1987-06-01

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Hinton, Red Deer, and Edmonton, Alberta, who are indicating their concern about the increasing number of chemicals used as herbicides and insecticides which are being proven to have negative effects on human health. They charge that these chemicals also produce short and longterm harmful effects on non-target organisms in soil and water.
They are calling upon the House of Commons to initiate a full inquiry into the safety, testing, registration and regulation of the use of pesticides and the examination of alternative ways of controlling pests such as biological control and plant derived pesticides.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions on behalf of approximately 120 residents of Alberta. One is in English and one is in French and they both say the same thing. They are protesting the killing of thousands of unborn Canadian babies each year for reasons of convenience. For such babies the crime of capital punishment exists for being unwanted. The French petition says-

That the execution of unborn infants every yea*, for the sake of convenience, and that the death penalty exists for these infants whose only crime is to be unwanted.

It is a pleasure to file the petitions on behalf of my constituents.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Notices of Motions:
May 29, 1987-The Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council:
That all the provisional and permanent Standing Orders of the House in force on the date of the notice of this motion, be amended as follows and be adopted as amended as the permanent Standing Orders of the House; provided
1.	that these permanent Standing Orders shall take effect on the first Monday sitting day following the adoption of this motion;
2.	that all provisional and permanent Standing Orders in force on the date of notice of this motin, except Standing Order 4, along with the sessional and special Order related thereto, extended by special Order May 22, 1987 to June 5, 1987, become permanent on the first sitting Monday following the adoption of this motion;
3.	that Standing Order 4 remain provisional until December 31, 1987 and be amended by adding the following sub-paragraph (2): Notwithstanding Standing Order 4(1), a Minister of the Crown may set down on Notice a motion to provide for sittings of the House between June 30 and the Monday following Labour Day. No later than June 30, 1987, the said motion shall be proposed for debate during Routine Proceedings, and no later than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion; and
4.	that the Clerk of the House be authorized and instructed to print a revised edition of the Standing Orders of the House, renumbering as may be deemed necessary and making such technical and consequential changes as well as such changes to the Order Paper and Notices as may be required.
That paragraph (a) of Standing Order 2(5) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(a) Any Member who wishes to be considered for election to the Office of Speaker shall, not later than 6.00 o'clock p.m. on the day preceding the day on which the election of a Speaker is expected to take place, in writing, so inform the Clerk of the House who shall prepare a list of such Members' names and shall provide the same to the Member presiding prior to the taking of the first ballot;"
That sub-paragraph (5)(h)(i) of Standing Order 2 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(i) the Clerk of the House shall provide the Member presiding the names of the candidates for the next ballot, in alphabetical order, provided that the Clerk of the House shall first determine the number representing the least total number of votes cast and the Clerk shall exclude the names of all Members having received that total number of votes, together with the names of all Members having received five percent of less of the total votes cast, from the list of candidates so provided, and provided that in the event of every candidate receiving the same number of votes no names shall be excluded from the list so provided;''
That Standing Order 3(1) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"3. (1) The House shall meet on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays at
11.00	o'clock a.m., on Wednesdays at 2.00 o'clock p.m. and on Fridays at
10.00	o'clock a.m. unless otherwise provided by Standing or Special Order of this House."
That Standing Orders 9(1) and 9(2) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
[Stage Direction]
June 1, 1987
Government Notices of Motion
"9. (1) At 6.00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, and at 3.00 o'clock p.m. on Fridays, the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day."
"(2) At 1.00 o'clock p.m. on any day except Friday on which a morning sitting is held, the Speaker shall leave the Chair until 2.00 o'clock p.m."
That paragraph (a) of Standing Order 9(4) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(4)(a) Except during Private Members' Business, when the Speaker is in the Chair, a Member may propose a motion, without notice, to continue a sitting through a lunch or dinner hour of beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering a specified item of business or a stage of stages thereof subject to the following conditions:
(i)	the motion must relate to the business then being considered provided that proceedings in any Committee of the Whole may be temporarily interrupted for the purpose of proposing a motion under the provisions of this Standing Order;
(ii)	the motion must be proposed in the hour preceding the time at which the business under consideration should be interrupted by a lunch or dinner hour, Private Members' Hour or the ordinary hour of daily adjournment;
(iii)	the motion shall not be subject to debate or amendment."
That Standing Order 11 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"11. At the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the House, at 11.00 o'clock a.m. on Fridays or at the mid-day interruption, unless otherwise provided, the proceeding then under consideration shall stand over until the next sitting day of later the same sitting day after the period provided pursuant to Standing Order 19(4), as the case may be, when it will be taken up at the same stage where its progress was interrupted."
That paragraph (a) of Standing Order 13(4) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(4)(a) When the Speaker has put the question on any debatable motion, except as provided pursuant to section (2) of this Standing Order, the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than thirty minutes; provided that, while the Members are being called in, either the Chief Government Whip or the Chief Opposition Whip may approach the Speaker to request that the division be deferred, in which case, the Speaker shall defer the said division until a specified time, but, in any case, not later that
6.00	o'clock p.m. on the next sitting day thereafter, when the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than fifteen minutes, except as provided for under section (5) of this Standing Order of Standing Order 49(2)."
That Standing Order 19(3) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(3)(a) At 11.00 o'clock a.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, at 3.00 o'clock p.m. on Wednesdays, and at 12.00 o'clock noon on Fridays, the House shall proceed to the ordinary daily routine of business, which shall be as follows:
Tabling of Documents (pursuant to Standing Orders 67 or 99(2))
Statements by Ministers (pursuant to Standing Order 19(6))
Presenting Reports from Inter-parliamentary Delegations (pursuant to Standing Order 101)
Presenting Reports from Committees (pursuant to Standing Order 99) Introduction of Government Bills Introduction of Private Members' Bills First Reading of Senate Public Bills Motions
Presenting Petitions (pursuant to Standing Order 106(4))
Questions on Order Paper.
(b)	(i) When proceedings under "Introduction of Government Bills" are not completed on a Monday, Tuesday or Thursday prior to the mid-day interruption, the ordinary daily routine of business shall continue immediately after oral questions are taken up notwithstanding Standing Order 19(4) until the completion of all items under "Introduction of
Government Bills", suspending as much of Private Members' Business as necessary.
(ii) When proceedings under "Introduction of Government Bills" are not completed before the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, the House shall continue to sit to complete the ordinary daily routine of business up to and including
"Introduction of Government Bills", whereupon the Speaker shall adjourn the House."
That paragraph (b) of Standing Order 19(6) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(b) A period of time corresponding to the time taken for the proceedings pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall be added to the time provided for government business as follows:
(1)	on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, such an extension shall commence at 1.00 o'clock p.m. on the same sitting day, notwithstanding Standing Order 9(2), and any period remaining at 2.00 o'clock p.m. shall be added to the time provided for government business thereafter on the same sitting day; and
(ii) on Wednesdays and Fridays, the time provided for government business shall be extended by a period corresponding to the time taken for proceedings pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.
Where the time provided for government business has been extended after
2.00	o'clock p.m. pursuant to this section, Private Members' Business, where applicable, and the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be delayed by a period of time corresponding to the period of extension after 2.00 c'clock p.m., notwithstanding Standing Orders 9(1), 19(7) and 66(1) or any order made pursuant to Standing Order 10(1)."
That Standing Order 19(7) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(7) Except as otherwise provided in these Standing Orders, the order of business shall be as follows:
(Monday, Tuesday and Thursday)
(After the daily routine of business)
Government Orders.
Private Members' Business-from 5.00 to 6.00 o'clock p.m.:
-Public Bills, Private Bills, Notices of Motions and Notices of Motions (Papers).
(Wednesday)
(After the daily routine of business)
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers.
Government Orders.
(Friday)
(Before the daily routine of business)
Government Orders.
(After the daily routine of business)
Government Orders.
Private Members' Business-From 2.00 to 3.00 o'clock p.m.:
-Public Bills, Private Bills, Notices of Motions and Notices of Motions (Papers)."
That Standing Order 24 be deleted and the following substituted therefor: "24. (1) After notice pursuant to Standing Order 68 (1), a government notice of motion shall be put on the Order Paper as an order of the day under Government Orders.
(2)	Proposed motions under Government Orders for the House to go into a Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House when put from the Chair shall be decided without debate or amendment."
That section (1) of Standing Order 29 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"29. (1) Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent
June 1, 1987
[Stage Direction]
consideration must be asked for after the ordinary daily routine of business as set out in Standing Order 19(3) is concluded."
That sections (8) and (9) of Standing Order 29 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(8) If the Speaker is satisfied that the matter is proper to be discussed, the motion shall stand over until 8.00 o'clock p.m. on that day, provided that the Speaker, at his or her discretion, may direct that the motion shall be set down for consideration on the following sitting day at an hour specified by the Speaker."
That Standing Order 29(11) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(10) When a request to make such a motion has been made on any Friday, and the Speaker directs that it be considered the same day, it shall be considered forthwith."
That Standing Order 29(13) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(12) The proceedings on any motion being considered, pursuant to sections (8) or (10) of this Standing Order, may continue beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment but, when debate thereon is concluded prior to that hour in any sitting, it shall be deemed withdrawn. Subject to any motion adopted pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(b), at 12.00 o'clock midnight on any sitting day except Friday, and at 4.00 o'clock p.m. on Friday, the Speaker shall declare the motion carried and forthwith adjourn the House until the next sitting day. In any other case, the Speaker, when satisfied that the debate has been concluded, shall declare the motion carried and forthwith adjourn the House until the next sitting day."
That Standing Order 32 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"32. Notwithstanding Standing Order 31, the order of precedence shall not contain, at any time, more than twenty motions and public bills originating in the House of Commons at second reading, nor fewer than ten items, when there are sufficient items contained in the list which have not been given a position on the order of precedence."
That paragraph (l)(a) of Standing Order 36 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"36. (l)(a) The Standing Committee on Private Members' Business shall meet within five sitting days of the order of precedence being established pursuant to Standing Order 31, and from time to time thereafter, and may select after consultation with, among others, the Members proposing the items, not more than six items from among the twenty items in the order of precedence and an appropriate number from among any subsequent items for which the order of precedence is established and such selected items shall be designated as "votable items". In making its selection, the Committee shall not take into account the number of Members jointly seconding an item, but shall allow the merits of the items alone to determine the selection and shall report thereon, from time to time. At no time shall there be more than six selected items on the order of precedence."
That Standing Order 38 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"38. The proceedings on Private Members' Business shall not be suspended except as provided for in Standing Orders 19(3)(b), 19(9), 29(11), 37 and 39(2) or as otherwise specified by Special Order of this House. No Private Members' Business shall be taken up on days appointed for the consideration of business pursuant to Standing Orders 69, 82(5) and 84(4)."
That the following new section be added after Standing Order 39(2):
"(3)(a) When a Member has given at least twenty-four hours' written notice that he or she is unable to be present to move his or her motion under Private Members' Business on the date required by the order of precedence, and if that item of business is not one which has been designated as "votable" by the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business, the Speaker, with permission of the Members involved, may arrange for an exchange of position in the order of precendence with a Member whose motion or bill in the order of precedence has not been so designated.
(b) In the event that the Speaker has been unable to arrange an exchange, the House shall continue with the business before it prior to "Private Members' Hour", provided that there shall be no extension of the sitting pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(a), and any division on a debatable motion
Government Notices of Motion
shall be deferred until 6.00 o'clock p.m. on the next sitting day. For the purposes of this section, Standing Order 13(5) relating to deferred divisions on a Thursday shall apply."
That paragraph (c) of Standing Order 40(3) be deleted.
That Standing Order 41(1) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
" 41. (1) The order for the first consideration of any subsequent stages of a bill already considered during Private Members' Business, of second reading of a private bill and of second reading of a private Member's public bill originating in the Senate shall be placed at the bottom of the order of precedence."
That Standing Order 48 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"48. Except as otherwise provided in any Standing or Special Order of the House, and unless otherwise disposed of, at not later than 6.00 o'clock p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or 3.00 o'clock p.m. on Friday, on the fifteenth sitting day following the date on which a notice of motion made pursuant to Standing Order 46(2) appeared on the Order Paper, the same shall be deemed to have been moved and adopted by the House:
That sections 2 and 3 of Standing Order 55 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) When second reading or third reading of a government bill is being considered, no Member except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition shall speak for more than:
(a)	forty minutes if that Member is the first, second or third speaker;
(b)	twenty minutes following the first three speakers, if that Member begins to speak within the next eight hours of consideration when second reading is being considered or within the next four hours of consideration when third reading is being considered; and following the speech of each Member a period not exceeding ten minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow Members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto;
(c)	ten minutes if a Member speaks thereafter.
(3)	When the business of private Members is being considered, no Members shall speak for more than ten minutes, provided that the Member moving the item may speak for not more than twenty minutes."
That Standing Order 65(2) be deleted and the following substitued therefor:
"(2) A Member who is not satisfied with the response to a question asked on any day at this stage, or a Member who has been told by the Speaker that the question is not urgent, may give notice that he or she intends to raise the subject matter of the question on the adjournement of the House. The notice referred to herein, whether or not it is given orally during the oral question period provided pursuant to Standing Order 19(4), must be given in writing to the Speaker not later than one hour following that period the same day." That Standing Order 68(1) be deleted and the following substitued therefor: "68. (1) Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee, for placing a question on the Order Paper or for the consideration of any notice of motion made pursuant to Standing Order 46(2); but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills, or to the times of meeting or adjournment of the House. Such notice shall be laid on the table before 6.00 o'clock p.m. (on a Friday before 3.00 o'clock p.m. or filed thereafter with the Clerk before 5.00 o'clock p.m.), and be printed in the Notice Paper of that day. Any notice filed with the Clerk pursuant to this section shall thereupon be deemed to have been laid on the Table in that sitting."
That Standing Order 70(2) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) When a debate on any motion made after the start of the sitting (after
11.00	o'clock a.m. on Fridays) and prior to the reading of an Order of the Day is adjourned or interrupted, the order for resumption of the debate shall be transferred to and considered under Government Orders."
That paragraph (a) of Standing Order 82(4) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
[Stage Direction]
June 1, 1987
Government Notices of Motion
"(4)(a) Forty-eight hours' written notice shall be given of motions to concur in interim supply, main estimates, supplementary or final estimates, to restore or reinstate any item in the estimates. Twenty-four hours' written notice shall be given of an opposition motion on an allotted day or of a notice to oppose any item in the estimates, provided that for the supply period ending not later than June 30, forty-eight hours' written notice shall be given of a notice to oppose any item in the estimates."
That Standing Order 82(5) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(5) For the period ending not later than December 10, six sitting days shall be allotted to the business of supply. Nine additional days shall be allotted to the business of supply in the period ending not later than March 26. Ten additional days shall be allotted to the business of supply in the period ending not later than June 30. These twenty-five days are to be designated as alloted days."
That paragraphs (a) and (b) of Standing Order 82(15) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(a) Not later than the third sitting day prior to May 31, the Leader of the Opposition may give notice during the time specified in Standing Order 68(1) of a motion to extend consideration of the main estimates of a named department or agency and the said motion shall be deemed adopted when called on "Motions" on the last sitting day prior to May 31;
(b) On the sitting day immediately preceding the final allotted day, but in any case not later than ten sitting days following the day on which any motion made pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section is adopted, at not later than 6 o'clock p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or 3.00 o'clock p.m. on a Friday, the said committee shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported, the main estimates for the said department or agency; and"
That Standing Order 89( 1) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"89. (l)(a) At the commencement of the first session of each Parliament, a Striking Committee of seven Members, the membership of which shall continue from session to session, shall be appointed, whose duty it shall be to prepare and report to the House within the First ten sitting days after its appointment, and thereafter, within the first ten sitting days after the commencement of each session and within the first ten sitting days after the Monday following Labour Day, lists of Members to compose the standing committees of the House and to act for the House on standing joint committees
b) The Striking Committee shall not present a second report pursuant to this Standing Order between the Monday following Labour Day and the end of that calendar year."
That Standing Order 89(3) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(3) The Striking Committee shall also prepare and report lists of Members to act for the House on the following standing joint Committees;
(a)	Official Languages, to consist of fifteen members; and
(b)	Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, to consist of eight members.
Provided that a sufficient number of members of the said joint committees shall be appointed so as to keep the same proportion in such committees as between the memberships of both Houses."
That the following new section be added after Standing Order 92(2):
"(3)(a) Notwithstanding Standing Order 96(1), no standing or standing joint committee shall sit at the same time as a legislative committee on a bill emanating from or principally affecting the same department or agency.
(b)	During periods coinciding with the hours of sittings of the House, priority shall be given to the meetings of legislative committees over those of standing, special and joint committees.
(c)	During periods when the Hopse stands adjourned, priority shall be given to meetings of standing, special and joint committees, according to the schedule established from time to time by the Chief Government Whip, in consultation with representatives of the other parties."
That the following new paragraph be inserted immediately after paragraph (b) of Standing Order 92(4):
"(c) The Liaison Committee shall be empowered to report from time to time to the House."
That Standing Order 93(1) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"93. (1) Without anticipating the decision of the House, within Five sitting days after the commencement of debate on second reading of a bill which is to be referred to a legislative committee, the Striking Committee shall meet to prepare, and shall report not later than the following Thursday, a list of members of such a legislative committee, which shall consist of not more than thirty Members and which shall be organized only in the event that the House adopts the motion for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of the said bill. Upon the presentation of such a report of the Striking Committee, the same shall be deemed adopted."
That section (4), (5), (6) and (7) of Standing Order 93 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(4) When the Chairman appointed pursuant to section (2) of this Standing Order is unable to act in that capacity at or during a meeting of the legislative committee, the Chairman shall designate a member of the committee to act as Chairman at or during the said meeting and such an acting Chairman shall be vested with all the powers of the Chairman at or during the said meeting."
That Standing Order 94(2) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) The membership of standing and joint committees shall be set out in the report of the Striking Committee, which shall prepare lists of members in accordance with Standing Order 89. Once the report of the Striking Committee is concurred in, the membership shall continue from session to session within a Parliament, subject to such changes as may be effected from time to time."
That sections (4) and (5) of Standing Order 94 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(4) Changes in the membership of any legislative or special committee shall be effective immediately after notification thereof, signed by the Member acting as the Chief Whip of any recognized party, has been filed with the clerk of the committee."
That Standing Order 96(3)(c) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(c) Management and Members' Services shall include, among other matters, the review of and report, to the Speaker as well as the Board of Internal Economy, on the administration of the House and the provision of services and facilities to Members provided that all matters related thereto shall be deemed to have been permanently referred to the Committee upon its membership having been established; and the review of and report on the effectiveness, management and operation, together with the operational and expenditure plans of all operations which are under the joint administration and control of the two Houses and other related matters as the Committee deems fit;"
That Standing Order 96(4) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(4) So far as this House is concerned, the mandate of the Standing Joint Committee on:
(a)	Official Languages shall include, among other matters, the review of and report on official languages policies and programs including the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, which shall be deemed, for the purposes of the House, permanently referred to the Committee immediately they are laid upon the Table; and
(b)	Regulations and other Statutory Instruments shall include, among other matters, the review and scrutiny of statutory instruments which are permanently referred to the Committee pursuant to the provisions of section 26 of the Statutory Instruments Act.
Provided that both Houses may, from time to time, refer any other matters to the joint committees."
June 1, 1987
[Stage Direction]
That Standing Order 99(2) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) Within 150 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special committee, the government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a comprehensive response thereto."
That Standing Order 101 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"101. Within twenty sitting days of the return to Canada of an officially recognized inter-parliamentary delegation composed, in any part, of Members of the House, the head of the delegation, or a Member acting on behalf of him or her, shall present a report to the House on the activities of the delegation."
That the following new section be added immediately after Standing Order 104(3):
"(4) The office of the Minister who recommended the appointment shall provide the curriculum vitae of such an appointee or nominee to the committee upon written application from the clerk of the committee."
That the chapter title preceding Standing Order 106 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"Public Petitions"
That Standing Order 106(2) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) In order to be certified, pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, every petition shall:
(a)	be addressed to the House of Commons or to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled;
(b)	contain a clear, proper and respectful prayer requesting that Parliament see fit to take some action within its authority;
(c)	be written, typewritten or printed on paper of usual size;
(d)	be free of erasures or interlineations;
(e)	have its subject matter indicated on every sheet, if it consists of more than one sheet of signatures and addresses;
(0 contain only original signatures and addresses written directly onto the petition and not pasted thereon or otherwise transferred to it; and
(g) contain at least twenty-five signatures, together with the addresses of the signatories, from persons other than Members of Parliament."
That Standing Order 116 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"116. When a Minister of the Crown, from his or her place in the House, states that a majority of the representatives of the several parties have come to an agreement in respect of a proposed allotment of days or hours for the proceedings at any stage of the passing of a public bill, the Minister may propose a motion, without notice, during proceedings under Government Orders, setting for the the terms of the said proposed allocation; provided that for the purposes of this Standing Order an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages of a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 114(13). During the consideration of any such motion no Member may speak more than once or longer than ten minutes. Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion. Any proceeding interrupted pursuant to this Standing Order shall be deemed adjourned."
That Standing Order 117 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"117. A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House, at a previous sitting, has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 115 or 116 in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration either in the House or in any committee, and has given notice of his or her intention so to do, may propose a motion, during proceedings under Government Orders, for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage; provided that the time allotted for any stage is not to be less than one sitting day and provided that for the purposes of this Standing Order an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third
Questions on the Order Paper
reading stages on a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 114(13). During the consideration of any such motion no Member may speak more than once or longer than the minutes. Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion. Any proceedings interrupted pursuant to this Standing Order shall be deemed adjourned."
That the following new Standing Order be inserted immediately before Standing Order 132:
"131.1 (1) A petition for a private bill may be presented by a Member at any time during the sitting of the House by filing the same with the Clerk of the House.
(2)	Members presenting petitions for private bills shall be answerable that such petitions do not contain impertinent or improper matter.
(3)	Every Member presenting a petition fo a private bill shall sign his or her name on the back thereof.
(4)	Petitions for private bills may be either written or printed; provided always that when there are three or more petitioners the signatures of at least three petitioners shall be subscribed on the sheet containing the prayer of the petition.
(5)	On the next day following the presentation of a petition for a private bill, the Clerk of the House shall lay upon the Table the report of the Clerk of Petitions thereon and such report shall be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day. Every petition so reported upon, not containing matter in breach of the privileges of this House and which, according to the Standing Orders or practice of this House, can be received, shall then be deemed to be read and received.
(6)	No debate shall be permitted on the report but a petition referred to therein may be read by the Clerk of the House at the Table, if required.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), the Notice of Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mazankowski) is transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 139 will be answered today.


