1990-10-29

Mr. Ray Skelly (North Island -Powell River) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should demonstrate to Canadians that Members of Parliament and their support staff are subject to the same regulations enforced in federal buildings with regard to the smoking of tobacco products by banning immediately all smoking of tobacco products on Parliament Hill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House to speak today on this important issue.
The issue comprises two things. One is the matter of a very serious health problem in Canada, indeed the world, and that is smoking and consumption of tobacco products. There is the impact on our health budget and on our population, generally.
The second aspect of it is the question of the House of Commons adhering to regulations that it has put forward, as well as setting an example for the rest of the country.
By the end of this Private Members' Hour, I would ask if the Chair will be ruling on a matter raised by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants. He had made a plea, in a question of privilege, that smoking by members
of the Conservative caucus on the other side in the lobby be curtailed or ended as per the requirements.
The motion that we are dealing with today, in attempting to curtail or at least prohibit smoking entirely on Parliament Hill, is very relevant. It asks that members of Parliament set an example by following the rules that they have laid down, especially in an area such as the House of Commons. It would be my hope that the Chair would take this very timely opportunity to answer that particular question of privilege and whether or not the rules and regulations imposed by the House will in fact in this place, the House of Commons, be followed.
The second thing that I would be asking today, probably by the same vehicle, is that the Speaker's office become involved in the matter of enforcement of the regulations of the House. The maintenance staff of the House of Commons report that 20 per cent of the offices are still permitting smoking to be carried on in the offices on the Hill. Apparently, they have kept a survey of offices in the simple matter of clearing out the ashtrays. The rules are not being adhered to. It would be my hope that, at the end of the day, that matter would be dealt with as well by the Speaker's office in an attempt to encourage members, support staff, and employees on Parliament Hill to follow through on it.
Why? It is a simple matter. If the House treats with contempt rules and regulations to attempt to preserve and enhance the health of Canadians, surely nobody else has to follow them. When I walk along beside a school yard, be it in British Columbia or as far away as Brookfield High School here in Ottawa, and see hundreds of young people in front of those schools smoking, I think we have an obligation as people in elected office to set an example to carry that out.
The thrust of this motion asks that there be no smoking on Parliament Hill, period. The reason for this is twofold: It is a serious health problem and there is a need for an example.
Hopefully, the question of privilege will be picked up today and the Speaker's office will treat as a serious

October 29, 1990
Private Members' Business
matter that still about 20 per cent of the offices pay absolutely no heed to the question of smoking on the Hill.
The third item is that the gatherings at the doors are just intolerable. There are rights for people who do not smoke and those individuals who do should be moved off Parliament Hill if they intend to smoke.
The question of smoking is an interesting one. I would like to begin the main body of my remarks by quoting from a hearing of the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment of the House of Representatives in the United States in July of 1988.
The matter before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment in the House of Representatives revealed a document from the research department of Philip Morris by William L. Dunn, a researcher for them. He said we should understand clearly that "cigarettes should not be conceived of as a product", but that Philip Morris uses cigarettes only as a package to sell a drug, nicotine. The report states the product of this tobacco company is nicotine, and the cigarette and the other forms in which it is sold are simply the packaging. The report states:
The cigarette is but one of many packaged layers. Think of the
cigarettes pack as a storage container for a day's supply of nicotine.
Think of cigarettes as a dispenser for a dose unit of nicotine, think
of a puff of smoke as the vehicle for nicotine.
In short, before the American Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, it was clearly defined by the company itself that it was in the business of selling drugs. We in the House of Commons have got to adopt that approach to this product. In fact, the drug is defined as one that is more addictive than heroin.
It is ironic that there is not a smoker who does not say: "I want to quit, " and that smokers do not believe that this activity is a healthy activity. They are convinced by the information that it is detrimental to their health and they want to quit. Unfortunately, there is not an incentive that brings them to want to quit right now.
We have that opportunity on the Hill to clean up the act, in the government lobby by answering a question of privileges, and in the offices of members of Parliament by addressing this report from maintenance that says 20
per cent of the offices are still permitting smoking. That should happen and that should happen today.
The next point is that the health budget of Canada in 1987 ran something in the order of $46 billion. It was estimated that up to 5 per cent of that was treating people who voluntarily damage their health or the health of others by consumption of tobacco and smoking. It is interesting that we are talking in the order of $2 billion to $3 billion of the health budget expended in treating illnesses that are completely preventable, caused by a voluntary activity. If smoking stopped that area of illness that would disappear. Those health care resources could certainly be better used in treating children with cystic fibrosis, in expanding health care technology, and in community health programs. There are 1,001 areas, such as reducing the waiting lists in British Columbia for coronary artery transplants and open heart surgery that will save lives. This squandering of health care resources is a terrible situation.
The Parliament of Canada has an opportunity to set an example. Not only do we see that this is not enforced in the members' lobbies, this is not enforced in members' offices, and employees are permitted to smoke on the Hill. We have a nursing staff which operates health units on the Hill. Those health units do not have a statement of goals and objectives aimed at trying to assist people on the Hill who smoke to stop.
Mark my words, there is not a smoker who does not want to get out from under this habit. The consumption of nicotine is as powerful, if not more powerful, than heroin. The nurses on the Hill are a competent and committed staff, who do not have a set of objectives laid out for them by the human resources operation and who do not know how many people smoke on the Hill, who do not in any regular way offer quit-smoking courses, and who do not follow up. In an interview with the nursing staff, they indicated that there needs to be a budget allocation for that kind of activity. There needs to be a steady follow-up of how many people are smoking, how many people have tried to quit smoking and, again, a substantial, working, quit-smoking operation on this Hill that is an example to other industries and other operations in Canada. Rather than being in the back eddy of this activity, we should be leading it and setting an example for others to follow. The argument was that
October 29, 1990

there was not enough, in terms of human resources, to undertake that kind of study.
At Algonquin College and at the University of Ottawa, there are student nursing programs in which part of their practicum is to undertake public health assignments. This assignment of undertaking a survey on Parliament Hill, assisting in setting up quit-smoking operations and doing some follow-up would be an excellent public health practicum for those nursing students of Algonquin College or the University of Ottawa. It is simply a matter of channelling resources that are already there and helping the education process on the Hill.
Tobacco kills more people than drug addiction to heroin, cocaine, or marijuana or than motor vehicle accidents. In the United States, every year, tobacco kills more people than those afflictions. It is interesting to note the amount of money and initiative spent for law enforcement in those areas and yet we pay minor lip service to attempting to prevent health damage due to tobacco. It is absolutely critical that we do that. On this Hill, the example could start.
I commend the Minister of National Health and Welfare for statements that he has made. Those statements must be translated into action. They are not strong enough. Remember that smokers want to quit, but they are in the grip of a powerful addiction, a powerful drug, promoted by tobacco companies, absolutely unscrupulous companies, which are targeting children and Third World countries and attempting to push this product. What we have is the Government of Canada making statements that it recognizes the problem but failing to act or failing to act strongly enough.
First, there must be an absolute ban on importing tobacco products into Canada. The health of the population of this country is at stake. We would not permit cocaine to come into Canada and yet it does less damage. We would not permit heroin or crack to come into this country. We put enormous law enforcement against those drugs, but we permit tobacco products to come in and kill far more than any of those products.
There must be an absolute ban on any kind of tobacco advertising and promotion by tobacco companies of events in this country. A stroke of the pen does that. It begins to erode and break the tobacco companies'
Private Members' Business
market. It is an absolute must. The carrot and the stick, prohibit it.
There is no reason why we should assist smokers to gain the product. Increase the tax on tobacco-pick a figure-100 per cent a year for 10 years. By the end of 10 years, it would certainly be very difficult to smoke. There would be a powerful incentive to get involved in a quit-smoking program. The more incentives that we can provide, the more people will quit, the more healthy this population will be, in terms of the individual smokers as well as the people affected by the health hazards of secondary smoke.
Incidentally, it is projected that 330 people a year die of cancers and health problems related to secondary smoke such as spouses and children of smokers who are affected by this. We cannot tolerate it; we must prohibit it. We must prohibit the import, tax tobacco products and absolutely prohibit any tobacco advertising and promoting.
The next thing is that the Third World is being targeted to take up the slack where there is market erosion. Market expansion and profit expansion of the tobacco companies is going on and it is by exporting to Third World countries. A ban on the export of the product would fix it at least from Canadians. There should be an initiative through the World Health Organization and the United Nations to stop other countries from doing it. These are the things the government could be doing nationally on the prohibition side to create a healthier Canadian population, to prevent the death that goes on as a result of tobacco smoking, the selling of a drug that is killing Canadians. We could see that happen if the government took this seriously. I know the minister of health takes it seriously. I know the Liberal Party takes it seriously and certainly we take it seriously.
There is also the health promotion side of it, the carrot and the stick. We have no truck or trade with the tobacco companies. They are selling a drug. They are the purveyors of death. That is absolutely certain.
They are targeting our children, our teenagers in those schools. They are talking about selling smaller packs of cigarettes, selling packs of cigarettes with sunglasses in them, or CD disks in order to niche market this stuff to our kids. We have to stop it. It is absolutely ludicrous. We

October 29, 1990
Private Members' Business
have to set the example, as members of Parliament and people who work in this institution, to other Canadians and to our own children that this has got to stop.
On the promotion side of it, we have a health unit on this Hill with dedicated people who staff it, who have offered quit-smoking programs on this Hill, but they do not seem to have the budget or the support of members of Parliament, of the Speaker, and of the human resources directorate. We should be putting a quit-smoking program in place. There should be a careful survey of smokers on Parliament Hill. There should be a highly advertised program to attract people into that with incentives: time off work to participate, not on a Friday night or a weekend or after work when everybody is tired and it is difficult to avoid your other commitments, but let us give an incentive where those people are paid to take that program.
Our benefit is simply a healthier population that has proven more productive. There are fewer days of illness for non-smokers than smokers. The workforce on this Hill would be more productive. The workforce on this Hill and the people who live and work here would be healthier. The return to health care budgets, to productivity, would offset the costs of providing a quit-smoking program.
Then we need some resources to follow up. Not everybody can shake this drug the first time around. If there is follow-up and continuing incentive and support to do it, we could be of tremendous assistance to stopping the smoking on this Hill. Nobody is attempting to remove the rights of smokers, to belittle them, badger them. It is simply too important a health care item.
It is the voluntary destruction of a person's health and the committing of our health care resources to treating them when those injuries occur, for the loss of productivity in common tasks that we all share here, that is preventable. We are all the beneficiaries of that. We must move on it, Mr. Speaker, and we must be strong.
In terms of the taxation item, if there was an enormous effort to tax the industry and to prevent the development of this industry in Canada, we would have to look seriously at conversion. There is no reason that tobacco farmers should be totally and economically hung out to dry. There should be a move in this country to reduce
production by 10 per cent a year to the year 2000, when we are out of the business totally.
The taxes raised could assist farmers to move into different operations. The incentive again is to provide grants or forgivable loans to individuals who convert from tobacco to another product. We could attack this from the bottom of the industry, where tobacco is grown and processed, to the very front end of it where our children are standing out in front of the elementary schools, the junior secondary schools, and the senior secondary schools initiating themselves into a habit that is going to kill quite a number of them.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of people who wish to speak on this issue this afternoon. It is my hope that your office will rule on the question of privilege of the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants that this institution must not permit smoking within the confines of the House of Commons, the Chamber, or its opposition lobbies.
The Speaker's office should take the initiative to stop smoking in members' offices. How can we turn around to our employees and say: "There is a penalty for you smoking on this Hill," and yet at the same time permit it elsewhere. That example has got to happen, Mr. Speaker.
Let us get into our health unit and order the director general of the human resources branch to get a clear statement of goals and objectives, to get a powerful stop-smoking program on this Hill and with the incentives to make it successful in the follow-up.
The last statement is an appeal to the minister of health. Good so far, but statements are not enough. We need a powerful attempt to stop this industry in its tracks and save Canadian lives that are going to be lost, and lives of our children that are going to be lost.


Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate the member for North Island-Powell River for reminding us once again of the considerable importance and significant act that was taken by this Parliament not very long ago in its previous session. I think I am right in reminding him that it was one of his colleagues, the former member for Broadview-Greenwood, Lynn McDonald, who initiated this very important step that was made here in the previous Parliament.
October 29, 1990

Bill C-27, the Non-Smokers' Health Act received Royal Assent on July 29, 1989, along with the regulations made pursuant to the act, and came into force on December 29, 1989.
Members will recall that that bill was given all-party approval. It also received extensive support from health organizations, employer and employee groups, consumer organizations, anti-smoking groups and the public at large.
Essentially, the act prohibits smoking in the workplaces under federal jurisdiction except in designated smoking rooms or areas. Perhaps to the degree that the member for North Island-Powell River is able to point out that we have not sufficiently eliminated smoking in either members' offices or in other parts of this building, it may be partly attributable to the fact that I am not aware if we have made available any alternatives for those who on their own private decision have continued to smoke. Certainly in the winter and other times of the year we see people outside of these buildings and other public buildings puffing furiously. This may not be the most humane or even sensible way to proceed.
There is no doubt, however, that research has demonstrated that breathing second-hand tobacco smoke contributes to, or causes a variety of health problems. Now that we have eliminated in the first instance the public acceptability of smoking in public buildings, there is this problem for those who are very much affected by second-hand smoke.
Tobacco smoke contains in excess of 4,000 different chemicals. Some of them are highly toxic, and 43 at least are known to be cancer-causing substances. Studies show that second-hand tobacco smoke worsen systems of pre-existing conditions, such as angina, emphysema, acute respiratory diseases, asthma, hay fever and other allergies. Prolonged exposure may also increases instances of lung cancer and heart disease.
A recent report examined the effects of second-hand tobacco smoke and makes reference to the United States Surgeon-General's conclusion that involuntary smoking can cause lung cancer. Children of parents who smoke face increased risks of respiratory disease. The separation of smokers from non-smokers in the same air space may reduce, but does not entirely eliminate exposure to environmental tobacco smoke for non-smokers.
Private Members' Business
A recent study by the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States states that if you add up all the lung cancer deaths from other cancer risks which the EPA regulates, the total number of deaths from all those sources would be less than the number of deaths now attributed to environmental tobacco smoke in an indoor environment.
The purpose of the act, therefore, is to protect both employees and the public who have access to the workplace from the adverse effects of such exposure. Under the act, employers under federal jurisdiction have a responsibility to ensure that persons do not smoke, except in designated smoking rooms or smoking areas. If an employee contravenes the act, the employer is expected after due warning to take disciplinary measures against that employee, consistent with standard employer-employee disciplinary practices. In large measure, however, the act is self-regulating, although there are more stringent enforcement measures available in cases of flagrant contradictions.
The act has been in effect for some 10 months and I believe that it has been received in the workplace with remarkable equanimity. My friend for North Island-Powell River mentions that there are still 20 per cent of the offices where there is the obvious evidence of those who are still smoking.
An equally remarkable statistic is the fact that 80 per cent of the offices do not now reflect that. When one thinks about the heavy incidents of smoking, politics and smoke-filled back rooms, I think in the course of less than a year it has been a remarkable, most impressive change, one that is very significant. I want to say a word about that in a moment.
Attitudes toward smoking have changed rapidly and profoundly. The right of workers to a healthy smoke-free environment is no longer a matter of debate. When we think about environmental issues generally and matters of personal health and safety specifically, we have to say that in terms of what has happened in the Parliament Buildings over the last year or two nothing is more impressive, in my estimation, than the very real change of atmosphere-no pun intended-with respect to the way in which smoking, if not entirely eliminated, has been reduced so substantially as to be truly significant.

October 29, 1990
Private Members' Business
Over the course of the last year you will recall that collaborating with you, Sir, and with members of the environment committee-and I would like to pay tribute to both, including my seatmate from Parry Sound-Mus-koka and others-we have been attempting to make the Parliament Buildings and environs a model of environmental responsibility.
Another example which I think is quite impressive is that of styrofoam cups, which have been used in abundance here for years. We were up to close to one million styrofoam cups per year. In the course of making the transition away from styrofoam in the last year, we have eliminated by half a million the number of styrofoam cups presently being used.
Major changes in lifestyle and personal practices can take place when there is a will to do so. With respect to smoking, we have already been impressed by the changes that have taken place. I would like to emphasize that the Non-Smokers' Health Act applies to all workplaces under federal jurisdiction, including the House of Commons and the Senate. Section 2 of the act is explicit on that point. Members of Parliament and their support staff are subject to the same requirements as the rest of those under federal jurisdiction. We have ensured that we have not imposed on others legislation with which we ourselves are not prepared to comply.
It is true, as the hon. member for North Island-Powell River has suggested, that there is still 20 per cent of the offices where there are some incidents of smoking. I would like to commend the other 80 per cent, that other four-fifths that have made this very real change in lifestyle and practice in their own offices and environs.
There are still going to be complaints-and I believe we should be aware of them and take appropriate responsibility-about members who are smoking in restricted areas such as their own offices. We simply cannot allow this to continue indefinitely. I certainly strongly recommend to you, Mr. Speaker, that all members of Parliament and their support staff take upon themselves to comply with the regulations in the Non-Smokers' Health Act and thereby set an important example for all the very real and important reasons suggested by the hon. member for North Island-Powell River and certainly well known to all members of this House.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, cigarette smoke adversely affects smokers and nonsmokers alike. It harms adults and children as well as the unborn in the wombs of their mothers. Yes, smoking is a serious hazard to health.
I therefore rise today to speak on this particular motion from our colleague from North Island-Powell River to reinforce the concern I and other Canadians have and should have about this deadly poison: smoking.
I am confident that all members of this House will agree that smoking is a health hazard. Since the hon. member proposed his motion on June 27, 1989, we have seen improvement in the House, as noted, from the House of Commons smoking policy dated November 1989. We have seen improvement, but we would like to reinforce the idea of the danger of smoking.
Smoking related diseases kill some 35,000 Canadians every year. Second-hand smoke causes about 350 deaths each year in Canada. Deaths due to smoking are not due only to cancer that victims develop. No doubt smoke is a class a carcinogen in the ranks of asbestos and benzene. However, deaths from smoking also occur from other chronic debilitating lung diseases such as emphysema, chronic bronchitis and bronchiectasis-diseases that make it difficult for patients to breathe freely. This disease not only kills but also incapacitates a large number of Canadians.
This issue is not getting the prompt attention necessary to make this disease disappear from Canada. Regulations governing labelling of cigarette packages have again been delayed by this government. We have seen that. It appears the tobacco lobby is allowed to win some battles. We cannot afford to be complacent. We cannot afford to sit down. Seeing the dangers of smoke, we have to remain vigilant.
Ten years or so ago the idea of banning smoking on the job would have appeared outrageous to most Canadians. Today we should be outraged that smoking is still allowed. The challenge is clear. Ten years from now we should be able to say and wonder why smoking started in the first place in the history of mankind and continued to be condoned and abetted by governments. I do not want to wait until the turn of the century for cessation of smoking to happen. Smoking is killing our adults, is
October 29, 1990

killing our growing children, and is even killing the unborn.
The House of Commons should set the example for the rest of the country and completely ban smoking to the extent that no one is allowed to smoke on the grounds of Parliament Hill, let alone on the doorsteps. I am promoting today that smoking be prohibited everywhere and anywhere on government property. We have an obligation to set the model. We should be a paragon to others.
Those who do smoke, we must understand them as well. We must provide them with the means and the necessary resources for them to quit the habit with ease. According to senior scientists at the Addiction Research Foundation in Toronto, those who try to quit the smoking habit face three difficult hurdles: nicotine addiction, psychological habituation, and emotional reaction. Each smoker is a separate clinical case. Any smoking cessation program, therefore, should be tailor made to the individual. I congratulate the leadership of the House of Commons for allowing an assistance program to be available to smokers who want to stop smoking, but we must see to it that everyone is making use of this program.
Commercial gimmicks should not replace proven effective methods. For the method to be successful we should have policies in place so as to include the necessity of providing psychological and financial help to those who want to quit smoking. As along as a person wants to quit the habit, the federal government should be there to provide all the necessary assistance.
In the interim, designated places must be available for those who cannot yet break the habit. Designated spaces ought to be adequately ventilated. As well, the employees of the tobacco industry must be helped to find alternative types of work. If we do this then we are serious in our purpose. We realize that smoking is so harmful that even if only the cost of health care is taken into account in our country, there is a big price to pay, not to mention loss of human lives.
One approach that has been proven effective to further counteract smoking, particularly among the young, is to increase taxes on smoking. We should do that. We should tax smoking to death, if need be, but we must remember that that is only one step. We must link
Private Members' Business
health care policy and tax policy together if we are to stop this bad habit in the country.
I am very pleased to speak to this motion. I salute my colleague for bringing it forth for further consideration. If we have the will we can always find the way.


Mr. Terry Clifford (London -Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to address the House on the evolution of the Non-Smokers' Health Act and how it was developed to ensure that the health of visitors and employees of Parliament Hill would be protected.
The legislation which eventually became the NonSmokers' Health Act was introduced in the House of Commons as Bill C-204, which became the act. It was supported on both sides of the House and Senate, as well as by various groups representing labour, health organizations, consumers, employers, citizens, anti-smoking groups, et cetera, and given Royal Assent in June 1988.
By Order in Council in December 1988, certain ministers were made responsible for the implementation and administration of the act. I take exception to the hon. member for North Island-Powell River suggesting that we have not been leading in this initiative. It is really misrepresenting this government's actions to the people of Canada.
I want to point out a couple of areas that I am sure the hon. member would applaud if he were to stop and think about them. For example, when the Minister of Transport, who is one of the designated ministers I talked about earlier, took the case of the new legislation, Bill C-204, to the common carriers, the carriers of Canada immediately followed the regulations, including Air Ontario based in London, Ontario, and brought in non-smoking flights. This applied to flights to international destinations as well.
The member would certainly join with me in congratulating Air Canada which is a way out in front in this particular endeavour by having no smoking at all on its flights in the future.
Clearly the act which became law under this government was passed on to Canadians who picked it up and are moving ahead with gusto.
Last June this Parliament had the opportunity to host 300 of our colleagues from 30 countries in the Council of Europe sponsored environment conference here in Ot-

October 29, 1990
Private Members' Business
tawa. We brought in this law, Bill C-204 with all its regulations, into effect, so the Europeans learned firsthand from Canadian parliamentarians that possibly they could take some of these regulations and these ideas for legislation home to their own countries and bring nonsmokers' rights to the attention of their own legislatures.
There has been clear leadership both within this Etouse as well as within this government. I think the member for North Island-Powell River could reflect on that and say: yes, this government has been active and has been very supportive of the health of Canadians in wanting to do everything about it.
That is not to say that there have not been problems. In its original form, the act contains certain deficiencies that would have made it difficult to administer and apply. For example, it lacked a system of inspection and enforcement and had as well technical and drafting problems.
For example, section 3 of the act required that every employer provide a smoke-free environment in which all employees could perform the duties that are directly or indirectly related to their employment. This requirement would have made it necessary for concentrations of tobacco smoke to be measured, which technically and administratively is not feasible with any degree of accuracy.
There was also confusion about the terms smoking room and smoking area, as well as the definition of employer. Clearly there were things to overcome, but again our government has not been negligent and has worked on these. Without departing from the spirit and intent of the act, amendments were sought to provide a system of inspection and enforcement, to correct its deficiencies and to enhance its workability.
Bill C-27, an act to amend the Non-Smokers' Health Act, was passed by the House of Commons on June 26, 1989. It is very clear that this government has not fumbled the ball. It has stayed on top of this issue because it knows that it is important to Canadians. It knows that the health of Canadians is first and foremost on their minds, as any good government would. In fact, policies and regulations must be in effect that will help Canadians as we move forward to be the champions of the 21st century. It is evident that we already have
legislation designed to prevent smoking on Parliament Hill except in designated rooms. It should be emphasized that such rooms cannot be members' offices.
The employer is responsible for enforcing the Nonsmokers' Health Act in the workplace. If workers do not abide by the rules in the act, the employer is supposed to take appropriate action. Such action would first involve a warning to the employee who violates the act. If this type of response proves to be unsuccessful in achieving the employee's compliance with the act, further action with respect to that worker would have to be taken by the employer. This action should be consistent with traditional disciplinary procedures established by the employer in consultation with employees.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that goes without saying, it is common sense. The fact that Canadians are grasping this act of the Government of Canada, Bill C-204, shows that they know that its time has come, that the health of Canadians is at stake. Canadians have risen to that challenge both nationally through their actions, the fact that they do not ask government to give them no-smoking campaigns, and they do not ask the government to pay for them to stop being smokers. They know the responsibility is theirs. They are readily coming forward, accepting this responsibility to their fellow Canadians and acting appropriately.
This message has not got lost on our colleagues that we share this world with. The fact that other parliamentarians as they leave this House see how far we have come on such health measures as this one, are now going back to their legislatures around the world seriously looking at what Canada, what this Progressive Conservative government has done for Canadians and saying these people know the way, they are the future. It is a pleasure to speak on this today.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment briefly on Motion M-510 which was introduced by the hon. member for North Island-Powell River and which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should demonstrate to Canadians that Members of Parliament and their support staff are subject to the same regulations enforced in Federal buildings with regard to the smoking of tobacco products by banning immediately all smoking of tobacco products on Parliament Hill.
October 29, 1990

I listened very closely to all my colleagues who spoke on this issue.

