1986

will be between 9 and 11 per cent, which representes a 2 per cent increase. 1 therefore imagine that we must expect interest rates to remain at the present level and I wonder how the Minister of Finance will be able to reach his objective of bringing the deficit down under $30 billion.
Mr. Speaker, another absurdity concerns the Federal Business Development Bank. Members of all three parties spent several evenings at the Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs examining the whole situation of the Federal Business Development Bank to determine whether to recommend that the Government change the mandate of the Bank or do something else. Of course, all Canadians agree that the mandate of this Crown corporation, which was established a few years ago, should be adjusted. The Minister responsible for Small Businesses said before the Committee that the Nielsen Task Force on Program Review was also considering this matter and had asked the Committee not to publish its report immediately. Mr. Speaker, as for me, on April 23, as shown on page 4023 of Hansard, I asked when the Minister would announce whether there would be any change in the Federal Business Development Bank. And the Hon. Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Bissonnette) is telling me that this would have happened around late June or early July 1985.
Not later than yesterday, indeed, Mr. Speaker, a Government Member asked him whether there were new programs to help people who want to start up small businesses but lack financing facilities. And the Minister said that in conjunction with the Federal Development Bank and the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, they were lookding at the various programs.
So we have the Nielsen Report proposing certain changes, and Ministers announcing new programs. What then is the direction? Are they going to change it or not? Are they going to refer once more the whole issue to the Committee on Finance and Economic Matters? As you see, Mr. Speaker, there is no direction, there are no contents, there is no substance. It is a mere public relations exercize. They bring forth a 21-volume report and say: "All right, we looked into the matter, we know where we are going". But no action is taken.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read into the record part of what Alain Dubuc had to say immediately after the Budget in La Presse, and I quote:
Workers who obtained a 4 per cent wage increase this year should have enough to maintain their purchasing power. But taxes, and especially the tax increases brought in by Michael Wilson, will take back three quarters of that. As a result, they will be 3 per cent poorer in 1986!
A middle-income family in the $20,000 to $40,000 a year bracket, will pay $500 to $650 in additional federal taxes in 1986. That is a very significant amount, and indeed a major tax grab.
Going through the Budget, experts did not see how horrendous the increase was, because it is chopped down in a number of small increases that individually are marginal. For instance,
Borrowing Authority Act
that famous 3 per cent surtax will only cost $54 to a person earning $20,000 a year. It is just about meaningless.
However, the total tax increase is high because taxpayers get it in a double whammy-last week's Budget, but also last May's Budget, whose major measures only hit the taxpayers in 1986. Altogether, consumers will pay out this year five new tax increases that will bring Ottawa $3.6 billion.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to participate in the debate on the motion of the New Democratic Party with respect to Bill C-99, a Bill which will allow the Government to borrow $22 billion. As I listened to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), give some of the unemployment figures for southern Ontario, 1 thought, in a sense, how lucky those towns were as compared to our situation in British Columbia. The figures are still too high, there should in fact be full employment in southern Ontario, but those figures are double in British Columbia and sometimes triple.
My main criticism of the borrowing Bill, and of the Budget before it, is that my Province of British Columbia does not benefit enough from government economic policies. We are in real trouble in British Columbia. We have not recovered from the last recession. Because we have a resource economy we are still subject to these booms and busts which in the future, 1 hope, with good economic management, we can learn to level out as we become perhaps less dependent on raw resources and more into technology, education, and into businesses reaching into the Pacific Rim. The 1990s should belong to British Columbia. It does not matter from which political Party one comes, I am sure we would all like to make the 1990s belong to British Columbia. We need some policies to change the Government's view. We also need some policies to change the Government's view. We also need some policies to do that in the Province of British Columbia where we probably have seen the worst economic management in the country. What did Premier Bennett of the Socred Government do when the economy started to go down? He applied the brakes of restraint. In applying them he put the economy into a nosedive. We are also seeing bad economic policies there. They are what I call cruel policies.
Let me give Hon. Members an example of this cruelty. We have all heard of Expo 86. No matter from what political Party we come, provincially or federally, we all want it to be a success. That does not mean that we have to evict poor people from their residences in the east end of Vancouver. These are people who have lived in cheap hotel residences, including the Patricia Hotel, which has a bad record on this and other matters. Why do these older people have to face this cruel situation? Why do they have to be thrown out of their hotels in order to make room for people who are coming to visit Expo 86? I do not think that is right. I do not think Canadians believe it is right.
! 1778

