1986-05-09

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Last week, Mr. Speaker, I went to the Quebec City area to meet with people who have been cheated by this Conservative Government, namely early retirees. I wish to advise all Hon. Members that these people will be here next week to demonstrate on Parliament Hill, and I urge my Conservative colleagues to express their views on this matter. When I was there they asked me: Mr. Malepart, could we also get interest-free loans as did the Minister's wife? It would certainly compensate for the revolting Government cutbacks concerning early retirees.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup (Mr. Plourde) who had the courage to rise to defend his electors and speak up against the decision of his Government.


RADIOACTIVE RAINFALL IN CANADA-RESULTS OF NUCLEAR ACCIDENT IN UKRAINE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been warned not to drink rainwater anywhere in Canada after radioactive iodine was detected in Ottawa at six times the level acceptable for drinking water. Across Canada samples are being taken at only 28 sites and are not being reported on a daily basis as promised. The reliability of the actual site measurements are not being questioned, but many Canadians are concerned that there are so few test sites. For example, there are only samples being taken in Vancouver for the whole of British Columbia. B.C. was the First to be hit by the nuclear cloud from Chernobyl and, despite repeated efforts to get infomation, the federal Government has hidden behind a cloak of secrecy little different from that for which the Soviet Union has been so widely condemned.
What are the real levels of radioactive iodine, cesium, ruthenium 103 and other elements? What are the levels in milk, in fish held in rainwater fed ponds and in areas of heavy rainfall like the Queen Charlotte Islands? Surely the emergency response effort could have been more scientifically applied and more responsive to the real medical health concerns of all Canadians.


THE GOVERNOR GENERAL
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am in a state of shock again. The plain clothes security on Parliament Hill is armed and the RCMP guarding some foreign embassies in Ottawa are now armed with machine guns for the first time. This week the NCC, DPW and the RCMP decided to lock the gates of Rideau Hall, the home of our Governor General, for the first time. Access is still allowed by invitation only, but joggers and walkers, skaters and sports enthusiasts, tourists and local resident and all Canadians are now denied friendly access to this magnificent public parkland. We will soon have local developers bidding for the excess land for housing.
If we are going to lock up the Governor General we should probably cancel all of her road trips as well. There may be some nut cases in Libya, but we seem to have a fair share in our bureaucracy as well.

[DOT] (DOS)


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, it is my view and that of many Canadians that, in fairness, the organization REAL Women should receive the same funding from the federal Government as do other womens' groups. However, certain individuals view REAL Women as a threat. According to the Montreal Gazette, Lyse Blanchard, Director of Women's Programs for the Secretary of State, calls REAL Women a "marginal, anti-democratic group". She goes on to say that she is "bothered" by REAL

May 9, 1986
Women getting equal time with the Minister. This is not particularly helpful. In fact, it is clearly unacceptable. Is Ms. Blanchard speaking on behalf of the Government of Canada or is she simply rendering a personal opinion? The public cannot accept a senior government employee uttering such obviously prejudiced comments against an organization with whom she should be working. It is time that Ms. Lyse Blanchard be called to account.


IMMIGRATION
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, last year, in order to raise money, the Government increased the administrative fees charged to landed immigrants applying for Canadian citizenship. Before April, 1985, the fees were $15 for an adult and $8 for a child. As of last April they went to $40 per adult and $25 a child. For a family of two parents and three children, not earning a large income, this is a substantial amount. The costs appear to be creating an obstacle to people applying for citizenship because the number has dropped since the higher fees came into effect. Surely the Government did not intend to create a situation where citizenship was available only to those who can afford it. Newcomers to Canada already work hard to become Canadian citizens and it is not appropriate to put the goal of citizenship out of their reach for the sake of a few extra dollars. I hope the Government will reconsider this charge.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the international community and the Abitibi region strongly denounce the ill-advised practices of the Soviet Union concerning environmental protection.
After the Chernobyl tragic nuclear accident in Ukraine, not only did Soviet authorities systematically refuse to provide information about the incident, but they even chose not to warn their neighbours. This carefree and irresponsible approach to history's worst nuclear accident attests to their utter lack of common sense, consideration and respect for the lives and health of tens of thousands of men, women and children in Abitibi.
How can we possibly give any currency to their Government's so-called overtures towards western nations when their leaders show so little consideration for their own citizens and neighbours!


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, Wardair has indicated it is prepared to buy planes from South Africa which have become redundant as Canada and other countries cut back on South Africa's airline routes. This will facilitate white South Africans in their attempts to liquidate fixed assets and move their funds out of South Africa. The final outcome will denude black South Africans of their country's wealth which has accrued largely due to their labour. Apart from the immediate need to make the voluntary code for business in South Africa mandatory, the Canadian Government must move to block domestic Canadian companies from taking part in the stripping of the fixed assets of South Africa, the people's assets.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, over the past 19 months some 630,000 new jobs have been created. Unemployment is at the lowest level in four years. The CPI remains stable at 4 per cent. Consumer spending is up 14 per cent. Motor vehicle sales are up 15 per cent. Building permits are up 29 per cent. Housing starts are up 35 per cent, and manufacturing orders 11 per cent. The Bank of Canada lending rate has fallen from 12.38 per cent in September of 1984 to 8.72 per cent today. Mortgage rates are at their lowest level in eight years. In my Province of Saskatchewan, in spite of the collapse of world oil and grain prices, some 21,000 jobs have been created and unemployment, at 7.6 per cent, is down by almost 1 per cent. These figures confirm the correctness of the economic policy of this Government, one of responsible deficit reduction through lower interest rates, more jobs, private sector initiative and small business enterprise.



Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the central bank rate dropped to 8.72 per cent, a bigger drop than even the analysts expected. It is the lowest level since July of 1978. Translated into savings on a five year $50,000 mortgage, the average couple would save $124 a month or $7,500 over five years. This decline is tied to the growing strength of the Canadian dollar, and growing
May 9, 1986

confidence by consumers in our economy. Both of these factors are a direct result of this Government's realistic economic recovery program that has been in place since the 1984 November economic statement. Five hundred and seventy four thousand new jobs have been created since the election. I know this is bad news for the doomers and gloomers to my right.
I might add that the April employment statistics reveal that the unemployment rate in Toronto has fallen to an incredible 5.3 per cent. While members of the Opposition leap over tables-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


Robert Pennock: -to attack witnesses and threaten Ministers with-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Davenport.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the detection of Iodine 131 in rain water in Canada inevitably forces us to think of the Chernobyl disaster and the urgent necessity of regulating the activities of the 374 reactors operating in 26 nations.
Each nation producing nuclear energy has a responsibility towards neighbouring nations and the world community. Human health must be protected by way of international safety standards enforced by the International Atomic Energy Agency. This agency has safety codes, but not the power to implement them.
We in the Opposition urge the Government to move swiftly and take international action leading to the adoption of mandatory international safety standards and inspections by the 26 nations that operate 374 nuclear reactors today.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, a lot of Albertans last night decided to sack the quarterback. I want to congratulate Ray Martin and the New Democrats who won 16 seats as the NDP continues to move across the west. I think a more pluralistic system will be good for Alberta in the long run.
I want to say eat your hearts out to Jamie Lamb and Jeffrey Simpson, and the other so-called commentators. I want to say a special thanks to the Member from Bow River (Mr. Taylor) whose address to this House last week inspired us to go out and increase our representation in Alberta by over 800 fold-even better than biblical terms. I find it very ironic that now in British Columbia they will be saying, "The socialist hordes are coming". From where? From Alberta, that is where.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that Canada's dairy producers have up to now done more than their fair share in helping this Government reduce the deficit.
It has not always been easy, but the fact remains that they have acted responsibly towards the Canadian people, and we are proud of them.
However, the same cannot be said of dairy processors who, as far as the deficit is concerned, are about to pass the buck to the consumers of this country.
I cannot tolerate Canadian families having to pay more for their butter just because the processors say so.
Canadian consumers are doing their share to reduce the deficit, and I promise to be very vocal in my criticism of those who shirk their duty in this respect, including of course our dairy processors.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, after careful consultation with the financial community Parliament, in December, 1980, passed the Canadian Payments Association Act, which gave to the new association the objectives of establishing and operating a national clearings and settlements system and of planning the evolution of the national payments system.
It is a pleasure to report that the association, which now has over 120 members, has seemingly proved a great success. Currently the annual volume of payments in the system approximates 1.7 billion items, representing a value of about $8.4 trillion. Other countries are studying our system in order to improve their own.

May 9, 1986
Oral Questions
The Canadian Payments Association, its member institutions, and the bank-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


THE LATE GASTON DEFFERRE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York-Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the memory of Gaston Defferre, former Minister of France and former mayor of Marseille, who died this week. I had the privilege of meeting him and working with him when he was his country's Minister of the Interior and I was Solicitor General of Canada. Canada has lost a good friend who had a very good relationship with our country and was very much interested in Canada.
To his family and his country, I express my sympathy and best wishes.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the administration of the Government, with special reference to the conflict of interest guidelines. Will he explain to the House when he and the Prime Minister first learned that persons appointed by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to the most powerful Crown corporations in this country were first approached by the wife of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and the President of York Centre-his former campaign manager-for special financial arrangements for the Minister's bankrupt company?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, that sort of question has been answered repeatedly over the last two weeks. I am quite surprised that it would now come from the Hon. Member, who raised it again, particularly in view of the fact that the word out of Cape Breton is that, as a result of their questioning, there is beginning to be a loss of confidence in Cape Breton that those industries that are being attracted as a result of the policies of the Government might not get there. I suggest that the Hon. Member is doing a disservice to that area of his province by raising that kind of question.


David Charles Dingwall: I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that blackmail will not work in this case. I say it to him most sincerely.


REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION OF MINISTER
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, is the Deputy Prime Minister telling the House that he knew of these facts before today and has refused to disclose those to the House? If he knew those facts, or now knows that they are true, why does he not do the honourable thing and seek the resignation of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion today?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is the Hon. Member who is calling them facts, not I. He and his many colleagues have been calling items facts for several days now when they bear no resemblance to facts.


ACTING PRIME MINISTER'S ROLE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on February 24, 1986, the Minister said in regard to possible resignation of Ministers:
-the only steps a Prime Minister can take to clear his Cabinet of the clear and present suspicion of trafficking in friendships and indulging the "old boy network" of past and present Ministers.
What more evidence does the Deputy Prime Minister need to sack the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion who is in an obvious conflict of interest?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not agree with that, nor do I recall having said any such thing on the date mentioned by the Hon. Member-February, 1986.


David Charles Dingwall: 1983.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion as a result of the Diane Francis story in today's Toronto Star. Very serious revelations are contained in that article. I want to get to the heart of the question of conflict of interest and the question of honest Government. Does the Minister expect the Canadian people to believe that when he was making the billion dollar decisions about which underwriters should be used in the Government's privatization programs, and which firms should be used to do appraisals, he gave no consideration at all to the fact that some of those underwriters had agreed to help bail out his family business and that other of those underwriters refused to do so?
May 9, 1986


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, most Members will recall that yesterday there were similar questions with respect to the CDC issue. At that time I pointed out that 41 investment dealers were involved with that issue. The story that I read this morning and to which the Hon. Member is referring is simply a matter of setting out that there are various brokerage firms, investment dealers, in Toronto that may or may not have been approached by the persons who are referred to in the story. However, I can tell the Hon. Member that the story is as much news to me as it presumably is to him.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Minister says that he did not know what his wife was doing in approaching these underwriters. I wonder if the companies involved could possibly believe that.


ACTIVITIES OF MINISTER'S WIFE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Can the Acting Prime Minister allow a situation to continue where the whole business community of Canada is being victimized by a Minister whose wife and business associates are going around trying to shake them down?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: How can the Government allow that kind of a situation to continue in this country?


An Hon. Member:: It's unworthy.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, what is being victimized here by conduct such as displayed by the question of the Hon. Member and by the conduct of other Members of his caucus in committee and elsewhere, is this very institution. If the Hon. Member wonders about what was in the realm of knowledge of what he calls "the companies involved", why does he not ask them? He has heard the answer of the Minister.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You refuse to face the facts. It's right here.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister. Here we are on Friday and we are learning through a whole unfolding of events just how deep this matter has become. I want to refer specifically to the loan made by Mr. Czapka to the Minister's wife. At the beginning of the week we learned Mr. Czapka was a shareholder, then we learned he was a consultant. Yesterday we learned that his son was directly involved in the company with financial connections to the Minister's Department-
Oral Questions


John Kenneth Gormley: How about a relevant question?


John Edward Broadbent: -and finally yesterday afternoon we learned that he himself, the man who made the loan, is on the Government's gravy train getting a $980,000 grant. Does the Minister not at last see what the whole country understands, namely, the Minister is involved in a conflict of interest and should submit his resignation from that Department?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that question was answered in detail by myself yesterday. The Hon. Member is obviously not prepared to accept the assertion that the Minister has complied with the Code of Conduct for public office holders. That is his choice, that is his opinion, but it does not depart for a moment from the fact that compliance has been had, and that is a fact.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on what I can only regard, coming from him, as the outrageous reply of the Acting Prime Minister.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
John Edward Broadbent: I want to refer to a quote from the Prime Minister last year at a time when he was discussing the guidelines. About the present situation the Minister has got himself into, the Prime Minister said with respect to the guidelines: "They must be honoured by all Ministers, not only in reality, but in appearances to the contrary that might emerge inadvertently or otherwise". He was talking about the appearance of a conflict of interest. He said "inadvertently or otherwise". Notwithstanding the Minister's claims about not knowing before about his wife's loan-he knows now-does the Acting Prime Minister not agree that he may have inadvertently got himself into this conflict of interest, which I think he has clearly done? The country sees he has done that. And if he agrees, why does he not ask for the Minister's resignation?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. gentleman is doing is reaching a verdict on the basis of what he and his colleagues have been saying and what the newspapers have been saying.


John Edward Broadbent: It's logic.


Erik Nielsen: It is not my idea of justice. I repeat to the Hon. Member that the public record discloses that there is a full compliance with, not the guidelines, the Code of Conduct governing public office holders. That is a matter of public record. I say it is a fact because there is clear evidence on the public record that the hon. gentleman, or any other Hon. Member, can have a look at if they take the trouble to do so.