I do agree with him totally that smoking is not good for one's health, whether one smokes or someone is smoking next to one. I think it has been proven. Everyone understands that. Practically everyone seems to accept this.
I think the approach is one of a totalitarian state. We give people authority sometimes but they are just a group of do-gooders wanting to protect the health of everyone, including their own. Of course, we have to be careful.
I am a non-smoker. I have never smoked any time during my life except for once when I was 14 years old. I tried a cigarette and I was so sick that never, never again did I ever touch one. I got the feeling that I was absolutely allergic to it. However, I understand that some people are not allergic to smoking like I am, but my allergy does not make me Attila the Hun where I command and order everyone to do as I feel is best for them.
That is the part that I really find disgusting in this approach. We should have programs.

-programs which encourage people not to smoke, programs which encourage people to quit smoking, programs to ban advertising to promote smoking. Smokers have various options, mainly cigarettes, cigars, and pipes. I am sure my colleagues all agree that we used to have a generation of cigar smokers-practically extinct by now, thank God!-a practice that was absolutely disgracious. It was enough to make you choke and, besides, it stank!
There were people who smoked a pipe and some still do. Some people don't mind the smell at all, in fact they enjoy it.
As far as cigarette smoking is concerned, the smell is far less offensive. In the case of cigarettes, we see people who have been inveterate smokers for many years. For some people it is pretty hard, and in some cases almost impossible, to shake the habit and quit smoking. I know
Private Members' Business
members of this House, employees, friends of the family and even family members who smoke.
I think the key word is moderation. First of all, people should be encouraged not to smoke. However, we should not go overboard with our regulations. We must not be stricter than our own rules. When we go past public buildings, whether they are federal, provincial, municipal or regional, where the rule is: No smoking, it is a common sight to see employees, winter and summer, come out of these buildings and pollute the space outside the building, and I am referring to visual pollution. There is also pollution in the real sense, when they drop their cigarette stubs all over the place, because the people who run the buildings close their eyes to the problem and refuse to co-operate and accommodate inveterate smokers by providing ash receptacles to keep the place clean. I think it is ridiculous that enforcing these rules means people have to go outside to smoke in the middle of winter. I wonder how much sick leave is taken as a result of the fact that people are forced to go outside to smoke for ten minutes, without a coat on, and then go back to their jobs.
I think it is unfair that people who are addicted to smoking don't have a place where they are allowed to smoke. I think the Minister of Transport's decision to prevent smoking on board aircraft is ridiculous if it applies to all flights and all aircraft. There should be a space for people who are addicted to smoking and who have to smoke.
I repeat, I hate the smell of smoke, and I can't stand people smoking in front of me. However, what I find even more distressing is the authoritarian attitude of certain people-

-do-gooders who decide what is good for other people and they are going to apply it as if they were Attila the Hun or the chief of police. They go all over the place like police officers being absolutely disagreeable with everyone and not being accommodating in the least bit.
This motion says that everywhere, all the time, there is to be an immediate ban on all smoking of tobacco products on Parliament Hill. I believe that there should be areas where those who are stuck with smoking are allowed to smoke, and that these people do not have to rely on trickery, cheating, hiding, and all kinds of other activities so that they can have their short smoke.

October 29, 1990
Private Members' Business
Mr. Speaker, because of the autocratic and totalitarian approach of this motion, I would vote against it.


Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I was listening very carefully to the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester who summarized his position, saying that policies and legislation in this area were too authoritarian.
To a certain extent, he is probably right. However, I would like to mention a very specific case in my riding, which concerns residents who work at the tax centre in Shawinigan South. There are 1,500 employees. Before Parliament passed two bills-we voted twice on this subject-half of the 1,500 employees at the tax centre of Shawinigan South were acknowledged smokers. They were obviously not very pleased when they heard that the Parliament of Canada had passed legislation prohibiting smoking at their place of work.
Subsequently, the federal government introduces policies to help these people quit smoking-which can be dangerous to your health-in the workplace. They held demonstrations. They came to my office. They protested vehemently because they felt their rights had been violated. In this country, people seem to have more rights than responsibilities. So in this context, the Shawinigan South tax centre offered its employees a chance to take courses at taxpayers' expense.
Mr. Speaker, today, nearly 75 per cent of smokers at the Shawinigan South tax centre have quit smoking. When we meet them today, they say: You forced us, but you did us a big favour by making us give up smoking. The initial negative reaction among federal employees in my riding was very strong. They were emotionally and personally shocked by the fact that they had to give up an old habit, unhealthy for them and for society. They found it very difficult to accept the federal government's decision.
Today, the same employees are delighted, at least most of them. There may be a few, as the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester pointed out, who go outside to smoke the way people do here in front of the Parliament Buildings. These people are sick, and that is why the
legislation comes under the jurisdiction of Health and Welfare Canada, Mr. Speaker.
When we see people who have to go outside at 30 below, outside the Parliament Buildings here in Ottawa or in my own riding in Shawinigan, I think we have ample proof that this is a situation where the legislation must be enforced in order to help people who are often unable to make this kind of decision on their own.
In this perspective, I think the motion presented by the hon. member for the New Democratic Party is a very important one, and that we should support it. As members of Parliament, we should set an example, whether we are on the opposition side or the government side, to the rest of Canada.
Viewed from that standpoint, Mr. Speaker, some people might suggest that the motion of the New Democratic Party member is redundant but at least it is a timely reminder to all of us here on Parliament Hill and to all Canadians who are listening to us that it is very important to protect our health. There is no such thing as the right to destroy one's health, nor is there any such thing as the right to destroy the health of people around us. Nowhere in any parliamentary institution worldwide is there a right to destroy one's own health.
Mr. Speaker, if there were no highway safety code in your riding, drivers would breeze right through red lights. We put up traffic lights to remind people that we live in an orderly society. We have laws and regulations because we are not living in the forests or in northern regions where rules may be less restrictive.


Mr. Saint-Julien:: Oh, oh!


Denis Pronovost: I see my colleague from Abitibi does not take kindly to my remarks about northern regions, but I certainly did not mean to be little his riding. We have to take an all-encompassing approach to this bill. It does not restrict the rights of the citizens, it protects them yet at the same time it confirms that people who are victims of the tobacco habit have responsibilities, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hour provided for the considerations of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.
October 29, 1990



It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, this is Canada Career Week. It is a national event that promotes the need for young Canadians to focus on their futures while still in school.
Communities all across Canada are pitching in to stage a range of imaginative events. Students, teachers, parents, the government, and the business community are all taking a role in helping young Canadians to look ahead to their career opportunities.
In my riding of Calgary Southwest, our Canada Career Week committee is hosting a breakfast forum for about 80 counselling professionals. The theme is: "Managing Your Career to Manage Your Life". We hope to create a ripple effect throughout the school system that will influence young people to stay in school to achieve their career objectives. In this way, we are joining hundreds of other events all across the country to help young people make their own career decisions.


HERITAGE LANGUAGE PROGRAMS
Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, my many years in continuing education here in the nation's capital taught me the importance of heritage language programs to both children and adults.
In this country we pride ourselves in our cultural diversity and our tolerance. There is no better way to appreciate each other than by encouraging these heritage languages to be enriched and shared.

Everywhere in Canada, heritage language schools are feeling the pinch of federal funding cuts.

I call upon the government to reconsider its slashing of funds to heritage language schools and to heed the request of those who rallied here on Parliament Hill, this past Saturday, requesting the same.


Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch -Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, the last two years have likely been one of the most difficult periods in the history of Israel. Many Jews around the world are feeling a sense of alienation and a lack of support for Israel's genuine pursuit of peace and self-determination.
There have been many instances of unbalanced media reports. Where was the world outcry against the terrorist whose bomb killed Marnie Kimmelman, of metropolitan Toronto, on a beach in Tel Aviv in July?
The recent killing of almost 20 Palestinians at Temple Mount was indeed tragic and sad. I support Israel in refusing to receive a United Nations investigation team. The tragic incident has been investigated by a government-appointed inquiry and its findings have been made public.
This is a time when friends of Israel, such as Canada, must stand up and be counted.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the government's policies continue to drive Canadians across the U.S.-Canadian border to spend their money in the United States. A study tabled in my community last week revealed that $100 million was spent on the American side of the border for goods and services from our community alone.
Why are Canadians following this practice? Government policies such as high interest rates, the free trade agreement, a general cynicism, even hatred of this government, and the proposed GST are all factors.
I ask the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism, who has shown at least some concern, if he will ask the Finance Minister to lower interest rates? Will he ask the Finance Minister to kill the GST? Will he ask the Minister for International Trade to revoke the free trade

agreement? Will he ask the Minister of National Revenue to offer some tax relief for the border communities of the country?
Will he take any of these actions or will he say nothing and do nothing, as he has done for the past two years?


THE ENVIRONMENT
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Congress has passed a new clean air act, which President George Bush is expected to sign, officially, in a matter of days.
This American legislation will help reduce urban smog, emissions of toxic chemicals and the acid rain that has ravaged the lakes, rivers and forests of the United States and Eastern Canada, including the Abitibi area.
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney said, on behalf of all Canadians, that he was pleased with this American initiative, which will benefit present and future generations of Canadians and Americans.
Mr. Speaker, Saturday, the Prime Minister paid tribute to the many Canadians and Americans who worked on this bill. Today, I wish to pay tribute to the Prime Minister for the leadership he has shown, for the benefit of our country and Quebecers.


CRUISE MISSILE TESTING
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, in January, 1988, the Canadian government said it would continue to test Cruise missiles until progress was made on disarmament.
It is now 1990 and we have seen a major change in east-west relations with detente, co-operation, and arms reductions. Yet, today, another U.S. Cruise missile will be tested in northern Canada.
We are now in the post cold war era, with a treaty on intermediate nuclear weapons already signed and treaties on conventional arms, chemical weapons, and strategic missiles well advanced. What then is the purpose of continued testing of U.S. Cruise missiles in Canada?
Nuclear weapons are still one of the greatest threats to human existence. On October 15, the Soviet Union reaffirmed its readiness to become a non-nuclear state, if other nuclear countries did the same. Canada should support that goal and put an immediate end to Cruise missile testing in Canada.


SCHIZOPHRENIA
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, one out of every 100 Canadians is affected by schizophrenia.
This disease uses 7 per cent of all hospital beds and is responsible for almost $2 billion in hospital expenses each year. Yet the federal government's contribution to research for this serious mental disorder is only $2 million.
Schizophrenia is a disease about which we know veiy little. We have some ideas about what causes it and how it can be treated, but we are nowhere near an understanding of this serious mental disorder. The amount of federal expenditure on research is out of line with the seriousness and the economic and social impact of this disease in Canadian society.
I would encourage the government to provide more funds for research to reduce health care costs and to improve the lot of those affected with schizophrenia.


MEDIA OWNERSHIP
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, on November 1 the oldest continuously published newspaper in Canada, an important institution to both the citizens of Kingston, Ontario and the people of Canada, will cease to be. The Kingston Whig-Standard, an independent newspaper since 1824, will be absorbed into the Southam corporate empire.
Concentration of media ownership is much more than simply a merger, an acquisition or a bottom-line statement and I caution the new owners of the Whig-Standard accordingly.
A newspaper of this stature is something of a sacred trust. It achieved respect for its integrity and quality of writing by diligence and hard work, but as the government's own actions prove, sacred trusts and integrity can
October 29, 1990

easily be abandoned. This development can be viewed with alarm. Something vital to civic life, news and information is becoming less distinct and less connected to the community.
It is time for the Standing Committee on Culture and Communications to live up to its commitment and hold hearings into the concentration of ownership within this and other media.


CANADIAN ORIENTATION WEEK
Mr. Andre Harvey (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, a number of activities are taking place throughout the country to mark Canadian Orientation Week. In every region, Manpower Canada advisers will be telling students about the reality of the labour market and the disastrous consequences of quitting school. These employment officials are supported in their mission by orientation counsellors from comprehensive schools. They will be there to answer questions from students who will also have an opportunity to watch a video on the various careers open to them.
October 28 to November 3 is Canadian Orientation Week throughout the country, and the aim this year is to convince students that they should remain in school until graduation so they will be in a better position to face the future. That neatly sums up our objective, which is to help young people be fully aware of the importance of completing their studies.
Thanks to this initiative, Mr. Speaker, young Canadians should find it easier to conciliate their choice of career with the ever more internationalized labour market.


WOOD BUFFALO NATIONAL PARK
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the 3,200 bison in Wood Buffalo National Park are the only remain'ng free-roaming herd in the world.
Last February, I stated in the House that the government would be making the largest wildlife management
mistake in the history of the country if it proceeded with the eradication of the Wood Buffalo herd. When the environmental panel recommended total slaughter in August, I immediately wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister and asked him to reconsider the options.
Today, the aboriginal people, particularly the chiefs of the region and the MLA for Tu Nede, Don Morin, have hopefully been successful in convincing the government that it would be wrong in doing anything but salvaging the Wood Buffalo herd.
Large questions remain about the geographical occurrences of the diseases, the genetic significance of the bison, and the environmental impact of a policy of total eradication. The ecological integrity of all national parks would be threatened.


GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, there is a problem in the way gas retailers are setting their pump prices. The pump price is a reflection of upstream production costs. Consumers are aware that costs must be covered and they accept this.
What they have a hard time accepting is the method of pricing which delays the increase in the pump price until the supply has made its way through the production chain. This problem is emphasized by the rising pump prices seen throughout the lower mainland and in my riding of Fraser Valley East, while crude prices have dropped significantly. Valley drivers now pay the same as Vancouver, even though Vancouver has an additional transportation tax.
The existence of low crude prices and high pump prices is incongruous and assaults the sensibilities of the consumer. Pump pricing that reflects the price of crude is a more appropriate system. Perhaps the first in, last out method of supply pricing should be changed to last in, first out. This would prevent any misperception of gouging and ensure a measure of congruity between the wellhead and the pump price.
The industry needs to take a serious look at pricing policy. In the valley, 69.9 cents a litre is out of sync with the rest of Canada and far too high.

October 29, 1990


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora -Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, in 1988, when the government introduced legislation to privatize Air Canada, the Deputy Prime Minister said in reference to the employees: "Those people have pride in their jobs, pride in their company, and hope and confidence in their future."
Given the recent lay-offs of some 2,900 employees at Air Canada, I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister would be so bold as to repeat his statement.
There is no doubt on this side of the House that privatizing Air Canada was not a wise move on the part of the government. The privatization only temporarily solved the airline's financial troubles. The government could have followed the lead of former Liberal governments in helping the airline restructure itself and therefore protect Air Canada's thousands and thousands of workers.
The same government is now in the process of privatizing Petro-Canada. How many more jobs are at risk? What will it take for the government to realize that privatizing in itself does not resolve financial difficulties and that it puts too many, workers in danger of losing their jobs.
It is time for the government to live up to its commitment of providing employment for its citizens, instead of taking them away, especially during these recessionary times.
[DOT])c sfc [DOT]{(


PREMIER OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives were elected in 1984, the Prime Minister said Canada was open for business. Under free trade, everything in Canada is now up for sale. And guess who has cashed in on this? None other than Premier Vander Zalm of B.C. His sale of Fantasy Gardens, loosely described as a theme park, has now been approved because it is a net benefit to Canada.
The Conservative Premier of B.C. has welcomed free trade, likes selling off Canada, and now even likes the GST. His government officials have been working with
Revenue Canada, co-ordinating the implementation of the GST on provincial fees and licences.
The Premier should call an election now so that the people of B.C. can comment on his record in office. You're no quitter, Mr. Premier. Call an election.


REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, last week the government announced plans to increase the number of independent, skilled or educated immigrants coming to Canada. This is to replace the 60,000 people leaving Canada each year and to help offset Canada's low birth rate.
The Reform Party wants to cut immigration but offers no specifics. How will we be able to keep the economy on track with a declining birth rate and an aging population? Who will pay for Canada's pensions and social programs?
The Reform Party preys on people's fears. I challenge Preston Manning to come clean with Canadians. Where would he set immigration levels? What are his policies? Why is he silent? We all know what he is against, but what is he for?


LABRADOR
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, every member of the House of Commons accepts the status quo as no longer sufficient to meet Canada's future constitutional needs. We all understand the need for tolerance and understanding as the nation begins the process of developing a new national consensus.
That is why I and many Canadians are disturbed by the proposals of members of the Quebec wing of the Conservative Party of Canada, as reported in today's The Toronto Star, to sever Labrador from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to attach Labrador to the province of Quebec.
That kind of proposal does not contribute to national understanding and building a national consensus. It contributes to division.
I call upon the Conservative Party of Canada-especially the Prime Minister of Canada-to reject that approach to nation building.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, on a national CBC radio program, the chief government Whip, a senior spokesperson for the government, speaking about the GST said: "If anybody is going to get hurt it is the central part of this country, Ontario and Quebec, under the GST."
We agree with the chief government Whip when he says that Ontario and Quebec with their 16 million people are going to be devastated by the GST. We also believe that the rest of Canada, the Atlantic and the west, is going to be devastated by the GST.
Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement made on national radio yesterday by the chief government Whip? If he does, will he axe the tax now and not wait until it is done by the Liberals after the next election?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asks if I agree with a given statement.
I agree with the statement made by Mr. Chretien which is quoted in The Toronto Star of March 5, 1990: "It would be irresponsible for the Liberals to promise to scrap the GST without offering an alternative."
Mr. Chretien told The Globe and Mail two days later: "We [Liberals] cannot reasonably make a commitment that there will not be a consumption tax."
A few days later, he told The Winnipeg Sun: "I cannot say if I will kill the GST, or I will not kill the GST. You have to tell people where you'd get the $25 billion."
Indeed, tell us where you are going to get the $25 billion.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister to tell us whether he agrees with only one statement, the statement made by one of his chief spokespersons, the chief Conservative Whip, on national radio yesterday when he said: "If
Oral Questions
anybody is going to get hurt, it is the central part of this country, Ontario and Quebec, under the GST."
Again, I ask him if he agrees with that statement, which is correct also as far as the rest of the country is concerned. I ask him: Will he axe that tax now and not wait until the next election when it will be done by the Liberals who will be on the other side of the Elouse?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side would, of course, want me to examine the context in which any particular statement was made.
I have just been informed by the Whip that there was a debate going on between him and Mr. Preston Manning of the Reform Party. I would want to carefully examine the context in which it was said.
Not having seen the statement, I want to tell the House that time and time again the Whip of the Conservative Party, who is seated right here, has gone to Calgary and has defended the interests of a national, united government against attempts to hive off Canada into small regional parts. Rather than criticize the Whip of the Conservative Party, the Leader of the Opposition should be encouraging his Whip to do precisely the same thing.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that the chief government Whip took this position in Calgary. That must explain why, on the weekend, the provincial Conservatives started to divorce themselves completely from the federal Conservatives because of their dissatisfaction with Conservative policies like the GST.

And people in Quebec will wonder why the Prime Minister is not willing to deny the statement made by the chief government Whip, and I quote: "If anybody is going to get hurt it is the central part of this country, Ontario and Quebec, under the GST." If the Prime Minister does not agree with this statement, why does he not deny it? Is he going to withdraw the GST to avoid causing any harm to the province of Quebec?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the GST will generate about $9 billion worth of new economic activity across Canada. The chief government Whip was telling Mr. Manning and his audience

October 29, 1990
Oral Questions
that Alberta would benefit the most: an increase of 2.8 per cent in economic growth compared with slightly less in other provinces, and he was perfectly justified in making the statement in this context.


Mr. Marchi:: What about the divorce?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says: "What about the divorce?" It may very well be that the Conservatives in Alberta will find it convenient to have an exclusively provincial party. That is why the provincial Liberals divorced themselves from the federal Liberals eight years ago in Alberta, and 25 years ago in Quebec.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, it is extraordinary to stand here and listen to the Prime Minister say that he agrees with his chief Whip, who said that the GST was going to have the most devastating impact on Ontario and Quebec.
Is this the Prime Minister's view of nation building?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend from Willowdale should not get so exercised. He, too, should read the transcript very carefully.
What the Whip was indicating was that there will be about $9 billion of new economic activity generated in Canada as a result of the GST. It will create thousands of new jobs, many of them in Ontario. One of the chief regions to benefit will be western Canada, where there will be an increase of 2.5 per cent of economic growth in those provinces.
I think that is good news for Alberta and it is news that my hon. friend would want to celebrate.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that even the Prime Minister now realizes, because he agrees with his Whip, that there is going to be a negative impact right across this country from the imposition of the GST.
On June 8 of this year the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology said: "This government's record for industrial development has been excellent."
Manufacturing bankruptcies are up 36 per cent. Since January 1989, Canada has lost 133,000 or 6.2 per cent of its manufacturing jobs.
The only things that this government knows how to manufacture are unemployment and a mad e-in-Canada recession. When is this minister going to start acting like the minister for industry and insist that his government reverse its high interest rate, high dollar policy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct the record for my hon. friend where he indicated that I acknowledged that there would be a decrease in economic activity as a result of the GST. I did no such thing. I have repeatedly said, including today, that there will be an increase of $9 billion in economic activity across the country which will result in thousands of new jobs in Canada.
It is consistent with the creation-


An hon. member:: The lion's share goes to the west.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend is talking about the west. When I became Prime Minister, the unemployment rate in British Columbia was almost 15 per cent. It is down to 8.6 per cent and 270,000 new jobs have been created in B.C., the largest since the end of the Second World War.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister doesn't seem to think the comments made by his party Whip are a very serious matter. My question to the Prime Minister is, whether he would agree that his government and his Whip made a mistake and that it is not very useful in this country to have tensions between its various regions. Is he prepared to deny what his Whip said right now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is never useful for Canada to experience regional tensions. The hon. member referred to the Whip who represents a riding in Calgary. The tension generated by the Liberal-New Democrat coalition to impose the National Energy Program in 1980 almost killed the oil economy in Western Canada and had a very disturbing impact.
It was to avoid the kind of philosophy that gave birth to the National Energy Program, which in turn devastated the economy of Alberta and Western Canada, that the hon. member pointed out the differences that might exist, because this time, as a result of the GST, Western
October 29, 1990

Canada will experience somewhat stronger economic growth than certain other provinces.
This was said in a constructive way, and not in order to create tension, unlike the situation in 1980, when the hon. member's party supported the National Energy Program which had such an unfortunate impact on Western Canada.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating to have this history lesson from the Prime Minister, who was not here when that national energy fight took place, to a member who also was not here. The Prime Minister talks in the past when the people of this country are concerned about the present.
We saw last night on the CBC the tremendous concern, the tremendous hurt which people across this country are feeling. Despite the millions of dollars in propaganda, this government has still not persuaded people to support the GST.
Will this government listen to those people who are hurting so badly across this country? Will this government change its economic policies and, above all, will this government get rid of the GST?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend quite properly points out that I was not here in 1980.


