1990-12-18

Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the second report to Parliament on the state of small business in Canada.
This document provides a reference source on the latest statistics on small business. It provides profiles of outstanding growth oriented firms, discussion of the factors which contributed to their success, and an indication of the wide range of government programs and services which support small business growth.

The title of this document, "Small Business in Canada-Competing Through Growth", reflects our economic situation and indicates how small businesses can respond to new economic challenges. The document shows what is being done by businesses that have satisfactorily adjusted to a new situation. It also contains a list of the many federal services and programs that can help small businesses while they make these adjustments.

These enterprises have grown in this country.


PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House the report, in both English and in French, on the official visit to London, Jersey, and Guernsey.



REVIEW OF THE PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Sixth and Seventh Report of the Special Committee on the Review of the Parliament of Canada Act.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today the first of tens of thousands of petitions from the people of Windsor and Essex county who are calling upon Parliament to take all necessary measures to preserve local CBC television broadcasting in Windsor and in other areas deprived of such service by federal government cutbacks and by the decisions of CBC management.

Routine Proceedings
I want to inform the House that we already have over 45,000 names on these petitions, calling for the restoration of local TV broadcasting by the CBC in Windsor.
These petitions will be presented by all the members from Essex county, and I sincerely hope that before too long we will get a favourable response from the government.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of people from Hamilton, Thunder Bay, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Calgary, West Germany, Montreal, Cayman Islands, London, Ontario, Saskatoon, and Sioux Lookout.


An hon. member:: It is out of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Anyway, there are lots of names on this petition. It just shows the interest of people in VIA Rail.
They are joining their Canadian friends where perhaps they have lived at one time or another. They are all pointing out their concerns with the government decision to cut back on VIA Rail service. As we speak new lines are being curtailed in Gaspe, the Smiths Falls area, and other places in Canada.
They are asking the government to reconsider this particular step, pointing out also that passenger rail service is the most environmentally friendly way to move large numbers of people.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, although the next petition is in a sense after the fact, these petitioners were not aware of it when they signed the petition. I suppose the case can still be made that they oppose the goods and services tax.
In spite of the fact that the government has now introduced the tax or is about to on January 1, they still point out a whole set of concerns as to why they oppose the tax. They are asking the government to recognize what this is going to do to the economy of Canada.


Mr. Boudria:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that the whole House is aware or that at least Mr. Speaker is very much aware of the fact that under our
Standing Orders petitions must only be signed by residents of Canada.
The difficulty is that I am sure that most members of the House, including myself of course, approve of the signature of everyone trying to oppose cutbacks in VIA Rail.
I wonder how it is that the certificate was issued by the clerk's office or by representatives of the clerk's office as to the possible tabling of a petition that was signed by non-residents. I did notice that the petition was properly certified. I saw the certificate attached to the petition. Nevertheless one has to ask the question how it is that it was certified, given that it does not meet the rules of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair has taken note of the hon. member's comments, and if necessary, it will check the allegations and report back to the House.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table several hundred more names of residents of my particular riding. They are all residents of Canada and citizens of Canada.
They are requesting this government to make a minimum 3.2 per cent oxygen content in gasoline fuel mandatory and to ban methylcyclopentadlenyl manganese tricarbonyl from use in Canada in the gasoline as an octane enhancer.
Ethanol can be produced from com, wheat, and barley and is a renewable resource. Plants remove carbon dioxides from the atmosphere. There is a very positive energy balance in the fact that up to four times as much energy can be taken from the crop in the way of ethanol than what is used in the manufacture of the product.
Ethanol blended gasoline represents a renewable and secure source of fuel energy and reduces our dependence on declining reserves of fossil fuels.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition under Standing Order 36.

Many Canadians have family members in many countries where they are now being denied Canadian travel visas for good faith family visits.
These petitioners call upon the government to introduce measures immediately which will facilitate travel visa issuance to relatives living abroad who, together with their Canadian hosts, wish to arrange good faith family visits to Canada.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a set of signatures on petitions from Windsor and Essex county. Let me assure you that every signature on these petitions is not only Canadian but desperately Canadian in circumstances in which the people very deeply feel that they are being alienated from the rest of Canada by the decisions being taken by government and by the CBC.
The petitioners state that the Canadian Broadcasting television station in Windsor is the only one located in the Windsor-Essex area, an area dominated by U.S. television. The lack of a local newscast deprives Windsor of a view of itself as a part of Canada.
It relies on national and regional broadcasting emanating from Toronto. Even if they carry some Windsor area items from time to time from a Windsor bureau, it not only distorts the character of our region, but of Canada generally.
Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take all necessary measures to preserve local CBC television broadcasting in Windsor and in all other areas deprived of such service by federal government cutbacks and by the decisions of CBC management.
There are 2,500 signatures on this petition. There are 45,000 more already in the process of certification. This indicates the depth and the dimensions of the feelings of the people of Windsor that they not be denied their participation in Canada-


An hon. member:: Louder, louder.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please! According to the Standing Orders, petitions must be
Routine Proceedings
presented in concise form, while the reasons must be very brief. I thank the hon. member for his co-operation.


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise with petitions with regard to the CBC and the definite negative effect the closing of the Windsor station will have on Essex county and Windsor.
I have 1,200 petitions but as the previous speaker mentioned, there are tens of thousands of people very concerned about the loss of local broadcasting in our area.
They are also concerned about the loss of Canadian-ism in our area. Through the petition they humbly ask this Parliament to do everything it can in order to restore this local broadcasting, this local system, to the Windsor-Essex county area.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition today from petitioners who live in Scarborough, Oshawa, Ajax, Markham and Richmond Hill. These petitioners were motivated to sign this petition because they are concerned about the packaging of foods. The content of food is not being disclosed. The protection of the health of the citizens of Canada is affected.
The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to enact legislation amending the food and drug regulations in order to require manufacturers to list specific food ingredients and additives used in the pre-packaged foods.
As well, they are calling on the restaurateurs and food retailers to provide to the customers a list of all the food ingredients and additives to prepared foods.
I might add, since these petitions have been put forth, that a number of restaurateurs across Canada are displaying their entire food additives in their restaurant menus. I am very pleased about that.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 399 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

December 18, 1990
Government Orders


Mr. Gardiner: Did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans hold a "think tank" session on November 1 and 2,1990 and, if so (a) what was the name and organization of (i) each person invited (ii) each person who participated (b) what was the cost of (i) travel (ii) accommodation (iii) other expenses (c) which federal officials attended the meetings and what were their departmental affiliations (d) what was the established criteria upon which the invitations were extended?
Return tabled.

Mr. Coopen Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)) moved: that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today, a long-awaited pleasure I might say, to lead off the third reading debate of Bill C-84 which will authorize the sale of Petro-Canada shares to the public. Allow me first, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to take this opportunity to thank members from all sides of the House who have taken part in the various stages of debate on this bill. In particular, let me thank the members from both sides of the House who were part of the legislative committee on Bill C-84 who I believe carefully and thoughtfully studied the various clauses of the bill.
I appeared twice before the committee and many witnesses appeared and gave testimony. The evidence is overwhelming that the government is on the right track and is doing the right thing in privatizing Petro-Canada.
Opponents of this bill have expressed concerns about Canada's energy security in the context of Bill C-84. These concerns are quite natural and understandable given the recent volatility of world energy markets. I believe that we have been able to demonstrate that Canada's energy security does not depend on continued government ownership of Petro-Canada. The security of supply can be reached in many other ways. The government has the ability to do that. Through all stages of debate on this legislation, the government has been able to give Canadians the assurance that Canadian energy security is not at risk as a result of public participation in the ownership of Petro-Canada.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in addressing the legislative committee, outlined the government's energy policy in words that bear repeating. He said, and I quote:
-current policy emphasizes primary reliance upon the operation of competitive markets for decisions regarding energy supply, demand, pricing and trade. The government considers that competitive prices provide the most appropriate and effective signals to both investors and consumers. We know, from the experience of the early 1980s, that such a market-oriented approach is far better, both in economic terms and in terms of federal-provincial relations, than policies which emphasize heavy reliance upon regulation and government intervention.
The privatization of Petro-Canada is perfectly consistent with the government's energy polity as stated by the Minister of Energy. I might say that I just returned from the west after pre-budget consultations with a number of interested groups and organizations, two of which were involved dramatically in the energy business. They all have said that the energy industry over the last four years has done a tremendous amount of work in streamlining its operations, getting themselves in shape without the vagaries, if I can use that terminology, of subsidies and offering them this here and that there. They have told me that their capital expenditures for next year are going to increase rather dramatically in exploration and capital costs. That is very good news not only for the west, I might say, although the west would benefit from it the most, but also from ridings such as mine, where I have 52 companies that I have identified within the riding of Brampton that supply the oil patch with needed goods and services. When the energy industry is doing well, all of Canada benefits. I can assure you of that.
December 18, 1990

A privatized Petro-Canada, strengthened by a new equity infusion, will be able to contribute to Canada's long-term energy security by continuing its ongoing exploration and development activities, thereby increasing the strength of the Canadian oil and gas industry. That is what Bill C-84 is all about; strengthening Petro-Canada so it can get on with the job of doing what it does best and that is exploring for and developing Canada's energy reserves and contributing in a positive way to Canada's future energy security.
Mr. Speaker, I want to quickly reiterate for all members of the House the two main reasons why the government is moving forward with this initiative. First, government ownership of Petro-Canada is no longer required to fill a public policy role.
Second, the company needs an infusion of capital in order to allow it to participate in the exploration and development of Canada's oil and gas reserves. For this reason, the initial public offering will be comprised of treasury shares enabling the company to raise much needed equity.
As I have said on numerous occasions, the privatization of Petro-Canada will be good for the company and good for Canadians. We recognize the important role that Petro-Canada has played in Canadian oil and gas development and the special relationship that the company enjoys with Canadians across this country.
The bill in no way diminishes these two important roles. Neither does it diminish the government's ability to carry out its energy policy, to ensure energy security and to promote environmentally sound practices within the Canadian oil and gas industry.
I must say that the Canadian oil and gas industry has been very understanding and very co-operative and has worked extremely hard in the field of environment and, as a matter of fact, has been recognized by environmental groups for the work that it has done. This, in no way, is going to change that in the importance of environment to all 2,500 to 3,000 energy companies we have in this country. The rules, the regulations, the goals and the aspirations all remain the same and privatizing Petro-Canada is not going to have a negative effect on the environment whatsoever.
Government Orders
As a matter of fact, by privatizing Petro-Canada, by allowing the company to raise equity from individual Canadians rather than relying on taxpayers, we are providing the company with the means to become an even stronger presence in the Canadian oil and gas industry, and we are strengthening the Canadian identity of the company by inviting individuals to buy shares.
I hear the opposition saying that we own it now. Well, I submit that the taxpayers have had all the liabilities and none of the benefits from the company. It is on our books now for $4.3 billion. Therefore, who really does own it? The government lays claim to it but there is a tremendous debt attached to that.
The legislation opens new opportunities for Petro-Canada. With the ability to raise new equity it can get on with that job that it does best, exploring and developing our gas reserves. I think most important, as we saw in the Air Canada privatization, a wide distribution of shares and restriction on their ownership will give Canadians a real and direct interest in the future of the company. These ownership restrictions will also ensure that control of Petro-Canada will remain firmly in Canadian hands.
I have sat through the debate. I listened intently to the opposition claims. There are ideological differences between the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party on this particular issue. The polls I have seen indicate that the majority of Canadians are in favour of privatization of Petro-Canada as long as it is kept in Canadian hands.
I see my hon. friend from Toronto over there shaking his head, indicating no. If he is privy to information that I do not have I would be very happy to see it, but the record shows that security of supply and owning a state oil company does not go hand in hand unless the state oil company owns exclusively all the oil in the country. As a matter of fact, Petro-Canada accounts for only 6 per cent of the upstream activity. The other 3,000 energy companies account for the rest.
So, it is very important to understand that Petro-Canada, although playing a very important role, primarily in marketing because it has 19 per cent of the market in the downstream activities is one of many players in the energy industry. It is time that it it set free so that it can expand without having to come cap in hand to government for funding. Now it can go to the private sector for

December 18, 1990
Government Orders
funding. It can raise it through the normal means of financing these companies similar to its competitors and at the same time remain in Canadian hands.
There are numerous changes being made in this country. If you listen to the opposition day after day after day, they do not want anything changed. They want it all to remain the same. They do not want us to economize. There is not one area of the economy where we have had to economize because of a fiscal situation, and we have had to make cutbacks in many, many areas there is not one area where they have agreed that we should cut back. Not one. Neither the Liberals nor the New Democratic Party. They want it exactly the way it was.
Well, the world is moving very quickly. We have seen changes that no one could have predicted two, three or four years ago. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this government has kept up with those changes and is leading Canada into the 21st Century as a progressive country, not one that is constantly playing catch-up, but one that would be right up there leading in the economies of the world. That is what this is all about. That is what change is all about. We can no longer sit back and ignore these changes that are taking place in the world, as much as the opposition would like to. At least that is what I am hearing from them. Do not cut VIA Rail. It does not matter that people do not ride it, do not cut it. Do not cut the CBC, just give them more money. We give them $1,034,000 now, give them another $110 million. That is their solution to all the problems of the country, to give more, more, more. It does not matter what issue it is. If we are talking about structural changes within our economy, they oppose that. They want to go back to the old ways.
Well, in 1984 the Canadian people made it extremely clear that they did not want to go back to the old ways. They were not happy with the old ways. Change was coming and they needed a group of men and women who could bring that change forward and that is what this government is doing. Some of them are difficult decisions. Some of them cost us dearly in the popularity polls we see published monthly. Tough decisions have to be made and this government and the Prime Minister who leads this government is prepared to make those tough decisions and stick with them because we know in the
long-run that they are going to be for the good of the country.
I can even say that former Liberal Cabinet Ministers understand that times change and we have to look at things differently today than we did 15,16 or 17 years ago when the NDP forced the Liberal government into creating a Crown corporation known as Petro-Canada.
As recently as six weeks ago, the hon. Marc Lalonde, the former minister of energy, a former finance minister and, I guess, a former everything in the former government led by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, was interviewed on the Gzowski show as part of a panel. He was there with Rosemary Brown from the New Democratic Party and, I believe Dalton Camp was representing the Progressive Conservative Party. It was a regular roundtable that they had discussing what was going on in politics.
One day the subject was the privatization of Petro-Canada. I know my colleague, the Minister of Energy Mines and Resources will refer to this later in the debate today. What he said at that time was: "No, I am not opposed to the privatization of Petro-Canada". His opinion was that Petro-Canada has served its purpose and now it is time to get on with the change that is taking place, that it is not a window on the industry any more. We have organizations within governments now that have the ability to collect all the information necessary to know what is going on in the energy industry.
Rosemary asked him if Petro-Canada was not there to control energy prices. Marc Lalonde said that it was was never envisaged to control prices in this country. That was never one of its mandates. One would think from listening to the New Democratic Party that that was the reason Petro-Canada was there, to control prices. They stand up and say: "Why does Petro-Canada not lower oil prices or gas prices at the pump?" They do not care if it loses money, but say: "We'll prop them up with subsidization from government." That is not the way it should work.
The socialist ideas around the world are being thrown out. Privatization is taking place in every country of the world by governments of every political stripe, including the communists, the socialists, the liberals, and the conservatives.

It is not an ideological thing. It is a common sense thing. The New Democratic Party says: "It's ideological, it's a Conservative bent." It is Conservative philosophy because it works, but it is being adopted by communist countries and by members of Socialist International, to which the New Democratic Party belongs.
One of the interesting things is that a number of these countries are coming to my department for advice on privatization and how they would enact privatization in their countries. We have had them from Australia, New Zealand, and Venezuela. Members of my staff on the privatization side of my department have been in Poland and Czechoslovakia providing advice on privatization. It is happening around the world.
Mexico has privatized something like 260 companies since President Salinas has taken over. He knows it is right. He knows that is the way to go, that governments can no longer pour billions and billions of dollars into these Crown corporations to keep them afloat, and that it is totally irresponsible to the taxpayers of the country.
Privatization is a fact of life. Crown corporations, yes. There are certain Crown corporations we need. I have never denied that. There are certain services of government that must be provided by government. I have never denied that. There are services that the private sector cannot or will not provide that must be provided. Governments have to provide them. That is why many of these Crown corporations came into being, but they have outlived their usefulness.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: Name one.


John Horton McDermid: I will give you a prime example. Air Canada was formed as a Crown corporation to provide air transportation for regions of the country that no other company would do. Today, there are other airline companies in the country that are providing that service. A competitive service is there now which was not there when the Crown corporation was formed. That is a prime example of a Crown corporation that was formed to provide a specific purpose. We have outlived that now and it is time for them to fly on their own. They are and they are doing very well, thank you very much. They are happy about it. The employees are happy about it. The corporation is happy about it. The country is still being
Government Orders
served and served well. That is a prime example, Mr. Speaker, of what I am talking about.
But I want to get back to Mr. Lalonde. This disturbs the Liberals, I understand that. I understand why the Liberals do not like this because it really hurts them. They want to go back to the old ways. They want to go back to pouring billions of dollars into Crown corporations and propping them up. That is what they want to do.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Horton McDermid: They want to control everything. It is the old marionette stuff. That is what the Liberals like to do. They do not believe in the private sector. Oh, they say they do, sure. They say they believe in it, but they know that the public service can do it better. They know that. They say that all the time.
One thing I have to say about the New Democratic Party is that we know where they stand. We do not see too many of them, but we know where they stand. With Grits, we never know. We do not know where they stand. They are against everything, but they do not tell us what they are for. They are against everything over there, except keeping Crown corporations no matter what their state in life is. Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that Mr. Lalonde, in his interview, made it very clear that the time has come for Petro-Canada to be privatized, that it no longer serves a public policy purpose, and that he cannot envisage one for it in the future. Times have changed. He has turned his thinking around. It is unfortunate he is still not on the benches over there, because maybe he could convince his colleagues that the time has come for the privatization of Petro-Canada.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Come on, John.


John Horton McDermid: I hear my friend, the hon. member for Nickel Belt, saying: "Come on, John." We are going to hear a speech today like we have never heard on Petro-Canada. The hon. member will be ranting and raving that we are destroying some great Canadian institution and the crocodile tears will be coming down.
The reason NDP members are upset about it is because they were the ones who blackmailed the Liberals into creating it, back in the early seventies, when our deficits started to take off in the country, irresponsibly. The former Minister of Finance, now the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, was the guy who had to do it. He had to say: "Well, we are going to stay in power, so we

December 18, 1990
Government Orders
are going to give them this and we are going to start running up our deficit." That is how it all started. I want people to remember that.
The time has come for Petro-Canada to be privatized. We have had a good debate on this. We have had to bring in time allocation-


An hon. member:: A muzzle.


