1990-10-23

Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 36 I would like to present four petitions, in which the petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the report of the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas. The petitioners are residents of my riding of Cochrane-Superior, from the towns of Manitouwadge and Cochrane.
On behalf of the 278 petitioners who rely on this tax benefit, I must reiterate the importance of this deduction to northern communities. The government is presently studying the report and it is imperative that it reject the recommendation presented in this same report.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, the pleasure and, in fact, the duty to table today a petition in this House, signed by residents from a number of communities in my riding, including Prince George, Vanderhoof, McBride, Bums Lake, Willow River, Cluculz Lake and Penny. The petitioners express concerns about this government's policy as it relates to taxation, specifically, their opposition to the goods and services tax.
They hope and pray that this Parliament, including the Liberals in the Senate, will do its best to try to defeat this tax.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to rise, under Standing Order 36, to present a petition, signed by many residents in my riding who are concerned about the maintenance of wharfs and harbours in Prince Edward Island.
The petition states that whereas, the Government of Canada has a duty to provide properly maintained wharfs and harbours; whereas many of the wharfs in Prince Edward Island are in a deplorable and unsafe state and require major repair; and whereas the fisheries is one of the most important industries on Prince Edward Island, these petitioners ask the government to proceed with the necessary maintenance and repair and ensure the safety, in future, of the fishery in Prince Edward Island.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to table a petition which has been certified correct as to form and content by the clerk of petitions.
The petition is signed by a number of residents of the province of Ontario, including people from Toronto, Burlington, Simcoe, Hamilton, Brantford, Scotland, Waterford, and Cayuga.
All of the petitioners, Mr. Speaker, are opposed to the goods and services tax. They point out that the government is now trying to tax reading, haircuts, diapers, coffins, and home heating fuels and, perhaps, depending

October 23, 1990
Routine Proceedings
on the intention of the Prime Minister, books. They call upon Parliament to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax. They want reform of the tax system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.
They point out that while 85 per cent of Canadians do not want this tax because it will be inflationary and consequently encourage a further increase in interest rates. They ask the government to back off from imposing this very punitive, cruel tax on the people of Canada.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt -Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to submit to you a petition that I have here in my hands, from a number of Canadians who are very angry. They are angry about the goods and services tax and they have said so in this petition to which they have affixed their names.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


[Stage Direction]
Among the things which they are angry about, as I read this petition, is that they are unhappy about the goods and services tax touching such areas as haircuts, fast foods, piano lessons, and even consumer loans which they take out to pay the taxes. But they are angry too because, last night, the Prime Minister indicated that he might be fudging with the tax and they did not have a chance to put that "fudging" stuff into this petition.
In consequence, I submit this petition in anticipation that there will be more to come, because of the fudging last night by the Prime Minister.
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from Kamloops, British Columbia, who point out their concern that the government, apparently up until last night at least, was planning to tax reading material.
This, of course, would include young children's story books. Parents sit with their children in the evenings and attempt to teach them reading and listening skills. The government was going to tax this but we have heard that the Prime Minister may be changing his mind on this and we certainly hope that he does. The petitioners are asking that the whole tax be chucked out. That is on the reading materials, Mr. Speaker, and I have a petition on another matter.
Mr. Speaker, another group of petitioners from western Canada point out a whole list of concerns and why they oppose the government's decision to proceed with the unpopular goods and services tax.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to revert to Reports from Interparliamentary Delegations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to revert to Presenting Reports from Inter-parliamentary Delegations?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Erie.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House in both official languages the report of the official parliamentary delegation which participated in the 36th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in Harare, September 14 through September 22, 1990.
During the time of that conference, the Canadian delegation was well represented in the plenary and committee sessions on important topics such as South Africa and its problems, one of the important issues that was dealt with during that conference.
I just want to inform all members of the House on all sides that we can be proud of all the members who participated in the debates.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.] [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Reverting to petitions. The hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

October 23, 1990


PETITIONS
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petitioners who have signed this petition are from Scarborough, Peterborough, Toronto and Lakefield.
The petitioners submit this petition in respect to disclosure of food content in packaged food. TTiis is a very serious issue. I was moved on this particular issue because of the premature death of Robyn Allen, age 15 years, and other young people whose lives have been snuffed out because of a severe allergy reaction.
The petitioners are calling upon this Parliament to amend the food and drug regulations to require manufacturers to list specific food ingredients and additives used in pre-packaged foods.
In addition, in this petition, they request that restaurateurs and food retailers be required to provide, on demand, to customers a list of all food ingredients, including additives in prepared foods.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton -Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from the residents of Grand Manan Island, pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petitioners call upon Parliament to maintain the staffing of the Gannet Rock lighthouse.
I want to take a minute to explain this petition. It is a very important one to the residents of Grand Manan Island. Gannet Rock is a lighthouse in the Bay of Fundy. There is a great deal of commercial traffic in this area, notably tankers on the way to the largest oil refinery in eastern Canada.
This lighthouse has been in service from the 1800s and we do not want to see it automated. We do not want an automated lighthouse there. We believe it is important that the residents of the island continue to have the kind of service they have today, in other words, a manned lighthouse to preserve the environment of that area. It is critical that the lighthouse be maintained the way it is.
The residents of the island have signed this petition and I do present it on their behalf.
Government Orders


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)) moved:: That, in relation to Bill C-84, an act respecting the privatization of the national petroleum company of Canada, not more than one additional day shall be allotted to the further consideration of the second reading stage; and
That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on such day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would wish to take a few moments to speak briefly to the motion I have introduced.
I think it is fair to say that we have introduced time- [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I regret to interrupt the debate, but I have had precious little experience as Assistant Deputy Chairman and I cannot learn the finer points of procedure overnight. Indeed, first I have to read the motion now before the House.

The hon. Minister of State for Privatization has the floor.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I think you are doing fine in the Chair. You do not have to apologize to the House at all.

October 23, 1990
Government Orders
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, we have introduced time allocation because the system in the House of Commons is that the House leaders get together to discuss what business the government has and how it will be carried out. If an agreement cannot be reached to allow so much time for debate on a certain bill, then the government has some options at its disposal. One, of course, is to allow the debate to carry on, as some people would say, ad nauseam. Another option is time allocation where the government specifies a certain number of hours or a certain number of days to debate the bill. Another is one that we hear all the time about closure. The government announces that it will just shut down debate. The debate carries on in the House that day until one o'clock in the morning and then the vote takes place.
It is my understanding, and I find it rather interesting, that in the British House all legislation is given a time allocation, if I can put it that way. The parties sit down and between them say that this is a very important bill, we will debate this for 20 hours. This is not so important, we will debate it for an hour, and so on. That way the order of business is controlled in a much better way in the British Parliament. It is something that I would urge this government and the opposition parties to sit down and discuss, because I think it makes sense.
One of the things that I hear from people when I go to my riding on the weekends is that they do not understand, when the government has a majority, why it cannot get its legislation through.


An hon. member:: Forty-three per cent is not a majority in modern day mathematics. You're at 15 per cent now.


John Horton McDermid: Well, the NDP has a majority government in the province of Ontario and it got 37 per cent of the vote. The NDP says it has a majority government. I have heard the premier, an NDP premier, say it has a majority. So, all the cackling from the NDP at the present time is nonsense.
As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the hon. House leader of the New Democratic Party-he has a tendency to be doing that these days as he is hurting a bit-we are in a position in which we have a legislative timetable and we want to proceed with it while at the same time allowing debate in the House and
getting legislation into committee where it can be examined on a clause-by-clause basis. That is what we are doing today.
I want the public to understand clearly that we will have four full days of debate on the Petro-Canada legislation at second reading. It will then go to a legislative committee which will call witnesses, examine it on a clause-by-clause basis, and make its recommendations back to the House at report stage. Then we will have a third reading debate.
I am sure the opposition will disagree, but we feel that that gives ample time in the House of Commons to carry on a reasonable debate during which genuine points can be made by every opposition party. They have their concerns, and that is fair. They have ample time to express those concerns in this debate. They have had two days already. There will be today and tomorrow as well.
I will close my remarks because there are a lot of people who do want to debate this bill and participate in the privatization debate on Petro-Canada, but I would like to note this. This morning on Peter Gzowski's show on CBC radio there was a discussion with three people representing different parties. There was the Hon. Marc Lalonde, who is a former minister of many positions in the Liberal government. There was Rosemary Brown from the New Democratic Party, a very prominent member of that party and former member and cabinet member in British Columbia, and Dalton Camp.
The three of them were discussing Petro-Canada this morning, and it was rather interesting. Rosemary Brown asked Mr. Lalonde the question: "Since you were around when Petro-Canada was put together, was one of Petro-Canada's goals or reasons for being in existence to control oil and gas prices, the petroleum prices, at the pumps?" Mr. Lalonde said: "Never. It was never considered for that. It was never envisaged that that would be one of its responsibilities as a Crown corporation." Of course, he was expressing the government's opinion at the time it was established.
The other thing that he said this morning, which I found rather interesting, was that he has no trouble with the privatization of Petro-Canada. He feels it does not serve a public policy purpose, and that there are other areas such as the Petroleum Monitoring Agency and the Canadian Oil and Gas Lands Administration that give us
October 23, 1990

the window on the industry. Therefore, he has no trouble with the privatization of Petro-Canada.
I wanted to publicly thank Mr. Lalonde for his endor-sation this morning. Since he has returned to the private sector, he has started to see things in much better perspective. I want to thank him for that publicly today.
In closing, I want to say once again that we feel, because we could not reach agreement with the opposition parties to manage the business of the House in respect of Petro-Canada, that we did have to bring in time allocation to allow today and tomorrow for debate. Then we will have the vote tomorrow so it can go on to a legislative committee.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to take part in the debate on the time allocation motion moved by the Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs, but nothing more. I believe I made this speech a number of times in this Parliament and I regret having to do so once again. The minister has introduced a motion to limit debate to only two days, today and tomorrow. These would be the third and fourth days of debate on this bill, and that is not enough. The minister knows that full well, and I think the government has taken a dictatorial approach as to how the business of the House is to be conducted.

I am going to continue to expound on the theme because I feel it is time again to expose the government for its shocking approach to Parliament and parliamentary debate.
The minister says agreement could not be reached, as though agreement was somehow necessary in this kind of debate. Surely, on a bill that is opposed by the opposition, there should be a reasonable time for debate. Yet what is the record on this bill? We have had two days of debate so far. Four hours and ten minutes is the total time that has been spent in the Chamber debating this bill. We have the government saying it is time to draw this to a close.
Four of our members have spoken. That is four members out of approximately eighty in the Liberal caucus who have had an opportunity to participate so far
Government Orders
in the debate on this bill. Yet, the government now takes the view that it is time to close off debate.
I must protest this in the very strongest terms. In my submission it is improper for the government to be constantly using this rule. The Minister of State for Privatization says to look at the British experience and we should follow that. This House is not the British House. This House has different traditions from what the British House has. The tradition has been to allow for freedom of speech and freedom of debate in this House. This government is intent-I could use other words-on limiting debate at every opportunity.
I would like to go through the list of closure and time allocation which we have suffered in this Parliament at the hands of this Draconian and uncaring government. It is really a disgraceful record. We have had closure applied, and I am referring to closure under Standing Order 57, 13 times in this Parliament to date. We have had time allocation applied six times and today is number seven. Bear in mind that when time allocation is applied, it often can cover two stages of a bill at once, that is, report stage and third reading. In fact, that is exactly what has happened. I am not counting those as double whammies. I am only counting those as single episodes. That is six times without counting them twice.
Let us go back to the list. I invite members to listen to the list of bills that this has been applied on. First, there is the free trade bill. It was closured at every opportunity in the first session of this Parliament and it was also moved on a motion to suspend the rules in relation to that bill. Second, it was applied on the Unemployment Insurance Act, Bill C-21, at second reading, report stage, third reading, and then on the Senate amendments. Third, there are the Excise Tax Act amendments in Bill C-20. Closure was applied at second reading. There was the Plant Breeders' Rights Act with closure at second reading; the Advance Payments for Crops Act, closure at second reading; Bill C-28, the clawback provisions of the Income Tax Act, closure at second reading and time allocation on third reading and report stage; Bill C-49, the Resumption of Government Services Act, closure at second reading; the Goods and Services Tax, closure at second reading and time allocation on report stage and third reading; the Crop Insurance Act, closure at third reading; the Borrowing Authority Act, time allocation at second reading; the Restraint of Government Expendi-

October 23, 1990
Government Orders
tures Act, time allocation at second reading; and, the Hibernia Project, time allocation for both report stage and third reading.
That is the litany of dictatorial approaches that the government has taken to government legislation in the House. In every case the debates have been short. It is not as though there has been a week allowed on any one of these bills before closure or time allocation was applied. In every single case the debate was less than five sitting days. We have never had a protracted debate in this Chamber on any item of government legislation since November of 1988.
The minister of state and government House leader were up on October 11 when the government lost its first notice on this bill. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that they gave notice of time allocation on the first day of debate on this bill, if you can imagine.
During the first day they said they were going to move it the next. It was only because the Minister of State for Privatization could not read his notice properly that we were fortunate enough to have the Speaker strike that notice out, and so we have got it again today.
The minister of state and leader of the government in the House got up and made a speech. In his speech he quoted certain statistics. He said that between 1980 and 1984 time allocation under rule 78, which we are discussing today, was used 29 times in that four-year period. He claimed that in the six years since then it has been used 27 times. Well, this must be number 28.
He was talking about rule 78 alone. He tried to suggest that the government had been slow in using this rule because it had only used it as many times in six years as the previous government had in four. What he omitted to discuss was the number of times closure, rule 57, had been applied. As I have indicated, that has already been used 13 times in this Parliament, and I do not know how many times it was used in the previous one. I was not here and I have not gone back to check all those records.
It is a distorting group of figures that the government House leader used. I submit it was a set of figures that were intended to mislead the public as to the intent of the government here in using closure so often. I submit that when you look at the total picture, this government has used closure and abused the rules of this House to
ensure that its legislation gets through without debate or with very limited debate.
I would like to turn to the example I cited in this House a year ago, on October 26,1989.1 was speaking on this same subject in this House. I pointed out what kind of record it was the previous government had.
As the government House leader has said, time allocation was used something like 29 times in a four-year period. One of the times it was used was in 1983. This was on Bill C-155, an act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain.
That bill was extensively debated in this House. I would like to recount, Mr. Speaker, once again the statistics on that debate to show something of the latitude that was allowed by previous governments, by previous Houses, by previous Parliaments, that is not allowed in the current situation.
That bill was introduced on second reading and 97 speakers were given an opportunity to address the bill at second reading. Just at second reading, 97 speakers, Mr. Speaker. Think of it. We have not had anything like that number on this bill. I would be surprised if we have had more than 10.1 did not do a count on the total, but there are only four from this caucus, and there cannot be many more from the New Democratic Party caucus. In fact there would be less. I would bet there were two.
The bill was sent to a committee after this extensive second reading, nine days at second reading, 97 speakers. Then it went to committee. Three months of committee hearings with over 200 representations, and then the bill came back at report stage. How long was it debated at report stage, Mr. Speaker? What is the longest we have had in this Parliament at report stage on any bill? I will bet it has not been more than three days. I will bet it has not been more than two, but I will give the government the benefit of the doubt and say it was three. Fifteen days on report stage on this bill, Mr. Speaker, 15 days, and then finally the government brought in time allocation and limited debate on third reading to two days. That was considered Draconian.
Hon. members who now sit on the government benches objected in the strongest terms to the use of time allocation on that bill. Yet, here we have the minister piously intoning that we ought to agree to this because it is reasonable in the circumstances, that it is a fair restriction on debate because we have not been able to agree on a time allocation for this bill. Four days is
October 23, 1990

insufficient to debate a bill which is so roundly condemned by the public.
If this bill were introduced at any time other than when the GST is the big item in the news, it would be roundly condemned in the press and there would be a public outcry against it. This government is seeking to stifle any criticism, and avoid the public outcry, by ramming this bill through with time allocation, and I object in the strongest terms.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have mixed feelings, I suppose, about participating in this debate. Once again we have to say it is a very dark day for the democratic system in the House of Commons. It is a very bleak day in terms of parliamentary democracy because once again we see the Conservatives using the heavy hand of closure to muzzle the House of Commons, to cut off debate prematurely, to end discussion of government legislation.
I want to at the beginning make it very clear that the people who are watching the debate today on television should be well aware that this government has used some form of closure and time allocation more than we have ever witnessed in Canadian history over a period of time. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, first of all that since closure was first introduced away back in 1913, it had only been used 19 times up until 1984.
Then of course in 1984 things began to change. Closure of course is a motion which ends further debate on a measure with a mandatory vote at 1 a.m. The Tories have used it 15 times and have threatened to use it another 10 times since 1984. Time allocation allows the government to set a time limit of as little as two days of debate on any measure. It has been used 27 times in the six years of Tory government.
What it says is that this government does not like democracy. It finds the Parliament of Canada a nuisance. It finds the committees of Canada a nuisance. It has taken step after step, time after time, to throw the rule books away and has used this very Draconian, undemocratic, unparliamentary measure called time allocation or closure.
Government Orders
I challenge the minister who indicated that an agreement could not be reached. Quite the contrary, we made a very clear offer. When the New Democratic Party was approached, after we had had only one speaker on the bill to dismantle Petro-Canada, we were asked if we could come to an agreement. We said: "We are reluctant to agree to anything that would expedite the destruction of our national oil company, but at this particular stage of the debate, to facilitate the matter getting into committee where we can bring forward witnesses to point out clearly what this is going to do to our ability in terms of energy security in the future, we would like to be given four and a half hours of debate time in the House of Commons".
Four and a half hours of debate time on a process to dismantle a multimillion dollar enterprise that touches the lives of every Canadian, no matter where they live in the country, is hardly being unrealistic. The government said: "No, we cannot allow four and a half hours of time to listen to the opposition on this matter, so we are going to introduce time allocation".
This is at a time when we are in an energy crisis, where the oil prices at the pumps are sky-rocketing. Canadians carry a card in their wallets, their purses and their hip pockets with pride, and that is the Petro-Canada card, because they know it is their oil company. It is not Mobil Oil, it is not part of the Exxon family, it is not a multinational company operating out of the United States. It is Canadians' own oil company, Petro-Canada. Now the government wants to say: "We are going to take all of the credit cards and in a sense tear them up on behalf of Canadians because we want to turn it over to private interests".
Mr. Speaker, do you know how many oil producing countries in the world have private interests solely in control of their oil patch? The United States is one, because it owns virtually all of the multinationals. Second, Margaret Thatcher sold off their national oil company as part of her ideological approach to the marketplace. That is the only one, other than the United States. Every other country has its own oil company.
Now the Tories say: "There is one last vestige of Canadianism in this country and we are going to disman-

October 23, 1990
Government Orders
tie and destroy it". They do not want to allow debate on this critical issue, and we say that is absolutely unacceptable.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, at a time when we are into a national emergency, with oil prices increasing at the pumps so that it is causing pain to every single Canadian, when it is going to result in an increase in the cost of goods that Canadians buy in every part of the country, when it is driving companies, farmers and fishermen into bankruptcy, who is behind all of this nonsense? Who is it that is really responsible? I suggest that it is not the hon. member, who is the government House leader, from Calgary. I suggest that it is the Prime Minister of Canada because not only is he wishing to destroy and dismantle Petro-Canada, he is in the process of destroying the Parliament of Canada, and we find that unacceptable.
I pose some questions. Could it be that the government House leader has been instructed by the Prime Minister to do what he can to destroy Parliament?


An hon. member:: Ram legislation through.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Who is it that comes in daily, striding into the House to challenge the Speaker, to challenge decisions that the House has taken? Who is it that is continuously making spurious allegations against members of the House and casting aspersions on the table officers, as well as the Speaker in the chair from time to time? It is the hon. member who is the government representative in the House.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that those kinds of actions by the government House leader are causing this House to be a House of ill repute. The people of Canada are disgusted with the kind of antics that they are seeing on behalf of government members time and time again as they challenge the chair, and so on.
Who is it, Mr. Speaker, that on occasion has threatened the Speaker? I remember when the government House leader stormed the Chair. He stood in front of you, Mr. Speaker, and flexed his muscles and put his fist into the face of the Speaker because he did not like a ruling of the Speaker. This is the first time we have seen any of that despicable, disgusting behaviour in the House of Commons. Who was it that really did that, Mr. Speaker?


An hon. member:: Harvie?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Who is it that continues to behave this way? Is it really the government House leader or is it the Prime Minister who is running this puppet in the House of Commons from the Prime Minister's Office in the Langevin Block?
There is something extremely sinister going on in this House.


An hon. member:: Right on.


Nelson Andrew Riis: While we assume that it is the government House leader who from time to time challenges the Speaker's rulings, that bad mouths the good office of the Speaker and his advisers, is this the person who is really doing this?


An hon. member:: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Or is it the quiet voice of the Prime Minister from the Langevin Block, from the Prime Minister's Office?
Is my hon. friend, the Minister of Science over here who shakes his head, saying that the Prime Minister does not support the despicable behaviour?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the parliamentary House Leader for the New Democratic Party, but I think he is skating perilously close to open water. I would therefore ask him to be very careful and stick to the subject matter of the motion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I am attempting to do, in trying to explain to the people of Canada what is going on. But this motion is just one of an ongoing series where this government-and to be more specific, this Prime Minister-is attempting to run the Government of Canada not through the House of Commons, but through the Langevin Block, the Prime Minister's Office, and the Prime Minister is using his puppet in the House of Commons, called the government House leader, to carry out his dirty work. We are simply saying we have identified this plot and we do not plan to sit quietly by and be muzzled by it, not able to speak out to the people of Canada on this issue.


An hon. member:: They're muzzled. They have been told to shut up.
October 23, 1990


Nelson Andrew Riis: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that regardless of how any of us might feel about the government using closure and time allocation on a regular basis, and trying to give the impression that this is somehow being based on the practices of the Mother of Parliament in the United Kingdom, is absolutely and totally false. There is no connection between the two in terms of how they deal with legislation.
I know that this is the desire of the Prime Minister to enable him to move his political agenda through the House of Commons with as little public comment as possible because when the people of Canada understand what this legislation is all about, they oppose it. In the GST, we now have 85 per cent of the people saying they oppose that legislation.
As my hon. friend from the official opposition who just spoke indicated, if the GST was not dominating people, like the public consciousness, and people understood that right now the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister of Canada want to dismantle Petro-Canada, that it wants to destroy the national oil company that belongs to the people of Canada and turn it over to American oil interests, the people of Canada would be speaking out again.
I say on behalf of the New Democratic Party that we oppose this type of procedural tactic in the House of Commons to limit debate. We oppose what the government is doing in terms of dismantling one more fabric of what Canada is all about. We will never accept the kind of dictatorial totalitarian approach to parliamentary democracy and our parliamentary system now or in the future.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I do not often get the privilege of entering into a debate, and I did not intend to enter into this one. However, I have to admit that watching and listening to my hon. friend from the New Democratic Party inspired me to rise to my feet to enter into this debate for a few minutes.
The question of time allocation is one that has for a long time been a matter of controversy within this House because the opposition parties have consistently said that there is something wrong with time allocation, that we should not be using time allocation, that it is disgusting behaviour on the part of the government, that it has no
Government Orders
right to do it, that it should not be doing it, and on and on and on.
The reality is that time allocation and closure are a part of the rules of the House of Commons. Why are they a part of the rules of the House of Commons? It is because the tradition in this House which has gone on for years and years-certainly more years than I have been around-has made it very clear that from time to time there have to be provisions that allow a government to proceed with its legislation.
That was put in there because there has always been a concern as to whether or not the government can continue to put forward its legislative agenda. The man on the street understands that. He recognizes that a government that was given a majority in the House of Commons was given that majority for one purpose, and that purpose was to allow it to complete its legislative agenda.
Why are we into a debate on time allocation this morning? Is it because the people across Canada are angry about it? No, I do not think that is the case at all. Is it because the opposition and the government have been able to come to an agreement on how this bill ought to be debated and handled in the House of Commons at the second reading stage, the committee stage, the report stage, and the third reading stage? No, in fact it is quite the contrary.
What the opposition failed to see and to mention in its speeches is that the government on a regular basis puts forward a number of pieces of legislation. Each of those pieces of legislation is designed and put forward to be dealt with in a certain time frame that fits with the scheduled sittings of this House.
As a result, we have been successful in previous sessions and periods of time negotiating among parties a calendar with which all parties could deal. The purpose of that was of course to allow more debate on bills that had a higher degree of controversy. The trade-off was to have less debate on those bills that do not have the same degree of controversy.
We are faced with exactly that situation today. As I stand before you in this fall session of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, what we are faced with is that we as a government have a fairly extensive legislative agenda. That agenda has been put before other members of this House and certainly the other parties of this House.

October 23, 1990
Government Orders
We have offered to negotiate with them all of those pieces of legislation to find out if there is between us an agreement as to how we will handle each and every piece of legislation. We recognize that some of the bills we proceed with are more controversial than others. Therefore we are prepared, on bills where there could well be agreement among the three parties to deal with them quickly, to add or attach the time that would normally have been used for debate on them to the more difficult and more controversial bills.
The problem we are facing at the moment is that we have no such agreement. In fact we have a sense that each and every bill, no matter how controversial or how important it is to members of this House, will continue to be debated without some sort of action being taken. That is a very serious matter that we need to look at. I think the reason that we need to look at it is that there is within the country a growing sense that this institution is breaking down. People are losing confidence in this institution.
Why are they doing that? I think there are a number of factors, one of which has to be the behaviour in the other place. That, under the leadership of the Liberal Party in this House, has done more to discredit the Senate and this institution than virtually any other item existing across this country today. For that there certainly should be loud cries of shame.
The other thing is that one of the problems we face in the question of time allocation and closure is that we hear words as those that were used a while ago by the House leader of the NDP when he said it is dictatorial. He has a favourite expression called putting the jackboots to Parliament. Those very words imply something illegal, immoral, and wrong when in reality this is a legitimate exercise allowed for and created by the rules that we live by in this Chamber. How can that be, then, putting the jack-boots to Parliament? How is that somehow an action of a dictator? It is not.
The impression that is left with the Canadian people is that this institution is constantly in a state of aggressive confrontation, when all of us in this House know in fact that is not the case. There are on regular occasions
opportunities for us to agree, to do things by unanimous consent, to do things with minor disagreements, to allow something to proceed so that a minor amendment can be made and we as a House can agree to it. That is normal, acceptable behaviour in this House, just as the use of time allocation is normal, acceptable behaviour in this House when the negotiations break down.
The Canadian people need to understand that that kind of behaviour, that kind of rhetoric, is not in fact the reality within this Chamber. The reality is that we can and should be able to proceed as adults on all pieces of legislation. Canadians need to understand that this is not a forum where we all sit in a big circle and chit-chat with each other. It is a forum where we are separated by an aisle and we engage in aggressive debate. We try to put forward the pros and cons of each piece of legislation, and that is the style of the institution.
It does not mean that therefore the process itself has to be viewed as a war or a combat. The process is simply the means by which we do our business. In reality, the hard hitting debate has to come as we address the issues. That is why the rules state what they state. That is why they have provisions in them for this kind of situation.
Mr. Speaker, I see you have signalled that I am coming close to the end of my time, but I want to say this. The House leader for the New Democratic Party made several charges against the House leader on the government side, some very aggressive words. First, he should go back and read the record. It was not the House leader for the government who at any time marched the Chair in a debate of years ago. That was not the case. This House leader has a job to do, just as the New Democratic House leader has and as the House leader for the Liberal Party has. He has a job to push, to prod, to attempt to get his legislation through. When it is necessary he has to move time allocation and closure.
It is important for Canadian people to understand that that is only resorted to in times of-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am very hesitant to interrupt my hon. friend's comments, but I rise on a point of clarification. I want to make it clear that whatever the House leader for the New Democratic Party does in the House, he does so with the support of his leader. I am suggesting that the House leader for the government
October 23, 1990

must be doing whatever he does in the House with the knowledge and support of his leader as well.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to leave any doubt on the record but that I as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House and his colleagues support him. We support him because we have confidence in the way he manages our business and in the way he delivers to the country a consistent pattern of legislation that reflects the concerns and goals of the government.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the motion of the Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs to allocate time and impose closure on the debate on the bill that would authorize the privatization and sale of Petro-Canada.
The government calls it time allocation. We in the opposition call it closure. That is a bit of an ugly word. It is an historically ugly word. It means a lot of members who want to speak to a bill will not have an opportunity at the particular stage with which we are dealing, the stage in relation to which time allocation is moved. These members come from all across the country. They represent regional and local interests. They all have a perspective on the legislation, and they must have the right to continue to have input into all legislation on behalf of their constituents.
Closure or time allocation removes that. It squeezes it out. It squelches the debate which is essential to the deliberation of legislation in the House. The closure or time allocation instrument is a very blunt instrument, and Canadians are entitled to an explanation from the government whenever it is used. They should demand it, and I am demanding it. I want to know why the government requires time allocation/closure right now.
It has not provided a reason. It feels that parliamentary procedures are a little too cumbersome for it. Why does it want to exclude members of the House from debate on what we regard as a very important piece of legislation? What is the reason? What is the rush?
I am curious because just last week, after the first three speakers had spoken in the House, the minister for privatization rose and moved time allocation. What was the rush? Having tripped up at that instance, it is back in the House this week. It still has not been explained why. The government claims it cannot reach an agreement,
Government Orders
but the evidence in the House last week was that it barely tried to reach an agreement.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt my friend, the critic for privatization, but I would want him to be accurate in his comments. I introduced a motion which gave notice, Mr. Speaker.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That is not a point of order.


John Horton McDermid: I am on a point of order; I can have a point of order. I introduced a motion to give notice that in the future I would be introducing time allocation, but in fact I did not introduce time allocation. I want the hon. member to be fair when he is making those comments.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I hear what the minister is saying, but the fact remains that notice was attempted to be introduced at the time, the same notice that was introduced yesterday. I am sure the Canadian public will understand the fine distinction between notice of the motion and the motion itself. However, I want to suggest that this is another form of tyranny by the majority. We all know it is there, it is a legislated tyranny. The majority in this Parliament has the right to move ahead with its agenda, but it does not have the right to trample on a healthy opposition, and this is a a healthy opposition.
We find, in exercising this tyranny the way the government does, we only have the odd check and balance left, and one of them happens to be the Senate. The government does not like that; it is shocked that there is a check and balance in the existence of the Senate. But that is what the Senate, as a place of sober second thought, is doing.
An hon. member suggested earlier that the government House leader was a puppet of the Prime Minister, that the Prime Minister had a particular agenda, and that this time allocation motion was part of that. I have another suggestion. I have a suggestion that this time allocation initiative is not part of that agenda at all. In fact, I want to suggest that the government does not have any agenda.
The Minister of State for Privatization went to cabinet table and said, "Gee, do you think we could get on with the Petro-Canada bill", and the other ministers around him said, "Wow, we have nothing else going. John, take it away, roll with it, run it through, because we have

October 23, 1990
Government Orders
nothing else to put forward". If the government does have other priorities, where are they? Where is the broadcasting bill, the bill governing transfer payments to the provinces, the bill on MPs conflict of interest, the proposed OSLO oil sands legislation, the proposed legislation concerning criminal records, and environmental assessment? Where is that legislation? What is the rush with the Petro-Canada bill?
I think this minister has carte blanche because the government does not have another agenda. The government wants to turn out the lights at this stage. But the bill will be back, Mr. Speaker, the bill will be back. But the government wants to turn out the lights now and preclude members from making their positions known to this Parliament and to their constituents. I object strongly, my constituents object strongly, and the opposition objects strongly.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I would like for a moment to discuss why it is necessary for this government to use time allocation in the House to get very necessary legislation through.
I would like to answer my hon. friend who suggests that there is no other legislation to bring forward and that is why we are using time allocation. It would seem to me that if this government did not have legislation to put before the House, it clearly would not use time allocation, because all time allocation does is shorten up the time the bill is in the House. All we are doing is pushing forward the agenda so other bills can come into the House.


An hon. member:: Shocking.


Jack Wendele Shields: We hear comments that it is shocking and accusations about our government and the use of the rules of the House to shorten debate in order to bring legislation to a conclusion in this House.
Mr. Speaker, here are some facts of which my hon. friends might not be aware. If they look back to 1980 to 1984, time allocation motions were used in this House 25 times. From 1984 to 1988, time allocation has been used 20 times. If we consider closure motions, from 1980 to 1984, there have been two closure motions used. From 1984 to 1988, two closure motions were used. We do
admit that in 1988 time allocation was used more often. That is because the opposition's tactics forced us, on this side of the House, to use closure. The opposition is no longer content to use legitimate debate and then a negative vote to show its opposition to legislation that the government has brought before the House. It wants to force the government to use closure at every opportunity. Somehow this gives them evidence of being strongly opposed to any legislation or points of view.
This was demonstrated very clearly during the free trade debate. The free trade passed this House, it went to the Senate close to election time. The government had an election on free trade that was passed by the people of Canada who elected this government to implement its program. The government brought in free trade legislation. The opposition then forced the government, after the new government was formed in 1988, to use closure on free trade three times. That should tell everyone in this House of Commons and the people of Canada exactly what the opposition is up to and what its modus operandi is. All it wants to do is create problems.
I support this legislation for a number of reasons. When the formation of Petro-Canada was first debated, I can remember the critic from the NDP standing up and asking why we should be forming a Petro-Canada oil company. He said that what the government should be doing is nationalizing one of the biggies, was the word that was used. Let the government nationalize Imperial Oil. It shows know where they come from. They would like to nationalize all the oil companies right across the country. I hear my hon. friend from Halifax saying the government should nationalize these big oil companies. I wonder if she really believes that that is the policy of the Liberal Party.
Let us look at Petro-Canada and the problems that it faces today. First, it has not discovered any resources. However, the government has a good inventory of the resources that are available in the Northwest Territories in the Canada Lands and so on. Petro-Canada needs to increase its capital base. The government has a chance of increasing that capital base by one of two ways. One, to allow Canadians through the regular system of investment, that is investment in direct share ownership into the company, or the government can turn around with
October 23, 1990

the taxpayers' dollars and turn over more funding to Petro-Canada.
Petro-Canada is going to lose ground at some point with its counterparts in the oil industry. I think that is a known fact. It is time for the Canadian government to get out of the business of pumping gas at the service stations. That is not what its business is about. Its business is about creating the climate for investment so that Canadians and other people can take part in the investment in Canada. The government sees this bill being held up for political reasons only. It is being held up only to create an insecure feeling with the Canadian people.
This is an opportunity for Canadians to own a piece of a large Canadian oil company. The legislation will limit the ownership levels and will not be taken over by foreign control. The government has other ways to control the oil industry in Canada in ways that it wants to do. The discussions that go on in this House are repeated over and over again. All the opposition is attempting to do with this very important piece of legislation is hold it up. We know it, they know it on the opposite side. My friends over there know exactly what they want to do. They want to force this government to use closure or time allocation. That is all they have been doing since coming back in 1988.
Petro-Canada was created in 1970 by the Liberal government. We were told at that time that a state oil company was needed to achieve a number of objectives. It is my believe that the objectives that were outlined when Petro-Canada was formed are no longer necessary today. We can control those objectives. The monitoring can be done through the agencies that have been established since and we have a better understanding of the oil industry today.
My time is up, Mr. Speaker, but I want to say very clearly, and I will put on the record again, that time allocation was used 25 times in 1980 to 1984. Time allocation was used 20 times from 1984 to 1988. Each government in a four-year period has used closure twice.
There has been an increase since taking office in 1988 because that opposition over there, both the Liberal and the NDP, have very clearly signalled its intention to force this government to use closure or time allocation at every opportunity. The other side appears to be using
Government Orders
tactics similar to the tactics we see in the Liberal Senate. It is not going to work here because we have rules here, not like the Senate, where they do not have the rules.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader talks of process and rules. I think it would be fair to say that not only does the process stink, but the rules that this government wishes to impose not only on this House but the people of Canada stink.
Not only is it being irresponsible in moving time allocation as it is at this particular issue, but as it has on most fundamental issues that have come forward in this country. It is a disgusting display, I suggest to you, of arrogance and disrespect and disregard for the traditions, not only of the House but for the rights of the people.
This government really has the gall to attack the Senate for its undemocratic nature, then runs roughshod over this House day in and day out. To tell the truth, it makes the Senate look like a poodle compared to the pit bull tactics it uses each and every day.
I suggest that the people of Canada, the man and woman on the street, understand that this government is abusing the power of the majority, abusing the power of Parliament, and abusing the power of government. The rules are made to be respected. They have to be fair and not abused.
Essentially this government has abused the rules and the process in this House to ram through an agenda that it suggests Canadians voted on, but I suggest Canadians knew absolutely nothing about the privatization of Petro-Canada in 1988, knew absolutely nothing about the GST, and now it has the gall to stand up and say: "Oh, Canadians love what we are doing. Canadians want us to pass our legislative agenda". You know that it is a bunch of hogwash.
What really is hypocritical is that this government promotes the fact that it is telling eastern Europe and even the Soviet Union to open up, to become more democratic. What an example it is to the east European countries, and what an example it is to the Soviet Union because 15 times this session it has imposed closure. That is not democratic. That is being dictatorial, so perhaps the government should learn something from the east Europeans, such as the Soviet Union, who are starting to understand and talk about democracy. This

October 23, 1990
Government Orders
government has absolutely no concept of what democracy is all about.
The hon. member for Athabasca talked a little bit about history, but I also want to take this opportunity to talk about the bill, because we are being muzzled. Therefore, I am going to use the remainder of my time to talk, not only about closure, but what in fact Petro-Cana-da means to the country and, in a sense, what this bill is doing.
First, Mr. Speaker, the government would have us believe that this bill will reduce the government's deficit and, by selling off Petro-Canada, the government will have the mechanism or opportunity to raise capital and do those other things.
Believe it or not, selling Petro-Canada would not assist the government's deficit reduction efforts. Canadians already own Petro-Canada, and Ottawa carries the Crown corporation on its books as an asset of about $4.3 billion. Canadians will not be selling 15 per cent of Petro-Canada. We will be giving it away. Selling an asset means receiving payment in return. How are Canadians going to receive payment in return, or a dime, for Petro-Canada? The government will be giving 15 per cent of it away. The company will keep all the revenues. It is not going to be coming back to Canadians.
Let us look at it hypothetically. If 15 per cent of Petro-Canada is sold at an equivalent value of a $645 million share offering and all the shares are sold, Petro-Canada will receive $645 million. The Canadian people will retain, according to this bill, 85 per cent of the company.
Here is where the fancy bookwork comes in. Canadians now own 100 per cent of Petro-Canada valued at $4.3 billion. If the government privatizes, selling off 15 per cent of the Crown corporation, then Canadians will own 85 per cent of the company valued at $4.3 billion. How can 85 per cent of a company can be worth $4.3 billion when 100 per cent of the same company was worth $4.3 billion before the share offering? The government cannot allow the 15 per cent loss to show up on its books because that would create a loss and increase the deficit. Instead, the government will artificially over-value Petro-Canada's worth to hide the fact that the Tories gave away $645 million of taxpayers' money.
The Minister of State for Privatization told Canadians: "Both the company and the taxpayer can be better served by allowing the company to raise new equity from investors rather than continuing to rely on the Canadian taxpayer." Well, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must recall the rule of relevance. The debate is on time allocation, not on the substance of the bill. I would therefore appreciate it if the hon. member would keep his speech relevant to the motion before the House.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to defend the right of the hon. member for London East to debate this motion and to refer to the bill.
The motion is to allocate time on this bill. It has been the practice of the House for as long as I have been here, and for many years before, that on a time allocation motion, the merits of the bill can also be raised as relevant to that motion. Clearly, if the bill is a defective bill, the limit of time on it is a serious matter. I submit that with all respect and deference that in fact it is normal on a time allocation motion-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member's message has been transmitted. The hon. member for London East.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, you have seen the light. The hon. member for Athabasca went on to talk about history in Canada, so thank you for accepting that.
As I was saying, when the government and other advocates of privatization ramble on about the need for Crown corporations to raise revenues through share offerings, they are deliberately forgetting to tell the Canadian people that privatization gives away billions of tax dollars to a company no longer operating in the best interests of the taxpayer.
I am sure all members have noticed Petro-Canada's new phrase in its advertisement. I am proud to say that it states: "Committed to Canadians." In fact, that is what Petro-Canada is. It is a Crown corporation committed to Canadians in its present form. When it is privatized, what will its slogan be a year from now? Committed to
October 23, 1990

the shareholders? In fact, it will not belong to Canadians any longer. As the government suggests, this is only 15 per cent. As it sells more and more of it, the interest of the shareholders will in fact be of paramount importance to a corporation, not the interests of the Canadian people because we are all shareholders. Each man, woman and child in the country now owns, has invested, and bought Petro-Canada.
Petro-Canada was established 17 years ago as part of an incremental policy to respond to the uncertain oil industry after the oil crisis in the Middle East. Embargoes on shipments of Arab oil suddenly made security of supply a crucial government policy issue. Control of national energy supply in an unstable world was the underlying motive.
The need to become self-sufficient in oil and gas production became an immediate policy priority of the Canadian government with the focus on research and development of new oil and gas projects. When the Crown corporation was created in the mid-seventies, Ottawa's intention was also to give itself a window on the industry.
These policies, I suggest, are more important now more than ever in light of what is happening again in the Persian Gulf and in light of the fact of what is happening with respect to gas prices out there on the street. Petro-Canada was not created because of some desire by the Canadian government to become an entrepreneur. The government was then protecting national interests through a Crown corporation. These national interests, a guaranteed energy supply, exploration and development of frontier oil and gas supplies, and a window on the industry, still have a place in Canadian priorities.
This government chose to change the mandate of Petro-Canada from a frontier development company. To ensure energy self-sufficiency in the country it turned around and said to Petro-Canada: "You must become like every other oil company. You must have downstream operations. You must be a gas station like any other." Now that the government has essentially created an oil company like any other, it now says: "Turn around and dismantle it."
Government Orders
I suggest that if Petro-Canada was given its original mandate, in light of the fact that the government does not even have an energy policy for the country, why not develop an energy policy first and see how Petro-Canada can be the national instrument by which to ensure that Canadians do have security of supply and do in fact have a window on the oil industry so that we can protect Canadian interests? This is not a time to get rid of Petro-Canada or a Crown corporation.
The government must listen to the people and retain a national treasure which in fact is Petro-Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before recognizing the next speaker, I think it is always useful to remember that although there is some latitude, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, the debate must observe the rule of relevance, and the motion before the House today deals with time allocation on Bill C-84. I therefore ask all members of all parties to observe this rule, although, as I said before, some latitude is allowed.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, your comments are well taken. I was listening to the hon. member for the Official Opposition who said that so far, there had been two days of debate on the bill, that there would be two more days, and that it was all because of the motion before the House today.
Mr. Speaker, I did some private research. When we talk about Petro-Canada and privatization, we talk about the reason why the corporation was established, when it was established and how it was established. Mr. Speaker, I can inform you that the bill to establish Petro-Canada, which goes back to March 1975, took four days of the time of the House on second reading. The Liberal government at the time took four days of the time of the House on second reading to pass the enabling legislation for Petro-Canada. Mr. Speaker, today, when we want to take four days of the time of the House to undo what they did, they scream bloody murder. Well, Mr. Speaker, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, a

Government Orders
saying that is very apt, but unfortunately, they don't seem to appreciate that in this Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will allow me to explain, for the benefit of constituents in the ridings of Trois-Ri-vieres, Abitibi, Matapedia-


An hon. member:: Laurentides.


Pierre H. Vincent: -how this place operates. Everybody who watches the House has the impression we are always debating and discussing bills.
Mr. Speaker, a bill arrives in the House on first reading; it is tabled and printed. No member of this House speaks to the bill at this stage. On second reading, Mr. Speaker, then-
Take for example the opposition; there are about 120 opposition members. According to them, every single member of the opposition should have the right, on second reading, to speak for 30 minutes on this bill. This means, Mr. Speaker, that if all 120 opposition members are present and speak on second reading of a bill, it would take 60 hours.


An hon. member:: They are often absent.


Pierre H. Vincent: An average of four hours a day is spent discussing bills, because we also have Question Period and other business. This means, Mr. Speaker, for the information of our listeners, four hours a day, five days a week, which adds up to 20 hours.
To adopt a bill on second reading, without a single government member having spoken, would take three weeks of the time of this House-and this is only second reading, Mr. Speaker. Next, the bill is referred to a committee of members of all three parties. In committee, they can discuss the bill as long as they like, hear witnesses and draft a report. The report is then referred back to the House, where all opposition members may again speak at the report stage, which means another three weeks. This is still just one bill, Mr. Speaker.
Next, we have third reading. Here again, 120 members with 30 minutes each-a total of 60 hours-would be able to speak to the bill for three weeks, and this is just the opposition. This means, Mr. Speaker, always according to the reasoning of hon. members opposite, that it might take nine weeks of the time of this House, without a single government member having spoken, for a bill to leave the Commons. But that isn't all, Mr. Speaker!
After nine weeks of debate, the opposition can then discuss the bill in the Senate, on first, second and third reading.
According to the opposition's reasoning, Mr. Speaker, Parliament would pass about two bills per year. We cannot run a country with two bills a year, when the party in power has received a mandate from the electorate to adopt legislation and govern this country. If Canadians are not happy with the way laws were passed during four years, they have the opportunity, after four years, to say: "Go home!"
I remember that, almost everyday from 1984 to 1988, the Opposition requested elections, saying: "We want elections now!" When elections were called in 1988, they were disillusioned because, on November 21, they were defeated again. The population felt that this government had governed well. In the four year period from 1984 and 1988, the government introduced 20 motions for time allocation and two motions for closure. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, we did not make an abusive use of anything which, by the way, is allowed in our system.
Between 1980 and 1984, the Liberals introduced no fewer than 25 time allocation motions as well as two motions for closure. Again, what we are criticized for today, the Liberals did more often when they were in power.


Mr. Saint-Julien:: In 1975.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That is not true!


Pierre H. Vincent: I would like to point out to my friend the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, as I did earlier, that he seems to have missed the point, Mr. Speaker.
In 1975, the bill establishing Petro-Canada was debated in the House for four days on second reading.


Guy St-Julien: Four days!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: No, no! That is false!
Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon. member opposite to check again. At the second reading stage, the House spent four days dealing with the legislation setting up Petro-Canada. He should go and get his facts straight, and then return to apologize for wrongfully saying that it was not true.

October 23, 1990

The House will again use four days to return to Canadian taxpayers a private enterprise which belongs to them.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Two days only: October 10 and 11!


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I will explain to my hon. friend that the House has already spent two days on this and is planning to spent two more days, for a total altogether of four days. I know full well that my hon. friend is a lawyer, but so am I, Mr. Speaker; I thought that most lawyers knew how to count up to four, but I suddently realize that are some who just cannot. Two and two make four.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you realize how this government would work if we followed the Opposition's approach. It could only pass two pieces of legislation a year. I wish again to explain, because these rules of procedures are difficult to understand for the viewing public: without any government member taking part in the debate, it would take three weeks for a single bill to get through second reading. It would be impossible to govern a country this way. Moreover, I suggest to my hon. friend he should talk with his Liberal colleagues in the other place, the so-called Senate, and ask them to show a little more respect for democracy, something they accuse us of lacking. It might be important for the Liberal Senate to show more respect for democracy-when we used the word "democracy", we mean vote, election, as well as the fact that this Conservative Government, having been duly elected, has the right to pass legislation and govern this country. Mr. Speaker, today they have the gall to tell us that we never mentioned the GST during the election campaign, although it appears on page 2 of the Liberal party platform. They are those who decided that the Free Trade Agreement would be the main issue during the election campaign.
Since 1984, the government has always insisted that it was planning to privatize Petro-Canada. This is nothing new. Hon. members opposite seem to wake up all of a sudden. All Conservative Members at one time or another talked about privatizing Petro-Canada when they sat in the opposition, and since they came to power in 1984. It was not a secret. One could read about it everywhere. And they say now that they have just learned about it. Come on!
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately my time has run out. In conclusion, I want once more to remind my hon. friends in the Opposition that in 1975, on the second reading of the bill establishing Petro-Canada with the assets of Petrofina-as a matter of fact, we were never able to find out just how much this purchase had cost and how much money our Liberal friends pocketed on this.- Mr. Speaker, the House spent four days dealing with this bill on second reading. I suggest, therefore, that this motion for closure is more than appropriate, and I encourage the House to vote on it as soon as possible.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to speak on time allocation, closure. I think history will prove to us that this is the most undemocratic democratic House in the country. The time allocation closure prevents us from the real debate. I do not think Canadians really care whether there have been two motions for closure or 24 motions, or whatever. I think the closure time allocation prevents us from the real debate, and the real debate is Petro-Canada, the privatization of Petro-Canada.
My House leader tells me that this Parliament has passed more legislation than any Parliament in the history of Canada and that we are not obstructive in any way in our opposition to the government. We are only obstructive when it is appropriate, and it is appropriate when a free trade issue comes before the country, or when a GST issue comes before this House and before the country, or when the privatization of Petro-Canada comes before this House and comes before the country. The present debate prevents us from getting into the real meat of the debate. Mr. Speaker, I know I run the risk of breaking your most recent admonition of about 10 minutes ago, but I ask that you allow me the same latitude that you allowed my friend from London and my colleague across the floor from Athabasca, because this may be and probably will be the only opportunity that I have to speak to the actual very important issue, and that is not time allocation and closure because Canadians are not interested in that. They are interested in: what about PetroCan? What about it? As most clippings say, it is the wrong time, it is the wrong reason, it is the wrong price and it is the wrong decision to sell Petro-Canada. I think Mel Hurtig, who is now recognized as a great Canadian said: "This government will sell anything to anybody".

Government Orders
Well, I think he is a great Canadian.
The chairman of PetroCan said in May 1990 that if it is not the right time, it will not go. I think everyone will agree that this is the wrong time, and the chairman said if it is not the right time, it will not go.
PetroCan was begun at the behest of the New Democratic Party. We encouraged the Liberals to formulate it. It was begun because of a mid-East crisis. Here we are again with the same situation. The time could not be worse to privatize the country, a privatization without purpose.
It is difficult to get support from the country. I talked to my constituents in Sault Ste. Marie. They say: "Sell it, so what?" But they do not understand. They say that PetroCan is not operating for their benefit any longer. It operates just like any other oil company, and most unfortunately so because it had, and still would have, the opportunity to be a leader in its field. Given the fact that Canadians have invested $10 billion in PetroCan, people ask me: "Where is my dividend? When am I going to get my money back? Are you going to sell it back to me? I already bought it".
If PetroCan had been allowed to serve the public purpose, people would be up in arms right now over the privatization of that company. It could have been a leader in environmental issues. There is a problem in my community with waste oil. People call me and ask what they should do with their waste oil. I think people are forced to go into the forest and dump it. Would it not be a good idea if PetroCan said: "We will accept your waste oil. We will accept it. We're a leader. We're Canadian. We're here to work for you"?
How about border cities? It is a well known fact now that in my community along with probably 75 others, Canadians are leaving Canada to fill up in the United States. If Petro-Canada were serving a useful public purpose, maybe PetroCan would give us a break at the pumps, and say: "Canadians, we want to work for you. We want to lower the price of gasoline to give you a break". That would be a useful public purpose. You say you cannot do it? Well, PetroCan made a profit last year and I understand just this week that the American major oil companies made a $90 million profit, each one of them. The top three, each made a $90 million profit. I am sure that the Canadian industry is doing just as well.
So, once again it is the wrong time, the wrong price and the wrong decision.
We have a seamless tube mill in my community. It is state of the art. It cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The government assisted us. It was great. PetroCan is to buy from Algoma 50 per cent of its seamless tube. Now there is some dispute as to whether they do or do not. The chairman of PetroCan tells me they do. Algoma Steel tells me they do. My question is: In the future, will PetroCan be obligated to buy Canadian seamless? Highly unlikely, Mr. Speaker. One would hope so, but when foreign ownership of 25 per cent takes place, and probably wealthy Canadians buy the remainder of the shares, will it operate for the benefit of the public or will it operate for the benefit of the shareholders? I think the latter will be the appropriate answer on that one.
I can never forget the share of the flame and how proud we were at the Calgary Olympics. Everybody got excited about it. I think this government is going to douse that flame. It is going to douse everything that is Canadian. It is going to douse Canada with free trade. It is going to douse PetroCan. It is going to sell of Air Canada, as I said earlier. It will sell anything to anybody, just ask for it. It is all sacrificed, if you will, at the altar of profitability. Most unfortunate.
Petro-Canada has a world renowned reputation. It proudly flies the Canadian flag in all of the Third World countries. It says that we get a great reception because we have a different ethic from the Americans, that we are well respected. Will the Canadian flag continue to fly with the same symbolic national pride and remain a truly Canadian company? Somehow I doubt it.
It gives me some pride to read from page 7454 of Hansard for July 10, 1975, when Mr. Cyril Symes, who represented Sault Ste. Marie and the New Democratic Party about three or four terms ago, was the energy critic for the New Democratic Party. I want to read this into the record for the benefit of everybody back in the Soo and also Mr. Symes. I do not think things have changed in the 15 years.
The three components of a national energy policy, which we have lacked to date because of the misguided policies of previous Liberal and Conservative governments, are ensuring adequate and reliable supplies, reasonable prices, and that Canadians through their government have a direct share of the wealth of our resources. This
October 23, 1990

government has failed miserably to ensure these fundamental principles of a national energy policy.
I am approaching the end of my speech, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate that you allowed me a little bit of latitude because, again, I think that is the issue at hand. It is not the point of time allocation or closure. This government forces us to discuss that either directly or indirectly, but once again the semantic wrangling of what record it has set, or what records it has not set on time allocation and closure is totally irrelevant to the Canadian public.
We ask that we vote down this closure time allocation and we spend as much time as necessary, because I believe every member of the New Democratic Party would like to speak against the privatization of PetroCan.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to share some of my views on the sale of PetroCan and the proposed privatization of PetroCan.
Before I do, I want to report a few comments by the Hon. Marc Lalonde in an interview where he was asked by Rosemary Brown:
Wasn't PetroCan supposed to protect us? The consumers against the vagaries of the market and the kind inconsistent behaviour and buffeting around that happens out there?
Mr. Lalonde's reply was:
No. That was never the purpose of Petro-Canada.
Then Peter Gzowski posed the question:
So the privatization of Petro-Canada is irrelevant to what's happening to oil prices now?
The Hon. Mr. Lalonde said "Absolutely". Then further, Mr. Lalonde responded by saying:
- if the Government of Canada can get a good price for us as the taxpayers by privatization, by privatizing Petro-Canada if we can keep it as a Canadian under Canadian ownership, I don't see that it is essential to the national interest that Petro-Canada should be forever government owned.
It is interesting that we have those replies and those statements on record with regard to privatization. They are the views of a former Liberal minister of energy, someone who sat in this House for a good many years. I think it is important to have that on record.
Government Orders
I want to share a few of my views regarding Canada's energy policy. The objectives which largely remain as articulated in 1984 are these: to promote the efficient development and use of Canada's energy resources; to assure security of energy supply; and to increase the flexibility, the diversity, and the competitiveness of the Canadian energy economy. These goals are largely being achieved through the implementation of appropriate framework policies.
The government's deregulation of energy markets has freed Canadian industry and consumers to protect and further their own best interests in the marketplace and has eliminated the artificial constraints that previously bound trade. The establishment of a stable investment framework has provided the certainty investors need to make decisions about where and how to develop new supplies. The non-discriminatory, non-interventionist, land management regime, which we in co-operation with the coastal provinces have implemented in Canada's offshore areas, has provided the terms necessary to attract companies to economic development prospects on the frontiers. The use of profits based taxation and of targeted incentives have stimulated increased investment in the Canadian oil and gas industry.
These framework policies have been supplemented by specific policies or programs that deal with particular issues. The creation of opportunities for Canadian ownership of the domestic petroleum industry is best achieved by making the industry an attractive place to invest, and that is what we want to do. We have done this.
We have also continued through Investment Canada to review proposed acquisitions of oil and gas companies in Canada and to disallow acquisition of healthy Canadian owned firms. The level of Canadian ownership and control has declined in recent years due to the sale of companies in financial difficulty and some rationalization which took place in the industry. The level of Canadiani-zation increased during 1989, and there remain good opportunities for expanded Canadian ownership as the industry's economic prospects improve over the next decade.
Security of energy supply means that Canadians can be confident in their access to competitively priced energy

October 23, 1990
Government Orders
without l'ear of sudden interruption. This government has adopted a market oriented energy policy in the belief that a flexible, dynamic and diverse domestic energy sector provides the best option to guarantee the longterm energy security of Canadians.
To deal with possible short-term interruptions of oil supply, the government has relied on a co-operative approach with the International Energy Agency member countries. Canada participates in an emergency oil sharing scheme which would be triggered should a significant loss of oil supplies occur. Continued pubic ownership of Petro-Canada does nothing to enhance stability of oil prices, nor does it increase the quantities of oil flowing to Canadian consumers.
The sources of information available to the government on the operations and the opportunities in the industry are today quite extensive. The Petroleum Monitoring Agency gathers and publishes valuable information annually and semi-annually regarding the financial performance of the oil and gas industry, as well as trends in ownership and control. The National Energy Board and the department are probably well informed on industry developments and are able to provide advice on developments in geology, technology, and market conditions. The window on the industry role no longer is a critical element of Petro-Canada's mandate.
Many of the energy policy initiatives which were once to be carried out in large part by Petro-Canada can now be served without the need for intervention by a Crown owned company. In these circumstances it is clear that continued Crown ownership of Petro-Canada is not required.
In addition to the many fiscal and other reasons for privatizing Petro-Canada which the minister for privatization has touched on, it is the government's view that the sale of the company would help achieve the government's energy objectives. Privatization will remove some financial constraints to the aggressive oil and gas investment activities of Petro-Canada and will increase Canadian energy security by increasing the strength of the Canadian oil and gas industry. It will also leave the company free to respond efficiently and effectively to supply demand conditions both internationally and in domestic markets.
In conclusion, some members opposite in this House believe that Petro-Canada should be used as an instrument to help keep gasoline prices down. I would like to reply to them that it was never intended that Petro-Canada be forced to play this role and that it has never done so.
Furthermore, should Petro-Canada try to depress gasoline prices it would damage the corporation's viability and drive small independent gasoline retailers out of the business, as they do not have the ability to withstand long periods of low or negative earnings. The outcome would be only a decrease in competition in gasoline, refining, and marketing, and ultimately increased costs to the consumers and reduced profitability for the industry.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted in one sense to have an opportunity to take part in this debate on time allocation but really saddened that the opportunity has been forced upon us one more time.
The hon. member for Athabasca threw some figures around in his speech earlier today, and I cannot let those figures go unchallenged. We know that since 1989 and the Speech from the Throne that commenced this particular session closure has been used 13 times by this government. One might hope that the 13th time might prove singularly unlucky for this government, but of course I shant get into superstitions of that nature.
Previous to that, in this government's Parliament that sat from 1984 to 1988, closure was used twice. In the governments previous to that, the Trudeau government of 1980 to 1984, closure was used twice. Where are the rights of Canadians being taken care of with a government that refuses to allow debate?
The whole point of closure historically in the parliamentary sense was to prevent an opposition that was being unduly recalcitrant and refusing to allow the will of the government to be passed, the duly elected government. To have a bill introduced and closure motion brought in instantly, hardly fits the spirit of time allocation. How can anyone say that the opposition, either the Official Opposition or the New Democratic Party, is being unruly or unduly blocking government legislation when we barely have the time to discuss matters of great importance to our nation? Thirteen times and this Parliament is barely two years old.
My hon. friend from Kingston and the Islands has brought this to the attention of the House. My hon.
October 23, 1990

friend from Scarborough-Rouge River has done the same thing. We have a duty as the opposition to ensure that bills brought forward by the government are debated fully and discussed clearly, so that Canadians across this country understand what the government policy is, how these bills are going to affect them, and what a reasonable person-and there may be a few still on the other side of the House-might expect from the implementation of government policy.
We have here a situation of time allocation being placed on the bill that will end the existence of the oil company owned by the people of Canada.
I realize that there are basic philosophic differences between the party that forms the government and my party. I guess one of those basic philosophic differences has to do with the creation and the continued existence of Petro-Canada.
Back in 1973-1975 when Petro-Canada was first being formed in this country there were a variety of reasons for its formation. Those reasons hold good today. Every member who sits on this side of the House recognizes that. I suspect, in spite of the differences in policy, that many of the members on the other side of the House-perhaps most particularly those members who come from eastern Canada and there are still a few of them left-will remember why Petro-Canada was formed and why it was created.
The hon. member for Erie who spoke just before me said that it was not formed to lower gas prices. I believe it was the hon. member for Athabasca who said that it was not formed to pump gas for Canadians. These are specific and small minded responses to the creation of a national oil company. A Crown corporation was formed so that the Canadian people could have a piece of the action in whatever the future held in energy policy in this country.
If pumping gas was a part of it, so be it. By using it as a hedge against oil prices because of the problems in the gulf or because of other problems that have happened from time to time and will continue to happen given the unstable political situation in the Middle East, that is what Petro-Canada is for. It is to carry out the public policies on energy, to the benefit of the Canadian
Government Orders
people. It is to carry out the will of the Canadian people with regard to energy policy.
It is not-and I fear this is one of the reasons that we see a time allocation motion before us today-a corporation that falls in line with American policy on energy and it is not a corporation that falls in line with the new style energy policy put forward by this government which again is one that says: "whatever the Americans want, we are prepared to give it to them; whatever the Americans need, we are prepared to see they have it." Eastern Canadians suffer, particularly Atlantic Canadians, Nova Scotians and Prince Edward Islanders in my region, from world oil prices and from the enforced purchase of oil from foreign sources.
Thirteen times this government has inflicted closure and six times it has inflicted time allocation, stifling debate for a total of nineteen times. It is not good enough.
The minister sits there and smiles. I suggest that the minister and those members will smile on the other side of their faces when the Canadian people have the opportunity to say what they feel about the stifling of the debate, when the Canadian people have the opportunity to tell this government what they feel about democracy and about the tearing down of their institutions.
The expression was used that the infrastructure of Canada is being systematically destroyed by this government. Every single one of the members of the government is a part of the systematic destruction of this country. The people of Canada and members on this side of the House will not stand by and let this destruction take place without response. This is our response. These measures are Draconian. There is only one word to say, and that word is shame.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
October 23, 1990

Brian L. Gardiner: 
FOOD AND DRUGS
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, it appears that this government will miss the January 1, 1991 deadline for the issuance of regulations mandating new warning labels on cigarette packages.
It is now known that smoking is addictive. It is a major cause of stroke and fatal lung disease and harms nonsmokers as well. The new regulation would require that warnings be explicit on the package and that toxic ingredients would have to be listed without abbreviations and that information leaflets on the adverse effects of smoking be inserted inside packages.
Cigarette smoking is the number one future killer of today's teenagers. Thousands of Canadians smoke their first cigarette by the time they reach adolescence.
Therefore, I urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to step in and speed up the wheels of bureaucracy in the interest of all Canadians. A good cause delayed is a good cause denied.


CANADA POST
Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, small businesses in my riding are outraged at the latest initiative by Canada Post to increase its profitability.
Canada Post has begun an aggressive campaign to increase the corporation's share in the distribution of flyers for large national firms, a job that is currently being done by a number of smaller independently-owned operations.
Sales representatives are roaming through the marketplace and systematically undercutting the smaller operations on many of these contracts by offering prices close to 100 per cent lower than the next lowest private sector bid. Canada Post is driving the private sector into financial ruin with these predatory pricing policies.
As this is Small Business Week in Canada, I call upon the minister responsible for Canada Post to begin an immediate review of this policy to ensure this Crown corporation is not improving its own fiscal position at the expense of the small business community in this country.


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mrs. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government plays a major role in helping small businesses secure loans. The Federal Business Development Bank remains one of the government's main channels to provide financing for companies.
Since its foundation in 1944 the FBDB has made loans valued at $12 billion to more than 160,000 small- and medium-sized businesses. Some 90,000 customers benefited from its services in 1990.
That same year the FBDB gave strong support to small- and medium-sized businesses by underwriting 5,602 loans and loan guarantees worth $963.9 million.
Note that the lending activities of the FBDB have increased in the weaker economic regions.
October 23, 1990

This government intermediary provides the kind of support which Canadian businesses have come to appreciate, all the more so since it encourages women's entrepreneurship.


EASTERN EUROPE
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: 
THE LATE GORDON WRIGHT
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton - Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Gordon Wright, former MLA for the Alberta provincial constituency of Edmonton Strathcona.
Edmontonians are deeply saddened at his passing.
He was a noble, principled, sincere gentleman who was concerned with the human condition. Gordon was a champion of the ordinary Canadian and a fighter for the less privileged.
I worked with him on many cases and knew him to be a warm, concerned individual who would spare no effort to see a problem resolved.
On behalf of my Alberta caucus colleagues, I offer his family our deepest sympathies and condolences.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has passed a motion recently to censure the Minister for International Trade for saying that the Deputy Prime Minister should be ashamed of himself for providing $8.8 billion of support to Canadian farmers.
Canadian farmers are outraged by the comments of the minister of trade because they are simply not true. He quotes financial support programs that the government provided in 1987 and 1988, most of which the government has since cancelled.
In fact, direct farm support programs this year will be less than $2 billion. This shows how the minister of trade is trying to mislead Canadians.
How can Canadian farmers have confidence in the minister of trade to protect their interests at the GATT negotiation when he demonstrates such a woeful ignorance of the very documents that he himself has tabled there? It is time the Deputy Prime Minister or someone with integrity in the government sets the record straight on the amount of Canadian farm support programs because we have not heard the truth from the Minister for International Trade.


MULTICULTURALISM
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, racism takes many forms in Canada and must be challenged.
We call on the Liberal appointed board of the Ottawa Congress Centre to reconsider its decision and cancel the November 5 appearance of holocaust doubter, David Irving. His kind of racism should not be imported to Canada.
Former Governor General Jean Sauve showed outdated colonial thinking that assumes the superiority of our anglo-franco heritage when she stated recently: "If the growing mixture of immigrants does not assimilate into either the French or English culture, Canada will become multiracial and the French-English basis of our nation will become indistinct".
Canada already is a rich mix of races who must be treated equally. The MP from Winnipeg South recently said that multiculturalism promotes racism and has divided Canadian society by emphasizing differences among cultures.

October 23, 1990
The reverse is true. Multiculturalism respects diversity, protects equal rights, and promotes pride in being Canadian. It must be the goal of Canadian citizenship in the 1990s.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Right from the beginning in 1984, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government got down to work to reduce federal outlays. Among other things, there are 57,000 fewer civil servants on the federal payroll, or about the same number as the Public Service had in 1973-74, and operating expenses have risen at a lower rate than inflation.
Therefore I urge the government to keep a tight rein on things. My fellow Canadians in Richmond-Wolfe happen to believe that further cut-backs can be made, particularly in the various departments in Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, I would strongly suggest that each department hire private consultants to study deparmen-tal organization and operations, redefine jobs, evaluate salaries, and reduce operating an travelling expenditures.
Mr. Speaker, I believe there is still enough fat left to slash even more resolutely and use these savings to lower the deficit and the national debt.


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, in Quebec only, 300,000 women are abused verbally, sexually or physically. In 1989, some 9,376 cases of family violence were reported to the police, a 15 percent increase over 1988. This figure does not include the thousands of women who never filed complaints against their spouses. Ninety seven percent of abused women were kicked or punched, beaten or shot with a gun.
It is very difficult for health care professionals, Mr. Speaker, to detect family violence. That is why I really want to point out the work accomplished by Mrs. Michelle Doyon and her team at the Regroupement des CLSC du Montreal metropolitain, who put together a family violence detection guide.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that initiative will be recognized as a further step towards ending violence against women.


TRANSPORT CANADA
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, Sandy Pedersen was accepted into an eight-month training program in Cornwall, Ontario beginning February, 1989 to learn how to advise pilots of weather conditions. She quit her job in Fort Erie, sold her home and relocated.
On October 25, just two days before her graduation, she was told by the minister's officials that she was medically unfit for this job.
Sandy Peterson stated that she was epileptic on her original application in 1988. One year later, her medical report of August 1, 1989 stated she was healthy and her epilepsy was controlled. The department, in a memo dated September 1 of that same year, posted her to an airport in Sudbury. Yet on October 25 the department, after having the knowledge of her controlled condition for over two years, decided that she was unfit for the job. Surely, the department has made an error.
I call upon the Minister of Transport to personally reopen the case of Sandy Pedersen and either reinstate her or compensate her for the two years of wasted time his department has caused.


ACID RAIN
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a memorable day for Canada and the Canadian people. The House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States both agreed on measures to substantially reduce acid-rain-causing emisious in the United States. These measures, combined with those our Government has taken since 1985, will protect the Canadian environment from damages caused by acid rain.
Mr. Speaker, need I remind the House of the vital role played by the Prime Minister of Canada in bringing this issue to the fore. His perseverance and tenacity over the
October 23, 1990

past six years are bearing fruits. We should also emphasize the determination shown by President Bush on this issue.
This major legislation, which should be passed by the US Congress before the end of the week should clear the way for the bilateral acid-rain accord now being negotiated which should ensure once and for all the elimination of acid rain.


NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr.   Svenc@: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs refused to commit himself to play among Canada's allies a leadership role in an effort to convince them to never use nuclear weapons should war break out in the Persian Gulf. Thousands of Canadians men and women are quite concerned about the possibility of a war in the Middle-East which could result in a great many lives being lost.

Given the explosive and dangerous environment of the Persian Gulf in which the Canadian Peace Alliance estimates that there are 21 nuclear-capable ships carrying 368 nuclear weapons, it is imperative that all multinational forces operating in the Middle East immediately come under UN command. The peace seeking mandate of the United Nations will certainly help to prevent a nuclear or chemical conflict. Canada must lead the way in demanding that all countries involved pledge not to use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, last Sunday heralded good news for both Canada and the environment with the announcement that both houses of the U.S. Congress had reached a consensus on the acid rain provisions contained in the new U.S. clean air legislation.
The legislated measures will cut the annual U.S. emissions of sulphur dioxide by 10 million tonnes or
almost 50 per cent by the year 2001 and reduce the emissions of nitrogen oxides, the second major ingredient of acid rain, by between 2.5 million and four million tonnes by the same target date.
President George Bush has promised to sign the legislation into law, after its quick passage expected this week in both houses of the U.S. Congress.
As one who has fought long and hard for over 10 years on the acid rain issue, last Sunday's news was the realization of a dream come true and a personal vindication of the time and energy spent.
Mr. Speaker, I know also that you were a member who visited Washington some years ago to start putting the pressure on the United States government.


SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche -Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, this is Small Business Week in Canada.

It would be appropriate to pause each year to emphasize the accomplishment of small and medium-sized businesses which are unquestionably the motor of our national economy. This of course is obvious when one realizes that over 98 per cent of the 900,000 Canadian corporations belong to these two categories.
Small businesses, which provides employment for over 40 per cent of the Canadian labour force, contribute very significantly to the welfare of our nation. There is no doubt that they will be called upon to play a very important role on the threshold of the 21st Century.

With the Canadian economy in recession, the federal government must readjust its high dollar and high interest rate economic policy that has been hurting Canadian businesses.
In conclusion, I wish to salute the entrepreneurial spirit of the small businesses in my riding of Restigouche-Chaleur, as well as to all those across Canada. Small businesses are the engines of the economy.

October 23, 1990
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday evening the minister became the last person in the country to be willing to use the r word, recession.
Now that the minister has admitted that we are in a recession, will he tell Canadians just how long he expects it to last? Will he now begin reversing the high interest rate, high dollar policies that experts say have largely contributed to this recession and bring in a new economic plan to make this recession shorter than it would otherwise be, instead of prolonging the agony caused by the government and its policies for the country?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, let me just note some of the other observers of the economic scene. We heard the Royal Bank yesterday when it stated that it was going to be a shallow recession. It said that it was something that was based on factors that are happening in other countries.
The hon. member knows that we have been sensitive to the weakening in the economy. We have taken steps going back three or four months to start the reduction of interest rates. I think that demonstrates the commitment of the government.
Before I resume my seat, let me remark that it is a rarity that the ridiculous rhetoric from the rubes across the room ever resulted in anything rational, relevant, or right.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The
Minister of Finance really is wrong once again. Also, what he just said is ridiculous.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Conference Board says that the minister's policies have created the first
made-in-Canada recession. Yesterday, in Vancouver, even the Prime Minister admitted that he was deeply troubled by aspects of this minister's goods and services tax. He stubbornly and perversely insisted that he would do nothing about them until the tax became law, even though experts are saying that the GST will make this current recession even worse.
Why is the Minister of Finance persisting with the GST when even his Prime Minister says it has serious flaws and when experts say it will make the recession even worse? Why does he not withdraw the tax and go back to the drawing-board before the GST makes the recession even more severe than it would otherwise be?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I might draw my friend's attention to a headline today which states: "Recession not Ottawa's fault". The article goes on:
"It is very difficult to describe (it)-
-the recession-
-as a uniquely Canadian situation -It's a North American situation.
That is Ed Neufeld of the Royal Bank of Canada.
If there is a slow-down in the United States, there is a slow-down here. There has been a major slow-down in the United States.
My friend can quote the Conference Board. There are other people who have different opinions. The point that we have to recognize is the point that I have been talking about in the House and elsewhere for some nine months now. This is going to be a difficult year in the economy as we come through a year of transition, from when we had severe inflationary pressures, to one where we are getting inflation under control, to one where we can see a good recovery from the situation that we are in now.
My colleague says: "Let's scrap the GST." Mr. Speaker, if he would listen to some of the very people that he persists in quoting, including the Conference Board of Canada, they are supportive of the goods and services tax because it will be helpful for the economy and it will be helpful for the manufacturing sector. It will provide a 4 per cent boost to new investment in plant equipment and new technology. It will help low-income people because
October 23, 1990

the low-income credit will result in Canadians, with incomes of less than $30,000, paying less tax.
Why, in face of all these benefits, should we pursue the route that is pursued by the Leader of the Opposition which is precisely, politically motivated in a very cynical way?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister's self-righteous and rigid point of view will not help Canadians who are being, daily, damaged by his policies.
He talks about concern for low-income Canadians and yet, today, the Toronto-Dominion Bank in a report states:
The inflationary pressures from the GST will become much more
pronounced in the early months of 1991, when the tax will be levied
on nearly all goods and services at the retail level.
It goes on to state:
Another contraction in the economy is forecast in the first quarter
of 1991 as the full effects of the implementation of the GST are felt.

So I ask the Minister of Finance why would he insist on imposing his GST when experts say that it creates serious problems? One of the experts is the Prime Minister himself who admits that the GST creates serious problems, while others like the Toronto-Dominion Bank state that the minister's policies have led us into this recession.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we all listen to this continuing rhetoric that the Leader of the Opposition and other members have about the goods and services tax. We got a little bit more of it from Jean Chretien last night when he said, critically, of the leader of my party, the Prime Minister: "It is always my way or the doorway."
Well, what is Mr. Chretien's way? First, Mr. Chretien's way is to say: "It is irresponsible to scrap the tax unless we have an alternative." But then he says: "I want this tax dead." But then: "We will review it. I'm forming a committee to consider alternatives." Mr. Chretien's way is to say: "My way or no way-maybe, possibly".
Oral Questions
We might get some answers from Mr. Chretien, but we certainly do not know which way is his way.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and has to do with the Prime Minister's promise to change the GST even before it is adopted by Parliament.
Before forcing Canadians to swallow the GST, why does the minister refuse to admit that this tax is basically wrong and that it unfairly applies to other things besides books, for instance newspapers, funeral services, home heating, children's clothing and housing?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it was well known to the Liberal Party of Canada, when it supported an approach to a broad-based sales tax in a committee of the House and a committee of the Senate, that a broad base included all those products.
Why did the Liberal Party of Canada support those resolutions and why has it changed its mind now? The only reason that anybody can give for that is pure, cynical politics or as Donato has written in a cartoon in the Sun today: "Sure we have to kill the GST, Allan," says Jean Chretien, "but don't kill it too much. After we win the next election, we're going to need that extra money."
That is the reason why the Liberal Party is flip-flopping all over the map on this one. It does not have any alternatives because the Liberals do not want to have an alternative.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister seems to be willing to change his tax, but the Minister of Finance is not. We have to wonder whether it is the government's tax, or whether it is just the minister's tax.
The Prime Minister yesterday finally admitted what Canadians have known all along, which is that the GST is going to have been changed because it is flawed. The height of stupidity is that the government now seems ready to attempt to fix the GST after it has implemented it. It will be the first tax ever to be changed before it has even been passed.

October 23, 1990
Oral Questions
Why does the minister not do the sensible thing, forget about the GST, and come forward with some policies to fix the recession in Canada that he, by his own policies, has caused?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says we have not changed any elements of the GST. The hon. member is a member of a committee that came out with a report a year ago. We read that report very carefully, responded to a number of the suggestions, proposals, and recommendations that were in that report and made some changes which I announced in the House on December 19 last year.
The hon. member says we should scrap it. If the hon. member has any alternatives, any basis on which we could improve the tax, then we have listened to those. We have incorporated those and they have been the subject to a vote in the House. It is passed and it is now sitting in the other place waiting to be passed over there.
The basic reason why we think that it must be passed is because it is going to be better for this economy.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: It will be wrong.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member for London East says it will be wrong. If he would let me know how he thinks it will be wrong, maybe we could have listened. But he was nowhere to be seen a few months ago.
What we have said, Mr. Speaker, is that the tax is good for the manufacturing sector. It is good for our resource sector. It is good for exporters. It is good for producers who are having to compete with importers. It will improve the health of this economy.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, last night the finance minister finally got his courage up and he said the r word.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Steven W. Langdon: He also complacently went on to say, and I quote from the transcripts of the committee:
- it is not only natural but it is necessaiy to have some levelling off here-
Can the minister tell Canadian families across the country how it can be natural and necessary to lose
80,000	jobs next year, as the Royal Bank has forecast? How can it make sense to drive us into a recession?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member to make that statement, but to make it in the context of what has happened since 1984, when 1,600,000 jobs have been created.
I also ask him to consider what would happen if we had let the party go on and let inflation get out of control, as is happening right now in the United Kingdom. The result would have been far higher interest rates and a much more difficult economy.
I take no satisfaction out of seeing people lose jobs. I made that point last night, but my hon. friend neglects to quote that. I would like to see an economy that is booming, but unfortunately an economy cannot continue to boom. That is why I say it is natural to have a slow-down. It is the same way for someone running a marathon, they cannot run it at the same pace as they run a four-minute mile.
We have to slow down, get our pace, catch our breath and understand how we can get back on to a faster pace of growth later. That is the basis on which I said last night, as I have said on many occasions, that it is a natural evolution of an economy to have that type of slowdown.
The key is to make sure that the slowdown-


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, this would be the first marathon runner that I have ever seen who turned around and started to go backward.
Does the minister not realize that his recession means lost farms, lost businesses, lost jobs and lost hopes for Canadians right across this country? Will this minister not take action to do something about this recession? Will he not cancel the punitive GST tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the same question that was asked on two occasions by the Liberals just today in the House.
I would suggest that possibly the hon. member might write his questions three or four at a time so he could have a little variety.
October 23, 1990


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, we keep hoping that the minister may actually listen, change his mind and help this country to recover.

Mr. Speaker, last night the Minister of Finance finally admitted that we Canadians are in a recession. What is he going to do to stop this recession?

If he is not prepared to take action to counter it, is he prepared to do the right thing, and stand up and quit as finance minister of this country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to that question is no, I am not.
The hon. member neglects to say that during the six years that this country has been governed by the Progressive Conservative Party, we have had extremely good levels of growth. We have seen 1.6 million jobs created. We have seen Canada number two in the major industrialized countries, just behind Japan in economic growth.
For him to focus on a very narrow period neglects the position that we have attained over the course of the last six years. This is a very difficult period that we are going through. I have always acknowledged that. I predicted that in the budget that I had in February of this year. I do not take any pleasure in seeing those predictions come through, but I think it is important for me, as Minister of Finance, to be forthright and direct with Canadians, and tell them-


Mr. Tobin:: But you weren't in the last election. You misled them then, too.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are getting some very direct talk over here.
Maybe the hon. member could stand up and ask a question. I would answer that one, too.
The point is that we have been frank. We have said to Canadians what we think is going to happen to the economy. The position that we are saying right now is that we are going through this difficult period, but in the spring of next year we expect to see some recovery back
Oral Questions
to the more normal rates of growth in the 3 or 3.5 per cent range.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. For the first time yesterday the Prime Minister admitted that he does not like the GST on books, the Bible, the Koran and other learning materials, and that he was considering re-examining it after it is in place. He admitted that the GST is full of errors. Is the government prepared to remove the GST on books and other learning materials? Does he agree with his Prime Minister?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister is saying is that the government is quite prepared to look at various aspects of the implementation of this tax to see what the impact of the implementation will be. Then we can look to see if any changes are appropriate. That is the same as what happens with any income tax changes. We make changes to the income tax system and watch how they affect the people who are affected by those changes. The same holds true for the goods and services tax as well.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same minister.
The Ontario Federation of Students just concluded a study which shows definitively that as students, they will have to pay between $340 and $725 more per year for items such as books, reading and other learning materials, transport, electricity, lodging and cafeteria services as well.
What is the minister prepared to do to help these students, who are among the poorest of all Canadians, to counteract these extra costs to them?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, those students are living pretty well if they are going to be paying $725 more. Seven per cent of $10,000 is $725. Today, on average, Canadians are paying $690 of sales tax already. If you apply that again, those figures would suggest that those students are living on $20,000 a year. I do not know many students who are living on $20,000 a year.

October 23, 1990
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In recent days we have seen the release of British, American, French and Russian hostages from Iraq. By their own admission, Canadian officials have indicated that they have been unable to secure the release of Canadians still held in Iraq, including those with illnesses and our diplomats from Kuwait.
I would like to ask the minister if he has any special measures that he proposes to undertake to release Canadian hostages, for example, sending a special emissary to the Iraqi government or special committees of Parliament or whatever means to try to provide for the release of Canadian hostages, many of whom are being held under duress.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will remember that Canada was the first country that was able to arrange the release of large numbers of persons in Iraq and in Kuwait by chartering an aircraft.
We took out not only Canadian nationals but also others. That started a practice that was of sufficient concern to the Iraqi government that it stopped permission for that practice later on.
I would be prepared, naturally, to seriously consider any proposal the hon. member or other members of the House might make with regard to ways in which we could help more Canadians who are in Iraq or Kuwait against their will to come home, providing that that was consistent with the very strong position that Canada and other countries have taken in support of the common actions of the Security Council of the United Nations.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence.
It has been reported that the government is now planning to change the complement of ships or crews that are presently in the gulf in the immediate or near term.
Can the government confirm its plans? In particular, can we get assurances from the minister in the spirit with which we have been approaching this to have Parliament consulted before any final decisions are made as to these plans relating to our forces in the gulf area?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there are several alternatives that have been examined by military leadership as to replacing the ships' complements or replacing the ships.
We had hoped the hon. member would understand that this is neither adding to nor detracting from the commitment that Canada has made to enforcing UN sanctions and deterring aggression. Now that he has raised the question, it is important that I be allowed to answer it because of the concern that dependants of Canadian men and women who are serving would have because he has raised the question.
I can inform the hon. member that the government will be rotating ships' complements on the three vessels that are there. He will know that we cannot replace the Protecteur. He will also be aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Athabaskan, which is one of the DDH class, would have to go into the TRUMP program so we will put in its place the Huron. It would not be cost-effective to equip one ship, strip it, equip another ship and have it stripped.
The Terra Nova is a long-serving vessel and will continue to serve. It will remain where it is. We believe the most cost-effective thing that we can do is rotate the complements. To the dependants of those men and women, I would say that the duration of the stay of the Canadian forces personnel will not be longer than necessary. They can anticipate, although there will be varied times, that the ships' complements will be returning home, after a stay of from five to seven months.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of energy and is related to gasoline pricing.
In February 1990, oil was selling at $25.97 a barrel here in Canada and gasoline was selling that same month at 53.8 cents per litre.
October 23, 1990

In June 1990, a barrel of oil was $18.85, a drop of $7, and in June 1990, the price of gas went up to 57.8 cents.
In October of this year the price for a barrel of oil was approximately $40 U.S. a little over a week ago, and the price of gasoline was 63 cents a litre. Now the price for a barrel of oil is down to $28 and gasoline is still 63 cents a litre.
As a former minister of health, can the minister tell us why the oil companies act like they have Ex-lax when the price has to go up but Kaopectate when the price has to come down? Can you tell us that, Mr. Minister?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as minister of health, neither my age nor expertise gave me the ability to describe those situations the hon. member is experiencing.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I want to tell the hon. member that we are concerned about energy prices. Along with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, we are monitoring the cost of energy to consumers very carefully.
Last week I was asked about the increase in the price of energy. I said there is a mathematical formula both up and down and that is for every dollar of increase per barrel of oil, approximately a $20 benchmark, it is about .7 cents per litre increase, but it also has to factor in taxes.
What we will be doing tomorrow is meeting with the industry as well as consumer groups and we will be discussing these various issues. I say to the hon. member that we have moved toward a world market price for oil, both for Canada as well as, obviously, the imports we have to pay for, and we will continue monitoring.
Keep in mind as well the accounting system which we have in Canada for oil going into the system as well as oil going out, as against the American system which has a much bigger response time.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I was not impressed with the answer.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


David Barrett: Are you suggesting that the government have an enema?
Oral Questions
Why is the minister going to have a friendly chat with the oil industry tomorrow at the same time there is legislation selling off Petro-Canada? If the minister was serious in monitoring the price, he would use Petro-Canada. Why does he not use the government instrument of Petro-Canada to check on the gas prices in this country?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member did not like the answer I gave him, but I hope that the diagnosis still fits. I remember 1972-74 and the creation of Petro-Canada. The former minister of energy, Mr. Lalonde, was quoted just today on a question on Petro-Canada. "Wasn't Petro-Canada supposed to protect us, the consumers, against the vagaries of a market and the kind of inconsistent behaviour and buffeting around that happens out there?" That was the question.
This is today's answer. He said today on the Peter Gzowski show: "No, that was never the puqrose of Petro-Canada, not to protect us against the vagaries of the market. It was to provide the Canadian government with an insight on the industry, a window on the industry if you wish, and secondly provide a significant Canadian ownership in the industry. But nobody ever guaranteed that the existence of Petro-Canada would mean cheaper oil".


NUNAVUT
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
As the Deputy Prime Minister knows, division of the Northwest Territories in order to create a homeland for Inuit called Nunavut is a long-standing goal of the Inuit of the central and eastern Arctic. Toward this goal, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Inuit negotiators recently agreed to a target date for the creation of Nunavut.
What steps is the Government of Canada taking to support the creation of Nunavut, both politically and financially?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. We indeed are very

October 23, 1990
Oral Questions
pleased that the agreement has been reached by the Government of the Northwest Territories on the division.
My colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, indeed will be working and meeting with both groups, the government and the native groups in that area, to arrive at the steps that are to be taken so that we can move quickly to its completion.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, on September 25, in this House, the Prime Minister stated about his new aboriginal agenda: "The objective will be the enlargement of aboriginal capacity for self-government within the framework of the Canadian Constitution".
Since the creation of Nunavut will achieve that objective for the Inuit, will the minister agree to the proposal by the leader of the Government of the Northwest Territories in terms of committing financially the amount needed to create that territory and ensuring that the western portion of that territory does not suffer as a result of that division?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, the financial arrangements as well as all of the administrative arrangements are points for discussion in the upcoming meetings, and they will be looked at very closely.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for LaSalle-Emard.


An hon. member:: Your father is listening.


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, whatever you do, don't call me out of order today.


Mr. Speaker:: Whatever the hon. member does, don't give me reason.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle -Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The minister intends to apply very strict criteria to the James Bay project. However, he did not apply the same criteria to Point Aconi in Nova Scotia or the Alcan project in British Columbia. These projects were exempted because, according to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, there would be no environmental damage.
My question is this: does the scientific information on which the decision of the Minister of Fisheries was based, which includes scientific opinions that are totally unacceptable, reflect the criteria the Minister of the Environment intends to apply in future?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to the Point Aconi project, he should know that we initiated an assessment of this project. We considered all the points raised by the public throughout Nova Scotia with respect to the Point Aconi project. According to the experts, all the questions that were raised could be dealt with through action that was taken and in fact requested by the company concerned. Once the criteria had been met, there was no need to request a public panel on a matter that, according to the experts, could be dealt with satisfactorily.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, if there is any indication of the problem of defending the environment with this government, it is that the Minister of the Environment refuses to stand up and defend the record of his government.
For some months this government has defended its case with regard to the Rafferty-AIameda, but I would like to cite a federal official who said yesterday: "Irreparable harm is being done to the environment by the Rafferty-AIameda project." The fact is that irreparable harm is being done to the environment by this government.
Given the very high quality of scientific attack which is being levelled against the evaluations that were done in the case of Point Aconi and in the case of Alcan, will the minister order a complete review of these projects now? Or, once again must the Canadian people and this side of the House push this government and this minister into doing its job?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat something I have said quite often. This government is following the EARP guidelines exactly in the way that the former government put them in.
October 23, 1990

It is important to note that we have put forth a new bill on environmental assessment to go further than the EARP guidelines and to do the job the way we believe it should be done.
I would urge the opposition to support strongly the bill that we have before this House at the moment.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, last night the Prime Minister, in response to a student who protested the application of the GST to books, said the following: "My hope and expectation is that once we get it in and get it implemented, we are going to be able to revise the tax code in such a way as to ensure that the quite sensitive and sensible question you raise can be dealt with, with satisfaction."
My question is for the Minister of Finance. What on earth does the Prime Minister mean? Does he mean that the government was wrong to apply the tax to books in the first place? Does he mean he is going to remove it next year? Does he mean he is going to remove it now? Why doesn't he remove it now?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have responded to that question. What I have said in previous answers in the House today is that with any tax initiative, particularly a tax initiative of this sort of magnitude, we always review the implementation. We always review the impact of the tax as it affects different people. We are quite prepared to do that in this case, as indicated by the Prime Minister yesterday.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, last night the Minister of Finance discovered the r word recession. Prime Minister, in his turn, discovered another r word, reversal, reversal of the claim that the GST was revenue neutral.
Will not the government discover the virtue of other r words like repent, respond to the people, and renounce the GST?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's r word, let me talk about another r word, revenue neutral and precisely what is meant by that word.
In the course of tax reform we said we would not take additional revenues under the cloud of tax reform, that dollars in would equal dollars out. We would replace an
Oral Questions
existing tax with a new tax and would not try to get additional revenues.
As far as the impact of the GST on the economy and on tax policy is concerned, it definitely helps generate additional revenues over what would be the case if we did not have the tax.
For one it will result in a major boost to new investment. That will create jobs and new revenues. In addition, it will reduce a significant amount of tax avoidance amounting to some $2 billion a year. Again, if we had not brought in the GST we would see that the deficit would go up by $2 billion.
Those are two very clear reasons as to how the GST will help us reduce the deficit.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. This summer we were supposed to sign an agreement with the Government of Quebec to confirm Quebec's full authority over immigration matters. I am sure you realize that controlling the selection of immigrants and their cultural, linguistic and economic integration is extremely important to Quebec.
Madam Minister, why the delay in signing this agreement?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is of course unfortunate that we cannot sign constitutional agreements as originally planned under the Meech Lake Accord. Nevertheless, our two governments still intend to update the existing Cullen-Couture accord signed in 1976.
Today, however, I cannot confirm on what date intergovernmental talks will be finalized, but I can assure the hon. member that we remain firmly resolved to conclude an agreement.


SPACE AGENCY
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. Last February, a press conference was held at Saint-Hubert to announce the construction schedule for the Space Agency. At the time it was announced that

October 23, 1990
Oral Questions
architects and engineers would be appointed by April 15. It was also announced there would be a progress report on September 30 this year. However, the people of the South Shore and the greater Montreal area complain that nothing has been done. What is happening on this score, Mr. Speaker?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Longueuil used to sit on this side of the House, he ought to know that the Space Agency is a very complex dossier and that it is part of the overall plan for space development in Canada.
The Space Agency itself has proceeded with a number of operations, including the transfer of a number of people to Saint-Hubert and Montreal. In a matter of weeks I should be in a position to announce that not just the agency but the whole space program has been finalized, and I think the people in Saint-Hubert and Montreal and across this country will be delighted with the announcement I intend to make in the weeks to come.


BILL C-21
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
This year, for the first time in 14 years, the government refused to pass the variable entrance requirement bill for unemployment insurance. In the face of a recession the government held thousands of Canadians in high unemployment regions hostage to the passage of the bill, which regrettably passed last night in the Senate.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, now the applause has died down, perhaps the government can tell us, then, why the government announced today that it will take four more weeks for this bill to be implemented and an additional four weeks to process UI claims, so that the net effect of the passage of the bill is that thousands of Canadians in
high unemployment areas right across this country will not have any income for Christmas.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think there are three or four things that the hon. member should know. First of all, at least part of the delay having to do with the fishing benefits concerned a compromise between the Senate and the elected House through our desire to be reasonable. Had we accepted the amendment originally proposed by the Senate, it would have taken longer.
Second, I would like to point out it was this elected House of Commons that passed this act originally. It is the policy of this elected House, and it is about time it went into place. Third, let me point out that when the Liberal government changed the law with Bill C-69, Royal Assent was on December 20, 1975 and the bill went into effect only on July 4, 1976, six months and 14 days later.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the minister has obviously, inadvertently, given completely false information to the people of Canada. It must have been inadvertent because the fact remains a VER bill was before this House on December 19 and again in June, and on both occasions her party voted down the VER, not the Liberal Party of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. For 14 years her department has been administering a 10-week rule, there is nothing new. Why are we waiting eight weeks for people to be eligible for their unemployment insurance? Why are we stealing Christmas from thousands of the poorest of the poor families of Canada?


Barbara Jean McDougall: administration, until we have the legislation that we could have had nearly a year ago.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery-

-the longest serving member of Her Majesty's Canadian Privy Council, the Hon. Paul Martin, Sr.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, pursuant to the discussions which took place in the House yesterday and on Friday of last week, concerning the government motion which is to be voted upon this afternoon. In the course of substitution on Friday last of the motion which is now before the House for the earlier motion, through a procedural irregularity, unfortunately, the amendment and the subamendment are not before the House.
As I indicated yesterday, I have discussed this matter with representatives of both the government and the Official Opposition.

I also spoke to the hon. member for Shefford. [English]
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that there might be agreement to allow the question to be put, without debate, this evening at six o'clock on the amendment which we had originally sought to place before the House to the original government motion. That amendment would read as follows:
That this House censure the government for not recalling Parliament at the earliest opportunity to fulfil its legitimate function of consultation and debate, as to what role Canada should play in the resolution of the present crisis.
Point of Order
That Canada work at the UN Security Council to seek assurances that no country will undertake offensive military operations against Iraq, unless they are under UN command and explicitly authorized by the Security Council;
That this House accept the undertaking of the government to present a further resolution to this House in the event of 1he outbreak of hostilities involving Canadian forces in and around the Arabian Peninsula.
This motion, as its predecessor, would also be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
The effect of allowing this motion to be put would be very straightforward. It will allow us to vote on the subamendment that we had originally proposed to this House and originally sought to vote on before the decision that was made by unanimous consent of this House on Friday last.
I would hope that there might be agreement to allow the vote to take place on this subamendment. I understand that there is to be a meeting of House leaders this afternoon. If it is not possible to arrive at an agreement at this point, I understand there is a discussion of the House leaders and it might be further discussed there. I hope we might agree that the House would be allowed to vote on this subamendment which was originally before the House and in fact was the subject of debate during the entire course of debate on this very important issue.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the matter raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway concerning a request for consent on what I consider to be a very important matter.
This is not the normal business of this House. We are dealing with issues that affect, in basic terms, life and death and war and peace. It is not often that we have occasion to come together and make this kind of judgment and choice. We have had a serious debate in this House on this matter.
It was of some real concern to our caucus and our own party that we wanted to indicate a clear will on behalf of Canadian people concerning the invasion of Kuwait by Iraqi forces and to ensure that we clearly stand for the international response that has been mounted. We are attempting to find an agreement and to co-operate in doing that. Many members on this side of the House stated their position that we were prepared to do that.

October 23, 1990
Point of Order
We had certain questions relating to the government's original resolution in the sense that it did imply that there would be a blank cheque, if you like, or a mandate given for further action on behalf of the government. We raised that with members opposite, with the Secretary of State and with others. They were most forthcoming in providing, by way of written assurance, that they would be seeking a UN resolution and mandate as well as, and I think this is very important, ensuring that Parliament would be consulted in virtually all circumstances. That was incorporated as part of the amendment.
I have been on both sides of the House and I have participated in literally hundreds of debates. I know from experience that when there has been that sort of dialogue across the House and a mutual agreement made to find a way of resolving some of those differences so that there can be some common ground, that was the basis upon which the resolution was put forward. I think that the amendments and the revisions the government is proposing are certainly acceptable to our side and we would like to proceed.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I think that yesterday I said in no uncertain terms what I thought about this matter. As we approach the end of what to me is a non-debate, since as far as I am concerned, the debate ended Thursday night, some incredible things have been going on in this House. I would like to reserve comment on the statement made by the Speaker this morning until tomorrow. There are no two ways about it: either I do not understand or I understand all too well. I would like to think about it until tomorrow. I did not exactly appreciate the tenor of the debate this morning when the Speaker made some comments on yesterday's ruling. I support the decisions of the Speaker. It is not up to the Speaker of the House of Commons to tell us he may have gone too far. He handed down a ruling yesterday. I want to analyze very carefully what he said this morning and get back to it tomorrow, if necessary.
What I fail to understand, and I hope my colleagues will understand that this is not a split between the parties- I can hear the hon. member, to whom I always refer as my esteemed colleague from the New Democratic Party, saying: another split among the Liberals.
It is not a matter of division but of knowing what is happening. I never saw a debate get so complicated. What exactly is going on? Everyone has an opinion on the subject. I don't understand. I refuse to take part in a debate on such an important matter, with all the wheeling and dealing that is going on, some of it public, some of it private, some of it between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and a few members. This is not the way to approach such an important matter. I will say no more. I won't commit myself. The hon. member said there might be consultations this afternoon. I will be reasonable. Get on with your consultations! I am going to stay here in my seat until the division at six o'clock. I intend to stay here all afternoon. I will see what happens.
Get on with your negociations, but don't ask unanimous consent for something you might decide to do this afternoon, but which is still up in the air. Mr. Speaker, I know there will be a division at six o'clock on a motion. I regret the unanimous consent given last Friday. We will vote accordingly. Now, get on with your work, do as you please, but I am going to stay here and watch this semi-public, semi-private business. We will see, once and for all, whether we are able to conduct our business here in this House, in full view of the Canadian people, because I think they will soon want to know what really happened in this debate. Thank you.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to comment that I don't think the proposal made by the hon. member for the New Democratic Party is reasonable, considering the fact that earlier, the hon. member from Winnipeg made a great show of being magnanimous, claiming that all this had taken place with the full co-operation of all concerned. Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do it was all done with the greatest possible secrecy. Like the hon. member for Saint-Denis, I wonder who has an interest in this conspiracy of silence, this last minute conspiracy involving a couple of members and the minister. What is going on in this House? Why are Canadian public and hon. members being kept in the dark?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the debate is now on a different subject. Perhaps the hon. member will have another opportunity to air his grievance.
October 23, 1990



I am obligated to ask the House if there is unanimous consent for the proposal of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway.
Is there unanimous consent?
For the third time, is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent. Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McDermid (p. ).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Resuming debate on the motion for time allocation. The hon. member for Laurentides.


Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you before the House on your recent appointment to the elevated position of Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, in 1975 it took four days to adopt the second-reading stage of the bill to establish Petro-Cana-da.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in my place to support this legislation authorizing the sale of shares of Petro-Canada to the general public. Today, I would like to discuss how this proposed transaction fits into the broader approach to privatization which has been followed by the government since 1984.
In the past six years the government has issued an economic policy based on less government involvement in the private sector and more disciplined use of taxpayers' resources. Privatization is a key component of that policy.
Government Orders
At last count, the Canadian government owned 53 Crown corporations, 113 subsidiary Crown corporations, and had partial holdings in a number of other firms. This is after having successfully privatized 13 Crown corporations and Crown holdings, and five mixed-ownership corporations. Some of these include Canadair, an aircraft manufacturer; Teleglobe Canada, our overseas telecommunication carrier; and, of course, Air Canada, Canada's largest airline which was sold through two public shares offerings to over 100,000 shareholders.

Mr. Speaker, it took four days to adopt the bill to establish Petro-Canada in 1975, and this was under the Liberal government.

The success of Canada's approach to privatization is due largely to the fact that it reflects our country's unique demographic, economic, political, and historical circumstances.
Consider for a moment the disparity between our geography and our population. Canada is the largest country in the western hemisphere. Its total area is almost 3.8 million square miles, compared to the U.S. with 3.6 million square miles. We have a population of only 26 million, one-tenth of that of the U.S.A.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: One moment, please. The hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence, on a point of order.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate you raised a question of leeway that you would allow in debate with respect to time allocation and the kinds of principles we might introduce when talking about the points with respect to this motion.
When we were debating, I think you said that while you were willing to allow some sort of leeway, we were discussing time allocation. I wonder if you would feel it opportune at this moment perhaps to remind the member that the eloquence of his speech is probably more appropriate for discussion on Bill C-84, and not on time allocation where some members want to have-

October 23, 1990
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence who seems to have listened carefully to the proceedings this morning. That being said, I showed some tolerance this morning towards members on both sides of the House. I would ask the hon. member for Laurentides to continue his speech and try to address the subject of time allocation, although we do allow some latitude on the substance of the debate.


Jacques Vien: Mr. Speaker, as far as time allocation is concerned, I believe that in 1975, the Liberals, who took four days to pass the bill, made good use of the time allowed.

The disparity between our geography and our population and that of the U.S. has encouraged a reliance on government ownership as a way of supplying vital national services such as rail and air transport. Some of the customers of these services express concern that a change in ownership will mean a reduction in service or safety, or increased prices. Therefore, in developing its privatization plans, the government gives special consideration to the concerns of the customers. Where necessary, regulations are introduced to ensure that health and safety standards are maintained.
Another factor explaining Canada's approach to privatization is the role of foreign ownership in our economy. Canada's economic development gave rise to an industrial base dominated by branch plants. Most of Canada's manufacturing and petroleum products sectors are still dominated by subsidiaries of companies headquartered outside Canada.
As a result, Canadians have welcomed the financial benefits of foreign investment while remaining a bit nervous about the consequences of foreign influence on our economy. Because of this, the government's privatization program looks at the foreign ownership question on a case-by-case basis to determine whether non-resident restrictions are required.
All of these uniquely-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Laurentides. His speech is most interesting but once again, relevance requires us to consider the following question: why should Parliament limit debate on Bill C-84? Although I am quite tolerant, I find it difficult to let the hon. member proceed without dealing specifically with this question. I would appreciate his co-operation.


Jacques Vien: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, in 1975 the Liberals who are now in the opposition certainly made good use of the time allowed for the debate on the bill to establish Petro-Canada.

All these uniquely Canadian circumstances that I mentioned before-a small population and a large mass, the predominance of branch plants, our Constitution with its complex division of powers between the provincial and federal governments, and the nature of our domestic capital markets-had to be taken into account when the government first got itself into the business of owning commercial interests. They are now taken into account as we get out.
The minister has assured us that the government's privatization program is based on a pragmatic, common sense, case-by-case approach. The time is taken to examine very carefully the circumstances associated with each company in order to determine the best method of timing of sale.
As the minister stated earlier, Crown ownership is no longer necessary to achieve the principal public policy objective in the energy sector-to establish the conditions in which economic development of our energy reserves can occur.
What is necessary for Petro-Canada to participate aggressively in is the development of our oil and gas reserves and access to a new and reliable source of equity.
Once again, we are left with a choice in the House of finding that money by taxing Canadians, by borrowing even more money on their behalf, or by inviting Canadians to take a direct stake in the company, to share the challenge which lies ahead.
October 23, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has now expired. I must recognize a new speaker. The hon. member for Etobicoke North.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, I find it surprising, having listened to the member in his brief intervention, that he is evidently advocating time closure. The arguments he had adduced for supporting time allocation, I had thought, would have led him to quite the opposite conclusion. He also set forth a very good case, indeed, why Petro-Canada should remain a Crown corporation.
Of course, the reasons for Petro-Canada being a Crown corporation-and this is why I rise to speak against time allocation-are fundamental to the Canadian economy. Canadians have seen the role of Petro-Canada in the past decade as a vital aspect of government policy and the ability of the government, on behalf of the people of Canada, to intervene and to have a window on the energy industry that otherwise simply would not exist. Otherwise, the industry would indeed be in the hands of foreign corporations only.
In Canada, we have seen over the years the importance of Crown corporations in our economic development. We have seen the blending of private enterprise and public corporations in a way which has been uniquely Canadian and which has brought major benefits to Canada. It is for that reason that I rise to speak, however briefly given the limited time now available, against this motion of time allocation.
The privatization of Petro-Canada is far too important a subject to be encompassed in the few hours of debate that the government foresees for this very important issue. As I said, Canadians have benefited from the mixed economy that we have known since the days of Confederation. There is no need, today, to turn our backs on those benefits. We have seen those benefits in various industries and we have seen them no less in the petroleum industry.
What was the logic behind Canada's creation of Petro-Canada? As the speaker before me noted, Canada has a vast territory, a small population, immense natural resources, but the only Canadian-controlled element
Government Orders
available to ensure a Canadian presence in the vital petroleum industry was, of course, the national government. The government acted more than 15 years ago to create a national petroleum company and, if we look at the record over that period, we shall see the wisdom of it so doing.
The international price of oil is not set by free market conditions as all of us in the House recognize. OPEC is a near monopoly in setting oil prices. Therefore, the argument that Petro-Canada is somehow unnecessary because free market forces can determine international oil prices is patently untrue.
What the existence of Petro-Canada does give Canada is the opportunity to participate in international pricing and to sense the nature of oil pricing with regard to OPEC's dominant position. PetroCan is a window on the industry which permits Canada to pursue its interest in a way that simply would be impossible if our industry were in the hands of foreign corporations or even of Canadian private investors.
The inability of the market to foresee the nature of long-term supplies is another serious issue that has caused problems for Canada. Again, the presence of Petro-Canada in the international oil markets helps to ensure that Canadians have the opportunity to overcome the problems that arise from uncertain supplies.
What was Petro-Canada's mandate? It was to help ensure energy supplies for Canadians, to assist the government in the formulation and execution of a national energy policy, and to increase Canada's presence in the petroleum industry. The record is clear, to that end, Canada's PetroCan has been active in frontier exploration, in foreign petroleum reserves and in the mediation of state-to-state trading.
I would suggest that the necessity of Canada having such a corporation is even more evident today given the continuing uncertainties of the international petroleum scene and, indeed, following the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are indicating that my time has expired. I want to stress once more that we on this side of the House will vote against time allocation on this important issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It now being 3.31 p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of

October 23, 1990
Government Orders
the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) have expired.
Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Orders, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings to put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Some lion, members: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate concurs in the amendments made by the House of Commons to its amendments 4(c) and (d) and 8 to Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act; and that the Senate does not insist on its amendments 2(a), (b) and (c), 3(a) and (b), 5(a), 6, 7 and 9, to which the Commons have disagreed.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

["Order, please. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.", "Private Members' Business"]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
October 23, 1990 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Beverley M.
McLachlin, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her
capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate
Chamber today, the 23rd day of October, 1990, at 5.30 p.m., for the
purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque,
Secretary to the Governor General



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McDermid that Bill C-84, an act respecting the privatization of the national petroleum company of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Lee, (p. 14001), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East), (p. 14010).
Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour and Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Government Orders
Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure today to speak in support of the proposed legislation which will authorize the Government of Canada to sell shares of Petro-Canada to the Canadian public.
Globally, governments everywhere from China to France, from Hungary to Israel and Britain, are involved in major privatization initiatives on an ever-increasing broad scale. In Canada, provincial governments such as Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, have also made major sales of Crown owned corporations to the private sector and to ordinary Canadians.
The question often asked is: why privatize at all? Reasons for privatization differ from country to country and from province to province but, in Canada, the federal government's commitment to privatization is rooted in the Canadian tradition of creatively and successfully mixing pubic initiative with private enterprise. Both have their place, the issue is striking the proper balance between the two.
In earlier periods in our history, it has been made necessary for Canada to put an emphasis on large government doing many things. Today, though, the private sector is recognized as being more appropriately the principal stimulant of economic growth and renewal in Canada.
In Canada's early years, state intervention was important, in fact, essential in building the great canals that opened our country to commerce, in assisting in transcontinental transportation, through the building of the CNR and even developing our national broadcasting system. National medicare and income-support programs also resulted from government interest and intervention, for the common good.
Today, Canada has a developed and maturing social and economic infrastructure, the emphasis on state ownership and big government growth that continued into the 1980s has to be curtailed or two situations will worsen. Government deficits, used to pay for increasing state intervention, will continue to rise uncontrollably, and the private sector, the engine of growth in the economy, will be constrained by unnecessary and unfair competition and pressures from the public sector.
Can government do everything, and should governments do everything? The answer is unequivocally no,

October 23, 1990
Government Orders
and that leads to the underlying assumptions behind our government's privatization program.
There are basic reasons why your federal government pursues these privatization initiatives. First, the changing economic environment for many Crown corporations. The original objectives behind the creation are no longer valid. Second, there is abundant evidence to suggest that many Crown corporations are not as effective in serving their clients as the private sector. Privatization, by putting corporations under the test of the marketplace, can certainly improve efficiency. Third, public funds. Public ownership of Crown corporations can place enormous demands on government resources to manage and financially support various enterprises.
Public institutions use taxpayers' money to operate. The recognition that a Crown corporation is responsible for public funds often leads to slow, deliberate decisionmaking and occasional aversion on the part of management to risk taking. What about fairness and equality? Petro-Canada and other corporations compete directly with the private sector. The Canadian government's approach to privatization is based on specific objectives designed to confirm the appropriateness of public institutions while encouraging a vibrant and vital private sector. Should governments do everything? Again, a resounding no. Canadians saw the enormous price that had to be paid when governments of all sorts got involved in every manner of human endeavour in Canada.
Our government believes in the individual. We believe in the private sector. We believe in creating wealth through entrepreneurial initiative and competition. We believe in creating opportunities for small business persons, for workers, for women, for the disabled, for the corporations and for everyone. That is why we see so many countries turning to privatization regardless of the prevailing political philosophy, privatization is results-o-riented and deals with the real need of a nation.
Because of our sparse population in Canada and peculiar and expensive geography, there are times when the private sector could not properly meet an important public objective. Crown intervention was one way to accelerate or enhance the growth of our young nation. Many of our Crown corporation earn the loyalty of
Candians as they served as pioneers in resource development , manufacturing and the transportation sectors.
Something happened sometime in the sixties when suddenly the accepted norm of Canadian mixed public policy, the creative mixing of public initiative with private enterprise, became unbalanced. Everything seemed to go one way, to public intervention in Canada. Suddenly the prevailing thought was that government should and could do everything. Governments went in search of needs to fill, of hurts to mend, of inequities to overcome.
Government became big business in Canada or perhaps more realistically, just plain big. Because the business part and the rationale for Crown corporations in the first place got lost, many Crowns began operating like government departments themselves, pursuing an array of public objectives but virtually obliterating many of the business components of their mandates: products, client service, profit and return on investment.
Here is what the Auditor General of Canada said in 1982. He talked about "a problem of accountability, massive in its dimensions" and "In the aggregate, Crown corporations represent a hole in the taxpayers' pocket, resulting, as they do so often, in a consistent negative return on investment."
The reasons for my support are simple and clear. State ownership of Petro-Canada is not necessary for the company to achieve public policy objectives.
The company needs capital to develop our oil and gas reserves, and a public share issue is a better way to raise capital than a higher deficit or raising taxes.
Let me discuss the public policy role of Petro-Canada. At the time Petro-Canada was created in the seventies, we were told by the previous government that a state-owned oil company was needed to achieve three basic objectives on behalf of the Canadian people.
First and foremost, the company was to work to increase the petroleum supplies available in Canada by exploring new sources of oil and gas, especially in the frontier.
Second, the company was charged with being a window in the industry to help the government formulate a national energy policy.
October 23, 1990

Third, the company was to be Canada's agent in state-to-state negotiations.
In the 1990s, it is clear that government ownership of Petro-Canada is no longer required to achieve such public policy objectives. Canada has a much clearer perspective on the extent of our frontier reserves and their potential development.
Additionally, we have the agencies and instruments in place. We have the Canadian Oil and Gas Lands Administration and the National Energy Board. Therefore, we have the public agencies in place to do the things that Petro-Canada was to do.
In short, the reasons for state ownership of Petro-Canada are no longer valid. We will leave the debate about whether they ever were to historians.
Today, Canadian energy policy embraces the reality that Canada's economy is part of the world market. Efforts of previous governments to insulate us from that reality simply did not work. Today, we recognize that energy markets must be allowed to respond to changes in supply and demand conditions.
This approach works for Canadians because it leaves a foundation for both expansion of our resources sector and competitive pricing for consumers. When the government has intervened, it has been to act to facilitate the development of large energy projects where the costs and risks are significant impediments to private investors.
Petro-Canada has a role to play in the development of Canada's energy reserves, not as an instrument of government policy, of course, but as an active and competitive private sector company. As a chairman and chief executive officer of Petro-Canada has stated publicly, unless the company gains additional funds to shore up its capital base, the company cannot get on with the job of developing our energy reserves without raising its debt to dangerous levels.
Let us talk a bit about Petro-Canada. Based on Petro-Canada's 1989 annual report, the company has proven reserves of 3.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 527.3 million barrels of crude oil. Petro-Canada's share of Canada's proven reserves is 4.3 per cent of natural gas and 6.7 per cent of crude oil. Petro-Canada estimates that it can spend in the order of $2.5 billion over the next five years for its exploration and develop-
Govemment Orders
ment expenditures. Certainly, it is going to need money to do that.
Without new equity then, Petro-Canada will not be able to contribute to the important development of exploration in this country in the way that we all think it should, and we want them to.
First, I suppose what we could do is just ignore the problem and hope that it will go away. This would leave Petro-Canada with the decision to either risk financial instability, sell assets and change the profile of the company or cut back on this important exploration and development that we would all like to see them do.
Second, the government could find the money to secure Petro-Canada's financial future. That would mean either increasing the federal deficit even further or by raising taxes or cutting out some other government programs to free up the funds.
Third, we can invite Canadians to take a direct stake in a company through a public share offering, as was suggested with this bill. By offering Petro-Canada shares to the public, the government is giving individual Canadians the opportunity to take a direct stake in this great Canadian oil company and share in its important future.
Even more important, Petro-Canada will give a new source of equity that it simply cannot obtain as a wholly-owned Crown corporation.
The company's current financial position underscores the need to access more funds and equity, as we mentioned. Petro-Canada's 1989 performance reflects an emphasis on improving efficiency in order to position the company to benefit from the potential opportunities available in the Canadian oil and gas industry.
With respect to the first half results for 1990, the chairman has indicated that their efforts must be redoubled in order to improve the company's performance. These are important facts and statements from the people who run the company, the Crown corporation, as it is now.
As the Minister of State for Privatization has stated, both the company and the taxpayer can be better served by allowing Petro-Canada to raise new equity directly from investors rather than relying on the Canadian taxpayer through the federal government. When one examines the alternatives before us, I believe Canadians will agree that the intelligent decision is the one of privatization.

October 23, 1990
Government Orders
Petro-Canada operates in a competitive and dynamic industry. In order to remain competitive, that company must have access to a reliable source of new equity. It is no longer acceptable to expect that the equity comes from the taxpayers' pockets. The taxpayer does not want to pay any more taxes. Privatization will give Petro-Canada direct access to an alternate source.
Privatization will help strengthen the company by providing funds so that it can get on with the job. It will give Petro-Canada the financial flexibility now enjoyed by its competitors and give the company access to that new equity without hurting the taxpayer.
There is a cost to keeping Petro-Canada as a state-owned company. The first casualty of this decision would be Petro-Canada itself. But the costs would also be felt by the ordinary Canadian through higher taxes, a higher debt, and fewer possible public services. This would be wrong. It would be the wrong decision for Petro-Canada and the wrong decision for the people of Canada.
These are some of the reasons why I support this important legislation. Continued state ownership of Petro-Canada would impair this great company's ability to compete. It would impair its ability to explore, and impair its ability to bring on stream gas and oil that will be needed for our domestic use.
While Petro-Canada may have been conceived as a product of ideology, the decision to privatize it is clearly a product of common sense. It is not only common sense here, but it is common sense around the world. As The Economist magazine has noted, at least 35 countries in the world have moved to privatization. It is not a move of ideology; it is one of common sense.
Liberal governments, conservative governments, socialist governments throughout the world have moved in great numbers to privatization of these Crown-owned companies. It is stated in The Economist magazine dated December 21, 1985:
Herbert Morrison, the father of nationalization, assumed the public sector would work hard for the public good-and that competition was a waste of resources. Consumers around the world know he was wrong. When privatization fosters competition, and with it the concept of risk and reward, it appeals to the basic greed for individual betterment. As such, it has become deservedly popular-and may deservedly succeed.
I am pleased to be able to speak in support of this bill. I am pleased and proud that our government is moving this very important and great Canadian company into the hands of the Canadians who can invest in this company so that it will bring greater benefits to all Canadians in this very important sector.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton East.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to investigate a little further the hon. member's concept of common sense, which he touted during at least the closing parts of his remarks.
I noted that the member said that Petro-Canada had to be privatized in order to enable it to-and I believe I am quoting correctly-"raise new equity, rather than relying on the taxpayer." He said, as well, and I believe I am quoting here too: "it's no longer acceptable to say new equity will come from the taxpayers' pockets".
As near as any of us are able to tell-the government has not been terribly forthcoming in this regard-in attempting to read the runes, watch the smoke signals, and check out the entrails of the owls, and all this sort of stuff, we seem to be left with the situation in which, to begin with at least, we are looking at a 15 per cent treasury issue for equity in Petro-Canada.
By the way, the proceeds from this 15 per cent will be ploughed back into the company. That is where the new equity is coming from and various estimates have placed the value of that initial 15 per cent issue at between $500 million and $700 million. That is money that will be taken from the sale of shares in the company, shares now owned by the taxpayers, the receipts for which-that $500 million to $700 million-will be ploughed back into the company.
My first question to the hon. member is this: How does that constitute not relying on the taxpayer? How does that constitute a situation in which it is no longer acceptable to say new equity will come from the taxpayers' pockets, when that is exactly where it is coming from?
Beyond that, having raided the taxpayers' pockets for that initial 15 per cent issue, I quote from the remarks of the Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory
October 23, 1990

Affairs made in the House on October 10, at page 13995 of Hansard:
This initial public offering will create a broad market for the
company's shares-The net proceeds of future sales of the
government shares will be paid into the Consolidated Revenue
Fund.
If we are going to take the rest of the shares owned by the taxpayers, sell them, and return that money to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, where is this huge new pool of equity that we say Petro-Canada will then be able to exploit? If we are not going to take at least $3.5 billion out of the equity markets before we pay out the Consolidated Revenue Fund, then we will be engaging in a raid on that fund of historic proportions.
But assuming we get all that back, and assuming we have soaked the equity markets for between $4 billion and $5 billion in this Petro-Canada issue, where in the name of sweet reason does the member believe even further equity for the corporation is going to come from?


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member mentioned, certainly the treasury issue is going immediately to PetroCan so it can use those dollars for investment.
He did not say the secondary issues would go to the Consolidated Revenue Fund which will certainly lower the government's need to borrow in the future. Additionally, we are going to the private sector for investment along the way. There will be an infusion as people buy in, of course, and those moneys will be used.
I do not know what else he would want to take from that. The main thrust is to provide equity, other than the areas that we are mentioning where we would have to have taxpayers' money go directly. It needs an infusion of cash. It needs an infusion of equity. It needs that money to go out and explore. That has been stated. The kind of figures that were mentioned is in the billions of dollars. That will be done by privatization that is going to take place. He knows that, and Canadians know that. Canadians are very happy that they are going to have the opportunity to invest in this company.
What is important with all the other companies that are around in Canada is that now they will know that will have an integrated oil and gas company that is going to
Government Orders
be competing as a private enterprise, rather than one that is supported, if need be, by the Government of Canada. That is pretty important and it will probably make them cut their costs and be more competitive.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter this debate today, not because I support the privatization of Petro-Canada. On the contrary, I strongly oppose this legislation and will vote against it at all stages. Rather, I am pleased to enter this debate because I think it is time that the Canadian people, and more importantly, the government opposite, take the time to discuss the public policy role being served by Crown corporations in our country and that we take the time to understand the true values of the collective needs of the country.
Just when the potential for gouging Canadian oil and gas consumers by foreign owned and controlled oil companies is at its highest point in more than a decade, the government opposite is moving to privatize our national oil company. If ever there was a time in a way for the government to be involved in the oil industry, it is now. That can best be achieved through the Crown corporation we already own.
New Democrats have frequently and incorrectly been labelled as the party that wanted to own everything, but that is far from the truth. In fact, as has been shown by our highly successful provincial governments, New Democrats believe strongly in the mixed marketplace, a marketplace run by the private sector, the co-operative sector, and the public sector working together.
The New Democratic Party was created from a foundation established by the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, the CCF, in Saskatchewan. In 1944 the CCF under its then leader, and a great Canadian, Tommy Douglas, formed the government and, of course, at that time worried all of Canada about what it might do. Those worries proved fruitless.
Tommy Douglas was always a man ahead of his time. When the CCF formed the government in 1944, he clearly outlined his plans and I quote from his memoirs:
When we talked about a co-operative commonwealth, we had in
mind a mixed economy combining public ownership, co-operative
ownership, and private ownership. In our opinion, those industries that

October 23, 1990
Government Orders
were vital to the life of the community, and were monopolistic in
character, ought to be publicly owned.
The Tories said Tommy was removing freedoms when he set up a Crown corporation in Saskatchewan, but Tommy said the only freedom that he was taking away was the freedom to exploit somebody else. Since then Saskatchewan has run successful telephone and power companies, extended transportation services across the province, and reduced taxes in that province by generating revenues from resources.
The present Leader of the New Democratic Party in Saskatchewan, Mr. Roy Romanow, has a good story that he tells about Tommy. Flying over Saskatchewan one night, Roy Romanow and Tommy Douglas were talking. Roy said to Tommy: "What is your greatest achievement?" Roy thought that Tommy Douglas was going to answer hospitalization. But instead, Tommy looked out the window of that airplane into the night sky over the Prairies and he said: "Look down there, Roy. Do you see those lights across every piece of rural Saskatchewan? That is the greatest achievement that I think that I brought to Saskatchewan." Rural electrification-Saskatchewan Power Corp. working in the province of Saskatchewan, a Crown corporation serving the interests of the Canadian people.
A big part of this debate today centres around the value of the public sector and, in particular, the value of the public corporation in the energy sector. The essence of the debate should concentrate on what is in the best long-term interest of Canadians rather than what seems to be the short-term interests of the members of the government opposite.
Public sector activity is an exercise in the management of government. It is using the tools available to achieve positive and necessary objectives. When a government determines that something is in the country's best interest, it has to act to ensure that best interest is served.
For years in this country, public corporations have been created with this in mind. We in Canada have never had a strong ideological bent in favour of public ownership. Rather, Crown corporations were created one by one to address real policy needs when it was felt that the private sector could not, or would not, do the job. For the most part, these Crown corporations have served Canadians well. But, this government would have us believe that Crown corporations are despicable, horned monsters destroying our economy and increasing the national
debt. In actual fact, the Crown corporations often represent an income source or a national goal which would be lost without these corporations in place.
This government does not believe that governments should be in business. It believes that business can manage the economy better than government. What examples does it use to justify those statements? Since Crown corporations represent the government's ability to manage, if a Crown corporation fails, it is attributable to the management abilities of the government, just as when a business fails it is because of the management abilities of that business.
There are many success stories in the Crown corporation sector, and Petro-Canada could be one of them. Certainly, if a government thinks it can be successful as a private enterprise, then why, with the right management and the right direction, can it not be successful as a Crown corporation? Certainly, the people of Canada benefit to a larger extent if it is a successful Crown corporation rather than if it is a successful private corporation.
The other side of the coin is the success of the private sector. What's with the myth of the private sector being the perfect manager? There are hundreds of business failures in Canada and the United States every year. If Petro-Canada, a company that should be run for Canadian interest, is privatized, there is no guarantee that it will not end up like CN Route, the Campeau Corporation, Dun and Bradstreet or Peter Pocklington's operation.
I just happened to pick up a copy of the May 1990 issue of Report on Business magazine, published by The Financial Post. In there it talks about a number of businesses serving the great Canadian private sector and public interests. The Campeau Corporation, outlined in that magazine, in August 1987: "Stock prices reached an all-time high of $30.38 on the Toronto Stock Exchange. By September 1989 the stock fell to $13.50 and then by March 1990 the stock traded for less than $2.00 a share". Investors lost millions in this marvellous example of the marketplace at work.
In that same issue of The Globe and Mail "Report on Business" section, there is an article about Dun and Bradstreet, 150 years of trustworthiness that were gutted by bilking and sleazy tactics of their sales force, customers being taken for thousands of dollars by sales people who were motivated by management and commission
October 23, 1990

structures. The marketplace scores again and the public loses.
We have heard about CN Route, a situation where the Tories privatized the company, sold it to a man who had been denied a credit card and then watched as 1,900 employees lost their jobs in a bankruptcy that occurred only 20 months after the privatization.
Malcolm Brickland, the great Atlantic car maker, bilked taxpayers of huge sums of money. Peter Pockling-ton in Saskatchewan. The taxpayers of Saskatchewan gave Peter Pocklington the money to build a bacon processing plant in my home town of North Battleford. The province of Alberta took over the assets of Peter Pocklington and now the taxpayers of Alberta own the company for which the Saskatchewan taxpayers paid. The great private sector at work.
What about the recent examples of Alberta Telephone and Air Canada? These privatizations have cost investments and jobs. Another popular myth with the privatizes is that there is a greater "public participation in share offering than there is in taxpayer ownership". Aside from the fact that Crown corporations, by their very nature, are owned by everyone and hold a great deal of taxpayers' equity, the best thing that can be said about Crown corporations is that they are accountable to their governments, and therefore accountable to the taxpayers.
Certainly the Howard Pawley government in Manitoba learned that lesson after car insurance rates increased beyond what the consumer was willing to pay. I would like to see a private car insurance scheme that was accountable to its shareholders and consumers.
A Crown corporation is the only way that a widespread shareholding can be effectively democratic. If we, as Canadians, ever want to have an influence through our government on the energy sector and its subsequent influence on the environment, then we have to maintain Petro-Canada.
To maintain Petro-Canada is also to give it a renewed mandate for exploration and development, and one that also includes other energy sources that will one day replace our nation's in the world's dependence on fossil fuels. The national interest has been forgotten in the name of the almighty marketplace which this govem-
Govemment Orders
ment praises, while farmers and small business people go begging. The so-called middle class in this country is forced to pay the ever increasing bills.
Privatization is very mixed up in the marketplace agenda that the free trade deal and the goods and services tax have begun. Mr. Speaker, if you believe that the mythical marketplace will stabilize and develop our economy, then you have to believe the Crown corporations should not be interfering with it. So what, then, if we lose the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan and Air Canada? So what if we see plans being prepared to get rid of Petro-Canada, Sask Energy, Canada Post Corporation and even the CBC?
There are more, of course. Canada and the provinces have always used Crown corporations for various positive purposes, but we cannot let our dislike for the present Prime Minister, or even for the premier of Saskatchewan or any other Conservative politician and our frustrations with their actions convince us that privatization is the answer to an improved economy. Rather, privatization just removes by one step our ability to control and manage our economy in our own interests.
New Democrats like public enterprise because, among other things, it acts as a vehicle for decentralizing entrepreneurship and investment decisions. It decentralizes economic power and acts as a buffer against the growing concentration of ownership and control in private corporate firms.
There is a role for public corporations in Canada, in the provinces and even at the local municipal level.
In fact, public enterprise has a vital and successful history. We have in Canada some of the world's best electrical utilities, the best telephone companies, the best broadcasting networks, the most efficient automobile insurance companies, a leading airline that once paved the way for health and safety matters, and a grain marketing agency that has liberated farmers from speculative markets and held their own in difficult times.
Mr. Speaker, you may not think of the Canadian Wheat Board as a Crown corporation, as a public enterprise, but it is. The Canadian Wheat Board belongs to all of us and acts for all of us in the selling of grain in the international marketplace. It has been highly succes-

October 23, 1990
Government Orders
sful and must be continually supported to keep it operating. The Canadian Wheat Board is in trouble. The United States wants it gone. Its top officers have just been replaced and the present government believes in privatizing everything and is examining the future of the Canadian Wheat Board.
If any of the public questions the future of the Board, take a moment to review the market for oats in the past year since the present government removed the Wheat Board's authority over oats. The price has tumbled. The marketplace has caved in. The Wheat Board obviously is a very important factor in the future of grain prices for Canadian farmers.
Crown corporations have been created to do what private corporations could not or would not do. The Potash Corporation in Saskatchewan was created when the international potash corporations were reaping windfall profits and refused to share Saskatchewan's resource wealth with the people of Saskatchewan.
Ontario Hydro, one of the largest Crown corporations in the world was created originally to protect the electricity consumers in that province and went on to become a pioneer in large dam construction and in high power long distance transmission.
Petro-Canada was created when the world's energy stocks were in crisis and Canadians demanded to be a player at the table. The world's resources continue to be in crisis. Fossil fuels present a challenge to environmental scientists and the future of the world. Canada is preparing to abandon its public role in the sector and in the industry. The government does not need to own a gas station on every corner in this country, but we do need a presence in the energy industry, and Petro-Canada serves that purpose. We must maintain Petro-Canada as a Crown corporation. It can be well managed and it can operate without affecting the federal budget and the taxpayer's pocket-book.
There are a lot of problems associated with language used by governments when we talk about privatization. In fact, the word itself "privatization" means removing public influence and control and turning the enterprise
completely over to the private sector. As much as the government wants that to happen, it instead tells us that privatization is public participation and that there will be greater public involvement in an enterprise that is privatized because of the ownership of shares. The theory is that you own the shares, you influence the company. The reality is you own the shares, you have less control of the company.
When a Crown corporation operates, it does so in the interests of its constituency, national or provincial. When a private company operates, it does so in its own interests and the interests of its immediate shareholders. The shareholders are almost always the more wealthy in our society. A few shares held here and there by ordinary Canadians in the system mean virtually and return virtually nothing. When we give up a successful Crown corporation, we give up a community-centred entrepreneurship that ties every taxpayer together.
There is the theory that the Crown corporations are costing taxpayers money and must be sold if we want to reduce the debt. Look at examples. Saskatchewan is full of them. I tend to think of this game of privatization as an exercise, as a game of Monopoly, the great illustration of private capital at work. The object of the game of Monopoly is to build a base from which revenues will flow and grow. No one ever won the game of Monopoly by selling their properties. When you started to sell your properties and your hotels, the other players in the game knew you were done for. That is what happened in Saskatchewan. Revenue generators were sold and the ones that cost money were maintained. Saskatchewan by selling its Crown corporations was selling Boardwalk on the Monopoly board. It cashed in its chips and let others play the game to win.
The federal government must not be allowed to make the same mistakes. At the same time as Saskatchewan sells off its assets, the provincial deficit continues to grow. The provincial debt in Saskatchewan is now $4 billion and we have seen privatization hit Sask Oil, the Potash Corporation, the Prince Albert Pulp Company, Sask Minerals and parts of Sask Tel, to name a few. Threats are being made against Sask Energy and Saskatchewan government insurance. We are selling off the province. We are not paying the debts.
October 23, 1990

Obviously privatization is not the answer and therefore Crown corporations were not the problem. On Petro-Canada as with a number of other federal Crown corporations, the government must be prepared to admit its mistake. Petro-Canada like Air Canada and the post office ought to be public service corporations carrying out some sort of defined social, political or economic goal that our society requires that is not being looked after and will not be looked after by private enterprise.
Petro-Canada, like Air Canada, the post office and others must be open, responsible and responsive. Like governments they must be accountable. A Crown corporation represents a taxpayer's investment in his or her own future. That future could be a job, an income, a quality of life or a safe and secure environment.
Petro-Canada has an important role to play in this country's future. We cannot afford to give up our investment just to satisfy the ideological dreams of the Conservative Party and their big business friends.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake being fairly demeaning to private enterprise and what it does in the marketplace.
I thought it might be interesting to him if I read from The Economist magazine which says:
Mr. John Moore, Ihe Treasury minister",-
This was in the U.K.
- in charge of privatization, argues that past experience has surely taught us that, from the customer's point of view, the state is just as likely to abuse a monopoly position as a private owner.
The article goes on to say:
He ought to know, The British Treasury has almost routinely
forced the gas, electricity and water industries to charge their
consumers more than the industries' chairmen thought either
necessary or justified.
Listen, that is not private enterprise. They are examples of where public ownership is doing consumers in. Let us not be so demeaning to private enterprise. There is real reason to know and we can look around in Canada.
I have a question for the hon. member as to who said the following: "There are some sectors and some situa-
Government Orders
tions where the government buyouts make sense, but there are other sectors of the economy where such direct public ownership would be profoundly counterproductive; a huge investment of public dollars for little return. If our interest in democracy is to increase participation by workers and the public generally in the life of the company and the economy, then making the government the only shareholder isn't really the answer."
I do not think the member knows who said that, so I would like to tell him. It was Mr. Bob Rae, premier of Ontario.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I did not know the answer to the member's question, but I was thinking as I was listening to the quote that any good New Democrat would probably say that. As a result, I am very happy to hear that it is the new premier of Ontario who is credited with such good words by the member opposite.
There is also another person whom I would like to quote briefly. It was a note that I took in reading from Walter Stewart's 1987 book, in which Mr. Stewart talks about Crown corporations. He describes the worst situation that affects a Crown corporation: first, a corporation funded in part by the taxpayer but not responsible to Parliament; second, a corporation without social or political responsibility; and, third, an entity with neither heart nor head in proper working order".
Mr. Stewart was talking about Crown corporations in general, but he could be talking about the type of management that a private sector government would apply to either a post office or an airline company or, in this case, an energy company.
Petro-Canada, Air Canada and the post office, such corporations serving the interests of Canadian people must be accountable at all times. Only through Parliament can they be accountable to the people of this country.
A private company operating Petro-Canada can make all the mistakes in the world and the Canadian people have no recourse to correct them, but the government managing the sector through the Crown corporation must be held accountable every two, three, four and, heaven forbid, five years by the people of this country in general elections when they think about the management abilities of whatever government is serving them. I

October 23, 1990
Government Orders
think accountability is key to the answer to my hon. friend's question.


Mr. AI Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to you today concerning the legislation that will authorize the government to sell shares of Petro-Canada to the public.
I am particularly interested in assuring hon. members and reassuring Canadians that public ownership of Petro-Canada is not required for energy policy purposes. Indeed, quite the reverse is true. The privatization of Petro-Canada will directly and indirectly assist the pursuit of a number of energy policy objectives.
Petro-Canada has evolved through a number of phases since it was created in 1974. From very modest beginnings, it has become the largest Canadian owned and controlled oil company, with a major presence at every stage of the hydrocarbon production chain, including exploration, production, refining, marketing, and distribution. The corporation has arrived at its present state largely in response to government policy direction and partially in response to market opportunities.
In the early days of its operation, Petro-Canada's primary role was defined by the government of the day as an instrument of government policy. The corporation was directed to perform a number of functions considered desirable for energy reasons. It also was provided with the authority and funds from the public Treasury to carry out these tasks.
After the Progressive Conservative government took office in early 1985 Petro-Canada was given a commercial mandate. Since that time the government has not taken a direct role in the day-to-day operations of the company, and Petro-Canada has arranged its business operations largely to enhance the return to its shareholder.
To a significant extent Petro-Canada's current structure and financial situation are a result of its early mandate and path of development. Now Petro-Canada's future will depend largely on its ability to access the financing that it will need to take advantage of the opportunities presented for commercial growth as the
large and aggressive member of the Canadian petroleum industry it has become.
It would be useful but not very uplifting to review how Petro-Canada's role has evolved over time. Petro-Canada was established by the Liberals in 1975 as their response to energy and economic forces which were prevalent in the mid-1970s. As originally established, Petro-Canada's mandate was supposed to be to work to increase petroleum supplies available to Canada by exploring for conventional oil and gas and by pushing forward the development of tar sands and heavy oil resources, to increase the Canadian presence in the industry by becoming a substantial land holder and operator and by participating in join ventures, to act as the agent of the Crown in state-to-state oil trade, and to serve as the government's window on the industry to help evaluate the domestic supply potential and provide insights on industry issues.
From 1975 to 1984 there was a rapid expansion of Petro-Canada into both upstream and downstream activities. Petro-Canada's entry into the downstream was accomplished through the purchase of Pacific Petroleums. This acquisition provided some modest balance to the high risk, long-term investments which Petro-Canada had taken on at the government's request. The entry into refining and marketing helped to provide the steady cash flow which could be used to support longer term projects.
Actions taken during this period established Petro-Canada as a major integrated producer with a significant market presence in Canada from coast to coast, but look at the costs: Petro-Canada acquired Pacific Petroleums for $1.5 billion over 1978 and 1979 and Petrofina Canada Inc. and BP Refining and Marketing Limited for approximately $2 billion between 1981 and 1983. Up to the end of 1984 the federal government had invested $4.3 billion in Petro-Canada to make it a major factor in the Canadian oil and gas industry. This $4.3 billion went to only one bottom line, the bottom line of our national debt. With interest I am sure the amount it has cost us is well over $6 billion, and some members opposite would have us continue expanding this debt.
In the late 1970s Petro-Canada also negotiated its first and only significant deal as a Crown agent involved in state-to-state oil trading. Agreement was reached with
October 23, 1990

Pemex, the Mexican national oil company, to provide Petro-Canada with up to 100,000 barrels per day of crude oil.
This deal proved problematic. That is a way of saying it was a disaster. As it was largely in excess of Canadian demand for that quality of imported crude oil, the deal was eventually modified to reduce the volume of purchases by Petro-Canada and then it was allowed to elapse, which is another way of saying that we finally wriggled out of it. In fact it became clear during this period that many of the original public policy purposes for which Petro-Canada had been established were no longer as important as had once been thought, if they ever existed at all.
When the present government came into office in 1984, it was at a time of significant change in international energy markets. The higher energy prices of the 1970s and early 1980s had provoked some structural changes in the world oil market. Conservation and substitution away from oil had reduced total oil demands sharply, and many new sources of oil production outside OPEC had come onstream. In Canada the government also committed itself to a more market oriented energy policy based on confidence in the ability of competitive market forces to produce good results in terms of prices, investment, trade, and growth. These changed and welcome circumstances required a different role for Petro-Canada.
The government was also convinced that a different approach was needed for the energy sector. It was clear that the public interest in energy supply development did not require public ownership of an oil company. Many of the investments in frontier exploration that Petro-Canada had made, largely financed by direct federal incentive grants, had not yet led to commercial production. The expansion of supply and of Canadian investor participation in the industry could be better assured through establishing a stable and favourable investment climate. It was clear too that the window on the industry role was unnecessary, as the information needed by the government for energy policy formation was readily available from other sources. Generally it became apparent that
Government Orders
direct state intervention in the domestic oil market was often non-productive and excessively costly for taxpayers.
Accordingly, in early 1985 the government gave Petro-Canada a commercial mandate. This mandate required the company to operate on a competitive basis in accordance with good industry practice. The corporation was expected to arrange its operations and investments in such a way as to increase the value of the shareholder's equity and earnings. Petro-Canada has done so largely at arm's length from the government with policy guidance provided only in general terms through the annual review by cabinet of the corporation's corporate plan and capital budget. In short, Petro-Canada has been subject to most of the same disciplines and expectations as are imposed upon private companies operating in a commercial environment, save one: the necessity of having to face the market to raise its capital.
Members of this House will not find it difficult to agree that Petro-Canada remains the pre-eminent Canadian company in the oil industry. While this government has been in charge it has, as Petro-Canada's shareholder, looked to the company to play a strong and positive role in the industry, investing in projects that make commercial sense and stimulating activity that is of broad economic benefit across the country.
Since this new mandate was given, Petro-Canada has remained an active investor in the oil and gas industry. It has participated in the offshore Terra Nova oil discovery, acquired Gulf Canada's refining, marketing and distribution assets, and announced its intention to diversify its activities through all phases of the hydrocarbon value added chain. It has continued with its partners to negotiate terms and conditions which would permit the development of its megaproject interests on a commercial basis.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Private Members' Business



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS

[Stage Direction]
October 23, 1990

Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough) moved: that Bill C-210, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Supreme Court Act (habeas corpus), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a fortunate opportunity for many of us in the House of Commons who have for many years been trying to bring about changes to our extradition act. We have seen the effort that has been put forward by special interest groups, and to name one you tend sometimes to forget others, but they brought together into this House of Commons over 105,000 personal letters to the Minister of Justice of the day, the Hon. Doug Lewis.
In addition, we had petitions totalling some 97,000 names that were entered into the House of Commons by 47 members of Parliament from one end of this country to the other, asking for a streamlining of our extradition process.
In my 20 minutes I want to take you through some of the history of why we are where we are today, where I would like to see us in the future, and what Canadians from coast to coast, both in Canada and the United States, through governors of different states, which I will mention shortly, have been asking the Canadian government to do.
I am indeed honoured as a backbench member of Parliament to bring forward what I think is one of the most popular private member's bills that I have had the opportunity to work on.
I want to make it abundantly clear that what our government allows a fugitive from another country to do is escape from justice in their country of origin, or escape from death row in that country. We have examples of both. For example, Charles Ng and Joseph Kindler escaped from the United States, found a safe haven in Canada from which to escape justice in the United States at our expense.
We not only pay for the incarceration in isolation to protect them from being killed by inmates, which costs up to $70,000 a year every year they are here, we also pay for all of the Crown prosecution in an effort to get them back to the United States. We also pay another cost, as suspected convicts in some cases, or death row inmates in others, we pay all of their costs in order to defend them under our Charter of Rights, allowing them to seek a safe haven in Canada against prosecution in the United States.
After you have had time to think about that for a while, think about Charles Ng for just a moment. I know this is repugnant to many but it is necessary to review.
In 1984 and 1985 Charles Ng is alleged to have kidnapped and murdered 11 people in California. In June 1985 he fled to Canada, crossed the border at Windsor, Ontario, and made his way to Calgary. On July 6, 1985, Ng engaged in an attempted burglary at a downtown Hudson Bay store in Calgary, shot a security guard in the hand in the process and was apprehended by police. In December of the same year he was found guilty of attempted robbery, aggravated assault and the unlawful use of a firearm. He was sentenced to four and a half years at the federal penitentiary in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.
In February 1987, U.S. authorities requested the extradition of Charles Ng to the State of California to face the 25 charges pending against him. More than 18 months of legal wrangling then followed.
In October and November 1988, at an extradition hearing held in Edmonton, Alberta, Madam Justice Marguerite Trussler of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, ruled that sufficient evidence existed to extradite Ng on 19 of the 25 charges that he faces in California, 12 of which are for capital murders.
If that was not bad enough, on February 3, 1989 a judgment was issued on the return of the writ of habeas corpus by Justice Paul Chrumka of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench. Chrumka upheld Trussler's ruling that there was ample evidence to extradite Ng. Ng appealed that judgment, at our cost, to the Alberta Court of Appeal. On May 2, 1989 the three judges of the Alberta Court of Appeal also upheld the extradition order. Ng's lawyer, Donald MacLeod, had 60 days to file a motion, asking the Supreme Court of Canada to hear the case. The motion was filed with the Supreme Court in June
October 23, 1990

1989. On August 31, 1989 the Supreme Court ruled that they would not hear Ng's appeal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt my colleague from Peterborough, but I want to raise a serious point of order with respect to the propriety of referring in this House in the manner in which the member has done to a case which is still very much before the courts. The hon. member will know that the Minister of Justice on June 8 of this year referred the question of the extradition of Charles Ng directly to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing a determination. To the best of my knowledge, that case is still before the Supreme Court of Canada.
The long-standing precedent in this House certainly would indicate that it is inappropriate for this House to be discussing a specific case of this nature which is now before the Supreme Court of Canada and being considered.
I know the member has concerns about the extradition act, as all members of this House do, but I would ask the Speaker to caution the hon. member with respect to references to a particular case which is now before the courts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Nicholson):: The hon. member for Peterborough would like to address that point.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I rather suspect, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the member who raised the point of order, that these interruptions will occur quite regularly in my address. I know I am at conflict with the member over trying to rush this bill through the House in the first place. I know this member will not agree, as the Liberals have agreed, and as the Conservatives have agreed, to move this bill on to committee for discussion at the legislative stage.
Given that as the parameter and from the member of Parliament who just raised the point of order, who supported an all-party position of four recommendations, one of which was to remove a Supreme Court opportunity, I would think that this point of order, which I am now addressing, and not my speech, would not be taken from the content of time allocated to me to speak.
Private Members' Business
If the member wishes to ask questions, with all due respect, I am available to answer questions for as long as this House wishes to stay on this subject. I am not prepared to sit here, when a man who is outwardly and openly against this process of expediting extradition of convicts back to the United States-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Nicholson):: On the same point of order, the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, just to be very clear, I certainly would not want it to be suggested that the time spent dealing with this point of order should in any way be taken from the time of the hon. member for Peterborough. I am quite prepared to agree that the hon. member for Peterborough should have all the time necessary to argue this particular point of order. That is certainly understood and I agree completely with the hon. member.
I do have the citation from Beauchesne, Mr. Speaker. It is under citation 335:
Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or tribunals which are courts of record. The purpose of this sub-judice convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the interest of justice and fair play.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would note that it is particularly important that this convention be applied in criminal cases. As citation 336 notes:
The sub-judice convention has been applied consistently in criminal cases.
Mr. Speaker, it is very important that this House recognize that the sub-judice convention is one which must be applied and which must be respected. Certainly, I do not in any way wish to detract from the full time which the hon. member would normally have for debate of the issue and not of this particular case.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Nicholson):: On the same point of order, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway has raised this point of order with the very best of intentions. In strict theory what he says is perfectly correct. I agree with him. But I think there is one thing that is very important.

October 23, 1990
Private Members' Business
I was listening to what the hon. member for Peterborough was saying and as I heard it, he was simply reciting the facts of this case that are public knowledge. He was not in any way discussing the merits of the case in so far as it was a criminal case. He was listing the events that had happened publicly in respect of this case.
I do not think that this constitutes anything but, possibly, a technical breach of the rule. I submit that in the circumstances we ought to let the hon. member continue with his recitation of the facts.
If he begins to discuss the merits of the case, I agree it may be that there is a valid point of order to be raised. But I think in listing the public events which have transpired, the hon. member is not transgressing the spirit of the rule and I hope we can hear him out on that basis.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I really hesitate to raise this but we all appreciate the fact that the Speaker is the servant of the House and the Speaker, at all times is, if you like, in a position to offer a fair and unbiased judgment.
I guess the question as to whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice ought to be in the chair on an issue of this nature raises some questions. As I say, I do not want to cause any difficulty because I know there are alternatives to the Chair. But I do have to say that it seems to be somewhat of a problem perhaps in terms of, at least, perception, when the parliamentary secretary is in the Speaker's chair on an issue as important as the one we are discussing today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Nicholson):: I have heard the hon. member. I would have hoped that my position, as the parliamentary secretary, would have enhanced and given greater weight to a particular ruling on this.
I have heard what the hon. member said, and to deal with the points one at a time, this intervention, this point of order, will not be taken from the hon. member's time.
I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway accurately set out the rules by which we govern ourselves in this place. However, but I have to agree as well with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands that what I heard, up to this point, was a recitation of the public facts as they relate to that particular case. At the same
time, I would caution the hon. member that the convention referred to in the point of order is a voluntary restraint on the members of the House and I hope the member will keep that in mind in his remaining comments.
The hon. member for Peterborough.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, perhaps without taking more time on the point of order and going back to the contents of my remarks, I would like to continue with the court record of Charles Ng.
Ng's lawyer, Donald MacLeod, had 60 days to file a motion, asking the Supreme Court of Canada to hear the case. The motion was filed with the Supreme Court in 1989. On August 31, 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that it would not hear Ng's appeal. The then justice minister, now the Minister of Transport signed an extradition warrant on October 26, 1989 without seeking assurances that the death penalty would not be imposed. Ng's lawyer has indicated that he will be filing an appeal of the minister's decision to the Federal Court of Canada, Trials Division, and Mr. MacLeod has indicated that the earliest court date for the Federal Court would be June of 1990, taking two weeks to hear all witnesses, with a decision not expected before the fall of 1990.
On June 8, 1990 the Minister of Justice announced that she was referring the Ng case directly to the Supreme Court for a determination. A copy of the request is attached to my notes, for the benefit of Hansard. On October 1, 1990 the case had still not been inscribed at the Supreme Court in order that the court can set the date for trial.
What I would like to do is read to you one of the major concerns I have on this matter of the extradition of convicts, or suspected convicts. I quote from The Ottawa Citizen of June 13, 1990:
Charles Ng, who is wanted for mass murder in California and is fighting extradition proceedings, is scheduled to complete a 4 1/2-year Canadian prison term this week.
But his lawyer said Tuesday Ng is sure to remain behind bars-despite the formal expiry of his sentence-while the Supreme Court of Canada ponders his fate.
I will move onto another situation that brings home the urgency to get rid of what we have in Canada, a two-track system of justice. Those escaping justice in their own country can come to Canada and get more opportunities, more kicks at the cat in the court system

in Canada than a Canadian citizen could get under a similar condition.
I would remind you that we now have seven opportunities for persons such as I have mentioned, and others, to go to an extradition hearing, number one; a writ of habeas corpus, number two; an appeal to the relevant provincial court of appeal, number three; an appeal to the Supreme Court, number four; and then, if the Minister of Justice decides to sign the extradition request, it then goes on to an appeal of the minister's decision to the Federal Court of Canada, Trials Division. It then goes on to number six, an appeal to the Federal Court of Canada, Appeals Division. It goes on to number seven, an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. No one in the House of Commons can give me one example of any Canadian citizen in the country today who would have seven court opportunities to escape justice in the United States.
Let me tell you what some of our justice ministers have said on the subject. The hon. Doug Lewis spoke in Washington on January 24, 1990. He said:
It is incumbent upon all countries to ensure that alleged criminals from one country do not regard other countries as safe havens. We must, therefore, strive to ensure that our extradition arrangements appropriately meet current needs -It now appears that a two-track process is developing in Canada, or has in fact been developed. The first track involves a judicial hearing to determine if the crime is one for which the extradition may be granted and includes any subsequent appeals. The second track entails a judicial review of the decision of the Minister of Justice in the Federal Court of Canada with the possibility of an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, and ultimately to the Supreme Court of Canada.
I will not read any more from his statement in Washington when he attended the Conference of the Society for the Reform of the Criminal Law. That minister and previous ministers, and the present minister, all agree that we need changes to our extradition laws.
In particular, I will deal for just one moment with another type of person who finds his or her way into Canada in order to escape justice in the United States. Could I refer the House for a moment to the case history of Joseph Kindler who was wanted on death row in the United States.
In the case of Joseph Kindler, let me reiterate what the situation is. He has been in our country, after
Private Members' Business
escaping death row in the United States, for six years at least in our court system. He is also being granted his appeal on the minister's signature for a hearing at the Supreme Court of Canada.
What my bill does is very simply put these suspected or convicted persons on a fast track, one track, up through the judicial system. It affords them the opportunity to do the following: first, have an extradition hearing and a habeas corpus hearing. Then, if they wish to appeal the habeas corpus ruling, they have the right to go to the Federal Court of Appeal directly, not to be tried by a provincial judge, a one judge trial, but to be judged by a three judge trial at the Federal Court of Appeal. That is the appeal to the extradition order providing the minister signs the request and approves it first. In other words, he signs the order to be extradited.
Then they go directly from the habeas corpus case to the Federal Court of Appeal with three judges. If they lose that case before the Federal Court of Appeal, they have the right under my bill to make application to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is what my bill does, very simply. It gives them those five steps and eliminates only two. It eliminates a provincial court of appeal and it goes directly to the federal courts. It eliminates the first track, the Supreme Court of Canada, and goes directly to the Supreme Court of Canada from the Federal Court of Appeal under my bill.
It is a very soft bill to what I would really like to see, but what I would really like to see is not always possible in a government situation. Here is the difficulty. We have a Charter of Rights. The Charter of Rights guarantees a hearing under habeas corpus. I do not want to remove that because I do not wish to get into conflict with the Charter.
However, there is nothing to say that that should not be considered. In Section 1 of the Charter something in the way of a protection such as that can be removed as long something better is put in its place. I think this bill puts something in place that is better. It gives that person the right to go directly to a federal three judge court of appeal right from the habeas corpus hearing, if he or she wishes. It also leaves the door open for that final appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

October 23, 1990
Private Members' Business
With the kind of history we have to look back on and with the kind of support we have as members of Parliament to consider legislation that would speed up this process, think of the good side to the victims in the United States who are trying to bring people such as those whom I have mentioned to court to face justice in the United States.
I read from The Toronto Star of Thursday, May 18. It states:
-families of at least 12 slain American men, women and children -torture victims who were beaten, raped, shot, their bodies later incinerated and buried. Some bones and body parts were uncovered by investigators at a remote farmsite in Calaveros County, outside San Francisco. The bodies of other victims have never been found.
No funerals, no spiritual farewells for their families, the final resting place for their loved ones unknown -
Trying unsuccessfully to hold back the tears-
-one of the 12 victims family members that visited Ottawa back in May of 1989-
- told how her family has agonized over their inability to give her son a proper burial -
Her 20-year-oid-daughter, Brenda, year-old grandson, Lonnie, and son-in-law Lonnie Bond, were also among the murder victims. Film even exists that shows her daughter, handcuffed and bound in chains, begging for her baby. The child's body has never been found, and O'Connor hangs on to the slim hope he is still alive somewhere.
Justice denied is a very unfair analysis to put on this case, but it is a real one. Witnesses to these kinds of murders, or suspected murders, go unanswered while we hold these people in our prison system waiting for extradition.
I hope that the House will see fit to put this to committee for a quick decision on technical amendments, or whatever other amendments are permissive under our system of private members' legislation, to return it with due haste to the House of Commons for a report and third reading vote.
I do not think these concerns will be able to go unanswered by Canadians across the country.
I have one closing comment. I think the governors of California and of Ohio have spoken very key words in trying to find a solution to this problem.
I would like to read from their comments as they pertain to justice being denied. This is a letter from the Office of the Governor, state of Ohio, dated May 5, 1989. It reads:
As you know, Charles Ng is wanted by the State of California for nineteen criminal charges that include burglary, kidnapping, and twelve counts of murder. At present, his extradition case is in Canada's judicial system, at the provincial level.
I fully support the extradition of Charles Ng to the State of California, to face prosecution for his alleged acts of violence-Mr. Ng should be returned to California not only to stand trial, but also so that the victims' families may be able to learn the fate of their loved ones.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I was listening very intently to the presentation of the member for Peterborough on Bill C-210.
I agree with the member that there need to be some changes in this law. In fact we have waited an undue length of time for changes in the laws of extradition in this country.
He referred to some cases. I do not think there is any one case which really emphasizes this more than the Ng case, but I think that there are a lot of incidents where we have seen that the extradition process in Canada really is antiquated and needs to be changed.
That is not to say that in routine proceedings a lot of the extradition cases are dealt with expeditiously. Sometimes they can be sometimes quite routine, but in cases where there is an allegation of murder or a capital offence then the extradition will most certainly be challenged by the person whom the government is proposing to extradite. Of course this process can take quite a length of time.
The Minister of Justice said on January 24 of this year, as the member for Peterborough mentioned, that he was very concerned about this law and that he would be giving it a great deal of attention in the months and weeks ahead. That was in January. Now we are in October and we do not have any presentation by the government. I think that is wrong. The government just seems to be stalled on this. For that reason I would like to give the hon. member's bill a lot more attention in a legislative committee.
It is the position of my party that we should allow this bill to go to a legislative committee where we can look at it. We are not saying that the bill is perfect, that it supplies all the needs or has everything that we would want; but it is the only basis we have at the present for discussing this matter and bringing forth more modern concepts or more modern law to deal with this increasingly important question.
October 23, 1990

I recommend, on behalf of my party, that this matter be brought before a legislative committee.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having an opportunity to participate in the debate on this very important question of the extradition law in Canada.
I want to just pick up on the point that was made by the previous speaker, the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, with respect to the real issue here. The real issue here, Mr. Speaker, surely is the fact that the Conservative member for Peterborough has a grievance with his own government and, in particular, with the Minister of Justice.
It was the Minister of Justice who promised many months ago that she would be moving forward on this issue of extradition. The minister was questioned before the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General when she appeared, and she was asked about possible changes to the law on extradition. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it was not just representatives from one party who expressed these concerns, there were representatives of all three parties on the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
The Minister of Justice said yes, she was concerned, she would look at it. But, Mr. Speaker, we are now into the latter part of October and there has still been no action taken whatsoever.
If the Conservative government is serious about changes in the law of extradition, why does it not bring forward a bill? Why does the member of Parliament for Peterborough not persuade the Minister of Justice to finally do something in this area of extradition? Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that he is getting up with a bill which was drafted long ago which, in fact, does not reflect the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General in this important area of extradition?
My colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys said: "Let's send this whole thing to the committee and study the bill".
The problem with that, Mr. Speaker, is that we have already done that. We have done exactly that. The Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General did in fact study the whole question of extradition. We
Private Members' Business
received extensive evidence from a number of witnesses who looked at this issue with great care. We received background studies from the Library of Parliament, an overview of the extradition process. Following that lengthy and thoughtful process of hearings-and the member for Peterborough recalls that, he was a part of the process of hearings around this question of extradition-the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General unanimously submitted a report to this House.
Why is the Minister of Justice ignoring the unanimous recommendation of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General for changes? We have the member for Peterborough coming before the House and pointing out concerns in this area. We have the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys saying: "Let's study this some more". Well, Mr. Speaker, we do not need any more study.
The member for Peterborough, the Liberal justice critic, a representative of my party, all have studied this issue. The people of Canada want action. They do not want more studies. They do not want more committee meetings. They want a government that is prepared to move.
It is that which causes me concern and which causes my colleagues concern. What the member for Peterborough is doing in fact may very well delay the process of real change in this important area.
I believe that the people of Alberta, the people of other provinces in Canada, want this government to move, and the member for Peterborough is giving the government an excuse for further delay. That may not be his intention, but practically speaking that is exactly what is going to happen. Instead of the Minister of Justice being forced to finally move and to act on the unanimous recommendations of the standing committee, the Minister of Justice can say: "No, no, I can't bring forward legislation now because the bill is being studied by another committee. The member for Peterborough wants us to spend more time".
Mr. Speaker, people in this country are fed up with-


Mr.   Doram@: Mr. Speaker, because of my very special interest in the subject, I listened very carefully to what the Liberal member said and I know what I said. At no time did I ever ask for any study, nor at any time did the Liberal member ask for any study.

October 23, 1990
Private Members' Business
What we asked for is-


Svend Johannes Robinson: Point of order.


Mr.   Doram@: Just let me finish. You have a habit of interrupting.


Svend Johannes Robinson: This is not a point of order.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: This is a point of order.
He has accused both the Liberal member of Parliament and myself of asking for a study. The Liberal member of Parliament asks that this bill be passed on tonight to the legislative committee to bring back the bill with whatever technical changes are needed. I did not ask for any study. The Liberal member did not ask for any study. The only member who is asking for any study is the NDP member who refuses to pass it today, send it to a legislative committee, and vote on it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Peterborough expressed an opinion that is subject to debate, and I again recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I trust that this will not be taken out of my time, just as the member for Peterborough received a similar assurance.
Parliament has studied this issue. There has been a unanimous report. What this member is doing is proposing to the people of Canada that we study an issue which has already been studied. That is exactly what it means when a bill is sent to committee. There will be more hearings, more witnesses and more reports. That is not acceptable to the people of this country.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, the member is clearly questioning the procedure of a private members' bill, when we vote on it at second reading it must go to a legislative committee, not for study, but for amendments and changes. This applies to every bill, whether it is government or private.
What he is doing is filibustering against a private members' bill and saying the government should do it. He is here as a private member with bills himself.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Peterborough, but this is again a matter of opinion. I think we should get back to the main subject of this debate. I again recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the member for Peterborough is perhaps a little nervous in recognizing that by proposing this particular strategy, he is going against the wishes of the people of this country who want legislative action. They are looking for a government to provide some leadership in this issue.
I would like to challenge the member for Peterborough. His caucus meets, I believe, on Wednesday mornings. I suggest that the member for Peterborough raise this issue in his caucus and ask his colleague, the Minister of Justice, to bring a government bill before this House. I am quite prepared, on behalf of my colleagues, to make a commitment that if that bill which the Minister of Justice brings before this House reflects the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, that bill will in fact receive the prompt attention of this Parliament.
What the member for Peterborough is doing is proposing yet another delay. This member knows that there has been a great sense of anger and outrage in this country with respect to what are perceived to be understandable flaws and weaknesses in this legislation, in the existing Criminal Code provisions.
I do not think that the people of Peterborough, the people of Calgary, the people of Red Deer or other Canadians would be very happy at the suggestion that having studied this legislation and having submitted a report to the Government of Canada, the Government of Canada is simply ignoring the recommendations of a parliamentary committee. That is exactly what it is doing.
Where is the Minister of Justice? Why has she not stood up in this House and said: "Yes, I have read the recommendations of the third report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General. I understand the concerns of Canadians from coast to coast about the extradition process and here is a bill." That is not what the Conservative government is doing. It is failing to provide any leadership whatsoever. I understand the frustration that the member for Peterborough feels with his own minister. It must be terribly frustrating because he cannot get his own government to
October 23, 1990

move. Now he is desperately looking around for some other way to do an end run around his own government. The people of Canada deserve better. The people of Canada deserve leadership on this important issue. The people of Canada do not want more committee hearings on a process which has already been studied, and studied, and studied again.
Mr. Speaker, you are asking me to conclude, and I will conclude by saying that the time for action on this very important subject and for government action is now.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to point out to all here and the people of Canada that we are seeing a filibuster by the New Democratic Party.
The critic for justice, the hon. member for Burnaby- Kingsway, talks about bills coming into this House. He knows full well that time allocation for bills coming into the House is limited indeed because every bill that comes before this House with a government initiative is being thwarted by members of Parliament in the opposition.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I will reserve.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
["Order. The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.", 'Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Private Members' Business
Bill C-28, an Act to amend the Income Thx Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Public utilities Income Ihx Transfer Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and a related Act-Chapter 39
Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act-Chapter 40



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Domm for second reading and referral to a legislative committee. Bill C-210, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Supreme Court Act (habeas corpus).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: At the time the sitting was suspended, the hon. member for Athabaska had the floor.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, there is one point I would like to say very clearly, and that is that the member of Parliament-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway, on a point of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I had the floor when the Black Rod knocked, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I am sorry, but the end of your speech coincided with the end of your speaking time. Your speaking time has now expired.

The hon. member for Athabasca had the floor. The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I did have the floor on a point of order when when the knock came on the door. I was just starting the point of order when we were interrupted by Her Majesty's representative.
Very briefly, because I know that the hon. member for Athabasca wants to speak on this important question, the

October 23, 1990
Government Orders
hon. member for Athabasca suggested that in some way there was a filibuster under way in this House. I want to just draw to the attention-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry but this is not a point of order. It is more a matter of opinion. I again recognize the hon. member for Athabasca.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway underlined in his presentation that there is no use in members of Parliament submitting private members' bills-and there are many submitted in this House- because, even if there is general agreement in the House of Commons and they follow the same procedure as any other bill presented in this House by the government, they are not worth anything in that they will in some way impede the government's way of doing business.
I want to compliment the member for Peterborough who has been very diligent in his work. He has worked very hard with the law officers of this establishment to put together a bill that I think is very reasonable, that should go forward immediately to committee and that should be brought back to this House for third and final reading.
I would like to suggest-we will quit before the time is up-that all members stop speaking on this bill and that by unanimous consent we move it into committee.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in the minute or two that the hon. member for Athabasca has left me, I want to point out that there are certain measures proposed by the all-party committee, which included the member for Peterborough, with which I am in agreement. I think everybody in this House is likely in agreement, but I want to say that I think it is a mistake for the member for Peterborough to intervene in this way rather than by bringing the pressure to bear on his government. There is a pattern that is occurring in the last several years, the last four our five years in particular, of endangering human rights.
The point about human rights is that when you endanger the human rights of one, you may endanger the human rights of another one. The one may look quite bad enough, but you may hurt somebody else that
you would not have wanted to hurt. However, the precedent when it is set is set. This is why I would-


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

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consideration of motion No. 16 in the name of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead).
That this House condemn the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and. encouraged by the unprecedented international consensus demanding the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the full restoration of the legitimate government of Kuwait, affirm unequivocally its support for Canada's actions in the Security Council and its support for all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted since August 2 and for the sending of members, vessels and aircraft of the Canadian Forces to participate in the multinational military effort in and around the Arabian Peninsula, and in recognition of the seriousness of this matter, accept the undertaking of the Government to present a further resolution to this House in the event of the outbreak of hostilities involving Canadian Forces in and around the Arabian Peninsula; and
That upon adoption of this motion, the said motion shall be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 6 p.m, pursuant to orders made Thursday, October 18, and Friday, October 19, 1990, the House will now proceed to the defferred division on the motion concerning the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, Government Business No. 16.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.
It being 6.28 p.m, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, October 24,1990