Mr. Waddell:: I was here, Brian.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I did not have to be here-and I want to tell my friend-to know that the National Energy Program was a disaster for western Canada. It should never have been inflicted on the economy of western Canada, and it never will again.
My hon. friend points out to me that the CBC had some less than flattering remarks to make about us last night. This is not new or alarming.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The question is my hon.-


Mr. McCurdy:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Howard, cool it. Take it easy.
Oral Questions
My hon. friend makes the point that the GST is unpopular, and he asks me to withdraw it because it is unpopular. The answer to that is that I will not withdraw it because it is unpopular. We know it is unpopular, but we know that in the long haul it will benefit Canada. It will make for greater prosperity and greater tax fairness. At the end of the day, when the GST has passed, it will be seen to be in Canada's national interest. We are not doing it because it is popular. We are doing it because it is right.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not seem to realize that there is a tremendous, serious crisis of confidence in this country. Seventy-two per cent of Canadians feel that governments do not care what the people think.
Will the government not respond to this crisis of confidence by killing the one central symbol of that refusal to listen, the GST? Will you kill the GST as Canadians want you to?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is quite right in pointing out there are areas of difficulty and that we are trying to-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We are trying to come to grips with them in a number of ways. My hon. friend makes a very emotional appeal on behalf of those who are affected. We will carefully listen and carefully respond to his concerns.
Indeed, when last I heard him in the House I was so taken by his appeal that I asked for some information, and I notice that this appeared in the Windsor Star, and I quote:
When MP Steven Langdon recounted the woeful tale of Essex County farmer Paul Cazabon to a sympathetic House of Commons Wednesday it was the first Cazabon had heard of his dire financial troubles.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It continues:
"I don't know if Langdon got me confused with someone else or what," said a perplexed Cazabon after returning from the fields Wednesday evening. "I am still a viable farmer yet"

October 29, 1990
Oral Questions


GREAT WHALE PROJECT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and concerns the Great Whale project at James Bay. The project's infrastructure includes an airport, a road that crosses territory where Crees have rights, and a road that crosses navigable waters.
Will the minister acknowledge that she has all the jurisdiction she needs, a jurisdiction that is quite clear-cut, to insist on environmental studies for the project's infrastructure?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment for the province of Quebec has asked for all the documentation that relates to this project, including any negative environmental impact that would occur as a result of the construction of the access roads and other infrastructure. There has been no decision by Quebec at this point to begin any work or commission any work, without an environmental review.
Certainly it is not the intention of the federal government to grant any kind of a licence or to allow any kind of work to proceed, that is associated with that project, without the federal review.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. Why does this government refuse to make a clear stand on this issue? The federal government cannot deny it has jurisdiction over airports. The federal government cannot deny it has jurisdiction over navigable waters, and the federal government cannot deny it has jurisdiction over wildlife. Does the government intend to follow its own guidelines? Does the Prime Minister intend to settle immediately the present debate in Quebec on infrastructure? Does the government intend to show the kind of leadership it has failed to show so far in other environmental cases in Canada?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my language is not clear enough, but certainly the minister has spoken on this issue several times.
The message could not be clearer. There will be an environmental review process.
The minister happens to be in Montreal today on urgent business, and he asked me to respond to questions like this one as they come forth.
There has not been the commissioning of any work of any sort. There cannot be any clearer statement than the one that has been made. Ideally the EARP process should be conducted in partnership with the province of Quebec. Failing that, there will be a full environmental review process carried out, as other Canadians and the people in Quebec would expect us to do, including any works that are associated with the dam project, infrastructures such as airport roads, and any other work.


Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Today Canadian standards for levels of dioxins, the most toxic man-made chemical found in food, are several hundred times more lenient than those of the United States. Yet much of the food that reaches Canadians fails to meet even with this government's relaxed guidelines.
Given that the minister's own department has admitted that if the current standard were applied much of the food currently in the marketplace today would have to be removed, will the minister now confirm to this House that he does not enforce current standards and is considering ways to allow more dioxins, not less, into the food supply?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that current standards with regard to dioxins are under review at the present time. There is a process of public consultation inviting participation by the public. If the hon. member would like to participate in that, we would welcome participation from her as well.
Dioxins are ubiquitous in the environment. Much food in Canada has trace elements of dioxin in it, without posing any threat to human health. The difficulty is that it is possible to discover very, very, small, minute quantities of this. If we were to take the position that no dioxins whatsoever could be allowed in any food used in Canada, we would have to ban breast milk, for example,
October 29, 1990

and throw away literally hundreds of millions of dollars worth of good, nourishing, nutritious food in Canada each year.
That is why we want, first of all, to take every effort that we can to eliminate the creation of dioxins and furans and, second, to ensure that standards which are set in Canada are realistic and ensure that Canadians have a safe and nutritious food supply.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the minister that Canadians expect this government to lead, not mislead.

My supplementary is directed to the same minister. The minister is no doubt aware that municipal incinerators are one of the main sources of dioxin. Since the practice of burning paper and plastic together in incinerators produces a large part of these dioxins, is the minister prepared to take the necessary steps to protect Canadians from the dioxins he now allows them to burn? Is he prepared to make a commitment to provide the necessary funds to modify these incinerators and improve pulp and paper plants?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the Minister of the Environment is working very hard to take every possible step to ensure that dioxins and furans are eliminated from the environment to the greatest extent possible.
The hon. member should also know that dioxins may be naturally generated as well through such things as fires and that one of the difficulties is that dioxins are quite ubiquitous in the environment.
The hon. member says that we should be careful to lead and not mislead Canadians. Just to be sure that Canadians are not misled, can the hon. member indicate to the House whether it is the position of the Liberal Party of Canada that any food with trace elements of dioxins in it, notwithstanding the fact this food may be nutritious and safe, should be destroyed and should be refused for sale in Canada? Is it the advice of the Liberal Party of Canada that in cases where, for example, in
Oral Questions
breast milk trace elements of dioxins could be found it would advise mothers not to breast feed? That is not the advice of the Government of Canada.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Contrary to what he has just been saying, Canadian babies are being exposed every day to a dangerous chemical brew contained in their mother's milk. Even with the loosest, most poisonous standards in the world, Canadian babies face 16 times the so-called safe Canadian limits for dioxins and furans or 27,500 times higher than what is acceptable in the United States.
Will the minister, since it is well known that the sources of dioxins and furans can be controlled at source, assure the House that the tough regulations that were promised on June 16 of last year will be passed by the House this year, halting the discharge of man-made dioxins and furans into our environment and food chain?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, it certainly is our goal to halt the creation of man-made dioxins and furans.
It is important, though, for the hon. member to recognize the fact when he cites mother's milk, for example, that the levels of exposure infants are receiving from mother's milk is exceptionally low and that we are dealing with here, if we look at the threat to human health posed by dioxins and furans, is the cumulative effect over a period of time.
I want to be very careful that no member of the House, on any side of the House, leave Canadian mothers who are nursing their infants with the impression that they are not doing the best possible thing that they can for their infants. The Government of Canada encourages breast feeding. It is far and away superior to any other method of feeding an infant.
Every method that can be taken by the Government of Canada to eliminate dioxins and furans from the environment will be taken. In addition to that, there is an open process with regard to the setting of standards. If the hon. member wishes input into that we would welcome him to do so, and any other organization or any other individual in Canada can do so too.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I would suggest that the Minister of National Health and Welfare does not know what he is talking

October 29, 1990
Oral Questions
about when he gives that kind of advice to mothers in this country.
I was horrified to learn that the federal health ministry is searching for a way to further legalize and increase the release of these toxic poisons into our food chain.
Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare assure the House that the dioxin and furan exposure limits will be made smaller and safer so that Canada moves toward zero discharge of these poisons, rather than the Frankenstein option of larger, more dangerous limits suggested by the minister in the House and by his officials outside the House?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, let me just make sure I understand the hon. member correctly. Is he saying that the position taken by the New Democratic Party of Canada is to discourage mothers from breast feeding their infants? If that is so, he should spell it out clearly because he would be doing a very serious disservice both to the mothers of Canada and also to their children if that is the position that he is taking.
The position taken by the Government of Canada is to try to eliminate the production of dioxins and furons but also to ensure that Canadians have a safe, affordable, abundant and nutritious food supply.
If the position taken by the New Democratic Party is that any piece of food which has any element of dioxins in it whatsoever must be destroyed and withdrawn from the market, the effectiveness would be to destroy hundreds of millions of dollars of nutritious food each year, drive up the price for Canadian consumers and reduce the availability of nutritious food.
Our goal is to ensure that for every Canadian, food is affordable, it is nutritious and it is safe.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, the Children's Hospital of Winnipeg Foundation, a non-profit group that raised $1.2 million this year for hospital equipment and health care research stands to
receive only a 50 per cent rebate on its operating expenses.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. How does he propose to rectify this crack in the GST package, or does he expect some non-profit organizations, like this foundation, to work part-time collecting revenue for his department?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I would indicate to the hon. member that we have been very careful to devise a package-and I think he should go back to the technical papers and read them-to protect and maintain the capacity of municipalities and such organizations as the one he has referred to, to maintain their capacity not to be charged more tax after GST reform than they were before. This is where we stand.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, rather than the minister wanting me to refer to the technical papers, it would be very simple, he can just promise that the Children's Hospital of Winnipeg Research Foundation will not stand to suffer from its operating expenses as a result of the GST.
Volunteers and non-profit organizations have always been a vital force in helping hospitals and patients, made even more urgent now that this government has capped transfer payments to the provinces for health. Why does this government want to tax and penalize through the GST the efforts of volunteers and non-profit organizations? Has this government no public conscience?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, while reading the papers over the weekend I realized that the leader of the opposition party, not the leader in the House but outside of the House, has come up with a very secret weapon to tackle tax reform. He will form a committee.
I should warn him that he may discover the best way to go would be to follow the lead of very modern countries, like Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and so on who have the GST. Ours is more respectful of the concerns he has expressed than any of their taxes.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Many Canadians who in the past have received
October 29, 1990

Oral Questions
disability deductions on their income tax are being told this year that they do not qualify. Not only that, but they are being asked to repay the deductions they received in the past plus interest.
Why is the government putting the squeeze on disabled Canadians, many of whom are on fixed incomes and need this deduction, not to mention the fact that they cannot afford to make these repayments?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the government has been reaching out to people on fixed incomes and Canadians with disabilities. Someone mentions the GST. It is precisely for that reason because the existing federal sales tax, for example, is paid by low and modest income Canadians who will be receiving GST credits in that respect.
In answer to the hon. member's specific question, I can assure the hon. member that there has been no change in the policy of the government or of Revenue Canada in this regard, in that we are treating Canadians of low and modest incomes and with disability pensions in as fair a way as is possible.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the policy has changed. The minister cannot say he is reaching out if he is putting these people under undue stress. It was his government which approved the disabilities to begin with. Now it has changed its policy without even the courtesy of a further medical examination. Why is the minister defending the government's position of trying to balance the books on the backs of disabled Canadians? What is he going to do about it? When is this policy going to stop?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I am getting sick and tired of misinformation coming from that member on that side of the House.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Otto John Jelinek: It is that type of questioning that creates uncertainty and confusion in the minds of the public.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
The American Congress has just endorsed a new clean air legislative measure. That is excellent news for current and future generations of Canadians, Quebecers and Americans. Last Saturday you paid tribute to the many Canadians and Americans who have been working for years to have this legislation in place.
Mr. Speaker, my question is this: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the implementation of this new American law will pave the way for significant reductions in toxic chemical emissions and acid rains which have been destroying lakes, rivers and forests in Quebec, in the Maritimes and in the rest of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: First, Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member not only for his question but also for his interest in the acid rain issue. For years now he and his colleagues in this party as well as many other people have been the architects of the successful endeavour which was announced a few days ago and which will lead to a treaty between Canada and the United States.
The legislation passed last week was indeed very good news for Canada. It provides for a decrease of 10 million tons in emissions, and that in turn will reduce damages to eastern Canada lakes and forests. Mr. Speaker, I might point out that the third series of Canada-U.S. bilateral negotiations towards an acid rain agreement will take place in Ottawa this week. I had a telephone conversation with President Bush last week and both sides believe and hope that agreement will be reached as soon as possible.


MUSEUMS
Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Auditor General, in his recently released report, has issued a stinging rebuke of this government's financial management of the construction of the National Gallery of Canada and the National Museum of

October 29, 1990
Oral Questions
Civilization. The report cites absence of formal contracts, inadequate financial analysis, lack of reconciliation of budgets and design, and the failure to provide the cabinet with a comprehensive analysis of project costs and funding shortfalls.
In light of the 74 per cent cost overrun and the serious financial mismanagement that is highlighted in this report, what steps has the Prime Minister taken to ensure that those responsible will be held fully accountable?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I would be tempted to invite the hon. member to direct his question to the Leader of the Opposition.
Of course it is very sad to see such mismanagement. The government has the duty to do everything it can to prevent it, and we are doing it. Unfortunately, there is a very sad story unfolding and we are trying to deal with it as best we can. I can assure the House that as President of the Treasury Board, I will look at this very carefully and make sure that such things do not happen again.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report raises important questions about the responsibility of this government, and the buck stops there.
There are questions remaining regarding the tendering of contracts, questions about ministerial oversight, questions about financial mismanagement and questions about vulnerability to corruption. Is the Prime Minister willing to exercise his public responsibility and call for a full and independent inquiry which is the next logical step after the findings of this commission report. Will the Prime Minister not acknowledge that inextricably linked to this whole affair is the conviction to charges of influence peddling and bribery of former MP Michel Gravel.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Order, order.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I have said. The contracts were granted or
agreed upon before this administration came into place. It is a fact that we have been struggling with it ever since. We are trying to find a way to manage these situations in a much more responsible way. I think we have achieved that.


HOUSING
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Housing. It concerns the issue of MPs, such as the NDP member for Trinity-Spadina and the NDP member for Edmonton East who are living in subsidized housing.
In the case of the MP for Edmonton East, I understand he shares with four other people and that his share of the rent is less than $200 a month.


An hon. member:: Incredible.


Bill Attewell: I support the concept of subsidized housing, having mixed incomes, but surely politicians should exempt themselves from such a benefit. Since the two MPs I have referred to have refused to give up their perk on a voluntary basis, would the minister consider implementing a regulation which would bar any politician from any level of government from exploiting the subsidized housing concept?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, the housing programs that were put in place prior to 1984 under the former Liberal government were not fully targeted to the needy.
Since 1985, this government has endeavoured to target all of its housing funds to needy people. One exception to that has been the co-op housing program which has central to its philosophy a mixture of low and moderate income people. However, the hon. member knows that I am preparing recommendations for cabinet. I will certainly take into account the hon. member's representations as I will take into account the representations of a retiree in Toronto, Freddie Caplan, who said, "Get them out now and let the needy in".
October 29, 1990


Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, my question is to the Prime Minister. In 1984, the Conservative government eliminated the Canadian capacity to conserve energy and develop alternative energy sources. Today the Canadian people are paying dearly for this lack of foresight on the part of the Tory government. Will the Minister make the commitment to restore to their 1984 levels the funds set aside to support energy conservation as well as research and development of alternative energy sources?
[English ]


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House and the hon. member that our department is working very closely with the private sector and the provinces to review all energy programs at this time in relation to what is happening with the cost of energy in Canada today.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, in 1984, when this government cut out the NRC's energy division, it certainly did not work with the private sector, so what is the difference today? The Gulf crisis has brought home what we said in 1984, that energy policy must include programs of conservation, and research and development of alternative energy sources.
Will the minister table a comprehensive plan to meet Canada's conservation and alternative energy needs which government will support for industry back to the 1984 levels.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, if we want to go back to the 1984 levels, we can talk about the National Energy Program which crippled the country from coast to coast.
Oral Questions
The government will do its utmost, working with the private sector and the provinces, to ensure that we will come up with a program that will be beneficial for all of us.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The Minister of Finance has indicated that we are in a recession. The Minister of Energy has indicated that he thinks oil companies are good corporate citizens and he will do nothing about the price of gas. We all know that in a recession, the price of energy is one of the major contributors to slowdown and to unemployment.
Will the minister take some initiative on behalf of his government and do something about the price of gasoline?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, said last week in this House that he had met with his counterparts from the provinces because this was a provincial responsibility. As for me, I must ensure, through the Competition Tribunal, that there is no collusion among the companies to raise prices.
I have already stated in this House, like my colleague, that we-
I wish my colleague would let me finish my answer to his question. I have indeed asked the Competition Tribunal to review and monitor the situation. It did, along with my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. However, we must also compare that with what is happening at the international level. Even though I find the increase in prices in Canada unfortunate because of the pressure on the economy, we must recognize that it is a global issue and that the only thing we can do is monitor developments throughout the world. And this is what my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and myself will continue to do, Mr. Speaker.

October 29, 1990
Routine Proceedings


PRIVILEGE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, occasionally in the House of Commons, members of Parliament make statements and questions which are not correct. I have to tell the House that I made such a statement last Wednesday, as the Prime Minister alluded today.
I suggested in a question which I put forward that a particular farmer in my constituency had lost his 740-acre farm. What I should have said was that he had lost part of his farm. I should make it quite clear that he had lost the 100-acres of his farm which he actually owned.
I want to make it quite clear that this was on my part an inadvertent misstatement of fact, but nevertheless a misstatement of fact which has to be recognized and which I clearly do recognize as such to the House.


REMARKS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to request that the hon. member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville correct his remarks as they touched me.
The fact is that I have operated according to the law, the intent of the law, and to the regulations of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I pay the market rent for the apartment that I live in which has no swimming pool, no roof garden, none of the luxuries at the Tridel apartments on Bay Street to which the government made a loan of $15,000 interest-free per unit.
My point is that I have acted according to the intention of the governments of Canada when they ask that the low income and middle income units be awarded without regard to income limits, in the same way as is done when apartments are built with government subsidies by Tridel or groups such as that.
Therefore, I request that the hon. member, who I know would not intentionally misrepresent the case, clarify his remarks to show that I have acted in accordance with the intention of the law.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I want to stand by the statement I made and the remarks. Regardless of the financial numbers involved-I do not know what he pays in rent, but surely in this day and age, when politicians are under enough attack from a number of things, a politician should just voluntarily not participate in that form of housing.
That is my view, that is my belief and I will say it again.


SMOKING IN GOVERNMENT LOBBY
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, on February 13, 1990, a matter was raised with you by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants concerning smoking in the lobbies. There was, I understand, a commitment on your part to rule on this.
It was further raised that there was substantial continued smoking in about 20 per cent of members' offices and also that the health units of the House did not have a basic statement of goals and objectives in terms of the smoking issue on the Hill.
I wonder if the Speaker would undertake to carry forward on his commitment to make a ruling on this issue raised on February 13 and to include the other two matters of the continued violation of the rules by members and a positive action by the health units on the Hill in terms of setting up anti-smoking programs.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for intervention and I will consider carefully his remarks and report back both to the member and to the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government responses to several petitions.
*

-Er



ORDER IN COUNCIL


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



HOLIDAYS ACT


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-342, an act to amend the Holidays Act (Canada Day).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill in question is to repeal section 2 of the Holidays Act which states that when Canada Day, July 1, is celebrated on a Sunday, July 2 will be the legal holiday.
In enterprises such as Canada Post and other Crown corporations, when Canada Day occurs on a Sunday, the people working on that day do not get overtime, whereas those working on the Monday do get overtime, instead.
Obviously, it is a mistake in the law and it should be corrected. This bill proposes to do just that.


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

['Agreed.', 'October 29, 1990\nGovernment Orders']
Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to seek the unanimous consent of the House to refer the subject matter of the proposed Canada-U.S. air transport agree-
Routine Proceedings
ment negotiations to a special committee of the House for the purpose of public consultation.
The special committee be asked to conduct a series of public hearings in cities across Canada and in Washington, D.C., in order to canvass the views of communities, provinces, the aviation industry, labour groups, the business community, the tourism industry, and the shipping and travelling public.
For the purposes of this reference, the special committee will be granted the powers of a standing committee of the House.
I would ask that the special committee report back to the House no later than January 15, 1991. It is also hereby provided that if the House is not then sitting the report shall be deemed submitted on the day such a report is deposited with the Clerk of the House.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to speak with the member who just spoke and, while we are pleased that he added an extra month to the consultation, we are pleased to support the said motion. I would like simply to say two things.
First, we would prefer that this work of consultation had happened vis-a-vis the transport standing committee, where it ought to have gone if the Tories were in any mood to work.
Second, this should not be misconstrued as an endorsement of the wide open agreement that the government wishes to pursue at this time in terms of amending the 1974 agreement. We believe it is important to consult with Canadians far and wide. That is why we have suggested and we are pleased that the government has seen fit to extend this to January 15, rather than report December 14. We, on this side, will support that.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise to indicate the support of my caucus for the establishment of the special committee to review the open skies policy consideration.
We do so because the transport committee is unable or unwilling to meet. We regret that, but that is a matter for the Striking Committee to deal with.
It is an indication that we are willing to work in the field of transport. We believe it is appropriate that there be a parliamentary review of the proposed policy of the Government of Canada, as opposed to an inhouse

October 29, 1990
Routine Proceedings
bureaucratic review, which I think is where it came from in the first place.
I would also welcome the changes made, not just in the question of the date for reporting but over the course of time the wording of the resolution to ensure it is clear that we are examining the concept and in no way are we adopting the principle of the study itself.


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


Some hon. members:: agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche -Chaleur):: Pursuant to Standing Order 36, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition against the GST, especially the GST on books and newspapers.