Mr. Blenkarn: For each of the years 1984, 1985 and 1986, did the Unemployment Insurance Commission pay persons making claims for maternity leave and, if so (a) what was the total amount (b) to how many claimants (c) what was the average payment made?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: In 1984, 1985 and 1986, the Unemployment Insurance Program provided maternity benefits as follows:

June 1, 1987
Supply
1984	1985	1986(a)	The total amount was: ($ million)	395.9	432.5	472.5(b)	Total number of claimants:	130,000	132,000	137,000(c)	Average weekly payment:	$178.53	$187.88	$197.22


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys) moved:: That this House condemn the Government for its repeated failures to protect Canadian sovereignty and economic independence as demonstrated by its weak and ineffectual efforts to oppose Opinion 256 of the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with regard to transmission costs of Canadian gas, and by its compliant approach to permitting foreign takeovers of Canadian corporations and natural resources.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my Party has brought forward this motion in order to bring to the attention of the Government and Canadians the seriousness with which we hold this ruling by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the United States.
On December 8, 1986, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the United States gave an opinion, saying that the two-price system which was in place for the sale of Canadian natural gas to the United States was not effective. It stated that the demand charge, which was one of the two prices that were being passed along to the buyers of natural gas in the United States, could no longer be applied, and that the transportation charge in the demand charge that was being paid willingly by American buyers, must be paid. It essentially told the Canadian natural gas industry that it had to absorb this charge.
This decision was made in contravention of a previous decision by Canada's National Energy Board which set forward the principle and the procedure for the sale of natural
gas in accordance with internationally accepted regulatory principles.
This decision raises two very important issues. First, this change will result in an additional cost of between $140 million and $400 million to the natural gas industry in western Canada. Second, it is blatant interference with Canadian law and the Canadian regulatory process and will be devastating to the natural gas industry in western Canada.
Our Party objected to this opinion from the very beginning and was adamant that it was one of the most arbitrary and damaging decisions that the United States has ever made against Canadian commerce. We were prepared to accept the Government's undertaking that it would take action and make interventions in the United States.
However, on May 27, just a few days ago, we learned that the petition of the Canadian natural gas producers to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the United States had been denied and that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was going to proceed with this very damaging decision even after the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) sent letters to the President, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) sent letters to the Secretary of Energy in Washington, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) communicated with the United States Government.
We object to such treatment of the Canadian natural gas industry by the United States as well as to the lukewarm interest, at best, that the Government is taking in this very serious situation. Not only will there be a dramatic loss to western natural gas producers, it will be a great deal more difficult to finance future projects in the natural gas industry in western Canada.
The most ludicrous aspect of this issue is that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the United States does not have the jurisdiction to take that action. That commission is in charge of transportation of natural gas through the pipelines. It does not have jurisdiction over exports and imports, which is the prerogative of the Secretary of Energy through the Economic Regulatory Agency in the United States.
I want to take a moment to explain the position of the Economic Regulatory Agency. In its order of May 15, 1986, permitting the import of natural gas into the United States under the two-part price arrangement that existed before the December 8 ruling of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the ERA found that the contract terms including the two-part price structure would "result in a more competitive and market responsive arrangement" and are "therefore not inconsistent with the public interest".
The Energy Regulatory Agency, the body responsible for importing and exporting natural gas, is in total agreement with the procedure of the National Energy Board. The ERA went on to say in February, 1984:
The market, not government, should determine the price and other contract
terms of imported gas. U.S. buyers should have full freedom-along with
responsibility-for negotiating the terms of trade arrangements with foreign
June 1, 1987

sellers. The federal Government's prime responsibility in authorizing imports should be to evaluate the need for the gas and whether the import arrangement will provide the gas on a competitively priced basis for the duration of the contract while minimizing regulation impediments to a freely operating market.
There is a blatant disregard for the ruling and the opinion of the Economic Regulatory Agency in the United States by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which does not have responsibility for the item on which it has passed a judgment which completely counteracts the ruling of our own National Energy Board.
The National Energy Board suggested to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that it would be an appropriate course of action for the commission to continue its previous practice of allowing the pass-through, to U.S. interstate pipeline rates, of those elements of cost which have been determined to be just and reasonable by a Canadian regulatory jurisdiction using internationally recognized toll marketing procedures. We thought reason would prevail in the United States, but that is not the case.
The United States Government has been completely oblivious to the urgency of the situation in Canada. The President of the United States is not living up to his commitment at the March, 1985, summit in Quebec City where the Prime Minister and the President agreed to work toward reducing trade restrictions and in particular to maintaining and extending open access to each other's energy markets.
On January 7, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated his objections to this decision in a speech in Los Angeles. Fie said that the FERC decision "raises serious questions of extraterritoriality, the extension of U.S. regulatory practices to matters under Canadian jurisdiction".
On the first day of the Prime Minister's tour in which he was trying to appease western Canadians, he stated that on May 5 he had written to the President about the seriousness of this situation and that the decision of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on December 8 extended U.S. regulations into Canada. He asked the President to attempt to find a solution to this particular problem.
On May 27, the commission in the United States turned down the application of natural gas producers to overturn this very damaging decision.
There is complete disregard in the United States for the Government of Canada. The Americans are downplaying the intervention of American agencies into the laws of Canada. When the National Energy Program was in place the American Government stated that it wanted a level playing field. We are seeing the Government of the United States tilting the playing field to its advantage. That is not acceptable to Canadians in the west or anywhere else in Canada. It should not be acceptable to the Government.
There exists a freely negotiated contract between Canadian producers of natural gas and American buyers of natural gas whereby American buyers agreed to accept this toll charge as
Supply
part of the price of the natural gas. These were freely negotiated contracts under a regulatory framework, set up and approved by the National Energy Board, the law-making regulatory body in Canada with jurisdiction over this particular business.
We have a blatant overturning of Canadian laws as they affect Canada in Canada by an American regulatory commission. To me, this is the most damaging breach of Canadian sovereignty we have experienced in this country to date. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the Liberal Party, this is something which the Government cannot treat in a lukewarm fashion. It must daily use its most determined efforts to have this breach of Canadian identity overturned by the American Government.
How did this all come about? It came about, of course, largely because of the American Government's disregard for matters of Canadian interest and for the thinking of the Canadian Government. It also came about because the Government had to do away with the adjacent border price which assured Canadians that natural gas would be sold in the United States at a price not lower than the price for which it sold in Canada. The Government did away with that so it could sell natural gas into the United States more cheaply than it could sell it to Canadians. The American Government then panicked, the Americans panicked, and this is the result.
Just a little over a month after the federal Government did away with the adjacent border price this derogatory ruling was made by a United States commission, and it is going to be severely damaging to the Canadian economy. We were warned this was going to happen. We were warned by Mr. Dick Cahoon, spokesman for the 11,000 member Petroleum Marketers Association of America. He said, "This is unfair competition to do away with the adjacent border price". But, no, this Government, which legislates on energy by the seat of its pants, was completely oblivious to what was going on. As usual, energy was not a priority. Political will was not of interest.
The Prime Minister is now saying he is going to bring up this important issue at the Venice Summit. The Venice Summit will be held over two weeks after the turndown of the petition of the Canadian Natural Gas Producers to have this overturned. Nothing would be done for two weeks.
It is another issue which will be brought up in the negotiations. I will tell you, Madam Speaker, and I will tell this Government, that the Americans are taking energy seriously. They are taking the lack-lustre position of the Canada seriously. They look upon Canada as an energy fiefdom for their own interests. I do not object to the Americans wanting assistance from Canada for their energy needs and security of supply. However, I do object to the fact that we get kicked in the teeth, that we are supposed to provide everything the United States wants in the assurance of its own energy needs.

June 1, 1987
Supply
On May 6, just three weeks before the decision not to allow the appeal of the natural gas producers, President Reagan submitted, as one of his recommendations to Congress on the energy and national security concerns relating to oil import levels, that one of his concerns was "promoting the importance of stockpiles among U.S. allies". He was going to be doing this at Ministerial meetings of the International Energy Agency and at the Venice Economic Summit. So the President of the United States will be there telling his allies, including Canada, of the importance of stockpiling energy, particularly oil, so that this will be available to the United States.
At the same time, he is ignoring the very sovereignty of Canada in relation to energy, a matter in respect of which this Government has appealed time and again in a lack-lustre fashion-a little letter asking, "Oh, will you please, if you get time, look at this situation"-not giving it the urgency which it requires and which the Canadian people expect. This cannot go on. It just gets worse and worse.
The authority of Canada with regard to its trading partners, particularly the United States, is diminishing at a rapid rate. We are constantly doing what is wanted of us by the United States in order to secure a free trade agreement. A free trade agreement would be nice if it could be achieved without giving away the country. The Prime Minister, in his speech at the Economic Club in New York in December of 1984, said that Canada is open for business. But as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has said, Canada is not for sale.
It seems that in the opinion of foreign countries Canada is for sale, and it is for sale again and again. That is being proven each day by the treatment we are receiving from supposed friends such as the United States, from the takeover of companies such as Cadillac-Fairview, which is being purchased by a Chicago based company for $2.7 billion, and from the sale of Dome Petroleum to Amoco Canada, a 100 per cent owned subsidiary of Amoco Corporation in Chicago. There is no way that this can continue if we are going to have a free trade agreement, because there will be nothing left on this side of the border with which to enter into a free trade agreement.
Over the weekend, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) was very supportive of Amoco's position with respect to its offering of Canadian shares, but we do not know any of the details. We see that other bids cannot possibly be put forward by other companies who have signed a confidentiality agreement with Dome Petroleum. It seems that what is going on is whatever is wished by the American Government. We in this House are told that when we say these things we are being anti-American. This Party is not antiAmerican. What we are is pro-Canadian. This is something the Government should be. The Government is representing the interests of this country. These interests must not only be upheld, they must be maintained in the interests of this generation and future generations. They are not to be given away at fire sale prices'to the United States or any other country. These are resources which are in the interests of all of
Canada, and I ask the Government, for a change, to please represent and stick up for the rights of Canadians.


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


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the views put forward by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton- The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan).
I noticed that in stating his position, the Hon. Member was careful not to mention the disastrous impact the Liberal Party's energy policies have had on the Canadian economy, especially in Western Canada.
Madam Speaker, everyone in this House knows perfectly well that under the National Energy Program, the previous Government, the Liberals under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, managed to drain billions of dollars of potential investment from the energy economy.
We remember the harm done to Canada's reputation in the international investment community, as a result of the protectionist and discriminatory barriers erected against our friends and allies in the western world.
No one will forget the profound alienation of Western Canada as a result of this policy.
We know too well the great damage that the National Energy Program caused the country. As a direct consequence of the NEP the country lost billions of dollars in potential investment. How many new jobs, how many new drilling starts, how much new exploration and development could have been achieved with these billions? We will never know.
Because of the National Energy Program an estimated $10 billion was lost to the petroleum economy through the petroleum and gas revenue tax. The PGRT, as we know, was one of the prime components of the NEP. We will never know what could have been done with that $10 billion which was taken directly from the petroleum companies because of the National Energy Program.

The Hon. Member claims the Government has been unable to protect Canada's sovereignty and economic independence. Madam Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth.
The Hon. Member says the Government has taken an accommodating approach to let foreign interests take over this country's companies and natural resources. That is of course not the case. This Government's approach is not the kind of unfortunate and inflexible attitude taken by the previous Government. It is flexible and tries to strike a balance between new investment, promoting the exploration and development of
June 1, 1987

our oil and gas resources and protecting what has been achieved in the way of Canadianization.
It is a policy that has been and continues to be favourable to Canada's economic interests, both in terms of the oil industry and the industrial structure of this country.
In December 1985, this Government approved a policy for foreign investment in the upstream component of the oil industry. Its objective was to encourage 50 per cent Canadian ownership in the oil sector by means of measures that would be flexible, market responsive and mindful of the need for encouraging investment.
Our acquisition policy for the oil and gas sector is quite clear. It allows the acquisition of companies already controlled by foreign interests, subject to Canadianization and investment commitments. Second, it does not allow the acquisition of financially sound Canadian companies by other companies controlled by foreign interests.
Third, it provides for considering the acquisition of Canadian-controlled companies in obvious financial difficulty.
This policy has proved a success. Canadian ownership has increased significantly since 1984-by about 5.5 per cent since the present Government came to power in 1984 and introduced this policy. Canadian ownership was stable at 42.5 per cent in 1984, and now, in 1986, it is 48 per cent. This means that our flexible policy that strikes a balance between investment and Canadianization has born fruit, so that now, 48 per cent of the industry is Canadian-owned.
We are of course anxious to see these developments continue, and I am sure that under this Government, the trend in the long term will be very positive. However, we have to acknowledge that we may be faced with losses as well as profits, especially in times of restructuring the industry or lower international prices, as has happened quite recently.
That is the Government's general policy. Now in the particular case of Dome, here again, we have to strike a balance between our Canadianization objective and our objective to increase exploration and development in this sector. It is no use saying that our natural resources belong to us, if we do not have a policy to develop them. What the Government is seeking is to have a balanced investment policy to ensure that these natural resources which belong to, and are the heritage of, Canadians are developed in the best interests of Canadians and our industry.
Let us first consider the facts in the Dome affair. We must remember that the majority of the company's shares are held by foreign interests. Nearly 57 per cent of Dome shareholders are non-Canadian. In addition, Dome has a special place in the oil industry. It is the second largest company in terms of upstream revenue. It is the biggest landowner in Western Canada. It ranks first on the number of its gas reserves and seventh for its oil reserves. It has become the largest gas
Supply
producer and the third largest producer of oil and hydrocarbons. With 4,000 employees, Dome is a major employer.
But the problem is that Dome is saddled with a $6.3 billion debt. Recently it reported losses of $2 billion, the biggest loss in the economic history of Canada. Of course everybody considers that Dome is now in a catrastophic financial situation. As a result of its financial woes Dome is severely restricted in its day-to-day operations. It has been and still is unable to make the investments required to maintain its assets, the kind of investments needed to carry out various projects in the territories for which it holds permits.

In the particular case of Dome it is important to seek a balance between our Canadianization objective and our objective to increase exploration and development in the industry. First, let us consider the facts. Dome is not a totally owned Canadian company. About 57 per cent of Dome's shareholders are foreigners. Dome has a very significant position in the industry. It is the second-largest company in terms of upstream revenues. It is the largest land holder in western Canada. It is the largest holder of gas reserves and the seventh-largest holder of oil reserves. It is the second-largest producer of gas and the third-largest producer of oil and field liquids. It is a large employer. About 4,000 people work for Dome. But Dome has a debt of $6.3 billion. It has recently announced a loss of $2 billion, the largest single loss in Canadian history. Due to its financial difficulties Dome has been constrained in its normal business dealings. It cannot make the necessary investments in its properties.

Therefore it is imperative to find a satisfactory solution to the Dome problem if gas and petroleum activities are to continue in Western Canada. The company must simply get back on an even keel and be in a position to make promising investments in its assets. Dome creditors also need a solution to this problem which has remained unsolved for too long. And among those creditors I would include a number of small companies in Western Canada which are Dome suppliers.
The Government has been cautious in this complex case which may have many consequences. Obviously the Government has no intention of buying Dome, therefore it is up to the private sector to take the initiative. This does not in any way lessen the significance we attach to Dome, but we will not use public funds to solve a problem created by the private sector. We have taken this approach for the following reasons. First, let me remind you of the origin of Dome's indebtedness, now standing at $6.3 billion, as I said. This money was borrowed by Dome, not by the Government of Canada, and the money was loaned by banks, not by the Government. It stands to reason that any solution to the Dome problems will force lenders and company shareholders to admit that their investments and their loans are worth less than the purchasing price or their book value.

June 1, 1987
Supply
It is clear that this Government is not responsible for these business losses. I remind the House that it was the discriminatory policy of Marc Lalonde and the promotion of Canadiani-zation through billions of dollars in PIP grants that led Dome to embark upon an overly ambitious acquisitions strategy.
Dome is not a public company. While the company has indeed benefited from various tax and subsidy programs over the years, these have been policies of general application. The fact that it has received such public largesse, however, has led some to conclude that the Government has a special responsibility to protect creditors. My colleagues and I are determined that such will not be the case. We are not in favour of and will not support a bail-out disguised as a sale.
Our position has received public and media support. On May 12 The Toronto Sun editorial said:
The notion that Dome should be kept Canadian by accepting a poorer offer is patently absurd. If Amoco or someone else can somehow turn Dome around and make rescue a reality, perhaps some Canadians should sit up and take notice.
The Financial Times on April 27 said:
For a refreshing change the Canadian Government seems content to play a minimalist role, surely the proper one under the circumstances.
On May 8 the Gleaner of Fredericton, New Brunswick, contained these words:
Government meddling in the oil and gas industry in recent years has been so costly that the people of this country should be skeptical of the interventionist views over Dome Petroleum.

Madam Speaker, Members of the Opposition have been urging us to intervene to seal the outcome of the Dome purchase offer. They suggested that the Government should use its clout and make sure that a Canadian company be favoured. Madam Speaker, this suggestion reveals their ignorance of the law: there simply is not a Canadian law under which the Government would be able to give the nod to a Canadian bidder. Dome belongs to its shareholders, not to the Government. The Government has set a clear and no-strings-attached framework for companies anxious to do business in Canada. Pursuant to this process any offer, including Amoco's, must be examined in light of the legislation and policies prevailing in this country. Any other approach would make it mandatory for the Government to pass specific new legislation in this case, and this would have a strong negative impact on investments, on quality, on our country's image and, ultimately, on job creation.

The results of establishing this clear framework can now be seen. Dome's problems are well under way to being resolved. We have witnessed a healthy competitive process which is in the interests of all Parties, be they employees, suppliers, shareholders or creditors.
There have been three bids to acquire Dome, one from a Canadian firm. To date a foreign firm, Amoco, has made the best bid which was selected by the Dome board of directors. No one has denied that that is the case. However, the deal has not yet been approved by Dome's creditors and shareholders. Other companies have indicated a continued interest in Dome.

If Amoco's bid is approved by Dome creditors and shareholders, then the acquisition will have to be reviewed by Investment Canada. The Government which I represent wants to make sure that such a purchase will be of significant benefit to Canada. I have already said I am convinced that such a company will have to be a model organization for corporate citizens. It is very important that any company seeking a merger abide by high standards with respect to investment, job creation and Canadian ownership. Madam Speaker, we would be acting irresponsibly if we were to engage in public negotiations concerning this kind of takeover. Still I can assure you that this Government is intent on making sure that the deal be in the interests of Canada.
No official request has been submitted to the Government as yet, but we have taken some significant measures to guarantee that Amoco's proposal, if it goes through all the required stages, is a profitable one for Canada.
I had a meeting with Amoco executives at my office, and I let them know, in the clearest possible terms, how important the Government felt this transaction to be and that we would ensure it would benefit Canadians in terms of jobs, investment and participation in the company.
Last week, Mr. Dan Stacey, President of Amoco Canada, announced that his corporation would issue a substantial number of shares in Canada, if the proposal to purchase Dome Petroleum was accepted. Thus the principle of Canadian participation in the development of our oil and gas resources will be respected. It also guarantees that the corporation will have a Canadian face. Madam Speaker, I believe this was a major decision. For the first time in its corporate existence, Amoco has agreed to create a local corporation in a country outside the United States, and I think that the discussions and the Government's position, as expressed in the clearest possible terms by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, were instrumental in convincing Amoco that there were certain requirements that had to be met to do business in Canada.

This is a major commitment on the part of Amoco, one which should be commended. It will mark the first time in 40 years that Canadians will have an opportunity to participate directly as shareholders in the company's growth. As I indicated to Amoco, I believe Canadians should have a right to invest directly in the development of their resources. This is particularly important in the case of a company which, by a number of measures, would be the largest oil and gas firm operating in Canada.
June 1, 1987



I would now like to address the first example given in the motion, which deals with the action taken by the Canadian Government subsequent to Opinion 256 of the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
First of all, I must say I am surprised to see the Opposition take an interest in negotiations on the sale of natural gas to the United States. I find this sudden turnaround particularly surprising when 1 recall, and with me the oil industry in Western Canada, that dismal period from 1980 to 1984, when the Government at the time, formed by the Liberal Party to which the Lion. Member belongs, imposed its energy policy in such a cavalier fashion. The arbitrary and tyrannical measures adopted unilaterally by the Liberal Government provided for setting the price of Canadian natural gas without consideration for American market criteria. They also gave us an unenviable reputation as a country that could not be trusted to be a reliable and reasonable trading partner.
[English)
Needless to say, the New Democratic Party's approach to energy trade is simply to shut it down. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) admits that in 1979 the NDP passed a resolution calling for an end to natural gas exports. He now says his Party's policy is that there should be "reasonable" gas exports, whatever that means. He cannot have it both ways; supporting gas exports when he is in the West and opposing them when he is in the East. It is time now for the NDP to make up its mind and let the people of Canada know what its energy policy really is. Do they or do they not favour the export of natural gas?

Nevertheless, we have at least one motive for rejoicing. The Opposition has finally realized the importance of the natural gas trade between Canada and the United States. At least, I find something positive in this change of heart and I can tell the Opposition outright that Opinion 256 represents a serious threat for the trade deals which, over the past 30 years, have been beneficial to both Canadians and Americans.
The FERC Opinion defines the manner in which American corporations can recoup from their customers the costs of purchasing Canadian natural gas. This decision was officially made public on December 8, 1986, and confirmed on May 27, 1987. The Opinion prohibits the full recovery of some costs from American customers. These are the costs which had been borne in Canada and set by Canadian regulating agencies to provide pipe-line corporations with the capacity to serve export markets.
In practice, FERC will make it possible to by-pass transmission costs set in Canada, but only from the American point of view.
We foresee that the yearly difference between the actual costs assumed by exporters and the recovery carried out by
Supply
FERC will amount to at least SI40 million US per year. According to FERC, our own producers should carry this burden, and we are greatly concerned about this.
The Government sees in this Opinion, first a foreign intrusion in the regulatory jurisdiction of a Canadian agency, second an unfair tax burden imposed on the Canadian natural gas producing industry and, third, a significant set back from the joint efforts of Canada and the United States to establish a bilateral market oriented energy trade.
The motion before the House describes the Canadian response to this Opinion as "weak and ineffectual". It is not, Madam Speaker. On September 4, when the FERC Opinion had not yet been finalized, I met in Washington with Mr. Herrington, the American Secretary of Energy, and expressed my concern about this Opinion. This meeting marked the beginning of a concerted offensive by the producing provinces, the Canadian natural gas industry and my Cabinet colleagues to make the U.S. authorities more aware of the impact of this Opinion on the natural gas trade which brings wealth to both our countries.
I think it is important to enlighten the House about our initiatives. On December 18, together with my Alberta and British Columbia counterparts, I sent a note to the Secretary of State expressing our views and concerns about Opinion 256.
The exporting companies, the main associations of Canadian producers, the National Energy Board and the provinces' regulating agencies have all made official representations to FERC seeking new hearings.
In February, the officials of the Alberta Government and those in my Department advised fully their Canadian counterparts in the Ministries of Energy and Trade. My Cabinet colleagues, including the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Minister for International Trade (Mrs. Carney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) have all had official discussions concerning this issue with their opposite numbers in the United States.
Opinion 256 was discussed during the Canada-United States Summit with took place here in Ottawa last March. Finally, on May 5, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) wrote the President of the United States to express our country's concern about the impact of this Opinion.
Unfortunately, these concerted efforts have failed so far in convincing FERC to amend its decision. But we should keep in mind that this organization is an independent regulatory agency which must act within the limits of its mandate as determined by laws and regulations.
In spite of the fact that we may very well have lost the first innings, Madam Speaker, we have not yet lost the game, and the representatives of private corporations are already determined to bring the whole issue before the courts, and they can count on the support of this Government, especially the Department of Energy, because this decision of our American

June 1, 1987
Supply
friends is contrary to the interests of both American and Canadian consumers.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I am afraid the Minister has not convinced those of us on this side of the House of the Government's sincerity in terms of pressing the matter as hard as it possibly can and giving it the attention it deserves.
What has the Minister done since the request by the producers of Canadian natural gas to have the ruling of FERC overturned? Since the decision was handed down on May 27, has the Minister contacted his counterpart in the United States? Has he arranged for meetings with the Secretary of Energy in the United States? Has the Prime Minister been in contact with President Reagan?
This is not an ordinary discussion on a subject of mutual interest; this is a discussion on something of vital importance to the United States. To say that it can go through the courts is not enough. It could be tied up for years in the courts.
[ Translation]


Marcel Masse: Madam Speaker, first we did not hide the seriousness of the situation. We have publicly expressed our dissatisfaction with the decision. But we must respect the American legal system. It is the same kind of system that we ourselves recognize in Canada.
The National Energy Board can make decisions that may not always please the Government, but such is life, and that is the kind of system we chose to establish in Canada and in the United States.
But as a Minister of Energy, I and the Government as such made known our dissatisfaction with a decision that in our view is not in the best interests of Canadians and of American consumers.
Second, we have been in constant and frequent contact with the private sector, and we support their move to take that decision to the U.S. courts.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I should like to refer to a press release dated May 6 issued by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in Alberta. He indicated that the Government was concerned about the potential ruling to which the Minister referred. He said that the Minister had been in touch with his American counterparts, that a variety of cabinet Ministers had been in touch with their counterparts in the U.S., and that he had been in touch with the United States President.
Will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) now admit that despite all the overtures-his best efforts, the best efforts of the Prime Minister and of his colleagues-that all their requests fell on deaf ears? Will he admit that the Americans said, "No, we are not going to pay any attention. We are going to go ahead and do exactly what we want to do in Canada?"


Marcel Masse: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows the American system better than that. We in Canada accept that the judiciary power is something different from the administration. Let us be honest. We have discussed that case with our counterparts in the United States. I have met many times- and the last time was two weeks ago-with the Secretary of Energy in the United States. I can tell the Hon. Member that they have agreed to the basic principles on which we are working-to have a freer market and so on and to make sure that consumers in both countries will be pleased by our policy. However, that does not give him the right to direct the judiciary power in the United States.
The same applies in Canada. It may happen in Canada that Governments agree with a foreign Government about a situation, but that does not give the Prime Minister the right to telephone a judge somewhere and say, "You have to do this because the political power of the country has decided that that is the way it should be done". If we did that in Canada, the Hon. Member's Party would be the first to say that we do not respect the way Governments are organized.
I think we have to recognize that the United States has the right to be organized on the same democratic principles as us. That does not mean that the Government of the United States disagrees with the Government of Canada. If a judge or a board of judges decided something contrary to the will of the American administration, the next step would be to appeal and to fight in court. That is not a political decision. That is not a decision of the administration of the United States. It is a decision of the judiciary power.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I completely disagree with the Minister of Energy. This is not only hurting the economy of western Canada and the country as a whole, but it is an infringement of Canadian laws. It is an extension of U.S. regulations into Canada, which is completely unacceptable. Also, we have FERC exercising a decision on something over which it does not have jurisdiction, the import-export of natural gas.
Surely the Minister in his discussions with the Secretary of Energy in the United States has brought to the Secretary's attention that this is his jurisdiction, not the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Minister should be doing something to support his own position.


