1981-11-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, high interest rates are forcing many farm equipment dealers to reduce their inventory of spare parts, which often results in frustrating delays for farmers working against the weather to take a crop off when a machinery breakdown occurs. Realizing the urgency of this situation, as we have just taken a crop off, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce recommend to the Minister of Finance ways of assisting this service sector such as by expansion of the Small Business Development Bond.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, whereas there is compelling evidence of environmental problems at the Terrasses de la Chaudiere in spite of a cloud of government secrecy, and as public servants are entitled not only to a reasonable work environment but to know the true state of affairs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the government table all unabridged reports concerning the environmental, health and structural problems of the Terrasses de la Chaudiere, and that all pregnant women currently working in the building should be offered transfers to other facilities until such time as there is conclusive evidence that all problems have been solved.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43. Recently the Progressive Conservative Party has had much to say in opposition to rumoured and/or proposed cutbacks in federal support for post-secondary education. In view of this, and in view of the fact that they are the same ones who have done the most to create the mistaken perception of the deficit as the greatest single evil facing our country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That this House, in the name of political integrity, instruct the Progressive Conservative caucus to own up to its part in creating the cutback mentality and apologize to students across the country, and also that they renounce the rhetoric of the hon. member for York-Peel who, had he remained in office, would surely have become "king of the cutbacks".


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has determined low ridership as a major criteria for the abandonment of 16 passenger rail lines across Canada. In view of the fact that the Atlantic Limited operates at 80 per cent occupancy and is often completely filled, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That the Atlantic Limited does not fall within the questionable guidelines established for abandonment and as such should not be cancelled rendering the southern portion of New Brunswick isolated, crippled, and certainly alienated.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: No.

THE HONOURABLE J. ANGUS MacLEAN


TRIBUTE TO RETIRING PREMIER OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, this coming weekend marks the end of the long and distinguished political career of the Honourable J. Angus MacLean, Premier of Prince Edward Island. He served in this House for a quarter century and now makes way for his successor at a leadership convention in Charlottetown on Saturday. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. Campbell), himself a former Premier of Prince Edward Island:
That this House acknowledges the contribution of the Hon. J. Angus MacLean to his province and country over many years, and expresses its best wishes to him for a happy retirement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Lome McCuish (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, the CNR north line between Prince George and Prince Rupert is to be upgraded to accommodate grain and coal unit trains bound for Prince Rupert. The mining and agricultural industries, and the provincial and federal governments will prosper from the increased traffic on this line. Although rural residents will be subjected to an extraordinary increase in noise and air pollutants, the CNR is charging all residents with railways crossing leases upwards of $2,200 to subsidize the upgrading costs. I therefore move, under Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman):
That the Minister of Transport instruct the CNR to charge this portion of the upgrading to the benefiting industries or to absorb it themselves, but in any event to get off the backs of the suffering low-income lessees.


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


EDUCATION
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, there are thousands of Canadian students who are neglecting their studies and imperilling Canada's future because they have been worried about the Minister of Finance's (Mr. MacEachen) intentions vis-a-vis the federal government's contribution to postsecondary education. On behalf of those students, and seconded by the hon. for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), I move:
That, when we finally see the federal budget, if there is, for any reason, a need to reduce post-secondary education or health care then this House will demand the immediate resignation of the Minister of Finance.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, Canadian sales of North American built cars suffered a record drop of 34.6 per cent last month, while at the same time Japanese imports increased by a whopping 70 per cent.
In view of the fact that the actions of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) in this regard have contributed dramatically to increased employment in Japan while adversely affecting the economy in Canada, resulting in 95 per cent of Canada's North American automotive dealers today being in dire straits, if not indeed on the verge of bankruptcy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to include in his forthcoming budget a reduction in the 9 per cent federal sales tax on North American built cars, thus giving the industry time to recuperate from the minister's high interest rate policies.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
November 5, 1981


ENERGY CONSERVATION
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I rise on this historic day under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
We know from the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) speech in Nairobi last summer that our government is prepared to back conservation, solar and other alternatives for Africans. Yet in Canada in three years only $13 million of the $125 million five-year Solar Heating Program, called PUSH, has been spent. This year the National Research Council diverted $750,000 from solar research.
Last May 15 a brilliant Parliamentary Task Force Report called "Energy Alternatives" was tabled, with 65 conservation and alternative energy recommendations. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That since six months have now elapsed without any government reaction to the report, this House urge the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to abandon his almost total preoccupation with the supply side of the petroleum question and show some initiative in reducing demand by conservation measures and greater support for alternative energy options.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of this House to introduce a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the day before yesterday in Longueuil, a young policeman of twenty-six, Constable Michel Vincent, was savagely murdered, that he lost his life while protecting the interests and the rights of citizens against any type of aggression, and that another policeman was seriously wounded at the same time, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):
That this House transmit a message of sympathy to the family of Michel Vincent who died tragically on Thursday, November 3, 1981, while protecting our rights and freedoms.


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Oral Questions


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent necessity. After noting the concern expressed by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) in question period on Monday over the visit of Allied American Naval ships to Vancouver Harbour, and in view of the Prime Minister of Sweden's revelation that the offending Soviet submarine was armed with nuclear warheads, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe-North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House express to the Soviet ambassador its grave concern and dismay over the violation of a neutral nation's territorial waters.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services who, on May 5, 1981, in a speech to the Association of Canadian Advertisers in Toronto, conceded that the federal government this year would be spending over $50 million on federal government advertising. In view of the fact that the minister made the statement before a number of publicly-financed, self-serving advertising campaigns were launched by the government, what is his current estimate of how much money in total will be spent by the federal government on advertising this year?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I would have to look at the present estimates. I do not
12528

November 5, 1981
Oral Questions
have the figures available at this particular time, but the figures I was quoting at that time are relatively accurate.


DETAILS OF MINISTER'S SPEECH
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, will the minister concede that that figure has increased dramatically since that time? Also I bring the minister's attention to the statement he made in his speech that the federal government would be treating advertising in much the same way as a multiproduct national corporation treats the promotion of its product, on the grounds that "government is too complex nowadays to rely on 'policy by press release'; programs must be explained and not by reporters, but rather by the people who created them." Could the minister tell the House how he justifies the expenditure of massive amounts of public funds to promote a partisan point of view and in an attempt as well to prevent the Press Gallery from exercising its function?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, the key words the hon. member used is the question of the expression of a partisan point of view. In no place in the speech could he identify any place where I have indicated that the advertising was to be for partisan purposes. I gave examples in that speech and I will cite one-the amnesty program that I introduced when I was solicitor general, in which I achieved a substantial registration of additional firearms, which had not been contemplated at the time the bill was introduced, as a result of a very progressive advertising campaign. That is the sort of advertising campaign that I feel was described within that particular speech.


AUDIT OF CANADIAN MEDIA CORPORATION EXPENSES
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, if the minister needs an example he need only look at his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who spent massive amounts on advertising. You will note, Madam Speaker, that the minister has not answered the other question on whether or not the $50 million figure still stands.
The minister will be aware of the fact that he awarded an untendered contract, the largest of its kind in Canada, to Canadian Media Corporation, a company which was created to receive the contract from the federal government; it did not exist before. Due to the fact that Section 6, Item 4, of the contract between the government and Canadian Media Corporation provided that the minister, six months after the contract began, shall do an effectiveness audit, an efficiency audit, of the expenses incurred by the Canadian Media Corporation, with a view to determining whether or not the fee which is paid to that corporation should be adjusted, may I ask him whether that audit has taken place? If so, will he release the results of that audit to the House of Commons?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, yes indeed the audit has taken place. After the initial six months there was a review of the figures submitted by the
Canadian Media Corporation. In effect we are satisfied that the costs submitted were accurate and justified the amounts that had been paid. I would be pleased to discuss the matter further with the hon. member and to review the figures to see whether or not I can in effect deposit them in the House.
In terms of the hon. member's indication pointing to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his advertising campaign, I might point out that any advertising expended by that minister was conformant to the policies of the government, namely, that it will advertise, identify and provide information to the Canadian public relating to policies which have been adopted by the Government and by the Parliament of Canada.


CANADIAN UNITY
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question today for whichever minister is capable of answering questions on the Canadian Unity Information Office. I had intended to ask it of the Secretary of State, who is chairman of the cabinet communications committee, but unfortunately he is not here.
Could we have a confirmation from the ministry that the recently appointed director general is one Patrick McDoug-gall, formerly of Vickers and Benson, the agency which between April, 1980, and this date received $10 million worth of government advertising business through the interchange, and that Mr. McDouggall was appointed through the Interchange program which means in fact that at the end of his term he will be going back to Vickers and Benson?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I will gladly look into that but, as a general proposition, I think hon. members should be careful not to impute sins to people who come from other sectors of society to join the civil service. I had a case recently with an article which appeared in Maclean's magazine that does that with one of my officials. I think this is unfair, is a reflection on the honesty of people, and is totally undeserved.


APPLICATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
John William Bosley: McDouggall's case of the circumstances that surrounded the case of Mr. Phelps?


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that, according to our information, Mr. Patrick McDouggall has never been an employee or an executive of Vickers and Benson, and therefore his question is ill-founded if that is the situation.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. For the first time since World War II, the government of the United States has indicated that it would be prepared to initiate a nuclear attack.
In view of the statement made yesterday by the U.S. Secretary of State that the U.S. and its allies have plans which include using nuclear armaments against any conventional attack from the Soviets, can the minister indicate whether the Government of Canada, as a member of NATO, has approved of such plans?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, it is true that this country is part of NATO. All I can do is tell the hon. member what was decided at the last meeting of NATO ministers at Gleneagles two weeks ago. 1 have before me a copy of the communique relevant to the whole discussion, and it has been made public. It was reaffirmed then that the strategy of deterrence is the strategy of NATO-deterrence to prevent war. At the same time we recognized that the Soviet nuclear power had worsened, so in light of this the emphasis was on the need to move ahead with the implementation of both facets of the NATO decision. That means modernization of the credible deterrence of NATO at the same time that we are trying our best to control arms and prevent the proliferation of arms.


CANADIAN POSITION ON USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, I find it amazing that a government that speaks of suffocating nuclear weapons from the face of the earth would join in a policy that calls for a first strike with nuclear weapons.
Will the minister, on behalf of the Government of Canada, tell the United States government that Canada is against initiating the use of nuclear weapons in any so-called conventional military conflict since even a nuclear weapon used for supposedly demonstrative purposes will lead to a nuclear holocaust throughout the world?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. member that
Oral Questions
one has to be very realistic when talking about such subjects. I think every member of the House in whatever party is against nuclear war and, indeed, against any kind of war. It is very easy to say that we should have no war, but the most important thing is to try to find a way to prevent war. That is exactly what NATO is doing. I think that for the last 35 years NATO has been the most efficient peace movement in existence. We have not had any nuclear war for the last 35 years, and I hope we will never have one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, I would point out to the minister that the realism in this case is that all of us will fry if there is a nuclear war.


DEMONSTRATIONS OPPOSING UNITED STATES POLICY
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, my further supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister aware that next Wednesday, on Remembrance Day, over 100 American universities are planning demonstrations to join the hundreds of thousands of Europeans who have already taken to the streets to protest the madness of this new American policy, and does the minister not think that Canada, which has done so well as a peace seeker in the past, should also join in protesting this very real threat to world peace?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I understood the hon. gentleman to say that this was a demonstration of citizens, not of governments. I wonder why he thinks our government should be involved with groups of citizens in other countries. I remind him that his party's rejection of NATO is not shared by other members of this house nor by the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VIA RAIL
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It arises out of the question related to the order in council which proposes to reduce rail passenger service in this country by 20 per cent. Last week, on October 28, the Minister of Transport stated in the House that the order in council did not need to be registered and that, if there was any doubt about it, he would pass a new one. Just this past Tuesday the minister undertook to register Order in Council P.C. 1981-2171, 88 days after it was issued. This would seem to violate Section 9 of the Statutory Instruments Act, which calls for registration to come within seven days of the order being issued.

November 5, 1981
Oral Questions
What caused the minister to change his mind, and why did he choose to register the old one rather than issue a new one?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I still maintain that it was not necessary-I underline "necessary"-to register the order in council referred to. Some of my reasons for believing that are based on precedents which even the hon. gentleman who asked the question established. However, I said that if there was a shadow of a doubt-I underline "shadow of a doubt"-that registration would be useful, if not necessary, I would proceed to register the said order in council. This is what was done to remove that shadow of a doubt, and I still maintain-and my lawyers maintain- that the procedure of registration at this time will not affect the legal status of the order in council, nor the substance of it, nor the date of its implementation, nor the effect that it has on notices given to railway employees.


LEGALITY OF REGISTRATION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, perhaps in attempting to clarify the issue the minister has simply clouded it further, because legal counsel to the Joint Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, Mr. J. C. Eglington, has offered an opinion on the actions of the minister in terms of this registration as of last Tuesday. He states in a written opinion, and I quote:
-registration of the existing order in council as at today's date should be an unattractive proposition for the Department of Transport. It would raise too many nice legal questions, not only on Section 5 of the act but also on Sections 3, 7, 8 and 11 -
What does the minister propose in response to that legal opinion by a very distinguished servant of the committee, and can he ensure that, as far as he is concerned, the late registration will fulfil all the necessary requirements in terms of proper notification to the workers who will be laid off?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the opinion expressed by my hon. friend may be right. I tried to be accommodating, as I usually do, and to show respect for the Statutory Instruments Act in this particular instance. The debate referred to is one which has been going on, I understand, for a long period of time between Mr. Eglington and lawyers from the Department of Justice. I cannot solve this debate on my own. I thought I would make a friendly contribution in acting the way I did.


Mr. Lawrence:: You made it worse.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Be that as it may, the federal tribunal will have an occasion on, I think, Monday of next week, to throw some light on the subject. We will wait and see what it does.