John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my last question is directed to the Minister, himself.

May 9, 1986
Oral Questions
Today, it is clear that the person who gave the Minister's wife a loan is getting some benefit from his department. Will the Minister finally understand the situation and hand in his resignation?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, you will recall yesterday I indicated to the House that the transactions to which the Hon. Member is once again today referring were anticipated, indeed, set out in a Memorandum of Understanding signed on August 27, 1984, by my predecessor, the Hon. Ed Lumley, of the previous Government.


John Edward Broadbent: You made the decision.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The departmental processing followed that.


Mr. Cassidy:: Was the loan in the memorandum?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yesterday, I indicated that I was willing to table the notes to which I had referred. I was rather surprised at the almost hostility of the Opposition. Subsequently, I found out that, no, it is the Memorandum of Understanding that they want to see. As far as I am concerned, after having consulted with Magna International, we now have a letter in hand from Magna stating that it is willing for me to table the full Memorandum of Understanding.


Mr. Nunziata:: That is your obligation! It's not up to Magna.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: They have asked that three items be deleted because of the confidential nature of them. However, they are content to show even those three items to the Leader of the Opposition-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -and to the Leader of the NDP-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -on the understanding that they will keep them confidential.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


ACTING PRIME MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS
Mr. Raymond  Gameau@Laval-des-Rapides: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns conflicts of interest. This morning, the President of Brascan and others were quoted in a newspaper article as saying that when the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion was giving major contracts and grants to businesses in Toronto, his wife and the Minister's campaign organizer were visiting the same companies to obtain loans in order to save the Minister's family business from bankruptcy.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House today whether he was aware of these dealings and, if so, when he was informed of the situation?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman says that he has learned-I think "we" was his term-from the mouth of the President of Brascan certain things. I suggest it might be more accurate to say that he has learned the items which he is putting to us from reading a story in The Toronto Star today.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Quit stonewalling.


Erik Nielsen: There is no stonewalling. Hon. Members heard the Minister offer-and they have yet to accept it-to table the entire Memorandum of Understanding subject to the three exceptions-


John V. Nunziata: Confirm or deny the Star story!


Erik Nielsen: -which he is prepared to discuss with the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party in their roles as Privy Councillors.
Surely members of the Opposition who have been questioning for almost two weeks on this matter would want to see the information upon which they are basing their questions.


TIMING OF ACTING PRIME MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE
Mr. Raymond  Gameau@Laval-des-Rapides: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister failed to answer the question. I asked him whether when he was making enquiries to check whether there was any conflict of interest, whether he was aware that when the Minister was giving contracts to major businesses, the Minister's wife and his campaign organizer were going to the same companies to obtain loans to save the family business from bankruptcy. At what time did the Deputy Prime Minister find out about this?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. gentleman that my responsibility as Acting Prime Minister, and as Deputy Prime Minister charged with that responsibility by the Prime Minister, is to ensure compliance with the code-


Mr. Garneau:: That's not my question!


Mr. Lapierre:: Would you answer the question?


Erik Nielsen: -which is applicable to public office holders. I have done that.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Cover-up, cover-up!


Erik Nielsen: There is that compliance and I have so stated for two weeks now.
May 9, 1986


DIRECTIVE ISSUED BY PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns the directive given by the Prime Minister which states as follows:
-I wish it to be understood clearly by all Ministers that they have an individual responsibility to prevent conflicts of interest, including those that might arise out of activities of their spouses or dependent children or the dealings in property or investments which are owned or managed, in whole or in part, by their spouses or dependent children.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that that particular requirement was complied with in the case of Mrs. Stevens who went to people who do business with the ministry of which the Minister has control asking for financial assistance for the Minister's troubled company?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, had it not been for the last part, there would have been entirely no problem with responding very directly to the question. However, the Hon. Member smuggles in at the tail end of it another allegation that bears no resemblance to what I can see as being a factual situation.
The compliance that is required is the compliance by all Ministers of the Crown with the Code of Conduct. I am required to ensure that there has been that compliance, and I have done that. The Hon. Member does not choose to accept that.


ACTING PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question was simple and I smuggled nothing into it. Does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that the Minister took the actions that were appropriate, given that his wife has violated the Code of Conduct that the Prime Minister demands that all Ministers and their spouses live by?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. gentleman is unwilling to accept the very open offer that was made by the Minister to table the document, the Memorandum of Understanding, upon which those opposite have been basing their questions for two weeks. They do not want to see the truth. They do not want to look at it.


Ian Deans: I do want to see the truth.


Erik Nielsen: If the Hon. Member wants to see it, he should ask the Minister to table the document and his leader-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion said that he did not know that his wife and his campaign manager approached major Toronto brokerage firms to invest in his cash-starved company. Because he is an Hon. Member, we must believe
Oral Questions
him. However, now that he has full knowledge of the fact that his wife and campaign manager have in fact approached those major Toronto brokerage firms, how can he now deal objectively with the brokerage firms involved? Does he not agree that any future dealings he may have with those brokerage firms would lead one to believe that there is a conflict of interest?


Mr. Benjamin:: Why don't you sit together and be done with it?


Erik Nielsen: No need.


Mr. Rodriguez:: The Bobbsey Twins.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I felt that I had answered a similar question which was raised yesterday by pointing out that the CDC issue was done through 41 different investment dealers in Canada.


Raymond Garneau: That's boloney and you know it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would suggest to the Hon. Member-


Raymond Garneau: Who is your manager in your syndicate?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: We'll put you in the back again.


Raymond Garneau: He knows it's nonsense, what he says. I can't accept nonsense like that.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It's nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the Hon. Member who asked the question is entitled to hear the answer.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Hon. Member and to other Hon. Members that they should not be quick to start repeating what some Bay Street informant has fed to a newspaper on the co-ordinated approach that has been going on between the Official Opposition and newspapers in Toronto.


James Ross Fulton: Conspiracy!


MINISTER'S DEALINGS WITH INVESTMENT FIRMS-ACTIVITIES OF MINISTER'S WIFE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, It is obvious that the Minister's wife and campaign manager have rendered him a lame duck Minister. I would like to put the question again. How can the Minister, with full knowledge of the fact that his wife approached, not 41 investment dealers, but three investment dealers in particular, now say that he can deal objectively and fairly with those three investment dealers knowing that his wife approached them and knowing that he appointed them or has given them Government contracts?
13120

May 9, 1986
Oral Questions


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, having spent over two hours in committee with the Hon. Member, having answered repeated questions in the House and knowing of the Hon. Member's behaviour after the committee meeting, frankly, I do not think there is any way that any Member of the House could get the Hon. Member to understand the truth.


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer to a statement made in the House by the Prime Minister on June 6, 1985, as reported at page 5487 of Hansard, dealing with conflict of interest guidelines. At that time, the Prime Minister said the following:
-I would like to acknowledge that the guidelines are very much in effect and force, and that all Ministers are obliged to respect them in all ways, including appearance. We must seek to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us when the Prime Minister changed the rules on conflict of interest? Was it before he went to Japan, on the way to Japan or while he was in Japan?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to that question is September 9,1985.


PUBLIC PERCEPTION-REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL INQUIRY
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, would the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that in the minds of millions of Canadians there are serious doubts and there are appearances of conflict of interest? Would he therefore ask the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to step aside and set up a judicial inquiry into the possibilities of conflict of interest?


Erik Nielsen: I have answered that question several times, Mr. Speaker.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. In answer to yesterday's question from my colleague from Cape Breton-East Richmond, the Minister brandished a five-or-six-page document to defend his cause and, after requests from the Leader of the Official Opposition to table the document, the Minister agreed to table what he called notes, only parts of the document. Can the Minister explain why he did not tell the truth yesterday and table the complete document?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is quite out of order. The Hon. Member may ask a question about the documents if he likes but not in the way he has asked it, and he knows it.


Jean-Claude Malépart: I will rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister explain why he did not table the whole document yesterday?


Jean-C. Lapierre: He has an accommodating conscience. [English]


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I thought that I had indicated earlier my answer to that. Yesterday I had two documents in my hand. There was a Memorandum of Understanding and there were also my notes.


Mr. Axworthy:: Why didn't you say that then?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The notes to which I referred was where I got the number from that I put on the record yesterday. At the conclusion of Question Period, I offered to table the notes that I had. As I have indicated to the House, I have subsequently checked with Magna International which has a clause in its Memorandum of Understanding, incidentally signed by the previous Government, indicating that the memorandum is to be kept confidential and can only be released with its consent. Subject to the condition I indicated earlier, we now have the written consent from Magna to table even the Memorandum of Understanding to which I referred.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Short question.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Now that the Minister has just shown he misled the House yesterday, how can we believe him today as he tries to defend himself and his wife?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that I cannot allow the-I can allow the question but I must ask him to withdraw.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw what?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I am hearing something else because I am listening to two things. However, would the Hon. Member simply put his question without the comment?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I heard something that was not there. It would help the Chair if the Hon. Member would just put his question.
May 9, 1986


Jean-Claude Malépart: Can the Minister now explain whether he has any credibility left with respect to the other matter involving his wife, considering he misled the House yesterday?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the hon. gentleman and his colleagues how they can believe the Minister. He wants to give them the information-


Raymond Garneau: That is not true, and you know it.


Erik Nielsen: -and there is no one over there who is prepared to accept it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


RADIOACTIVE RAINFALL IN OTTAWA
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the radioactive rain which has been falling on Ottawa. I will direct it either to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare or to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, if they are capable of answering. Could they indicate in the House exactly what are the dangers from the fact that the levels of radioactivity in the rain in the capital area have been six times the acceptable, safe level? How long is it likely to continue, and what precautions should Canadians take? I ask these questions so that Canadians will have some advice in the House of Commons rather than just indirect reports through the press or by telephone from Switzerland.


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that tests were made from May 1 to May 7 in Vancouver, Regina, Winnipeg and Thunder Bay, and that they showed no trace of radioactivity. It is true that there is some radioactivity in Ottawa. However, before the Department gives an opinion, the radioactive level would have to be 10,000 times higher than it is now. There is therefore no danger for the moment and we are continuing to make tests. We are monitoring the situation very closely.


LOCATION OF TESTING STATIONS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Hon. Member for Skeena pointed out in a statement earlier today that there was no
Oral Questions
testing station within 1,000 miles of portions of his riding. Because there was only one testing station in Vancouver, British Columbia, vast areas of the country are not covered by the tests to which the Minister has referred. Could the Government explain why there has not been initiated a regular program of testing to cover all regions of Canada, not just the capital cities and the national capital of the country?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that the present testing system reflects our needs. I maintain that the low radioactive level in Ottawa is no cause for concern. Perhaps it was just a cloud which passed over Ottawa so that the Opposition would ask us a question about it instead of the traditional questions about conflicts of interests!


NATIONAL REVENUE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. The rebate of all federal taxes on farm fuels is most welcome. However, the interest burden pending reimbursement of the tax is causing some fuel dealers considerable concern. In light of the greatly increased amounts of money involved, could the Minister again examine the possibility of providing some kind of cash advance or cash flow to bulk fuel dealers, perhaps a system similar to the one in place in the Province of Alberta?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the Hon. Member for raising the recent relief in this regard which was announced by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance on April 30. There is a matter of policy involved. I will take it as a matter of representation, consult with the Minister of Finance to see if there can be some further improvements, and advise the Hon. Member.

[ Translation]


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my questions is for the Deputy Prime Minister. First, I would like to point out that the Code of Ethics on conflicts of interests in Canada is unique in that it has no legal authority. There is

May 9, 1986
Oral Questions
therefore something lacking in the code if we want to ensure compliance, and especially if we want the public to know that there is compliance. In my opinion, what is lacking is the requirement to provide full explanations. I would therefore like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why it is that he himself, the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole can accept that the Minister still be reluctant to provide detailed and complete explanations since he stands accused by public opinion?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, here we are struck by the extraordinary spectacle of an offer by the Minister to provide information to the Opposition, for which it has been asking, and now they are running away from it like scared hares.


Lloyd Axworthy: Just table the papers.


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. gentleman in his supplementary question would simply indicate that he would like the Minister to table the Memorandum of Understanding on the conditions which he set out, he would be delighted to do that, and also to speak with the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party as Privy Councillors.


John V. Nunziata: Every Canadian has the right to know.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister wants to table this memorandum, we shall gladly agree to it and consider it as a first step toward obtaining more complete and straightforward explanations.
I would therefore like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if we shall have to be content much longer with his own statements that the Minister has complied with the guidelines. If so, these guidelines deserve nothing better than to be discarded because they are absolutely worthless.


Erik Nielsen: No, I certainly do not agree with that, Sir. The Code of Conduct originated in 1963 as a result of the events of that day, and was carried on by successive Liberal Governments for very good reason.


THE PUBLIC SERVICE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board who should be ashamed that the average earnings of female public servants are $8,000 less than the average earnings of
male employees. Surely this is proof that Conservative employment equity is not working. What practical steps will the Minister take immediately to redress these pay inequities for women who work for Canada?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, that is a problem of which we are well aware. The wage gap between the sexes can only be eliminated by ensuring that employees in female dominated occupations receive equal pay for work of equal value. That is well under study at the moment by Treasury Board officials, and hopefully we will have something to announce in the near future.


EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am astounded that this important issue is just under study. Since men now hold 92 per cent of the highest paid jobs in the Public Service, will the Minister immediately establish a mandatory enforcement mechanism to ensure equal opportunities for women in every federal Department and Crown corporation?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, it is not only a study, we have also acted. I took the initiative in March, 1985 to invite all Public Service bargaining agents to participate in a joint union-management initiative to recommend means of implementing these very important but very complex concepts to alleviate the situation.