Marcel Masse: Madam Speaker, I have no difficulty in agreeing with my colleague. That is exactly what we have said publicly. The decision is contrary to the interests of both, and is an intrusion in our own regulatory responsibility. We have said that. The Hon. Member says nothing that we do not support. We said it before the Liberals and we have said it publicly. In the United States and everywhere we have said that it is not acceptable.
We agree with that, but that does not give my colleague, Mr. Herrington, the right to phone the judge and say, "You
June 1, 1987

are wrong and you will do it another way". He cannot do that. He has no right. The Hon. Member knows that Mr. Herrington has no right to do that.
I have no right to instruct the National Energy Board on such issues when it is the board independently that must take a decision. We have to accept that. We can be annoyed with the American system and its decision, and I fully agree that we should be annoyed. But we cannot force the United States of America into changing its basic democratic system. It is, by the way, the same as the one we have in Canada.
The Liberal Party will never agree to the Minister of Energy, or the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) phoning CRTC giving them a directive. I have to respect our system. I am doing that as a Minister. The least I can do is accept that my colleague has roughly the same approach in the United States and I must respect him. As far as having a discussion, we agree, but that does not give the Secretary of Energy the right to instruct the judge.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, when the Minister of Energy wanted to test and have an examination of the surplus natural gas in Canada he wrote to the National Energy Board asking for hearings and the board held hearings. If the Secretary of Energy's position through the economic regulatory agency in the United States is being usurped, the Minister has a right to do something about it. Do something; at least call the Secretary of Energy, write him a letter. Maybe without a stamp the letter may get to the Secretary anyway, but just do something.


Marcel Masse: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that my hon. colleague forgets that that is exactly what happened. The Americans have announced a review of their tariff in the United States. That issue, we are sure, will be part of their study. So that is already done. We did not have to wait for the Liberal Party to discover that. There will be a board in the United States to review the tariff. It is done.


Mr. Foster:: Madam Speaker, would the Minister explain why the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) bothered writing to the President of the United States if he felt that he could not really intervene because it was a judicial decision rather than an administrative or political decision? Why did the Prime Minister happen to write to the President just the day before he went to Red Deer, Alberta, and appeared with the oil rig people? Was it strictly grandstanding or did the Prime Minister hope to be able to intervene in the decision?
From what the Minister said, I take it that the Government disagrees with the United States administration, but is supporting private individuals going before the U.S. judicial system. Does the Government plan to take this matter to the international court because the United States is applying its laws, extraterritorially, into Canada? Is the Minister prepared to do that?
It seems to me that this decision sets a tremendous precedent which could be used in all kinds of other areas, especially
Supply
when the United States regulatory agency is agreeing with the decision while another department is disapproving of it. It seems to me that the Government should not lay down and play dead just because free trade negotiations are going on.
Has the Minister examined with his officials the economic impact and how many jobs this will involve? It occurs to me that the $400 million is about the same as the investment which the Government plans to give under the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program which the Government suggested might create some 15,000 or 20,000 jobs. Will this decision, if it stands-if the Government does not appeal it or does not have it overturned-cost us 15,000 jobs in that profits will be creamed off which will not be available for exploration and development? Can the Minister respond to those several questions?


Marcel Masse: In that question, Madam Speaker, I see at least three sub-questions. First, there is an important distinction to be made between representations and instructions. What the Government did through the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Government officials, even provinces and the Prime Minister and my colleagues, was to make representations, explain the situation. The American system provides for an opportunity to make representations before such a tribunal, in the same way as before the CRTC or the National Energy Board, people can make representations, and the U.S. Administration on behalf of the Canadian Government made a number of representations.
This is the difference between making representations and giving instructions to the legal system, and I believe my hon. colleague in his question recognizes there is a distinction, that we must respect the legal system both in United States and Canada.
Second problem-should the matter be brought before international tribunals? I believe the first step, according to the lawyers in charge of that matter, is first and foremost to bring the case before the American courts. If and when a review and recommendations lead us to believe there are other legal avenues, you can rest assured the Canadian Government will act to support our industry wherever needed. This I can assure my hon. colleague.
Third, the estimated amounts are in the order of $140-150 million rather than the order you mentioned. Of course, such evaluations are always difficult to make, but it is the evaluation that was made available to us and that will be largely supported by exporters. How many jobs would be lost because of lack of investment resulting from the loss of those $140 million? I have no figures at the moment. That may happen in some cases. Hopefully, the number of jobs that will be lost as a result of that decision will be kept to a minimum. It may happen-but how many? Certainly not in the orders you referred to, because the initial amount itself is not in the order you mentioned earlier.

June 1, 1987
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period for questions and comments has now ended. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) for debate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam
Speaker, as Canadians looked at their newspapers over the weekend and again this morning, they saw in almost every newspaper in Canada headlines such as, "Disaffected westerners spawn new federal political Party". That description was not quite right because when you look at who were those westerners meeting in Vancouver this past weekend you will see that they were almost exclusively Conservatives. As a matter of fact, the largest contingent was from Alberta.


Marcel Masse: I saw some disappointed New Democrats.


Nelson Andrew Riis: When you look through the list, 95 per cent were card carrying members of the Conservative Party. They said that they have been betrayed by the Conservatives, and they feel that the only way to register their concern, after sending the largest majority of westerners to the House of Commons hoping that their views would be put on the parliamentary table, and now having been abandoned by the P.C. Government, is to form their own political Party. I think that speaks clearly for itself.
Today we discuss another betrayal of western Canadians and a betrayal of Canadians generally. More and more when people try to determine what the future of Canada holds they will not be paying attention to what is going on on Parliament Hill, they will be looking at Congress. Decisions being made in the United States are having increasingly more impact on the future for our country. When asked to test the Cruise missile, the Government said yes, let's test the Cruise missile. When the Americans wanted to take over West Kootenay Power and Light Company, the Government said yes. When they wanted to have a 10-year monopoly on American drugs being sold in Canada, they were given that right. When they wanted to take over Dome Petroleum, the Government gave them the right to take over Dome Petroleum. When they wanted to impose a special tax on Canada's softwood lumber industry, that was fine. As a matter of fact, the Canadian Government itself imposed that 15 per cent tax to keep Canadian wood out of the United States.
In this weekend's newspaper, there was a report from the National Forest Products Association of America indicating that the new tax imposed by Canada has achieved what it was intended to do, it has kept Canadian wood out of the United States market. As a matter of fact, Canada's share of the United States market slipped to 28.7 per cent in the first two months of 1987, down from 31.5 per cent a year earlier. Now the United States does not even have to pass its own laws to keep goods from coming from Canada. The Government of Canada will do it for it. This is nothing short of a betrayal.
Over the last few days a former Prime Minister has spoken about the Meech Lake Accord and has called the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) a weakling. Indeed, we could consider to what extent the Prime Minister has betrayed Canada. A few weeks ago, the Prime Minister went from place to place in western Canada saying, "We will fight the Americans on this gas issue, we are concerned". Well, some fighter. That was like the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) when she was sitting on the beaches of Maui saying, "We will fight the softwood issue, we will fight them on the beaches of Hawaii, we will stop the Americans". Yet the Government imposed its own tax on the softwood producers of Canada.
Maybe the best thing that could happen to us is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) not to speak to his counterparts in the United States, for the rest of the cabinet Ministers including the Minister for International Trade not to speak to their United States counterparts and for the Prime Minister not to phone or write letters to Mr. Reagan any longer. Whenever he does this on our behalf, we are betrayed. We are sold out.
As the speaker from the Liberal Party indicated when the American-good grief, I was going to say when the American Prime Minister-when the Canadian Prime Minister was in the United States saying that Canada was now open for business, what he meant was that it is now for sale. In two and a half years we have seen more foreign transactions and takeovers in our economy than in any other similar period in history. In fact, there have been 2,200 foreign transactions, primarily takeovers by American companies. We are now seeing more intrusion than ever.
I respect the honesty of the Minister of Energy. On many occasions he speaks forthrightly. Last Thursday, he said that the implementation of this rule will extend the United States regulation into Canada. Indeed, I appreciate his point. The United States is now deciding how we should export our natural gas. The United States is now determining our export policy for natural gas, just as it is now deciding how we should impose softwood lumber stumpage rates in the various provinces.
I think it is time the Parliament of Canada said something about this. It will have the opportunity to do so today as a result of this Opposition Motion. Parliamentarians ought to say that it is time Parliament started determining our economic policies, not the Congress or the quasi-judicial bodies in the United States.
Let me identify the extent of this natural gas disaster for western Canada. Perhaps as much as $400 million will be lost as a result of the Government's inability to deal effectively with the United States in ensuring a movement of Canadian exports to the U.S. The United States has indicated its concern about this incredible wave of Canadian natural gas invading its markets. What a peculiar view considering that between 4 per cent and 5 per cent of the United States' demand is met by Canada. As a matter of fact, in the last few months there has
June 1, 1987

been a 17 per cent decline in exports to the United States. When the Americans talk about unfair competition from Canada, perhaps we should ask them to explain why there has been a 17 per cent drop in exports over the last number of months.
I recognize that 30 per cent of our natural gas is exported, giving us a $2.5 billion revenue flow.


Mr. Shields:: Where do you stand on that?


Nelson Andrew Riis: If I were that person from Alberta, 1 would not be here today. I would be going door to door in my constituency because-


Jack Wendele Shields: Where do you stand on the export of natural gas? Just answer that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: He is presumably asking where I or my Party stand on the export of natural gas. After our security has been declared, then we are certainly in favour of exports of natural gas. However, let us take care of Canada first.
Conservative Members are laughing at me when I say we should take care of Canadian concerns first. Of course they laugh. After giving away most of Canada since they have been in office for two and a half years, anything that puts Canada first would be a laughing matter to the Conservatives. As I say, I would advise them to get to their constituencies to try to explain why once again they have agreed to betray western Canadian concerns regarding the export of natural gas.
Things will be changing very shortly. I think Canadians have had enough. They have indicated that they will not stand by and watch the situation deteriorate continuously over the years. They have registered that at the polls where they have indicated clearly right across Canada that they are now turning their backs on Progressive Conservatives, having seen what they have been able to do to Canada, particularly to western Canada.
As the Minister of Energy has indicated, the decision of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Washington will now result in Americans extending their regulations into Canada. Over the last while, part of the cost of transmission of natural gas in Canada was reflected in the price obtained by natural gas companies. We have been doing that with the United States and, as a matter of fact, there have been negotiations going on with the United States to ensure that the free flow of natural gas into the United States market to serve American consumers would continue. This system has been working well for years and years. All of a sudden the Americans have presumably decided that 4 per cent or 5 per cent of the market being supplied by Canadian gas is too much and therefore they need to take steps to reduce the flow southward. That is exactly what they have done.
In spite of the efforts of the Prime Minister to reverse this decision, nothing of the sort has occurred. We will now have to rely on the consortium of natural gas exporters to take this matter to court in the United States in an attempt to oppose it.
Supply
Obviously the Government has failed in its efforts. The Cabinet has failed in its efforts. The Minister of Energy has failed in his efforts. Now a court action by a consortium of natural gas exporters will be required to attempt to reverse this decision, in co-operation, I might add, with American consumers. They too are concerned. They thought they were getting a good deal because Canadian exports of natural gas provided competition and kept prices down. As a result of this decision, it is unknown what will happen to competitive pricing.
Let us turn for a moment or two to the matter of foreign ownership. I think it is disgraceful that in spite of all the warnings about the tremendously high levels of foreign investment in Canada and, more importantly, the role of foreign control in our economy, Canada has more of its economic decisions made in foreign countries than any other country in the world. The board offices in Tokyo, Dallas, New York and Chicago will be making decisions on corporate investment and expansion in Canada for the next 10 years.
In the last two and a half years since the Conservative administration took office, Investment Canada has approved hundreds and hundreds of foreign takeovers. Considering that, we must ask what we are getting for those takeover dollars that are presumably coming to Canada.
It was revealed last week that of all the foreign investment which has come into Canada in the last two and one-half years 95 per cent has been used for takeovers; not new plants or the opening of new mines or factories, but for takeovers. As a result of this incredible dominance by a foreign presence in our economy a lot of money leaves Canada every week and goes back to the head offices. In fact, every day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, $2.5 million each hour flows out of Canada back to the parent companies in other countries, primarily in the United States of America. One of the major reasons there is a lot more investment in Canada is because every hour of the day $2.5 million flows out of Canada back to foreign countries. No other country in the world accepts this state of affairs.
How is it in Canada's best interest to have such extensive foreign involvement in our economy? The most recent example is the Dome takeover. Amoco has operated in Canada for 40 years. In spite of the length of time during which it has been here there is not a single Canadian on its board of directors and there is absolutely no Canadian ownership whatsoever. This company now wants to take over one of the critical players in the oil and gas industry of Canada.
The Government favours an American company taking over Dome Petroleum; it approves an American company having total control of this company and that future profits made in Canada will go to the United States.
Where do we turn to when we have a Government which thinks it is a great idea to have foreigners deciding our future? We can only hope that the people of Canada will realize that there is an incredible sell-out taking place and will register

June 1, 1987
Supply
their concern in the next federal election. Unfortunately, that will probably not come for 18 months and in the interim we must do what we can to bring some logic to the Dome takeover.
We believe there are alternatives. The proposal that Dome would sell some of its shares to Canada if the Amoco takeover is approved is of little comfort. It is important to distinguish clearly between ownership and control. We are concerned that the control of Dome will be held by foreigners, mainly Amoco representatives, rather than Canadians. The decision of where the parent company will be headquartered will, therefore, be made in the best interests of the United States. Handing out a few shares to Canadian shareholders will not change that one iota. The future decision-making of that company will be done by people who are not Canadian citizens. Presumably they will be good American citizens, so the decisions will be made in the best interests of the Amoco corporation and, ultimately, the United States of America.


Mr. Cassidy:: The Tories don't mind that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: As my friend from Ottawa says, the Tories don't mind that. Presumably this is what they want. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) went to New York and said that we want more foreigners doing business in Canada he was really saying that the Government does not have faith in Canadian investors and entrepreneurs. Well, Madam Speaker, we have faith. We believe that we should begin looking for solutions to job creation and economic prosperity at home. We should take pride in the knowledge that we can do the job and do not have to turn to the Japanese, Americans or Germans to solve our problems. We like their support, encouragement and involvement, but we are not looking to them to solve our economic problems.
The United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has indicated that it wants to change the rules under which we export our natural gas. It has said that the way in which we handle the transmission of our gas and assign the charges to that transmission is not now appropriate for exports to the United States.
This is a very short-sighted decision by the Americans. In 1986 we exported 744 billion cubic feet to the United States. That is a relatively small amount considering our historic trend. It was that low because of the fall in the cost of No. 6 fuel oil in the United States. I suspect that that is probably a temporary situation and that in the future the cost of No. 6 fuel oil will go up, as oil costs generally do. The demand for natural gas will then increase. As a matter of fact, only a few days ago western oil reports indicated that Tennaco from the United States was in Canada looking for possible ways to facilitate future gas exports to the United States.
We must also realize that President Reagan is a lame duck President. While our Prime Minister and the President of the United States may be good friends, write letters back and forth, and telephone each other as the news release indicates, it
is really Congress which decides upon the protectionist policies that will be applied.
As a result of this recent decision by FERC the playing field for natural gas exports to the United States has been tilted in favour of the U.S. They no longer provide equal opportunities for Canadian exporters- to the United States. That is the real concern. We must realize that because the Prime Minister calls President Reagan on a regular basis and asks for his help is irrelevant. The President of the United States is either not interested in intervening on Canada's behalf, or not prepared or not able to intervene on Canada's behalf. Whatever the reason, that the Prime Minister reminds us daily of his close friendship with President Reagan is of little comfort, indeed.
In closing, we once again find that western Canada has been betrayed by the inability of the Government to deal with the international crisis affecting natural gas exports, just as the Government was so woefully inadequate in its response to the challenge on softwood lumber exports. One almost shudders to think of what tomorrow's headline will bring us. On what sector will the Americans next make a demand in response to which the Government, true to form, will say that if there is any way in which we can co-operate we will do so, whether with regard to steel exports, agricultural or mineral policy? More than simply having caved in, the Government has cooperated with the American demand on Dome.
We oppose the way in which the Government has bungled the situation of natural gas exports. In spite of the promises made by the Prime Minister when he was in western Canada that he would do something, he has done nothing about this matter. In spite of the promises of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that he would do something, he has done nothing. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources admitted today in the House that he was unable to do anything, that it is now up to the law courts in the United States and it will probably take years and years. It looks as though all Canadians will have to look to another political Party if their interests are to be adequately met.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). His opening and closing remarks seemed to sum up the purpose of his rising to speak in the House today. In my opinion, he is not really concerned about the problems that we face in the energy industry in western Canada, but concerned about his Party's popularity and opportunity to transfer some of the support that has supposedly eroded from the Conservative Party in midterm over to his Party.
I want to assure him that his rhetoric and misspeak will not go unnoticed. The Hon. Member talked about takeovers and that they represented a takeover of Canada by the United States. Of course, we in the House are familiar with the New Democratic Party rhetoric and that the socialist party of this country has always been anti-American.
June 1, 1987

The Member said that we allowed the Americans to come here and test the Cruise missile. We know the position of the socialist New Democratic Party about the NATO Alliance. Now they are trying to hide that policy and say that we have a commitment to defend the north. They are against armed forces in the north yet say we must defend and define our position in the north.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Come off it. We never said that.


Jack Wendele Shields: They are having difficulty determining their own position. They then talk about drugs. We are the only western country-


Michael Morris Cassidy: You are sensitive. You are going down the tubes in Alberta.


Jack Wendele Shields: Listen to them now. The socialists are speaking rhetoric, as they always do. Let us consider the drug question. We are the only western country that did not recognize and protect intellectual property.
The New Democrats say that we are allowing "those dirty Americans" to take over Dome Petroleum. Presently, Canadians own 25 per cent to 30 per cent of Dome. Amoco has offered to take over Dome to keep it operating and has said that it would sell off the same per centage of shares to Canadians. Now the New Democratic Party says that is not good enough, that there should be control of the company.
Let us consider the lumber issue. The Americans proposed a 25 per cent countervail duty on lumber going into the United States. We worked out an agreement and introduced a Bill that kept the money in Canada.
The speeches by the NDP are strictly anti-American rhetoric. They talked about Mr. Trudeau, the Constitution, and the Meech Lake Accord. Why did the New Democratic Party deny in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that we passed in the House the right of each Canadian to own property?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: We never did.


Jack Wendele Shields: They were shoulder to shoulder with Pierre Elliott Trudeau because they are socialists and cannot allow individual Canadians to own property. The New Democratic Party betrayed every Canadian because they prevented the inclusion of the right of ownership of property in the Constitution so that all Canadians and their children could have the fundamental right to own property. That is where the socialists stand.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member said that there was opposition to the inclusion of property rights in the Constitution. Let me remind the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) that his Party has been in government for almost three years. Have those Members indicated an interest in entrenching property rights in the Constitution?


Jack Wendele Shields: Look on the Order Paper. It is there.
Supply


Nelson Andrew Riis: We have been talking about the Constitution for months but they have never mentioned that the Government is at all interested in putting property rights in the Constitution.
I can understand why the Member is upset. I would be upset as well if I was part of a majority of 212 Members that had 60 per cent of the popular vote in Canada but is now at some 22 per cent. I would also be concerned because we know that Alberta will be changing its electoral behaviour significantly as soon as the opportunity arises.
The Hon. Member mentioned the Dome Petroleum takeover. Our Party is concerned about the Dome takeover because it plays a critical role in the natural gas and oil industry of Canada. It is a major player in the oil patch in western Canada and we believe that it ought to be maintained in Canadian hands. The majority of Canadians feel the same way, as in the testing of the Cruise. When it comes to the takeover of Dome by a foreign enterprise, most Canadians believe it is not in our best interests and would rather see a Canadian solution.
We proposed a Canadian solution, which involves a consortium of a number of Canadian companies, including Petro-Canada, that be allowed to make a bid to take over Dome Petroleum and keep it in Canadian hands. The Government has not shown any interest in such a proposal.
Day after day we urged the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to facilitate a Canadian solution, but he is not interested. The point that must be made is that the evidence over the last two and one-half years leads one to believe that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Government of Canada would prefer a foreign takeover to allow Americans to run the economy of Canada rather than Canadians.
That is clearly where we differ. We have faith in Canadians and in Canada. We want a Canadian solution and expected the Minister of Energy to facilitate a Canadian solution. He did not do so because the Government does not believe such a solution is useful either now or in the future.
When it comes to Canada, we in the New Democratic Party prefer a Canadian solution. We believe a Canadian solution is possible if the Government would allow Petro-Canada to work in consortium with a number of other Canadian companies to come forward with a Canadian bid for troubled Dome Petroleum.


Mr. Greenaway:: Mr. Speaker, is it true that the official policy of the New Democratic Party is not to sell gas from western Canada to the United States? Is that the stand of the New Democratic Party?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the seventh time I have responded to that question, but I will try again. The policy that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources referred to was passed in 1979 during the second OPEC crisis, when reports from the National Energy Board indicated that the natural gas security

June 1, 1987
Supply
for Canada was under some question. It was not clear to what extent our reserves were in place to ensure Canadian supply.
Much has changed since 1979 and, as our energy critic, the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has indicated on a number of occasions, under appropriate conditions, where our security is assured, that exports of natural gas to the United States would be supported by the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Stewart:: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my socialist friend opposite whether we should pay attention to anything he said. He stated unequivocally that the new reform association that was formed in Vancouver was a Tory organization totally. I am sure he knows that Stan Roberts, a former President of the Chamber of Commerce, is a noted Liberal and is one of the three founding members. Why should we pay attention to anything the Member says when he makes a statement like that?


Mr, Riis:: The reason I said that virtually everyone there was a Tory-


John B. Stewart: I did not hear you say that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: If I did not say "virtually", it is because I do not distinguish clearly between Liberals and Tories when it comes to policies in this country. Liberal policies on most issues are not clearly defined as being any different from Conservative policies.
If there is one political party that is different from the Conservatives and Liberals, it is the New Democratic Party. Let me state clearly that virtually all of the participants who are disillusioned westerners were card-carrying Conservatives and a handful were Liberals. As I said, however, I do not distinguish much between the two.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today. I want to return to the comments by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan). I will suggest to him that out of all the rhetoric we heard from the other side today, he has a real sense of the problems we face. I noted he listened attentively to what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) had to say. I think he understands the problems we are facing.
The National Energy Board in Canada, as a quasi-judicial board, may receive representation from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, or from Members of the House of Commons, but, being a quasijudicial body, it cannot be directed. It makes decisions as it sees fit in the national interests. That is Canada.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the United States, commonly called FERC, is also a quasi-judicial body.
It is set up very similar to the National Energy Board. It cannot be directed to adopt a regulation or policy in exactly the same way as the National Energy Board cannot. I note that the motion before the House refers to the weak and ineffectual efforts of the Government of Canada to oppose Opinion 256 of the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I wish to address my remarks to that aspect of the motion.
To begin, I would like to remind the House that the approach taken by the Government towards its energy policy is an approach which differs dramatically from the confrontational, divisive and unpredictable actions of previous administrations. In fact, I find it a bit ironic that the Liberal Opposition chose to denounce a decision by a U.S. regulatory agency which bears a very striking resemblance to the high-handed tactics embodied in the Liberals' National Energy Program which totally and absolutely devastated the oil and natural gas industry in western Canada.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Take a look at the number of jobs lost out there.


