The House resumed at 8 p.m.
INTERIM SUPPLY (CONCLUDED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for interim supply for the period November 1, 1981, to March 31, 1982.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner hour I started to make a few remarks with respect to what was going on in this province. I indicated that my friends across the way cannot be trusted any more; they want to nationalize everything. I was worried about my friends to my right because, despite having announced they were moving to the left, they moved further to the right.
Mr. J. A. Reed: We are just staying on course. Those guys are moving to the left.
Mr. Martel: If they move to the left opposing the Canadianization of an industry, I am somewhat surprised. I just brought a couple of the select committee reports with some of the Liberal members' findings. One of those recommendations, as I said earlier, was signed by the Tory members as well. It said, "The government should be empowered to take up to 50 per cent of the equity in new ventures in the nonrenewable natural resource sector." Most Liberals, of course, hide their heads in shame when that is thrown back at them because they want to run around the province and say, "You fellows over there want to, particularly the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller)."
Mr. J. A. Reed: We were thinking of Ontario, not Alberta.
Mr. Martel: We are going to come to that. The select committee then went on in another report in talking about the Ontario Development Corporation and said: "ODC should be suitably equipped with the legal and financial capacity to undertake reacquisition of enterprises should that be deemed in the public interest; to acquire enterprises coming up for sale from foreign owners for which no Canadian buyer can be found provided the acquisition is in the public interests, and to acquire on a temporary basis Canadian corporations which otherwise fall into foreign-owned hands."
The oil industry happens to be in foreign hands. I for one want to see it Canadianized. The federal Liberals in Ottawa, I am told, do that. They have a thing called Petrocan. We remember when Joe Who was going to sell it, and Joe Who lost that last election. One of the main platforms in his plank was to sell Petrocan, and he is no longer there. I suggest we must move heaven and earth to get control of resources.
Mr. J. A. Reed: Even if they are not Ontario's?
Mr. Martel: They are Canadian.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): On the amendment.
Mr. Martel: Yes, I am coming to the amendment, Mr. Speaker. Our trade deficit, of course, is based across Canada. Last year in resources we had an imbalance of $38 billion worth of imported finished goods as opposed to $21 billion worth of resources and a few manufactured goods flowing out. The way to get control and to alter all of that is to have total control of the resource sector.
Mr. Nixon: What about interim supply?
Mr. Martel: That is what I am talking about, money. I listened to one of that member's people speaking today for two hours. I do not think he spoke to the motion once.
We in this country have an opportunity to start that process. We have power in the form of gas. We have power in the form of oil, water, uranium and coal. We have all the types of forest products we need. We have the natural resources in the mineral field to make us a very wealthy country. Is it not strange that a country like Japan without any of these is leading the world economically? We have a million unemployed and we have them all. That says something for Ontario, and that says something for the Canadian government. We have done nothing to retain control of our own resources and thereby utilize them to our advantage.
No one can be condemned more than the government of Ontario. Only two years ago this government, in a tax bill, allowed Falconbridge to expand its operation in Norway and write off its tax against the Ontario tax dollar. Talk about giveaways. Members can understand my delight when, after 14 years of imploring this government to start to gain control, they finally move in and they take gas.
As I said: Suncor today, Inco tomorrow. We will have the People's International Nickel Company maybe someday. Maybe we will use our resources, and I could be the president.
We finally move in that field, and what happens --
Mr. T. P. Reid: Let's nationalize Seagrams and do something worthwhile.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Martel: As I said earlier today, we think what we need from the government, to understand that deal, is more of the documentation. For example, we need to know, if we are buying 25 per cent and if it is a good deal, whether we should then go for 51 per cent.
We are better off having control than just a share. If we just have a share of the action the decisions will still all be made south of the border.
Mr. J. A. Reed: You would tax your great grandchildren.
Mr. Martel: No, I would not tax them.
Mr. J. A. Reed: You would leave them with a debt.
The Acting Speaker: On the amendment.
Mr. Martel: We have a debt in this country, compliments of the Liberals and Tories, that is astronomical.
Mr. J. A. Reed: Why do you want to go out for 100 per cent of Suncor?
Mr. Martel: No, I said 51 per cent. That would give us control, and of course, we would maximize the benefits that are going to accrue under the federal program.
Mr. T. P. Reid: For a resource that does not exist in Ontario. That makes a lot of sense.
Mr. Martel: That is poppycock.
We are debating this issue tonight and the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) is not listening -- and we wonder how we are going to get a resolution of this.
Mr. Nixon: We are listening.
Mr. J. A. Reed: We are listening.
The Acting Speaker: Order, the member for Sudbury East has the floor and is speaking on the motion.
Mr. Martel: The real issue before us tonight is not interim supply. We are playing games. It is not interim supply. This is the only method the Opposition has at its disposal to get documentation on the biggest deal Ontario has ever entered into. The government has refused to provide even the most basic facts. The compendium last week was a lot of nonsense.
I am asking the government, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch), to consider two things. Let us divorce interim supply from the documentation for the moment. Let us say to the minister I and my friend from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) two weeks ago indicated to his House leader that we thought that five months was too long. We thought it should be a shorter time.
If one looks at the select committee report on interim supply, it recommended only four months. The standing orders say not more than six, but the select committee that studied interim supply "recommends that the motion for interim supply authorize the expenditure of the government for a period of four months rather than for a portion of the proposed total expenditure."
My friend from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and I said to the government House leader, "Look, five months is too long. Why do you not ask for two and then come back on the last day or during the last week of the Legislature, because we will have the windup speeches on the budget. The budget will be voted on then." On that occasion, we not only are approving the budget -- it is a crazy way of doing it, we should have done it last April, as they do in Ottawa -- but we have this crazy thing that we spend all the money and then after it is all spent, we then approve it, or nine twelfths of it.
8:10 p.m.
The minister should consider reducing his time to four or five weeks, as we recommended last night and as was moved by my leader, and then bring in another interim supply resolution if we approve this one. He could bring in another interim supply bill at the end of that time which would carry it until March. That would get us through the impasse of not paying civil servants, not paying the bills and people being short of money. We could then deal with the other issues.
Let me ask the Deputy Premier, the minister responsible for this purchase, if he would be prepared to sit down with the critics from the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, or maybe a small committee, and go through some of the documentation indicating why some of it is confidential and indicating what the minister can present to the members.
If at the end of five weeks we are not satisfied and the Liberals are not satisfied they have adequate information, we could come back and take another kick at the can on interim supply. Surely the government should be a little more flexible. I think they have to admit they started this whole process without even trying to meet the rules of the Legislature. They came in and threw together a couple of glossy documents that had no meaning.
I am putting two simple proposals to the minister: I am not attaching us getting the information to the interim supply because I think they are two distinct motions, but they leave us no alternative. Let us deal with it in two sections. We give him concurrence to get this through and we get it done with an indication it is only for four or five weeks. He accepts our amendment or the Liberal amendment. Then some time in the next seven or eight days he establishes a committee of a couple of people on his staff, himself, the Liberal critic, the NDP critic, maybe someone else and they sit down.
I am sure my friends in the Liberal Party would agree some material would be absolutely confidential. We respect the right of the government to retain that information. We are asking them to share with us the information that is available. I do not think that has been done in an honest and frank manner. I am not accusing anyone of lying or anything like that. I am just saying, maybe by oversight or something, it has not happened. We are at an impasse that is really simple to resolve if we deal with it in two distinct steps.
