1990-10-11

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I gave the Chair notice that I wanted to raise, at the first opportunity, a question of privilege on the manner in which the government proceeded yesterday, and I am referring to the fact that the Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs) gave notice pursuant to Standing Order 78(3). I would like to read the following which appears at page 2095 of the Votes and Proceedings for Wednesday, October 10, 1990:
Mr. McDermid, a Member of the Queen's Privy Council, from his place in the House, stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2) with respect to an allocation of time to the second reading stage of Bill C-84, An Act respecting the privatization of the national petroleum company of Canada, and, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), gave notice of his intention to move a motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days, or a day, for the consideration and disposal of that stage of the said Bill,
Mr. Speaker, this happened late yesterday, after we had heard three speakers in a debate that started yesterday in the House-three speakers on a very important bill.
Mr. Speaker, I will try to be as brief as possible. The notice given by the minister is irregular, because he misled the House by implying that Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2) had been used. Not so, Mr. Speaker! Neither 78(1) nor 78(2) were used, and as for 78(3), according to us, according to the traditions and customs of this House, in fact for more than 20 years, Mr. Speaker, since 1969, when the Standing Orders were amended, the government has always been required to make every effort to
consult with the party of the government's Official Opposition-in this case the Liberal Party-and the other parties in this House, in this case the New Democratic Party.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that neither the Parliamentary House Leader of the Liberal Party nor the Deputy House Leader and Whip, the hon. member for Cape Breton-Richmond East, nor my colleague, friend and deputy, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, nor the Deputy Whip of the Official Opposition, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Mr. Boudria, were ever consulted.
Therefore, no one in this House can say there has been any attempt to consult with the Official Opposition pursuant to Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2). Mr. Speaker, what do these Standing Orders say? I will read them, because this is very important.

78.(1) When a Minister of the Crown, from his or her place in the House, states that there is agreement among the representatives of all parties to allot a specified number of days or hours to the proceedings at one or more stages of any public bill, the Minister may propose a motion, without notice, setting forth the terms of such agreed allocation; and every such motion shall be decided forthwith, without debate or amendment.
Mr. Speaker, that has not been done. That was not done by the government.
Standing Order 78(2), Mr. Speaker, which flows after Standing Order 78(1), reads as follows:
(2) 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 -
And I underline "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 forth the terms of the said proposed allocation; provided that for the purposes of this section 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 76(10). 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

Privilege
thereon, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion. Any proceeding interrupted pursuant to this section of this Standing Order shall be deemed adjourned.
Mr. Speaker, that was not done. Standing Order 78(2) was not followed. From all this flows Standing Order 78(3) which says that if we could not get agreement under Standing Order 78(1) and we could not get agreement under Standing Order 78(2), then the government can come and consult with the parties and possibly after that consultation give a notice. I will read it:
(3) 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 sections (1) or (2) of this Standing Order 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 section 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 on a bill -
And so on. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I submit to you, this House was misled intentionally by this government, was not-


Some hon. members:: Order, order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am using my words carefully, Mr. Speaker, and I will use those words carefully and I use them knowing exactly what they mean.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, it is a very serious charge. I just want to consider my position for a moment or two. I would ask the hon. member to take his seat. I want to consider my position for a moment or two.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier has raised, by way of a question of privilege-


Mr. Cooper:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary.


Albert Glen Cooper: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I just want a point of clarification. If you are rising to make a ruling, it would be important that we on this side have an opportunity to
respond. I just wanted to clarify that. It is not to interrupt
the Chair in any way.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. parliamentary secretary and perhaps I should have made that clear. I am not, at this moment, making a ruling on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. I am dealing with another matter that has emerged during the hon. member's intervention. But I want all hon. members and I want the public to understand where I am and what it is I have to do at the moment.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier has, by way of a question of privilege, said in effect that the notice given by the hon. minister yesterday under the rules is not a proper notice because the minister has said that agreement could not be reached and that things that should have taken place have not taken place.
Earlier in the argument he said that the minister rose to give notice late yesterday afternoon after three speakers had debated and that by saying that agreement could not be reached he misled the House.
I would ask for hon. members' attention, please, that is not an easy subject. At that stage the hon. member had said the minister had misled the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, I said the government misled the
House.


Mr. Speaker:: All right, through the minister the government had misled the House.
At that point there had been no accusations of deliberateness. Now, at a later stage in the argument, there is an accusation of deliberateness. If I have misunderstood what the hon. member said-and if what the hon. member said is that the government deliberately misled the House and that is not directed at the minister-then I would like clarification for that.
I do have the "blues" in front of me. I want to be absolutely sure that we do not have an accusation of deliberate misleading against the minister which has emerged from an argument that may or may not be valid on other grounds. That is the difficulty the Chair is in.
I will hear the hon. member for Kamloops and maybe he will be able to assist the Chair. I will hear the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier in a moment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker-
October 11, 1990


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. Then I will hear the hon. member for Kamloops.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I will just use the documents that are available to all members. I will leave it to the House to decide if what I have just said


Mr. Speaker:: That is not my problem at the moment. It may become my problem as I deal with the argument the hon. member is putting up. What I want to know is: Is the hon. member taking the position that he is making an allegation that the minister-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No.


Mr. Speaker:: -deliberately misled the House? No.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct that impression that you got because I did not use those words. What I did say was that the government misled the House, and I said deliberately misled the House, and I can argue that point.


An hon. member:: That's right.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Kamloops can help me.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to concur. I was listening obviously very carefully to my hon. friend for Ottawa-Vanier presenting his arguments. When he indicated that there had been misinformation, he did in fact refer to the government misleading the House as opposed to any particular member of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: I am prepared to proceed to listen to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, but on the clear understanding that the House has had an assurance from him that there is no allegation that the minister has deliberately misled the House.
Hon. members will realize that that is something we have to clarify now. There may well be other arguments that I will have to listen to. I think I know where the argument is going, but I do not want to have any misunderstanding at this point.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think I clarified what I said, what I meant to say, what I thought I had said-


An hon. member:: And what you did say.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -and what I did say, I still maintain and
I will repeat again. The government misled the House of
Privilege
Commons and did it deliberately. That is the argument that I want to make, Mr. Speaker, and I will make the argument using the documents that we all have in hand today.
I take Standing Order 78(3)-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. Let us get the first issue cleared away. I will hear further. The hon. parliamentary secretary was seeking the floor.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I say that any attempts by anybody to mislead the House, I do not want in any way to have reflected on the minister. I think that responsibility is mine, as it is an area of my responsibility to negotiate with the other parties and attempt to come to an agreement.
I would like to enter into the point of privilege raised by my hon. friend because I think that he has raised an important point. It is one that I think deserves a serious response.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. We are still dealing with the question of the words used. I listened to the hon. member for Kamloops. I think it was appropriate to listen, at least momentarily, to the hon. parliamentary secretary.
I want to assure the hon. parliamentary secretary that before I make any decision he will be heard on the substantive argument that the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier is raising. There was no need to go any further than that.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier has given us his word that he is not directing any accusation against the minister for intentional misleading. I will accept that and I will hear his argument further. Then I will call on other members.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It went through my mind, Mr. Speaker, but I just will not say it. I just would like to continue with my argument to the effect that this is a faulty notice. I want to make the point using documents that we have before us. In Standing Order 78(3) it states:
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 -
I underline "could not be reached". In the statement
the Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory
Affairs made in the House yesterday he said:

Privilege
I have been informed that to date, agreement has not been
reached -
There is a difference. The Standing Order says "could not" and the minister of state said yesterday "has not". To have an agreement, one must have two or three people participating in a kind of dialogue where exchanges are made. That is what an agreement is. An agreement is when people, in accord with the parameters of the problem before them, decide to do certain things.
The minister yesterday said there has been no agreement. How the heck could he say that when he knows darn well that there was no consultation with anybody on this side of the House? How could the minister, in his great intelligence, decide that the opposition, after three speakers in the House, had been consulted because he heard from this side opposition views on that bill? Is that what he did? I would like to hear from the minister as to why he put that in there, that it has been a fact that an agreement could not be reached. That is wrong and false.
In the standing order the use of the language is the same as in the notice given: an agreement has not been possible. The wording does not precisely say that the minister has tried to reach an agreement. It does not say that. The following is stated in yesterday's Hansard at page 14016:
I have been informed that to date, agreement has not been
reached -
What does that mean, Mr. Speaker?
I have been around here for 18 years and a lot of people in this House believed and thought that the customs, the procedures, and the usual way of doing things, the courteous thing, was to have consultations under Standing Order 78(1). That is the practice in the House, for those who are listening.
The rule says that the government comes to the opposition and says: "We would like to limit the debate on such and such a measure, or such a bill or motion. Would you agree to give us debate for maybe two or three days?" That has been done over the years since 1969. As I said before, that has been the practice. That has been the custom. That has been the rule of the House.
If the government could not get agreement under Standing Order 78(1) from all parties, maybe a majority
of the parties, maybe two of the three parties in the House, would agree. That was Standing Order 78(2). If not, then it could use Standing Order 78(3) and give notice that no agreement could be reached. But, Mr. Speaker, to get an agreement you have to try to get an agreement and they never even tried to get an agreement.
My argument to you, Mr. Speaker, is that by saying to Canadians and to the House that Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2), as we used them, is false. The government never used Standing Order 78(1). It never used Standing Order 78(2). It is jumping the rules and using, in my view, the wrong approach. They are using the wrong-


Mr. Tobin:: It is against the rules.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: As the member says, it is against the rules to go and make that kind of statement.
There is more than an implication of the government. At least it must try under Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2). Technically the government could argue-I will give him that-that it has not been possible to reach an agreement. It could say that and that we would have to accept.
Mr. Speaker, you would have to start by stating that you tried to get an agreement, and the government never tried to get an agreement.
In my experience here in this House as Whip and as House leader, every time the government has come to us for consultation on this matter we have given a fair, an open and a direct answer to its questions. And it has used it. Time allocation and closure are well known to this government. It will go down in history as the government that misused, abused, and used that continuously to gag the House, but that is not the point I am trying to make.
We have been consulted on this matter before. It is true that sometimes we do not agree, but at least it tried. Then it comes in and says: "Because we cannot get an agreement, we move the time allocation procedure allowed under Standing Order 78(3)." We accept that. We know that.
The government has to get this legislation through. We know there are time limits on debates sometimes. The throne speech debate is eight days. The budget speech is five days. We accept those things. Those are rules of this House, but you have to operate within the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, you are to be the protector of those rules. That is why I appeal to you under ray privileges and those of my group to protect us from those kinds of Senate oriented habits it has acquired. The way the Senate is doing it is the same bloody practice that the government wants to put here in the House of Commons. We will object to that as strenuously as we can.
I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to use your good judgment and your good offices to think this through and, based on what you have told me before, to try to come to grips with what is an agreement. It is not a debate. It is a process of consultation.
I am not debating with the government side as to whether or not we should or should not have time allocation. I am just saying that consultation with the opposition is required by the Standing Orders. They must be followed if we are to follow the rules, and I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to rule this notice as void and null, and absolutely non-existent.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, in listening to my hon. friend I must say that I am almost persuaded by his very eloquent argument.
However, as I think anyone who spent any time in this House will know, there are always two sides to every debate and every question. In this case this is no exception. There are in fact two sides to the question.
It is interesting that in the four years prior to 1984 the government which the hon. member was a part of used time allocation and closure some 26 times. My information is that in the six years following that date we have hit an anniversary: we too have used it 26 times. Unfortunately, we were two years longer in that process than were the Liberals when they were in government. My point is this-


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The matter that has been raised is not an easy one. I have to interpret the orders as they are written.
It does not help the Chair and it does not help the reputation of this place, when the hon. parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Kamloops, or anybody else is arguing a difficult and technical point, that some other member who is in general disagreement with the
Privilege
position taken but is not engaged in the technical and difficult debate is shouting from his or her seat.
Please, I ask hon. members to assist the Chair and to do it in a civilized and careful way. The country is desperately looking to some place where these things can be done and are done in a civilized way. I know that hon. members are very conscious of that, and I know that I can count on their co-operation.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make is that in fact what has happened is time allocation and closure. These are the rules which are provided for our use in this House. They have become part of our operating system and have been used for more than 10 years. It is interesting that today it balances out, 26 times in the previous four years prior to 1984, and six times since.
It is interesting to read Standing Orders 78.(1), (2) and (3). I would like to refer to phrases in them. In Standing Order 78.(1) it states there is an agreement. In 78.(2) it states that the majority of the representatives of the several parties have come to an agreement. However, Standing Order 78.(3) says in the third line that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of the previous sections.
What is interesting about that particular wording is that it mentions an agreement but it does not mention the process. That is very crucial here. It is very central to the issue we are discussing at the moment. The reason it is so crucial is that it does not say or lay out a process that has to be followed with a little check list, and at the end of that check list one says the check list is completed, therefore this action takes place.
There is a very important reason, I believe, why the drafters of the Standing Order chose that particular wording. Essentially, what we are up against is that in order to have an agreement, you have to have a conversation. You have to have a discussion. However, there have been times, and it is not only today, but at other times in the past, that it is impossible to have that conversation. Therefore, just because that particular conversation does not take place does not mean that there have not been attempts for consultation and that the requirements of Standing Order 78.(1) and (2) have not been fulfilled.

October 11, 1990
Privilege
I would like to make a point which is very germane to the argument we are facing today, and upon which, Mr. Speaker, you will have to make a decision. I would like to read the words of the minister when he rose in the House yesterday afternoon to propose this motion. I quote from page 14016 of Hansard, the top right hand column:
We will continue to try to get an agreement with the opposition
parties on a reasonable length of time that we debate this on second
reading and get it into committee for an in-depth study.
In other words, the minister offered once again at the time of the introduction of the notice, an opportunity for negotiation. I use the words "once again" because I think those words are very crucial.
I would also like to point out that at page 14015 of Hansard the time listed at the bottom of the page on the left hand corner is 1740. I am guessing that roughly the time the minister put the proposal to the House was somewhere around 1745 or 1746. In other words, it was late in the debate yesterday.
Why did the minister move at that particular moment? Was it a time pulled out of the air? No, it was not the time pulled out of the air. The reason it was not a time pulled out of the air is because yesterday, in my role as parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government in the House, I tried to discuss with the opposition parties an attempt to come to agreements on a whole basket of legislation.
Yesterday the hon. member who rose on the point of order, the House leader for the Official Opposition was doing some important work in committee. I know that. As a result of that, yesterday I attempted to talk to the Whip of the Liberal Party. I attempted on three different occasions to talk to him. He was in and out of the House so we kept missing one another. I left word in the back room that I wished to speak to him. I waited until a few minutes to six, and in fact, as the timing shows in Hansard, I think it would work out to roughly 5.45, before I asked the minister to proceed with the notice on the time allocation.
The reason I point this out is that there were attempts on my part to have a discussion with the Official Opposition to go through this process. While going through the process of trying to have my discussions yesterday, I ended up talking with the House leader for the NDP. During the conversations we had it became
very obvious to me that in fact there was no possibility for agreement under Standing Order 78(1). That one was clearly ruled out.
I attempted then to have conversations with the Official Opposition but was not successful. There were further attempts made and in fact, finally last evening, I ran into the Whip for the Official Opposition as he was going up in the elevator and after talking to him a moment indicated to him that it was our intention to proceed with this notice, but that we would still want to talk. I also had a conversation this morning with the House leader of the Official Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, what I am tying to demonstrate to you, I hope successfully, is that there have been several attempts, both publicly and privately, to proceed with discussions which would allow us to come to an agreement. But in fact, Mr. Speaker, those consultations did not take place other than the discussions that happened at the House leaders' meeting on the Tuesday previous, 48 hours or more ago.
I think it is very crucial because, again, if you go back to the wording of Standing Order 78(1), (2), and (3) it becomes very apparent from that wording that an agreement could not be reached.
Mr. Speaker, we could not reach an agreement. We have offered on several occasions, including as much as an hour and a half ago, to have further consultations to come to some sort of agreement. That was refused and obviously we do not have an agreement.
I think, Mr. Speaker, the notice of motion that was given yesterday by the minister was a perfectly legitimate motion. It was obvious that there was not agreement, and there was every reason to believe, as has been confirmed, that there was no agreement.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are left with a situation where the government wants to continue with its legislative agenda and do that in a reasonable time frame, it has to resort to the tools that are provided by the House of Commons in its Standing Orders.
We have done that. We have done that in this case. We have done it in previous cases. So although my friend makes a very persuasive argument, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that it simply is not a legitimate point of privilege. We offer once again to have consultations and to continue to have those negotiations.
October 11, 1990

Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that we are more than happy to negotiate on a reasonable timetable for all legislation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend the parliamentary secretary and while I find his comments to be interesting I do not find them terribly relevant.
I want to say right from the beginning that this is a most serious issue which the House leader for the Official Opposition has raised. The rules are there to be followed precisely and I would suggest that they were written with care. Any of us who have gone through the process of attempting to write standing orders recognizes the care and thought that goes into the wording of a particular standing order.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to some precedents first of all. I want to go back to April 14, 1987, during the debate on Bill C-22, when the Speaker at that point made this comment:
Rules of procedure-are designed to allow the full expression of views on both sides of an issue. They provide the Opposition with a means to delay a decision. They also provide the majority with a means of limiting debate in order to arrive at a decision. This is the kind of balance essential to the procedure of a democratic assembly. Our rules were certainly never designed to permit the total frustration of one side or the other-
Mr. Speaker, I also refer to the February 7, 1990 Hansard at page 7948 when you made the following comments:
Notice of time allocation motions after only a few hours of debate at any stage of a Bill can also be an abuse.
First of all to put this into some context, and I think the record is very clear, the Conservatives have in their six years doubled the use of closure and time allocation in the whole history of Parliament since 1867. In other words, no other government has used closure and time allocation to the extent of this particular government in our entire history. We have seen in committees, in this House, as well as the other place, an abuse of the rules, tradition, custom, interpretation and convention.
My recollection is that at the most recent House leaders meeting, which took place on Tuesday afternoon, I do not recall at that time whether there was a discussion as to the limits of debate on the privatization of Petro-Canada. I do not recall that. I do, however, agree with my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary,
Privilege
that we had discussions about the debate. But I point out that we only had three speakers, the minister responsible, the critic for the Official Opposition and the critic for the New Democratic Party spoke.
When my hon. friend the parliamentary secretary says that it was his intention to discuss this with somebody but he could not find anyone to discuss it with, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you with all respect that there are a number of people within each party with whom the hon. member could have discussed this issue, for example, the critics who were speaking. The critic for the Official Opposition was not consulted. The critic for the New Democratic Party was not consulted. Then there are House leaders, then there are deputy House leaders, then there are whips and there are deputy whips.
My friend the parliamentary secretary, if he is listening, knew where the House leader of the Official Opposition was yesterday afternoon. He was in committee, as was the whip for the New Democratic Party, in a very important committee meeting, namely the meeting on the Parliament of Canada Act. He was aware of that. It was a few steps down the hallway.
When the parliamentary secretary says that he attempted to converse on this issue, I suggest that he made very little effort to converse.


Mr. Layton:: Were you consulted?


Nelson Andrew Riis: We had a discussion.
Therefore, I want to reinforce that I think my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, made the case well. We are all familiar with Standing Order 78(1), (2) and (3). When in Standing Order 78(3) it says an agreement could not be reached, surely to goodness that means that consultations or discussions of some kind would have to take place. When the parliamentary secretary now has admitted today that absolutely no conversations took place with representatives at least of the Official Opposition on this matter, it is perfectly clear.
I might say that I do not recall precise discussions of this nature, but we have had ongoing casual discussions for many days. I think what it does clarify is that if the government is going to use closure and time allocation again we had better formalize and use the formal meetings where the House leader of the government and the House leaders of the other parties meet regularly and formally to discuss the work of the House. Surely to goodness it must be at that time, or else another formally

October 11, 1990
Privilege
convened meeting when discussions of this nature must take place.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, with all seriousness that for Standing Order 78(3) to be used by the minister responsible for privatization and quoted in this House yesterday, where it says that an agreement could not be reached, and when we have determined today, without any question, that there was no discussion regarding an agreement at least between the government and the Official Opposition, I submit that if we are going to follow rules that are written for this House, we must do just that, follow the rules. If the rules are not followed, Mr. Speaker, I beg of you to recognize that at this point we have seen a breach of those particular rules, as they were intended to be followed. It would be appropriate for us not to proceed at this point with a time allocation motion and subsequent discussion and debate.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like very quickly to correct the record in terms of what the hon. member for Kamloops said about the use of closure. I have here all of the time allocations. The rule, which is now 78(1), (2) and (3), was imposed in 1971 by the Trudeau government. Between 1980 and 1984 inclusive, it was used 29 times in that four-year period. In the six-year period since then, it has been used 27 times. So, we have used it fewer times in six years than the Liberals used it in four years.
That is to answer the atrocious distortion by the hon. member for Kamloops that this government has used it more often than any government in history. We have a long way to go to catch up to the Trudeau government.


Mr. Arseneault:: That's debate.


Mr. Allmand:: Nobody believes you Harvie.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, apparently the facts are unacceptable to the Liberal opposition.
On March 29, 1990, the hon. member for Kamloops raised a complaint about the use of time allocation. Mr. Speaker said at that time, and I quote from page 9917 of Hansard:
The hon. member for Kamloops has raised a complaint. At the same time, he has indicated that at least in his mind there was a possibility of obtaining a workable understanding.
-on time allocation. Mr. Speaker went on to say, and I quote:
The hon. minister has said that in his view that was not possible.
I have had to deal with this matter before, as hon. members know. I refer all hon. members to a ruling made on August 16, 1988, as reported on page 18380 of Hansard. In the very last paragraph I had to say this:
Standing Order 117 -
Which is now Standing Order 73:
- provides for a Minister to act if there is no agreement and as I stated on June 6, 1988, the Chair must take a Minister's declaration at face value and cannot judge the quality of negotiations or of any proposals that may have been made.
I think that is the position that the Chair has to take.
I think that clears it up and we can get on to the business, Mr. Speaker. We have now taken up 45 minutes.
At the House leaders' meeting on Tuesday, I asked whether there would be agreement on some sort of reasonable period on this bill. There was no such agreement and it was obvious. I, indeed, asked, "Are you suggesting I will have to move to time allocation?" The acknowledgement was that I probably would have to do that. You hive heard my parliamentary secretary state his efforts to reach some sort of agreement under 78(1) or 78(2).
I would repeat my offer now: if we can reach an agreement, under 78(1) or 78(2), I am prepared to reach such an agreement. I am prepared to do that now, right now, if there is such an agreement from the Opposition. I was not able to get it at the House leaders' meeting, which is the reason we have those meetings-in order to have those discussions.
My parliamentary secretary followed up yesterday, in the afternoon, with an attempt to reach an agreement, thinking that, after their caucuses, perhaps there was some inclination maybe to reach an agreement. There was not. On that basis, we are moving with 78(3) which, Mr. Speaker, but for the time we waste today, would have provided for three days at second reading on this legislation, which is quite a considerable amount of time, given the other processes that have to go through.