Jack Wendele Shields: In contrast, the energy policies of this Government are built on the firm foundations of consultation, cooperation and consensus.
The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) tells me to look at the situation now. The situation now is that the industry can move and move freely. We are doing exactly what it has asked. We have deregulated, we have brought in the Western Accord, and never again, if the Meech Lake Accord goes through, will any Liberal Government be able to perpetrate such a disaster on a region in this country.
The Western Accord and the agreement on natural gas markets and prices have provided our oil and gas industry with a flexible market oriented framework in which it can compete effectively for sales in Canada and the United States. With respect to energy trade, we are taking a consistent approach to remove unnecessary regulator burdens and to rely on market forces as the most efficient allocators of energy resources.
Our policies have been successful. Our energy producers have been able to maintain and even expand market share within a highly competitive international market. Canadian consumers have also benefited from access to secure, reasonably priced, domestic energy resources. What really sets our approach apart from that advocated by the Opposition is that we work with the provinces, with industry, with the consumers and with our trading partners to develop policies which meet the needs of buyers and sellers.
We know we are on the right track since, following their January meeting-I might add that it was the first meeting since 1977 of Canada's energy Ministers-the energy Ministers jointly reaffirmed that adherence to market mechanisms is most important in ensuring that the most efficient decisions are made regarding energy supply and demand. However, we are not content to rest with these achievements.
June 1, 1987

In April, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced a unique, consultative process to examine ways to plan for Canada's energy future. In three weeks, the first of a series of energy options conferences begins in Calgary. I am very impressed both with the level of interest this consultative process has generated and with the enthusiasm being displayed by the participants. With some of the best minds in the country engaged in debate and dialogue, the energy options conferences promise to yield innovative approaches to Canada's energy future.
Despite our success, we are not blind to current problems faced by our energy industry. The legacy of unfair legislation, unworkable regulations and economic imprudence left by the previous Government presents a serious challenge. Our task is not made easier by volatility in international energy markets.
The removal of the petroleum and gas revenue tax and the introduction of the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program, are concrete examples of the commitment of the Government to a strong oil and natural gas producing sector. In light of this commitment, it should come as no surprise that the Government has protested vigorously against FERC Opinion 256. As a Member from Alberta, I am particularly concerned about the impact of this decision on the western Canadian oil and gas industry. I know first-hand of the importance to our energy industry of access to markets at home and abroad. This is especially true with natural gas. Because of our rich resource base, Canadians have been able to export surpluses of natural gas for over 30 years. These exports have provided the economies of scale needed to finance the major pipeline systems now serving domestic markets. They also generate the cash flow needed by producers for reinvestment in the exploration and development required to bring on new reserves, thus ensuring all Canadians with future supply security.
Because of the importance of natural gas exports, we are clearly alarmed at any new barrier to our long-standing bilateral trade. FERC Opinion 256 is just such a barrier. The decision disallows assured full recovery from U.S. customers of certain costs; costs which have been incurred in Canada and established by Canadian regulators to provide firm pipeline capacity to serve the export market. In plain terms, FERC will allow pass through of regulated Canadian transportation charges only on a "made in the U.S.A." basis.
The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys is correct. The FERC order infringes on our regulatory system. The Government of Canada has several very real concerns about Opinion 256. First, there is the question of jurisdiction. For the past decades regulators in Canada and the U.S. have accepted the consequence of each other's regulatory actions. In other words, the regulatory bodies here and in the United States have jointly accepted those actions. This decision by the regulatory body, FERC, in the United States, overturns this long-standing practice and has the effect of extending U.S. pipeline rate-making into Canadian jurisdiction.
Supply
We believe that Canadian and U.S. regulators, respectively, are in the best positions to determine just and reasonable pipeline rates in their own jurisdictions. Canadians have long accepted U.S.-designed tolls for those pipelines-the Lake-head, Portland and the Great Lakes-carrying oil and gas to our markets. By the same token, we expect the U.S. to accept the charges, set in accordance with established rate-making principles, associated with the transportation of gas in Canada to U.S. consumers.
We are also gravely concerned about the economic impact of Opinion 256 on Canadian producers. Those producers serving the export market receive a net-back price for their gas. This means that from gross export revenues received at the international border Canadian transportation tolls are deducted and the residual is returned to producers. If export transportation charges are not fully recovered from those U.S. consumers on whose behalf pipeline investment was made, then Canadian producers will bear the risk of under-recovery.
Our calculations show that even a limited application of Opinion 256 to existing export arrangements will cost Canadian producers at least $140 million U.S. Clearly, this revenue drop is unacceptable when our industry is still coping with last year's sudden fall in world oil prices.
Finally, Opinion 256 has serious implications for the bilateral energy trade policy framework established by our respective Governments over the past three years. In February, 1984, the U.S. Department of Energy introduced a new natural gas import policy. This policy strongly emphasized natural gas trade arrangements based on arm's length, private sector negotiations, and free from undue regulatory interference. Further, the Secretary of Energy clearly delegated authority over natural gas imports to the U.S. economic regulatory administration.
The framework gave the Government of Canada confidence to move in November, 1984, to its own export policy, based on buyer-seller negotiations, subject only to broad public interest criteria. Knowing the rules of the game we are able to allow our industry the flexibility to compete in U.S. markets. This consistent Canada-U.S. approach was confirmed in joint undertaking by the President and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) at the 1985 Quebec Summit to remove regulatory barriers to energy trade.
Thus we are disappointed with a FERC decision which adds a new and unexpected regulatory hurdle to the private sector contractual negotiation process. Opinion 256 has the effect of interfering in negotiated contracts which had already been determined by the U.S. economic regulatory administration to be just, reasonable and in the public interest. Such action clearly runs counter to the U.S. administration's natural gas import policy.
The Minister of Energy has outlined to the House the concrete action taken by the Government of Canada, in full consultation and co-operation with the producing provinces

June 1, 1987
and the industry, to bring our concerns to the attention of the U.S. administration.
It is true that our representations did not deter the FERC from reaffirming its original approach. However, this should not be interpreted as a failure. Our arguments have gained ground. It is clear that many in the U.S. administration and among the customers of Canadian gas are deeply concerned about the impact of this decision on the credibility of the United States as a reliable trading partner. There is pressure in the United States from consumers of Canadian natural gas on the administration and, indeed, on the regulatory body because they recognize the impact on the credibility of the United States as a reliable trading partner and the effect that this could have on their continued energy security. So we are not alone in our concerns.
The United States needs Canadian natural gas, and it needs it now. Many of the regional markets are heavily dependent on our gas supplies. As U.S. deliverability declines, demand for natural gas imports will increase. U.S. consumers know that Canadian natural gas is reliable. When they want secure, longterm contracts they come to Canada.
Over the past year we have seen several proposals to serve the U.S. Northeast with Canadian natural gas. Ocean State, Alberta Northeast and the Shell-Granite State contracts will provide our producers with new markets for their natural gas. Even more important, these projects will supply the Northeast with a secure, reasonably priced alternative to oil imports.
It is this kind of mutual benefit that has been the underpinning of our bilateral gas trade. But industry on both sides of the border must have a predictable, stable basis on which they can negotiate arrangements which meet the needs of buyers and sellers.
In conclusion, we intend to sustain and increase our efforts to bring our concerns to the attention of the U.S. administration, U.S. regulators, authorities and U.S. consumers and producers.
Unlike the previous Liberal Government, this Government believes that discussion and dialogue are the best tools to bring an end to trade problems. We are determined to overcome problems affecting our natural gas trade so that industry on both sides of the border will be free to continue and to develop trade arrangements of lasting benefit to both our countries. This Government is not anti-American.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the speech of the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). I have always known him to be fairly straightforward and fair. However, once again, as with the Minister, I find very great difficulty in accepting that the Government can do nothing other than what it has done. It is not making any objection to the turning down of the petition of the Canadian natural gas producers other than the Prime Minister saying that he will bring it up at the Venice Summit.
Something which I am completely unable to swallow is the fact that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the United States is able to make rulings that affect Canada, particularly when they concern the import of natural gas into the United States, something which falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy of the United States, yet the Department of Energy can do nothing. In my opinion the American Department of Energy is playing politics and is choosing to do nothing. I think that our Government's letters and requests to the American Government are being ignored. I think that is detrimental to the Canadian economy, in particular to the export of natural gas from Canada to the United States. It is blatantly offensive and damaging to Canadian sovereignty.
I wish to ask the Hon. Member for Athabasca about something his Minister said regarding investment in Canada and how Investment Canada is being run. I have a great concern about the amount of money coming into Canada from outside Canada which is going toward acquisitions instead of new investment in this country. When I hear that 90 per cent of the money involved in the approvals of Investment Canada goes not to investment but to acquisitions I have a tremendous difficulty seeing that as being of benefit to Canada.
What I want to ask the Hon. Member is how this will benefit Canada.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I will answer the last question first. The Hon. Member talked about investment coming into Canada. To illustrate my point let us use as an example the Husky investment by Mr. Lee of Hong Kong and the subsequent announcement of the $1 billion investment to develop in the Beaufort. I think that is very significant. It is clear to me that there is considerable benefit when someone of Mr. Lee's stature invests in the purchase of a large oil company and then immediately upon it going through Investment Canada announces a major investment in terms of the development of the Beaufort. I think that is what we are talking about.
Let us recognize too that this is not a country-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member. When Government Orders are resumed the Hon. Member will have six minutes left in his question and comment period.
It being one o'clock, I do leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
June 1, 1987


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, last Friday morning there was a tragic accident at the Rio Algom Panel Mine in Elliot Lake which took the life of Kevin Grondin. I want to extend our sympathy to his wife and family on this sad and tragic occasion.
This accident was the ninth in Ontario mines this year. It points out the dangers in mining and points to the need for continuous improvement to mining safety and health regulations.
I also want to pay tribute to the valiant efforts of six mine rescue teams of seven members each who worked around the clock from the time of the accident until the body of Mr. Grondin was found on Sunday around six o'clock. Their bravery and tremendous effort to save a fellow miner in the face of obvious danger are commendable.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, last week Contra terrorists attacked a Canadian funded co-operative farm in Nicaragua killing 10 people, wounding eight, and kidnapping four. They destroyed homes, buildings and farm equipment. These terrorists are financed by the Reagan Government and by powerful right-wingers such as the anti-union owners of Coors beer.
The Contras are trying to turn the clock back to the dark days of the Somoza regime and the only way they know to do it is by cowardly attacks on community health centres, schools, co-operative farms and other development projects.
Because the farm was funded by Canadians through the Farmers for Peace organization, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) condemned the raid. However, Canada must do more than issue a vague condemnation. We need to protest, in the strongest terms, to the Reagan Government. Its funding of the Contras is cowardly and despicable and must be so named by any Government that claims to stand for the development ideals of the Canadian people.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the farmers who produce hay were denied assistance under the Special Canadian Grains Program last fall but here are some sound reasons why they should be included in the pay-out this spring. Barley crops were subsidized under the program and, as a result, barley was sold to feeders at a cheaper rate than hay. Feeders are the main market for hay. In addition, grain farmers cut poor crops and sold them as green feed. Again, because it was subsidized the green feed was sold at a lower price than hay.
Just as subsidization of agricultural products by the EEC and U.S.A. put our grain farmers in a position where the selling price is below the cost of production, the Canadian government subsidization has placed our hay producers in the same position. As a result the price of hay is now one-third of what it was. In desperation the hay farmers turned to the export market but found the Americans were subsidizing compressed hay, and so they lost out again.
Hay producers cannot compete against government money any more than can any other farmer. The bottom line is that we destroy this needed segment of agriculture with government subsidies to its competitors, or we include hay producers in the Special Canadian Grains Program. Which will it be?



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, for some people, as we know, the time period since the 1984 elections has been very difficult. But for other Canadians, this period under the Conservative regime has been rewarding.
I want to say that one of these people who has become richer at the expense of the public and Canadian taxpayers is Mr. Roger Nantel. Today, as a matter of fact, the media report that Mr. Nantel is alleged to have been awarded untendered contracts valued at more than $4 million.
Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand one of these contracts for $46,200. I will tell you what Mr. Nantel was expected to do to earn this money: take part in the preparation and drafting of a summary brief; coordinate the organization of a poll; coordinate slide composition and reproduction services; write speeches; prepare an audiovisual presentation for March 26, 1986. As I said earlier, he was paid $46,200 for these services.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should apologize to the House for spending public funds this way.

June 1, 1987



GERIATRICS


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement last week of the birth in Toronto of test-tube triplets has resulted in some well-deserved national attention for my friend, Dr. George Woo, his laboratory initiated foetal emplacement program, and the Toronto East General and Orthopaedic Hospital in my constituency.
It also brings to mind the fact that when my children were born there, the East General recorded more births each year than any other hospital in Canada, with the exception of the Vancouver General. Now all of that has changed.
Apart from Dr. Woo's in vitro fertilization program, the East General is now better known for geriatrics than it is for obstetrics. It is a dramatic reminder of Canada's aging population. At present, approximately 11 per cent of Canadians are over 65; in my riding it is over 20 per cent. By the year 2010, over 25 per cent of all Canadians will be senior citizens.
If Canada's birth rate and immigration levels do not increase, there will be a smaller pool of workers to support this larger number of seniors. Mr. Speaker, do you ever wonder where your old age pension is going to come from?



ENVIRONMENT WEEK


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of Environment Week. All across Canada events took place last weekend, and will be taking place this week, pursuant to the theme: "It's up to all of us".
I want the Government to remember that it is also very much up to the Government. In keeping with that sentiment, I call upon the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) to re-evaluate the Environmental Protection Act, the draft of which he has already put before the public and of which he intends to introduce a second draft this month. I call upon him to respond to the criticisms that have been made of the first draft.
The Minister and the Government know-
[Editor's Note: And a stranger having entered the Chamber, addressed the Chair, and been removed by Assistant Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms Leo Robitaille:]


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not mean to get everybody so excited.
I call upon the Government to consider the following recommendations to the Environmental Protection Act so that the Act might live up to its name: to incorporate a meaningful Environmental Bill of Rights establishing Canadians' right to a clean and healthy environment and the right to go to court to protect those rights; to expand the scope of the Act to include the control and registration of pesticides, and other federal environmental legislation; to make the Act the pre-eminent federal environmental legislation, taking precedence over all others; and to strengthen the public's right-to-know provisions in the Act and increased public involvement in the operation of the Act.
These are but a few of the changes the Government should make to the proposed Environmental Protection Act if it is truly serious about protecting the environment.



CULTURE


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) I am pleased to tell the House that the Week of French Song in Canada was officially opened yesterday evening. This remarkable event is undoubtedly a highlight in the history of French broadcasting in Canada. For the first time in the world public and private broadcasters join their efforts to celebrate their country's talents.
The main purpose of this project sponsored by the Association canadienne de la radio et de la television de langue franqaise is to provide francophone creators and performers a unique opportunity to present their works and gain wider recognition and better appreciation in their respective circles. This ACRTF initiative shows it is anxious to respond more readily to the needs and aspirations of francophones artists and audiences in Canada, and its determination to contribute to the expansion of the French presence on our airwaves.
Mr. Speaker, let us hope this event will make Canadians proud of all these artists, and at the same time pay high tribute to the artisans of Canada's French song industry.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, despite the rain, several hundred people in Montreal East met to protest against the service provided by Canada Post with the Government's approval, and
June 1, 1987

I am referring to the cuts in home delivery and the continuing installation of superboxes.
Mr. Speaker, these people were determined. They are fed up with being treated like second-class citizens. People living practically next door are getting home delivery, and they are not, because their homes were built a year later. They pay the same 36 cents for their stamps, they pay the same taxes but they are not getting the same service.
I think it is high time this Government gave Canada Post a clear-cut mandate to reinstate home delivery.



MINES AND MINING


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on March 17, 1937, it was St. Patrick's Day all over the world. But, in Val-d'Or, in Abitibi, it was the day the new plant at the Sigma mine started its operations.
Sigma has always had a reputation as a reliable gold mine, a progressive and well-organized company with the lowest turnover rate of any mine of its class in Canada, thanks to the excellent relations between management and the independent employees' union under the leadership of Mr. Andre Busque.
Under the management of Mr. C. Henri Brehaut and Mr. J. Andre Carrier, engineer and Director General, Sigma Quebec Mines Ltd. celebrated its fiftieth anniversary last Saturday, with all former and present employees, administrators and a number of local, provincial and national figures.
Sigma produces over 3,515,000 troy ounces of gold and 680,000 troy ounces of silver. Sigma's history is also that of its workers, the men who work underground, the workers in the plant, the geologists and the engineers.
Mr. Speaker, as a former miner with the company, I say three cheers for Director General Andre Carrier and his employees!



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, Maisie Clark is a 63-year-old woman presently serving a life sentence at the Prison for Women in Kingston, Ontario. She was convicted of second degree murder, and except for a
period of nine months during her appeal she has been incarcerated since October 26, 1981. According to the verdict, she must serve 10 years before she becomes eligible for parole.
Maisie Clark's offence is a classic case of a crime of passion. One commentator stated that "she snapped under a combination of grief, loneliness and sexual humiliation." She has had the support of many prominent Canadians, including the exwarden of the Prison for Women, Isabel McNeil of Mill Village, Nova Scotia.
The continued incarceration of Maisie Clark serves no useful purpose from the point of view of rehabilitation or the protection of society. She is a mother and a grandmother. She is in failing health and it is unlikely in the extreme that she will ever commit another crime. Her life sentence may as well be a death sentence.
I would ask that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) consider exercising his authority under the royal prerogative of mercy to release Maisie Clark. The criminal justice system would be well served by her release.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, since Mikhail Gorbachev came to power, the Soviet Union has been telling all the world that it is changing. The world receives a constant barrage of propaganda designed to project an image of caring and understanding. Yet the U.S.S.R. continues its brutal war in Afghanistan, its persecution of Jews, and the stifling of religious freedoms.
A Lithuanian Catholic priest, Father Tamevicius, has been returned to a Soviet labour camp after refusing to confess to anti-state activities. Father Tamevicius said:
In prison, I will always pray for... the struggle for the freedom of the church
and for basic human rights. Do not believe it when propagandists for
Government atheism say that such activity is political. It is not politics, but a
matter of life and death for all of us.
Religious freedom has been a cornerstone of democracy, and the Soviet Union continues to demonstrate that religious freedom will never be tolerated, but it is finding that religion and faith will never be extinguished.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, today, a day of protest by workers throughout the province, has brought the Province of British Columbia to a standstill. This is a dramatic moment in the history of the

June 1, 1987
Oral Questions
province, indeed in the history of Canada, and in the struggle for trade union and democratic freedoms in our society.
As former B.C. Deputy Labour Minister, Graham Leslie, has pointed out, the Vander Zalm Government has reintroduced unacceptable confrontation and conflict to industrial relations in B.C. Furthermore, Bill 19 clearly contravenes ILO Convention 87 dealing with freedom of association and the right to organize. Canada is a signatory to this Convention which among other things guarantees workers and employers the right to draw up their own constitutions and rules. It also prohibits public authorities from impeding the exercise of that right and seeks to prevent Governments from interfering with already negotiated settlements.
The Government of B.C. clearly has no intention of working within labour-management norms that conform to accepted standards of a modern democratic state. Hence this day of protest.



CANADIAN RED CROSS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to take this opportunity to make a non-partisan announcement.


Mr. Gauthier:: Well, Em going to listen.


Philip Derek Lewis: Great, I want you to do so.
Three or four times a year the House of Commons participates in blood donor clinics. Today and tomorrow, the blood donor clinic is taking place in Room 200, West Block. I would encourage all of my colleagues in the House, staff, and even the media to attend to give blood. At the same time, I would encourage Canadians all across the country to do the same. This gift means so very much to the recipient and at the same time gives the donor the opportunity to extend life.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister may I put a question or two to the Deputy Prime Minister and Government
House Leader? My question revolves around the constitutional process.
On May 1 and May 11 I said in the House of Commons that Parliament had the right to see the final text of the proposed constitutional amendment before it was again negotiated with the Premiers. Will Parliament be allowed to see that final text before it is signed by the Premiers of the provinces?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime . Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, the Prime Minister indicated on May 1 and again on May 11 that every opportunity would be made available to Members of the House to participate in this very important issue. As he knows, the First Ministers are meeting tomorrow. We are not sure whether an agreement will be ratified but we are all hopeful that that will be the case. If such is the case, then I would be prepared to sit down with the House Leaders opposite to work out a satisfactory arrangement for Parliament to consider this issue, and I would do so at the earliest possible opportunity.


DEMAND FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I bet the Deputy Prime Minister's answer will indicate that Parliament will have the right to see and examine the text after rather than before it is signed by the First Ministers.
Mr. Speaker, I have always been in favour of the Meech Lake agreement as a basis to bring Quebec back into the constitutional fold, and I still am. The Constitution is the basic statute of Canada. It governs the implementation of all our legislation and our institutions.
I want the Deputy Prime Minister to explain to us how he intends to allow us to make improvements to the agreement? Will there be exhaustive public parliamentary hearings here in Ottawa and across the country to enable Canadians to voice their opinions on the legal text? Will the constitutional resolution undergo at least the same legislative process as an ordinary bill?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, those questions and issues that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition quite rightly raises would be part of the considerations that I would hope to discuss with the Opposition House Leaders.
As the Prime Minister indicated, he made the commitment to all Hon. Members of the House to become as actively involved as possible to provide the moral leadership to the country and for other Governments. It would be in that spirit and in that context that we would attempt to establish the kind of process that would allow that to proceed in the interests not only of examining all elements of the Accord but of engaging
June 1, 1987

in a national debate affecting a very important issue to all Canadians from one coast to the other.


PROCESSES TO ADDRESS VARIOUS CONCERNS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister knows, I have always been supportive of the Meech Lake Accord as a basis for bringing Quebec into our Federation as a full partner under the Constitution Act, 1982, and I still am.
I also told the Prime Minister, during the two interventions I made in Parliament on the subject, of areas which we believe need to be strengthened, including the Charter of Rights, the future of our northern Territories, the protection of our aboriginal peoples, more certainty about the scope of federal spending power, and guarantees on minority language rights.
Does the final text take into account the concerns I have raised? If not, what process will be followed to allow those concerns to be addressed openly, completely and publicly by this House of Commons so that Canadians can be fully apprised of the basic law of our country before it is finally adopted?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, as I am sure are all Hon. Members, at least those on this side of the House are, that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition agrees with the spirit of the Meech Lake Accord. We have not seen the final draft and it is, therefore, very difficult to answer precisely the questions which the Right Hon. Leader has put. However, it is my understanding that in the 1981-82 case there were amendments entered into and agreed to.
I repeat that we will be discussing these things with House Leaders presuming, of course, that an agreement is reached tomorrow. I can assure the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, pursuant to the statements which have been made by the Prime Minister, that we will certainly allow Members every opportunity to become engaged in this very important debate.


REQUEST FOR CLEAR LEGAL TEXT
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: In the absence of the Prime Minister, this question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the Meech Lake Accord. Hon. Members are aware of my position both inside and outside the House and I do not intend to change it. However, there are many people who, as I did when I spoke in the House on May 11, have raised the question how the provision relating to spending power is to be interpreted.
Tomorrow, the Prime Minister of Canada and the provincial Premiers are to meet to draft a legal text that will embody the Accord. Can the Deputy Prime Minister give the House and all Canadians the assurance that the legal text the Prime Minister intends to propose to his provincial counterparts will
Oral Questions
be clear and precise, to avoid any ambiguity regarding the federal Government's capability to propose and implement national programs, and furthermore, to allay the concern that was raised as a result of faulty interpretation by certain provinces, and especially Quebec, the concern that the federal Government might be able to intervene without prior consultation in areas under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Can the Deputy Prime Minister give the House the assurance that the legal text will be quite clear in that respect?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to engage in a debate on specifics at this particular time. That is precisely why at a very early opportunity we triggered a debate in the House of Commons to get the precise views of Hon. Members opposite and those on this side of the House on the principles of the Accord.
With regard to interpretation, there are certainly Premiers who are putting forth certain interpretations which might be somewhat at variance with that which was agreed upon. All those things will be discussed tomorrow. Naturally, the views, opinions, and the admonitions that the Hon. Member raised in a very eloquent speech in the House will certainly be taken into consideration. That is precisely why we wanted that debate at a very early opportunity.
[DOT]	0425)


RIGHTS OF FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I had some trouble following the Deputy Prime Minister's reasoning, because what it comes down to is that we can address the subject any number of times in the House-God knows I have not been remiss in this respect-but we do not have a chance to make any specific proposals. So we have to depend on the information the Government is willing to give us. What it boils down to, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government is conducting these negotiations and it refuses to answer.
[DOT]	(1430)
Mr. Speaker, in the Meech Lake Accord, a number of other issues were raised. I was in Northern Ontario on the weekend, and I met a lot of francophones living outside Quebec. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he can give the House and all Canadians, especially French-speaking Canadians living outside Quebec, the assurance that the legal texts that will probably be produced tomorrow at Meech Lake or some other venue, will not only guarantee the rights of francophones outside Quebec but also guarantee that those rights can be reaffirmed and that it is the role of the Parliament of Canada and the provinces to promote the rights of francophones outside Quebec. Francophones outside Quebec want to be full-fledged citizens, and they want to be able to

June 1, 1987
Oral Questions
live and obtain services in their own language across the country.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman opposite should not have any difficulty following my line of reasoning. We have had debate on this issue in the House. There is-


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: One day.


John Napier Turner: A very short debate.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Members say one day. We offered to extend the time, to extend the hours. There was not the kind of-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: One government day.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -reciprocal agreement in kind.


John Napier Turner: One day on trade, one day on the Constitution. Great.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The fact is that there has been a debate. There is a debate going on outside the House.


Mr. Forrestall:: It has been going on since Victoria some years ago.