March 21, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
In order to give a bit of flavour with respect to what things look like in British Columbia I would like to read to Hon. Members a letter which was sent to me by one of my constituents, Ms. Trish McKeen. She is a young woman who lives at 3234 Vanness Avenue in Vancouver. She writes:
May 1 take a few moments to air my grievances about our present Conservative Government with you, my elected representative? I have grown increasingly dissatisfied, dismayed and angered since their assumption of power in Parliament.
1 wish to speak of Canadian unemployment, in British Columbia in particular. I was working at my job, performing a routine task, when I heard of the election being called. I was also working when Brian Mulroney was sworn into office. A short while later I wasn't working.
Under the last provincial NDP government in B.C., and with help from my NDP MLA, I, a grade nine junior high school drop-out, was able to attend post-secondary educational institutions.
I lacked four years of public school, and after seven years of hard work in universities and colleges (and subsequently seven years' worth of Canada Student Loans) I became a professional. I studied engineering and petroleum chemistry and, at my discretion, filled out my academic background with heaping doses of
oceanography.
I am really not sure what heaping doses of oceanography are. It is obviously an interesting course.
Before, and during, my studies I had worked as a veterinary assistant, small business manager, a chemical technologist and a dog groomer. Just before my graduation I went to work as a research assistant to an associate professor in the Dept, of Oceanography at the University of British Columbia.
There I applied and expanded my knowledge in chemistry, geochemistry, geology and geophysics. After several months I transferred as a research assistant to the Head of the Dept, of Oceanography, UBC. I was busy on that latter position when Brian Mulroney was sworn in.


John Horton McDermid: The Prime Minister.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am reading from a letter. It continues:
I have not worked in over a year now.
I was laid off from UBC in August 1984 due to lack of research funds. All did not seem hopeless though, as I received a job offer from a small consulting firm within a couple of months. 1 took the position, poor-paying as it was.
After 314 months with the firm, and 3Vi months of humiliation, degradation and abuse from my superiors (so much so that Employment and Immigration Canada called me in to make a report) I was "dismissed". Had I belonged to a union I could have protected myself; I did not.
Since February 1985 I have been seeking suitable work. By "suitable" I mean that I am not qualified as a waitress or telephone solicitor, having done neither in my life. In any case I have been to two interviews (for "professional'' positions). Both were for government positions (one federal, one municipal). In each case my "overqualifications" were made very apparent to me and both governments expressed a fear of quickly losing me to something better. The municipal interview strongly impressed this point. The municipal agents asked me about my feelings towards field work.
Quite simply, I love field work. I told them just that but one of the MEN interviewing me told me that because 1 was a "girl" (exact word used) I was probably saying that I loved field work (there and then) but should I get the position I'd whimper and whine until I could get one of the MEN to do (it) for me (the field work) so I wouldn't have to physically exert myself and get dirty. This was my first taste of blatant sexual discrimination.
So she is in a Catch-22 situation. She cannot get lower paying jobs because she is over-qualified. She cannot get proper paying jobs because they are just not there. It is also evident what some people have to go through in job interviews in terms of the discrimination they face.
Shortly after that, Ms. McKeen was in a motor vehicle accident which made things more difficult for her. Her letter goes on to read:
Meanwhile, I have nearly exhausted my 18-months interest relief on my Canada Student Loan.
She has student loans for university which are now due.
My bank is getting restless. I have only until July 31st 1986, then my Ul runs out. I have not had so much as a job offer, much less a job. and I have little to look forward to but welfare and creditors knocking on my door (very shortly). The only thing the Tories have done for me (as of January I, 1986) is deduct another $2 off each week of my unemployment benefits.
The new 1.5 per cent increase in personal income tax announced February 26, 1986 in the federal budget is effective July I, 1986. It is little consolation to me that the "Tories" will only get the increased tax out of me for one month, should I still be unemployed. It is even less consolation that I cannot be taxed on welfare.
That is where she thinks she is heading.
Thank you for your loan of a "shoulder', to cry on. It is not crying as such, it's complaining and protesting. To use a famous line, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore."
She closes with a P.S. which states:
Tell Mikey Wilson not to spend my $2 all in one place!
This is but one example of the frustration which is being felt out there. This letter sets out the case of a young woman who has gone back to school to get a good education, who has taken out student loans, and who tries for different jobs only to be told that she is over-qualified. She has experienced discrimination because she is a woman. However, she is realistic. There are hundreds of people such as this in British Columbia. We can now see why Senator Hebert is fasting down the hall. There is a type of quiet desperation here.
When one is in Ottawa it is hard to understand this. 1 thank this young woman for writing me this letter. I hope, when 1 get out of here, to go back to British Columbia to talk to her personally. I wish I could do miracles for her. 1 wish I could produce a job for her. I know I cannot. I can give her some leads with respect to government jobs. I can make some suggestions and so on. Most of those government make-work programs are pretty low paying jobs.
We have to get the economy moving again, especially in British Columbia. There is a real tragedy out there. We cannot have this type of wasted resources. I would approve of the Government borrowing money here if I thought it were going to do something important with it. I do not see any economic strategy on the part of the Government. Some two months ago it was going to create jobs in the oil industry, the so-called engine of economic growth. This month the direction seems to be consumer-led recovery through cheap oil prices. It is a complete contradiction. And then we hear about free trade. I say to the people of Canada, especially those in British Columbia, let us wait and see whether the Americans impose countervailing duties on our lumber products. We will see how good the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) relationship is with the Americans at that point.
My remarks have not been very encouraging for a Friday afternoon. However, I am an optimist by nature.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
March 21, 1986