I would hope my friends to the right would agree to that if the Deputy Premier indicated he was prepared to follow that route. No one would lose face and we would get about the business of the province. I leave that proposal because if it came down to a vote on closure under rule 36 -- it might not be called closure -- the rules are simple. The government has at its disposal the right to end this at any time it wants simply because it has the numbers.
It is easy for some member to insist that the question be now put. It does not have to be the minister. It can be a back-bencher. It can be anyone. They can move it and it is not debatable. The Speaker determines whether there has been enough debate and the question is called.
I would not want to be in that position. I hope the government does not want to use that. I hope the government wants to be a little more flexible. I think they would find flexibility on this side in reaching some sort of agreement without anyone appearing to have lost face.
I put that to the acting Premier. I would hope that when he has an opportunity he could respond in a favourable light and I think the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk would agree that, if he gives us his word, he is prepared to establish a small committee to look at it. We did it when the Treasurer came over last January with the report on the auto industry. The minister came over and said certain materials were confidential. There was a minority government then. We could have forced it but we did not even try. We were prepared to accede to the request by the Treasurer at that time that some of the material be confidential. He crossed out some of the material and we accepted what he presented to us. The shoe was on the other foot and we were able to work out a satisfactory solution. The Treasurer is here now with the minister responsible for this deal -- they would be prepared to do the same now, and we could get on with the business of the province instead of this stalemate.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I have taken enough of the time of the House. I have put this proposal forward. I would certainly appreciate hearing the response of the Deputy Premier.
Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker --
The Acting Speaker: Is this a point of order?
Mr. Van Horne: I just want to carry on with the debate.
The Acting Speaker: I was taking the rounds. You have spoken, the New Democratic Party has spoken, and I was looking to this side if there was a speaker and then --
Mr. Van Horne: I am glad you did, Mr. Speaker, because that side has been noticeably silent over the past many hours. If the Deputy Premier wishes to speak, I hope we will have the opportunity to carry on with the debate, because I simply do not want, nor will I stand for, his standing up and cutting us off.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in our debate on interim supply. In doing so I think it is important to set the background with respect to many of the points to which members of the House are entitled to some reply and to some comment.
A great deal has been said in the debate with respect to the purchase of 25 per cent of the shares of Suncor. The key issue that has been raised, I think a very important issue -- in fact, all the points that have been raised during the course of this debate and in the question periods that have preceded it are very important -- and people are entitled to some exchange of information and some response from this side of the House. The key issue is whether the Legislature has been given sufficient information on the nature of the deal and on Suncor itself -- a very legitimate question, very legitimate concerns. In the context of that and as part of that has been the whole question and concerns as to the adequacy of the compendium that was filed.
I should like to recall for members what the Camp commission said -- and there has been a great deal said about this. My learned friend, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), was a very active member of that commission --
An hon. member: The Morrow commission.
Hon. Mr. Welch: -- or rather the Morrow commission, which followed up in the consideration of the Camp commission report. We should really use this opportunity to recall what the Camp commission said about a compendium. Indeed, we have been reminded as recently as this afternoon's question period what the rules of the Legislature now provide.
The Camp commission stated -- and I am now quoting from that report -- that in the British House of Commons, "We have noted that each item of new legislation" -- and I underline the word "legislation" -- "is accompanied by at least some of the relevant reports and studies undertaken by or available to the ministry. This compendium of background is prepared by the ministry and placed in the library at the time of the first reading for use of the members who may then use the material as background to familiarize themselves with the nature of the legislation. This is a sensible and indeed a simple process we would recommend for the consideration of the present ministries of Ontario." That is the end of the quotation found on page 50 of the Camp commission report.
Members of the Legislature will note the Camp commission only spoke in terms of a compendium as it relates to new legislation, not policy statements.
8:20 p.m.
Mr. Van Horne: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Earlier today we heard the Speaker -- you are the Acting Speaker as I understand it -- get into some definitions of what we have just heard from the Minister of Energy and the Deputy Premier. I would point out to you --
The Acting Speaker: Point of privilege.
Mr. Van Horne: This is a point of privilege. He is giving a definition of compendium and I submit to you that he is simply trying to stick it to us as an opposition and point out that we nave no rights. He is not right. I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a presentation to cut off debate in this House and it is wrong.
Hon. F. S. Miller: On that point of privilege --
The Acting Speaker: It was not a point of privilege, it was a point of view.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I think we have tried very hard on this side, through some of their speakers opposite in particular, to listen to whatever they said no matter how repetitious they became. I think the member should give us the opportunity to speak without interjecting.
The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of privilege or a point of order. The honourable Minister of Energy has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Welch: May I repeat, Mr. Speaker, so we do not lose context, the Camp Commission only spoke in terms of a compendium as it relates to new legislation, not to policy statements. Since then, the rules of the Legislature have been amended to state that "after any policy statement the minister shall table a compendium of background information," to quote from the standing orders.
Contrary to the allegations made in this debate and elsewhere, there is no precise definition of a compendium. There is no precise definition of what a compendium should comprise and there is no -- and I underline no -- five-day or other deadline imposed as to when the compendium should be tabled. Be that as it may, it is alleged the information which has been made available on this transaction, either by way of the compendium or by way of answers to questions tabled in the House is insufficient. However, the facts would suggest something quite different. A considerable amount of information -- and I would hope that members will bear with me as I go through this because they are entitled to have this information -- on the Suncor transaction and on the government's policy has, in fact, been tabled.
It includes the following: First of all, a policy statement by the Minister of Energy dated on October 10, 1980, in which it is specifically stated -- and I would point this out as it is a very important policy statement:
"That the Ontario Energy Corporation play an increasingly important role in helping to meet our energy security targets and reduce our dependency on foreign oil. New areas of emphasis for the corporation will include ... the Ontario Energy Corporation will actively seek opportunities to participate in the Canadianization of the oil and gas industry in line with the federal government's announced plans to reduce the level of foreign-ownership of the industry."
That was tabled a year ago as part of the policy statement made in this House. The Leader of the Opposition held up a summary of that and neglected to point out that, as part of that statement, was the expanded statement which was made one year ago in this House. This government made it quite clear that as far as an expanded role for the Ontario Energy Corporation was concerned, it would include this paragraph and a very important one, " ... that the Ontario Energy Corporation will actively seek opportunities to participate in the Canadianization of the oil and gas industry in line with the federal government's announced plan to reduce the level of foreign ownership of the industry."
In support of that policy statement, included as it was in the compendium, the Legislature was also provided as part of that compendium with copies of the government's policy statement entitled "Energy Security for the 1980s: A Policy for Ontario." Also included were excerpts on Canadianization taken from the federal government's national energy program.
Mr. Kerrio: Is 25 per cent Canadianization?
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Number two, also tabled --
Mr. Kerrio: Now who is he kidding? Twenty-five per cent is just a pittance. It is not Canadianization. Come on.
The Acting Speaker: The minister has the floor.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Why do you not play a part in it? Just listen.
The Acting Speaker: The minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Also tabled --
Mr. T. P. Reid: The Minister of Education cannot find money for the universities and the Minister of Energy is spending $650 million on Suncor.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The minister has the floor.
Mr. T. P. Reid: You are going to have to close some universities and he is blowing $650 million.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh, really?
Hon. Mr. Welch: Also tabled, Mr. Speaker, were the 1980 Suncor annual report and the first and second quarter 1981 report to the Suncor shareholders.
I think it is important and indeed revealing to examine just what kind of information these reports contain. I am sure that each member has read the reports line by line very carefully. But let me remind them what they would have read in those reports. May I briefly describe them.
Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. A point of privilege.
The Acting Speaker: What is this, a point of order or a point of privilege?
Mr. Van Horne: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: My privilege as a member is being abused horrendously by this government. They have simply not presented the compendium. The Deputy Premier is standing --
The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.
Mr. Van Horne: -- and suggesting that they have given the information to us --
The Acting Speaker: The minister is responding to this.
Mr. Van Horne: I will not take my seat, because he is simply not --
The Acting Speaker: The minister has the floor. I caution you that the minister has the floor and is responding to the questions that have been raised.
I am standing.
Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I will sit down one more time, but I want to hear --
The Acting Speaker: I caution the member for London North.
Mr. Van Horne: We are simply not getting the truth. This government is trying to strangle us. This government is trying to put the --
The Acting Speaker: Order. You will have an opportunity to participate in the debate. The minister has the floor; I ask you to respect his time.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Also tabled, Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, were the 1980 Suncor annual report and the first and second quarter 1981 report to the Suncor shareholders. It is revealing to examine --
Mr. Kerrio: Public knowledge.
Hon. Mr. Welch: That is not a bad interjection.
It is revealing to examine just what kind of information these reports contain. Let me very briefly describe them.
First, they spell out the financial status of the company, comparing the first half of 1981 with 1980 and 1979 in terms of revenues, earnings, funds from operations, purchases of properties and plant and equipment, shareholders' equity, earnings as a percentage of capital employed, earnings before extraordinary gains per common share, funds from operations per common share and dividends paid per preferred share.
Concerning Suncor's operations the reports spell out information on gross production of conventional oil and natural gas, liquid and synthetic crude oil, gross natural gas sales, crude oil processed at Suncor's refinery, sales of refined product, gross --
Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry --
The Acting Speaker: Is this a point of order? You do not have the floor. Is that a point of order or a point of privilege?
Mr. Van Horne: It is a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: Then I will hear your point of privilege.
Mr. Van Horne: I will not sit here and be subjected to this litany of nonsense. Either we are going to get the facts or we are not. The government is trying to put us in a position where we know nothing.
8:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker: The minister has the floor. That is not a point of privilege. You will have an opportunity to participate. Please take your seat.
Mr. Van Horne: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I cannot take my seat. I must submit to you --
The Acting Speaker: The member for London North has been warned. I would ask him to take his seat.
Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have been warned. I thank you for the warning. On behalf of the citizens of Ontario I must speak out against this government nonsense.
The Acting Speaker: The member for London North has not made a point of privilege or a point of order. I must name the member. I ask the Sergeant at Arms to remove him.
Mr. Van Horne: It is a pleasure to be removed from this nonsense.
Mr. Van Horne was escorted from the chamber by the Sergeant at Arms.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in terms of Suncor's operations, the report spells out information on gross production of conventional oil and natural gas, liquid and synthetic crude oil, gross natural gas sales, crude oil processed at Suncor's refinery, sales of refined products, gross proven reserves of conventional oil, natural gas liquids, synthetic crude oil and natural gas. Clearly a substantial amount of information on Suncor has been tabled and is available to the Legislature.
Mr. Wildman: It was public information that was available anyway.
Hon. Mr. Welch: With respect to the 10-K form referred to by the leader of the New Democratic Party last night, that information is essentially the same as in the Suncor annual report with the exception perhaps of the estimated value of its oil and gas reserves. However, I caution the members that the present value estimates given in the 10-K report are, "On the basis of certain mandating requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, including current prices and costs and the 10 per cent discount rate."
The 10-K report therefore may not reflect the company's view of revenues, earnings or present values, nor I would add does it necessarily represent the value placed on the reserves by our consultants.
The latest information on the Ontario Energy Corporation was also tabled, including a description of its mandate and its activities. In so far as the agreement to purchase 25 per cent of Suncor is concerned, I remind the members they have been provided with the following information:
1. An outline of the letter of commitment signed with Sun Company Incorporated, which deals with (a) the form of the purchase; (b) Canadianization; (c) possible further sales of shares; (d) minority shareholders; (e) frontierland exploration; (f) representation on the Suncor board; (g) dividend policy; and (h) the use of trademarks and patents.
2. A point-form rationale for why the government decided to purchase 25 per cent of Suncor.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The minister has the floor. I respectfully call upon the members to refrain from interjections.
Hon. Mr. Welch: 3. A point-form description of Suncor as a petroleum company and where it fits relative to other companies in the petroleum industry.
4. A chronology of the negotiations; and
5. A summary of the McLeod Young Weir valuation and a summary of the Price Waterhouse critique;
Also tabled was information on the financial and legal advisers to the Ontario Energy Corporation, the fees paid to date and the fact that there is no obligation or intention to pay a finder's fee.
By any measure, the information available to the Legislature and the public of this province generally on this transaction is considerable. It is about time that was stated as part of this debate. I should also advise that the government is committed to table the final agreements when these are negotiated. I repeat, we are committed to table the final agreements when these are negotiated. I think that is important. So the compendium and the information is as stated.
Mr. J. A. Reed: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to the Minister of Energy as he restated what he has sent across the House and described as a compendium. Surely the privileges of the members on this side --
The Acting Speaker: Would you quickly come to the point of privilege?
Mr. J. A. Reed: This is a point of privilege. You should listen to it. Mr. Speaker. Surely the privileges of the members on this side are being abused if the minister thinks --
The Acting Speaker: The honourable member will take his seat.
Mr. J. A. Reed: The minister sent that material across and claimed it was a compendium when it was not the material upon which he based the decision --
The Acting Speaker: The honourable member does not have the floor and he will please take his seat. The Minister of Energy has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Welch: I wonder if we might now turn to the issue of what has not been tabled and why. As members are aware --
Mr. McClellan: The minister is filibustering.
Mr. Kerrio: Why don't you admit it?
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister of Energy will continue.
Hon. Mr. Welch: That's the best tonight. As members are aware, in negotiations of this kind it is a very common practice for the two parties, the buyer and the seller, to hold preliminary discussions to determine whether there is any serious interest on either side to complete a deal. If there is, the seller agrees to provide detailed and confidential information to the buyer on the nature, the status and the future prospects of the business.
I should emphasize that this information is normally kept highly confidential and is not divulged to anyone outside the company for competitive reasons. In exchange for access to that information, the buyer undertakes to sign what is referred to as a confidentiality agreement. That is what the Ontario Energy Corporation has done, and the corporation is still bound by that agreement.
The agreement stipulates, and I am sure this is no surprise to anyone in the House who understands this type of negotiation, that the buyer will not divulge information gained about Suncor as a result of access to its files and through discussions with company officials. I repeat that such agreements are commonplace and are a commonsense means of protecting the interests of the seller.
8:40 p.m.
I should point out, as I will point out again during the course of these remarks, that our commitment is to Canadianization. There are more steps to be taken. There are other buyers to be attracted. This particular undertaking is essential to accomplish those goals of Canadianization about which I assume we agree. There are other buyers --
Mr. Martel: I don't want the other buyers. Take the other buyers.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Welch: There are other buyers, yes.
Interjections.
Hon. Mr. Welch: I should add that it is in the interest of the buyer also that this information not be prematurely released because the buyer, if he buys, assumes an ownership interest and thus also wants to preserve his competitive edge.
Mr. J. A. Reed: Then why did the minister announce it?
Hon. Mr. Welch: We talked about that in question period today.
Mr. J. A. Reed: Yes, we did.
Hon. Mr. Welch: My answer stands from question period today.
Mr. J. A. Reed: It wasn't much of an answer.
Hon. Mr. Welch: It happened to be factual.
Mr. J. A. Reed: That's not our information.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Obviously there is something wrong with the member's information. Let me tell him, I have checked all that out since question period.
Mr. Wildman: We don't have the information because you won't give it to us.
Hon. Mr. Welch: As the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) will know, in the negotiations with Suncor, the Ontario Energy Corporation signed a confidentiality agreement and, as a result, gained access to the Suncor data room. The data room is where the buyer can ask for confidential material to be assembled, including financial projections.
In addition, the buyer can, and in the case of the Ontario Energy Corporation did, receive presentations on Suncor's strategic plans. The McLeod Young Weir valuation report and the Price Waterhouse critique of that report contain information that was received in confidence from Suncor.
To understand the critical importance of maintaining confidentiality of valuation reports, can I, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, take a few moments to explain the way in which valuations of this kind are usually done?
Mr. Wildman: Dispense.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Are the members not interested in this information? What is all this debate about if the members do not want to know? Let it go on the record that the third party does not want to know. A lot of little people are going to be hurt because the members are putting on the charade of wanting to know when they really do not want to.
Mr. Cassidy: He means abridge, not dispense.
The Acting Speaker: The minister has the floor and is speaking to the motion.
Hon. Mr. Welch: With your encouragement, Mr. Speaker, may I go on?
The Acting Speaker: Speaking to the motion.
Hon. Mr. Welch: To understand the critical importance of maintaining confidentiality of valuation reports, can I take a few moments to explain the way in which valuations of this kind are usually done?
Historical information on production, reserves and financial results are useful as a starting point in reviewing the performance of a company but are not usually very helpful, I am told, in arriving at a true economic or market value of the assets of a company.
The techniques commonly used in such valuations depend on the available information, the characteristics of the investment or business and an assessment of the most appropriate valuation technique in the circumstance.
In other words, we rely on the experience and the expertise of professionals in the field of business evaluations to exercise judgement on the analysis and interpretation of the data. Much of this data involves future -- and I underline "future," because that has to be a very key consideration in the debate that has been going on in this House quite properly for a number of hours -- future estimates of such elements as prices, costs, capital expenditures, production, land values, earnings and choice of an appropriate discount rate to bring future cash flows back to a present value.
Mr. Kerrio: Why do we have to clean up their pollution? They're the biggest polluters in Alberta.
Hon. Mr. Welch: It is interesting the member should raise that point, because my good friend the Liberal House leader brought that up a couple of weeks ago. If the member would read the report Still Waters, which was made by the House of Commons, he would find that, as far as this company is concerned, it is obeying the law in the jurisdiction where it is located.
Strangely enough, that is what he would find if he really read all the paragraphs. We would not be associated with any corporation that was not obeying the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, and the report goes on to talk about that.
Mr. Kerrio: Not true.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Oh, wait a minute. I suggest to the member that he has not read the report because, if he had read the full paragraph, he would not say that. I ask all the members, if they have not read it yet, to read it. Take it home tonight. It is great reading, because that paragraph would suggest that this company is complying with all of the regulations of the province of Alberta, and they are very strict regulations. We would want it to be kept that way, would we not?
Mr. Kerrio: Now that we are done with the grandstanding, because you people do not understand the question --
The Acting Speaker: A point of order, please.
Mr. Kerrio: I ask the minister, with due respect, Mr. Speaker, a very important question. Are they the biggest --
The Acting Speaker: Honourable member, is this a point of order?
Mr. Kerrio: Yes.
The Acting Speaker: Please get to your point of order.
Mr. Kerrio: Yes. He made a very serious statement.
The Acting Speaker: It is not question period.
Mr. Kerrio: I ask the question.
The Acting Speaker: Your point of order, please.
Mr. Kerrio: I want to put the question, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: No, you cannot put the question.
Mr. Kerrio: Well, it is not a question.
The Acting Speaker: Mr. Kerrio, I would like to hear the point of order.
Mr. Kerrio: My point of order --
The Acting Speaker: Your point of order now.
Mr. Kerrio: I cannot put it with all the interjections.
If I have the ear of the House, the point that I want to make and that the minister is questioning me about is that I have stated -- and I want him to correct me if I am wrong on my point of order -- that the company we have bought into is the single largest polluter in Alberta. I want him to question that if I am wrong.
The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. The Minister of Energy has the floor, and I ask the House to be more attentive.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker --
Mr. Kerrio: Answer my question. Are they the single largest polluter in Alberta?
The Acting Speaker: It is not question period. Order, the minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, you will understand that we have a very special relationship, since the honourable member and I are neighbours. The point that was being made was that if you really go into the report to which reference was made, it is quite clear that they go on to talk in terms of wind velocities and a number of very important points, and they point out that this company is within and complying with the requirements of Alberta. They are obeying the letter and the spirit of the law. Is that not important? I ask the honourable member, is that not important? Even he obeys the law.
Mr. Kerrio: Are they the single largest polluter or are they not? He hasn't answered the question. They are the largest single polluter in Alberta and he knows it.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio); I have been listening on the squawk box, and you have been very inattentive. The minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to interrupt this presentation at this point to refer to an interjection by my good friend, my critic, the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. A. Reed), who asked why we had to make this disclosure, why I had to make the announcement, making some reference to the answer which I gave today.
I was questioned by the Leader of the Opposition on giving the reason for making the announcement on October 13, rather than waiting for the final agreement -- this was the point to which the honourable member was making some reference. In other words, the Leader of the Opposition called into question why it was necessary to make the announcement on October 13. What were all the rules and the regulations which required that particular announcement to be made at that time? That is what he said, if I am being fair in paraphrasing the exchange we had this afternoon.
8:50 p.m.
There happened to be three separate but related requirements for the Sun company in the United States to disclose this transaction as soon as the agreement had been reached; that is, the initial signing.
1. The timely disclosure rules of the New York Stock Exchange, section A.2, part 1, which are incorporated into the listing agreements of a company whose securities are traded on the exchange. These rules require disclosure of any material information having an impact on the prices of listed shares. Failure to comply could result in delisting the shares.
2. The Securities and Exchange Commission Act, section 10(b)(v), which is a broad administrative rule to prevent misleading statements, omissions of statements or other intent to defraud in connection with the purchase or sale of any securities. The application of this rule has generated considerable litigation on prompt disclosure by listed companies.
3. SEC Act mandatory reporting requirements, form 8-K. On completion of a transaction, there are two categories relevant to this issue:
(a) item 2 imposes filing requirements on the acquisition or disposition of a significant amount of assets, which has been deemed to include a transaction exceeding 10 per cent of total company assets. This sale of 25 per cent of Suncor shares is not covered by this provision since it represents only about five per cent of Sun's total assets;
(b) item 5 covers other materially important events, and Sun expects to file a form 8-K after closing the final agreements, with requirement to file within 45 days after closing.
In summary, while there is no requirement on Sun to file a form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission until final closing of the transaction, there were other stock exchange obligations on Sun to make prompt disclosure of such a materially important transaction as soon as agreement in principle had been reached.
I think it is important, and no doubt the member for Halton-Burlington will telephone the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith), who is comfortable at home, and give him that particular information.
Mr. Kerrio: Are there any Tories over there? Are there any Tories left at all?
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Halton-Burlington on a point of privilege. Will the member for Niagara Falls allow his colleague a point of privilege?
Mr. J. A. Reed: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister has stated that there essentially is no obligation until after the event because of the percentage of assets involved here being less than 10 per cent of the assets of Sun Oil. That confirms a statement from the office of the chief counsel, international division, corporate finance, which says: "There is no obligation" --
Hon. Mr. Welch: No. I did not say that.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order. I want to bring to the member's attention that I am having difficulty, under standing orders, finding out which particular section his point of order falls under. Quite frankly, I cannot find that section. As a result, I ask him to resume his seat, and we will allow the minister to continue with the debate.
Mr. J. A. Reed: I will change it to a point of privilege.
The Deputy Speaker: Well, try on a point of privilege.
Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, the honourable minister has tried to make an excuse for making the announcement when he did, on the basis of US securities regulations. The office of the chief counsel, international division, corporate finance, says: "There is no obligation on the government of Ontario" --
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to bring to the member's attention that I have difficulty finding the point of privilege in his particular point of privilege. I am sorry I do not. I ask him to resume his seat, and we will allow the Minister of Energy to continue with the debate.
Mr. J. A. Reed: With respect --
The Deputy Speaker: There is no respect required. We are asking him to resume his seat. I want to bring to the member's attention that I have asked officially the first time. Will he please -- thank you very much. The Minister of Energy.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if I could go back to the --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Continuing with the debate.
Hon. Mr. Welch: The evaluation, if I could go back to that particular question, also normally involves, and did involve in the case of our evaluation of Suncor, interviews with senior management of Sun and Suncor, and independent technical opinions on key areas of operation as well as a detailed interpretation of recent market acquisitions by comparable companies.
It is clear that a company's competitive position would be severely undermined if others were able to have access to its market analysis, strategic plans, future financial projections and, perhaps most important, the views and outlook of the management of the company with respect to its future goals and objectives. That information is not contained in annual reports or in 10-K forms.
At this point, in the spirit of being helpful, I wonder if I might turn to the matter of the rate of return expected from this investment, because I think people quite rightly have been raising questions along this line during question period.
Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: So there is no misunderstanding on the importance of the acquisition of Suncor, and particularly its position as a major polluter in Alberta, I just want to bring to your attention and to the attention of the minister, who obviously is ill informed in this connection, the report entitled Still Waters published by the Parliament of Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: I want to bring to the member's attention that I am having difficulty with his point of order.
Mr. Nixon: On page 73 it says that the two tar sand plants at Fort McMurray emit about 20 per cent --
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am having difficulty with your point of order under standing orders. How, under the standing orders, has your point of order been brought?
Mr. Nixon: I was just trying to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the minister when, in his comments a few moments ago, he was trying to persuade you and the other members of the House that this was not a major polluter, not something that should concern us. But the government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada have said that the Suncor synthetic oil plant is the largest point source for SO in the province --
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The point may or may not be well taken. The problem is that I have difficulty under the standing orders in accepting your point of order, although you have gotten it in already.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a difference between that particular quotation and the expression that was used by the member for Niagara Falls. My point is simply that this particular company is complying with the law and the requirements of Alberta. It says so in that report.
Mr. Kerrio: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: it does not say anywhere there --
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, your colleague has a point of order.
Mr. Kerrio: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I hope you might wait until I have finished making my point of order before you decide that I am out of order, which you have done now on three different occasions.
The Deputy Speaker: That is right, but I have a serious problem with that.
Mr. Kerrio: The point of order I was attempting to make, during which I was interrupted two or three times, was that the company that --
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I will listen to you if you begin by stating the specific section under the standing orders your point of order refers to.
Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, instead of dictating what the specific area of the standing orders is, I would like to say I am standing here to correct the record. The question I raised with the minister was whether he would not agree that it is the single largest point polluter in that province. Whether or not it is within the limits of Alberta, I ask him to tell me if they are the single largest point polluter.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Minister of Energy, never mind responding to his inquiries. Carry on, please.
9 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I will not respond to his inquiries. I will follow your instructions because, whatever is in the report, neither the member for Niagara Falls nor I can change. I invite members of the House to read the report. The report stands on its own.
It is clear that a company's competitive position --
Mr. Kerrio: Are they the single largest point polluter or are they not?
Hon. Mr. Welch: I cannot change the report. Whatever is in the report is there to be read.
Mr. Kerrio: Are they the single largest point polluter or are they not?
An hon. member: It has nothing to do with it. Throw him out.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a legitimate point of order. The point of order I rise on is that of requesting you to enforce the rules of this House more closely. We have Boy Scouts in the gallery. In the circus that is evident here tonight it seems that the Liberals insist on being the clowns.
The Deputy Speaker: Your point of order is well taken. I remind all members that the chair can only do so much. Every member has the obligation to try to live up to his personal responsibilities under the standing orders.
Mr. Kerrio: On that point, Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold is certainly entitled to speak to whatever he thinks is a point of order. And I can understand it if that member is an expert on clowns, because that whole party is a bunch of clowns.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, order. Member for Niagara Falls, I think I have been extremely patient with you. Let me inform you that I am asking you -- now you have taken your seat. I appreciate that. That is once.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I would like to carry on now, because I am sure the Young Progressive Conservatives of Scarborough East want to hear; I wonder if, at least for those young people, we might turn to the matter of the rate of return expected from this investment.
We have said that we do not expect a minimum return of about 15 per cent, but we do, of course, anticipate that the return will be higher. We are purchasing an equity interest, and I think it is important that we get this --
Mr. Martel: Could the minister repeat that? I did not get it.
Hon. Mr. Welch: The minimum return will be 15 per cent, but we are considering the return to be even higher. We are purchasing --
Mr. Cassidy: Is that a dividend yield?
Hon. Mr. Welch: I am going on to explain that.
We are purchasing an equity interest in a well-established and expanding oil and gas company, which we believe to be well positioned to take advantage of existing and new business opportunities in the years ahead. Our return on investment will, of course, accrue not only from profits distributed from dividends but also from the increased value of the company, from the reinvestment of retained earnings and, in addition to that, from appreciation of the company's assets such as oil and gas land holdings.
As far as cash flow is concerned, the dividends to be received by Ontario will depend on future earnings and the ratio of dividends to be paid out on a regular basis. The normal dividend policy in comparable Canadian integrated oil companies is in the range of 20 to 40 per cent, and this will be an item for further negotiations with the other shareholder, which is the Sun Oil Company Limited.
Finally on this topic, let me deal with the interest costs. Since there is a need to distinguish between the 15 per cent and the 17 per cent figures that are being discussed, the final financing arrangements are still under review, as I have already said, but we are contemplating the financing of 50 per cent of the purchase by way of a loan from the seller.
If we were to assume for the purpose of illustration in this contribution to this debate that the interest rate on closing is agreed to be 17 per cent over 10 years -- and I stress that it has not yet been set -- then on the basis of our assumptions about the future earnings of this company and its dividend policy, we expect the dividends to the Ontario Energy Corporation will cover the interest costs of the outstanding debt over the 10-year period.
I can understand the natural inclination of members of the opposition to want to see the detailed valuation report, and I think that should be on the record. The fact is that common sense and prudence suggest it really is not a practical course of action at this time. What has been tabled, however, is a summary of the conclusions of these two companies clearly indicating that the price to be paid for 25 per cent of Suncor is within the range of value established by these two companies. That is important.
Also, we should not forget that a primary objective of this purchase is to facilitate the Canadianization of Suncor. As we know, the Sun company has undertaken to sell an additional 26 per cent of its shares so that a majority of its shares and control of Suncor will be in the hands of Canadians. That is not a bad objective. That is very important to understand. I know members agree with that. I am confident the members for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) and Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. A. Reed) surely would want to join in the chorus. I am confident it is an objective that is shared by the majority of Canadians -- the Canadianization of oil and gas in this country.
It would be important if the premature disclosure of confidential and competitive information, as requested by the members opposite, undermined the ability -- may I just make this point because we are still --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Please keep in mind that the Canadianization process is still under way. It would be very unfortunate if we undermined the ability of the Sun company to sell additional shares to Canadians. Surely prudence would dictate that we should guard against that eventuality. Within the next few weeks the Sun company expects to be entering into a new round of negotiations with other Canadian buyers in order to sell the remaining 26 per cent of its shares. I would remind members these are for sale.
Sun will be asking those buyers to enter into the same kind of confidential agreement as the Ontario Energy Corporation has and it would be ironic, it would be counterproductive to Sun's efforts, if the information it feels other buyers should hold in confidence was tabled in the Ontario Legislature before those negotiations were completed.
As members know, a number of independent financial analysts and others have commented very favourably on this deal and perhaps it would be useful to recall some of those comments. I am sure many members have heard or read them. John Dawe, the business editor of Global TV, had this to say about the transaction: "I think the federal government can learn a thing or two from the Ontario government when it comes to investments. The purchase of 25 per cent of the Canadian arm of the Sun Oil company will cost Ontario $650 million, but according to oil experts that is only about one-third of the replacement value of the assets that the investment represents."
Another analyst said Ontario paid less for Suncor's cash flow than Dome Petroleum Limited paid for the cash flow of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited -- in fact, almost half as much. Richard Hallisey, analyst with First Marathon Securities, had this to say, "Ontario has struck a good bargain. It would cost about $6 billion to build an identical oil sands plant today."
9:10 p.m.
John Stevens, analyst with Brown, Baldwin, Nisker Limited, said, "It is a very profitable plant and it has many years of production left." Denis Mote, oil analyst, said, "Ontario's price of $50 a share for Suncor was a good one compared with some of the prices paid by free enterprise companies that have been scrambling for foreign companies. Dome paid a price equivalent to 11 times the cash generated by Hudson's Bay while Ontario paid an equivalent of six times Suncor's cash."
Ted Schrecker, an independent energy consultant in Ottawa, said, "In the long term anything that increases the Canadianization of the oil industry is going to have an effect in terms of increasing Canadian control over decisions made within the industry, so in the long run it is definitely a good deal for consumers."
Listen to this from our brothers and sisters in Alberta. The Treasurer of Alberta said, "Ontario has made a good move by encouraging Canadian ownership."
[Applause.]
Mr. Samis: You didn't have to turn around to get applause, you know.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Just in case I forget it -- I know my honourable friend the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) would not want me to forget this part of this quotation from that great Canadian, the Treasurer of Alberta --
Mr. Samis: Oh, yes, how about Darcy McKeough?
Hon. Mr. Welch: Listen to what this man said, "It is feasible --
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, you would be interested to know --
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, would you simply ask the Minister of Energy why, if this is such a good deal, they don't take 51 per cent all at once?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I know you would want to know what Lou Hyndman, the Treasurer of Alberta, said: "It is reasonable for the energy consuming provinces to have a say." Isn't that very significant?
Let me quote what the federal Liberal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had to say about this --
Mr. Cassidy: You didn't get a window. You got a porthole.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would submit to a question. Will he read some of the quotations of his federal leader? What does Joe Clark have to say?
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The member for Rainy River will resume his seat.
Hon. Mr. Welch: The federal energy minister, Marc Lalonde, said this was a welcome development, praised the Ontario purchase and said he felt there should be provincial involvement in the Canadianization process outlined in the national energy program.
Mr. Martel: How does it feel to be a Socialist?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of Energy has the floor.
Mr. Martel: Welcome to the club. Come on over. We want to help you here.
Hon. Mr. Welch: How much does it cost?
Mr. J. A. Reed: You'll have to learn Solidarity Forever.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Let's sing Solidarity Forever.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of Energy has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the opposition has stated its concerns quite clearly and quite forcefully. That happens to be its role and I respect that role, but there are other realities in this debate.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of Energy has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Welch: The business of government must proceed in an orderly manner. While dissent is the spice of democracy, decisions have to be taken at some time. It is clear from the record that the House has considerable information at its disposal on this transaction. Moreover, it is clear there are legitimate reasons why it is not appropriate to provide the kind of information being sought.
Mr. Epp: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister is deliberately misleading the House by telling us we have a lot of information available when in fact he has not --
Mr. Speaker: The member will please withdraw his remarks.
Mr. Epp: Flirting with the truth, then.
Mr. Speaker: Withdraw.
Mr. Epp: I will withdraw them. It is at variance with the facts anyway.
Hon. Mr. Welch: It is clear from the record that the House has considerable information at its disposal on this transaction. Moreover, it is clear there are legitimate reasons why it is not appropriate to provide the kind of information being sought by the opposition at this time. Clearly, it would not be in the interests of Suncor, Sun Oil Company, the Ontario public or Canadians generally to have this additional information tabled at this time.
It is with this in mind that I would urge the House to turn its attention now to the basic issue that is before us -- namely to pass interim supply so that urgent government business can proceed without unnecessary and harmful interruption. It is absolutely important that we recognize the implications of what we are doing here this evening. Regardless of what people's feelings may be with respect to all these big, broad philosophical issues --
Mr. Nixon: You are not thinking of cutting off the debate. You are not thinking of closure.
Hon. Mr. Welch: -- we have school boards, municipalities, children's aid societies, recipients of payments from the Ontario hospital insurance plan, and thousands of civil servants who are waiting for their payday on Thursday. It would be absolutely unthinkable for us to be a party to denying those people their pay on Thursday.
I want to share something with the House personally and as deeply as I feel it. As much as I regret this predicament, I could not sleep tonight without doing all I can to make sure mental retardation programs and everyday ordinary people who are depending on their pay on Thursday, get it, irrespective of the partisan posturing going on on the other side of this House.
Why should mental retardation programs and employees who have performed their duties be held hostage in view of the fact we have provided this information? Let us get on with the business of looking after them.
Mr. Speaker, I move that this question be now put.
9:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Di Santo: Arrogant bastards.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview, I am sorry I did not hear that.
Mr. Di Santo: I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you.
Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The question before the House is that this question be now put.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order that I believe is in order.
Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The question before the House --
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, before you put the question I would ask you to listen to my point of order: rule 36 of the Legislature.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if you are going to hear a point of order, I was on my feet as soon as anyone else. The official opposition has the responsibility of advising you, and I suggest to you that in a position of this importance you should seek advice before you accept such a motion, which is patently out of order.
Mr. Speaker: I have indeed, and I would suggest, with all respect --
Mr. Roy: You are not going to listen to the opposition. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Speaker: No, that is not what I am saying.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The question before the House is that this question be now put.
Mr. Nixon: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order. There is --
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
Mr. Nixon: It is standing order 36.
Mr. Speaker: I understand standing order 36.
An hon. member: Then read it.
Mr. Speaker: I shall indeed.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Ottawa Centre will please resume his chair.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. You are out of order. The member for Ottawa Centre will please resume his seat.
Mr. Cassidy: I have a point of order that I wish to put.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the member for Ottawa Centre that he is out of order and if he does not resume his seat I shall name him.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker --
Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre is so named and shall leave this sitting. Sergeant at Arms, will you escort the member out, please?
Mr. Cassidy was escorted from the chamber by the Sergeant at Arms.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Nixon: You should make room for a little advice, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have indeed.
Mr. Nixon: You have every right to make a ruling but not until you hear the points of order. It states clearly in the book of rules here --
Mr. Speaker: Order. When the Speaker is on his feet, you shall resume your chair.
Mr. Nixon: I am fully prepared to do that as long as you --
Mr. Speaker: Well, please do.
Mr. Nixon: -- are sensible enough at least to hear the views of the opposition --
Mr. Speaker: I shall assure you that the Speaker is sensible enough. Please resume --
Mr. Nixon: It is incredible that you would undertake such a procedure. It is clearly out of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Nixon: This is the first time this has ever happened. Why can't you listen to the arguments before you make a ruling? You're absolutely impossible.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk will please resume his seat.
Mr. Nixon: I will not until you give us a point of order. You must hear the points of order before you make a ruling. That's all you've got to do: hear the points of order and then make a ruling.
Mr. Speaker: I would direct the member, with all respect, to standing order 36.
Mr. Nixon: I have standing order 36.
Mr. Speaker: I am not going to debate it. It is quite clear. Will the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk please resume his seat.
Mr. Nixon: You're not even prepared to listen to an alternative.
Mr. Speaker: There is no alternative.
Mr. Nixon: There is, sir.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Interjections.
Mr. Nixon: Under the circumstances, I have no alternative but to tell you, sir, that there is an alternative which I will read to you.
Mr. Speaker: Order. You are out of order. You leave me no alternative but to name you and ask you to withdraw for the balance of the sitting.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Why don't you name all of us, then?
Mr. Smith: The Speaker is incompetent.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of opinion, and I caution you.
Mr. Smith: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is steeped in the traditions of this House, and you are not.
Interjections.
Mr. Kerrio: Can you not make a point of order any more in this House?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I realize what you are saying, and I have all kinds of sympathy for what you are doing.
Mr. Roy: You're not showing it.
Mr. Smith: Hear our points.
Mr. Speaker: I have indeed. There is no precedent --
Mr. Smith: I am calling a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no precedent for the ruling that is being made.
Mr. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker suspended the proceedings of the House at 9:30 p.m.
9:53 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: After consultation with my advisers and the House leaders, I am persuaded that the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Cassidy) and the House leader of the official opposition (Mr. Nixon) shall be unnamed and shall be allowed to put their points of order forward.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I would like you to give me an interpretation of rule 36, which states: "The previous question, which may be moved without notice or a seconder, until it is decided shall preclude all amendments of the main question, and shall be in the following words: 'That this question be now put.' Unless it appears to the chair that such motion is an abuse of the standing orders of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate."
Is it your ruling that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), having risen in his place, and the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), having risen in his place, that constitutes a debate? If it does not constitute a debate, on what grounds can you recognize any other member rather than for the express purpose of putting the question as is called for under the standing order? What possible basis could there be for you to recognize an honourable member without placing the previous question, as called for in article 36? I would like your interpretation of that, please.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for Lake Nipigon for raising that point. I do not have any difficulty with it, and I find it absolutely clear in its intent. However, in order to move on with the business of the House, by persuasion at the request of the members and, as I said before, because there is no precedent for what we are doing tonight, I am persuaded by the House leaders of both the Liberal and the New Democratic parties to listen to the points of order, although they are not provided for. By that common agreement, by that compromise if you will, I have unnamed the member for Ottawa Centre and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk to hear what they feel are legitimate points of order.
Mr. McClellan: But the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk wasn't named.
Mr. Speaker: Indeed he was. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has the floor.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, we are debating a motion for interim supply. The provisions of the motion have been amended. We have proposed an amendment from the official opposition and a second amendment is before the House from the New Democratic Party.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, it is this particular circumstance that indicates rule 36 is not clear in its provisions. Under the provisions of our standing orders, it is your requirement that we base our decision on not only the usages and precedents of this Legislature but also parliamentary tradition.
When the government House leader made his motion that the motion be now put -- unseconded, not required by the rules -- he was putting a motion that would be predicated on the main motion, whereas we in this House are debating an amendment to the amendment.
I want to bring your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the provisions in the eighteenth edition of Erskine May, on page 372, which state as follows, "The previous question has been moved upon various stages of a bill but cannot be moved upon an amendment." It is quite clear that the House is debating an amendment to the original resolution, and the rules of parliamentary practice established in the United Kingdom and elsewhere say that it cannot be moved upon an amendment.
10 p.m.
In looking at the footnotes of that rule, it indicated a clear precedent in the annals of the Parliament at Westminster, and it is an old one but clearly understandable. It is taken from the British Hansard of July 10, 1872. On page 926, Colonel Stuart Knox moved the previous question, I submit to you, sir, just as the government House leader did a few moments ago. Mr. Speaker said that the motion just proposed was not in order and could not be made before the amendment actually before the House had been disposed of.
So your argument, and the argument made by the former Speaker, that all of these motions must be deemed to be in order and put without further comment surely does not make sense when there is at least a reasonable precedent indicating that a similar motion was thrown out by one of your illustrious predecessors in the Parliament of the United Kingdom because he found that it was not in order.
When the motion was put, I rose immediately to bring this to your attention. At the time you chose not to listen to the point of order. I am very grateful that you have reconsidered, and I ask you, sir, to think very clearly that this precedent parallels specifically what has happened in this House. This precedent finds the motion out of order, and I suggest to you, sir, that you should also find it out of order.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre on the same point of order.
Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wished to rise some 25 minutes ago on a different but related point of order, which relates to the interpretation of the chair of standing order 36, a standing order that is in this book which came into force a few years ago but which has not been invoked in this Legislature for probably well over half a century. There is no person in this Legislature today who knows when closure was previously put in this Legislature.
I regretted the fact very deeply that you refused to listen to the point of order, because it is my understanding that a point of order is in order at all times, although it is obviously open to the chair to accept or reject points of order when they are put.
The point I was raising, and I consulted the standing orders when it became apparent that the government intended to consider closure, was the following: Standing order 36, after stating the wording for the closure motion, states, "Unless it appears to the chair that such motion is an abuse of the standing orders of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate."
In other words, the question is to be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate unless the chair believes that the motion is an abuse of the standing orders of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority.
The point of order I wished to raise was that in my opinion as a member of this House the closure motion that was put in this House this evening is not only an abuse of the standing orders of this House but also an infringement of the rights of the minority: that is, the opposition parties.
Last Friday, the government asked us in 90 minutes to pass some $7 billion worth of expenditure of interim supply to take it through to the end of the year. Then they objected to the fact that there was a debate. Alternative means were available to the government to get interim supply. There is an amendment before the House which would give them interim supply for the coming month while the question of the disclosure of information which provoked the debate could be settled.
Given the traditions of our Canadian parliaments, both the House of Commons and the provincial legislatures, in which closure has not been used, is never resorted to and is an unacceptable tool in the hands of the government, particularly a majority government, it is an abuse of the minority in this Legislature for the government to come in now after only two and a half days of debate and invoke closure in this particular case.
The abuse of the standing orders of the House is quite simply that rule 26 says, "After any policy statement the minister shall table a compendium of background information." A great deal of debate took place on that particular subject, but I continue to believe it is an abuse of the standing orders of this House that on the question of the $650-million purchase of 25 per cent of Suncor the government refused to provide an adequate compendium in line with the rules that are in the standing orders.
I therefore felt, Mr. Speaker, that I had no alternative but to seek to bring those questions to your attention. I ask you, as an independent servant of all parties in this Legislature, to rule that on those two grounds this is an improper motion of closure and that it should not now be put.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted some comments on the points to which you have been asked to give consideration, I draw attention to the precise wording of standing order 36, if I may repeat it for the purpose of clarification: "The previous question, which may be moved without notice or a seconder, until it is decided" -- may I draw the Speaker's attention to the following words? -- "shall preclude all amendment of the main question."