John Horton McDermid: My friend over there does not sound as if he is muzzled, to me. I have been hearing him yell all day. I do not think he is muzzled at all.
We have had to bring in time allocation on this bill because we tried to get a set amount of time to debate this bill and the opposition was not prepared to co-operate and that is fair ball. I understand that. When we were in opposition, we gave the government a hard time too.
The rules of the House provide that we can bring in time allocation and that is exactly what we did. We have given it a fair debate and we had good hearings in committee. When the committee asked me to appear, I appeared both times I was asked. It cannot be said that we were not forthcoming in committee, we were. We provided the committee with all kinds of information and briefings, well before we debated the bill, as well as any briefings required during the debate on the bill. The committee was well informed about the whole transaction. Mr. Speaker, I must say that we have had a good debate on it.
Petro-Canada's time has come for privatization and I encourage the House to move expeditiously through this stage of debate. We will be voting on it this evening and I look forward to that vote because I believe that the government is doing the right thing in privatizing Petro-Canada. Its time has come.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today as the lead-off speaker on behalf of the Official Opposition at third reading stage of the Petro-Canada privatization bill.
It is with a little sadness, on this side of the House, that we embark on this task. It is our last chance to change our minds and to save what was and what could be in the future a valuable Canadian institution which has languished over the last few years as a result of the absence of government leadership.
There are two things that strike me about the way we have begun this privatization. The first is the haste with which the government has addressed this. If we recall, the matter was first placed before the House of Commons on October 1. That was about two and a half months ago. There have been a lot of other bills around the House which have been here a lot longer than two and a half months.
I have only been here since 1988.1 could be wrong, but I cannot recall another bill that did not have unanimous approval zipping through this House as quickly as this one has. I think that is unfortunate because, aside from the simple procedure of selling off, we also have a recognition of the issues surrounding the thrust, reasons and policies of privatization. It is long past time when Canadians must begin to address the issue of privatization.
This government has embarked upon a long series of privatizations. I would concede that one privatization by itself would not make a trend or would not make or break the future of this country, and we could live with that. In fact, I would have to concede, as I am sure most members of the House would, that there is the odd enterprise which can be privatized and not materially impair the many other policy goals that the government has and should have. For the record, and so we will know the extent of privatization, I will mention a few by name.
We have had de Havilland, Canadair, Nordion, Route Canada, CN Hotels, Canadian Arsenals Limited, Northern Canada Power Commission and Northern Transportation Company. The sale prices for these are all in the many millions of dollars. I say that only to indicate that there is a large volume of money involved here. It is not simply a sale of a few excess Crown assets such as paper clips and the like. There was Northwest Tel Inc., which is a CN subsidiary; Pecheries Canada Inc., Teleglobe for half a billion dollars; Terra Nova Telecommunications, another CN subsidiary; Canada Development Corporation, Fishery Products International, Nanisivik Mines Limited and Theratronics International Ltd.
There are other smaller interests which I will not mention, interests that the government acquired by taking as security for loans and financings. The list is a very, very long list and what it should serve to show all of us is that we have not got a simple one-time privatization, but what we have is a long string of dismantling

of enterprises which for the most part-not in every case-were put in place to serve Canadians, not just Canadians in Ottawa, Montreal or Toronto but Canadians all over the country.
The way in which this government is proceeding with these privatizations, I fear that we are taking a lot of sand out of the sandbox. When you take sand out of the sandbox and get down to a certain point, the kiddies will not want to play any more. They do not regard it as a sandbox. It is just a box. If the government proceeds on this ideologically-driven-and I maintain it is ideologically driven-course of privatization, it will succeed in selling out, but we will have left for all of us a geographic shell without Canadian presence. That drive to divest Canada of these institutions and corporate enterprises, to me, manifests a bankruptcy in the pursuit of policy.
The government sees that there is no Canadian goal that must be accomplished and therefore sells off the vehicle.
I am a temporary resident of Ottawa in my responsibilities as a member of Parliament and I represent a riding in Scarborough. Canadians living in major cities such as Vancouver, Montreal and Halifax, are surrounded in our urban environment by many, many institutions. You cannot leave your house without tripping over them; sidewalks, sewers and stop signs. But these cities only represent a part of Canada.
There are the people who do not live in the urban areas like Ottawa, who are not surrounded by all of these national institutions like Parliament, like the grandiose city halls. They are working people who do not get a chance to see, participate in, or pursue goals that are related to these Canadian institutions. That is one area where this government has missed the boat. It has forgotten that it must provide to Canadians in every region, not just to the concentrated pocket of voters in urban areas, leadership in institutions, a presence, a reason for feeling for being Canadian.
The Minister has just told the House that Petro-Cana-da did not serve any public purpose. Well, we all know that is true. The only reason, however, that Petro-Cana-da did not serve a public policy purpose was because the
Government Orders
government took it away in the first place in 1984. It removed it. It publicly required Petro-Canada to pursue profit-oriented enterprise with no public policy mandate, and that is not the reason why Petro-Canada was created in the first place.
It is very easy for the government to say that Petro-Canada does not fulfil a public policy purpose. It could not possibly do so because the government sucked that out of Petro-Canada in 1984.
I have also noticed how the government has changed the semantics of privatization as it pursues its goal of privatization. When the thrust of privatizing began 10 or 20 years ago it was called selling off or divestiture, then it became privatization. But that term has not sanitized it enough, so now we have the euphemistic titles of this and other bills where the process is called public participation.
What would constitute public participation in an enterprise more than a Crown corporation? How could you get any more public than that? Have we gone full circle? Public participation, the way it is discussed in relation to the government's privatization initiatives, means selling shares on the market. That is not the only perspective on public participation that we have in this country, so why the drive to sanitize? Why does the government have to change what it calls it? Well, I submit it is because there are some ugly truths that lie behind divestiture, sell-offs, sell-out, privatization.
We like to call it participation. It is not going to fool anybody. It is not hard to sell off. This is the easiest initiative this government has ever had to undertake. It is really easy for a liquidator to come in and sell off the corporate asset-any asset.
All you do is take it and hold it out in the marketplace for the best price you can get. In fact, you do not even care what price you get because you as a liquidator get a commission. That is what every broker or underwriter obtains when that group participates in a divestiture, a sell-off. I do not knock that. They are doing their work. But boy, is that easy. It is a dead end policy if all we are going to do is sell, sell, sell. Where does it end? I suppose in the end there is nothing left.
Will there be a post office? Why not sell it?

Government Orders


An hon. member:: Good idea.


Derek Vincent Lee: My friend opposite says good idea. I am afraid we differ once again. I think a lot of Canadians will differ with the hon. member. However, there is lots of time to discuss, as long as the government does not tiy to ram it down our throats in another two and a half months.
What will happen to the CBC? Who knows. We will wait for the new agenda. Unfortunately for the government, that Ronald Reagan-Margaret Thatcher neoConservative agenda that was there, led by an eminent politician from the United Kingdom who is no longer with us as Prime Minister, is disappearing. I feel that the government has lost its true leader in this. As it embarks on other potential privatizations, it is going to find itself not knowing where it is going. That is when Canadians will take notice.
Everyone in this House knows that the opposition stands in fundamental disagreement with the privatization of Petro-Canada. For that reason, it has been a little tough at committee and in the House being constructive about a sell-off because once it is sold, it is gone. It is not there any more. That makes it tough.
It is also tough to show that you are opposed and then be required to put forward a constructive amendment to make the sell-off better. I do not know if you can make a sell-off better, but a number of members at committee tried to do that. We addressed several issues. I am going to repeat them here so that the record will show the areas of sensitivity that we have to address in the House of Commons and in committee in this particular privatization. Some of these themes pertain to other privatizations as well but these are the Petro-Canada ones.
One of them had to do with the Canadianization policy. That was one of the driving forces that gave rise to Petro-Canada's birth, Canadianization. We in the early days of Petro-Canada were very fearful as Canadians that our petrochemical capability and the energy capability related to that were being managed by non-resident corporations, the seven sisters. We were quite concerned. I remember the time very well. For whatever reason now perhaps we are not so concerned. I do not know why. I am still concerned. In any event, Canadianization was one of the driving reasons. Canadianization is still a policy of this government. The energy minister
stated very clearly, very honestly at committee that it was.
If we look at the foreign ownership provision contained in this bill, and there is one, it says that non-Canadians can own up to 25 per cent. It does not say they will own 25 per cent. It says that they can own up to 25 per cent. It is simply logical for me to submit to the House that the Canadianization policy thrust of this government has now just been reduced with reference to Petro-Canada by 25 per cent, potentially. Let us take off a mark in this government's pursuit of its Canadianization policy. It has one strike against it there.
There is a relationship between that provision and the free trade agreement. When this government negotiated the free trade agreement it secured a concession that permitted this government to sell a Canadian enterprise or Crown corporation and to maintain the Canadian ownership. It went to the length of securing that in its negotiation of the free trade agreement. The provision says that once we do privatize-and I am paraphrasing-whatever level of foreign ownership is put in place at that time is the lowest threshold that we can ever impose.
Therefore, hypothetically, if there is a change of heart in relation to this legislation a year or two or three from now, under the free trade agreement, if we stay true to the agreement and if it is fully implemented, we will never be able to require Canadian ownership of greater than 75 per cent. Once we cross this bridge it is finished. We cannot go back. I wanted to bring that to the attention of the House.
We also dealt with the prospect of a piece of Petro-Canada, which under the current provisions could not be greater than 10 per cent, being purchased by a foreign state. I thought it would have been fairly obvious to members in the House and in committee that we would not want a foreign state to own a piece of what was our national oil company. I guess it was too complex to deal with that because the amendments proposed to preclude a foreign state or agency from owning a piece of Petro-Canada were not passed.
We can only hope that we will not as a Parliament have to deal with an issue in the future-and it will be a public issue; it will be a headline in the newspaper-where a foreign government or agency of that government or a state oil company of another government purchases a piece of Petro-Canada because it thinks it has a good
marketing opportunity or a good outlet for its oil. I am talking about one of the mid-east oil companies, Venezuela, or our friends in Mexico. Maybe Canadians will not mind. I just feel we should have addressed that in this bill, and we did not.
Dealing with the area of strategic assets, when Petro-Canada is gone we will have sold a vehicle, a tool or a piece of machinery that should have permitted us to address petrochemical energy supply problems in this country. Petro-Canada is a company that has facilities from the east coast to the west coast.
I believe that the legislation should have permitted us to prevent Petro-Canada from selling or disposing of an asset that our government believed was strategic in purpose and objective, at least for as long as the government held shares in Petro-Canada. This would include the disposition, sale, liquidation, bankruptcy, dismantling of means of distribution of petrochemical supply or a refinery or a pipeline, any asset.
I agree that would be a burden on the shareholders of Petro-Canada, but it must be remembered, and the people who buy these shares have to remember where Petro-Canada came from. In that period of transition, from the sale of the first share to the sale of the last share, they know that we in government and they with their private investment have one foot on the dock and one foot on the boat. They know that now, because we are not selling Petro-Canada all at once. We are doing it in segments and tranches over a period that might run up to ten years. We do not know.
In any event, our ability to address the need for retaining strategic assets is not in the bill.
I agree we have had a healthy discussion on official languages. I agree with the minister. In my view and in the view of most of my colleagues, the provisions in the bill dealing with our official languages, French and English, within the Petro-Canada enterprise are not adequately dealt with. The bill provides that Petro-Canada would be the arbiter of how it will dispense its goods and services in both languages. It will decide.
That criteria, that mechanism that is contained in the articles of incorporation and I am a little confused as to how an individual in Canada who is not a shareholder of Petro-Canada, just a consumer, the guy with the chain
Government Orders
saw that I referred to earlier, can deal with the issue of official languages in Petro-Canada.
It is no good to say that this is a private corporation, let them do whatever they want. The government has already seen the need to address official languages in the act. It is in the act. I say if you are going to address it, do it right. Do it comprehensively. The recommendations of the Official Languages Commissioner, Mr. Fortier, were rejected.
There was some discussion of another provision dealing with accounting and the Auditor General and it had reasonable debate in committee and in the House. But I am of the view, given the difficulties the Auditor General has had and obstacles he has encountered in obtaining the true financial information regarding the acquisition of Petro-Canada, those obstacles will still be there when he, as part of his responsibilities, pursues, investigates or monitors this particular series of sale transactions. Do not even suggest to me that he will not want to do so. This is the largest privatization, divestiture in Canadian history. Our Auditor General is going to be right there watching it.
The Minister of State for Privatization has told the House that the Auditor General and all of us will have access to the prospectus filed with the various securities commissions around the country. That is true, but the Auditor General is not concerned with the prospectus. The Auditor General will be curious about the movement of the money from the underwriters through to the government and what happens to it after that. I am very sure that if cabinet discussions involving the accounting for those moneys takes place, our Auditor General will not have access because of cabinet confidentiality rules. That is not true. I am speculating, but I have seen problems that the Auditor General has had before. I have no reason to believe that it will be different in the future.
I am not suggesting the government will intentionally try to cover up anything. I am simply saying that our Auditor General needs access, and there were amendments proposed to provide that access subject to commercial confidentiality necessary to protect Petro-Canada.

December 18, 1990
Government Orders
As the words of the song go, "You don't know what you've got till it's gone". As sure as I am standing here, this issue will come back to haunt us later, after it has gone. This is, practically speaking, an irreversible step.
I noted just a few days ago an article in The Globe and Mail dealing with the shutdown of the pipeline from southern Ontario to Montreal. It said that there was a plan to shut down this pipeline which carries, I understand, conventional light crude in 1991. That is about two weeks away. I suggest that is a very significant matter because, as the headline says, Quebec would depend totally on imported oil after the closing of that pipeline. Petro-Canada does not have anything to do with this particular pipeline. I am not suggesting it does.
However, we have a decision being made in relation to a pipeline which may mean after its shutdown Montreal would be cut off from Canadian sourced crude. The government has yet to express an opinion on it, but I believe that means of delivery of crude is important to Montreal just as Petro-Canada's role in delivering energy supplies in various parts of the country is important to Canadians.
Once it is gone it is gone. Once Petro-Canada decides it wants out of the refining business in a particular location, once the refinery is gone, it goes into the hands of individuals who may shut it down, mothball it, or use it for something else that may not be consistent with our national interest as seen by the National Energy Board.
They are not the only sources of capital. For equity capital, yes, we have to sell the shares, but we have other institutions in this country that finance themselves otherwise. The two most obvious examples were the monopoly electrical utilities in Quebec and in Ontario. As is already in the record of the debates, these utilities have debts in the $20 billion range.
On the same day as the pipeline issue was in The Globe and Mail there was an article about Ontario Hydro and its financing needs. It did not have a problem going back to the market. Petro-Canada in the first crunch wants about $750 million. Ontario Hydro in 1991 is going to raise $4 billion. Its bonds were very hot, snapped up in the marketplace. In fact, I think it was able to reduce the interest rate a little bit. They were snapped up, $1.25 billion. I think it took a few days or a week but the issues were all snapped up.
I know that Petro-Canada would prefer to have equity capital because it is cheaper. The dividend pay-out might be in the vicinity of 4 or 5 per cent when dividends are payable, whereas debt capital costs in the vicinity of, in the case of the Ontario Hydro rate, 10.25 per cent. In any event, the other financing options included preferred shares, special shares with a guaranteed rate of return plus participation. They could have been sold to the private sector and the control over Petro-Canada as a state oil company could have been maintained. In any event, we are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. We cannot do it.


The government says it has mechanisms in place to deal with energy issues of national importance. I am waiting to see what this institution, or series of institutions such as the National Petroleum Monitoring Agency can do if they can do anything. Are they toothless wonders? I shudder to think that they are simply sham institutions set up to show Canadians that we have this pretence of action. I do not know, but I am skeptical.
The issue of the financing of Petro-Canada came up. Were there any alternatives to going to the private sector? We all know that there were, but Petro-Canada executives were of the view expressed publicly that the private sector, the marketplace for common share security, was where they felt they had to go now and in the future.
Just a few moments ago the minister indicated, with reference to a quote of the Hon. Marc Lalonde, that Petro-Canada was never intended to control prices. That is true. No one on this side of the House ever suggested Petro-Canada's role was to control prices. Why does he suggest that that was the case? No one suggested that Petro-Canada was a monopoly and would control prices. It is a player, it is a participant in an oligopolistic petrochemical industry so that we know automatically that Petro-Canada has an influence on price. It does not control price and no one ever said it did. No one ever said it should. It was our window on the price setting mechanism. It was not control. It is unfair of the minister to suggest that that was the intention. He is putting words, intentions, he is attributing these things to the opposition when that just is not true.


Yesterday in debate at report stage, the minister and other members suggested that the birth of Petro-Cana-da came about because it was ideologically driven. There is some ideology lying behind all of us in this House. We are not stupid. It is not as if we do not have any ideas. Of course, there was some ideology behind Petro-Canada. What did I hear in this House from the opposite side? I heard the minister a few moments ago admitting that there was conservatism, if I can use the term-he used it, small c conservatism-lying behind the drive to privatize. Therefore, the privatization of Petro-Canada is just as ideologically driven as was the move that gave birth to it, if it even was. I am not sure that it was ideology which gave birth to Petro-Canada.

Since the 1984 federal election, the Conservative government has tried to whitewash its actions by using all kinds of euphemisms like divestiture, dismantling, privatization and public participation. And the debate on this bill is no exception.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that although the Conservatives may try to disguise their privatizations, Canadians like me know perfectly well this is about killing Canadian initiatives that have served Canadian interests well. Openness and integrity are definitely not part of this government's character.
Mr. Speaker, the Mulroney government must take the responsibility for killing Canadian initiatives in the energy sector.
This bill to privatize or divest Petro-Canada makes no sense at all, especially at a time when we are facing a critical energy situation and when a full-blown energy crisis could flare up in the Middle East. This is not the right time to consider selling a fundamental instrument of our energy sector. If the government succeeds in privatizing Petro-Canada, we will lose our window on the industry, an industry now controlled by foreign interests. This means that Canadians will have no presence that will protect and defend our interests in this crucial activity sector.
The big oil multinationals will now be able to call the shots. I fail to see why this government has tried to rush through this legislation. Bill C-84 was introduced on October 1, and after only a few days of debate, the
Government Orders
process is now almost finished. I think there are some serious contradictions between this government's policies.
For instance, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-80 concerning firearms was introduced in June, and today, this bill is nowhere near coming into force.
I tried to discuss this in the legislative committee as well as in the House when I introduced some amendments, but unfortunately, my motions and those of my colleagues were voted down.
Paragraph 9(l)(e) describes the provisions requiring Petro-Canada to ensure that any member of the public can communicate with its head office and obtain available services in either official language, where Petro-Canada determines there is significant demand. The problem is that it is up to them to determine whether there is significant demand or not.
There is no provision for the eventuality that Petro-Canada ignores the provisions in its articles concerning official languages. These provisions, which relate to certain aspects of services in official languages, appear only in the articles, which practically no Canadian will ever see.
And even if a Canadian citizen were acquainted with these provisions and felt that they were not being observed, I wonder whether this Canadian citizen would have any way of making Petro-Canada respect these provisions. The people to whom these articles apply are the corporation's agents. Other Canadians will have no recourse.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this government's privatization policy is more important than respecting Canada's two official languages and the rights of Canadians in this respect. This was clearly demonstrated by a refusal to consider suggestions made both by the Commissioner of Official Languages and myself and my colleagues, concerning respect for official languages rights.

Mr. Speaker, we do not run Canada for a profit. In fact, we do not run it, but Canadians do not run it for a profit either. Our job is simply to make this country work, to make it live, to give it direction, to give it purpose. That is our job in the House of Commons and that is the job of every Canadian who holds a position of leadership in his or her community.

December 18, 1990
Government Orders
The step this government is taking in the privatization of Petro-Canada is one of a chain of privatization initiatives and it is one which we believe is irreversible. What Canadians want is a government which cares and feels for Canadians in every region of this country, not just in the urban centres; a government that knows what is necessary in all of the regions to create a country that has a healthy economy and a purpose.
We on this side of the House want to participate in achieving that goal. We believe that the government-


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Nickel Belt.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I do not see a quorum in the House at the moment.
And the count having been taken:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is a quorum. Debate. The hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I regret the intervention by the hon. member, just as I was reaching the pinnacle of my remarks, the conclusion of my scintillating remarks. As a result, I will resist the temptation to go back to the beginning of the conclusion.
This debate should crystallize the views of Canadians with respect to the continuing policy of this government in divesting, getting out, selling out, privatizing public participation, whatever is meant by that.
I also cannot abandon this portion of my remarks without noting that the government felt it necessary to introduce and use time allocation at each stage of the bill. The government says-and if I am wrong I am sure government members will correct me-that the reason it had to be done was to catch the marketplace in the spring. That may be true. The government may have wanted to, but I do not think Canadians wanted the government to catch any marketplace. It is regrettable that the debate did not permit many members to address, not just the privatization, but the long sequence of privatizations and the effect they are having on the institution of government in the country and the perception of Canadians that the government is leading in a precise direction that will provide prosperity and unity to
all of the country. I urge all members in the House to vote against this bill at third reading.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Tory minister of state for ideology earlier said that Petro-Canada did not serve any public purpose. Well, this Conservative government does not serve any public purpose at this moment. I only wish that it would go, and go quickly.
In debating this bill at third reading, I have to go back and think about the way it was in 1972-73, in the early seventies, when there was what was called an energy crisis, brought on by the Arab embargo. At that time, there was no Petro-Canada and those who owned the oil industry in the country were predominantly foreign. Ninety per cent of the energy sector of this economy was foreign-owned. In fact, it had all the answers. It had its books and it kept its books close to its chest.
In Canada, we were faced with the problem of the National Energy Board not knowing what the inventories of energy were in the country. The government had no ability to go into the books of the private oil companies to examine what was going on. The oil companies were giving erroneous figures to the government. They were skittish. They would not put any investment into exploration.
At that time, Canadians and the government were concerned about what was called energy self-sufficiency. In fact, the common phrase used was: "Let the eastern so-and-sos freeze in the dark", and it became the language of bumper stickers. We all recall that.
I would say that, at that time, ideology had little to do with the establishment of a national oil company. Petro-Canada was formed at that time, I would say, not so much from ideology, but more from the economics of the situation at the time.
There was a desire on the part of the government of the day, which was a Liberal minority government supported by the NDP, to establish a national oil company and Petro-Canada was formed. If I recall, the Conservatives fought that every inch of the way. They went to the wall opposing it. The man who became Prime Minister shortly after it was formed, the hon. member who is now the Secretary of State for External Affairs, called it a white elephant at the time, if I recall correctly. In fact, he went down to defeat in 1979. He went down to

defeat because he attempted at that time to privatize Petro-Canada. That was one of the causes of his defeat.
Petro-Canada was established and it became an integrated oil company from well-head to gas pump. Canadians began to identify with their oil company. We know that Canadians spent in 1990 some $6.8 billion to build up Petro-Canada.
We have to ask ourselves why we established Petro-Canada? First, we wanted to have a window on the industry. That was the phrase at the time, a window on the industry. We Canadians and the Government of Canada had to have the information. It had to know what was going on in that sector because if any government was to plan economically, it had to have that important information because energy is at the very basis of economic activity.
Second, we wanted to have a leverage point in the energy sector because 90 per cent of that sector was foreign-owned. Petro-Canada was an attempt to start putting Canadians on the scene of ownership in the energy sector.
A third reason was to discipline other oil companies, not to set the price, but to prevent Canadians from being gouged in times of what were called energy crises. In fact, today I suggest that if Petro-Canada was not in the field, the gouging would be even greater than it is right now.
A fourth reason that has become even more apparent today, given that total PR job of a so-called green paper, is a public policy purpose.
Petro-Canada had four reasons and I have to ask myself if those reasons are still valid today in 1990. Do we still need to have a window on the energy sector? Do we still need to have a leverage point in the energy sector? Do we still need to be concerned about disciplining the other oil companies, and do we need to make that a public policy instrument? Yes, now more than ever Petro-Canada justifies its existence as a publicly-owned corporation.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


John R. Rodriguez: What the Conservatives are following is an ideological position. They are ideologically driven. Petro-Canada has become a symbol. What the govem-
Govemment Orders
ment is attempting to do to Petro-Canada, if it succeeds with the vote today to dismantle Petro-Canada, is to send a signal to the world that Canada no longer has a government that is a guardian of our national heritage.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. member:: They applaud that.


John R. Rodriguez: They applaud it. I noticed Tory backbenchers applauding that.


An hon. member:: Shame!