Mr. Rossi:: Okay, blabbermouth.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As I said, there has been debate. There is an ongoing debate outside the House. There will be further debate. There will probably be hearings, providing we can reach some understanding with the House Leaders. There will be ample opportunity for all Hon. Members to put forth their points of view and draw attention to any weaknesses or strengths that the Accord may have.


NATURAL GAS EXPORTS-U.S. REGULATORY COMMISSION'S DECISION-ACTION BY PRIME MINISTERS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to either the Deputy Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Not long ago the Prime Minister promised in Lethbridge that the Canadian Government would do everything it could to ensure that no U.S. energy agency, and specifically the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission, would take unfair steps against Canadian gas exports. As a consequence, a letter was sent by the Prime Minister, and was simply forwarded, without endorsation by
the President, to this commission. We saw that the results were negative in terms of Canadian interests.
Since the Prime Minister is now going to raise the issue again, this time at Venice, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Deputy Prime Minister tell us very precisely what kind of action he will be asking President Reagan to take?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, this question was dealt with at some length last week, but if the Hon. Member wants to continue to pursue it, naturally I will seek to reply. There will be meetings involving the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and myself, with senior American authorities in the United States. On one level we will make known to them our very great regret that the representations we have made did not have greater effect upon the quasi-judicial body.
We are determining if there are other options open to the Government of the United States that we can recommend to it. I do not think that there is a great deal of advantage in publicizing in the House of Commons what those particular recommendations might be before we make them.


John Edward Broadbent: The people of western Canada, and the people in the Minister's home Province of Alberta are particularly interested in the outcome, as the Minister knows.


CANADIAN POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister talked about the Prime Minister's intention to bring this up in Venice, presumably the Government has reviewed the appropriate legislation in the United States to see what avenue is legitimately open to the Government of Canada. If there is not some legitimate avenue open to us to protest, are we not simply misleading the people of Canada in suggesting the Prime Minister is going to talk to Mr. Reagan in Venice?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, certainly I am not attempting to mislead the people of Canada, nor is the Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition-excuse me-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Benjamin:: You were right the first time.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Leader of the Opposition, of course, is hiding out in Mount Royal.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Leader of the New Democratic Party asked me last week whether there would be a contact by telephone with the President. I indicated that instead of relying upon a telephone communication-although I know
June 1, 1987

that to be the preferred instrument of the Leader of the New Democratic Party-we thought it would be preferable to have a direct contact between the President and the Prime Minister.
I indicated in the House previously that at this stage we know there is a legal recourse open to Canadian firms. We are encouraging them to pursue that. We are looking at any other instrument which might be available to us, or to the United States, and expect to know the full range of options we might either be able to take or to recommend by the time of those meetings in Venice.


REQUEST THAT REPRESENTATIONS BE MADE TO COMMISSION BY U.S. SECRETARY OF ENERGY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since, as I understand it, the Secretary of Energy in the United States has the authority to pass on recommendations or references to the appropriate commission in that country, will the Government, in this particular instance, ask Mr. Reagan not simply to pass on a letter of the Prime Minister of Canada without comment, but would our Prime Minister ask President Reagan to go to his own Secretary of Energy and ask him to make a reference to the appropriate commission in support of the Canadian cause, which is consistent with what President Reagan promised two years ago in Quebec City?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if it appears that kind of representation by the Prime Minister to the President with respect to the U.S. Secretary of Energy would be productive, of course we will consider following that advice and following that direction. We are interested in looking at any instrument we can which will lead to the reverse of a decision which is harmful to energy producers in Canada and, in our judgment, is not helpful to relations between Canada and the United States.


THE CONSTITUTION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I would like to revert to the subject raised earlier by the Leader of the Opposition, namely whether the Government intends to submit the legal text of the constitutional accord to a parliamentary committee, for consideration. The Deputy Prime Minister cleverly evaded the issue by saying that he was willing to negotiate with the other political parties. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform him that the inalienable right of Canadians to be consulted has nothing to do with consultations between the parties. I would therefore ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he is prepared to state in the House in no uncertain
Oral Questions
terms that the text will be referred to a parliamentary committee. Afterwards, we will see whether there is any need for the parties to discuss the conditions under which the committee will operate. For the time being, however, we would like to know whether Canadians will be allowed to exercise their fundamental right to be heard before a committee on the most fundamental legislation of this country, yes or no!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, every Legislature, including the House of Commons, will have an opportunity to pass judgment on this. I do not know why the Hon. Member will not accept the traditional way of doing business in the House and that is dealing with the Opposition House Leaders. It is a tradition which has served us well in the past and I would suggest that he submit himself to that in the future.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, certainly that is not a clear yes answer. The Government is denying the Canadian public the right to be heard on the Constitution.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jacques Guilbault: I would like to quote for the Deputy Prime Minister what the Prime Minister wrote in 1983 in his book Where I Stand:
So let us have this final constitutional forum in Ottawa in the hope that a favourable consensus will be referred back to the House for ultimate resolution.
By so doing the federal parliament will have gone the extra mile to ensure that, to the extent humanly possible, everyone was heard, all opinions were considered,-
Does the Deputy Prime Minister realize that by not agreeing clearly to grant parliamentary committee hearings, he is risking forcing the Prime Minister to change the title of his book from Where l Stand to Where I Stood?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's allegation is absolutely untrue and does not really-


Jacques Guilbault: Then just say: "Yes, we are going to have one".


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -require any further elaboration. I can tell the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, as 1 said earlier in the House, that we will be prepared to sit down and negotiate with his House Leader and give him the assurance, as well as all other Hon. Members, of an opportunity so that this process can be studied and reviewed to the fullest possible extent. I give him that personal assurance.
Oral Questions


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
June 1, 1987

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who will remember only too well the latter days of the Trudeau regime when several western separatist parties sprang up in response to what they felt was a lack of representation from western Canada. Of course we know the number of western representatives who were sent to Ottawa in 1984 to be part of the government benches. We also know that this past weekend delegates from the western Provinces met in Vancouver and decided to strike a new federal political party because they felt their representation was held to be inappropriate. Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain why his Conservative Government has failed to make western Canadians feel they are equal and true partners in Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think we all noticed as well that there was a spattering of Liberals and New Democrats at the conference to which he referred.


Charles Joseph Clark: And an NDP, MLA.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Including an NDP, MLA.


Charles Joseph Clark: Former NDP.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A former NDP, MLA. I am not sure what Mr. Roberts is, whether he is a disenchanted Liberal or one trying to get back into the fold.


Mr. Crosbie:: He is a chanted Liberal.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A number of steps have been taken by this Government to renew and in fact strengthen the partnership between western Canada and the federal Government on the economic front and the political front, and I think the record of achievements clearly speaks for itself-


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, that is the problem.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -the evidence of ERDAs, the Western Accord, farm stabilization programs, drought assistance, grain and oilseeds assistance, trade, transportation, the Meech Lake Accord, western diversification, and I could go on and on and on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION IN WESTERN PROVINCES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. If the Government has been so generous to western Canada, 1 wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister could explain why, between September, 1984, and March of 1986, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion spent over 70
per cent of its funds in central Canada and a paltry 12 per cent in all four western provinces combined? Can he not understand that it is that kind of figure which makes western Canadians feel like second-class citizens?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think what western Canadians appreciate is the dismantling of the NEP and FIR A, the 350 per cent increase in western agricultural support, amendments to the Transportation Act-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, that is no good, either.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -free trade-


John Edward Broadbent: No, no.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A whole host of things. These are the kinds of things which go to the fundamental problems which are irritating western Canada. If the New Democrats and Liberals got off their butts and co-operated in seeing this legislation advance to its fruition, there would be a lot more happiness out in western Canada.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF BULGARIAN DEPUTY PRIME
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the Members' attention to the presence in the gallery today of Mr. Georgi Yordanov, Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Culture for Bulgaria, and Mr. Vladimir Zhivkov, Deputy Chairman of the Council for Intellectual Development of Bulgaria.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION OF INDIA
Mr. Speaker:: I wish also to bring to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery today of Mr. Shir M. Arunachalam, the Minister of Industrial Expansion of India.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTER OF MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Speaker:: I wish also to bring to the Members' attention the presence in the gallery today of the Honourable Rita Johnston, the Minister of Municipalities, of British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 1, 1987


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Mike Harcourt, MLA, Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It also concerns the Meech Lake process.
The Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that the House will not be seeing a constitutionalized version of the Meech Lake Agreement before it receives the signature of First Ministers, perhaps tomorrow. I wish to ask the Minister about the signature process.
If the document is signed by First Ministers tomorrow, or at any time in the near future, will that be a commitment by First Ministers to assure that the resolution is passed in the form settled by the Legislatures which they control? Or will that document come back to this place, and other places, for the hearings and debate that the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated will take place in the spirit that the resolution can be changed and can be improved upon if that is the will of the people of Canada expressed to any hearings or through this place?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, this is a matter that will be dealt with by all the Legislatures. The Hon. Member prefaced his question with the word "if'. We are not sure whether there will be an agreement signed tomorrow. Until such time as that takes place it is very difficult to speculate just what process may have to take place. But, as I said, I have expressed a clear willingness to sit down with House Leaders to work out a reasonable approach so that all the aspects referred to can, hopefully, be satisfied.


EFFECT OF PRIME MINISTER'S SIGNATURE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, does the Deputy Prime Minister view the signature of the Prime Minister on such a document as a commitment to have the support of Parliament? Or does he view that as an opportunity to bring the document back here for discussion, for debate and for public participation?
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the Hon. Member. That is for Parliament to decide. He has been a parliamentarian around here for a long time, with a distinguished career. Why does he not act his age?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the midst of all the pomp and circumstance of President Mitterrand's visit last week the Government assured Canadians that it was making progress on the St. Pierre and Miquelon boundary dispute. Now, President Mitterrand's statement and demand that Canada reopen its ports before negotiations continue have indicated that no progress at all is being made. We are right back at square one.
I wish to ask the Minister this. Why have all our diplomatic efforts to reach a boundary dispute settlement with France and St. Pierre and Miquelon failed? Why has progress not been made?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the Hon. Member misunderstood the position that was stated by President Mitterrand. President Mitterrand, not surprisingly, has indicated that before any agreement is concluded there would have to be, in his view, a reopening of the ports. The negotiations will continue.
I hope that among the changes that might occur as a result of the President's visit here is that members of the New Democratic Party will put aside their rather unique proposal that we should attack France. They have, of course, a unique position in Canadian defence policy in which they want us, as I had a chance to comment before, to get out of NATO, to get out of NORAD, and to declare war on France.


CANADA-FRANCE RELATIONS-PROTECTION OF FISH STOCKS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, since the Government was so forceful, as it says, in stating to France how important this issue is to Canada-France relations, and since it was so unsuccessful in taking even the smallest step last week toward the negotiation of this boundary dispute, what steps will the Government now take to protect Canadian fish stocks and to protect the livelihood of fishing families in Atlantic Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are continuing the negotiations. We have made very clear to the President of France and to the delegation travelling with him the importance of the Canadian interests involved. If the Hon. Member is suggesting on behalf

June 1, 1987
Oral Questions
of his Party that we should reopen the ports, if that is the socialist position, then 1 should say that it is not ours.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO PRESIDENT OF FRANCE
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the President of France said that Canada is guilty of "hostile, unjust and unacceptable behaviour and France cannot resume talks on the territorial waters dispute until Canada lifts its ports ban".
I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans this. What happened? Flow could there be such a great difference between what the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Minister of Transport said was the response of Mr. Mitterrand, in this FFouse, when Mr. Mitterrand gave a statement such as the one he gave on Friday in St. Pierre? Did the Government have any hint at all that the President was going to be so hostile toward Canada? What will the Government's response be?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is good to have a sensible question on this issue.
As to what the President of France said, we cannot be responsible for what the President of France says, particularly when he is on French soil. But there is a natural tendency to say one thing on your own soil and something else on somebody else's soil.


An Hon. Member:: Like the NDP.


John Carnell Crosbie: The NDP, of course, does that on 12 patches of soil across the country.
In Moncton, the advisers of the French President underlined that in any event negotiations should recommence at the end of June. As a matter of fact on June 24 and 25 there will be a second round of fishery quota negotiations in Paris. In short, in response to the hon. gentleman's question, our position is that we shall not be moved; we shall continue to be fair and firm for the fishermen of eastern Canada.


OVERFISHING BY FRENCH VESSELS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the port closures do not hurt the French fishing fleet from France. They hurt the fishing fleet from St. Pierre and Miquelon, whereas the real culprits, the biggest overfishers in Canadian waters, they go untouched by the Government. All they get are letters of support from the Secretary of State for External Affairs who says: "We will never back down. We will always protect the fishermen of France".
I ask the Minister, who knows that France has now declared that it will overfish by over 20,000 metric tonnes again next year, when the Government will treat French overfishing the same way as it treats overfishing by Quebecers, New Brun-swickers, Nova Scotians, or Newfoundlanders, and arrest them? The Spanish had to kidnap one of our officers before
they were arrested for overfishing. Maybe the French should kidnap the Minister of Transport and then maybe they would be arrested. But if they do, they can keep their catch.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the net has not yet been invented that could catch me.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: With respect to violations of our law within our recognized 200-mile economic zone, we will continue to apprehend any miscreants who overfish or break our conservation laws, just as we did with two Spanish vessels which were Fined in excess of $100,000 last week. The power of nations, their circumference, nothing matters to us-we will see that the law is administered to them in the disputed area. We have to abide by international custom, by international law. We will do our best to see that this matter is settled fairly and reasonably. The reason we wish to go to arbitration is to see the question of territorial boundaries settled. In that resolve we shall not be moved.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He responded on Friday to the Contra attack on an aid project in Nicaragua supported by the Canadian Farmers for Peace group. Fortunately no Canadian aid workers were at the site but the Contra attack left 10 Nicaraguans dead, others wounded or captured, and extensive damage to farm equipment, buildings and homes.
Since Washington is the source of Contra funding and arms, has the Minister informed his U.S. counterpart, George Shultz, in the strongest possible terms about Canada's continuing opposition to further U.S. funding of the Contras which threatens Canadian interests and lives as well as those of innocent Nicaraguans?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's reference to the statement I issued on Friday. Later today I will be signing a letter to U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz expressing deep concern about the attack on a project
June 1, 1987

in which Canadians are involved, by the Contras, an organization which it is the policy of the U.S. Government to support. I would add indicate that I will want to discuss that matter further with Mr. Shultz during the series of meetings he and I will have over the course of the next three weeks.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister and hope he makes clear to Mr. Shultz that it is the U.S. funding of the Contra aggression to which we are totally opposed.


UNITED STATES SUPPORT OF CONTRAS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, my second question to the Minister would be whether it is not time to make Canada's opposition to this funding and aggression more public. For example, in his meeting with George Shultz in California last month why did the Minister not take the opportunity, as he did in East European capitals the week before, to state publicly Canada's opposition to some of the host Government's policies, in this case U.S. support of the Contras?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I think the Hon. Member knows, being the foreign policy spokesperson for her Party, the meeting in California was not simply with Mr. Shultz. It was also with Foreign Minister Sepulveda of Mexico. That is the first time the Foreign Ministers of Mexico, the U.S., and Canada have met together. In a meeting of that kind naturally the question of Nicaragua and Central America was discussed. As to why I did not deal with that in my public speech, it was asked explicitly that that speech deal with questions of Pacific Rim development. That is the subject that I, Foreign Minister Sepulveda, and Secretary Shultz all addressed.


RESULTS OF CONTRA ATTACK-POSSIBLE PASSAGE OF RESOLUTION BY PARLIAMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, as was pointed out, this attack by American funded Contras on the village of Dionisio Quinteio Castra, where Canadian Farmers for Peace are operating a development program assisted by the Canadian Government, left 10 Nicaraguan citizens dead, eight wounded and three captured. There was extensive damage to a health centre and other important community buildings. I appreciate that the Minister made a critical statement on Friday. However, because we do not want the Americans to miss the message, would he be willing to consult with opposition Parties and prepare an appropriate resolution which we could all support condemning this kind of attack and the U.S. Contra policy?
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, naturally I am as usual prepared to consult with my colleagues in the House. I am also very much interested in having Canada take policies and make statements that lead to some constructive purpose rather than simply being an expression of opinion. I think the Hon. Member shares that view generally.
Oral Questions
Perhaps what might be most appropriate would be for me to meet with him and my friend, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), upon my return from ASEAN. Unfortunately that will not be before the end of June. I would discuss with them then the results of the conversation I had with Secretary Shultz to see if there is any need for further action to be taken by the House.


OPPOSITION BY UNITED STATES CONGRESSMEN TO PRESIDENT'S POLICY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with American Congressmen who very much oppose President Reagan's policy toward Nicaragua and the funding of the Contras. Does the Minister not agree that the support of this entire House for those Congressman would be very helpful in bringing to an end this type of interference in the affairs of Nicaragua which none of us accept? It would be very important to support those American Congressman in their goal of bringing peace to that region.
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I guess that is precisely the point. The Hon. Member suggests that it would help change policy in the U.S. if we in this House passed a resolution supporting the position of a group of Congressmen who are not setting that policy. I think the consequences of an action of that kind may indeed be counter-productive. It may complicate rather than achieve the goal of the Hon. Member. That is one of the reasons I have historically been hesitant about that kind of approach.
Let me simply say that when this matter was brought to my attention by a member of the Farmers for Peace organization, Barry King, who farms west of my home town, I was in touch with the organization and issued a statement as quickly as we could. I think it is intolerable that projects of this kind in which Canadians are involved are the subject of that kind of attack and I am going to see if there are practical steps we can take.


APARTHEID
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will he advise the House whether or not Canada has received a request from President Botha of South Africa requesting us to sever all relationships with the African National Congress in return for South Africa proceeding with a reform program? If that is the case, will he advise the House specifically what reforms would be included in that program and whether it

June 1, 1987
Oral Questions
would mean the expulsion from Canada of ANC's chief representative here, Yusuf Saloojee?
Right Eton. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the Prime Minister has received, as he did last year just before the summit, a letter from President Botha which sets forth some general representations regarding the situation in South Africa. I think there are two other things that it would be germane for me to say in response to the question.
First, the Prime Minister intends to meet with Mr. Oliver Tambo of the ANC some time later this summer, as do I. We believe the ANC will be part of any solution in South Africa, whatever it is, and it will be important for us to try to contribute to a peaceful solution.
Second, we hope on the occasion of the Venice Summit to find some means by which those seven industrialized countries can continue the external pressure on South Africa for change in a policy that most of us find reprehensible, and also try to find some means of maintaining a dialogue with the regime and the black population of South Africa.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, on February 5 the Minister for International Trade praised the prosperity in our forest industry brought about by her softwood lumber agreement with the U.S. Flow does the Secretary of State for External Affairs explain, then, the hard statistics which have finally emerged today indicating that the Canadian share of the U.S. lumber market has fallen from 31.5 per cent in the first two months of 1986 to 28.7 per cent in the same period this year? Does this not show what a bad deal the Government made for the Canadian communities which produce softwood lumber?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hard statistics to which the Hon. Member pretends to want to refer in fact show that in the period from January to the end of May, this year, there was a 1.4 per cent increase in Canadian shipments of softwood lumber to the United States. Those are the hard facts.
Over-all purchasing in the United States has increased. That leads to the report which the Hon. Member read in The Globe and Mail.
I would suggest that if he is interested in dealing with the facts, and not simply in trying to create false impressions about the effectiveness of Canadian policy, he should do more. He should enlarge his research beyond The Globe and Mail, perhaps to Saturday Night.


Steven W. Langdon: It is useful if the Minister indicates the full facts from the report which indicate that U.S. consumption went up 11 per cent while Canadian exports went up by only 1.4 per cent in terms of exports. Those are the facts.


EXPORT TAX REVENUE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Would he also confirm that revenue fell from the lumber export tax between January and February of this year, suggesting that our exports of softwood are indeed in trouble in the United States?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot make that confirmation. There were certain complications at the beginning of the administration of this tax. I will check into it, but I cannot make that confirmation today.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Several months ago I brought to the attention of the RCMP 10 illegal Portuguese immigrants whom 1 convinced to provide evidence against those individuals who brought them into the country illegally.
These 10 individuals have taken a huge risk in deciding to provide evidence and to testify, should it become necessary, since they were promised nothing and they have nothing to gain by their action. However, they are very uneasy, since there has yet to be any decision on whether or not their evidence will be of any use.
Could the Minister assure the House that this case is continuing to receive the Department's attention?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. He has had a very substantial interest in the welfare of immigrants to our country, and I congratulate him for that.
As I have indicated on previous occasions, I follow a policy of not commenting upon individual cases because I think public comment on matters under investigation could well jeopardize or prejudice the successful conclusion of the investigations.
However, in a general way I want to reassure the House that my Department as a matter of direct policy-and from time to time I ensure that this takes place-is handling all cases presented to it in an expeditious manner.
I can certainly assure the Hon. Member that in important matters we want to ensure that the evidence is sufficient and
June 1, 1987

properly presented for the purposes of prosecution in appropriate cases. I thank the Hon. Member for his continued interest.


PROPOSED PURCHASE OF DOME PETROLEUM BY AMOCO CANADA-OFFER OF SHARES TO CANADIANS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Amoco Canada has decided to allow at least the placement of a few shares in Canadian hands should its proposed purchase of Dome Petroleum go ahead.
In its meetings with Amoco Canada the Government was impressing upon it the importance of some shares being in Canadian hands, as the Minister of Energy put it. Why does the Government not go a step further and suggest to Amoco Canada the per centage of shares which should be in Canadian hands and when the placement should actually take place?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is aware of the normal process which is followed here. The company will be meeting with Investment Canada. These are matters which are discussed and negotiated with Investment Canada as part of the process.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Government takes the trouble to meet with Amoco Canada, which it said it was not doing, and to talk about the importance of shares being in the hands of Canadians, but it does not bother to say how much or when.
What we have here is a sop to the Canadian public to try to smooth the wheels through Investment Canada. How does the Minister of Finance expect the people of Canada to accept this sop and then to give up their natural resources readily?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the Hon. Member. At one stage he is saying that the Government of Canada has to make sure that Amoco Canada issues shares to the general public. It is going to issue shares to the general public.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: How much and when?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Then he starts to change his mind and says: "No, that is not enough".
Investment Canada, as I said in the House on Friday, will review the application from the standpoint of investment in western Canada in the Dome properties, from the standpoint of job creation, and from the standpoint of the development of a company which is on its last legs today. Dome Canada is on its last legs.
Privilege-Mr. H. Gray
The Hon. Member should be very pleased that the Government of Canada is able to negotiate the proposal by Amoco Canada, and not be presiding over a bankruptcy.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon there was an intruder on the floor of the House of Commons. Perhaps I should use the parliamentary term "stranger".
I raise this question not by way of passing judgment on anything which happened but simply to ask you, Sir, if you would investigate the matter immediately and see that any and all corrective measures that may be required in terms of security procedures involving the Chamber and the House of Commons are taken.
After all-and I couch my point as a question of privilege- we are dealing with a situation which could very well impede Members in carrying out their parliamentary duties.
This could have been a matter of some seriousness. 1 do not say that it is not serious; in any event, I think it is. However, I felt that I should formally raise this matter as a question of privilege because I think it involves the privileges of all Members, requiring immediate investigation by yourself, Sir, and the assurance to Members of the House and the Canadian people that any corrective measures in security procedures which may be required will be in place as soon as possible.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, as the one who had the floor when the even occurred, I rise on the same question of privilege. I would certainly want to second the urgings of the Opposition House Leader in respect of Your Honour having a look into what transpired and what made it possible for someone to get into the Chamber like that and do what was done.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. My colleagues and I were very concerned with what happened a little earlier. I should like to take a moment or so to caution the Speaker on something which I feel is worrisome regarding what might transpire.
It is obvious that our House is guarded by what I consider to be very competent personnel. However, in my humble opinion, their numbers standing by the doorways to the House are not nearly as large as they should be. I feel it would be most unfortunate if someone were disciplined for the fact that he or she were not four people instead of one person.
There are four doors at the back of this room, and only one person was there guarding. No matter how devoted is that

June 1, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Crosbie
person, he or she cannot supervise more than one area at one time. I know that that presented a difficulty today.
It is also equally true that there are three front doors to the House and only two people guarding those doors, even though there is considerable traffic of Members, staff, assistants, and so on, entering the area.
I do not think that this is a very funny matter, and I hope Hon. Members across would treat it seriously. As one who was an employee of this place for a number of years, it is my hope that due regard will be given to those people who do an excellent job of supervising access and egress to the House of Commons, as I am sure Your Honour, the Sergeant-at-Arms, and others will do in their review of what happened today.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I, of course, on behalf of my colleagues would want to associate myself with the spokesmen for the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party. I can only say that while this is something that comes within your direct jurisdiction, from the standpoint of the Government I can assure you that we will co-operate with you in every respect in order to address this important issue. I simply want to say that 1 offer you my fullest cooperation on behalf of the Government.