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am of the view that Hon. Members will listen to this woman. 1 am of the view that we will get together and enact co-operatively policies which will put her and people like her back to work.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not have a very encouraging picture to paint either with respect to the actions of the Government. I do have a few suggestions to make. I would like to remind Hon. Members of a couple of campaign promises made by Government Members which, if implemented, might justify giving the authority to borrow that is sought.
Mr. Speaker, Senator Hebert has reminded us that there are almost 700,000 young Canadians who are unemployed today. If this were not enough, the Senate Committee has described this situation as "intolerable". The Committee has emphasized that this "intolerable" situation does exist.
In their action plan which they tabled last February, the Senate Committee members indicated that their public hearings throughout Canada has changed their way of thinking, adding that they had realized that a great many young people were living intolerable situation and they had to convince all Canadians of that.
When we examine newspaper articles across Canada, when we read the letters which we are getting in our offices, when we study the petitions signed by thousands of Canadians, we realize that the Senate Committee has indeed succeeded. Senator Hebert and his colleagues have managed to raise Canadians' awareness of the situation and convinced them of the need to solve the unemployment problem among young Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, we are told that some progress has been made. It is a fact that the economic situation in the world has much improved over the past couple of years, and that the employment picture in Canada has improved since 1982.
But does this mean that we have to be satisfied with the current situation? Can we live with 700,000 young Canadians being unemployed?
As I said, Mr. Speaker, the consensus is that no, that the situation is "intolerable". I could quote a passage from the editorial of La Presse listing the misfortunes of the Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne), and we all know the sad story about the way the Government axed the Katimavik program even before getting the plan of action of the Senate committee. Then the Minister found out she no longer had a budget when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tabled the main estimates. Editorialist Jacques Bouchard wrote in the March 5 issue of La Presse that time had come to transfer the responsibility to somebody who would tackle urgent problems with more resolve. According to the editorialist, young people
Borrowing Authority Act
have every right to look forward to playing a more challenging role in our society.