John R. Rodriguez: The message is clear. By getting rid of Petro-Canada, we consume our children's inheritance. We are destroying a symbol of national pride. That is what they are doing.
Second, there is this window on the industry. A considerable amount of knowledge has been gained by the government through its oil company about how that sector works. It has given the government an expertise which it never had before, an expertise that is important and information that is important for any government concerned about planning the economy of the country. Petro-Canada is certainly not a corporate welfare bum. It pays its way.
The other question is the leverage. Selling off Petro-Canada starts moving foreign ownership in the energy sector back up. It will go up to 60 per cent if the government is successful in selling off Petro-Canada.
As for disciplining other oil companies, in my view Petro-Canada has certainly minimized the greed of the oil companies. Every time there is a crisis they move in very quickly and take advantage of the roller-coaster prices and get the benefit of windfall profits. Wait until the books are reported for this year. We will see massive windfall profits that will make the banks look like a kindergarten in the way of profits. Petro-Canada is a brake on those oil companies who are out to gouge Canadians. There is no doubt in my mind.
Then, there is the public policy purpose. If ever there is a time for a national oil company to serve a public policy purpose, now is the time. The government is bereft of any kind of practical, specific environmental strategy. The green plan is simply a public relations exercise.

December 18, 1990
Government Orders
Petro-Canada can be used in a very practical and specific way with respect to the environment. One, we have suggested that we can use Petro-Canada stations to recycle ozone-depleting CFCs from automobile air-conditioners. Petro-Canada can do that by setting up reclamation centres at its stations. It can recycle used engine oil. It can promote alternative energy resources, for example fuel ethanol from grain. It will give the grain farmers a more solid income base and, of course, there is employment to be gained in that activity. Petro-Canada could be promoting research and development, and commercialization of alternative energy sources, such as solar and wind power.
In other words, Petro-Canada becomes an active participant. It becomes an activist. It plays an activist role in researching and developing these alternate approaches to energy.
Surely, the whole idea is not to keep on consuming non-renewable fossil fuels. Surely, the role of a national energy company, owned by the taxpayers of Canada and built up with their investments, is a legitimate public policy purpose for a national oil company. I believe that that is what Canadians want their oil company to do, not to be so-called sold off after having written down the book value of its assets.
Imagine this. My colleague here knows all about these things. He is a tax lawyer. If I came to him for advice, what would he tell me if I said: "Here, I own this oil company. Energy prices are going up through the ceiling and we are into an energy crisis. Is this the time that I should write down the value of my oil assets?"


An hon. member:: It is shameful.


John R. Rodriguez: He says it is shameful. Of course, it is shameful.
Mr. Speaker, can you imagine not even in any tidy bookkeeping way of getting maximum money? You do not write down the value of your assets when you are holding an asset that is in demand at this point in time. The government is doing that. It wrote it down to $1.8 billion.
I will deal with these Tories in a minute. I will deal with them.
There is another reason for keeping Petro-Canada in public hands. That is because all the profits made by Petro-Canada stay in Canada.
In the 1980s the private oil companies transferred $7 billion of their profits out of this country, $7 billion. The taxpayers of this country spent $6.8 billion in 1990 building this company and the government is prepared to sell it all off. You know something, the taxpayers will not get one penny of that. Not one penny of that will come back into their pockets. All the previous exercises in ideological sell-offs and privatizations have not resulted in one penny coming back into the coffers of Canada because they gave it all back to the companies that were just sold off. We will never see one penny. We are going to sell off our birthright and we are not going to get one penny back.
The next question is a logical one. Why does the NDP oppose this, and is there still a purpose for Petro-Canada? That is the first question.
The next question is an even more important one. Why would the Tories sell off Petro-Canada? Why would they do that? That is the question. Why would they? I suggest to this House and to Canadians watching that the Tories are selling it off because they are locked into an ideology, and that ideology is a corporate agenda. It seems to me that that is what they are doing. Let us face it. Who brought these people into government? Who brought them? Their corporate friends, their big greedy corporate friends. They brought them in here.
Imagine. I want you to imagine it. Here are the Tories after they came to power in 1984 having a banquet, and who do they invite to sit at the table, to draw up at the table? First of all they have their big banker friends. They have the tables near to the head table. Then they have their investment dealers. They are sitting at the table. Then they have their corporate lawyers. They are sitting at the table. They have their chartered accountants. They are sitting at the table. They have the BCNI, the Business Council on National Issues. They are sitting at the table. Their lobbyist friends, the Frank Moores of this world, are sitting at the table. They are eating; they are getting a meal. They are gorging themselves on this meal that is Canada. First, Air Canada-


An hon. member:: Is this from the trough?

Government Orders


John R. Rodriguez: From the trough. The trough is put on the table-first Air Canada, then de Havilland, Petro-Canada. They put them on the table and they say "more!" They have no shame. Their gluttony has no shame. But we all know that gluttony kills more than the sword, brothers and sisters, so repent before you end up in the fires of eternal damnation.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


John R. Rodriguez: See, their consciences do not even bother them. They are not even repentant. What do the people of Canada get at this big table? They get GST crumbs, that is what they get. The crumbs. And even on the crumbs there is a GST.
I see you are giving me the fingers, Mr. Speaker. That is all right. I like to see two. It is when I see one that I worry.
What does the government say? It says Petro-Canada needs cash.
From all that we can discover, the long term debt equity ratio is quite within the acceptable limits for this sector. If Petro-Canada needs money, it can go out and borrow, like other companies do.
This government reduced the book value $1.8 billion. Now, who is going to sell the first tranche of shares? R.B.C. Dominion Securities; it contributed $80,000 to the Tories in the last election. Bums Fry is going to sell them; it contributed $56,919. Gordon Capital, Wood Gundy contributed $68,000. That is a total of $218,000 contributed to the Conservative Party. I guess you have to dance with the ones who brung you.
What do they get for that? They get $37.5 million commissions on the first tranche; a total of $200 million for selling all of Petro-Canada. What do the people of Canada get? Zip-all. Zip-all. I therefore move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word "that" and substituting the following therefor
Bill C-84, an act respecting the privatization of the national petroleum company of Canada, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the legislative committee for the purpose of reconsidering clause 9 and for the purpose of adding a new clause which would specify that the bill would come into force on a date five years after its adoption.
Having said that, I hope it carries because this bill should not be passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair will consider the motion to amend put forward by the hon. member for Nickel Belt. We now proceed to the 10-minute question and comment period.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague for his excellent and entertaining discourse this morning. He expressed to us that the tranche is in the trough and that the government is feeding us crumbs. I do not want to say that his speech was crummy because it was not. It was an excellent speech.
I want to ask our colleague for Nickel Belt about the intentions of the government in this privatization scheme. In the unlikely event that the government is so ill advised that it will not consider the thoughtful amendments of our colleague-and there is always the possibility of that unlikely event. His speech was so excellent that most of us will be moved by it, but nevertheless the proposition still remains that some Tories might not be swayed.
As unlikely as that proposition may be, I want to ask our colleague if he would agree with me that at the very least those charged with the disposition of the share offering should, through some mechanism, compete in order to get that business. This would ensure some fairness and the best possible deal for the taxpayers of Canada.
I say this not because I happen to like the idea of the government privatizing a Crown corporation. But in the event that this government will not understand the right thing to do, will the hon. member agree that the government should ensure that fairness is put in the system so that we do not give the appearance that some might be rewarded just because they happen to be friends of the government?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very good question. I think it is an excellent suggestion. Sums of this size, and given what I have pointed out-I am not a cynical person so I would not suggest that there was a connection between those huge contributions made to the Conservative Party and the fact that they end up with this bonanza and they get all this largesse in their lap.

Government Orders
In a recent article, Levesque-Beaubien, which is the investment bureau arm of the National Bank in Quebec, complained that it did not get a piece of the action. A guy phones me up. I say: "Look, brother, you did not contribute to those guys, so he is not going to dance with you because you did not bring him". I guess they are going to be wallflowers at this dance. They are not going to be asked to dance. But I think it is an excellent suggestion that whenever these moneys are being paid to agents to do work for the government it should be done on the basis that there should be an open tender and they should bid.
I do not think it should be left up to the government to choose its corporate friends to massage them with millions of dollars. We are not talking about a few hundred dollars, we are talking about a total, when the whole tranche is complete, of $200 million. The whole of Air Canada was sold and the commission was even less than the $37 million on the first tranche of this operation.
So we are not talking about peanuts here and there. It must not only be seen to be fairness in the public business, there must be actual fairness in public business. I think that is very important to keep in mind.
So I thank the hon. member and I agree with the suggestion. I think it is an excellent one.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Questions or comments? Resuming debate. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in being able to speak to this particular motion and to respond somewhat to what my friend from Nickel Belt had to say.
He made quite an exercise of rewriting history. I mean, talk about a revisionist, he really did characterize it all the way. He says Petro-Canada was formed because of the embargo of 1972-73. I think we have to go back a little further than that. We have to go back to the election of 1972 and Mr. Trudeau's campaign when the slogan was "The land is strong". That campaign slogan got him a minority government and Mr. David Lewis-Oh, do not leave now, come on, you have to get the correct version of history. Come on, John, stay here.
Then came the New Democratic Party rump over there which thought it had the balance of power. In fact, it probably did because Mr. David Lewis was negotiating with Mr. Trudeau on how the government agenda should develop during that minority government. So Mr. Trudeau naturally wanted his close friends and soul brothers the socialists to work together with him on the government agenda. He met with Mr. David Lewis, that successful labour lawyer from Toronto, all those run down at the heels people in the socialist party. Mr. Lewis is one who did quite well.
He made a deal with Mr. Trudeau and said, "We will co-operate with you but the price is going to be pretty steep. You will have to enact some of our agenda and our agenda is to have a Crown corporation known as Petro-Canada, the window on the industry". It really had little to do with the oil embargo. It had more to do with a few needs that the Liberal government had at the time. Talk about a dependency, we were not so much dependent on the Arabs at that time as Trudeau was of the socialists at the time. That is where the dependency was. It was not an oil dependency, but a political dependency at that time. So, Petro-Canada was bom.
My friend says that Petro-Canada pays its way. What a way to pay your way. Does he remember the Canadian ownership tax that the government imposed on the Canadian people? Now there was a cool $1.65 billion handed over to Petro-Canada. Now would not another company in Canada love to have a gift of $1.5 billion just to start out, a little bit of petty cash to start out with. That is the way Petro-Canada pays its way.
Now, he talks about leverage in the sector. We saw the leverage when we had the National Energy Program with 25 per cent back-in provisions. When a company could confiscate the resources of any other company, that is what you call leverage. It had leverage imposed on it by Mr. Trudeau's government. We do not need that kind of leverage in a marketplace.
So my friend has revised history a little bit.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, Atlantic Defence Industries Ltd. in Bridgetown, Nova Scotia closed, with the loss of 200 jobs. That combined with the 300 jobs which will be lost when Dominion Textiles closes its plant in Yarmouth, an area that has had a textile plant for over 100 years, shows that something is seriously wrong with the way in which this government funds regional economic projects. Both companies were major recipients of government funding yet were unable to survive.
I call on the minister responsible for ACOA to study the factors that make it difficult for Atlantic companies to compete against central Canadian and American companies. The agency should start by asking these fundamental questions. Why are capital investment costs lower in Ontario and Quebec than in the maritimes? How can these costs be made equal in a way that does not violate the free trade agreement?
We must have programs that will allow our region to retain and expand its share of economic growth in Canada.


TRIBUTE TO THE LATE MGR. ALBERTUS MARTIN
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the people of the riding of Drummond were saddened by the news of the death of Mgr. Albertus Martin, who passed away last Sunday. He had been the spiritual leader of the diocese of Nicolet for nearly 40 years.
A highly cultivated and intelligent man, with the class of the most prominent clergymen, Mgr. Albertus Martin compelled recognition at all levels because of his exceptional personality and his humanist approach to the basic problems of this century.
Be it with his flock in his diocese or sitting on Vatican II in Rome, he relentlessly devoted all of his energy and his remarkable scholarship to propagating the Catholic faith. He was renowned not only as a pastor with avant-garde ideas, but also as a great builder and an informed manager.
His death leaves a great empty space, but also the memory of a full life devoted to the advancement and edification of a Church more accessible to the people, a Church in tune with its members and their aspirations for surpassing themselves.
Monsignor Martin, you will not be forgotten!


POVERTY
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, today the Canadian Association of Food Banks released preliminary figures from its 1990 Hun-gerCount showing that half a million Canadians rely on food banks each month, up 30 per cent from last year.
These figures should be especially distressing because this government continues to follow the same policies it has in the past. We can expect another large increase in the HungerCount next year.
What will happen when UI runs out early for thousands of people, thanks to Bill C-21? What will happen when Bill C-69 squeezes money for vital social programs? What will happen to thousands of low income Canadians when the inflationary effect of the GST is felt?
The answer to these questions is that more and more Canadians will sink deeper below the poverty line and more will be forced to rely on food banks to feed themselves and their children.
I urge this government to rethink and reverse these totally unacceptable policies which are forcing low and middle income Canadians deeper into the mire of poverty.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, the decision to cut 18 positions and several programs at the

CBC in Moncton will hit at the very heart of the Acadian community in my riding. The cancelled shows are TeleDebat, Spec-Art, La Revue and Bulletin de Nouvelles Dimanche Midi.

The minister has stated that regional programming would be strengthened by the cuts. In fact CBC cannot maintain minimal levels of programming. Radio-Canada from Moncton services the entire Atlantic region. At a time in our country's history when so many Canadians feel disenfranchised, we can ill afford these cuts.
Acadians need to maintain strong cultural and linguistic links. The dollars saved compare little to the cost of maintaining this heritage.
CBC links our region into the wider information network of Canada. The minister must restore the necessary funding to ensure that minimal regional programming is available.


HOUSING
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, as Christmas approaches, I ask members of this House to remember a family in Edmonton who are living in a substandard house. Let us just call this family the Smiths.
The Smith family is large, needs a five-bedroom home, but cannot find an affordable one, so it rents a draughty nine-year old house with no hot water.
The affordable government subsidized house that would be available is occupied. It is occupied by the New Democratic member of Parliament from Edmonton East. This New Democratic member lives in a five-bedroom government assisted home and pays only $622 per month. His salary is five times that of the Smith family.
This is outrageous. It is scandalous. The New Democratic member for Edmonton East should hang his head in shame.


Mr. Speaker:: It is one thing to put forth facts. It is another thing to use language which becomes a personal attack on hon. members during the 60-second statement. I would ask hon. members to restrain themselves from that temptation.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
M. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the residents of Lac Malartic, in Abitibi, told me they were bothered by the flashing lights on the CBC transmission tower for Channel 6 in Lac Malartic. Permanent and summer residents whose homes are located near the tower feel that the intensity of the stroboscopic flash is exagerated, considering the amount of air traffic in the region, and that it is a source of visual pollution.
Mr. Speaker, I know the people at the CBC are making the necessary checks to deal with the problem and satisfy local residents.


ASBESTOS FIBRES
Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, some opposition members stake their reputation on the fact they have always defended the interests of workers and unions. Recently, they claimed that the presence of asbestos fibres in certain federal buildings in Ottawa was endangering their health at work, and that it might adversely affect certain workers engaged in renovating the buildings.
A team of researchers from several countries, whose findings were published by Harvard University in 1989, does not agree, and I quote: "Average levels of airborne fibres inside buildings where material containing asbestos is found are extremely low, and the health risk as a result of the presence of asbestos in the buildings is minute, both in absolute and relative terms".
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I urge all opposition members who are campaigning against asbestos to look at the scientific evidence that shows that asbestos is not harmful to one's health


LEADER OF LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Quebec City, after the submission by the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Hon. Jean Chretien, the

federalist option regained lost ground. While the Prime Minister prefers to sit on the sidelines in these debates on the Constitution and national unity, the Leader of the Liberal Party leaps into the fray.
All Canadians saw yesterday that the man who will lead the fight to safeguard and unite our country and defend the rights of all citizens is none other than Mr. Chretien. Mr. Chretien roused his audience by calmly analysing the economic, social, cultural and political realities facing our country, including Quebec.
The Liberal Party knows very well that unprecedented changes are about to took place in this young country of ours, and we intend to meet these challenges.
Jean Chretien wants these reforms to ensure we will have a united Canada, based on co-operation, friendship and pride.


BILL C-43
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind the House, and especially the Minister of Justice, that the end of the GST debate means a new beginning for the fight against criminalization of abortion.
With Bill C-43 about to resurface on Parliament's agenda, the Minister of Justice should consider this. A new survey released by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists suggests that her attempts to build credibility with Canadian doctors have failed and have failed badly. Even after the minister's 10-page letter to them trying to alleviate their fears, more physicians than ever-almost half the number now performing abortions-say they will stop that service if it is criminalized by this government.
I therefore call on the Minister of Justice to reaffirm, to restate, to repeat her promise of two months ago not to proclaim Bill C-43 as law until Canadian doctors, in her own words, "feel comfortable with it". Right now they do not.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the CBC president and board for
recognizing that we live in times of restraint and that we have to cut the cloth according to the pattern.
However, I do take issue with certain choices they made in making their cuts. In particular, I urge them to reconsider their decision to cut the unique regional program Land and Sea. No other program more effectively shows the economic and social life of Atlantic Canada.
CBC President Veilleux, in announcing these cuts, said that the CBC would move away from local broadcasting and concentrate on regional and national programs. This makes sense to me. However, surely cutting a program like Land and Sea goes against this guideline.
As for local station cuts, why start with smaller stations in communities with no alternative service? Surely more money would be saved and the objective of leaving local service to the private sector more effectively served by leaving stations in places like Sydney, Comer Brook or Windsor to the last and by cutting first stations in places like Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver where alternative local stations exist.


LEADER OF LIBERAL PARTY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, fortified by his integrity and his passion for Canada, the hon. Jean Chretien appeared before the Belanger-Campeau Commission to talk about the political and economic reality of a sovereign Quebec. Liberals from coast to coast are proud to see a sincere federalist defend the interests of all Canadians, including those who live in Quebec.

Our leader, the hon. Jean Chretien, spoke openly and honestly about our history and that of our constitutional accommodations to come. He spoke eloquently of our country, for the well-being of the people matters more than the ambitions of a few.
On behalf of all Liberals, I congratulate and I thank the hon. Jean Chretien for his courage, his conviction, and his leadership.

Canada needs leadership, eloquence and integrity. In other words, Canada needs Jean Chretien.

December 18, 1990


PROJECT HAVEN
Mrs. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, family violence is a social problem and a serious crime. The federal government has a key role to play in the fight against this plague. Housing is a precious tool in such situations, for it can be a shelter for women and children. This is the kind of assistance offered by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation through "Project Haven".
To help the 25,000 women and children who are mistreated every year, $22.2 million have been set aside to provide 500 housing units. These funds are available to private non-profit groups and Indian bands seeking to create shelter homes by erecting, renovating or transforming existing buildings.
Mr. Speaker, 178 housing units have been promised. I urge all provinces, municipalities and communities to support this measure. The federal government has done more than its share to assist the victims of family violence and will maintain this policy.


LEADER OF LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: In the debate over Quebec's sovereignty, many individuals are trying to frighten Quebecers. Mr. Chretien is one of them. He wrongly maintains that a sovereign Quebec would be in a bad position. He maintains that in a soveriegn province Quebecers will have to cope with their share of the national debt.
Does he mean to say that Quebecers are not now affected by the federal debt? Do they live at the expense of the rest of Canada? I suggest that Jean Chretien has missed the point altogether. Quebecers already shoulder their heavy share of the deficit and the huge debt. It is precisely because they have no control over mismanagement and waste that they want to be sovereign.


TRAWLER BOUT DE LIGNE
Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Again, Mr. Speaker, the residents of the Gaspe area have been saddened by the loss of three young men. The fishing
boat Bout de ligne with three people on board, Normand O'Connor and Gino Cotton of Riviere-au-Renard and Roger Reeve of Anse-au-Griffon, made its last radio contact at 1 p.m. on Thursday, December 13. In spite of the valiant efforts of the Coast Guard, the Department of National Defence and a number of commercial fishing vessels we are still without news from our Gaspesian friends who disappeared with their boat.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of the House will join me in expressing our heart-felt condolences to the relatives of the victims.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we all know that Allan MacEachen is a wily political strategist who gave the impression that he and his Liberal senators and the Liberal caucus were against the goods and services tax. But was he really?
Did he defeat the GST when leave was sought in the Senate to introduce the goods and services legislation? No, he did not. Did he defeat the goods and services tax legislation when it was read a first time? No, he did not, in spite of the fact that the Liberals had a majority in the Senate. Did Allan MacEachen and his majority Liberal colleagues defeat the GST at the second reading stage when the principle of the bill was dealt with? No, they did not. Did Allan MacEachen and his Senate colleagues defeat the goods and services tax when it was in committee for April, May, June, July, August, September and October? No, they did not.
In other words, on numerous occasions the Liberals in the Senate had a majority to defeat the GST but they chose not to. The hon. member for Hamilton East, on April 2 in Winnipeg, said about Mr. Chretien that perhaps he was implicitly supporting the GST. I suspect she was dead on.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, as the Christmas season approaches and our thoughts in this Chamber return to our homes and our families, we
December 18, 1990

cannot cease to be aware that murderous tensions exist in our world even as we look upon the season of peace.
In the Baltic states things have worsened considerably in the past few weeks. Nine bombs have exploded in Latvia over the last two weeks, three bombs yesterday alone in Riga, at the Prime Minister's office, the Red Army office and at Communist Party headquarters. Latvian Canadians believe that this is a set-up. They believe it is being done to justify future strong arm tactics by the Soviets.
There has been a request by the Latvian Vice President, Andreas Krastins, for the world to recognize that Latvians are not responsible.
Canada must be a voice for restraint and for peace in Latvia.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Today the federal government's own Superintendent of Bankruptcy reported that more than 6,000 individual Canadians and businesses declared bankruptcy in November, an increase of 59 per cent compared to the same period last year, startling evidence of the serious nature of the recession created by this government.
Why is this government waiting for this recession to get worse and worse? Why will this government not bring in new economic policies right now before another 6,000 Canadians are forced into bankruptcy due to the recession caused by the economic policies of this misguided government?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks why we are waiting. We are not waiting. We have brought down interest rates 200 basis points, more than two percentage points, since the early part of the spring of this year. That is designed directly to address the weakness in the economy.
As my hon. friend has heard me say many times in the past, I would like to see interest rates lower. We do have these concerns about inflationary pressures that are
Oral Questions
causing us to be prudent, to be vigilant about these problems, but our objective, clearly, is to address the problems of weakness in the economy with lower interest rates.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, James Frank, chief economist of the Conference Board said:
The government kept interest rates too high for too long-Without some relief on the interest rate front, I have major concerns that this recession will turn out to be much more severe than we currently expect.
Why will the Minister of Finance not admit reality in terms of he and his government waiting too long on the interest rate front? This is a serious recession. People are not just being laid off from plants temporarily, the plants are closing permanently.
James Hoicka, an official of the Ontario Ministry of Treasury and Economics said:
The people being laid off won't be returning, because there isn't any facility to return to.
Where are the adjustment programs the government promised for workers who are losing their jobs due to the free trade deal? Where are the government programs to create new jobs and retrain workers involved in the facilities being closed permanently in our manufacturing sector? Why will this government not do something right now for the workers and their communities right across this country? It is time for the government to act. Why will it not do it?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there have been a number of things going on and, in fact, now that we have Bill C-21 we can do considerably more.
We have increased the budget for work sharing. We have increased the budget for training for UI recipients. The funds we received for training and adjustment programs this year total $1.8 billion and, of that, $181 million is going to social assistance recipients.
I am really surprised to hear the hon. member suggest that there is nothing going on. We have only had since November, when we finally got our bill through the other place. These could have been working a lot sooner if hon. members opposite had taken their responsibilities seriously.