REQUEST THAT IMPLEMENTATION OF ORDER IN COUNCIL BE DEFERRED
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, in light of the legal confusion which surrounds this whole matter, in light of the fact that now the government of Saskatchewan
has joined the action of the cities of Melville and Watrous and Transport 2000, in light of the fact that Saint John, New Brunswick will be launching a legal action, and the city of Edmonton, the province of Alberta and perhaps a group in Ontario will launch similar actions seeking an injunction on the proposal to discontinue 20 per cent of the rail passenger service in this country-plus there is the potential of the Interstate Commerce Commission in the State of Maine taking action-why will the minister not now defer the date of implementation and refer the matter to the appropriate courts so that the whole issue can be clarified and settled once and for all?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have apparently no reason to do that. I have made the case repeatedly-


An hon. Member:: When?


Jean-Luc Pepin: -that the use of Section 64 for the purpose of issuing an order in council to amend some orders of the Canadian Transport Commission is entirely legal.


An hon. Member:: It is unilateral.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments has not denied that at all. Therefore there is no reason for us to change our minds about the way this was done. Presumably Monday next we will know more about the subject after the Federal Court has heard the case.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. LUCIEN LAMOUREUX
Madam Speaker:: I cannot resist the temptation of drawing the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of one of my illustrious predecessors, the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. More than a year ago, in fact, on July 3, 1980, I asked the minister if he would soon reply to a proposal made by certain manufacturers of rubber tires that supply the automobile industry, the construction and farm machinery industry, which would allow them to rationalize their production. The minister
November 5, 1981

said at that time that he would advise the manufacturers very soon. Fifteen months have now passed since that question was asked. Would the minister give us some idea when he will respond to this proposal?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, in working on this proposal I thought it advisable to make sure that I had the views of the workers in the industry as well as the views of the individual firms. On consulting with them, I found there were strong differences of opinion about the advisability of this particular proposal in terms of its suiting the best interests of the workers and the industry in general. We are doing further work in the area to see if we can come up with a proposal that will respond to the concerns raised. I hope it will be possible to make some announcements on the matter before too long, although I think it will be some period of time yet before I can announce any decision.


PROPOSAL MADE BY FIRESTONE CORPORATION
William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has received a proposal from Firestone Canada Inc. that would allow Firestone to rationalize its production and permit duty remission on certain product lines. Firestone has negotiated a labour agreement with its employees to allow changes in work schedules. In fact Firestone has hired and trained several hundred new people anticipating the minister's action. When will the minister be likely to have a reply for Firestone? Several employees have petitioned members of the House of Commons about the matter a and some have commented that they hope Firestone will not be another Admiral Corporation which had its employees out on the street looking for jobs. The Firestone employees see this rationalization as a solution, and they would like an answer from the minister as soon as possible.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the Firestone Company presented a proposal pertaining to its own operations and the rationalization it had in mind. Essentially it is urging that we proceed on a proposal for the Firestone company, quite apart from anything from the industry. I think this raises some significant questions for the industry as well as for Firestone that we simply have to address properly.
I have had some strong representations on the matter from my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, from other Hamilton members, as well as from Firestone employees. I am taking the interests of the workers in that company very seriously, and I hope to have an answer on the matter before too long.
Oral Questions THE ECONOMY


QUERY RESPECTING MINISTER'S VIEWS AND PLANS
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It was mentioned that Canadian Admiral is laying off literally thousands of workers and that its assets have been seized by the banks. In light of the fact that domestic car sales for the month of October are down 35 per cent year over year and there have been lay-offs in every single industry right across the country, is the minister now prepared to admit that the Canadian economy is in a recession? Is the minister now prepared to admit that unemployment is at least as serious a problem as inflation for Canadian workers, and what is the minister going to do about it?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I think the statistics speak for themselves. There is no doubt that there are difficulties with the economy, even though there are indications that over the past year there have been some positive developments-


An hon. Member:: Where?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -such as the very strong rate of job creation. The situation that my hon. friend mentioned is not confined to Canada. The U.S. economy is very weak, which has been confirmed by the American administration. This is a very important reason for difficulties in some of our industrial sectors, particularly the automotive one, because we export to the United States some 80 per cent of our production of vehicles and individual automotive parts. Therefore, we have been looking into the situation with a great deal of urgency.
I think my hon. friend should look forward to the budget in a few days. Obviously I cannot say what may or may not be in it, but I think it will give an indication of the way we have been addressing the very serious concerns that we all share on current developments.


ECONOMIC STRATEGY
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I noted the minister did not answer either part of my question. First, I asked whether the minister would admit that the economy is in a recession. Certainly he is in a position to know. Second, I asked whether or not he feels that unemployment is as serious a problem as inflation. I would like an answer to both of those questions. The Minister of Finance has been saying that inflation is the focus of the government's economic strategy and that unemployment is not regarded by the government as a serious problem. Does the minister think the country is in a recession now, and does he think that unemployment now is as serious a problem as inflation?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, definitions of recession and like
matters are matters of debate among economists. However, as

November 5, 1981
Oral Questions
I have said, I do not think we are debating this. Current economic indicators show a serious situation about which we have to be prepared to take appropriate action. Certainly we are very concerned about unemployment. There are definite links between unemployment and inflation. To respond properly to the needs of the country I think the government has to deal with both unemployment and inflation, and this is what we are prepared to do.


INCREASED PRICE OF GASOLINE
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the minister accepted his responsibility for the national energy policy, in many areas, the price of gasoline to the Canadian consumer has increased by almost 100 per cent. In my home town the price of gasoline on December 1, 1979, was $1 a gallon. Today it is $1.84 a gallon.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Leonard J. Gustafson: On December 1, 1979, diesel fuel was 72 cents a gallon. Today it is $1.31 a gallon. That is a 59 cent
increase.


An hon. Member:: That is a disgrace.


Leonard J. Gustafson: On December 1, 1979, purple gasoline for farmers was 82 cents a gallon-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a
question, I can allow it.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Excuse me, Madam Speaker, I probably get carried away on this very serious subject. These increases are unequalled. What does the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources plan to do for the people of Canada who have been ripped off and who have had to accept taxation of $52 billion?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, the hon. member has a very short memory in two respects. First, he has been making speeches in this House and attacking me over the past year in order to get higher prices for gasoline, not the lower prices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: You are a good target.


Mr. Lalonde:: Second, my hon. friend does not seem to remember the infamous budget of the hon. member for St. John's West which would have led to even higher prices than the ones we have at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Withdraw.


PRICE OF FUEL USED IN PRODUCTION OF FOOD
Leonard J. Gustafson: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I would ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to rethink what he has just said in this House. As I mentioned earlier, farmers in the constituency of Assiniboia are faced with prices for diesel fuel that have increased almost 100 per cent. Will the minister consider some action in relation to the production of food, action which is so essential to the farmers of this country who are in dire straits?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the plight of the farmers and the farming community is very much in the heart of this government, and we have a Minister of Agriculture who has been doing an outstanding job for many years, ever since he has been in that portfolio. Our concern for the farmers takes the form of many programs that this government, and particularly the Minister of Agriculture, have been leading through Parliament. The issue of fuel prices is only one element of the total cost to farmers, and we are trying to address the total income position of the farmers to make sure the farmers of Canada will continue to improve their lot over the years, continue to be a thriving and dynamic community, and continue their dynamic contribution to the welfare of the country.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Madam
Speaker, a few weeks ago, the Minister of Transport received a request asking that at least a reduced weekly service on the Edmundston-Moncton VIA Rail route be maintained until other means of public transport are in place. This is a matter with which the minister is very familiar. I would like to ask the minister today whether he has made a decision. If so, what is it? If not, will his door remain firmly closed to any constructive suggestions in this regard?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I recognize that I had promised to make the greatest effort to achieve this objective of bringing about an improvement in the other means of transport between Edmundston and Moncton. I shall have the opportunity in the very near future to report to the hon. member on the results that I have achieved.
November 5, 1981


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. A recent War Veterans Allowance Board decision has expanded the terms of eligibility for veterans' pensions to include those veterans who, during the last war, served in non-combat areas such as Newfoundland and Jamaica on the same basis as those veterans receiving pensions who served in a theatre of war. Will the minister inform the House whether his department has begun processing these new applications and, if so, will they be dealt with as soon as possible?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I want first of all to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. The answer is yes, they will be processed immediately.


TERMS OF ELIGIBILITY
Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Madam Speaker, in light of this decision by the board will the minister give further consideration to broadening the terms of eligibility for pension benefits to include those veterans who, through no fault of their own, were stationed in Canada during the war and not given the opportunity to serve overseas but up to now have not been eligible for pensions?


W. Bennett Campbell: Madam Speaker, the war veterans allowance when it was first initiated, as the hon. member probably knows, was restricted to individuals who were actually involved in front line service. As time went on that question boiled down to equating it to front line service. At the moment there are basically four criteria; having served in an active theatre of war; being a veteran who served in both wars; service in dangerous waters; or a disability pensioner. I am sure the War Veterans Allowance Board, just as it did in this particular instance in opening up the war veterans allowance benefits to those who served in Jamaica and Newfoundland, will continue to look at ways and means of further extending those benefits to other veterans.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Is it the policy of his department or prison officials to provide the RCMP with the record of criminal activities engaged in by a prisoner while in prison, passing that information on to the RCMP after release of that prisoner?
Oral Questions


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, the practice is to do that, so the answer is yes.


NATURE OF INFORMATION
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I wonder if it is the practice of the Solicitor General or his department and the parole officers to provide the RCMP with information other than the computer print-out list when a prisoner is released.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, it depends on the circumstances. When an inmate is released who might, although he has served his time and paid his debt to society, constitute a danger or a risk to the community to which he is going, the prison officials and the parole board will make information available to the police authorities and others in the community which it might be in their interest to know in order to provide protection for that community. If the hon. member has some specific problem in mind I would be glad to hear more about it and provide additional information for him.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It is a well-known fact that the Farm Credit Corporation requires funding of $200 million right now on an urgent basis in order to help those farm operations that are in great financial need. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture how soon legislation will be ready dealing with the Farm Credit Corporation amendments which would allow that corporation to borrow money from the private sector, or from private capital markets, and would the minister, through the President of the Privy Council, seek agrrement from all House leaders for quick passage of that legislation through this House?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the draft legislation is prepared. How quickly it will reach that stage in which it is in a form to be presented to the House I do not know. I hope this will follow the lines the hon. member has stated. We realize the urgency of having emergency credit for farmers. The Farm Credit Corporation has been the federal lending institution, and at one time in this nation loaned nearly 70 per cent of all long-term money for farmers. That is now down to about 20 per cent of long-term money. The need for an organization which understands rural Canada still exists, perhaps to an even greater extent today than before.

November 5, 1981
Oral Questions TRADE


IMPORT QUOTAS ON FOOTWEAR
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce advise the House when the government expects to announce that import quotas on footwear, which are due to expire on December 1 next, will be continued into the future as these quotas are very much needed to enable Canadian producers of footwear to obtain a reasonable share of the market so that many thousands of Canadian footwear workers will have jobs?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the cabinet is very close to completing its work on the appropriate elements of a new policy for the Canadian footwear industry for the future. We are very much aware that the present system of quotas will expire on December 1, and we know the need of our industry, including its workers, to be able to plan for the future. We are very aware of the importance of the industry to many parts of the country, and I look forward to making an announcement really quite soon.


ENTRY OF PRODUCTS FROM THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES
George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the minister state that he expects to make an announcement in the very near future. I hope it will be the kind of announcement I have been urging him to make for many weeks.
As a supplementary question I would like to ask whether the delay in making this announcement has been due to an expressed wish by the Prime Minister that markets such as Canada should be opened up to producers of the Third World, where labour costs are so low those producers can greatly undersell Canadian producers, the result of which would be to put many thousands of Canadian footwear workers out of work.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the time factors are related primarily to our earlier effort to put in place an appropriate policy for the textile and clothing sectors. We received the report of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal only on March 6. Once we had completed our work with respect to a new program for the textile and clothing sectors, we moved on to work on a policy for the footwear sector and, as I have said, I look forward to an announcement very soon, one that responds to the concerns and interests of all those involved.
The points my hon. friend has been making to me are very much the kind raised by many members on this side of the House. I look forward to be able to make an announcement, and I hope it will be one that will receive wide assent in the country and in this House.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I want to refer the minister to the statement which he made last week which was good news for some visitors from Poland who will be helped in their bid to stay in Canada, and also for the self exiles in eastern European camps. There is no mention about the 200 ship jumpers in the Vancouver area claiming refugee status and who are having to wait up to two years before they can determine whether they are eligible for refugee status.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that not only did we increase the level of intake of refugees from eastern Europe but we also announced in the previous week relaxed criteria that applied to those here in Canada who are being sponsored by families or, if they are in Canada, that they would be granted work permits to allow them to gain employment for a year until the situation is clarified.
It is my belief that the people who are already landed in the Vancouver area would be eligible under those requirements. I will ask my immigration officials to take that into account.


ADMISSION OF REFUGEES FROM EL SALVADOR
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the minister's generous relaxation of immigration regulations, which has just been referred to, for Polish people who are unwilling to return home, as he puts it, and in view of the more than 100,000 Salvadorans who fled their country because of the massacre of 20,000 there, many of whom wish to enter Canada but are prevented from doing so because of lack of access to Canadian immigration officers, will the minister do as he did when he sent the special team to Austria on behalf of the Polish people, and send a special team to Latin America for the purpose of interviewing El Salvadoran refugees who wish to come to Canada?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the hon. member was not in the House at the time, but I will tell him that during last spring and summer we announced similar relaxed criteria for those from Salvador as we applied to the Polish refugees. Furthermore, we sent a special team down to South America to examine the situation and report back. We have, in fact, applied the same conditions.
I would point out to the hon. member that it is the position taken by the United Nations High Commission on Refugees that they do not want to encourage any large-scale movement from Central America because their priority for that region is for resettlement within El Salvador, or within the region itself. Because so much of our refugee policy is done in consultation
November 5, 1981

with the United Nations, we do not want to contradict their very strong advice and guidance to us.