REFUGEES
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Some time ago the Minister said in the Chamber that the Minister of State for Immigration would be addressing the issue of refugee determination shortly. Could the Minister indicate today a more precise date as to when a policy will be announced?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as a culmination of intensive consultation and study, including study by a parliamentary committee of the House, the Minister of State for Immigration will be announcing the new refugee determination policy during the week of May 19. I assure Hon. Members of the House that the new policy will adhere to our humanitarian traditions and respect our international obligations. What we have tried to do throughout is to seek a balance between fairness, efficiency and humanity.
May 9, 1986


THE ADMINISTRATION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Earlier in the Question Period he was presented with the fact that the spouse of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion had approached a series of brokerage firms asking for financial assistance for the assets of the Minister and to his benefit. At that point he said that that was in perfect compliance with the standards of the Government and that it met all the requirements of the Government in terms of reporting and accountability. For the sake of all those who want to do business with the Government, is it now an acceptable practice and standard that spouses of Cabinet Ministers can go to prospective clients of the Government and ask them for financial assistance for personal benefit as a basis for doing business?
SO)


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has obviously come to a judgment on the basis of what he has read on the front page of The Toronto Star. It is equally obvious that he regards what is printed on the front page of The Toronto Star as undoubted fact. That is his choice and 1 can understand why he would make it. I choose not to believe everything I read on the front page of The Toronto Star as fact.


John V. Nunziata: What are the facts? Do you know them?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Lloyd Axworthy: My
supplementary question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister who is responsible for conflict of interest. Surely when very distinguished members of the Canadian business community say that these are facts, it should strike his sense of responsibility and moral sensibility that an investigation should be launched to determine whether these are true facts rather than, ipso facto, dismissing them and, thereby, casting a cloud over his Government and the whole operation of the country.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has some experience in that area himself. The code has been complied with. He chooses not to believe that.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Cover-up.


Erik Nielsen: He chooses to believe what he reads. I choose not to. 1 choose to be a good deal more careful and prudent than he obviously does when it comes to convicting, in my mind, any person in this House or anywhere else.
Oral Questions TRADE


LUMBER EXPORTS TO JAPAN-JAPANESE BUILDING CODE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade. Once again the Prime Minister has apparently misstated the views of another person, that person being this time the Prime Minister of Japan.
Would the Minister of International Trade clarify the matter of whether the Government of Japan is going to review or amend its building codes in order to allow greater imports of Canadian two-by-fours?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is well aware that for many years Canada has been making very strenuous efforts to have the trade laws of Japan relaxed with respect to the entry of our lumber into that country. The Prime Minister, the greatest trader that Canada has, raised that question at the highest level. I am confident that as a result of those discussions trade relaxation will indeed follow.


JAPANESE GOVERNMENT POSITION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I am talking about the trade in blarney by the Prime Minister. Are the senior Japanese officials who were present at that meeting and the officials of the Embassy of Japan in Ottawa whom I contacted today correct in saying that the Government of Japan is only going to review the building code, that it is not going to amend it? Who is telling the truth, the Prime Minister of Japan or Canada's Prime Minister?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can only reply to the hon. gentleman that we should be very pleased indeed that our Prime Minister is taking our trade problems to the highest levels in Japan. He has discussed those, and 1 think we should be commending the Prime Minister for attending to the problems of this very troubled industry in Canada.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, in view of all that has gone down in this Chamber in the past two weeks, it would appear that the Deputy Prime Minister is saying that as long as a cabinet Minister conforms to the Code of Conduct he can receive a benefit. Does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that such permissive guidelines are adequate?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the main part of the allegations in the Member's question has been answered repeatedly in the House. With regard to

May 9, 1986
Oral Questions
improvements, nothing is perfect. The Prime Minister said that, in response to a question put to him at his last press conference before leaving for his Asian tour.
1 remind the Hon. Member that his Leader, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, have yet to respond to a letter sent to them on September 9.


Ian Deans: We did respond.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That's not true. We did respond.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order!


Ian Deans: You know as well as I do that we sat down and sent it to committee, just as we were asked to do.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


George Baker: After that answer I now agree with what the Deputy Prime Minister said two days ago, that we have sunk to a new low in this Chamber. The word "sunk" is the past tense of the word "sink", and we all know who has been doing the sinking. I will, therefore, put my questions succinctly to the Deputy Prime Minister.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
George Baker: Does the Deputy Prime Minister know if the Minister of DRIE was quoted correctly in The Globe and Mail as saying:
It's not so much that I don't trust the private sector-
To administer his affairs:
-it is just that in my whole life I have never had anyone else manage my affairs and I don't want to lose control.
Does he know if the Minister still holds this opinion? If he does, does he not think that this Minister belongs in no Cabinet?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was referring to the new low depths to which his caucus colleagues have sunk in their conduct in the committee where one of them was leaping over chairs to get at the Minister and the other one-


Mr. Gauthier:: Don't give us that sanctimonious stuff. What a sanctimonious guy you are.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Preaching to us, for God's sake.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a question about conflict, only my question is about the conflict between need and deed and is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Last year hundreds of millions of dollars went unspent while thousands waited for jobs. No money has yet been allocated this year to the Canadian Jobs Strategy. When is the Minister going to get around to making the money available which is supposed to be putting people to work under the Canadian Jobs Strategy?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Hon. Member was going to mention that in the past month 52,000 new jobs have been created for young people across the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That has brought the unemployment rate for young people down to 15 per cent, the lowest rate since 1981.


John V. Nunziata: Are you proud of that?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Challenge '86 program, which is already being funded to the tune of some $180 million, is now coming into effect. That, too, will help to lower the unemployment rate for young people. It will help to create jobs. That program is one of the many programs under the Canadian Jobs Strategy which is already in operation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I, of course, did not mention the facts which the Minister mentioned because I knew she would mention them rather than answer the question.


TIME OF FUNDING
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question which has nothing to do with Challenge '86 but is with regard to the Canadian Jobs Strategy. Members on all sides of the House ask when money is going to be made available to the Canadian Jobs Strategy so that people will be put to work, or is this the Minister's way of bringing about the cuts in the Budget which she was allocated?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, just so the Hon. Member will know, Challenge '86 is part of the Canadian Jobs Strategy. I can assure him that moneys are available for various programs under the Canadian Jobs Stategy. Yesterday I had the privilege of being in Sault Ste. Marie with the Hon. Member from that area. I announced a program of some $6.5 million for the benefit of people who are unemployed in the Sault Ste. Marie area. That was the first project to be announced under
May 9, 1986

the Community Futures Program of the Canadian Jobs Strategy.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
Since the disclosure about the loan made to a company run by his wife, many small and medium-sized businesses are wondering whether they could not also get five-year loans, with one year interest-free, and not to be refunded before 4 years. Could the Minister indicate to those companies where to apply for that kind of financial assistance?


Raymond Garneau: Call Erik.
[DOT] (UOO)


Erik Nielsen: I think on a question of that nature, where I would need some sound financial advice, I would consult with the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am in receipt of-


John Edward Broadbent: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of a notice of a desire to raise a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. I have received notice of a point of order from the President of the Privy Council. Is this arising out of Question Period or not?


John Edward Broadbent: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa wishes to raise a point of order arising out of Question Period? I will deal with that first.


POINT OF ORDER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion said earlier that he was prepared to make available a document he referred to yesterday. I am prepared to accept the conditions, as I understand them, that there are certain limited sections only, not directly involved with what has been debated here but
Point of Order-Mr. Broadbent
which have something to do with commercial confidentiality, which would have to be kept confidential. The rest would not. Under those terms I would be glad to accept the Minister's offer and look at what he has.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: On behalf of the Official Opposition I say that the Minister can table the document if he wishes. We do not accept that it is sufficient information for this House and the Canadian public to launder the document to suit the Minister's purposes.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister will have his opportunity under Tabling of Documents. Is the Hon. Member raising a point of order out of Question Period? I must hear the question of privilege since I have been given notice.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On
this point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it absolutely clear that the Liberal Party will not accept the offer which has been accepted by the NDP.


Jacques Guilbault: Speak for yourself.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Just sit down.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I would like to get a clarification, Mr. Speaker. There are some constraints with respect to the tabling of documents. My colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, indicated he is prepared to table the document but make the exempted information available to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP as members of the Privy Council. It is not a question of not making disclosure but the normal exclusion of certain limited parts of this document on the basis of commercial confidentiality. The Official Opposition House Leader (Mr. Gray (Windsor West)) will understand that, having served in Government. I just want to make sure I understand that that would not be a suitable arrangement under which the Minister tabled this document.


Mr. Speaker:: I suspect that there needs to be more conversation about this among House Leaders.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have to respond to the President of the Privy Council. I want to make our position clear.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That won't be easy.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If the Minister wants to table the document he referred to during today's Question Period in the form to which he referred, he can do so. We are not stopping him. I am saying that, as far as we are concerned, we do not consider that ends the matter. If he says he will table it only if the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition as a Privy Councillor agrees to look at certain parts of it and keep them confidential, then certainly at the very least I will have to consult with my Leader, who is not here. However, I say let

May 9, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Dingwall
the Minister table his document and let this House and the Canadian people pass judgment on it right away. However, do not use the fact that we may not be willing to say the document is adequate as an excuse not to table the document in question today in the form he says he wants to table it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), and then the Minister.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You have a question of privilege.


Ian Deans: On a different point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I know I have a question of privilege. The Hon. Member raised a point of order arising out of Question Period and I think I have to resolve that matter before we can go to the question of privilege. The Minister wishes to speak to the point of order?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of the original comment made by the House Leader for the Official Opposition. He said there had been some laundering of the document overnight.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You said "notes" yesterday and not "document".


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I think it should be abundantly clear that the Memorandum of Understanding has a confidentiality clause in Clause 21. This is directly over Ed Lumley's signature. It says that, subject to the Access to Information Act, the Minister and Magna agreed to keep this MOU, including its annexes, confidential and not release it to third parties unless the prior consent of the other side is first obtained.


Lloyd Axworthy: You used it yesterday.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is exactly what we did last night. Magna worked late into the night to make sure there was no other reason for not releasing the document. They have indicated that, with the exception of only three parts, they are prepared to have it tabled. That is what we are offering to do.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think, as Hon. Members, know there has not in fact been a point of order in all of this. There has been an attempt to negotiate on the floor. I think that should occur somewhere else.
I am in receipt of a notice of a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall).


PRIVILEGE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, yesterday during Question Period I posed a question to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. In answer to my question he clearly read from a document. Later, according to established practices, the Minister was asked to table that document. Unfortunately, he said he had read only from a note and offered to table the note from which he said he read. After Question Period I had an opportunity, along with many of my colleagues, to view the official video tape, the electronic Hansard. We saw that the Minister was clearly reading from a document of several pages in length, not from the short note he showed us at three o'clock. My question of privilege is that the Minister perhaps-perhaps-through misunderstanding the document referred to in the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), has misled the House. I think he should be called upon to correct his statement, table the proper document and, if he is not so prepared and he is viewed as having breached the privileges and practices of this House, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member gave me proper notice of his question. He may know that it is not a question of privilege but a point of order he has raised. He has a view of the facts yesterday. The Hon. Minister gave me his view in the House yesterday that, on his word in the House, he was speaking from notes. As I indicated yesterday, the Chair accepts that the Hon. Member has a view of the facts and the Hon. Minister has given us his view of what the facts were. I, of course, accept his view.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He changed it overnight.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Did you watch television?


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will know that the Speaker's obligation is to listen to the point of order raised in the House, and that is that.


POINT OF ORDER
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order arising out of Question Period. Earlier in Question Period the Acting Prime Minister repeated something he has said on a number of occasions during the course of this week. He said the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had written to the Leader of the New Democratic Party regarding the conflict of interest guidelines for Members and had no response. I want to put two matters clearly on the record. One, the Leader of the NDP did in fact file the views of this Party with the commission studying the conflict of interest issue.
May 9, 1986

They were made available to all Members, including the Prime Minister. More important, in the letter written to the Leader-


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order?


Ian Deans: The point of order is that the Acting Prime Minister has inadvertently misled the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is not a point of order.


Ian Deans: It is a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is a question of fact.


Ian Deans: What is a question of fact?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are arguing a matter of fact.


Ian Deans: I am not arguing facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ian Deans: I'm sorry, I demand the right to clear the record.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows, I think, that he is debating the fact.


Ian Deans: I am not.


Mr. Speaker:: He is saying he has a version of the facts, and he is saying another Member's version of the facts is wrong.


Ian Deans: There is only one version of the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Anybody who has been around this Parliament as long as I have knows there is always more than one version of the facts.
Sir, with respect, I say-order, please.


Ian Deans: I have about had it!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Ian Deans: I have defended you at every turn.


Mr. Speaker:: I know you have.


Ian Deans: I am sick of it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain feels strongly that the facts have not been- order, please.
Tabling of Documents BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


DESIGNATION OF ALLOTTED DAY
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: would like to raise a point of order to announce business next week, namely, that I want to designate Monday as an allotted day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table what I offered to table yesterday, which are the notes that I referred to during Question Period, and from which I read a number into the record concerning the Magna International contracted projects. In addition, as I indicated earlier, I would like to table the Memorandum of Understanding that was entered into on August 27, 1984, by Ed Lumley, on behalf of Her Majesty, and by Frank Stronach, on behalf of Magna International Inc. This Memorandum of Understanding, and perhaps I could read this into the record, is tabled on the understanding that there are four columns of figures on Annex 1 that have been deleted because it is felt they are, businesswise, quite sensitive. They show projections and sales, this type of thing. Annex Nos. 9 and 10 are also deleted. Those portions of the Memorandum of Understanding, Magna has told us in writing, will be made available to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Leader of the NDP Party (Mr. Broadbent) provided they sign, and I will read into the record, on the part of the Leader of the Opposition:
I, John Turner, P.C. hereby promise and agree personally, and in my capacity as a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council, to keep confidential and not disclose to any person the contents of the four (4) columns of figure on the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please.
The Hon. Minister may have something to say under statements, but at this point all he can do is table documents, with respect. Order, please.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have tabled the two documents.


PETITIONS
Mr. Girve Fretz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the Government's response to five petitions.