December 18, 1990
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, why will the minister not admit that Bill C-21 cutting unemployment benefits is forcing more and more people on to the welfare rolls of this country? Why will the minister not admit that the money that is supposed to come from the unemployment insurance fund for training, most or all of it will not come until next April?

Mr. Speaker, during the past ten months more than 3,700 people or businesses filed for bankruptcy in Quebec, and of that number more than 2,000 did so last month. We have every reason to believe the situation is going from bad to worse. I therefore want to ask the Minister of Finance: How much longer will Canadians have to suffer the disastrous policies of this government? And when will he introduce new policies that will get us out of this economic morass? When?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have acknowledged that the economy is now in a recession. We have reduced interest rates since last spring. There has been a 2 per cent drop in interest rates but it is also very important to reduce inflationary pressures. If those pressures are also reduced, interest rates can then be allowed to go down further.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. In his usual display of foot and mouth disease, the minister, in commenting yesterday on Canadian participation in the U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement, was quoted as saying: "We have cleared away the underbrush now and we can start to fell the big tree very quickly".
Does the minister really believe that up to 226,000 lost Canadian jobs are mere underbrush and how many more Canadian jobs must fall before the minister comes to his senses?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, there are not, of course, 226,000 lost jobs, nor anything approaching that figure, as a result of the free trade agreement.
As a matter of fact, there has been a very considerable net increase in jobs in the two years since the free trade agreement went into effect. There is no doubt, however, that in a recessionary climate there has been some loss of jobs due to the recession, not due to the free trade agreement.
With respect to the discussions with Mexico, these are only consultations to determine whether or not we are, and the Americans and the Mexicans are interested in a tripartite negotiation of a possible free trade agreement with Mexico. We have not started any negotiations yet. There is nothing for the hon. member to be alarmed about. When we fell the big trees, I will let her know.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I dare the Minister for International Trade to go to St. John's to tell the fishermen that there are no lost jobs, to go to Hamilton and tell the steel workers that there are no lost jobs, and to go to the west and tell the farmers that there are no lost jobs. You produce the figures. We have produced figures and we want to see your figures.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. He actually had the nerve yesterday to tell the people of Canada that all he is waiting for is approval from the Congress of the United States. The last time I looked it was still the Parliament of Canada that made decisions for this country.

I would like to ask him this question: When will he come to the House to get the approval of the Parliament of Canada and not of the U.S. Congress, to make changes in the free trade agreement or to conclude a free trade agreement with Mexico and the United States? When will he come before Parliament?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member cannot provoke me no matter how shrilly she screams at me. I am going to treat her-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am going to treat her with the utmost deference.
Several months ago the hon. member who just asked that question said this with reference to the question of the free trade talks between the U.S. and Mexico. She was appointed as the industry critic in the shadow cabinet, and is certainly in the shadows. She said: "I am

not sure that we should become a negotiating partner, but I think we should make sure we know what is going on. If we are not anywhere near the table clearly we are not going to be in a position to monitor that."


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: Who said that?


An hon. member:: It makes a lot of sense.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. member from Toronto, the justice critic I believe, the hon. Kaplan, said Canada should try and get the largest role that we can in the talks to protect our interests. I am simply taking their advice, Mr. Speaker, in these conversations.
I am glad to see that the Liberal Party is supporting us in this attempt and I encourage them to continue to show-


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. Over the weekend the United States gave Canada an unrealistic deadline as to whether we would or would not participate in the U.S.-Mexico trade talks.
Yesterday, instead of standing up for Canadian families, instead of standing up for Canadian sovereignty and Canadian workers, the Minister for International Trade gave in to the U.S. ultimatum and said that Canada would be a part of the talks.
The Canada-U.S. trade deal has cost Canadians dearly: 226,000 jobs in two years and double the bankruptcies because of this government's policies. I ask the minister responsible for international trade what is the price that Canada is prepared to pay for participation in the U.S.-Mexico trade talks?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this government is going to see that Canada participates in the world. We know that Canada cannot survive on its own, isolated, with high barriers against trade with just about any other country in the world, including the less well developed countries that the hon. member's party is supposed to support but whom they abandon every time there is an attempt to improve their lot by increasing trade with them. The hon. member's party abandons the less developed countries.
Oral Questions
With reference to the discussions yesterday, there have been no ultimatums and no deadlines. Since last September we have been discussing with the United States and Mexico the possibility of a trilateral negotiation for a North American free trade arrangement. Our discussions are about technical matters to ensure that this would not take any longer time, would not be any more difficult than bilateral discussions between the U.S. and Mexico. It is becoming quite obvious that there are no technical reasons why there should be any delay.
I would expect that within the next few weeks there will be a decision by these three countries whether there will be a trilateral negotiation or not, if the U.S. Congress in March or April approves the participation of the United States. That is all that we are doing. We are neither taking ultimatums, making them, or accepting them. We are defending the interests of Canada and its people.
The hon. member should know that the figures she quotes of job losses-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not think there is a Canadian today who is going to believe that this government cares about Canadian jobs. It has destroyed more than 200,000 others.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: U.S. officials are quoted as having said that Canada cannot discuss Canadian job losses because it will cause undue delay in the talks. President Bush himself has said that Canada can only participate if we do not cause undue delay. In other words, if we do not raise issues about Canadian workers and Canadian families, we can participate.
The minister says that he is concerned about international workers, about the workers of Mexico. Yet, he says there will be no preconditions to these talks.
Why not, Mr. Speaker? Why not preconditions that Mexican wages, working standards for Mexicans, and environmental standards in Mexico will come up to Canadian standards and not Canadian standards go down?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

December 18, 1990
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this would be a new method of international negotiations. You deal with a country and you tell that country that, before you will speak to them or negotiate with them, their wages must equal yours. Where would that have put Canada?
I can remember when the wages of woods worker in Newfoundland in 1959 were $1 an hour. What if other countries had told us they would not negotiate trade agreements with us until we brought our wages up to their wages, whatever they might have been. What a silly suggestion.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Carnell Crosbie: How can the hon. lady ask to be taken seriously-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister for International Trade will share those thoughts with the European Common Market which is in fact putting exactly those kinds of terms-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade said in Washington that because of the GATT charter we needed a free trade zone consisting of Mexico, Canada and the United States. A meeting is scheduled on January 15 in Geneva to continue the GATT talks, and I therefore want to ask the minister: Why has this government already dropped the whole idea of GATT?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this country is one of the foremost supporters and exponents of a successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round. As any one of the 107 countries that participated will say, Canada led the way on almost every one of the 15 sectors that was negotiated.
Yesterday, I met for an hour and a half with Mrs. Carla Hills and her deputy, Mr. Jules Katz, to discuss the situation with respect to the Uruguay Round and how we might successfully conclude the Uruguay Round between now and March 1. It is one of our highest priorities.
We will be attending, our officials will be attending in Geneva on June 15. We will be doing a lot more that I can reveal to the House or to anyone else to ensure a successful completion of that round.
One thing is certain. There would be no successful conclusion if the NDP party were in power, either there or anywhere else in trade in the world. We would be isolated behind huge tariff barriers, cowering in our homes, worrying about what the rest of the world was going to do to us.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As he well knows, in the last four months over 60,000 Canadians and businesses have been forced into bankruptcy by the government's economic policies. For each statistic, there is a real story, a story of shattered pride, broken dreams, and wasted promise.
When is this government going to stop treating this mounting human calamity in such a cavalier and statistical fashion, and take action now to stop this mounting economic inhuman carnage that its own economic policies have caused?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of exaggeration in that.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It does not help matters to have that type of exaggeration. No one is happy at all about the number of people who are going bankrupt. I should point out to the hon. member that this is not to the same extent as it was in the last recession. But we do have a recession now.
It is a recession that has come about after seven and a half years of very strong growth in the country. It is a natural phenomenon with economies as it is with individuals. They have to slow down after they have been running too hard. That, unfortunately, is the result of what is happening in the economy today.
We are not happy that it is there. We are getting interest rates down to respond to that weakness in the economy. As we become confident that the inflationary
December 18, 1990

pressures are lowered, we will be able to get interest rates down further.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, that answer is certainly going to be cold comfort at this time of the year when thousands of Canadians and thousands of businesses are being thrown out onto the thrash heap by the government.
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister responsible for Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As he well knows, with each business bankruptcy tens, hundreds, or even thousands of workers lose their jobs, pension benefits, vacation pay, and back wages because the government has inconsistently failed to amend the Bankruptcy Act to protect the interest of workers across the country.
What Canadian workers need now is not more promises of action sometime in the future on this particular aspect. I challenge the minister to bring in those much needed amendments today, tomorrow, or before Christmas, because Canadian workers can no longer afford to hang by their fingernails waiting for the government to take some type of action.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I should remind my hon. colleague that his party, when it was in office during the recession of 1981-82, failed four times to bring in a new legislation. We do not have any lesson to learn from the people opposite.
We have worked with the whole community in this sector to try to find the right thing to do. We are close to making a decision. As soon as the government has made its decision, it will be announced.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


PERSIAN GULF
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity- Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. I would like to ask the minister what contingencies he has prepared and what will happen to
Oral Questions
the 1,700 young Canadians in the Persian Gulf in the event that there is a resort to force on or after January 15. Could he tell us what the plan is, please?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks a question for which he knows that I would not be able to give him a fulsome answer at this time.


Some hon. members:: Fulsome.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I can assure the hon. member that contingency plans are in place. They have been in place since the Canadian Forces accepted tasks in the Persian Gulf area.
At this time, their tasks are that of defence. They are doing tasks which they are capable of doing. As for the future, they will be assigned tasks which they are capable of fulfilling.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you are aware and everybody in the House is aware, this is an item of great concern to all Canadians, especially the families of the 1,700 people involved. I do not want to make political hay of this and I appreciate the thrust of the minister's question. Perhaps in the interest of giving some indication of what the options are, we could approach the question another way.
In the event there is a resort to offensive force in mid January, would the Canadian Forces be expected to maintain the economic blockade? Will they be expected to withdraw? Or, will they be involved in the actual offensive action itself? More than anything else, I think the House would like assurance from the minister that Parliament would be reconvened before any decision is taken by the government in this regard.


Mr. Lewis:: Will you be here to vote?


Fred J. Mifflin: I will be here. Yes, sir.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: am pleased that my hon. friend said that he would be here. We missed him when we had the last opportunity to vote on this.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

Oral Questions


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The member can rest assured that the Canadian forces presently involved in a multinational effort in the Persian Gulf, in recognition of 12 resolutions by the UN Security Council and in recognition of those actions taken and supported by the countries of the world in the condemnation of the action of Iraq, will be assigned tasks which they are capable of fulfilling. They were assigned those tasks from the outset. The rules of engagement have been established. There is no need at this time, in my opinion or in military leadership's opinion, to change the rules of engagement that have been identified.
As I and my colleagues on this side have said, when there is a change in the commitment or a change of significant numbers of Canadian forces involved in the Persian Gulf, Parliament will be consulted at the earliest possible convenience.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture.
As the Minister of Finance will know, the GST will tax international transportation at zero percent. However, a recent interpretation by Revenue Canada states as follows:
The cleaning, mixing and drying of the grain is considered to constitute further processing with the result that the portion of the journey within Canada to the export terminal is a service of domestic transportation and is subject to GST at 7 per cent.
This means that grain moving from farm gate to the ports of Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Churchill, and Thunder Bay will now be charged GST. This decision is astonishing, considering the existing burden on our grain producers.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance if this interpretation is correct and, if so, what is he going to do about it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member omits a very important part of the question. When any GST is charged on any services or goods purchased by the farmers in the course of their
farm business, they will receive a full credit so that the net tax impact is zero.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. If the farmers are going to get this money back eventually anyway, why on earth would the government want to visit such a bureaucratic nightmare on western Canada, on the farming community, and everyone else who will have to do all this paperwork, only to get the money back in the final analysis probably about a year later?


An hon. member:: Bureaucratic Tories.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. member's question omits a very important part of how the GST will work. We have just recently released a list of a number of products on which there will not be any GST charged. The result of this is that the cash flow impact on the farmers is about 25 per cent of what it would be if all of those products would have been charged the GST.
The net effect of the GST replacing the existing federal sales tax is to save farmers right across the country, in the first year, $250 million. That is a major benefit for the farm community.
To put it down into some very easily understood terms, a pickup truck that today costs the farmer $20,000 will cost him $2,000 less as a result of the shift from the federal sales tax to the goods and services tax.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


RAFFERTY-ALAMEDA DAM PROJECT
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and concerns the government's application for an injunction to stop construction of the Rafferty-Alameda dam before a full environmental assessment could be completed.
It was widely reported this week that the judge who turned down the application, a senior partner in a Saskatchewan law firm, was a legal representative of Luscar, a company with a financial interest in the dam's proceeding as quickly as possible.
December 18, 1990

When did the minister know that the judge hearing the injunction application had been Luscar's legal representative, and what did she do when she found out? If she did nothing, why?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear,


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is before the courts and it is not appropriate for me to comment on it in this place.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Marlene Catterall: My question was directed to the minister's responsibility and to whether she took every step possible in the first stage of this case, in this important precedent-setting capacity of the government's ability to protect the environment.
I ask again, when did she know about the judge's representation of Luscar, a firm with a direct interest in the case and what did she do about it?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is putting a question relating to certain public comments with respect to a certain judge in a certain case. The hon. Minister of Justice has said that as the matter is still under litigation, she has no intention of remarking further on it. That is her privilege.
I have some difficulty with the question because I am not entirely sure that the Minister of Justice has any particular part in picking a judge when an application is filed in a court. I think perhaps more consideration should be given to the whole issue before the matter is proceeded with further in the House.
4=	*	*


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It concerns the 1991 groundfish management plan, specifically cod allocations to the area known as 4VN.
The minister will know that in determining the inshore and offshore allocations for this area, he violated key principles in the Atlantic Groundfish Management Plan. These proposed allocations directly jeopardize fish processing jobs in Petit de Grat, Louisbourg and Canso.
Oral Questions
My question is this. Why is the minister breaking his own departmental guidelines to take away employment from these communities?
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the winter fishery 4VN is a fishery in which the Gulf fishermen in 4T, which is all the Gulf area, have claimed for over a decade was hurting the fishery in the Gulf.
I had been asked by the Gulf fishermen to simply close down the winter fishery in 4VN. Instead of doing that, because of the severe impact it would have on jobs in Cape Breton and in Prince Edward Island, I decided to attribute a larger portion of the reduction of the 4TV and quota cut. I did that in order not to create in the southern Gulf the same situation and the same problem we have in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence. I did that to conserve fish and to reduce the heavy harvesting of younger fish in 4VN where, as the hon. member should know, the Gulf stock migrates during the winter to grow. That is the reason why I did it.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister. If the allocation of the cut for 1991 in 4VN is maintained in 1992, the Richmond Fisheries plant may be forced to close. It is the sole employer in Petit-de-Grat. The 375 workers facing lay-off deserve an explanation. Why were the guidelines changed to alter their lifestyle? Does the minister believe that the community is not worth saving?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, my record, as Minister of Fisheries, proves my determination to do a lot to save communities and the hon. member for Canso should know that. I did not hesitate to act.
He sould also mention that-and I would like the Liberal Party to be consistent on this-on the issue of northern cod fishing in Newfoundland, the representations made to me by representatives of his Party are to the effect that I should not touch, I repeat not touch at all, to the inshore fishery. As regards the Gulf area, the Liberal party may be less interested in that area, but nonetheless the inshore fishermen of that area are requesting equal treatment to that of their Newfoundland and Labrador counterparts.

Oral Questions
That is why, instead of attributing the full reduction exclusively to deep-sea trawlermen or to inshore fishermen, I split it 50-50 between them so that the inshore fishermen could pursue thier traditional fishing in the Gulf area and have a life instead of vegetating.


PERSIAN GULF
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about the possibility of a U.S. led military offensive against Iraq soon after January 15, leading to a war with devastating consequences.
Will the minister tell the House precisely what role Canadian troops will play in the event of such a military offensive, and will the minister assure the House that there will be absolutely no change in the role of Canadian troops without a full debate and vote-not consulting, as the minister said today, not advising, as the associate minister said yesterday, but a full debate and vote in this House? Will the minister give the House that assurance?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member has been following the debates that have taken place in this House on two separate occasions, the debates that have taken place in the United Nations since the aggression, since war was declared by Saddam Hussein on August 2 when they attacked Kuwait. I am not sure whether the hon. member has been following the answers that my colleagues and I have given to other members in the House.
The member from Regina should listen because I am sure this is of interest to him. He understands more than some of the other members of his caucus that Canada, supporting the United Nations since its foundation, now has an opportunity with other countries in the world, such as the U.S.S.R., Great Britain, Bangladesh, the United States and France, to bring about a more stable and peaceful world. That is what Canadian troops are doing at this time on behalf of the Canadian people, and
that is what Canadian troops will do in the future on behalf of the people of Canada.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the minister has refused to give the commitment to Canadians that we have asked for.
Yesterday the NATO foreign ministers, including Canada's foreign minister, appeared to endorse a move to war soon after January 15. We have the evidence of many experts, including the retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the United States, William Crowe, who said that if in fact the sanctions will work in 12 to 18 months instead of 6 months, the trade-off of avoiding war with its attendant sacrifices and uncertainties would, in his view, be worth it.
Given that evidence, what concrete steps is Canada taking to ensure that sanctions are given full time to work and that peaceful alternatives, including a regional international peace conference at the appropriate time, will in fact be implemented to avoid the tens of thousands of deaths that would result from a war? What leadership are we taking, as a country, to avoid war and to promote peace?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I have not met anyone in the House of Commons or anybody in my travels within the Persian Gulf region who wanted war. Every member of this House of Commons, every member of the Canadian Armed Forces, every member whom I have had the opportunity to speak to wants peace.
Canada has been working since the outset to bring about a peaceful solution. The hon. member should know because he travelled there. If sanctions are given time to work, does he believe that there will be any Kuwaiti nation left? He has heard and seen firsthand the torture, the absolute destruction of a country where men are shot on the street, where women are attacked and raped, where the whole of the national well-being of the Kuwaiti people is being destroyed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: What about war?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The hon. member says "What about war?". I bring to his attention what the NATO members said: "We firmly support Resolution 678 and all other relevant resolutions adopted by the Security Council and reiterate our hope that their implementation can be achieved by peaceful means".


Yvon Côté: Mr. Speaker, for the past few days we have heard complaints about the presence of asbestos in federal buildings, and among those who made the complaints were several members of the NDP. However, a study conducted by a number of scientists has shown that the levels of airborne asbestos fibres are not dangerous and that the health risk is very low. All this is typical of the contradictory policies of the New Democrats who, ostensibly to protect the health of some people, are destroying the economy of regions in Canada that have contributed to our economy. That being said, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the government intends to change its policy on the controlled use of asbestos in government buildings.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, regarding the circumstances on the Hill, as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I cannot respond to that. The Speaker would know that that lies within the Speaker's purview as well as departments that are participating, namely, Public Works and National Health and Welfare.
With respect to the controlled use of asbestos, we recognize that the product is useful, that it must be controlled and handled under a system of regulations for controlled use and, in fact, those regulations have been endorsed internationally, both by the World Health Organization and the international labour organizations.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. A distinguished agricultural economist by the name of Dr. Clay Gilson spoke to a group of farmers in my riding. He stated with regard to agricultural trade that this winter will be a winter of tremendous uncertainty and frustration across western Canada, especially for young farmers. I would like to know if the Minister for International Trade can tell this House what his view is with respect to the GATT and what other areas of trade
Oral Questions
farmers in western Canada can find for their produce if they fail in Europe.
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
Trade): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed pleasant to hear that somebody is interested in what is happening with respect to the GATT negotiations and is asking a rational question about it. The situation is that the Secretary General of the GATT, Mr. Dunkel, is now having consultations with some of the main players in the Uruguay Round of the trade negotiations. I met with Mrs. Hills yesterday and Mr. Katz, as I said earlier in the House.
We think there is a reasonable chance that some way through the agricultural impasse can be found, that there will be found to be some flexibility in the position of the Europe Economic Community and in those who, like us, support the Cairns Group and the United States position. Work is continuing to that end. On January 15, there will be a review, in Geneva, of what the present position is. We are going to do everything possible to see that a result is reached on agriculture which will certainly then make it possible for a conclusion to the Round, hopefully during January or February and before March 1, which appears to be the latest date that could be contemplated.