REQUEST THAT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TRAVEL TO CENTRAL AMERICA
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that many thousands of those refugees are not being relocated and integrated by the United Nations Commission- there are 6,000 in the United States, many of whom have sought to enter Canada and have been turned back by Canadian officials and refused consideration for refugee status-will the minister direct the Canadian immigration staff in the United States and elsewhere to assist El Salvadoran refugees to enter Canada quickly so they can be reviewed by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee? Alternatively, will the hon. gentleman direct the Refugee Status Advisory Committee to go to areas with no Canadian representation-many countries in Central America have no Canadian representatives- and review the status of those people who seek to be refugees in Canada?


Lloyd Axworthy: I would suggest it would be wise to check the facts of the hon. member's statements. Again, in the statement we made last spring in relation to El Salvador, we indicated that we were prepared to take El Salvadoran refugees from the United States who are not being granted status there. We were prepared to accept them here and we have a number of those cases in process at our embassy in Mexico which are being looked after by our immigration officers.
If the hon. member knows of cases that are being rejected, I would be pleased to look into them. Those are the rules and guidelines established and, as far as we know, those rules and guidelines are being honoured.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He was questioned earlier by my colleague about the Canadian tire industry. He will know that there has been a recent court ruling in the United States which had the effect of varying or diluting the countervailing duties placed on Miche-lin tires. Since the tire industry is a very important one in Nova Scotia, which is in the foreground of technology, is the minister taking any steps or making any plans to take any steps in view of the recent court ruling, to further vary or change this dangerous and seldom used precedent that still has the effect of being a hindrance to the Canadian tire industry in Nova Scotia?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, in our work for an appropriate
Oral Questions
policy for the Canadian tire industry we are taking into account all the relevant elements and all its aspects, including Michelin in Nova Scotia.


GARRISON DIVERSION
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the minister knows, the United States has approved $4 million for the Garrison Diversion Project in North Dakota under wording which instructs the United States Department of the Interior to resume work on the project in spite of the recent court ruling by Justice Ritchie. That particular instruction is in the form of a budget bill. It goes to the House of Representatives next week.
Since the House of Commons has unanimously signalled its concern over this project, is the government now contemplating sending an all-party committee made up of members from the House of Commons and possibly some representatives from the province of Manitoba, to Washington so they may be there next week to sit down and talk on a personal basis with the members of the House of Representatives who will be discussing this issue?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the language which has been adopted by the Senate is identical to the language which I referred to in the House the other day and includes a direction that none of the money which is being appropriated may be used for construction which in any way affects Canada's interests. So there is within the bill itself that guarantee to us, in addition to the assurances we have received from the United States administration.
Nevertheless, I would be less than frank with the hon. member if I did not say to him, and I think he well knows, we are concerned about any expansion of this project because at some future time that might provide ground for pressures to extend it in a way which might harm us. I will certainly give consideration to his suggestion. I will consult the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Employment and Immigration and other hon. members, as well as our sources in Washington, to see if it would be of assistance for us to have such a delegation there next week or in the future.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CONSIDER FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, a brief supplementary-
And Mr. Trudeau having entered the chamber:


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 5, 1981
Business of the House


Jack Burnett Murta: My supplementary question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. One of the real problems that Manitobans have over the wording of this issue is that it may open the door at some future time for Congressional supporters of the project to push through approval and, of course, if it passes the House of Representatives next week Canadian concerns may not be adequately represented, certainly at the diplomatic level. This is why it is so important that we in this House of Commons-
And Mr. Clark having entered the chamber:


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Has the hon. member for Lisgar finished his question?


Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, I am sure this has been the longest question in the history of House of Commons with the fewest number of words. Will the minister take this into consideration and get back to the members of the House of Commons as soon as possible on this issue?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I have the feeling that my hon. friend and I are standing in the way of history, so I will answer the question by merely saying yes.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, following the historic agreement concluded a few moments ago, I can confirm that there have been consultations among the spokesmen for all parties and that we have agreed to allow the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada to make a statement about that historic agreement at the earliest opportunity, that is in a few minutes, and that the rest of the orders be postponed accordingly, keeping in mind the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada will receive tonight a significant award, the Family of Man Award, presented by the Council of Churches of the City of New York. He must leave us at 4.55 p.m. at the latest to receive that distinctive award. The agreement is that, according to Standing Order 15(3), all questions be interrupted and completed at 4.55 p.m. at the latest this afternoon. I thank the spokesmen for the opposition parties for their courtesy on this occasion.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House confirm this agreement? [English]


Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, we have agreed to the statement being made. The President of the Privy Council said nothing about the conventional right of reply of the Leader of
the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). I assume that will be part of the agreement.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, we have also agreed on the understanding that the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party will be given an opportunity to reply.


THE CONSTITUTION
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I would like to table copies, in both official languages, French and English, of the signed accord agreed to this morning between the federal government and nine of the provincial Premiers. If I can do that at this stage, later in the proceedings we might find other copies. This is the only one I have with me; I am sure copies will be distributed. The substance of the accord is probably known by now to members of this House.
I will not explain it in any detail except to say that we have by consensus constitutionalized an endeavour begun in this House more than a year ago to bring Canada's Constitution to Canada, to have in it an amending formula and to have in it a charter of rights binding all levels of government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would first like to thank most members of my caucus, particularly the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and the ministers of this government who have stood steady in the endeavour to achieve these three objectives. The applause that we have just heard is a just expression of our happiness with this outcome, having after 54 years of failure succeeded in gaining the consensus to give Canada its Constitution with an amending formula, and into the bargain to put in a charter of rights, particularly in the area of language rights. Therefore, I want to thank the members of my caucus.
I want to thank the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) and the members of his caucus who have supported this effort. It was to that degree a joint effort. There were a great many discussions engaged in between members of my caucus and his.
I would also like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) who at the beginning of this operation, in May 1980 if I recall, offered a motion to this House, which was supported unanimously, to the effect that we should patriate with an amending formula regardless of all the difficulties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The task is not yet done. We have in this House to look either at amendments to the resolution before both Houses of Parliament, a joint resolution, or, alternatively, to a new resolution which would incorporate the patriation and all the elements of the charter with a couple of non obstante clauses and an amending formula in lieu of the one that was in there.
I hope that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party will agree to consult with me in the course of tomorrow to see in what ways this joint resolution can be presented in a fashion and a form which hopefully will permit a speedy passage through this House in a spirit of harmony as a result of these strivings, and incorporating, as I say, these three objectives; and hopefully in a form too which will facilitate its passage in the United Kingdom Parliament. One last time our Constitution will be amended there, and that will be the last time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have already talked to the government House leader in the other place because there is a change which affects them in this accord and a change which was put forward in the compromise amending formula. I know the reason for their veto up to now was that they felt it their duty to protect the provinces. However, after consultation with the House leader in the other place, I feel we can be hopeful, now that the provinces themselves have consented to this, that they will accept this amendment too.

Finally, I wish to express, as I already did this morning at the closing session, my regret that the only signature lacking in this Canadian harmony is that of the Premier of Quebec. We, on the government side, remembered the resolution passed by the Quebec National Assembly urging us to continue negotiations, to avoid proceeding unilaterally and to seek compromise solutions that would not take away from Quebec those jurisdictions which the Quebec government has under the Constitution. We remembered this resolution, and we do believe that we have acted in accordance with the intent of the unanimous resolution passed by the Quebec National Assembly, since we did reopen negotiations, we did continue the consultation process and we are, in fact, no longer acting unilaterally, since nine provinces have agreed with us on the procedure we have adopted.
Madam Speaker, I believe it is essential at this stage to clarify two or three points. Clearly, there is no disagreement on the patriation issue. As for the amending formula, it is, with one exception, exactly the same as the formula negotiated and accepted by the province of Quebec and the Group of Eight and made public on April 16 of this year. In other words, I want my fellow citizens in Quebec to understand that Quebec has retained the same veto right and the same opting-
The Constitution
out right they were offered in the April 16 agreement, an agreement which received the approval of Premier Levesque. So it cannot be said that we are taking away Quebec's traditional veto right. He has exactly the same veto right he asked for in the so-called Group of Eight Accord formula, and exactly the same opting-out right. What has been removed, Madam Speaker, is a constitutional provision that would have obliged the national government to compensate, in financial or fiscal terms, a province that would exercise its opting-out right, and conversely, would probably have obliged the provinces to compensate the federal government for parting with any of its jurisdictions.
We deleted this measure, with the agreement of the nine provinces, for a very simple reason. We want to avoid a situation in which the national government would be prevented from having its constitutional amendment approved by a province that would say; I am opting out and you are going to pay me for doing just that. And this, I can assure the House, does not apply only to Quebec. I am thinking, for instance, of a constitutional amendment pursuant to which the Canadian government would want to amend the Constitution so as to allow the national government to legislate on pensions and make them portable for the elderly from province to province.
If one of the wealthy provinces such as Alberta or Ontario- and this obviously applies to Quebec as well-were to say that it was opting out of the agreement and that we would be obliged to pay compensation, this would make it impossible, Madam Speaker, or at least very difficult, both fiscally and financially, to adopt such a measure. And it is for this very simple reason that the passage was removed-it is an important one, I realize that-from the April accord. It was done with the consent of the nine provinces, and this morning I explained at length the spirit in which it was done to the Premier of Quebec. Naturally, the political right, the constitutional right, to negotiate compensation remains, but it is a right to negotiate and not a pre-established obligation. So as far as the amending formula is concerned, Madam Speaker, I believe we have acted in accordance with the wishes of Quebecers and those of the Quebec government, with the exception of this point.
As far as the charter is concerned, the Premier of Quebec told us this morning that he agreed with the charter and would be able to sign it except for two points. However, it is important to understand that on the whole the charter received the approval of the Quebec government and that consequently nothing has been taken away from Quebec against the will of its government.
The two exceptions are mobility rights, the right of Canadians, irrespective of where they live, to seek work and to settle anywhere in Canada. We had to change the wording of these mobility rights to dispel the legitimate fears of Newfoundland, and we offered the same possibility to Quebec. Before the resolution is passed, if Quebec can let us know how an

November 5, 1981
The Constitution
amendment acceptable to the others and acceptable to us could be introduced, I am sure we would be able to find a compromise solution, as we did for Newfoundland. Finally, the only other point on which there was disagreement was the obligation for each province to undertake freely to protect its official language minorities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the applause is an indication how strongly we feel we have won a major victory in the long struggle of francophone minorities to obtain education rights for their children. This was achieved in all nine anglophone provinces by their agreement this morning. Quebec did not give its agreement, I might say it has not yet given its agreement. I explained that if it was a matter of changing the wording, we would also be willing to do that, provided the intent, which surely reflects the intent of all Canadians who believe in justice, is preserved, that is, to ensure that francophone and anglophone minorities are treated fairly. I am convinced that between people of goodwill acting in good faith, a way can still be found to express this. If we do not succeed today or tomorrow, I am convinced we could and should find a solution within a matter of weeks or months, so that the Quebec government will be able freely to undertake what all free men and women of goodwill would certainly expect it to do, that is, the constitutional protection of its minorities. I have said before that historically speaking, Quebec certainly does not need to be told what to do in that respect. We have always treated our language minorities fairly with regard to education-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and like Mr. Levesque this morning, I now wish to ask the legislators of the province of Quebec, the members sitting in the National Assembly, to consider the importance of the agreement that was signed today. Under this agreement, in terms of official languages at the federal level and in New Brunswick, and in terms of official languages in education in all provinces, francophone minorities have seen history being made. I only hope that our fellow citizens in Quebec will see this historical gesture repeated, as far as Quebec's jurisdiction is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my colleagues and I are naturally happy to have this matter back in the House of Commons and in Parliament. If I may, at the beginning I want to express our appreciation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -for reporting so quickly to the House of Commons. May I say that I hope it will be a practice which
will be followed regularly by all ministers on important matters. But I certainly appreciate the Prime Minister coming directly from the conference to the House which has been so occupied with this matter for such a long time.
It was evident from watching the televised responses of first ministers at the conference that many participants in the conference just concluded feel a very real sense of satisfaction and accomplishment at the prospect of a constitutional resolution which is likely to be dramatically different from the constitutional resolution proposed to the House of Commons more than a year ago by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Certainly there is a real sense of satisfaction among many of us in the House and, if I may say so, particularly among many of us in this party. The first ministers met today because the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada allowed them to meet. The Supreme Court of Canada had the opportunity to judge this question because this party won that right for the court during a long and difficult fight on the floor of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: On behalf of the people of Canada we fought for the principle that our Constitution should be decided in our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: For nearly a year, the Progressive Conservative Party has fought in Parliament against a resolution which it felt was dividing the country, thereby making it possible for the Supreme Court to consider the resolution and bring in its decision.