May 9, 1986
Petitions



[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I have here a petition signed by some thirty Canadians from around Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, asking the Government to reconsider its decision to terminate the Katimavik Program.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to speak for a number of petitioners who humbly submit that the Katimavik Program was successful training the 20,000 young people who participated over the past ten years, and request that the Government support that initiative and reconsider its decision to terminate the program. Mr. Speaker, I have at least eight such petitions.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to present another petition, this one signed by 110 residents of Etobicoke Lakeshore, and some 20 other municipalities around Ontario, from Ajax to Agincourt, Welland to Weston, Scarborough to Sarnia, and so on, in which the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to vote, at the earliest possible date, to reinstate capital punishment for first degree murder.
Pursuant to Standing Order 106 this petition has been certified correct both as to form and content.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I too have a number of petitions that I would like to present on behalf of citizens from Montreal, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Pierrefonds, Toronto and other areas in Canada who request that the Government reconsider its decision to terminate the youth program called Katimavik, and reinstate it.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from several hundred residents of Prince Edward Island who belong to the Island Women for Peace, and who urge the Government of Canada to diminish Canada's participation in the nuclear and conventional arms buildup, and, to that end, withdraw any proposed contract with Litton Systems Canada Limited to produce, in Prince Edward Island, the radar component for ADATS weaponry.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health. Contributions Act, 1977, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and on the motion of Mr. Lewis (p. 13066).
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the debate we are starting or rather resuming on Bill C-96 can hardly be said to be proceeding smoothly. I see the Conservative Members across the way making jokes.
I find it incredible that when we have a Bill that will have an impact on every Canadian province and will involve a total of $8 billion by the end of this decade, that not a single Minister who was involved in the decision-making process, not the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), not the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), not the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall), not the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), not the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), not a single Minister who was involved in making this decision or making this proposal to the Government, not a single Minister has had the courage to rise in the House to explain, not just to Hon. Members but to the Canadian people, what this Government was doing! Through Bill C-96, the Conservative Government, the Minister of State (Finance) and the Minister of Finance are taking $8 billion off the deficit and dumping it on the shoulders of the provincial Ministers of Finance. And then the Minister of Finance is going to tell us they have reduced the federal deficit. They reduced the deficit by passing it on to the provinces.
I think it is shocking that the Minister of Finance does not have the guts to come and explain, and that the Minister of State (Finance) who replaces him did not have the good judgment to come and explain to the House why the federal Government is going to cut back on health and post-secondary education programs and why the Government is going to cut transfer payments to the provinces by nearly $8 billion. Three billion for Ontario, two billion for Quebec, hundreds of millions for all the other provinces in Canada, provinces that
May 9, 1986

cannot afford such cutbacks. And none of the Ministers responsible for financial affairs have had the courage to rise in the House to explain their position.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what kind of administration Hon. Members on the other side of the House are trying to set up, but there is growing evidence that all Conservative Cabinet Ministers have been gagged and ordered by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister not to say anything. It is obvious in this case which closely resembles the matter under discussion in the House over the last couple of weeks. When well known businessmen such as those whose names have been reported in today's newspapers confirm before the media that indeed there were meetings between a Minister's wife and their companies, and that the Deputy Prime Minister stands up to say "I do not believe a word of it",we must conclude that the Government is putting up a smokescreen and does not want to come clean with the Canadian people. To top it off, in the case under consideration the Minister of State (Finance) refuses to explain the Government position. As we recall, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) was in the Opposition in 1982 and, after months and months of negotiations to amend the equalization formula, he stated that it was not co-operative federalism, but predatory federalism. Why is he not in the House, or why can his colleague the junior Minister of Finance not be here to explain this glaring contradiction?
I have been listening to back-benchers expounding their principles. Sure enough, the Conservative Members told us yesterday that we must privatize hospitals, particularly homes for the elderly. Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Member ought to know that when the federal and provincial Governments changed the health care funding formula in 1976-77, the idea was to give more leeway to the provinces. I really do not see how anyone can argue that $8 billion will be taken away from the provinces because these activities have to be given back to the private sector. I quite agree that the private sector might have a role to play, but does the Hon. Member believe that only those who can afford to pay between $700 and $1,000 a month should be entitled to a space in a nursing home, a senior citizens residence or a hospital? If such is the Conservative philosophy and if the Member from Nova Scotia who spoke the other day was expressing the views of this Government, I would like a Minister to confirm that, from now on, the cutbacks of $8 billion, or $3 billion for Ontario and $2 billion for Quebec, mean that the Conservative Government wants the provinces to privatize hospital care. Is this the philosophy of the Conservative Government? Has the Hon. Member from Nova Scotia, whose province will lose hundreds of millions of dollars, consulted his Premier? Did he ask the Members of the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia whether they agree with privatization and with a reduction of their costs? Could they indeed reduce hospital costs?
For my part, I am shocked to see such an important financial bill, which goes to the very heart of our social
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
programs about which the Prime Minister of Canada said during the 1984 electoral campaign:
"the social programs are a sacred trust not to be tampered with".
[Translation}
Mr. Speaker, "not to be tampered with" ... The provincial Ministers of Finance will have to shoulder this $8 billion cut in program funding. Is this consistent with the firm commitment the present Prime Minister had made during the election campaign, at a time when he was the Leader of the Opposition?
There are things which do not make sense. Over the past few days, Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to bring the Government to its sense and have it realize the absurdity of pushing through this $8 billion bill without any minister daring to come to the House to defend it. No Minister has risen in the House to deal with this Bill, and today, under threat of closure ... It is not enough for the Government to use the weight of its 211-seat majority, it needs also use closure to stop this debate and make sure the Canadian people do not realize that they are about to be had.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the complete lack of courage demonstrated by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State (Finance), in view of the fact that they have the gall, in spite of their 211-seat majority, to try and gag the 39-members strong Liberal Opposition-211 against 39-and that this Government is forced to use closure ... I suggest the Government have gone far beyond the acceptable limits in our democratic system Mr. Speaker, and I move the immediate adjournment of the House to protest the Government's irresponsible attitude.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed to the motion please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:

May 9, 1986
Committee Report


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would just like to extend my apology to Your Honour for my earlier intemperate remarks.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for being, as always, an example of a parliamentarian.


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to have my vote registered as an abstention because I believe that this is a disgusting waste of parliamentary time and-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that a comment of that kind is entirely out of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you were to seek the consent of the House to revert to the tabling of committee reports, I have reason to believe, after consultation, that you would find such consent. I think the House would be so disposed.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it there is an agreement to do this before calling it one o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services.

We voted the estimates of Mr. Speaker last Wednesday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Let's have lunch.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has made a suggestion which I am afraid I cannot accommodate today. It being after one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock today.
At 1.03 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal PostSecondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and on the amendment of Mr. Lewis (p. 13066).
May 9, 1986
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question? I will recognize the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) for finding a quorum this Friday afternoon. The Government has moved a motion that the question be now put. This means that I and other Members who are interested in speaking on this issue will not have the opportunity to do so.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: I can understand the response of the Government Members because in previous opportunities to speak on this Bill I have quoted the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie), the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie). I can understand why Conservative back-benchers, and those on the front bench when they deem to show up in this place, are reluctant to hear the words of their own Cabinet Ministers. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, from your many-and some say too many-years in the House-I say that with all due respect, Mr. Speaker- what the Conservative Cabinet Ministers were saying when they were the opposition finance critic, health and welfare critic, employment critic, and justice critic, was the exact opposite of what they are doing at the present time in government.
We are presently debating a piece of legislation which will take money which would have gone to the provinces for medical services and the funding of post-secondary education. Some of the Government Members have said that that is not what the Bill will do. They say it will give more money to the provinces. That is certainly what some people would call newspeak. The present legislation is not due to expire until April of 1987. That legislation which was passed by this House in 1982 would have given each of the provinces more money for medicare and post-secondary education. The legislation with which we are now dealing will take that money from very essential programs which are necessary to create a sense of equality across the country.
The Ministers whom I quoted in earlier remarks said that this was unilateral action of a federal Government which was not concerned with consulting the provinces. In other words, while in opposition, the Conservatives said the Government should not pass such legislation because the Government had not consulted with the provinces. Post-secondary education and medical services are not paid for only by the federal Government but are paid for by the provinces and other agencies in conjunction with the federal Government.
In 1981 and 1982, Conservative after Conservative spoke in this House. Their theme was that we must keep co-operative federalism alive and that there should be no unilateral action by the federal Government. In 1982, the Liberals were not taking money away from the provinces. They were introducing
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
legislation which would cover the period from 1982 to 1987. We objected to that legislation as did the Conservatives. However, it was a recognized responsibility of the federal Government of that day to introduce legislation which would cover federal contributions to post-secondary education and medicare for the next five-year period.
The federal Liberal Governments of that time failed to negotiate that with the provinces. They could not come to any agreement. They introduced a piece of legislation which they passed without the support of most of the provinces. They did that and were attacked time after time by the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and any number of other Members now sitting in Cabinet. The Tories condemned what they said was unilateral action. However, the Liberal Government was introducing legislation covering the next five year period. The present legislation has another year to run, until March 31, 1987. The legislation in front of us takes back money promised to the provinces under legislation which the Tories condemned as lacking in generosity and failing to recognize the rights of the provinces.
I have quoted the words Conservative MPs have used in the past in order to point out that they do not live up to what they said when in opposition. For that matter, they are even worse. One might say that they are stealing the money, if I can use that expression, from the provinces.
In addition to that, during the last election the Conservative Party said it would return to the 1977 funding formula which the Liberals had taken away. I do not know what the Conservative Whip was saying during the election but he knows that that was his Party's platform as shown on page 98 of its campaign handbook. I want him and other Members to know that they did not keep their election promise to the youth of this country. They did not restore the money taken away by the Liberals. No one in this House can get up and deny that.


Pauline Jewett: Where is Flora today?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Where are any of the Ministers today?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I realize I do not have much time left because of time allocation, but let me say this. Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, a distinguished former member of the Conservative Party, spoke in Winnipeg on April 3. He made very clear what this legislation would do. It will hurt two groups in this society, the poor and the poorer provinces. He said that the provinces are going to have to incur more costs for medicare and that those provinces which do not have abundant resources will suffer more. He said it is obvious that there will be a lowering of standards and an inability to keep up with the state of the art in provincially owned hospitals. This from a man twice commissioned by the Government of Canada to look into

May 9, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
medicare. He is not a New Democrat, he is a Conservative. He went across this country on this issue and is saying that this legislation will mean a reduction in the level of services.
Two weeks ago, speaking to The Financial Post conference on health, the Minister of National Health and Welfare was asked if these reductions will impact on affordability and accessibility. He replied that of course they will. He admitted that this legislation will reduce accessibility and affordability, and the people of this country should know that. When the legislation gets to committee I am sure we will make that case. We cannot beat the Tory numbers in this House, but I am sure the groups concerned can keep repeating these Tory promises-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret but the Hon. Member's time has expired.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill, as other Hon. Members have said, is to cut back on federal Government transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education and health care. We in the Opposition, along with the people of Canada, must oppose this Bill with all our might. Most of the provinces are doing so even though some of them are run by Conservative Governments. The Conservative Party campaigned during the election on a promise to respect social programs and make them a sacred trust. It is strange that the Conservatives should pick on post-secondary education and health in dealing with the deficit. What they are really doing is transferring the deficit to the provinces.
Education and health, as you know, are the lifeblood of a modern technological state. I look upon money spent by Government on education as an investment, not simply as a transfer payment for welfare or social services. If we are to have a society able to meet competition from the U.S., Japan and the European Common Market, we must have the best trained and most competent people in industry. The only way we are going to do that is by having a first-class educational system at the primary, secondary and post-secondary level. This money which is being cut was not only for universities but also for community colleges, technical schools and others as well. It was to be used to train those people required in a modern technological society.
The other side of the coin here is the issue of health care. Again, if we are going to have a productive, competent nation, we need healthy people. We need people who are able to work without worrying about health problems, especially the financial aspect. I spoke to the amendment to this Bill put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Mmember for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). I put some arguments on the record against this Bill. I would now like to put on the record some of the things happening in this country outside Parliament, some of the opposition taking place, which I think is important. I do not want people to believe that it is just the Opposition in this
place which is opposing the Bill. There is opposition everywhere in the country. I quote from an article from Le Devoir as follows:

-and in the newspaper Le Droit on March 14, 1986, and in the article entitled "Three Hundred Students condemn the Cutbacks", this was written:
Over 300 students from Ottawa and Carleton Universities demonstrated on Parliament Hill yesterday noon to condemn the cutbacks announced by the Conservative Government with respect to the financing of post-secondary education.