CANADA POST
Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for Canada Post. On March 1, Canada Post proposes massive postal rate increases on newspaper mailings. Rates will skyrocket from as low as five cents per paper to as much as 51 cents, increases as high as 880 per cent. Given that 1991 subscriptions have already been sold, some small publishers stand to lose as much as $20,000. Will the minister intervene now and reverse this outrageous increase?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, the weekly newspapers will still get the first 1,000 copies delivered free. In terms of the other publications policy, there was a policy on publications announced by my colleague, the Minister of Communications, wherein the subsidies that were provided will be more directly utilized by the Department of Communications to help Canadian publishers and be more specific, more targeted, in terms of benefiting Canadian publishers than

December 18, 1990
Points of Order
the current program which represented a subsidy to everybody including foreign owned publishers.
The rate increases were published in The Canada Gazette. As of a couple of weeks ago I think there were 26 Canadians who expressed concern about those rate increases.


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
I believe the minister's facts are a little incorrect. When weekly newspapers have to mail outside the areas they are in, they are affected by these 880 per cent increases.
It is a triple unjustified Tory whammy on rural Canada: a 7 per cent GST increase on the written word, a 7 per cent GST increase on postal rates and postal rate increases of 880 per cent. These three initiatives are a vital attack on rural Canada. It is the same type of attack as the CBC.
Will the minister halt this senseless taxation and unfair postal rate increase?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the preamble by the hon. member was shrill, loud, inaccurate, and ridiculous.
The answer to his question is no.


PRIVILEGE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to have such an audience for my question of privilege, but I submitted a number of petitions two months ago, on October 17, having to do with the intention of the government, the Department of National Revenue, to charge parking fees to hundreds of workers at the Winnipeg Taxation Data Centre.
representing those constituents who are concerned about that parking charge.
If the petition is to be judged unacceptable, then surely that judgment could have been made by now and I could have found other ways to bring it to the attention of the House. I have not been able to do that because I have been trying to respect the process, and the process has taken two months.
I feel that my ability to represent those people who are concerned about the parking charge and who object to this unfair charge being levied against them has been violated and has been made difficult.
I would hope that something could be done about it. There is no excuse for taking two months to make a judgment as to the acceptability of a petition so that I could then present it or, if I could not present it, find another way to represent their views.


Mr. Speaker:: I will give the matter some consideration and report back.



WAYS AND MEANS


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have a Ways and Means motion I wish to table. It will be of interest to those interested in the application of the GST to direct sellers, taxis, and the tourism industry.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table copies of a notice of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tkx Act and other legislation respecting the implementation of the goods and services tax, and I ask, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 83(2), that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of the said Ways and Means motion.



POINTS OF ORDER


[Stage Direction]
I have waited over two months now for the clerk of petitions to render a judgment on whether or not that petition is acceptable. I submit that that gets in the way of my ability to do my job as a member of Parliament
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order of which I gave you notice during Question Period. I appreciate the comments you provided to me. However, I think it is important to raise

it before the House since I believe the sub judice convention should only be used when it is proper to do so and not unfairly used to restrict debate in the House.
I want to quote from Beauchesne's first on the purpose of the sub judice convention to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself. Citation 336(1) of Beauchesne's goes on to state:
The sub judice convention has been applied consistently in criminal cases.
However citation 337(1) states:
No settled practice has been developed in relation to civil cases, as the convention has been applied in some cases but not in others.
Citation 337(2) states further:
In civil cases the convention does not apply until the matter has reached the trial stage.
Of course, in this case the matter is beyond the initial hearing and the initial judgment and is now under appeal.
I also point to Citation 339 of Beauchesne's which reads:
The Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members recommended that the responsibility of the Speaker during the question period should be minimal as regards the sub judice convention, and that the responsibility should principally rest upon the Member who asks the question and the Minister to whom it is addressed.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I gave careful thought to my question and you were consulted in advance about the nature of the question that was intended to be put. Citation 339 further states:
However, the Speaker should remain the final arbiter in the matter-
I am raising this question because I think it is quite important that the sub judice convention not be used unduly to restrict debate in the House or to restrict Question Period. I wonder if we could have your ruling on whether in fact this matter is sub judice in a way that limits questions and answers in the House.



SPEAKER'S RULING

['It may or may not be privilege. In any event, I appreciate the fact that the hon. member sent me a note on this.\nI will take this as notice, which is not to indicate that I necessarily think it is privilege. It may well be that events will preclude any necessity to pursue the matter further.']
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa West has asked a question, as I mentioned earlier today, with reference to some public reports which suggest that a judge in the Rafferty-Alameda case before being
Points of Order
appointed to the bench and while practising law acted for certain clients who are interested in the results of the entire Rafferty-Alameda project. That information has been made public; it is in the public domain.
The hon. member, I know, has been concerned about not trespassing further than a member ought and did make some inquiries through her colleague of me yesterday.
I allowed the first question. The hon. Minister of Justice rose and said the matter is before the courts and she is declining to answer. Whether the Minister of Justice was invoking for her own particular purposes the sub judice rule, I do not know, but I want the hon. member to know that I was not invoking the sub judice rule.
I accept, certainly for the most part and under most circumstances, the quotations that the hon. member for Ottawa West has given me from Beauchesne's. There is a clear distinction of course in criminal matters and in civil matters.
I assure the hon. member and other hon. members that my concern the second time around was not directed to sub judice. My concern was whether or not the minister is in a position as a minister to deal with that particular issue, because it could be said to reflect on the minister's wish or otherwise to direct a case to one judge or another. I have had some time to reflect upon that, and I think that my decision in the first instance in allowing the question to stand was the correct one.
I want to assure the hon. member that my concerns were not turning on sub judice at all. It was turning on another matter which frankly had never come before me before. On reflection I think that the question was appropriate and the hon. member may want to pursue it, but it is also very clear that a minister does not have to answer a question. Whatever reasons the Minister of Justice might have in her own mind for not answering it is of course her own business. The minister does not have to answer whether it is sub judice or whether it is not.
In any event, I thank the hon. member for putting the question. I also appreciate very much the hon. member taking the effort to come to the Speaker beforehand onan issue which could be difficult, but I do want to

Government Orders
assure her that I am not in this case applying the sub judice rule.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify the situation, as I understand Your Honour's ruling, then, the question put that Your Honour said you thought might be out of order and did not allow the minister to answer was a proper question, and the minister could have answered the question had the minister chosen to do so.
I note the minister invoked the sub judice convention as the reason for refusing to answer the first time which she may or may not do, but as to the propriety on that Your Honour did not comment. Of course we object to the minister using the sub judice convention in that circumstance because we do not think it is a proper use.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. We have heard the point raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West. I hope I have made it very clear what my thinking is on the subject.
Remember, it is not for a Speaker to trespass with respect to a minister who chooses not to answer. As long as we understand that, I think we can close that off now.



Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, as I have given the Speaker notice, I rise to give notice of a question of privilege. The item of privilege arises out of a matter that came before the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General this morning. I believe it pertains to the rights and privileges of all members of the House of Commons.
Because of uncertainty at this time as to the agenda of the House and the agenda of that particular committee, I think it would best serve the needs of the House if my putting of the question of privilege be deferred until a time more appropriate after those uncertainties are cleared up. If that is acceptable to the Speaker, then I would proceed in that fashion.


Mr. Speaker:: It may or may not be privilege. In any event, I appreciate the fact that the hon. member sent me a note on this.
I will take this as notice, which is not to indicate that I necessarily think it is privilege. It may well be that events will preclude any necessity to pursue the matter further.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McDermid that Bill C-84, an act respecting the privatization of the national petroleum company of Canada, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When the House took recess, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley had the floor. Since the hon. member is absent, the Chair will now recognize a member from the other side of the House. The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, a short while ago The Ottawa Citizen put veiy succinctly in 12 words what I think is the whole feeling with respect to Bill C-84 before the House today. It read veiy simply: "Selling Petro-Canada: wrong time, wrong reason, wrong price, wrong decision". We on this side of the House agree wholeheartedly with that statement.
We heard today, at second reading and in committee, what the sale of Petro-Canada would mean to Canada. We have heard very little about what is Petro-Canada. Let me just emphasize again what this great Canadian corporation really is. It has over 7,000 Canadians working in all of its areas. It has over 3,500 retail outlets where we in this country buy our gas and oil. It holds over 6.9 million hectares of land. It has a production capacity of over 22,000 cubic meters of oil a day and for crude oil and liquid reserves it has a reserve of over 92 billion cubic meters. It has natural gas production of 13.7 million cubic feet per day, and in those reserves in natural gas alone, almost 100 billion cubic meters.

In the year just ending, it had $94 million in profit. Its cash flow, expenditures and reserves, its cash end over its expenditures exceeded $600 million. Its revenue was $4.8 billion. It only has a long-term debt of $1 billion, compared to net assets of over $8.5 billion. Petro-Canada is not only a very healthy, vital company, it is a company that well deserves to stay with the original shareholders for whom it was founded, each and every citizen of this country of ours. Every Canadian should remain a shareholder of Petro-Canada.
Petro-Canada was conceived in 1973 and its genesis came because of the terrible problems we were having in this country to be self-sufficient in oil, particularly with the problems we were experiencing in the Middle East at that time. Those problems then subsided and the world market supply of crude oil and natural gas became constant again, until 1979 when we again experienced another crunch in the oil and gas industry with events in Iran of hostage taking and other events that led up to the problems of 1979-1980.
We now experience the severe problem with respect to the availability of crude oil in our country due to what is happening with Kuwait and Iraq and the world situation, particularly the Middle East.
While some may think these countries are far away from the national scene, every Canadian experiences the problem. It comes home immediately when they get their bill for heating their home every month, or they drive up to the pumps to fill up their cars with gasoline. We all know what the experience of Canadians has been in the last two or three months when gas bills for transportation are in excess of 25 per cent of what they used to be and we see what is happening to the cost of heating homes today.
It would be a tremendous expense to the average household in the country to be without transportation, without gasoline or fuel to heat our homes adequately in this climate of ours.
The mandate given to Petro-Canada when it was created in 1975 provided the Canadian people with the power and the will to exercise control where the country was most vulnerable. What we really tried to do in 1975 was to provide security of supply. Through the creation of Petro-Canada at that time, we wanted to ensure that Canada would always have the security of supply of the vital gas and oil that is so necessary in our country. That
Government Orders
was the aim of Petro-Canada at the time; to make Canada independent of any other country in the world and to provide its gas and oil.
It was also created, as we heard from my colleague today, as a window on the industry. We know that the multinational companies which control the oil and gas companies in the world sometimes do not have pricing policies that reflect the needs of a community and of a nation. We thought and expected Petro-Canada to be a window to ensure that the pricing policies for a litre of gas, a gallon of gas or what it cost for a cubic foot of gas to heat our homes, would always reflect something that was tolerable and something with which all Canadians could live. That was another vital reason for the creation of PetroCan.
Another of its three fundamental mandates was to have Canadian control over those vital resources that we in this country need so badly, control over our gas and energy sources.
Those are the three mandates. We had five objectives with those mandates. Petro-Canada was to undertake to explore and develop new sources of energy; to carry out research and development projects relating to all types of fuel; to import, produce, transport, distribute, refine and market hydrocarbons; to produce and distribute and transport other types of fuel, not only for the time when PetroCan was formed in 1975, but for the future availability of whatever energy source we would find.
The fifth objective of PetroCan was to assist Canadian companies, companies other than PetroCan to go into joint ventures, to help finance and provide research funds so that we in this country could be self-sufficient in this vital area that is so necessary to our future economic viability.
In essence, Petro-Canada which was paid for by every Canadian, was intended to look after our national energy interests and the security of our economy in times of crisis as well as in good times. I suggest we failed to do this.
I remember with pride-and I am looking at my friend across the way-the introduction of Petro-Canada in 1975. There was a 2 cent per litre charge put on every litre of gas-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I know it because you raised it.

Government Orders


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: It was put on to pay for the cost of acquiring this vital resource and to secure and ensure that we would always be self-reliant in energy in this country.
As taxation goes, it was not a popular tax, but it was something which I think we in western Canada, we in Thunder Bay, we in eastern Canada looked upon with pride because we knew we would never face again the dilemma that we faced in those years of not being able to properly supply our country and our citizens with the necessary ingredients to heat their homes or to run their automobiles.
Given our vast geography and our economy, Petro-Canada, like the CBC, VIA Rail, rural post and Air Canada, which are either in the process of being decimated or privatized by this government, are necessities in Canadian life. How else can we pretend that we can have a united nation without adequate national transportation services, without a strong national communication policy, without a strong federal presence, without the economic tools to shape our future, the ability to ensure that all regions in this country are treated equally, and in regions like I come from, such as northern Ontario, to ensure that the price of gasoline stays at least fairly comparable to those other areas in other parts of the country?
Instead of selling PetroCan, what this government should be doing is giving PetroCan a new national purpose, to find some of the 3.6 billion barrels of light crude oil that we know exist in western Canada, to give it the impetus to go out and explore, to take care of our offshore resources, to make sure that we do define our purpose again in Petro-Canada and to ensure that Canada does become self-sufficient in so far as energy is concerned.
The present Governor General, while he was a member of the cabinet and the predecessor of our present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, said that the instruments available to the government, taxes and regulations, are not available or have already been expended or used to their limit. He said, "Retention of Petro-Canada, in some form, is so important and so vital to the future of this country." Unfortunately, this man is no longer part of the government of the day.
This government insists that 75 per cent of Petro-Canada remain in Canadian hands. But as a private corporation in an industry dominated by three megagiants, two of them controlled by our friends in the United States, will this government have some difficulty in controlling what Petro-Canada will be all about?
If the government proceeds with its plan to privatize Petro-Canada, this vital natural resource-based company, the allegiance of the directors of PetroCan will be solely directed to the benefits of their shareholders and not to the benefit of all Canadians.
Canadians not only need a toehold in this vital industry, they need to be in this vital industry up to their knees. They have to have this overriding advantage as it exists today. PetroCan should continue to exist, with its shareholders being all Canadians.
At this particular period of time in our history, given what is happening in the Middle East, is this the time that we should be considering selling Petro-Canada? I have already listed its assets. It has almost a billion cubic feet of natural gas. It has 92 billion cubic metres of crude oil. All of those reserves are owned by this company and are still in the ground waiting to be harvested. Should we be considering selling PetroCan when these assets are increasing in value on a daily basis? Is it a wise business decision to sell PetroCan today? I say it is not.
Any business in this country whose assets are appreciating on the value as these assets are appreciating today should retain those assets and take advantage of them rather than sell them off at distress prices.
In 1984 this government changed PetroCan's mandate and allowed it to become commercial and operate in a commercial fashion rather than its public policy role. It was given the power to act in its own best interest by writing off assets and operating, in essence, like a private company. It immediately began to operate like a private company. It acquired 1,500 or so outlets immediately, laid off 1,000 people, and started to explore for oil outside of this country, which is far beyond the mandate that PetroCan was given when it was formed in 1975.
Now the government is saying that since Petro-Canada is operating like a private company it might as well become a private company and be privatized.
December 18, 1990

We believe that PetroCan should have its national objectives reinstated, especially in light of current national conflicts. The biggest losers in the privatization of PetroCan are the existing shareholders, every Canadian who invested in this magnificent, very strong company. The taxpayers of Canada have invested in PetroCan and they should not be short-changed now.
The taxpayer of this country has invested over $4 billion in this company. In the final analysis the shareholder of PetroCan is not given the vital vote, the vote to say whether or not we want to sell this company. The shareholders in any other corporation have the right to make that final vote, except this Crown corporation. They are being deprived of a fundamental right as shareholders of this company.
A privatized Petro-Canada will serve the interests of the shareholder only in search of profits and the search for profits may override all other considerations, including the need for the country to become self-sufficient, to continue energy-efficient ways, and to guarantee the security of supplies, not only for what we need today, but what we need in the future.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, and I draw this to the attention of my friends on the other side, that during the free trade debate one of the fundamental issues in the debate was the selling of Canada's energy to our friends in the United States. That was, and I think I can reiterate it fairly accurately, that we had to continue to sell whatever energy sources and supplies that we had in Canada consistent with what we had supplied to our friends in the United States before and at the same price at which we sold it to them before, regardless of what the price increase was in Canada. Given this agreement that we entered into on January 1,1989,1 am wondering what the wisdom now is of trying to sell this vital resource when we have already committed any future development in our energy policy to our friends in the United States.
The reason for the sale that we are given is that there is a need for a substantial amount of cash to be injected
Government Orders
into the company. I think it is $500 million, or something like that. Just using this as a guideline, the value of the resources that this company has in the ground in the two to three months since the Iraq crisis developed has increased. The value of the resources that we have in the ground has increased more than the $500 million that is needed for this company to continue its exploratory work to develop more fields for natural gas and oil.
I do not think that that the fundamental reason for disposing of PetroCan holds water or has any logical consequence to it, given the fact of the increase in value of those reserves that we have in the ground today from the time that PetroCan became an issue, two or three months ago, when the government decided to sell off all of its reserves.
I know my time is drawing short. Let me close my speech by saying what I opened it with and that is the 12 words that best describe the current situation with respect to what PetroCan is all about today. It is a vital, Canadian, healthy, prosperous, energy-conservation company. It owns its assets on behalf of every Canadian in the country.
As The Ottawa Citizen said, to sell PetroCan today is selling this vital resource at the wrong time. This government is selling it for the wrong reason. It certainly is selling this company at the wrong price, given what we have just talked about, with the increase in the price of the reserves in the ground. It is the wrong decision to sell this Crown corporation today, to the detriment of all Canadians and to put our independence, as it relates to energy, at risk by disposing of this company.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I think all of us were moved by the depth of knowledge and the commitment of the last speaker to this particular issue.
In his opinion, does he feel that the government is in a mode of selling off only the Crown corporations which are making money for the people of Canada and contributing money to our fiscal system on behalf of all Canadians, corporations which have the potential for doing so in the future, particularly with rising energy prices in the case of Petro-Canada? Is the government just in the process of selling off the winners and keeping the losers for the people of Canada?


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Willowdale for that question.

Government Orders
Let me start out by making an analogy of what we have just done in the privatization of Terminal 3 at Pearson International Airport. We all know that for the last several years Pearson International Airport made anywhere between $85 million and $105 million a year. That was money that went into the general levy of Canada as any other taxpayers' money would be placed.
Now, by privatizing and allowing private enterprise to go into Terminal 3, the government took that approximately $100 million profit and allowed a private investor to take $50 million to $60 million directly out of the general treasury and apply it to their own pay-off of Terminal 3 and other things that they would be doing.
That same situation applies with the sale of Petro-Canada to people other than the Canadian taxpayer. I have already gone through the tremendous resources owned by Petro-Canada and I will not go through them again. The government is selling off the resources and the profit of almost $100 million a year to Petro-Canada without any further expense to the Canadian taxpayer. By doing that, the government is depriving the general revenue fund in Canada of that $100 million a year in profits that Petro-Canada has been making for the last several years. It is going to private industry.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, was very pleased to be in the House today when my hon. colleague, the member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, was speaking on such an important bill as this.
The hon. member mentioned many important points in his concern over the sale of Petro-Canada, but there is one in particular that I wanted to zero in on. Members will recall that under the free trade agreement the Americans, our U.S. friends and cousins, recognized the importance of energy security in the world today as a very strategic commodity. They ensured that it was one of the main features in the free trade agreement that they would have secured energy for the residents of the United States of America.
When Petro-Canada was established, it was my understanding that one of the reasons for its establishment was that we wished to secure our energy in a world where the market is sometimes up and sometimes down.
Would the hon. member agree with me that under the sale-if this government goes ahead with this bill and sells Petro-Canada-that we are in almost a retrogressive mode, that we are slipping back, and that we are leaving ourselves wide open to a possible shortage of energy in the future?


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking that question because it is something that perhaps I should have addressed in my initial remarks.
What it does in essence is this. We are going to sell to a private corporation. Petro-Canada will become Petro-Canada Incorporated or Petro-Canada Limited, and it will be owned by the shareholders who buy up the shares. It will be run by a board of directors. It will have its chief executive office such as General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, or any one of those other companies. Or, like Air Canada is today.
What will happen is simply this. It is going to sell its product as a private corporation to whoever will pay the most money for it. That is the essence of business, maximizing one's ability to sell at whatever profits one can. That will simply mean that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member but-

Gentlemen, I am sorry but there seem to be two debates going on in the House. The Chair would appreciate your co-operation. You are making it very difficult for me to listen to the hon. member for Thunder-Bay-Nipigon. The hon. member has the floor.


Mr. Plamondon:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Richelieu, on a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: Since there were two debates, Mr. Speaker, you should have given the floor to the more interesting one of the two. I am sure you would have enjoyed it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: As an experienced parliamentarian, the hon. member ought to know this was not a point of order. The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, with all of that interception I almost forgot my friend's question.
Let me say that the new company is going to maximize its ability to sell and, if Canadians cannot come up with the price, then we are no longer self-sufficient in our energy requirements in the country. The very fact of us not being self-sufficient puts us in exactly, to use her words, a retrogressive position.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it seems incredible to me, at a time when the profits of this corporation can exceed perhaps 12 per cent of the equity, that the government would consider it sound fiscal management to sell off this company. After all, if it gets perhaps $1 billion for the shares sold, but could be making more than $120 million in terms of dividends, is it not better to keep the dividends and reduce our deficit and our debt that way than to sell it off? To me, with energy prices going up and the prospects for profit in this energy scarce world, this is just stupid fiscal management.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, one of the problems of course relates to the question of the 10 per cent ownership rule, that no one person can own more than 10 per cent of the shares of this company. In the past lawyers have found ways to circumvent these rules in terms of other takeovers. Would the member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon care to comment on these two propositions?