Mr. St. Germain:: Mr. Speaker, as one of the spokesmen for the Board of Internal Economy who are under your excellent chairmanship for this area of responsibility, you can rest assured that you have the entire support of the Board in dealing with this matter immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank Hon. Members, led by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and others, for their comments. We had an incident here an hour or so ago. Clearly someone who ought not to have got into the Chamber did get into the Chamber. Immediately afterwards instructions were given to increase the security in the event that there might be others involved. That was done and an investigation has already commenced.
I think that Hon. Members having given the Chair the support they have will want to know that I shall deal with the matter as quickly as possible, taking into account the comments of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), in a fair and appropriate manner. I think we all recognize that the tasks that our security people have in this place, which is a relatively open forum, open Chamber, open facilities, in the tradition of a free country, are not always easy.
I think Hon. Members at this point will want to join with me in congratulating officials who were here at the time in the very expeditious and efficient way they took care of the problem and secured the intruder.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POINT OF ORDER
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with reference to a matter that occurred on Friday when I was not present at the Question Period. I think it is quite a serious matter.
In introductory remarks to a question, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) made a completely false statement in what he alleged that I had said. He was asking a question as reported at page 6537 of Hansard about the takeover of Canadian Pacific Air by Pacific Western Airlines. As found at the bottom of the page, the Hon. Member said:
-on April 14 I was told by the usually pompous Minister of Transport that
there would be few if any jobs lost.
I defy anybody in this House to read the April 14 Hansard or any other source and find anywhere a statement from me that as a result of that takeover there would be few if any jobs lost.
I was asked a question by the Member of Parliament for York South-Weston and I made no statement about the number of jobs to be lost, as you will see, Sir, if you look at the page. I was asked a second question on April 14 by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). All I said about the number of employees that might be laid off is this:
However, there has been no indication that any number of the size to which
the Hon. Member is referring are to be laid off.
That being 3,000. There is no similarity between that and saying there will be few if any jobs lost, Mr. Speaker.
I submit that we should not continue to allow Members asking questions in this House to make completely false statements leading up to the questions they ask, such as occurred last Friday with the Hon. Member for York South- Weston. Whether it was deliberate or not, I am not in a position to say, although surely he could have checked the record to see what I had actually said.
The continuation of these kinds of wrongful allegations of what are supposed to be facts and the asking of questions on their basis should be stopped. I would ask you to make an example of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston, unless he wants to bear his breast and agree that no such statements were ever made by me and promises to be more careful in the future with respect to the way in which he asks questions.


John V. Nunziata: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the beginning of the Minister's intervention, I did catch the latter part. I only regret that the Minister did not have the common courtesy to ensure that I was in the House to hear all of his submissions.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: Having said that, Mr. Speaker, on Friday I asked a question-
June 1, 1987


John Carnell Crosbie: When I wasn't here.


John V. Nunziata: -with regard to the takeover of Canadian Pacific by Pacific Western Airlines. I asked a question a number of weeks ago with regard to the number of lay-offs. I was basing the question I asked on an internal confidential memo from a high-ranking official in the Department. In that particular memo it indicated that up to 3,000 jobs could be lost as a result of the takeover. That is 25 per cent of the combined workforce. The Minister stood up in the House and he denied that that number of jobs would be lost. He suggested that I was basing my question on opinion rather than fact. I presented the memorandum to him.
A week later, a second memo came from the Department, this time the memo said there would be few if any jobs lost. I am sorry I do not have the file with me, Mr. Speaker, to give you further information. But the exact quote is "Few if any jobs would be lost". I believe it was Martha Hynna in the Department who wrote that particular memo. I accepted that few if any jobs would be lost. Then we learned on Friday from the president of the new airline that up to 1,900 jobs would be lost.
I looked at the facts and I tried to understand what was going on. We had one memo that said 3,000 jobs were to be lost, another that said few if any. It became obvious to me that the Minister and his Government did not know what they were doing when they endorsed and allowed the takeover to occur.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister has raised a point in which his complaint is that the Hon. Member for York South- Weston (Mr. Nunziata) in the preamble to a question in effect made allegations as to things which the Minister said or did not say at another time. He claims that the Member from York South-Weston has his facts wrong. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston was not able to be here for the opening minute of the Minister's remarks, but has risen and in his defence says that he is not satisfied with various answers that have been coming from the Minister's Department.
I understand that the Hon. Minister's complaint is one in which he would ask that Hon. Members be careful at least when referring to what he, the Minister, has said. I am sure that all Hon. Members would want to do that.
However, we are here arguing a dispute over facts. It is not, in the view of the Chair, a question of privilege or, even under these circumstances at least, a question of order. I would, however, ask the Hon. Member for York South-Weston to consider, and I know he will consider, that the Minister's complaint is one voiced by Members on both sides of the Chamber from time to time with respect to remarks made by others. I am sure we will all try to work diligently to be sure that we have good research on the facts before a statement is made. I think that closes off the matter.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which is this. I was quoted in Hansard at page 6537 on Friday by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston who said:
Point of Order-Mr. Crosbie -I was told by the usually pompous-
I do not care about that.
-Minister of Transport that there would be few if any jobs lost.
The facts, as anyone who looks at Hansard can see, is that I did not say "few if any jobs lost". The Member is making a false statement about what I said and nothing could be more serious to a Member of this House. Now the Member does not choose to withdraw that when I point out I did not say this. He chooses to go on with some convoluted argument about how he saw a memo, he saw this and he saw that. But, he never heard me say that there would be few if any jobs lost. I am not prepared to put up with being misquoted deliberately like that.
The hon. gentleman has uttered a falsehood about what I said in the House. He makes it clear today that he made that statement knowingly and willingly. He was lying to the House when he made the statement. That is my position and I will not be satisfied with anything less than the hon. gentleman stating that I did not state what I did not state.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member for York South- Weston (Mr. Nunziata) would want to address the Chamber.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) should use such unparliamentary language in trying to make his point.


Jack Wendele Shields: You're regrettable. We all regret the day you arrived. You brought the level down like you wouldn't believe.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You charged the Chair now, you better be quiet.


John V. Nunziata: I would-


Mr. Speaker:: I think Hon. Members ought to listen carefully to the interventions that have been made. The Hon. Minister's complaint, which I do not think is a question of privilege, was that the Hon. Member made some comment in a preamble that indicated that the Hon. Minister had said something or not said something on a previous occasion. The Hon. Member has risen and in partial explanation at least said that he had different versions from the Department. These are questions of fact.
If the Hon. Member for York South-Weston would like to assist the Chamber by saying that of course he did not intend any deliberate misinterpretation of the Minister, that would probably be helpful. At the same time, the Minister might also indicate that he is quite prepared to withdraw the charge that the Hon. Member is deliberately lying. If I could have both those positions taken, it might end the matter at least with some dignity.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, if I could explain the question I asked on Friday, I was faced with a number of facts which can

June 1, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Crosbie
be substantiated by way of memoranda from the Department-


Mr. Speaker:: I might say to the Eton. Member for York South-Weston that I think the Chair has fully appreciated the Elon. Member's argument and I think the Hon. Member has put his case as well as it can be put.
I am suggesting that the Hon. Member make clear that he did not mean that the Minister had in any way intentionally misled, and he might even go so far as to say that on that particular day that is not what the Minister said, as the Minister has read from Hansard and that is clear. At the same time, it might be very appropriate if the Minister would say under the circumstances that he might be prepared to withdraw any suggestion that the Hon. Member has intentionally misled the House.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, if I might have the opportunity, I know it is against parliamentary rules to suggest either directly or indirectly that a Member is either lying or deliberately misleading the House. If I might explain, I was basing the question I asked on several written memoranda from the Department. In view of the fact that the Minister speaks for the Government and is responsible for his Department, the Minister should assume responsibility for what happens in his Department.
Having said that, I will withdraw unequivocally any suggestion, either directly or indirectly, that the Minister intentionally misled the House. If anything, the Minister is guilty of gross negligence and of not knowing his dossier.


Mr. Speaker:: The statement of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston is quite clear. There is no suggestion that the Minister has in any way intentionally misled the House. His explanation for having said what he said is that he had in mind a number of different responses or at least alleged different responses. Under the circumstances, I would hear from the Hon. Minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, first I suppose I want to observe the rules of the House, so I withdraw what 1 said about the Hon. Member in the interests of observing the rules of the House. However, this is a most serious matter. If we cannot trust what other Members are saying that we said when we are not in this House, as I was not in the House on Friday, then this House will deteriorate to a completely hopeless situation. This will happen if we cannot trust another Member to treat us decently, properly, honourably and accurately when we are not present in the House.
On April 14, I never said, nor have I at any time said, as I am quoted as having said, that there would be few if any jobs lost. To have an Hon. Member introduce a question by saying
that is to permit a false statement to be made, a statement which the Member knows is false, and there is no point in saying that he read a memo from somewhere else.
By the way, the memo of which he speaks is a memo from the Department of Employment and Immigration, not a memo from my Department. It-has nothing to do with ministerial responsibility. One Member of the House has falsely said that I said certain things in the House I did not say.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Minister to graciously accept that the Chair has heard the complaint. I have treated the complaint as serious. It is not the first time it has been heard and probably it will not be the last, but the Hon. Member has gone a long way toward putting his point in a satisfactory position as far as the Chair is concerned.
The Hon. Minister has properly withdrawn that one word which is not acceptable. The Hon. Minister has also pointed out, and the Minister's word is accepted in this place, that he did not say what the Hon. Member thought he had said or claimed he had said.
I am not for one minute diminishing the seriousness of preambles or, for that matter, responses which put words in someone else's mouth, whether it be sometimes intentionally, and sometimes without intention to do much harm, but perhaps some mischief. In any event, the matter has been heard and I really do not think that the Chair can go any further in the case. There are withdrawals on both sides and that is where the Chair wishes it to be left. The Chair is very cognizant of the matter the Hon. Minister has raised and has listened to both sides carefully. I thank both Hon. Members for their interventions.


John Carnell Crosbie: In deference to you, Your Honour, I will accept that, but that is only in deference to your good self.
It is a disgrace, a damnable disgrace.


John V. Nunziata: Go home, John.


Jack Wendele Shields: You're a sick man. You lowered the level of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members to assist the Chair. It is for the Chair to settle these matters. They are not assisted by comments made afterward. All of us in this place have at times cause or at least think we have cause to say things that perhaps afterwards we would not have said in quite the same way.
I think all Hon. Members realize that the Chair's task is to hear and to admonish if necessary and hopefully to obtain withdrawals when necessary. In the Chair's view, that has been done. I am sure all Hon. Members would be more careful.
June 1, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLellan:
That this House condemn the Government for its repeated failures to protect Canadian sovereignty and economic independence as demonstrated by its weak and ineffectual efforts to oppose Opinion 256 of the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with regard to transmission costs of Canadian gas, and by its compliant approach to permitting foreign takeovers of Canadian corporations and natural resources.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House rose at 1 p.m., there were six minutes remaining in the question and comment period following the speech of the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). The Hon. Member had the floor. I am sure he will make his comments brief if possible to allow as many Members as possible to ask questions.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, you can trust my good judgment in that matter.
I was just in the process of answering the question of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan). It was a two-part question, the first being what responsibility the federal Government has in the recent decision taken in the United States. He inferred that the amount of foreign investment coming into Canada was detrimental and asked me to comment on that. This morning I used the example of the minority purchase of Husky by Mr. Lee's company from Hong Kong. That was very upbeat in the oil industry in western Canada because along with that purchase $1 billion of new investment money was committed to develop Amauligak in the Beaufort. That is very important to the energy security of this country and the psychology of the oil industry in western Canada because of the downturn in oil prices world-wide and the recovery which is now taking place.
Investment in the oil sands was commenced with what they called at the time the Great Canadian Oil Sands, a wholly-owned company formed in Canada but owned by Sun Oil of Philadelphia. Without a nickel of Canadian investment they went in, at great risk to the company, and invested in the oil sands north of Fort McMurray to develop the oil sands plant now known as the Suncor plant. I wonder whether without that foreign investment we would be developing the oil sands as we are today with Syncrude. It was very risky and I think it is acknowledged that Sun Oil very nearly went down because of that investment. It was only the increase in oil prices which allowed it to survive.
With regard to investment, the national energy policy perpetrated on this country, and particularly on western Canada, by the previous Government drove investment out of the country-not only foreign investment, but Canadian
Supply
investment as well. In addition to transferring vast amounts of money from western Canada, which hit the oil industry terribly hard, it contained a back-in provision which actually confiscated property earned by foreign-owned companies. It put us on the same basis as a banana republic. The Member knows how detrimental that policy was to Canada's reputation as a safe place to invest.
The responsibility of the administration of the United States to FERC is exactly the same as that of Energy, Mines and Resources to the National Energy Board. The National Energy Board is a quasi-judicial body. Any Member of this House or any other person may make representations to that body, but its decision is final. We cannot interfere in a legislative sense. The administration of the United States is faced with exactly the same situation with FERC. The Member knows that it was a quasi-judicial body which made the ruling on the charges on transportation of natural gas exports. There is nothing we can do about it in that sense.
The buyers in the United States are extremely concerned about that ruling because it means that the United States is not a safe place to export to since they have changed the rules in the middle of the game. Buyers and consumers in the United States are making representations to their administration. We are following through in the courts. We are telling the producers in western Canada that we will assist them in their court challenges against the United States.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to participate in this debate this afternoon. I was very pleased that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Shields) raised the history of Syncrude. He will remember that when there was difficulty getting the Syncrude project rolling in the mid-1970s the federal Government of the day put up $300 million to enable that project to go forward when the three private sector companies were unable to proceed with it.
We should compare the response of Syncrude and the three companies which are taking part with the response which we got from the Government last fall. Representatives of Syncrude came before the various caucuses of this House and provided an excellent briefing. They pointed out the need for a guarantee agreement in order for the $700 million expansion of Syncrude to go forward is 1987-88.
It is interesting that the Parliamentary Secretary who represents that area was flatly turned down by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) who supposedly had some clout in Alberta affairs. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) claims to have great concern about and interest in the energy industry in Alberta but flatly turned Syncrude down for a guarantee agreement that if the price of oil fell below $15 a barrel during the next few years the Government would guarantee a loan of $175 million.
I do not know how the Government can raise the matter of Syncrude, as the Parliamentary Secretary has done, without hanging its head in shame over that response to Syncrude.

June 1, 1987
Supply
Syncrude has an expansion program proceeding which would boost its production from about 130,000 barrels a day to about 150,000 barrels a day. That opens the door to a doubling of production in the 1990s. The Alberta Government has already provided an $85 million pre-engineering study on the feasibility of major expansion in the 1990s beyond that expansion which is already going forward.
It was interesting just before Christmas to hear the Parliamentary Secretary taking the rap, so to speak, for the decision by the Government of Canada not to encourage the development of the tar sands in the Athabasca area. It is especially revealing of the callous, hard-nosed approach of the Government that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister, both of whom are integrally involved in that development, were both turned down by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Edmonton Journal editorial on January 6, 1987, put it very succinctly. The headline reads: "Ottawa denies energy security", and the editorial states:
In refusing to extend federal loan guarantees for the expansion of the Syncrude plant, Energy Minister Marcel Masse has made a liar out of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
Only six weeks ago, the prime minister guaranteed more federal attention and money to develop oil sands projects in Alberta. "We plan to do much more", he said in Calgary. "Syncrude is an important element of security of supply for Canada. The federal Government has provided some relief, some substantial relief, but it is not enough in a time of collapsing prices internationally".
Perhaps the House recognizes the superlative tone that the Prime Minister always uses. Canadians are becoming very conscious of that.
The editorial in The Edmonton Journal of January 6 goes on to state:
This is the government that refused to honour a long-standing commitment to the Husky Oil upgrader at Lloydminster.
Most important, it would have been an act of good faith, an indication that- -the Government-
-was sincere when he promised, in July 1984, to make the West "a full and equal partner in Canadian Confederation".
1 am sure that the Government's decision not to provide additional assistance, support, or even comfort to the Syncrude project was partly responsible for the formation of a new right wing Party in Vancouver this past weekend. There are many Tories from Alberta who just cannot stomach the current Prime Minister and his energy policies in the West.
The Calgary Herald published an equally succinct editorial on January 6, 1987. It states:
If any additional evidence were needed that Marcel Masse is in over his head as Canada's energy minister, surely Ottawa's refusal to help the Syncrude expansion project is it.
Given Masse's myopia about long-term security of supply, Ottawa's refusal is hardly surprising. Sadly, it is what Albertans have come to expect from a government that seems to value petty, arrogant attitudes from a man who demonstrates little grasp of the complexities of the important portfolio he has been given.
A further editorial written by Geoff White, on January 9, three days later, contains the headline: "Syncrude snub fits policy". He goes on to state:
In the summer of 1985, the federal government gave Petro-Canada $1.6 billion in borrowing authority to take over Gulf Canada's refinery and retail assets- on the say-so of only four ministers.
If Mulroney and Mazankowski had truly been determined to give help, it would have been given. Athabasca MP Jack Shields to offer himself as the whipping boy for Ottawa's decision is amusing, but irrelevant.
It is laughable, to say the least, for the Hon. Member for Athabasca to give the Syncrude project as the Government's indication of a competent energy policy.
The motion before the House states:
That this House condemn the Government for its repeated failures to protect Canadian sovereignty and economic independence as demonstrated by its weak and ineffectual efforts to oppose Opinion 256 of the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, with regard to transmission costs of Canadian gas, and by its compliant approach to permitting foreign takeovers of Canadian corporations and natural resources.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources talked about the Government's commitment to increasing Canadian ownership. He referred to an increase from 42 per cent to 48 per cent and suggested that this was due to greater Canadian development. However, when one examines that increase closely, it will be evident that most of it relates to the takeover of the Gulf Oil Company of the United States by Petro-Canada and the Reichmann brothers. Of course, Petro-Canada required a commitment of over $1 billion by the federal Government and the Reichmann brothers required the Little Egypt Bump tax adjustment for which the federal Government essentially provided all of the funding. While the Government may suggest that its policies are dramatically increasing Canadian ownership, the fact is that it is primarily because of that transaction.
The Minister spoke about the reduction of the petroleum gas revenue tax under the Tory energy policy, but did not mention that that tax was removed after great duress, when the Tories almost lost a by-election in western Canada. Furthermore, the Petroleum Incentives Program grants which were essentially funded through the PGRT were cut off in the spring of 1986, but the PGRT was reluctantly removed only in the fall of 1986, after a great deal of pressure from the Government of Alberta. Therefore, the gains in Canadian ownership are not particularly spectacular.
Let us consider Dome Petroleum. While there is substantial foreign ownership, it is operated by Canadians. Amoco has not shown great interest in increasing Canadian ownership and we see its proposed takeover as being another step in the Government's general approach to the Prime Minister's policy outlined in the fall of 1984 when he told the Economic Club in New York that Canada was open for investment and takeover. Obviously, that is what we see and that is the reason for the motion before us today.
Last week, Mr. Stacey appeared before the committee. It was interesting to note that he suddenly announced that Amoco would sell shares to Canadians. We do not have an
June 1, 1987

indication of the number of shares, but the announcement that some shares will be sold to Canadians is probably part of the smoke and mirrors approach to this issue.
The Minister mentioned that he met with Amoco officials and obviously put some pressure on them due to the uproar in the country about the takeover of Dome, one of our largest oil and gas producers. Furthermore, it has already been publicized that the officials already met with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre).
We also know that the free trade negotiations have an effect on this takeover bid. The Government is aware that if it attempts to change the successful bidder for Dome to a Canadian company, it could be disastrous in the free trade negotiations. That has been the story of our lives for the last two years in Canada. Every decision by the Government is coloured by those free trade negotiations.
The Government's policy when it came to power in the fall of 1984 was to create "jobs, jobs, jobs". Canadians did not realize what this slogan really meant until the spring of 1986 when the energy industry collapsed. Not only did people in western Canada lose jobs, Canadians throughout the country lost jobs, whether off the East Coast, as a result of the cutback in drilling with the elimination of the PIP grants, whether it is in the high Arctic in the oil and gas exploration, or in industries of Ontario like Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie. Some 20,000 jobs were lost in Alberta.
The former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said there would be some 200,000 jobs in the oil and gas industry, which was the engine of growth for development in Canada. The new Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, when he came to power last summer, said that the whole energy industry was really a highly capital intensive industry and we could not really expect it to create very many jobs. He also said that it really was not an engine of growth. I think that is very revealing. He is bringing in a whole new government policy with regard to job creation in relation to the economic engine of growth. He seemed to even suggest, with regard to being self-sufficient in energy, that even though we had achieved it in the first half of this decade, we should not really be looking toward Canadian self-sufficiency until the end of this decade. I think those are really sad indications. We have certainly seen this compliant approach with respect to the Patent Act, softwood lumber and in the takeover by Amoco. We see that every deal has to be made with the idea in the back of our mind that the free trade negotiations are paramount compared to everything else that is going on in the country.
Clearly the $22 billion of investment from June of 1985 to December of 1986, is not investment which is going to create many new jobs. When we look closely at it, we see that 95 per cent is simply the taking over of Canadian companies so that the decisions are made in Houston, Dallas, Washington,
Supply
Cleveland and New York rather than in Calgary, Edmonton, Regina or Winnipeg.
I think this whole open-door approach does not necessarily mean many jobs. I would be interested to know from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, when the shakedown occurs, if the Amoco deal does go ahead, just exactly how many of those jobs which are currently held by people working in Dome will be lost. Will a third or a quarter of the jobs be lost to Canadians? I think that is really important.
The President of Amoco has indicated that it is going to offer shares to Canadians. I would be interested to know just what per centage that would be, whether it would be able to give Investment Canada a target of the number of jobs or the per centage of Canadian ownership it would be looking at in the first few years. Those are the kinds of answers the Government should be asking for from Amoco if the deal is allowed to go ahead.
The second part of the motion before the House today deals with the decision by the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It is a decision which has far-reaching implications.
The ruling does not just apply to Canadian gas but surely will spread to all exported gas and will involve cut-backs in the returns to Canadian natural gas producers between $140 million and $400 million. If we put that into perspective, it looks as though an extremely sizeable amount of funding will be lost to Canadians for oil and gas exploration during the next few years. From that point of view, I think the Government should be looking at the possibility of bringing legislation into this House under the National Energy Act or whatever statute it can so that we can enforce upon President Reagan and the United States administration, and clearly upon the U. S. Federal Regulatory Commission that we are a sovereign nation, that we do not like the Americans imposing their laws in an extraterritorial manner on Canadian citizens and Canadian companies with respect to an industry which is already suffering from the Western Accord, which is totally inadequate to deal with the kind of drop in price we saw last year.
The big multinationals are taking their piece of pie from distribution and refining, and at the oil and gas exploration and development level people are really hurting. I think we should not have this additional imposition of an American regulatory system taking away Canadian jobs.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). I would like to ask him a number of questions. First, when will members of the Opposition understand or acknowledge that the National Energy Board of Canada is a quasi-judicial body which acts independently of this House of Commons by an Act of the House of Commons? In other words, no one can direct the National Energy Board to make a decision as to regulatory situations under its jurisdiction on oil and natural gas in Canada. Comparable to the National Energy Board is the

June 1, 1987
Supply
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the United States, commonly known as FERC. FERC, like the NEB is a quasi-judicical body, which is not accountable, in the same way as the National Energy Board is not accountable, to the administration in the United States for its decisions.
My good friend, the Hon. Member for Algoma, asks when the Government is going to pass legislation-and listen to this carefully, Madam Speaker-in this House of Commons to overrule the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the United States, in other words, a ruling which is made in the United States with its regulatory board on the transport of natural gas, which disallows federal producers in western Canada or gas producers to pass the transportation costs on to the user in the United States, thus interfering-and we acknowledge that it interferes-with our regulatory commission here.
When will the Opposition understand that we have made all sorts of representations to the federal administration and that we are also encouraging the producers in western Canada to take the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to court? I understand there is a court case in process. When will the Opposition understand that the consumers and buyers in the United States are as concerned as we are because they feel that it demeans the United States position in the world trade market?
The Hon. Member also interprets the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as saying that energy is not a job creation activity. I am sure that the Hon. Member would not want to leave a misconception with Members of the House that the Minister of Energy (Mr. Masse) said that energy should not be treated as a job-creation project. Energy should be treated as a national priority and projects should not go ahead just to create jobs. I think that is sensible.
I want to repeat once more something about investment in western Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member may want to allow the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) to answer some of his questions. One half of the 10-minute question and comment period has already elapsed.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker-


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is clear in the Standing Orders that this time can be used to ask questions or to make comments. While I had the floor I thought that I would be able to continue with my last question, which was a very short one.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think the Hon. Member will understand that earlier when there were six minutes left in the question and comment period the Hon. Member took up the whole period of time. In all fairness at this point in time, now that more than half the time of the
question and comment period has elapsed, I think it would be only fair to allow the Hon. Member for Algoma to answer some of the questions raised.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear the Parliamentary Secretary not take responsibility for this debacle with respect to the decision of the United States regulatory agency. Last fall, when the Government refused to provide assistance to Syncrude, the Parliamentary Secretary became the fall guy and took full responsibility for that. We have not seen such a charade repeated here today. But we have heard the Government say that it is helpless and that it really cannot do anything. The Prime Minister wrote a desperate letter just a matter of hours before he went to Red Deer to stand in front of the television cameras and in front of the oil rig to say that he had written to the President of the United States asking him to take action on this upcoming FERC decision.
What I think is important for the Parliamentary Secretary to remember is that we are a sovereign nation. We can pass laws concerning the National Energy Board or other legislation applicable to Canadian producers of natural gas.