Even the Toronto Globe and Mail, which has supported the budgetary policies of the Government, reported favourably on the Senate report. It asked where a society begins to address the dilemma, and went on to say-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, all I need is an indication from the Chair. Are we in the House supposed to comment on the debates and problems of the Senate? I am simply asking that question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Perhaps I may say a few words here. I am sure the Hon. Member is going to get to the borrowing Bill. 1 know that he is getting to the point.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, in general 1 am addressing the budgetary policy of the Government. I am addressing the lack of any kind of a coherent strategy to deal with the economy, and I am also trying to address the specific point of youth unemployment, which is certainly related to the actions of the Government and to the reason that we should not have any confidence in the Government and should not approve the budgetary policy or the request to borrow further money for the implementation of its misguided policies.
I was saying that The Globe and Mail, in an editorial of March 5, spoke approvingly of the report of the Senate and outlined in some detail some of the solutions that had been suggested by the Senate.
The Government seems to be at a total loss as to how to respond to the problem of youth unemployment. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said several months ago that the Government has a program and promised to introduce a new program very soon. "Very soon" was the phrase used by the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) last February. Six weeks later, we have yet to see these new programs that the Government was going to announce.
I would like to suggest to Government Members a few items that they might consider. First, they have before them the Senate's plan of action. I would simply remind Hon. Members, as I said yesterday during Question Period, that a number of the Senate's recommendations do not even call for the spending of money. Even the penny-pinching Tories might find it within their imagination to implement some of the recommendations which do not call for the spending of money. If they wish to implement some of the recommendations that do call for the spending of money, they might look at a speech the Prime Minister made at the Montreal Chamber of Commerce in March, 1984. This speech was made even before the election campaign. At that time, the Prime Minister indicated how

March 21, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
money might be found for some of the other initiatives. He said the following:
We must cast a critical eye on the subsidies and grants going to business.
The Government currently collects $8 billion in taxes from the corporate sector, and hands $8 billion back.
We have to see who is winning and who is losing: whether robbing Peter to pay Paul helps, or hinders, job creation and economic growth.
Ironically, the Nielsen Report which was tabled last week identifies some $16.4 billion in support for business which was described as giving with both hands through an overly rich, overlapping industrial incentives system. All I can say is, what is the Government waiting for?
The Prime Minister said two years ago that it should cut business grants, subsidies and tax incentives. The Nielsen Report repeated that. Rather than cutting them from their friends in the business sector, the Tories cut training programs for youth. They do not even follow the advice the Prime Minister gave two years ago. They do not follow the advice of the Nielsen Report. Why do they not act now? Why do they not cut some of that overly generous and overlapping spending and free up some money for youth training initiatives?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired. He may wish to just finish up.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I would finish up by suggesting that members of the Conservative Party might also like to take a look at the youth employment strategy which was announced by the Prime Minister in Sherbrooke on July 26, 1984, during the election campaign. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, not a single undertaking which the Conservative Party made in Sherbrooke on July 26, 1984, has been immplemented by the Government. If it is looking for some ideas, the Government might have a look at the promises it made during the election campaign and consider implementing some of them. Then, Mr. Speaker, we might consider providing the Government with the borrowing it is asking for.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no questions or comments. Debate.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I see my time is constrained, not only by the 10 minute limit but also by the fact that the motion we have before us ought to come to a vote this afternoon before five o'clock.
I saw the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and his bosom buddy, the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson), scheming away on the other side as to how they could use up the time of the House to prevent a vote from occuring this afternoon. I am sure that within five minutes I will be able to convince them to withdraw that strategy and allow the vote to take place and, indeed, in all probability, to vote against the proposal for the six months' hoist.
There are basically three points I want to make. First, with respect to the fiscal cycle, we have the Budget, the Estimates
and the timing of the borrowing authority Bill that came before the House. You will recall, Sir, because you were here in the bad old Liberal days, that all these items were out of sync, so to speak. They did not fit together. We would be presented with a Budget at any time of the year, the Estimates would come down at another time, invariably late, and the borrowing Bills could come at any time. If you looked at the amount of money asked for under the borrowing Bill it would not coincide with the amounts mentioned in either the Estimates or the Budget. We had figures springing up out of thin air.
If there is one area where this Government excels, it is in the financial area. I am very proud to be associated with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) who have done so much in this field.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dave Nickerson: We are now timing the cycle correctly. You will notice that this year, Mr. Speaker, the Budget, the Estimates and the borrowing authority all came down at about the right time. The figures coincide. We asked for $22.6 billion in borrowing authority and it says precisely in the Budget and precisely in the Estimates why that money is needed, how it is arrived at, and the figures balance, Mr. Speaker.
The second related point is that there is no slush in this request. If you recall a few years ago, the borrowing authority Bill used to come down and the Government would ask for $25 billion, for you knew from the Budget that there was a financial requirement of $25 billion, but the Government would ask for $35 billion with no real explanation. The Government wanted some slush in case some things went wrong, and invariably they did go wrong because of Liberal mismanagement.
If you look at this borrowing Bill, it says accurately and precisely what that money is needed for. I might add that a good portion of it is needed to pay the interest on debts incurred as a result of excessive borrowing in the past.
Third, I would like to recommend, to Hon. Members opposite in particular, to read the document because evidently they have never read it. If they peruse the Fiscal Plan tabled in February as part of the budget documents it will become quite clear that we are on the right financial track.
It is interesting to note that in this fiscal year, the one we are talking about with respect to this borrowing authority Bill, revenues for the first time in many, many years will exceed program expenditures. That is the expenditure of Government less the amount required to service the existing debt. This is a major turn-around, Mr. Speaker.
If you pursue this trend through the fiscal plan to the year 1990, and that is the kind of date we are looking at, you will see even before that time that revenues will be twice the amount of program expenditures. By doing that, we will be
March 21, 1986