I now quote the following from the Saint John, New Brunswick Telegraph Journal of February 21:
The New Brunswick Medical Society has already done everything it can to fight Finance Minister Michael Wilson's proposal to trim federal support of provincial medicare, says society president Dr. Paige Emenau.
In anticipation of the legislation Wilson brought to the House of Commons last Friday, medical society officials met in Ottawa early this month and laid out their case to New Brunswick members of the federal Progressive Conservative caucus.
I have another example from the scientific community, and I quote from the Toronto Star on February 6 the following:
Funding cuts seen as crisis for our universities. Shrinking Government support for post-secondary education is causing a crisis for Canadian universities, spokesmen for the academic research community have warned.
And they say a federal-provincial conference is needed to resolve the issue before the damage becomes irreparable.
"Research is not a luxury, but a necessity", Bernard Shapiro, president of the Social Sciences Federation of Canada, told a news conference yesterday.
I have already referred to the medical profession and the scientific community. There are also quotes from the political leaders in our provinces. I have here an article from the Halifax Chronicle Herald of January 2. This is an article by Harvey Webber, who is a Sydney, Nova Scotia businessman, a lawyer and a founder of the Atlantic Canada Plus Association. He says the following:
Federal transfer funds allocated ostensibly for health care and post-secondary education alone total approximately $275 million in this province.
That is Nova Scotia. He continues:
The Atlantic Provinces must be quite clear that reduction of transfer payments for health and education could cost Nova Scotia alone $70 million a year.
As an Atlantic Canadian, I am alarmed. What are our provincial Governments doing to prevent a reduction in transfer payments? All of us throughout the Atlantic region should clearly express our concern and our alarm to our provincial representatives.
In Quebec-

-as stated in the newspaper Le Devoir dated December 18:
The Minister of Finance, Gerard-D. Levesque, brought pressure to bear on the federal Government "in a general way" and not on specific issues, urging not to transfer its deficit over to the provinces-
May 9, 1986

The Quebec Minister insisted that he had exerted pressures on the Government in Ottawa so it would understand conditions in Quebec. Not only 1 did that, answered the Minister of Finance, but I added other considerations-

What is particularly sad in this situation is that we have a Government attempting to deal with the deficit, and that must be dealt with, with two very critical programs for Canadian people, namely, education and health care.
While the Government is cutting back in that area what is it doing at the same time? As it did in the last Budget it is giving a $500,000 tax exemption for people with capital gains, who are the wealthier people in our population. The Government has spent approximately $1 billion bailing out the two banks that failed recently and the creditors in those banks, even though the creditors were beyond the $60,000 limit for insurance purposes. The Government provided tax benefits to the large oil companies. These are very, very expensive programs. The Government is doing that at the same time as it is attempting to cut back on education and health care.
Let me point out for symbolic purposes, and I know it got some of my colleagues upset the other day, that when this Government came to office one of the first things it did was to increase the size of the Minister's offices. The Government raised the salaries of what used to be called executive assistants, made them chiefs of staff and gave them much higher salaries than are given to Members of Parliament. The Government established offices for Ministers recently in different parts of the country, and has announced one in Vancouver. I mentioned the establishment of an office for Mila Mulroney, the wife of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney), which is completely unacceptable and had never been done in this country before. Here we have the wife of the Prime Minister proclaiming herself a real political animal. In other words, she admits that her work is principally political on behalf of the Conservative Party, and she is being paid through public funds for an office on Parliament Hill. That is a symbolic issue.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Parliamentary Secretary on a point of order.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, I wonder what the outstanding conduct of the wife of the Prime Minister of Canada, the greatest among Canadian women, has to do with Bill C-96.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think that is a point of order. The Hon. Member has exactly 30 seconds.


Mr. Allmand:: I know it is not a point of order, but I am glad the Member raised it. It has a lot to do with this Bill because Bill C-96 cuts important funding to the provinces for education and health care, when at the same time the Government is spending money on such frills as offices for the wife of the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Prime Minister, and that is unacceptable in this country. It is only an example of the profligacy of this Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret but the Hon. Member's time is expired.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious that we have almost finished consideration of Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977. We, that is, our small team of Opposition Members, since there are only 39 of us in this party and 30 in the other Opposition party. But nevertheless, the Government, with the biggest majority ever, 211, since Confederation, has decided to crush that Opposition by gagging it, by putting the previous question. This means that the Government will probably make it this afternoon, unless we get reinforcements. However, I think we are running out, because there are hardly any Opposition Members left who have not spoken to the Bill. But nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, this Government has resorted to a procedure that is certainly not acceptable in a true democracy, and 211 Members could at least have the patience to listen to what the Official Opposition-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: And to learn!


Marcel Prud'homme: Not only to listen, but to learn, as my hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) pointed out.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pity, because I wish my colleagues and especially those from Quebec, would realize the kind of impact this Bill will have on my own province, the Province of Quebec.
I am told that at a reception someone heard a rather interesting comment by our Quebec Premier, Mr. Bourassa, who said not long ago, and I will allow myself the indiscretion of quoting him: "the 66 million I am about to lose are probably the DRIE Minister's $64 million that are going to another province... ", the reference being to the contracts the controversy is all about today.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry they don't realize how important this Bill is. They are undermining the very sectors on which Canada has built its reputation: health care and education, areas in which I think we can say our country has made enormous progress in the years since the War.
We are envied by the world. We are envied by our much richer neighbours to the South, the United States, and that is saying a lot. We are envied not only by the rest of the world but by our most precious neighbours the United States. How many Americans who know about our system envy us? How many Americans who do not know about it would, if they did, urge their Government to have two of the best programs in the world. But if we cut back those expenditures without consultations, without consulting the provinces-because after all they are directly involved-how can we believe in good harmony between the Federal Government and the provinces?

May 9, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
This Government was elected, as I say, because the Canadian people thought the time had come for a change. But they were not expecting such cutbacks in those expenditures. The Government made a clear commitment. They even attacked us, as it was their right to do it, and I will always remember that debate in January 1984, if my memory serves me right. You were there, Mr. Speaker, and you delivered very serious attacks against the Government.
At that time, we were criticized both by the present Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) and very, very harshly by no other than the very able Chairman of the Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), who suggested then that there was a breach of contract. He added-of course he was in opposition at that time-that health care and education programs came under the jurisdiction of the provinces and that the latter should be consulted.
I attended that debate. It went on and on, and you were there, Mr. Speaker. I even remember at that time you were looking at me and you were nodding in approval when your colleagues blamed us for backtracking on promises, as we wanted to do at that time, because of things we wanted to have done, because of promises broken at that time.
In view of all those attacks by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger), Alberta, and the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark)... I remember very well, as does my colleague and friend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn), those attacks against our Government as democracy would have it. And what are they doing today, after having promised solemnly-I repeat, solemnly-in Sherbrooke never to do such a thing?
You know that, since yesterday, I have developed the habit of showing documents like that, because, having watched TV-I hope I will be allowed this remark as an aside-I cannot help thinking of what we have seen yesterday from the Hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens); the document he was holding at 2 p.m. had become a single sheet at 3 p.m.. That is why I have some difficulty-
On the one hand, Mr. Speaker, the Government has broken the definite promise that was made in Sherbrooke during the election campaign not to make any cut in the expenditures. We now have a total reversal of the situation, considering all the speeches which had been made as recently as January 1984 by a multitude of Hon. Members who were sitting in the Opposition at the time.
I am somewhat ill at ease when, having examined the figures very closely, I realize the extent of the losses. I point this out to my Quebec colleagues in particular, because, after all, I am not an Ottawa Member in Quebec, I am a Quebec Member in Ottawa. Therefore I owe it to myself to represent the interests
of my province when they are being threatened, as I have always done even when we were in office.
Mr. Speaker, my province stands to lose close to $2 billion for health care alone. The loss will also be considerable in the post-secondary education sector. Where will the Province of Quebec find the money to make up for the funds it was supposed to get from the federal Government? How can a province as poor as Newfoundland which will lose $187 million over the next few years ... And Prince Edward Island, Mr. Speaker, the strength of Canada stems from mutual assistance between poorer and richer provinces, yesterday's richer provinces may very well be poorer tomorrow, just as yesterday's poorer provinces may be tomorrow's richer provinces. This is what mutual assistance in Canada is all about, Canadian understanding, the spirit of federal-provincial conferences. That small province will have to make do with $40 million less in the health and post-secondary education sector alone.
Nova Scotia will be deprived of $282 million. Your own province, Mr. Speaker, will receive $773 million less.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is the duty of Opposition Members to impress upon their colleagues from their own province the fact that such cutbacks will put the Government of Quebec in a very precarious situation, as they will the other provincial administrations. It is quite obvious. We know the Hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand) said that we are faced with a difficult situation. She is right, but that does not justify her unloading the problem on others. There should be a co-operation between the two, since these agreements had been reached together, and I feel that it is together that they should be discussed and discussed again.
Mr. Speaker, I notice that you are signaling to me, and as always, I will obey the Chair. As I interpret your smile as a sort of permission, I will try to conclude in an intelligent way.
First of all, I find it regrettable that the Government should try to gag the Opposition on such an important and significant Bill. We will therefore look into it again in committee, and we will spend more time debating it at the third reading stage. I find regrettable that the Federal Government should ask others to shoulder the deficit without getting them together to address the issue. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that tomorrow Canada will be less generous than it is today in the areas of health care and post-secondary education which are so very important for the future of young Canadians whom we must protect, because they are Canada's real wealth, and it is not by cutting post-secondary education funding that we will have this wealth and this country envied by all.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak on such an important matter for Quebec. In the presence of one, two, three, four, five, six, seven ... They do not even know what I want to say, Mr. Speaker.
May 9, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member has been here for close to two years.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: More than that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: More than that. I have no intention of lecturing the Hon. Member, but I wish he would maintain decorum and not count the other Members in this Chamber, s'il vous plait.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I was counting those to whom 1 want to speak. I do not want to address people who are not here, so I shall speak to the eight Quebec Members who are in the House. If the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) had not gotten excited-and I am addressing myself mostly to these people since they are supposed to defend Quebecers.
I am not blaming the other Quebec Members who are absent, but I am now addressing the Hon. Member for LaSalle-


Claude Lanthier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, we have an excellent representation of Quebec Members in this House today. We do not need the lessons of the Members opposite. I believe that it is out of order for the Hon. Member to refer to the presence of Members as he is now doing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I appreciate what is happening. I know it is Friday afternoon, but, please, let us just get back to debate and enjoy each other here in this Chamber.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I was mentioning the Quebec Members who are present because I would like them to wake up. I have the feeling that I have succeeded in the case of the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier).
Mr. Speaker, what we would like is for the Hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand) and the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) to rise to defend the interests of Quebecers.
My colleague for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) has told us exactly how much money Quebec will be losing. This money would not go into the trust fund of the Government. It would be used to provide health care and post-secondary education for the people of Quebec. I think that it would be a good thing and that the population of Quebec would be proud and happy if the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier), the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon), the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne), the Hon. Member for
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
l'Assomption, the Hon. Member for Chateauguay (Mr. Lopez) and the Hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand) were to rise and say: For my part, I agree with the fact that Federal Government is cutting back millions of dollars from its transfer payments to Quebec for health care. Or else, they should simply rise and say: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the Government that these amounts should be cut back.
Mr. Speaker, Conservative Members have said that this is because of the deficit. But when the Government tabled a $1 billion Bill in this House to rescue some one hundred individuals in Western Canada who had $60,000 deposits in a bank account, the Hon. Members whom I have just mentioned never stood up in the House to say: I am against this Bill, because we must reduce the deficit. On the contrary, they stood up and said: I support this Bill, Mr. Speaker, for we must save these institutions. We must save banking institutions; as for ordinary citizens, it is not serious. What we are trying to do here is not to save hospital buildings, but to save the people-including some of us, who knows-who might get seriously ill and be forced to seek health care in a hospital.
Mr. Speaker, health care standards . . . Yesterday, you saw on TV ... In the province of Quebec, in Montreal, there were surgical operations for people suffering from heart conditions. The money made available by the Federal and Provincial Governments have raised the people's standards of living. Instead of clowning about, the Hon. Member for LaSalle should rise in the House to try and defend the interests of both the Government and his constituents.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: So far, not a single Minister has done so.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who has spoken so elequently on this issue points out to me that not a single Minister has raised so far to deal with this issue.
Mr. Speaker, they all rise in defence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), but none of them are rising to defend the interests of Quebecers. This is absolutely shocking, Mr. Speaker. All the provincial governments expressed their disagreement, and the important thing here is that the credibility of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is at stake, because in Sherbrooke, Quebec, he promised he would not cut back transfer payments for health care and education, Mr. Speaker. And now he has failed to keep the promise he made in Quebec City.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I may remind the Conservative Members from Quebec who are here in the House, and I am not talking about those who are absent... I never saw the Hon. Member for Montmorency-Orleans (Mrs. Blouin) rise in the House.
I think it would be interesting to know what she has to say about this question, Mr. Speaker. Not only is the Government preventing its Members from speaking, it has gagged the Opposition.

May 9, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
The Members across the way are laughing. There are 211 of them. The Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon) is laughing, but I can tell you something, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Hudon:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Parliamentary Secretary has the floor.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, it really bothers me on this side of the House when I hear my hon. friend opposite. I have the impression that if he speaks long enough, he will end up saying something, and I would like to hear it.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, you will agree that this was not very bright, but then people did not know them before they elected them. So he has just showed, and was not the first to do so ... but I can predict that he will not be there come the next elections, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I hope the Hon. Member will get back to debate and talk about the Bill and not about attendance in the House, please.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I was indeed responding to the point of order, and you agreed with me that what he just did was stupid.
Mr. Speaker, coming back to the guillotine proposed by this Government to end the debate, we just saw the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon) who just rose. It is easy to gag the House, but it is a shame for the Government to rise and speak. So he has nothing intelligent to say. But, Mr. Speaker, there are others here-and the fact that they are Conservatives has nothing to do with that take the Hon. Member for Chateauguay (Mr. Lopez)-he is a good Member, intelligent, and I would like to know what he thinks about that. Instead of going through such antics as did the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry, certainly he could enlighten us, and perhaps after hearing his explanations we might say: Of course, maybe it could do for a year, and next year we will negotiate, the Government was right in doing this or that.
But no. There are no discussions, although they brag about enhancing co-operation with the provinces. Mr. Speaker, all the provinces disagree with the measure. The Quebec Government has had to impose a special tax on firms and corporations to cover the $66 million gap in equalization payments being received from the federal Government. There was a meeting here at 2 p.m. this afternoon between Mr. Ciaccia and Mr. Sinclair Stevens concerning the Matane paper mill, because that project is not proceeding because of lack of federal funds as usual paid to the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, equalization involves payments from government to government, but it also implies payments from citizens to citizens. And with the arrangements that were reached in the areas of health care and post-secondary education the people of this country-the rich provinces at the expense of the poor provinces-would know when someone paid taxes to the federal Government, that there was some redistribution to help the less favoured in other provinces through post-secondary education or health care.
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that my time has almost expired. Again I would like to give an opportunity to the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry. He uttered mere stupidities, but I feel he could contribute intelligently to the debate.
I am convinced that the Hon. Member for Chateauguay (Mr. Lopez) would have something brilliant to say as well as the Member for Charlesbourg (Mrs. Tardif), the Hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand) the Hon. Member for Montmorency-Orleans (Mn'c Blouin) whom we do not know. My colleague for l'Assomption, I think, is competent enough as far as the Gulf issue is concerned. Mr. Speaker, in concluding I invite those Members to defend the interests of Quebecers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I always like to hear the Hon. Member speak on debate, but his time has expired.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the motion of the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the question be now put.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
May 9, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the recorded division stands deferred until 6 p.m. on Monday, May 12, 1986.