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Willowdale for asking those two questions. Perhaps I should answer the second first inasmuch as I have always acquiesced to his being a much better lawyer than I. As he well knows, there are many ways to circumvent the 10 per cent rule in any corporation.
Let me give you an example that is before us today. Just over the weekend we heard about some financier on the west coast of the United States having bought something less than 9.8 per cent or 9.6 per cent of Chrysler Corporation. Now that does not sound like a great deal of ownership in this company. What it has done is that he will find himself on the board of directors
Government Orders
and he will exert a lot of control. He has that corporation rather upset inasmuch as they have already had several meetings as reported in the business periodicals in this country.
So, 10 per cent ownership in one corporation by one individual can be a tremendous amount of ownership by one person considering that all of these assets, every one of these assets, are owned today by every Canadian in the country. Whatever this government does, we should retain every one of those assets that has anything to do with the production of energy in Canada. It should be maintained and held for the interest of every Canadian without necessity of going through a directors meeting or shareholders meeting. It is owned by every Canadian today and it should be retained by every Canadian today.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow my friend and colleague opposite, though we might disagree on some views on Petro-Canada. I appreciated his last comments that he felt that the shares should be held by the shareholder. I remind him that under the Financial Administration Act I hold that one share and I appreciate always the confidence that members opposite place in this minister.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House on the third reading debate on Bill C-84, the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act. As we look at this bill today, there is obviously a difference of opinion between members opposite and the government regarding the thrust and purpose of this bill.
I would think that a number of my Liberal colleagues would see the wisdom of the need to have Petro-Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please!
I apologize for interrupting the hon. Minister. [Translation]
I would appreciate the co-operation of hon. members, to avoid having several discussions going on at the same time in this House. I am sure I can depend on the kindness and courtesy of my hon. colleagues, and I am sure they will do what is necessary so that we can hear the minister's speech.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.

December 18, 1990
Government Orders


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to my Liberal friends opposite that access to financial markets for a company such as Petro-Canada is of vital importance at this stage. There is only a limited access to those markets.
I was here in 1975 when Petro-Canada was formed. There were two reasons why it was formed, quite apart from the reasons my hon. friend cited in his address this afternoon.
First, there was the fear we had in the western world following what was referred to as the first oil shock of 1973-74. We in Canada did not have the line-ups at gasoline stations as neighbours to the south experienced, and there is a reason for that relating back to security of supply quite apart from Petro-Canada. Americans experienced that reality and Canadians did not, both before Petro-Canada was formed and after Petro-Canada was formed. So, in terms of Petro-Canada resolving or absolving us from that reality, quite frankly, that was not the issue.
The second issue was political. I think my friend and I have been in public life for some time, whether in Ottawa or back in our home communities. There was at that time also the need for the Liberal government, as we were debating Petro-Canada, to survive politically. I remember in 1972 when I came into this House there was a difference of two seats between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. In fact, there were 23 votes for two seats. That was the difference at the time.
I remember the meetings that took place behind the curtain between the Liberal minority government of the day and the government in waiting of the day led primarily by my friend and colleague from Winnipeg North, now the honorary clerk sitting at the table, Mr. Knowles. One of the prices for survival at the time was the creation of Petro-Canada. It was bom out of that period.
In fact, the controversy with Petro-Canada at that time was not that we needed Petro-Canada. I remember speaking to a couple of my Liberal colleagues at the time who were personally strongly opposed to the creation of Petro-Canada and felt that they were being held hostage by the NDP group in the House at the time who were
holding the balance of power. That is the historical reality of when Petro-Canada was formed.
If one looks at the history of Petro-Canada primarily through the 1970s, Petro-Canada was steeped in controversy, not because of its existence, but because it was often operating in the oil markets. Although it was a public sector company, it operated both in terms of acquisitions and in terms of what was then referred to as state-to-state purchases in a very questionable manner.
I just raised two for the hon. member's reflection. One was the purchase of Petrofina. To this day this government has paid a political price for the manner in which we handled Petrofina. When we came into office we had said that we would like to release the information on Petrofina only to discover that we could not release that information to the Auditor General because previous government and cabinet confidences could not be released. I regret that to this day because I think it was an unfair blemish on a company for which I now, as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, take responsibility. We have not resolved that Petrofina issue in the minds of the public to this day.
I think members opposite, as well as I, feel that our public duty is to give to the people this kind of public information, and we have not been able to do that. I regret that. I wish it could have been different.
Second, Petro-Canada did a state-to-state purchase once with Pemex in Mexico, the Mexican state-owned company. By the way, while they still have Pemex it is interesting to take a look at Mexico to see how that government is changing the role of Pemex in order that it, and Mexico, become more competitive in the oil and gas field. That is for another day.
What happened is that we lost a lot of money when we did that state-to-state purchase with Pemex. That is the oil business. My colleagues around me understand that. We take the highs and we take the lows. That is life, that is business. I understand that and I know my hon. friend opposite understands it. However, because Petro-Canada at that time was in the public arena, where the klieg lights of attention were very clearly focused on it, the question was: "Why did this company make that purchase? Was it because it was so government-directed that in fact it could not respond to the marketplace and

protect the shareholders who are the taxpayers of Canada?" That is the history.
I say to my hon. friends opposite that Petro-Canada was considered to be an instrument of government policy. I accept that. However, as has also been stated, in 1985, under the direction of this government, we gave it a commercial mandate. The corporation's current structure and financial situation reflect its early mandate and the path of development which was established at the time.
I think it is important to note that Petro-Canada's future will depend to a great extent on its ability to access the financing needed to take advantage of the opportunities presented for commercial growth. I only see access to capital in a very limited way. Where has Petro-Canada's access to capital been? It is done by votes in this House. That is how it is done; by votes in this House where we ask the taxpayers of Canada to put more money into Petro-Canada. That is one way. That is the way it has been done to the present time.
Second, Petro-Canada can make a profit. This year it made a profit of approximately $86 million. I am pleased that under my stewardship the company is making a profit.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Keep going, Jake. Keep going Jake.


Mr. Bouchard (Roberval):: Jim, he knows what he will do in the private sector.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I just know that when one looks at that profit picture, relative to capital used to make that profit, there is not one person in this House who would invest on that basis.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: So why do you expect Canadians to do it?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I will get to that, Jim, and I will want your money too.
That is the second way that we can get money for a company.
Third, we can access the financial market and place Petro-Canada against the test of the marketplace for investment.
In response to my friend from Willowdale, I believe Petro-Canada will be of the type where Canadians will invest in this company.
Government Orders
I have said another thing for a long time, whether I was in opposition or in government, about why foreign ownership in Canada is as high as it is and lower, for instance, in the United States. Maybe this is inappropriate for a cabinet minister, but I have wondered how we can change the tax laws so that blue collar workers, average Canadians, will be able to invest in Canadian industry on the same basis as other higher income Canadians. Why do average income Americans have such a higher percentage of investments in industry in the United States than Canadians have in Canada?
Granted, there are the personal pension plans as well as government pension plans. I understand that. When we consider why there is not more investment in Canadian industry and how Canadians can get a piece of ownership of the country, one of the arguments is to see how we change our tax laws so that average income Canadians make decisions on investments, take the risks and get the benefits of the marketplace. I think we have some lessons to learn in that respect. That is a valid observation when one takes a look at where we can increase ownership in our communities, by Canadians, in Canadian industry.
Going back to Petro-Canada and government polity, we obviously have relied more on competitive markets for decisions regarding energy supply, demand, pricing and trade. We consider that competitive prices provide the most appropriate and effective signals to both investors and consumers. Experience has proven to us as Canadians, that a market-oriented approach is better, both in economic terms and in terms of federal-provincial relations, than policies which emphasize heavy reliance upon regulation and government intervention.
My friend opposite made an interesting point. He said what we had to do was make sure that we had control of the oil and gas sector because it is "a strategic resource". I presume, partly because I come from Prairie Canada, that this is a very important issue for me.
When we joined Confederation there were only three provinces that were not deemed worthy of ownership of natural resources. One was my Province of Manitoba. When we joined in 1870 we were not deemed worthy. In fact, it is only this year that we have had ownership of resources for as long as we did not have ownership of our resources, 60 years.

Government Orders
When Alberta and Saskatchewan joined in 1905 they were placed under the same restriction as Manitoba had been since 1870. I am absolutely convinced, as I look at the National Energy Program, that it was not simply a visceral reaction that I had to the National Energy Program, it was also a reaction to the underlying philosophy that in certain areas of ownership, we the Prairie provinces were not going to act in the national interest.
I think that charge has never been substantiated and I think it is wrong in every one of its terms. We have always acted in the national interest. We have asked for that natural resource to be given the same kind of pricing mechanism, the same kind of market approach as any other commodity. That is what we asked for.
I remember the bumper stickers during the height of the National Energy Program. I do not have to repeat what they said. My colleagues opposite know what they were. Did it help federal-provincial relations? No. Did it help understanding between western Canadians and other Canadians? No. To this day we can still go into some parts of the country and they will remind us of that period. Surely we do not want to go back to that.
I remember in 1979-and maybe I should throw my notes away-the short period of time I was Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and responsible for energy north of 60. I wrote a letter to the then two governments of the territories telling them that as minister I expected them to act as if responsible government had been passed in law. It was known as the Epp letter. It still has not been rescinded to this day. Coming from the Prairies as I do, I had the feeling that people living north of 60 had the same ability to govern themselves as I thought we had south of 60.
I remember a predecessor, a former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, saying to me: "Jake, I think on the constitutional issue you are probably right, but remember on the matter of natural resources, particularly oil and gas, that those resources belong to Ontario". I said to him: "You mean Canada". He said: "No, no. It is our ace in the hole against the west". It is
that bottom line that drives me also on this issue of Petro-Canada.
I say to my hon. friends with all the charity I have that it is more than simply a philosophical argument about privatizing a company or not privatizing a company. The real issue is: How do we develop our resources for the benefit of Canada? How do we increase those reserves?
Let us take a look at what our reserves increased after the National Energy Program. Do you know what was happening with our reserves, Mr. Speaker? Obviously there is not going to be cash flow. They will leave it in the ground. That was what was happening.
Today, my hon. friends mentioned the reserves we have in natural gas and oil. Despite the fact that in the western sedimentary basin we are losing according to my last statistics about 1.1 per cent, our production this last 12 months was less than we had projected. We know we have to increase our production in heavy oil. That is why Lloydminster. We know we have to get into the east coast. That is why Hibernia, Terra Nova, Ben Nevis, and hopefully Cohasset-Panuke this year. That is why we did the Vancouver Island pipeline. That is why we changed the energy policy in respect to the National Energy Board that we can get export licences and we can move gas, for instance, into the U.S. northeast, into California, or into the midwest through Emerson. That is why, as I get that cash flow I know I get more energy. That is what has always driven the industry.
I remember opening up Leduc I, not in 1947 but just this last year. It is a museum piece today. There was a gentleman there who had been on Leduc in 1947, a sod buster from Saskatchewan who knew nothing about the oil industry as a young roughneck on that rig in 1947. He knew something about drilling water. He said: "We did it. We brought in a new industry. We did it because we knew we could do it. We didn't need the government behind us, but we knew Canadians would support us".
Petro-Canada is mature enough today with its controls and conditions that I believe it should be privatized. Canadians should invest in it. Canadians should be proud of it. Most of all, through that investment Canadians will ensure their energy resources much more than if it is held in the hands of whatever the name of the energy minister of the day might be.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I compliment my friend on what he has just told us about his experience with respect to energy in Canada. Perhaps I could be allowed to make a comment. I am not so sure I have a question, but this is a period for comments and questions. What we have seen in reply to the statements which the energy minister and I have made today is a vital lesson in how this House operates. On both sides of the House the interests of Canadians are always paramount in our minds. Sometimes differences of opinion arise because we have a different methodology as to how we want to achieve the goal, but the goal is always the interests of Canadians. I compliment my friend, the minister, on his observations.
I have another comment to make. I do not know whether it is because the minister has many years on me, but he gave the history of 1975 when he was in this House, sitting on this side, as the Liberals were putting Petro-Canada into operation. I do not know whether he is that much older than I or whether I am just late in getting to the House. However, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that I was watching in those years as a citizen interested in government. He is a person who is involved in government. We come from the same age brackets, so I will not prolong that.
When the minister was talking about Petrofina the thought came to my mind that just at that time another government of the day, the Government of Ontario led by Premier Bill Davis, acquired Sun Oil. I am wondering if there was not at that particular period of time the same critique that was given with respect to the Liberal acquisition of Petrofina? Could it not have been applied to the Conservative government of the day in Ontario? Perhaps the minister would like to comment on that, with his wealth of knowledge in the historical energy perspective of this country.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is too kind in his words. As I have said before, one of my mentors in this House was a predecessor of his, the hon. Bob Andras. Bob and I were good friends. Obviously his contribution to the country was always something that I looked at, and the manner in which he conducted his responsibilities. He possibly did not get involved in the kind of high level partisanship that from time to time some of us might even decry in this House. If he wants to know the real reason why I had some difficulty criticizing him, it is that he had been in the automobile industry
Government Orders
before and I had been as well. They say that fellows who have been selling cars always have a certain affinity afterwards.
Coming back directly to the hon. member's point, yes, there was similar criticism when the Ontario government of the day bought Sun Oil. In fact, if the hon. member goes back, there was also an investment, for example, into Suncor at that time, in the oil sands in northeastern Alberta. There has been some discussion when the federal government removed itself from OSLO. It did the engineering but said that it would not invest further in OSLO. There was some hope that the provincial Government of Ontario would possibly consider investing in OSLO.
It will be interesting to see whether the present Government of Ontario, which believes in public ownership and which I am sure has a lot of money to spend, might consider investing in OSLO. We will wait to see whether or not it will repeat the days of the Davis government in respect to investments in the oil and gas industry in Alberta.
The other point I have to make is that Canadians were led to believe at the time Petro-Canada was formed that Petro-Canada would "keep the price of gasoline down". I think there was a sincere feeling among many Canadians that this would be the case.
At the time, we had the Seven Sisters and we have now moved to the Three Brothers. In fact Petro-Canada raised the price. The hon. member made that point. It was two cents to start with and it went to four cents a litre. Whether you bought gasoline at whatever service station you paid four cents a litre more, through all those years, for the acquisitions that Petro-Canada was making at the time. It is false that Petro-Canada lowered prices. Maybe the impression left was not correct, but it increased the prices.
The second point concerns pricing. When one looks at pricing today, I have the mechanisms as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, through the Petroleum Monitoring Agency, to do the very things that people thought Petro-Canada should have the ability to do. However, I believe it never had the wherewithal because it was in the marketplace, because it was trying to increase its market share, to be able to exercise that kind of discipline which the PMA is able to do. So, even on that score I do not think Petro-Canada fulfilled or could

December 18, 1990
Government Orders
fulfil some of the roles that some people had expected or hoped it might do.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested very much in the comments of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I just wanted to share with him some of what I have been getting in letters not only from my riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt but other places throughout Canada.
I think that people were not just looking at the perception that PetroCan would keep gas prices down, I think they had a real sense of pride in the fact that Canada was a major player in their own destiny, in their own retailing and refining of gasoline products. I think they saw PetroCan maybe getting into other areas, such as the recycling of oil, using the oil profits for research and alternate energy areas. There was this feeling, I think, when PetroCan came in that there was partial ownership instead of control of our oil destiny in the hands of large multinationals. There was a feeling that we as Canadians, as Canadian taxpayers, own this company, control it as Canadians, and that it was designed and directed to serve the best interests of Canadians.
Compliments to the minister if it is to his credit that credit is due that PetroCan is now making $86 million in profits, but people are asking why sell off a company that is working, that is making a profit, at a time in Canada when we are trying to find ways of fighting the deficit and the Canadian debt. Why sell off a profitable corporation that we, as Canadians, have been so proud of for such a short period of time. Why is the government selling this corporation now?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will try and be brief.
The hon. member makes the point that yes, there were people who were very proud of Petro-Canada. I think they also were able to expand that in the manner in which they advertised when they used the "Share the Flame" concept.
The $86 million that I referred to in terms of profit, though very little relative to capital used, does not come anywhere close to the kind of expansion that Petro-Canada needs in the money markets. We need on the short side, if we are selling short, possibly $400 million minimum and possibly in the area of $500 million to $600 million. So the 86 comes far short, if the kind of mandate that Petro-Canada now has is to be exercised.
The hon. member makes a valid point, in terms of Canadian ownership. I tried to explain at least my own personal views in terms of investment. I would like to see average Canadians invest in Canadian industry and I would like, quite frankly, to see some changes in respect to tax law and the manner in which that might be done.
That is why the provision is in the bill that not more than 25 per cent of this company can be non-Canadian, in fact, it can be 100 per cent Canadian. Even if it was maxed out at 25 per cent non-Canadian, that would change Canadian ownership by about 1.6 per cent, subject to that the oil and gas industry in Canada would have no growth. If there is growth, that 1.6 per cent goes down. I think, in that respect, we have tried to protect as much as possible some of the very issues that the hon. member has mentioned. Where we part company is the value of public ownership versus private ownership.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before resuming debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbeault)-Textile Industry; the hon. member for Halifax (Ms. Clancy)-Air Canada; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand)-Conventional forces in Europe agreement.
Just before lunch today, the hon. member for Nickel Belt proposed an amendment to the motion for third reading of Bill C-84. The Chair took the proposed amendment under advisement at that time. I am now prepared to rule on its acceptability.
The proposed amendment seeks to refer the bill back to a legislative committee and to instruct that committee to add a new clause to the bill which would specify that the bill come into force on a day five years after its adoption.
I will refer hon. members to Beauchesne's fifth edition, citation 804 which deals with the types of amendments that can be moved at third reading. It states that amendments:
December 18, 1990

Government Orders
-should not seek to give a mandatory Instruction to a committee.
As this is what the proposed amendment seeks to do, I must rule it out of order. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Scarborough West.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully this morning to the speech of the Minister of State for Privatization and listened with equal care to the remarks of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is very interesting that both ministers took us back in history to their recollections of what occurred when Petro-Canada came into being.
It is even more interesting because I held a public forum in my riding last Thursday on the subject of privatization and specifically the subject of Petro-Canada. The people in attendance at the public forum reflected with me on their historical recollections about how it was that Petro-Canada came into being.
At that time I was not fortunate enough to be a member of this House; I was more concerned then with getting through law school. As I recall the circumstances surrounding the creation of Petro-Canada, it was at a time when Canadians suddenly came to the immense realization that we did not control our natural resources. In fact, most of our natural resources, particularly the oil industry, were controlled by multinational corporations based in countries other than Canada.
At the same time as we came to that rather shocking revelation, we also had the first oil embargo by the Arab countries. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that that was the time when President Nixon of the United States promised that there would be complete autonomy in the United States with respect to energy. He lowered the speed limit to 55 miles per hour and did many other dramatic things. We, on this side of the border, were equally concerned that we would be held for ransom by foreign countries. My recollection as an ordinary Canadian was that those were the two factors that propelled us into forming Petro-Canada. I recall that one of the reasons we had the logo of Petro-Canada with its partial Canadian flag was so that we would feel we were doing something Canadian, something to benefit our country and that we were doing something to benefit ourselves every time we filled up at a Petro-Canada station.
I recall many of my friends and relatives saying: "Well, if I have to go to a Petro-Canada station instead of a Sunoco or a Texaco I will do so, because that is going to benefit my country. Every time I fill up I am making an investment for myself because I own Petro-Canada along with 26 million other Canadians who own shares, if you will, through the House of Commons and through the minister".
That is my historical recollection of how Petro-Canada came into being, why it came into being, and the public policies that it served.
I asked myself in considering Bill C-84 what the reasons are for wanting to privatize it now. Both the Minister of State for Privatization and the minister of energy quite clearly gave us two very specific reasons.
The first one is that in their view government ownership is no longer required to fulfil a public policy role. They were both charitable enough to admit that there are two sides, possibly even more to this debate, and that while the Conservative government holds a particular view, the opposition may, quite rightly, hold an opposite view.
I would like to remind this House of some of the reasons for the creation of Petro-Canada: nationalism, pride in Canada, a direct desire to control our energy industry, a direct desire to be free from the potential of being held to ransom by other countries. We created Petro-Canada which is 100 per cent owned by the people of this country. And what was the result of the creation of Petro-Canada? Well, I have tallied some results which I think are rather important.
Canadians contributed to the creation Petro-Canada. We heard the minister talk about the gas tax that was levied in order to help build Petro-Canada. In fact, over time Canadians have contributed $4.3 billion to this company and quite proudly for the most part.
This company now has assets of $6.8 billion. It has a current debt of $1.9 billion, not a bad ratio. It has net earnings in 1989 of $31 million, so the company is profitable. It has retail outlets totalling 3,295. It has four refineries. It employs 6,468 people across this country. It is the second largest integrated oil and gas company in Canada standing only behind Imperial Oil, which of course is controlled by Exxon, which is a foreign corporation. It is the only Canadian-owned enterprise operating coast to coast on a fully integrated basis within the

Government Orders
petroleum industry. It has a retail market share of almost 20 per cent. It has the second highest oil reserves of any company in Canada and the second highest gas reserves of any company in Canada, according to Oilweek. It is first, not second, in Canadian net land ownings.
That is what I call a company, and that is what I call an investment by Canadians. In the short time that Petro-Canada has been with us we have had a major competitor in the oil industry. Unfortunately the Tories want to sell this very excellent enterprise out from under us. Why? Because they say it no longer fulfils a public policy role.
A little more history: the Conservatives have hated Petro-Canada virtually since its inception. The former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Joe Clark's personal crusade was to privatize Petro-Canada. Since 1984, when the Conservatives came to power, the government has ignored the public policy role that Petro-Canada could play. It is, of course, no wonder that seven years later, after having ignored the public policy role, it says it is no longer fulfilling the public policy role. The public policy role was not nurtured for seven years of Conservative rule.
I say on the contrary that Petro-Canada can and does fulfil the public policy role.
It is 100 per cent Canadian owned just as it was when it was created and for the very reasons for which it was created. It is a strong voice for all Canadians in the industry. It is profitable and well run. It does do things that the private sector would back out of.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources mentioned one of them. It has backed the Hibernia project in Newfoundland. As we know, private corporations were timid about backing the Hibernia project. So which company was it that was not timid? Which company looked at the public policy and decided that there was necessity for an oil industry on the east coast in Newfoundland? It was Petro-Canada, 100 per cent owned by Canadians, working for Canadians.
Petro-Canada helps to protect us from the vagaries of the marketplace. We are no longer completely subject to to what the oil Sheikhdoms will do.
In my view it provides a public policy buffer to the decisions which might be made by the private sector concerning our national interests.
Decisions with respect to operations of a company that are made in the national interests are more important than decisions made for corporate self-interest, which is profit, profit, profit. One of the reasons Petro-Canada was created was to ensure that if there ever was a conflict between the national interest of all Canadians and the market drive for profit, profit, profit, the national interest would prevail.
Here, I admit we are in the realm of speculation. What might happen if Petro-Canada is sold? We heard the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources make the point that he wants Canadians to own a piece of Petro-Canada. He was lamenting the fact that certain tax rules do not permit blue collar workers the kind of access they might otherwise have. Well, the fact of the matter is that all blue collar workers, all white collar workers, all millionaires, all people on welfare, all Canadians already own Petro-Canada. To put it on the market and make us buy it again is the height of folly. We are selling something to ourselves that we already own. To me that does not make a lot of sense.
What is going to happen to the money that is being used to purchase these shares? If that money is being used to buy something we already own, it obviously cannot be used to invest in other markets and other businesses in the marketplace. Therefore, it is going to suck money out of the investment community. Where is that money going to come from if we need more money? Other businesses need that money and if it is not there because somebody has invested in Petro-Canada, where is it going to come from? Perhaps it will come from foreign ownership and we will have come completely full circle, back to a realization that we are not masters in our own home.
Privatization is certainly no guarantee of financial success. We need only look at Air Canada. The Minister of State for Privatization mentioned Air Canada this morning in his remarks. We know that Air Canada was privatized by this government. What have we seen since that privatization? Among other things, we have seen falling profits and the cutting of Air Canada's workforce. Is that what is going to happen with Petro-Canada? If not, its motive is going to be profit, profit, profit, to make sure that does not happen. When there is a conflict between perceived national interest and profit, it will be profit every time in the private sector.

