1981-07-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, Canada has some 40 billion to 50 billion barrels of heavy oil amenable to in situ recovery. The Cold Lake heavy oil plant is the first commercial heavy oil plant, so what is at stake is not only oil supply but also commercialization of new technology which is vital to Canada's future oil self-sufficiency. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko):
That this House recognize the collapse of this project as a national emergency and request that the Prime Minister immediately involve himself directly and fully in negotiating an energy agreement with Alberta.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, in light of the fact that VIA Rail has notified the government of its intention to abandon a number of passenger services, in particular the Esquimalt and Nanaimo railway service running from Victoria to Courtenay, British Columbia; in light of the order by the Canadian Transport Commission to keep that passenger service running; in view of the historic commitment inherited by VIA Rail to provide passenger service up the east coast of the island, and in light, finally, of the difficulty once a rapid transit route or system is abandoned to get it started up again, and the future needs in the area for such a system, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon);
That the government reject the application of VIA Rail to eliminate its passenger service on the E & N and require it to refrain from further announcements of this sort unless or until further public hearings are called.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the damage done to the process of collective bargaining in the postal strike by the statements of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and his colleagues, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre):
That this House urges the Leader of the Opposition to undergo lessons in industrial relations so that his party in future disputes may be better able to act in the public interest.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has announced his intention to visit President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania in August. Since President Nyerere has an astonishing record of brutality against those who oppose him politically, and an unenviable record on human rights, as recorded by Amnesty International, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the House urges the Prime Minister to discuss the matter of human rights with President Nyerere and urge him to bring a sense of humanity to his troubled country.

July 15, 1981
5.0.	43


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VIA RAIL
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. While most of the industrialized countries in the world are making massive investments in modernizing and expanding their rail passenger service, the Government of Canada wants to reduce passenger routes in Canada drastically. It forces VIA Rail to operate as CP and CN did, that is, if a passenger train is run old enough, late enough, slow enough, and dirty enough, nobody will get on it and the route can be abandoned. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) lays a bum rap on VIA Rail, complaining about the subsidy to VIA, and conveniently forgets to mention that all other modes of transportation receive billions of dollars in direct and indirect subsidies from the public purse. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House calls upon the government to (1) retain all present passenger routes; (2) provide VIA Rail with additional funds to invest in more new equipment, such as, at least ten more new train sets and expanded passenger routes; and, (3) provide full policy support to VIA Rail so that in a few years it can succeed so well that the taxpayers investment will be more than repaid.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. Whereas the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) personally asked at least six candidates to run for his party in the Spadina byelection, Mr. Gordon Chong, Mr. Allan Eagleson, Mr. Richard Kirkup, Mr. Ron Atkey, Mr. David Kadis and Mrs. Laura Sabia, and whereas only Mrs. Sabia, after some reluctance, agreed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson):
That this House extends sympathy to the Leader of the Opposition for his inability to motivate members of his own party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Crosbie:: Give Coutts the boots.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, in light of alarming statements made in the House yesterday, since confirmed by company management, that Budd Automotive of Kitchener is faced with the possibility of the lay-off of 45 per cent of its employees; and in light of the proposed sale of certain segments of the Uniroyal operation in Kitchener to A.B. Becker of Sweden, which has already resulted in over two dozen salaried employees being let go, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce state publicly that his department is working to ensure that frames for General Motors cars will continue to be fabricated in Canada, and that any approval by FIR A for the sale of portions of the Kitchener Uniroyal general products plant will not be made without the condition of sale including protection for long-term Canadian employees.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, the provincial governments that now employ the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under contract have been forced to consider other methods of providing police services because of the onerous and unreasonable financial demands of the federal government. In order to ensure both the continuance of the RCMP as a viable national force, and the peace and security of the provincial residents involved, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That this House direct the government to moderate its financial demands and Finalize the contracts for RCMP services on the sensible cost sharing basis proposed by the provincial governments.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
July 15, 1981


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that numerous bills have been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives that would restrict Canadian investments in the United States in retaliation for Ottawa's National Energy Program, and in view of the fact that Canadian ownership of U.S. industry is nowhere near the level of U.S. ownership in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dionne):
That this House take the appropriate steps and advise the U.S. House of Representatives that such restrictive and protectionist moves would be counterproductive to the good will that Canadians and Americans have maintained over the years.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. We are all happy to see some break in the postal deadlock with the agreement of both parties to accept mediation services.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Certainly we see this as a very positive step which would not have happened had the government had its way and adjourned the House of Commons last week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: We welcome that initiative and we hope that mediation produces a speedy settlement. Could the President of the Treasury Board confirm that a mediator will be appointed this afternoon, and is he in a position to tell us who that mediator will be?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, with respect to the preamble of the question, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition suggested
Oral Questions
that this might not have happened. I would agree to this extent: it might not have happened because we could easily have had a negotiated settlement perhaps last week without the intervention of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: In any event, the parties have agreed on a mediator. I understand that the name will be made public this afternoon. I am not in a position to make it public here. I believe it will probably be made public by the Public Service Staff Relations Board.


COMMENCEMENT OF MEDIATION MEETINGS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the nation knows that the government's interest last week was not in settling the strike but in getting rid of Parliament, and that because Parliament stayed there is some possibility of getting the strike resolved. Could the President of the Treasury Board inform the House when we could expect the mediator to be at work and when meetings between the two parties will begin?


Donald James Johnston: As soon as possible, Madam Speaker.


QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS ON MEDIATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear that. Since the appointment of a mediator indicates that there has been a successful conclusion to negotiations, at least on the intent to mediate, could the President of the Treasury Board tell us whether any conditions have been imposed upon the mediation by either side and, if so, what those conditions are?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I am not sure what the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition means with respect to conditions being imposed upon the mediator. There are always terms of reference for mediation, if that is what he is referring to. I have not looked at any specific terms of reference, but clearly whatever has happened has been agreed upon by both parties, so I do not see why it should be of any concern to the Leader of the Opposition.


EFFECT OF STRIKE ON PASSPORT APPLICANTS
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, that is called bargaining in good faith. In the absence of the minister responsible for passports, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. What arrangements have been made to solve the problems of those people whose passport applications are stuck in the mail, in most cases including birth certificates? They now find that they cannot get their pass-

July 15, 1981
Oral Questions
ports. This prevents them from travelling abroad and thereby causes two significant problems. They are forfeiting substantial deposits which they have paid on their trips, and they are also without their most significant and most important piece of personal identification.
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Obviously, Madam Speaker, that is a source of problems for many Canadians who are anxious to travel abroad. Advertisements have been published in various newspapers to inform the public how to get in touch with Canadian government offices throughout the country.


INCOME TAX PAYMENTS DELAYED IN MAIL
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, the question concerned what to do about the stuff stuck in the mail. I have a similar question which I could perhaps address to the Deputy Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue. Will the government ensure that the same treatment will apply to late income tax payments which are stuck in the mail as will apply to income tax rebates which are similarly trapped, that is, if no interest is to be paid on such rebates, then no interest will be charged on late payments, or conversely, if interest is to be charged, then interest at least at the same rate will also be paid on income tax rebates?


Mr. Claude Tessier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue provided some information yesterday when he said that he was in touch with his other colleagues with a view to offering the best possible service to all Canadians.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister met with seven leaders of the labour world from the seven countries which are to attend the Summit meeting here in Ottawa next week. The Prime Minister is reported to have agreed to raise their concern about the monetarism of some of the countries in the world and high interest rates, at the Summit. If that is the case, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us if it is the intention of the government, in order to show some leadership to abandon its own high interest rate policy before the Summit? Is the government considering abandoning its high
interest rate policy to show some leadership on the world level before the Summit?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I think it would be unwise to abandon the anti-inflationary stance which the government is taking. I do not believe any government represented at the Summit will advocate that course of action.


PRIME MINISTER'S DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is obvious that the government's policy is not working. According to an official spokesman of the President of the United States, when our Prime Minister visited that country a few days ago he did not even raise the question of high interest rates with the American President. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why the Prime Minister did not raise that important issue with the President of the United States, since the United States plays an important role in the world economic situation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have not discussed with the Prime Minister the nature of his discussions with the President. I do not usually take what is in the press as the reality of events. I got over that a long time ago and I hope that the hon. member will reach that stage sometime.
I have no doubt that the hon. member is interested that the question of economic policy followed in the industrialized countries will be raised at the Summit. Obviously one of the major items on the agenda is the question of general economic policy, which will be discussed. I would be very surprised if interest rates are not a subject at the forefront of the discussions. How it will be discussed is another question.


EUROPEAN CALL FOR ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether or not his government supports the proposition put forward by the French President, Fran$ois Mitterrand, and Chancellor Schmidt of West Germany which, in effect, is a call for economic expansion and full employment? If our government supports that policy then what action is it planning to take?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, just a short time ago I attended a meeting of the OECD countries in Paris at which all the representatives of the industrialized countries were present, including the new French ministers and representatives of the German government. All the industrialized countries were able to agree on a communique dealing with the economy in which appropriate attention was placed on the fight against inflation and the necessity of succeeding in that fight before it would be possible to resume upward growth in the industrialized economies. 1 have no doubt that every leader at the Summit will be concerned about future growth and
July 15, 1981

employment prospects, but it seems to me self-evident that if we are to succeed we must deal with inflation as a major priority at the present time.


INDUSTRY
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On June 29, 1981, McDonnell Douglas of the United States announced the awarding of four contracts to Canadian companies to build parts for the Hornet fighter interceptor aircraft. It is understood that McDonnell Douglas Canada will receive two contracts worth a total of $235 million. Will the minister inform the House when production of the components for the F-18 will begin at McDonnell Douglas, thus ensuring the creation of an estimated 250 jobs, and will he also advise whether the 1,048 people laid off since last August by McDonnell Douglas will be given priority when rehiring begins?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that within 60 days of that announcement the company will begin the basic design and the layout work, and the actual components will begin to be assembled by the end of the year. I presume that priority will be given by McDonnell Douglas to the presently laid-off workers pursuant to the requirements of the collective agreement.


COMBINES
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice, to whom I have given notice of my intention to ask a question with respect to the uranium cartel. It relates to the principle of ministerial responsibility and accountability. The minister will have had an opportunity to refresh his memory with respect to this whole matter. Therefore, stonewalling is not permitted. However, the minister will know the principle of which I speak, that is, the minister is responsible for everything that happens within his department, and the Prime Minister is responsible for everything that happens with respect to his ministry.
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has admitted knowing that the cartel had an impact on Canadian prices in 1975, will the minister tell the House with which of his ministers the Prime Minister discussed this matter, and what
Oral Questions
action was taken by the Prime Minister and the government in 1975?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, 1 have already indicated that we have referred the whole uranium file to the court when we decided to prosecute the six companies. That case is now before the courts. Therefore I have nothing to add about ministerial responsibility. That, of course, does not fall under my jurisdiction.


ACTIONS OF DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the scattered applause is quite understandable. We are not talking about the charges. We are talking about ministerial responsibility. I hope the minister understands that. A review of the annual reports of Uranium Canada, from 1970 to 1978, has indicated two interesting points. One is that Uranium Canada is a shell of a company. It has no staff. The administration and operation of Uranium Canada take place by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The second point is that up until 1975 the president of Uranium Canada was one Jacob Austin, the deputy minister of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That was a time when the cartel was alleged to have operated, covering from 1970 to 1978. Surely, the minister is not trying to suggest that the deputy minister was unaware of the activities of his assistant deputy minister, Mr. McNabb, and of Dr. Runalls? Surely he does not want us to believe that an experienced man like Mr. Austin, who was a principal secretary to the Prime Minister, would not have reported to his minister and to the Prime Minister? Is he expecting us to believe that kind of story?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I would like to-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I just want to say that for four years there was an inquiry done on this file. A report was prepared for Mr. Bertrand.


Charles Joseph Clark: A hidden report.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have hired the same lawyers as Mr. Bertrand hired.


Mr. Andre:: Let us see the report.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: They have decided to recommend to me that we prosecute six companies. I have done so. I am not respon-

July 15, 1981
Oral Questions
sible for a company to which the hon. member is referring. The matter is in front of the court, and I have nothing else to add.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The minister will know, I am sure, that the high, inflationary, double digit rates which we are presently experiencing impact most heavily on pensioners and other low income groups. The minister will also know that recently the Economic Council of Canada said that in spite of this government's attempts we will have double digit inflation for several years. The minister may not know, however, the fact that the Canada-Quebec Pension Plan is indexed only yearly, and that it costs Canadian pensioners under that plan some $200 a year. Does the government intend to bring in legislation to index the Canada-Quebec Pension Plan quarterly, as is done in OAS and GIS, and if so, when?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the Canada Pension Plan will necessarily be included in the review of pension plans which we have undertaken and will continue next fall. I am very glad to know the position of the Progressive Conservative Party. This is one of its first positive recommendations concerning the pension plan review, and this aspect of the question will certainly be included in this review.


QUERY RESPECTING FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
Vincent Martin Dantzer: Madam Speaker, I am rather surprised that the minister shows a lack of haste on this issue. Certainly the government is now spending some $70 million on propaganda, and is spending some $268 million to subsidize the American car driver. I know that if the minister inquires from some of her officials she will find that it would only cost $70 million to bring in quarterly indexing. I would think that the minister would show greater concern.
My supplementary question concerns the fact that last spring we had a pension conference. At that time I think the Prime Minister, and also the Minister of Finance, indicated that in July there would be a pensions conference with the provinces. 1 wonder whether a date has been set for that conference and whether the terms of reference have been decided upon.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should know that it is quite difficult for a federal minister to move on the Canada Pension Plan in, I think the word he used was a "hasty", way. It means fast. He may want to discuss this with the B.C. minister of finance or he may want to call Mr. Frank Miller of Ontario, or different ministers of finance. They do not like any changes to the Canada Pension Plan when it takes money away from them and out of the $18 billion fund that they enjoy now at preferred interest rates. That is what it does. No change can be made that rapidly by one government alone.


Charles Joseph Clark: And the July conference? Or was that just another lie?


MARINE TRANSPORT
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Trade. It was announced in today's press that Japan intends to expand its merchant fleet, in part to transport coal from northern B.C. In light of the minister's interest in expanding overseas trade, particularly in the Orient, is he prepared to recommend to his colleagues in cabinet that Canada must abide by the international agreements that require 40 per cent of Canadian exports to be transported in Canadian registered vessels?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (Trade)):: Madam Speaker, I just returned from a trip to Japan and Korea where, along with businessmen from the coal industry in British Columbia, we were able to negotiate substantial contracts. The hon. member knows the stance that Canada took at the last UNCTAD meeting with respect to the shipping conference. Discussions have been since undertaken with the Minister of Transport and with the shipping industry, concerning this issue.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I did not hear an assurance that jobs on those ships would be for Canadians.


STEPS TO ENCOURAGE BUILDING OF CANADIAN SHIPS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce because of his interest in industrial strategies that will create jobs. Legislation is now before the U.S. Congress which will protect the U.S. fleet at the expense of Canadian shipping. While other major trading nations are expanding their fleets and protecting their own interests, Canada continues to give away jobs by relying on foreign registered ships. As part of his so-called industrial strategy, what steps is the minister taking to ensure that we will build Canadian ships that will be registered in Canada, that will be manned by Canadian crews, and that will train a
July 15, 1981

lot of our young people for jobs that are very important to them?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I understand that a memorandum has been tabled with the U.S. Congress suggesting that if this legislation is adopted it will increase the cost of shipping for American companies. They may well want to think twice about this proposal. In any event, Madam Speaker, at present we have underway a consultative process with the Canadian shipbuilding and ship industry, including the labour unions to develop the elements of a new national policy on shipbuilding for Canada. I hope that we will have these proposals before cabinet and ready for decision by the early fall so that Canadian companies and Canadian workers can play a major role in the very important industrial spin-offs which will come from the offshore development and the over-all development of the Canadian economy.
I think we are effectively moving in the direction sought by my hon. friend, a direction which is very much the policy and the approach of this government.


PROTECTION OF HANDLERS AGAINST LUNG DISEASE
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour I will direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that the three-year dust control program in the grain industry, initiated in 1978 by the Occupational Health and Safety Branch of the Department of Labour, will end this fall, and that grain handlers continue to be concerned about the risk of lung disease, can the parliamentary secretary tell the House what additional measures are now proposed to protect these workers?


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. Of course she is right in asserting that the report will be completed this fall. At that time a policy decision will be made. In considering the policy decision to be made at that time, many different aspects will be considered, and the government will be coming out with a decision at that time.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs. At present there is a backlog of 4,500 pension applications which are taking up to five years to process. The pension chairman has stated that he is hamstrung by the present veterans' legislation. He says that the delays will
Oral Questions
get worse. Statistics provided by veterans' organizations show a 50 per cent death rate while waiting for pensions to be processed. What is the minister going to do about this?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine seems to have great concern about veterans' welfare. I do hope that this is a genuine concern and not a political concern. If it is genuine, he could have proved it by being in the House last week when we passed two very important pieces of legislation on veterans.
The hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine knows very well what we are doing about veterans' welfare. He was present at the Standing Committee on Veterans' Affairs. He has talked to and has met with Mr. Solomon and all the presidents and the chairmen of the agencies. He knows very well that there have been improvements in the cases to be heard. I think I could quote him as being very erroneous in some of his statements and the letter he wrote to the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: What is the answer?


Mr. Lamontagne:: The answer is that we are constantly in contact with the chairmen of each of the agencies. We try to supply them with all the members that the agencies need. They tell me that their work is improving tremendously.
As a veteran myself, an ex-POW, I know better than anyone in this House and like many others who are ex-POWs and veterans, what we should do about the welfare of veterans.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF AMENDING LEGISLATION
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, 1 have a brief supplementary question. It is unfortunate that the minister cannot convince the veterans organizations, of that line. Why did he not come to the House to answer me in debate last night if he is so concerned?
The Auditor General's report points out that, as a basis for measuring actual performance, the Canadian Pension Commission should formalize processing time standards to the maximum extent practicable in all areas of the pension adjudication process within its control. As the pension commission cannot do this under the present legislation, will the minister introduce corrective legislation which will allow the pension commission to process claims in a reasonable time period, not five years? The United States can do it in 90 days; if they can do it in 90 days we should be able to do it in 90 days, not five years.


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should know that the system in the United States and ours are completely different.


Charles Joseph Clark: Their works.


Maurice Lamontagne: I think the hon. member should know that it is not based on the same principle. It is not based on the

July 15, 1981
Oral Questions
same way of evaluating the pension of each veteran, so it cannot be compared. As far as the hon. member's statement that it takes five years to settle a pension claim is concerned, if he will let me have the names of these veterans who have tried for five years to get a pension and did not get it, I will see what happened.


Charles Joseph Clark: What are you going to do-threaten them?


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He was in the House a moment ago. In the minister's absence, if he has left the House, I would direct it to the acting minister. My question relates to the Budd Automotive Company in Kitchener which is now faced with the possibility of laying off up to 45 per cent of its employees for between six and nine months if it does not continue to manufacture frames for General Motors cars in Canada. Will the minister take this opportunity to assure the people of Waterloo region that he will raise this matter during his meeting with General Motors' officials tomorrow?
Secondly, will the minister consult with his colleague, the Minister of Labour, concerning certain unorthodox union agreements in the United States which at this time bring unusual pressure to bear on the union membership at Budd Automotive, and which directly affect the competitiveness of the Canadian automotive components industry? Will he undertake to protect the jobs of these Canadian workers?
[ Translation]


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is also very concerned about the situation described by the hon. member. Obviously, the minister will do everything possible and will take advantage of every opportunity to find a satisfactory solution to this problem.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the urgency of the issue cannot be underestimated. I appreciate the acting minister's assurance. The minister will also be aware, in his capacity as minister responsible for FIRA, of the proposed sale of certain segments of Uniroyal's Kitchener operation to A.B. Becker of Sweden. This anticipated transaction has already
resulted in over two dozen salaried employees being let go from Uniroyal's general products and textiles plant. My question to the acting minister and the minister is: will they take the opportunity to see that any decision by FIRA in this matter will protect the jobs of Canadian workers and thereby ensure that the decision will be of significant value to Canada when there is a foreign takeover?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, when the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce reviews the recommendations of the Foreign Investment Review Agency, his first objective is naturally to protect Canadian interests, that is employment in Canada, and to promote new and important investments for the Canadian economy. That is the philosophy of the Foreign Investment Review Agency and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who will certainly give every consideration to the recommendations made by the hon. member.


SHIPPING
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is he aware of the fact that large quantities of radioactive materials, many of them hazardous, are presently being shipped to and from the Port of Montreal and other Canadian ports almost daily, and that these shipments are often stored for extended periods and trucked through city streets? Assuming he is aware of these practices, will the minister outline for this House the precautions which are being taken to protect shore workers, vessel crews, and citizens, from the dangers posed by these materials, and will he further undertake to provide this House with a complete inventory of all such shipments in and out of the ports of Saint John, New Brunswick; Halifax, Montreal and Vancouver during the past 18 months?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I am surprised to see that the hon. member has not realized yet that the transportation of dangerous goods is a current event which happens every day in the whole of the Canadian economy. It is something that is desirable in terms of the economic development of Canada. There is no way one should prevent that from taking place, because one would have to stop a whole segment of the Canadian economy. Consequently the only thing governments can do in general is to take the necessary measures to make it as safe a procedure as possible. This is what takes place now.
Members were kind enough, clever enough, and wise enough to pass Bill C-18 last year, which covers exactly the transportation of dangerous goods. This is the law of the land now. I admit that the procedures and regulations are not completed,
July 15, 1981

but they are being drafted. In the meantime we are doing with the legislation we have. To give the hon. member a list of all the dangerous goods being transported in Canada at this time would probably fill his room. If that is what he wants I may try to accommodate him, but I do not think it would be very useful to him.


DANGERS TO PORT WORKERS
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I have such a list there in respect of the Port of Montreal, which does not fill a room. The minister has not answered either of my questions regarding specific safeguards or specific shipments. Surely the minister must know that port workers in Montreal and elsewhere are often called upon to handle dangerous materials such as uranium hexafluoride gas, large containers of uranium concentrates and spent nuclear fuels, often without knowledge of the contents, concentrations or radiation levels, or adequate training in precautionary measures. Does he condone such laxity, and how does he justify the fact that these major ports under his jurisdiction do not even have any equipment on hand or trained personnel in place to monitor radioactivity or detect leaks?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I did not try to give the impression that we were on top of all of these questions in Canada.


An hon. Member:: You didn't?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, I did not try to do that, because progress has to be made and progress is being made now. I am sure the hon. member has heard of the Grange Report. That Grange Report is presently being implemented, as I reported to the House recently, and five of the recommendations are before the CTC. The member seemed to imply that I should provide him with an indication of all the dangerous goods going around in Canada at this time. If he wants them limited to the port of Montreal, indeed I will try to do that. But again the name of the game is really to take all precautionary measures. He was referring to the identification of the dangerous goods themselves. Part of the Grange report recommends changes and improvements in the placarding and identification of dangerous goods, and this is going to take place.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and Acting Prime Minister. In response to a question put yesterday to the Minister of National Revenue calling for the suspension of various premiums, contributions, and employee income tax deductions payable to the federal treasury by the small business community, the Minister of National Revenue replied:
Oral Questions
There are arrangements for them to make their payments at chartered banks or offices of my department across the country.
He said that with a smile on his face, either misunderstanding the question or further rubbing salt into the wounds of the small business community, wounds which have been inflicted by the government. Therefore my question to the Acting Prime Minister is this: could he either confirm the callous statements by the Minister of National Revenue as being government policy, or, hopefully, deny that heartless comment and take immediate action to rectify this very serious problem facing the small business community of this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I read the minister's answer this morning and I thought the Minister of National Revenue made a very sympathetic response yesterday to the problem placed before him with respect to small businessmen in the country.


REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF PAYMENTS
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, surely this is a question of suspending the payments and not forcing the small business community to pay them. Surely the government cannot on the one hand stop cash flows to the small business community as a result of the postal strike, and on the other hand force the small business community to pay premiums to the federal treasury. Surely that is not the case. Since today is the middle of the month when these payments must be made to the government, I plead with the minister, asking him whether he will immediately suspend these obligations on the small business community until all postal service is returned to normal service. Please have some compassion on the small business community in this country.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks the government to have some compassion for the small business community. I believe that with the various measures we have adopted we have demonstrated our concern for the plight of the small businessman. For example, I have indicated to the House that through the instrumentality of the small business development bond, which makes funds available to small business at about half the market rate, this year about $3 billion has been committed for the use of small businessmen, and that is a very important measure.
The Minister of National Revenue said yesterday that all these remittances would be considered on an individual basis, but it is not possible for me, in answer to a question, to make a decision that all these payments will be waived at the present time. That is not possible at all. All these matters are being considered, and have been considered by the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism, the Minister of National Revenue and myself, but the hon. member is asking for a very, very large decision when he asks us, because of this strike, to forget about all payments due to the government.

July 15, 1981
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFEGUARD POLICY-AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week, perhaps in an attempt to rescue the uranium industry in Canada, the minister announced his intention to abandon Canada's long established nuclear safeguard policy, which includes case by case review of exported uranium for reprocessing or enrichment, and that he expects to sign a new pact with the European Economic Community in the fall.
Despite the fact that I personally oppose the export of uranium, I expect it will continue. Nevertheless, since the government has repeatedly over the years asserted that it would not weaken bilateral safeguards, why is such an agreement being contemplated at this time?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member has it all wrong. There are no agreements being contemplated which in any way at all weaken our commitment to nuclear nonproliferation. What we are about is that we are engaged in applying our policy by signing supplementary agreements with countries in various parts of the world, such as the United States, Japan, the Philippines, and the European Economic Community, and the last of those is still under negotiation. These are ways of specifying in detail our policy of applying the principles according to the problems in a particular area, but there is no way by which those negotiations represent any weakening of our traditional positions.


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, according to the information I received, apparently Canada's negotiators with the EEC tried and failed to have a case by case review of uranium processing included in the new agreement.


PROHIBITION ON USE OF URANIUM TO PRODUCE ATOMIC WEAPONS
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, will the minister assure the House today that he will refuse to sign any export agreement with any country which does not maintain Canada's right to ensure that Canadian uranium is not used ultimately for the production of atomic weapons?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, of course I will give that pledge to the hon. member. I am not sure what he means by case by case scrutiny, but in an agreement in which there is a general principle to be observed by both parties, which applies in every case, one would not then need a case by case rule. The rule would already be there, and it would merely be a matter of having all the nuclear arrangements take place under the standing rule.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport, who answers in this House for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, who sits in the other place. The minister is probably aware that the policy of the government for the past number of years has been to announce initial payments on grains early in the spring, several months before the beginning of the crop year, so that farmers would have the opportunity to make their plans for seeding and so forth.
We are now within 15 days of the beginning of the next crop year, and I wonder if the minister can tell us when the announcement will be made with respect to initial prices for grain for the coming crop year.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, it was done this morning, and the initial price announced by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board for bread wheat, Canadian I CWRS wheat, is $4.75, which is higher by 50 cents than the initial price last year. The initial price for Durum is $4.75, which is 25 cents lower than last year because of fluctuations in the market. The initial price for feed barley is $2.70 which is the same as last year's initial price. The initial price of feed oats is $1.70, which is much higher than last year when it was $1.05. Those are the four main grains.


TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT AND REQUEST FOR TABLING OF INFORMATION
Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for giving us this information. I hope he will relay to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board the importance next year of having this information in the hands of farmers early in the year.
In addition, I would like to ask the minister if at this time he would table the information, please.


Donald W. Munro: He has to. He has been quoting from it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, on the subject of when initial prices should be announced there are two schools of thought. The first one says they should be announced earlier in order to give an advance message to the farmer. I followed that school of thought in the old days, and I am surprised the hon. member does not have a quote from me from back in 1969 on that subject, saying the same as he is saying now.
However, there is another school of thought, represented by Senator Argue, which says that in order to give as clear an indication as possible, he has to wait until now because of the fluctuations of prices around the world. In other words, he is in a much better position to indicate firm initial prices today than
July 15, 1981

he would have been three months ago. This is a debatable subject. We will have occasion to debate it further.


Douglas Charles Neil: Table the information.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. One of the issues facing public service unions is the cost of living differentials across Canada. For example, airport firemen in some areas are being paid roughly $3,000 more than their city or provincial counterparts, yet at the Vancouver International Airport they are paid $6,000 less than their Vancouver counterparts city, and in some cases are in danger of losing their homes. I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board if he is considering any cost of living differentials in upcoming negotiations with the members of this particular union.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, might 1 preface my answer by telling members of the House that just after 1 answered the question of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition I was advised that the name of Judge Allan Gold, Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of the Province of Quebec, has been released. He will be acting as mediator in the postal dispute. I understand mediation will get under way Friday because he is presently out of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Donald James Johnston: In answer to the question asked by the hon. member, Madam Speaker, I shall say that the problem concerning negotiations is real because of the fact that we have national unions. Whenever possible we try to establish regionally based negotiating units, but until now most organized workers have objected to this idea. Moreover, with regard to differences in the cost of living of the various regions I must say to the hon. member that we have not yet attempted to negotiate such an arrangement.


REQUEST THAT NEW BARGAINING UNITS BE CONSIDERED
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I am grateful that the minister recognizes that problem. In light of the fact that uniformity across Canada creates great unfairness in the working sector, I would like to ask the minister whether he is considering, or would consider, legislation which would allow certain regions to decertify and form new bargaining units so that the new bargaining units could represent their membership in a way
Point of Order-Mr. Neil
which would help them meet the cost of living differentials across Canada.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, as I indicated, in terms of these national unions in the public sector, when there are clear regional disparities, it seems to me that the preferred approach would be to try to negotiate a means whereby those disparities can be recognized through different regional rates. We have that in certain circumstances with respect, for example, to the general labour and trades group. We have it in others such as the general services group, but by and large we have not been able to convince the public sector unions that we should have these regional differentials represented in the rate structures. That is something I am still striving to do and, it seems to me, that would be the preferred approach.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the sixtieth report of the Clerk of Petitions, stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


POINT OF ORDER
Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, I ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) if he would table the document he was reading from. I think it is customary in the House that where a minister refers to a document, that it is tabled in the House. I think it is important we do have that information.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is correct when the minister or a member quotes a document in debate. However, the rule applies differently during the course of question period when a member asks a question which requires a minister to refer to some document. Under those circumstances, my predecessors have hesitated to ask ministers to do so because, of course, it would be so easy to set up a minister in this fashion to have him table documents which he might otherwise not want to table for reasons of his own. I will just quote Beau-chesne's citation 327(6). It reads:
If a minister cites or quotes an official document in debate, he should be prepared to table it.
However, the circumstances do not apply.

July 15, 1981
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I have the honour to table in both official languages, the first annual report of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: for leave to introduce Bill C-638, entitled, "An act respecting the coming into force of future changes in salary and expenses provided to members of Parliament".


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Caccia:: Madam Speaker, the bill puts forward the idea-perhaps unpopular here today but not necessarily so in future-that in case of future legislation concerning salaries of members of Parliament, the Parliament of the time will legislate so that the measure will come into effect immediately at the commencement of the following Parliament.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 669, 2,290, 2,449, 2,492, 2,590, 2,635, 2,687 and 2,702.
[ Text]


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did or is the government investigating if former RCMP security official Leslie James Bennett had any connections whatsoever with British spies Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean and Anthony Blunt and, if so, what are all the details?
2.	Is the government aware of a press interview given on or about November 20, 1979, by Mr. Ernest Volkman, a journalist in New York City, in which he
stated that a Canadian who worked in British intelligence at one time and later with RCMP intelligence was the "6th Man" in the Philby-Burgess-Maclean-Blunt affair and does the government have knowledge of any kind that this so-called "6th Man" could be Mr. Leslie James Bennett?
3.	Does the government have any knowledge that the "6th Man" is someone other than Mr. Bennett and, if so, who is the person?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: 1, 2 and 3. It is the
policy of the government neither to confirm nor deny that any investigation concerning specific individuals or organizations is being or has been carried out pursuant to the mandate issued to the security service in March, 1975. For the foregoing reasons, any comment on the matters raised in this question is judged to be contrary to the public interest, beyond stating that the government is aware of a press interview given by Mr. Ernest Volkman in New York City in November, 1979.


Mr. Blenkarn: Does the government have, and hold on behalf of treaty Indians, a Treaty Trust Fund and, if so (a) in what amount (b) where is it invested?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: There is no "Treaty Trust Fund" as such held by the government. Annuity payments, hunting and fishing equipment and triennial clothing for chiefs and councillors contained in the various treaties negotiated between the Crown and Indians are paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The government also does hold, on behalf of Indian bands, moneys which are primarily derived from oil and gas royalty payments and leases, and to a lesser extent, from other minerals. Such payments are made to the government and are credited to the relevant Indian band. At the end of February, 1981, (a) the moneys held by the government on behalf of Indian bands totalled $290,199,700.00. The moneys (b) are not invested as such but are held in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Interest is paid on these funds at an interest rate which is based on the average rate of those market yields of the Government of Canada bond issues as published weekly by the Bank of Canada.


Mr. Neil: 1.	Which departments sponsor student exchange trips?
2.	For each calendar year 1978 to 1981, how many trips were sponsored and what was the total cost?
3.	For each trip, what was the (a) name of the school involved (b) destination (c) number of students involved (d) cost?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Departments of External Affairs and Secretary of State of Canada as follows: in so far as the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission is concerned: presently, the CEIC administers the Canada-Mexico Exchange Program for Young Specialists and Technicians, the Canada-France Trainee Agreement of 1956 and the Canada-Switzerland Trainee Exchange Program. All

July 15, 1981

three of the above-mentioned programs are solely for trainees and do not accommodate students. The CEIC also has major responsibility for setting annual allotments for specific student and youth international employment exchange programmes but does not sponsor any exchanges.
In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned: not applicable.
In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned: 1. The Department of the Secretary of State sponsors student exchange trips in Canada.
2.	(a) Number of trips sponsored for each fiscal year 1978
to 1981:
1977-	78	841978-	79	8051979-	80	5921980-	81	498
(b) Total cost for student exchanges:
1977- 78	$ 1,480,230.77
1978-	79	11,953,427.781979-	80	9,966,628.001980-	81	9,713,277.003.	Records have not been maintained in a manner which would enable the department to extract the required information readily and without an inordinate amount of work, time and cost.


[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
1980	65,725
Note: Each of the above amounts includes a sum of $26,630 for depreciation.
2.	Mr. A.E. Masters boarded the vessel on July 17, 1980, to participate in a visit held for representatives of the shipping industry. The chairman of the National Harbours Board boarded the vessel on August 7, 1980, to participate in a gathering held for representatives of the shipping industry.
3.	Three persons are employed at present to maintain and operate the vessel Maisonneuve, the Connie E (small service boat) and some barges. The cost of their employment per year is approximately $63,760 about one third of which applies to the Maisonneuve.
Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of Regional Economic Expansion issue a $450,000 contract to the Canadian Media Corporation for the acquisition of media time and space and, if so (a) were public tenders called (b) what was the name of each bidder and the amount of each bid submitted (c) what was the total amount of media time and space (d) what portion of the amount was paid as commission to the corporation?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: awarded a contract, on behalf of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, for the amount of $450,000 to Canadian Media Corporation for the acquisition of media time and space.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	(a) Is the vessel Maisonneuve in service in Montreal Harbour and, if so, what are its functions (b) what was the cost to the government to operate and maintain the vessel, including depreciation, in each year 1976 to 1980?
2.	During 1980, did the Minister of Transport, the chairman of the National Harbours Board, Mr. A.E. Masters or any member of Parliament board the vessel and, if so, on what date and for what reason?
3.	How many persons are employed at present to maintain and operate the vessel and what is the cost of their employment per year?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The National Harbours Board advises that:
1. (a) Yes. Depth measuring; sonar sweeping to detect shoals; lateral sweeping to mark out erosion under wharf caissons; towing barges carrying wharf maintenance equipment; echo soundings to check on dredging results; investigating ships' complaints about obstacles to mooring through the use of a sounding rod; replacing the port's small service boat when it is unable to meet any of the following needs-to set in place or remove large fenders, to investigate cases of pollution, to inspect wharves and caissons; and a marketing tool for official visitors to the port.
(b) For 1976	$48,505
1977	49,810
1978	52,550
1979	56,655
(a)	No.
(b)	Not applicable.
(c)	$385,000 for the placement of print advertisements and $65,000 for the airing of radio commercials in support of the "Special Investment Tax Credit" program.
(d)	None.
In accordance with Treasury Board policy on government advertising (CMC) Canadian Media Corporation is under contract to DSS as the agency of record and is responsible for the consolidation and purchase of all government media and space requirements. For the provision of these services CMC receives a monthly management fee. Accordingly, a contract for a gross media value of $450,000 was awarded to CMC. None of this amount is payable as commission.


Mr. Herbert: Does the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources support instruction courses at the University of Sherbrooke and, if so (a) in which subjects (b) in what form is the assistance (c) what is the estimated cost?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: no. (a), (b), (c) Not applicable.

July 15, 1981
Order Paper Questions
DND, CIDA & DOT-HEWLETT PACKARD LTD. CONTRACT 
Question No. 2,687-Mr. Stewart:
Did the Department of National Defence, the Canadian International Development Agency and the Department of Transport purchase electrical measuring and testing equipment valued at $85,917 from Hewlett Packard Ltd., Ottawa, and if so (a) for what purpose (b) at what location will it be used?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Three separate contracts were awarded to Hewlett Packard Ltd., Ottawa, by the Department of Supply and Services on behalf of the Canadian International Development Agency, the Department of National Defence and Transport Canada. The total value of the three contracts is $85,917.
Details of the contracts are as follows: for CIDA-the equipment purchased for CIDA is for the PAN African Telecommunications Project and the destination is Dakar, Senegal, Africa; for DND-the equipment purchased for DND will be used for maintenance purposes at CFB Esquimalt, Victoria, British Columbia; for TC-the equipment purchased for Transport Canada will be used in the test instrument maintenance laboratory, Edmonton, Alberta.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Is the Department of National Defence ordering mobile homes from Atco Pacific Limited and, if so, for what purpose?
2.	Are the homes being bought for $1,509,736 on order 1GL.39-3940 and, if so, how many?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I and 2.
A contract in the amount of $1,509,736, order 1GL.39-3940 was awarded by the Department of Supply and Services to Atco Pacific Limited, on behalf of the Department of National Defence, for the supply and installation of 46 mobile homes to be used as housing accommodation at the Canadian Forces Base, Esquimalt, B.C.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 2,482 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 2,482 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	In each fiscal year 1978 to 1981, how many loans were made by and/or through the Canadian International Development Agency to foreign countries?
2.	For the same period, by year, which countries received loans and (a) for what purpose (b) in what amount (c) at what rate of interest?
Return tabled.
[English]	.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary about some questions of mine which have been on the Order Paper for many months, one of which is No. 1,795. It is with regard to private organizations receiving federal grants for research and development. The question has been on the Order Paper for eight and a half months, which seems quite a length of time.
In addition there is question No. 1,667 which dates back to October 31, 1980. It reads:
What is the total number of applications currently before the Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIP) and what are the names of the companies?
That is a pretty straightforward question and I do not see why it has to take that length of time for an answer to be provided.
Another question which is very important to Manitoba and the west is question No. 1,541, which I placed on the Order Paper on October 6, 1980. It reads:
Did the government contract for industrial benefits for any province by name in the contract with McDonnell Douglas Corporation for the new fighter aircraft and, if so (a) which provinces were named (b) what is the total dollar value of any industrial spin-off allocated to any specific province?
To date all I hear is releases of work for the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. No announcement at all has been made for anything in regard to the aerospace industry in Winnipeg and I would like to have an answer as soon as possible on that very important question.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I will take all the questions first, and respond en masse.


Mr. Beatty:: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could add to the parliamentary secretary's list. On Friday he made the following statement:
In anticipation of a question from the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe, it is my intention to answer his two questions on Monday.
The parliamentary secretary answered one of my questions on Monday after, I believe, some seven months, and I am grateful to him for his speed in at least getting an answer. I have since had a note from the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) indicating there is a problem with the second question, that it was improperly answered or that there was some other difficulty. Could the parliamentary secretary indicate when he will be tabling the answer to my second question which he promised for last Monday?


Mr. Cossitt:: Madam Speaker, I again draw attention to question No. 30. Apparently the government has never heard
July 15, 1981

of the old biblical saying: ask and you shall receive, because I have asked for this for five years and 30 some days as of today. It seems to me utterly ridiculous that they cannot tell us what members of the Canadian Transport Commission have passes on Air Canada, and what wives of members have passes, and what employees have passes. Yet for five years and 30 some days we have had absolute silence. Every time I raise it, the parliamentary secretary obligingly says: "I will look into it." His predecessor said the answer would be forthcoming soon, and for all this time I have been told it is coming soon. Well, it is a pregnancy that is pretty overdue, and I hope, Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary can rise today and tell us when we are going to get the answer.
In conclusion I would like to say this: It is because they are hiding a conflict of interest in that if they delay it long enough the records will be destroyed because they are only kept for so many years? Is there not a conflict of interest here where members of the Canadian Transport Commission, who regulate Air Canada, are getting free jaunts all over the world along with their wives and others? Something smells bad and I wish he would enlighten us.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) said, I am an obliging person and I have tried to oblige members on the other side during this session. Of over 2,700 questions asked, we have provided 2,232 answers as of today. It does disturb me that we cannot have a 100 per cent response rate, but I will do my best in the time left in this session.
With respect to questions Nos. 1,795 and 1,667 in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie), certainly I will look into them on an urgent basis.
The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) is correct in the extracts he read from Hansard. Unfortunately, I led him to believe that question No. 2,455 would be tabled on Monday of this week. As he knows through private conversations held between him and me and him and the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox), an incomplete answer was provided to the minister. That answer is now ready. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State is not in Ottawa today. He will be looking at the answer tomorrow for final approval, and we shall table it in the House tomorrow. I do not want him to think that we are playing games with him.
With respect to question No. 30 in the name of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt), I realize the hon. member has been rather patient in awaiting a response to the question. I would ask that he be a little more patient. Perhaps he could take a leaf from the book of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe who requested a number of times the tabling of a certain question. Perhaps it is not the number of times one asks; it is in the manner of asking.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Canada Oil and Gas Act


David Michael Collenette: Perhaps we shall be obliged to give that answer very soon.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order or on almost a question of privilege. The parliamentary secretary said that it is how one asks it, not how many times. In other words, are we being told-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I think it is a legitimate question. I am being told that I have to get down on my knees to the parliamentary secretary. I will not do so.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member knows that these exchanges take place in the House. He also knows that that is not a question of privilege or a point of order.
Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 2,482 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, July 14, consideration of Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, and motion No. 3 (Mr. McGrath).
11566
[Stage Direction]
July 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, sometimes when one puts a 30-second speech on the record, one is tempted to let it stand. But today I would like to speak about a bill which I consider to be one of the most important of all the bills we have dealt with in this session. In fact, in my opinon it is the most important, other than the constitutional bill.
Bill C-48 has an effect upon the country beyond just energy. This is why we are debating the amendment which was put forward so eloquently by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). It will replace the jurisdiction of the federal government over the offshore without consultation or the consent of the province.
I see the chairman of the energy committee is present this afternoon. He will know that many of us were of the understanding that this bill would not be debated until this autumn. The members of the committee received hundreds of letters from citizens across the nation who were opposed to certain sections of the bill. We attempted to deal with those letters and those concerns, as well as the concerns of hon. members of the House, by way of amendments in committee. It is rather typical of this procedure that the only amendments which were accepted were the government ones; all other ones were rejected. Hence, it was incumbent upon hon. members of the opposition who had these concerns at heart and agreed with many of them to correspond with these concerned Canadians. This is what I attempted to do in discharging my responsibilities to some 200 or 300 people and groups of people. I had the misfortune of placing those letters in the mail two days before the strike.
We are now debating this bill at report stage. The citizens have not had an opportunity to see the amendments to this bill, yet we are now being asked to rush this piece of legislation through at this time of the year. I suppose the government feels that there will not be time for native people, the many serious groups in this nation who are concerned about the effects of this bill on energy and energy production, as well as the citizens of the maritime provinces and the northern regions, to correspond with hon. members on both sides of the House respecting their concerns and the amendments they think should be put in place.
Also the chairman of the committee will recall that there was a consensus among hon. members one day. It was placed on the record by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) rather deviously, because he did it on a point of order which should have been ruled out of order. At any rate, it was placed on the record. We did not say anything about it because we felt it was an important motion. The committee members agreed unanimously that we should travel.


Mr. MacLaren:: No.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Yes, they did. I was present. No one objected. It was the next day that the objection came forward. This would have been important because although many witnesses came forward and gave us information as to why we should change or accept the bill, many of the members who
were on the committee did not come from those regions. It was important for members to actually spend some time in those provinces and in those areas of Canada which will be deeply affected by the bill. Of course we were not given that opportunity, and I think it is tragic in that we are now pushing the amendments through at a time when many people in the nation have not had an opportunity to get in touch with their members by mail.
Given the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), the amendment of the hon. member for St. John's East has the sympathy of hon. members from the prairie provinces. We must remember that while we are dealing with this in 1981, my ancestors and those of many hon. members who sit in the House went through this very same debate from 1905 to 1930. I want to show that there is consistency between what happened then and what is happening now. It is the very same type of argument.
First I should like to read from the speech of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, as reported on page 11472 of Hansard, wherein he stated:
They believe this should be up to the provinces, territorial governments or other groups. That is not our view. Our view is that those lands belong to all the people of Canada. The immense wealth that is there belongs to the people of Canada as a whole.
The Parliament of Canada is the guardian and trustee of the immense wealth which should be developed and protected in the interests of the people of Canada as a whole and the people of the regions concerned in particular. That is our view.
Basically that comes down to the feeling of many of my constituents, that feeling of alienation, of not being in total control of their resources. This feeling is still in place today. If anyone believes that it is in any way waning, that is not the case. It is grinding them further into the ground. They are placing their feet down firmer than ever. I do not want to be a member of this House in a few years, hearing the same thing coming from my friends from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland or, hopefully, soon, from the provinces of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
Because of my own interest and because of the feelings of my constituents and my family over the years, I went back in the debates to see what happened then. I found that what happened then is very consistent with what is happening now. The Hon. R. B. Bennett speaking on April 29, 1930, summarized the argument very well. The Liberal Party of that time believed that the ownership of the resources of the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta should continue to be, for the good of Canada under the jurisdiction of Canada, and that other provinces which came into Confederation earlier would have their resources under their own control.
I would like to quote briefly from the Hon. R. B. Bennett's speech. He said:
Twenty-five years ago this fall, in the House of Commons, the Liberal party unequivocally placed itself on record as being opposed to the granting of these resources to the western provinces. On a division, which is recorded in Hansard, the Liberal party of that day decided that the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan should not possess their resources. The Conservative party of that
July 15, 1981

day believed that they would not be provinces, within the meaning of that word, under the constitution, if they were deprived of their resources; they believed that the administration of the public domain within the area of Alberta and Saskatchewan by the Crown in right of the Dominion was at variance with every principle that should govern the creation of new provinces, and they placed themselves on record accordingly.
There are other interesting situations raised in the speech of the Hon. R. B. Bennett. He indicated that the Conservative governments of Borden and Meighen committed themselves to turning the resources over to the provinces. However, they were unable to do so. First, they were not given the chance to do so because of the war. They had to deal with very important matters and were not able to get the bill on. The second reason was the very short period of time that that party was in government. The Conservative party kept true to its commitment. When it came into power within a few months of the speech from which I have quoted, Mr. Bennett transferred the ownership of the resources to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Today we are debating the same question. It is whether the resources under the ocean, off the shores of those provinces, or found on islands a few miles off the shores of those provinces, should be under the control of the provinces. We know what the argument is on the other side. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has had a great deal of trouble with pesky provinces. He does not like to lower himself to work out an agreement. He wants control. He wants the power. Thus, we see the energy agreement which should have been worked out months ago with Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia not being worked out, although rigs are being driven from the area and tar sands and heavy oil plants which should be going ahead are not going ahead.
In my opinion there is a plan to all this. The plan is to move that capital into the offshore and into the north. The government is really not that concerned about getting new energy sources from Alberta or the prairie provinces as long as it can see its way free, hopefully, to getting those resources from the offshore or the north. But far be it for the government to allow pesky provinces to get in the road.
I can outline for the minister and the country my feelings on how the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been systematically dismantled. In effect, Alberta is a province, and the minister of energy does not want the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) in his way when he permits land to be explored by Petro-Canada and other companies. Nor does he want to concern himself with the provinces of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia when development and drilling is given the go-ahead in that part of the country. The whole question is one of control of development and control of money. Is the federal government poorer because Alberta is richer? Are the provinces of Ontario, B.C., or Quebec poorer because Alberta is richer? Many on the opposite side of the House tend to think so. They tend to think that somehow it is wrong for a province which has legitimate control of its resources to spend the wealth from those resources in the interests of Canadians. They say that is not right. They think that it is far better for
Canada Oil and Gas Act
the nation to have control of the resources and of the wealth and to see that it is spent in the national interest. As my colleague has said many times, that wealth is squandered, which is why the provinces fight so hard to maintain control of their resource wealth. In many cases they have shown the ability to better spend it in the national interest.
It was stated by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) that the average income of the citizens of Newfoundland is in the area of $4,000. That is probably one of the lowest average incomes in the nation. In the same manner as we in Alberta and Saskatchewan saw the ability to fully participate in this nation through the wealth of our resources, so do the people of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia see the ability to participate in this country as full participants. They see the chance to create work and wealth in their own area rather than to live without the knowledge that their jobs will always be there or, in many cases, without the knowledge that they will be perpetually on unemployment insurance or welfare. They now see an opportunity.
When we look at the bill which is before us, we see the federal government attempting to grab that opportunity. The government is saying, "Well, we will allow you to have the wealth of that resource until your average income is the same as that of other provinces. Then you must come to us again for handouts because we will want control of the resources again." We in this party do not feel that is acceptable. Our feelings have been consistent on this question.
When the right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) was prime minister, he met with the Premier of the province of Nova Scotia. The correspondence which was transmitted between the two parties is available to all members. The then prime minister laid out the feelings of this party with regard to offshore control and ownership of mineral resources. I would like to read from a letter dated August 23, 1979. The then prime minister said:
It is our belief that this challenge can only be met if the province has ownership of and jurisdiction over its offshore mineral resources. Accordingly, we greatly appreciate your support of Newfoundland's position and the position of the federal Conservative party that Newfoundland's undersea resources should be treated constitutionally in the same manner as if they were on land.
It is almost the same as saying that the oil which is under Wizard Lake in Alberta is not owned by the province of Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: It is almost the same as saying that because there is a few feet of water over what is legitimately the land mass in Newfoundland, it is no longer possible for it to be under the jurisdiction or the control of that province. I want to show what I believe is happening as it is a major area, as is confirmed by what is happening under the National Energy Program and under this bill. By driving the rigs out of Alberta, we are losing an opportunity of finding billions of barrels of oil and natural gas. This government believes, and I hope it is right, that it can bring on stream from Hibernia and

July 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
offshore Nova Scotia, and in the north, substantially more oil than could come from drilling in Alberta, even from the building of those tar sands plants and heavy oil plants. 1 believe that to be a risk that we should not be taking in Canada. While we should continue very strongly in the exploration of these two regions, we should not do it to the detriment of what we know to be possible in the western deposits of Alberta, Saskatchewan and B.C.
A forecast by a technical paper provided by this federal government suggests that 22,000 exploration wells must be drilled in western Canada in the next 10 years to find some 2.6 billion barrels of oil. It states that, by comparison, only 75 wells drilled in the Mackenzie Valley could discover the same amount of oil. The same is true for even less drilling in Hibernia. That may be so, and I hope it is true; but it is because of this policy that we are perhaps losing-and many say we are losing-energy self-sufficiency because we may not be able to bring that resource on in time.
However, in conclusion, I have to say that my argument today-and I will have a chance to make other arguments because there are many amendments to this bill-is that we in the western part of this nation have a great deal of sympathy for this amendment and support it wholehearedly because we believe that the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland are fighting the same battle that our ancestors fought from 1905 to 1930 when they were finally given jurisdiction over those resources. In my opinion, there should be no argument, politically or morally, about this question, even though the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) may say that there is some argument legally. What I am afraid is that we will be facing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: -the same kind of alienation in those areas that we are now facing in Alberta. It disturbs me a great deal that citizens of that area are questioning their citizenship.


Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment to Bill C-48 which we are debating today is designed, according to the mover, to prevent Bill C-48 from imposing federal ownership and control upon the offshore areas of Canada. The arguments we have heard from the opposition during the last three days have repeated this assumption, which is totally incorrect. Bill C-48 simply does not do that. The bill does not, in any way, alter the relationship between the federal and provincial governments with regard to offshore ownership and control.


Howard Edward Crosby: Why did you put them in there, then?


Ian Watson: That question is a matter for decision by the courts. All Bill C-48 does is to provide rules to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands. According to Bill C-48:
"Canada lands" means lands that belong to Her Majesty in right of Canada, or in respect to which Her Majesty in right of Canada has the right to dispose of or exploit the natural resources-
Bill C-48 does not declare the offshore areas to be Canada lands. That is a legal question. If there are areas offshore
which the courts declare not to be Canada lands, then Bill C-48 does not apply to them.
I would not go so far as to label the amendment specious, because it at least allows us in this House to debate the fundamental issues regarding ownership and control of our offshore. However, I would argue that the amendment before us is certainly unnecessary because Bill C-48 does not do what the amendment pretends to do and pretends to correct. It is not necessary to correct something which is not there. However, the basic issues involved here are important, and they do reflect a very fundamental difference between the positions of the two major parties in this House.
The government, I hope-and I believe it does-starts with the premise that the resources of both our northern territories and our offshore areas are the common heritage of all Canadians and are the basis for a common sharing, the vision of which can help to bind Canada together. Canadians, whether living in Alberta, British Columbia, or Quebec, are part owners of the resources of the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, or offshore of those two territories. Surely, that form of joint ownership, that heritage we share together, does mean something to people. I am practical enough to think that people are a little selfish, and that no matter what province they live in, if they feel there is something there of which we all have a part, it is part of the cement, or can be part of the cement, that binds this country together. It is all very well to talk in flowery terms about sentiment binding this country together. I think there has to be more than sentiment. As a matter of fact, we all know that there is a lot more than sentiment binding the country together. There are a lot of practical things, and this is one of them.
When I say that, I want to preface that statement with a commitment which, I presume, has been made by the present Government of Canada and has been made in the past by Liberal governments, that Canadians living in those areas of the north or in the maritime regions, should have first call on those offshore or northern resources to assure themselves of a standard of living which is second to none in Canada. We are using different terminology here, but the former minister of northern affairs from Manitoba, who spoke two days ago in the House, came very close to using almost the same wording. Although I was quite pleased to hear him say it the other day, he did not say it when he was minister of northern affairs; namely, that what we want, first of all, is that the people of the north have a first call on their resources. He did not use those precise terms, but we all agree that those people should have the first chance to benefit. The people of the maritimes and people in Newfoundland should certainly have the first call on the resources which lie off their shores. In effect, we have promised as a government that Newfoundlanders will have 100 per cent of the benefits from their offshore exploitation until the time arrives when they have reached a level, a standard of living in Newfoundland, which is above the Canadian average level. Newfoundlanders-


Mr. McGrath:: Up to the average level.
July 15, 1981


Ian Watson: I stand corrected. I think that that is a level which can still be negotiated.
The government is willing to ensure that the maritime population, and in particular the Newfoundland population, receive the first benefit. The discoveries made there, while important, are not of Saudi Arabian proportions. It is probable that even if they find ten times the amount that has already been discovered, to all intents and purposes, Newfoundland would receive every direct benefit from the area. And so much the better, Mr. Speaker.
If the reserves are larger than is predicted, I doubt if many Newfoundlanders would object to sharing the additional icing on the cake with Canadians across the continent. The same is true with regard to maritimes living in Nova Scotia. When it comes to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, the amendment does not make it clear whether it deliberately left out any reference to the offshore resources. The former Conservative government under its prime minister, promised to create a province in the Yukon, which, by example, would have required the creation of one or more provinces in the Northwest Territories.
This promise of provincehood, combined with the position of the former prime minister on offshore resources, would have meant that those new provinces would have requested not only that the land based resources be turned over to them but also the resources offshore. The total population of the Yukon is about 25,000 and of the Northwest Territories about 55,000; together they make up about .3 per cent of the Canadian population. When Manitoba entered confederation with a population of 12,000 to 15,000, its percentage of the Canadian total was about .6 per cent or .7 per cent. The population of the two northern territories only comes to about .3 per cent of the Canadian population today. When Prince Edward Island entered confederation, its population represented about 1.2 per cent of the Canadian total. This undercuts some of the arguments being advanced for provincehood.
While some elected officials in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon are pushing for provincehood immediately, very few people on the streets support the idea. I do not believe that the majority of people in the territories regard provincehood as a reasonable, near-term objective.
The potential for problems accompanying provincehood is substantial. A very small group of people could control the immense resources which our government maintains are the common heritage of all Canadians. I cannot imagine reasonable people anywhere in Canada believing that it is wise to create provinces in the north and to promise to turn over these immense resources to them.
What northerners need is a way to cut through red tape. Some members of the House are inclined to paint a picture of poor northern colonials, but in fact the small population in the north has more absolute control over its own destiny than any other group in the country. For example, 25,000 people in the Yukon control their own education system. What other group
Canada Oil and Gas Act
of 25,000 or 100,000 people in the country control their education? Northerners are not colonized, as many people in this House, particularly on the other side, would maintain. They are in control of their own lives.
That is not to say, Mr. Speaker, that there are not areas of frustration that could not be improved or that the federal government could not find mechanisms to enable people in the north to solve their problems in a more direct way. Improvements are possible.
I feel that we should not be looking at provincehood as the only possible long-term goal for government of those two northern territories, but that we should be looking for another form of government which would give the people of the north control over their destinies and, at the same time, give them more direct, effective, efficient democracy and self-government. Provincehood is not necessarily the right thing for them. In fact, what we do in the north might show all Canadians that a new form of government is possible; one that allows all of us to be governed in a more effective and efficient manner.


Leonard J. Gustafson: The word is domination.


Ian Watson: It has nothing to do with domination. I share with hon. members a desire to make government less onerous and more efficient and effective, from the point of view of the average citizen. We should approach our objectives for the north with an open mind and not with blinkers, seeking only provincehood.
[ Translation]
Progressive Conservative members have, I believe, used the debate on this needless amendment to expound on the position of their leader on offshore resources. Were the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) to have his way, ownership and control of resources would come under the provinces. It is not clear whether the amendment is purposely or accidentally vague on the issue of offshore resources in the Arctic, but as I said in English, our colleagues will recall that the Leader of the Opposition promised to give the Yukon provincial status before the end of his mandate as Prime Minister. That promise applied to the Northwest Territories also. Historically, there has always been provincial ownership of resources.
It would only be a matter of time before the new provinces of Yukon and Northwest Territories would demand and be granted ownership rights and control over land and offshore resources. If the official opposition was consistent in its reasoning we would find ourselves in a situation where ownership and control of land and offshore resources in all of the Canadian Arctic would be in the hands of approximately 25,000 people in the Yukon and 50,000 people in the Northwest Territories, that is, less than .3 per cent of the Canadian population.
During the referendum campaign, Mr. Speaker, I often said to my constituents in Quebec that Mr. Levesque and the Parti Quebecois wanted to deprive Quebecers of their fair share of this common heritage, that is our northern resources. During this debate, Mr. Clark and his colleagues have shown once

July 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
again that they are ready to go even farther than Mr. Levesque. They would in fact deprive all Canadians, Albertans, British Columbians, Newfoundlanders and Quebecers of their fair share of these resources which remain largely untapped to this day. The government of Quebec, the Parti Quebecois, considers itself the champion of the rights of Quebecers; yet it supports Mr. Peckford's position on the issue of offshore resources which, if it were accepted, would necessarily make all Canadians, including Quebecers, lose their fair share of our common heritage, that is our offshore and northern resources.
[English]	,


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the specific matter now before the House is motion No. 3 which amends the definition section of clause 2 of Bill C-48. Clause 2 of Bill C-48 contains a definition that establishes the territory included in the term "Canada lands", and that is what the pith and substance of motion No. 3 is, to change that definition of "Canada lands" to exclude those lands which lie off the coast of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and which in the bill are referred to as the submarine land.
I have had an opportunity on two previous occasions when Bill C-48 which enacts the Canada Oil and Gas Act was before the House on second reading; on December 17, 1980, and again on January 12, 1981, to outline the history of the province of Nova Scotia's claim to its offshore resources contained in the submarine lands that adjoin the coast of Nova Scotia. I will not repeat them on this occasion.
1 will underline the fact that for centuries now the province of Nova Scotia has claimed these resources and the submarine lands. The government of Canada, on the other hand, prior to 1968 or thereabouts, made no claim to these same submarine lands and at no time purported to deal with the natural resources that may be buried in these lands.
The history of the matter in that connection stems from a Supreme Court of Canada decision in 1968 when the resources that were contained in the submarine lands off the coast of British Columbia were considered by the Supreme Court of Canada. In what became known as the reference respecting British Columbia Resources, the Supreme Court in its wisdom to belong to Canada and not the province of British Columbia and, consequently, the resources within them. That decision of the Supreme Court was by no means complete in that it purported to extend to all submarine lands adjoining the coast of Canada, whether on the Pacific or the Atlantic coasts. Nor was it complete with respect to submarine lands adjoining the coast of British Columbia. In fact, I read a very recent report that the government of British Columbia wants to bring again before the court the matter of ownership of specific areas adjoining the coast of British Columbia on the basis that those particular areas were not covered by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which was made in 1968.
Even with respect to the specifics of that decision, and with regard to the claims of the government of the province of British Columbia to its own coastline, the decision of the
Supreme Court of Canada cannot be taken as complete and undisputed.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, you will readily understand how the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which relates to British Columbia lands is not accepted by either the government of Newfoundland or the government of Nova Scotia as resolving the dispute regarding the lands adjacent to their coast.
Let me speak very briefly about the history of the particular provisions we now have before us incorporated in Bill C-48 and which will become part of the Canada Oil and Gas Act if this bill is enacted.
The Parliament of Canada, following the decision regarding B.C. resources in 1968, enacted a new provision to the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act. This particular provision applied all provisions in that act to the submarine lands off the coast of Canada, but it did not in that provision claim those lands for Canada. It simply said the provisions of that act, the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, would apply to those lands, which is quite different, I believe, from the provisions we now have before us as part of the definition section of clause 2 of Bill C-48.
I want to be very specific about that because I disagree completely with the remarks of the hon. member for Chateau-guay (Mr. Watson), which were very similar to the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLaren), the member for Etobicoke North, in this House the other day on this same subject matter.
The thrust of their remarks, as I understood them, was that the definition of Canada lands now contained in Bill C-48 does not in itself claim or expropriate the submarine lands off the coast of Nova Scotia, or the coast of Newfoundland for the federal authority. It simply applies the provisions of Bill C-48 to those lands by way of describing them in the term "Canada lands".
I reject that interpretation of clause 2 of the bill defining Canada lands in light of the other provisions of the bill, because in fact the bill defines Canada lands very clearly to include areas like Sable Island and submarine lands up to the 200-mile limit off the coast of Canada. Also in another clause of the bill it claims and provides that the act applies to those very Canada lands.
That is simply not the technique that would be used if the purpose of the very careful definition of Canada lands was simply to allow the federal legislation to apply to those lands. We all know, who have studied these matters, that the federal authority has the simple right and authority to legislate in respect of many matters including natural resources, in some of their respects. Certainly the federal authority has the right and authority under the British North America Act to legislate with regard to environmental matters on the coast, whether or not they affect provincial resources.
July IS, 1981

In addition, by a clause of the bill, the provisions of the act are binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province. That provision is contained in clause 5(4) of the bill. There is a clear intention evidenced in the bill, through the definition section and through the fact that clause 5(1) makes all the provisions applicable to Canada lands, and because of the fact that the bill by clause 5(4) is binding on Her Majesty the Queen in right of a province. There is, I believe, a clear claim to what is described as Canada lands, and it just simply cannot be put aside on the basis that if any court subsequently decides that the province of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia or any other provinces own submarine lands adjacent to their coast, then the act will not operate in that area. That is not true, and I think the provinces, particularly the province of Nova Scotia, see Bill C-48 as a claim to the submarine lands which have been historically claimed by the province of Nova Scotia.
Just to demonstrate that there is a clear conflict, I remind the House that the province of Nova Scotia, in the case of its petroleum resources act enacted in 1980, claims the very lands which are covered by the definition of Canada lands in Bill C-48. We have a conflict on the face of the two pieces of legislation, the Nova Scotia petroleum resources act and the proposed Canada Oil and Gas Act. Both purport to deal with exactly the same lands. If that is not a conflict and if that is not a claim by the respective jurisdictions, on the one hand the province of Nova Scotia and on the other hand the Government of Canada, I do not know what is. We ought not to be lulled into thinking that there is no problem here and that we can go ahead and not deal with the conflict in this House and allow some other authority to deal with it, because that would be to abandon our responsibilities and not to face up to the problem which exists.
Let me very briefly review the claim of the province of Nova Scotia which, as I have said, I have detailed on other occasions in this House. Basically, the province of Nova Scotia was established by a grant by King James I which gave to Sir William Alexander, in 1621, a band of land extending seaward for 120 miles, and it included Sable Island. Subsequent treaties confirmed these boundaries for the province of Nova Scotia. And, in 1867, when the British North America Act was enacted, Section 7 of that Act said that the province of Nova Scotia consists of the land, mines and minerals which belonged to that province at the time of confederation. The basis for Nova Scotia's claim is very clear. I will not purport to deal with the claim of the province of Newfoundland.
What do we do, given this claim by the province of Nova Scotia and the historic basis for the claim and given the existence of these two pieces of legislation, provincial on the one hand and federal on the other hand, claiming exactly the same land, the submarine lands off the coast of Nova Scotia? What do we do? We have a dispute, and we must resolve it.
How can the dispute be resolved? One way would be for the province of Nova Scotia or any other province interested in resolving the dispute simply to sit down with the Government of Canada in a sensible, practical way to work out the prob-
Canada Oil and Gas Act
lem. But we all know that that is not the style and the method employed by the Government of Canada, not only in this area of natural resources but also in the constitutional area and in any other area, including medicare and any other problem which comes up. It is simply not the way, method and style of the Government of Canada to resolve disputes by sensible political negotiation. Indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) confirmed in this House that as far as he was concerned, that method had been exhausted by perhaps a few meetings, which established very little, if anything. Notwithstanding that most sensible Canadians would have the dispute resolved by negotiation, the federal authority has refused to continue these negotiations and presents us with the provisions of Bill C-48 which, as I have said, is effectively a claim of the submarine lands off the coast of Nova Scotia.
Another simple method of settling this dispute would be to extend the boundaries of the province of Nova Scotia to include those lands, in the same way that this very House of Commons extended the boundaries of various provinces, including the province of Ontario and the province of Manitoba, in 1912 and 1913. Again, the Government of Canada has refused to follow this course of action and has claimed the offshore resources and the submarine lands to the extent of 200 miles and to the continental shelf, not for the people of Canada but for the Government of Canada. There is a very substantial difference.
It has been claimed in this House on several occasions by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and by the Prime Minister that they would be willing to settle the dispute with the province of Nova Scotia and the other coastal provinces, but the manner in which they propose to settle the dispute is not one which could possibly be acceptable to the government of Nova Scotia.
What the Government of Canada proposes by way of settling the dispute is to take over the submarine lands and the resources in those lands, to dictate the manner by which those lands and the time in which those lands are developed, to exercise full and complete control over all aspects of exploration and development and then, having done that, to return to the participating provinces a percentage of the revenues. The Prime Minister has even said that this percentage could rise to 100 per cent if that would resolve the dispute but, as well all know, 100 per cent of nothing is exactly that, nothing. So without any guarantee of what those revenues are going to be, for the Government of Canada to offer to the provinces 65 per cent, 75 per cent or even 100 per cent is to say nothing. What the province of Nova Scotia wants is the ability to develop those resources and, more particularly, to assist the private sector to develop those resources and to co-operate with the oil exploration and development industry to see that the resources in the submarine lands are developed as quickly as possible.
It should not surprise anyone in this House that the province of Nova Scotia and, indeed, the people of Nova Scotia have serious doubts about the willingness and the desire of the Government of Canada to bring about the development of offshore resources in submarine lands with the rapidity and at

July 15, 1981
Canada OH and Gas Act
the quick pace necessary to allow the province of Nova Scotia to continue its economic progress.
Unfortunately, settlement of the dispute comes down again, as in the case of any dispute I have ever been involved in, to the good faith and responsibility of the parties to that dispute. And we in Nova Scotia have seen no evidence on the part of the Government of Canada that it is willing to act in good faith and in a responsible manner to resolve this dispute. The federal government offers only a share of the resources without indicating in any way what that share might be. To myself and to many Nova Scotians, this is nothing more than a continuation of the charity payments, transfer payments and aid which have been provided by the Government of Canada in the past. And it will simply ensure for the future, as in the past, the economic plight of the maritime area.
There are a number of other items which relate to the particular provisions we now have before us in relation to the development of the Canada lands. And I want to point out to all hon. members of this House that the real heart of the problem and the real effect of the dispute is that it is impeding development of the offshore resources in the submarine lands. My colleagues on the other side of the House might not be willing to accept my word for that, but I have as support the word of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) and of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), who have both said publicly on many occasions that the dispute with respect to ownership of offshore resources was hindering the development of those resources. I do not have to detail what that means in terms of lost jobs and general losses to the economy at a point in time when Nova Scotians and, indeed, all Canadians require jobs and an impetus to our economy in order to stimulate activity and produce employment.
So in that context, Mr. Speaker, we must review the background and necessity for resolving this dispute concerning ownership and development of offshore resources. It is recognized by individual members of the government, members on this side, and people in the oil and gas industry that the dispute is impeding the development of offshore resources.
How are we going to resolve that dispute, Mr. Speaker? We are certainly not going to do it by bringing into this House legislation which vests the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland offshore resources in the Government of Canada. That will only prolong the dispute and lead to litigation. I have asked the Prime Minister in this House: "What are you going to do to resolve the dispute?" His response has been that he would be willing to have the matter go before the courts. No one agrees, Mr. Speaker, that that is the way to resolve the dispute. However, there is in fact now before the courts, as I believe the parliamentary secretary pointed out, a case involving the question of ownership of offshore resources. So, Mr. Speaker, we cannot avoid the fact that if Parliament does not take steps to resolve the dispute, someone outside this House will do so before the courts.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the definition of Canada lands and the fact they include the offshore areas of Nova Scotia, I appeal to the government to review its position, to reconsider Nova Scotia's claim and the economic plight of the people of Nova Scotia. I appeal to the government to formulate a sensible policy to deal with this dispute, one which will result in its resolution in a sensible and fair way to the people of Nova Scotia and the people of Canada as a whole, so that we can pursue our economic interests to their benefit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to join in this debate on Bill C-48 at report stage. I would say at the outset that my position as a member from Ontario is somewhat different from that of those from the extremes of our country and that my perspective, in terms of what this bill is doing and might do to the established relationships, in so far as natural resources are concerned, between the provinces and the government, is perhaps without some of the perceived vested interests which are apparent in members from either side of the country. That perspective comes from a position which has been gradually formed by watching the development of natural resources in this country, and what the federal government has done with those resources over a long period of time, particularly this Liberal government.
Before commenting on the motion, I would like to say that at a time when the country is faced with extreme problems in the economy, when we are in the middle of a mail strike which has put considerably more stress on major segments of our people, whether it is business or individuals, it seems passing strange to me that we are now using this time at the discretion of the government to deal with things which I think are important in the long term but really do nothing to resolve the economic distress we now have in Canada. I think that is an unfortunate circumstance, one which we are prepared to face, but we would really rather be doing what I think in the short term could benefit Canadians across the country.
Bill C-48, Mr. Speaker, does a number of things through the back door that deserve full attention head on, and which could have been dealt with in the years gone by in a way which would have taken away a lot of the difficulties which are apparent in the bill. We are dealing specifically with one of those areas, namely, the Canada lands. Looking at that as a separate issue, at any other time would deserve the full attention of the House in a separate bill. It comes to the core of things which go back as far as confederation, in fact one of the primary concerns of the BNA. It was an evolution of events from the time of the BNA which have put us in the spot we are in now. There is no question that in the British North America Act we have a definition of provincial control over natural resources. Section 109 states:
All lands, mines, minerals, and royalties belonging to the several provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick at the union, and all sums then due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals, or royalties, shall belong to the several provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick in
July 15, 1981

which the same are situate or arise, subject to any trusts existing in respect thereof, and to any interest other than that of the province in the same.
That having been said, obviously the question of the resources under the sea was left out. This issue, as it developed through the progression of Canada as a nation, through the Treaty of Versailles, through the Statutes of Westminster and even up until now, has still been unresolved. It is a question faced by all countries when they look at their sovereignty, the control of their territorial waters and their international dealings.
I would like to go back one step to look at this amendment as it attempts to separate from the Canada lands the offshore areas of the provinces on the extremes of the country. The premise of the amendment to clause 2, presented now as motion No. 3, is based on the four criteria provided in the undertaking of the former Clark government and Mr. Peck-ford. Those four principles are as follows: Number one, that the province of Newfoundland should own the mineral resources of the continental margin in so far as Canada should own them; number two, that ownership and legislative jurisdiction would be consistent with and subject to the division of legislative competence as between Parliament and the provincial legislatures under the Constitution of Canada; number three, that the Government of Canada would continue to have legislative jurisdiction in certain areas such as the environment, shipping and so on; number four, those principles would be confirmed by the signing of an agreement between the two governments and by appropriate legislative action and constitutional change.
That arrangement could have provided the premise of a rational ongoing situation appropriate not only to Newfoundland, but it would also have provided a potential basis for dealing with British Columbia and the other Atlantic provinces. It could also be seen in light of developments in British Columbia and in terms of things which have already happened since the entrance into confederation of Newfoundland. It has been mentioned by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has suggested these things could be resolved in the Supreme Court. We go back to the British Columbia situation where mineral rights were given to that province in a 1968 decision of the Supreme Court.
There is an interesting and probably important parallel to be looked at in the situation with the United States. In 1974 they had a similar situation in a case called the United States v. California, which was resolved in favour of the United States, concerning control over mineral resources. I think it should clearly establish their resolve and the parallel that could be drawn in terms of how we might resolve some of our situations in Canada.
I would like to read briefly the comment of Mr. Robert B. Krueger concerning the management of federal petroleum resources in the United States. It very clearly defines the decision which was taken in 1953 that reversed the original
Canada Oil and Gas Act
court decision of 1947. He said that the situation is that the various coastal states own the mineral resources in the three-mile territorial sea surrounding the United States. This was directly as a result of the submerged lands act of 1953. One quesiton which will quickly come to mind concerns this three-league territorial sea. "Three-league" is one of the terms of reference in a number of comments; it would actually be nine miles. We must ask whether a specific mileage is in fact at stake. Indeed it is, because the 200-mile territorial limit is considerably different than that. That is really the argument.
If the Supreme Court of the United States made a decision in that regard, I am not clear as to how far other rights extend into the territorial waters. It would seem clear to me that the definition we require at the present time is an understanding and a rationalization of what limits there will be in terms of not only the main controls of the federal government with respect to the environment and other matters which relate to the federal government and sovereignty, but also in terms of a definition of the mileage and under what terms the agreement might take place.
There is major room for discussion, but I make the point that this agreement should take place not by the back door through Bill C-48, but through a rationalization, an understanding and an agreement which is sensible to the whole country.
The prime question in so far as Bill C-48 is concerned, and many of the items which antagonize and concern the provinces, is not the one respecting the legislative direction of the government. In itself that is one question which might be handled in one manner, but the overriding concern of all hon. members on this side of the House is the competence of the federal government as exercised by the Liberal party when dealing with issues that are important to all Canadians if we are to achieve the goals of self-sufficiency, of management of the country and the economy, and of all things we need to develop the potential of the country. This would be the primary concern. It is the one which is addressed by the reaction of the provinces to the mechanism of takeover which the federal government is providing under the terms of Bill C-48.
If we look at the examples of competence of the Liberal government, the one which hits us in the face very quickly is the situation in the Post Office. There have been six strikes in the last five years, and we are in the middle of one now. What kind of competence is that? What kind of competence is there in the situation respecting VIA Rail which is withdrawing services that are important to certain areas when in fact it is supposed to be providing them. What kind of competence is there in other areas such as AECL with $800 million in excess requirements this year? What kind of competence is there in the management of any number of government departments? I could repeatedly give examples of the incompetence as expressed by the kind of management not only in those areas, but in the area of natural resources which the federal government now wants to take over.
On top of all of this, there are examples of where ministerial discretion is requested and provided in Bill C-48. Not only is a

July 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
system being put in place now, but we are also asking that the minister, at any given point in time in any number of areas described in the bill, will be given an opportunity to exercise powers in a discretionary manner which are overwhelming in terms of the eventual outcome. It would make me insecure and very uncomfortable if we gave these controls to the federal government now.
An interesting comment appeared in a newspaper article two or three days ago. Although in normal circumstances I might not be the first person to quote Sylvia Ostry, I think her comments were in support of the argument I should like to make in terms of the ability of the federal government to do what is required. In part, the article reads:
"We are the most resource-rich country in the OECD," she said, perching excitedly on the edge of the sofa in her office.
But the real question is, why isn't our performance a hell of a lot better?
"Inflation in Canada isn't decelerating and there are disquieting signs of it creeping up. Given Canada's underlying growth potential, why shouldn't we be better than anyone else?"
It is obvious who has been in charge, who has been running things, and who has been taking us where we are going.
1 should like to refer to the points which were raised by the Parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLaren). While there might be some question as to the relevance, I suggest that in some ways the government has put its statements forward and that the parliamentary secretary speaks for the government, so my comments are relevant. He talked directly about self-sufficiency, which was one of the key phrases of a previous government to this Liberal government. It is one of the main points in terms of the energy future of Canada. Self-sufficiency under the terms of the National Energy Program and Bill C-48, as one of the many parts of the National Energy Program, is in severe difficulty. We had reasonable chances to reach self-sufficiency by 1990 under the different approaches which could have been taken. The single goal of self-sufficiency is severely threatened now, not only by Bill C-48 but by the general attitude of the government. In support of that point, I should like to quote from an article which arose from a Woods Gordon report. It reads as follows:
In 1990 assuming demand has not grown, and using the NEP's optimistic supply forecast (which does not provide for frontier production but includes oil sands production),-
This is very debatable now.
-Canada would experience a shortfall of 330,000 barrels per day. The NEP document states "it would be premature and unwise to count on the frontier to solve the oil supply problem." A CPA forecast (which does not include frontier production or new tar sands production) results in a shortfall of 740,000 barrels per day by 1990. Under current provisions of the NEP the CPA does not believe it will be possible to develop new frontier and tar sands production and does believe that the decline in conventional oil production will be more severe than previously forecast.
This comment was made by several groups which pointed out very well that we will simply not achieve the important goal of self-sufficiency.
Also the parliamentary secretary raised the issue of revenue. In looking at these offshore resources, there is no question that
the government is looking at revenue which it says is required to maintain the services it is providing to Canadians. One of the subtle elements about all this is whether or not the government is receiving revenue or has mechanisms in place to achieve revenue through regulation, taxation systems and so on, without becoming involved in a confrontation with the provinces which causes difficulty in terms of Canadian unity and the other matters that are straining the different parts of the cohesion of the country.
As a late comment I should like to indicate how the price of a gallon of gasoline is shared at the present time in terms of revenue. In terms of dollars per barrel of gasoline, $18 goes to the federal government. Approximately $8 goes to the provincial governments, whether it be the government of Ontario through road taxes or the government of Alberta through royalties. Some $6 goes to the producer and $11 to the refiner. About $3 goes to the dealer. Thus, the lion's share still goes to the federal government in the ratio of about three times that which goes to any other part of the system.
Total increases in the cost of crude oil in 1981 alone could exceed $8 per barrel by next fall. Of this amount the producing provinces and the oil companies will share approximately $2 per barrel and the remaining $6 will go to the Liberal government. That might be justifiable if we could see that it was really going toward self-sufficiency, increased production and everything which we think is important in terms of our energy resources. The fact of the matter is we do not have anything else to show for it. What we have had so far is $8 billion having gone to Petro-Canada, which has given us approximately 3 per cent more Canadianization. Another $25 billion will have to be raised either through Petro-Canada or some other vehicle in order to bring us up to the so-called Canadianization level which the government wants. That is a massive amount of money. But what has been done to develop our resources? Precious little. This has a great deal to do with control but very little to do with the development of resources.
My final point, and the point on which I would like to end my speech, has to do with my perspective as an Ontario member. There is no explanation for the fact that we are not doing a hell of a lot better than we are, as Sylvia Ostry said. The only explanation is that the perspective we should have, if we are to develop not only our natural resources but all of our other talents in the industry, must be in terms of private enterprise. The perspective which governments should have must be one of co-operation and the understanding that it is the private sector which will develop these resources under the appropriate controls of governments, both federal and provincial. This must be done not through the confrontationist style which has been so apparent and predominant in all the dealings thus far but through the kind of thinking which will develop as a result of negotiation and settlement, which is necessary if we are to achieve our goals.


Some hon. Members:: 
Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, at this point in the debate 1 should like to comment on the amendment of our Progressive Conservative colleagues which is aimed at reducing the size of Canada lands by not including the 200-mile offshore limit. Everything considered, I must say that as a Canadian and a Quebecer 1 do not feel ashamed to think that the national government must play a leading role in the protection of Canada lands. It is that particular aspect which I would like to debate with my colleagues this afternoon. First of all, Mr. Speaker, allow me to recall the historical background of the question under study. We are examining a bill which has to do with the energy issue, petroleum and gas. The principle involved with respect to the extension of the territory to 200 miles offshore to cover such natural resources as petroleum and gas has given rise to fascinating events in Canada. Indeed it goes back several years and I consulted a publication by a famous author whose name is listed in the 1970 Canadian yearbook on international law. Mr. Jacques-Yvan Morin, currently a minister in the PQ government, wrote an interesting article on technical progress, pollution and the recent evolution of the law of the sea in Canada, particularly with respect to the Arctic. I therefore believe that he is a very neutral authority to comment on this topic. In this rather long article, 25 or 30 pages, which I have no intention of quoting at length, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to an excerpt from Mr. Jacques-Yvan Morin's article who wrote on page 158 of that publication that the extension of Canada's ownership of the offshore territory, or rather not the extension of the territory but the extension of certain rights from three to twelve miles- from twelve to 100 miles in the Canadian Arctic-was an extremely constructive measure.
On page 215, Mr. Morin mentions the legislation passed by the Canadian government and notes that everywhere else in Canada, the limit was 12 miles and that the new legislation would extend this to 100 miles offshore to protect the environment. Of course, this issue had arisen as a result of a tanker accident causing an oil spill on the Canadian coastal territory, and the limit was finally extended thanks to the dynamic action of the Canadian government. Indeed, in 1972, with Bills 201 and 202, the Liberal government of the time extended the limits of three miles, 12 miles and 100 miles unilaterally to 200 miles. However, this action was accompanied by international discussions to determine who owned the offshore resources of Canada.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, Canada is bordered by three oceans, the Arctic, the Atlantic and the Pacific, and by extending the territory of Canada beyond the 12-mile limit, Canada would be able to increase the potential of its natural resources by about 20 per cent. The knowledge that Canada will be able to develop these resources in the future has an interesting impact in terms of the gross national product. The
Canada Oil and Gas Act
international discussions to ratify the treaty implementing the 200-mile limit without the threat of international disputes are under way, and 1 am confident that every country with coastal territories rich in natural resources will certainly support this extremely desirable action, especially because when we speak about coastal territories, we are obviously speaking about resources, but also about the development of these resources.
By excluding the submarine areas located outside of a province, adjacent to the coast of Canada and extending throughout the natural extension of the land territory of Canada to the outer edge of the continental shelf or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines, Bill C-48 is extremely positive and will only reinforce the very dynamic action undertaken by Canada in this area. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in addition to the oil and gas resources of these areas, there are also other resources, such as our fisheries, which are a very important source of revenue for Canada. Minerals are also part of the resources which could be available to Canada. In the years to come, in the nineties and in the next century, when plankton and other marine resources may become marketable, this coastal zone will be an extraordinary asset for all Canadians. We have just started to develop these resources, and already the provinces are arguing to know to whom they belong. Ownership of the natural resources in these lands is still not recognized internationally, and the provinces, which can do nothing in international law in this regard, have already started to criticize and speak about sharing.
I feel that the offers made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to Newfoundland during the last election show his broad outlook on the matter of sharing the revenues from those resources. And I further submit that the matter of knowing who owns the resources is one thing and who is going to benefit from those resources is quite another. Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian and a Quebecer, I own in Quebec part of the offshore resources and I am ready to share them with my fellow-Canadians. However, I am amazed that my opposition colleagues, especially those from the western provinces, excluding British Columbia, oppose such a measure. Because barring any unforeseeable geographical disaster, I find it hard to visualize how Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario can start speculating on the resources outside the 200-mile limit, because those provinces have no coast.
In the year 2000, I believe that the resources we have offshore which are shared by many provinces, except the western provinces, of course, not including B.C., will probably be exploited on a larger scale than today, and more than petroleum and gas will be exploited in these regions. I just question the purpose of an hon. member from Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba saying, only today, that we do not want to include this in the legislation when actually, in the year 2000, they will share the resources and the revenue of

July 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
these properties. I just question the motive and 1 think that it is probably in support of today's problems.
However, I feel that we can have a long-term policy. We should think of Canada on a long-term basis. When we think about sharing today and tomorrow and about the existence of this country, we must remember that Canada can extend its shores to the 200-mile limit. We should keep this provision in Bill C-48 and think about the future, not be shortsighted and just think about tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, if reference is made to the known offshore resources, some information should be shared. Panarctic Oil, 45 per cent owned by the Canadian government, has been doing a lot of work, and in 1979 the Canadian government spent more than $600 million on the development of oil and natural gas. Certain provinces probably can spend that kind of money, but I would be very surprised if most provinces could invest such huge amounts of money to develop the offshore energy potential. That is why I firmly oppose the Progressive Conservative Party's amendment.
And based on the notes for a speech made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) at the Financial Post Offshore Canada Conference held in Halifax on June 23, 1981, I would like to repeat some basic facts emphasized by a minister coming from a coastal area. And I quote:
The encouraging prospects found off the Atlantic coast could make a very significant contribution to this country's energy picture. A total of some 5 trillion cubic feet of gas and 1 billion barrels of oil have already been discovered off the Atlantic coast. According to federal geologists, that area could contain from 7.5 to 12.5 billion barrels of oil and between 70 and 125 trillion cubic feet of gas. That is nearly 20 per cent of all known and expected oil and gas resources in Canada, and nearly half the amount of oil and gas already discovered in the western provinces.
At this point, Mr. Speaker some 150 wells have been drilled off the Atlantic coast. In all, some $900 million have been spent since the beginning of drilling operations. But despite all those efforts, we still do not have one single producing oil well in that area. Research is being conducted and rigs are being set up and, hopefully, we will benefit from these resources in the not too distant future. According to the National Energy Program, we will spend yet another $200 million in 1981 and some $400 million in 1982. Such financial commitments will enable the Atlantic region to develop offshore Canada lands. However, if we look at what has happened in European countries, specifically in the North Sea, we realize that enormous investments must be made before this potential can be tapped.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, instead of taking a very narrow view, instead of fighting over the distribution of revenues even before starting to develop these natural resources which have not even been ruled Canadian property, since, as I just mentioned, the 200-mile zone has not yet been recognized in international law as Canadian land per se, and it will not be in the international perspective, international treaties, if ratified, will decree that natural resources can be the property of the
coastal territory but that the land as such, the submarine lands, will not belong definitively to the coast entity.
It seems to me that we are splitting hairs. At this time, in the light of the extremely positive steps taken by the Canadian government in the last 20 years for the benefit of all Canadians in extending its territory, and especially with regard to the development of offshore resources, in the light of the dynamic role played by Canada at the 1975 Environment Conference where Canada actually started to get other countries to ratify the extension of coastal areas, we should rejoice instead of cry over our fate at the thought that offshore resources in the Atlantic will belong to strangers when those strangers are in fact other Canadians.
I think we should be able to discuss sharing those resources and their benefits in harmony. We should approach the subject in a positive frame of mind. I am sure the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) spared no effort in trying to find solutions acceptable to all Canadians. As a Quebecer, Mr. Speaker, I plead with this assembly to show some generosity in the sharing of those resources which all humanity can envy us. Mr. Speaker, I know of no other country with as small a population as ours and as great an energy potential that can at times be so narrow-minded about it. Our future depends on it, Mr. Speaker. I feel the notion of "Canada lands" must not be a narrow one but a generous one; and that is why I urge my hon. colleagues to vote against the amendment of the Progressive Conservative Party.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, if I may begin my remarks by making a comment on those which we have just heard from the hon. member for Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette), there is no one in this House who is opposed to sharing the resources of Canada with Canadians. No one!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: I am not going to take anything from anyone who says, "As a Quebecer, I am prepared to share what I have with Canadians." Everyone in this House is prepared to share. What is preventing the sharing of the resources of this country is the conflict of jurisdiction, the conflict of ownership and the conflict of property.
At the present time we are a retarded nation because the federal government refuses to acknowledge the rules laid down in our constitutional documents that accorded the resources to the provinces in 1930. Now we are talking about sharing as though there is a niggardly attitude; there is no niggardly attitude in this country about sharing.


An hon. Member:: There never has been.


Donald W. Munro: And there never has been. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday the debate on the
July 15, 1981

amendment was punctuated by a number of points of order or appeals to relevancy from the other side whenever a speaker on this side raised the question of revenue or money in the general discussion on the amendment proposed in motion No. 3.
It is my contention and the contention of all members on this side of the House, I think, that the whole purpose of stretching the definition of Canada lands in legislation beyond that which is normally accepted, namely, north of 60, is to lay claim not just to land but to potential revenue-producing land.
I suggest that we might call Bill C-48 and particularly the section on definitions in a Clause 2 a matter of maritime gerrymandering. The government is trying to secure, by legislation, what it is unable to secure by negotiation. It is as simple as that.
Revenue and the Canada lands concept are intimately linked in this debate, Mr. Speaker. We cannot avoid that. The Liberals are talking Canada lands and they want us to stay with Canada lands, but what they mean is revenue from Canada lands. We are merely exposing this double talk. If there is any doubt, I suggest that hon. members look at Clause 9 and Clause 40 of the bill for the definition of Canada lands.
Clause 9 defines the method of licensing and exploration agreements, while Clause 40 deals with royalties from Canada lands.
It is all very well to say that we have to stay with the lands deal, but I insist that we must think in terms of the revenue that those lands are likely to produce. There is no question in my mind nor in the minds of a good many Canadians that the government in short of revenue and wants more. The argument for claiming the legislative right to more, through this bill, is that it is bankrupt. It is out of money. It is insolvent.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Donald W. Munro: I will tell the hon. member why. It is because of its disposition to squander the resources that are available to it. Its cash flow is non-existent. Indeed, it is flowing backwards, it is not only taxing for revenue but it has to borrow from taxpayers to increase its revenue and to pay the interest on the indebtedness.
In this connection I suggest that all hon. members and everyone who is listening should refer to page 11176 of Hansard for July 3, where there is a table showing the standing of the national debt from the time of confederation until today. I note the date, July 3, and I note that this is a strange way to commemorate members of the House coming together after the Dominion Day break.
In 1867, the national debt was $76 million net; in 1941, in the middle of a war, the net public debt was $4 billion; in 1968, the year the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his governing team took office, the debt was $16.7 billion, or four times greater than it was in the middle of the war. Today the debt has increased four and a half times to $82.7 billion net.
We can see why the government is out in the maritimes, gerrymandering. It is on the grab. We should not be surprised that it is looking for new sources of revenue, and hence is
Canada Oil and Gas Act
seeking to broaden the definition of Canada lands and the royalties that can be obtained from the resources that those lands will provide.
If the government wants to show its good will, I suggest that it withdraw the notice of appeal it has lodged against an opinion of the B.C. Supreme Court which assigned to the provinces, by a decision of three to two, the waters between the mainland of British Columbia and the large offshore island and the chain of the Charlottes. The B.C. Supreme Court ruled that those waters belonged to the province and immediately the federal government lodged an appeal to contest the ruling.
I should like to go into this carefully because I think it is very important. It has been referred to by other hon. members so I will confine my remarks almost exclusively to one aspect of the matter.
For the definition of Canada lands I would refer hon. members to clause 2 of the bill, which reads, in part, as follows:
"Canada lands" means lands that belong to Her Majesty in right of Canada, or in respect of which Her Majesty in right of Canada has the right to dispose of or exploit the natural resources and that are situated in
(b) those submarine areas, not within a province,-
"Not within a province" is what we seek to have removed, Mr. Speaker. If the government wants to demonstrate its good intentions, it should look at this clause in light of the B.C. Supreme Court ruling and its intention to appeal that judgment.
The B.C. government sought an opinion on a question regarding its property rights on land covered by the waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the Strait of Georgia, the Johnstone Strait and the Queen Charlotte Strait. The court ruled three in favour and two against the lands being the property of the Queen in right of the province of British Columbia.
This question of discontinuity as between the mainland and the islands must underlie the decision of the federal government to appeal that ruling. No sooner had this particular ruling come down than the federal government decided to appeal. I think on the basis of it, it is beyond imagination's wildest hallucinations to suggest that the land attaching offshore land to the mainland of a province is not part of a province. Yet two justices out of five ruled that way. The three ruled that those submarine lands did belong to the province of British Columbia.
What disturbs me and many British Columbians is that the central Liberal government has served notice of intention to appeal that ruling to a higher court, presumably the Supreme Court of Canada, where, incidentally, one of the dissenting judges now sits.
What the dissenting judges are arguing and what the federal government is now suggesting by maintaining its intention to appeal this ruling, which is not yet implemented, is that there

July 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
is such a phenomenon as a discontinuous province; that a province can be interrupted territorially or maritimely, if you like, in its seaward expansion, and that the interrupted portion could become a part of the central government. I suggest this is really not a very satisfactory way to run a federation. I would call it the doctrine of provincial discontinuity.
I suggest that if it were applied in its full intent it would probably apply in the mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and to the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which would be interrupted by federal jurisdiction between the province of Quebec and Anticosti Island, and the federal government would claim the river bottom there.
I consider that doctrine of provincial discontinuity as one that is hardly tenable in any court of law. The only example I can think of at the moment, and that broke up, was the example of East and West Pakistan which were interrupted by another state, India. But to have east and west British Columbia interrupted by a section of territory or maritime area assigned to the central government is verging on the ludicrous, the ridiculous, if not the improbable. It is also verging on providing a very good cause for the breakaway of one province from Canada. I do not know whether they have ever thought of that. It would at least add another argument, if indeed a further argument is necessary, to persuade British Columbians that Ottawa has no sensitivity to their problems, and that B.C. and other western provinces might do better without Ottawa.
Therefore, as a mark of honourable intention, I suggest this to the parliamentary secretary, since he is the ranking guy here, I think, there being no ministers in the House. The central government ought to withdraw its notice of appeal against the ruling of the B.C. court. This would go a long way, I suggest, toward re-establishing an atmosphere of confidence and trust between the two levels of government, an atmosphere that has been sadly fogged for the last ten years or more.
It would seem that the doctrine of confrontation is that which governs the relations between this government and the provinces-a deplorable situation and I regret that it should be that way.
One might almost say that not just the waters at the mouth of the St. Lawrence, which is closer to the federal government, and therefore they can understand that-I do not think they understand what the waters between the islands and the mainland of British Columbia mean-might be declared in the same way the government is thinking of declaring as federal waters, but presumably the subsoil over which those waters flow would then become national territory. At least the government is testing that ruling of the B.C. Supreme Court. I suspect that would not go down very well with the province of Quebec. I suspect, in fact, that because the province of Quebec would be a party en cause, the claim would not even be made. But in British Columbia where the government has no member of the cabinet, and whose problems the government does not even understand, it is prepared to leave it stand as a threat to the province.


An hon. Member:: Votes they do not need.


Donald W. Munro: Votes they don't need and votes they won't get in that area.
Therefore I suggest that first of all, instead of leaving standing the intention to appeal the ruling of the B.C. Supreme Court, the federal government could do itself a great deal of credit if it were to withdraw entirely that particular claim to a review of the records.
I had that particular point to make. It is a point worth making. I hope it is not only made but that it has made a dent on the other side. I should like to see in the very near future a withdrawal of the intention of the federal government to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia relating to the waters between the mainland and the baseline running along the west coast of Vancouver Island, up through the Queen Charlottes and out to the line A-B.


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 first want to indicate my appreciation for the wide latitude you have permitted in this debate. In looking at the various amendments to this bill one recognizes that perhaps motion No. 3 is the only motion on which we could have a wide ranging debate on the entire bill, the entire energy policy and, indeed, a number of constitutional matters. 1 might say that having listened for several days to this debate the debate has ranged widely. I am sure you will allow me the same latitude in the course of the 20 minutes I have, in which I hope to have my say in this House on this bill.
The first thing I want to say about the bill is that it is very complicated and very crucial to Canada. We have had hearings on this bill in the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works for approximately six months, with approximately 73 meetings and 130 witnesses. I think it is appropriate that somebody put on record some of the groups which came before this committee because it does give an excellent indication of the importance of this bill. They included most of the major oil companies and their respective organizations, such as CPA and IPAC, They appeared before the committee and made submissions. Several chartered banks appeared before the committee and made submissions, as did the Canadian Bankers' Association. The Canadian Bar Association and the Eastern Fishermen's Federation appeared. The Canadian Ocean Industries Association, the Canadian Shipbuilding Association, the Canadian Labour Congress and the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union also appeared and made presentations.
A number of native organizations also appeared, including the Native Council of Canada, representatives of the Dene nation, the Council of Yukon Indians, the Metis Association of the Northwest Territories and the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada.
The government of the Northwest Territories, the government of the Yukon, the chamber of mines of the Northwest Territories and the chamber of mines of the Yukon appeared and made representations. Indeed, one of the most pleasant presentations was by the mayor of Inuvik.
July IS, 1981

The Vancouver Board of Trade appeared and made a presentation, and several environmental organizations including the West Coast Environmental Law Association and the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee appeared. Other organizations came before the committee to make their presentations on this very important piece of legislation. Some of us had the opportunity and, indeed, the good fortune to listen to almost all of these presentations, and those we did not hear we read. I count myself in that group of few people who were fortunate enough to have this opportunity.
I mention all these organizations because today I want to take this opportunity to thank these organizations and people who came before the committee to make their cases. I hope everyone in the House wishes to thank them and to congratulate them for taking the time to come and put forward their cases. They participated in the democratic process eminently well with respect to this bill.
All these organizations were responsible for a substantial number of changes to this bill. Indeed, the initial draft of this bill left much to be desired, and by the time these organizations were finished with the bill, the government felt it necessary to bring forward many amendments and changes to accord with their wishes. In many cases those changes weave or interweave with some of the suggestions of the opposition. As I indicated, the influences were substantial, and I suggest they will continue to be so because literally every one of these groups and organizations will watch the passage and implementation of this bill very keenly, with great anticipation in some instances and with much regret in others.
I must say that I was disappointed that none of the provinces took time out to appear and make presentations to the committee on this very important bill which affects so many provinces. As I indicated before, this bill will have a profound effect on governments in Canada and on the opening up of what is two-thirds of this nation, the northern part.
If there is anything I would wish to say, I would publicly commend the chairman of the committee, who I think handled himself very well and gave every advantage to the groups which appeared so they could put their cases forward. I refer to the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Watson).
There was a number of very important concerns, and they might be identified in about ten or eleven categories. The first was the definition of Canada lands. This amendment would effectively reduce Canada lands by approximately 50 per cent and would exclude from this bill Hibernia, the Beaufort Sea and most of the PanArctic gas discoveries in the north.
The second thing about which we were really concerned was ministerial discretion. This bill allows an enormous amount of ministerial discretion. We wish it had given the minister additional discretion in some other areas and removed it in many of the areas in which the minister is allowed wide ranging discretion.
Third, we were vitally concerned about the retroactive expropriation feature which was initially in this bill. Fortunately, because of the massive revulsion of the industry and
Canada Oil and Gas Act
some of the groups involved, the government felt it appropriate to back off the policy position it had imposed in the bill. The very unfortunate and almost despicable policy position regarding retroactive expropriation of rights and properties should under no circumstances be supported by any party in this House. Due compensation and access to due process of law should always be a right of Canadians in this democratic country.
Some hon. Miembers: Hear, hear!


William J. Yurko: Much concern was expressed about the Crown-carried interest and the extent of the proposed nationalization of the oil industry on Canada lands. Some excellent arguments were made in this regard. There was great concern expressed about native peoples and, indeed, about the use of Canadian manpower and Canadian materials. There was a great deal of concern expressed about the effect of energy development and growth in the north on territorial governments and the municipal governments of some of the smaller settlements in the north. Some of us felt very strongly that some of the royalties accumulating from oil and gas production in this vast area should be placed in a fund for the future use of the provinces and for the future use of some of the communities which will have to develop under adverse conditions-and rather explosively because of this bill.
Environmental matters were a great concern, and we do not think the bill deals adequately with the concerns which will evolve in this area. There were many punitive measures which had to be adjusted, but one of the most important single aspects of this bill was the nature of its construction in terms of limiting the opportunities of small Canadian companies and their ability to participate in the development of oil and gas in this vast area of Canada, which is literally two-thirds of the country. This was one of my most basic concerns. Here was a bill to Canadianize an industry, and the restrictions, monetary and otherwise, on small Canadian companies participating were overwhelming in some areas.
Our country is vastly endowed with hydrocarbon resources, including coal, oil, gas, oil sands and heavy oils, as no other country in the world, but what we are suffering from is the lack of a proper management program and, particularly over the last decade, political mismanagement of the development of our hydrocarbon resources.
Bill C-48, in tandem with the National Energy Program, is an attempt to bring forward a new energy supply, distribution and use regime. First let me state unequivocally that the regime, although having some good aspects, is being forced upon a nation over too short a time-frame. That is one of the reasons there is a major revulsion in the United States against the regime. It is too fierce and too fast to accomplish objectives which may be appropriate over a longer time-frame.
What are the objectives? The objectives have been well stated on a number of occasions. The first objective is at least 50 per cent Canadian ownership of oil and gas production by 1990 through the process of Canadianization and nationalization. The second objective is Canadian control of a significant

July 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
number of large oil and gas firms. We know the manner in which the government is proceeding in this regard.
Third is an increase in the share of the oil and gas sector owned by the Government of Canada. I might put that in a different way: I might say a significant transfer of control over the oil and gas industry from the producing provinces, particularly Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, to federal control. The question is: How is it being done? Well, in three ways. First of all, by transferring the emphasis to Canada lands and away from provincial lands by taxation, rent and incentives. Secondly, by massively increasing the federal take from oil and gas produced in provincial land. We have seen only a beginning in that direction. Third, by the imposition of a federal oil and gas pricing regime which limits provincial government and company revenues from oil and gas produced from provincial lands.
From all the questioning we have done, we anticipate a two-price policy, a world price for oil produced in Canada lands. Petro-Canada has stated that unequivocally in committee. Under questioning the minister gave us every indication that oil from federal lands would be priced at world levels. Contrast this with a pricing structure for oil from provincial lands which is now approximately 50 per cent of the world price. So what we are attempting here is a transfer of control over the industry, putting emphasis on development of federal lands, not only through the tax and grant structure but through a price structure, and thereby depressing development in the provinces. I also want to touch on the Cold Lake project in relation to the policies associated with Bill C-48 and the NEP.
There is no doubt that there are very good arguments for moving in this direction if you have certain policies in mind and a certain vision of the nation. Canada's resources are what make this nation rich and make every one of us unique. We have in this nation elbow room, wealth, ability, capability and possibilities down into the future that no other nation in the world has. Heaven help us if we start to split it up because we will all suffer drastically.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am concerned about this amendment in regard to the vast seas of the northern part of Canada. It is my view and my conclusion that we must exercise sovereignty over that part of our nation in every possible way and at every instant. We must be there constantly because that vast area of Canada is looked upon with great envy by some of the major powers of the world. So if you ask me about my view with regard to that vast northern area, we must declare repeatedly that it is Canadian, and we must be there to exploit, develop, control and manage its resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William J. Yurko: Now, I want to touch briefly on the rights of the Atlantic provinces with regard to the resources extending for 200 miles out on the continental shelf. I am of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that laws and court cases will not settle the question.
The provinces do not want to go to court or they would have been there a long time ago. It is negotiations which will settle this problem. My fear and concern is in connection with the negotiating process established during the last year by the government, which I find badly wanting.
I am terribly sorry that I will not have more time to dwell on this matter. What I want to say above all else is that any federal cabinet dealing constantly with the provinces must have somebody to take strongly the provincial point of view. The rest of the cabinet ministers are going to be building empires, taking the federal perspective, so there must be someone in cabinet who understands the provincial perspective and who will try and sell cabinet members and the caucus on the provincial perspective. There must be a minister of federal-provincial relations whose sole reason for being is to understand provincial aspirations, needs and desires, one who constantly projects them into cabinet over and over again. I for one am terribly disappointed that this government does not have a minister of federal-provincial relations who will totally carry the ball for the provinces on the Atlantic coast and the west coast on resources, cost-sharing programs and so forth. I suggest this government had better seriously rethink the need for appointing such a minister.
The then minister of intergovernmental affairs in 1978, the now Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde)-and he was a fairly effective minister of intergovernmental affairs in those days-gave a remarkable speech at the first ministers' conference where he said: "A century ago Sir John A. simply announced what his national policy was going to be. No discussions with provincial governments, no series of visits to provincial capitals, and no federal-provincial conferences preceded his announcements, and no one seems to have expected that they would. By contrast, any policies and processes we decide upon in this area today will emerge as a result of the process of federal and provincial consultation begun in the months preceding this meeting, and as a result of the continuing process of consultation which I hope the first ministers will agree to today."
His dissertation at that meeting was entitled "Consultative Mechanisms". That is what we need more of. That is what we need to bring unity to this nation, to bring the outer regions into the centre, and we need it quite soon.


Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to enter the debate on this motion during report stage on Bill C-48, a bill which we all know is to regulate oil and gas interests in the Canada lands, and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act.
I represent, as most members know, what could be termed an energy disadvantaged region of the country. Regardless of what happens in the future in energy exploration off the east coast, the most South West Nova can probably expect, as indeed most of the region, are some spin-off benefits from development taking place in a few growth centres. Mind you, I will be working hard for South West Nova to obtain these spin-offs.
July 15, 1981

Much of the debate on this motion has been concerned with jurisdiction and with what should constitute the Canada lands to which the act will apply. This is not surprising in view of the amount of political mileage opponents of the program are receiving from the jurisdictional question. In my view, the jurisdictional controversy is a red herring which may obscure the fact that the greater issue is the development of offshore resources.
The question of what is or what is not Canada lands is sidestepping the real issue. The real issue is this: Do we want control over our energy supply, distribution and pricing, and decisions about development of new sources-in effect our entire energy future-to reside with those who have a vested interest in meeting the needs of Canadians or with the vagaries of an increasingly anarchic free market? Those who insist upon drawing fine lines over jurisdiction of frontier areas are either playing fast and loose with our collective future for shortterm political gain, or attempting to sidestep the crucial question of whether control of Canada's future energy supplies, will reside in the hands of Canadians or of foreign multinationals.
It is easy to make references to "just birthright", as I believe one Nova Scotia cabinet minister has done, when referring to ownership of offshore resources. It is not so easy to explain how the astounding costs of developing those resources will be met. It is not hard to see that without federal involvement in the development process provincial governments, assuming they had such control, would be forced to turn to foreign capital, which naturally entails foreign control.
For an illustration of this we have only to look at the Nova Scotia government's overtures to American business for capital to finance a tidal power development on the Bay of Fundy.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Where are we borrowing from?


Coline M. Campbell: The hon. member wants to know from where we are borrowing. It is a prime example in Nova Scotia. While Premier Buchanan could have proceeded through the Maritime Energy Corporation and federal funding, which would have ensured that the development would remain under Canadian control and benefit Canadians as well as Nova Scotians, he elected to abandon the Maritime Energy Corporation and invited American interests to participate in the funding of the project.
This is fine, except that if it is ever built with United States funds instead of Canadian funds most of the power generated by the plant will be exported to the United States. With offshore energy development one can only expect the level of foreign control to be even greater. The federal policy is to ensure that the energy resources of Canada are developed for Canadians. There has never been any suggestion that the areas where these resources are located are to be deprived of any of the benefits of their development.
"Canada lands" clearly defines for those who are investing millions of dollars in offshore resource development where the federal regulations in Bill C-48 will apply. It is a clear
Canada Oil and Gas Act
statement of what the responsibility of the federal government to Canadians will be in the development of oil and gas on these lands. The jurisdictional problem is another issue. If the provinces feel they have a right to offshore resources, let them go to the courts; but in the meantime the development of offshore oil and gas should not be hindered by uncertainty. Canadians and east coast Canadians need a strong National Energy Program if we are to continue our growth as a country.
I might add that there is strong support for the federal government having jurisdiction over the offshore. I will not become involved in a debate which should take place before the courts, but even Sable Island about which we have heard a lot during the debate on this motion is under Section 91 of the British North America Act a federal responsibility. We could look at federal states such as Australia and the United States. Who controls the offshore? Both of the countries I have just mentioned do, not the states next to the offshore.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the British Columbia reference case on offshore that the territorial seabed was not within the boundaries of British Columbia. International law recognized the rights of coastal states. The Geneva convention on the continental shelf granted to coastal states sovereign rights to explore the continental shelf and to exploit its a natural resources. Canada has claimed rights to the 200-mile limit and they have been recognized. The ongoing United Nations Law of the Sea Conference reached a consensus on the coastal state's exclusive economic zone of 200 miles.
I believe we must rely on ourselves, on Canadians, on Nova Scotians, if we want control over this vital part of our present and future. Only by retaining control of our resources within our own country can we ensure that Canadians, both business people and ordinary citizens, are the first to benefit from resource development or, indeed, even that such development is carried on in appropriate ways to meet Canadian needs and aspirations.
If Newfoundland and Nova Scotia are right, if their claims to offshore resources are found to be legitimate, what then? Should the rest of Canada be expected to foot massive bills for exploration if that exploration may ultimately only benefit one or two provinces? Could those provinces develop their resources on their own, or would they be forced to resort to opening the door to exploitation by big foreign interests? Who would ultimately benefit from such development? It would not be Nova Scotians.
I wonder if anyone in the Nova Scotia government has taken the trouble to ask the people of that province how they feel about the question of offshore jurisdiction. Do the people of the Atlantic provinces really support the idea of provincial control of the offshore? I would note in that regard that more Liberals were elected in the 1980 election than in the previous one, and certainly the then prime minister, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), was giving away the offshore to try to win votes. Our insistence upon federal jurisdiction over the offshore is well-established in precedents and in international law.

July 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
I do not think that by claiming jurisdiction anyone in the region seriously believes that Ottawa is out to rob them of their birthright. I consider it imperative that the people of Canada, through the federal government, have some input in future energy resource development decisions. Only in this way can we be assured that those decisions will be made with some regard for the legitimate needs of the people.
In these increasingly energy-short days when we are forced to develop more expensive energy sources, I believe it is only through the participation of federal agencies such as Petro-Canada that energy alternatives will be explored at all. The enormously expensive tar sands projects, upon which we will some day depend for crude oil supplies, oil and gas exploration off the east coast, and even Premier Buchanan's prize Annapolis Valley power demonstration project, were developed with the aid of federal money and without that federal money would in all likelihood not have come about when they did.
What is the alternative if we defeat this motion? Canada lands is the alternative. What do the provinces have? They must enter into arrangements with the federal government, and what is wrong with that?
Let us look at what the arrangements have been in the past. In February, 1977 Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island agreed to set aside their differences. They signed a memorandum of agreement for joint administration which would provide for a general revenue sharing arrangement of 75 per cent for the provinces and 25 per cent for the federal government. It was this memorandum of agreement which was later repudiated through changes in governments. As late as September 19, 1980, during the constitutional conference, the federal government offered an administrative agreement to the maritime provinces which would allow the 100 per cent of the revenues from the sales of fuel, natural gas and other minerals until those provinces reached a have position.
We should all take one minute to reconsider what Canada means. It has always meant the sharing of the wealth of Canada between the haves and the have-nots. Why would all of the Atlantic provinces not wish to share if they ever reach a point where they can? It looks as if that will be some time soon, with all the oil and gas which exists there. Why should they not wish to share their bounty with the rest of Canadians? The energies of the provinces, in my view, should be directed to arriving at arrangements with the federal government which truly benefit their areas. When they are negotiating these arrangements they would do well to put aside some of their political considerations and think about the people of all those provinces.
In conclusion, I do not believe that business alone, driven solely by the profit motive, can provide the assurance we need to approach the future with confidence. The National Energy Program has been criticized sharply by big business interests. I suggest those voices are speaking out of self-interest. We might do well to accord them less than total credibility.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, in the few remaining minutes this evening I too wish to touch upon the question of jurisdiction. It surprises me that the hon. member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell) would repeat speeches written by the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan), the former Premier of Nova Scotia, written some ten or 15 years ago.


Coline M. Campbell: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to inform the House that I do my own research on my speeches. Maybe I do not have the opportunity to speak as often as the hon. member for Halifax-Dartmouth East (Mr. Forrestall), but I am sure that when he finishes his speech we will have to judge whose content is best.


J. Michael Forrestall: The hon. lady might do herself and our province some justice if she would do a little original research and stop reading old speeches.
Our claim is simple. We want what was ours before confederation, which has been ours by recognition and which this government is now trying to take away from us. There is no political argument which can be put forward to controvert the position of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Not only is there no political argument which can be put forward but there is no legal argument either.
The Supreme Court of the province of British Columbia made it very clear in its decision that, the facts in that case were based on historical evidence which may be not only different but which, in fact, were recognized by the court as being significantly different as between the west coast and the east coast. There is no question about the historical facts or the legal facts. The only question is whether or not there is a will in this Parliament to extend to the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland the same entitlements which were given in 1912, for example, to the great provinces of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba.
At that time, by the stroke of a pen and by the will of Parliament, without constitutional amendment, some 600,000 square miles-20 or 30 times the size of the province of Nova Scotia-was given away. I was about to suggest that it was an oversight; but the question did come up at the time as to whether or not there would be compensatory arrangements with other smaller, original parts of confederation. There was no great pressure in those days to redress that inequity. There was no great pressure from Atlantic Canada. But because there was not, you cannot today interpret that to mean that the right does not continue to exist-it does. It is a historical right. There can be no real serious question about the legality of it.
It has been suggested that the issue should be taken to the courts. The Premier of Nova Scotia once removed tried to use those arguments. I wish hon. members could have been in the legislature of the province of Nova Scotia when Senator Isaac Smith from the other place, in another capacity, dealt with the spurious notes which were coming down from Ottawa with respect to jurisdiction.
Everyone knows we will share. We are not concerned about the money; we are concerned about the propriety of ownership
July 15, 1981

and the right of entitlement. There has never been the question raised on this side of the House about the need for comprehensive, tight controls-none whatsoever. The province of Nova Scotia will give up to a central, singular authority environmental concerns, licensing concerns and all of the regimes which are important to develop the energy and resources which are there. The province will give those up for the sake of orderly development.
But you must always remember, Mr. Speaker, that, in fact, control is ownership. The Premier of the province of Newfoundland must have the right, since he is the one first associated, to influence. That right is impeded through ownership and the rate at which the resources off that coast are developed. He is the one who must have the right. He is the one responsible first to his people and for his people for the orderly development of the potential of the east coast. The same is true in the province of New Brunswick and it is certainly true in the province of Nova Scotia. About that there can be little historical or political doubt.
What we are asking for those people who have faith in Canada and Canadians-something which we see very seldom from members opposite-is that that simple request be recognized. Control must be centralized but ownership must not be in question. What this bill does by the stroke of a pen is take away from Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Newfoundland lands and resources which, under the British North America Act, they are entitled to. They are entitled to those lands in law. They are entitled to them by history. In fact, they are entitled to them politically.
SO)
The spuriousness of the argument put forward, and the fact that the hon. member for South West Nova would not recognize the simple difference between the words "control" and "ownership" rather shocks me. After all, she is a trained lawyer. She should understand that control can pass from time to time wilfully, and ownership can, as well; but ownership determines control.
If we give up ownership now we will have lost these lands and their potential resources forever. It was the eastern provinces which financed the development of the central part of this country. It was our fish, our timber and our offshore trading that set up the industrial heartland of this country. We did that without complaint for 150 years. Now the government wants to take away from us a reward, a due recognition? If what it wants to do is control it for orderly development, so that we can get at the resources and satisfy the investment, so we can control environmental concerns, by all means, let us have some common authority to deal with these questions. However, that does not, should not and must never compromise the question of ownership, and ownership is what we are talking about. Call it jurisdiction, if one wants. One may call it control if one wants. But is is simply ownership.
We got nothing at all in 1812. Our money was pouring into central Canada to develop the rich resources in the areas which were annexed by agreement. It was our money. Look at
Canada Oil and Gas Act
James Bay. Are we going to nationalize that? Is that going to become a Canada land? Not on your life!
Does Your Honour know what we have now? This is just one example. The gas and oil from the east coast will more than supply our needs beyond our lifetimes and our grandchildren's lifetimes. The development of it and the control that is wanted by this government is to force the development of a petrochemical industrial base in this country to locate where perhaps natural forces would not place it. We are going to remove from the source of gas and oil, a thousand miles inland, a petrochemical base. We in Atlantic Canada will be watchers of pipeline. Well, I say to the devil with you! The government is not going to get away with it!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: The government will not build a unified country. That is its intention. The government does not care about the cost. It allows $500 million or $600 million to be invested in the development of a petrochemical industry in eastern Canada, but it does so in such a way that not one nickle will accrue to the benefit of Newfoundland or Nova Scotia, not to mention New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. We are objecting to this. This is what control is about: recognition of our ownership. Then we would negotiate the best place for the development of that petrochemical industry. However, if we do not have ownership, if ownership is vested in Ottawa, although I trust Canada, I do not trust the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: We will get it in the neck, and we will be watchers of pipeline. We will not be allowed to develop a resource base which will enable us to lift ourselves out of the economic morass and difficulties in which we have been. We all recognize that as Atlantic Canadians. Please recognize us as Canadians from other parts of the country.


An hon. Member:: A massive money grab!


J. Michael Forrestall: It is a money grab. It is a resource grab. More than that, it is a serious deprivation of a historical right and a legal right. It is a political matter about which the people of Atlantic Canada have long believed there can be no question.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I too am one of those who have sat through numerous meetings on the committee which debated this particular bill, and listened to over 100 different delegations, all of which had very serious concerns about many different aspects of this bill.
One of the main reasons 1 am pleased to be able to speak about the broad concept of Bill C-48 in this initial stage is that the bill proceeded through committee not in a very conventional way. We had a bill which contained roughly 86 or so clauses before a committee. The government introduced 115 amendments to its own bill. What we were really trying to do in that energy committee on Bill C-48 was not to debate the bill, to

July 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
improve it and to test it against its implementation out in the country; rather, what we were doing in committee was drafting a new bill. There were 86 clauses and 115 amendments by the government alone!
We had some amendments to the bill ourselves, and so did the members from the NDP. As I said, the reason I am pleased to be able to talk about this bill is that not one single amendment proposed by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition or of the New Democratic Party was accepted by the members of the governing party in the committee. In fact, the parliamentary secretary who steered the bill through the House admitted to me-and that is when I walked out, toward the end of the deliberations-that the government had no intention of accepting any of the many amendments that we had made and that the other party had made.
So much for democracy! So much for the orderly process of what was once a proud institution on which Canadians could rely to test a matter which the government would lay before it against the will of the people. So here we are debating a bill with 86 clauses, which changes in a very fundamental way the very nature of our socioeconomic behaviour in this country, to which the government has introduced 115 amendments and stated publicly that it is in no mood or is in no way prepared to accept any amendments from the opposition.
1 said to my friends across the aisle at that point, as I walked out, that I had a lot of other things to do. I knew what
their amendments were. I knew that they had a bad bill. They knew it themselves or else they would not have brought in all these amendments. I do not know who their draftsmen were. Surely there must be people out there with the competence and capacity to state in legal language the government's intentions in this bill.
1 want to speak a little about the government's intentions, but I realize it is six o'clock. Therefore, I would like to call it six o'clock and take my opportunity to do that tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Knowles:: I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) knows what the order of business will be tomorrow.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I thought that we had made that plain during the last couple of days. We plan to proceed with the report stage of Bill C-48.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Times do change, as the hon. member knows.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, July 16, 1981