CANADA PETROLEUM RESOURCES ACT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-92, an Act to regulate interests in petroleum in relation to frontier lands, to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and to repeal the Canada Oil and Gas Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak on the second reading of the Canada petroleum resources Bill in the House today. It is an important element of our broader economic strategy. The strategy was clearly laid out by the Government shortly after we took office. It was particularly faithful to the commitments we made to the people of Canada during the last election.
The strategy reflected our belief as a Party, and the commitment of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), that fundamental change was necessary to the existing structure of federal economic policy. Soon after taking office, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced five economic priorities which would determine the Government's long-term approach to economic and fiscal management. They are: reduction of the federal deficit; removal of Government obstacles in the marketplace; the strengthening of Canada's trade relationships; establishment of a new and a more practical investment policy; and the resolution of long-standing energy disputes with the provinces. These priorities reflected the genuine anxieties of Canadians about the way that the previous Government was mishandling the economy.
Under the former Government, unemployment and the deficit were on the rise while investment and investor confidence were on the decline. Our Government has moved quickly to make its economic priorities a reality, bringing new hope to Canadians. For the first time in years we have stopped the rate of growth in the deficit. There is real restraint in Government spending. This is a direct result of the Budget of the Minister of Finance.
As a Government we are deeply concerned with the fair and equitable treatment of Canadians from all regions, whether they are from Atlantic Canada, Ontario, Quebec or western Canada, and from all walks of life. I believe that the budget measures announced by the Minister of Finance treat seriously the problems facing our nation today. We can no longer afford to spend more than one-quarter-and I think the figure is close to one-third-of our national revenue on the financing charges for the debt. The Government is committed to paying
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
down the national debt. As any family with a mortgage or any small-businessman who relies on credit will agree, the sooner we pay off our debt the sooner we will be able to put our revenue to productive use.
That is what our Budget will do. By the end of the decade the national debt will finally stop growing faster than the national economy for the first time since 1974-75. The money the Government must actually borrow in the market-place is projected to fall from $8.8 billion to $11 billion in 1990.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) has begun the process of deregulation in that sector. This initiative will release the market forces that will provide Canadians with the best transportation system at the best possible price while not sacrificing safety.
The Foreign Investment Review Agency has been replaced by Investment Canada. It attracts, and does not repel, the foreign investment so needed for healthy economic growth in this great country.
The Government has begun to return certain Crown corporations to the private sector. Those which serve a genuine public interest as Crown corporations will be retained. But those which merely represent the excessive intrusion of the previous Government into the Canadian economy will be returned to the market-place.
Our energy policy, like our over-all economic strategy, is based on certain fundamental beliefs: that the petroleum industry must be freed of excessive taxation and government control so that it can adequately respond to the sometimes dramatic shifts in the world oil market; and that energy should unite the country and not divide it.
The introduction of the frontier policy statement on October 30 marked the end of the Liberal blueprint for disaster-the National Energy Program. The Progressive Conservative message, the message of fairness and of market responsiveness, has been heard. It has been heard and understood by Canadians in every region of the country.
The Government has delivered on its promise to use Canada's vast energy resources as a uniting force. The Atlantic Accord has made Newfoundland and Labrador an equal partner in the development of oil and gas resources off its coast. Just two months after signing the Atlantic Accord we signed the Western Accord with the Governments of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. This accord stimulated $1 billion in investment. Under the accord, we deregulated oil prices.
Under the previous Government's policies the price was set at the whim of Government, regardless of what was happening in the market-place. Even if the pressure was for crude oil prices to drop, consumers would not have received any kind of price break unless the Government wanted them to receive one. Canadians remember that the National Energy Program increased gasoline prices by up to 94 per cent. The Western Accord has made it possible for consumers to enjoy the

May 9, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
benefits of lower gasoline and oil prices. It also eliminated a list of taxes, removing both the financial and bureaucratic burden these placed on companies operating in Canada's oil and gas sector.
Last November 1, the Government delivered on another commitment by reaching an agreement on natural gas pricing and markets with the western producing provinces. If you could, Mr. Speaker, you would ask me: What were the results? I will tell you, Sir. Canada's natural gas industry is now free to compete both in Canada and in the United States. Consumers will benefit because the market-place will determine the price of natural gas, and competition will ensure that the prices are market responsive. Industrial users of natural gas can buy directly from producers or brokers, which will enhance their competitive position vis-a-vis American industries.
Companies are responding to the opportunity to make deals without the federal Government determining the bottom line. As Conservatives, we believe this is the way it should be, and Canadians are responding. In fact, contracts under the natural gas pricing and markets agreement are being signed all the time between western producers and industrial users.
We are all aware that crude oil prices have dropped and have dropped dramatically in the past several months. This will provide a direct economic stimulus to many regions of Canada. However, it is causing serious uncertainty in the oil and gas industry. Exploration and development plans are now under review and jobs are being threatened. It is important to understand that this negative impact will be felt not only in western Canada but in other regions of the country as well. Many suppliers in central Canada depend on orders from the oil and gas industry. People in Atlantic Canada and the North depend directly and indirectly on the industry for their jobs.
Canada's job-creation record since the Government took office has, I believe, been nothing short of phenomenal. Almost 600,000 jobs have been created since we took office. In absolute numbers, we have created more jobs in this nation of 25 million people than all the western European countries combined, countries with a population 16 times ours. That is the phenomenon.
The Government is not complacent about its job-creation record even though it is proud of it. It is concerned about the state of the industry and the impact on jobs right across the country. On April 30, the Prime Minister announced changes to the petroleum and gas revenue tax worth $175 million to the industry between now and the end of the tax in 1988.
I would like to cite the changes that were included. First, there was an increase in the small producer's tax credit from $.5 million to $2 million for the life of the PGRT. Second, there was a zero rate of PGRT for the Syncrude and Suncor oilsands plants to the end of 1986. These changes are targeted to small, active, independent producers who have created thousands of jobs in western Canada and are particularly hard
hit by declining oil prices. The assistance will improve the industry's cash flow and will help to maintain short-term exploration activity in western Canada. The changes are consistent with previous tax relief announced in the Western Accord and with provincial royalty relief provided by the Government of Alberta.
The Government of Canada will continue to monitor the impact of world prices on the industry in close co-operation with the Governments of the producing provinces. The energy policies of the Government of Canada have freed the industry to meet the challenge of lower prices. These are tough times for the oil and gas industry but it must survive in a highly competitive domestic and international market. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the state of the industry if it had to deal with the National Energy Program's excessive taxation and the suffocating regulations that were imposed on the industry? We would not have had an oil and gas industry. It would have been gone.
The Canadian petroleum resources Bill is entirely consistent with our approach to energy. It is market-responsive, and that is important. It is internationally competitive, and that is very important. It is free of excessive Government intervention, and that is something for which we fought. It is sensitive to regional interests.
We know that drilling for oil in Canada's far North and offshore carries a higher cost and a greater risk than drilling for oil in the conventional areas. The Canada petroleum resources Bill responds to the challenges that our frontier regions offer us. The Canada petroleum resources Bill will replace the existing Canada Oil and Gas Act with a simplified and fair set of rules designed to encourage exploration success in Canada's frontier regions.
I believe that the Canada petroleum resources Bill is an important legislative element of the Atlantic Accord, of a revised agreement which we are seeking with Nova Scotia, and of agreements that may be reached between the federal Government and other coastal provinces and territorial Governments. This Bill sets the rules that will guide Governments and the petroleum industry in the exploration and development of Canada's frontier and offshore resources.
At the exploration stage, the Government may issue rights in the form of an exploration licence. If a company's exploration effort is successful and results in the discovery of significant accumulations of oil or gas, the company then will have the right to a significant discovery licence. The significant discovery licence will then allow the operator to continue exploration in the area for an indefinite period of time. If the economics and technology justify commercial production, a production licence will be issued at that time. The production licence confers the exclusive right to produce oil and gas from that area for as long as it is capable of commercial production.
Under this Bill, the Government of Canada will introduce a simple, competitive bidding system for exploration rights to prospective lands based on a single criterion, one in which the
May 9, 1986

best bid wins. This will ensure the maximum return to Canadians as resource owners. It will ensure fair treatment of the companies bidding for exploration rights.
Key factors in determining the criteria for bidding in the best-bid-wins process will be the geological prospects of the area and the policy objectives of the coastal province or northern territory. For highly prospective areas such as those close to existing commercial discoveries, a cash bonus may be most appropriate. Where an exploration program is less mature and the risk is greater, a form of work commitment bid may be more suitable in that case. Bid prerequisites may include commitments to Canadian and local benefits, work commitments and commitments to levels of Canadian participation. Companies will have to continue to satisfy environmental protection, safety and health requirements which are so important to our Government and our people.
The Canada petroleum resources Bill does not have a Crown share. We believe that this provision of the former legislation eroded investor confidence because it gave the Government of Canada power to confiscate property retroactively. This Government will not confiscate property. However, we are committed to 50 per cent Canadian ownership in frontier production projects, and we think this is important.
The Bill will require a company applying for development approval with respect to pre-1982 discovery to submit a plan showing how it will attain a 50 per cent Canadian-ownership rate by the time the production licence is issued. However, unlike the previous legislation, the provisions in this legislation are non-retroactive, are non-confiscatory and emphasize private-sector solutions to the problems.
The Bill respects the rights of companies regardless of nationality. Under the existing legislation, Petro-Canada enjoys special rights in the frontier lands. This is unfair. This Bill does not give preferential treatment to Petro-Canada. The Government has instructed Petro-Canada to operate in the market-place as do private sector companies. It will raise capital on money markets, and it will work to deliver the best possible return to its shareholders-the people of Canada.
To enhance the profitability of companies operating in the high cost and high risk frontier regions, where it is difficult to work and difficult to transport, the proposed legislation provides for the fiscal measures outlined in the frontier policy statement. The 10 per cent basic royalty and progressive incremental royalty will be eliminated. These will be replaced with a royalty which, before project pay-out, begins at the rate of 1 per cent of gross revenue and rises to 5 per cent in increments of 1 per cent every 18 months. Following pay-out of the initial investment, including a fair return on capital invested, the royalty will be 30 per cent of net cash flow.
These changes will limit the royalty burden during the early stages of production, but we believe they will ensure an equitable sharing of revenue between Government and
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
industry after the investment has been recovered. The proposed regime is similar to the royalties levelled by Alberta on high-cost oil sands and enhanced oil recovery projects.
The Government will implement a 25 per cent investment royalty credit. It will be applicable to eligible costs of up to $5 million for new exploration wells. The credit will be applied against royalties otherwise payable within the region. This royalty credit will provide conventional onshore frontier exploration with incentives comparable to those available for similar activity in the western provinces. The royalty credit will be implemented in regulations following discussions with industry representatives.
In addition to the investment royalty credit, a new tax incentive for exploration will be introduced in separate legislation. This investment will help bridge the gap between the end of PIP and the start of frontier developments, which will create incentives for frontier investment. The 25 per cent exploration tax credit will apply to qualifying expenses of more than $5 million per well for wells drilled anywhere in Canada. To ensure that the credit assists companies not currently paying taxes, this provision will be refundable at a 40 per cent rate.
The Canada petroleum resources Bill introduces a balanced framework for the development of Canada's frontier lands. It is fair to provincial and territorial Governments and to all Canadians as resource owners. It is not only market responsive but it is internationally competitive and sensitive to the commercial concerns of companies operating in the high risk frontier regions of the country. It is not only all those things which I mentioned, but it is consistent with the policies the Government has introduced during the past 20 months of being in office.
Today Canada's oil and gas industry is facing an important challenge which perhaps it has never faced before. Crude oil prices are dropping dramatically, and there is a great deal of uncertainty in the industry about the impact of this. However, the Government has unleashed the industry's expertise, hard work and vision to meet today's challenges and to take advantage of tomorrow's opportunities. We cannot allow current market conditions to deter us from our commitment to energy security. We cannot become complacent in our search for new sources of supply; we just cannot afford to do it. We must be prepared for the eventual return to a market where prices will result in an adequate return on investment, which is so necessary. The projects we review today must be judged not by current prices but against pricing forecasts for the early 1990s.
The progressive energy policies introduced by the Government provide the flexibility necessary for Canada's petroleum industry to deal with short-term market challenges. Equally important, our energy policies provide incentives for the industry to continue exploration activities in order to take advantage of longer term opportunities. That is what Canadians elected us to do, and we believe we are delivering.

May 9, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
The Canada petroleum resources Bill is another piece of legislation developed as an integral part of the progressive energy policies which Canadians elected us to deliver.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with interest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Mines (Mr. Fretz), a Member of Parliament for whom I have a good deal of respect. However, I must say that I have very little respect for the energy policies of the Government.
The Government's new approach to energy is to let the private sector do it. When it comes to security of supply, the Government says that we should trust oil companies to go out and find new sources of oil and gas. When it comes to Canadi-anization, the Government says that we need more foreign investment and that Canada is open for business. When it comes to fairness to consumers, the Government sends a telex to oil companies asking them to lower oil prices, pretty please, and to give consumers a break. Canadians deserve much more than this from their Government, especially when it is dealing with our energy future.
The new frontier energy policy as stated in Bill C-92 provides a 25 per cent exploration tax credit. It is applicable to all wells in Canada with costs in excess of $5 million. For those companies which do not pay taxes, the tax credit will be refundable at the rate of 40 per cent. Under existing legislation there is a benefit of 80 per cent for Canadian companies in the energy sector which do not pay taxes. We are now in a position where Canadian companies which do not pay taxes will not obtain the 25 per cent exploration tax credit but will only receive the refundable 40 per cent of the 25 per cent, or 10 per cent. They will go from an 80 per cent benefit to a 10 per cent benefit.
The Government complained that the Liberal Government was discriminating against foreign companies and that it was giving Canadian companies an advantage. We in the Liberal Party do not apologize for giving Canadian companies an advantage, not in the least; certainly not Canadian companies which have steadfastly explored frontier areas and have taken advantage of the incentives provided by the Liberal Party when it was in Government. We are not apologizing for our interest in furthering frontier exploration by Canadian companies.
What will they now receive? There is a complete breakdown in the frontier areas; the industry is abandoning exploration. The only companies which are exploring at the present time are those with grandfathering rights under the Petroleum Incentives Program. There are very few of those. Even with the grandfathering provisions, which could have been fairly significant to the end of 1987, the Government decided it would retroactively cut back the drilling rights of some of the companies. The new exploration tax credit simply does not go far enough in encouraging exploration on the frontiers. Even before the world price of oil fell drastically and put all energy
projects under review there was much doubt about the future of energy projects on the frontier. That is unfortunate because so many areas of the country depend on frontier exploration and so much of our energy future depends on it.
The Independent Petroleum Association of Canada has been asking for changes to the exploration tax credit. It feels strongly that smaller Canadian companies need help to get through the transition period which they must go through to adjust to the new regime which the Government is recommending in Bill C-92. Canadian companies are being put under the gun which will strangle the initiative given to companies on the frontier by the former Liberal Government. The Government is relying on the promises of the major oil companies to look after our energy future.
On March 29, 1985, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) said: "Companies involved in the drilling ventures told me personally that the removal of the petroleum and gas revenue tax would be one of the greatest incentives to continue drilling on the Scotian shelf'.
If you were to fly over the resource areas where the reserves of oil and gas exist off Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker, you would see one or maybe two wells being drilled. If you checked the records of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, you would find that there were very few new wells scheduled to be drilled off the coast of Nova Scotia. Yet, on March 29, the Minister stated proudly that companies involved in the drilling ventures had told her personally that the removal of the petroleum and gas revenue tax would be one of the greatest incentives to continue drilling on the Scotian shelf. She added at that time that she had received assurances of the reinvestment of $800 million a year from those companies working in the Atlantic off-shore, and that the removal of five different taxes meant that they will "invest more money in the East Coast".
Why is Nova Scotia down to one or two rigs when there were nine in 1984? It is a national disgrace that the Government is jeopardizing and jettisoning a policy of frontier exploration which has kept the country in such good stead and has held so much promise for the future of our energy security of supply.
When the Minister made a statement introducing her policy entitled Canada's Energy Frontiers, which led to the introduction of Bill C-92, she talked about the existing legislation. She said that it robbed Canadians of opportunities and very seriously impaired the economic and energy potential of the country. There was a great deal of activity on the frontiers under the legislation brought forward by the Liberal Government. As I mentioned, nine rigs were drilling off Nova Scotia alone. Discoveries of resources were made off the coasts of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and in the Beaufort. These were very promising discoveries which were brought about by the policies which this Government wants to jettison.
May 9, 1986

In her statement the Minister said that the Progressive Conservative Party has always supported the goals of the National Energy Program, the goals of opportunity, fairness and energy security. What opportunity is there for Canadian companies when the Minister takes away all the incentives they were given and gives them to the multinationals who, rather than drilling, will sit on the reserves of leases they have until the price of oil and gas goes up again? They are not interested in the security of supply or the energy future of the country. What fairness is there when the Minister retroactively takes away the drilling rights which Canadian companies had under their drilling plans filed with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and retroactively reduces the number of wells which they can drill? What energy security is there when the Minister takes away the incentive to drill in the off-shore and other frontier areas?
The Minister reneged on giving a loan guarantee for the Husky upgraders in Saskatchewan and Alberta. What kind of security of supply does that provide for? What kind of security of supply can there be when the Government does nothing to stabilize the energy sector in western Canada, the downturn of which is costing jobs for hundreds of western Canadians and many other Canadians as well? In the long-term that will damage the economy of this country which we have moulded and fostered for so many years.
The Minister said:
In a very constructive reaction to the NEP policies of the previous Government the Progressive Conservative Party caucus released its energy policy principles at Prince Albert in July of 1984, and again in Halifax in August of that year.
She said that one of them was energy resource development as an engine for economic growth. We all heard about the Minister's statement with regard to the engine of our economic growth. She was going to create 100,000 to 300,000 jobs depending upon which day she was making the statement. We were heartened to hear that the Minister believed that she was going to do something for the energy sector in the country. What is the Minister now doing for the energy sector? She has completely backed away from the problems of the energy sector on the frontiers and in western Canada. She has completely forgotten about the commitments she made to Canadians with regard to the development of the energy sector. She made a complete mockery of the commitment to energy resource development as an engine for economic growth.
The second thing proposed by the P.C. Party at Prince Albert and Halifax was energy self-sufficiency. The Government literally abandoned the Husky up-grader. It completely backed away from the problems in western Canada and the dire needs with regard to the tar sands and heavy oil. It has allowed the producers to be gouged by the major oil companies. It has allowed major oil companies to pay producers $3 to $6 less for a barrel of oil than comparable producers get in the United States. Producers in this country are being paid the lowest price in the world for their product. What does this add to energy self-sufficiency?
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
Increased Canadian participation was the third principle enunciated in Prince Albert and Halifax. The Minister has decreased the incentive of companies in the off-shore not paying tax from 80 per cent to 10 per cent. The incentive of tax-paying Canadian companies has been decreased from 90 per cent to 25 per cent. That is not increasing, but decreasing Canadian participation. The first three principles enunciated in Prince Albert and Halifax have been completely jettisoned, trampled and spat upon.
What about the fourth one? It states that there will be fair treatment for energy producers and consumers. That may be the most ludicrous and hypocritical statement yet. Where is the fair treatment? I have already said that Canadian producers are getting the lowest price in the world for their product. This is encouraged by the Government through the policies of PetroCan. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government put a new policy in effect for PetroCan by encouraging it to make money. It is also encouraging the company to gouge the consumer. Canadians are paying a higher price for gasoline than Americans. That has been going on since January. We have been told that there is a flowthrough period of 60 to 90 days. Try and tell that to someone who knows the truth. Try and tell that to someone in Alberta who sees the oil going through the refinery and out to the retailers.
This is a very sad situation because people trusted the Tories. That is why they voted them in on September 4, 1984, with such a large majority. They trusted them to do what they said they would, particularly on those four points. The Minister said that Canadians were presented with a choice on energy policy during the election. She said that they voted for a new approach and an end to the National Energy Program. They did not necessarily vote for an end to the NEP per se. They voted for change, yes, but they did not tell the Conservatives to come up with a policy, run an election campaign on that policy, and then completely ignore it once they became the Government.
The Minister said that the energy initiatives the Government has taken to date in the Atlantic and Western Accords, and the measures which were announced at the end of October, 1985, marked the end of the NEP and its replacement by a fair, non-discriminatory and constructive Conservative energy policy. I think we are getting down to the nub of this energy policy. It is built around one thing: the Minister and her Government wanted to do away with the NEP. They became apoplectic any time someone mentioned the National Energy Program. They did not care what they did. They did not care about the damage they inflicted on the producer or the consumer. All they wanted to do was to get rid of the NEP. Through the legislation they have put forward, they will get rid of the NEP. They will also get rid of a lot of things the Canadian people were pleased to have, things such as conservation and producer and consumer protection, things they now wish they had.

May 9, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
We talked about the Government's policies. There are no policies. The Western Accord was brought forward, but that was a position paper. No thought has been given to dealing with changing conditions. The Minister said that for the first time the Western Accord provides for revenue sharing on offshore oil and gas resources on the same basis as on land. There is a very big difference here because offshore resources are a lot more expensive to obtain. Certainly we have to maintain interest in land-based reserves.
The Minister says the accord is based upon the quality of Government and shared management while providing for the national interest and self-sufficiency. Try and tell that to the people of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Newfoundland was told that this was a new day, this agreement is better than the one the province was offered by the former Liberal Government. The Government eliminated the terrible back-in provision because it favoured Canadian companies and individuals. We cannot allow that to continue. The Government was going to offer a royalty sharing provision. Where is the activity, the exploration and development? Where are the royalties? It is great to have a program which says we are going to get 50 per cent royalties, but if there is no follow through, no development, then 50 per cent of nothing is nothing. That is what the Provinces of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia are getting, nothing, zilch, zero.
What about the Province of Nova Scotia? That province is being punished for signing the agreement. John Buchanan, the Premier, wanted that agreement signed before the House adjourned at the end of June, 1984. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources never forgave him for not having faith in the Conservatives being elected in the ensuing federal election. So the people of his province are being punished. After the Western Accord was signed the Minister said she would sign a new agreement with Nova Scotia. She said, "Just give me a weekend to rest". That was over a year ago and she has been resting a long, long time.
It seems that the companies with deep pockets will be the ones who will produce on frontier lands, not Canadians. Canadians are being frozen out of the frontier by the policies of this Government. Those policies are destroying the principle of Canadianization on the frontier. On the one hand, the Government says Canadianization is an important principle, and on the other hand, Canadianization is being destroyed by these policies. The Government is saying one thing and doing another. The Tories said they increased Canadianization from 42 per cent to 47 per cent since they took over from the former Liberal Government. The Liberal Government increased Canadianization from 28 per cent to 42 per cent. The Tories said they increased it from 42 per cent to 47 per cent. How? By the sale of Gulf Canada to Olympia & York, and the sale of Gulfs downstream assets in Ontario and western Canada to PetroCan. When the former Liberal Government said it wanted to buy PetroFina to create a window on the marketplace for Canadian consumers, so that they could purchase
gasoline from their own company, that is what they wanted and what they still want. Now we have not only a window, we have a greenhouse, which is eliminating competition at the refining end. The Government has created a monster in PetroCan. The company, because of the Government, has developed economic rabies; it has turned on the producers and consumers. It is gouging them by paying a low price for the product and charging consumers a price that is far too high for that product.
How has all this started? It started with the policies of this Government because it wants to issue shares of Petro-Canada to the private sector. It wants to piecemeal Petro-Canada, to sell shares to the private sector so Canadians will have to pay for Petro-Canada yet a third time. The first time was when we purchased the companies that now make up Petro-Canada; the second, by the inflated price at the pumps Canadians will be paying; and the third, we will be paying for it in the marketplace so that good brokerage fees will be given to the friends of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Government.
Canadians own Petro-Canada now. They do not have to buy it. They already own it. It is a travesty to make Canadians think that they are going to be better off with a private share placement of Petro-Canada. What is happening now? Where is our security of supply? Our Canadianization is gone. Our security of supply is going. Why is this happening? Where does it stand? I think it is very important to focus on this because some day we are going to look back on this legislation before the House, as we look back on Bill C-85 and we look back on all the policies of this Government, and we are going to condemn this Government from coast to coast for the policies that the Government is putting forward.
What are these policies? The Government is saying that Canada is open for business. With Investment Canada we now have the foreign companies welcome in Canada with practically no review whatsoever, to buy up Canadian companies. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said, Canada is open for business, but Canada is not for sale. Canadian companies are not going to be given away piecemeal to foreign companies. How can this happen in the oil and gas industry? Because the majors have a lot of money. They have cut back their investment, they have cut back their exploration program, they have the money. All they have to do is to wait for the producers to go bankrupt and pick up the existing resource of oil and gas that these small companies have, for bankruptcy prices.
This is where we are going to lose our Canadian companies in the upstream, the resource sector. What is going to happen to our security of supply? The Husky upgrader is not important to this Government. The frontier development is not important to this Government. What is important to this Government? Making the big boys happy is what is important to this Government, not considering the people we brought into the energy field through production, not the consumer, but the

May 9, 1986
movers and shakers with which the Government likes to be associated.
I think that this is a very, very unfortunate piece of legislation. The Government's energy policy is very unfortunate for all Canadians.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak on this Bill.
I must say that I have been energy critic for the New Democratic Party since 1980 and I have seen these policies come and go. I almost feel as if we had gone full circle.
I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) on his speech. I did not agree with very much of it, but it was a very thorough speech. He put out his philosophy as he sees it. I want to congratulate the Member for Cape Breton- The Sydneys (Mr. Dingwall), who came after me on the Energy Committee. Without sounding patronizing may I say that he certainly knows what he is talking about in this area.
I want to deal seriously with one aspect that has never been dealt with in this House. I will come to it in a minute. Let me say generally that what this Bill does is to change the oil and gas regime, that is, the exploration and development on Canada's frontiers, that is mainly the East Coast and the Arctic. This Bill turns back the clock, with one or two exceptions. It turns the frontiers, quite frankly, back to the Yanks and to the American oil companies. It is turning and running in the face of American pressure to abandon the National Energy Program. The National Energy Program was successful in the frontiers, mainly because there were massive grants going to the frontiers. The program got Venture going off Nova Scotia, and Hibernia off Newfoundland, and it meant more discoveries in the Beaufort Sea for use of Canadians later on when we have the next energy crisis.
It got Canadian firms involved, both public and private, and it got private companies like Husky-Bow Valley and public companies like Petro-Canada into the frontiers in a much bigger way. It did this by nationalistic policies. It used the power of the state to make sure that Canada gets a fair share of their resources. After all, they are our resources. There was tremendous opposition from the United States Government and from the United States oil companies, and I am sad to say that they eventually have won. This Bill is one of the results of their intensive lobbying efforts.
Let me deal in some detail with the abolition of the Crown share, or the 25 per cent back-in provision which is held by the Government of Canada for all interests in frontier lands. It is a central part of this Bill. The new Bill eliminates the Crown share provision of the Canada Oil and Gas Act, which was an Act passed in 1981 in this House. That Act provided for a 25 per cent share for the federal Government in all interests held in the frontier lands.
Let us go back to see how the Government looked at the situation in 1980. If you put an exploration incentive in place, the federal Government has to pay a subsidy. An exploration incentive is a subsidy. The Government must consider whether
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
you need subsidies in the frontier, and it appears that you do for oil companies to go out there. That is another topic, but apparently that is needed. Is it going to be a tax-based incentive, as it was before 1980, or will it be a grant-based incentive like the PIP program after 1980?
For example, Energy Minister Marc Lalonde was speaking in the House of Commons on January 20, 1981. He said that for years now the Canadian taxpayer has been paying the bulk of the oil and gas exploration expenditures made in the frontier regions. He said that some $4.5 billion to $5 billion has been spent to date. He felt it was fair to say that three-quarters of that, some $3 billion, has been footed by the Canadian taxpayer. He went on to say that more than 90 per cent of every exploration dollar has been covered by the Canadian taxpayer.
I draw to the attention of the House the testimony in the Legislative Committee on Bill C-85 in the committee minutes for February 6, 1986 at page 1:17. I cross-examine Mr. Carruthers and Mr. McDermid. You will see that from 1982 on, the following amounts were spent, and Mr. McDermid said the following:
In 1982-83 there was $1,441 billion; in 1983-84 there was $1.5 billion; in 198485, $1.9 billion has been spent-approximately $4,8 billion to March 31, 1985.
Then I asked him about 1985 to 1986, and he said, $1.5 billion. I asked him for 1986 to the end of the program, and it appears it would be about $900 million during 1986 and possibly another $100 million as the program winds down in 1987. That is a total of $7.3 billion.
We are looking at spending since the 1960s, as Mr. Lalonde said, about $3 billion up to 1982, and about $7.3 billion after that. It is about $10 billion in the frontiers. Under a combination of PIP grants together with tax breaks, our research estimates that the taxpayers put up 93 cents of every dollar spent by a Canadian company and 72 cents spent by a foreign-owned company in Canada Lands. I once coined the phrase that a lot of oil companies drill, they drill in Ottawa, and they strike it rich sometimes. I wish the press would pay me royalties when they use that expression.
Therefore, no matter what kind of exploration incentive is put in place, that is one that is tax-based as before the National Energy Program, before 1982, or grant-based with the National Energy Program, the federal Government would be paying 90 to 100 per cent of the costs through forgoing tax revenue or direct grants. The problem with that was that there was no direct return for this public investment. Thus, the Government decided to take a 25 per cent interest in any oil and gas discovered on Canada Lands when those lands were to be developed in the development phase. There was even an historical precedent for this. For example, the regime prior to 1982 was governed by the 1961 Canada oil and gas land regulation, called COGL. Exploration permits were available under those regulations for a nominal sum, on a first come, first served basis, for a term of nine to twelve years and renewable on terms set by Ottawa. However, these were for