I have spoken of satisfaction, but the dark shadow across any satisfaction we might feel today is the fact that the province of Quebec was not able to support the agreement at the conference. The prospect exists, therefore, that Quebec will be isolated and alone on a constitutional question. The consequences of that isolation must concern every Canadian who wants our nation to remain united.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We have just received a copy of the press release. We have not yet examined the text of the new resolution to be submitted to Parliament. During this conference, however, we have heard the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Quebec discuss some of the issues which have resulted in Quebec's isolation.
November 5, 1981



One issue, as the Prime Minister indicated, concerns compensation for provinces that do not take part in certain programs. If I heard the Prime Minister of Canada correctly, he said he believed that this was a matter which could be resolved outside the context of the Constitution. If the question can be resolved on its merits, and if including in the constitutional accord a formula for resolving it, may make the package more acceptable to the province of Quebec, surely we should seek to resolve within the Constitution an agreement which the Prime Minister said can be resolved outside the Constitution.
Again if I heard the Prime Minister correctly, he believes that further discussion may lead to some agreement on the question of language rights. He reiterated that today when, in speaking about the acceptance by the province of Quebec, he said that there had not been acceptance by that province pas encore, not yet, indicating that he thinks there may well be some acceptance. If that is so, the new resolution proposed to be presented to Parliament should be refined to seek the unanimity which would be preferred by all of us who want to keep the country intact.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: There is some heckling across the way which I regret on this occasion, particularly since it comes from the minister of fisheries; but perhaps that is to be expected.
There will be more to add in the House when we have seen the exact language of the new resolution the government will want to introduce. The Prime Minister has asked the opportunity to consult with me and to consult with the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). Naturally we would be prepared to meet with him to discuss the general question of timing. We would be prepared to do that at his earliest convenience.
What is important is that the events today have indicated that much more agreement is possible in Canada than many Canadians had previously believed to be possible. As the Prime Minister reminded us often, and again today, this process began some 54 years ago. The first ministers have just emerged from four days of intensive discussions and some real agreement. Soon the matter will be back in the House of Commons and naturally we will want to consider all the implications of a resolution which is dramatically different from that which we considered before. It may be that, just as Parliament improved the last resolution, Parliament may find solutions to some of the matters not resolved by the first ministers. Certainly all Canadians who value the unity of our country would want us to accept our full duty to find even broader agreement than was reported today.
We have found that honouring the federal-provincial process has resulted in significant progress on the Constitution. This Parliament, whose vigilance and determination allowed the Supreme Court of Canada to decide and allowed the first ministers to meet again, welcomes the progress which has been made so far, and this Parliament looks forward to contributing to even further progress and even further agreement.
The Constitution


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, at the outset I should like to offer my deepest congratulations not only to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) but to the Premiers of the provinces, reflecting highly divergent personal views, highly divergent regional interests and highly divergent partisan concerns, for producing for us today in a desirable process a broad Canadian consensus.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: 1 should like to say also at this point that when this process began in the House, as the Prime Minister reminded us a few minutes ago, just over a year ago we in the New Democratic Party had three objectives. We wanted an independent Canadian Constitution, we wanted a workable amending formula, and we wanted a charter of rights for all Canadians. We were determined from the outset, reflecting upon the deep traditions of our own party and movement, as well as the traditions of other parties, to ensure that at the end of the process which began a year ago we would end up with a document that achieved those three objectives.
In the process, Madam Speaker, we well know that there were some important Supreme Court decisions, first at the provincial Supreme Court level. Finally the Supreme Court of Canada made a ruling that caused all of us, I might say in passing to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), to say at the time that the decisions of the superior court in Canada could not be ignored because they are an integral part of our political system. They had to be respected. Members of all parties, going right back to the decision made by the Supreme Court of the province of Newfoundland and ending in the decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada, said that the judicial process, as part of our political system, had to be respected. That has been done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Most specifically, in light of the recent decision that said, on the one hand, to those of us in federal politics that what we were doing was legal-on a certain resolution that we had before us-and, on the other hand, that a broader consensus had to be achieved, there was one course of action that was singularly appropriate, and that was to have a new conference. My party called for that conference right after the Supreme Court decision.
I am pleased to say-and I do not think one should be grudging about this because it seems to me a spirit of generosity and magnanimity flowed through all parties in the building not far from here today, and therefore it behooves us to demonstrate the same concern-that all parties in the House responded to the implications of that Supreme Court decision which came down a few weeks ago.
What we have seen today is a reflection of the best Canadian tradition of compromise. Conservatives, Liberals and New

November 5, 1981
Business of the House
Democrats, Newfoundlanders, Albertans, people from Ontario and British Columbia, have come together to achieve a document that in terms of the process, I emphasize, was incomparable in its spirit of magnanimity and give and take.
I want to say that it is the deeply felt view of my colleagues and myself that the charter of rights that we fought for, the independent Constitution that we fought for, the amending formula that we fought for and that we had built into the old document, when we see them in their new form, in the present document that has been agreed upon, will contain acceptable and desirable alternatives. I strongly hope that is the case. [Translation]
In conclusion, I must say I am personally very sad that the Quebec government has not deemed it possible to sign the agreement. Because it represents a very special region and a unique nation in Canada, its decision is of paramount importance. I hope that future amendments will make it possible for the Quebec government to change its mind.

The Prime Minister has indicated that certain efforts will be made to achieve that very desirable goal.
I think it is a fundamental commitment of members on all sides of the House that when it comes to the people of the province of Quebec, we must do everything we can to make Quebecers feel that they can be at the same time Quebecois and good Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I will conclude, Madam Speaker, by again congratulating the Prime Minister and the Premiers involved in this very difficult process on what they have achieved today. I want to indicate that I will be only too willing to sit down with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition tomorrow to work out the specific details of how we can bring this important process to a final and productive conclusion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, may I direct the usual Thursday question to the President of the Privy Council and ask him what the business of the House is going to be for the remainder of this week and as far into next week as he can tell. There is, of course, Remembrance Day next Wednesday and there is, of course, the budget on November 12.1 wonder if the minister could fill in the gaps so that we may know where we are going next week.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as I told my hon. colleague before question period, we will have a House leaders' meeting at five o'clock this afternoon.


Charles Joseph Clark: Just for precision, can we assume that the budget will be brought in on November 12?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, it is up to the Minister of Finance to give the proper notice of this so I will not do his job. He is able to do it himself, and very well.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, while it has been the suspicion of some of us for some time that when the Minister of Finance was here he was, in effect, the government House leader, and while it is not proper for me to direct a question to him at this point, I wonder if the government House leader might lean forward in his seat and whisper in the ear of his senior adviser. Since it is very important to the country to know that, now that we have made some progress on constitutional matters, the very real urgency and priority of dealing with the economy will not be shunted backwards again, and since we all have plans to make, I wonder if we could have an assurance either from the Minister of Finance or from the government House leader that the solemn undertaking given in this House that a budget will be brought down on November 12 will be honoured.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, there will be a meeting of the House Leaders at five o'clock. I will then provide his own House Leader with further information, to be passed on to him.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PROVINCIAL MINISTERS
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, with your permission I should like to salute in our gallery some ministers who have worked almost all night to achieve agreement: Mr. Johnston from Alberta, Mr. Romanow from Saskatchewan, Mr. Wells from Ontario, Mr. Mercier, the Attorney-General of Manitoba, and Mr. McMurtry, the Attorney-General of Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Wednesday, November 4, 1981, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
November 5, 1981



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order but reserve the right to raise the matter tomorrow. During an answer from the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) to a question put by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), it was my impression that the minister cited a government document. After I have had an opportunity to read Hansard I will be in a position to bring that point of order forward.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,147, 2,465, 2,659, 2,697, 3,032 and 3,033.


Mr. Gilchrist: How many recipients of Canadian foreign aid have outstanding claims against them by Canadian companies and, in each case, what is the name of the recipient and the amount of the claim?


Mark R. MacGuigan: The Canadian government does not maintain a registry of Canadian companies which have claims against foreign companies. Therefore it is not possible to answer this question.


Mr. McGrath: 1.	What criteria are used by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials to accept a thermal insulation material as acceptable under CHIP?
2.	(a) At what temperature does urea formaldehyde foam insulation ignite and does the ignition point change with the age of the foam (b) what is the physical equation for the combustion of UFFI and what are the names of the chemicals (c) at what level in parts per million would the chemicals be considered hazardous to health over the (i) short term (ii) long term?
3.	(a) How many single and semi-detached homes currently standing were built prior to January 1, 1961 and how many single and semi-detached homes were added to housing stock since 1961 (b) how many homes installed with UFFI (i) received (ii) did not receive assistance under CHIP?
4.	(a) For each year 1977 to 1980, how many fires in single or semi-detached homes occurred that required assistance from fire departments to extinguish flames and how many of the homes were destroyed (b) what is the probability of the UFFI ignition point being reached in a household fire and what is the composition of gases released from UFFI if the ignition point is reached?
Order Paper Questions


David P. Smith: 
Mr. Flis: 1.	What was the date of incorporation of the Export Development Finance Corporation of Canada Inc. and what was its purpose?
2.	Did the corporation meet its obligations and goals and what is its present status?


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. There is no federal corporation bearing the name Export Development Finance Corporation of Canada Inc. There is, however, a company bearing the name Export Finance Corporation of Canada, Ltd., which was federally incorporated on June 4, 1959, under a special act of Parliament assented to on that date.
The objects of the corporation are to finance and facilitate exports and imports and the exchange of goods and services between Canada and any nation of the Commonwealth of Nations or other nations, and between agencies or residents of Canada and such nations, or agencies or residents thereof.
2. In so far as the above act is concerned, the company has met its legal obligations by having filed with the director of corporations its financial statement and annual summary for the year ending March 31, 1981. The department is not in a position to comment on the performance of the company with regard to its goals or objects. Present status: active.


Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): To date, what was the total cost of the South East Asian (Vietnamese boat people) refugee program?


Lloyd Axworthy: As of March 31, 1981, a total of $141,636,000 has been expended on the Vietnamese refugee program.


Mr. Gamble: Did the Canadian International Development Agency or Marcel Masse recently refuse a free opportunity extended by The Tom Cherington Show on CHCH-TV in Hamilton, Ontario to participate in a discussion and debate on foreign aid and, if so, for what reason?


Mark R. MacGuigan: An invitation to appear on The Tom Cherington Show in October was declined because of the president's intended presence at the Commonwealth heads of government conference in Australia and the North-South summit in Cancun, Mexico. It was agreed with the producer that an attempt would be made to include The Tom Cherington Show in the schedule of Mr. Masse's activities when his travels will take him to the Hamilton area.


Mr. Gamble: 1.	Did the Canadian International Development Agency sponsor a Third World Village at the Canadian National Exhibition in Toronto from August 19 to September 7, 1981 and, if so, what was the (a) total budgeted cost (b) actual cost of the exhibit?
2.	What was the cost, if any, for (a) demonstrations (b) artisans (c) films and slide presentations (d) all other expenses?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. Yes. (a) the total budgeted cost was $60,000, (b) the actual cost of the exhibit was $57,391.07.
2. (a) nil, (b) the cost of artisans was $27,445.44, (c) nil, (d) all other expenses cost $29,945.63.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I cannot speak unless my desk light goes on, and it is concerning that that I rise today. I have been studying
November 5, 1981

the problem which I presented to the Chair yesterday, and I would not want the Chair to think that by my not pursuing the matter today I was not doing so at the earliest opportunity. In fact, my research has led me to the belief that the matter must be thoroughly prepared before it is presented to you, and I will probably be doing that either tomorrow or Monday.


Madam Speaker:: I take note of that.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, November 4, 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. 27 (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I would like to deal with one or two items in connection with Motion No. 27. First I want to mention a statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) when he said that there is enough competition in the industry to allow Petro-Canada stations to compete with other gas stations. We do not object to competition; we like competition. Competition is the life blood of free enterprise. What we object to is favouritism. We object when one group is given a head start. So the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is wrong when he criticizes members of this party and leads people to believe that we are opposed to Petro-Canada's competing with other stations. He is absolutely wrong. We believe in competition, but we want that competition to be fair and honest. I thought I should at least put the record straight in that regard.
I would also like to deal with one or two points raised by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) when he was speaking about this motion yesterday. He said that there have been instances in the past in which the operators of foreign-owned multinationals could not carry out work in the north. Well, whether it is a multinational company, a Canadian company, a small company or a big company, certain work cannot be carried out in the north during part of the year. If the work is building accesses, probably the best time of the year to build on muskeg is in the wintertime; but if the work is drilling, there are difficulties which have to be overcome.
The hon. member for Algoma justified Clause 35, which we want to delete, by saying that the minister had to have this particular power as a safeguard because some companies-he said multinationals, but he could have said other companies, Canadian companies, independent companies and so forth- might not want to do the work and might want to delay it. I
Canada Oil and Gas Act
think that is a ridiculous argument. In the first place, those companies which are in the Northwest Territories, the Yukon or on the ocean to the north have every incentive to stay there. They are the ones which have put in their hard earned cash to be up there, and they are not going to pull out and head for Saudi Arabia simply because we have cold winters in the north. This clause is not a safeguard at all. It is ridiculous to say that the minister is given this power in Clause 35(1) to safeguard the interests of Canadians. That is not correct.
Let me just deal with one or two cases. The hon. member for Algoma, who is a Liberal, said that in some cases private enterprise feels no responsibility to Canada and that therefore this ia a good safeguard. I do not go along with that at all. Small, independent Canadian companies such as the one mentioned yesterday by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) have spent a lot of money up there and, after spending all that money, they found some gas and capped the wells while waiting for the day when there will be a pipeline. To say that such a company has no interest in Canada and has no responsibility to Canada is completely ridiculous. We do not need a clause like Clause 35(1) to encourage such enterprise. It does not encourage, it discourages. Let me read what it says:
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources may, by order subject to section 56, direct that any designated Crown corporation that holds a Crown share transfered to it under section 31 shall be the operator with respect to the relevant interest.
In other words, the minister can designate Petro-Canada to go in and reap all the rewards of the work done by a small, independent company. That is not my idea of fair competition.
Let us look at something else in relation to this same item. Hon. members talk about the advantages and disadvantages of Petro-Canada. I emphasize that we want Petro-Canada to have a fair chance. We want its stations to have a fair chance, but we do not want favouritism given to them. Let us look at how these stations came into being in the first place. Petrofina was purchased with 1.4 billion of Canadians' dollars, far in excess of the proper price. Canadians were stung in the first instance by Petro-Canada's making a bad deal in purchasing this company. Petro-Canada paid twice as much for it as it should have.
When we look at the profits of Petrofina over the last few years, if my memory is correct, Petrofina made $24 million in 1979. In 1980 the profit figure rose to about $80 million. In 1981 it appears the profit will be less than the $24 million the company made in 1979. If PetroCan had been businesslike, it could have taken the $1.46 billion, which it did not have and that it is now taking out of people's pockets through the gasoline price at the pumps, and invested it at the very lowest interest offered by the banks today. This would have secured more than $20 million for the people of Canada.
If Petro-Canada is interested in helping the people of Canada, why did that company pay off the Belgian debt with Canadian money? That is just about what has happened. The company was not showing interest in the welfare of Canadians by buying Petrofina. We object to this type of thing very

November 5, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
strongly. We object when people start saying that everything is so wonderful about Petro-Canada. We want Petro-Canada to have a fair deal, but we want that company to be fair with the people too. Why did not Petro-Canada buy Petrofina in the ordinary way? Why did not Petro-Canada get the money and then buy Petrofina through its profits? Petro-Canada decided to do it the other way, and now the Canadian people pay an extra 3.6 cents on every gallon of gasoline purchased. The $1.46 billion paid to take over Petrofina will be raised by the 3.6 cents paid on every gallon of gasoline. No matter where people buy gasoline, whether from an Esso station, a Gulf station, a Phillips station, a PetroCan station, or any other station in Canada, we will all be paying this Crown corporation so that PetroCan can own Petrofina stations.
People should remember when they buy their gas at the pump that they are paying an extra 3.6 cents on every gallon for the purchase of Petrofina. For example, if a person purchases 500 gallons or 1,000 gallons of gasoline a year they are also paying 500 or 1,000 times 3.6 cents extra a year. People should not have to pay this extra amount, but the Canadian government permitted PetroCan to buy Petrofina and allowed PetroCan to pay for it by charging every Canadian at the gas pump. This did not bring one additional gallon of gas into our objective of oil self-sufficiency by 1990 or any other year. Simply a line of gasoline stations was purchased. The government is charging every Canadian for this purchase, and it is a taxation which is completely unfair.
Contrary to what the hon. minister has said in this House, Canadians are not happy with this purchase at all. One out of every 100 Canadians will tell you that he is not happy about paying an additional 3.6 cents on every gallon of gasoline so that PetroCan can own Petrofina. If Petro-Canada wanted to buy Petrofina, Petro-Canada should have done it the regular way. Petro-Canada should not have used dollars in the pockets of ordinary people, many of whom cannot afford it.


Some hon. Members:: Ah!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Do hon. members realize when they say "ah" there are many Canadians today who use their cars to get to work, perhaps to take their wife to work and their youngsters to school? On every gallon of gasoline they purchase, they are paying an extra 3.6 cents so that we can have more Petro-Canada service stations. It will be more than that before this whole thing is over. Liberal members try to justify this to the people of Canada.
I just want to deal with one aspect. This clause gives us the opportunity to show exactly what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is doing. When we give him power like this, he can simply direct a Canadian corporation to do a job, and it does not matter how much money a small Canadian company on the spot has spent in finding oil or gas. The minister can designate Petro-Canada to skim off all the cream and all of the profits. This is not right, nor is it a safeguard for Canadians. It is simply another totalitarian act by a minister who is telling one company that it will be
favoured. This has already happened. That company has already been given 136 million acres.
We talk about competition. There is all kinds of room for competition in the north, but there is no competition under this act. Everything favours one particular company. That favouritism will be to the detriment of Canada. It will discourage investment. It will discourage investment by many people when they get that kind of a deal in the north.
We are talking about the price of gas in Canada today. This is very relevant. When the Liberals were returned to power in 1980 they promised that gas prices would not rise, that they would stay lower than 18 cents. Look at what has happened. Since the Liberals were returned to power in February, 1980, gas prices have risen about 8 cents a litre, or 36 cents a gallon. Liberals campaigned, particularly around Ontario and Quebec, by telling people how bad it would be for Canadians to pay an extra 18 cents a gallon. The PC government was being honest with the people. The country needed the money. We wanted to start paying our way.
That is not the story the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and others told in Ontario. They said things such as: "We will not charge you as much as those terrible Tories." That is the story the Liberals told.
But the record tells the real story. Let us take a look at it. On August 1, 1980, oil prices rose by $2 a barrel, causing consumer prices to rise by 7.2 cents a gallon on October 1, 1980. On November 1, 1980, petroleum product prices increased by about six tenths of a cent a litre, or 2.7 cents a gallon, because of an oil import compensation tax of 80 cents on each barrel of oil. The import tax was announced on October 28 as a means of getting consumers to start covering the cost of subsidizing eastern Canadian refiners for the difference between the domestic and foreign price of oil. This was an additional 2.7 cents a gallon.
I was amazed this afternoon when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in answer to a question from this side, said that the Tories were asking for higher prices for Canadians. We were asking for a fair price for Canadians comparable to what we were paying foreign importers. That is all we have ever asked.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: It was not right at all. I defy anyone to say that it was right. I defy anyone to honestly say that it was right for Canada to be paying $45 and $50 a barrel for Mexican and Iranian oil and only $18 a barrel for oil produced in our own country. There is no logic in that. Canadians right across Canada paid because the federal government took so long to come to its senses and enter into an agreement with the province of Alberta.
On January 1, 1981, the import compensation tax increased by $2.50 a barrel, adding another 9 cents a gallon to prices. On March 1, 1981, prices increased by 3.6 cents a gallon as a result of a $1 increase in the wellhead price of oil on January 1 imposed by the federal government. On March 2, 1981, prices
November 5, 1981

again increased 2.25 cents a gallon because of a special federal tax on consumption to pay for imported oil needed to replace cuts in Alberta production of 60,000 barrels a day. Again, the person buying gas at the pump is paying right through the nose. Prices increased again by 3.6 cents a gallon to help finance the $1.46 billion takeover of Petrofina by Petro-Canada. Another 3.6 cents was added to the cost of our gas.
I do not know how the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Prime Minister can still stand up and say to the people of Canada that they kept their promises. Just look at the record, it tells the story.
On June 3 federal tax increases totalled 1.6 cents a litre, or 7.2 cents a gallon, imposed to cover oil import costs. In addition there was a second cut in Alberta production of 60,000 barrels a day. Federal officials said that those increases, combined with federal and provincial sales taxes, resulted in a retail price jump of about 2 cents a litre, or 9 cents a gallon, on gasoline and diesel fuel. This is an increase in cost even to the farmer about whom the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) had so much to say the other day when some of our members were speaking about helping the agriculture industry. He said it all while sitting down. He did not say how much farmers are being charged for their diesel oil and for fertilizers, thereby increasing the cost of production while reducing the amount of food that can be produced in this country. There was a further increase of $1 in the wellhead price of oil on July 1.
Canadians have been lied to, promised to, and otherwise misled by the Right Hon. Prime Minister and the energy minister, the Hon. Marc Lalonde, in a cynical way. Our gasoline is still cheap compared to European prices, yes, but what is the future to bring? We are no closer to a coherent energy policy in 1981 than we were ten years ago in 1971. As a matter of fact, we are further away. While prices may still be affordable, that could change overnight with Ottawa's continuing fight with the provinces; and while they continue to tell us they want to give us a better and lower price, they continually increase it.
This clause of the bill-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent.


Gordon Edward Taylor: This clause should be thrown out.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why under a motion which pertains to one aspect of Bill C-48 which will govern future exploration and development in
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Canada lands we need to listen to the sort of groundless allegations we have just heard. I was wondering in particular about the language of the member opposite when he alleged that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) lie. I do not know that that is parliamentary language. I am surprised that with his legislative experience he engages in such statements.
However, in order to set the record straight, since the member appears to want to embark upon this sort of discussion under this item, the fact is that during the last election campaign the Liberal party undertook four commitments with regard to oil pricing in Canada. The Liberal party undertook that there would be no 18-cent excise tax on a gallon of gasoline. Secondly, a commitment was made that the increase in the wellhead price of oil would be under $4 in 1980. It undertook further that over a four-year period the cost to consumers would be less than it would have been under the Conservative budget. The fourth commitment was that there would be a made-in-Canada blended price schedule which would include conventional oil, import charges and frontier oil, with no direct link to actual world prices.
On all four of those commitments the Liberal government has delivered. We have not imposed an 18-cent excise tax on gasoline. Under the agreement with Alberta the wellhead price of crude oil will be $41.75 a barrel in 1984. Under the Conservative budget it would have been $53.70 in 1984.
The comparative prices of heating oil are 46 cents under the agreement with Alberta and 58 cents a litre in 1984. The comparative prices of gasoline are 59 cents and 68 cents a litre. The comparative prices of natural gas are $7.87 and $11 per thousand cubic feet in 1984.
Accordingly, over a four-year period the average family expenditure for oil products will be approximately $550 less under the Alberta-Federal agreement than it would have been under the Conservative budget, even allowing for the proposed Conservative income-tested consumer energy tax credit.
I would want to underline for the benefit of the hon. member opposite that under the Canada-Alberta energy agreement reached at the end of August the refinery cost of crude oil at Toronto by 1984 will be $52.14 per barrel. The Conservative budget would have resulted in a price of $58.11, under even a moderate international price increase projection.
The gasoline price in Toronto in 1984 would be in the range of 62 cents to 66 cents a litre, with this range taking into account possible international price trend variations. The Conservative budget price would have been in the range of 73 cents to 86 cents, or an average of 25 per cent higher.
Heating oil prices in Toronto in 1984 are projected in the range of 43 cents to 46 cents a litre. The Conservative budget would have resulted in prices of 48 cents to 58 cents, or an average of 19 per cent higher.
Finally, natural gas prices in 1984 will be in the range of $7.87 to $8.41 per thousand cubic feet. Under the Conservative budget they would have been $11 to $13.66, or an average of 51 per cent higher. Natural gas prices, I might add, will be

Canada Oil and Gas Act
about 65 per cent of Canadian oil prices, whereas under the Conservative budget the ratio would have been 85 per cent and there would have been a direct link with international prices. I am surprised that members opposite have not understood their own budget projections.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 27 in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson). Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House may now wish to consider Motion No. 28.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) moved:: Motion No. 28
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 36 by striking out lines 35 to 45 at page 21 and substituting the following therefor:
"36.(1) Her Majesty in right of Canada or any Crown corporation to which the Crown share may be transferred, is liable to a maximum of the product of fifty percent of expenses incurred by an exploration agreement holder prior to a declaration of commercial discovery on any relevant Canada lands multiplied by the percentage of the Crown share as determined in Section 27."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved:: Motion No. 29
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada Lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 40 by striking out line 38 at page 23 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canada, a basic royalty of twenty per cent of the".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this motion. What this motion does is to change the royalty structure, raising it from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. It, in effect, doubles the royalties.
This motion should be read along with Motion No. 30, which strikes out a clause that allows the companies to deduct the basic royalty plus the petroleum gas revenue tax, the PGRT, which is now 12 per cent. This motion should also be read along with Motion No. 31 which would take out the three-year holiday tax exemption.
I will be making some detailed points on this motion because it is a very complicated area. It will be necessary to give statistics and facts because these are necessary to back up the argument. My main point is that this royalty is low compared to those in other foreign jurisdictions.
First, I will talk about the progressive incremental royalty, the PIR. The way the royatly regime works in this bill is that there is a 10 per cent royalty, and when a certain income is brought in by the producing wells, the PIR comes into effect. My basic point is that the PIR is ineffective, and since it is ineffective, the basic royalty of 10 per cent, which is a low royalty compared to other jurisdictions both in Canada's provinces and abroad, is too low. That is the gist of my argument and I think it can be effectively proven.
The first part of my argument is that the royalty is low compared with other foreign jurisdictions. When we sat through the long hearings of the energy committee of the House of Commons, we heard testimony from officials of Petro-Canada, as well as officials of Statoil in Norway and other officials, about the regime in the United Kingdom and other places.
Mr. Robert Meneley, vice-president of Petro-Canada, told the committee that the land tenure and rent collection regimes proposed by Bill C-48 are less onerous than those applied elsewhere. The statement which I made that they are less onerous is not just my particular isolated opinion. This was also stated before the committee by the vice-president of Petro-Canada, Mr. Meneley, who I am told has a great deal of experience in this area. He said that Petro-Canada developed a model of the economics of developing a field similar to the recent Hibernia discovery at a wellhead price of $41 a barrel. That is the current price received in Norway and the United Kingdom and will be approximately the price which Hibernia will come in at when it reaches the production stage in a few years. As a matter of fact, that would be the low end price. It could be higher.
Mr. Meneley of Petro-Canada developed a scheme whereby they compared profits on Canada lands under this bill to those in the United Kingdom and Norway. In a company that had a 75 per cent to 100 per cent Canadian ownership rate, he estimated that the profit over a certain period would be in the
November 5, 1981

realm of $1,973 million which, of course, is almost $2 billion. Under their regime, that profit picture in the United Kingdom would only be $422 million. In Norway it would be $3.6 million.
The after tax rate of return, using these particular figures, would be 31.3 per cent in Canada lands under this bill. In the United Kingdom it would be 21.9 per cent and in Norway it would be 20 per cent. The total tax allocation from the $41 price in Canada lands was $17.88. In the United Kingdom it was $21.72 and in Norway it was $22.55. With respect to company cash flow, for Canada lands it is $4.83. In the United Kingdom it is $1.04 and for Norway it is 10 cents. The capital operating cost in Canada lands would be $18.29. In the United Kingdom it would be $18.24 and in Norway $18.35.
Here is what Mr. McNicholas, who is the manager of economic and public policy for Petro-Canada, said to the committee in a letter dated March 21, 1981. In that letter to the committee chairman, the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Watson), Mr. McNicholas said:
It is clear from the above analysis that the development of a field like Hibernia yields higher present value returns and comparably higher rates of return on capital invested in Canada under NEP rules than in the U.K. or in Norway.
The point which our party made in the committee hearings and in the House is that if ther multinational oil companies will accept a tougher tax regime elsewhere, they should be prepared to accept at least the same in Canada. I put that argument to the friends of the multinational oil companies, the Conservative Party. I asked them to tell me why the multinational oil companies can operate in the United Kingdom and Norway under a much tougher regime and why they are squealing, through their friends in the Conservative Party, about the royalty and taxation rates in this particular regime. The Liberal Party are still being overly generous, in our view, in bringing in this regime. That is why I am moving these particular amendments on royalties.
I have said that the royalties were different in other jurisdictions and other countries. I would like to give some evidence of that. Under the old regime in Canada, before this bill, the royalties were 5 per cent to 10 per cent, depending on the location and licence. Under Bill C-48 there is a 10 per cent basic royalty. In Alberta, under old oil, pre-1974, the maximum royalty was 50 per cent. Under new oil, the maximum was 36 per cent. In British Columbia the royalty under old oil, pre-1975, was a maximum of 40 per cent. Under new oil it was a maximum of 30 per cent. In Saskatchewan, under old oil, pre-1974, the royalty was 61 per cent, and under new oil it was 43 per cent. Even in the producing provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, the royalties are higher than they are in this bill.
Sometimes I like to try to make arguments on both sides of an issue. Therefore, I will back off a little bit and make the argument for the government. It will say that I was not quite right because there is the basic 10 per cent royalty. But there is a thing called the PIR, progressive incremental royalty, on top of it, and if I combine the basic royalty with the PIR, I
Canada Oil and Gas Act
have a regime that is as tough as they are in some of these other countries. That is fine but there is a flaw in that. The flaw is that the PIR is ineffective. If it is ineffective, it leaves the basic royalty too low.
I would like to explain to the House and the hordes in the gallery who are following my every word on the subject of PIR what PIR means. If I am going slow on this subject, you will know I have had to learn it all myself.