Jack Wendele Shields: Like the national energy policy.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I assume the Hon. Member believes in having the National Energy Board. The board has the ability to establish prices and rates.
It was a matter of a few weeks after the Government abandoned the border pricing mechanism that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission moved in to disallow a good portion of the transportation charges which formed part of a signed agreement. I am sure the Government has not even inquired yet about the possibility of bringing in legislation under the National Energy Board Act to strengthen our position with respect to the $400 million which essentially stole away the entire funds allocated for exploration and development about which the Government made a lot of ballyhoo. It said that it would bring in a program of incentives for exploration and development which would cost $350 million. It did this after the Premier of Alberta threatened to split the federal and provincial Parties. If he had done that it would have been split three ways. I say that because part of the Party out in Vancouver is forming a new political Party, and then we have the provincial PC Party and the federal-


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My hon. friend has digressed considerably from answering anything on the energy question. He is now starting to talk about political Parties. I think that if he is going to answer the question, he should do so. He should not waste the time of the House.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I was just pointing out that the exploration development program which was requested last fall was only brought in by the Government when the Premier
June 1, 1987

of Alberta threatened to split the federal and provincial wings of the Tory Party.


Jack Wendele Shields: Not true.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The amount of money in that program is being totally wiped out by the decision of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Some $400 million will be wiped off the books, charged back to the oil and gas exploration companies in Alberta. The net effect will be zero. Not only should the Government bring in useful programs such as this, but it is also important that when it is setting the border reference price and adopting policies they not be used in such a way that the United States takes away $400 million worth of the Canadian Government's benefits.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I have listened to some amazing debate in the House of Commons since my election. However, I must say that the most amazing that I have heard yet was the speech made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) this morning who tried to defend his completely indefensible, completely inconsistent and completely unsuccessful policy with respect to the natural gas industry.


Jack Wendele Shields: Where does the NDP stand on natural gas exports?


Steven W. Langdon: I will come to that.
I have just come back from Edmonton from a meeting with our NDP caucus out there. The last time that I was there-


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the Hon. Member would not want to mislead the House. He said that he met with the NDP provincial caucus. There is not a New Democratic Party in Alberta. Members of the Party call themselves NDs, although I do not know what that means.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. I do not think that the Hon. Member really wanted to interrupt-


Jack Wendele Shields: That was a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It was not a point of order.


Jack Wendele Shields: Let him be accurate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member's point of order is consistent with his usual points of order.
The last time I met with the New Democratic Party caucus in Alberta, Ray Martin and I sat down for coffee. This time, of course, there was a roomful of people. There was a very solid opposition being mounted during Question Period. In short, it
Supply
was the death knell of the Conservative Government in Alberta. One must say that that is long overdue.
We have had today, in view of what is taking place in Alberta, a most amazing performance by the Minister of Energy. When I grew up Alberta was noted throughout Canada for its prosperity. Now, they tell me, there are over 30,000 people dependent on food banks in the City of Edmonton alone. Unemployment is among the highest in the prairie provinces. There is a sense of grievance and unhappiness with a Government which simply cannot work its way to succeeding, even with a fellow Conservative Government in Ottawa, in obtaining changes to benefit Alberta.
I might say parenthetically that one of the subjects we discussed was the two-year battle of the Alberta Government to try to get changes in the IRDP. This effort included letters from Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Jim Horsman and the Parliamentary Secretary from Lethbridge, yet no significant changes were brought about. For the Cities of Edmonton, Calgary, Lethbridge and the regions surrounding them, which are so important to the growth of Alberta, this meant they were unable to get access to the IRDP. That program was set up for the poorer parts of the country facing the kind of downturn Alberta has faced over the last couple of years.
With that as the background, it was with a sense of tragedy, a sense of the inevitable increase in growth of western alienation and active opposition to the federal Government, as well as the inevitable increase in damage to the people of Alberta, that I listened to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources speak this morning. There was such an incredible lack of knowledge on his part. I must say he was a fine Minister of Communications, but he is a lousy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. When he gets up in the House and says 57 per cent of the shares of Dome Petroleum are not owned by Canadians so it is not a Canadian company, he is either trying deliberately to mislead the House, which I could not believe such a cultured Minister would do, or he is trying to demonstrate his lack of knowledge. Control is exercised by far less than even the 43 per cent of Dome which is held in Canadian hands.
The Minister then started to quote from The Toronto Sun. If that was the ultimate that the Minister could come up with as his source of expertise on the petroleum industry of Alberta, it shows where he is. It shows us how much impact the Members from Alberta have had on him. He quoted from The Toronto Sun, that paragon of energy expertise, and indicated what he was concerned about was what the The Toronto Sun referred to as the poorer offers for Dome Petroleum as a result of any intervention which might stop the Amoco takeover. Of course what was being talked about in the House, and has been for so many days that I would think even The Toronto Sun would have absorbed it, was the suggestion of a Canadian consortium being put together to buy Dome. If necessary it could have been led by PetroCan or TCPL. That would leave

June 1, 1987
Supply
control of Dome very much in Canadian hands. Obviously to satisfy the creditors it would have to provide a better offer than Amoco has been able to provide. That offer was laughed out of court not just by the creditors here in Canada but by Citibank in the U.S.
First we have this bizarre lack of knowledge by the Minister, then an incredible lack of consistency. How many days did we have to sit here in the House and listen to him saying, "No, this is a private sector decision and is not something the Government can get involved in"? How many days? How many weeks? Yet what did he do? He sat down with Amoco. He was not the only cabinet Minister to do that. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) did so. I am sure there were others. As a consequence, suddenly the "No, we cannot possibly get involved", became "yes, we should try to make our influence felt". As a result, the Minister claims credit this morning for Amoco agreeing out of the goodness of its heart to offer some shares to Canadians. A majority of shares? Even 43 per cent? Any kind of specific figure? No, nothing. Not a single detail. Yet we could be sure of ourselves in the future because Amoco was going to offer some of its shares, 5 per cent, 2 per cent, to Canadians. An act of total inconsistency.
When you are faced with a lack of knowledge and lack of consistency, what you do is attack. You attack a 1979 resolution by the NDP passed at the height of the world energy shortage, a resolution which talked about reducing or phasing out the kinds of gas exports-


Jack Wendele Shields: Let's hear it now.


Steven W. Langdon: -that had taken place in the past. As if that had anything to do with the policies of the NDP in 1987.


Jack Wendele Shields: It has everything to do with it.


Steven W. Langdon: It is exactly the same as if the former Prime Minister, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), stood up today and made a speech extolling the virtues of the agreement he made with the Premier of Alberta or had hoped to make with the Premier of Alberta concerning sharing gas revenues in 1979. That agreement led to not only the Premier of Alberta but a good many other Canadians rejecting that Prime Minister. Of course, as a consequence, the policies of the Conservative Party have vastly changed since 1979.
What do we have aside from this sorry record on Dome? It is bad enough; I mean it is bad enough to make any Parliament look in derision at a Minister of Energy who tries to defend himself with that kind of nonsense. In addition, we have the ruling by FERC, order No. 256. What it means is much more serious damage to the Alberta economy than has yet been done by the Conservative Government.
Perhaps it would be useful to quote, not from The Toronto Sun, but from The Financial Post which has a little more
knowledge in respect of energy issues. This article is from January, 1987. This issue did not suddenly rear its head last week. It has been around for some time. I have clippings of the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) talking about it over a year ago. It is an issue with which the Government has failed to deal. The Financial Post indicated:
As with lumber, where the U.S. said because Canada doesn't charge stumpage the way it does we have to change, so with gas; calculate demand charges the way U.S. says and then Canadian gas will be less competitive in the American market.
The Financial Post went on to say:
The gall of this stance is breath-taking. It was because of American bleatings that we deregulated gas pricing three years ago and let the market prevail. On this new basis, Canadian producers have signed contracts with American users. The sanctity of contracts freely entered into-an essential element of the enterprise system so staunchly upheld by most Americans-seems to mean nothing to FERC and its U.S. applicants.
What has happened is that 33 cents out of every 50 cents of demand charges which could previously be placed, not because Canadian companies established it as law but because American companies had signed contracts, must be dropped or these exports will not be possible in the future.
What are we heading toward? Frankly I think we are heading toward a situation where we have a Government in place which has proved itself to be incompetent on virtually every trade issue which has faced it.
We could talk about softwood. I quoted figures in Question Period earlier today which showed the Canadian market share. It is the market share which matters. The market share has declined by almost 3 per centage points from the same time last year.
We could talk about fish and the position into which Canadian producers on the East Coast were put where they have had to pay countervail on fish.
We could talk about shakes and shingles where we had the case of retaliation brought in by the Canadian Government, which proved to be not just totally ineffective in doing anything about the shakes and shingles levies but totally destructive in respect of the Canadian publishing industry.
We could talk about hogs and the case of Canadian farmers across the country who are still faced with levies which they must pay on hogs. If the levies do not work, U.S. states put into effect so-called health restrictions which stop hogs from crossing the border. Those health restrictions will be there just as FERC will be there regardless of whether or not there is free trade.
We could talk about grain and the fact that the United States has as a result of its Farm Bill put policies into effect which devastated farm communities in my county and in the counties of hundreds of other Members.
We cannot find a single place in which the trade policy of the Government has worked. There is not a single, solitary example of the Government's trade policy working for Canadians.
June 1, 1987


Mr. Keeper:: It is working for the Americans.


Steven W. Langdon: As my colleague says, our trade policy has been to make things right for Americans, not to protect Canadian producers.
Frankly, in each case we have had to give up, to give in to the United States, to give it what it wanted. The reason for that is absolutely clear-cut. It lies in the desperate effort of the Government to try to achieve a free trade agreement at any price or at any cost, with any sacrifice and with any loss to Canadian people, regardless of what happens to Canada. It is a process which has been getting worse and worse as Parliament has gone on. It is a process which should not even be in place. If any of the promises made by President Reagan at the Quebec Summit to ensure that there was not a single step taken by the United States to increase protectionism against Canada had meant anything aside from rhetoric, none of this would have happened. In every case, and I omit none, the trade position of the Government has created a worse position for Canada than when we started out.
In the case of FERC, frankly there are things we can do. For instance, we should raise the whole question in the free trade talks. We should also look very carefully at whether legislation is possible on our side of the border which would prevent this American incursion of their laws and regulations into our jurisdiction. If the Government said it was looking at that, I would accept that at least it was doing something for Canadians. As it stands, I can see nothing at all being done.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I have a short question for the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). He went to a great deal of effort to explain that the NDP policy on natural gas exports is no longer Party policy and that it now has a new policy which says that reasonable export of natural gas should take place. How can the Member square this with the October 1986 Resolutions Reference? Let me quote from the New Democrats 1986 Resolutions Reference. It reads:
This book contains those resolutions passed by the New Democrats since 1961
which are still current today. That is, resolutions which have not been
overtaken by events-
The introduction states that these resolutions "are still current today". We have the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), who is the Energy critic, saying the particular resolution is no longer valid because it was passed at the time of the energy crisis. How can the New Democrats square this when it is pointed out to them that the introduction to the Resolutions Reference goes on to state that these are resolutions which have not been overtaken by events?
The Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway stated on Friday that New Democratic Party policy is that there should be reasonable natural gas exports. I am not sure what that means. He may not have the authority-maybe the Hon.
Supply
Member for Essex-Windsor can confirm this-to make such a commitment. The New Democratic Party constitution calls for policy statements to be consistent with resolutions passed by NDP conventions.
Is the Member for Essex-Windsor saying that really this has been passed by an NDP convention, it is on the books as policy but that Members of the caucus in the House of Commons can negate what went on at the convention? Are they saying they can change the policy unilaterally? That is not the way their papers read. Perhaps the Member from Essex-Windsor could clarify that position.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I must say it is amusing to hear such comments coming from a Party led by a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who in 1983 stated that he was opposed to free trade-


Jack Wendele Shields: Answer the question.


Steven W. Langdon: -that free trade would lead to a situation where branch plants in Canada would leave Canada, where Canadian jobs would be drastically threatened and, as a result, his Party should never espouse, promote or push for free trade with the United States.
Times change, I suppose, in the Conservative Party. They seem to change a little bit faster than most and for less clear cut reasons.


Jack Wendele Shields: He won't answer.


Steven W. Langdon: With respect to our Party, I can certainly answer because I was chairperson of our policy review committee at the time that those policies to which the Hon. Member referred were passed. I continue to maintain that the thrust of the resolutions which were passed in that resolutions convention and were passed in resolutions conventions that we have held each two years since 1961 will form important considerations and the basic thrusts of what we would want to do as the Government of this country. I am certainly not going to say that each and every detail of such policy resolutions is as deathless in its prose as it was at the time.
What is crucial is that there was a commitment to our energy policy which was passed at that time to try to see to it that Canadians came first, and that commitment is as clear-cut as it was in 1979. It is a commitment which would lead us, as I have suggested with respect to Amoco, to take a completely different policy than this Government did. With respect to gas exports it would also lead us to take a completely different approach. For instance, we have been much more concerned about many of the small scale gas producers-


Jack Wendele Shields: Answer the question.


Steven W. Langdon: -which have been locked in by previous Governments' positions. Our position would be to try to open up both the Canadian market, and where the Canadian market is secure, other markets, such as the United States, to potential export from those small producers so that they too could gain

June 1, 1987
Supply
many of the benefits, and Alberta could gain many of the jobs and spin-offs which would exist and which are not at the present time being obtained.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I think everyone who listened carefully to the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor realizes that the NDP has a convenient policy which it enunciates because it can be a different policy in Saskatchewan, in Alberta and in British Columbia, the gas-producing parts of the country, from the one it enunciates here.
The Member also states, and I think it is utter rubbish, that the NDP would move to enhance or increase the consumption of natural gas in Canada and then maybe export gas. We are doing that. The Member knows full well about the National Energy Board's rulings and the reserves that have to be in place. We have a formula and we have been following it.
I think people will read through the NDP socialist garbage and claptrap that comes consistently, which I call NDP or socialist misspeak. What about his idea of a consortium to buy Dome led by Petro-Canada-and that is key because the socialists believe in state ownership of all enterprises in Canada whether the production of shoes or the production of oil and natural gas? What'we are talking about is a bail-out of a company which is virtually insolvent or is considered to be insolvent or bankrupt. The Government has to bail out a company that has the problem it has today because of the National Energy Program perpetrated on Canada by the previous Government and, I might add, supported by the New Democratic Party, the socialists. The New Democrats may say that they voted against the NEP, but we all know that the Energy critic, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway, rose in this House and said "We shouldn't be going after PetroFina with Petro-Canada, we should nationalize one of the big boys, Esso". I think those were virtually his words. He will correct me if I am wrong.
1 would ask the Member to elaborate on that because the Minister has been very clear in this House. He has been very clear in any speeches he has made and in every statement, that it was a private sector problem brought on by the National Energy Program which got Dome into trouble. It was a private sector solution, until the Minister of Energy who recognized the problems we were facing with Dome addressed them, as the previous Government would not, and then all of a sudden Dome received offers for amalgamation from TransCanada PipeLines and from Amoco. They were told ahead of time to make the best offer because the board of directors would make the decision. The federal Government does not own Dome and is not selling Dome. The Dome shareholders, who hold the Dome board of directors responsible, are selling Dome.
The Member asks how many shares of Amoco are going to be made available to the Canadian public. I think the Member honestly said that. He said, how much? Two per cent or 3 per cent? If the Hon. Member is as knowledgeable as he professes to be, he should know that the President of Amoco Canada, Don Stacy, said the following:
What we (Amoco) are committed to do is not have a net decrease in Canadian
ownership (in the oil and gas industry), and in fact have a net increase in
Canadian ownership as we develop this program over time with Investment
Canada and as time allows us to issue shares.
That is the principle involved. There will be no decrease in Canadian ownership on the share issues, and that should be very clear. Why does the Hon. Member not acknowledge that that is what has been said and that that is the commitment that has been made?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments has actually expired, but I will allow the Hon. Member two minutes to answer his colleague.


Jack Wendele Shields: One minute of claptrap.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, there is so much claptrap, as the Hon. Member calls it, in that question that it is difficult to reply quickly. Let me say three things.
First, as the Hon. Member has been told many times, the New Democratic Party did not support the NEP, and especially not its details.


Jack Wendele Shields: I was here, you weren't.


Steven W. Langdon: Yes, but I read the votes and you obviously don't.
Second, the Hon. Member suggested that the NDP program would have everything owned by Government. I assume he has been reading our resolutions books very carefully from the reference he made of them in the debate. Clearly he is telling the House something which is quite false and quite unreflected in those resolutions. We have a commitment to using the state creatively, something which we believe this Government does not do. That is why I suggested that if necessary, Petro-Canada might be the leader of such a consortium.
Finally, with respect to the inconsistency of the Minister, I heard the Minister say for weeks in the House that this is a private sector issue and he would not interfere. Then he interfered. He interfered not to help Canadian companies take over Dome, not to open up the bids for Dome so that more would be provided, but to make certain that an American company would be able to take over this company with greater ease. That is the interference he undertook.


Mr. Bob Porter (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate this afternoon although I am not particularly pleased about the subject matter we are debating. As an Albertan and a small producer in the energy sector, I have listened to this rhetoric with the knowledge that order 256 is certainly causing concern to producers in western Canada. I can say that there are Albertan producers who will probably never get over what happened under the National Energy Program.
June 1, 1987

1 share the sense of injury and frustration which several Hon. Members have expressed over order 256, the ruling made by the American Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Like many others in the House, I am extremely disappointed by that decision.
Order 256 runs counter to the long-term trade interests of Americans as well as Canadians. I think we must look at it from the perspective of Americans as well. Americans will be dependent to a much greater degree on Canadian gas in the very near future than they are at the present time. The order violates a long-standing tradition of mutual respect between Canada and the United States for each other's regulatory approaches and it is a step away from rather than toward the effort both countries are making to adopt a more market-oriented policy in our bilateral trade agreements.
Energy is an important component of our trade relationship with the United States. In 1985, that two-way trade was worth approximately $17 billion. While the dollar value of these exchanges declined to roughly $12 billion in 1986, they remain important to both countries.
I should stress that the worth of our energy trade lies not only in the dollar value associated with it but in the fact that our bilateral exchanges in energy can and should contribute to greater security, efficiency and economy on both sides of the border. Within our bilateral trade, natural gas occupies an important place. In the first 11 months of 1986, natural gas accounted for 25 per cent of the value of total Canadian exports to the United States. Moreover, it is well known that natural gas is a key element in the economy of western Canada.
I think I can speak with some feeling on this subject, representing as I do the City of Medicine Hat which was one of the first areas in western Canada to develop natural gas in the early 1900s. Medicine Hat is known as the gas city of the West. There has been in the past and there will be again street lights in Medicine Hat that are run by natural gas. In the early years, it was cheaper to leave the lights on all the time than it was to hire someone to go around turning those lights out.
The industry that came to Medicine Hat came as a result of the abundance and the price of natural gas. The city now has over 500 gas wells and somewhere in the area of 50 oil wells and is the seventeenth largest producer of natural gas in Canada.
Many Hon. Members are aware of what happened during the time of the National Energy Program. At that time, the City of Medicine Hat faced a variety of taxes. The second increase in the PGRT amounted to more than residential consumers were paying for gas. The City of Medicine Hat took the case to the Supreme Court but lost. Imagine a city of about 43,000 people paying $55 million in federal tax and the devastating effect the National Energy Program had on the industries of that city. As I said, most of the industries came there as a result of the abundant and relatively cheap gas. The National Energy Program affected fertilizer plants, methanol
Supply
plants, brick plants, the forest industry and many other sectors of the economy. They were affected by that one move which was made within the borders of Canada.
Certainly I am upset about what I can see happening across the border and it will cause some hardship. Certainly we should do everything we can to address it, but it will in no way begin to reflect the hurt that was caused by a program drafted by the previous Government, a program for which many Canadians will pay for the rest of their lives in jobs lost and in businesses gone down the drain.
Within the United States market, Canadian natural gas imports have accounted for roughly 4 per cent to 5 per cent in some years and this has been going on for some time. While we clearly do not occupy a dominant position in the American gas market, the American consumer has long benefited from the existence of significant, reliable, competitive supplies of Canadian natural gas.
One of the reasons we find the FERC decision so objectionable is its manifest unfairness. The 1985-86 American consumption of natural gas from all sources declined by 4 per cent. During that same period, Canadian exports declined by 16 per cent. At the very time when we were being lectured on the virtues of the level playing field and the need to ensure open and fair competition, our exports were declining four times faster than the rate at which the market was shrinking. A 16 per cent drop in a market which declined by 4 per cent does not suggest that our exporters enjoyed an unfair competitive advantage.
What does the decision mean and what effect will it have? The House will be aware that the FERC order 256 confirmed on May 27 disallows several major elements of the fixed transportation charges which Canadian exporters previously passed through to their U.S. customers. On May 27, the NOVA charge, which is essentially a transportation cost and had erroneously been disallowed along with several other fixed costs, was reinstated. That means that the impact on Canadian exporters will not be quite as severe as it might have been otherwise. We are still very much of the view, however, that regardless of the financial impact, this decision violates principles which we think are important.
Some of my colleagues have already explained how order 256 will affect Canadian companies involved in exporting natural gas to the United States. Essentially the problem is that if the disallowed cost cannot be recovered in the demand charge it must be added to the commodity component of the rate. That will make Canadian gas less competitive and will most likely lead to a decrease in the importers' gas takes.
In a jurisdictional sense, FERC's decision amounts to imposing its rate-making practices on Canadian pipelines. The fixed costs incurred in Canada for transportation facilities to deliver Canadian gas to U.S. markets on a firm basis and are not structured by Canadian regulators. According to FERC's