This is a tax against learning and against education. [Translation]
Those who have signed this petition urge the government to reject the GST.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise once again under Standing Order 36 to present a petition against this dastardly goods and services tax that the government is proposing to bring in against the people of Canada.
The petitioners in this particular petition are calling on Parliament to reject the current proposal for the goods and services tax, reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations, and ensure that if and when there is a broad public consensus on a sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax, that this reform not be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab.
They ask Parliament to cause the government to cease with the proposal which will shift the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax, instead of through real tax reform.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the residents of Canada representing areas of Scarborough, Oshawa, Markham, Ajax, Mississauga, have signed a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. It calls on the House of Commons for a remedy for a very serious issue. This issue is relating to labelling on pre-packaged foods.
A few months ago, Robyn Allen, a 15-year old resident of my riding of Scarborough, passed away as a result of a very serious allergy reaction. This petition calls upon the Parliament of Canada to enact legislation amending the food and drug regulations in order to require manufacturers to list specific food ingredients and additives in pre-packaged foods.
In addition, they call on restaurateurs and food retailers to provide to customers a list of all food ingredients and additives in prepared foods.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 25 citizens of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, mainly residents of the villages of Russell and Navan. These citizens are asking the Parliament of Canada to adopt policies and legislation to protect the lives of the unborn.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox- Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of bringing to the attention of the House a petition from a number of citizens of the Province of Ontario, especially the community of London, Ontario, and some of the communities in the southern part of the province.
They ask Parliament to listen to them on this occasion and address the problem of unfair taxation that is currently in place which permits wealthy individuals and corporations to pay little or no federal tax while forcing lower and middle income taxpayers to bear more of the national tax burden.
These petitioners are calling on the Parliament of Canada to reject the current proposals for the goods and services tax, reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and
October 29, 1990

corporations and to cause the government to cease with the proposal which will shift the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax, instead of through real tax reform.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I rise both as a member and as a former educator on behalf of citizens from B.C., from Halifax, and even from my own Toronto, who are outraged at the impact of the GST on learning, books, periodicals, and other materials that are required for the development, not only of a literate culture, but of one that is steeped in democracy and understanding all the ramifications of living in one.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all those several hundreds who have signed this petition, I call upon Parliament to encourage the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to withdraw the GST on books and other educational materials.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present petitions on behalf of the people from the district of Cardigan, mostly from the Stanley Bridge and Tracadie areas.
The petition states: considering that Prince Edward Island has a large rural population, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly call upon Parliament to reinstate Saturday rural mail in Prince Edward Island.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, question no. 335 will be answered today.


Mr. Mifflin: 1. For the calendar year 1990, was capital funding allocated by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for small craft and harbour infrastructure in each of the seven federal ridings in the province of Newfoundland, and, if so, what amount?
Routine Proceedings
2. Is such funding planned for the calendar year 1991, and, if so, what amounts?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: 1. The Department's records are based on the fiscal rather than calendar year. Funding for the fiscal year 1989/90 including Capital and O & M for Small Craft Harbours by constituency is as follows:
	1989/90 ($000)
Bonavista-Trinity-Conception	5,586.1
Burin-St. George's	3,609.3
Gander-Grand Falls	344.6
Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte	2,158.4
Labrador	524.6
St. John's East	1,857.4
St. John's West	3,923.4
Throughout	3,020.4
2. Estimated expenditures for 1990/91 are:	1990/91 ($000)
Bonavista-Trinity-Conception	2,843.0
Burin-St. George's	1,688.2
Gander-Grand Falls	1,155.8
Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte	1,848.1
Labrador	222.9
St. John's East	2,454.8
St. John's West	8,296.0
Thoughout	4,285.7
[English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been	
answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

October 29, 1990
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, October 23, 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 the amendment of Mr. Lee:
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 the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):
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. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted, quite appropriately, at the end of our session the other day, I had just finished recounting some of the history of Petro-Canada.
As you know, Petro-Canada now has a history of some 15 years of operation behind it. Its current situation and prospects are conditioned, to a significant extent, by that past history. Understandably, some of the high-risk frontier investments which it undertook in the early stages of its existence, in fulfilment of its energy policy role, have not yet produced commercial revenues. As a result, Petro-Canada's financial performance is now not as robust as in the case of some of its privately-owned competitors. Despite this, under the new direction that it has had, the company has become a major player on the Canadian oil and gas scene and it is now ready to face reality by placing its shares in the free market.
Petro-Canada is now a major, integrated company and it is the largest Canadian-controlled company, with the second largest proven reserves of oil and natural gas liquids and the fourth largest natural gas reserves of any company in Canada. It has the second largest refining capacity and gasoline sales in Canada, and it has established major holdings in Canada, in existing and future energy megaprojects. Petro-Canada will be a major force in the Canadian oil and gas industry far into the future. It is time for it to cut the apron strings, to stop relying on the public purse and to get on with its business in a truly competitive environment.
The reasons for my support of Petro-Canada's privatization are simple and clear. State ownership of Petro-Canada is not necessary for the government to achieve public policies' objectives. Petro-Canada needs capital to develop to its full potential and it is much better to raise capital voluntarily, through a share issue, than it is to further burden the Canadian taxpayer with debt and higher taxes to pay that debt back. When Petro-Canada was created in the 1970s, we were told by the then Liberal government that a centrally planned, state owned oil company was needed to achieve three national objectives.
First, the company was to be the great oil finder. It would increase oil and gas supplies in Canada by exploring for new sources, especially in the frontier areas off Canada's coasts and in the Arctic. Mr. Speaker, I doubt that one barrel of new oil has been discovered by Petro-Canada that the oil industry would not have discovered on its own. Second, the company was to be a window on the industry to help governments see through the corporate veil of secrecy so that it could formulate national energy policies. Policies such as the National Energy Program were a total disaster, certainly for Alberta, and in my opinion, for the whole of Canada.
Third, the company was to be a negotiator that would somehow arrange special nation-to-nation deals that would guarantee oil supplies. I have already explained what a flop that was.
In the 1990s it is clear, if it was not always clear, that state ownership of a national oil company is no longer needed to achieve such public policy objectives. The government has access to the information it requires through agencies such as the Petroleum Monitoring Agency, the Canadian Oil and Gas Lands Administra-
October 29, 1990

tion and the National Energy Board. There are many other ways for the government to ensure energy supplies through state-to-state negotiations, should they be required.
In short, there are no valid reasons for state ownership of Pelro-Canada. History will decide if there ever were any, other than the desire of central Canadian Liberals to put a stranglehold on western Canada. It is a time to put things right, time for Petro-Canada to step out of the shadows and subject itself to the full light of public and investor scrutiny.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my comment. I will present a question to my colleague as well.
The present chief executive officer of PetroCan suggested not three or four months ago that if the timing was not right to go ahead with the privatization of PetroCan that it would not proceed. May I suggest that the timing could not be worse. If this is not a bad time, I wonder what the chief executive officer would describe as a bad time.
I do not want to get into the prices and the pitfalls of what we are proceeding with, but I would like him to comment on that.
Going from the financial angle to the human side of things, I am told by PetroCan dealers, not only in my community but in other communities, that in some of the bigger communities the PetroCan people were told not to comment on the privatization of this PetroCan oil company that is owned by Canadians. The people in my community were told nothing at all. Is there not something wrong with that? With regard to the livelihood of these people and the future of their families, should they not have been kept abreast as to what was going to happen or what was happening to them, rather than reading it in the newspapers just like the rest of us?


Al Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and questions from my hon. friend from Sault Ste. Marie.
With regard to the timing, I am sure that there is never a time when he would say that it is the right time. He and his party have always wanted to have our industry, not only the oil industry, but other industries, centrally planned and controlled so that there is no ability for the public to participate directly and to be entrepreneurial in their activities. This is his philosophy. As far as that is
Government Orders
concerned, it is a very difficult question for me to answer to his satisfaction.
However, as far as I am concerned at the present time there exists a situation where it is clear that Petro-Canada should be stepping out. There is no logic to having a company which controls only 6 per cent of the upstream resource finding in Canada, and 18 per cent of the marketplace, to be trying to use that position to leverage itself into a public policy position. There are much better levers that a government can use if it wants to, and in fact I would say that I hope it does not use them.
As far as the human considerations are concerned regarding the communications within Petro-Canada, I have not been personally involved in those; but knowing how major oil companies work I am sure, insofar as it has been possible, that communication has been quite full and complete within the company.
To say that there is no communication and that people do not know what has been going on is totally inappropriate because the government's plan has been well forecast and stated. I think anyone working in the company would celebrate the fact that the company is now going to expand its asset base and be able to perform more effectively in the marketplace and therefore they will have securer jobs.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question in an attempt to resolve what I think is possibly a dichotomy; at least it certainly confuses me.
As the member and his party as the government recommend to all Canadians that the government abandon oil and gas exploration activity, abandon the vertically integrated oil company approach to participation in the marketplace and in fact abandon the whole field to the marketplace, I am curious why at the same time the government has rushed full force into the Hibernia oil development with billions of dollars in subsidies and has done it hand in hand with Petro-Canada, which maintains a 25 interest in the Hibernia oil development.
Could the member explain the difference of philosophy there? I do not understand how the government can send the whole business of oil and gas and energy policy back to the private sector on one hand and can put so many resources on its own into the Hibernia oil development, which has definitely been defined as not being a

October 29, 1990
Government Orders
marketplace venture. It would not exist if it were simply market forces.


Al Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer that question because quite frankly it is one that I am asked quite often in Alberta.
The situation is this: we cannot compare what is going on, for example, in the western oil and gas industry with what is going on in Hibernia. The Newfoundland oil and gas industry is back where the western oil and gas industry was about 30 years ago. That industry needs support for its basic infrastructure.
We have a situation where the proponents of the project are being asked in effect to build a company, to build one piece of equipment and then effectively close that factory down. To do that they are obviously going to need a subsidy. Of course we are quite sure that that factory will be there to build future units on an ongoing basis, but in order to get it started there has to be a subsidy. This is a very fair situation.
We are not providing equity investment, and I think that is very important, because we are not getting the government involved in equity participation. We have the government providing the basic subsidy and loan guarantees. This is fundamentally sound for the oil and gas industry in Newfoundland in the stage that it is at at the present time.
This is not at all different to the type of support that was given, for example, to the oil sands projects in the early days of Alberta's history where they were given special tax breaks, special royalty breaks and so on to get the industry started.
It is a very fundamental and fair comparison, one that I fully support. We are not getting the government involved through Hibernia in equity participation in the oil and gas industry.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, after listening to my hon. colleague opposite, I am wondering why the government does not use such a reasonable voice, in a more positive light, in some of the deliberations that it has. I find his presentation convincing, but I do not know if I am completely persuaded. I was tempted to ask him a question, but I did not want in any way to indicate that I was mischievous in the kind of
question I would pose. He is obviously on his own in the positions that he has taken. He has pointed out some very good and solid reasons why Petro-Canada should exist. He has pointed out its success.
I might say that that success was underscored and emphasized by the head of Petro-Canada, Bill Hopper, on Morningside on October 27, 1990. When he was asked about whether Petro-Canada had been good for its consumers, his response-and I think I quote him accurately-was: "The purpose it served was to go out aggressively and do a lot of exploration in the frontier. That is its first purpose. It spent a lot of money, brought a lot of people with us, but we also found how Hibernia, Terra Nova, heavy oils and tar sands all have been good for Canadian oil supply."
It is fair to say that a private company could not have been as aggressive in the frontier as we have. Our purpose at the time was not to have a bottom line profit, but to find carbon resources for Canada. It did that job very well. I notice that my colleague opposite, in his presentation a few moments ago, pointed out that it had been most successful in the exploration field.
He suggested that perhaps a private sector company might have been equally successful or that the oil might have been found-and I stress the words "might have been found"-by other corporations as well. The point of the matter that it has been found under the auspices of Petro-Canada.
Even the minister who is so keen to privatize it, as reported in Hansard on October 10, gave his presentation as to why there should be privatization. He said:
Clearly Petro-Canada has established itself as a major integrated energy producer in Canada-Tbday it represents 6 per cent of the exploration and development side of the industry and 19 per cent of the refining and marketing business in Canada.
With that kind of success, one has to ask oneself why we have to privatize. I think there is a larger question which quite frankly is about why the government refuses to use Petro-Canada as an instrument of public policy. That is really what is underlying this debate.
I think that is the reason why the minister opposite, who is following this debate diligently, after only two hours and fifteen minutes of debate-and, Mr. Speaker, if you check Hansard you will see that we are not off at
October 29, 1990

all-stood on a point of order and asked that we apply time allocation to this bill.


Mr. McDermid:: I gave notice that I would be.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: That is right. He really wanted to give notice that he was going to do it on the very next occasion that he had because it was ruled out of order by the Speaker. He went ahead and moved a motion. The point that all hon. members ask themselves is why he would want to do that so quickly if what he was talking about was privatization, or whether he was in fact afraid of the issue of using Petro-Canada as an instrument of public policy. He knows full well that all he has to do is check our public accounts. Since 1984 the government has not spent one penny on Petro-Canada. There have been no government funds into Petro-Canada. Notwithstanding, the company has been very successful.


John Horton McDermid: Because you wouldn't give us an agreement.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: I only quoted what he said in Hansard. If he wants to retract what he said in Hansard, I am willing to give up my spot right now and have him retract everything. While he is at it, he might even go ahead and retract his bill.
He would do everybody a favour. It did not take long. Two hours and fifteen minutes is about as much time as it took for him to stand.
My esteemed colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River stood and gave a very succinct, very incisive and very thorough analysis of what was wrong with this bill. The minister opposite was shame faced and red faced when this happened. I am not referring to the fact that he was beginning to acquire a different political colour, but it is one that happens when someone is embarrassed.
I have to give credit where credit is due. My NDP colleague from a riding in Winnipeg continued in the same vein as started by my colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River and just reamed of this bill. It is poorly drawn. It is wrong. Its economic bases and financial presumptions are all distorted.
The fourth speaker was a member of the government side. Within a couple of minutes the minister decided that this was time to ask for time allocation. He wanted to show that we were going to stop this debate as quickly as possible. What these colleagues of ours were showing
Government Orders
is that Petro-Canada had not been a drain on our debt nor on our deficit.
The government has been careful over the course of the last several months to talk about how to reduce the deficit. Everything is deficit reduction driven and nothing else. What happens is the minister who acknowledges that there are no government funds going to Petro-Canada says: "No, no. We have to privatize this thing".
They will start with a 15 per cent sale offering right off the bat. That sale, given the facts that are incontestable right now, will obviously bring only marginal benefit to the government deficit reduction, if any at all. In fact on that 15 per cent, the highest estimate of what it is supposed to raise is somewhere around $700 million, according to today's prices and today's values on the marketplace. That $700 million is not going toward deficit reduction; it is going back into the company. It is a great deal.
My colleague from London is looking at making a few investments. He is wondering whether this would be a good place for Canadians to go. You go ahead and buy a 15 per cent share in the company. Then you get the money back, so you automatically get a 15 per cent saving or a reduction on your investment.
This is good finances on the part of the government. There is no net benefit to the government in terms of debt reduction or deficit reduction.
What are they doing? The company is profitable. Just the other day in the House we had reference again to the financial statements of Petro-Canada, which in the first three quarters indicated net revenues after expenditures of $84 million. It is not losing money.
All hon. colleagues have their calculators out. They are going to say: "If we divide this $84 million in the first three quarters by three and multiply by four, we discover that we have about $102 million in net revenues after expenditures for 1990". That is not bad. That is a good profit. If that $100 million were to carry a loan at 15 per cent, it would probably generate another loan of $680 million.
The government says it needs somewhere around $500 million to $700 million. It has an opportunity. It can cariy it on the basis of the profits it will make on this company; but the government says: "No, no, no. We have an

October 29, 1990
Government Orders
opportunity to raise funds differently. We don't have to borrow. What we do is sell off part of the company".
Rather than think in terms of having a government contribution, if we go a bit farther down the road we see that we cannot become too heavily indebted. The debt to asset ratio for Petro-Canada is 1.9 per cent to 8.6 per cent, so roughly 22 per cent of all of its assets are encumbered. Essentially we are talking of a very low encumbrance level for a company.
If it is true that the borrowing is tough, then when we take a look at the debt to asset ratio and at the revenues after expenditures and ask ourselves-and all Canadians have been asking themselves this with respect to privatization of Petro-Canada-why it is that one of our profitable companies, a Canadian company in which we have invested billions of dollars, a company that is doing well on the marketplace, a company that the minister stands up and says is a very productive, very profitable and very efficient company, is going to be sold off, the first offering for 15 per cent.
For those of us who are also concerned about jobs and where the government's priorities are, it is important to keep in mind that Petro-Canada employs some 8,753 employees. If we take a look at what has happened in the past with other companies that have been privatized and we refer, for example, to Air Canada and the consolidation that has taken place in Imperial and Texaco, we see a reduction because it is in the same proportion of about 2,000 men and women who could lose their jobs on the basis of the government's action. The important thing about that, aside from-


John Horton McDermid: That's fear mongering.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: It is not fear mongering. It is a little bit better than having a monopoly on mistruths which is what you perpetrate all the time.
We can leave the nonsense to one side, and take a look at these men and women who are currently earning money, are not a drain on our economy and are contributing to our tax revenues through their contributions. Many of these people are going to be put at risk because the minister says the best thing to do is to go ahead and privatize.
We must keep in mind that everything that Petro-Canada has done has been accomplished without government funds. We are confused with the government's ambivalence. We must look at whether it is thinking about exporting jobs, whether it is sincere when it says that it wants to privatize everything, whether the marketplace should dictate all of the economy and whether it is honest when it says the government should not be involved in the marketplace and let business handle the marketplace itself.
Upon careful reflection, it appears that the government is not very consistent in its position. For example, if it is concerned about the amount of money that it put into areas of private enterprise, it is instructive to know that last year some $602 million in grants and cash payouts of taxpayers' money was given to private oil companies for exploration and development. Many of those recipients included some desperately poor multinationals. One example is Chevron. This is Chevron itself, not its sister companies and not its subsidiaries. It received a mere $7,358,254 to conduct those activities. Another example is Husky Oil. It received $4,582,523. Mobil Oil, one of the companies that is a partner in Hibernia, received $5,530,492. Texaco received $6,719,515. Amoco also received grants and moneys under CIDA in the amount of $2,585,062. These amounts do not include tax write-offs and other subsidies. These are strictly cash payments.
What I am trying to get across is that we have a government that says it cannot get involved in the activities of exploration and development, it cannot get involved in the marketplace, it must give this company an opportunity to handle things on its own, but it is willing to give out these millions of dollars to private oil companies to conduct exploration and development in Canada. What is so galling about all this is-I am not suggesting for a moment that that is not bad enough- there was a further $4,100,437 given to companies that did not have enough money to set up a subsidiary office in Canada. Therefore, the money was transferred directly to their offices in the United States.
For those of us who have difficulty comprehending how much money $600 million is, it represents a $10,000 tax on every little baby that was born last year. As soon as the doctor slapped the little baby on the buns, he said, "Here you are, wake up, you have a $10,000 debt to the oil companies, thanks to the Government of Canada."
October 29, 1990

Obviously the government has a problem in deciding which direction to turn. Privatization is seemingly inconsistent with other government decisions.
My colleague pointed out a few moments ago that in the area of oil and energy development, the government is willing to put up the $600 million that I just cited. Look at what else it does with respect to Elibernia. There is $1.6 billion in subsidies and loans to Hibernia and a further $1 billion in soft loans. I do not think its rationale for that was contested by many of us. In fact I accepted that policy and the government's action on Hibernia because I saw it as an instrument of public policy and something that should be applauded.
For example, the minister of energy says that the Hibernia project is critical if we want to be energy self-sufficient and shield ourselves, if not in price, at least in terms of supply from events in the Middle East.
The head of Petro-Canada, as a follow-up, says that only one-third of the production might find its way to Canadian refineries, which happen to be ill-equipped for the processing waxy crude. Both he and the minister expect that there will be technology transfers to Canada and that Canadian entrepreneurs might seize the occasion to develop the kind of technology that will provide for any new developments that might come out of the Hibernia deal.
If the government is using Hibernia to carry out job and economic diversification in Newfoundland and in the maritime economy and if, as the government says, there are spin-offs for industries in Atlantic Canada, why does it not apply the same kind of thinking to a mechanism that is already there at its disposal? Why not, for example, use some of the moneys available to encourage some of the refineries that currently have difficulty processing the waxy oil that is going to be coming out of Hibernia.
I guess one is left to conclude that perhaps the government is missing an opportunity and it is going in the wrong direction at the wrong time. What the government might be doing, what it should be doing, is taking a look at Petro-Canada and using it in the area of conservation and energy efficiency, not merely energy development.
Government Orders
The privatization demonstrates a lack of understanding of the government's role in sustainable development. We have discussed in this House over the course of the last several weeks Bill C-78 and the implications it has for sustainable development and the environment.
In the area of sustainable development what is needed more than anything else is co-ordination of energy processes and end use. That is paramount to ensure success. The government cannot leave the development of energy and environmental impacts to the disinterested, fractionalized private sector. The private sector is essentially that.
To leave those two areas to the private sector would run counter to the government's long stated objectives under the Green Plan. It turned thumbs down to the environmental committee's findings about threats to the environment globally and to the western economies, and in particular to our own.
Energy, especially that which relies on fossil fuel and carbon consumption, will be responsible for approximately 50 per cent of global warming over the next 40 years. Conservation efficiency is going to be absolutely crucial in curbing that global warming and its threats both to our environment and to our economies.
Climatic change and environmental degradation is an energy issue, and the government's privatization indicates that it is willing to wash its hands of the use of any instrument that could help in alleviating that problem.
I spoke the other day about some of the items that might draw the attention of government if instead of concentrating on privatization it was to become seriously involved in the efficient use of fuels available and in the development of alternative substances-and I might be able to do that in the question and answer period coming.
Mr. Speaker, Petro-Canada can play a leadership role in energy efficiency. That is less expensive than expending energy supplies and it promises more optimistic views for limiting C02 emissions. In fact, more than anything else, there are proven economic consequences for those who provide a national effort to improving energy efficiency.
There is a reduction in oil imports, which will drive down manufacturing costs and gain a cost advantage in the international markets. For that we need a national competitive strategy where increasing energy efficiency will permit shifting of expenditures from energy consumption to productive investment.

October 29, 1990
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are motioning me to end my brief introduction, and I will do that.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I merely would like to comment. Why should Canadians buy a company in which they have already invested billions of dollars? In any case, when Petro-Canada was created, we never found out how much this cost Canadians. We were never informed in Parliament about what went on during those negotiations. Why should we keep this company? Since Petro-Canada belongs to the State, taxpayers had to pay the cost without necessarily sharing in the benefits. Public participation by all Canadians means leaving it up to Canadians themselves whether they want to invest in Petro-Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I was taking notes, and in fact, Canadians as shareholders will be able to comment by using their voting rights, electing the members of the board of directors and holding them accountable for the company's productivity. Furthermore, investors will be able to sell their shares when they feel like it, which is unthinkable in the case of a Crown corporation. We are never in control of a Crown corporation, Mr. Speaker. We have a good example of that in Abitibi, where we have corporations like Canadian National and VIA cutting railway lines. We have no say in the matter and we don't even know how much money they are spending. That is why Canada, the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister of Canada, and all of us here who run this country believe it is high time we sold Petro-Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Would the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence care to comment?


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: My reaction is the same as that of all Canadians, all residents of this country when they hear remarks of this kind.