Mr. Cullen:: Have you learned it well?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I think I have. This is why the government wants a progressive incremental royalty. They are free to tell me where I have gone wrong. The government wants to avoid the heavy front end load costs with the traditional system, imposed by a straight percentage take of wellhead prices; in other words, the cost at the beginning. It wants the royalty to come later.
The government wants to reduce what is called in the industry gold plating. That does not mean putting gold on plates. We must understand that the oil and gas industry has a different vocabulary. For example, you do not measure an oil tanker in metres or yards, but by football fields. The large tankers that will be going through the Northwest Passage in a few years, if the Arctic system comes about, are said to be three football fields. Whether that is American or Canadian football fields depends on where you are.


Mr. Siddon:: What does that have to do with gold plating?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It has to do with the fact that the industry uses different words and measurements. If the hon. member listens, he will understand what gold plating is. It is an attempt by the industry to overspend in its capital expenditures in order to reduce its tax payable. It is plating with extra gold or money at the capital expenditure stage so that it will not have to pay any taxes. If the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) had been at the committee meeting, he would have understood what gold plating is and not have to ask the question. I suggest he looks at committee Minutes No. 24, pages 8 and 9, where he will learn all he wants to know about gold plating.
The progressive incremental royalty will reduce gold plating. It is a progressive levy applied to profits after the government has collected the 10 per cent basic royalty, the 12 per cent petroleum gas revenue tax and income tax. That is really what a PIR is. There is the basic royalty of 10 per cent, 12 per cent PGRT and income tax. The progressive incremental royalty is supposed to recoup surplus profits. The PIR rate is nominally 40 per cent but in reality is less than 5 per cent of a very much reduced taxable level of profit.
In theory the PIR is good. It is a kind of surplus profit tax which comes on after the other royalties and taxes have been applied. The problem is that in practice it does not work. The progressive incremental royalty only comes into effect when the profit ratio, that is the ratio of annual profits to cumulative

November 5, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
depreciated development investment, is 25 per cent or higher. Profits are defined for this purpose as revenues less operating expenses, capital allowance-that is, the write-off of capital investment in six years-federal royalties, federal income tax abatement and 25 per cent of total eligible investment. In other words, the PIR only comes into effect when the profit ratio is 25 per cent or higher. An accountant working in this field would calculate it by calculating 25 per cent of the depreciated investment and then imposing the progressive incremental royalty on the excess. The problem is that if you work out the calculation, you find that the likelihood of the progressive incremental royalty ever reaching 40 per cent as stated in the bill is almost nil.
Let me give an example. You need a profit ratio of 65 to get a PIR rate of 25. You need a tremendous profit ratio to get up to a PIR level of 40.1 do not think that will happen.
I wish to refer to the petroleum monitoring agency. I have been listening very closely to what my friends on my right have said over the past four or five days as they ranted and raved. They in turn accused us of ranting and raving and shouting out opinions unsubstantiated. Therefore, I am being very careful in making my point. I see the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) following with the closest of attention. He is a good boy scout, the top boy scout in Alberta. I see him following these figures like a boy scout.
I am not just shooting these figures from the hip. I am referring to the government's own monitoring survey of 1980 which shows that in the total petroleum industry in 1979, the net cash percentage rate of return on capital employed was 19.4 per cent. I have to explain what net cash is. Net cash is defined as cash flow, less depreciation, amortization and depletion; or, alternatively, after-tax income plus exploration and development investment expense and deferred income tax. That is a mouthful. The point to remember is that cash flow or the net cash percentage rate was just less than 20 per cent. That means a very much reduced progressive incremental royalty.
My point is that the progressive incremental royalty only kicks in at a 26 per cent rate of return. I do not think we are likely to see that kind of rate of return. Therefore, the progressive incremental royalty is ineffective. If that is the case, the basic royalty of 10 per cent is too low. It was put too low in the first place because money was to be made up later by the application of the progressive incremental royalty. That is why it was only 10 per cent and not higher in Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Norway, Britain, Australia and other places. It is in fact low. My submission is that it is too low. That is why my motion states that it should go from 10 to 20 per cent.
No doubt after that explanation members on all sides of this House will rush to support my amendment.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: At least one member will support it.
The bill also provides for a three-year royalty holiday. That may be amended; I notice there is a government motion to change that. It could even be extended. My friends in the Conservative Party have an amendment to extend it, and I think the minister has one as well. If those amendments are in and there is a three-year royalty holiday under the progressive incremental royalty, if oil is discovered prior to December 31, 1982, the company can choose the three years. It can choose when its profit is projected to be the highest.
A lot of my constituents, old people, working people, bus drivers, janitors, the ordinary working people of Canada which the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) so eloquently referred to the other day, would like a three-year tax holiday. We seem to reserve these three-year tax holidays for the biggest and the richest companies in the world. That is what we are doing right here. We give them again a three-year tax holiday and we are back into the same old system of sucking up to the oil companies in order, we hope, to find oil in an area. It is as if it were some great gamble. I would like to go to Las Vegas or Reno and gamble and have the government pay over 100 per cent of the money I put down. I do not call that a gamble. There is no gamble up there either, not with these kinds of tax royalties and subsidies we are giving these companies.
Under the old tax system the government's share of the profits was in excess of 65 per cent. If you look at the Minutes, Mr. Speaker, No. 24 and No. 24(a) of the resources committee, the energy committee of the House of Commons, at page 19, that is set out.
Under the new system the total government take, to my calculation, is normally only 45 to 50 per cent: this includes the royalty, the income tax, the new 12 per cent PGR tax and the PIR, the progressive incremental royalty. This is not as harsh a system as one would think. In fact, in many ways this is an easier tax system than the old system which speakers for the government party have said time and time again was an inadequate system, and that is why they were introducing a bill to change it. So, what have they done? With respect to the taxation part of the bill they have taken an inadequate system and made it even more inadequate.
One billion barrels-we have to speak of barrels now; we do not speak of gallons or litres in the oil business-from an Arctic oil field would pay 13 to 16 per cent of the net operating income in PIR and 12 per cent in PGRT. Under the old system of corridor taxation which the PIR replaces, the companies would pay 20 to 25 per cent. Where there are cost overruns the PIR is nil. Again it seems to me, if you were to look at it from that point of view, the taxation system is even more inadequate than the older system.
In testimony before the committee, Mr. Speaker, the highest example of a PIR take of wellhead income was 20 per cent, according to calculations provided by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources officials on possible oil production scenarios. One has to remember, Mr. Speaker, that the
November 5, 1981

profit level at which the PIR is calculated is reduced by a series of deductions that I mentioned earlier. The producer recovers, in most cases, about 150 to 175 per cent of his development cost before the PIR is payable.
It seems to me then, Mr. Speaker, that it can be shown that the progressive incremental royalty, the PIR, is not a significant generator of revenue for the federal treasury when you compare it with a basic royalty and income tax. Therefore, if that is not true, the government should not put its faith in collecting revenue on the PIR. It would be much better to increase the basic rate of royalty. Hence, we propose an increase of 10 to 20 per cent on the basic royalty.
Examples have been provided by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources officials. I might say I have heard a lot of attacks on those officials, and I will say publicly in the House, Mr. Speaker, that I think they have done a consistently good job in being as fair and straightforward as possible with the committee. Because the Conservatives do not like the oil deal with Alberta, they should not attack Ed Clark. If they do not like the national energy policy, do not wave around Ed Clark's Ph.D. thesis on Tanzania, as an hon. member from the Conservative party did the other day. Surely that is a new low. If they want to argue, let us argue and have statistics and logic in the arguments. Let us not wave around someone's Ph.D. thesis. I hate to think what the Ph.D. thesis was of the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan). I would not want to wave that around anywhere!


An hon. Member:: Law and morality!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Law and morality. I know the hon. member from Saskatoon behind me would like to comment on that! However, this is a debate on progressive incremental royalty, not on foreign affairs.
In examples provided by the officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to the committee, under the new tax regime in Bill C-48 the net cash to companies range from a low of 35 per cent to a high of 56 per cent, while the government's take ranges from 44 per cent to 65 per cent, with the norm averaging about 50 per cent.
One might say to me, Mr. Speaker, why not just scrap the progressive incremental royalty. I say no, we should keep it. Even though it is ineffectual in terms of raising revenue for the government, we could leave it in place to prevent gold plating and to recoup some excessive profits in very highly profitable wells. We would keep it for that purpose but not rely upon it for revenue; instead we propose to double the fixed or basic royalty, as I have said, from 10 to 20 per cent of the oil and gas produced.
I want to set out some arguments for doubling that basic royalty. The first one is that the progressive incremental royalty is not a 40 per cent royalty but a tax normally of 2 to 5 per cent of net profit. As I have said, net profits are the total income less basic royalty, operating expenses, federal income tax, 25 per cent of investment costs, investment costs being the exploration and development costs.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
The rate of tax and the base on which the tax is applied is extremely low. For example, if you were to take an Arctic oil well of one billion barrels, say at $30 a barrel, that would mean $106 million PIR and $357 million basic royalty. If you look at the committee Minutes No. 25, page A-l 1, you will see that set out. These are basically pretty low royalties compared to the fantastic return for a field of a billion barrels. One can imagine the revenue from the wells.
Raising the royalty, as we in the NDP have suggested in this motion to 20 per cent is still competitive with other jurisdictions. In the United States, that big tax haven of Reaganomics, even in the Big Bermuda, there is a 16 2/3 per cent basic royalty in U.S. offshore. That is 6 2/3 per cent higher than the royalty proposed in this bill.
In Norway there is a 16 per cent royalty. In Alaska there is a 20 per cent royalty. In Alberta there is a 31 to 36 per cent royalty. The tax breaks and grants introduced in Bill C-48 propose, for example, a minimum of 25 per cent and a maximum of 80 per cent of exploration costs that you may receive as a grant, and you can receive a maximum of 20 per cent for development cost on Canada lands.
These kinds of corporate giveaways are not available in other jurisdictions, even though the other jurisdictions have royalty rates at 16, 17, 20 and 30 per cent. We have a royalty rate of 10 per cent-this is my point-and we are still giving grants and tax concessions.
Second, Mr. Speaker, the oil companies are operating in the North Sea under tax regimes that are more onerous than those proposed in Bill C-48. Norway's oil tax ranges as high as 86 per cent; Britain's is 60 per cent with government take as high as 90 per cent. I am not just talking about some sort of crazy socialist regime that no one can live with, which is what my friends on my right would say. I am talking about a regime that makes a lot of sense, especially since there are more onerous regimes in Norway and in Britain in the North Sea. Prices in Canada are going to be basically world prices.
The argument of the oil companies and of hon. members to my right as spokesmen for the oil companies before committee was that the jurisdictions cannot be compared because there was no set price regime. We have a price regime; we will have world prices. It seems to me that it is very important to compare Norway and United Kingdom exploration in the North Sea with the regime in Canada. Our 20 per cent royalty would restore the take of the government to its traditional level under the old taxation regime. Under the new regime, the lower progressive incremental royalty replaces the corridor tax of 20 to 25 per cent of gross income.
I have made this point before. The new regime is less onerous than the older one in terms of taxes. It is more onerous in terms of getting on with wells, the Petro-Canada back-in, the length of leases, the speed up of development and so on, but it is less onerous in the sense that it could mean a lower take by the government. I make this point again because it was lost on my Conservative friends in their speeches the other day.

November 5, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Canadians have paid dearly in tax concessions to the oil companies in the past, ranging as high as $1.23 on every dollar spent by companies in the Canada lands and approximately 63 cents on every dollar spent in exploration on provincial lands.
I heard the arguments in favour of capitalism the other day.
I listened to the arguments but I do not see any capitalism.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Why not cut the grants off? You guys started them in the first place.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I would not cut the grants off. If we are to pay 93 cents on every dollar, I would add another seven cents and have Petro-Canada do it for the Canadian people. This seems to make sense.