Both ministers also suggested a second reason for privatizing Petro-Canada at this time. It needs money, or at least that is what the chairman of Petro-Canada says. It needs an infusion of capital of $500 million so that it can do some of the projects that it wishes to do.
What kind of projects? It wishes to continue exploration and development, the same kind of exploration and development that it has done since its inception, financed by the people of Canada. Why? Because the people of Canada own Petro-Canada. They have a piece of it already. In any event, it needs that $500 million.
The minister was quite right. Either it comes from the private sector, or it comes from the people of Canada through this House. That is a major philosophical difference between the two sides of the House as to where that money comes from. It does not make sense to me that we should sell ourselves something that we already own in order to get that $500 million. That is the same as saying that we should appropriate it through the House since we already own it, in my view.
I would say that careful and sound business management of this company, showing a profit, as the minister has said-and I applaud him for the fact that it shows a profit-will produce the same results in the long run. Certain things may have to be held off or financed in a creative way, but that is what we call business. That is why businessmen are employed to head companies such as this, to come up with the methods to do it. One of them is not to sell us back what we already own and to give up control of what we need, and that is control in the national interest of the second largest oil company in Canada.
As we have heard, the increases in world prices since the unfortunate events have unfolded in the Persian Gulf have also obviously increased the assets of the reserves, which we know are the second largest held by any company in Canada. Surely, there can be something done there at this time in order to creatively finance to come up with whatever moneys are needed for further capital investment.
I reflect the views I think of my constituents, based on the polling that I have done, the discussions I have had, the letters I have received, and the public forum that I held last Thursday, when I say, as a concerned
Government Orders
Canadian, as a member of Parliament, as someone who looked at the history of the development of Petro-Canada from perhaps a different vantage point than someone who was in the House and saw what was going on behind the curtains, as he said-I just saw what was going on in the newspapers and television-this is not the time to sell Petro-Canada. Rather, this is the time to preserve and promote it as a unifying force benefiting all Canadians.


Mr. AI Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend mentioned a number of times that he feels that the government is selling us back what we already own. I find this a rather extraordinary thought. If I live in a house and I have an enormous mortgage on it, I do not frankly believe that I own that house. I believe that the bank owns it until I have paid for it.
The problem that I see with what he is suggesting is that we are in a situation where we have an enormous debt associated with the acquisition of Petro-Canada. In my view, we do not own anything. All we are doing in selling Petro-Canada is that we are getting this debt off the backs of Canadians.
I would appreciate if he could elaborate or explore this concept a little further and explain to me how he thinks we are buying something that we already own when we have such enormous debt associated with its acquisition.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: I thank the hon. member for his question. I think I can explain it using the analogy of the house, but first let us take a look.
What kind of a company do we have? We have a company with present assets of $6.8 billion and a debt of $1.9 billion. Simple mathematics show me that it has some value, in fact a great deal of value.
If we buy a house, pay into that mortgage, and develop an equity over a period of time, we may still have a mortgage and we may very well have paid in a lot of money by way of interest payments, but that property is still ours. The equity in the house is still ours. We still go around saying: "That is my home." We do not say that is Canada Permanent's house because it holds the first mortgage. We say: "That is our house. We own that house, subject to a mortgage."
We have invested $4.3 billion of our own money into building this company that has assets of $6.8 billion. Having invested that money, surely we are entitled over

December 18, 1990
Government Orders
the course of time to reap the benefits of that investment? Apparently not. We are going to privatize it and then, if we wish to continue to have ownership, we will have to buy those shares individually in the marketplace. The people who do not have the income will not be able to buy the shares. Yet, right now, every single Canadian owns a piece of the action. No one will be able to say that when privatization takes place.
Sure, we have paid a lot of money in, but in the meantime, we have developed a company with significant assets. So we do, in fact, own it.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to be able to ask this question of the minister and time did not allow it, so I will ask the question of my colleague from Scarborough West.
We know that the Crown corporation has had many involvements around the world. There are some that have been in countries where human rights violations have occurred. Canada, being a peace-loving country, has always been concerned. It certainly has been to me and to most members of this House. I believe in May a question was asked of the minister with regard to Petro-Canada International, which is the development arm of Petro-Canada.
It has withdrawn from a country called Myanmar because of its serious human rights violations there. Petro-Canada itself continues to operate a $22 million oil-drilling contract. There seems to be a contradiction there. The minister was asked about this and yet responded at that time that he had no intention of asking Petro-Canada to withdraw from Myanmar. Even as recently as September, the Secretary of State for External Affairs outlined his very deep concern for the human rights violations in that country.
I know that this is not a question that probably relates to the sale of Petro-Canada but, as the human rights critic for the opposition party, I am very concerned about this. Has the government asked Petro-Canada to suspend any development with any country that has proven human rights violations? Does the hon. member agree with me that if it has not, it certainly should?


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Well, Mr. Speaker, I very much regret the fact that my colleague for Nepean was not able to put
that question to the minister after his speech, but perhaps he will have an opportunity to address it.
Yes, I agree that we should be looking at human rights violations and we should be encouraging corporations that are based in Canada to suspend business from those countries which grossly or, indeed, minorly abuse human rights. However, this is a perfect example of what I am talking about. If it is the Government of Canada's objective to promote human rights, what better way to promote it than through a corporation which is owned by the people of Canada and which can manifest the national interest including the preservation of human rights? What kind of control are we going to be able to have over Petro-Canada when it is in the private sector and decides to operate such a refinery in Myanmar?
If it was a corporation with one share held by the minister, as he pointed out, perhaps it would be more possible to attend a board meeting and explain to the board of directors that this is not in the national interests of Canada.
I thank my hon. friend for drawing it to my attention. It is just another reason why we should have control over this company and why it should not be privatized.


Al Johnson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It occurs to me that that question would certainly have been more appropriate if directed to the minister. I wonder if there would not be unanimous consent to allow the minister to answer it? I am sure the House would like to hear his answer.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will try to respect the time that the House has given to me to try to answer the question.
There is no doubt with Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation that when contracts are made at this stage, they are made directly with Petro-Canada. The budget is in the neighbourhood of $52 million a year. I may be out a bit, but it is in that area.
In Myanmar, there was a commercial agreement that was signed and under the auspices of the terms of that

commercial agreement it was not seen to be possible to withdraw from that agreement. That is why the answers are in the manner in which I gave them.
It is the plan of the government presently to examine the role of Petro-Canada International and in a new regime, when Petro-Canada itself is privatized, it has been my position, as Minister of Energy, that I think it gave us an opportunity, along with CIDA, to get us involved in high technology areas in the developing world, other than simply food aid. I am not trying to deprecate food aid, but we also had a look at how could we expand the commercial interest of the countries involved. The decisions have not been finalized in Petro-Canada International.
What the hon. member raises is true, whether it is a Crown corporation, such as Petro-Canada, or a privatized Petro-Canada. In a number of countries we have commercial contracts for the purposes of advancing their oil and gas. Governments change. Coups take place, and human rights violations occur. The hon. member is absolutely right.
I find it difficult to see, once a commercial agreement has been signed, how we could then get out of that commercial agreement. The other point that is valid is, prior to those commercial agreements, what kind of evaluations we place into them as we make a decision as to whether or not to finance through Petro-Canada International any activity.
I am well aware of the situation. I am being somewhat cautious in this, but I point out to her, in looking at some work, for example, in a number of countries where we are involved in Latin America, that in a number of those countries human rights violations cases can be made and have been made by various international organizations. For us, however, as Canada, where we are trying to get involved more and more in Latin America, Petro-Canada International has been one of those vehicles.
The balance between the human rights issue and the other issues relating to influence and investment opportunities have to be balanced off, even though I think the hon. member made a valid point about the situation in Myanmar.


Derek Vincent Lee: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Recognizing that the House will terminate debate veiy shortly, I rise on a matter involving an item unrelated to Bill C-84, but involving Private Members' Business. I
Government Orders
understand that if I have the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion, which I have made known to all members by correspondence, that I may introduce it.
I would ask the Speaker if I do have unanimous consent of the House to introduce this Private Members' Business motion dealing with permitting the continuation of Private Members' Business through the sessional adjournment and prorogation which we anticipate will occur. Would the Speaker ask if I have the unanimous consent of the House?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to move his motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is not unanimous consent. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest who has one minute remaining.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, in the one minute I am pleased to stand again with regard to Bill C-84 and the privatization of Petro-Canada.
I think most people here in the House do not realize that when an oil company sells a barrel of oil or an mcs of gas, it has to replace it, and the cost of exploration, the cost of development and production is extremely expensive.
Petro-Canada is now in a financial bind where it needs money to expand and pursue an aggressive oil and gas investment activity. What we are doing here is really untying the apron strings or letting it out into the marketplace where it will be able to access funding and capital.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. It being 4.45 o'clock p.m. pursuant to order made in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) on Tuesday, December 11,1990, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of third reading of the bill.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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

December 18, 1990
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
December 18, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   CRIMINAL CODE MEASURE TO AMEND
Iain Francis Angus: that Bill C-271, an act to amend the Criminal Code (facsimile advertising), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, perhaps some members think that today is the adjournment debate as opposed to some other point in time.
I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-271, an act to amend the Criminal Code, facsimile advertising, commonly known as junk faxes.
The reason I presented this bill is to deal with an emerging problem within the business community and in other sections of society that are using facsimile machines in their places of work. The bill is very specific. It is an amendment to section 426 of the Criminal Code of Canada and it reads as follows:
Everyone who sends to a person or organization through a telephone network an unrequested facsimile communication advertising for sale or goods any service is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to a fine not exceeding $200.
What I would like to do is lay out for members in the House some of the background to the problem of junk faxes. Fax machines are not new. They were around in the mid-1970s, very cumbersome, very expensive and out of the reach of most offices and certainly, very slow and very expensive to utilize.
However, since the new generation of faxes were introduced in the mid-1980s there has been an explosion. In 1986 there were only 100,000 such machines in Canada. By the end of 1989 that had grown to 210,000. By the end of this year, that number doubled again to 420,000, and it is estimated by Evans Research Corporation that by the end of 1993 there will be one million facsimile machines in operation in this country. That
Private Members' Business
does not include the proliferation of what is called a fax board in micro computers. That is a computer component that you can plug into your computer that can list as many as 999 telephone numbers which you can utilize to send out an electronic facsimile message in one command.
A La Presse poll shows that 95 per cent of Montreal businesses had fax machines in November 1989 and of the remainder, half planned to buy a fax machine within six months. So it is definitely a growing situation, at least in terms of the machines.
Let me turn to the problem of the junk faxes. Fax advertising is a dream come true for advertisers who can force an unwilling audience to shoulder a substantial burden of their costs. All of us in this House get complaints about junk mail, about those advertising flyers that come to our mailbox unsolicited. Those flyers do not cost the recipient anything, other than aggravation and most times just go into the round filing cabinet. But in terms of junk faxes, anyone can send to you at your place of business or at your home if you have a fax there, a message offering for sale the good or service that particular company wants to sell and you have to pay the cost of printing that flyer. That is the difference.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business in their membership survey in October 1989, asked if there should be regulations protecting the public from advertising by businesses via fax machines. Eighty-one per cent of the respondants said yes; 10 per cent said no; 5 per cent were undecided and 4 per cent had no interest in the issue.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission believes it cannot deal with junk faxes because it has no authority over the content of what is carried on telephone lines. That is according to one of their information officers. Also, neither they nor Bell report hearing any complaints on unsolicited fax advertising. I will come back to that in a moment.
In the United States, two states have passed laws banning unsolicited faxes; Maryland and Connecticut. Lobbying, favouring and opposing the law was intense. The Maryland law provides for fines of up to $5,000 for repeat offenders, while the Connecticut law has fines of up to $500, or three months in jail. As well, a U.S. federal panel approved legislation to establish lists of

December 18, 1990
Private Members' Business
telephone subscribers who do not wish to receive unsolicited messages.
I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that my particular bill calls for only a fine of up to $200 and does not include any kind of incarceration whatsoever.
There is also an environmental angle as opposed to the harassment and the cost angle. One basic tenet of environmentalism and the efficient use of resources is that those who use resources should be the ones to pay for them. Thus there is incentive to conserve and to use paper products more efficiently.
Unsolicited facsimile advertising shifts the cost of resource-use, paper, electricity and mechanical wear and tear, away from advertisers, reducing the incentive for efficiency.
Moreover, the end product, almost invariably destined for our overloaded waste disposal system, is chemically treated and cannot be recycled with technology currently in use in Canada.
There are at least two suggestions as to why this bill should not be considered and let me deal with them. The first is that limits on unsolicited fax mail violate free speech. Nobody can force someone to buy a book or newspaper that they do not want and yet this is not seen as a limit on free speech.
This is the one medium requiring the recipient to bear directly a major portion of the cost of advertising. Speaking of freedom and choices, there is no choice for the recipient when junk mail comes through the machine.
The second argument may be that this is a basic tool in modem advertising. Taking it away puts businesses at a competitive disadvantage. On the contrary, it puts them on that level playing field businesses find so attractive. Besides there are some things more important than competitive advantage. This is an issue of equality.
Let me go back to my bill for a moment because there are two key elements in it. One refers to "unrequested facsimile communication". Those of us who have fax machines have them for a reason, to send and receive information.
If we are in the business of communicating with others via fax, we do not want our machines tied up by an unsolicited fax message, selling us something or other, perhaps the menu at the local restaurant, unsolicited.
Those machines are important business tools and should not be used frivolously.
The key part is the unrequested part. Manufacturers who wish to use facsimiles to inform customers of new products can make prior arrangements with those companies to receive fax messages dealing with the sale of goods or services. That is all that is required, a courtesy call to the potential recipient to see if they are willing to receive information via facsimile on new products that are available. I think in a lot of cases, people would say yes to selected suppliers.
The other part is the element that says, "advertising for sale any goods or service". That is very specific, very clear. It is not talking about faxing a letter to a minister dealing with a subject matter; not preventing faxing of a letter to a company requesting information, but specifically banning advertising for sale any goods or services.
I think the matter is worthy of study and implementation. I just want to make two final comments. One of the responsibilities of members of the House of Commons is to anticipate problems, to not wait until a problem has developed into an issue; to not wait until there are people pounding on our doors demanding some protection.
Our job is to anticipate, and where we have information to suggest that there is a change in society. We are in an ever-evolving society particularly when it comes to technology. We should anticipate problems and provide the administrators of our law with the tools in order to protect people who are being abused by what is currently legal activity.
I would urge my colleagues in the House of Commons to consider the positive aspects of this bill, to agree to support the motion and refer it to a legislative committee so that we can put on the books a law that protects the owners of facsimile machines from unsolicited junk mail being sent to them at the recipients' expense. I appreciate the opportunity to address my bill and I look forward to the comments of other hon. members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On a point of order, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and the members of the House, and I am sure that you will find that there is unanimous
December 18, 1990

consent for this motion dealing with the adjournment of the House for the Christmas recess.
I move:
That, no later than five o'clock p.m. on Wednesday, December 19, 1990 the debate on Government Notice of Motion dated December 17,1990 in the name of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, regarding winter adjournment, be deemed to have been completed and all questions necessary to dispose of the said motion will be put forthwith and without further debate, provided that each opposition party has had an opportunity to move an amendment or subamendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent for considering the motion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall I dispense with reading the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Agreed and so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am of course speaking as a private member, as is my right in private members' hour.
Bill C-271 is an act to amend the Criminal Code. It makes it a crime to send advertising by means of a fax machine. It places it in the Criminal Code for the first time and, as I said, makes it a Criminal Code offence. When I heard about this bill this afternoon the first thing I said when I heard that somebody wanted to make it a crime to use a fax machine to sell something, I said, "I bet it is a member of the NDP who is sponsoring that bill", and I was right. I will tell you why I knew immediately that the NDP would be in favour of this.
Private Members' Business
Mr. Speaker, you show me any ill in society, you show me any nuisance in society, you show me any problem and I will show you a socialist who wants to make it a crime and wants to put it into the Criminal Code. I want to say to members of the NDP and the mover of this bill that you cannot solve all of the world's problems with the Criminal Code. We have to get away from the idea that the Criminal Code is a panacea for all the ills and nuisances that we find in society today. That is why I knew for sure that the NDP would be supporting and moving this bill.
I suggest to them that they look at this problem in its whole context, not take the simplistic view, the band-aid solution, and make it a crime but look at everything. Where in this bill is there any suggestion that we get provincial co-operation? Where is that? There is no reference to that. Where is there any reference for the kind of money that we are going to need to try to solve this problem? There is nothing here. This proposed legislation is completely bankrupt, all it talks about is using the power of the Criminal Code to fix this nuisance. I disagree with that. I say to members of the NDP, go to the root of this problem, go sit down with the people, find out why they have this urge to use facsimile machines for the purposes of advertising, spend some money on it.


An hon. member:: It is money and greed.


Rob Nicholson: The hon. member says that it is money and greed. If it is money and greed that has caused this problem, why do members of the NDP not advocate spending some money to correct the problem? Why do they not talk to some of their friends in the union movement? I bet they would be pretty interested to know about this. Maybe some of them are already aware. Get on the phone to Bob White and say: "Bob, we have a heck of a problem here in Ottawa. Today, people are using facsimile machines to sell greeting cards. Tomorrow it could be automobiles". Then Bob would be worried. The next thing we know, they will be wanting to sell North American cars by facsimile machine. I think they will get his attention then. That is all I can say to the members of the NDP.