That wording, as precise as it is, addresses itself to the point to which my honourable friend the House leader of the official opposition has drawn attention, that we are fairly precise in the wording of that rule: all amendment of the main question is precluded and therefore the question is directed to the main question.
Mr. Smith: To me, the main question has never even been debated.
Hon. Mr. Welch: The main question was introduced as the reason for the whole debate.
Mr. Smith: We have been debating the amendments until now.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Whatever we may have been debating, we have the main question and we have some amendments, but the rule is fairly specific about which question the particular question before the House now is directed to.
Without attempting to be provocative, and I say this quite seriously, this particular rule was invoked at an evening session in this House in 1979, to my recollection, by the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) on two or three occasions. I think we should have the record quite clear with respect to that matter.
Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The same point of order?
Mr. Cassidy: The point of order that has been raised by the minister, to which I have had no --
Mr. Speaker: That was the previous point of order, with all respect.
Mr. Cassidy: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it was not.
Mr. Speaker: All right. I shall hear what you are going to say.
Mr. Cassidy: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. According to Beauchesne, paragraph 334(5), it says quite clearly that a motion for closure applies not only to the main motion under debate but also to such amendments as may be moved to that motion.
Without going into all the ramifications of the section on closure in the British House, in Erskine May it is quite clear there that once a motion for closure, which is often used in the British House, has been moved and has been accepted by the House, then the consequential votes are taken. In other words, if it is an amendment that is under consideration, you can go on to other things; if a series of votes has to be taken, all of those votes, it appears, can be taken.
I am very disturbed at the suggestion by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) that the government now also intends to seek to abuse the rules of this House in order that there will not even be a vote on the amendment I put forward, a constructive amendment that would allow the government to pay the civil servants and would allow supply to be voted without giving the government five months of supply in one go, in a vote in which the government members can stand up and be counted on that very useful kind of compromise.
I urge you to rule, as I believe is correct, that the main motion under consideration right now is the amendment I moved in this House at this time last evening, which would have shortened interim supply until the end of November.
Subsequent to that, without any further debate -- as my understanding of the rules would be -- we then move on to the amendments by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith) and subsequently to the original motion, which came forward from the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). That would certainly be in accordance with our Canadian traditions as I have enunciated to you from Beauchesne.
10:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and the member for Ottawa Centre for raising their individual points of order and reflecting what is quite clearly an uncharted course.
I would have to say in response to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, I am well aware of the point that he raised and to which he spoke. However, I would have to rule that the point of order is out of order, as suggested by my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), because, if we read standing order 36, and I would like to quote it:
"36. The previous question, which may be moved without notice or a seconder, until it is decided shall preclude all amendment of the main question, and shall be in the following words: 'That this question be now put.' Unless it appears to the chair that such motion is an abuse of the standing orders of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate. If the previous question is resolved in the affirmative, the original question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate."
To me, that is quite clear in that it does refer to the original question.
Mr. Sargent: You are talking closure then.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am talking about standing order 36. With all respect, I would have to find the point of order raised by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk out of order.
In dealing with the question raised by the member --
Mr. Smith: I challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Both Beauchesne and Erskine May are very clear on the matter, and I challenge your ruling.
10:25 p.m.
The House divided on the Speaker's ruling, which was upheld on the following vote:
Ayes
Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell;
Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.
Nays
Boudria, Bradley, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Nixon, O'Neil, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Riddell, Roy, Ruston, Samis, Sargent, Smith, Spensieri, Swart, Sweeney, Wildman, Wrye.
Ayes 61; nays 39.
10:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: In dealing with the second point of order, which the member for Ottawa Centre raised regarding the infringement of the rights of the minority, I would point out to all the honourable members that there have been 12 speakers on this motion --
Mr. Smith: No. On the amendment, not on the motion.
Hon. Mr. Sterling: We were not talking about any amendment.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Not including the Treasurer, there have been five Liberals, five members of the New Democratic Party and two members of the Progressive Conservative Party, and approximately 10 hours of debate. I find it very difficult to accept that there has been an infringement on the rights of the minority, and I would rule that point of order out of order.
Mr. Cassidy: Shame, Mr. Speaker. I cannot accept that, and I challenge your ruling.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
The House divided on the Speaker's ruling, which was upheld on the following vote:
Ayes
Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell;
Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.
Nays
Boudria, Bradley, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Grande, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Nixon, O'Neil, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Riddell, Roy, Ruston, Samis, Sargent, Smith, Spensieri, Swart, Sweeney, Wildman, Wrye.
Ayes 62; nays 39.
The House divided on Mr. Welch's motion that the question be now put, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes
Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell;
Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.
Nays
Boudria, Bradley, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Nixon, O'Neil, Philip; Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Riddell, Roy, Ruston, Samis, Sargent, Smith, Spensieri, Swart, Sweeney, Wildman, Wrye.
Ayes 61; nays 40.
10:40 p.m.
Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It is my understanding that there are now two amendments to the original motion for supply and after they have been dealt with we then move to the original motion of supply. Perhaps the Speaker can explain what procedure will be taken on the three motions that are now before the House, because I believe the original motion referred to in the bottom line of rule 36 would be the amendment that I put in this House last night.
Mr. Speaker: I think that matter has already been dealt with in the interpretation of rule 36, with all respect, and indeed was concurred in by the member for Lake Nipigon. It is quite clear that standing order 36 says: "The previous question, which may be moved without notice or a seconder, until it is decided shall preclude all amendment of the main question ..."
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: Rule 36 says at the end, "If the previous question is resolved in the affirmative," which has now happened, much to my regret, "the original question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate."
The original question that was being discussed in the House, and had been discussed since about 3:30 this afternoon, was the amendment that I put at 10:15 last night. I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that if you rule otherwise, then you have now taken it a further step, because you are muzzling the opportunity and the right of the opposition to have amendments voted upon here in the Legislature. Will you rule on that?
Mr. Speaker: As I stated earlier, standing order 36 is quite clear, and notwithstanding the remarks made by the member for Ottawa Centre in referring to that last sentence in the standing order, it says, "If the previous question is resolved in the affirmative," which it was, "the original question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate." With all respect, the previous question has indeed been resolved in the affirmative. It is now time for the original question.
Mr. Cassidy: You are just a puppet in the hands of the government.
Mr. Speaker: You are showing, with all respect, a complete lack of understanding of the standing orders of this House.
The House divided on Mr. F. S. Miller's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes
Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell;
Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.
Nays
Boudria, Bradley, Breithaupt, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Nixon, O'Neil, Philip; Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Riddell, Roy, Ruston, Samis, Sargent, Smith, Spensieri, Swart, Sweeney, Wildman, Wrye.
Ayes 61; nays 41.
10:50 p.m.
Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I just do not know what I am supposed to do now. Members of the Legislature are often asked to address groups such as 4-H clubs to talk about parliamentary procedure. We have always --
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Huron-Middlesex has the floor.
Mr. Riddell: We have always told them that an amendment to a motion is voted on first or an amendment to an amendment to a motion. If that amendment is lost, then the amendment is voted on and, if that is lost, then the original motion is voted on. What do we tell these groups when we address them now, because obviously you have changed parliamentary procedure?
Mr. Speaker: Order. With all respect, I suggest that the member for Huron-Middlesex read standing order 36, make copies of standing order 36, and send them out to all those people who may be interested in knowing. The alternative I would suggest would be for members of this House to change, if they so desire, standing order 36.
The House adjourned at 10:53 p.m.