Mr. Andre:: That is because you live in Vancouver where it is warm in the winter. If you lived in a cold area you would not say that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) wishes to give a speech, perhaps he could seek the floor and make it like every other member and show a little respect for the House. Since becoming energy critic he has managed to take the Conservative Party right back to the old days of opposing Petro-Canada. This is something the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), the previous energy critic, tried to steer that party away from and into a more middle course. Now we are back to the dinosaur days of the old Conservative Party.
Be that as it may, tax concessions and write-offs have brought the phenomenal federal income tax rate down from 36 per cent to an effective rate of only 10 per cent since 1974. I referred to page 12 of the National Energy Program for those particular statistics. It is time that taxpayers receive a fair share for their investment in the resource potential of federal lands, especially since under the new NEP grant system they will be funding up to 80 per cent of the cost through grants and up to 93 cents on every company dollar spent on exploration investment. This is set out on page 93 of the NEP. This was admitted by the parliamentary secretary and by the minister in this debate. The basic royalty does not permit itself to reduce by tax deductions or write-offs as does the PIR.
Finally, corporate profits after tax increased by 54 per cent in 1979 to $4.7 billion. They were up another 54 per cent for the first six months of 1980. This is set out in the government's petroleum monitoring survey published in 1980. The tax regime of Bill C-48, even coupled with the budget's new 12 per cent petroleum and gas revenue tax which is loathed by the industry, would lower the government's take from over 60 per cent to 45 per cent of oil and gas revenues on Canada lands. Given those immense profits, the industry can afford to pay a 25 per cent royalty.
In conclusion, I should like to indicate once again why this corner is opposed to Bill C-48. The first reason is that there are enormous tax giveaways in the bill. I have outlined in detail-and I am sure it was in more detail than any member of the House really wanted to hear-that the royalty was very
low and that there were tremendous giveaways in terms of grants and tax write-offs. I felt it was necessary to do that, because we must remember that it is the ordinary people of Canada who are giving away these grants and revenue, it is coming out of their pockets.
Second, we oppose the bill because the Canadianization in it is very phony. It simply replaces the big boys, the Rockefellers and the Mellons of the United States oil industry, with the Blairs and the Blacks of the Canadian industry. I am surprised my Conservative friends have not picked up this fact. There is a little conspiracy going on in the finest sense of the term between the Nova Corporation and Dome Petroleum. They will really benefit from the National Energy Program and from Canadianization; it will not be ordinary people. Perhaps some of their shareholders will benefit, but it will be a very small percentage of people compared with Canadians as a whole. The American companies are losing, I admit that. They are feeling a tax bite now, but if they wait a few years they will be okay because oil prices will shoot up by 1983. A few large Canadian companies are really benefiting from this phony Canadianization. My friends to the right may criticize us, myself in particular, but I think our position is quite clear. We are not hiding behind phony Canadianization. We want a greater degree of public ownership in the industry. That is how we would make do with Canadianization.
Since the NEP came in, the government and private companies have spent something like $6.8 billion to take over foreign-owned companies. This has changed the rate of Canadian ownership in the industry from 30 to 35 per cent. With this kind of rate we will need another $15 billion or so to attain the 50 per cent level. There is an easier way to do it. We could simply pass an act in the House to take over Imperial Oil at a price ranging anywhere from $5 billion to $7 billion. This would be a fair market price for the company and we would have 50 per cent the next week. I see the minister sitting opposite. I have suggested this to him, but the government will not do it because it has a nice little deal with Dome and Nova. That is the way it wants to go. It thinks it has those companies in its pockets. The minister may be surprised; perhaps those companies have the minister in their pockets. This is another reason we oppose Bill C-48.
I am not sure how much time I have remaining.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I thank the House, I am sure hon. members have been listening closely to my discussion on progressive incremental royalties. In conclusion, I say that I object to the Canadianization provision, to the poor environmental protections in the bill, and to the sell-out of native people which appears to have happened in the Constitution as well today.
Finally, I invite hon. members to rise with facts and figures.
They should not call me names. If they want to rise, it is fine
November 5, 1981

with me. They should stand up and give me some facts and figures to prove why my facts and figures are wrong, and why my point is not correct. That point is that the progressive incremental royalty system is ineffective and therefore the basic royalty is too low. In this motion we have proposed to change the basic royalty from 10 per cent to 20 per cent and we believe that it should be adopted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on Motion No. 29 (Mr. Waddell). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 30
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 41 by striking out lines 17 to 21 at page 27.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I know everybody wants me to repeat that long speech!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Motions No. 30 and No. 31 are grouped for debate but will be voted upon separately. The question is therefore also on Motion No. 31.


Harvie Andre: And Motions Nos. 32 and 33, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Motion No. 32 is grouped for debate also, as is Motion No. 33.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 31
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 41 by striking out lines 6 to 17 at page 33.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 32
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 41 by striking out lines 8 to 12 at page 33 and substituting the following therefor:
"licence is made on or before December 31, 1982, the interest owner of the".


Marc Lalonde: Motion No. 33
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 41 by striking out lines 9 to 12 at page 33 and substituting the following therefor:
"drilling was commenced before February 2, 1981 and that qualified to be
declared a significant discovery before January 1, 1983, the interest owner of
the".


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you could clarify something for me. I understood Motions Nos. 30, 31, 32 and 33 were grouped for debate but would be voted upon separately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: That is quite correct. They are grouped for debate and will be voted on separately.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I wonder if you could indicate which ones you have called so far.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Motions Nos. 31, 32 and
33.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Which one are you calling at the moment?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The four are grouped for debate now.
The question is on Motion No. 30 (Mr. Waddell). Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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

November 5, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In accordance with Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is now on Motion No. 31 (Mr. Waddell). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 32 (Mr. Wilson). All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on Motion No. 33 (Mr. Lalonde). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 35
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 49 by adding immediately after the heading "Environmental Studies Revolving Fund" at page 39 the following:
"49. For the purposes of this section, "Minister" means the Ministre of the
Environment."


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we spend a short time dealing with Motion No. 35, put forward by this party in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson). It is important to realize the basic purpose of the proposed motion, which is to ensure that the very important uses to which the environmental studies revolving fund is put are placed under the prime jurisdiction of a minister who is responsible for environmental matters in this Parliament, that being the incumbent Minister of the Environment.
There are a number of ancillary aspects to this question which arose out of the many briefs presented to the standing committee over several months of hearings in the early part of this year. These relate to the question of the conflict of interest which the incumbent ministers of energy, mines and resources and Indian affairs and northern development might be placed in if acting as the agent who is granted the discretion to issue licences to the proponent companies seeking to pursue exploration and production initiatives on the Canada lands, at the same time as being charged with the responsibility of deciding what environmental studies ought to be initiated under the provisions of, and with the benefit of the funding provided in, Clause 49.
In addition, as will become clear when we deal with Motions Nos. 36, 37, 38 and 39, it is very important that a ceiling be established on the environmental studies revolving fund. It should not merely be allowed to operate at or around the $10 million or $15 million point; a limit should be put on the amount of money that can be spent on environmental studies in a given year. There should also be a requirement that when environmental studies are bought and paid for by the industries that contribute to the fund, the resulting reports will be presented publicly to all interested parties and that financial disbursements from the fund as well as actual studies that are initiated using the resources of the fund be reported to Parliament and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry for debate.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Administration of justice- Review of mandatory supervision policy, (b) Operation of system; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-Human rights-Reported plan to establish civilian internment camps, (b) Terms of Standing Order published in The Canada Gazette; the hon. member for Winni-peg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Health-Marketing of baby food by Dumex Company, (b) Query respecting federal-provincial action.
November 5, 1981



It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions, (papers), private bills and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Items Nos. 22, 35, 1, 48, 28, 43 and 5 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.


Mr. John Gamble (York North) moved: that Bill C-251, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act (prohibiting right to strike), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this day may not go down in the annals of this House as the day when Bill C-251 was introduced for second reading and committee reference.


Roy MacLaren: A very reasonable assumption.


John Albert Gamble: However, despite the catcalls from one of our colleages on the other side of the House, permit me, at a time when a significant development has occurred in the country, to depart from the matter before us for just a moment to congratulate the first ministers of Canada who have today, apparently, with but one exception, come to an accord with respect to the Constitution of Canada reserving, of course, unto myself the right, after an examination of the proposed changes in the resolution now currently before this House, to determine whether those amendments indeed deserve the approval of all hon. members, including myself.
While this day, as I have indicated, may not be very significant to hon. members in measuring days of glory, I think it goes without saying that this bill does, however, touch many of the citizens of Canada with respect to an issue in connection with which they have expressed their views on numerous occasions, both to us individually and to the government generally, without appropriate response.
The bill itself in an uncomplicated fashion would add to Section 79(1) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act the words "convenience, mobility or economic wellbeing of the
Right to Strike
public", which would require, as a consequence of those additional words, the potential designation as designated employees who cannot strike in the public service, pursuant to the provisions of Section 101(1) of the act, employees who render services which, if withdrawn, would affect the convenience, mobility or economic wellbeing of Canadians. Those additional words follow the words "safety, security," which now alone may be relied upon to categorize a group of employees as being among a designated group of public servants which does not enjoy the right to strike.
As the House will know, this bill was drafted at a time when one of the major groups of employees covered by the act sought to be amended included employees of the Post Office, now the Canada Post Corporation. The Canada Post Corporation Act, by Royal Assent on April 23, 1981, and by proclamation on October 16, 1981, transferred out of the category of public servants covered under the Public Service Staff Relations Act some 43,000 public servants rendering service to the public in the postal field.
I might say that the majority of the concerns which have been expressed to me, motivating in large measure my action in this regard, arose as a consequence of the disruption of service in the Post Office. I might say that with respect to that matter, in a speech which I delivered in this House on April 9, 1981, which is to be found in the Hansard for that day, I specifically made reference to the omission in the Canada Post Corporation bill then before the House of a referencce to a prohibition against the right to strike, recognizing that in deleting this group of public servants from the provisions of the act that I sought to amend and the act I hope to amend today there would be a detrimental effect on the over-all objectives of the bill.
How did I come to deal with this matter in this fashion? It was as a consequence of recognizing an obligation which, I believe, all members have and all members, if they reflect upon it, should discharge for the benefit of their constituents. My obligation as a Member of Parliament is to reflect here the views of those who sent me here, and those views are very clear. They are unequivocal.
I had occasion when first elected to dispatch to my constituents a form of questionnaire covering a number of topics of concern which had been expressed to me at the time of the 1979 election campaign, and I accordingly responded to those concerns by canvassing my constituents. Among the questions I asked was the following: "Should federal civil servants in essential services be allowed to strike?" The response 1 received was overwhelmingly in favour of the prohibition of strikes in essential services.
The riding of York North consists of a number of communities located within three towns, and without exception, although I analysed the results that I obtained from each one of these communities, there was a preponderance of opinion in favour of prohibiting strikes, to the following extent: from the community of Gormley, 94.59 per cent; from Kleinburg, 94.12 per cent; from Maple, 83.33 per cent; from the town of Markham, 86.29 per cent; from Oak Ridges, 78.26 per cent;

November 5, 1981
Right to Strike
from Richmond Hill, 85.23 per cent; from Thornhill, 90.84 per cent; from Unionville, 91.23 per cent; from Woodbridge, 89.47 per cent; and from general areas which were not designated on the returns, 87.4 per cent in favour of the proposition of prohibiting strikes.
Those results were accumulated from 2,676 individual returns which were submitted to me, being householder returns, representing the views of households and, presumably, the views within each of those households of at least two of my constituents. The average response, then, in favour of the proposition before the House was 88.25 per cent.
However, these results are not unique. They are in fact small in terms of the preponderance of view which has been determined by other bodies undertaking similar surveys. For instance, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business conducted a similar survey in 1978 asking the question: "Are you for or against the right to strike in the public sector?" Ninety-five per cent were against the right to strike, 4 per cent were for the right to strike. Bearing in mind that this particular questionnaire was submitted to independent businessmen in Canada, one can well regard their position as being indicative of the business community view.
Hon. members will also note that the question they asked was not as limited as the question I asked. Their question was for the prohibition of the right to strike in all of the public service, not the right to strike in essential services or those services specifically referred to in the bill as those services which, if removed, would create inconvenience, immobility or the lack of economic wellbeing to Canadians, a category which, in my submission, covers a wide enough scope to cover prohibition in essential services in the public service.
The interesting comparison between the results of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the results that I obtained can best be explained by the fact that my questionnaire was submitted to all of my constituents. The questionnaire submitted by the federation went to business exclusively but there is not much difference. Certainly when we are dealing with percentages of 95 per cent or 88 per cent, one can appreciate the fact that the general public, including members of public service unions, from whom I have received correspondence recognize that it is improper to withdraw essential services from the public. That withdrawal occurs by the withdrawal of essential services required by all Canadians. There is a general feeling from the correspondence I have received to indicate that even public servants recognize this responsibility and are prepared to accept the proposition, quite frankly for their own benefit in many cases, that it would be appropriate if the right to strike were removed.
On one occasion during the recent strike of CBC technicians I had one gentleman tell me that he was in fact one such employee who no longer had gainful employment. He urged me to do what I could to see that the same thing that happened to him on this occasion did not recur. He found that he was locked out because the CBC would not negotiate in a
fashion acceptable to his union. His preference was to work but he no longer could.
My files are replete with correspondence that I have received, some of which I would like to read into the record. I have a letter from a Mr. J. R. Haggerty, a copy of which was directed to me. The letter is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). Without reciting it all, I will quote some of the pertinent phrases in his letter which is dated September 8, 1981. It reads:
It is my understanding that you are proposing to initiate actions with a view to eliminating the right to strike by members of the public service, or at least those sectors designated as essential services.
He then goes on to say:
I find it appalling that government employees can go on strike and cause inconvenience and even danger to innocent people, and I suggest that legislation be passed which would remove the right to strike, and make this fact known as a condition of employment.
Mr. Haggerty underlines the fact that he would prefer that this apply to all sectors of the public service, but in the event it would not, he indicates a number of categories of employees who should be covered by such prohibition. On the second page of his letter he concludes by saying:
To my mind, the recent postal strike is a national embarrassment and Mr. Ouellet's comments about the unwise dependency of commercial businesses on the mail service make me sick. I believe he also said that there was no point in making strikes illegal because employees would only disobey the law. My God, whatever happened to respect for the law, and enforcement of the law?
If I may, I shall deal with a specific reference he made in his letter. It is well recognized that federal public servants have security of tenure. I recently had occasion at a committee hearing to question the Commissioner of the Public Service Commission who indicated to me that even in the case where there was recognized incompetence and misbehaviour of federal employees it took a full 18 months before they could be dismissed.
There is a security of tenure in the public sector which does not exist in the private sector in Canada. That security of tenure, coupled with indexed pension plans, should be recognized as having a value to offset whatever risk is to be borne by the removal of the right to strike. In many cases, from the standpoint of individual employees, as I have already indicated, this withdrawal of the right to strike can in fact constitute a benefit. The proposed amendment, therefore, is not antilabour. It may be anti-labour bosses, but it is definitely pro-employee. What is more, it is pro-Canadian and pro-public.
When we are faced with a decision in this House as to whom we serve, there should be no doubt: we serve the public. We do not serve the public servants. The public servants serve the public. I submit that it is our duty to see that that service is rendered, that it persists, that it is there and available for Canadians when they desire it and when, as a consequence of paying taxes, they have the right to demand it.
The second letter from which I will quote is from a Mr. G. R. Turney of Unionville, Ontario. His letter opens with the question "Who is minding the shop?" I shall quote part of his letter. In talking about the postal clerks, he says:
November 5, 1981

It's not the fact that the clerks are on strike that is the problem to me and the company I work for, but that all those other civil servants have chosen to honour the clerks' picket lines. There's the Post Office, Air Traffic controllers, Airport fire and emergency staff, Canada Customs-to name a few.
Mr. Turney goes on to say:
You think I'm frustrated? You bet I am! It's difficult trying to conduct our regular business profitably these days without these extra costly disruptions, none of which I have any control over. But you people in Ottawa have control. At least that's where the authority is. This country has enough problems in today's marketplace and the world, without creating more of our own.
Mr. Turney concludes by saying:
All these civil servants aren't civil and they don't serve. They just sit back with their guaranteed indexed pensions (which I'm paying for as a taxpayer dammit) and hold the country up for ransom.
Let's get this country moving and moving forward. I don't know how, that's supposedly your job.
This letter was written to me and I read those paragraphs for the benefit of my colleagues in the House. We have an obligation to discharge our duty today. It is an obligation that I urge upon each member. I refer to an answer given in the House by the then postmaster general on July 2, 1981. When I raised the issue of the Canada Post Corporation having a provision prohibiting the right to strike, the minister replied:
Just to take away the right to strike of employees does not necessarily avoid strikes. Those who believe very strongly in certain points will not hesitate to use the means at their disposal to register their point, and that could probably be by illegal strikes.
In my submission, that induces disrespect for the law. That comment is irresponsible. Canadians are a law-abiding group of citizens who are prepared to accept the law as we pass it here. To suggest that we dare not pass laws because we fear that some will disobey them is irresponsible.
What about jurisdictions that have imposed legislation of this kind? We know Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland have legislation prohibiting municipal police forces from striking. They do not strike.