May 9, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
exploration rights only. Any subsequent production arrangements under the COGL regulations were provided through negotiated leases. This was legislation under the Diefenbaker Conservative Government.
Let us compare this to the United States system where exploration rights were auctioned off for lots of money to the highest bidder, who got ownership of the rights and ownership of the subsequent production. In Canada, under the Canada oil and gas land regulations, when production started, Ottawa got at least 50 per cent of the acreage on a modified checker-board basis. The point is that the idea of a Crown share in the production phase is supported by this historical precedent.
There is also the Petro-Canada precedent in 1977. Under the renewal provisions of some COGL exploration permits which had expired and which had proven to be barren until then, Petro-Canada was allowed to back in at 25 per cent, which means to acquire 25 per cent working interest, without paying the exploration expenses. The partial result of this procedure was the great discovery of Hibernia off Newfoundland.
Another example is the Sable Island gas exploration in 1979. Petro-Canada's exploration partner, Mobil Oil, had pulled its rigs out of the area in search of more lucrative prospects elsewhere in the world. Petro-Canada farmed in and, after six dry holes, made a significant discovery of gas on the offshore of Nova Scotia. Therefore, in my view, a Government presence in the projects was of immense benefit to Canada. The civil servants thought of this at the time.
StatOil in Norway, their equivalent to Petro-Canada, inherits a minimum 50 per cent ownership in any new oil or gas concession. This equity interest can rise to 70 per cent, depending on production patterns. In addition, most of StatOil's share of exploration costs are picked up by the multinational oil companies.
When Bill C-48 in the previous Parliament went before committee, I called evidence from the StatOil company of Norway. They said that it should be noted that Norwegian petroleum exploration in the North Sea was essentially starting from scratch when Norway introduced its regulatory legislation. It was not necessary for them to take into account previous exploration and development as was the case in Canada Lands, for which the Canadian taxpayers had been footing the bill of some $3 billion, as I indicated.
What was the reaction to the 25 per cent Crown share, or back-in, that was given to Petro-Canada in the production phase? The foreign owned sector of the oil industry, the United States Government and the Tory Opposition angrily attacked it as unfair, discriminatory and a form of confiscation. That is exactly what the Minister stated in his speech today. Of course, it is not confiscation because the COGL permits that were issued and outstanding did not confer any production rights. Therefore, one cannot confiscate a right that was never
conferred in the first place. While it is nonsense to suggest that it is confiscation, that is the philosophy behind this Bill.
Outstanding production leases were exempt from the Crown share by grandfathering provisions. Ottawa would also pay for its working interest in the next phase, which is 25 per cent of the development and production costs.
This provision is not confiscatory or retroactive. Therefore, why do the Conservatives want to abolish it? The Bill before the House today represents an historic retreat to the right wing, free enterprise ideologues of the Reagan administration. While the details may be complicated, the principle is simple: Does Canada want freedom to create our own policies in energy or any other area, or must we be dictated to the by United States?
Our foreign affairs critic and our trade critic are in the House. This is exactly what they have been talking about with respect to their areas of concern.
I believe that this issue can only be settled in one way, that is, in a general election. I believe that the broad aspects of this subject will be the major election issue in the next general election.
I should add a footnote that Marc Lalonde, despite his brave words, partly yielded to Mobil and the U.S. Government by amending Bill C-48 in committee to compensate the oil companies up to 1982 for 25 per cent of the Crown-carried interest on exploration agreements. Today, we are seeing a full retreat, which the Government trumpets as a triumph.
The issue has not quite ended because in 1983, Mr. Lalonde allowed the Nova Scotia Government to take 12.5 per cent interest in producing offshore fields through the Crown share. The agreement with Nova Scotia had a 42 year life span. Nova Scotia could have acquired the working interest in producing oil and gas fields until well into the next century. This is now wiped out by the energy policy of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney). We should be considering whether Nova Scotia should be compensated. Should the loss of Nova Scotia's Crown interest be addressed by some other means, such as in the equalization formula?
The people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, where there has been a drastic drop in offshore exploration, are looking for answers and are entitled to them. I suggest that the Crown share issue is not finished as far as Nova Scotia is concerned.
I only have three minutes left, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if the House will allow me another five minutes in order to finish.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I invite other Members to deal with this Crown share issue later on in the debate. Some of my colleagues will deal with other aspects of the Bill. When we study this Bill in committee, we will want to examine the pacing of the development to see whether it is in Canada's best interest.
May 9, 1986

We will want to consider the interests of aboriginal inhabitants, and the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) will speak to that next week. The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) will examine the many environmental concerns that will have to be addressed with respect to this Bill. I expect that the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) will want to look at the notion of using a single bidding criterion.
In summary, the Government has embarked on a misguided effort to undo all the wicked provisions which it believes the previous administration applied under the National Energy Program. I suggest that the Government is discarding some valuable tools in the national energy policy. For example, it is eliminating the 25 per cent back in provision that guaranteed Canadian taxpayers a piece of the action in successful oil and gas discoveries in remote offshore locations, through Petro-Canada. Gone too are the powers of the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resouces to direct oil and gas activity to reflect national priorities, such as the need for secure supplies, as opposed to shareholders' priorities, which are the maximization of profits. Destined to fade away under this new Five-year program are the Petroleum Incentives Program grants which have helped Canadian oil companies to compete with the giant multinationals and have spurred exploration activities in the costly Arctic and East Coast.
While these grants were costly, they were at least up front and visible. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is replacing these grants with tax credits which will largely escape parliamentary scrutiny. They are precisely the kind of device that the Auditor General, Mr. Dye, complained about earlier this year. They also constitute a greater benefit to the big multinationals which pay more in taxes, than to the smaller Canadian oil and gas companies. However, we will deal with that in another Bill.
In conclusion, the greatest problem we face is that this Bill favours the big American oil companies. It is no wonder that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is the "oilman of the year".
If we adopt this Bill and turn the clocks back to the days when our frontiers went to the large American multinational oil companies, when the next oil crisis occurs in 1990 we will not be prepared to develop our own Canadian resources. Once again we will have yielded a part of our precious independence to American pressure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 4 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Private Members' Business



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   INDIAN AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
PRODUCTION OF PAPERS On the Order: Private Members' Business
September 11, 1985-Mr. Greenaway-That an humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings, telephone calls, studies and other communications during the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 between (a) the Regional Director General for British Columbia of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or any of his officials and Mr. Noll Derriksan or Toussowasket Enterprises Limited (b) Mr. Noll Derriksan or Toussowasket Enterprises or any official or employee of Toussowasket Enterprises Limited and the Indian Economic Development Fund (c) the Regional Director General for British Columbia of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or any of his officials and the Westbank Development Company or any official or employee of the Westbank Development Company (d) the Regional Director General for British Columbia of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or his officials and Mr. Ron Derriksan or the Westbank Indian Bank regarding Mr. Noll Derriksan, Toussowasket Enterprises Limited or any official or employee of Toussowasket Enterprises Limited or the Mount Boucherie Trailer Park or any financial arrangements associated with the above (e) the Regional Director General for British Columbia of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Headquarters Economic Development Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development regarding Mr. Noll Derriksan, Toussowasket Enterprises Limited or any official or employee of Toussowasket Enterprises Limited, the Mount Boucherie Trailer Park, Mr. Ron Derriksan, the Westbank Indian Band or the Westbank Development Company.
Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will hear the point of order of the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) first.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He is on debate.


David Kilgour: Not on debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: He cannot get on debate yet.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I have just attempted to contact the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway). His office has indicated that he simply could not cancel appointments he had in Vancouver today. I understand the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) would like to move the motion in his place if he has the unanimous consent of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the House give
unanimous consent?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Did you say no?

May 9, 1986
Private Members' Business


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If I can be allowed to address the point, unanimous consent for someone else to move a motion has been refused before. I do not see how we could accede to that request today without reverting to what I would call previous anomalies in our treatment of various Hon. Members.
I would like to make the point that I think it is about time that the Table and the House itself come to terms with the difficulties at hand here in dealing with Private Members' Hour. 1 want to make just a few remarks and then I will sit down because I think the Speaker knows very well what the alternatives are.
This is the fourth time out of five hours we have had to forego because of the impossibility of an Hon. Member to be here, for very serious reasons. I am not questioning the reasons. It is because their schedules have been rather difficult to accommodate sometimes. The difficulty, of course, arises from the fact that Hon. Members' initiatives have been dated. There is, therefore, little flexibility in terms of accommodating other Hon. Members who may want to speak or to present other Bills or motions. I, therefore, cannot give my consent to someone else moving the motion in the name of the Hon. Member who is not here basically for the same reasons we invoked the last time, that is, it is a Private Members' Hour and without that particular Hon. Member being here, I think it would be unfair to that Hon. Member, given the situation, to proceed.
1 do think it would be fair to all Hon. Members at this time if the House would take it upon itself to resolve this problem, that a House order be adopted and that we resolve the situation in favour of back-benchers and not in favour of the Government.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Acting House Leader of the Liberal Party-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Whip.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am sorry, you are acting as Whip. I apologize. The Hon. Member's colleague, the House Leader for the Official Opposition, on behalf of Members of the Liberal Party, as I understood it, along with the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), has been discussing this matter and a number of options on behalf of Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party. I, along with my Parliamentary Secretary, participated in these discussions with a view to canvassing propositions which would be put forward to our respective caucuses in the interest of resolving the matter.
I thought we were making progress, but I take there is now not a disposition on the part of the Liberal Party to carry on with these discussions. If the House is going to rule with respect to this matter, so be it. I always remain available to try to resolve these matters by agreement. There are some important issues which I had understood we were going to try to resolve in these discussions with respect to these provisional rules to ensure improvements could take place. These discussions were going to take place in the House Leader's meetings.
I do not think we can do anything about it right now. I am not in a position to address the matter. I have strong views about the interpretation of the rules. I have been trying to negotiate something which would meet with the satisfaction of all Hon. Members. If there is no agreement, I think all we can do is have Your Honour rule as to what we should now do and what happens as far as the business of today is concerned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I ask the House again, is there agreement?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) has notified the Chair that he is unable to be present today to move his motion. As Hon. Members are aware, notice of all the items of Private Members' Business in the order of precedence established by the draw has been published in the Notice Paper pursuant to Standing Order 39(1). Points of order were raised on April 24 and 25 as to the practice that would be followed in the event of an Hon. Member being unable to be present to move his motion on the day fixed according to the order of precedence.
At that time the Chair made an interim ruling, without prejudice to any other ruling which might be made subsequently, in order to allow consultation amongst interested parties. I understand that such consultations are as yet incomplete.
Once again, the Table requires instructions by which to prepare the Order Paper and Notices. Therefore, I will rule without prejudice in the same manner and to the same effect; first, since the House has not yet made clear its wishes as to disposition of Private Members' items not taken up, I am ordering that this item of business in the name of the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin drop to the bottom of the order of precedence.
Second, Standing Order 39(2) provides for continuing with or reverting to the business before it prior to Private Members' Hour "in the event of it not being possible to provide the twenty-four hours' notice ... ". Since notice had been published, it is the view of the Chair that Standing Order 39(2) does not apply in this case.
Third, as there is no business before the House at this moment, it is the view of the Chair that the House should adjourn.
Before I move that the House do now adjourn, there is an additional procedural administrative problem related to Private Members' Business.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Government House Leader has designated next Monday, May 12, an allotted day. Pursuant to Standing Order 38, therefore, the hour for Private Members' Business will be suspended. Again, instructions must be given to the Table as to the place on the Order Paper and Notices of the item standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). The Chair has considered

May 9, 1986
moving back all items in the order of precedence any time an Order of the House causes the suspension of Private Members' Business. However, this would cause disruption to the planning for some 15 Members of Parliament, the debate on whose motion or Bill would be moved to another date.
Therefore, in order to keep changes in scheduling to a minimum and to interfere as little as possible in the notice as published in the Order Paper, the Chair is instructing that the item standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Skeena be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence.
Private Members' Business
Again, this decision is without prejudice in the expectation that the House will pronounce itself upon this subject in the near future.
Therefore, there being no business before the House, I have no alternative but to adjourn the House until Monday next at eleven o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.09 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, May 12, 1986