I can see why Canadians feel frustrated that their governments are not using the tools available to them. As well, with the intelligence that is acknowledged that members of Parliament have, how can the hon. member for Abitibi say that we have to make Canadians shareholders and that we are not giving them any benefits
from all of this, when members from his own caucus, including the minister, point out that Petro-Canada has been absolutely fundamental to the exploration and development of Canadian energy?
Second, if he has a problem with what Petro-Canada has been unable to do, what he should do is stand up in his caucus and give direction to his ministers. He should say: "Listen, we have the tools, let's use them." Mr. Speaker, you cannot blame Petro-Canada for not accomplishing what you have decided it shall not accomplish.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member.
I guess he would want to have his facts straight. First of all, there are 6,568 employees and not some 8,000, as he rhymed off in his speech. If he checks the briefing book that was supplied to his critic, the accurate numbers are there. I do not know where he got his numbers.
Second, the hon. member obviously is displaying to the House his philosophical differences. If a business or a Crown corporation is making money, then keep it. If it is not, get rid of it. That is the philosophy over there. I am not sure why he has not explained this today.
We get rid of Crown corporations if there are two questions answered. The first is, do they serve a good public policy purpose? The answer is no. Second, can they make it in the private sector? The answer is yes. Then they are a candidate for privatization.
Petro-Canada does not serve a public policy purpose. It does not have to serve a public policy purpose. The Government of Canada can very easily carry out its energy program. The hon. member rhymed off some facts and figures today of where we have helped in Hibernia, as a government, to bring on a resource off the shores of Newfoundland.
We did that as a government by participating, not because it was through a national oil company, but in fact as a government.
He also rhymed off Texaco, $6 million; Chevron, $4 million. The hon. member does not know a thing about the energy industry. For example, $1 million a day is spent on the rigs that are exploring in the Beaufort. That is the expense. This member is talking about companies getting $6 million and $4 million in grants and so on.
October 29, 1990

That is pretty small stuff compared to what companies are spending on exploration.
Had he been around here during the famous National Energy Program, when the Liberal government was handing out PIP grants to companies like candy to a baby, then he would not be quite as arrogant in talking about supporting an industry and doing some good exploration work.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. minister opposite is probably going to go back to his office and lash out as his assistants because he is paying them a substantial money and they forgot to take a look at the Public Accounts in order to come up with the figures that I came up with. If he is sending out information that is different, then he should make sure not only that he has got his staff doing the job that he wants them to do, but also that he is sending out accurate information to the general public.
The minister opposite thinks that, again in Public Accounts, the $6 million, $7 million, and $5 million that add up to $602 million just last year is penny ante. He probably will not like it, but there are a lot of unemployed people in Atlantic Canada, in fact all over Canada, who would dearly love to be able to use the argument that he used in my regard about knowing the problems of the people who are in private enterprise, in the marketplace and who have a difficult time trying to make ends meet. The government is going to come in and give $602 million because it understands how this happens. They understand that you need money in order to get equipment. They understand that you need money to build up equity. They understand that you need money in order to go ahead and hire those who are going to work for you, so that you can then turn a profit and then hire your accountants in order to ensure that you pay no taxes.
If the minister opposite would just get his staff to do a little bit of their homework for him so that he would not embarrass himself and the government before the members here, then we could talk about what Petro-Canada
Government Orders
ought to do. I indicated in my speech that Petro-Canada ought to get into the business of energy efficiency.
The other day I pointed out, for example, that just in the area of consuming waste oil, crank-case oil and motor oil, and applying the technology that is already available, we would have an opportunity to free up approximately $1 billion for investment.
If the minister opposite would also acknowledge that for every million dollars of investment we have the opportunity to create some 46 jobs, then that $1 billion of released funds for investment would create 46,000 jobs. If he believes in creating jobs, putting Canadians to work, and making sure that government money is used properly and using the instruments available to it, then he should get off his royal chair. We might get him to do his homework before hand and talk about how we would best use an instrument that is vital to public policy to Canada. You are not going to talk about an instrument that is incapable of doing something, the moment that you hand shackle it and tie its hands, the moment that you decided that you are not going to allow it to do what it can do.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his analytical speech. We on this particular side of the House would almost welcome him over here. I thought perhaps he was a Democratic Party member the way he was speaking.
I am sure that he would remember, since he a bit of an expert in this area, that the formation of Petro-Canada was done at the behest of the New Democratic Party. I am just wondering about the Liberal philosophy.
Is the Liberal philosophy one of government intervention and public ownership? I know that the Liberals are somewhat flexible in some of their philosophies. Would the hon. member make comments on that and very briefly comment on what he sees as the future for Petro-Canada? I think he has about 30 seconds to do that. What will happen to the future of Petro-Canada?


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I could be brief enough to satisfy the member over to my left. I thought he was beginning his debate. I thought that he wanted everybody to be rigid and brittle like the members of the government side.
If there is flexibility, it is suggested that we do see a role for Petro-Canada as an instrument of public policy.

October 29, 1990
Government Orders
That is why I began ray debate by saying this is a question of why the government does not want to use Petro-Can-ada for what it can represent, an instrument of public policy. We have seen inconsistencies of that kind of thinking, both with Hibernia and in other areas.
That is why I took pains to do homework that the minister does not think is necessary if one is going to fulfil a job in the House. But I did homework in order to illustrate that there is an opportunity to establish Petro-Canada as an instrument of public policy. It has nothing else to do with anything else. If one wants to use it as that, then, fine, go ahead and give it the tools that is required to do its job.
If one does not believe it should be an instrument of public policy, then divine all kinds of excuses for ensuring that it does not take place. The minister opposite has given all kinds of reasons why one should believe him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Jonquiere.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also listened carefully to the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence, and is there anything more eloquent than figures? In 1989, Mr. Speaker, Petro-Can-ada profits were $31 million. Not bad, I would suggest. But sometimes it is better to make a comparison to find out just where the comapny stands. For the same year, 1989, Shell profits were $219 million, seven times bigger that Petro-Canada's. Now the profits of a tiny little company, Imperial Oil, during that same year: $456 million, or 15 times more than Petro-Canada.
Well, Mr. Speaker, you can understand that when I read an article by newspaperman Shawn McCarthy in today's Toronto Star who quotes the words of none other than Petro-Canada Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Hopper as follows:

Instead of looking to the government for money and direction,
Petro-Canada is to look to the private sector instead.
"I am excited about the years ahead," -

That means he is encouraged, he is excited about the years ahead. Those are the words of the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Petro-Canada.

- Hopper told a Senate hearing last week. ''The coming privatization of Petro-Canada will give us the financial flexibility to pursue these opportunities and more."

In other words, privatization will give them an opportunity to expand.


Guy St-Julien: Right on.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: But that is not the way the opposition looks at it. As far as they are concerned we should leave well enough alone. For their information, here are the figures again: Petro-Canada made a profit of $31 million, against Shell's $219 million and Imperial Oil's $456 million. Mr. Speaker, it is passing strange that profits in the private sector appear to be definitely better than those of a Crown corporation. It must have been sheer luck, Mr. Speaker.
Well, Mr. Speaker, allow me to lend my support to a piece of legislation enabling the Canadian government to sell to Canadians some of its shares in Petro-Canada. Mr. Speaker, the first offering estimated at 15 per cent will yield $500 million, the kind of money Petro-Canada needs to make new investments. I made my choice for specific reasons. State-owned Petro-Canada does not help achieve our public policy objectives. The company needs a cash inflow to exploit our oil and gas reserves. As an example we have the Hibernia project in which Petro-Canada will be involved, not to mention Terra Nova which is still in the planning stage.
A public share issue is a far more acceptable way of raising funds than raising the deficit or raising taxes, in order to consolidate the corporation's capital. Let there be no mistake, Mr. Speaker. Petro-Canada needs money for new investments, such as research on new oil products and gas exploration. If the corporation needs money, we have two choices: since this is a Crown
October 29, 1990

corporation, either we give it the funds, and to do so, we have to take that money from the taxpayer; or we do an accounting procedure and increase the debt. I imagine the opposition knows what that debt is. The government's cumulative debt is $315 billion.


Guy St-Julien: Because of the Liberals!


An hon. member:: And the Conservatives!


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Those 350 billion cost us between ninety-five and one hundred million per day in interest. That's not peanuts! That is a lot of money, $100 million a day in interest! Imagine how much more we would be able to give in the way of family allowance payments, old age pension and new services for Canadians-


An hon. member:: We could built hospitals.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: -if we didn't have the deficit. So I would like-


An hon. member:: How much was it in 1984?


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: In 1984, it was $200 billion.


Guy St-Julien: Marc Lalonde certainly helped to raise it!


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Two hundred billion dollars.
And now, I would like to talk about Petro-Canada's role. I notice, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition is anxious to comment. I may remind the opposition that $200 billion at 10 per cent means an extra $20 billion annually. This is $20 billion the government has to take from the Treasury to try and pay off the debt. And you know perfectly well that draconian measures are needed to put this economy back on track.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: You forgot?


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: The hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence can always have his say later on, Mr. Speaker.
When Petro-Canada was created in 1975, the previous government told us that a publicly-owned oil company was needed to achieve three objectives on behalf of Canadians. This is what it said: First of all, the company was to increase supplies of available oil in Canada by exploring for new sources, especially in the frontier areas off Canada's coast and the Arctic. That was the first reason. The second: the company was to be a window on
Government Orders
the industry, to help the government formulate national energy policies for Canada.
I would venture to say this does not hold water. The information available to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is more than sufficient. Furthermore, information on exploration of our energy resources is also collected by the Canadian Oil and Gas Lands Administration and the Petroleum Monitoring Agency.
The third reason, Mr. Speaker, evoked at the time by the Liberal Party, was that the company was to be a negotiator that would arrange nation-to-nation deals that would guarantee oil supplies. Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, during the past 14 years, Petro-Canada concluded only one international deal, and that was in 1979 with Mexico. This despite the fact that it was one of their main conditions, one of their selling points at the time.
Mr. Speaker, obviously, public ownership is no longer necessary in order to achieve the objectives of public policy in the 90s. Our country now has a more enlightened understanding of the extent of our frontier reserves and their development possibilities. We must not forget that Petro-Canada represents only 6 per cent of our income from up stream oil and gas activity in Canada. Furthermore, our government has other cards to play when the time comes to negotiate trade agreements with other countries.
Briefly, the initial reasons that favoured State ownership of Petro-Canada have now become obsolete. Let history be the judge whether they were ever otherwise.
Today, Canada's energy policy must acknowledge that Canada's economy is an integral part of the international market. The attempts of previous governments to insulate us from this fact were unsuccessful.
We all agree that energy markets should be able to respond to changes in supply and demand.
This policy is good for Canadians because it provides the basis for expanding our resources and for setting competitive prices for consumers. When the government intervened, it was in order to promote energy megaprojects, whose costs and risk factors were an unsurmountable obstacle for the private sector. Things have changed, however. Petro-Canada has a role to play in developing Canadian energy reserves, not as an instru-

October 29, 1990
Government Orders
ment of government policy but as an active and competitive company in the private sector.
Petro-Canada is one of hundreds of oil and gas companies that got involved in this major activity. We must not forget that. I repeat, Petro-Canada represents about 6 per cent of exploration and development activity in Canada. We must also remember that developing these resources requires a lot of money.
As the chief executive officer of Petro-Canada said, the corporation can no longer develop our energy reserves without increasing its debt to dangerous proportions, unless it acquires additional funds to consolidate its capital base. I may remind hon. members that Petro-Canada's debt today is $1.2 billion. Clearly, if major investments ae necessary and this debt is increased, we are putting the corporation in a very difficult situation.
Without new funds, Petro-Canada will not really be able to play the role it was meant to play. This situation leaves the government, Petro-Canada's present shareholder, with three options.
First, it can ignore the problem and hope the corporation finds its own way. Petro-Canada will have to choose between the risk of financial instability, selling assets and changing its profile or reducing exploration and development activities.
The second option is that the government can provide for Petro-Canada's financial future, but to do so, as I said earlier, it will have to increase its deficit, raise taxes or reduce certain programs, if it selects this option.
The third option: the government can invite Canadians to become directly involved in the company's activities by purchasing shares. By putting Petro-Canada shares on the public market, we offer every Canadian a chance to acquire part of this great oil company and to share its future. More importantly, perhaps, we are ensuring at the same time that Petro-Canada gets the financing that it would not get otherwise.
Mr. Speaker, as our minister for Privatization mentioned, both the consumers and Petro-Canada will be better served if we allow Petro-Canada to raise fresh capital directly from the investors instead of its continued reliance on the Canadian people. Let us look at a few success stories. Canadair, Teleglobe Canada and Air
Canada were privatized. And now, Mr. Speaker, we can read in The Daily from Statistics Canada that the staff of the public companies in the federal government decreased 18.7 percent to 198,000 in June of 1989 and to 161,000 in June 1990, mainly because of the privatization of companies such as Air Canada and the rationalization of others, such as Via Rail, Petro-Canada and CN.
Given the various options available to us, I think that the Canadians will agree. Maybe not unanimously, because it is impossible for either the Liberals or the NDPers to support us. It is not unlike a religion, Mr. Speaker, to be a Liberal. I could see people yesterday standing up to greet Mr. Chretien, who aspires to be elected to this House soon. One day, he told us: "It would be nonsense to oppose the GST with no alternative to propose." A week later, he told the Senate: "Do your best to block the GST. " And a few days after that, he said: "Elect us and we will abolish the GST."
Mr. Speaker, this represent $25 billion in government measures. How can this man speak from both sides of his mouth, saying one thing one day and something else the next?
It is unbelievable to see-


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: That religion!


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Yes, that religion the Liberals continue to use and spread before Canadian men and women.
Petro-Canada is part of a dynamic and competitive industry. If we want to help it meet its competitors head on, we must provide it with a reliable source of new capitals. It is no longer acceptable for this corporation to dig into Canadian taxpayers' pockets. Privatization will give Petro-Canada direct access to another source of capitals, namely, private investment.
This initiative will strenghten the corporation by allowing it to raise capital to continue the job it is doing best. Privatization will give Petro-Canada the financial flexibility it envies its competitors, as well as an access to new capital without increasing the fiscal burden of Canadian taxpayers.
By limiting the aggregate holdings of foreigners, we can achieve all these objectives while ensuring that Petro-Canada remains under the control of Canadians.
October 29, 1990


Guy St-Julien: Not under the control of the Liberals!


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Absolutely not!
There would be a price to pay for maintaining the public ownership of Petro-Canada. The first victim of such a decision would be the corporation itself, with greatly diminished powers. Moreover, middle income Canadians would bear the costs for such an option by way of tax increases, a bigger deficit based on the figures I quoted earlier-an accumulated debt of $350 billion with $100 million in daily interests-or a further reduction in public services. Such a decision would prove detrimental both to Petro-Canada and the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, such are the reasons why I support this new legislation and why I am against the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Scarborough-Rouge River, as well as the amendment to the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Edmonton East. The amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Scarborough-Rouge River reads:
"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."
It is important to know that as far as oil price is concerned, Petro-Canada has always responded to the markets ups and downs. That is the difference between the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, and our Party: We want private enterprise to have the upper hand in Canada. I repeat the figures, Mr. Speaker: Shell's profits last year were seven times those of Petro-Canada, and those of Imperial Oil were fifteen times those of Petro-Canada. Private enterprise does not work or function the same way as public organizations, there is profitability.
Look at what is happening in Russia, Mr. Speaker. What is Mr. Gorbatchev doing? He is scratching everything that is publicly owned to give it back to the private sector. He is even inviting Canadian businesses, such as large engineering, accounting and tax consultants to go to Russia to set a model following the one we have here in Canada, the one that is applied in the United States
Government Orders
and other countries. It is bankruptcy of a system opposed to the one of private enterprise that proved itself and continues to prove itself in our country.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what was said by the hon. member for Jonquiere. Unfortunately, I don't think he is to be commended for his speech. I do not mean to say the hon. member was not eloquent. However, this speech was somewhat lacking in substance. For instance, the hon. member said that Petro-Canada failed to fulfil its mandate. Since the Canadian government is supposed to run this country, I think the hon. member should have the honesty to say that it was the government that let Petro-Canada drift during the past four or five years, without anyone at the helm. If the hon. member thinks Petro-Canada lacked a firm hand, I think there should be some breast-beating by the Conservatives opposite and the hon. member who just told us that Petro-Canada did not fulfil its mandate satisfactorily. After all, he said it. However, I am not sure I would agree with this analysis.
The hon. member argued that proportionally speaking Petro-Canada had fewer profits than Shell. He told us that Shell's profits were seven times those of Petro-Canada, and Imperial Oil's profits were 15 times as big. I would like to ask the hon. member opposite: since when are Crown corporations competing to defraud the consumer? Why are we here? Aren't we here to protect the consumer? Certainly not to make bigger profits as a Crown corporation, at the expense of those we claim to defend! I think the hon. member opposite owes me an answer on this particular point. The Minister of Labour just told us he doesn't think this is a good point. Mr. Speaker, I realize that protecting consumers is not one of the government's priorities. However, I would urge the hon. member to respond to this comment, and I wish he would tell us why, because he still hasn't said why- He told us: why shouldn't we sell Petro-Canada? He never said: why should we? why not keep it?


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, Petro-Canada is using my money, it is using the money of the people of the Jonquiere riding and the people of his riding.


An hon. member:: Laval.


An hon. member:: Laval-East.

October 29, 1990
Government Orders


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: It is using every Canadian man and woman's money. With it, it went to compete with Shell and with Imperial Oil. I will repeat the figures for you. With our money, the profit was only $31 million while Shell, with its own money or its shareholders' money made $219 million, that is, seven times more. Imperial Oil's profits were fifteen times those of Petro-Canada.
I also want to remind the hon. member that the government cannot interfere with the management of the daily affairs of a Crown Corporation.
The hon. member wants figures. Here are some. He thinks it is not good enough to compare profit figures. Let us assume he is right and that this measure is not adequate. So let us look at the return on capital. Would the hon. member agree that the return on capital is a good measure? He does not say anything now, Mr. Speaker. Here is what today's Toronto Star has to say about it: During the past 10 years, Petro-Canada's return on capital was 1.97 per cent as compared to 7.93 per cent for Imperial Oil and 6.91 per cent in the case of Shell. Here are the return figures. Does that answer the question of my honourable colleague?


André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, my Liberal friend has just told us that the intervention by our colleague from Jonquiere was lacking in substance. I, on the contrary, want to congratulate him on a very well_prepared speech, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


André Harvey: For a Liberal to say that an intervention by a Conservative member is lacking in substance smacks of insolence, not to say rudeness, especially since his leader told us last weekend that he would only get ideas in two years. This statement shows a lack of seriousness and is therefore totally unacceptable.
Interestingly, while my colleague was speaking, some Liberal members were asking him about the debt after he reminded us that it amounted to $200 billion in 1984. It has now reached $350 billion but the difference is due to an 80 per cent increase in interest on the debt accumulated during the Liberal follies of the 70s. This is the reality, Mr. Speaker!
Our privatization policy must be examined in a context which our Liberal friends are having trouble understanding, i.e. the whole issue of budget control. In the last six years budget increases have not exceeded 2 or 3 per cent, compared with 12 to 19 per cent when the Liberals were in power. We have made enormous progress and it is in this way that we will bring the federal debt under control.
Members of the Liberal Party do not really understand the relationship between budget, fiscal and monetary policies. Privatization is an essential element of the progress this government is making across the country. Therefore, I hope this policy will be pursued because it is an important part of our future.
To reassure our Liberal friends, I would like to ask my hon. colleague whether he thinks privatizing Petro_Can-ada will have a negative impact on consumers by causing price hikes and leading to industrial concentration.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, it is important to note, first of all, that nobody will be able to hold more that 10 per cent of the shares of Petro-Canada, which will prevent concentration of a large number of shares in the hands of one individual. I think it is very important, as the fact that not more that 25 per cent of the shares will be allowed to be owned outside of Canada.
Those are valuable points. As I said, Mr. Speaker, the 15 per cent part of the shares we are selling this year to the private sector, as a first offering, will bring in $ 500 million that will be handed over to Petro-Canada to enable it to make those first investments.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any question in the public's mind and those who are watching on television that really what the Conservatives are up to under this plan to privatize Petro-Canada is actually to attempt in some way to rewrite a lot of Canadian history and to destroy a lot of the institutions that many of us have come to recognize as part of Canada.
I was just out in front of the buildings today talking to some people. They were saying that for many new Canadians who come to this country part of the video that they are shown so that they can get an understanding of this country is of a Petro-Canada service station, a
October 29, 1990

symbol we have all come to recognize and understand, something that this government is attempting to destroy to create a Tory blue institution across the country.
I wonder how much participation the member has in Petro-Canada with a Petro-Canada credit card. Second, is it the government's intention to recall all Petro-Canada credit cards and reprint in Tory blue so that we all have to run around and remember the damage that this government has done to this country?


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I fail to see what a question like that has to do with anything here, that is how much gas I buy from Petro-Canada, from Shell or from Esso. What does that have to do with the debate, Mr. Speaker?
Canadians all across the country are free to deal with whatever gas station they prefer. So, if he has anything to say about that it might be interesting to find out how many New Democrats fill up at Petro-Canada!


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am pleased to rise in this debate to oppose the privatization of PetroCan.
I was interested in some of the debate that went on prior to the question and comment period about the comparisons between Imperial Oil and Shell Oil and the comparisons between the various levels of profit. I think probably more went unsaid in those comparisons than was said. Those companies are essentially quite different companies and operate in quite different areas. Shell Oil and Imperial Oil, long established companies in this country, hold lands on which very little in the way of royalties have been paid over the years.
Many of these lands became producing lands back in the 1940s and even earlier, whereas a new company like PetroCan is often forced to take its exploration activities out into the more expensive areas of the country. The costs in those areas are very much higher, but it has been an advantage to Canada to have that company operating in order to extend into the frontier areas so that oil can
Government Orders
be brought into production that will benefit all Canadians.
I am opposed to this act which is essentially just another series of acts designed not to serve the national interests in Canada, the national benefit to Canadians or serve an economic need of Canadians. They are simply to serve the fundamental tenets of Conservative ideology. One is a statement that the Prime Minister was once suggested to have made: "You dance with those you come with." What he meant by that was since the oil companies essentially paid his campaign fees, there is a return benefit that has to go to the oil companies in this country.
Essentially, that is what we are doing today. We are not serving the national interests of Canadians. We are not serving the interests of Canadian energy policy. We are not serving the interests of energy consumers in Canada. We are fulfilling a campaign promise that was implied when the oil companies put the money over the counter in order to finance the Conservative campaign.
It was interesting how the campaign donations of oil companies have changed over the years. Whereas they used to contribute a great deal to the Liberal Party, the Liberal Party's sources from oil companies seem to have dried up after the establishment of Petro-Canada. The greatest beneficiary of that transfer of funds was the Conservative Party. What we are doing here is that we are delivering the pay-off, at the cost of the people of Canada, for the Tory campaign funds. It is going to be financed by the people of this country.
What is going to happen when this oil company is privatized for ideological reasons, basically? This government and this political party do not believe that the Canadian government, the people who represent all Canadians, should have any economic power with which to assist Canadians as a kind of countervailing authority to the power of the huge corporations and the huge financial institutions that really form an oligopoly in this country.
I think anybody who has read the document by Diane Francis, Controlling Interest, will know that something like 50 per cent of the total assets on the Toronto Stock Exchange are controlled by eight or nine families in this country. In the case of this sale, ten families could buy

October 29, 1990
Government Orders
the full amount of the shares. However, in this case we are again serving the interests of that oligopoly with its control and stranglehold on the economy of this country.


John Horton McDermid: What have you got against Canadian families?


Robert Evans Skelly: Petro-Canada had a terrific advantage to the people of Canada when it was in the hands of all Canadians. It has been in the hands of all Canadians. Every Canadian, by right of citizenship, by right of being bom into this country, had an ownership interest in Petro-Canada, in our national oil company.
The reason for that is that they had the right to elect people to this House of Commons, people, who should they become government, could direct that company in support of the policy objectives that people in Canada wanted to see followed. Once this company is privatized, not every Canadian family, not every Canadian, will have the ability or the wherewithal to purchase this company. Like other companies in Canada, the ownership will be tightened and more closely held until finally it is out of the hands of Canadians altogether, beyond the influence of ordinary Canadians. It will function just like any of the multinational oil companies in this country that operate on an oligopolistic basis because they are tremendously powerful. They are powerful both as representatives of world-wide parent companies and powerful in the way they elect governments and influence energy policy or prevent changes to energy policy which would be beneficial to Canadians and beneficial to the environment.
This company is going to end up being something like what we saw with de Havilland of Canada, because the government used very much the same kind of arguments in privatizing de Havilland of Canada.


John Horton McDermid: Fifteen hundred more employees there now.


Robert Evans Skelly: What the government said was that it had an opportunity to make a profit but that development costs were going to be extremely high. For us to get into the market for the Dash-8 and Dash-7 aircraft it was going to be very expensive. The company needed to be able to generate the capital to raise that money to put those aircraft into full production and to sell those aircraft.
What did it do? It sold de Havilland to the biggest corporate welfare recipient in the whole world, the Boeing Aircraft Corporation of the United States that lives of the public dole in the United States and has done so ever since its founding years and years ago. It sold a Canadian company to a company that is really a state financed company in the United States. It did not even respect its own ideology in this regard.
What is going to happen to de Havilland Aircraft Corporation now? Boeing is selling it again and it is going to become a state corporation again. This is strange ideology when they sell it to L'Agence aerospatiale it is going to become a French state corporation. This is a company that the government said was going to be sold to encourage the development of the aircraft industry in Canada. Exactly the opposite has happened. It is now owned by a French state corporation.
Let us look at what some of its other successes in privatizing the various companies have been and think of the promises it has made prior to the privatization of these companies. I think of All Routes Transport, an operating entity of the Canadian National Railways. It was subsidized and ended up being sold to an Ontario policeman who did not even have the wherewithal or the credit rating to get a Visa card. Where is All Routes Transport today? It has gone bankrupt. The properties have been absconded with and some of the principals are living off the proceeds down in the United States. These are some of the successes of Tory privatization strategy. We hear a great deal from the minister responsible for privatization about the advantages that these kinds of privatization projects will bring to all Canadians-


Mr. Della Noce:: You did not say anything about Canadair in Montreal.


Robert Evans Skelly: You said nothing about the advantages.
Mr. Speaker, we hear of the advantages that privatization of these corporations is going to bring to all Canadians. In fact, the Tory record of failure in privatization has been as dramatic as the record of privatization virtually anywhere else in the world. I cannot think of a single example of a successful privatization strategy. It is done for ideological reasons, to serve their wealthy friends who made the campaign donations to them. That is who succeeds as a result of these privatization
October 29, 1990

strategies. I could not believe some of the members who support it.
Who is going to buy shares in this corporation? Taxation statistics tell us that a very small percentage of Canadians have the wherewithal to invest in shares. They simply do not have the money to invest in shares. In fact, a substantial number of Canadians do not even have enough money at the end of the month to put into a savings account to save for the next few weeks, the next few months, or for the next year. Most Canadians do not even have a large enough net income to permit them to save at the end of the year. So who is going to get this company and who is going to own the shares in this company? It will be going to be those people in this country who are sufficiently wealthy that they can afford to buy up those shares. That is who is going to own this corporation.
We had the same kind of experience in British Columbia with Westar, a company which purchased a number of forest industry assets around the province that were having some financial difficulty. It put together an integrated, operating, forestry company in the service of the people of British Columbia. Then the Socred government of the day privatized that corporation, and it has now shut down operations all over the province. It is one of the most inefficient corporations operating in the industry. Shares in the corporation were once broadly held and are now held by a very small number of people.
I recall the hon. member for Abitibi saying that once we are shareholders then we can go to shareholders' meetings and can influence what the directors do. Obviously, that member does not hold any shares and has not been to a shareholders' meeting.


Mr. Corbeil:: Do you?


Robert Evans Skelly: I certainly do hold shares and I certainly have attended shareholders' meetings. I know that at those shareholders' meetings, it is gavel to gavel in 15 seconds. It is directors paying themselves, it is owners paying themselves and the shareholders are there as so many sheep to be fleeced. That is the reason why this company is being privatized. I have been to some of those meetings and I know exactly how they operate. The shareholders do not have any influence on how a company is going to operate once it is in the private sector.
Government Orders
But the member, by suggestion, did criticize how the federal Government of Canada, under the Conservative party, does manage this corporation and does secure accountability for the people of Canada. These people have refused to make that corporation accountable to the people of Canada and that is the problem. Once it is privatized, it is going to be even less accountable to the people of Canada. What the Tory party should have done is to require PetroCan to become more accountable to the people of Canada and that is what it failed to do.
A number of speakers have suggested today that the government has refused to give any kind of policy direction to Petro-Canada in order in order that it may become a leader, for example, in seeking out alternate energy sources, energy sources that are less damaging to the environment and that are more environmentally friendly. That could have been a direction given by the government to Petro-Canada so that it could have sought out those sources, sources such as ethanol, and the use of renewable resources to produce liquid fuels for motors in Canada. We could have been using Petro-Canada as the lead agency to be seeking out these alternate fuel sources which have less damaging impact on the environment than the use of fossil fuels.
We could have used Petro-Canada perhaps in the same way as Hydro Quebec, who have recently entered into a joint venture project. Some of the things they do, I do not support. Other things-


Vincent Della Noce: I pay the bills. I am from Quebec. I pay the bills.


Robert Evans Skelly: Well no wonder they cannot survive.
Hydro Quebec has just entered into an agreement with a Japanese battery producing company to set up a joint venture which will actually try to develop electric cars in Canada, not in Japan, not in the United States but between a provincially owned corporation and a privately owned corporation. This joint venture will try to develop electric automobiles which will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and fossil fuel pollution that we put into the atmosphere. After all, according to the OECD and UN agencies, we are the worst energy pigs in the world and we are one of the worst polluters in the world. This is a good act on the part of Hydro Quebec and its Japanese partner. To develop an electric car may result

Government Orders
in the reduction in the kinds of emissions that cause so much damage to the atmosphere in our cities and around our countries.
Petro-Canada could have been used in very much the same way. A Canadian company with the support and guarantees of the government could enter into joint ventures with people in the advance of technology to try to develop alternate fuels or new ways of operating transportation systems and fuel systems in order to become more environmentally friendly, more supportive of a clean environment and with adequate direction from the government, that would have been possible. The problem, as the previous Governor General has pointed out, is that there does not seem to be that kind of leadership available in the whole Tory caucus in the House of Commons. If that leadership was there, Petro-Canada would be a leading agency, not only in Canada, but in the world in developing the kinds of alternatives that would carry on and improve our transportation system, and also make our transportation system much more environmentally friendly.
Petro-Canada also has a leadership role to play in the consumer area in the pricing of oil and petroleum products.


Vincent Della Noce: Tell me of one case since 1970.


Robert Evans Skelly: I am not sure you are capable of listening.
There was an example a few years ago in 1985 or 1986, when oil prices had sky-rocketed in the world market. As a result, gasoline prices and heating oil prices in Canada went up dramatically. Petro-Canada followed suit because no direction had been given by the Government of Canada to hold the line on prices.


John Horton McDermid: Would you subsidize gas prices?


Robert Evans Skelly: We are not talking subsidies.


John Horton McDermid: You are.


Robert Evans Skelly: Wait until I finish. When world crude prices dropped the gasoline companies in Canada kept their gasoline prices up-


John Horton McDermid: That is not factually true.


Robert Evans Skelly: -when world crude prices had dropped by about 25 to 28 per cent.


John Horton McDermid: That is not factually true.


Robert Evans Skelly: Even Pat Carney, the former minister of energy, after constant questions and a barrage of statements to tiy to get her to persuade Petro-Canada to lower the price of gasoline to a price more representative of the world price of crude, finally gave the word to Petro-Canada that they should lower prices. In fact, prices went down and the price of gasoline at the pumps began to reflect the price on the world market.


An hon. member:: What date was that?


Robert Evans Skelly: January 1986, when they were given leadership by the government. As a result of pressure from the opposition, the government finally decided that it would indicate to PetroCan that the price should go down and the consumers should receive lower gasoline prices, and that is precisely what happened.


John Horton McDermid: That's a crock, and you know it.


Robert Evans Skelly: I will give you the newspaper articles, and you can read it.
Mr. Speaker, Petro-Canada is a valuable asset to the people of this country. It can be used to benefit our consumers. It can be used to help with research and development in our transportation and fuel systems. It can be used to help us protect the environment if we have the leadership in government that is capable of giving it that leadership. Privatization will do none of that. We will just have another price-gouging, energy-flailing, environment-destroying, private energy company that Canada will have no control over whatsoever.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Questions and comments. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue.


Vincent Della Noce: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure to rise following the speech of my colleague from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Skelly), in which he quoted all kinds of figures, all kinds of falsehoods, particularly when we talked about Quebec-Hydro, which he compared to Petro-Canada. We know that Quebec-Hydro enjoys a monopoly, while Petro-Canada must compete with other existing companies. If you do not like Petro-Canada, you can go and buy from Esso. If you do not like Esso, you can go to an independent company.
October 29, 1990

If you do not like an independent company, you can go to Shell. With Quebec-Hydro, you can't. It had an annual rate increase of 7 per 100 for the past two years, and next year, they will blame it on the GST. That's an old story, Mr. Speaker. I hope my honourable colleague knows the difference. If not, he can come to Quebec, because I pay for electricity, which, in passing, is now more expensive than heating oil.
I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that my colleague has not done his homework. He talked about CN Route, but he forgot to mention Canadair. I have plenty to tell you about Canadair. It was on the verge on bankruptcy. For two years, the first two years, people came to see me, because they were nervous. This government sold Canadair, and not only did it save 4,000 jobs, but it created 2,000 more, and half of them in my constituency, Mr. Speaker. It gives me twice the fun to say that to my honourable colleague. He also forgot to mention Teleglobe, which is experiencing an extraordinary expansion. And I do not know what he has to say against De Havilland, where there are 1500 additional jobs.

I ask two questions of my hon. colleague on the other side, and I hope he will give me some good answers. Let us see if he knows what Petro-Canada and Hydro Quebec are doing in this world. What kind of dividend did Canadians get for their investment?
This government removed in 1985, in case my hon. colleague does not know, .07 cents a litre on that famous tax to buy PetroCan when people did not ask for it.
Why did government ownership of Petro-Canada give Canadian taxpayers all the cost and none of the benefits? Why do we have to force Canadians to participate in investing in Petro-Canada? Canadians cannot make their own choice about investing? Are they so dumb that they cannot decide themselves where to put their money? Why do you want to keep Petro-Canada? Is the gasoline cheaper because of Petro-Canada?
Just to finish, I have been a gasoline dealer, and I want to know, why did Petro-Canada take my money from my pocket to compete with me-and I did not ask for that-and. to close my doors? I survived. It did not survive.
Government Orders


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I do not know about the personal problems that the member has experienced in business, or about the love affair he has with Canadair in his riding, so I cannot really comment on that or on any other affairs in his riding.
Mr. Speaker, I can comment on the fact that Petro-Canada has brought many benefits to the people of Canada.


Vincent Della Noce: Name one.


Robert Evans Skelly: If I only have to name one, it is the fact that back on January 29, 1986 when, after pressure from the opposition in the House, the headlines read "Pass on Savings Carney Tells Oil Firms", that Petro-Canada led the fight on behalf of Canadians and gave Canadians cheaper fuel prices at the pumps and protected the consumers of this country from the price gouging of the companies for which you work.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague on an excellent speech, a speech which has pointed out the foolishness and the lack of direction that exists with respect to the government's views on privatization.
I would like to put a question to my colleague because I think it is an important question. We are in the midst of an oil crisis and a situation in which war in the Middle East is being talked about in the House of Commons. The supplies of oil could very well be interrupted. Gasoline rationing is being discussed by the government. The situation which we have now is perhaps even worse than the situation which existed when Petro-Canada was first thought of.
Could my colleague possibly think of a worse time, a worse situation, or worse circumstances for a government to decide to get rid of the one effective policy tool that it has to be able to use in the area of oil and gas exploration and development in the country?


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, there is an
easy answer.
It astounds me that some feel that the price of oil that is produced in Canada, refined in Canada, and distributed in Canada should be determined by events that are happening tens of thousands of miles away in the Middle East. We are capable of producing all of our own crude

October 29, 1990
Government Orders
oil and refining capacity. It simply does not make sense. This is not a real market. It is an artificial market.
If one reads the profit pictures of the oil companies that are operating in Canada, the latest quarterly profit figures are going right out of sight because they are taking advantage of the cheap crude oil that they have been able to get from the Government of Canada. It is being inflated to world prices, running through its integrated system, and gouging people at the pumps.
This is exactly the worst time to be privatizing an energy agency such as Petro-Canada, which can give Canadians a certain amount of control over the pricing of fuel. This will establish price leadership and it can bring down the price of fuel to Canadian consumers. This applies to both home-heating fuel and transportation fuels.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs) and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I was terribly offended by the member for Comox-Alberni. I hear him laughing and I wish he would stop.
We all know that the country is suffering from many people losing faith in their institutions and their politicians. You are doing the House no favour with irresponsible and untrue charges. He lays himself wide open to the same kind of questions in reverse.
Do you report back to your biggest campaign contributors? Is that how your party operates? I can tell you that ours does not operate that way.
The people we answer to are those who believe in less government. They do not want government interfering in business unless there is a very good purpose for it.


Vincent Della Noce: He doesn't trust private enterprise.


Dave Worthy: Your idea of government intervention or government policy is-


An hon. member:: What about the food industry?


Dave Worthy: The food industry is very important to Canada. You would have us buying up all of McDonald's so we would have a window on the industry. It is absolutely ludicrous. That is the way your mentality works. There is no way that the way my colleague looks
at things and the way the people whom I represent look at things can possibly be seen as eye-to-eye.


Steven W. Langdon: I have a very short point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I hesitate to interrupt the diatribe, but I would point out that the hon. member, through the Chair, should be speaking through the Chair. He should not be speaking directly to a member.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, I do stand corrected. My concern for the House got me away from proper procedure. I do apologize for that.
I will address just a couple of points that were made. There was talk of the lack of success of some of our privatization. I ask the member to look at the figures for Canadair, Air Canada, and Teleglobe.
My time has expired, but we have given the information to his side of the House. If he checks the record, he will see that those are all very successful businesses. They are good examples of why the privatization of firms is the policy of the government, and why it is a good policy for Canada.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, first, I am going to call on that member to check the donations that are made to the various political parties and to check how much in the way of donations his political party has received from the various oil companies in Canada.
Furthermore-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member for Manicouagan on a point of order.


Mr. Langlois:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to remind the hon. member that the debate is about the privatization of Petro-Canada and absolutely not about the contributions that companies might make to political parties of Canada.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, back to my original point. I challenge that member to check the donations that were made to his political party and the promises that his political party made in response. I say that there is a direct connection between this policy with respect to Petro-Canada and the donations that were

;
October 29, 1990

received from the oil companies in Canada. There is absolutely no problem in my mind and in the minds of Canadian citizens about that either.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for having to rise on a point of order again, but I believe that the last set of exchanges included comments from the Conservative member stating that what my colleague had said was untrue.
I believe that is not the case, but more important in the context of a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but this is not a point of order, it is simply a matter of opinion. We have to go on with the debate. The hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury has the floor.


Mr. Bird:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On a point of order? The hon. member for Essex-Windsor.


Steven W. Langdon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the point which I was making was that it is using unparliamentary language to refer to anything which somebody has said as untrue.
I think, if the Speaker will check his sources, he will see that I am correct with respect to that point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am asking for the co-operation of both sides of the House and from all hon. members. I repeat that all parties got their say. I give the floor once more to the hon. member for Fredericton-York- Sunbury.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address this House on Bill C-84, the beginnings of privatization for Petro-Canada.
At the outset I would like to put Petro-Canada in perspective. As with the 13 other Crown corporations that have been privatized by the government, particularly three of the larger ones such as Canadair, Teleglobe,
Government Orders
and Air Canada, I want to emphasize that Petro-Canada is a major Canadian corporation.
First, it is a Crown corporation and based on 1989 figures-I am using The Globe and Mail Report on Business of July, 1990, for my figures so they may differ slightly from some which have been used in this debate. I want to assure hon. members that the figures I am using have not been manufactured for me by any particular source, but they are independent public figures published in the leading business journal of the country.
The Report on Business states that Petro-Canada is the largest Crown corporation in terms of sales revenue at $5 billion. In terms of assets, it is the third largest Crown corporation with assets of $6.8 billion, ranking behind the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and behind Canadian National Railway.
It ranks third among Crown corporations in terms of profits and the figures that I have for its profits before extraordinary items are $85 million in 1989, well behind the CNR and Canada Post.
In one other measure, Petro-Canada fairs only seventh among Crown corporations and that is in terms of return on capital where it was listed at 7.8 per cent for 1989. By comparison, this key statistic for Canada Post was 9.68 per cent, and for the CNR it was 8.68 per cent. Ordinarily one would not be very impressed with any corporation that finished behind the CNR or Canada Post in terms of business performance. As we all know, those two traditional Crown corporations have for many years been financial millstones around the government's neck and it has been only in the last couple of years, under the direction of this government, that both those corporations have commenced to perform as legitimate profitable corporations.
To gain a full perspective about Petro-Canada, it is also necessary to compare it with one or two similar private companies in the integrated oils category. For example, Imperial Oil revenues are twice as large at $10 billion and Shell Canada at $5 billion is just about equal to Petro-Canada.
However, when it comes to profitability, the comparisons are not so favourable. Shell's profitability is three times greater for the same sales and Imperial's profitability is five times greater for twice the sales. In the critical category of return on capital, there is a remarkable demonstration of difference between the two well-

October 29, 1990
Government Orders
run private companies, each exceeding 15 per cent return on invested capital over a five-year period annually, whereas the Crown corporation, Petro-Canada, which is also a well-run company, shows only one-third that performance at 5.13 per cent annual return on capital over the five-year period.
I think that those are meaningful figures in this debate because we are talking about the basic philosophy of turning the public Crown corporation in a private enterprise direction.
The question naturally arises, particularly for those of socialist persuasion, why even think of doing such a thing? Is it not better, they ask, to keep the company in government hands on behalf of the people, rather than risk private enterprise initiative for that dirty word, profit? It seems to me the facts about return on capital firmly answer those questions. For some inexplicable and mystical reason, private corporations just seem to run a lot more efficiently and successfully than Crown companies. As I say, just note the difference in return on capital between Imperial and Shell at 15 per cent annually and Petro-Canada at just over 5 per cent, a three-to-one differential in performance.
One of the basic principles of the privatization process which is followed consistently from the government's agenda for economic renewal presented in 1984 is a market-oriented energy policy. It is based on the belief that the private sector, guided by efficiently functioning markets, is in the best position to make optimal decisions concerning energy consumption, production, and investment. Surely the stark reality of the numbers I have presented with regard to return on capital, particularly, help to confirm the basic truth of that principle. Somehow the private enterprise performer is almost always more efficient, more effective and more productive than the government-controlled company. One of the principles, one of the tenets in 1984 when this government commenced to restructure the country's economic framework was to enable Canadians to become more competitive generally in our efforts to meet the challenges of the emerging global marketplace.
Therefore, I strongly support this legislation which authorizes the sale of shares in Petro-Canada to the general public because I believe that direction will ultimately prove the best both for Petro-Canada and for the government representing all Canadians.
As Petro-Canada is gradually transformed to face both the opportunities and the disciplines of the private market system, I feel confident that its performance will emulate its major competitors because it already is a sound and solid corporation. I believe that privatization will make it perform even better.
There are obviously other reasons which strongly support this legislation. Petro-Canada needs increased capital to develop its oil and gas reserves. Since gaining a commercial mandate in 1985, Petro-Canada has become a major player in several energy megaprojects. It presently has the second largest proven reserves of oil and natural gas liquids in Canada and the fourth largest natural gas reserves of any company in the country.
It will take money, lots of it and much of it at very high risk to develop these reserves on a viable, profitable basis.

Mr. Speaker, Petro-Canada is one of hundreds of oil and gas companies operationg in that major field of activities. Let us keep that in mind. Petro-Canada accounts for roughly 6 per cent of exploration and development operations in Canada. Nor should we forget that the development of these resources requires a lot of capital.

The best way to raise that capital is through a public share issue where investment is made on the merits of the market system and not simply by tapping the federal treasury for huge new amounts that will reflect in higher taxes or a larger government deficit. That is where the moment of truth occurs in the enterprise process, when a corporation is compelled to demonstrate its plan for attracting capital and must do so in a highly competitive way. That is when the prospects for performance are evaluated in the context of the investment required and the test is whether or not the money is forthcoming.
Last, I support the legislation because state ownership of Petro-Canada is no longer necessary for the company to achieve public policy objectives, if it ever was required for that purpose. When Petro-Canada was created in the 1970s, the Liberal government of the day set three objectives for its public policy role on behalf of the people of Canada. First, it was to increase the petroleum supplies available and to increase exploration for new sources of oil and gas, especially in the frontier areas of Canada's coast and in the Arctic. Second, the company
October 29, 1990

was to provide a window on the oil and gas industry to help government formulate national energy policies. Third, the company was to act as Canada's agent in any negotiations with other states concerning energy supplies.
Looking back in history, we have all come to realize that government ownership of Petro-Canada is no longer required to achieve those public policy objectives. In fact, we have come to the realization that there is only one principal public policy objective in the energy sector. That is to establish the conditions in which the economic development of our energy resources can occur. There is now good reason to believe that privatization of Petro-Canada will better serve that major policy objective and will not put other energy policy objectives at risk through privatization.
For example, we now have a much clearer perspective on the extent of our frontier reserves and on their potential for development. We are confident that the private sector is the best approach there. The government has a variety of mechanisms to remain intimately informed about the industry, including the Petroleum Monitoring Agency, the Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration and the National Energy Board. We do not need a major Crown corporation as a window on the industry at all.
If trading directly with other states becomes a requirement, there are other more direct options which the government can use. The capabilities and expertise exist in more than one government department: Energy, Mines and Resources for one and International Trade for another.
In summary, therefore, the original reasons for government ownership of Petro-Canada are no longer valid, and one wonders if they ever really were valid. It is tempting to draw a parallel between Petro-Canada and the infamous National Energy Program which was introduced to Canada by the Liberal government 10 years ago.


Mr. Lewis:: Supported by the NDP.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: As business and political writer, Tom Kier-ans, said in his report on Business Magazine of July 1990:
Government Orders
"The National Energy Program was a reckless and thinly veiled experiment with a planned economy."
Even the energy minister of the day, the hon. Marc Lalonde, admitted that the National Energy Program was not about people, it was about power. Ottawa's aim was not simply to sustain and cushion eastern Canada against oil shocks, but rather as Kierans observed, "It was the intention of the federal government to recycle a large component of the huge energy price increase through its coffers so that it could both restructure the energy industry, and also redirect the industrial economy while increasing its federal control".
The government was basing its planning on estimates that oil prices would reach $80 per barrel. Some plan. Even though consumers would be paying a lot more for petroleum products, the oil and gas industry would be very prosperous, it contemplated, and government revenues would be so large that all of its social programs would be supported and the federal government would probably have no deficit.


Vincent Della Noce: Hear, hear.