June 1, 1987
Supply
preferred rate design, recovery of these costs will no longer be assured.
Another major issue raised relates to the policy. The FERC decision undercuts attempts by both the Canadian and United States Governments to strengthen the market approach to energy trade.
Many in the U.S. administration, I think, understood our position and sympathized with it. Secretary Shultz himself advocated a delay in taking any final action by FERC to allow more time for consideration and review. Unfortunately, FERC, admittedly an independent agency, chose to ignore the request. Instead of taking the long-term view, it let itself be swayed by short-term considerations.
This ruling is part of an unfortunate series of recent decisions affecting major Canadian exports to the United States. We know, and I believe the U.S. administration knows as well, that the protectionist trend which it once again illustrates is as short-sighted as it is regrettable.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) was in Washington on business in December following the announcement of the FERC ruling. He was thus able to raise it immediately with his counterpart. Shortly afterward, at the level of officials, an interdepartmental meeting was held in Ottawa to develop a concerted Canadian response to what was seen as an unfair and discriminatory move against Canadian gas exporters. At this early stage there were extensive consultations with representatives of the Canadian companies involved as well as with the provinces, especially Alberta and British Columbia. On December 18, the Minister wrote to his American counterpart in some detail outlining Canada's serious concerns over the FERC ruling and attaching copies of letters he had received from the Ministers of Energy of the two concerned provinces.
The Minister has already informed the House of the steps which he and his officials took to sensitize the U.S. Department of Energy to the serious implications of order 256 for Canada. I shall, therefore, not dwell on them. However, I will quote from Ambassador Gotlieb's letter to Mr. Wallis, the Under-Secretary for Economic Affairs in the State Department, to which he attached a copy of the letter of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources asking the State Department to bring Canada's concerns to the attention of FERC. The letter reads in part:
FERC's decision denies Canadian exporters the ability to pass through natural gas rates which have been freely negotiated with U.S. consumers and approved by the Economic Regulatory Administration in accordance with the Department of Energy's import guidelines. By disallowing the recovery of legitimate costs in the demand charge related to investments made to service U.S. markets, FERC's decision treats Canadian gas unfairly. Indeed, instead of meeting the Commission's stated objective-"to level the playing field"- FERC's decision, if implemented as it now stands, would actually tilt the playing field against Canadian imports.
The U.S. import policy guidelines announced in 1984 aimed at ensuring that Canadian gas enters the U.S. on a competitive, market-oriented basis to facilitate arrangements which are essential to Canada's remaining a secure and reliable supplier.
For its part, the Canadian Government has adopted market-based policies
which permit Canadian gas to be competitive in U.S. markets.
Placing Canadian gas at a serious disadvantage in U.S. markets, as the FERC
decision does, could in the short term mean the loss of competitively priced
Canadian gas for U.S. consumers.
Those Members who are on the Standing Committee for Energy, Mines and Resources will recall a meeting held on February 10 of this year before which a consortium represented by Polar Gas appeared. It outlined the long-term views of the gas industry as they saw it, not only for North America but broken down into the American and Canadian markets. We have studied the 18-month natural gas bubble which seems to run ahead. It appears to be coming to a close, perhaps sooner than people on both sides of the border may appreciate.
In the summary of the submission which was presented by the Polar Gas consortium on the supply-demand balance they say that it is exceedingly difficult to estimate the annual net effect of the multitude of gas supply and demand factors. Nevertheless, it is clear that the apparent over-supply in the U.S. gas market is unlikely to continue far into the future. Some forecasters foresee a growing need for the United States to obtain additional gas supplies, especially after 1990.
In October, 1985, a comprehensive study of the U.S. gas market by Foster Associates forecast an end of the deliverabili-ty surplus by 1990. A similar forecast was contained in the May, 1986, analysis brief from the American Gas Association. Such forecasts are now receiving broader acceptance.
They go on to say that a technical analysis of the U.S. gas market points clearly to a significant reduction in the delivera-bility surplus over the next few years, and the reduction in the long-term reserves for which there is generally a firm demand will require major imports of supplementary natural gas beginning in the early 1990s. There is also at risk international and domestic energy market dynamics which will result in the supply shortfall developing at a pace faster than is now widely anticipated.
I hope that our counterpart south of the border will appreciate that the gas situation is changing rapidly. We are seeing a decline in the western sedimentary basin. The reserves which will have to be called on in the future will be much more costly. I think that security of supply and fair treatment for traders on both sides of the border should be utmost in the minds of those who are considering decisions such as the one we are presently dealing with.
Canada and the United States have made great progress in improving the basis for natural gas trade in recent years. Legislative and regulatory changes, including positive moves by FERC to deregulate prices and transportation, have contributed to making this trade more market-responsive, thereby benefiting producers and consumers in both our countries. We are hopeful that this constructive approach will continue and that the Canadian concerns relating to FERC's decision will be addressed in the review procedures.
In the meantime the Government was in close touch with and lent every assistance to the Canadian companies and their
June 1, 1987

request for a rehearing of the case by FERC. Our embassy also organized meetings with several of the key players for the Alberta Energy Minister, Mr. Webber, when he travelled to Washington in mid-January to make the case for fairness for western gas exporters.
Ambassador Gotlieb's letter found a responsive chord in the State Department. In January, the State Department wrote to FERC urging it to grant the Canadian companies concerned a rehearing of the case.
The House will recall that on January 21, Vice-President Bush and Secretary of the Treasury Baker visited Ottawa. During that visit, the issue was raised in vigorous terms by the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney).
I will not take up more time of the House in describing every step the Government has taken to defend the interests of Canadian gas exporters, but I want to mention that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) raised this issue twice with the American Secretary of State Shultz, and each time he elicited a supportive reaction on the part of his U.S. counterpart. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) wrote to the Secretary of the Treasury Baker. The issue was raised at the Ottawa Summit and finally, further to these discussions, the Prime Minister wrote to President Reagan on May 5.
The text of the FERC decision was received in Ottawa late last week. Clearly, it will have to be reviewed in detail before we can determine what further steps we may take.
I would not wish to create the impression that prospects for an early, positive outcome are bright. I am able to assure the House, however, that we will continue to do all that lies in our power to achieve a satisfactory result.
The House will be aware that the Canadian producers are challenging the FERC decision in the American courts. We have worked closely with the producers and the provincial Governments concerned for the past six months. We will continue to do so in the future.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that my constituency is not a western constituency or one normally associated with the oil and gas industry. However, I do have a number of companies in my constituency that are very much involved in the oil and gas industry.
In fact, there are major offices in my constituency for Imperial Oil, Texaco, and Shell. In addition, I learned upon coming to Ottawa that there are some 63 different businesses in my constituency-only one of the constituencies in Metropolitan Toronto-that are suppliers to the oil and gas industry in western Canada. Therefore, the future of the oil and gas industry is very significant as far as my riding is concerned and as far as the businesses and jobs in my riding are concerned. Considering those facts, I took advantage of an opportunity to travel to Alberta about two years ago and to tour the oil and gas fields, particularly those around Edmonton
Supply
such as the Cold Lake area and the oil sands. I had an opportunity to see Suncor and Syncrude.
As a matter of fact, I also had the opportunity to get out on the Gulf oil rig in the Beaufort Sea. Therefore, I have a little knowledge of the importance of the oil and gas industry not only to my constituency, but to western Canada and Alberta in particular.
I have had discussions with the Hon. Member and I know that he has very strong opinions about one area of the oil and gas industry but about which he did not have a chance to comment in his remarks. It concerns the impact of Dome on the oil and gas industry in Alberta in particular. He has told me that Dome is involved in 24 per cent of the land permits in Alberta, has some 4,000 employees, but has a debt of some $6.3 billion.
That huge debt and the fact that Dome plays such an active role in the oil and gas industry in Alberta makes it very important to the economy of Alberta. The fact that this huge debt hangs over Dome's head has a stifling effect on the development of the oil and gas industry in Alberta.
Would the Hon. Member comment on that aspect of the control that Dome has over the future of the oil and gas industry in Alberta?


Robert Harold Porter: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) for his question. The Hon. Member raises an important question about the impact on Alberta of a company as large as Dome, which holds so much of the resource potential in Alberta.
When we consider the oil and gas industry, we should take into account that while a lot of drilling activity takes place, a gas well can be drilled in a matter of hours or days and larger gas and oil wells take somewhat longer. The service sector of the industry becomes involved from the beginning, with the land men who make the original deals with the surface lease owner, to the company that supplies the pipes, cement and materials.
In the town of Brooks in my constituency, with a population of just over 9,000, 53 per cent of the jobs are related to the energy sector. Many of those jobs were filled by rural people who may have faced difficulties in agriculture. There has been 16 per cent to 17 per cent unemployment in that area where 53 per cent of the jobs are in the service sector of the oil and gas industry.
I too have travelled to the tar sands and the Beaufort up north. The Hon. Member can appreciate that pulling 25 per cent of the activity from there, without a stable base, will obviously have a tremendous impact on the whole economy of the energy sector in Alberta generally.
When the petroleum and gas revenue tax was in place, the initial tax at the wellhead was 16 per cent. This included dry holes, since one does not strike gas or oil at every hole. A dry hole in the case of a gas well costs $600 less to drill than one in

June 1, 1987
Supply
which gas is discovered, because the dry hole does not need a wellhead.
1 ask the Hon. Member to consider that taking 16 per cent off the top is like taking 16 per cent off the day's take from a store in Ottawa before it pays its expenses or staff. That was the case in the West, and no other industry in the history of Canada faced a similar tax.
While we went through a difficult period, we are seeing a measure of recovery as a result of the announced CED1P program, putting a third of the funding in place for the companies that are willing to explore. Some companies are still hesitant to do so, but the provision of some funding has made it easier for them to seek financing and there is activity in place in southern Alberta and across the West. We are seeing some encouragement in the energy sector, and that is why it is important that we maintain our current markets and develop them for the future. Since we supply 4 per cent to 5 per cent of the American market presently, it will obviously need more gas in the future. That is a reason that Polar Gas was there looking at a large consortium which would bring gas down from the North. The Americans are going to require it, and certainly I would think that any moves they take to make it more difficult at this time is not only going to make it difficult for Canadian producers but will affect their long-term availability of gas.
One cannot just turn on a pipe overnight. It takes time to go out and develop. Anything which brings some concern to the market-place will reflect back to the production end of it. I think we have to be concerned about it and I think the Americans should also be concerned because their future is tied to the North American gas market.
North America, as we all know, shares a gas market. Our imports and exports of oil products are based on world prices. The price for natural gas is based on a North American market and is reflected somewhat, I suppose, on what energy prices world-wide are doing. However, the market board is here, and that is why this is such a sensitive issue and I think it should be viewed very carefully by those who are making this decision.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Madam Speaker, 1 listened with interest to the last spokesperson for the Conservative Party who, once again, was forced to rise to his feet to defend another major incursion into the natural resource field by the actions of another country. I do not doubt for a moment his sincerity and feelings of anguish about the impact on his constituents. However, Madam Speaker, think for a moment how often we have heard that. How many times in the last 18 months to two years have Conservative Members of Parliament been required to rise to their feet in this House, shake their heads, wring their hands and cry: "Woe is me unto the fates" because of some major decision primarily taken by the Reagan administration in- the United States against this country. I can give an example of shakes and shingles, softwood lumber, the import tax on petroleum last fall, and the
fundamental problems we face in agriculture because of the U.S. Farm Bill which is taking away our markets and forcing prices down. How many times have we had to hear attempts to rationalize, to apologize, and to explain why it is that in the last two years, in particular, there have been broader and more extreme restraints put on t our trade with the United States than ever before? The only solutions we have been able to find is when, in the softwood lumber case, we imposed a $600 million tax on ourselves and lost the lumber markets. This all came about after the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States got together in Quebec City and promised there would be a freeze on such actions. They promised there would no longer be these kinds of impediments to our trade. In fact, they went so far as to promise to strengthen our market approach to Canadian-United States energy trade by reducing restrictions, particularly those on petroleum imports and exports.
That was a solemn agreement entered into by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada, but how many times has it been trespassed? How many times have we had transgressions and how many times have we had to suffer the crocodile tears of members of the Government which has willfully allowed it to happen?
The irony is that every time this happens, every time we are faced with one of these blows against our resource sector, we are told that that is another example of why we have to continue trying to work out a better deal with the Americans so they will not do it to us again. As we capitulate and surrender time after time, we are saying: "Well, if we only surrender one more time, perhaps the Americans will not do it again".
You may recall, Madam Speaker, that childhood toy, the little rubber dummy with the sand in its bottom. One hits it and it keeps bouncing back. Well, we are becoming the rubber dummies of the trade world.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Speak for yourself.


Lloyd Axworthy: I am speaking for this Government which is constantly and continually, without cease, following its line of argument that it alone will solve the trade problems when in fact under its regime there have been more actions, more restrictions, and they come by the barrelhead. This is just the beginning. I have a whole list to go through. The potash requirement is going to be another major blow. Canadians are waiting for a resolution to this problem. I would suggest that the reason is that they had it all wrong. When the Prime Minister signed his agreement with the President, he might have been wise to have taken a couple of lessons from Thomas Haliburton when he had his "Sam Slick" series back in the 19th century when he talked about the Yankee trader. "They are tough and they are smart and they will pull the wool over your eyes any time they get a chance as long as they have someone naive on the other side of the bargaining table". And we do have someone naive handling our trade negotiations here.
June 1, 1987

More important than the naivety is the dissembling which goes along with it, which is more destructive than a willingness to really deal with these measures in a forthright way. I do not think I have seen in a long time a more calculated piece of chicanery than the Prime Minister's trip to western Canada where the only thing he announced in the Town of Lethbridge was that he had written the President to get a solution to the national energy gas ruling. Boy, he was going to be Horatio at the bridge. After all, he spent all this time establishing a special relationship with the President of the United States. He spent all his time developing all these good causes. But the fact is that the President had no intention of interfering because we were told in the House two weeks later that all along the Ambassador and others knew it was a judicial decision, which makes the case that the Prime Minister was simply fooling western Canadians simply to get a headline. Or he did not know, which is even worse, what was going on in this vital decision. I do not know whether it is worse being a knave or a fool. Perhaps we are faced with a situation where we have both embodiments in the figure of our Prime Minister.
Why would he go to western Canada and make that grandiloquent gesture that he was going to save the situation when he knew full well that that kind of intervention was not going to work because the ground work had not been laid? The kind of clear willingness of the Government to stand up to these interventions in our natural resource fields is not taken seriously by the Reagan administration. Why should we be taken seriously? Every time the United States has applied intimidation and blackmail, we have given in and paid the ransom.
That is what we are facing. It comes at a very serious time when our natural resource industries, particularly in western Canada, northern Ontario and in parts of the Atlantic and Quebec, are reeling from an incredible series of blows dealt them in the international market-place. In many cases there is an over supply of products, whether it be nickel or wheat. In many cases there is the emergence of new competitors who are providing the same types of commodities and resources. In other cases there is a replacement of natural resources with new types of artificial materials. Whatever the reason, we know that the old cornucopia of the Canadian resource field is becoming uncoupled from the international market, and certainly uncoupled from our own domestic economy.
There has been more than enough clear analysis to show that what used to lead to recovery in Canada, what used to be the engine of growth, that is, our resource industries, is now falling further and further behind. What will be required is an effective set of national policies to come to grips with these matters. This means that we must have the national instruments to deal with them. We must have ownership of the industries so that they are accountable to political and national decisions.
Supply
In all these respects we are giving up on the various agreements and ingredients to have an effective national policy. This is at a time when we have demands for substantial, effective answers to the incredibly difficult circumstances faced by our resource industries in our resource regions, and we are negotiating them away. We are giving them up, whether it be through constitutional change, free trade negotiation or an acquiescence with respect to a whole series of acquisitions and takeovers. Whatever facet it is, Canada is losing its tools and abilities to meet that type of challenge.
I point Hon. Members to one of the most serious international developments that Canadians face. It is the God-given assumption now prevalent in the United States that that country has the right to insist, extra-territorially, that we follow its policies. We saw it with respect to the softwood lumber decision in which a decision taken by the American authorities told us how to price our resources.
We see it now in the decision of the Federal Energy Resource Commission which now has the right to decide how we will price our natural gas exports and how we will deal with the transmission of those resources. We see it being introduced in House and Senate Bills on trade in which the Americans would abrogate to themselves the right to determine subsidies in other jurisdictions, other countries, where they consider there to be unfair trade practices and apply penalties against them if they do not like them.
What is interesting to note is that in the congressional debates dealing with that legislation the concessions made by Canada on the softwood lumber case are cited as full warranty as to why they have the right to go ahead and do that. Thus we have a situation in which our neighbour to the south has decided that it can basically determine and choose what our national resource policies will be. That is really the type of issue the country should be facing with fear and trepidation. It means that we will be losing not only the right but the opportunity to try to engage in a major restructuring and reformulation of the resource industries that are so vital to so many parts of the country.
I weep at times when I think of how little ability we will have left to deal with these problems once the Government gets through with its mandate in a year or two. There will be no power left at the federal level to come to grips with these issues since we are bargaining it away all over the place. Therefore, as much as we may perceive the problem, our capacity and ability to meet the problem will disappear. It will evaporate. It will become part of the bargain-basement approach.
I return with some real concern to the speech given what must be about two years ago now by Simon Reisman, our chief trade negotiator, before he was appointed to that position. After a speech given to the Ontario Economic Council he was asked what it would take for the Americans to sign a deal to limit their contingency practices or trade remedy laws. He said: "Well, we don't really have enough to give up unless we're basically prepared to negotiate away our resources,

June 1, 1987
Supply
particularly our water resources". Mr. Reisman was a prescient fellow in many ways. I do not know what kind of negotiator he will be, but he understood then, and I presume he has never lost the sense of what it will take to get a good deal, that, basically we will have to give up our ability to own and to manage our own resources and to set policies for them.
How true that prophecy is becoming. I do not know if Mr. Reisman was the author of it, but it certainly seems that the Government we have now is following footstep by footstep down the path of surrendering not only the resources themselves but the right of Canadians to decide how they will be used.
For all the stamping of feet and gnashing of teeth that we see from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), we have heard it before on shakes and shingles and softwood lumber and all the rest of it. Are they not good at crying over spilt milk? They have a wonderful capacity for dramatic overtones in dealing with those problems. But they certainly have not demonstrated any ability to come to grips with the issue and really recognize what is at stake.
I would now like to outline another facet of the problem. It is not only government policies that are being given away, surrendered and bargained down the track, but the question of the ultimate ownership and accountability of the resources that must be considered. As we have seen in the House, Investment Canada has become a joke. It is becoming one of the great all-time Canadian jokes. I think it will become a perennial series next to the Royal Canadian Air Farce. That agency, which is supposed to retain some rudimentary responsibility for determining questions of foreign investment in this country, is so busy rubber-stamping every single possible takeover and acquisition that it has never been able to find anything with which it disagrees.
Why would it not have raised the slightest question, even stopped for a day or two, to examine the sell-off of the West Kootenay Power and Light Co. in the Okanagan? It is the first time in Canada that we have sold off a public utility. Did it even wait for the B.C. Utilities Commission to finish its own hearings to look at the evidence? No. It was in such a rush to get the rubber stamp at work that it agreed to the takeover and acquisition before the evidence was even on the table.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: On Christmas Eve.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is right, on Christmas Eve. I suppose that that was the Government's idea of Santa Claus coming down the chimney from Ronald Reagan or the firm in St. Louis which bought the company and the water rights that go along with it.
Did I hear any protest in the House from the three or four Conservative Members of Parliament who represent the interior of B.C.? I did not hear a word. There was total acquiescence.
If we consider the record of Investment Canada we will see that $22 billion worth of foreign investment has taken place in just 15 months, and that 95 per cent of the assets are in takeovers and acquisitions. Yet it says that it is doing a good job. Why is that important?
I suppose it comes down partly from the historical evidence provided by the Institute for Research and Public Policy. It is provided in part by Investment Canada. It is certainly provided by DRIE in its own reports.
Whatever you may say about foreign versus Canadian ownership, Canadian companies invest more in research and development, in exports, and in jobs. Why is that important in this case? If our resource industries are going to meet international competition, it will take new investment in research and development to come up with new products, new fabrications, new uses. It will take substantially more effective effort at export development.
It is interesting to note that at the very time our industry is facing this new, intense bareknuckle world of international competition, what is the Government doing? It is reducing the amount of money available for trade development and marketing programs to help industry find new markets. Do you think there is a conspiracy here? Do you think the Government is really just letting this happen by sheer coincidence? Or, do you think someone has decided that they do not want us to compete. They do not want us to become better through research and development. It cannot be completely by accident that you stop investing, pull back support, and surrender to the efforts by U.S. regulatory agencies or the U.S. administration to move in and tell us how to run your industry.
Maybe it is what we call the Schefferville complex. Maybe the Prime Minister thought he was so successful in Schefferville, although the town is now totally closed down, that he is going to apply that principle to the entire country. Maybe Canada is going to become one big Schefferville. You get snazzy headlines that you are trying to save the community, and a year later the fact that everything has gone down the drain does not matter because you have had your headline. Maybe that is the principle now in place.
There has to be some explanation of why every time you turn around you see a Government ill-prepared to come to grips specifically with the major restructuring problems in oil and gas, minerals and grain, yet at the same time surrendering its sovereign ability to do something about it.
I submit that the purpose of this resolution is simply to say once again that the Government has a major responsibility to the resource regions of Canada and it has dismally failed in that responsibility.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments? Debate.
June 1, 1987


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I want to start by indicating that we support this motion put forward by the other opposition Party. I want to read that motion into the record. It says:
That this House condemn the government for its repeated failures to protect Canadian sovereignty and economic independence as demonstrated by its weak and ineffectual efforts to oppose Opinion 256 of the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with regard to transmission costs of Canadian gas, and by its compliant approach to permitting foreign take-overs of Canadian corporations and natural resources.
That really hits the nail on the head. It points out that the Government is giving up Canadian sovereignty. It is making a series of policy decisions that are eroding Canadian sovereignty. This is not just an abstract concept, it is a matter of public policy which directly affects both our economic well-being and independence. Of course, our economic independence is related to our capacity to make decisions in other areas, including that of foreign policy. The resolution points to what is basically a sell-out of Canadian corporations and Canadian natural resources. It points to the series of policy decisions the Government has taken since it came into office which have rolled out the red carpet for increased foreign ownership.
I want to back up those assertions by indicating that the decision we are dealing with today, something called Opinion 256 of the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, affects Canadian energy policy. This decision of an American regulatory body seeks to determine how we handle the charges we apply to our resources. In this case it is called a toll.
Of course, this is not the first failure the Government has had in maintaining Canada's capacity to regulate its own natural resources. We can easily remember the softwood lumber conflict. The American industry became concerned about the fact that Canadian exports of softwood lumber into the U.S. were cutting into the American companies' business and those companies raised a real stink. The American Government responded and demanded that Canada impose a tax on its softwood resource.
What we have is the beginning of a pattern in which the Canadian Government buckles under to pressure from the U.S. Government and U.S. industry. As a result, our policies on the regulation of natural resources are beginning to be made in the U.S. The Canadian Government is in the process of giving up its ability to regulate our natural resources. It is beginning to simply respond to American pressure.
It is not only in the area of regulation that we are giving up authority and power and ability to regulate. This also spills over into the area of ownership. It raises the question of who owns the Canadian economy.
Obviously one long-standing problem in the Canadian economy is the fact that many of our industries are heavily owned by foreigners, primarily Americans. American investors and American companies own the greater part of Canadian
Supply
industry. The Government has exacerbated this problem. It has moved us further down that road.
In the last few weeks we have heard much about Dome Petroleum and about the bid by Amoco, a large American corporation, to take over Dome. The Canadian Government stands idly by while corporations in the petroleum industry are being sold off by Americans. The amount of foreign ownership in the petroleum industry is continuing to increase. This means that we have less capacity as Canadians to direct and set economic policy in this area. The Canadian Government is really assisting the Americans to gain greater influence over the Canadian economy.
Perhaps it is forgivable for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to be buddy-buddy with the American President and to sign Irish songs with him. We understand that kind of behaviour; it is all right for television cameras. However, when that attitude or behaviour spills into economic policy, we have a real problem. When the Canadian Prime Minister fails to stand up for Canadian interests, fails to protect the capacity of the Canadian Government to regulate our natural resources, and fails to take effective action to ensure that the petroleum industry remains in Canadian hands or that the amount of Canadian ownership in the petroleum industry increases, in fact the Government is standing aside while the amount of foreign ownership in the petroleum industry continues to increase.
It is not surprising, because this is the Government which scuttled FIRA, an agency which was to examine foreign investment to see whether or not it was in the interests of Canada, and replaced it with Investment Canada, which had a track record for approving just about every bid by Americans to take over Canadian corporations. It is really a paper tiger. The Government has been weak-kneed in its approach toward the Americans.
This is really sad and dangerous at this time, because the same Government is involved in a free trade initiative with the United States. It has taken on the responsibility to negotiate a comprehensive trading arrangement with our American friends. If its track record in terms of natural gas, softwood, shakes and shingles, and increased foreign ownership of our economy is any indication of how it will handle the free trade initiative, Canadians have good reason to be afraid of what kind of deal the Prime Minister will bring to the House in the fall.
Will the free trade initiative adequately protect Canadian culture? Will it protect Canadian magazines? Will it protect the capacity of the Canadian Government to undertake regional development?
The matter about which we are speaking today involves natural gas. It is another blow to the western economy. Will the Government protect our capacity to take initiatives to develop our regional economies, particularly at a time when we know that the recovery over the last few years has had a positive impact in a very inequitable way? There has been

June 1, 1987
Business of the House
considerable economic growth in southern Ontario, but that growth has not been reflected in western Canada.
We want a Government which will stand up for the interests of all Canadians. We particularly want a Government which will take effective action so that western Canadians can share in the recovery about which the Government so proudly boasts on a day to day basis.
We call upon the Government to get up off its knees when it is facing the Americans, to stand up for Canadian interests, and to do something effective to develop the economy in western Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 82(9) to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House.
Accordingly the question is as follows:
Mr. MacLellan, seconded by Mr. Foster, moved:
-That this House condemn the government for its repeated failures to project Canadian sovereignty and economic independence as demonstrated by its weak and ineffectual efforts to oppose Opinion 256 of the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with regard to transmission costs of Canadian gas, and by its compliant approach to permitting foreign take-overs of Canadian corporations and natural resources.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Deputy Prime Minister to tell us the order of House business for tomorrow. Which bill?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, it would be my intention to call the motion standing in my name with respect
June 1, 1987

Business of the House
to incorporating the provisional Standing Orders into perma- Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 nent Standing Orders.	a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.10 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
36 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
INDEX ISSUED IN A SEPARATE VOLUME	LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT CANADA 1988 05 3 1 BBUOTH§QUE DU PARLEMENT
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
f THS.VAI.MA«* K>
* r *. v* a o
r € e 0 8BPf
jp <**; ua auo^r ojbs
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 28, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers