1990-10-03

Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, in August, I visited the beach in Israel where, on July 28, 1990, Mamie Kimelman of North York was fatally injured by the vicious irrational actions of a Palestinian terrorist.
Mamie was 17, intelligent, attractive, concerned, and compassionate. She was known by her friends as the peace lady. Mamie would have made a tremendous contribution to our society, to Israel which she loved, and possibly to a just and lasting reconciliation with the Palestinian people. Her death and that of other innocent victims of terror in Israel must strengthen the resolve of all fair-minded and peace-loving people to find a lasting peace settlement.
It should also strengthen our resolve as a country not to deal with terrorists. If the PLO leadership do not condemn and dissociate themselves from such acts, we should not give them credibility by official interaction with them.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND FERRY SERVICE
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, this summer a federal environmental panel ruled against the government's proposal for a fixed link between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
A new proposal may or may not be forthcoming. But even if a new fixed link proposal is approved, it could be the year 2000 before the first car drives across the strait.
That is why the federal government must continue to meet its constitutional obligation to provide adequate ferry service between the mainland and Prince Edward Island.
As the rising ferry traffic continues to put a strain on ferry capacity, the adequacy of this service is in serious doubt. For almost two years now, I have been pressing the government to act on this important transportation issue which affects all sectors of our economy.
Once again, I urge the government to give its Crown corporation, Marine Atlantic, the green light to proceed with plans for a new ferry. The time for action is now.


OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, last week we learned that, at the powerhouse of the CN shops in Transcona, CN knowingly allowed workers to be exposed to asbestos for a period of several weeks over the summer.
When CN asked workers to remove some insulation from one of the boilers, an employee asked what was being removed and was told by management that whatever it was, it was safe. Only then did CN send a sample of this material to a government lab and was told in July that there as asbestos in the insulation. However, CN did nothing to protect the workers until the middle of September, when an employee asked to see the lab report. The negligence of CN in this affair is shocking.
The asbestos is now being professionally dealt with, thanks to the union's press conference on the matter, but we must still find out how this was allowed to happen. To this end, I wrote to both the Ministers of Labour and Transport, backing the union call for a parliamentary inquiry.
CN may finally be dealing with the asbestos properly, but the government has yet to deal with Labour Canada for its negligence in ignoring union concerns throughout the summer and conducting an inspection only after the union press conference. The parliamentary committee

October 3, 1990
responsible for Labour Canada should definitely have a look into this one.


HIBERNIA PROJECT
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, for many years, we Quebecers played second fiddle.
For many years we sat on the sidelines instead of being actively involved, we listened instead of speaking up, we obeyed instead of making our own decisions.
For many years, we were told: "You can't run your own show; you don't have the intelligence or the skills; in other words, don't get your hopes up"!
Today, however, we have put all that behind us, witness Quebec's economic, social and political progress in the past thirty years.
We are proud of our success.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, some people still say we can't stand on our own two feet. The Hibernia project is a good example. We must now show that we Quebecers have what it takes!


THE LATE MARNIE KIMELMAN
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mamie Kimelman who was killed by a terrorist bomb on an Israeli beach on July 28, 1990.
I attended Mamie's funeral at the Adath Israel Synagogue and the next day I visited her parents, Harold and Linda, at their home. They told me that the whole family visited Israel in 1986 and that Mamie was so anxious to return. While they were able to deter her visit last year, they knew they had to give their blessing for her to visit Israel this year.
Fortunately, Mamie kept an extensive diary and took many pictures during her visit. These are very precious memories of Mamie's thoughts and activities before she was tragically taken from us.
Her warmth and generosity will always be remembered by her parents, her two brothers, Jason and Mark, and other members of the family. Her memory will be an inspiration to young people everywhere.



Mr. Jim Peterson (WIHowdale):: Mr. Speaker, on July 28, a home-made pipe-bomb exploded on a crowded Tel Aviv beach. It injured 18 people. It killed Mamie Kimelman, a 17-year old student at York Mills Collegiate in Toronto.
Mamie, who lived with her family in Willowdale, was part of a group of 80 Canadian teenagers touring Israel on a trip sponsored by the Canadian Zionist Federation. She was the fourth foreign visitor and the third Canadian to be killed by Palestinian terrorists.
As Canadians, there are no words that we can find to express our outrage at this vicious act of terrorism perpetrated against an innocent person. There are also no words that we can offer to Mamie's parents and her two brothers to ease the pain that they feel at her loss.
For our part, we must renew our pledge to fight against terrorism and re-affirm our commitment to do everything possible as Canadians to seek a lasting peace.


TAXATION
Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, we need to rethink our approach to family taxation.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Al Johnson: The present system is a patchwork of rules, regulations, and programs, each with their own valid objectives. However, it is time we made a complete re-evaluation of the system to ensure that our scarce resources are being used in the most appropriate way to strengthen and preserve family structures in our society.
Any changes to our family support system must treat all families equitably and ensure that the rights of women and children are not only protected, but enhanced.
October 3, 1990

The family is a pillar of our nation. I urge the government to act now to ensure that our tax system does not weaken it.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Liberals really oppose the 7 per cent goods and services tax and I would like to explain why.
Did the Liberal senators vote unanimously in favour of the GST when leave was sought to introduce it in the Senate? No.
Did the Liberal senators vote unanimously in favour of the GST when it was introduced in first reading?


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. member:: Yes, they did.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Let me try it again, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Nelson Andrew Riis: In summary, let me say that the Liberal senators did not vote against it at first reading. They did not vote against it when they sought leave to introduce it. They did not vote against it at the second reading stage.
They then rang the bells all Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday. But, Mr. Speaker, the Senate does not sit on Friday, Saturday, Sunday or Monday. I think they could have kept the bells ringing but, of course, Jean Chretien ordered the now minority number of Liberal senators to return to the Senate when they are-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


THE SENATE
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal senators have systematically blocked bills that were tabled in the Senate after they were passed in the House of Commons.
This attitude is a contradiction of our system of government, in which the ultimate responsibility lies with the elected representatives in the House.
This is a matter of democracy and concerns the elected government's right to conduct its business on behalf of the people it represents.
The problem is not the GST but the fact that non-elected Liberal senators are depriving an elected government of its right to govern.
The Senate is now blocking three other money bills, adding a total of $8.3 billion to the deficit.


Some hon. members:: Shame!


Vincent Della Noce: These bills, including the GST bill, are the main components of the government's economic plan for Canada.
This paralysis of government business caused by a non-elected Senate is a denial of the principles of our parliamentary system.
Mr. Speaker, the will of the elected House must prevail. We have a duty to defend our system of government and we shall do so.


LITERACY
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada, in partnership with the Canadian Library Association, is honouring individuals in our communities with a very special award for their outstanding contribution to promoting literacy.
This year, 1990, is International Literacy Year and it is therefore fitting to present Canada's Literacy Volunteer Awards. This is an important program in the literacy movement for it recognizes those Canadians who give of their time and effort to help others.
Nominations can be made at our public library boards which will then select the recipients to be honoured. This is the time to praise and to commend those persons who are contributing so much to stamp out illiteracy in Canada.
Literacy is vital to our future and we must all work toward ensuring that forthcoming generations have the opportunity and pleasure of knowing how to read.

Oral Questions CORPORATE TAXATION


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome back to the House of Commons the corporate welfare bum of the week award. Our nominees are as follows: North Canadian, with no tax paid in 1988 and 1989; last year's winner Hemlo Gold, also with no tax paid in 1988 and 1989; and last, we have Brascade Resources, which also avoided the onerous responsibility of paying taxes in 1988 and 1989.
May I have the envelope, please?
The winner is Hemlo Gold. Yes, it is true. Hemlo Gold is a second time winner. They have outdone themselves in making profits of $54 million, that is $10 million more than in 1988. Hemlo has managed not only to avoid paying taxes, but also has received $1.9 million in government hand-outs, again for the second year in a row.
I think congratulations are in order to the parent company Brascan Holdings, the owner of all three of our nominees, and its president, the newly appointed Senator Eyton, for keeping the award-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow in Manitoba, university and other students throughout the province will be meeting in Winnipeg to demonstrate and protest against such critical issues and injustices as sky-rocketing tuition fees; a mounting and crushing student debt; an outdated student aid program whose only substantive change in recent years has been the imposition of a 3 per cent tax on those students who need help most, the poor students and the poor families; massive cuts in transfer payments to education; reductions in funds for training and retraining; and neglect of research and development.
When will the government help Canadian students to acquire the tools necessary to build a better future for themselves and for all Canadians? The government cannot expect to create a new generation of world leaders while cutting the necessary resources to education and wanting to impose additional taxes such as the GST on books and other learning materials.

We need sound and intelligent leadership that will provide this generation of Canadians with the tools they need to improve their life and make a solid contribution to this country.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister.
Today, the Economic Council of Canada released its annual review. The council's own official summary of this review when speaking about this government's high interest rate, high dollar policies, in part said that these "policies not only fail to achieve acceptable economic goals for Canada in the short run, but the process of fighting inflation solely through tight money may actually get in the way of firms attempting to modernize operations-in the longer run."
I ask the Prime Minister: Will he direct the Minister of Finance today to bring in a new budget immediately to reverse these economic policies, which the Economic Council appointed by this Prime Minister say are not only damaging the Canadian economy but harming its ability to work in the world and achieve global competitiveness? Will he move immediately in this direction?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member full well knows, we are not relying totally on monetary policy.
We are relying on fiscal policy and on what are called structural policies to reduce the inflationary pressures in the economy.
My hon. friend should know that the OECD has put out some numbers which demonstrate that, of the seven major industrialized countries, Canada's fiscal policy has been the most contractionary in the last five or six years.
Also, I think that Canadians are owed an answer to the following question: What has the Liberal Party done in the last six years to encourage this government to follow policies which will reduce the fiscal deficit, which is
October 3, 1990

where the economic policies say we should have done more?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Minister of Finance in case he has forgotten-the Canadian people have not-that he is in government. He must account to Canadians for the policies that his government's own Economic Council says are damaging the Canadian economy.
Here is what the council also said in its summary. This council was appointed by this Prime Minister. It said that the government's approach to inflation fighting "threatens to increase both unemployment and the federal deficit. Because conditions differ from region to region, it also produces varying and sometimes inappropriate effects, adding to regional resentments and weakening national unity."
I ask the Prime Minister: Will he listen to his own Economic Council and stop the economic policies which are not only damaging the regions of this country, but in fact are weakening the very fabric of Canada's unity? Why will he not act on his own council's advice?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there was a very good reason why I wanted to refer not to the inaction on the part of the Liberal Party in dealing with fiscal policy, but the fact that the Liberal Party has resisted this government and everything that we have done to reduce the size of the fiscal deficit.
It is the two faced, cynical approach of the Liberal Party that is leading me to make that specific statement.
If Canadians need any further proof of this, what is the Liberal Senate doing right now? The Liberal senators are holding up Bill C-21. The Liberal senators are holding up Bill C-28. They are holding up Bill C-69.
If we do not get those three pieces of legislation through, we are going to have a hit on the deficit of over $8 billion. That is going to hurt interest rates. That will undercut the competitive position of Canadian companies. If the hon. member had any honesty to deal with these problems-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, speaking of honesty, will the minister be honest enough to say that the-


Mr. Speaker:: I think if both sides stay off that allegation it will be a lot better.


Mr. Crawford:: He started it.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Canadians will want to know why the Minister of Finance has gone out of his way to refuse to answer the criticisms of this government's policy by the Economic Council.
[Translation\
Mr. Speaker, the Economic Council did not mention the Senate; the Economic Council did not mention the Liberals. It referred directly to the policies of this government. And according to the Economic Council, these policies have done serious harm to the economy of this country.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the only point for me raising the Senate and the Liberal Party is that we are trying to do some of the things that the Liberal Party says we should do and which we agree we should do. What we receive from the Liberal Party and the Liberal senators is a road-block, trying to stop us from doing the very things that this document and the Leader of the Opposition says we should follow. We are trying to follow those things but we need some co-operation from the Senate, from the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Party, who I believe is sitting in the gallery right now.


THE SENATE
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.
On Monday, the Minister of Justice categorically stated about the constitutionality of the government's recent Senate appointments that there was no breach of section 51(A) of the Constitution because the appointments are divisional appointments and not provincial appointments.

October 3, 1990
Oral Questions
However, section 147 of the same act provides a direct link, I suggest, with section 26, under which the new senators were appointed, as it provides that no senators above 10 could be appointed in the province of New Brunswick, and I stress province and not maritime division, except under section 26.
In view of this direct linkage, will the minister not reconsider the government's decision and refer the whole matter to the Supreme Court of Canada so that these legal arguments can be fully and completely aired?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will recall, when the issue was first raised in the House, which I believe was Friday of last week, I indicated that the issue was an arguable one. There are a number of provisions in the Constitution which have to be reconciled. Having reviewed all of those provisions and their various relations to one another, we are confident that our position is the correct one. If the hon. member is not, he has recourse to the courts.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to say that we have recourse to the courts but as the highest law officer of the Crown, I would like the minister, and I put the question to her, to consider the section which specifically states: "That only 10 members can be appointed to New Brunswick" and "the representation of each of those provinces shall not be increased at any time beyond 10, except under the provisions of this act for the appointment of three or six additional senators under the direction of the Queen", which is now four or eight.
The linkage is clear; you cannot appoint to the province of New Brunswick more than 10 senators under section 26. Will you not put that question to the Supreme Court of Canada?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, once again, I can appreciate why members on that side of the House are very uncomfortable with what is going on now and are seeking issues to try and deflect attention from what they really stand for, which is the supremacy of an unelected Senate over the House of Commons. I have been quite happy to concede that there are arguable issues and to state the position of the government, and I would state
this point. I would like to quote a senior member of this parliament from a previous time:
This tendency that whenever there is something controversial you shovel it to the courts is not that of responsible government. A responsible government makes up its mind, does what it thinks is right, and if it is constitutionally wrong, it is for the courts to decide.
I am sorry the hon. member finds that arrogant because that is a quotation from February 15,1981, of his new leader, the Hon. Jean Chretien.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The opinion that the stacking of the Senate to ram through the GST is unconstitutional is increasing every day.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have here a legal opinion which says that not only is the Prime Minister in violation of section 51(A) of the Constitution Act, 1867, by creating more senators from New Brunswick than members of the House of Commons, but that he is also in violation of the Constitution Act, 1982, because section 41(B) states in effect that the appointment of the eleventh senator from New Brunswick amounts to an amendment of the Constitution of Canada, requiring unanimous consent of the provinces and of Parliament. The Prime Minister does not have that.
I ask the Prime Minister, will he show real confidence in his decision and make a reference to the Supreme Court?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I explained to my hon. friend yesterday that the government acted pursuant to legal advice from the most senior law officers of the Crown. It followed the constitutional provision, Her Majesty did the same. All of the actions taken were following this kind of advice from the senior law officers of the Crown. It may very well be that my hon. friend has a different point of view. Clearly that appears to be the case. That is what the courts are for.
If my hon. friend wishes to contest-


An hon. member:: Send it to the court.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to respond to my hon. friend. If she has a different-


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Send it to the Supreme Court.
October 3, 1990


Martin Brian Mulroney: If she has a different point of view, I am sure the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court would be happy to entertain it at an appropriate time and under appropriate circumstances.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Prime Minister. Surely it is the responsibility of a government to ensure that the actions they are taking are legal.

Mr. Speaker, experts throughout the country agree that what the government did may very well be illegal. Some very serious questions are being asked-this morning for instance, in Le Devoir, by a doctor of constitutional law, in a Kitchener newspaper by former Supreme Court Justice Willard Estey, and by other experts as well.
Will the Prime Minister finally table in the House the advice given by his experts, who seem to be the only experts in Canada who approve the actions of his government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there may very well be lawyers across Canada who do not agree on the scope of a legal provision or the interpretation of a legal decision. I can inform the hon. member that the Canadian government consulted with its legal advisers in the Senate, who unanimously suggested a procedure that was entirely legal and acceptable. And we followed that procedure. We asked Her Majesty's permission, under a provision of the present Constitution. If this action gives the hon. member cause for concern, she has the same rights as any other Canadian citizen. On the basis of her allegations she can seek the appropriate remedy from the appropriate court.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: He and only he can go directly to the Supreme Court to get this settled once and for all.
Mr. Speaker, until that question is settled in fact all decisions made by this Parliament, all laws passed, may indeed be illegal, I would say. I remind the Prime Minister that the Secretary of State for External Affairs appears to agree with us because on October 15, 1980, when he was Leader of the Opposition, he slammed the
Oral Questions
government of the day for refusing to refer its constitutional resolution to the Supreme Court.
I think his words were very wise and should be repeated here. I quote the words of the current Secretary of State for External Affairs, as reported at page 3680 of Hansard'.
-whether it is the position of the government now that Parliament and the people of Canada should bow to the government's will on the basis of advice that the Minister of Justice insists on keeping secret, and the validity of which he refuses to submit to the basic test of the Supreme Court?
Will the Prime Minister take the advice of his external affairs minister advice and refer this matter to the Supreme Court?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has already acted pursuant to advice it has received from the most senior law officers of the Crown. Her Majesty has acted as well.
If my hon. friend is concerned with the propriety or the legality of that action, she is entitled to seek redress before an appropriate court. In the absence of a decision to the contrary from the Supreme Court of Canada, the responsibility of the Government of Canada remains the same.
We were elected to govern and that is precisely what we are going to do.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
This government has chosen to exempt public day care centres from paying the GST but not those that are privately operated. This will add as much as 3.5 per cent to the cost of private day care for an average family.
Having already reneged on his government's commitment to public day care, can the minister now explain why his government is trying to eliminate private day care as an option for working mothers?
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the position taken by the hon. member is not correct. It is not our intention whatsoever to eliminate private day care.

Oral Questions
My understanding of the position taken by many members of the Liberal caucus, however, has been that they have been opposed in the past to private day care and have argued in favour strictly of public day care.
Our position in the government is to encourage child care in Canada. That is why we are committing almost $1 billion this year to do precisely that.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, I understand the minister's abrasiveness which attempts to conceal his embarrassment at his government's plan to save day care legislation until the next election.
Because of this government's day care deception of 1988, more and more working mothers are unable to find space in non-profit day care and are forced to rely on private centres. If the GST passes these families will pay as much as $300 more per child next year.
Will the minister inform the House as to whether his ministry will make any effort to stop the GST from smothering much needed day care, or is the national Revenue the only ministry interested in targeting day care?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will forgive me for introducing facts on the floor of the House of Commons.
However, the position taken by this government from the outset has been that we want to see a national day care program in place. If it were not for the Liberal senators, we would have a national day care program in place today.
I would ask the hon. member whether she speaks for the Liberal Party of Canada in arguing in favour of private child care over publicly financed child care. I would point out to the hon. member that families earning less than $30,000 a year will be ahead of the game as a result of the GST tax credit. She should be supporting it



Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, despite a chorus of protests, the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board are still refusing to
grant an exemption from the GST on books, which will sound the death knell of the publishing industry. The Minister of Communications said, and I quote: "Put your questions to the Minister of Finance. As far as I am concerned, the studies I paid for are being used to attack the GST".
My question to the Prime Minister is as follows: Does he agree with his Minister of Communications or with the President of the Treasury Board? Which one?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will understand that the Minister of Communications, the Minister of Finance and myself have an abiding interest in the growth of the publishing industry in this country. The Liberals, unfortunately, have started to believe what they say about the GST. They describe the GST as a monster, and they are now shooting at the monster. The GST is a tax that exists in many countries. It is a direct and visible tax, applied to a very broad base so that choices will not depend on the tax. This tax also helps to improve the state of the economy, so that more people will be able to buy books after the GST is introduced than was the case before.


Sheila Finestone: You know perfectly well you are killing one of Quebec's cultural industries.

These ministers and this government in particular are killing the book industry in Quebec and across this country. It is a very serious matter. This is not a laughing matter. Reading is an opening into the world, and you are cutting back the population's access to it-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could put her question.


Sheila Finestone: Will any one of these ministers come clean with the Canadian public, come clean with the printing industry and recognize that you are killing them with this GST tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept that for a minute, but let me also say to my hon. friend that education is not being taxed and libraries are not being taxed.
My colleague, the Minister of Communications, has a program that will be helping Canadian book publishers, but I think what this does-

October 3, 1990


Ms. Copps:: Day care is taxed.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Day care is not taxed. The member for Hamilton East has just said that day care is taxed. It is not taxed.
What this all points out is that the Liberal Party of Canada cannot accept the fact that this bill has passed the House of Commons. It is in the Senate and the Liberal members opposite are saying that they want to pass over their responsibility as elected members of Parliament to a body to which the Canadian public has no recourse.
They have no way of voting out Allan MacEachen. They have no way of voting out Sid Buchwold. It is this fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy that the Liberal Party is trying to deflect the attention of Canadians on. They will not deflect the attention of Canadians because of the wide-spread editorial support for what-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton -Melville):: My question is for the Prime Minister, if the Liberals will calm down over there, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My question is for the Prime Minister, as the leader of the government. In a rather unprecedented report this morning the Economic Council of Canada launched a scathing attack on the federal government's economic policies. It said that the government leader should admit that there is something fundamentally wrong with past economic policies.
I want to know from the Prime Minister of Canada whether or not he agrees with his blue chip economic advisory group that there is something fundamentally wrong with the economic policies of this government. Will he now admit that and change those policies on behalf of the people of this country?
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a fairly loose interpretation here, but that is normally expected from the hon. member.
We accept the fact that we should be getting the deficit of the Government of Canada down. That is precisely what we have been trying to do over the last six years and what we have been having a reasonable amount of success in doing.
More work has to be done, but perhaps the hon. member and his party could get off this horse of supporting the Liberal senators when they are blocking Bill C-21, which is designed to get the deficit down; Bill C-28, which is designed to get the deficit down; Bill C-62, which is designed to get the deficit down, as well as Bill C-69. Those are bills on unemployment insurance, on taxation, on the GST, and on expenditure-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, no wonder the Canadian people are cynical about this government. What this report does is attack the government on its failure to bring down inflation in this country in the proper way and to bring down unemployment in the proper way. They say, and I quote, at page 45: "Canada has never made more than a timid commitment to full employment".
The old ways have not worked. What I want to know from this government is what new policies it will introduce now to respond to this report. What new commitments will it bring in for the unemployed of this country? What new direction can we expect in Canada to put Canadians to work?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the record of this government stands. We have brought the unemployment rate from 11.7 per cent down to the current level of around 8 per cent. A million and a half jobs have been created.
The Economic Council, if the hon. member will go on a few pages, also points out the fact that we should be spending more money for training to help people who are unemployed get better skills so they can get back into the labour force. That is the bill that my colleague has put to the Senate. It is a bill-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You just said it was to reduce the deficit.

Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member obviously has not read it. The hon. member for Hamilton East has been away too long. It is designed to get the deficit down. It is also designed to redirect $800 million of moneys to encourage a greater amount of training for unemployed workers.
It is one of the bills that is being held up in the Senate. It is one of the bills that the New Democratic Party, in a very cynical way, is supporting the Senate in holding it up.


HAMILTON HARBOUR COMMISSION
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. When did his government first learn that Peter Lush received while he was chairman of the Hamilton Harbour Commission a payment of $400,000 for a real estate transaction?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Transport informed my colleague yesterday that there would be an independent law firm named so that they would be able to examine the actions that have been taken. I am sure the hon. member would wish that to take place before he made any further statements.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I am simply looking for facts, as the hon. minister mentioned earlier, on the floor of the House of Commons.
Given that six months ago I advised the Minister of Transport that the chairman of the Hamilton Harbour Commission was also acting as a real estate broker in the sale of $10 million worth of property to the Hamilton Harbour Commission, and given that the lawyer for J. I. Case, the seller of the property confirms that Peter Lush was paid a $400,000 commission on the sale of the land when the land deal closed, will the Prime Minister recognize the ineptitude of his Minister of Transport and relieve him of his duties immediately?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand my colleague's actions at this time. In March that member from Hamilton said-and I have it in the Hamilton Spectator of March 14, 1990-"I am satisfied with that. I can live with it" in explaining what had taken place. My colleague the
Minister of Transport said that there would be an independent law firm engaged to review the situation and that their report would be made public. I hear the member for Hamilton West. I do not understand, unless it happens to be the history of Hamilton and the harbour commission, dating back to 1975 and 1979, that causes the hon. member to have this inane desire to investigate the activity which is taking place in Hamilton. Will the hon. member not wait for the investigation as everyone else will?


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the two Ministers of Transport I address my question on the same matter to the right hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday, in response to my request for a full public inquiry, his Minister of Transport said that the individual in question, Mr. Lush, had asked for an independent review and that he would be naming an independent law firm to review this matter.
Why is the government only agreeing to Mr. Lush's option, rather than satisfying the interests of the Canadian taxpayers which would be best served by a full and public inquiry on a public matter involving public funds? After all, to whom is this government responsible?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I can only quote my colleague, the Minister of Transport. I am sure the hon. member and all members of this House would like to be assured of the ability of individuals to receive justice without having it biased in any way. I can quote my colleague, the Minister of Transport-


Sheila Maureen Copps: How about $400,000.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The member for Hamilton East would also, I am sure, share that concern.
I can only quote my colleague, the Minister of Transport, in Southam News, citing a recent Supreme Court of Ontario decision. They said a public commission is not the place to conduct these investigations because people's reputations are at risk and they have no recourse to reply. I am sure that the hon. member would accept that. I am sure the hon. member would wait for the independent law firm to be engaged and review this. And it will be made public, as my colleague, the Minister of Transport said yesterday in the House.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I return to the Prime Minister and I hope that he finds the
October 3, 1990

courage to answer about his own government's conflict of interest guidelines. How can the Prime Minister defend his transport minister, who was a former Minister of Justice, in promoting a cosy, closed door review by a law firm which will end up reporting to the same minister? Why does the Prime Minister not stand in his place and do the-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the hon. member would wish to allow the issue of innocent until proven guilty-


Sergio Marchi: His interests are served in the public too.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, again I can only quote to the hon. member, who has much more experience, I presume, in the law than I, the statement in the Ontario Supreme Court ruling which said that a public commission is not the place to conduct these investigations because people's reputations are at risk and they have no recourse to reply and respond. I am sure the hon. member, being a fair-minded member, would like the individual involved to have the right of reply.


PETRO-CANADA
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question for the Minister of State for Privatization. When the government privatized Air Canada, it paid RBC Dominion Securities and Wood Gundy Incorporated over $30 million to tout the stock. Now, ostensibly to sell Canadians an oil company they already own, the government will spend up to $175 million, or more, money that will go straight into the pockets of hot shot brokers and agents. Free of the GST, too, thank you very much.
From where is the minister taking that $175 million? Is it from the $155 million cut from the Canada Assistance Plan? Is it from the $35 million cut from programs for Canadian veterans? Is it from the $1.2 million cut from women's programs and the $9.7 million cut from native Canadians? Where is the money for all those stockbrokers coming from?
Oral Questions


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange that the hon. member has these figures when there has not even been a price set for the stocks of Petro-Canada.
Once again, the NDP is manufacturing things to make it look spectacular on the floor of the House of Commons.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, it is not the NDP that is manufacturing figures. It is Ian Doig and other noted market analysts. We are just sort of feeding it to the House.
Assuming for a moment that the $175 million figure is correct and that the government is going to turn the $500 to $700 million generated by the first 15 per cent issue back into the company, is it the case then, that in its frenzied desire to strip the Canadian people of assets they now own, the government is prepared to give away somewhere around three-quarters of a billion dollars of taxpayers' money to big time oil company shareholders and stock touts? Is that what the government means by restraint and fighting the deficit?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the question on that substance.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Statistics Canada.
In February of this year, the minister will remember that I asked him whether or not there would be a question dealing with the disabled and employment equity targets on the 1991 census. He answered the House that it was being discussed.
Today, I would like to ask the minister what the outcome of these discussions were.


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the answer to that specific question at the moment. I will get back to the hon. member.

October 3, 1990
Oral Questions


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Mr. Speaker, just last Friday the minister's colleague, the Secretary of State, denied funding for a conference held this past weekend on employment equity.
This government is sending a mixed message to Canadians who are disabled. Will the minister now, while there is still time before the issue of the 1991 census, consult with disabled groups to formulate a census questionnaire that will generate the data to provide the target levels and programs that physically challenged Canadians need?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: In
answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House that our government is very interested in the role of the handicapped and of visible minorities. Prior to the tabling of the next annual report, we had consultations in Ottawa Monday with a group of national leaders concerned about employment equity. Monday's gathering was the first in a series of regional and national meetings, and before the end of December we expect to table our third report featuring an assessment of progress made so far. We have a long way to go yet, but we are working together to improve the situation.


CANADA POST
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post.
Effective August 1, the cost of running post office boxes for individuals living in areas where royal delivery is present increased almost 100 per cent, from $26 to $50. Not only is this increase unacceptable, but for the elderly and particularly the disabled, it is very unfair.
Given that there are a number of Canadians affected by this, what assurances can the minister give us that this matter will be reviewed by Canada Post and by the minister with the hope of correcting it?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by Canada Post that everyone in Canada is entitled to one free mode of mail delivery, be
it by letter carrier, community mail box, rural route, general delivery or postal box. It is free.
It is only in circumstances where people want special treatment, out of ordinary from their neighbours, that imposes an extra cost on the post office that they tend to recover it. As it is, the costs they charge are only a fraction of what the private sector charges for similar services.
However, the post office does have a provision for accommodating special circumstances, such as the elderly or people who are unable to make it to the mailbox. If the hon. member will bring to the attention of the post office the circumstances of specific people, I am sure they will take care of it.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister changed the immigrant investor regulations without consulting the joint committees established under the Cullen-Couture agreement signed by Quebec and Ottawa in 1978. Why did the minister choose not to consult the joint committees? And why would the minister want to thwart economic development in Quebec where the new regulations are applicable immediately, whereas other provinces have 18 months to comply?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to extend a warm welcocme to my dear colleague as critic of the Official Opposition, for this is his first question.
There have been quite a few discussions on the program with Quebec and other provinces in anticipation of the changes. Changes have been implemented for all provinces, and all provinces have endorsed the regulations.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works concerning a project which is extremely important to all

of Atlantic Canada and that, of course, is the fixed link to Prince Edward Island.
Even though the environment review panel did not endorse the project as proposed, they did recognize that improvements must be made to transportation. Now with dramatically higher fuel costs and the increased traffic to Prince Edward Island this summer, I and all Atlantic Canadians would like to know if every effort is being made to address the concerns of the panel and move on with the fixed link to P.E.I.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, Public Works continues to be supportive of this project, provided the concerns of the environmental assessment review panel, which reported last summer as my colleague knows, can be satisfactorily addressed. This opinion is also shared, in my view, by the premiers of the maritime provinces.
For example, Premier Ghiz, in a recent speech to the Charlottetown Rotary Club, said the following, and I think it is worth putting this on the record. "With the fixed link it may well be that further engineering will reveal a particular design that can withstand the most rigorous environmental tests. If such environmental integrity can be demonstrated publicly then, in my view, the fixed crossing should proceed." I think that is the correct view.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise the House that there will be a single question from the hon. member for Rose-mont, followed by a single question from the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap.


HIBERNIA PROJECT
Mr. Benoit Tremblay (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Since the 1984 Conservative government election the Minister of Finance has been trying, rightfully so, I think, to convince Canadians that the deficit has to come down. However he told us recently that this year's deficit would be at least $1.5 billion more than expected.
Last week the Prime Minister also said that, because of the bills now stalled in the Senate, there is a possibility that next year's revenues may fall short by $8.3 billion.
Oral Questions
Be that as it may, I would ask the Minister of Finance how can he possibly support the federal government's $2.7 billion commitment for a project like Hibernia, particularly considering that we have no firm guarantees that Canada will get a fair share of the work?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that the Hibernia project, as compared to the first projects in the North Sea, for instance, in Norway or the U.K., have achieved a domestic percentage of approximately 35 per cent. The statement of principles of July, 1988, targeted approximately 45 per cent Canadian content in Hibernia, that was with the negotiations. With the negotiations, we have reached a level of between 55 per cent and 60 per cent. All areas of the country will benefit, including the Province of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap on a single question.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question really falls under three areas of responsibility-environment, fisheries, and transport-but to facilitate the question, I will direct my question to the Minister of the Environment.
My question concerns the Fraser River Estuary Management Program which is a joint federal-provincial program. Over the past five years it has been mandated to assess and to monitor the environmental health of the lower Fraser River in British Columbia. As the minister knows, the five-year funding for the program expires shortly and the management committee has applied for a three-year continuation in funding.
Can the minister advise the House whether the government at this time is prepared to ratify the federal moneys required to maintain the program and whether the government is also prepared to expand the mandate of the program so that it can proceed with an implementation strategy to clean up the Fraser River?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question, I would like to assure my hon. colleague that we are prepared to

October 3, 1990
Privilege
extend the funding for the program. We are currently negotiating an extra $1 million over the next three years.
I would also like to tell my hon. colleague that the clean-up of the Fraser River is considered a priority in the Green Plan. At the moment, my department, in consultation with other departments having the responsibility for the Fraser, are developing actions which focus on the areas of pollution abatement, waste management, and site clean-up. That will be made public as soon as possible.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I have, first, a question of privilege from the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park.
There are also some other questions of privilege likely to be brought before the Chair. If the Chair is correct, these are questions that are very important to many lot of members. They are also questions that I have to ask hon. members to deal with in an exact, clear, and helpful way to me.
I am going to hear them, but I am asking hon. members, if I can say so, putting out a bit of a caveat, that I expect to be addressed on these matters in a way that can help me make a decision, not in a way that is designed to create abrasive feelings in this Chamber. We have a duty in this place to take care of our country and sometimes that requires some very special discipline.
The hon. member for Parkdale-High Park I know will help the Chair.


OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I gave you notice of this question of privilege with the greatest seriousness because, when I was first elected in 1979 by the constituents of Parkdale-High Park, then re-elected in 1980, and again in 1988, each time before I could set foot into this Chamber I had to take an oath of allegiance. These are the rules.
I wanted to take that oath of allegiance because when I took the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, the Queen, I knew that I took this oath to serve Canada, and to fight in this Chamber for everything that is in the best interest
of our beautiful country. I know every member sitting here came to this Chamber with the same intent.
But when someone else sitting in this Chamber now takes the same oath and then goes and washes his or her hands of this oath, this oath has very little meaning to every member sitting in the House. When that happened, my constituents phoned me. They were very, very angry. They said: "Mr. Flis, that oath you took does not mean anything. What is happening up there? How dare you sit in the same chamber with someone who is denying the oath that he took." Maybe this member did it without thinking of the consequences of his actions. Therefore, I would like to make a constructive suggestion.
If that member, either today or sometime this week or next, would think about what he did, stand up in this Chamber, and apologize for his actions, it would in a way restore the oath of allegiance that he took. This would satisfy me. I know it would satisfy my constituents in Parkdale-High Park.
Failing that, then I have no other choice but to request you, Mr. Speaker, to make a ruling whether this member should be sitting in the same Chamber with us. Failing that, I request that this matter be referred to the appropriate committee to look into this whole matter because it undermines the role of every member in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford seeks the floor.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, the allegations the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park just made are probably the most serious ones ever made in this House. I must say that, during the past few months, I made some research and had research made on the Oath of Allegiance.
Mr. Speaker, you asked us to help you. I think it is important that we talk today about the right to hold a seat in this House, a House governed by the Canadian Constitution and which recognizes full freedom of expression for every member.
In the early days of Parliament, the principle of "no taxation without representation" was laid. That was way before my days, Mr. Speaker. There are millions of Quebecers who are in favour of sovereignty and still pay taxes administered by this Parliament. These people too,
October 3, 1990

Mr. Speaker, have the right to be represented as long as their representatives in this House are elected democratically and that we are citizens of this country.
In the past few months, we have witnessed deliberate attempts to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the members of this House who do not share the centralizing views of some and the confederative views of others. Mr. Speaker, attempts were made to try and establish that there are good Canadians and not so good ones. I will not tolerate, Mr. Speaker, that our institution allow the right to hold a seat without a collective exercise of soulsearching.
Mr. Speaker, the precedents in this House date back a very long time. The last time the House questioned someone's Oath of Allegiance, it was Louis Riel's. I should like to remind those who today would like to see a repetition of the treatment Louis Riel was subjected to at the time just how severely history has judged Riel's opponents and especially his murderers.
Mr. Speaker, Joseph Howe sat in this House on behalf of Nova Scotia. I should like to remind the hon. member for Cape Breton who was all worked up yesterday when he said that we hardly had the right to sit in the House that Joseph Howe did sit here as an Antifederalist member. I should like to remind him also that several members also sat in the Nova Scotia legislature.
Quebecers were not the first to question the Canadian Federation, Mr. Speaker. As early as 1867, Nova Scotians did just that.
Today, those who are claiming that this situation is unprecedented are lacking in historical perspective and showing no respect for democracy.
I mentioned Louis Riel earlier; he had been elected to the House in 1873 and 1874, and was finally evicted in 1874 in spite of the fact that he had taken the Oath of Allegiance.
As far as the violation of the Oath of Allegiance is concerned, Mr. Speaker-I would not want to quote Beauchesne again-I suggest that the only example which occurred in the past was in 1940 when Fred Rose, who had been elected to the House of Commons, was later on found guilty of spying following his trial which took place in 1946.
Privilege
Mr. Speaker, if any member of this political group represented in the House has violated the Canadian Constitution, the law of Parliament or the Criminal Code, let the hon. members who are prepared to lay charges do so immediately! Otherwise, as the hon. member for Burin-St. George's yesterday, they would be showing a lack of courage. They claim that they would be ready to vote on-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt, but- It is with some concern that I accept the hon. member for Shef-ford's position as I accept the more general terms of the history of our country, because with some clarity the hon. member touched upon similar situations that occurred in the past.
However, I think the point of my ruling is very clear. After all, I have heard the hon. member for Parkdale- High Park and also the hon. member for Shefford. Other hon. members might have the same question of privilege. Could the hon. member for Shefford explain or perhaps even suggest to me how best the Chair could hear other points, because a lenghty argument may not be necessary if the points are the same.
The hon. member for Shefford.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I understand your interrupting me, but I was just into my introduction.
You asked us to learn about the oath of allegiance, Mr. Speaker; I have researched the subject, prepared myself and am now ready to share the results with you and our colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I will certainly mention precedents because in this House parliamentary law is based for the most part on precedents.
Mr. Speaker, I will talk to you-


Mr. Speaker:: Once again, I accept the position of the hon. member for Shefford. But I have a question. The hon. member for Shefford has clearly presented an argument which is very precise, very interesting, very historical. So I wonder, given the thorough argument put forward by the hon. member, if the Chair should have to listen to the same argument over and over again this afternoon.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I am coming to that, Mr. Speaker. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to tell you about the situation in the provincial legislatures.

Privilege
Mr. Speaker, what my colleague of Laurier-Sainte-Marie did-


Mr. Speaker:: I understand very well the position of the hon. member for Shefford, but I have a question for all the members who gave me notice of a question of privilege.
Is it the position of my colleagues from the Bloc? And if so, why should I have to hear the same argument from each and every colleague, and member?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, your approach to the Bloc Quebecois is somewhat unpredictable. Today, you ask me to speak on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, although usually, you ask me to speak as an independent. The fact is that today, I speak as an independent member who happens to belong to the Bloc Quebecois. I am sure my colleagues have their own personal privileges that may be affected, and I would not presume to speak on their behalf.
Mr. Speaker, I may recall the customary procedure in the Quebec National Assembly, because it is quite relevant here. The hon. member for Parkdale-High Park referred to a second oath sworn by the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie. Although the Crown is indivisible, the fact is that for years, each member of the Quebec National Assembly has sworn two oaths. Each member of Cabinet swears three oaths. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read this to you because there are precedents.
When my colleague from Hull-Aylmer was a distinguished member of the National Assembly, he swore his two oaths, and he was never accused of lese-majeste. The fact is, and I would like to read this to you, since 1982 members of the Quebec National Assembly have been asked to swear a second oath. Section 15 of the National Assembly Act provides that a member may not sit in the Assembly until he has sworn the oath or made the solemn statement provided under Schedule 1. Mr. Speaker, Schedule 1 contains the oath or solemn statement, which reads as follows: "I swear I shall be loyal to the people of Quebec and will perform my duties as a member honestly and fairly, in accordance with the Quebec Constitution." Mr. Speaker, according to the manual, members of the National Assembly must also
swear the oath of allegiance to the Queen prescribed in section 128 of the British North America Act.
However, one does not exclude the other. An oath of allegiance to one's homeland has been deemed to be constitutional, has been accepted for years, and I cannot accept that today, a procedure is being challenged that has been followed since 1982. Mr. Speaker, if people were more aware of what has happened in Quebec in recent years, they would be more attuned to the political, legal and economic realities of Quebec. Unfortunately, the hon. member is not, because this has been a common procedure since 1982, and no one has ever challenged the right of a member of the National Assembly to sit in the Assembly, to be democratically elected and to be a faithful defender of the interests of his homeland.
Mr. Speaker, I will not bore you with a description of the situation in other countries, but I would like to recall the situation in Great Britain. To our friends who sought refuge during the past few days in the monarchy and the Queen's prerogatives, I would like to say, especially to the hon. member for York South-Weston, that in Great Britain, members of the nationalist Welsh and Scottish parties were elected to the British House of Commons and sat in the House after swearing their oaths. Better still, members of the Labour Party, who have a certain philosophy in common with the Liberal Party, campaign against the monarchy in every election but they still sit in the British House of Commons.
To be helpful, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the oath of allegiance, as prescribed by law and by the Constitution, was respected. A person can swear allegiance to the Queen because she represents the people. We certainly do not place our trust in the monarchy. We place our trust in the people of Quebec, the people we represent, and we do so proudly in this House, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments. I do not think I need to hear more arguments on this issue. I do understand the position of the hon. member for Shefford. I also understand the position of the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park and probably also the opinons, views, and behaviour of all the other members in this House. But I would like to make a suggestion. Of course, when we have to deal with such an important issue, it is appropriate for the Chair to reserve its decision. For the record, it would probably

also be appropriate to make a list of all other members wishing to raise the same question of privilege. But clearly, we do not need to hear the same argument over and over again.
I would ask the rest of the members to cooperate with the Chair and support this approach.
Is there consent to use this approach?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Jesse Philip Flis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a point of order. He may well be able to help me. I will come back to the other members in just a moment.


Jesse Philip Flis: In making your decision, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will not take into account any arguments quoted from what happened in the provincial legislatures. We are masters in our own House and I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will only take the arguments and precedents as set out in Beauchesne, a federal oath of office. Again, I remind anyone who wants to make representations on this case, we are masters of our own House and provincial legislatures are masters of their houses.


Mr. Speaker:: The point the hon. member makes is a legitimate one. I want to assure the hon. member that in dealing with this issue I am going to be very careful. However, my point is the hon. member for Shefford has made a good argument. I think he has said about all he can say to persuade me, because I think he has covered the major points.
There are other members who have also filed applications of privilege. I want to make it very clear to them, I do not need to hear an extensive argument from any of them. I would be very pleased to hear from one or more of them very briefly, very briefly indeed. The hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie.


COMMENTS MADE BY THE MEMBER FOR YORK SOUTH-WESTON
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege relates to a statement
Privilege
the hon. member for York South-Weston made in this House yesterday. He said, talking about me:
A ceremony took place in the city of Hull several weeks ago where the hon. member said to Canadians from one end of the country to another that he was washing his hands of the oath of allegiance that he swore, that each and every one of us swore, to the Queen of Canada, and that his allegiance was to the Province of Quebec. That is fair enough.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct the record. First, I never mocked the Canadian Parliament nor the Queen. I swore the oath of allegiance with all due regard for the democratic institution that the Canadian Parliament is. I did not later say that I was washing my hands of the oath. I did say that it was a formality, and I stand by what I said. It is a formality. I swore allegiance first and foremost to my Laurier-Sainte-Marie constituents, who knew very well, from the start, that I advocated sovereignty. The election results, must I remind you, Mr. Speaker, were conclusive: 68 percent voted for me, 19 percent for the Liberals, 8 percent for the NDP and 3.9 percent for the Conservative Party.
I believe that my election was legitimate and that I can legitimately be a member of this House. I will not repeat all the examples given by my colleague from Shefford, but, as I recall, at every election in Great Britain, the left wing of the Labour Party campaigns against monarchy, then swears an oath to the Queen and request, in one of the first motions they introduce, that monarchy be abolished. Funny that never offended sensitive souls in English Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I have no intention to insult the English Canadians the way I was when some of them trampled on the Quebec flag last spring. I will not reciprocate. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that things are happening quite dispassionately and calmly in Quebec and that incisive and false statements, such as that were made yesterday by the member for York South-Weston, foster a climate which is detrimental for Canada as well as for Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Again I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. I would ask all members to be very careful in their remarks and refrain from making accusations or allegations concerning the attitude of their colleagues.
I would urge the hon. member to restrict his comments to the matter under consideration.


Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I was about to conclude my remarks by saying that I do not have to listen to a lecture on democracy

Privilege
from members of a party which relies on non-elected senators to bring Parliament to a standstill.
My point is very clear, Mr. Speaker: false statements have been made yesterday and I am asking the hon. member for York South-Weston to withdraw his words. That is a specific point and a clear request.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I will heed your advice and be brief. We live in a free and democratic country. We are proud of our political system where elected members enjoy freedom of speech to promote the interests of their constituents, and I would suggest that all members share that sentiment. This is why it is so saddening to realize that good though our system may be it does have weak points. For it has become clear in recent days that some members take advantage of democratic freedoms to discredit democracy in this House. As members from Quebec we left our parties to be free to defend the interests of the people of Quebec. Entertain no illusions, we have their support. The democratic process in Laurier-Sainte-Marie is proof positive of that fact. We got two thirds of the votes. A clear-cut victory. It also goes to show that we members of the Bloc Quebecois promote and respect democracy.
In light of that, Mr. Speaker, the attitude and remarks of the hon. member for Burin-St. George's yesterday are totally unacceptable. It is unacceptable that a member with his experience would dare say, and I quote: "I will vote for a motion any day at all that runs this crowd clean out of this place once and for good. I will go for that motion because-"
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to show more respect for our parliamentary democracy and to withdraw his remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could hear the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands just briefly and then I will come back to the other hon. member.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The Standing Orders are clear: whoever wishes to rise on a question of privilege must do so at the most convenient time. The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George made this statement yesterday during debate. Hon. Members were here and they could have risen during debate, but they failed
to do so. Therefore, I suggest that what the Hon. Member is doing is irregular and out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say that I received all these notices in writing this morning. In the past there has been a general sense that a matter that is to be raised is sometimes raised after it is possible to see the "blues". In any event, I suppose the hon. member is partially right in a very narrow sense, but I have accepted them and I am trying as best I can to dispose of the matter without taking up too much time of the House.
I am saying to the hon. member for Longueuil that he is beginning to go beyond the question of privilege. Sooner or later someone is going to complain about that. I would ask him to bring his remarks to a close and would give him a few more minutes to do so.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I want only to repeat that I am asking the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George to withdraw the remarks he made concerning the Bloc Quebecois. I do so, not only on behalf of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues, but also of all the Members of this House.
It is a matter of principle; no member of this House should be allowed to comment on the right of another member to sit in this House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with your suggestion, you wanted to receive direction or, if you will, suggestions from hon. members in helping you to make your adjudication.
Of course you are aware of Beauchesne's paragraph 24, which is a definition of a point of privilege, paragraph 26 and of course paragraph 31 of Beauchesne's.
I wish to point out a number of facts which I believe are quite pertinent to the issue at hand. The first is that the hon. member for Shefford quite rightly made reference to a great Nova Scotian in the person of Joe Howe, who was elected to the House of Commons and had a particular view on Canadian society whereby he led a movement, an anti-confederate movement in this partic-
October 3, 1990

ular country. That is correct, Mr. Speaker, and that is an acknowledged fact.
Second, the acknowledged fact that he did sign or did complete his oath of allegiance to the Queen. No matter how distasteful I may find the views of particular members, if they are duly elected, have signed the appropriate oaths and enter this Chamber, they have a right to present those views.
That in no way should lead one to conclude that members of this party or anywhere in the House would agree with some of the statements and some of the positions that may emanate from that particular member.
I want to put on the record, Mr. Speaker, facts to help you in your adjudication because this is really a dispute as to the allegations of fact. We have had members who have renounced their oath to the Queen at a public ceremony. It was thereafter reported in the press.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


David Charles Dingwall: Just a minute. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is interrupting. Just give me an opportunity to put some facts on the record.
It was reported in The Ottawa Citizen of September 20, 1990: "Bloc MP to wash hands of his oath of allegiance". That was the headline. It may be misleading; it may not be misleading. This is the quote that the author in the newspaper article used, and I wish to read it to you, Mr. Speaker:
Gilles Duceppe who won a Commons seat in a Montreal byelection recently, said Wednesday he will swear his devotion to the people of Quebec to counteract the oath of allegiance he had to swear to the Queen before being allowed to take his place in the House.
"It is a symbolic gesture", said Duceppe, reached at his Montreal riding office.


An hon. member:: What is your point?


David Charles Dingwall: The hon. member does not like to hear those things; only when he can twist the arguments to his benefit. I am trying to put before you, Mr. Speaker, some of the facts. That is the problem, that the argument is with regard to disputing the facts.
If the hon. member has not said these things, I think the hon. member has an obligation to inform members of this House, to inform the Chair, and to inform Cana-
Privilege
dians that his Oath of Allegiance to the Queen is firmly intact.
In The Ottawa Citizen of September 24 again there is another fact. The hon. member does not have to agree with it but it is a fact. The headline was: "Separatist supporters in Hull cheer MP's protest oath". Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you can see where hon. members sincerely would question what is taking place.
I provide this information to you, Mr. Speaker, to assist you in your adjudication, reminding you of Beau-chesne's definition of the point of privilege, which is paragraph 24; paragraph 26 which draws the distinction between question of privilege and question of order; and of course paragraph 31, which says:
A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts,
does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
I give that to you, Mr. Speaker, on your instructions so that you can adjudicate accordingly, but this matter has resulted from certain statements that have been made by hon. members either intentionally or unintentionally.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the circumstances, I feel there is a difference of opinion as to the facts. I think it would be appropriate to recognize the Hon. Member for Lauri-er-Sainte-Marie for a very short reply.


Gilles Duceppe: Instead of relying on newspaper reports, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Liberal Party should ask their political minions who had come to the Hull ceremony to cause a row to see whether I had really made disparaging remarks against the Queen or against Parliament. Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker: We insisted that it is with the outmost respect for Canadian Parliamentary institutions that we are sitting here, while insisting that we would strive to achieve Quebec's sovereignty as soon as possible. That is the solemn promise we made Quebecers. If the Liberal Party does not agree with that, it is, I know, because it does not understand what is going on in Quebec; my impression now is that they do not even want to know. But, that is not our problem, Mr. Speaker. If they rely on newspapers, they will have to correct a lot of things which were said about Jean Chretien over the past few days. Let them find out from their political minions, paid with taxpayers' money, what I said-

October 3, 1990
Government orders


Mr. Speaker:: I think that hon. members have heard all that is necessary to be heard, at least for the moment. I am going to consider the matter. I will do the best I can to report back to the House at an appropriate time, in the hope that I can be of some assistance to all hon. members.

I thank the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park and his colleagues for their comments. Again, I thank all Hon. Members for their eagerness to co-operate with the Chair.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, an order in council appointment which was made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), it is deemed referred to the appropriate standing committee, a list of which is attached.
And, while I am on my feet, Madam Speaker, I move:
That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. The motion is carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jesse Philip Flis: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. By moving to Orders of the Day, I am wondering whether the government realized that it bypassed Statements by Ministers.
As we all know, today is probably one of the most important days in the history of this world. Of course I am referring to the unification of the two Germanys.
There is a national holiday today in Germany commemorating the union of the former two Germanys. I would have expected the Prime Minister, or someone on behalf of the government, to make some statement congratulating the new Germany rather than moving to Orders of the Day.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do agree with the hon. member that this is quite a memorable day, but there was a motion in front of the House that we do now proceed to Orders of the Day. The motion was passed, so I will now call Orders of the Day.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from September 26, consideration of Bill C-44, An Act respecting the Hibernia Development Project and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and motions Nos. 1 and 2 of Mr. MacDougall (p. 13462) and the amendment of Mr. Plamondon (p. 13468).
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Madam Speaker, on September 14 1990, the Government of Canada announced the conclusion of an agreement with a consortium of private companies concerning the Hibernia development Project.
Today, the House is asked to adopt a Bill that would allow lenders to lend money to that consortium for the duration of the capital project.
October 3, 1990

The bill does not pertain to the purpose of the project but simply seeks to ensure that the consortium will get the funds it needs and that the federal government will also make certain seems available.
Today, we are asked to say yes to the bill so that the consortium can get the funds or to say no to the bill altogether, in which case, the project would be cancelled or delayed five years.
After the very short period of time allotted for my speech, I will be glad to answer questions from those who need more information.
People have the opportunity to say yes, especially in my riding where we have the best shipyards in North America. The Hibernia Project would bring great possibilities and a lot of work for 1992 and the following years.
We know that in 1992, shipyards in Lauzon will have completed the contracts given them by the federal government in 1985.
So, like the management of the MIL Group in my riding, I say "Hurray for Hibernia, hurray for the agreement, hurray for the work in Levis and Lauzon"!
Furthermore, this project would provide two to three million hours of direct labour for workers in my riding and from two to three million hours of indirect employment involving draftsmen, management, secretarial work and administrative support. Those jobs, those hours would be feasible in connection with the following major works, and I will mention the main jobs. For instance, the topside ground-based work of the Hibernia project represents 700,000 hours. Dock building and unit construction represents a potential 1,200,000 hours in the shipyards in my riding. As for construction of a supermodule-the people in our shipyards are able to tender a proposal that would be accepted by the consortium-this work represents one million hours.
Madam Speaker, I find it rather incredible that most of the opposition to this project across Canada comes from ridings about the size of my own and from groups that are certainly not aware of the spinoffs. For their information, I will try to explain what the Hibernia project means.
When the project was announced, the consortium was under no obligation regarding the choice of contractors
Government orders
and subcontractors. The consortium went to the private sector, and on September 14, it announced two contracts. The first was with a firm of consulting engineers in Quebec, SNC, which received a contract worth $360 million. This means 600 professionals in Quebec will become experts on processing of hydrocarbons. Thanks to Hibernia, the kind of professional expertise that exists in Western Canada is now being developed in the central and eastern regions of this country. Hibernia will make Quebecers experts in the extraction and processing of hydrocarbons. The -second contract, also announced on September 14, was for project management worth $1.3 billion and was awarded to a company that is 60 per cent Quebec-owned, by Atlas and Janin in Montreal. Madam Speaker, this means that the people who design and carry out this project and select input will go with what they know. They will call on Canadian and Quebec services and goods. So we have a leg up in the saddle in Quebec, with the Hibernia project.
There has been a lot of talk about preferential treatment of Newfoundland. They say there will be $1.6 billion worth of work done in that province, and that is true, Madam Speaker. But then that money will go for the construction of the huge base structure that will be built on the Newfoundland shore, for the graving docks that will be needed. This huge concrete island cannot be built in the Great Lakes nor in the West. It must be built on the Newfoundland shore, and then towed 325 kilometers offshore. So, the construction work has to be done on the Newfoundland shore, with all the appropriate equipment. The super modules must be built in Newfoundland, not one after the other, but all five at the same time. That is why Canadian firms will have to tender for all five super modules, and if they can't, then we will have to look elsewhere, Madam Speaker. When all the work is completed, this cement ship will have to be towed to sea, where it will finally be anchored with concrete or some kind of reinforcement. As you see, it is essential that this construction work be done in Newfoundland. Madam Speaker, the only restriction in favour of Newfoundland is that one of these super modules should be built in this province. But any foreign builder could win the bid to build this super module there. And so, no Canadian business has an advantage over other bidders.

October 3, 1990
Government orders
I come now to my conclusion, Madam Speaker. My message is: the Hibernia project is good for Canada. It is excellent for Quebec. It carves us a place in the oil industry. It will be necessary, essential, for my riding in the years 1992 to 1996. That is what we, in this government, had in mind when in 1987 we started preparing, developing the technology in my Lauzon shipyard to improve it, and until this program gets under way, in 1992, we will continue to help the people of Lauzon, the MIL people whom we are also supporting in the frigate program they are building for the Canadian government.
So, Madam Speaker, I feel my government is making an excellent contribution to Levis and to the province of Quebec, a magnificent investment for the whole country.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Having heard what the Hon. Member had to say about Hibernia, Madam Speaker, I would not want to repeat the arguments which were used in the past to support this major project which people have been waiting for over 18 years. It is clearly a major project which certainly was supported by the general public, considering the high unemployment rate in that province. Yet, having seen some of the figures dealing with this project and the huge amounts of money invested by the Federal Government, I became very much interested and I examined some elements. In fact, I feel that the Hon. Member for Richelieu has moved an amendment which I find somewhat interesting for the simple reason that it suggests most contracts should be awarded to Canadian firms. That is clearly desirable. What is clear is that he has failed to consult for instance the MIL, the SNC, the major Quebec firms which know everything there is to know in that field.
The MIL and SNC experts-I am not going to give their names, because they would not want to be quoted as such-provided me with interesting data. They told me that the previous government had a shipbuilding policy. For instance, late in 1979, the MIL had built supermodular drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. It was a great success. MIL built 12 of them. They acquired some kind of expertise in that area. They achieved success in spite of the international competition because the federal government at the time had a shipbuilding policy which no longer exists today whereby they were subsidized in an effort to help them first of all obtain these contracts. Because of a lack of shipbuilding policy, whenever supermodules are build in Great Britain or in Scandinavian countries such as Norway, there is no tarif. The legislation on this is so vague that foreign competition can be unfair. Again, because there is no policy, Canadian firms may experience great difficulties in obtaining most contracts.
But to return to the amendment moved by my colleague the Hon. Member for Richelieu, when we examine the amendment, we realize that it is unrealistic for various reasons. First of all, as far as supermodules for Newfoundland are concerned, the experts say that the five of them must be build at the same time and not one after the other. And I was told that, in fact, even across Canada, we don't have the capacity to build them simultaneously because, for many years, in other countries, technology has improved and we don't have the same capacity. This is one of the factors working against Canadian companies.
Second, if the government insisted on building all five supermodules in Newfoundland, the cost would be higher. Under the agreement now in effect between the international consortium and the federal gouvemment any additional costs would have to be borne by the consortium. In this event, they would be put in a bind and the project would then be in jeopardy. There is talk that they might even withdraw from the agreement.
Consequently, for these two reasons, we must realize that our colleague from Richelieu has tried, in good faith, to help Canadian firms. But we must be realistic! When we get an amendment like the one he has moved, we must look at the facts. One can move totally redundant amendments, but if they are not realistic, they do not mean anything. And that is the case here.
Which forces me, then, Madam Speaker, to move:
That the amendment be amended, by striking out all the words following the word "platform" and substituting the following therefor:
"provide for maximum Canadian content consistent with not
harming the project".
This is supported by my colleague, Fred Mifflin, the member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.
October 3, 1990

Government orders
Madam Speaker, this truly reflects the reality, after consultations with experts from Canada and especially from Quebec, and I present it to you here.


Jean-C. Lapierre: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I know that you will consider that amendment.
I suggest that that amendment to our amendment negates the present amendment. The latter is intended to create the obligation to go to Canadian bidders first.
The most our colleague from Gatineau-La Lievre is asking for is what was already announced in all the press releases from the consortia. They say they will do their best. We suggest that their best is not enough, Madam Speaker. We want them to be bound by a legal obligation.
The amendment is basically diluting our amendment to the point of negating it completely. That means that the member for Gatineau-La Lievre is indirectly saying no to our amendment.
I would ask him to be straightforward. He should just get up and say he is against Canadian companies, not hide behind a sub-amendment. Even his leader said he supported our amendment, Madam Speaker. But now I get the feeling that they are a little twisted in that party because they do not know where to stand. They spoke against our amendment, but their leader said he was for it. They are all mixed up, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, because I think the member for Shefford is loosing his temper for no reason.
One must realize, Madam Speaker, that the amendment to the amendment proposed by the member for Richelieu is precisely intended to add to the contracts and tendering documents for contracts a provision encouraging greater Canadian content without impeding project advancement. That is clear and very precise.


Jean-C. Lapierre: It is a negation!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The member for Shefford may think it is, but it is not, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, I believe the motion to be acceptable because it clarifies further the amendment proposed by the member for Richelieu.
The reason for such an amendment, Madam Speaker, is quite simple. Bills are now written simultaneously in both languages. In the French text, there is no paragraph f), but in the English version there is one, and it reads as follows:

Such other terms and conditions as the minister considers
desirable.

But, Madam Speaker, this paragraph is not in the original French text. That is what the government was trying to do. Correct this error, so to speak, and include an amendment which would give the minister the right to decide, when the amendments will be adopted, that there be a highest possible Canadian content, without prejudice to the project itself. Madam Speaker, the amendment complies with the Standing Orders.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: I raise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The honorable member for Richelieu raises on a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, the person who can best know whether or not there is a contradiction between this proposition and his amendment is the person who presented it. And in my introduction on this amendment, Madam Speaker-


SPEAKER'S RULING
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry but I have to interrupt the Hon. Member straightforwardly. The person who is most able to dertermine if the amendment is relevant or not is the one who is at the Chair. And, after having examined the amendment presented by the Hon. Member for Richelieu and the amendment to an amendment that has just been presented by the Hon. Member for Gatineau-La Lievre, I must rule that the amendment to the amendment complies with the Standing Orders and put it to the House now.


Louis Plamondon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

October 3, 1990
Government orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Richelieu on a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I would have appreciated to have been allowed to finish my 20 second argument. You interrupted me after only five seconds, and you made the ruling without hearing what I was going to say.
The whole bill was based on an encouragement to work with Canadian companies and the amendment I have presented is to make coercive the decision the government is going to take on the need to have a Canadian content. It is utterly contradictory to what I have said and to what the government had said.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I interrupted the hon. member for Richelieu, simply because his declaration was denying the Chair the opportunity to rule on the admissibility of the sub-amendment put before the House. The reasons why he originally proposed his amendment are certainly valid, just as much as the reasons for the amendment to the amendment. Nothing will prevent the hon. members, when the amendment to the amendment and then the amendment are put to a vote, from deciding. The decision belongs to the House. At the present time the Chair cannot rule otherwise. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Manicouagan has the floor.


Louis Plamondon: Point of order, Madam Speaker-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Let me tell the hon. member that I would not like him to question the Chair's ruling at this point. The hon. member for Richelieu on a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, you said you had to interrupt me because you said the ruling is yours, and I can understand that. But, after reminding me not to prejudge, that the ruling was not mine, but yours to take, you did not give me the opportunity to put my argument forward before rendering your ruling.
We did speak the same language. We cannot blame it on a bad translation or something like that. Your point is- Any linguist or constitutional expert would tell you, after comparing the texts, that they are complete opposites. And you ask me not to question your ruling, Madam Speaker? I am sorry, but it goes opposite to what I said, it is the antithesis of what I said, and I would call for a division on this.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I find most regrettable that an hon. member of this House should challenge a ruling of the Chair. For years now, it has been agreed that a ruling by the Speaker should not be challenged. The ruling in case was made by the Chair. The amendment to the amendment is in order. We are now at debate, Madam Speaker, and I suggest that you proceed accordingly.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, resuming the debate, Bill C-44 authorizes the federal government to contribute financially to the development of the oil field discovered in the Atlantic a few years ago, off Newfoundland. This oil field is known as Hibernia. In June 1990, I sat on the legislatve committee which studied section by section Bill C-44, the one that is debated today. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, when appearing before the committee, spoke at lenght about the benefits to be derived from the project, for the economy as well as the creation of jobs, both in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec.
I readily concluded that it was essential for Canada to gain expertise in the development of our underwater oil resources. We have to look at the situation in Great Britain, in Scandinavia and in Russia to understand how important it is for us, in Canada, to acquire that expertise. Right now, Canada has very little or no expertise in the development of off-shore oil fields. Canada has no choice but to join the group of nations that have acquired the technology to develop those vast off-shore reserves in a cost-efficient way. That is the purpose of Bill C-44.
By joining a consortium of private enterprises that are already involved in the oil sector, the government of Canada makes it possible for the Hibernia project to become reality. Moreover, Canada becomes a partner in the development of new processes and advanced technologies for the extraction of oil from off-shore reserves. Also, the government and the private sector work together to give Eastern Canada state-of-the-art facilities, to allow our engineering firms to acquire the knowledge and expertise they need in the design of supermodules, to give shipbuilders in Eastern Canada an opportunity to join together for the construction of those supermodules and to allow our workers to specialize in trades related to the construction and operation of the necessary equipment.
October 3, 1990

That is why I supported Bill C-44 when it was referred to the Legislative Committee for clause-byclause study last June. I have to say that I asked, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario, that the Committee hear witnesses before completing its study of the bill. I wanted to take advantage of the presence of witnesses to ensure that Quebec would benefit fully from the economic impact of the Hibernia project. The minister reassured members of the committee telling them that as a result of discussions between private sector partners and the government of Eastern Canada, including of course Quebec, would get maximum benefit of the positive effects of the Hibernia project. On the basis of this assurance and convinced that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was making every effort to reach this goal, I supported Bill C-44 in the legislative committee. Now that the Hibernia project has been announced and that some information have been made public, we can see that we made the right move in committee. Indeed, when the project was recently announced in Montreal, we were able to learn that a very large part of the engineering works will be done in Montreal by Montreal firms, by Montreal engineers. In addition, some building companies from the province of Quebec and Montreal play a leading role in the joint venture that will perform most of the construction work related to the project.
Madam Speaker, Quebec is already benefitting: some companies already play a big role and are major participants in the Hibernia project. Better still, Hibernia-related business opportunities, unique in that they will lay right at our doorstep, will be provided to our cement companies, shipyards and large manufacturing industries established in the Montreal region in all manufacturing areas from metal parts to highly sophisticated electronics and computer equipment.
Shipping and trucking companies based in Montreal are getting ready to meet the additional traffic Hibernia will generate in the movement of goods manufactured in the Montreal and Quebec region-


Mr. Saint-Julien:: Hear, hear!


Charles A. Langlois: -toward Newfoundland.


An hon. member:: What about Sorel?


Charles A. Langlois: I include Sorel in the Montreal region.
Government orders
It is quite true that because of the Hibernia project Newfoundland will experience an unprecedented economic recovery, and that is good. It will, however, have an impact beyond Newfoundland over the whole eastern part of Canada, including Quebec, of course.
Madam Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party object to the fact that some of the Hibernia crude oil production will be refined outside of Canada, especially in the United States. Our NDP friends should know that Canada can afford to use some of its natural resources as export commodities.
Should we treat oil differently than we do wood, copper, iron or electricity? I say it should not, Madam Speaker. Some of our oil production can be exported, thus contributing to foreign currencies flouring into Canada and helping us to maintain a sound balance of payments. You should understand that, my friends.
Madam Speaker, Canada has huge oil and gas reserves, both proven and unharnessed. One only has to visit the North of Alberta, as I did recently, to realize the vastness of the oil resources that can be found in the Athabaska oil sands alone. I would invite my colleagues to make such a visit. It is an education.
So, we can rest assured that there is no risk in exporting some of Hibernia oil production. Canada will benefit from it for many years.

There is another reason why I supported Bill C-44 in the legislative committee in June, and also why I support it in the House today.
The Hibernia project will provide job opportunities to the residents of several localities of the lower north shore, the eastern section of the riding of Manicouagan. The Blanc-Sablon area is linked to the island of Newfoundland by a ferry service. Already there is a continuous movement of people and goods between the island of Newfoundland and the Blanc-Sablon area.
It will be possible for the residents of the villages of Old Fort, St. Paul's River, Middle Bay, Bradore, Lourdes-de-Blanc-Sablon, and Blanc-Sablon to apply for jobs on the construction sites. I encourage them to do
so.
I am sure that Newfoundlanders, maritimers, and Quebecers will team together in Hibernia. They will work together to bring this great project to its conclu-

Government orders
sion, making it a truly Canadian project, in the best spirit of co-operation and teamwork.
Let us pool our knowledge, our skills, and our determinations and let us show the world that we, as Canadians, are a proud people and that we are the best when we work to attain the same goal.
Hibernia offers us a great challenge. It is up to us to make sure that this challenge will be met by us by voting for Bill C-44 as soon as possible.

Madam Speaker, let's overcome our fears! Let us give Quebecers the opportunity to work with their fellow citizens from the Maritimes and Newfoundland in the development of the Hibernia project.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, I rise this afternoon unfortunately having to tailor my remarks somewhat from what I had intended, given the weak-kneed, lily-livered, pusillanimous, nonsensical sub-amendment proposed by the member of the Liberal Party. Anyone who has access to the text can see that it takes what was a perfectly reasonable Canada-first Bloc Quebecois amendment and turns it into a wishy-washy, mushy sort of pap of the kind that, quite frankly, Madam Speaker, Canadians have come to expect of the Liberal Party.
Before moving into the content of these motions, I would like to say something for the benefit of those unilingual anglophone Canadians watching at home who are wondering what all the fireworks are about. There are many of them in my riding, Madam Speaker. I would like to go into just a bit of what has been said here.
This is all about an amendment to Bill C-44, the bill which authorizes the expenditure of public money in Hibernia and other things. It is an amendment to clause 3 of the bill which is on page 4. Oddly, this is all being done strictly in the French language. It is only the French version of the bill which the Bloc Quebecois amendment sought to amend. The French version currently reads that the minister has the authority to do this, that and the other, and eventually gets to subsection (f) "and such other measures as the minister may judge appropriate or suitable". To this, the Bloc Quebecois, in the person of the hon. member for Richelieu, seconded by the hon.
member for Shefford, proposed an amendment that would add to it after the "suitable" or" appropriate"-

notamment l'assurance que les appels d'offres sur les cinq super modules de la plate-forme soient, dans un premier temps, reserves aux seules entreprises canadiennes".

It means basically that the minister may do such other things, especially to guarantee that invitations to tender for the five platforms will be initially restricted to Canadian firms.
The Liberal member has now proposed that the words, which roughly in English are "will be initially restricted to Canadian firms", be replaced with words that basically say that the proposal must provide for maximum Canadian content consistent with not harming the project. That, at least, is how I, in my own admittedly imperfect fashion, come to translate all of these things.
Obviously you can see the difference between requiring that the bids be restricted to Canadians in the first instance on the one hand and seeking maximum Canadian content on the other. It is this difference which forms the reason why we in the New Democratic Party will be voting against the Liberal subamendment and for the Bloc Quebecois amendment. Unfortunately, we will be doing so fully in the knowledge that the Bloc Quebecois amendment, as presented, flies in the face of the free trade agreement.
There are several provisions in the free trade agreement, entered into almost two years ago now, that are quite pertinent here. I would like to note a few. The first article I will quote is from the version of the agreement published in the Canada Gazette, Part III, Chapter 65, assented to December 30, 1988.1 quote from page 2118 of that Gazette, the following, article 105, National Treatment: "Each Party shall, to the extent provided in this Agreement, accord national treatment with respect to investment and to trade in goods and services".
We come to chapter 14 dealing with services, article 1402, sub (1): "-each Party shall accord to persons of the other party treatment no less favourable than that accorded in like circumstances to its persons with respect to the measures covered by this Chapter". This is the chapter which covers services. Among those services covered by this chapter, it notes in annex 1408 on page 2246 the following: mining services, including oil and gas field services, construction services, including building,
ill

*

?

developing and general contracting services, and wholesale trade services.
As well, it covers commercial services, including professional services such as engineering, architectural and surveying services, scientific and technical services, repair and maintenance services and building management services.
I am now to chapter 15, annex 1502.1 dealing with business visitors. On page 2260 of The Canada Gazette, it is noted "(a) Business visitors. A business person seeking temporary entry into Canada-shall be granted entry without being required to obtain an employment authorization-upon presentation or proof of United States citizenship and documentation" et cetera.
Those business persons covered include persons doing technical, scientific and statistical research, conducting independent research or research for an enterprise located in Canada. It includes production management personnel conducting commercial transactions for an enterprise located in Canada.
As well, it includes after sales service such as installers, repair and maintenance personnel. It includes general service professionals, including management and supervisory personnel engaging in commercial transactions for an enterprise located in Canada.
Virtually all of the work associated with the Hibernia project, especially in the construction of the various parts of the project, is covered by the free trade agreement, so that in the absence of some indication in the act, a provision for Canada first will be undertaken notwithstanding the free trade agreement, it cannot be done.
Again, I say we will be voting for this amendment, but I am afraid that in the face of the free trade agreement, it would have to fall. We will vote for it, hoping that it will pass regardless, because we think this is precisely the sort of contradiction that Canadians ought to be made aware of.
Government orders
However, I would note-and I do this with some heavy heart-that we are dealing here, unfortunately, with an amendment proposed by persons who perhaps are not dealing entirely genuinely with this House. I would note that at the time of second reading, report stage and third reading, among those voting for the free trade agreement, the agreement which precludes that which is being sought in this amendment by the Bloc Quebecois, were the members for Lac-Saint-Jean, Verdun-Saint-Paul, Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, Longueuil, Richelieu and Rosemont.
All of those members voted for the free trade agreement at second reading, report stage and third reading.
Two other members of the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member for Shefford and the hon. member for Hull- Aylmer, were not present at any of those votes, so they did not oppose the free trade agreement.
Now we have the circumstance of a series of members-it would be wrong of me to accuse them of being hypocritical, atavistic reactionaries so I will not do that, Madam Speaker-however, we are confronted with the spectacle of members who, previously having voted apparently with great passion and determination for a particularly odious government measure, are now proposing measures to this House which cannot be implemented unless that prior piece of legislation is in some way overturned or at least put aside in this instance.
I will leave this conundrum to the House. Again, I will say that we absolutely support the goal of maximum Canadian content, of Canada first. We support those measures that would be part of any rational economic strategy involving the maximum upgrading and value adding on our resources here in Canada.
For that reason, we will oppose the Liberal subamendment. We will support the Bloc Quebecois amendment. We will continue to oppose the bill.


Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Madam Speaker, I am extremely happy to take part in this debate not only as a member from Quebec, but also as a House of

October 3, 1990
Government orders
Commons member, and I will add that as a member of the Committee on Energy, Mines and Ressources, I have been able to notice the point of view-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie on a point of order.


Gilles Duceppe: We do
not have a quorum. We cannot proceed without a quorum.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I believe we have a quorum. The hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe.


Yvon Côté: Before I was interrupted, Madam Speaker, I was saying I am pleased to take part in this debate not only as a Quebec member of the House of Commons but also as a member of the Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources.
I have had an opportunity to examine the scope and consequences of this project. As many of my colleagues pointed out the Hibernia development project will create a great many new business opportunities for all regions of Canada, including Quebec.
This is a major and highly technical oil project which will bring huge benefits to Quebec. It is expected to have a significant impact and contribute to improving existing Canadian know-how and developing new skills.
Supporters of the Hibernia project should keep in mind that the government has set a series of objectives. We want to create as many jobs as possible for Canadians, train highly skilled workers, seek the assurance that contracts awarded to Canadians during the negotiations are of strategic significance and pave the way for more projects designed to develop other petroleum resources. Finally we have done our best to make sure that the work is spread among various regions.
It might be interesting to consider the economic impact of these benefits. The government has been working for a long time now to achieve these objectives. The first step was made when the government enacted the Atlantic agreement provisions concerning the economic consequences for Canada and Newfoundland and when it established the Canada-Newfoundland offshore development fund. The provisions concerning the Atlantic Accord spinoffs have been reinforced by the
Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act.
Madam Speaker, a good many Hon. members are aware of the spinoffs which Hibernia will bring to Newfoundland. For instance, the consortium has agreed to build the gravity based structure in Newfoundland. The wellhead module and other elements connected to it will be built and assembled in the same province. Moreover, a large part of the technical design will be done in Newfoundland. This is quite logical in view of the fact that these enormous infrastructures could not be moved either by land or by sea.
I must mention that Hibernia will bring additional spinoffs to other Canadian regions.
Let us have a closer look. As a Quebec member, I am pleased to see that this province will receive its share of the spinoffs, no matter what some independent members may say to the contrary, Madam Speaker. Hibernia will use over 100 000 tons of-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer on a point of order.


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Could you check and see whether there is a quorum to listen to this Quebec Tory Member?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is a quorum. The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe has the floor.


Yvon Côté: As I was saying, Madam Speaker, this structure will require over 100 000 tons of concrete which will be provided to a large extent by a number of Quebec plants.
It is also expected that the metal parts for the major components will be largely built in Canada. For instance, some companies could build the top sides and one of the supermodules. Surely you must be aware that on September 14, Hibernia Management and Development Company Limited awarded a contract for an important part of the Hibernia Sea Tanker to les Entrepreneurs Offshore de Terre-Neuve, a joint Canadian-European venture. Two important engineering firms in Quebec, namely SNC and Monenco Limited, are the major partners in this joint venture.


October 3, 1990

This very important contract for Quebec features two main components. The first one is to provide for the structural engineering and supply work for the facilities at sea. These superstructures account for approximately half of the capital value of the Hibernia project. Over the next thirty months, engineering and supply alone will provide employment for some 600 people at the project office in Montreal: $360 million, 600 engineers for more for 30 months in Montreal. Not to mention other projects worth $5 billion for which contracts have been awarded and approved. The first contract: out of $1.4 billion, $360 million go to Montreal.
The other part deals with the management services for the project.
As stated by Mr. Guy Saint-Pierre, President and Chairman of the SNC Group, the project will provide for the firms located both in Montreal and Saint-Jean involved in the joint venture additional expertise and experience which will raise their international profile.
Some of my other colleagues have given some concrete examples. A second contract, worth $1.3 billion, has to do with the design and construction of the Hibernia gravity structure. Two Quebec firms, Atlas Construction and Janin Construction have a 60 per cent ownership in the Newfoundland Offshore Development Corporation, NODECO, which was awarded the contract. Under this contract, Atlas and Janin will be mostly called upon to develop new skills in the very specialized construction techniques of offshore structures. This aspect of their participation will help improve their image and make it possible for them to operate successfully both in Canada and abroad.
Madam Speaker, I want to mention here that out of these 2 contracts which total $1.6 billion, an excess of between $400 and $500 million will be paid out automatically. Compared with the $1.5 billion total for the contracts awarded so far, the spinoffs will amount to more than the 20 per cent of which some independent leaders were satisfied long before this bill was ever introduced.
Over the past few months during which some of our colleagues left our party to sit as independents, improvements to the project with which their leader was satisfied earlier have been made. All this to say that thanks to the
Government orders
representations made by the members who chose to stay with the government, the benefits are there.
Another Quebec corporation, MIL-I have a clipping somewhere-said it was quite satisfied with the contract. I quote only the heading of the press release: MIL expected to play a major role in Canadian oil development projects. That is the heading of the press release. But to return to MIL. It expects to bid successfully for a large part of the project. MIL has gained tremendous expertise in the construction of drilling rigs, the repair and maintenance of mobile rigs, as well as the construction of shuttle tankers and supply ships.
The company will also offer for these projects installation, start up, engineering, inspection and testing services. Groupe MIL has worked closely with companies located in the Maritimes and Newfoundland. The confidence that they expressed in their press release is confirmed by the wording of the act. I am not afraid to say it and to prove it.
Madam Speaker, all regions of Canada will benefit from the $3 million which will be spent in the country for the bringing into production of Hibernia. I believe that all the members for Quebec and Canada and the people of Newfoundland have the right to be satisfied with this great project which will be profitable for Canada as a whole, for all provinces, and for Quebec in particular.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear!


Jean-C. Lapierre: I rise on a point of order!


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Trinity-Conception.

The member for Shefford on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I ask that we now listen to the member for Rosemont.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We have a motion in front of the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.

October 3, 1990
Government orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. [English]


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, I feel somewhat refreshed after that vote of confidence to be able to get up and speak on this motion.
I would like to begin by complimenting my colleagues from Manicouagan and from Richmond-Wolfe. I certainly appreciated the comments that they had, and I do believe they put this amendment very much in perspective.
I can say at the outset that on a project of this nature, one of the biggest if not the biggest project that has ever been undertaken in Canada, as a Newfoundlander of course I have my own views, but surely there is enough to go around for everybody on this by the time we get over the details of what is going to follow. I mean we are at
the very early stages of the bidding on this particular, very highly technical contract. When we make comments and when it is written in the contract that we are looking at best efforts and we want the best and the maximum, I think we have to put it in perspective.
Like everything in this world this project is a tradeoff. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that I would love to have this project have everything for Canada, bar none, without exception, but I believe I am a realist and I know that many of my colleagues on both sides of the House are realists as well.
Let me put it to you another way, Madam Speaker. If we waited until we had this particular contract perfect, we would have the contract still being negotiated until the second coming. It would be impossible to have it perfect. Somewhere between the perfection and the doing, the practical nature of getting oil out of Hibernia and the follow on fields in Ben Nevis and Terra Nova, which is 20 miles south of Hibernia, we have got to get moving on it.
Our subamendment asks in its simplest terms to favour the maximum Canadian content without jeopardizing, without delaying the progress of this very important project, not just to Newfoundland or Quebec but to Canada. The whole of the country is going to be involved. If we were to wait until we got all the things that we wanted, we would never ever be able to get the project under way.
The NDP and the independent members of this House, it would appear to me, do not particularly want this project to go ahead. NDP members have already said that. There are a number of reasons why they said it. I was not amused, but I found it passing strange that the hon. member for Kamloops got up and complained about the little time that we have spent speaking on this particular project.
I also recall the hon. member for Edmonton East, just a few moments ago, complaining about various aspects of what went on, what was not done, what should have been done, and that sort of thing. Without playing dirty pool, I remember very distinctly as the quarterback of this bill, certainly for second reading and I participated in first reading, that there was no big fuss about why the project should not go ahead. There were some amendments being proposed. I remember distinctly in committee on June 13 that it took one day because that is what the

committee members agreed to. All we needed was one day.
Therefore, I found a time warp from June 13 to this very day and last Wednesday I found some interesting positions being changed. Some of the members who are now proposing amendments to this particular project previously, at least on June 13, were quite happy to support the project as it stood. I find it very strange that now, when we are ready to pull the trigger on this highly technical and valuable project, they complain that they want all kinds of amendments made to the bill. They want amendments that essentially would make the project not viable if we were to invoke those measures.
The subamendment that I speak to does a number of things. I have to speak about that subamendment in the knowledge that there was a 20-year passage since the Hibernia field was discovered and the development in eastern Canada, indeed across Canada, and the increase in the sophistication in the supply, in technical knowledge and in the skills of offshore drilling. This project is certainly the first offshore oil project that will come into production in Canada and it takes a long time to develop expertise.
We do have a lot of expertise in Newfoundland, in eastern Canada, Quebec, all over Canada, but it has taken 20 years to develop it. This is why the Canadian content in the entire project is between 60 per cent and 65 per cent. It is not 100 per cent, but 60 to 65 per cent is more than twice as much as there was about 20 years ago when the Norwegians and the British became involved in the development and production of North Sea oil. That is a quantum jump, to say nothing of the fact that there are certain elements in the highly technical nature of the concrete structure, the five modules, the delivery systems, and perhaps even the tankers themselves that are going to deliver the oil.
I do have some knowledge of the shipbuilding business. I have some knowledge of marine things. I can assure you that as a ship's captain and overseeing staff, we could not produce in Canada all the items we needed to build a ship. Perhaps it is too long ago for me to count the number of years, but the point is that had we relied on 100 per cent Canadian content for our radar, machinery and in the case of the older destroyer, for our Y-100 machinery, the valves, the seam stops in our submarines,
Government orders
making sure it was safe to go to sea and to die, we would have had to shut down the navy. There would be no navy. There would be no ships. There would be no repairs.
If my choice as a parliamentarian, politician, Newfoundlander and as a Canadian is to look for the perfection in this particular project that my NDP colleagues are looking for with respect to Canadian content, including their reluctance to spend $2.7 billion on this very worth-while project, it would never leave the ground, as the hon. member for St. John's said a couple of days ago. We would be here arguing, cajoling, debating, amending, putting motions and all these kinds of things about Hibernia when we are all old men. That is unsatisfactory. That is unacceptable.
We have 42,000 unemployed people in Newfoundland right now. I am prepared to get up here and talk about any amendment for the rest of my life to get one more job, because one more job is another person who will have some measure of satisfaction and dignity and can make one more contribution. It is not that people in Newfoundland do not work. The jobs are not there. To me every single job counts.
When I get people looking for perfection but that search impedes a project that will employ 10,000 people in eastern Canada, a lot of Newfoundlanders and permanently employ 1,100 people, considering the number of people who are unemployed, I will go to any length to fight the amendments that slow it down and I will support the amendments that speed it up.
We have been talking about this Hibernia project for a long time. It just did not start with the first reading of this bill. It has been going on for 10 years.
As I said the other day, how many times do we have to sign this? How many times do we have to debate it? How many motions do we have to have?
Madam Speaker, I am aware of the work my friend from St. John's East has done on this project and I know how close it is to him. Indeed, I know I speak for the majority of the members of this House who have had enough of the i-dotting and the t-crossing and who want to get on with getting this project under way.
I believe, Madam Speaker, our motion is a way to facilitate that. It is a great opportunity for us to move ahead and develop the technical expertise so that by the

Government orders
time Terra Nova comes onstream we may be able to go for 80 or 85 per cent Canadian content.


Guy St-Julien: I am happy to rise to take part in the debate.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Longueil on a point of order.


Nic Leblanc: I move that the hon. member for Rosemont do now speak.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry. I cannot accept the motion at this time. The hon. member had already started his remarks. The hon. member for Abitibi.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak about this famous project. We have been talking in Canada about the Hibernia project for twenty-five years. There is nothing new there. Between 1980 and 1984, the oil field was surveyed and evaluated. Eight out of the nine wells that were drilled proved to be worth developing and worth the cost of $465 million. They can go on talking. I am very pleased they noticed that there are conservative Quebecers who have been defending Quebec's interests since 1984. We did not wait until 1990 to start defending those interests, Madam Speaker. We have been doing it since 1984 while some of the hon. members on the other side were travelling around the world a couple of times-
Madam Speaker, in February of 1985, the Atlantic Accord was signed. The funniest thing of all is that, on May 10, 1988, when the Atlantic Accord was voted on, the New Democrats voted with the government in favour of the Accord. I see also that the member for Megan-tic-Compton-Stanstead voted in favour of the Accord on that day, and it seems somewhat bizarre today to see the other members sitting on the other side, the member for Longueuil, the member for Richelieu who was not present-maybe he was gone on a trip around the world- Madam Speaker, in this project, all regions of Canada have the opportunity to benefit from the $3 million that will be spent in Canada to get the Hibernia project off the ground. We know that companies in Quebec are in a very good position to get their share of the contracts that will be awarded to Canadian companies.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Point of order. The hon. member for Rosemont has the floor.


Benoît Tremblay: I would like to remind you, Madam Speaker, to listen carefully to what the hon. member is saying. If some members of this House did make inappropriate trips on official business, then that may be considered an insult to the House.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not see how the hon. member for Rosemont can feel threatened by a comment not intended for him. After all, the Chair cannot be responsible for each and every word uttered in this House. The hon. member for Abitibi.


Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am glad his point of order has been ruled inadmissible. I never talked about official trips. I think, everywhere in the world, when people talk about the whole wide world, they also mean Quebec. I want to thank my colleague. Since Quebec has already carried out similar projects, for example, some hydro projects, and I think I am in a position to talk about hydro projects, since I come from the largest riding of the ten provinces, and the Bay James project has had an enormous impact- All of the equipment was built in Quebec, and then brought to my constituency. These people have some experience in the shipbuilding field. Quebec businesspeople will surely be able to compete when bidding for the Hibernia contracts. It may be that I know nothing of the sort, but I won't refrain from rising because I am a Conservative from Quebec. And it is not the member for Rosemont who will stop me from speaking in the House of Commons. Stay in your small Montreal. You never came to Abitibi. Stay home!


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order!
The Chair would ask the member for Abitibi to address himself to the Chair and not directly to one of his collegues. This would help to maintain order in the House. The member for Abitibi.


Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I admit you are right. You are perfectly right. In both cases, Quebec companies already own majority interest in the consortia which obtained the contracts. Discussions on the contracts have begun in Montreal. More than 600 individuals, Madam Speaker, will work on designing surface modulars for Hibernia.
Quebec companies are also hoping for contracts related to Hibernia. I agree with the Quebec Conservative
October 3, 1990

Members and I agree with the Bloc Quebecois members that we have to stand up for Quebec interests in this project. We all agree and that is why we speak today.
Madam Speaker, the significance of what Quebec is getting is not measured only in terms of value of the contracts flowing from the Elibemia project, but also in terms of acquiring new and valuable expertise in the field of design and construction of offshore structures that Quebec will be able to use on the international market over the years.
People in Quebec should be reminded of one thing, Madam Speaker, it is that the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean voted for Hibernia. When he was minister of the Environment he had managed to get 2 million man-hours for Newfoundland. What is even more surprising, Madam Speaker, it is that the hon. member for Roberval and Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, and the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm and Minister of the Environment, have done better. They got 4 million man-hours. Four million man-hours is quite an achievement! I wish to thank them for that. Some other people should also be thanked, Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Manicouagan-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Rose-mont on a point of order.


Mr.   Benoit@: Madam Speaker, I did not rise earlier when the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe mentioned that some government members had voted, abstained or kept silent when the bill was in the House. I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Sciences and Technology then, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to take risks whenever what I believe in is at stake.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I fail to see what Standing Orders could could have been infringed upon in the hon. member's words. The hon. member may want to debate it at some other time, but he has no point of order. The hon. member for Abitibi.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, I would like to mention the contribution and the efforts of the member for Manicouagan, who is right here beside me. He is a new and very good member. I am extremely pleased to do it, because he was a member of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources.
Government orders
He worked very hard for Quebec and Canada to have that project.


An hon. member:: That is true, Guy!


Guy St-Julien: As my colleague for Duvemay, Vincent Della Noce, used to say: "That is one of the biggest projects for Canada and for Quebec". I agree with him.
Madam Speaker, we could talk about many things regarding that project, but we all stand for it before the voters and the people. It is normal for Quebec members to seek assurances that a good chunk of the 2.7 billion dollars Ottawa has coutributed to the project will be spent in Quebec. But it is not certain that their approach is, in the long term, in the interest of Quebec.
It is the duty of the federal government to make sure that its contributions be handed out equitably through out Canada to be used in the most cost-efficient way. It means that Quebec will never have more than its fair share of the federal windfall. Therefore it is important not to try and grab the whole thing but to enhance our chances to get what will do the most for the economic development of Quebec.


Charles A. Langlois: And quality!


Guy St-Julien: And quality, of course, Madam Speaker, as my colleague the member for Manicouagan, who is seated at my left, said. What is important is quality made in Quebec.
Madam Speaker, this whole debate about Hibernia and the allocation of work would not be, were Hibernia a purely financial project. If it were, the participating oil companies would then be completely free to go for the lowest bid, whether it came from Quebec, Korea, Singapore or Italy. Politicians would have no say in the matter. However, the financial involvement of the government introduces a political element and there is no indication as to where political involvement must cease and sound project management begin.
As my colleague the member for Manicouagan said, he immediately stood up for Quebec and the Quebecers as well as for Canada. The project is excellent, I agree.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker-


Gilles Duceppe: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Government orders


Don Boudria: Is there a point of order, Madam Speaker?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Lauri-er-Sainte-Marie on a point of order.


Gilles Duceppe: Madam Speaker, the member for Rosemont stood up at the same time as me. I would ask that he be heard.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell had already started his address. The motion is therefore inadmissible. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to speak to this House and to this important bill. I was anxious to hear what the hon. member for Rosemont had to say, but I am sure that sooner or later we shall have that opportunity. I am certainly looking forward to hearing the hon. member on the subject, as are all Canadians, because as you know-


An hon. member:: Sit down!


Don Boudria: I suggest the hon. member for Richelieu listen carefully, since he moved the amendment that would allow only Canadian firms to bid on the platform contracts. In fact, the hon. member is to be commended for his spirit of renewed federalism as reflected in his desire to help the industry across Canada. A great federalist, the hon. member for Richelieu, proposed this amendment! I must say it is edifying to see this Pan-Canadian spirit among members of the new party, the Bloc canadien. So the Bloc canadien moved this Pan-Canadian amendment, seconded of course by another ultra-federalist member, the hon. member for Shefford. He supported the federalist amendment, because we must not forget they want to help Canada as a whole with this amendment.
Madam Speaker, I am sure all our colleagues from Alberta, Ontario, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and the other provinces will be proud of this renewed interest in Canada, as demonstrated by these two members. We could almost ask some members to renew their oath of allegiance to our country, almost, perhaps, but not quite.
Although it arises from the great spirit of renewed federalism to which I referred earlier, the amendment, notwithstanding its federalist imprint, was not well
prepared. The hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre, however, did his homework. He did some research and drafted an amendment to the amendment, to improve the text. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre who, I am told, consulted SNC in Quebec as well as MIL and several other organizations.
Following this thorough consultation, the Hon. Member for Gatineau-La Lievre who, as always, is showing utmost dedication in his efforts to promote the interests of Canadians generally and Quebecers in particular, hastened to move this amendment which certainly has improved the Hon. member for Richelieu's federalist mention.
Once amended, the amendment would read:
f) les autres mesures que le ministre juge souhaitables, notamment l'assurance que les appels d'offres sur les cinq supermodules de la plate-forme -
His proposal would guarantee an optimum Canadian content without delaying the project.
What the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre has done, Madam Speaker, is to move an amendment to the amendment which will help achieve the purpose of the hon. member for Richelieu, this great federalist, while making sure that it will not hinder of the project. As you can see, Madam Speaker, the amendment in question-


Jean-C. Lapierre: The amendment to the amendment. . .


Don Boudria: Yes, the amendment to the amendment, as the Hon. Member for Shefford, who knows the rules, is saying. Because of his regular attendance in the House of Commons, he is well informed of the procedure of the House, Madam Speaker.
I want to praise this new interest for federalism on the part of our colleagues, especially the Hon. Member for Richelieu and the Hon. Member for Shefford. I should like to add, for instance, that a true message of congratulations should be unanimously sent to our colleague the Hon. Member for Gatineau-La Lievre who, as a result of his dedication, has put together this amendment to the amendment which I hope will be adopted by the House of Commons.

I join with all my colleagues who, I am sure, want this project to go ahead very soon. It is to the benefit of the great province of Newfoundland and I am sure that all of us want Canada's newest province to achieve a state of

prosperity that it has not yet enjoyed. The proud people of Newfoundland want this project.
All members of the House who represent the province of Newfoundland have spoken eloquently about this bill. It is our hope that the amendment to the amendment offered today by the member for Gatineau-La Lievre will make this bill even better and will achieve greater prosperity not only for Newfoundland, but for all Canada. Again, it is my hope that we will vote in favour of this bill and we will adopt it unanimously later today.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, it is a great honour for me to have the opportunity to speak-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Nic Leblanc: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Timis-kaming had the floor. He had started his remarks-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is a member of this House who clearly expect the Chair to look in all directions and see everything at once. Unfortunately, this is not a privilege which comes with the job.
According to the normal rotation that applied all through proceedings on this bill, the next speaker should be somebody from the government side.
I have recognized the hon. member-


Jean-C. Lapierre: On a point of order!


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Shef-ford on a point of order.
Government orders


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I ask and move that the hon. member for Rosemont be now heard.


Nic Leblanc: I second the motion, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Timis-kaming had been recognized and had started his remarks.
The hon. member.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, I know this has been a very difficult-


Some hon. members:: That is not true!


Jean-C. Lapierre: You are being partisan, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, it is a tradition of this House-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker is neutral.


Don Boudria: -that all members respect the authority we ourselves entrusted in the Speaker. The authority of the Chair is not imposed on us. We gave that authority to the Chair.
Therefore, by that veiy fact, the Chair has the confidence of the House. If the House decided otherwise, it would freely address the issue.
In the meantime, Madam Speaker, I find it unacceptable that any member challenge the authority of the Chair because that would be challenging the authority we entrusted in the Chair.
This is the basis for my objection, Madam Speaker. I consider it is an insult, not only to the Chair, but in fact to the whole House which has decided who should preside over its proceedings.


Jean-C. Lapierre: On the same point of order!


Mr. Nunziata:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have sat in my seat patiently all afternoon trying to listen to the debate. I would like to commend you for the patience you have shown during the deliberations all afternoon.

Government orders
Any objective observer of the deliberations today would conclude that there are certain members in the House who have attempted all afternoon, not to engage in legitimate, intelligent debate, but to disrupt the proceedings in the House. You have been patient and have recognized points of order after points of order in a shameful display by certain members of the House.
If they were truly interested in debating this most important bill before the Parliament of Canada, surely they can show respect for other members in the House but, more importantly, respect for the Chair.
You made a ruling, Madam Speaker. The member for Shefford called your ruling into question and, in effect, accused you of being partisan. I take great exception to that and I am sure the overwhelming majority of members of the House take exception to the absolute insult the member for Shefford has shown to all members here this afternoon.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Let me comment briefly on a remark made by the hon. member for Shefford.
The hon. member said he had seen the Chair make a sign to an hon. member on the government benches. It will make things easier if I explain what happened and we will be in a better position to sort out the issues.
First, let me repeat that, according to the pattern we followed all day since the beginning of this debate, it would normally have been the time for a member on the government side to speak. So I simply turned to the parliamentary secretary so that he could tell which member on his side would speak. He told me he would take the floor himself and I agreed.
The previous speaker concluded his speech, I recognized the hon. member and he immediately set out to make his speech. At the same time, a point of order was made. Before I had time to recognize it or even say "point of order", the speech had begun. The law and the rules being what they are, I agreed to explain in detail everything that had occured. Enough of it, now, let us go on with the debate. That is the reason we are here. The honourable member for Timiskaming.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, I would like to start
off by-


Louis Plamondon: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The honourable member for Richelieu raises a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: I simply wish to remind the member who criticized us for raising many points of order that I learned that when I sat with the party in office. And to the member for-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: This is not a point of order. The honourable member for Timiskaming.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. By entering into today's debate I first want to say to you and to those Canadians who this afternoon may have been watching the ongoing process of the House of Commons and debating of legislation that Bill C-44 is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that all Canadians have seen for a great long while.
I say that for a reason. It goes back to the development of a government in 1984 that recognized the regions of the country, the concerns of those regions and developed policies, programs and economic development in those regions.
In July 1988 the Prime Minister of this country and the Minister of Energy signed a statement of principles in which Hibernia, the Government of Canada, the Government of Newfoundland and the premier of Newfoundland had negotiated in order to finalize a legal binding agreement incorporating the principles of the statement.
I had the opportunity a few weeks ago, and it was an historic time to be in St. John's, along with my colleagues from St. John's East, the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, officials of our department,the premier of Newfoundland and the minister of energy to be at the signing of history. At that time there were four former premiers of the province of Newfoundland there. It gave an opportu-
October 3, 1990

nity for Canadians to understand how important this deal was, not only for Newfoundlanders, but for all Canadians.
This $5.2 billion project represents $3 billion expected for Canadian business. This business is not only going to be taking place in the province of Newfoundland, in Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick, in Ontario or in Quebec but across the land. It is an opportunity for all Canadians to be able to benefit from this project.
If we look back to the project in the North Sea, Norway and Great Britain had only 25 to 40 per cent of the project's budget. Madam Speaker, I must say to you, this project is important to all Canadians. It is so important because it gives an opportunity for individuals across Canada to benefit.
I refer to the province of Quebec's expertise in so many areas, where they were looking at the fabricating side of it, where they were looking at Hydro Quebec. Let me give two examples of companies which will receive a large share of the winning portion of the consortiums. SNC, with its partners, have a 70 per cent interest in a joint venture. Newfoundland Offshore Contractors have won a $360 million engineering design project management contract for Hibernia. This contract will begin in Montreal where about 600 people will be employed in designing the topside modulars of the Hibernia project. That gives one example of exactly what this project is going to mean for all Canadians.
Over $1 billion that is going to go into that project that will go into the province of Quebec. I hear from my socialist friend from the great province of Alberta who does not understand the opportunities that are available for all Canadians. I sometimes wonder when I listen to the socialists, who are supposed to be so concerned for the individual Canadian, the small guy, the individuals living in the small communities across this country and the individuals living in the small ports in Newfoundland. The socialists are just not concerned for them at all. They are ready to fold up and vote against this bill.
It certainly indicates to me that what used to be the NDP standing up for the individuals across this country is no longer so. The people who are standing up are the people who are in this House and this government. They are ensuring that the opportunities for individuals across
Government orders
Canada is going to be recognized with the Hibernia project.
As we go on and look at some of the values of this project, it is interesting to see how, as an example, a small outpost in Newfoundland where individuals, for a very good reason, have only been able to gather so many work weeks each year because of the options that they had, and those options were very few. It could have been in the fishing industry or just small seasonal jobs. Now, all of a sudden, there is a new way of life for these Canadians, a new way of life for people who want to be able to have that opportunity. That is really what Hibernia is all about. This project is for all Canadians. It is an opportunity for us to diversify and for Newfoundlanders to have the opportunity to be able to gain some of the recognition, skills and development of a region of their country. That is really what we are talking about.
It has been an honour for me to deliver a few words supporting Hibernia and the aspect of the fact that this is going to be a beneficial project for all Canadians. I thank you for that opportunity, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The honourable member for Chambly.


Mr, Lapierre:: I raise on a point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Point of order. The honourable member for Shefford.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I move:
That the Hon. Member for Rosemont now be heard.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion is in order. [English]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.

Government orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The honourable member for Chambly.


Mr. Edmonston:: Madam Speaker-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, there was no quorum!


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member knows as well as I do that we had a quorum. Seventeen members thought fit to vote, and that is good enough for me. The hon. member for Chambly.


Philip Edmonston: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for recognizing me after all this time.
I simply want to support the amendment put forward by my friends of the Bloc Quebecois. I think the amendment to the amendment presented by our Liberal colleagues does not really solve anything. You have to understand that we want to get the most benefits out of this Bill for the Canadian people. I understand what the members of the Bloc Quebecois are trying to do. I think their proposals are desirable and very important. I want to remind you though that we are facing a huge deficit, so huge that the government of Canada spends at least a third of every revenue dollar just on the interests. The Conservative government talks about deficit control, but at the same time, like my NDP colleagues and the
members of the Bloc quebecois pointed out, they are writing a blank cheque for this Hibernia project. I find this Bill very dangerous, because it is, in fact, a blank cheque. I am not against Hibernia. I am not against the project as such but this bill is risky. And I will give you a few reasons why I think we cannot accept that legislation as it is now.
Firstly, we will be handing out roughly $2.7 billion on what guarantees? I am talking about firm and concrete guarantees. There are not many. What will be the actual windfalls of this project? What we usually call equity.

What will be the equity that we will be able to have out of this project? When we are talking about investing, we usually talk about what we will get, what guarantees of what we will get, as Canadians, across the country.

So, as far as guarantees go, that is a return on our money, I see none of that in this bill. That problem has not been resolved in that bill.
Second, I heard that it would cost $900 000 for each and every one of the 1100 jobs that will be created, and I mean long term jobs.


An hon. member:: Shame!


Philip Edmonston: My colleague just said that it was a shame!. That is so true, especially when we consider that this government keeps saying that there is no money left to spend. But it wants to spend $900 000 to create one job. Of course that is a shame!
Third, about the environment, this bill amounts to giving a blank cheque. What guarantee do we have that the environment will be preserved and that it will not be contaminated from carrying out the project itself? None. So, for the people who really care for the environment, and I think people do, this bill bring no answer. It does not provide them with the reassurance they are looking for. Instead, it makes them worry because it does not take the environment into account. That is the third reason for finding this bill faulty, to the point of being inacceptable.

The fourth point I want to raise, as my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois and from the NDP did earlier, is this: What will be the financial benefits for the rest of Canada? Will Quebec only send a little sand or a little technology or will other provinces send a little manpower? Are those the benefits we are looking for? I surely don't. I want real jobs, permanent jobs across Canada and jobs in the high technology sector. Why not make sure that we are not simply going to pump oil for the Americans? Why not refine that oil somewhat to sell gasoline and possess another technology?
I can tell you about the situation in eastern Montreal. A number of refineries closed down, putting hundreds of workers out of work in the area. Why introduce a bill that does not attend to that problem? I find that this project does not create many spin-offs, not to mention spin-offs in the sense that refineries could treat oil produced at Elibemia. I find that senseless, unacceptable.
Finally, I want to say that we have a problem even if all garanties have been- The government has accepted the demands, which means that the Canadian companies will benefit the most from this Hibernia project.
The Free Trade Agreement is causing us serious problems. This is what I want to tell you about my collegues from the Bloc Quebecois and the Conservative Party who are responsible for the present situation in which we can't even force Americans or whoever will obtain the contracts to hire Canadians. Moreover, Americans will say that it goes against free trade. Who signed this treaty?


An hon. member:: Not us!


Philip Edmonston: What government? I'm sorry. But I can tell you, my collegues from the Bloc Quebecois, not now that they are in that group, but when they were members of the Conservative government-


An hon. member:: Not us!


Philip Edmonston: My NDP collegue, the member for Alberta, already said that the members of the Bloc Quebecois voted for free trade when they were members of the Conservative governement. And it is because of free trade that we can't do anything to improve the situation.
Government orders
I support my collegues of the Bloc Quebecois, but I deplore that many of them are responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves today. With the best intentions in the world, there is not much we can do because, after all, they helped the government to pass the Free Trade Agreement.
So I find it sad that, today, when he wants to defend the interests of Quebec and of Canada- because I heard my Liberal colleague saying gladly that since the Bloc Quebecois wanted all Canada to receive the most financial spin-offs from the project, it means that they are Canadian and in favour of the status quo- I am not prepared to say that-


Jean-C. Lapierre: For the time being.


Philip Edmonston: -for the time being. But I would like to say that there is a contradiction at the moment. We want to defend the interests of Quebecers, but we have created a sad situation in the sense that we cannot defend those interests with the Hibernia project, because the free trade treaty keeps us from doing it.


An hon. member:: It is not true.


Philip Edmonston: Now, in conclusion, Madam Speaker, I think it is necessany to have projects like Hibernia and projects elsewhere in Canada. I am not necessarily against the people of Newfoundland or people from elsewhere in Canada. However, this legislation is not fair, neither for Quebec nor for the rest of Canada. And I think particularly, and this is the most disastrous point in this bill, that it is the reason why I support the amendment of my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois. And I am extremely sorry to see that my colleagues from the Liberal Party could move an amendment to the amendment which is so opportunist that it is utter nonsense.


Vincent Della Noce: Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise to-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford has a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Since I raised a point of order before the member for Laval-East spoke, I want to introduce the following motion:
That the member for Rosemont be now heard.

October 3, 1990
Government orders
Today, you will have heard all the speakers of all other parties except one from the Bloc Quebecois. We have had enough. Let him now be heard!


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is a motion before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Vincent Della Noce: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak. If my colleagues would only listen, I have things to say to them.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.

Madam Speaker, when the Hibernia project was under consideration some months ago, I was very much in favour of it but after some discussion, I must say it no longer appealed to me, because the province of Quebec was not getting much out of it.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Debate. The hon. member for Laval-East.
I accept your remarks, Madam Speaker. It's a shame that one of the members whose riding will benefit from the economic impact of the Hibernia project left the party and is now on the other side, trying to turn this



October 3, 1990

place into a circus. All that was missing was the member for Quebec who came here yesterday to prove to us once and for all that all they want to do is disrupt the proceedings of the House. They don't want to talk, but I would like to hear what they have to say about this bill. I was really affected when people talked to me about that.
We have today the member for Levis, who is beside me, Madam Speaker-


Jean-C. Lapierre: There was nothing at all.


Vincent Della Noce: The hon. member says that there was nothing. There are four to she million hours of work in his riding. For them, it's nothing. I can also tell you that the opposition to this project comes from one place only, and it is the place that will benefit the most from the economic impact of this project. That place is Quebec, and the opposition comes from the Bloc Quebecois. Of course we would like Laval to benefit from the fallout instead of Quebec, but unfortunately we don't have any company that works in that field. We are very happy anyway that the Quebec area will benefit, weather it be Levis or Richelieu.
My colleague opposite says that there is nothing at all. Maybe we will try to give some figures in a few moments. I mentioned earlier the names of the two corporations from Quebec, Madam Speaker, but I will repeat: Mo-nenco and SNC. The latter was saying to its employees a month ago to do something about the empty spaces. Empty spaces will have to be rented. The Chair said immediately after that the contract-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry but I have to interrupt the Hon. Member.

It being 5.45 p.m., pursuant to order made in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78 on Tuesday, October 2, 1990 it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
The first vote will be on the amendment to the amendment to Motion No. 2, standing in the name of Mr. Assad.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?
Government orders


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
Pursuant to Standing order 76(8), a recorded division on the amendment to the amendment stands deferred.

Consequently, the question on amendment and motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be put only when the House will have voted on the amendment to the amendment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-44 be amended by adding immediately after line 27 at page 13 the following new clause:
"23.(1) The Minister shall each year prepare a report with respect to the Hibernia Development Project during the preceding calendar year and shall lay it before Parliament on any of the first fifteen days that either House of Parliament is sitting after he completes it;
(2) The report prepared pursuant to subsection (1) shall indicate
(a)	the net direct and indirect economic benefits in each Canadian province which result from the Hibernia Development Project;
(b)	the net employment benefits in each Canadian province which result from the Hibernia Development Project, including an analysis of job classifications and salary levels;
(c)	the quantities and percentage of oil production which are exported in un-refined or semi-refined states."


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.

October 3, 1990
Government orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the recorded differed division at the report stage that is now before the House.
The first question is on the amendment to the amendment presented by Mr. Assad. Call in the Members.
The amendment to the amendment presented by Mr. Assad is negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 298)
++YEAS
Members
Anawak	Arseneault
Assad	Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker	Belair
Berger	Blondin
Boudria	Callbeck
Catterall	Comuzzi
Copps	Crawford
Dingwall	Ferguson
Finestone	Flis
Fontana	Foster
Gaffney	Gagliano
Gauthier	Gray (Windsor West)
Guaraieri	Harb
Harvard	Hopkins
Jordan	Kaplan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee	MacDonald (Dartmouth)
MacLaren	MacLellan
Maheu	Manley
Marchi	Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
McGuire	Mifflin
Milliken	Nault
Nunziata	Pagtakhan
Parent	Peterson
Proud	Rideout
Simmons	Stewart
Vanclief	Volpe
Wappel	Wood-56
++NAYS
Members
Anderson	Andre
Angus	Atkinson
Attewell	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Beatty	Belsher
Bernier	Bird
Bjornson	Black
Blaikie	Blais
Blenkarn	Bosley
Bourgault	Boyer
Brewin	Brightwell
Browes	Butland
Cadieux	Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Casey	Chadwick
Champagne (Champlain)	Charest
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Cole
Collins	Cook
Cooper	Corbeil
Corbett	Cote
Crosbie (St. John's West)	Crosby (Halifax West)
Danis	Darling
de Cotret	Della Noce
Desjardins	Dick
Dobbie	Domm
Dorin	Duceppe
Duplessis	Edmonston
Edwards	Epp
Fee	Ferland
Fisher	Fontaine
Friesen	Fulton
Funk	Gardiner
Gibeau	Greene
Guilbault	Gustafson
Halliday	Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Harvey (Edmonton East)	Hawkes
Heap	Hicks
Hogue	Holtmann
Horner	Homing
Hovdebo	Hudon
Hughes	Jacques
Johnson	Joncas
Jourdenais	Karpoff
Kempling	Koury
Kristiansen	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Langlois	Lapierre
Larrivee	Layton
Leblanc (Longueuil)	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDougall (Timiskaming)
MacKay	Mac William
Martin (Lincoln)	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McCurdy	McDermid
McDougall (St. Paul's)	McKnight
McLaughlin	Merrithew
Mitchell	Mitges
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Nystrom
Oberle	Plamondon
Plourde	Porter
Pronovost	Reid
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Riis
Robitaille	Rocheleau
Roy-Arcelin	Saint-Julien
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)	Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Shields	Siddon
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)	Sobeski
Sparrow	Stevenson
Stupich	Tardif
Tetreault	Thacker
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Rosemont)	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)	TUrner (Halton-Peel)
Valcourt	Van de Walle
Vankoughnet	Venne
Vezina	Vien
Vincent	Waddell
Weiner	Wenman
Whittaker	Wilbee
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Winegard
Worthy	Young (Beaches - Woodbine)-162

Government orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment negatived.
Before moving to the next question, I notice that some members have on their desks objects that do not belong there. Any sign that does not normally belong in the House of Commons must be removed at once. Thank you.

The next question is on the amendment to motion No.
2.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion will also apply to Motion No. 2.

October 3, 1990
Government orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare	the motion carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of Mr. Riis.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Editor's Note: See Hansard, pages 13769 and 13770, and Votes and Proceedings for October 4.]
Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I did ask the question.

Nobody objected. The Chair asked the question and nobody objected. Objections were raised, as the tape will show, I think, only after I said "carried ".
When shall the bill be read for the third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.54 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.54 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 4, 1990