able to stabilize the amount of debt in percentage terms regarding the GNP. We are on the right track.
It is interesting also to note that this borrowing request of $22.6 billion is 25 per cent less than it was for the previous year when financial requirements were running in the $30 billion range. We have things under control.
Again, if you look at the financial plan, you will see that by fiscal 1990-91 the financial requirement, the amount of money to be borrowed, will be down to $10 billion, something that we, at that time, should be able to handle quite comfortably.
I want to express my congratulations to the Minister of Finance on what he has been able to do in the short time we have been in office. He has been able to get under control what many people thought was a completely unmanageable situation that had been left by the Liberal Government.
I would urge Hon. Members of this House to vote against the nonsensical amendment offered by the New Democratic Party and to get on with the job and pass this necessary borrowing authority Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will resume debate. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, as I look at this borrowing Bill, I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony. I do not know where to start.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Do you know that yesterday the swallows returned to Capistrano, Mr. Speaker? That is a sure sign that spring has arrived. I look across and I want to know where the Alberta Tories are in this House at a time when the people of Alberta, the ordinary working men and women of Alberta, need them.


Mr. Towers:: Right here.


John R. Rodriguez: Where?


Thomas Gordon Towers: Right here. What about the Speaker?
Borrowing Authority Act


John R. Rodriguez: Where is the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour)?


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to tell the New Democratic Party that every single Albertan is worth two or three New Democrats any day of the week.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate, not a point of order.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) has woken up. Members are here but they do not speak for the people of Alberta, the ordinary working men and women of Alberta. Where are they?
This is a time when their voices should be heard in this House. They are going to allow the Sheikh of Araby to make oil prices for Canadians. Is it not about time that we had an oil price made in Canada?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Energy Minister got going.


John R. Rodriguez: The Energy Minister did what?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: She got going.


John R. Rodriguez: Here we have 120,000 people working in the oil industry in Alberta. That province is bleeding and suffering, as you well know. 1 notice you are pointing to yourself, Mr. Speaker. Yes, they are suffering and yet there are 21 Members, all Tories represented here. They cannot claim obstruction in this House anymore. You have got it all. You have your way with us. What are you doing for the people of Alberta?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think we will stop right there. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) will have five minutes remaining.


John R. Rodriguez: That is the shortest speech I ever made, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We could extend the time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It being 5 o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1). Good Night.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, March 24, 1986