Philip Derek Lewis: Right.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, talk about the GST and the burden which many people claim it will bring to Canadians. Can you imagine what the National Energy Program was designed and disguised to accomplish? It was to bleed us dry at $80 a barrel and that was the plan for this nation.
We all know what happened. Oil prices collapsed, and the planned economy collapsed with it. Unfortunately, however, many of the social contracts had already been put in place and much of the government spending was already under way. Today we see the result of massive deficits which were accumulated in the early 1980s, and the incestuous process of debt upon debt which became embedded in the system by the time the current government came to power in 1984.
To a considerable extent in this bill, Mr. Speaker, we see the distinctions here of political philosophy, and we saw them with the National Energy Program as well. We are confronted with some of the basic differences and political principle between a Liberal outlook that "government knows best, and does best", the Socialist outlook that "governments should own everything", and the

October 29, 1990
Government Orders
Conservative philosophy of "The market system does it best, let it work".
It is worth reviewing briefly again some of the main features of this government's energy policy which impact on the Petro-Canada bill. As emphasized at the start, we have implemented a market approach to energy policy in the belief that the private sector is by far the best vehicle to achieve Canada's energy goals.
Consistent with that philosophy, we have reformed regulations governing the energy sector, and have allowed prices to be set by market forces.
Of utmost importance, the government has negotiated secure access to the vast U.S.A. market for Canadian energy products via the free trade agreement. This historic move has created an atmosphere in which investment in this country is now again fostered, including foreign investment, while ensuring continued opportunities for Canadians to participate in the oil industry.
Shortly after taking office in 1984, this government dismantled that grand Liberal experiment in a planned economy called the National Energy Program. It was already even then dying of its own bureaucratic weight, and of the reality that the golden goal of $80 per barrel for oil was long a dream or a nightmare of the past. Unfortunately, a large part of Canada's financial stability collapsed in the ruins of the National Energy Program.
In 1985, the government gave Petro-Canada a commercial mandate, and it has commenced to make significant progress as one of Canada's largest integrated oil companies.
Now, by commencing to privatize Petro-Canada, the company will be given the freedom it requires to run its business on a market basis without the burdens imposed by government ownership, and with access to the private market for investors and operating partners.
Security of energy supply has always been a key component of Canadian energy policy, and this government has recognized that security can best be achieved by ensuring that Canada possesses a strong, diverse and growing energy sector. We have put in place policies to encourage the development of all economically viable forms of energy. Through regulatory reform and the removal of oppressive and discriminatory taxes, we have created the conditions which will enable the domestic oil industry to grow, and which will stimulate the exploration necessary for new reserves of oil and gas to serve the future.
Also, to encourage security of supply, Canada has established emergency procedures within our own domestic market to deal with possible shortages and has entered into emergency sharing procedures with our international energy agency partners in the event that physical shortages of oil should occur. That sort of condition is intensified in these days of crisis in the Persian Gulf.
Those are some of the key directions of Canada's energy policy. As I have said before, the privatization of Petro-Canada will not only serve those policies but it will bring many other benefits as well, both for the company and for the country.
By placing Petro-Canada on the same basis as its private sector competitors, we will increase the business potential which Petro-Canada will have to develop its assets and to acquire new ones.
Privatization will permit the company access to the full range of private sector financial markets and instruments, which will help it to build its business in a timely fashion.

Mr. Speaker, privatization will provide Petro-Canada management with the financial flexibility enjoyed by their competitors and give them ready access to new funds without adding a cent to the tax load of Canadians. By limiting the over-all participation of foreigners we can gain all these benefits while making sure that Petro-Canada remains under the control of Canadians.

Equally important, the financial resources of government will be relieved of such financial support and investment which truly does belong in the private sector, where the efficiencies of performance are so well demonstrated.
Last, privatization will remove the myth that government needs direct participation as an operator in the oil and gas business to achieve our public policy objectives. It has been clearly demonstrated in many ways that Petro-Canada is not, has not been for some time, and perhaps may not ever have been, an effective direct instrument of government energy policy. Like the National Energy Program, it has been a grand interventionist scheme going largely in the wrong direction and not
October 29, 1990

toward the destinations and goals which our country must find and obtain. Clearly, Petro-Canada does have a major role to play in the development of Canada's energy reserves, and I have utmost confidence that with its excellent workforce of almost 7,000 people and its outstanding management, Petro-Canada will play that role in extremely successful ways. Its future will be found, not as an instrument of government policy, but rather as an active and competitive private sector company in the forefront of the Canadian energy effort. It is in that manner, along with so many other dynamic enterprises on the Canadian energy scene that both the company and the country will be well served with efficient, effective, reliable and competitive energy supplies for decades to come.

Mr. Speaker, while the creation of Petro-Canada may be viewed as the product of an ideology, the decision to privatize flows from good old common sense.

Those are among the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why I strongly support Bill C-84 and the privatization of Petro-Canada Corporation.
Along with Canadair, TeleGlobe Canada, Air Canada, and with 10 other of those Crown corporations since 1984, a commitment has been fulfilled by this government, not an ideological commitment toward a planned economy but a common sense commitment in the best interests and best traditions of Canadian and Conservative directions.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I do not doubt for a moment his sincerity. I have some doubts about the content, but I do thank him. I know he is a sincere individual and has helped me with a situation in my riding. His counsel has been valuable and is, I believe, working.
As to profits, and I noticed with many of the speakers on the opposite side of the House, and several from the corner on that side, the thrust of their speeches was based on profit; PetroCan only made this much whereas
Government Orders
Imperial Esso made this much. My question to my colleague is, when does the profit become greed and avarice and immoral and just unacceptable to the government side? We are not agin profits, but surely there is a point when profits reach that state.
On another smaller point, I am sure my colleague did not mean to but he seemed to intimate that the private companies were well run and that Petro-Canada was poorly operated. I am sure both the administration and the other people in the 3,000-plus stations across this country would take some umbrage or some insult from those comments. I am sure my colleague did not mean that.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has been generous in his comments with respect to my counsel to him on another matter. I would like to say that there areas where even members of the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party can get together and help to make this country work. I appreciated his interest in the initiative on which we have been able to help each other.
I would like to answer his second question first. He obviously was not listening because I said, at the very conclusion of my speech-and I said it once at the beginning of my speech-that Petro-Canada and its almost 7,000 employees was an excellent company, it was well run, and it had outstanding management. However, as I said, for some mystical, inexplicable reason we have a major company like Petro-Canada with the same sales as Shell or half the sales of Imperial and getting one-third the return on capital.
The private enterprise society which has built this great country. The efficiency of performance has always been measured by the enterprise system. I would like to read a definition that contained in the article by Kierans as to what really constitutes the best search for perfection. He wrote: "Essential to the workings of a market economy is the freedom for individuals taking decisions independently and in competition to achieve society's objectives at the lowest possible cost".
I just have to say, in terms of fulfilling Canada's energy policy objectives, Imperial Oil has to stand out equally as

October 29, 1990
Government Orders
a private corporation with any Crown corporation in terms of the services provided to this country, and it is not even a totally Canadian owned company.
I think we have a philosophical conflict here. There are some subjects my friend, from the NDP and I probably could never reconcile on. That would be his belief in a socialist approach to government and my belief in a Conservative, private enterprise approach to government.
I submit to you, Sir, that the approach I support has worked and has served this country extremely well for 125 years of Confederation and even long before that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Other questions or comments? The hon. member for Laval-Est.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, a very short question. First I would like to congratulate my colleague from Fredericton-York-Sunbury.

I would like to congratulate him on his sincere, honest, and valuable speech.
I understood very positively my hon. colleague when he said that Petro-Canada could play the role of a private company with 6,000 or 7,000 employees. I do believe that. I do believe that Petro-Canada has a future.
Of course the socialists on the other side do not like profits. They do not like private enterprise and they do not trust private enterprise, but I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, and my hon. colleagues on both sides of this House that if I made no profit when I was in business, there were no new jobs at all. Profit brings jobs. I cannot understand that these people did not understand after so many speeches, particularly the last beautiful speech given by my hon. colleague on the other side, that if one has no profit there are no jobs.
There is one thing I would like to ask my hon. colleague. Would Canadians like that famous window on the industry now? I am speaking about retail gasoline, not if they want to nationalize McDonald's and have a window on hamburgers. Would Canadians who are listening to us have wanted us to keep the National Energy Program and Petro-Canada, with the famous words "a window on the industry", which Mr. Lalonde does not believe in any more? I do not know if he
became a Tory in the last two weeks, but I like to hear what he said the other day in the press.
If the window on the industry, the National Energy Program, had not been scrapped by this government, the price of a barrel of oil would be $117- that is just a fast calculation-or $1.10 per litre at the pump. I would like to ask my colleague if we had kept Petro-Canada and the National Energy Program, would it have helped the Canadians who are listening to us? We forced them to invest in Petro-Canada.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I would like to caution my hon. colleague that when he speaks about the other side we are speaking about the same side. This is what is called the small blue corner. I do not want my colleague to lose sight of the fact that we are on the same team.
The reference to the National Energy Program was prefaced on the prospect of oil at $80 a barrel. The calculation that my hon. friend has made indicates that it probably would have gone to $117 a barrel. What it would have become would have a been a tax of another form. It would merely have been a case of raising the cost of petroleum to Canadians whenever the government needed to prime its own fiscal pump.
As I did the research of sorts for my address today, I realized that the planned economy through the National Energy Program was much more nefarious and deceitful than anything that could ever be claimed by the most severe critic of the goods and services tax. I am encouraged that again we find that we are very much in the right direction and, by comparison to history, we are not only going in the right direction but we are going in a very fair, equitable and effective direction on behalf of all Canadians.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member about two points.
First, this management which has had such a poor record of profitability in Petro-Canada will nevertheless be given the right to carry Petro-Canada to the private sector. Why have there not been changes in the management if the profit record has been so poor?
Second, are we not talking in the case of his own particular province about not the great force of small numbers of companies competing against each other in the petroleum industry, but instead about the virtual dominance of all gasoline sales in that province by a single company, the Irving company, which has led to

October 29, 1990

massive rates of profit and to serious problems for the people of New Brunswick?


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has covered a very wide horizon of issues in his question. I would like to respond to him very quickly.
The performance of the Irving company, both in petroleum and in other interests in New Brunswick, is a source of pride to all New Brunswickers. I would challenge him to put that question to his own NDP leader in New Brunswick. I believe that she would criticize him for making such an inference.
On the other question he raises about the management of Petro-Canada, I have said on two occasions in my address and once in answer to a question that I regard the management and the performance of Petro-Canada highly. In fact any Crown corporation that can show a profit at all is an exemplary organization. What the record shows is that if that company is put into the private market system, the chances are that it will emulate the performance of Imperial Oil and Shell, which will be to triple its present return on capital.
In closing, I would like to refer to the three major companies that have been discussed in terms of privatization prior to this bill. Canadair's sales have risen since privatization from $438 million to $800 million. Its employment has risen from 4,667 to 7,200. Air Canada's profit went from a loss of $22 million in 1985 to a profit of $36 million in 1989. In the case of Teleglobe, the demand for service is rising at the rate of 30 per cent annually. These are examples of what happens when we take government's burdensome ownership away from a corporation and put it into the private market system which serves all Canadians much better and in a far superior manner.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton -Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I take part in this debate today with a sense of alarm that this government is going to privatize the institution we call Petro-Canada, a corporation that is already owned by Canadians. Now it is going to sell back to us something we already own.
The original purpose for the creation of Petro-Canada was to provide a window on the oil industry for Canadians and to explore for gas and oil in Canada's
Government Orders
frontiers. It did this very effectively until this government came to power and cancelled Petro-Canada's public policy role, telling the publicly owned company to behave just like any other private sector oil companies. Now look what has happened.
In 1984 we had approximately 5,800 oil wells drilled, completed, and brought into production in Canada. Last year there were 1,720 oil wells drilled and brought into production. This year, as of October 6, there were only 1,306 oil wells drilled and brought into production here in Canada. As of October 9, there were 306 oil drilling rigs in Canada that were down. They were not working. There were 23 rigs in the process of moving, and only 159 rigs actually drilling. Only one-third of the oil rigs in Canada are working at the present time when we are facing an energy crisis. So much for the private sector.
Just recently, James K. Gray, Executive Vice-President of Canadian Hunter Exploration Limited of Calgary, stated in a speech:
Our current supply of conventional crude oil is diminishing. As an explorationist I can assure you that there are still discoveries to be made, and it is crucially important that we be encouraged to explore. Nevertheless, trends indicate that conventional oil production will decline by over 20,000 barrels per day per year in Canada over the next 30 years, while demand is expected to increase by approximately 25,000 barrels per day per year over the same period. Our modest surplus of production will soon disappear.
That is from the oil industry itself telling us what is going to happen over the next few years.
I have further concern that it is not just happening in Canada. The decline in Canada will begin in 1991 to 1995 by about 10 per cent. During the period 1987 to 1990 production in the United States declined by about 25 per cent to 50 per cent. I should point out that crude oil in the United States now amounts to 41 per cent of its needs.
It is this type of lack of direction from this government that is putting Canada in another energy bind. Here we are going to privatize a public company that was set up to develop frontier lands at a time when we are coming into an energy crunch.
Petro-Canada stands as number two in terms of oil reserves. It stands as number two among all the companies. only exceeded by Imperial Oil. It stands as number two in gas reserves and as number four in gas production. It stands as number one in net land holdings in this nation. Petro-Canada has control of most land holdings,

October 29, 1990
Government Orders
or more control, than the other companies in Canada at the present time.
It was put there to fulfil a mandate, to do the exploration work in Canada's frontier. This government has cancelled that mandate.
Mr. Speaker, why has the private sector not picked up the challenge in the frontier lands and the offshore? Why has their exploration work dried up? It is because in a land as vast as ours and the harsh climates in our Arctic and the frontier, one needs incentives because the private sector is not going to do it. After this government deregulated the oil and gas industry and took away Petro-Canada's mandate, things have gone downhill ever since.
This is one of the reasons why Petro-Canada has not shown the same rate of return, because of the high-risk exploration it did on the frontiers. It probably has not yet got the return back from the oil pipelines built to service those wells.
It is only recently we have seen the price of natural gas change, and that is in response to the start of construction of the Mackenzie gas pipeline.
I think we should look at what has happened in Canada. First of all, last December, under the so-called free market system when we had a cold snap all of a sudden propane prices almost doubled. Propane is a by-product of the oil industry, bottled gas we call it, but it is really bottled propane. Many people have to rely on this for their heating and just recently the price has gone up again.
I had a constituent call me just a few days ago who has a fleet of school buses powered by propane. He called to tell me he was not sure whether he could continue to operate because of the current high price of propane. But the sad thing is there is no shortage of propane.
It is the private sector taking advantage of an energy shortage, not in Canada because these prices are set outside of Canada in Texas. An organization outside of our own country is really controlling our prices and determining what lies ahead. It is not much wonder we have problems in the Middle East when we have the type of chess games being played by the huge oil companies in wanting to ensure a supply of product to supply the world
from wherever they choose at whatever price they feel they should pay.
It is nothing new for the government to be subsidizing oil companies. Hibernia would never be developed without the $2.7 billion, I believe, of federal government backing that is going in there.
Time will tell whether or not any of that oil will ever benefit the Canadian people. We are putting out a tremendous amount of money to bring that onstream, but there is nothing in the agreement that says the oil has to be refined or sold in Canada. There is no long-term security of supply there for the Canadian people. When we look at the equal access that the Americans have to our energy supplies under the free trade agreement, it makes me wonder how this government could ever think of privatizing a corporation like Petro-Canada because it is our operation and it was established through Canadian taxpayers' money. Now the government has given it away and the Americans have equal access.
I think rather than privatizing Petro-Canada we should be going the other way. I think the mandate should be broadened and strengthened. We have diminishing reserves of conventional oil in Canada and the United States. We have tar sands oil but that is one of the most expensive to produce.
Rather than limiting its mandate, Petro-Canada should be expanded back to where it was at the time this government took office, with responsibilities on the frontier and the offshore, where the private sector does not want to venture because of the risk involved. We as Canadians need assured reserves. I think it should expand to include the development and use of renewable fuels. I am talking here about ethanol, for example. There is only one oil company among all those in Canada who is actually involved in this, and that was again with a level of government subsidy in terms of research and development.
I think we have to look very seriously at expanding the mandate of this Crown corporation. For example, there are millions of tonnes of grain stacked across the prairies that could be the source of a renewable fuel. It could account for up to 10 per cent of the automotive fuels used in this nation. Not only would it provide a market
October 29, 1990

for the millions of tonnes of grain that remain unsold, but it could provide a domestic market for between five and eight million tonnes of that grain. At the same time, it could clean up the environment.
The use of 10 per cent ethanol in an automotive fuel will lower the carbon dioxide emissions of those fuels by 10 per cent. That is the first benefit. It would also provide a means of getting rid of carbon dioxide emissions by the very fact that the growth of a plant itself removes carbon dioxide from the air. An acre of corn, wheat or barley will remove as much carbon dioxide from the air as an acre of forest. We are all concerned about the destruction of our forests, not only in Canada but in the Amazon rain forests and other countries of the world. So we could have a double-barrelled impact on pollution. I think the government should look very seriously at moving in this direction.
I am shocked to find out that the additive put in gasoline by oil companies at the present time in Canada to replace lead-and this took place a couple of years ago-is not allowed to be used in the United States. But it is manufactured there and sold to us, and here we are using it in our vehicles to further pollute the atmosphere.
The oxygen content of ethanol blend is almost twice that of other oxygenated fuel resulting in reduced carbon monoxide emissions. It could be as much as 25 per cent. I said 10 per cent previously, but it could be up to 25 per cent.
I should point out that currently the city of Toronto ranks as one of North America's worst cities in downtown carbon monoxide levels and most of this is from car exhausts.
Just this afternoon on the way to Ottawa, we landed at Toronto Island Airport. We circled out over Lake Ontario to come in for the approach to the landing. We looked at the cloud of haze lying over that city, and most of that at this time of year has to be automotive emissions.
This government has an opportunity to expand the mandate of this Crown corporation into the development of renewable fuels, which will benefit all Canadians and here it is going to sell it off to the private sector because it thinks it can do better. Yet when we examine the dismal record of what has happened in the Arctic in the last few years, and currently there are nine rigs in the Arctic, not one of them drilling at the present
Government Orders
time, or as I should say as of early October and late September.
I look at the record of what happens under privatization, and I have to look at the Polysar situation in the city of Sarnia. It was established in 1971 with $250 million worth of seed money. This is a very successful company. In 1985 to 1987 the government decided to privatize it and sold 48.2 per cent of its shares for a return to the taxpayers of only $361 million. Yet, within two years Nova Corporation paid $1.3 billion for that same company. The government sold those shares for $5.75 a share and two years later Nova Corporation paid $20.70 a share.
Then in May of this year the government sold off probably the crown jewel to the Bayer Corporation, a crown jewel that only in one year since the 1940s had ever lost money. It was a world leader in research and development and it was sold, to be gone from Canadian control forever and a day.
That is the type of thing that has been happening under privatization. The government has been selling Crown corporations at less then their actual value. In the meantime, somebody makes a bundle on the stock markets.
It has been indicated that seven executives of that corporation received about $8 million in severance pay and then two years later part of the crown jewel of research and development, the old rubber division, was sold off to foreign interests.
It seems rather strange that this government is moving in this direction, particularly with the uncertainty in the Middle East. As I indicated earlier, with our reserves diminishing, the government should not be selling at a time when we should be looking to clean up the environment. Petro-Canada is a vehicle through which we can do this to work in the long term.
It is strange that we should be looking at a mandate that was pulled away from a company to develop the Arctic and the offshore and would allow ourselves to become dependent on decisions made in the boardrooms of other nations for the energy future of this nature, particularly when we have the harsh climate that we do.
It seems strange that we would rush to sell off our non-renewable resources the way we are. I reflect back to January and February 1989 when there were huge natural gas contracts made with the State of California and other companies out there. One of the American Senators was speaking to me about this. He told me that

October 29, 1990
Government Orders
he cannot see why Canada is selling off its natural resources the way it is. He said that most of that natural gas during the summer months is being pumped back into the depleted fields in California to replenish their own reserves. He said, "Let me assure you that 20 years from now we will have natural gas and you will not have any".
I look at the number of rigs that are down in Canada at the present time, and the fact that this government is going to sell off this Crown corporation that was set up to develop and explore the Canada Lands, the Arctic and the offshore. I find it inconceivable and not at all acceptable that we should be heading in this direction and leaving future generations of Canadians wondering where their fuel supplies are going to come from.
In conclusion, I have no alternative but to vote against this bill. I have no alternative but to look at what has happened in the oil industry. I have no alternative but to look at what has happened in Alberta itself where 60 per cent of the oil well service industries that were in business in 1984 are now non-existent. I have no alternative but to encourage my colleagues on this side of the House to vote against this legislation. We should be looking to expanding the mandate into the renewable fuels. We should be taking the initiative and the lead to make sure this happens as quickly as possible, to give the farmers in western Canada an income, to provide a market for those millions of tonnes of grain that are out there at the present time, and also to provide a high level of protein feed suitable for livestock at a reasonable cost to keep our livestock industry competitive with that of the rest of the world.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Questions and comments. The hon. member for Manicouagan.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some of the comments my colleague for Lambton-Middlesex made regarding the mandate that he would like to see for Petro-Canada.
Of course, the wide range of subjects, items, and proposals that he outlined for a mandate for Petro-Canada is quite valuable. I would agree to that. But why, in his mind, would it be impossible for Petro-Canada to have the same mandate and attain the same goals that he has been talking about, being owned by Canadians shareholders, instead of the Government of Canada?
Why would it be impossible for the shareholders of Petro-Canada, a majority of whom will be Canadian citizens, to give that same mandate to Petro-Canada in a competitive and economic environment that will level the playing-field for Petro-Canada, while at the same time, not having to live under the government and all the restrictions that it imposes?
I feel personally that it would be much easier for Petro-Canada, if it had such a mandate, to have access to more research and development, and new sources of funds, being owned by Canadian shareholders-the Canadian public-and not having to live with the restriction imposed by government ownership. I would like to hear the member's comments.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I think the record speaks for itself in that there is only one oil company that is proceeding at the present time into the area of renewable fuels and that is Mohawk Oil. It is doing that in co-operation and in partnership with the Saskatchewan Pool Elevators in the Province of Saskatchewan.
It was tried in Ontario a few years ago by United Co-operatives of Ontario in two test marketings. There was one in Listowel, Ontario, I believe it was, and the other at Guelph. Motorists were lining up at the pumps for clean fuel. It was discontinued because the oil company supplying that the gasoline that was used as a base with 10 per cent of ethanol added to it, refused to sell them any more gasoline. That is the reason.
The private oil companies want to sell oil. They are not interested in selling a gasoline that has 10 per cent ethanol involved in it, even though it may clean up the environment and even though there are other benefits that accrue to the rest of our economy.
I should also point out that this product has gained acceptance in the United States, far more than it has here because of legislation passed by Congress and the
October 29, 1990

Senate mandating the additives that can be used, and those that are not allowed to be used.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague and friend, the member for Lambton- Middlesex, for an excellent speech. It was a speech that to a certain degree was very informative, not as partisan as I thought it could be, mind you, of the severity of the legislation that we are discussing and so I have no choice but to make a few comments.
I was very pleased to hear some of the suggestions he made. I would only hope that all hon. members in the House would listen to some of those suggestions, take heed, and even introduce something in the near future that might help us in regard to the new mandate of Petro-Canada, rather than the privatization.
Looking back, it is almost a decade ago that the Tory government had attempted to privatize. You know what happened at that time, Mr. Speaker. It had to back off for a number of reasons. It then proceeded to introduce a different type of strategy. Rather than outright privatization, it decided on a different strategy.
In 1985, it took away from Petro-Canada the tools to do an efficient job here in Canada. It redefined the mandate of Petro-Canada. That has basically declawed Petro-Canada. Now, it is in the process of privatization. So, it has been a long, long plan.
Let us look at that policy of privatization and I know the hon. member talked about the philosophy involved here and giving it the proper tools. The question I have for him has to do with this mandate and the timing of this privatization. Does the hon. member for Lambton- Middlesex not think the timing is terrible and that it is a bad time for the government to become a spectator in this volatile industry? It is a bad time because of the problems being experienced in the Middle East.
He mentioned the mandate and I would ask him to elaborate on the mandate of a new Petro-Canada, rather than the privatization.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague in that we could not have picked a worse time to start the privatization process. Of course, if the government were to sell now, before the oil prices sky-rocketed, and they will do that if war does break out
Government Orders
in the Middle East, there would be instant profits accruing to whoever makes the purchase.
If oil is a diminishing resource, and we know that for a fact, then whoever buys in will have increased share value similar to what I quoted from the sale of the Polysar Ltd. and Nova Corporation. They almost made four times their investment in a matter of two years. The same thing could happen here. From that aspect alone, we should be taking a hard look to safeguard the investment the Canadian taxpayer already has in this company.
In terms of expanding the mandate, Canada is a very broad and diverse country. We have the ability to produce the ethanol that I spoke of, not only in the Prairies but in eastern Canada as well. That could provide up to at least 10 per cent renewable fuels. It would have to be done in a way that would bring it onstream in a matter of a couple of years.
As I indicated earlier, our conventional oil reserves are going to diminish in the next few years. This would give us the breathing space to bring this on and create the two-fold purpose that I spoke about in my address, that is, lowering automotive emissions by using an environmentally friendly product. I should point out that it has not only been identified as an environmentally friendly product, but the growing of crops to provide the base, the feed stock, or the grain for it would also remove the carbon dioxide from the air.
It is in this context that we should take a long, hard look-a look that entails a lot more than just a few windfall profits the business world will be out there to grab. It should be a long-term look as to what is in the best interest of our economy, our environment, and the people of the nation.
The other benefits that spin off in terms of balance of trade would benefit as well because the products being added to gasoline now in the nation are not manufactured in Canada but rather in nation to the south of us. It also benefits our balance of trade as well as the environment and the diminishing oil reserves, giving them a boost to be longer lasting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: That puts an end to questions and comments. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has the floor for debate.