Private Members' Business
The Criminal Code has been with us for 100 years. It can do many things. I say to the hon. member to exhaust every avenue, do everything possible to solve these problems before we resort to legislation.
This is a nuisance. Obviously I disagree with the bill, and I urge the House to turn thumbs down on the suggestion of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atiko-kan.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this private member's bill dealing with the paper burden and inconvenience that has arisen from the unauthorized use or the overuse of facsimile machines in Canada and perhaps around the world.
I commend the member on his initiative in taking note of a problem area in the business world, one where there have been many complaints. I think it is fair to say that there has been a great deal of waste of facsimile paper. However sympathetic I am to the problem, I see that there are two or three items in the bill that should be addressed here in the House before it continues to committee, if that is to take place.
The first item I would like to address is the issue of the burden of proof, if I may put it that way. This is a Criminal Code amendment. If passed, this will become a criminal law. What it actually requires, if there is to be a conviction, is that a prosecutor or complainant must show beyond a reasonable doubt what is basically a conceptual negative, because the wording refers to everyone who sends an unrequested facsimile communication.
When the prosecutor goes to charge and present the evidence, the prosecutor or the complainant must show that the facsimile was unrequested. It may be alleged in defence that the fax transmission was impliedly or specifically requested. That is a difficult thing for a prosecutor to prove. It is impossible to prove a negative. In most circumstances, at a minimum, it is very difficult and therefore procedurally the challenge on the prosecution to prove this negative should be addressed. There might be another way of stating the burden of proof within the section to preclude that problem.
Another one is that we are dealing with a machine, not a person. The bill suggests that a facsimile must be sent
to a person or an organization through a fax machine. Yet, the whole focus of the offence is the receipt by a fax machine. That is a fairly innocuous event. Fax machines are made to receive communications.
It is actually similar to an unsolicited telephone communication. There are telephone solicitation techniques being used now where those doing the solicitation simply program into a computer a pre-recorded message. It runs through the phone bank and makes all the phone calls. The same thing could happen with a fax machine. It is an area that is not easy to address in the criminal law. The fact is that this is not a very good way of advertising. Perhaps if you are advertising fax paper it might be, but because these machines are very impersonal a lot of this stuff is simply trashed upon receipt. An item in this debate that was addressed earlier is that the receipt of this unsolicited material is an annoyance. It might be a waste of paper as well, but it is merely an annoyance. I do not believe it may be something we want to address with the Criminal Code provision. I suspect it is not significant enough that we must resort to the Criminal Code.
For that reason, if the matter is to go on to committee I really think that that issue should receive some scrutiny.
One thing that is not within the bill is a definition of a facsimile transmission. We have to recall, as the hon. member who introduced the bill pointed out, that times are moving quickly technologically and while his proposal to the House is very much in keeping with that, it is an appropriate, timely response to a perceived problem, and we have to always be prepared to do that in this House, I am not so sure that the technology will not pass up and we will have a new generation of communications on our doorstep in another few years.
Therefore, the reference in the bill to facsimile may quickly become outmoded. I recall the House passing an amendment to the Criminal Code dealing with arson a few months ago and we managed to purge from the Criminal Code phrases referring to grain store houses and ammunition arsenals, terms that are just not used any more. I think the committee, if it is to go to committee, must look at the way in which the member has addressed the technology here as facsimile transmission.
December 18, 1990

Finally, and I am sure the hon. member will agree, there is the possibility of a charter issue here, the issue of free speech. Freedom of expression may cause us to question whether or not we wish to put restrictions on a communications device where an individual could, in error or perhaps in that grey area where you are not sure of the exact intent, send an unrequested facsimile transmission and thereby conceptually impair his or her freedom of expression and freedom of speech.
Having said all of that and tried my very best not to poke so many holes in this that it would collapse under its own weight, I would like to express my general support for the bill in attempting to address this problem. I would be hopeful that the matter could be sent to committee for further study of the issues I have referred to and other issues that the House and other members will likely want to raise.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, I think if you check with the House you will find unanimous consent to consider that the hour for Private Members' Business will have expired on this one item and that we would move on to the two other items that we have for Private Members' Business at this time.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
[Stage Direction]
The House proceed to the consideration of Bill C-260, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, as reported (with amendment) from the legislative committee.
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington) moved: that the bill be concurred.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William James Kempling: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Private Members' Business
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation to the members of the House for allowing Bill C-260 to pass report stage and third reading at this time. I had great co-operation from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, the hon. member for Kamloops, the hon. member for Halifax, the hon. member for Mississauga East, the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby, and the hon. member for Ottawa-Vani-er. I appreciate their support very much.


WORKERS MOURNING DAY ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-233, an act respecting a day of mourning for persons killed or injured in the workplace, as reported (with amendment) from the legislative committee.
Rodney Edward Murphy: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Rodney Edward Murphy: that the bill be read a third time and passed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Motion carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the House for the co-operation in having Bill C-223 adopted at report stage and third reading this afternoon. I, like one of the previous members, would like to thank the members of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party who have enabled this bill to go forward. There was great co-operation in the House at both second reading and in committee hearings. I would like to thank the members for the work that they have done. I must say I hope that we get as quick a consideration and as much co-operation in the Senate.

December 18, 1990
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the House agree to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to a subject that is of particular interest to me, a subject I have already discussed in this House, and I am referring to the textile and clothing industries which are facing three major trade challenges.
First, they must adjust, efficiently and successfully, to the new Canada-U.S. trade system that has been in place since 1989. Second, they must adjust to the uncertain future of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement. And third, these industries will have to adjust to new changes in the tariff on textile products that will be introduced by the federal government to bring Canadian tariff levels more in line with those of our main trading partners.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I may recall that sales generated by the clothing and textile industry are worth respectively $8.5 billion and $5 billion annually in this country. We must also remember that these industries tend to be the most labour-intensive.
I may also recall that under the free trade agreement, Canada and the United States agreed to eliminate, over a ten-year period starting January 1, 1989, all tariffs and other restrictive measures applied at the border. Both countries will, however, apply their tariffs to imports from other countries.
The agreement contains four clauses relating to trade in textile products and clothing which are particularly important. First, rules of origin; second, tariff quotas; third, duty drawbacks; and fourth, duty remissions.
I may also recall that since 1974, trade in textiles and clothing has been regulated by the Arrangement Regarding International Trade in Textiles, better known as the Multi-Fibre Arrangement. Under the MFA, Canada has negotiated several bilateral agreements on quotas with certain countries in order to restrict imports of clothing and textile products.
This arrangement, which expires July 1, 1991, is currently the subject of multilateral trade negotiations under GATT. In connection with these multilateral trade negotiations, Canada and the United States have suggested terminating the MFA. Both countries are in favour of global quotas.
Furthermore, the European Economic Community and developing countries are anxious to see a gradual reduction in customs tariffs on textiles.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, on March 22 this year, the federal government announced a tariff rebate program to improve the competitive position of Canada's textile and clothing industries. The program consists of three parts: first, an immediate reduction in tariffs on 13 special fabrics and yams not manufactured in Canada; second, new duty remission programs; and third, a textile tariff reduction program that would gradually bring these tariffs in line with levels set by other industrialized countries.
Mr. Speaker, Canada's tariff on textiles is substantially higher than in most other industrialized countries. The Canadian industry seems to be adjusting relatively well to free trade with the United States in the present circumstances. However, we must not forget that the exchange rate is still a major factor in maintaining our competitive position.
In fact, our industry will be able to compete with the U.S. as long as the Canadian dollar does not exceed U.S. $0.85 or U.S. $0.86.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, increased investment following the free trade talks reflected a desire to make the textile and clothing industries more competitive. It seems the textile industry stands to benefit more under free trade than the clothing industry.
In fact, the clothing industry is afraid that removal of the duty drawback program in 1994, together with the new double processing rule and low tariff quotas, will have a negative impact on future production.

In the textile industry, Canadian producers are afraid that as tariff barriers are lowered by importing countries, the American textile industry will act as a powerful magnet for future investment.
Others believe that the multilateral tariff reductions in the Uruguay round would not necessarily brighten export opportunities for clothes manufacturers since it might instead make it easier for Europeans to export their goods to this country.
Yet others fear that freer multilateral exchanges might reduce the Free Trade Agreement benefits for Canadian exporters competing on the American market with third world countries, for the United States might very well endorse multilateral tariff reductions. In that case, imports from low-wage countries would increase somewhat. This would lead to the implementation of certain quotas that have not been filled at this time. Now if we assume that lower textile tariffs resulting from the multilateral trade negotiations would be in addition to the tariff reduction proposed by the external trade Canadian tribunal, what might be in store for the textile and clothing industry?
As early as September 1986 at the beginning of the Uruguay round on multilateral trade negotiations, the ministers involved agreed to consider the possibility of integrating the textile and clothing sector under GATT.
Last November 16, a Journal of Commerce article entitled "Textile Management Fearful of Lopsided Agreement" reported that a group of eleven leaders representing seven professional associations and four American fibre, textile and clothing manufacturers wrote to special U.S. trade representative Carla Hills to warn her against the danger of endorsing an extremely lopsided agreement.
Here is how they put it: We simply cannot understand how the United States can be working with Hong Kong to find an acceptable formula with respect to fraud and regulation avoidance in the textile and clothing sector, when manufacturers in this country have participated in major fraudulent shipments.
Mr. Speaker, Europe and Portugal are also concerned that textiles might be adversely affected by a GATT agreement. By deleting the multifibre agreement, are
Adjournment Debate
we not removing the only true protection the textile and clothing industry has?


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his continued interest in the textile industry of which many companies are in his riding.
On March 22, 1988, the government announced a three-part program of tariff relief initiatives designed to meet the needs of both the Canadian textile and apparel industries and to strengthen their competitiveness.
The program included tariff reductions on certain specialty fabrics which came into effect in 1988 and 1989; new duty remission programs which came into effect on January 1, 1989; and a plan to reduce textile tariffs, over a 10 year period, to levels comparable to those of other industrialized countries.
On February 6, 1989, the Minister of Finance asked the C1TT to provide the government with advice on its plan to reduce textile tariffs bearing in mind a number of factors, including the economic importance of the textile industry; the textile industry's ongoing efforts, through heavy investment and rationalization of production, to enhance its viability and adjust to the international trading environment; and the major changes which will be occurring in Canada's trading arrangements as a result of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the Uruguay round.
In his request to the C1TT, the Minister of Finance asked the tribunal to hear the views of all interested parties before determining the manner in which tariff reductions could best be implemented.
The CUT conducted a very open and transparent study. As the Minister of Finance has already noted in the House, several industry associations and close to 500 firms in the textile, clothing and other downstream industries participated in the year-long inquiry. More than 80 provided testimony during the six weeks of public hearings.
In addition to these representations, tribunal members visited more than 40 companies across the country to get a first-hand view of Canadian production operations and the challenges they face.

December 18, 1990
Adjournment Debate
The CITT's inquiry gave interested parties every opportunity to make their views known. Since the CUT report was tabled in March of this year there has been ample time for industry to register its objections. The government has received additional comments from both the textile and apparel industries and officials have carefully considered them in their review of the CiiT's recommendations. At the request of the textile and apparel industries, the Minister of Finance announced in July that the government's final response to the Cl'IT recommendations will be made in the context of decisions to be taken in the current round of multilateral trade negotiations still under way.
I want to thank the hon. member again for his continued interest in this subject.


AIR CANADA
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, when I rose in this House two weeks ago, I had hoped that somehow this government would be able to do something about another disaster that had befallen Atlantic Canadians.
The policies of this government have been less than kind to my region. The abandonment of the fisheries, the economic recession, taxes, taxes, and more taxes-coupled of course with the worst tax of all, the GST-rising unemployment, escalating bankruptcies, record receiverships and even more lay-offs.
When it seemed that nearly all the candles were out in the Atlantic region, the government's policies snuffed out yet more. Air Canada, this government's privatization wonder child, announced that two reservation centres will be closed at the cost of at least 150 jobs in the metropolitan area of Halifax. At that time I asked the Minister of Transport to use his considerable influence with Air Canada's board to revoke its decision to close Air Canada's reservation centre in both the city of Halifax and at the Halifax airport.
The minister replied by saying:
-Air Canada is now a public corporation. The shares are widely held.
I think the last thing in the world the shareholders of Air Canada want is the government telling it which reservation counters to keep open and which ones to close.
Mr. Speaker, we are seeing the results of this kind of policy. The government's sell-all mentality has reduced it to a mechanism which seems to only serve Canadians by raising taxes. This of course is a service that Canadians are not too fond of. This government has become little more than a taxation office.
This government has been unable to come forward with direction or vision. It failed with free trade. It has failed with constitutional reform. It failed with protecting women. It has failed with providing child care. It has failed with a toothless environmental plan. Now it has failed with the privatization policy.
Each and every one of these policies has led to the same thing, most particularly in my region of the country, unemployment and higher taxes.
There are Air Canada personnel in Halifax with 16 years experience who have been told that their seniority is marginal, after 16 years of service to an area. We know that the technology is available. We know that the phone calls could be made to anywhere from anywhere. Why do the jobs have to be in Toronto instead of in Halifax?
One of the things, and I heard this discussion in the Halifax airport not too long ago, has to do with the particular regional flavour in the Atlantic. As I heard one person say-and I will not attempt to reproduce the accent but if my colleague, the member for Dartmouth, or one of my colleagues from Newfoundland were here I think you could understand-that if people from their particular areas call up, sometimes an ear that does not come from the Atlantic may have some difficulty in comprehending that this person wants to fly from Gander to Deer Lake, or from Moncton to Charlottetown. They will not understand the particular sensitivities and situations of Atlantic Canadians and that a service that supposedly is set up to care for the public will become much less caring and much less a benefit to the people it is supposed to serve.
We have all had experiences good and bad with airlines. But I remember in particular assistance that I have received from the people in reservations at Air Canada. That is the number you call. I was bringing a sick relative home from a fairly long trip. I reached the Halifax office from my out-of-town departure point, told them what the problem was, said I had no idea how serious the illness was, and those Air Canada personnel handled the situation so that the person who was ill was treated with the greatest kindness. Everything possible

was done to ensure her comfort and safety on her way home. Those people were there when we got to the airport, and to this day some of them still ask.
This is a service that rises out of the corporation's involvement in the community, the fact that those people know their clientele and their clientele knows them.
Suddenly, 150 of those people, the ones who have the most direct contact with the public, are being told to move to Toronto, take early retirement, or lose their job. It is unfair. It is not right and it is not something that we in the Atlantic region want to put up with any longer.
Perhaps I was being naive in asking the Minister of Transport to help. Perhaps I was being naive to think that this government cares to create a transportation policy that is meaningful to all regions of the country. Perhaps I am naive to believe that this government really has eyes to see, ears to hear, and a heart to feel the concerns of people who live outside the central core of this country. If it does not hear soon, the voices will be louder and louder, and they will be knocking on the very doors of this Chamber.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for again raising this important question. I am pleased to participate in this debate this evening.
The hon. member raises the issue of cuts in Air Canada's work force in Atlantic Canada. She suggests for some reason that the federal government should get involved in a matter that is the exclusive responsibility of a private sector corporation responsible to its shareholders. How does the hon. member expect the shareholders, management and the employees of Air Canada to respond to the federal government's interference in the day-to-day management of the corporation?
One of the fundamental reasons Air Canada and 15 other Crown corporations have been privatized by this government was so business and commercial decisions such as these could be made by the private sector
Adjournment Debate
without the meddling of government and political interference such as that suggested by the hon. member.
The hon. member has suggested that deregulation has been a failure and has impacted on air travel in Atlantic Canada in a negative way. Informed opinion would beg to differ from her. The National Transportation Agency recently reported that in 1989 aviation activity was 20 per cent higher in Atlantic Canada in terms of passengers and air carrier activity than it was in 1985 pre-deregulation. That means more choices for consumers, more options for air carriers, and more business for the transportation, hospitality, tourism and general business community in Atlantic Canada and throughout the country.
The hon. member will recall that the special parliamentary committee examining the Canada-U.S. air services agreement was in Halifax just two weeks ago. During those hearings the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission said that economic deregulation of the aviation industry had benefited the Atlantic region significantly.
The commission reported that deregulation has led to greater frequency of flights, better schedules, more fare options, and superior service with the type of aircraft that are better suited to the short haul nature of the regional market.
The commission told the committee that the Canadian airline industry was second to none in the world and that it wanted Canadian carriers to be able to decide what markets they wanted to serve without having to go back and forth to the government every time they wanted access to a new city in Atlantic Canada and throughout the domestic and Canadian-U.S. markets.
Joseph Randall of Air Nova told the special committee that his company has been tremendously successful under deregulation. He was most enthusiastic about the potential of his airline in a more liberalized Canada-U.S. environment.
Don Maclnnes, the Minister of Transportation and Communications for the Government of Nova Scotia, told the committee that deregulation has led to excellent local service with the establishment of Halifax as a regional hub in Atlantic Canada.

December 18, 1990
Adjournment Debate
The minister said that the limitations on air services between Canada and the United States are a major impediment to tourism and development, particularly the convention industry in Halifax.
The position of the Nova Scotia government is that the aviation industry supports economic development in the Atlantic region and that the better Canada-U.S. air services will benefit Halifax and the rest of the province.
This sentiment was also echoed by Nicholas Carlson, President of the Hotel Association of Metropolitan Halifax, who also urged the government to liberalize the Canada-U.S. air service in order to give a boost to the local tourism and hospitality industry.
So I say to the hon. member, listen to your constituents, listen to the informed voices of Halifax and Nova Scotia who say that the government and its deregulation has benefited Atlantic Canada and deregulation has led to better service, more fair options and more choices for consumers and carriers.


CONVENTIONAL FORCES IN EUROPE AGREEMENT
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, on November 19, NATO and the Warsaw Pact concluded an historic agreement to significantly reduce their military weapons in Europe and virtually end the cold war. Under the agreement signed on that day,
54.000	tanks, artillery, aircraft and helicopters on both sides will be destroyed or decommissioned. I must point out that most will be on the side of the Warsaw Pact but, nevertheless, it is a two-sided agreement and it is very significant.
Under that particular treaty it would limit each side to no more than 20,000 tanks, 20,000 artillery pieces, 30,000 armoured combat vehicles, 6,800 combat aircraft and
2.000	attack helicopters in Europe. That may sound like a lot but, as I said, it was a significant reduction in what has been there already for over 40 years, and this agreement brought about the end of the cold war.
As a result of that agreement on November 19,1 put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs asking him about the impact of this agreement on Canada's military and foreign policy and what plans the government was making for Canada's forces in Europe. Did it have in mind that it should adopt a new role in Europe or should those troops be brought home?
In answer to my question, the Associate Minister of Defence said that Canadian troops, for the most part, would not be affected by the agreement other than the reduction by 1,400 in the number of troops in Europe, but that a new role was possible and that was being studied.
At the same time, I asked the Minister about the 1987 White paper on Defence, a white paper that was drafted at the time of the cold war and was drafted with the cold war scenario in mind. I reminded the Minister that that white paper had never been withdrawn although parts of it, the very controversial part that proposed the acquisition of nuclear submarines for Canada, had been dropped.
My point was that if the defence white paper was developed at a time when the cold war was still under way and has never been withdrawn then it should be withdrawn and the government should come forward with a new white paper that would deal with the threats of today, with the realities of today.
Following that historic agreement, the countries of Europe and North America, the 34 states that make up the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe met in Paris to confirm those agreements and to officially put the cold war to rest and to examine new arrangements for security in Europe. The meeting of the CSCE in Paris was the launching of a new method of collective security and co-operation for all of Europe, including Canada and the United States.
About that conference, it has been said that it attempted to enunciate the principles for peace and prosperity with respect to the future of Europe. It was an attempt to put forward a dream of a European continent free of opposing military alliances, united from one end to the other by its commitment to democracy, economic co-operation and human rights.
In view of all of this, where does Canada stand with respect to the new realities in the world? How is our foreign policy going to change to adopt to this new reality and what about our defence policy? What about our Canadian forces? Where is the new defence white paper and how will it define the role of our defence and military forces with respect to these new challenges.
It appears to me that with respect to these matters the west has been too slow to move in relation to the east.
December 18, 1990

President Gorbachev won the Nobel Prize last year for his initiatives and aggressiveness in putting on the table proposals for disarmament and peace. To give them credit, the West responded but sometimes responded too slowly.
Just this very week, we were working on a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on External Affairs to consider the renewal of the NORAD agreement. The NORAD agreement is an air defence agreement for Canada and the United States against the Soviet Union. One might ask: Why do we need to continue that agreement in light of the historic agreements that were signed in Paris and Vienna in the month of November? We were debating whether it should be renewed for five years. That seemed ridiculous to many of us. We thought that if it was to be renewed, it should only be renewed for a short period of time in order to search for a new type of agreement with the United States to survey the air space of North America, but not a NORAD-type agreement.
One could say the same with respect to the conference to amend the partial test ban treaty which will take place in New York at the United Nations in January. If there is no more cold war, why do we continue to build nuclear weapons? Why do we continue to test nuclear weapons?
In conclusion, let me say that Canadians want answers to these questions. They want leadership in these very important matters of life and death with respect to weapons of mass destruction. They are fed up with more rhetoric and drift. I hope tonight the parliamentary secretary will give me some answers.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the subject of the Canadian commitment to Europe. I would like to begin by stating that Canada remains fully committed to collective security through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Canada will continue to contribute to the alliance as long as the need exists.
There are many who would suggest that the time has come to move our forces out of Europe. As hon. members are aware, we recently announced that we would be reducing our presence in Europe by some 1,400
Adjournment Debate
personnel as part of the over-all reduction in the numbers of the Canadian forces due to defence budget cuts announced in February 1990.
The decrease in the level of threat in Europe has allowed us this opportunity, and a number of our allies have made similar reductions. However, I wish to emphasize that this in no way affects the continuing commitment of Canada or any of our allies to NATO and to collective security in Europe. Any change in our existing commitments to NATO will be carried out in harmony with our allies and in support of the current arms control negotiations.
Canada welcomes the signing of the CFE Treaty. Canada will play an active role in verifying the CFE agreement. A Canadian military verification organization has been established to deal with all aspects of the treaty. This verification regime could well become the most enduring element of a CFE treaty and the cornerstone of a new European military security framework.
Regarding the need for a defence review that incorporates all the changes now taking place, let me emphasize that a defence review is a forward looking exercise that attempts to set out Canada's defence needs in the 1990s and beyond. The review, which we hope to have completed by the spring, will take account of current operations as they apply to the future of the Canadian forces in Canada and abroad.
Therefore I am certain all members of this House can appreciate that the sudden withdrawal of all allied troops from Europe would be disruptive to the cohesion of the NATO alliance. This cohesion is essential as we enter the next stages of arms negotiations and reductions. More important, however, there is much uncertainty in many European countries as they adopt new democratic models. A stable NATO alliance can help greatly in this delicate transition period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemend to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.16 p.m.