I would humbly suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the ruling you made on March 29, 1990, as a result of the complaint of the member for Kamloops, is appropriate in today's circumstances as well.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, some certain comments have been attributed to me by my friend, the honorary Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader. I do not know if he is "honorary" or "honourable" of whatever, but I have to take him at face value.
It reminds me of the occasion when I defended a convicted individual in court in Halifax. The gentleman, at that time, was up for living off the avails of prostitution. When we went before the judge, the judge wanted to ask a specific question of my client-this is germane, Mr. Speaker-and he asked a question of my client. He said: "Were you at such and such a place on such and such a date?" My client responded: "Well, Your Honour, the weather outside is very nice." He would not answer the question which was put to him. When you hear the comments from the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, he does everything but go to the substantive part of Standing Order 78.
There are certain preconditions, Mr. Speaker, in order to put this particular standing order into effect. They are outlined in Standing Order 78(1), 78(2), and 78(3). Those are the facts. To suggest that there was some sort of nefarious agreement which nobody on this side of the House has ever heard about, was ever informed about, or consulted about, is not accurate.
The hon. parliamentary secretary has made allusions to the fact that he had tried to attempt to get a hold of me. If the parliamentary secretary would be clear in his own thinking, he would know that we both have been trying to get hold of each other, to discuss a particular matter pertaining to the striking committee. That was the reason, Mr. Speaker, that I have attempted to reach him and he tried to reach me. There was never a scintilla of a sentence, a message-absolutely nothing with regard to wanting to talk. Not a smidgen, as they say in Newfoundland. Not one smidgen, Mr. Speaker, of an attempt to try to get any kind of an agreement and/or to discuss the prospects of an agreement.
Privilege
The parliamentary secretary is correct. He saw me enter into an elevator after six o'clock last night, after the Minister of Privatization stood in his place and gave the notice. He-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but the various versions of what happened or did not happen may not be very much help to the Chair, keeping in mind past past rulings. I think we have heard enough. Both sides have indicated that they have a certain position to take on whether there was or was not adequate consultation or enough effort made.
I am much more concerned about the plain wording of the rule and what the minister may be required to say when he rises in his place. The minister said an agreement has not been reached. The plain wording of the rule says that the minister is to say that agreement could not be reached. I would ask the hon. member to address that point specifically.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in response to your direction I will follow that, but for the record, the hon. member opposite has talked about process. He has tried to stack his argument with regard to process.


Harvie Andre: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. In order to help hon. members, I have just indicated that this is a very narrow procedural point. I have allowed a certain latitude with respect to what was or what was not said.
I am asking anyone who intervenes or is recognized by the Chair to address this narrow procedural point. I am bound by rules. The rules say certain things. The minister said something else. That is the point I am coming to.


David Charles Dingwall: Under Standing Order 78, it is very clear. It states in 78(1):
-that there is agreement among the representatives of all parties-
Standing Order 78(2) says:
- that a majority of the representatives of the several parties have come to an agreement in respect of a proposed allotment of days-


Mr. Hawkes:: Did that happen? Did either of those things happen?


David Charles Dingwall: Standing Order 78(3) states:
-has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of sections (1) or (2)-

October 11, 1990
Routine Proceedings


David Charles Dingwall: "Could not be reached," Mr. Speaker. We suggest to you respectfully, Sir, that under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2), there was no attempt at any agreement whatsoever.
The provisions of Standing Order 78(3) are not applicable. Therefore, the motion is null and void.
In conclusion, one of the most fundamental responsibilities of the Chair in the House is to make certain members of Parliament, all members of Parliament, abide by the rules of the House of Commons.
If members came into this Chamber dressed inappropriately, Mr. Speaker, you would draw that to their attention and corrective action would be taken. I suggest to you, Sir, that these rules have been broken by hon. members opposite. It is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are in breach of the Standing Orders and I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that you would find a prima facie case on the question of privilege of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I want to be quite brief in my dealings with Standing Order 78(3). It seems to me the rule is very clear, notwithstanding the precedent that the government House leader has cited in Your Honour's ruling in March of this year, I believe it was.
I submit that the quality of the negotiations is not what we are asking Your Honour to inquire into. We are asking Your Honour to determine that there were, in fact, no negotiations. It is our submission that negotiations are required under Standing Order 78(3) before the minister can stand in the House and say that agreement could not be reached.
The minister himself is now saying that he did not say that. He said there was no agreement. I submit that saying that there is no agreement is one thing, and it is not what he is required to say. He has to say that no agreement could be reached, and in order to reach an agreement you have to have negotiations. That is elementary. There were no negotiations in this case. There was no consultation in this case. I came into the House at four o'clock. I was in here for a short time. I was in my office. The parliamentary secretary knows he can deal with me.


Mr. Speaker:: I can save a lot of time. We are all interested in all interventions. I do not need to hear anything more on what was or was not said. I am asking
the hon. member who has considerable legal training in his own right to address the very direct question I have posed, and that is the wording of the rule.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the wording of the rule is that an agreement, and I quote it again:
-that an agreement could not be reached-
It is my submission that, in order to attempt to get an agreement, you must negotiate. You must make an effort. You must go and ask, and I submit there has been no asking in this case.
In my limited experience in the House, and I will admit that my experience with this rule in terms of negotiations is relatively limited, but I did witness it once with the predecessor of the current government House leader. He came into the opposition lobby one day and said: "This is a formal consultation. Is there agreement under 78(1) or 78(2) to limit debate on this bill?" Our House leader at the time, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, said: "No, there is no such agreement." The minister said: "Thank you very much." He left and moved a time allocation order. That is the way it is done. It is elementary.
I submit that that was not done in this case. For the minister to stand up and say, in fact, that there has been no agreement may have been true, but there was no negotiation and he had to say more than that. He had to say that he could not get an agreement and he did not say it. In my submission, the notice given yesterday is null and void.


Mr. Speaker:: I will reserve for a little while my decision on this matter. In the meantime, we will proceed with Routine Proceedings.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government. While I have the floor, Mr. Speaker-
October 11, 1990



I move:
That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


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


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than 15 members having risen:


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare motion carried.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could ask the hon. member, before raising the point of order, to allow me to render the judgment, which I said I would do.

October 11, 1990
Point of Order PRIVILEGE


ALLEGED LACK OF CONSULTATION-SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier rose earlier this morning on a question of privilege concerning whether or not the hon. minister had given valid notice pursuant to the provisions of sections 78(1), 78(2) and 78(3) of the Standing Orders relating to time allocation.
The hon. minister said "I am informed that to date agreement has not been reached under the provisions," et cetera. I point out that he also said "we will try to get an agreement with the opposition parties on a reasonable length of time".
There has been considerable discussion this morning with respect to what is or what is not required under the Standing Order in terms of consultation or exchange of views between the government and others in the Chamber.
I want it clearly understood that my ruling today does not turn in any way, or on any particular, on any of the comments that were made during arguments as to the question of discussions between, or lack of discussions between, anybody in this Chamber at all.
My ruling does not take anything away from rulings of past Speakers, and especially my ruling of some months ago, in March I think of last year. It made it very clear that under the rules it is not for the Speaker to go behind the statement of the minister and try to make a factual ruling as to whether or not discussions were adequate or inadequate or, for that matter, try to strain the rules and to try to give an interpretation that substitutes for the plain wording of the rule.
I have also indicated that it might be in the interests of the House that the entire rule was looked at again, reconsidered, and perhaps redrafted.
The rule I am bound by, and this place lives by the rule of law, is the plain words of Ruling 78.(3) and it states:
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-

In English:
(3) A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House, at a previous sitting, has stated an agreement could not be reached -

It sometimes happens that when one has to try to interpret what is meant by words, some guidance or some difference shows up between the English and the French. There is, in my opinion, absolutely no difference whatsoever in the meaning of those words either in English or in French.
As I have pointed out, the hon. minister said: "I have been informed to date that agreement has not been reached." I find on this very narrow ground, but one which I cannot ignore as your Speaker because it is clearly there in the rules, that the minister should have said "could not be reached." That is what is required under the ruling and, as a consequence, I have to rule that the notice given yesterday is not valid. Of course, it is for the government to decide whether it wishes to give the notice again.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had given you notice earlier today of my intention to rise at the appropriate time to seek your judgment on a matter of an emergency debate.
I wonder if the House would agree to revert to that point to allow me to make that presentation?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the request. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Sorry. It is not agreed.
Orders of the Day.

Speaker's Ruling



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, October 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. McDermid that Bill C-84, an Act respecting the privatization of the national petroleum company of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
And on the amendment of Mr. Lee (p. 14001).
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"this House oppose in principle Bill C-84, An Act respecting the privatization of the National Petroleum Company of Canada, because it considers it irresponsible to abandon public sector involvement in the Canadian petroleum industry in the absence of a coherent Canadian federal government energy policy at a time of increasing international uncertainty with regard to petroleum supply."
And on the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Harvey (p. 14010).
That the amendment be amended by adding the following words:
"and at a time when the development and wide dispersal of alternatives to traditional fossil fuel energy sources is an environmental necessity."
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for this opportunity for several years. Last night, when I was preparing my notes, I tried to figure how long it was since the last two elections, and in fact it was exactly six years, two months and fourteen days ago that I promised my constituents that under a Conservative government, Petro-Canada would be privatized.
Today, I am proud of the fact that as a member to be part of this Conservative government I was able to bring my ideas to this place and work for the well-being of my constituents in Laval, in the province of Quebec, on behalf of whom I intend to speak today. The others did a very good job, and my fellow members from Laval are not far away. Nevertheless, I am sure that I speak not only for myself and my constituents but also for the residents of Laval Centre and Laval West.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think we should proceed with the debate on the Petro-Canada privatization bill, Bill C-84.
In 1984, I had a small pamphlet in which I described my campaign promises. There were about ten. In 1988, during the second campaign, people would show me this pamphlet, saying: "One promise was not kept; you made us a promise you didn't keep". It was the promise to privatize Petro-Canada. The only answer I could give them was to say, quite honestly: "Don't worry, we are working on it".
Well, today, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be able to rise in the House and tell my constituents in Laval: "We did it"! To the retailers I had the privilege to represent during the past 20 years, I want to say that Petro-Canada was a real problem for us. It was really unacceptable that the Liberals should create this corporation with our money, to compete with us. That really took the cake.
I had a poster which goes back to the last announcement made by former Minister of Energy Marc Lalonde in Montreal, on October 24, 1981.


An hon. member:: Father Superior!


Vincent Della Noce: He was the father of Energy Canada. If he were still here today, with his ideas, and if the Progressive Conservative Party had not changed the National Energy Program, we might be paying as much as $117 or $120 a barrel for oil. Imagine what it would cost at the pump!
This government did what it had to do. It got rid of the National Energy Program. And since that time, we are paying world prices. Considering what is happening in the Persian Gulf, we may not be necessarely happy about it, and this may not be the right time to talk about prices, but I think it would take more than one war to reach Mr. Lalonde's price of $117 or $120 a barrel, the price he forecast for the 90s.
This photograph, Mr. Speaker, which I am willing to table in the House, brings back some very unpleasant memories. It was on the wall of my office in one of my service stations in Laval. I asked my employees to leave it in the building. What a nightmare, Mr. Speaker! What a nightmare for consumers. What a nightmare for retailers. What a shock for Quebecers when they saw this photograph in the Montreal newspaper La Presse on

Government Orders
Tuesday, October 2, 1990. It was published with the announcement that Petro-Canada would be privatized. The photograph was taken on October 24, 1981. You should see what he looks like, pumping gas!
But to get back to our subject, Mr. Speaker, since I was waiting for this opportunity, when I was asked to join the party in 1984, I was semi-retired.


Mr. Belair:: At your age?


Vincent Della Noce: Yes, at my age! Someone approached me-


An hon. member:: It wasn't the Liberals!


Vincent Della Noce: Someone approached me to ask if I wanted to join the Progressive Conservative Party. I said: "That sounds interesting, because in my field, only the Progressive Conservative Party would be able to meet my expectations". In fact, I wrote to Mr. Lalonde, the former Minister of Energy-


An hon. member:: Did he answer your letter?


Vincent Della Noce: -the guy with the cap. But Mr. Lalonde never answered my letter, although I wrote on behalf of 7,000 Quebec retailers. At the time, of course, Quebec was not very popular with the Liberal Party, but after all! I also sent a copy to a marvelous man, one of my ex-colleagues-I never thought I would be his colleague one day when I wrote the letter-the hon. member for Joliette, Mr. Roch LaSalle. He got back to me three days later, he called me to ask if he could help us. You will say, of course, that is the opposition. No, this was a man who liked Quebec, who liked Quebecers. When you represent 7,000 members, it seems the least you can expect is an answer to your letter.


M. Tetreault:: And he was not arrogant.


Vincent Della Noce: No, he was not an arrogant man. It seems to me Mr. Lalonde could have answered my letter.
Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I said that I would run if I could find a party which shared my views and my ideology, for example on Petro-Canada and on the National Energy Program for which I did not have any use. I had a meeting with the Prime Minister who at the time was Leader of the Opposition here in the House. I told him about my concerns and my views. I will always remember what the Prime Minister told me. I did not
know him any better than anybody else, but I liked him. Like a great Canadian he said to me: Get elected and go to Ottawa to defend your own cause. I thought this was such a good answer that I did come here to defend my cause.
In 1985, with my colleague from Calgary Southwest who made a very good speech yesterday, I began working on a privatization project. Six of my colleagues were members of that committee. Today I see that the dream of Canadians, consumers and retailers is coming true.
Yesterday I listened to members opposite, a member of the New Democratic Party, Liberal members, including one of our outstanding colleagues the Liberal member for York Centre who said, and I quote from page 14016 of yesterday's debates:
- the opposition does not support the privatization of Petro-Canada and that we will be voting against this measure.
They do not support the privatization of Petro-Canada, sure enough, but they are the ones who set it up in the first place. It is a rather embarrassing thing to say.
Why put Petro-Canada on the block? Why privatize it? Why keep it? These are the questions they should be asking. What did Petro-Canada ever do for consumers? Did it give them lower prices? No. Did it treat retailers better that the private sector did? No. Did it help get what is called a "window on the industry? I can tell you that Mr. Lalonde was not even anywhere near the window and already things turned sour. What was Petro-Canada doing, Mr. Speaker? Let me tell you. I was a retailer in those says. I owned a station, and there were another three or four in the vicinity. There was Petrofina, BP, Supertest and others. All of a sudden, Petro-Canada gas stations swarmed in like flies or mosquitoes and I found myself surrounded. They all had a face lift at the taxpayers expense, you know. They were using my money to compete with me! That was too much! That was liberal all right! Red maple leaves were put on. That was Trudeau propaganda! How nice to see all those maple leaves across Canada while Quebec is separating. The hell with Quebec, right!
Mr. Speaker, when I got up one morning and saw I had four Petro-Canada stations for competitors, that they each had a $50,000 budget for a face lift using my money while I had only $1,000 for painting and maintenance, I

promised myself that I would shut them down. I had to work very hard, but I succeeded. They had no idea of how it works in the private enterprise. They were not getting up at five in the morning to attract the clientele. They were subsidized by the people, with government money. I was so easy to run the business on government money. But if you is with privatization, you will see changes. Wait and see what will happen once they are privatized.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, because I thought I had twenty minutes. I do not understand. You are telling me I used merely ten minutes. Maybe I will be allowed to continue-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hate to disturb the hon. member because he is just getting wound up. He will have 10 minutes remaining in his speech, plus 10 minutes for questions and comments, after three o'clock.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chamber until two o'clock this day.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, the people of the north continue to oppose the goods and services tax proposals. The government of the Northwest Territories says the tax is unfair and the timing is wrong. Unemployment is rising. Interest rates are too high. The economy is in recession. The higher prices the GST will create could not come at a worse time.
Prices of goods and services in the north are already, on average, 44 per cent higher than in southern Canada. In isolated Arctic settlements, prices can be more than 100 per cent higher. Because of these higher prices, the value of the federal sales tax credit will be much lower for the northern Canadian family than for the southern Canadian family.
Under the goods and services tax, all freight to the north will be taxed.
A resolution passed by the Kitikmeot regional council last month stated simply: "This tax is going to be terrible for all northerners".
The Northwest Territories does not want the GST. The government must scrap it now.


THE LATE ED BARRETT
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, Red Deer said goodbye to one of its best this week with the passing of former mayor Ed Barrett. I was privileged to join a packed congregation to celebrate the life of a well loved and respected community leader.
Mr. Barrett gave a lifetime of service to his community. He served 13 years on city council. He was mayor from 1965 to 1974. He was president of the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association, and very active in his church, especially the choir, where he was known for his fine singing voice.
He retired in 1974 and was named Red Deer's Citizen of the Year. But Ed Barrett did not stop there. He became very active in organizing seniors' groups and was still heard singing in the hospital last week.
Ed Barrett will be remembered for many things, most importantly for his honesty and integrity. He was an example for everyone who was privileged to know him.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, a number of items mentioned in the recent report of the Economic Council of Canada have been conveniently forgotten by many opposition critics.
The report states that in order for industry and workers to adapt to emerging markets and new patterns of international trade, there must be more emphasis on job retraining at every level rather than passive income support programs.
The council calls for more co-operation between all levels of government, labour, and employers in regard to job retraining and other important economic matters in order to have a better balance between fiscal and monetary policy.

The report indicates that Bill C-21, presently being held up in the other place, is a significant start toward changing our policies regarding job training and thus adapting to changing world markets.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals in the other place must end their antics and allow these progressive initiatives, supported by the Economic Council to move forward.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to deliver a message to this government on behalf of the dairy and poultry producers of Haldimand-Norfolk.
They join thousands of other farmers across Canada in urging this government not to compromise supply management as it enters the final round of the GATT negotiations. Farmers all across Canada have been hurt by this government's anti-farm policies. Our dairy and poultry farmers and their supply management systems were sold down the river by concessions this government gave under the Canada-U.S. free trade deal.
Canada must not sell out its farmers under these negotiations as it did under free trade. Canadian dairy and poultry farmers are under the gun now, thanks to this government. I am telling this government not to return from the GATT negotiations unless it helps our supply managed commodity farmers. It is time for this government to finally stand up for the rights of our Canadian farmers.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have here a notice sent to employees who work for Mallette in Timmins. The company's owners have announced layoffs for an indefinite period because of the present economic situation.
This notice is very similar to ones received by employees at Air Canada, Imperial Oil, Canadian National, and so forth. What the Prime Minister calls a slight slowdown is, in fact, a recession.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance put a stop to these disastrous
economic policies which include high interest rates, the goods and services tax and other measures that have led to the present situation.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, it has been deeply disappointing and frustrating to most Canadians, and certainly to me, that some of our citizens, particularly in Quebec but also among our native Indian bands, seek a separate sovereignty, apart from Canada. I cannot and will not support any directions that promote a separate Canada.
The unity of this country is our most compelling priority. However, this is not to say that we should try to prevent anyone from exercising his or her freedom to feel or to think or to speak differently in Canada, even though it may be for extreme positions such as separation. Our democracy is surely strong enough for that. It will stand the test of dissent and division. In fact, it will be that very spirit of free democracy that will ultimately keep us together.
For example, as much as I oppose the separation of Quebec, which is the cause that motivates some of our independent members from Quebec, and as strongly as I will work to defend Canadian unity against their efforts, nevertheless I do support their elected right to represent their constituents as they see fit.
We shall not be able to demonstrate the virtues of Canadianism by obstructing or squelching free thought or free speech. Rather, we will establish those virtues by tolerating dissent and debate and by defeating wrong directions in democratic ways.


HIBERNIA PROJECT
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Quebec Conservatives did not wait until September 1990 to defend the interests of Quebec in the Hibernia project. Yesterday, Quebec Minister Gerald Tremblay, a Liberal, proved this when he said that "we should not look at the situation in terms of Levis alone". Mr. Tremblay maintained that without the presence of Benoit Bouchard, the minister and member for Roberval in Ottawa, "we

*
3*

October 11, 1990

would not have the economic spinoffs we have in Quebec today".
Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Conservatives, Minister Bouchard and the Conservative member for Levis have always worked very hard to maximize economic spinoffs for Quebec and its workers.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians found out to their amazement that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service had warned the Solicitor General in March 1989 that there were serious problems in Canada's native community and that there was a potential for violence.
It seems the Solicitor General did not give further consideration to this report.
All Canadians want an answer to the following questions: When did the minister find out that illegal arms were entering Canada in Akwesasne, in my riding? Why wasn't the information passed on to the Surete du Quebec? What steps has the minister taken to avoid the kind of violence that led to two deaths in Akwesasne and one in Oka?
Mr. Speaker, we must have a parliamentary inquiry to find the answers to these questions. I therefore ask that the Standing Committee on Justice of the House of Commons start such an inquiry immediately.


DEMOCRACY
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the unbelievable manoeuvring resorted to by Liberal senators with Mr. Chretien's approval are a clear demonstration of the confusion the Liberal Party has fallen into.
What is at stake here is the very principle of Parliamentary democracy, meaning the pre-eminence of an elected House of Commons over an appointed Senate.
The Liberal senators are blocking legislation stemming from the 1989 budget, major changes to the unemployment insurance scheme, as well as the GST legislation. They are playing a very dangerous, costly and irresponsible game. In terms of money, their tricks will add $8.3
billion to the annual deficit, taking into account the fact that the Liberals are currently blocking four other finance bills.
Since we came into office in 1984, the Senate has delayed as many as 50 bills.
In short, the Liberal Party is usurping power and, such tactics could very well undermine the very foundation of the Canadian legislative system.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, we have a grain crisis in Saskatchewan. Our grain cannot be sold at a decent price. Sales have dried up, the elevator system is plugged and farmers are left to pile the grain on the ground.
Farmers used to receive interest-free cash advances. The PC government cancelled this and instead, because of the GST, it is the farmers who will be giving the government interest-free cash advances. Those tricky Tories.
My colleagues in the Saskatchewan legislature have collected 2,000 signatures in response to a single ad. The Prime Minister's office should be receiving these today. These 2,000 farm families of Saskatchewan have taken the time to send an important message to the Prime Minister.
The message, Mr. Speaker, is as follows:
Dear Mr. Mulroney:
We ask you to help ease the grain delivery crisis. Bring back
interest-free advances. It's one way your government can help
Saskatchewan farmers immediately.


Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon a very important cavalcade reached Ottawa, cars which are fuelled in four different ways: by gasoline, natural gas, propane and 85 per cent methanol.
As these vehicles cross Canada, they dramatically illustrate that there are viable alternatives to our slavish dependence on oil as the fuel that powers most passenger cars. Of these four fuels, only methanol is not available to consumers on a consistent and wide scale

October 11, 1990
basis. Yet cars powered by methanol are clean-burning and environmentally friendly. Because methanol can be made from natural gas, wood, coal, corn or grains, Canada could have an inexhaustible supply of energy-if we were to put the resources and determination behind it.
Already methanol is a billion dollar industry in western Canada, with most of the production going to the United States where clean air laws favour that fuel.
I urge Canadians to consider methanol and I invite members of this House this afternoon to have a look at the World of Wheels alternative fuel vehicles outside.
The time has come to think beyond oil.


CANADA POST
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I received 310 letters and two petitions, signed by some 751 people, all in protest of the proposed closure of the post office in South Ohio, Nova Scotia. They are the latest victims of Canada Post's drive to close rural post offices in Canada.
They join other angry people in South West Nova whose vigorous protests against the closure of their post offices have been ignored by Canada Post.
These are the people missed by Canada Post when it did a survey that showed 90 per cent of its rural customers are happy with these closures.
These are the people who have not been fooled by Canada Post's efforts to hide the serious impact these closures will have on all rural Canadians by announcing only one at a time.
Mr. Speaker, I call on the minister responsible to direct Canada Post to come clean with its rural customers and reveal the total number of post offices it intends to close so that they have an opportunity to all come together at once to defend their clear right to the best possible postal service this Canadian government can give.


JUSTICE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, this morning Canadians awoke to the news that Conservatives want to be above the law. Yesterday the Tories used their majority muscle in a legislative committee to force through changes in the law which govern MPs and Senators. They want to be tipped off to any RCMP criminal investigations into their parliamentary affairs.
In other words, the Conservatives are creating a two-tiered justice system-one level for Tory MPs and another for ordinary Canadians.
Earlier this year, the Minister of Justice said there could only be one law for Canadians. She told the House: "We cannot pick and choose when we want to apply the law and we cannot pick and choose which laws we want to obey". A few weeks later her colleagues are looking for special laws for Tory MPs.
There seem to be no limits to the abuses of this government. To further their misguided agenda, the Tories are willing to break all conventions, abuse closure, stack the Senate, and now they want to give themselves special legal privileges.
No wonder Canadians have such contempt for this government.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Moncton has been hard hit by the Conservative agenda. We lost the CN shops for a total of 1,500 jobs, the government destroyed VIA Rail for a loss of 200 jobs. The closure of CFB Moncton will result in the loss of another 400 jobs, and now CN says it is looking to cut 70 jobs, and Air Canada expects to cut 13.
Taking 70 jobs out of Moncton does not sound like much, but it is roughly equivalent to taking 1,800 jobs from a city the size of Montreal.
We are in a made-in-Canada recession as a result of this government's high interest rate and high dollar policies. We need a government that is sensitive to communities, especially those that have already paid a hard and heavy price for the disastrous Tory economic and fiscal policies.
October 11, 1990

Seventy jobs when you are looking at a balance sheet are just numbers on a sheet of paper, but 70 people with family and friends who have to suffer the dislocation and emotional upset of job loss is too high a price to pay on the altar of bottom line economics.
Enough is enough.


HOUSING
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, recent statistics have come to light which show 9 per cent of people living in housing co-ops have incomes in excess of $50,000.
Over one-half of all the people living in federally subsidized housing co-ops can afford the carrying costs of a modest home. Many housing co-op projects are financed by 8 per cent or 9 per cent mortgage money over 50 years.
As people's incomes rise, they should move on so that the homeless and low-income Canadians have access to affordable housing.
I call upon the minister to introduce a policy which would encourage high-income Canadians to move out of these heavily subsidized projects.
We as a country can no longer afford to subsidize whole projects like the Sundance Housing Co-op in Edmonton with 8 per cent money so that high-income Canadians can enjoy a co-op lifestyle.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The thousands of Canadians who are losing their jobs, their homes, and their businesses due to the policies of this government know that we are in a recession.
The respected economists of the Conference Board of Canada confirm that we are in a recession. They say that it is our first made-in-Canada recession, in effect one caused by the policies of this government. Everybody in
Oral Questions
Canada knows that we are in a recession except the Minister of Finance.
Therefore I have a very simple question for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister finally admit that we are now in a recession? Yes or no.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, if I may be so bold and say to the Leader of the Opposition, that is a silly question.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let us deal with the facts of what we have as an economy, the facts that I have been setting out very clearly since my budget of February of this year where I said we were going through a slowdown in the economy, a slowdown that is necessary for our economy to go through, because of the extent of the inflationary pressures that are in the economy, inflationary pressures that were a good deal higher than those of our major trading partners.
It is important that we see an easing in these inflationary pressures so that we can get on to a path of non-inflationary growth with lower interest rates and we can see a continuation of the tremendous job creation record that we had in the first six years of our mandate.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Canadians will be sickened by the callous and heartless evasion of the basic question by the Minister of Finance.
The thousands of Canadians who are losing their jobs due to the recession caused by the policies of this government are not being silly. The thousands of Canadians who are losing their homes and their businesses due to the recession caused by the policies of this government are not being silly.
Why won't the minister stop trying to tell Canadians they are being silly when they are stating the facts? Why won't he admit there is a recession and start doing something about it by reversing his policies starting with the GST?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to Canadians as being silly. I am referring to the type of question that the hon. member is asking.
If he has sensible question as to why we are going through a period of a slowdown in the economy, I have addressed that question. If he is asking the question as to

Oral Questions
what we are doing to move ourselves through this slowdown in the economy, I have answered that question as well.
As we have seen the economy slowing down, as we have seen the inflationary pressures subside, we are getting interest rates down. As we get those interest rates down, the positive effect of that will be felt in every comer of the country. That is precisely the response that we are following as a government.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this morning, when the minister was asked by the press whether there was a recession, he said "the whole discussion is silly".
Canadians will want to know why he is so unwilling to say the r word. They are not going to wash out his mouth with soap if he states the fact and says the word "recession". Why won't he say it? Why won't he admit it?
I repeat my question: Why won't the Minister of Finance admit, himself, that there is now a recession? Yes or no.

Why does the minister refuse to admit that his policies have created a recession?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is trying in a very awkward fashion to dance on the head of a pin.
I am trying to deal with the realities of the economic environment that we find ourselves in.
The economic realities are very clear. I have been talking about them long before the Leader of the Opposition talked about them. I said in my budget that 1990 was going to be a difficult year.
We must get ourselves through this year by getting a clear decline in the inflationary pressures so that we can see a reduction in interest rates. As we see that reduction in interest rates, we will be able to put ourselves on to a solid path of growth in the future. That is the policy that we have been following. It is a consistent policy and the policy is going to work.


Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie-Bathurst):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have not created this recession. It is the policies of the Minister of Finance and his Tory government that have thrown Canada into a recession which everyone in this country, except the Minister of Finance, seems to recognize. Now, Mr. Speaker, my question is this: Is the Minister of Finance finally prepared to stand up as a man and honestly tell Canadians that we are indeed faced with a recession? That is all we want from him. Yes or no?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, these are esoteric questions that the hon. member is talking about. Perhaps he would deal with the
issues.
Does the senior finance critic for the Liberal Party have any suggestions as to how we can get through this period? Is he going to respond in any way to what the Business Council on National Issues said today on how we get the deficit down lower?
Are these questions that the Liberal Party are prepared to address, or are they simply going to ask questions which have no bearing on the actual facts that we have to deal with?
Canadians want to see political parties and politicians dealing with the issues in an honest way on how we are going to find our way through the difficult period that I have talked about for all of this year? That is the question that the hon. member should be responding to.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has been at this for five years. He refused to listen to the Canadian premiers. He refuses to listen to Canadian business. He refuses to listen to Canadians who have told him over and over again that his high interest rate policy is driving the country into a recession.
I am sick and tired of listening to the Minister of *Finance and his weak-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that hon. members have heard the question.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think there is one thing that is fairly clear and
October 11, 1990

that most Canadians would acknowledge, that if there is a recession a Liberal would recognize it. As the authors of the worst recession in 55 years, the Liberals would recognize it.
My hon. friend has been referring to comments made on the economy. Perhaps he could have, in justice, referred to two comments made this morning in regard to precisely the situation of the Minister of Finance and his record.
The President of BCNI said at the press conference this morning: "Mr. Wilson's performance has been better than that of all the provinces."
The President of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association said at the press conference this morning: "The manufacturers' sales tax is a disaster. The GST ought to go through". If the member of Parliament had any sense of commitment to a modern economy, he would urge the Liberals in the Senate to pass it now.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
One of the groups that has been hardest hit in Canada by this government's failed economic policies is the aboriginal people of Canada. The Prime Minister said during the Oka crisis that when it was over he would have a plan that all Canadians would be proud of.
What is the plan for those one-half of aboriginal children who live in poverty? Where is the plan for the 90 per cent of the aboriginal families in Restigouche who live on welfare or unemployment insurance? Where is the plan for those people living in substandard housing on bands and reserves across this country?
We have heard the Prime Minister's promises. I ask the Prime Minister: Where is the plan?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's questions are inadvertently misleading.
There was never any suggestion in the major commitments made by me in this House or by the minister that we could solve overnight the very serious social problems that have developed among aboriginal peoples now over decades and centuries.
Oral Questions


Ms.   Blondin@: Just change your attitude.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says that there ought to be a change in attitudes. She is quite right.
The fundamental commitment that I made on behalf of the Government of Canada, and I believe on behalf of all parliamentarians, is that what is owed native peoples is a fundamental change in attitude to bring about the social justice to which they are entitled.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Prime Minister that there has not been one concrete proposal to address the severe poverty which is abysmal in aboriginal communities across this country. The economic policies of this government continue to fail Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. This morning the Minister of State for Finance was telling us about an "adjustment period". This adjustment period is in fact a real tragedy. Still more families live in poverty, still more youths cannot find jobs.
Mr. Speaker, again I quote the minister who said this morning: "Many Canadians are suffering and feeling helpless." I ask the Prime Minister, where are the jobs which would put an end to their sufferings and their feeling of helplessness?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is a well-known fact that for six years now Canada has been the leader in job creation, that it has created jobs faster than any of the G-7 industrialized nations. We have created 1.6 million new jobs in Canada, an achievement for which our country deserves full recognition. Since September 17, 1984 the unemployment rate among young people has dropped 4.6 per cent.
With respect to children or individuals living in poverty, I said yesterday that 250,000 Canadians no longer live in poverty as a result of our government's policies. This has to be a commendable achievement for a country like ours.
Miracles we did not have, but we did make real progress and our performance would have been better still had the hon. member and her Party given us their full support.

Oral Questions


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister knows that the Economic Council of Canada showed that Canada had, out of 16 countries, the 15th highest level of unemployment. We should be ashamed of our level of unemployment. We should not be bragging about our level of unemployment. We should be planning for full employment in this country.
This recession that has been created by this government, created by its economic policies of free trade, privatization and deregulation, has been all too effective. We can ask the poor across this country, working families who are out of a job, and companies that have moved across the border as a result of this government's policies.
I say to the Prime Minister that his policies have been very effective in getting us into a recession. What kind of policies does he have to get us out of a recession?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think it is generally acknowledged by all members of the House, or certainly most members of the House, that for the last six years Canada's job-creation record topped the G-7 and that our record of economic growth was second only to that of Japan.
Apart from some of the job-creation figures, it is true that the economy is in a slow down. But during that period since 1984, 757,000 Canadians have been removed from the poverty rolls. That is a major contribution toward social justice by any standard. What we are seeking to do is to create new wealth in the country in a non-inflationary climate. That is why the policies of the government were designed to avoid what is taking place in some other industrialized countries where inflation is now approaching 10 per cent and 11 per cent. Because we believe inflation to be the most insidious of ills in an economy since it hurts the poor and those on fixed incomes more than anyone else, we are maintaining the elements that have brought about record economic prosperity for six years and it is our hope to do so in a non-inflationary manner.
If my hon. friend has one single idea that would improve upon that, please stand up and tell us because all we have heard is more spending, more spending, more spending, more taxes and more taxes and more taxes from the NDP.


Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Resign.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Last week the Economic Council said that the activities of his government are the main cause of inflation. Yesterday, at long last, the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology did admit that we are in a recession. Again yesterday the Conference Board of Canada said that the recession will be harder on Canada than on any other country in the world, harder on Quebec than on any other Canadian province. Yesterday we lost 1,000 jobs in Montreal. Why? Because of the crushing interest rates we have to endure. My question is this: What does the minister intend to do to get us out of the mess he made, to get us out of the recession he has created?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me take my hon. friend back to how this all started. It was 1988 and 1989 when inflationary pressures in the economy started to increase. We had a point where the inflation rate got a good deal higher and the inflationary pressures, as measured by the unit labour costs got a good deal higher than those in the United States, Japan and Germany. We had to take action as a government to ease those inflationary pressures.
That resulted in higher interest rates. The higher interest rates were also designed to slow down the rate of growth of credit, which was growing two to two and a half times faster than the nominal rate of growth in the economy. If we had let that go on, we would have got ourselves exactly back into the position that the Liberal Party of Canada got us into in 1981-82.
Surely my hon. friend, who was not part of that government can recognize from a distance that that was a mess we should avoid if we possibly could. That is precisely what we are trying to avoid with the policies that we have been following.

October 11, 1990

Since the spring when we have seen the inflationary pressures ease, we have been seeing interest rates ease. As that continues further, as the economy eases, we are getting interest rates down further. They have come down in the last three and a half months by one and a half percentage points. That is the direction in which we are going. We believe it is the right policy. We believe that if we had followed the policies that my colleague and his friends are suggesting we follow, we would be right back into the mess of 1981-82 when we had a far, far more serious recession than anybody is contemplating today. That is the problem that we have to avoid.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, with regret this Minister of Finance is living in cuckoo land.
The problem that we face in this country is jobs. The GST does not create jobs, it costs jobs. High interest rates do not create jobs, they cost jobs.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, Freud said it very well. He said that you have to admit that there is a problem before you can solve the problem. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are in a recession whether this minister will admit it or not. What this government does not need is another economist, it needs a psychiatrist.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could put the question very clearly.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, we are in a recession caused by the Prime Minister, by the minister, by this government-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint Leonard. [Translation]


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, in the past 48 hours we lost 3,000 jobs at Air Canada, 1,500 jobs at CN and 3,000 at Esso. Meanwhile, there has been a 50 per cent increase in bankruptcies in this country.
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. How many companies and how many jobs do we have to
Oral Questions
lose before the minister admits that his monetary policy is disastrous and that we are in a recession, a recession he himself created? What is he going to do now? How many jobs and companies do we have to lose?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentions Air Canada. Surely he acknowledges that the biggest problem that Air Canada has today is the increase in oil prices, which in turn has been caused by the international problem in the Middle East right now.
Now the hon. member says, "What are we going to do about it?". I would like to ask him to reflect back on what the Economic Council said. It had some criticisms for the Government of Canada. It said that we should be getting the deficit down more quickly so that we can get interest rates down more quickly.
What is the hon. member suggesting we do to get the deficit down?


Some hon. members:: Resign.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We feel we have the right balance between taxes and spending, but if the hon. member feels we can get the deficit down faster by increasing taxes more or by reducing expenditures less, then let him say so.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood said, "The Liberal Party can't hang-glide to power without alternatives. They must have alternatives". We are the alternative because I agree with the hon. member, you can't hang-glide to power.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the minister wants to know what to do to reduce the deficit. Well, start reducing interest. If the minister had listened-

If the minister had listened to the Government of Quebec, the Conseil du patronat, and all economic partners in Quebec, we would not be in a recession today!
What is he going to do now? Now that he has his recession, the one he created, what is he going to do before it is too late for Canada?

October 11, 1990
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the hon. member probably has not read all of the reports that we have seen in the last few days.
But the fundamental basis for them saying we must get interest rates down is to get the deficit down. If my hon. friend has some ideas on how to get the deficit down, let him join in the public debate. Let him-


Some hon. members:: Resign.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Prairie farmers are not able to sell their grain. Thousands of bushels are in danger of simply rotting on the ground. Farmer and rural bankruptcies are up by 25 per cent over last year. Every western MP can tell tragic tales about constituents in his or her riding. Western Canada is in a recession.
When is the government going to provide some real assistance to prairie agriculture instead of rhetoric. We need help now.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question and recognize the serious problems that agriculture is facing in western Canada in particular.
As the hon. member knows, we did provide some $500 million worth of emergency assistance in the spring. We had hoped that that would be matched by the provincial governments. Unfortunately, it was matched in part only but I think has gone some distance in helping farmers get their crops in. We now have a record crop and it is causing congestion. Several alternatives are being looked at.
However, I want to remind the hon. member that this problem has been with us for quite some time. We are trying to deal with the issue at the GATT negotiations, to try to bring some order out of the chaos in the international marketplace. We are working very diligently on a long-term safety net program.
I am sure the hon. member will be pleased to know that I am looking very favourably at the reinstatement of interest-free cash advances, provided it can be linked into a long-term solution to the problem.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The policies that the Minister of Agriculture is talking about today are not doing anything to alleviate the immediate farm financial crisis. I find the discussion about the reinstatement of the interest-free cash advance to be in order. Members of his own party have been talking about reinstating the interest-free cash advance.
Can the minister tell us today that by the end of this week interest-free cash advances will be available to western Canadian farmers so that they are not at bay with the banks at the immediate time?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I did indicate that we were giving the matter urgent consideration.
Also I would like to remind the hon. member and his colleagues that this morning the Prime Minister, myself and other members of Cabinet met with Mr. Dunkel, the head of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade who is in Canada at the present time working in a co-ordinated effort to try to bring some order out of the chaos that exists in the international marketplace.
The Prime Minister is the one who brought agriculture to the top of the agenda of the GATT and he should be applauded for that. We now have an opportunity to address the long-term situation which will not only serve us in the long term but will serve us in the immediate term as well.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who was warned last spring by western premiers about a made-in-Canada recession. They used that term, made-in-Cana-da recession. They warned him about the use of high interest rates, the lack of confidence in his policies and the imposition of the GST, which would only worsen the condition of the western economy.

In the face of 268 farm bankruptcies on the prairies, the loss of 11,000 manufacturing jobs in Manitoba alone, will the minister now admit that he and his policies are a total and dreadful failure?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is selectively referring to what the premiers said. He neglects to say that in 1988 they unanimously came out with a recommendation to get interest rates down. If we had done that, we would have a rip-roaring inflation problem today, the likes of which they have in the United Kingdom today. I remind hon. members that the inflation rate in the United Kingdom is 10.6 per cent.
The hon. member criticizes the GST, saying that it will be tough on agriculture. What my hon. friend should do is go and speak to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. They will explain to him that they support the GST because there will be a $250 million saving to agriculture. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker, a $250 million saving for agriculture as a result of the elimination of the federal sales tax and the introduction of the goods and services tax.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I wish this minister would come west. My home city of Winnipeg has a proud heritage in transportation, yet this week there were 223 more lay-offs at Air Canada and 125 more lost jobs at CN Rail, which will result in taking $8 million out of the Winnipeg economy. I have said nothing about the total collapse of the trucking industry in my province.
I want to ask the Minister this. Will he now realize that Manitobans are hurting, as are all Canadians, and that his policies are crippling the Manitoba economy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have never said that Canadians are not hurting. I understand-


An hon. member:: You said it was silly.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, no, I said the Leader of the Opposition was silly.
I have said that I understand that the period we are going through now, which I anticipated some while ago, would be a difficult one for Canadians. But what we have to understand is the alternatives.
Oral Questions
We could have avoided this period we are going through now. We could have let the party go on for another three, six, or nine months, but then the problems would be that much greater. What we are trying to do is avoid the boom and the bust that we had in 1981-82 by taking steps earlier to anticipate the problem and to get the problem under control before we lose control of it, and that is precisely what we are going through now.
I said in my budget that there will be great demands for quick-fix solutions to this, quick-fix solutions that are not possible. Unfortunately, my colleague is looking for a quick-fix solution which simply will not work.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic provinces are in agony. Prohibitive interest rates, hundreds of jobs gone, yesterday, at Air Canada and its Atlantic service division, the looming GST, and now a man-made recession. I have a question for the man, the Minister of Finance.
Why is he hell-bent on destroying the Atlantic provinces and why does he consider their fears about this situation, in his own words, silly?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is silly for the hon. member to suggest that I am hell-bent on destroying the economy of the Atlantic provinces. What I have tried to explain to the hon. member and her colleagues is the basis for the policy that we have been following.
She should reflect back to what happened in the 1970s and the early 1980s. The government of the day swept the problem of inflation under the carpet and allowed inflation to go to 13 per cent. That resulted in interest rates of 20 per cent to 25 per cent and that, Mr. Speaker, did destroy the economy of Atlantic Canada. If she could understand the fact that we tried to anticipate the problem in this business cycle, not let inflation get out of control, and avoid the problems that we ran into in the 1970s and early 1980s, she would understand the basis for the policy that we are following today. It is a policy of leadership, of avoiding problems before they get out of control.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. minister avoids any more problems, the Atlantic provinces will disappear. Overnight, in Nova Scotia, heating oil is up three cents a litre, gas is up two cents a litre, and the other Atlantic provinces will soon have to follow suit. In our region, this winter, Canadians will be unemployed

October 11, 1990
Oral Questions
and they will be freezing in the dark. Will the minister, for the love of God, change his policy?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister who promised, during the federal election, to provide generous adjustment programs for workers who lose their jobs because of his government's policies.
Since Tuesday, 2,900 jobs at Air Canada, 1,500 jobs at Canadian National, and up to 3,000 jobs at Imperial Oil have been axed because of the government's policy of transport deregulation and lax rules on corporate mergers and take-overs. When will the Prime Minister produce those generous programs so that workers and their families will not be left high and dry and broke by the government?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the NDP ask the same question day after day after day, at the same time as they are defending the Liberal senators who are holding up $800 million worth of benefits for Canadian workers.


Some hon. members:: 


VER, VER.
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, if the government thinks that the cut-backs and meagre half measures of Bill C-21 are generous programs, then I worry about the future for Canadian workers.
Transport deregulation has cost the industry 4,400 jobs within the past 44 hours. That is 100 jobs an hour and now the government wants to open things up completely with continent-wide free trade in the skies.
I ask again, Mr. Speaker, will the government produce the programs it promised to help workers? Better yet, will the government dump policies such as deregulation, high interest rates, and the GST, that are killing those jobs in the first place?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, out of the litany of problems that my hon. friend referred to, he referred to deregulation. I would like to point out that in the National Transportation Agency's annual report it stated that Canada's airline industry has always been concentrated, but when examined closely it is less dominated by one airline now than it was before the relaxing of regulatory controls in 1984. The increased level of competition in the domestic airline industry has produced a much broader selection of services and prices for the Canadian transportation industry.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
We now know it's official: Canada is in a recession and it is going to hurt. This was according to the Conference Board, and yesterday, one of the government's ministers was honest enough to admit it was true. We also know that. Quebec is going to hurt more than the others. With 40 per cent of Canadian business bankruptcies, an unemployment rate of 10.5 per cent, compared with 6.5 per cent in Ontario, and this week's announcement that 4,000 jobs will be lost in Montreal alone, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister what he intends to do about turning the situation around. And when is the government going to give us a new economic statement?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have repeated several times the reasons behind the policies of the Canadian government. There was a problem in the past with inflation, and our inflation rate is still higher than that of our trading partners in other countries. That is why it is very important for our country to reduce inflationary pressures. By doing so, we can then reduce interest rates. That is our government's policy. It is a policy that created a large number of jobs in Quebec and across Canada during the first year of our term, and that same policy will produce the same results in the years to come.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean has the floor, for a very short supplementary.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, only the Minister of Finance fails to see that unreasonably high interest rates are a drastic remedy that is killing, not curing the patient. This policy is draining Quebec. It is pulling the plug on a whole generation of hard work and success in business in
October 11, 1990

Quebec. Mr. Speaker, when will this government finally take the responsibility for its own actions, set interest rates itself and stop hiding behind the Governor of the Bank of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I must say that when the hon. member was on this side of the House, he agreed wholeheartedly with our government's policies.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
The government's economic policies have set the transport industry into a complete tail spin. In just a matter of days, Air Canada has laid off close to 3,000 people and CN has let go another 1,500 hard working Canadians.
Given the government's failing right wing economic agenda of privatization, deregulation, and high interest rates, what is the minister prepared to do to save the thousands of much needed jobs in the transport sector? It is a key industry in our national economy.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to our policies of privatization, deregulation, and high interest rates which are designed to control inflation.
If he would look at countries around the world, such as the eastern European countries, Australia, or New Zealand which do not call themselves right wing countries, he would see that the exact same policies of privatization, deregulation, and inflation control are being followed there.
The whole point that I am making to my hon. friend is that if he would take his head out of the sand and look at what is happening around the world today, understanding the types of economic policies that are followed throughout the world to deal with the economic challenges we have as a country, he would be supportive of our economic policy.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, talking about sand, if the minister removed the sand between his ears, he might see what is happening to our country.
Oral Questions
My supplementary question is directed to the same minister.
Upon announcing the policy of deregulation, the Deputy Prime Minister said: "This government will monitor the effects of change upon the employees and will respond to any adverse consequences as humanely as possible."
I ask the minister: Will the government keep this promise and provide the necessary adjustment programs to help the thousands upon thousands of Canadian workers who have been displaced, particularly now that we are into a full blown recession, created by this one Minister of Finance?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, only the Liberals would regard $800 million worth of adjustment programs as being insignificant. That is what is being held up by the hon. member's colleagues in the Senate.


Some hon. members:: 



Mr. Speaker:: I remind hon. members that each time I have to restore order, precious time is fleeing out of Question Period.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the adjustment programs that we have put forward to deal with exactly the kinds of problems that the hon. members keep hammering away at are in the Senate. It has been eleven months since they were sent to the Senate.


BILL C-21
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, over the last number of days, representatives and the president of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union of British Columbia; the president and representatives of the Fishermen's Union of Atlantic Canada, representing tens of thousands of fishermen, have been in Ottawa to meet with members from all three parties.
In the case of British Columbia, 90 per cent of the fishermen will not quality for unemployment insurance because of the regulations now being imposed by the government. There are thousands more in Atlantic Canada.
My question is very simple. Given that both these unions have made it crystal clear that they do not

Business of the House
support Bill C-21, why will the government not do as it is asked and put an end to this economic terrorism, introduce the VER, and put an end to economic hostage taking of-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, a temporary VER bill is not going to help the new parents in Canada who are looking for maternity and paternal benefits. A VER bill is-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister.


Barbara Jean McDougall: If the hon. member is so concerned about the workers-


Some hon. members:: 


VER, VER.
Barbara Jean McDougall: -then I would suggest that they take into account the needs of seasonal workers-


Some hon. members:: 



Barbara Jean McDougall: -in the fish plants as well as the fishermen and the other people who are concerned. All the shouting in the world is not going to help those people.


FORESTS
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and deals with the Canada-Quebec Subsidiary Agreement on Development.
On August 24,1990, the federal government submitted to the minister of Forestry for Quebec a proposal for the renewal of the Canada-Quebec Forest Agreement.
Considering no answer has been received yet, could the Minister tell us how he intends to ensure that the Quebec forest industry benefits as soon as possible from the federal govemement funds?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.
We have indeed offered, on August 24th, the Quebec government to renew the Forest Agreement. As of yet, we have not received an answer. However, we believe that the Quebec government intends to make a valid proposal toward finding a solution, as producers in Quebec expect, which is extremeley important for the forests in Quebec.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw attention to the presence in the Speaker's gallery of parliamentarians from various francophone countries who are members of the Parliamentary Affairs Committee of the International Association of French-Speaking Parliamentarians.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it is customary for the Opposition House leader to ask what the government's legislative agenda will be for the next few days. I ask the question.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with second reading of Bill C-84. Tomorrow, I would like to call and perhaps deal with in its entirety Bill C-37 for third reading, Bill C-74 to complete second reading, and Bill C-73 to complete second reading.
I understand in all of these cases we are near completion. Discussions can carry on informally. In terms of order, I understand there is some concern about what might be called first. Certainly that is subject to agreement with the opposition as well.
On Monday, I am not quite sure at this point what business will be called, probably Bill C-84. But there might be a change.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, just as a matter of information. I wonder if the House leader could tell us what he means by "probably" so that people can plan their business for Monday. Can he give us an indication of what he has in mind except Bill C-84 for Tbesday next week? What does he intend to call? It is all very well to point out probably, but I would like to have some
October 11, 1990

indication so we can organize our work here on this side of the House.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get some certainty so that we can organize our work as well. Last Tuesday we had a House meeting and talked about Bill C-84. Today, a point of order was raised which the Speaker ruled in contravention of citation 732 of Beau-chesne's. That has thrown the schedule off. I am sorry.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, unless I heard incorrectly, it seems to me that the government House leader has questioned the decision of the Chair. I think you will find that entirely inappropriate. First of all, he has no right to question the decision of the Chair by saying it was an inappropriate decision.
I want to say, representing people who want to make this place work as effectively and efficiently as possible-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Nelson Andrew Riis: When we asked the government House leader to give us a platform for a few days so that we can plan ahead so that the appropriate speakers can be brought into their places, all he could do was tell us what we are going to do tomorrow. He said: "Maybe we will do something on Monday". Not a word for Tuesday. We cannot conduct business in a proper way unless the government House leader does his job.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely ridiculous.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Albert Glen Cooper: I appreciate their applause when I refer to their ridiculousness of their arguments.
Their arguments are ridiculous because in fact what the House leader has said is that he would like to have discussions with the other House leaders to talk about the agenda for the next few days. We have had those discussions. I had some of them-


An hon. member:: Drop it.


Albert Glen Cooper: Sorry. Go ahead. Would you like to take the floor?
Business of the House


An hon. member:: You are taking all the floor.


Albert Glen Cooper: Take the floor.


An hon. member:: You sound like a Liberal senator.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I can wait all day here.


An hon. member:: On the same point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will hear the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and then I will hear the parliamentary secretary.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: This is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. We have the parliamentary secretary now apologizing for the behaviour of his leader in this House, who tells us that we have had meetings-


An hon. member:: You do.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we meet every Tuesday. I have been decent in not giving this House my impressions of those bloody meetings because sometimes it is waste of time. But if he wants to have meetings and afterward say that there was consultation when there was no consultation, and then appeal a decision of the Chair, I think the leader on the government side has to eat crow sometimes and he has to admit he made a mistake today.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one point. I think we have co-operated with this government and the proof is the agenda. We have been very co-operative with the government up until now. But ff the government keeps insulting the opposition, not telling us what is going to be done tomorrow or Monday, or Tuesday, and play the game by surprise, Mr. Speaker, we have a couple of surprises up our sleeves too.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if the House leader had responded to the House leader for the Liberal opposition with what was going to be the business of next week without having consulted with the hon. member, he would accuse him of ramming legislation down their throats. The bottom line is that the minister has indicated that today we will continue with Bill C-84; Friday, we will do Bills C-37, C-73 and C-74.
We are prepared to have discussions with the opposition House leader and the leader of the NDP to talk about the legislation for Monday and Tuesday. We are prepared to have those discussions simply because we do try to negotiate an agreement that is acceptable to all

October 11, 1990
Government Orders
members of the House. That has been our practice and it is a practice that we will continue to live up to.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the exchange that just took place. I know what it is as a result of. It is a result of an impatient minister of privatization who wanted to put closure before he should have. However, I think that the House leader somehow looked at the decision that was made earlier this day by the Speaker and I think you should look very carefully as to whether or not the House leader has impugned the Speaker's decision. I reserve the right to look at it.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I think the evidence is clear that this government continues to run roughshod over the opposition.


Some hon. members:: Order.


John V. Nunziata: If the parliamentary system of government is to work-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have a point of order, or is he talking about government business?


John V. Nunziata: If the House of Commons is to operate in an intelligent, prudent and effective manner, there has to be co-operation between the House leaders. The House leader of the Official Opposition is trying to get some understanding from the government in terms of its plan. The government has the authority to set the orders of the day. We simply would like to know what the government intends to call at the beginning of next week. How can Canadians have confidence in this government if they do not know-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think there has been enough negotiations coming across from the government side and the opposition. If there are to be any more negotiations, I think they should be done either behind the curtain or at another locale, where they always are done. I think we should get on with the government business today.
The hon. member for Kamloops on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to negotiate, as you suggest, behind the curtains or wherever.
I think there is another important matter that we simply cannot leave. It is that we always respect the decision of the Chair. I heard very clearly the government House leader say that the Speaker's decision was in contravention of Standing Order 78(3). That means he is questioning the decision of the Speaker. I suggest that before he returns to this House, he must withdraw those comments in the traditional way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sure we will have a look at the"blues". We will carry on.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Michael Holcombe Wilson: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Thx Act (child tax credit), laid upon the table on Wednesday, October 10, 1990, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed, on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Michael Holcombe Wilson: that Bill C-86, an act to amend the Income Thx Act (child tax credit), be read the first time and be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McDermid that Bill C-84, an act respecting the privatization of the national petroleum company of
October 11, 1990
[Stage Direction]
Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and on the amendment of Mr. Lee (p. 14001); and on the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East), (p. 14010).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When we adjourned at one o'clock, the hon. member for Laval-Est had the floor. He has 10 minutes remaining in his debate, plus 10 minutes questions and comments.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, before you left the Chair, you said I had ten minutes left. I will now continue my speech on the privatization of Petro-Cana-da.
As I said this morning, I have tried to explain why Petro-Canada has been of no use to either retailers or consumers. I tried to find some benefits, and found not a single one. Petro-Canada was a failure. There was nothing in it for Canadians.


Guy St-Julien: That's true!


Vincent Della Noce: First of all, the government has no business selling gas, Mr. Speaker, any more than it does selling tooth brushes. It is absolutely ridiculous to use taxpayers' money to take over a company in the private sector, considering the private sector was in perfectly good shape.
This party feels that private sector deserves our confidence. Today, Mr. Speaker, I thought again during lunch about the fact that Petro-Canada never played the leading role it was supposed to play. Petro-Canada was always a bone of contention. Let me give you an example. When Petro-Canada sold gas for one cent a litre less than private companies like Esso, for instance, the next day, everybody called the government to complain that Petro-Canada was cutting its prices. Whenever Petro-Canada decided to charge one cent more, the next day Canadian consumers would be on the phone, saying: This is our company, so why do we have to pay more? It doesn't make sense. That is what we had to contend with for six years, when we got those calls in our ridings.
As a company, Petro-Canada was in a conflict-of-interest situation from the outset because it was powerless.
Government Orders
It was always an extension of the government and only did what the government told it to do.
Petro-Canada's slogan was something like: "It belongs to us". Mr. Speaker, I have given this a lot of thought over the years, and I think I have the answer. It doesn't belong to us, because nobody can go there and get free or cheaper gas. Several times it reminded me of the time when Shell had a slogan: Shell helps those who help themselves. The Shell retailers I represented said: Help yourself, because Shell certainly won't. Petro-Canada belongs to you. Maybe they left out something and it should read: Petro-Canada does not belong to you. Maybe that's what they meant. Although the Liberals said at the time it was a window opening on the industry, I didn't see a very big window and I didn't see what consumers stood to gain either.
Mr. Speaker, Petro-Canada will have a fantastic future thanks to privatization. With or without a war in Kuwait, according to the experts and analysts the next five years will be excellent for the oil industry, and that includes Petro-Canada.
Members opposite who like Petro-Canada and who still object to the bill-only yesterday, we had one member who said he was going to vote against the bill. The hon. member for York Centre, from the Toronto area, said that the opposition was not in favour of privatizing Petro-Canada. He has forgotten that oil companies are promised a bright future, whether or not there is a war in Kuwait. They are going through difficult times just now. The Opposition just cannot admit that Petro-Canada should not be a Crown corporation.
Petro-Canada has not discovered a single barrel of oil, not even a glass. It was supposed to show leadership and assume the duties of existing organizations. Not a barrel, not even a cup. Yet, the people opposite want to keep it. On a diet for the past year, Petro-Canada has dropped a lot of deadweight. It has sold 1,200 of its service stations. From now on, therefore, this company will be able to do its job like the others, on the same level as the others, and will be able likewise to get financing. The good thing about that Petro-Canada will no longer be a political tool in the hands of a minister such as Mr. Lalonde who could call and say: On such and such a day, you are going to do this, you are going to do that.

October 11, 1990
Government Orders
That era is over! We must let private enterprise operate without government interference. Why is the government not selling tooth brushes? I wonder why. What did the retailers get? At first, when they received their Petro-Canada signs, they were happy because they were part of a big organization and expected to make millions. They were even forbidden to hang on the wall pictures of their families. They would work like slaves from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. because their manager in his ivory tower in Calgary had said that those were the opening hours. When retailers complained that not a single customer would show up after 9 p.m, they were told that it did not matter, that Petro-Canada stations remained open until 11 p.m., and that was that! Do you call that living? I know a number of retailers who ruined their personnel lives, their family lives, received hardly any salaries and got no return on their investments. They lost everything because Petro-canada, a Crown corporation, was forcing them to remain open until 11 p.m. Petro-Canada wanted to keep a nice profile, because the minister used to call it once in a while; it had to look good politically, especially once every four years, come election time. That is what Petro-Canada did for our people.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleagues who, with me, formed a team in 1985 to suggest this privatization to the government. I wish to thank also all the ministers, their advisers and especially our Prime Minister who listened to us and other Canadians, because in my own riding of Laval, in Quebec, I have not met many people who are great supporters of Petro-Canada. Each time there was a price increase, Petro-Canada, which was supposed to monitor the industry, just went along. When there were decreases, it went along too. But it never led the way. It just followed; they were a bunch of "followers".
Today, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to tell my constituents who are listening to me that I did keep the promise I made in 1984 and repeated in 1988, that Petro-Canada would be privatized and that the National Energy Program would be abolished. Today, Mr. Speaker, I can tell them "mission accomplished!". And it is a mission accomplished for a number of Quebec ridings. I toured Quebec and visited quite a few service station operators, I knew 7,000 of them when I was their representative. All
the way from Montreal to Gaspe, and along the Ontario border as well. The agents who wore the Petro-Canada cap certainly did not have it made, quite the contrary, they had to work harder and for lower returns than others operating in the private sector.
I had the pleasure of working 14 years with Imperial Oil. These turned out to be the 14 most disastrous years of my life because Imperial Oil management were heartless. I do not know if they have mellowed since, but I rather doubt it. Their one and only concern was the dollar. When private sector dealers are battling it out on a level field, fair is fair, but when war is being waged with Canadian taxpayers' money I can tell you that you may be hard pressed to stand the competition.
As I said in my remarks this morning, each private station service operator had an annual budget of $1,000 for sprucing up the place, while each Petro-Canada agent could spend as much as $50,000 for the same thing. They would even break up the concrete to clean up although it was not necessary. It did not matter, they were spending taxpayers' money. The Liberals are second to none when it comes to spending money. Goodbye, thank you, not to worry! Marc Lalonde, a nice picture I have kept since 1981, Canada's No. 1 gas jockey, "Marc Lalonde, October 24, 1981". See what he looks like! He created a lot of problems for the retailers, but he never dealt with the industry's problems, because Petro-Canada never did anything to improve Canada's position. Let my colleagues opposite tell the House whether in Gaspe, gas was cheaper at Petro-Canada! Certainly not! In fact, it was more expensive. Did they sell gas cheaper in Petro-Canada stations in Abitibi? No, they charged more! Was the service any better? Certainly not!
They came down hard on the retailers and told them; Petro-Canada was now a national company and had to force its way into the market. Sure, but they ignored the rights of employees. And this was all because Mr. Trudeau wanted to see a maple leaf on every block. That is why Petro-Canada was so important.


Guy St-Julien: A red maple leaf!


Vincent Della Noce: They got their little red leaf. They got their red maple leaf. But they lost the election. And they alienated retailers. The retailers didn't vote for the Liberals because they got the short end of the stick. I
October 11, 1990

represented those retailers, but when I asked Mr. La-londe to help us, he didn't have the courtesy to reply.
Mr. Speaker, all this should come as no surprise. You have heard this kind of story before. All I want to say is that Petro-Canada will have a successful future if it goes private. I want to congratulate the minister and the government for making this possible, and I am proud to be a member of this government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The hon. member for Welland-St. Catharines-'Thorold.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Quebec spoke well, but I must add that, originally, Petro-Canada was intended to benefit not only for people interested in making money here and there but all Canadians. About the service stations that were built in Quebec, their people who built them sure made money, because they were tearing down old buildings and putting up new ones. I can assure you the government made no money on that. Private businesses wanted to take advantage of the situation.

I do not want to get into a full scale debate, but it would seem to me that Petro-Canada, is something which was owned by Canadians for Canadians and not solely for the abuse of private industry, so that it could gouge and fill its pockets. Today in this House I accuse private industry and I accuse the gas companies of going ahead and gouging us at the gas pumps.
We still have Petro-Canada. Thank God, we have not sold it off. It is one of the last things that we had that we can say virtually is our own as Canadians. Now we come along and for a couple of dollars, he says-

We are going to put an end to the maple leaf, which stands for Canada.

And so it is, Mr. Speaker. The red ensign is on it because it belongs to us. All these people who want to get in simply by saying their little piece over on the other side, let them listen because Petro-Canada is our birthright.
Government Orders
I wonder if my hon. colleague could perhaps address himself to these questions which I pose: Would Quebec indeed be enjoying the facilities of getting all the gas it needs now, notwithstanding the fact that we made a deal to give most of it away with free trade? Would Hibernia have taken place?
My hon. colleague says that he was in gas stations all over Canada. I ask my colleague: Was he ever in the tar sands? Did he ever go out to see what Hibernia was all about? Did he ever go up to the Beaufort Sea? I would like to hear what he has to say about that. I would like to put that in the perspective of what we as Canadians have sacrificed so that we can own them-


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Gilbert Parent: I never asked you. It was for the man who was speaking. The whole thing is, I say to the man over there, that most of us have been to these places. I think it is only right that the man over there who is defending the sale of Petro-Canada should be the one to answer the questions that I pose to him today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope the hon. member would be succinct because there are two other questioners.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I will be as brief as possible. The questions of my colleague from Welland were so good that I will be delighted to answer them. I have been waiting six years to answer these questions. I am very proud today to stand in this House and do so.
My colleague says that if we destroy stations we could have people working. Yes, that is the Liberal thinking: destroy something that does not need to be destroyed, just to spend money. I am against that.
The situation is that if we compete I have to have the same tools to compete. This was not so. One day I woke up and three service stations around me that were poor like me became rich people, and the name was Petro-Can. This was not fair. Why throw me out of business? I had a family. I had employees. Why throw me out of business with Canadian money? That is not fair. You should give me the same share. That is what I do not like about it.


An hon. member:: Your own money.


Vincent Della Noce: My own money. The government took my money to replace a floor or a station that was not needed because the private owner had it and it was okay. Now I have to sit back and applaud the federal Liberal Party for what it did. This is abuse of the industry and

October 11, 1990
Government Orders
abuse of money that people have to pay tax on a daily basis.
The hon. member said that Petro-Canada was there to eliminate the abuse of the oil company. What did it do? Give me one example when Petro-Canada stood up and fought with Imperial Oil. There was none. It did nothing. Imperial Oil was increasing one cent; Petro-Canada was increasing two cents. Nothing, nothing was done, and they call that police to monitor the price. It was even excluded from the Competition Act. It could do anything. You could not even apply the Competition Act.
Today it is part of the Competition Act like Imperial Oil, like Shell, and like Texaco used to be. Why should it be excluded from the Competition Act? You call that a police who is allowed to shoot with no rules. That is what it was. That is what I did not like and that is what they did not like.
It is too bad, Mr. Speaker, that you tell me my time is up. I could speak to him for two more hours, as an example, but I will give a break to my other colleague.
[Translation\


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a remark and to ask a question. The hon. member for Laval-Est has stood up for the interests of the people of Canada and Quebec like few other Quebec member of Parliament. And he did not wait until September 1990 to do so. On many occasions, in caucus meetings and in the House, Mr. Speaker, he kept us informed on the gasoline issue.
Mr. Speaker, we were always told that Petro-Canada belonged to us, but some of my constituents kept asking me why Petro-Canada was not cheaper and was indeed more expensive at times than other companies. My question is the following: Will the Quebec Conservative member for Laval-Est tell us why the gas sold by Petro-Canada does not cost less?


Vincent Della Noce: Having been involved for 20 years in that industry, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you and the Hon. Member for Abitibi, also the Hon. Member for Welland-I wanted to tell him earlier, but I will reply to both of them now.
Mr. Speaker, Petro-Canada was experiencing tremon-dous difficulties. It was in a conflict of interest situation every day and every hour. It could not lower its prices because that move would have been detrimental to the private sector. If it raised them, that move would have hurt the government, come election time. Therefore, it was between-


Mrs. Bourgault:: -a rock and a hard place.


Vincent Della Noce: -yes, between a rock and a hard place. If there is an Hon. Member here who feels that Petro-Canada has done a good job, he should tell me whether in his riding, his street or near his house he ever saw a Petro-Canada station selling gas not two, not three, not four, but one cent cheaper, as I did myself when I was a private retailer! Let him identify a single case. I challenge anybody. Petro-Canada could not do so-and this is my reply to my colleague-because it was a Crown corporation and, as such, it had to obey like a tin soldier, meaning that it could not move. Sometimes it would be the Minister calling, at other times it would be the board or the private sector. And you had better listen to the private sector. In short, do this, do not do that. It was a big waste of time and money, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time allocated for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Burin-Saint-Georges has the floor.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say how saddened I was the day my leader told me I would no longer be able to shadow my good friend, the minister responsible for
privatization.


Don Boudria: Lots of time.


Roger Simmons: The short time I spent in that assignment was enjoyable all the more so because the minister was always very cordial. Without tongue in cheek, I want to thank him for that. We did not agree often, but that is why he is on one side of the House and I am on the other. I wish my successor in that position, the gentleman from Scarborough-Rouge River, the same kind of cordial relationship with the minister.
I thought one of the more interesting speeches in this Chamber in recent times was the one just given by my good friend from Laval-Est. He and I should share with you a little secret. I inherited the office I presently

occupy in the Confederation Building from him. I got one of the big ones when he went on to a bigger one. You called that one. You probably called that one as badly as you are calling this bill, but that is another story. I just wanted to let you know, Mr. Speaker, that he and I have been in the same place but not at the same time. I inherited his office.
I want to take this licence just in passing, friend to friend, as one who sits where he sat at one time. I heard him talk about Imperial Oil and his less than happy relationship towards the end, and I think it was something like the worst fourteen years of his life. I heard him toward the end of his speech when he got into the business of symbolism which Petro-Canada has, the maple leaf and that kind of stuff. I do not think that was the real brunt of what he was saying. I think what he was saying was that if they had had a skull and cross-bones or the flag from Timbuctoo as their symbol, his emotion would have been the same. I do not think it was the maple leaf that set him off but his basic compulsive hatred for the administration that was led by the Right Hon. Mr. Trudeau. I want to say again friend to friend, I understand. We all have less than happy experiences either with administrations, with companies or other entities. He ought not to be consumed by this terrible passion called hatred. It is kind of debilitating. It is like revenge in a way. It destroys only the aggressor only, the person doing the hating or trying to affect the revenge.
I would hope he would not give us too many more dissertations along those particular lines. We are only yet on the amendment. I am sure he will want to address himself to the main motion, once we have dealt with the amendment.
Maybe at that time, he will be more forthcoming not in so far as his immediate passion, his hatred is concerned-I found this interesting but not terribly uplifting-but that he would spend some time telling us why it is that if privatization is the best thing since sliced bread, he did not spend a little time putting some butter on it, why he did not spend a little time telling us why he supports privatization?
His hatred of PetroCan I can understand. I do not agree with it, but I can understand it given his circumstances.
Government Orders
Let us go on to two or three things that I would like to say about the bill in the few minutes that I have. My friend and colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River has spelled out extremely well our position on this bill, as did my colleague from York Centre.
I know this debate will be touching on various aspects of our concern and our position here. What I like to do with almost any issue is put a Newfoundland perspective on an aspect of it. Members will be aware that the Hibernia agreement, which was recently signed, has an oil consortium made up of four partners as part of the agreement. Of course, one of those partners is PetroCan.
PetroCan has a 25 per cent share in the consortium, which is now in the process of beginning the commercial development of the Hibernia oil field located a couple hundred miles southeast of St. John's, Newfoundland.
The lead partner is Mobil, which has a larger percentage than any of the others. It has a 28 per cent share. Then, of course, we have Chevron and Gulf with shares, with Chevron having about 21 per cent, and Gulf about 25 per cent. But that is not the point of my comment.
I want to draw attention to the very point that the hon. member for Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold alluded to a minute ago, the fact that Hibernia has the involvement of PetroCan. He also mentioned the fact that the Beaufort Sea has the active involvement of PetroCan.
Those who would criticize PetroCan as the instrument of public policy that it was intended to be-I submit that it has been very successfully-in that context need to go no further than the two examples that the hon. member for Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold has given the House in the past few minutes.
Let us consider these points. Beaufort Sea, frontier exploration. Hibernia, offshore Newfoundland, frontier exploration, and now development. Surely there alone you have an adequate argument for an instrument of public policy in the hands of the federal government.
I understand that when the right hon. member for Yellowhead, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs, came briefly to office in May 1979, he had intended to privatize at that particular time. I understand equally that when the right hon. gentleman from Baie Comeau, the current Prime Minister, came to

October 11, 1990
Government Orders
office in 1984, he has together with his immediate Tory predecessor, the gentleman from Yellowhead, in tandem, one after the other, dismantled PetroCan as a public policy instrument.
Therefore in the argument implicit in the question, do we need PetroCan has to be followed with another question, which PetroCan? The watered-down PetroCan of today or the PetroCan that was embodied in legislation initially and allowed to pursue its mandate until 1979, and to some extent until 1984. Mr. Speaker, you really have to answer the question generically first, do we need a public policy instrument in the oil industry area?
The answer in the 1970s was yes and I believe the answer clearly is yes today. Many of the same conditions apply right now in 1990 as applied in the seventies when this Crown corporation called PetroCan was first envisaged, first put into legislation and first put into place.
One has to look no further than the current goings on in the Middle East, the tragic Persian Gulf situation and the economic domino effect it is having on prices right here in Canada. You heard my friend and colleague from Halifax today during Question Period cite the increasing gas prices in Halifax. We could mirror these figures for her in all of Atlantic Canada, certainly in my own riding of Burin-St. George's and I am sure in the riding of my good friend from St. John's East and in many other ridings. Indeed, it is only a matter of time before we will be able to mirror it in every riding in Canada. That is part of the terrible domino effect that the Persian Gulf situation is having and will have on the whole world and we are not immune to it.
The whole Persian Gulf issue and the oil aspects of it is a subject in itself and as much as I would like to digress on that point, I think in the interest of getting on with the job and some relevancy, for which I am known, as my friend from St. John's East will concur-


Mr. Reid:: Emphasis on the word "some".


Roger Simmons: Emphasis on the word "some", as he says. In the interests of all the above, Mr. Speaker, I think I should reluctantly bring myself back to this fascinating subject called Petro-Canada.
My friend from Laval-Est is now demonstrating one more time the brilliance of that person who came up with the idea-I think the French actually have a term for it. They call it esprit d'escalier or in good old fashion American-Canadian-Newfinese, "Monday morning quarterbacking". Is it not always the case that after you have sat down, having given what you absolutely believe is the most brilliant speech of your life, you think of even more brilliant things to say?
I say to him, if he wants to shout some witticisms across the floor to me, let him go ahead. He probably notices it just fuels my engine. I enjoy it. But if he wants them to be heard particularly by his constituents, he would be well advised to wait until we get through with this amendment and then, when we get back on the main motion, he will have a further opportunity to get up and speak in this debate.
I appeal to him that during that period, not to indulge in hate mongering because that is not his strong suit. He does terribly at it. He went on at length with it but he does terribly at it. I ask him not to engage in either hate mongering or in vested interests. The floor of this chamber is not a place to peddle your vested interest, I say to the gentleman from Laval-Est.
With those qualifications, I will sit here in rapt attention and hear every word he has to say and maybe agree with some of them, though I do not make that as as firm commitment.
There are the detractors of this marvellous instrument called Petro-Canada. I say to my friend, the hon. member for St. John's East, about this marvellous instrument called PetroCan, his constituents believe that. But they also believe we should bring in a variable entry requirement as well, and either he does not seem to want to agree with them on that, or he has adopted a very convenient silence on the matter. That is another issue, Mr. Speaker, how I digress. Let me get back to this.
Some of the detractors of this particular marvellous Crown corporation would say and do say that a Crown energy corporation cannot possibly finance its debt as


well as if it were a private corporation. That is the argument, that somehow, if we derobed it or rid it of its Crown corporation trappings, it would suddenly become a super, energetic animal that would go out and take on the banks and the financial giants out there and debt would not be a problem, and so on and so forth.
Let us look at three energy corporations in the country, all owned by the Crown, either provincially or federally, but, as we say, all owned by the Crown. I just happen to have the figures here in front of me.
There is an outfit called Hydro-Quebec, an organization that has done brilliantly well. It is a well run organization. I have had the opportunity to visit its headquarters in years past. I do not know a lot about its operation, but there is one important detail I do know about its operation-and my friend, the hon. member for St. John's East, would know this too because he and I read a lot of the same books. We come to different conclusions but we read the same books. He will know that one of the important details which relate to Hydro-Quebec is that it is raping Newfoundland, day after day, after day, because of that terrible Churchill Falls agreement. We in Newfoundland and Labrador have more than a passing acquaintance with Hydro-Quebec.
Let me get back to the point I was making. Hydro-Quebec's current debt is $28 billion. Its assets, in round figures, amount to $34 billion. In terms of the debt-to-equity ratio, that is a fairly frightful situation if one had a company in that kind of situation.


Mr. Hockin:: Asset-to-debt.


Roger Simmons: I understand, yes, the word was wrong, asset-to-debt. I thank the minister. That is why he is the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism, because he knows so much about those things. I am just a poor carpenter's son from rural Newfoundland, still trying to get my tongue around all those terms. But you get the drift of what I am saying. That 28 is somewhat like 34. Proportionately, it is almost one-to-one.


Mr. Duhamel:: Six difference.


Roger Simmons: My friend, the hon. member for St. Boniface, gets the message that 28-You are motioning that is time already, Mr. Speaker. When you are having fun, it goes very quickly.
Government Orders
With Hydro-Quebec, the asset-to-debt ratio is $34 billion in assets and $28 billion in debt. Ontario Hydro has $36 billion in assets, compared to $27 billion in debt. In both cases, in rough terms, that is an almost one-to-one relationship. And for PetroCan, this much reviled, do-nothing organization that should be run out of town as quickly as possible and that we should rid our hands of just as fast as possible and right away, before it does us any more damage, just listen to the terrible ratio it has between assets and debt. Not one-to-one like Hydro-Quebec, not even one-to-one like Ontario Hydro. No. Here are the figures. The total assets of PetroCan today area about $6.8 billion or $7 billion in round figures and its debt is $1.9 billion, or let us say, $2 billion. Its asset-to-debt is roughly $7 billion in assets and less than $2 billion in debts. Its ratio is about three to one, or better than that, about three-and-a-half to one.
If members are going to stand in the House and mislead-and I am sure it is inadvertent- they will have to realize that at some point we will get some facts into this debate, whether it takes just today or several other days. If they want to tamper with one of the most marvellous public policy instruments we have had in the country, they will have to face up to some facts. One of the facts staring them right in the face is that when the government says a Crown corporation cannot finance its debt, it is lying. It may not be doing it deliberately, it may be doing it unwittingly. But it is surely lying when it gets on with that particular nonsense.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Roger Simmons: I am sure the minister feels a speech coming on, and in time we will hear from him. I have no doubt that he will be able to inform the House much more than I am on this subject. Remember, I am just the carpenter's son that stumbled in here to give you a few comments-


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Looking for a place to spend the night?


Roger Simmons: Looking for a place to spend the day, at least, yes. I just happened to stumble in and thought I would unload my opinion of what the government is doing while I was passing through, my humble opinion of what it is doing to a very good public policy instrument. What it is doing, I do not like, and that is why I am agin it. If I had more time I would tell you, Mr. Speaker, the other several reasons I have in front of me as to why it is

October 11, 1990
Government Orders
I cannot support the government's present effort to privatize PetroCan. What it is doing is wrong. The people of Canada are not being well served by this move.
I see my time is up, but maybe I will have another crack at it later on.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to respond to my friend from Burin-St. George's.
First, I would like to assure my friend that I have nothing but the utmost respect for Petro-Canada, for the job it did in its early days of formation and particularly, if I may say, for the job it has done in the last ten years as it operated more and more as an oil company, free from the fetters and control of government which has hindered its job as a Canadian oil company. It has been so successful in developing in a variety of frontiers in the country. It has made a substantial contribution through Petro-Canada International and other organizations. I would agree with him on that.
If I may, I would also tell him I agree absolutely on the variable entrance requirement. But there is so much more to Bill C-21 that is essential for his constituents and mine that we must move ahead with that. The hypocrisy in not recognizing that Bill C-21 does so much more is not acceptable. No one wants the variable entrance requirement more than I.
I would like to refer the hon. member to the question he raised concerning the debt-to-asset ratio, and I make no pretence to understand it. It is important that all members in the House recognize that, as Petro-Canada plays a more substantial role in the development of the offshore, particularly off the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, it must continue not only not to have the political constraints put on it but the financial constraints as well. If Petro-Canada, with its ownership in Terra Nova, which is approaching something like 45 per cent, is to participate in the development of that project, surely my hon. friend will agree, and I would like to hear his comment on this.


Roger Simmons: On the last point, again?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: The last point being that, if we want Terra Nova to be developed with the assistance of Petro-Canada, which today, as I understand, controls about 45 per cent, it is not realistic within the constraints of the fiscal pressures of this government, or any other government, with the burden of its debt and the responsibility that its debt places on the Government of Canada and its books. It is not realistic that we constrain Petro-Canada from a new infusion of equity and a new ability to get debt. Debt is only part of the point, and the equity that can be raised through becoming a private corporation, or a publicly traded corporation, is to the benefit of his constituents and mine, as we move to develop Terra Nova and then so many other projects in which I hope Petro-Canada plays a substantial and, indeed, a lead role.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the last question could be dealt with most quickly. I do not know my friend's expertise in this area, but he will know mine and it is limited. If he is having difficulty with the question of how PetroCan can tap the markets, he ought to talk to Hydro-Quebec which does it very successfully on a regular basis.
The member for St. John's East seems to be labouring under the illusion that somehow government is a disease. Government is not a disease. Government can do some pretty unhealthy things, but this notion that everything associated with government is, by definition, abhorrent, I just do not buy that idea.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Neither do I, absolutely.


Roger Simmons: I am glad for that clarification, because the impression that he gave at the top of his intervention was that somehow, the main problem with PetroCan is that it was owned by the federal government. I find that of itself not a particular problem.
I would like to address the variable entrance requirement.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Order, relevancy.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, it was the member from St. John's East who raised the question with me about the VER. We can deal with this very quickly. I know he is afraid I might answer, but I am going to answer anyway.
If he is completely candid with the House, he knows very well that, while the VER is an aspect of Bill C-21,
October 11, 1990

for the past 40 years the issue has been dealt with quite separately from any new bill about unemployment insurance.
We have passed it every year. We have passed it under Mr. Trudeau, and we have passed it under the hon. member from Yellowhead. Under the present Prime Minister, we have passed it five years in a row. In the sixth year, that member got up and voted against it twice. Sorry, my time is up.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, now it is my turn. The hon. member told me I would have my chance. I now have my chance, if he would listen. I have a chance to ask a question.
I know my hon. colleague now has the office I used to have. I did not move because for a bigger one. It is because the location is different and I prefer it here. But I do miss my old office and he is spoiled to have such a nice office. I will visit him soon.
I heard my hon. colleague speaking on Petro-Canada. Of course, he knows I do not like Petro-Canada. It is not because I do not like the leaf. I am a good Canadian. I am of Italian origin. We are all Canadians. We are proud of the country. It is strong when it is together.
The idea I do not like is the unfair competition it gives to a private enterprise. I speak as a private enterpriser. It is very hard to compete as a private enterprise when the government comes with the big bucks and the big people.
Petro-Canada had 10 people to inspect a service station. In private enterprise, we have one person and he cannot stay there for more than an hour. This allows him to make 10 stations a day. When it is public money, it is easier to spend a few days. Sometimes they might sleep over near the station and try to get a free dinner on the company.
Private enterprise cannot run with the idea that PetroCan used to have. If my hon. friend understands this, then why should the government sell gasoline or toothbrushes, or even airplanes? Why does it not keep the money to administer the services that all Canadians need. That was the argument we had in Quebec and across the country with the national association. We have nothing against being a Canadian. We are very proud. But when the government said it was a police force for
Government Orders
the industry, I did not see anything good for Canadians. I did not see a single deal.
It was giving out hamburgers when people bought gasoline. Why did it give hamburgers to the customers? Why did it not give a one-cent discount like I used to give to my customers. That is what I did not like. Some smart guy, an administrator in Calgary, decided that to sell gasoline one has to give McDonald's hamburgers to the consumer. Why? They do not need that. They need gasoline at the bare price. This is what I did not like. This you do not see in private enterprise. Why do you not go to the small businessmen who need your help?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Laval Est. He makes a very good point. The initial point he made had to do with unfair competition.
I will say to the hon. member in all candour, I do not know the details. I made light of it earlier, just in fun. I am sure he understood it within that context. I made light of his relationship with respect to PetroCan, but I do not know the details of it and I do not want to make light of it. That is not the issue.
I have not said that PetroCan is a perfect agency. What I have said, first of all, is, let us not throw the baby out with the bath water. If there are some things we want to correct about this, if it is doing some things it ought not to be doing, if it is engaged in unfair competition, let that be the target of our legislation here in the House. But let us not get rid of a good entity just because probably, according to the member's allegation, it has done some things which are less than desirable, or less than perfect. I do not know if that is the case, but I take the hon. member at his word if that is what happened.
I gather from the vibes we are getting from this issue that the member's experience on this issue has been less than pleasant. I will not do anything to make it any less pleasant.


Vincent Della Noce: Esso did not help.


Roger Simmons: Esso did not help, and I understand you to say that.
To his second point very quickly, Mr. Speaker. He talks about PetroCan, the gas stations and the hamburgers and that kind of issue. He asked who came up with it. I suppose the glib answer is, I guess the same fellow or

Government Orders
woman who comes up with marketing gimmicks, balloons or coloured brochures, or whatever during election campaigns for Tory parties and other parties.
People get carried away with marketing gimmicks. Sometimes the hamburgers or the balloons given out have nothing to do with the purpose of the organization at all. I am sure that happens with oil companies every bit as it does with political parties.
But, Mr. Speaker, the substantive point I would say to him is this: PetroCan is a vertically integrated company. It has come to depend, rightly or wrongly, on its downstream, on its gas station cash flows to finance its upstream, some of its exploration activity.
Now, if he is raising the question, should they be doing that, that is a whole new question. It is quite possible for this legislature, this House, to say that we want to keep PetroCan as a public policy instrument, but we do not want interfering at the retail level. We can cut them off at the knees in terms of the downstream activity. That is an option for us. But the option again is not to throw out the whole thing.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a couple of questions with my colleague. Perhaps because of limited time, he can concentrate on the last one.
I have been led to understand that there were a number of objectives to the initial conception of Petro-Canada which we have not discussed a great deal. For example, the exploration of additional reserves. In a paper I just read today, it says that if we continue present consumption rates that we have roughly 13 years of reserve only.
I have also been told that the study of alternative sources of energy was another important objective. We all realize that much of that, if not all of it, has been dismantled. That concerns me, particularly in terms of what is happening in the world today. Perhaps this is the most important point.
I have also been informed that the increase of Cana-dianization was an important goal of this particular institution and I have been told that there has been some significant success in certain areas of Canada that have benefited from this. I believe one of those areas has been the Atlantic provinces. I wonder if my colleague might respond to that. He might also want, because he was cut
off rather shortly, to expand upon the variable entrance requirement and the maternity-paternity benefits in Bill C-21, that we are willing to bring in as a separate bill, as has been done in previous years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Burin-St. George's. Very briefly, please.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me thank you for your tolerance. I shall be very brief. I thank my friend from St. Boniface for his questions. To do justice, I wish I had time to deal with these questions that they need. Let me cover them very quickly.
The short answer to his second last question, of course, is that we are in a considerably worse off position in 1990 than we were in 1984 in terms of Canadian ownership.
That is one of the direct results, as members will realize and as Canada realizes. One of the important side effects of the process of disarming and taking away from PetroCan's mandate as the Prime Minister has so shamefully done is that the instrument, which was doing very well in terms of helping us to get extra Canadian ownership of the industry, was cut off in mid stream.
In 1984, it was stopped from pursuing that objective, and the fallout is in front of us. We now have an industry that is more foreign owned now than it was. The figure has escaped me, but it is dramatic.
Today, we have far less Canadian ownership than we did in 1984. The hon. member for St. Boniface is equally correct when he talks about the VER, the so-called variable entrance requirement. It is true that in June 1990 and in December 1989 the hon. member for Laval-Est, the hon. member for St. John's East and everybody else on that side of the House got up and voted against the same amendment that their colleagues had voted for for five years: in December 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988.
It was the same amendment that had been brought into this House for 14 years in a row. Then, in the 14th year, they voted against it. What is this? Is this some kind of revenge on the people out there in rural Canada? What kind of nonsense is this?
Today, we are prepared with 10 minutes. Mr. Speaker, give us 10 minutes. Give us four minutes. Give us a guitar and we will sing it to you. Give us two minutes, and we will put through that variable entrance require-

ment so fast you will not know what happened to this place. We will put an end to the misery of tens of thousands of people in my riding in Newfoundland, in all of Atlantic Canada and across this country who are out there suffering needlessly because we have a stubborn government that says: "My way or no way."
My friend says that this is a stupid government. No, Mr. Speaker, I have to disagree. It is not stupid. It is too conniving to be stupid. No one has ever said it is stupid, but it is uncaring. The net result is that thousands upon tens of thousands of people are suffering. These are people to whom we can come to the aid of with this bill. We could bring in a bill on maternity benefits, if that is what they want.
What we want is to vote for a bill that removes the government involvement to the tune of $2.7 billion in the unemployment insurance plan, because that would wipe out UI for the fishermen completely in the short term. I am not going to stand by and have that happen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.
Before I recognize the hon. member, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Comox-Al-berni, the Budget; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, Labour; the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap, Agriculture.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in listening to the hon. member for Burin-St. George's.
It is always nice to know that there are other common people in this House. I guess that is not improper since this is the House of Commons.
The hon. member is a carpenter's son who found his way here. I am a poor rancher's boy who found his way into the Chilcotin plateau. I, too, am struggling to understand the complexities of this major bill for us.
Earlier, the Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs) laid out in clear and simple language the reason for this government proposal. Today, I would like to discuss how this proposed transaction fits into the
Government Orders
broader approach to privatization which has been followed by the government since 1984.
When the current government was elected in 1984, one of its first priorities was to restructure the country's economic framework to enable Canadians to become more competitive to meet the challenging of the emerging global marketplace.
In the past six years, this government has pursued an economic policy based on less government involvement in the private sector, a more disciplined use of the taxpayers' resources. Privatization, I am glad to say, is a key component of that policy. As many of you know, in the last half of the last decade governments of every political persuasion started to critically examine the old solutions to see if they had utility in a modem world of global competition. Not only did they find that the old practices of central planning and excessive intervention by governments were ineffective, they were counter-productive. They impaired the nation's ability to compete.
In the struggle to transform the economies of many of the democracies of eastern Europe in particular, governments there are embracing the notion of privatization in different ways and in varying degrees. While Canada is providing assistance to several of these countries in implementing their privatization programs, we cannot forget that we still have a lot of work to do in our own backyard.
At last count the Canadian government owned 53 Crown corporations and 113 subsidiary Crown corporations and had partial holdings in a number of other firms. This is after having successfully privatized 13 Crown corporations and Crown holdings in five mixed ownership corporations. Some of these include Canadair, an aircraft manufacturer; Teleglobe Canada, our overseas telecommunications carrier; and of course Air Canada, Canada's largest airline which was sold through two public share offerings to over 100,000 shareholders.
The success of Canada's approach to privatization is due largely to the fact that it reflects, and attempts to reflect the country's unique demographic, economic, political, and historical considerations. Consider for a moment the disparity between our geography and our population. Canada is the largest country in the western hemisphere. Compared to the U.S. with only 3.6 million square miles, Canada has 3.8. On the other hand we have a population of only 26 million, a tenth of that of the United States.

October 11, 1990
Government Orders
This disparity between our geography and our population has encouraged a reliance on government ownership as a way of supplying vital national services such as rail and air transport. Some of the customers of these services express concern that a change in ownership will mean a reduction in service or safety, or increased prices. Therefore, in developing its privatization plans the government gives special consideration to the concerns of these customers. Where necessary, regulations are introduced to ensure that health and safety standards are maintained.
Another factor explaining Canada's approach to privatization is the role of foreign ownership in our economy. Canada's economic development gave rise to the industrial base dominated by branch plants. Most of Canada's manufacturing and petroleum product sectors are still dominated by subsidiaries of companies headquartered outside of Canada.
As a result, Canadians have welcomed the financial benefits of foreign investment while remaining a bit nervous about the consequences of foreign influence on our economy. Because of this, the government's privatization program looks at the foreign ownership question on a case-by-case basis to determine whether non-resident restrictions are indeed required.
Canada's privatization program is also influenced by our Constitution, in particular its division of powers between federal and provincial governments. Canada's Constitution gives the provinces control over the regulation of the securities industry. The provincial securities commissions each impose constraints on what can be done to promote a public share offering. In these instances where a public share offering is used as a method of sale, this regulatory environment must be taken into account.
One final factor which contributes to the uniqueness of our privatization policy is the character and condition of Canadians themselves. Canadians are highly educated, participate actively in a free enterprise economy, and enjoy a high standard of living compared to other countries. Most Canadians own their own houses. Many of them own shares as well.
Canada did not have to promote "popular capitalism" as part of its privatization program because it was already a reality in the Canadian culture.
In fact more than four million Canadians or 23 per cent of the Canadian adult population own shares in a publicly traded company or in as stock mutual fund. This represents an increase of about one million share owners since 1986, when 18 per cent of Canadian adults participated in the stock market.
All these uniquely Canadian circumstances-a small population in a large land mass, the predominance of branch plants, our Constitution with its complex division of powers between the provincial and federal governments, and the nature of our domestic capital markets- had to be taken into account when the government first got itself into the business of owning commercial interests. They must be taken into account now as we get out of some of them.
The minister has assured us that the government's privatization program is based on a pragmatic, common sense, case by case approach. The time is taken to examine very carefully the circumstances associated with each company in order to determine the best method and timing of the sale.
It may be useful to look back on some of the major privatizations which have taken place since 1984 to show the pragmatic and intelligent approach that has been taken. In my opinion three transactions stand out: the sale of Canadair to Bombardier, the sale of Teleglobe to Memotec Data, and the privatization of Air Canada. I would like to take each one in turn.
First is the sale of Canadair. Canadians know that the sale of Canadair to Bombardier has been a tremendous success story. They know that Canadair was going nowhere under state ownership. It was a company with excellent technology but poor marketing and poor management skills. Those are exactly the ingredients which Bombardier brought to the enterprise. There is simply no question that the privatization of Canadair has given the company a bright and exciting future.
Second is Teleglobe. The Teleglobe case in an excellent example. You do not have to own a company to control it. In this case the price of overseas telephone calls can easily be controlled through regulation if that is desired. What was accomplished by relying on regula-

Government Orders
tion, not ownership, was the creation of a dynamic new force in the Canadian telecommunications sector, Me-motec Data. Once again it was a win win situation.
Third is Air Canada. Crown ownership of Air Canada may have been necessary in earlier days to achieve the public policy objective of creating a national air system, but we all know that circumstances have radically changed in air transportation since those early days. Now we have two major airlines in Canada with myriad commuter lines servicing smaller centres. We now have a national air system with many participants. In short, public ownership of Air Canada was no longer essential to ensure a national air service.
Furthermore, Air Canada required a large infusion of capital to finance fleet modernization. We therefore had the choice of raising that money through higher taxes or higher deficit, or raising money through public share offerings. Since Crown ownership was no longer necessary, we chose to offer shares to the public which were well received by Air Canada employees and the general public alike.
These transactions are not the product of ideology. In my view, they represent the triumph of common sense over the impassioned rhetoric of the proponents of state ownership. They have set the stage for the government's latest privatization initiative: the sale of Petro-Canada.
As the minister stated earlier, Crown ownership is no longer necessary to achieve the principal public policy objective in the energy sector to establish the conditions in which economic development of our energy reserves can occur.
What is necessary for Petro-Canada to participate aggressively in the development of our oil and gas reserves is access to a new and reliable source of equity. Once again, we are left with a choice in the House of finding that money by taxing Canadians, by borrowing even more money on their behalf, or by inviting Canadians to take a direct stake in the company to share the challenge which lies ahead.
The decision by the government to allow Petro-Canada to raise equity directly from individual investors is not a product of ideology. It involves a lot of common sense.
Ideology, though, is at the root of much of the opposition that we are hearing. Many members opposite will oppose this legislation based on the belief that state ownership is an end in itself, that it is better to have a weak state owned company than a strong company owned by individual Canadians. Surely it is this glorification of state ownership for its own sake, regardless of its consequences, which is inconsistent with Canadian traditions.
This legislation is good for Petro-Canada. It is good for hard-pressed Canadian taxpayers and those Canadians who, like myself, are concerned about the debt burden we are leaving for the next generation. It is good for Canada since it will allow Petro-Canada to get on with the job of securing our energy future. That is why I support its passage.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments my colleague made and I want to make a few comments as well as ask a few questions. First of all, I am not one of those who are mainly concerned with ideology. I believe common sense must be used, regardless of one's political allegiance. My colleague mentioned cases of firms and businesses where privatization was beneficial in his opinion.

While I appreciate the examples that he has given, I want to just question a few.
He did not mention, for example, the sale of Route Canada where he will recall that some 1,900 Canadians from across Canada have suffered significantly. Some of them have not received their termination pay, severance pay, or holiday pay. I think it is unfortunate that the minister responsible for that particular portfolio has not seen fit to order an inquiry to see whether or not we could help those suffering men and women across this nation, people who have waited for a long time to be responded to appropriately.
The minister mentioned Air Canada, but he did not mention of course the 2,900 jobs that have just been cut. I guess I am concerned as well about the privatization of Petro-Canada. Is there a possibility here that a significant number of jobs will indeed be cut in the near future?

October 11, 1990
Government Orders
I am not one who argues that jobs should be kept at any price. Obviously that is not possible. But, clearly, have we thought about that ahead of time so that if it is going to happen the men and women of this country who are affected can continue to live their lives with dignity and respond to their needs and the needs of their families?
Just one final point perhaps and a question. Is it the member's opinion that consumers of gas and oil products today are being gouged? If so, is it by the private sector? If yes, who in the private sector is doing it to them? Certainly the men and women who are calling me really are feeling as if they are being taken advantage of.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I do not think anybody in this House or in this country enjoys the spectre of lay-offs, especially large lay-offs like we have seen occurring.
The fact that as an airline company, or as any company, it is in a position to respond as quickly as it has to to market conditions is an indication of why the company should be under private ownership, if it is at all possible. It is exactly the reality that if it can respond quickly to be more efficient, to continue in productivity, and to continue to take advantage of the realistic business opportunities that are there, it will be able to secure a better future for itself and all its existing employees and, in the future, will be able to hire more.
I think it is recognized by most that falsely supporting an inefficient company just to maintain jobs is the worst direction to take in employment-type policy.
I would share the concern of the hon. member. I thank him for his question. However, I believe he is actually supporting the argument that where possible companies should be in the private enterprise so that they can stay efficient, stay strong, and continue to provide the jobs we so badly need.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I heard the comments of the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. I am sure that he spoke very sincerely of what he believed in. It probably will not surprise him if I say that I do not agree with any of his conclusions. However, surely he will agree with me that this is a very important issue. This is a bill for the
Government of Canada to divest itself of the largest corporation that the Canadian government has ever sold off. The assets of the corporation are close to $7 billion.
Given that that is the case and that this is the partial divestiture of the largest Crown corporation that this country has ever owned, what does my colleague across the way think of time allocation or closure, if you wish, to have been put on this bill after only a few short hours of debate?


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for his question.
I share the hon. member's interest in a full and open debate on this bill because it is a very large undertaking and a very serious bill. It requires the most careful of consideration. I also know that the minister responsible for this bill also wants to see it fully debated.
The characteristics of this bill that are going to require the most careful exploration can more properly be done in committee. We are going to have to ensure that all the factors necessary in privatizing a Canadian company have been followed, and that we have properly assessed the need for Canadian ownership balanced against the need to get the greatest return for Canada from the shares.
We have to foresee possible problems that could occur and make sure that they have been adequately looked at. There is a whole myriad of very complex issues that can more properly take place in the committee room than they can on the floor of the House. I share the hon. member's interest in having full debate on the bill. I also would like to achieve that.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I have just a short question for my colleague. I know he is very interested in the point, and I know he knows the answer.
The hon. member who spoke before him was comparing Petro-Canada to Hydro Quebec. The problem I have with this argument is that Hydro Quebec is selling electricity in one big machine. It is in a position of monopolizing. It can sell its electricity at any price. Quebecers cannot buy their electricity somewhere else; they have no choice. Petro-Canada, on the other hand, is in competitive position.
October 11, 1990

I want to ask my colleague: Why don't we put more money to help the situation like Hydro Quebec does? I look forward to his answer.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when I started, I am not an accountant or a person who necessarily understands the full complexity of financial statements. I do not believe that you have to understand the complexity of it to understand this: The difference between a monopoly and a company that is trying to compete in the open marketplace is like night and day.
We have to add to that the terrible debt that Canadian taxpayers are now faced with and have struggled with since the Conservative government took over. It has to be the highest priority in our minds, as legislators. It has been by this government and it will continue to be. To ask Petro-Canada to take on that debt is asking the taxpayers of Canada to increase their debt load. I will not do that and I am sure my friend would not.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words on the bill which proposes the privatization of Petro-Canada. We on this side of the House have indicated our opposition to this privatization. We think that at this critical time in the history of our country, with the problems facing the Canadian economy and the uncertainty of oil supplies because of the events in the Middle East, this certainly is not the time to be privatizing Petro-Canada.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, who indicated that he was opposed to the government using closure or time allocation. I hope that, if the government ever moves it again, and I am sure that after his words, the government will not move to try to close down debate on such a massive, important issue as the privatization of Petro-Canada, he will vote against any move by the House leader on the government side to move in that direction.
This is a very important bill; it is a very important issue. Petroleum products are to the economy of a country what red blood is to the health of a human being. Because of the uncertainty back in 1973 and the first oil shocks of that year and again in 1980, the government of
Government Orders
the day moved to establish a national petroleum corporation.
I had the opportunity of working on the committee which studied the bill to set up this corporation. At the time I do not believe we thought that the corporation would be as large as it is today. We saw it more as an instrument for exploration and development. It has moved on, through successive governments, to expand into the retail trade.
I was surprised, when the present government came to office in 1984, that one of the first things it did was to spend almost $1 billion to buy the downstream assets of Gulf Canada. Surely after all of the uncertainty of the Clark regime in 1979 as to whether it would privatize, partly privatize or not privatize Petro-Canada, it was amazing to me that the government bought up the Gulf Canada gas stations in eastern Canada. At the same time, I believe it provided assistance to the Reichmann organization to buy the upstream resources of Gulf Canada by giving them a tax credit. So, in fact, through that marvellous device known as the Little Egypt bump, the Reichmanns were able to acquire those assets with a great deal of the cost being borne by the taxpayers of Canada.
So given the Tory philosophy and position, it is really amazing that they spent $1 billion dollars, buying up a bunch of gas stations when they could have been committing that $1 billion to exploration and development. Nobody has quite ever explained exactly why they did that.
Now we hear them talking about selling off 15 per cent of the Petro-Canada assets in order to provide $500 million worth of funds that are really needed, according to Wilbert Hopper, President and Chief Executive Officer of Petro-Canada for oil and gas exploration and development. It seems to me that if they are needed now, the Tories might have been better to have saved those dollars back in 1984 and 1985 when they spent almost $1 billion. If it had not spent the money in that way, by giving a tax advantage to the Reichmann organization to purchase the upstream resources of Gulf Canada, it probably would have had all of the operating capital that was required at that time.
Clearly this proposal will not work if the government's plan is to sell off 15 per cent of the shares. No investor I know wants to buy into an organization that is as volatile as the oil industry. All you have to do is look at the

Government Orders
lay-offs announced today by Imperial Oil of from 3,000 to 4,000 employees to know just how volatile that industry is. I do not know that many investors want to invest in a Crown corporation of which 15 per cent will be sold. It makes for a very unhappy wedding, if there is one.
The investors are concerned that the government would use the Crown corporation for its own purpose as an instrument of public policy. It is not very workable to do that because the shareholders are supposed to be protected, but they are still with an 85 per cent interest.
Naturally the privatized corporation is going to be very interested in the views and the position of the minister of industry or the Minister of Finance, whoever holds the shares for the federal government. I do not think that kind of arrangement is ever going to be very happy for investors and probably not very happy for the government. It has been tried in other jurisdictions and usually has been a dismal failure, as it was in the case of B.C. when it tried its B.C. resources privatization scheme.
If ever there was bad timing for the sale of Petro-Can-ada, it surely must be now. The price of oil has gone from $16 or $17 a barrel to over $40 a barrel today. Shares of Petro-Canada, if they were on the market, clearly would be up because their resources in the ground would likewise be up. But the need for security of supply must be weighing heavily on the mind of the minister of energy these days.
Our reserves in the western sedimentary basin have been reduced almost annually. We are committed under the free trade agreement with the United States, regardless of what the oil shocks are-if war broke out in the Middle East today, as it could-to maintain our level of supply to the U.S. With those resources dwindling day after day, how is it possible for a government to sell off PetroCan, which can be a massive instrument of public policy? You only have to look at the percentage of the reserves and a market of something around 20 per cent, which if sold, is gone forever. We have already made a commitment under the FTA that it will be a total market situation. The instruments that the government has left for enunciating or having an energy policy are all being
given away. This is a very important instrument we have now and it will be given away if this bill passes.
The government has said that it wants to privatize this company so that it will gain more capital from the marketplace for exploration and development. I have already asked, why did the government buy a bunch of gas stations if it wanted more money. Why did it spend $1 billion only four years ago to buy a bunch of gas stations if it was really short of capital for exploration and development? But the Canadian capital markets are only so large.
We are having difficulty finding capital resources for the manufacturing industry, the mining industry, for transportation, for all kinds of needs in areas like mine in northern Ontario. Yet it is proposed to privatize this and suck up those scarce financial resources from the Canadian marketplace into Petro-Canada.
Likewise, if Petro-Canada is privatized and these resources go into Petro-Canada, where will these other sectors of the industry, which are not as profitable at some stages, go? Clearly the mining industry is in a terrible state because the government has removed the flow-through shares and the MEDA incentive program.
Only a few weeks ago a number of members of our caucus had meetings in Kirkland Lake and we heard how that whole exploration and development for the mining industry has been destroyed in the last year because of the flow-through shares and the incentive programs are not there. They cannot get resources, if Petro-Canada moves into the marketplace to scrounge up even more resources, that industry and other industries, manufacturing and processing will be even that much more strapped.
The alternative under this bill is that 25 per cent can be sold off to foreign investors. Already we are seeing a dramatic reduction in the Canadian control of the oil industry. If we look at the downstream resources between 1985 and 1989, Canadian control has dropped from 42.7 per cent to 36.1 per cent.
Imagine, Mr. Speaker, in just four years with the Tory government in power, we have seen a 6 per cent-more than that actually, 6.5 per cent-decline in Canadian control of downstream energy resources. It is happening

in many other areas because what the government is saying is that it does not matter who controls. The oil companies with their headquarters in Houston or Chicago or wherever will be just as interested in Canadians as they will be in Americans.
Well, one does not have to be very wise to know that that is simply not the case. When the American administration in Washington, whether it is the Congress or the Senate, or the President, put the twist on the arm of corporate America, it responds. There is no question about it. If we look at the review of upstream resources between 1986 and 1989, a period of only three years, Canadian control has slipped from 49 per cent to 39 per cent, a drop of 10 per cent. If this bill goes through and there are not Canadian funds available to invest in those shares, naturally they will look to the United States for those resources.
One of the reasons that we wanted to establish Petro-Canada back in the seventies was to provide a window on the industry. We know it is controlled by five, six, or seven big oil companies operating internationally. We know that most of those, with the exception of Shell, are headquartered in the United States. We wanted to have, not only to have an instrument of public policy, but a window on that industry to have some influence on it and to know if there is a rip-off taking place.
People in my constituency complain about the high price of oil. Petro-Canada is a window and has been a window on the industry, not only at home, but abroad. Mr. Hopper is the President of the Canadian Petroleum Association. How much closer can you get to the industry than to have that position in Calgary?
Under this proposal, I predict that the national petroleum corporation, Petro-Canada, will cease to be a window on an industry where we know that in 10 or 20 years the level of resources are simply not going to be there. We have seen the level of reserves in the western sedimentary basin dropping all the time. That window could be lost.
In connection with that, in international affairs, we lose. We have Petro-Canada International which has been a valuable instrument for assisting Third World countries to develop their petroleum resources. Surely we, as a nation, have a responsibility through CIDA, international development agencies, the NGOs, and so on, to assist in international development. Petro-Canada
Government Orders
has been a valuable instrument in that regard. Surely, Third World development is helping them to develop their resources. We did it, along with other countries, in India and other countries to develop their green revolution back in the sixties to see them able to grow their new varieties of dwarf wheat so that they could become self-sufficient or at least able to feed themselves.
Surely, petroleum is the life-blood of any economy. Assisting Third World countries to develop their mineral and energy resources is a valuable aspect. That will be lost under this proposal, the ability of Petro-Canada to be a window on the petroleum industry, not only in the nation, but abroad, and also to be an important international instrument for the development of Third World energy.
Petro-Canada has been the instrument of public policy development for projects such as Hibernia. I believe that the exact percentage of the development of Hibernia is 25 per cent owned by Petro-Canada. Surely, to throw that over into the private sector will not ensure the development of Hibernia. What about the others: Terra Nova, 44 per cent owned by Petro-Canada; OSLO, 15 per cent owned by Petro-Canada; Syncrude, 17 per cent owned by Petro-Canada; and the Wolf Lake project, 50 per cent owned by Petro-Canada. Those are projects that governments have difficulty in knowing exactly how to approach those and what percentage to be involved.
How can we be sure that, if Petro-Canada is privatized, these important projects which the government is committed to will go ahead? How will its share in OSLO or whatever simply be sold off? Ultimately, if privatization takes place, investors will not be satisfied with 15 per cent. Investors simply will want 100 per cent private sector to be sure that it is not an instrument of public policy. The ability of government to invest soundly and wisely in these projects will be lost and the responsibility for doing it will be lost.
The government has got a lot to answer for in proposing this at a time when oil prices on the world scene have risen from $16 or $18 a barrel during the past year to over $42 a barrel now. Can we be sure that the government knows what it is doing by privatizing this? Can we be sure that consumers are not going to be ripped off at the gas pump?

October 11, 1990
Government Orders
The government really should review this whole scheme again. The advantages are not very great. The disadvantages are very extensive. We can look at the 2,900 lay-offs at Air Canada today. Of course, it has been privatized. In Petro-Canada, we see 6,400 employees. Has the government got some secret agenda to do the same to the employees of Petro-Canada that it has done to Air Canada already today?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's time has expired. Questions and comments.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to what the hon. member said, and I am not sure he understands what he did say. I want some clarification.
He talked about rising oil prices, and he alluded to the fact that Petro-Canada somehow controlled prices of energy, whether it be gas or oil, that it is primarily involved in and that because of these rising prices, we should hang onto Petro-Canada to control these prices. That is the impression he left with the House.
He is quite a veteran of the House. He has been around here a long time. As a matter of fact, I think he might have been here when Petro-Canada was born. He is that long in the tooth, at least 15 years.
When has Petro-Canada has ever controlled the price of energy in the country. Was it ever initially mandated to control prices of energy in the country? If so, can he point to me where that mandate was? Can he point to me when at any time did it control the price of energy in the country?
The point is that the privatization of Petro-Canada has absolutely nothing to do with the rising energy prices that we see in the world today. It is the situation in the Middle East that has forced the speculative price of oil to increase. It has nothing to do with Petro-Canada, the privatization, or, I might say, its mandate when it was first envisaged by the cartel of Liberals and New Democrats back in the early seventies.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, of course, the Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs speaks of cartels. The cartel, if there is one, is the cartel of the five or six big oil companies working in collusion to try to push up the prices of oil in the country.
When we established PetroCan back in the 1970s, we established it to extend and expand Canada's energy reserves and resources. The hon. member knows that what is important is that we have a window on the industry. What the government is proposing is that we sell this off and that we make sure that the government has no instruments for public policy with regard to energy.
The government has defanged the National Energy Board so it has no power to control exports. We have pushed up exports of natural gas and oil so that that whole area of national policy has been given away in the FTA. He knows that.


John Horton McDermid: That is nonsense. I do not know that at all.


Maurice Brydon Foster: He should know.


John Horton McDermid: It's all nonsense.


Maurice Brydon Foster: He knows that that is the truth and he does not like to hear it because it really upsets him.


John Horton McDermid: It is not factually correct.


Maurice Brydon Foster: That is exactly what the minister did and now he wants to get rid of the one instrument for a public policy in energy. The minister has proven that the government talks about getting more privatization, but this policy just gives them all away.
The government is talking about privatizing 15 per cent of this so that it can generate $500 million worth of exploration funds. If the government really wanted to have $500 million or $1 billion worth of funds for exploration to do this, why did it buy some $900 million worth of gas stations in 1984? If it was really interested in exploration and development, which was the primary role of Petro-Canada as originally envisaged, it did not need to spend $800 million or $900 million. It was not this minister because he was not there at the time, but it was this government that said: "We do not want to spend the money on exploration and development. We want to buy up Gulf's oil and gas stations in eastern Canada." So that is what it did.
Now, Petro-Canada is strapped for money because it spent it all on gas stations which really does not increase its reserves very much. I really do not understand why, if a government was being prudent with the taxpayers' money, it would go and buy up a whole bunch of gas stations, when it could have been using it for exploration
October 11, 1990

and development-and not just using it today. It could have been using it and rolling it over each year.
I really think that the Minister of State for Privatization does not know what he is talking about. This bill is really a bad bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The hon. member for St. Boniface.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about the element of Canadian control and Canadianization. He had the figures in front of him. Could he just expand upon them somewhat and perhaps give an example or two of other areas that have slipped and have less Canadian control than they had?
I do not know if he has time to answer, but he may wish to comment on this. I have been receiving a lot of calls from constituents who feel that they are being taken advantage of in the current situation with respect to increased prices of gas.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might be able to answer that privately.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed in today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS   CHARLOTTETOWN CONFERENCE ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the city of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island should be designated as the "Birthplace of Canada" to mark the one hundred and twenty-fifth anniversary of the 1864 Charlottetown Conference of the Fathers of Confederation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of satisfaction and pride to move and begin debate on this motion.
I am very happy to have had my motion chosen in the draw at this time. I feel that most Canadians do not understand the order in which motions and Private Members' bills appear for debate because it is chosen by
Private Members' Business
lottery, better known as the luck of the draw. Of course, I am going to need much more than luck to see this motion through to completion.
As the member of Parliament for Hillsborough, I have worked since June 1989 to achieve this designation and, of course, there have been many, many Islanders who have worked much longer than this to see Charlottetown given the recognition it deserves.
In 1989 the 125th anniversary of the Charlottetown Conference was celebrated. In 1864 at the conference, delegates from Canada and the Maritimes agreed in principle to form one union, the Dominion of Canada. At this time in Charlottetown a feeling of excitement and endless possibility was born. Delegates representing several provinces decided to form one nation. They realized that in unity, there is strength. Today, in 1990, Canadians hope to recapture that sense of unity and optimism.
It is possible to recapture the atmosphere of the 1864 conference if you walk around Charlottetown. Charlottetown is a community which was already 100 years old when the conference took place. You can begin this by walking up Great George Street from the harbour, the route followed by the Fathers of Confederation, the route they took after they disembarked from their steamer, Queen Victoria. Trees shade the area, and as you walk through the trees, Province House comes into view. Province House is where the conference took place, and it is where today the legislative proceedings of the province take place.
Province House is a great source of pride to Prince Edward Islanders. It was built as the colonial house between 1843 and 1846, with the official opening in January 1847. It has served as the seat of government from that time onward. It is a beautiful but aging building, and the aging of the building led to an agreement between the federal and provincial governments in 1974 to restore many of the rooms in Province House to the 1800s. This job was completed in 1986.
The room that most people want to see as they visit this building is the red chamber, the chamber in which the Fathers of Confederation met.
The National Capital Commission has worked with the province of Prince Edward Island in recognition of the role that the provincial capitals play in the evolution of the country. The commission has created direct linkages with Charlottetown in recognition of its valued role as

October 11, 1990
Private Members' Business
the historic and symbolic capital in the creation of Confederation.
Through a cultural exchange program, Charlottetown and Prince Edward Island were made more visible in Canada's capital; and the national capital is now more familiar to the residents of Prince Edward Island. Their efforts help to highlight the potential educational importance of debating this motion.
Canadians need unifying symbols. We need to be reminded of our great past so that we can think of the future with hope. I am afraid that if we do not make an active effort to affirm our identity as Canadians, to affirm the reasons why this country was created in the first place, we could lose it by default. That would be a tragedy, with such greatness behind us and so much to look forward to.
Canadians desire to renew the bonds that hold us together, to regain a sense of nationhood, as is evidenced by the huge numbers of people who come here to Parliament Hill. They come here not only to watch their democracy in action, but to see a building which symbolizes the nation. The Parliament Buildings and this Chamber, in particular, command our respect and our pride. And I do not think anyone leaves this Hill untouched.
Dignified and treasured as these buildings are, they are only part of the story of Canada. I think that Canadians should experience the same sense of history in Charlottetown as they do here in Ottawa. While any Islander knows the story of the Dominion's birth, and is happy to tell it to visitors, we would appreciate the support and the resources of the Government of Canada in letting all Canadians know about it and experience it.
Canadians learn in school that Charlottetown was the location of the conference where Confederation was born. What they might not realize is that Charlottetown's streets and buildings bring these history lessons to life. Many homes and buildings that date from that era still exist and have been fully restored to give Canadians a true sense of the times. One mansion, at which some of the delegates stayed while in Charlottetown, has been declared a national landmark. Government House, the home of Prince Edward Island's Lieutenant Governor,
has been preserved beautifully. And the home of William Pope, one of Prince Edward Island's Fathers of Confederation, is now designated as a national park. Also, some modem landmarks commemorate this important moment in Canadian history and add to Charlottetown's appeal, such as the Confederation Centre of the Arts, the living monument to Canada's founding fathers.
All of this was accomplished through the dedication of many Islanders and many other people over a period of many years, such as the Charlottetown Area Development Corporation, through the Charlottetown Area Beautification Project, city council, members of the Legislative Assembly and the Heritage Foundation of Canada, as well as the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. The people of Charlottetown are conscious of their historic surroundings and they have worked very hard to maintain the physical aspects, and as a result, the spirit of the Charlottetown conference.
Mr. Speaker, I could stand here all day and list the individuals whose contributions to this effort have made it worth while. But, one person who stands out in my mind is a person by the name of Eddy Rice. Over the past year, I have sought the input and the advice of many people regarding this type of motion and their help was invaluable to me. But Eddie Rice, who has worked to preserve and promote Charlottetown's special place in history, was one of the first people to discuss this idea with me, so I especially appreciate his role. I think he summed it up best when he said: "We are guardians of our own heritage".
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that, due to a drafting oversight, my motion now reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the city of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island should be designated as the "Birthplace of Canada" to mark the one hundred and twenty-fifth anniversary of the 1864 Charlottetown Conference of the Fathers of Confederation.
Later in the debate, my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Cardigan, will rise and move an amendment to this motion. The amendment will change the words "Birthplace of Canada" to "Birthplace of Confederation".
October 11, 1990

Mr. Speaker, on September 27 of this year, during Routine Proceedings, I moved for leave to introduce Bill C-330, An Act to Commemorate the Birthplace of Confederation. This was agreed to, the bill was read the first time and ordered to be printed.
This bill would promote the unifying symbols in the history of Canada in a time when the country seems divided. The bill shall, by means of plaques or other signs or in any other suitable manner mark the sites and buildings where was held, prior to 1867, the Charlottetown Conference, during which delegates from the Maritimes and from Canada agreed to explore the possibility of one union.
It is my hope that all members of this House will support both my motion and my bill. Prince Edward Islanders have worked for the official designation of their capital city, not only out of a desire to preserve and enhance its unique historic role but also to strengthen the local and the provincial economy which, I am sure, all hon. members know is in great need of strengthening. Prince Edward Island's economy is based, to a great extent, on tourism.
According to the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, in 1989 over 740,000 people visited P.E.I. That is a large number of people for a province with a population of about 130,000. P.E.I.'s tourism sector must continue to grow so that its economy will be strengthened. Tourism is a very competitive sector, and we know we can compete. To do so, we need the help of the Government of Canada.
The official designation of Charlottetown would be of great help in this competitive market appealing not only to Canadian visitors, but to international ones as well. With increased tourism comes increased activity in all areas of the economy. P.E.I.'s existing tourism base presents Canada with a wonderful opportunity to showcase a very special event in our history.
Canada was created in a way which would be known around the world as the Canadian way of doing things. Delegates gathered in an atmosphere of hospitality and optimism. Meetings were held and vital business was conducted. Also, festivities took place. Festive dinners and parties were enjoyed by all. This has become a famous image of the conference. In September 1864, Charlottetown was the place to be, and the following
Private Members' Business
quote from a letter by Charlottetown conference delegate, George Brown, to his wife, Anne, will help to give a visual view of the hospitality and optimism.
"Amid most beautiful scenery, we came suddenly on the capital city of the island. Our steamer dropped anchor magnificently in the stream, and its man-of-war cut evidently inspired the natives with huge respect for their big brothers from Canada. I flatter myself we did that well. Having dressed ourselves in the correct style- we pulled away for shore and landed like Mr. Christopher Columbus."
In fact, the S.S. Queen Victoria had caused some alarm that morning when it entered Hillsborough Bay because it had been mistaken for a Yankee commerce raider. With this auspicious beginning, the Charlottetown Conference was under way, and the discussions of the delegates at that conference shaped the lives of Canadians for the past 126 years. That is why I stand here today asking for the support of this House.
The conference was originally planned as a discussion of a possible federation of the maritime provinces, but when the Canadian delegation arrived, it turned into a discussion of a much larger scheme, the federation of British North America. The delegates heard speeches by John A. Macdonald, George Cartier, Thomas D'Arcy McGee, George Brown and many others. The debate was lively. Before the delegates left the Island in 1864, the government and the citizens of Charlottetown threw a gala ball at Province House where they danced, dined and made fine speeches until the wee hours of the morning. The ball was recreated in 1989 on the 125th anniversary during a memorable party in the streets surrounding Province House.
If there was ever a time when Canadians needed living symbols of their history and an understanding that nation building is not over, it is now. I urge the people in this Chamber to support this motion. It would be a simple gesture, but an important one for Prince Edward Islanders and for all Canadians.
I would like to conclude with a quote from one of Prince Edward Island's delegates to the convention, and Father of Confederation, Thomas Heath Haviland. He said: "Never was there such an important meeting as this held before in the history of British America; and it may yet be said that here, in little Prince Edward Island, was

October 11, 1990
Private Members' Business
that union formed which has produced one of the greatest nations on the face of God's earth."
I urge all members to support this motion.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to this motion of the hon. member for Hillsborough.
Most of us recognize the importance of the Charlottetown Conference. In our grade school history class we learned about the great deeds done by people like John Hamilton Gray, George Coles, and others. When Canadians like Sir John A. Macdonald and George Etienne Cartier landed at Peakes Wharf in Charlottetown, little did they know how important their actions were. Indeed many people could learn today from the example of Canada's founding fathers.
The Charlottetown Conference was originally intended to be a discussion on the form of Maritime Union but then the Canadians arrived and they never looked back. Dr. Francis Bolger, an authority on the Charlottetown Conference, said:
The Charlottetown Conference was indeed a success. The 23 delegates reached an agreement on the desirability of Confederation and on the general outline of a future constitution. Perhaps more importantly, they dedicated themselves to the establishment of a new nation. Subsequent conferences in Quebec City and London, England, formalized, refined and systematized the constitutional principles agreed upon in Charlottetown, and in 1867 the Dominion of Canada was formed.
Despite the great importance that we place on the Charlottetown Conference there is no official recognition of Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation. What the motion does is encourage the House to designate, in law, that Charlottetown is indeed the birthplace of Confederation.
The city of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, is a beautiful city with a remarkable sense of history. There are plaques in front of Province House, the sight of the conference, commemorating those Islanders that participated in the Charlottetown Conference of 1864. The plaques list the many achievements of the men who helped found this great nation. The time has come for the federal government to recognize formally that Charlottetown is the birthplace of Confederation.
The federal government could play a special role in helping develop historical sights in and around the city related to the events of 1864. Using the resources of Environment Canada and the Department of Communications, much can be done in and around Charlottetown to help preserve, restore, and revive many of the places associated with the conference. Sights like Government House and Pope House have been restored to their original condition, allowing for a vivid recollection of the history. Much has been done recently around Peakes Wharf where the delegates to the conference landed, restoring old shops and the like. Such restorations have added much to the life of Charlottetown and attract many visitors.
Recognition of the historical role in Canadian history played by Charlottetown would help strengthen the local economy. Prince Edward Island relies more heavily on tourism as a supplier of money and employment than any other province. With careful promotion of Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation many more Canadians who have yet to enjoy the history and spirit of Prince Edward Island will come to visit the Island.
It must be remembered that a move to commemorate the Charlottetown Conference will not only affect the city itself, but it will have a lasting impact on the tourism industry on the whole Island.
As the 125th anniversary of Confederation approaches in 1992 Canadians should become more aware of the history surrounding the great event. It has been said that Canada was a "noble experiment", and nothing could be more true today. As we look around and see the tensions that have built up, we find a Canada in need of unifying symbols. Recognition of Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation would be such a symbol, and I encourage all members to support the motion of the hon. member for Hillsborough.
Before I end my remarks I would like to move an amendment to the motion to correct a minor error.
Therefore I move:
That, in the opinion of this House, the city of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island should be designated as the "Birthplace of Confederation" to mark the one hundred and twenty-fifth anniversary of the 1864 Charlottetown Conference of the Fathers of Confederation.

nBMHHBUUBaBHHmi
October 11, 1990


SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: After taking counsel, the Chair has come to the conclusion that the amendment is relevant.
On debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship).


ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate you on your position in the chair here today. This is the first time I have had an opportunity to speak in the House when you have been in the chair, so I congratulate you on your appointment.
I am honoured to participate in this debate in the House of Commons today and to support the sentiments of my colleague from Hillsborough and thank him for putting forth his motion.
The motion before us today asks that we recognize the importance of a meeting that occurred in Charlottetown almost 126 years ago. The Charlottetown Conference in 1864 was indeed a pivotal event in the history of Canada. It saw the leaders of the emerging Dominion of Canada come together to propose the founding of a new country. That initial meeting led to Confederation and eventually to Canada as we know it-Canada from sea to sea and from the 49th parallel to the far-flung reaches of the Arctic.
Those leaders, the Fathers of Confederation, had a vision. It was a revolutionary vision, one of disparate colonies uniting to form a strong young nation with a great future. Above all, it was a vision of a new way of doing things.
Here were the representatives of two peoples from two homelands, England and France. They saw the opportunity to reach out to one another, to unite for mutual benefit, and to live together in peace and mutual respect. At Charlottetown, in 1864, the idea of a country
Private Members' Business
of people who would stand together while embracing their differences was bom.
Over the decades Canadians have enlarged and enriched this vision. In our way we are giving new meaning to that concept of partnership of all regions and citizens of this country.
There is no doubt that the Charlottetown Conference was a key step in our evolution as a nation. I want to agree with the hon. member for Hillsborough and also the hon. member for Cardigan who has moved am appropriate and accurate amendment to the motion to call Charlottetown the birthplace of Confederation rather than the birthplace of Canada. With the amendment to the motion I want to say that I endorse this motion whole-heartedly.
I was doing some research on who were some of the renowned persons bom in Charlottetown. One of the Fathers of Confederation, George Coles, was bom in Charlottetown. The son of one of the Fathers of Confederation, Sir Joseph Pope, was born in Charlottetown. The present Lieutenant-Governor, Marion Reid, was bom in Charlottetown. Our friend, journalist Mike Duffy, has Charlottetown as his birthplace. The former environment minister in the previous Parliament, the hon. Tom McMillan, was bom in Charlottetown. It is as well as the birthplace of the great story Anne of Green Gables.
Confederation is the heart and the soul of Canada. It was by no means an easy road that our forefathers had to take. It was the road of compromise, of accommodation, of seeking the middle ground. Those were the principles upon which this country was built. Those are the principles which still guide us and which we must still honour.
This is the fair, the decent, the Canadian way. This is the legacy that was born in Charlottetown in 1864.
When our forebears came together for the Charlottetown Conference and at a subsequent conference in Quebec City, they had to grapple with some very difficult issues. In those days there were only a few provinces that were involved in those discussions. There were delegates from the three maritime provinces, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and there were representatives from Upper and Lower Canada which encompassed what is now Ontario and Quebec.
It was a much smaller geographical entity than Canada is today. Nevertheless, the Fathers of Confederation

October 11, 1990
Private Members' Business
under the leadership of Sir John A. Macdonald faced the task of bringing together small sparsely populated communities scattered over immense distances. These communities also were divided by different economic interests and by different cultural, linguistic, legal and educational traditions.
How could they form a union while still satisfying local and regional interests? How could they accommodate the aspirations of both French and English speaking peoples in one political entity?
To remain separate colonies was to risk being swallowed up by our neighbour in the south. To merge completely and to try to submerge our differences would have meant losing the diversity already of great significance in those early days.
There was only one acceptable answer: a federation, a union that gave us a strong central government and Parliament and an ample measure of self-government and autonomy for each of the federating provinces.
How did our ancestors work out the details of that alliance? It was by sitting down together, debating, negotiating, and compromising.
Let us remember that the British North America Act, our Confederation document, guaranteed certain language and education rights and Quebec's system of civil law. Subsequent generations would have to improve on these arrangements.
Confederation was not a one-time event. Indeed it is an ongoing, evolutionary process. The partnerships that Canadians formed with one another in the early days of our history had to be renegotiated, renewed, and refined over the years.
Canadian historian, Senator Eugene Forsey, put it this way in an article that he wrote in 1962:
The Fathers wrought well, and laid our foundations deep and strong. But the building is still unfinished and parts of it have suffered some damage through the years. It does not need a bombing squad or a wrecking crew. But it does need alterations, repairs, additions, the expansion of certain rooms; and all of us must be made to feel at home in it.
Since 1867 we have seen many constitutional milestones. Each round of constitutional talks had its heartwrench-ing moments as Canadians confronted their differences and sought common ground in the complex maze of competing interests and priorities.
Yet the unifying vision prevailed. We Canadians maintained our faith in the process that our ancestors set in motion.
From those first dreams of our ancestors of a daring new national experiment, Canada has grown to become an ever more mature, fair, and caring society. Nations around the world admire us for our principles and traditions.
We are known as peace-loving, tolerant, generous. We were not bom with these characteristics-we honed them through the process of learning to live together, of standing up for one another through the long haul.
In 1864, in Charlottetown, our ancestors conceived of the idea of Canada-one nation created out of a collection of colonies.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is vital to celebrate the Charlottetown Conference of 1864, to acknowledge the role it played in the birth of Confederation. Looking back on those times helps us gain a better understanding of the constitutional processes that will continue for many years to come.
It is up to all Canadians to continue the work of reaching out to one another, of building a new climate of understanding that can be fulfilled by the faith and goodwill of every citizen of this country.
As we stand on the threshold of the 21st century, we continue to strive for a strong and prosperous Canada for all citizens, mindful of the first discussions and decisions made in Charlottetown, at the birthplace of our Confederation.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join this debate and congratulate the member of Parliament for Hillsborough who has tabled this bill for our discussion today.
I guess I should state at the outset my vested interest in seeing that this particular matter is proceeded with. It goes back many years to my grandfather, who was bom in Charlottetown, and of course my dad, who was bom in that great province as well. So I state at the outset my vested interest, but I do want to compliment the member of Parliament for Hillsborough as well as his colleague for Cardigan who has put forward an amendment which I am supporting, and I know other members on this side of
October 11, 1990

the House, as well as on the government side, have now indicated their support.
I would like to pay tribute particularly to the parliamentary secretaiy who has just spoken. I found her words both eloquent and timely, and very fitting. I am happy to see that a government representative has taken the time to participate in this very worth-while debate, in assuring that this particular measure can proceed and proceed with despatch.
The Charlottetown Conference, like many events in history, was the result of precedents and accidents, the outcome of which few could have foreseen. While the conference was held ostensibly to debate the possibilities of a maritime union, a greater purpose soon unfolded.
Two-thirds of the Canadian cabinet had boarded the Canadian government steamer Queen Victoria in late August and sailed from Quebec to Charlottetown. They carried with them far-reaching proposals for Confederation.
I would like to quote a passage which an author wrote with regard to the voyage to Charlottetown:
From Gaspe our course was direct to Charlottetown, the little capital of little Prince Edward Island. I was up at four in the morning! -Thursday morning (September 1)-to see the sun rise and have a salt water bath. We had just reached the westerly point of Prince Edward and were running along the coast of as pretty a country as you ever put your eye upon-About noon we came to an inlet which we entered, and running up for some miles what appeared to be a river but was in fact but an inlet of the sea (Hillsborough Bay), amid most beautiful scenery, we came suddenly on the Capital City of the Island.
That describes clearly the voyage which took place from the Gaspe to Charlottetown. Twenty-three statesmen and three secretaries sat down at a massive mahogany table in the legislative council chamber in the graceful Georgian Province House.
John A. Macdonald and Cartier began by setting out the general arguments in favour of Confederation with a broad outline of the Canadian proposal. They sought to show that such a union of the provinces was indeed possible. Confederation promised something that Maritime union could not, a trans-continental country. Their purpose, shaped by a faith and the power of hope over adversity.
Private Members' Business
The Charlottetown Conference thus laid the foundation upon which Confederation was built. It was in Charlottetown that the grand plans of the statesmen who were to become known as the Fathers of Confederation were first given practical shape. Perhaps the most remarkable achievement of the whole conference was the conversion of a significant proportion of the Maritime delegates to the cause of Confederation. For the sake of Confederation not a few would put at stake their political careers and in some cases even their personal reputations.
The Charlottetown Conference gave the delegates a sense of common destiny and a devotion to a cause greater than their local loyalties.
It is, therefore, Mr. Speaker, fitting that this city, this great little city, which saw the high hopes and quiet labours of our political forbears develop into a great community of peoples be recognized as the "Birthplace of Confederation".
The challenges the Fathers of Confederation faced over a century ago are challenges that we in this Chamber and across this great land continue to confront. Nonetheless, we can draw from their example and from their example. The imagination, the determination, and, yes, the courage that distinguished their great effort 125 years ago is needed anew.
Surely the hope of our country lies, just as it did in Charlottetown in 1864, in the acceptance of our differences and, Mr. Speaker, as you will well know, our distinctiveness; and in the recognition of our common problems and our common purpose.
That is what Macdonald, Cartier, John Gray of Prince Edward Island, Tilley from New Brunswick, and, yes, a fellow Nova Scotian by the name of Tupper and other distinguished statesmen had in mind in Charlottetown in 1864, when beneath the old gas lamps in the Provincial Building they committed themselves to a new political arrangement of the British North American colonies.
Today the country these men dreamed of has matured into one of the great and to some extent untapped bountiful countries of the world. It is a country of talent and opportunity, a country civilized in its human relations, a country rich in culture and literature.
Canada is not just a few acres of snow, but a country of immensely varied beauty of landscape and season, of
October 11, 1990