October 29, 1990
Government Orders


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, many times during the last six years, you have heard me say how pleased I was to speak to a bill. But never was I as happy as today because Bill C-84 recognizes something the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada really believes in, an economic reality for Canada, and that is the privatization of a company.
I think that the opposition distorted the debate at the outset. This debate is not about the privatization of an oil company but rather about the matter of whether or not our government, our country, should own companies which are competing with private companies. This is the first question we must ask ourselves. And I would answer, as the majority of Canadians have done since 1975, by saying: No, the government should not own companies which are unfairly competing with the private sector. A little earlier, I heard the hon. member for London-Middlesex say: Why buy what we have already bought?
Unfortunately, it is true that, when his political party was in office, they paid a fortune, they spent a huge amount of taxpayers' money to purchase some private companies. But Canadians just like you and I, never wanted to buy Petro-Canada, Petro-Fina, Supertest or any of the others, they never accepted that deal and do not own that business. Canadians do not own Petro-Canada and do not feel like they own it. And that is easy to explain. Since 1975, that is for the last fifteen years, if Canadians had thought they owned Petro-Canada, do you know what they would have done during all that time? They would have bought Petro-Canada products. They would never have dealt with another company, they would have gone to their own company, Petro-Canada. And all the other companies, like Gulf, Shell, Esso, and my colleague from Laval-East could name a few others, would have gone bankrupt.


An hon. member:: Sergaz.


Pierre H. Vincent: Sergaz. Nobody would have bought gas at thoses places if Canadians had had a feeling of belonging, of ownership for a society a governement decided to buy without ever consulting them.


Charles A. Langlois: At a high price!


Pierre H. Vincent: At a very high price, as mentionned and rightly so by my colleague from the North Shore, from the beautiful constituency of Manicouagan, as he would say himself. It is not as beautiful as the constituency of Trois-Rivieres, but it is not bad. So, the Canadians do not own it and, I will follow up on his argument as to why we should buy what we already own with an example. When my constituents buy secondhand furniture or old jeans at the Army surpluses and I follow his reasoning, they pay a second time for what their government has already bought. The argument expressed by my colleague from London-Middlesex does not hold water. Both parties, the Liberals and the NDP, are in favour of state-ownership. Privatize means to ensure that the Canadian economy, in whatever sector- and again, I want the debate to be on the level of the principles of nationalization or privatization. We could talk about nationalizing hamburger companies, to have a window on the hamburger market in Canada. We could talk about nationalizing the furniture manufacturing companies in order to know what is going on in the furniture industry.


An hon. member:: And toothbrushes.


Pierre H. Vincent: My colleague points out toothbrushes, but we could go into every sector, nationalize everything, but that is not this government's policy. The Conservative government's policy is to let the Canadian economy and Canadian enterprises work, compete so that Canadian consumers get the best value for their money. This is what we want, and I can say that in my riding of Trois-Rivieres people are glad to see that over the last six years we managed to sell 18 Crown corporations which were competing with people of my riding, people who invest time and money.
Let's take the example of a Petro-Canada station near a service station where a good worker was investing time and money to pay for it, make it work, create jobs and pay himself a salary to feed his family. What did we have on the other side of the street? We had a brand new Petro-Canada station which was competing with him, with the help of your taxes. This retainer was saying: "Why is the government doing that to me? I did not do anything to the government. Why do I pay taxes to the government-I work hard to earn a salary and send some money to the government-and it turns around and uses
October 29, 1990

this money to put a competitor across the street. Why is the government doing this?"


An hon. member:: Same thing with me!


Pierre H. Vincent: I had no answer for him, because there was none. I would say: "You are out of luck, they could have nationalized donuts but, no, they nationalized service stations." This is what the people in the riding of Trois-Rivieres have to say. They are happy, as I said earlier, that 18 companies could be privatized, bringing in $3 billion on top of everything. That means that there were $3 billion laying about in Canada, in companies which had the mandate to compete with Canadian tax-paying companies. This is illogical.
No need to own a company to know what is happening in the oil industry in Canada and around the world. There are federal civil servants paid to do that in Ottawa. The provincial Energy departments are dealing with that at the provincial level, and at the national and international levels because of the ramifications. One does not need to set up an office in my riding to know if it is a good idea to invest there. Surely you do not need anything specific to know if such and such company in your riding is a good investment.
It is the same thing with regard to energy. There is a government with a minister and a department to deal with that subject. If what the members opposite 524 were true, then, the Minister of Health and Welfare would need to have his own hospital competing with other hospitals in order to be able to make decisions regarding his department. The Minister of Transport would have to own a truck, car, and plane manufacturing company as well as an asphalt company in order to decide if the asphalt to be used on a national road is adequate. You see how absurd it is to argue that you need to own a company in order to administer the country in a certain field. I could go on with all forty departments, Mr. Speaker.
If the hon. member opposite wants to comment, I suggest he wait his turn.
Furthermore, if we take a look at the energy sector, the situation has changed in Canada since 1975.1 see the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, who knows that constitutionally, the situation has changed since 1975, and the same has happened in the energy sector.
Government Orders
The situation has changed and policies have changed. The energy sector as such as changed as well.


Guy St-Julien: The government has changed too.


Pierre H. Vincent: As the hon. member from Abitibi said, the government has changed as well since 1975. So there is no reason for maintaining a corporation in that sector. We have more Crown corporations to sell off, and my dearest wish is to make them sufficiently viable so we can sell them. The problem is that in 1984, we inherited 400 Crown corporations that didn't have a chance to be profitable.
At the time, taxpayers' money was invested in unprofitable companies that then competed with private companies owned by Canadians who were paying taxes, and those companies were profitable. Try and explain that to the people in my riding! They do not understand, they do not agree and they are right.
That is what we have been doing, gradually, since 1984, and that is why Petro-Canada should be privatized as soon as possible, so that Canadians who have confidence in the energy sector and want to invest in the industry will receive dividends, for a change.
Because for fifteen years they have not received dividends from PetroCan. Canadians who want to invest will be able to do so and to buy shares and if they are not satisfied with them on January 2nd, they will only have to resell them on January 3rd, while today they can do nothing if they are not satisfied with PetroCan. That is the main difference between privatization and government ownership and between the opposition parties and that government that makes decisions and administers the economy of a huge country that has inequalities but must reflect anyhow the policies that are put in place and the economy of the whole country.
The other point one must consider in matters of nationalization and privatization is where the money comes from and what it is used for. When I talk about privatization, I say to Canadians in general, as we did in the case of Air Canada and all the others: you take money out of your pockets, if you want, and you buy shares from a company. Here is its bottom line and we think it is profitable; if you are interested, you buy shares. That is privatization.

October 29, 1990
Government Orders
Nationalization means telling Canadians: This year, you will pay more taxes, because I need more money, since I decided to buy a furniture company.


Vincent Della Noce: At what price?


Pierre H. Vincent: At an outrageous price, as it was done in the case of Petro-Canada, formerly Petro Fina. I made the decision to buy a furniture company, so I raise your taxes, because I have to pay for it and, naturally, it is not profitable; evidently, I buy it because it is not profitable. Second, I will tax you a little bit more every year because I must keep it in business. I must tell you also that this unprofitable company I am buying with your income tax money will compete with your own profitable furniture company, one which creates jobs and also pays tax to me. This is what the debate is about today, the difference between privatization and nationalization.
Petro-Canada does not change anything to the price of petroleum products. Nothing at all. Once again, if it charged less than the other companies, it would have gone bankrupt and put itself out of business. Petro-Canada worked in a competitive economic context and did not give better prices to Canadians. It achieved nothing except costing money to Canadians and competing with private businesses, thus distorting the rules of the market.
This is what nationalization did to an oil company, and for a very high price. However, our Progressive Conservative government believes in free enterprise, believes that Canadians are capable of being productive, and they proved it. If we look at statistics since 1984, we see that Canada is now one of the most productive countries in the world. Canadians are capable of being productive, capable to do research and development, capable of being ingenious, of producing goods and selling them at a reasonable price. Because there are more than one capable Canadian producer in a given industry, we have better prices for all consumers. This is free enterprise, this is what the government believes in. Once again, we are talking about Petro-Canada, it could have been Donut-Canada or Hamburger-Canada or Furniture-Ca-nada. II is a basic principle. The government is here to manage the taxes it collects from Canadian citizens and to provide services that private enterprise is not able to give. This is the major thrust of our policy.
If the unfortunate National Energy Policy implemented by a Liberal Government still existed today-it was abolished five years ago-all experts agree that oil would cost $117 a barrel while a month ago, before the Persian Gulf crisis, it did cost $20 a barrel and now it costs nearly $40 as a result of the international situation.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, oil costing $117 a barrel would mean gas at the pump costing about $1.10 a litre. In other words, $1.10 a litre compared to 66c.. That is also the difference between a government which allows the market forces and competition to operate fully, and a government which, for the sake of so called higher principles, intervenes in almost every economic field to counteract the economic system and ruin the skills of our Canadian men and women in every industry. This distinction is at the very heart of this debate on Bill C-84, Mr. Speaker.
I have referred to the Liberal Government, but unfortunately the NDP thinks and acts in a likewise fashion, always ready to step in and increase the tax burden of the people they claim to represent. But if every Canadian man and woman went to his or her Liberal or NDP Member and asked: Listen, how much of my income tax this year will go to Crown Corporations which compete with my own company or my employers' company? How much money is there in my tax account? Then, they would have to come clean. What is the answer, Mr. Speaker? Ten, fifteen, twenty per cent of the income tax paid each year to the Federal Government to support non viable corporations which compete with the private sector? Again last week, Mr. Speaker, I got a phone call from one of my constituents concerning a Crown corporation that was awarded a contract because its bid was below cost price. Sure enough the company in my riding did not get the job because a Crown corporation got the contract for less than cost price.


Vincent Della Noce: No sweat, that is taxpayer's money.


Pierre H. Vincent: No sweat. But he was furious, Mr. Speaker, as you can well imagine. I can think of another word which might not be parliamentary. He told me: It does not make sense, I pay taxes to have that company take contracts away from me. And he is absolutely right, Mr. Speaker, and he said it did not make any sense.
October 29, 1990

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I see my time is running out, and that is unfortunate because I would have a lot more to say about basic principles. I simply want to urge the House to pass Bill C-84 at the earliest opportunity because it will be good for the Canadian energy sector, good for the private sector, and good for the economy of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Questions and comments. The hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Mi-chel.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau -Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this in time because the member from Trois-Rivieres acknowledged my presence and the fact that I was listening to his comments. I must say that he totally misunderstood the fundamental reason for the establishment of Petro-Canada. When he compares that Crown corporation to others, he lachs complete objectivity or at least a basic sens of reality. Why is there a Crown corporation in the energy sector? It's because the previous Liberal administration thought it was essential for the Canadian people to have a significant degree of ownership in a resource as important as oil which is found in abundance in the Canadian soil. Provincial governments also considered essential that there would be Crown corporations in the hydro field. I cannot figure out why the hon. member would not understand that what is useful and really profitable for private interests become public property and that revenues and profits benefit all Canadians instead of being sent abroad.
We know that large oil multinationals have always refused-not only in Canada but everywhere in the world-to share with governments the huge resources generated by the sale of oil products. For many decades, they have been so powerful and have done away with the basic rules of competition in Canada. And when the Canadian government decided to own its company in order to have a window on the energy sector, the conservatives, who have made themselves the champions of multinationals, objected.
When the Canadian government decided to impose a tax on oil production to collect from the start revenues for Canadians, having realized that the big multinationals paid no income taxes in Canada, the Conservative Party opposed this measure and promised, if it ever
Government Orders
formed the government, to suppress such a tax that it judged inappropriate.
Interesting enough, the first measure President Reagan took when he came to power was to cancel all antitrust measures against the big oil multinationals. Not surprisingly, the first one taken by the Mulroney government, after its election, was to suppress this tax which the oil multinationals considered unacceptable.
The first measure taken by both Reagan and Canadian croney, Mr. Mulroney, was something done to please the big oil companies!
What is this bill if not but the ultimate concession of the conservatives to multinationals?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member has been too long in this Chamber not to know that during the period of questions and comments, he should be as brief as possible. I will therefore ask the hon. member to conclude with his question, without any comments.


André Ouellet: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, if this is a period for questions and comments, you should allow me to make my comment!
I want to ask the following question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance: What guarantee can he give us that this sale will be dealt with more strictly than other sales of Crown corporations? Everyone knows how Canadian assets were sold out in other cases.
One of the most outrageous cases was the sale of CN Route to friends of the government. The sale of Air Canada did not bring about the expected results-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I have to tell the hon. member that time is running out. I think, in all justice, that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance should have the floor now.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker-


André Ouellet: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel on a point of order.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that according to our Standing Orders I may use those ten minutes for comments if I wish.

October 29, 1990
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please.
I refer the hon. member to a ruling by my predecessor, Speaker Jeanne Sauve, interpreting-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. In that ruling made when our Standing Orders were amended, she set out quite clearly the purpose of the questions and comments period. It should be used for brief exchanges between members on both sides of the House.
In the spirit of that ruling, I shall recognize the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the frustration of my colleague from Papineau-Saint-Mi-chel who was a member of the Cabinet when Petro-Can-ada-which was then called Petro-Fina-and the National Energy Program were established.
After reading a few books written by authors who were Liberal cabinet ministers when the National Energy Program was put into place, I realized that, regrettably, ministers were not consulted. The Prime Minister at the time announced this Program without consulting with his ministers and without discussion.
I also want to remind him, Mr. Speaker, that he said: "The first thing the Conservative government did after being elected in 1984 was abolish the National Energy Program, as they had promised during the election campaign." He is right on this point.


Vincent Della Noce: We kept our promises!


Pierre H. Vincent: First, we promised it; second, we got elected; third, we did it; fourth, we got re-elected, Mr. Speaker, on top of it all.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre H. Vincent: You must remember this.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we fulfilled the mandate the Canadian people gave us with regard to the National Energy Program, which had nothing to do with the big oil companies, as my colleague was trying to explain.
His question was: What will be the guarantee on the sale of Petro-Canada shares? I will answer him that this guarantee will be 100 times better-


An hon. member:: And more honest!


Pierre H. Vincent: -than the purchase of Petro Fina's shares in 1975, purchase that got lost in the bank accounts-


An hon. member:: All Liberal bagmen became rich.


Pierre H. Vincent: -of acquaintances of people in the then Liberal government. That is how the shares of Petro Fina and other corporations were purchased.
The guarantee we give in this situation is there will be a law, there will be investment dealers who, by definition, are controlled by independent legislation that provides for an examination of the whole process. I think it will be ten times better.
In conclusion, I say in response to my colleague that since Petro-Canada will be held by Canadians, since its shares will be held by Canadians, the dividends and profits will not fall into the hands of foreigners. They will fall into the hands of Canadians, and that is what we want, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question and comment period is over. Resuming debate. The hon. Member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte. We still have five minutes.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, as you have just indicated, I only have five minutes to participate in this debate. That is not a lot of time to deal with a matter like the privatization of Petro-Canada, Bill C-84.
Let us be blunt about our language today in dealing with this bill, because there has been an awful lot of nonsense, most recently by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, being spewed about this House.
We are not dealing with the privatization of Petro-Canada, a 15 per cent share offering. That is an unmitigated farce. The Government of Canada is selling off Petro-Canada lock, stock and barrel, 100 per cent. There is nothing in this bill that limits the share offering to 15 per cent. There is nothing to indicate it will only be a partial privatization. It is a full privatization. It is a giveaway of another national asset, but this government
October 29, 1990

lacks the courage or the integrity to say so. That is what is happening.
What is going on in Canada today with a government that languishes for the last five months at 15 per cent in the polls, that is despised in this country, is analogous to what is happening to Kuwait. There was not an invasion. There was a democratic election. However we have a regime in Kuwait today that knows it is not staying there for very long. While they are there, the people, the army of Iraq, the army of Saddam Hussein, is plundering Kuwait. They are taking away the furniture. They are taking away the wealth of the nation. They are stripping the assets of the nation. This government, at 15 per cent in the polls, knowing that at the next election it is finished, on behalf of is corporate friends in whose pockets it lives, is stripping away the assets of Canada. That is what is happening today.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Brian Vincent Tobin: This is the government that sold Route Canada, part of a Crown corporation, with all of the same rhetoric and rationale we heard today, to an individual who could not even qualify for a credit card.
My God, Mr. Speaker, is there no depth to depravity, the ideological foolishness of this party? Imagine selling a $35 million asset to a Canadian whose only qualification was his Tory membership cards because his credit cards had been cancelled. Can you believe it, Mr. Speaker?
That is the mentality of that party. It sold Air Canada. It was going to do great things in the marketplace. It was going to flourish. It was going to change the Crown corporation involvement and fly even higher. What has Air Canada done? It has laid off 3,000 employees and financially it is going down.
The Conservatives sold off Fisheries Products International. They were going to unshackle Fisheries Products International. It was going to fly in the corporate world and what has happened? Its shares have died down and we have a disaster, people bleeding left, right and centre, all over the place in the fishery.
Let us not waste time, in the few minutes we have left, with subtle language about the free market. The free market implies competition. That is what it means: competition. However, what is happening in Canada?
Government Orders
We have an incredibly concentrated energy sector, incredible concentration. That is not competition. That is capitalism, not free enterprise. That is the resources of the nation in the hands of a few for the benefit of the few and not for the nation as a whole. That is what we have. That is the creed of the Conservative Party as it strips away the assets of this nation.
We have a sector now that is dominated by U.S. interests and by U.K. interests or British interests. That is the reality and the one lever, if only this government had the guts to use it, and it hasn't. It is the one ability to have some say about the rip-offs that are currently going on at the gas pumps.
Look at this. Today, in The Ottawa Sun, third quarter profits of all of the oil companies in Canada have doubled, tripled, and quadrupled; amazing increases, and nothing but the sound of silence from members opposite.
It is time for these members, these plunderers of the national assets, to crawl out of their corporate pockets, go back and face their constituents, stand up for Canada, and protect the assets of this nation. The plunder must stop and stop soon.


Some hon. members:: Hear. hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 6.45 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) on Tuesday, October 23, 1990, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.

October 29, 1990
Government Orders
And more than five members having risen:


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
Amendment to the amendment of Mr. Harvey negatived.


Mr. Dingwall:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think you might find the disposition of the House to apply the division on the subamendment to the amendment of my colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River, and for the reverse to apply on the main motion of the government.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, as usual, consultations have been productive. I just want to confirm that that would be acceptable to government members.
++NAYS


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Members
Anderson	Andre	The House divided	on the amendment of Mr. LAtkinson Belsher	Attewell Bernier	which was negatived	on the following division:Bertrand Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Bird Blais	(Division No. 309)	Blenkarn	Bourgault	Brightwell Cadieux	Browes Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	YEASCasey Clifford	Chadwick Cole	MembersCollins	Cooper	Angus	ArseneaultCorbeil	Corbett	Assad	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)Cote	Crosby (Halifax West)	Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)	BakerDarling	Della Noce	Bellemare	BenjaminDesjardins	Dobbie	Berger	Blackburn (Brant)Domm	Dorin	Blondin	BoudriaFee	Ferland	Butland	ClancyFretz	Friesen	Dingwall	FergusonGreene	Grey (Beaver River)	Foster	FbltonGustafson	Halliday	Gaffney	GardinerHarvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes	Gauthier	Gray (Windsor West)Hicks	Hockin	Harvey (Edmonton East)	HeapHoltmann	Horner	Hovdebo	HunterHorning	Hudon	Jordan	KarygiannisHughes	Jelinek	Keyes	Kilger (Stormont -Dundas)Johnson	Joncas	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)	Langdon (Essex -Windsor)Jourdenais	Kindy	Lee	MacAulay
October 29, 1990

MacLaren	MacWilliam
Marleau	McCurdy
Nault	Ouellet
Pagtakhan	Parker
Peterson	Rodriguez
Samson	Simmons
Skelly (North Island -Powell River)	Skelly (Comox-Alberni)
Speller	Stewart
Taylor	Tobin
Vanclief	Waddell
Walker	Whittaker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)	Young (Beaches - Woodbine)-:
 NAYS Members
Anderson	Andre
Atkinson	Attewell
Belsher	Bernier
Bertrand	Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blais
Blenkarn	Bourgault
Brightwell	Browes
Cadieux	Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Casey	Chadwick
Clifford	Cole
Collins	Cooper
Corbeil	Corbett
Cote	Crosby (Halifax West)
Darling	Della Noce
Desjardins	Dobbie
Domm	Dorin
Fee	Ferland
Frctz	Friesen
Greene	Grey (Beaver River)
Gustafson	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
1 licks	Hockin
Holtmann	Horner
Horning	Hudon
Hughes	Jelinek
Johnson	Joncas
Jourdenais	Kindy
Langlois	Larrivee
Layton	Lewis
Loiselle	Lopez
MacDonald (Rosedale)	MacKay
Malone	Masse
McCreath	McDermid
McKnight	Merrithew
Mitgcs	Monteith
Moore	Nicholson
Oberle	O'Kurley
Plourde	Porter
Pronovost	Redway
Reimer	Richardson
Roy-Arcelin	Saint-Julien
Schneider	Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon	Sobeski
Soetens	Sparrow
Stevenson	Tardif
Thacker	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Tbrner (Halton-Peel)
Valcourt	Van de Walle
Vankoughnet	Venne
Vien	Vincent
Weiner	Wilbee
Winegard	Worthy-104


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 7.15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 30,1990