Private Members' Business
people from a hundred worldly professions who now call Canada their home, of valued diversity and of rights and privileges envied throughout the world.
Apart from honouring Charlottetown as the "Cradle of Confederation", we ought, perhaps as a Chamber and as humble representatives, honour the efforts of our 19th century nation builders by demonstrating, as so ably put by the parliamentary secretary, that we have a vision of how Canada can grow and evolve in response to the different and difficult times ahead.
Considerations of the new agenda remain unfinished. It is up to all of us to propose solutions and to chart the new course. To be involved in that effort is to be involved with the same spirit that fired the imagination and efforts of the Fathers of Confederation at Charlottetown almost 125 years ago.
With great humility, it is my pleasure to participate in this debate and join with my colleagues, the four members of Parliament from Charlottetown, in supporting them and the government in their quest to have Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation of this great nation.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to be able to speak today on this motion put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough, and amended by my colleague the hon. member for Cardigan, on designating Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation.
First I want to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Hillsborough in taking the initiative in introducing this motion before the House. I feel that it is very appropriate that we are discussing the designation of Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation here on the floor of the House of Commons, for it is here that we plan for the future of our country. It is only fitting that it is here that we recognize where our country was planned.
In identifying Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation, it is both a recognition and an acceptance of the importance of our historical heritage. We have listened to colleagues this afternoon speak of the events of the Charlottetown Conference of 1864 and how those events have helped shape the future of the country. I congratulate each one of them for their comments.
There are numerous reasons why the official designation of Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation would be beneficial. Today in the time allotted to me I would like to deal with three of these reasons.
First, and most important, Canada needs to officially identify historical events. This identification will help all of us develop our national pride.
Second, at a time when our country has become somewhat divided, it is imperative that we concentrate and celebrate those events which bind us together as a nation.
Third, not only will this designation of Charlottetown contribute to the well-being of our country, but there is no doubt it will contribute to the well-being of my province of Prince Edward Island.
I believe that we can continue to learn a great deal from those early Fathers of Confederation who met for ten days in Charlottetown 126 years ago and found compromise among their differences.
It was the Charlottetown Conference that really set Confederation in motion. Maritime union had long been talked about in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. In fact, in March of 1864, all three legislatures passed resolutions to have a conference to discuss it. Nothing happened until after the June, 1864 and the constitutional crisis of the province of Canada, when the Canadians asked to attend the conference to propose a union of all British North America.
The request at first rather staggered the Maritime governments, but then the place and date of the meeting were selected: Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, September 1 to 9, 1864. It might be of interest to members of the House to know that at the time of the conference, Charlottetown was the eleventh largest city in British North America.
At the conference, Maritime union was virtually dropped and the delegates agreed on the outline of a scheme for a more general union. It was the Charlottetown Conference which produced the momentum which was so obvious at the Quebec conference in October and so necessary to carry Confederation.
Prince Edward Islanders have learned a great deal from their heritage and affiliation with the Fathers of Confederation. All Canadians should be able to commemorate the birthplace of Confederation and under-
October 11, 1990

stand the events, the players, and the location of the activities to comprehend fully our national heritage.
As Canadians, we have long sought after some prepackaged identity, often disregarding the facts of our own history which contribute to our true make-up and, therefore, our identity. This past year of our nation's history has been one of conflict within our confederation. It is now more important than ever that we look to our past for strength and, in some cases, direction for the future.
We need to feel patriotic about our great country and Charlottetown has a moral obligation to help. It has the stage.
At times, we often look toward the United States, not for guidance but because of the simple fact that it seems to be able to produce patriotism on command. It has been pointed out that at different times within the year, Washington is packed with school children from all over the United States. They also travel to Philadelphia and come from everywhere in the United States. Canadian school children could travel to Charlottetown, to learn and to see where, what, and how Canada was conceived. In doing so, they would have a better grasp of our country's beginnings and a better grasp of their national heritage and identity.
As an Islander, I am proud of the beauty and historical importance of our provincial capital, Charlottetown. It is truly an exceptional city. The older part of the city includes our provincial legislature, known as Province House, where the meetings were held in 1864. It also includes stately mansions, refurbished shops, and commercial buildings dating from the last century which line the streets. It is possible to walk and see exactly where the Fathers of Confederation spent their time.
Charlottetown has received national recognition before. In 1964, people in Canada showed enough faith in their history that they built the Confederation Centre for the Arts in Charlottetown as a memorial to the founding of Canada. This concrete and glass complex comprises a theatre, a splendid gallery, and the provincial archives. Each year, as part of the much acclaimed Charlottetown Festival, the flexible 1,000 seat theatre holds a revival of
Private Members' Business
the musical based on the island novel, Anne of Green Gables.
There is no question that the designation of Charlottetown will help improve our provincial economy. It is distinctive among Canadian cities as being the birthplace of Confederation and that represents an important tourism resource whose development has the potential for bringing benefits to the entire province.
I realize that you are telling me, Mr. Speaker, that my time is up. I just want to close by once again commending the hon. member for Hillsborough in his initiative on this issue. I am proud and honoured to have the opportunity to address and support the designation of Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in debate on my colleague's motion. I am an islander as well, but I am not from Prince Edward Island. I am from another island called Cape Breton Island. Those islands in the east have had great historical significance in the development of the northern part of North America.
As anybody who has visited Prince Edward Island knows-and it is not that far from Cape Breton Island- the people there are among the finest in this great nation. That little town of Charlottetown is something unique. There is a special ambience that is there. I am not quite sure how one would properly describe it.
When one looks at the island itself, the island of Prince Edward Island, it truly is like a rolling pillow of lush green in the summertime, with the surf that pounds in on its miles of sandy coastline being like a braid that defines it. The capital city of Charlottetown is like an emerald on the coastline.
It is little wonder that when men and women of vision over 125 years ago pulled into that harbour that something took over their spirit. My colleague from Cape Breton-East Richmond read a passage which I think was very appropriate. They stopped talking about what could not be done and started to dream the impossible. At that time, the impossible was a nation called Canada.
For some reason, Charlottetown has perhaps hallowed soil. Maybe it has always had a destiny. I do not know. Some people believe in that. For some strange reason, the political divisions and the difficulty of geography we still face today-think of it. This was 126 years ago.

October 11, 1990
Private Members' Business
Today, we talk about how vast the country is. Today, we talk about the problems between our regions. Today, we talk about the problems between our languages. This was 126 years ago. There were no airplanes, no telephones, and no cars. There were boats, horses, and wagons. There were great distances. For some reason, Charlottetown pulled all those positive energies together and let those men and women dream the impossible, put aside their differences, and forge the great nation that is Canada.
I have had many opportunities to go to Charlottetown and Prince Edward Island and I go back as often as I can. These are times of great trouble in our land with the great divisions politically, economically, and linguistically across the country. Once we get this motion through and the designation comes for Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation, maybe for every future constitutional conference, when everybody does their agenda, they want to do their horse-trading, and they want to make sure that their needs are at the top of the agenda, maybe we should make it compulsory that our leaders from across Canada take a little trip to Charlottetown. They should walk the streets, go into the buildings where those meetings took place, and think about the history that was created. Men and women 126 years ago put their differences aside and stopped talking about what could not be done and started to talk about what could be done.
Maybe, just maybe, they should do the same thing and go to L'Anse-au-Meadow in Newfoundland where the first people landed. Then maybe they should go to the Citadel in Quebec so that when they all get together that infectious spirit, that special something, that little bit of magic that Charlottetown has caused for all Canadians, will be a little infectious.
I am very proud that my colleague, the member for Hillsborough, has had the foresight to put this motion together, and I am so pleased to see the support on both sides of the House. Maybe once again Charlottetown is weaving its magic, because I cannot recall the day, at least recently, when we have had members from all sides of the House getting up and speaking from the heart, and speaking eloquently and positively about a motion that is on the floor and before the Chair of the House of Commons.
I cannot think of any time since I was elected when we have had an hour in which people sat down and put their differences aside, and with the very eloquent remarks of the hon. parliamentary secretary. It gives me reason to feel kind of good.
Maybe, Mr. Speaker, just maybe, that special ambience, that special something that the hon. member for Hillsborough is trying to recognize in this motion, has once again touched this place.
The history of Canada is a history we should all be proud of. But it is a history that many times we forget. It is a history perhaps that we learn in grade school, but it is not one that we carry with us.
There has been mention of the importance of having symbols of national unity and that is important. It is important to remember the positive reasons why we are a nation and why we are together. I cannot think of a more fitting symbol, more pleasant symbol, or a more appropriate symbol of national unity than the city of Charlottetown, that city nestled on the harbour on the east coast of Canada that drew all that energy and drew all those people together.
It would do well for each and every one of us in the House tonight, after we vote in a positive way to proceed with this motion as quickly as we can, to make a commitment that maybe, just maybe, the next time we get a break-and goodness knows, that might be sooner than later-that maybe what we should do is go down to that beautiful city of Charlottetown, the birthplace of Confederation, and have a little walk around. Then maybe the next time we come back and meet in the House, we will get on, not to dismantling and damaging this nation as we are all a little guilty of in some of our partisan comments, but to furthering the cause and building this great nation, Canada.
It gives me a great deal of pleasure to support the motion that is before the Chair today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

In accordance with Standing Order 93, the item is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence in the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Aiberni):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity at this time of adjournment to discuss a question which I put in the House on February 23 last in which I asked the Secretary of State about the cuts that took place to native programs in the Secretary of State department. The House will remember that in the budget this year, the Secretary of State made substantial cuts to native representative organizations. In fact, they were cut in many cases by 100 per cent. Cuts were made to native communications programs and, in many cases as well, those native communications programs and native newspapers received cuts of up to 100 per cent, and the same thing happened in native broadcasting.
As usual, the minister gave an unsatisfactory answer to my question. He simply indicated that everybody had to take cuts during a time of budget cutting in order to curb the deficit. But, in this case, he made substantial cuts for a group of people in this country who have not been fairly treated by the Government of Canada and by the people of Canada, and yet seem to be bearing or are being forced by this government to bear the deepest cuts in their programs and, as a result, substantial damage and difficulty was created for the native people of this country. For example, as Mr. Speaker will know, native newspapers have been forced to shut down. One of the most recent shutdowns was at the Micmac News, a newspaper in Atlantic Canada that communicates both between Micmac people and Canadians as a whole. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that that newspaper was the one that was responsible for pressing the case of Donald Marshall, Jr., who was unjustly imprisoned in Nova Scotia for 10 or 11 years for a crime which he did not commit. It was the Micmac News that pressed that case and made the Micmac people and the people of Canada aware of that case and, as a result, a royal commission was struck in Nova Scotia. It found that the justice
Adjournment Debate
system in Nova Scotia was in error, an appeal took place and Donald Marshall was, of course, released from jail.
I think what is even worse is that the cuts to the native programs in the Secretary of State department created some serious difficulties in the relationship between native people in Canada and the Government of Canada and non-natives in Canada. Poor relations during this last summer broke into virtual open civil disobedience and conflict with the people of Canada at Kanesatake and at Kahnawake in the province of Quebec. I think, as a result of those conflicts, the federal government ended up spending tens of millions of dollars, some people have suggested over $100 million, to deal with that conflict through the armed forces and the police forces of Canada and Quebec.
It does not make sense for this government to be constantly attacking native programs and to be constantly cutting native programs even though native people are not the people who are responsible for the huge deficit that this government has sustained. As a result of cutting a few million dollars out of the Secretary of State programs for native people, we ended up destroying good relations between the native people of Canada and the Government of Canada and the non-native people of Canada. As a result, we spent tens of millions of dollars and perhaps over $100 million to send the military into places like Kahnawake and Kanesatake. It simply does not make sense.
It is not good sense from the point of view of economics; it is not good sense from the point of view of cutting the deficit; and it is certainly not good sense from the point of view of maintaining good relations between the native people of Canada, the Government of Canada and non-natives in this country. It is extremely unfortunate that the Secretary of State does not realize that and that the Secretary of State earlier than this did not take steps to restore those programs, native broadcasting, native newspapers and funding for the aboriginal representative organizations that assist in communications between native people and non-native people in this country so that we can have a productive relationship.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question by the hon. member

October 11, 1990
Adjournment Debate
for Comox-Albemi that he asked the minister on February 23, 1990, quite some time ago.
I would like to state a few of the facts, and I am pleased we have an opportunity to give some of the facts today to show that native groups and women's groups, which are part of the question asked in February, are not being neglected by the government.
In regard to native groups first. There is a budget of over $30 million dedicated to the enhancement of languages and communications, and a transitional fund of $1 million to assist native communications societies in becoming more financially self-sufficient. The decrease in the funding, which the hon. member refers to, does not indicate in any way a lack of commitment on the part of the government.
I would like to remind him that in the budget of 1990, the over-all government funding for native peoples has been increased rather dramatically, a $77 million increase for social services, a $59 million increase for education, and a $35 million increase for health services. I would hope that the hon. member for Comox-Alber-ni, who has done some significant work with native groups, would be assured that these priorities of health, education and social services are priorities which I am sure he would endorse as the priorities of spending money.
With regard to women's groups, the Secretary of State reaffirmed that they would receive transitional funding for 1990-91. We are working with women's groups on an ongoing basis across the country to ensure that the resources will be available beyond 1990-91.
When budget cuts are made, it is because of the serious deficit problem we all know about. I want to assure the member that this government continues to be committed to aboriginal peoples and to women's groups.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening with regard to a matter that I have been raising consistently on the floor of the House of Commons since 1985.
More recently, I had put a question to the Minister of Labour concerning the Program for Older Workers Adjustment. It just so happens that there are a good
number of these individuals in my constituency of Cape Breton-East Richmond who have been attempting since 1985 to become part and parcel of the Program for Older Workers Adjustment.
In 1985, the Minister of Finance announced approximately $200 million to be set aside for a program for older workers adjustment. Thereafter, negotiations were entered into by the provincial and federal governments respectfully, and they came to an understanding whereby individuals would get certain benefits under that program.
Individuals in my constituency, particularly construction workers, have not been able to come within the meaning of these agreements. As a result, as good Canadians that they are, they are being denied the benefits of that particular program. I find it unacceptable that the Government of Canada would deny these individuals the benefits of a program which are supposed to go to older workers. The reality is that on the island of Cape Breton, unemployment is at an all time high. The prospects for employment in the construction industry are as likely as an individual going to go Out and win the million dollar lottery. There are no jobs. The prospects of jobs in the very near future are just not there.
There is a body of individuals who are 50 years of age, 55 and some older who would like to retire with some sense of dignity. Seventy-five per cent of construction workers on Cape Breton Island are unemployed, 75 per cent. There is a need for the Government of Canada to take positive, affirmative action in order to address that particular problem. The Government of Canada blames the province, the province blames the federal government. It happens to be two Tory governments.
Nevertheless, who are the victims? Who are the individuals without these benefits? They are individuals who have paid their taxes to help build our schools, they have built our churches. Now, when they do not have the wherewithal, they seek dignity from the Government of Canada which has said at every turn: "No, no, no".
If they had not put those eight illegal people in the other place, they would have had the money to amend the program for older workers adjustment and to include
October 11, 1990

the construction workers in Cape Breton. They convinced individuals and have convinced the provincial government of their need. The provincial government is now willing to amend the program for older workers adjustment, but the federal government is not prepared to assist in any way.
I want the parliamentary secretary to the minister involved to stand in his place and show some real signs, demonstrable proof that he has compassion, that his government has compassion and understanding for those individuals who have been without the assistance of the program for older workers adjustment.
I raised this issue in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 on several different occasions during that time frame. The construction industry itself, the union representatives and others have made repeated representations to the minister involved, as well as some of the other cabinet colleagues who sit around the table.
We are not seeking a billion dollars in new taxes or income for this particular program. We are talking of men and women, perhaps the age of the hon. member opposite, who have children in university and have mortgages to pay. I would ask him, as the parliamentary secretary, for fairness, for compassion, for understanding and for a positive decision to give to those men and to those women in the construction industry a chance to continue their lives with their families and friends and loved ones and to be able to do it with a sense of dignity and pride, knowing that the Government of Canada does care and is prepared to do something about it.
I ask, Mr. Speaker through you, to the parliamentary secretary if he would respond in a positive way.


Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour and Minister of State (TVansport)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond for presenting his question. I know he has deep concern about the older workers in his area.
He is concerned about an amendment that we could possibly make to the agreement between the Government of Canada and, as he says, the province of Nova Scotia in order to include construction workers of Cape Breton under the program of older workers adjustment.
Adjournment Debate
As the member is aware, POWA is designed to help long service older workers-that is the way it was set up-who had been permanently laid off and had little or no prospects for employment. As he mentioned, maybe I do fall in that category because it was for the 55-year olds and over.


David Charles Dingwall: But you still look young.


Kenneth Albert James: Thank you. Lay-offs that occur in all private sector industries and commercial Crown corporations, including the construction sector, are eligible under POWA. The criteria are to be applied consistently, as the member knows, to all lay-offs across the country.
I would stress, however, that the program for older workers adjustment remains a program really of last resort to be applied after all other adjustment measures had been considered. That is the way it was set up with the provinces.
With regard to the member's request that the agreement be amended in order to include Cape Breton construction workers, I believe it is a bit difficult to be changed at this time. After all, the adjustment program was implemented after extensive consultations. As he knows and as the member for Hillsborough sitting next to him knows-he also has a great interest in all this-it has only been operating for one year.
I would like to reassure the member that the federal government does recognize the contribution that older workers have made. I think we have to take into consideration the presentation that he has made and his great concern for the older workers in the construction industry in Cape Breton.
I believe in his presentation last June the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond asked if the minister would meet with the union people in Cape Breton. The minister did meet with representatives of the Cape Breton Island Building and Construction Association Trades Council to discuss the issue. He has taken up that matter with them.
The minister has also met with the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He has further consulted with his Nova Scotia counterpart, the honourable Ronald Russell and has received information

October 11, 1990
Adjournment Debate
from the department of industry, trade and technology on the construction industry in the province.
Based upon these discussions and the information received, he believes that a number of alternatives are now being considered for presentation to his federal and provincial colleagues so that a decision can be made.
I see Mr. Speaker indicating that I should finish my presentation, but I would like to tell the member that the minister has taken to heart his presentation. Hopefully, if we are not able to amend the current program for older workers immediately, there may be some other measures that can be taken to construction workers in Cape Breton.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, on June 4 of this year, I asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture regarding the difficult situation faced by dairy farmers not only in British Columbia but virtually right across Canada.
The difficulty concerns the growing loss of revenue, particularly in those communities that are close to the U.S. border. About $72 million in gross sales, for example, have been lost to the British Columbia dairy industry due to B.C. consumers purchasing cheap fluid milk and milk products south of the border.
Three of the five major crossings in B.C. have actually become known as milk and gas runs. Over 13,000 B.C. residents cross into Washington's border communities each day from B.C. often, I might add, for periods of less than half an hour basically just to fill up with gas, to purchase milk and dairy products, and then to return. I must point out that nobody can blame the residents of B.C. or anywhere across Canada for that matter, for trying to save a buck, particularly in a period of escalating gasoline prices and a weakening economy.
I would like to look at the consequences of what is happening with that haemorrhaging of money out of the provinces and down to the United States. In B.C. there is the loss of some $72 million is gross sales to British Columbia's dairy industry, some $30 million lost in provincial revenue from gasoline and transit taxes and $28 million lost in annual federal revenues. It can only be
called a haemorrhaging of dollars from our economy. It is kneecapping the British Columbia economy. It is helping to put people out of work.
This economic haemorrhage to the U.S. markets very clearly continues to grow, as the Canadian dollar has continued to be artifically elevated to accommodate the implementation of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Canada's economy is still tied to an artificially strong dollar.
I might add that when one looks back from 1986 to 1989, the Canadian dollar rose 16 per cent against the U.S. dollar, making Canadian purchases of U.S. products increasingly attractive. This is the essence of the problem. What has resulted is an astounding 54 per cent increase in the number of Canadians travelling to the United States on same-day visits, presumably one would assume, to purchase cheaper U.S. goods. Of course, that would include dairy products.
I would like to point out that this correlation of a high Canadian dollar to this surging exodus of Canadian consumers is not coincidence. It is, I reiterate, an accelerating haemorrhage from our economy due to the fiscal policies of this government. It is hurting all economic sectors, particularly our dairy industry.
On June 27 I wrote to the minister again to press this issue further. The minister confirmed in his reply that studies done both in British Columbia and New Brunswick verify that up to 7.6 per cent of B.C. milk sales, and some 4.5 per cent of New Brunswick milk sales come from the United States. In other words, it is milk coming in from south of the border.
The recent attempt by the federal government to control this consumer import of dairy products, according to the dairy industry in B.C., has largely failed. Dairy farmers across Canada have asked the minister to consider the amendment of general import order No. 1, under the Export Import Control Act, to possibly include a provision for a minimum 48-hour stay or time allocation of some sort, so that one can use an import permit to control those dairy products coming across the border.
At the time of the original question in June, I asked the minister what steps he was prepared to take to curtail this loss to the economy in general, but in particular, to the dairy industry in British Columbia and elsewhere.

The minister at that time said that he was studying the situation and assured the House that once the data was gathered, he would sit down with the industry to consider an action plan. Five months have passed and I would like to know whether or not the study is completed and whether or not the minister and his associates have sat down with the dairy industry to work out a possible solution.
Does the minister have a solution to the problem at this time? I am not suggesting that we punish Canadian consumers by imposing stringent restraints. I am not suggesting that they be forced to endure large border line-ups by having customs officials process virtually every litre of milk that comes across the border into Canada. I am suggesting that we consider the provision of a time allocation for duty-free status and have a look at that option.
We should be looking at some mechanism to get the word out to Canadians throughout the provinces that every dollar that goes south of the border for U.S. purchase of milk, dairy products, gasoline and other products costs jobs in Canada. Essentially, it is a drain and a haemorrhaging of our national economy.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the chance to discuss this government's concern over the purchase of U.S. dairy products by Canadian consumers.
Purchasers of dairy products are allowed if their value does not exceed $20 and are for personal use. In particular, they are allowed under general permit No. 1, issued by the Minister for International Trade. These imports are also subject to duty.
Adjournment Debate
Agriculture Canada has undertaken surveys in co-operation with customs and excise officials at border crossing points in British Columbia, New Brunswick and northern Ontario. The survey involves the use of statistical sampling techniques to estimate the extent of milk and cheese imports.
In 1988, at five border crossings in British Columbia, it was estimated that imports amounted to 7.6 per cent of fresh milk sales and 4.5 per cent of cheese sales. The survey also showed that retail prices of milk were from 36 to 60 per cent higher in British Columbia than in Washington state.
Retail prices for cheddar cheese were from 40 to 80 per cent higher on the Canadian side of the border. The results of that survey and a similar survey conducted in New Brunswick have both been published, and the results of a survey covering some border crossings in northern Ontario are also expected to be published by mid-November.
This issue has been raised on numerous occasions with dairy farmers, processors and retailers. When all the data is available, the Minister of Agriculture as well as the Minister for International Trade will sit down with the industry to see what steps can be taken to address this very serious issue.
However, I would like to point out that the regulation of fluid milk including pricing falls under provincial and not federal jurisdiction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. The House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.27 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 12, 1990