Mr. Orlikow:: What about Halifax?


John Albert Gamble: Exactly. In Halifax, Nova Scotia, there is no such legislation covering municipal police forces. In 1981 we had the delightful spectacle of a police force strike in the city of Halifax. The issue of the RCMP is well covered by the legislation as it currently stands. But the matter before the House is that, while certainly it may not extend today to the post office, or what was at one time the post office, it does extend to those other federal services which are being withdrawn by way of sympathy strikes to which reference has been made in the correspondence I have read into the record. The passage of this bill would stop that kind of sympathetic strike.
I believe, and all members of this House should believe, that Canadians are law-abiding and will accept the law passed by Parliament. That is the basis upon which we exist. I urge the House to consider this matter seriously. I urge the House to discharge the responsibility imposed upon every individual member to speak for the constituent, the people of Canada.
Right to Strike


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: I am pleased to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, basically because it is appropriate that we should be discussing this important subject matter. I should like to start by indicating to the House the purpose of Bill C-251, which is to broaden the class of employees who could be designated so as to include all who perform essential services. That poses a difficult problem for many people, and I will address that issue in my remarks.
Let me respond first to the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble). I am not a lawyer and I know he is. I think he knows there are no laws controlling illegal strikes in Nova Scotia. The common law of Canada, Britain and the United States did not grant the right to strike to public servants, but the legislative authorities, parliaments and provincial legislatures, could pass special laws granting this right, and that is in fact what happened federally in 1967 when the House adopted the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The common law, of course, does not grant the privilege of striking, but legislative measures can be put into effect which give employees the right to withdraw their services.

Mr. Speaker, just what is a designated employee? Pursuant to Section 79 of the act-I will not read it because those who are interested are aware of this provision-he or she is an employee who acknowledges that a designated employee as defined in that section does not have the right to stop providing or withdraw his or her services. Designated employees have indeed been the subject of numerous studies, and I recall sitting on the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service whose report dates back to 1976. Our report was a follow-up on the special report of Mr. Jacob Finkelman, former Chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board. I should like to quote from page 47:13 of that report concerning designated employees. I quote:
Both Mr. Finkelman, in his report, and the Treasury Board, in its representations to the committee, proposed that the definition of designated services should be extended.
That is indeed what the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble) is advocating.
I continue the quotation:
In some of the representations from organizations outside the public service, suggestions were made which would have broadened the definition to include "essential services". Your committee feels that the phrase "essential services" is too difficult to define and would lead to the inclusion of most public servants. In other words the right to strike would be granted to public servants only to be denied by another process. In balance, we conclude that some extension of designated services beyond safety or security is necessary, to ensure that "health" be included, and to add a new dimension that of protection of public property.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question at all of extending the definition to cover the convenience, the mobility or the economic wellbeing of the public. I am familiar with the arguments put forward by the hon. member, and like him, I often receive comments from people in my riding who would certainly agree with his argument that in order to solve this problem

Right to Strike
we should take away the right to strike. I do not think this type of simplistic approach could be justified today, and I should like to put forward some arguments, or at least take a few minutes to recall the historical background of this issue, and then proceed with some more specific comments on the question of withdrawing the right to strike.
Mr. Speaker, in 1967, as I said earlier, the Public Service Staff Relations Act was passed, providing a statutory framework for collective bargaining in the Public Service. In 1973, the government asked the chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, Mr. Jacob Finkelman, to make a study of the situation on the basis of six years' experience, and to make any appropriate recommendations for improving implementation of the legislation. Mr. Finkelman tabled his report in March, 1974. An order of reference from the House and the Senate was tabled and carried, establishing the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, on which I was privileged to sit with several members of this House, in fact, the member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) who sits here in the House was also a member of this committee.
Mr. Speaker, with several colleagues we carefully considered a number of questions, and one of the hardest issues to resolve was that of the right to strike in essential services. The committee met 40 times, dozens of briefs were received and carefully read and considered. All interested parties representing both management and labour testified: the public sector, the private sector, the business community, experts on personnel relations in colleges and universities, experts on labour relations, and university professors. Almost all those appearing before the committee touched on the burning issue of the right to strike in the public service. By tabling his bill, the member for York North has given us another opportunity to discuss this controversial subject.
I disagree with the member for York North that we should take away the right to strike from public servants. The arguments he has put forward are very familiar, but I feel that the solution he is proposing is not only ineffective and unwise but it also fails to resolve the basic issue, that is, how to reconcile the interests of the employee with the employer's efficiency objectives while improving the employee's working conditions. That is the problem and that is what collective bargaining is all about.
In both the private and public sectors it is important to ensure that paid services are not interrupted, especially in the case of services that are paid for by the taxpayer. We all worry about the increasing number of work stoppages which have on occasion become a threat to the public interest, which explains why naturally many people are becoming very concerned about the right to strike in the public service. According to the hon. member, it is intolerable that public services should be interrupted, and he feels that the government is wrong to allow such interruptions by continuing to grant public servants the right to strike, whatever the circumstances may be.
The question once again is how to reconcile the interests of the employee who wants his working conditions to meet with the objectives of the employer, who has to provide effective and reliable service to the public. The right to strike is an issue which does not concern the Public Service of Canada alone. In various degrees and notwithstanding a few important exceptions, the great majority of public employees at the federal, provincial and municipal levels-and I could include the education system in which I spent 11 years and where I certainly witnessed some strikes-have the right to strike. Yet, all their services can be considered essential to the public. It is therefore fair to say that a great many workers representing a high proportion of the Canadian manpower provide services which are in the public interest and that these workers want to keep their right to interrupt their work to make a point about a contentious matter with their employer. This, Mr. Speaker, is the purpose of a strike, to inform the public that there is some disagreement between the management and the employees. I once questioned an expert in this field, and he told me: "In principle, this was supposed to last two or three days in the past, but strikes have become longer, and I understand that there are even strikes which last so long that they seriously affect several economic sectors in a country".
On the other hand, certain proponents of the withdrawal of the right to strike in the Public Service of Canada tend to forget the accomplishments of the parties involved since the act was passed in 1967. Except for a few union leaders who have somewhat tarnished the reputation of the other, more serious and constructive leaders, the great majority of public service unions recognized as negotiators deserve in my opinion the gratitude of the public and of the legislators. They have worked seriously and honestly. Mr. Speaker, our public service unions have solved many organizational and administrative problems. In general, they show great respect for our democratic traditions and have developed a serious and respectable administration. Most of the union leaders have obeyed the law and have tried to contain the elements which favoured non-compliance. For my part, I like to believe that we also have to consider who sits on the other side of the bargaining table, a group of men and women representing the employer who deserve our respect and our support. They have had to adjust and to change with the times, often to bear with bitter criticism from all sides and always to keep in mind that their responsibility was to protect the public interest.
And if we look at the figures compiled by Treasury Board, this objective has been met. Indeed, during the period between the introduction of the act in 1967 and August of 1981, 667 collective agreements were signed. Of these agreements, 420 were signed at the bargaining table, which means that 63 per cent of negotiations were settled amiably without disruption of services. Of these 667 agreements, 164 or 25 per cent were reached by arbitration, once again, without work stoppage; and 56 or 8 per cent were reached by conciliation, once more
November 5, 1981

without work stoppage. The most surprising figure is the following, Mr. Speaker: 27 collective agreements, or a low proportion of 4 per cent, were reached following a strike. It therefore cannot be suggested or asserted that federal public servants abuse of their democratic right to strike. On the contrary, only an insignificant proportion of agreements were reached in that way.
Therefore the problem does not stem from the right to strike, but rather from the number of illegal strikes, wildcat strikes, and so on. Indeed, there have been 171 such strikes since 1967, including those by postal workers, air traffic controllers, radio operators, labourers, nurses and so on. To withdraw the right to strike would mean only one thing, Mr. Speaker, an increase in the number of illegal strikes. This is the real problem, and this is what we must deal with if we really want to prevent work stoppage. Legislative provisions exist for that. The House is aware of them, namely Section 27 of the Public Service Employment Act. Mr. Speaker, might I recall that in 1978, during the illegal strike of the postal workers, the deputy head threatened to invoke Section 27, which reads, and I quote:
An employee who is absent from duty for a period of one week or more, otherwise than for reasons over which, in the opinion of the deputy head, the employee has no control or otherwise than as authorized or provided for by or under the authority of an act of Parliament, may by an appropriate instrument in writing to the commission be declared by the deputy head to have abandoned the position he occupied, and thereupon the employee ceases to be an employee.
In 1978, recourse to that section was threatened. The Public Service Commission never received, as stipulated in Section 27, a notice to that effect. Which means that in fact it gave results, in that the workers went back to work. The act, as the hon. member said, is there to be observed and we must comply with it. I fully agree with him. All we need is that its provisions be implemented more strictly than is being done at present. That should go a long way towards solving the problem without for all that depriving civil servants of the democratic right they have and do not abuse. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point our that barely 4 per cent are illegal strikes, and if I add the 27 conventions settled as a result of work stoppages to the 171 illegal strikes, that gives a total of 198 illegal strikes. So, denying them the right to strike would not solve the problem, at least not to my mind, and will change absolutely nothing and only aggravate the situation.
The problems of public sector employer-employee relations are complex, Mr. Speaker, and I agree that no simple allpurpose panacea has been found. The Conservative Party during the last election proposed some form of dispute settlement, a whole series of what I think were probably quite reasonable measures to solve this type of withdrawal from work. But would it have been very effective? I doubt it.
However, Mr. Speaker, I do know the direction in which we should go. It is one which maintains the right to strike and the
Right to Strike
right to lockouts, which we do not have in the public service, as a tool for both union and management in the process of negotiations. The real dilemma for us is to find the means to safeguard the interests of third parties, such as the public, during this process. And this problem is not peculiar just to public service strikes. Withdrawal of service by airline pilots, refinery workers and so on can inflict as much damage as do strikes by air traffic controllers or postal employees. It becomes a problem of ensuring that responsibility for their actions be exercised by those wielding power. Unfortunately, we shall have to continue to provide punitive measures for those cases where responsibility has not been shown.
Perhaps we need to broaden these to include not only the traditional punishments of fines and prison but also the possibility for legal action by injured third parties against one or both of the parties involved in collective bargaining. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks by calling the attention of this House to the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations. My only regret is that, to my knowledge, its 72 or 73 recommendations have never been implemented. The government did not act on them, except on the first ones where the D'Avignon commission was asked to look into one of our recommendations, to study the Employment Act and the implementation of the merit principle. Mr. Speaker, that document includes a host of ideas, honest solutions that were considered in depth by members of this House and senators. In my view, they could restore a degree of confidence in the collective bargaining process. I agree with the hon. member that the law of the land should prevail. This was also the committee's opinion. I would like to conclude on the following quotation, Mr. Speaker:
-your committee has no doubt that where the welfare of the community as a whole is concerned, the right to strike is not sacred and its suspension is the responsibility of the government and Parliament or the appropriate legislature.
The continued protection of the national economic or social interest can be provided by statute at the cost of a total denial of some rights now available to persons providing services to the public; or it can be protected by granting a statutory right to strike and imposing on government and Parliament the responsibility of determining when a strike has so affected the public interest that the right must be suspended.
Your committee recognizes that the public interest can be adequately protected by government and Parliament determining when and where the public interest is adversely affected. When Parliament is dissolved, the governor-incouncil should be similarly empowered.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would ask the government to perhaps take seriously the matter of the right to strike and to use that as a vehicle to bring back the whole question of employer-employee relations before this House, in order that we may discuss further those very important matters, and I thank the hon. member for bringing this forward today.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the hon. member for York-North (Mr. Gamble)

November 5, 1981
Right to Strike
explain what he is attempting to do with this proposal. The longer he spoke, the more I realized how little he knows about the real world of work and the relationship between workers and management. There are strikes and there are strikes. There are strikes by workers which bother the hon. member for York North a great deal. There are strikes by corporations which he with his background ignores completely.
We have laws in this country having to do with taxation and how certain corporations, and I refer to the oil corporations, shall be taxed. The scope of those laws has now been extended by agreement between the Liberal Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) and the Conservative Premier of Alberta. The so-called law-abiding citizens who run the oil companies in this country have said they do not like that law or agreement, they are not going to abide by it and are now moving their oil rigs from this country to the United States. I did not hear the hon. member for York North criticize them for ignoring those laws and policies reached between the Government of Canada and Alberta.
My friend the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) wants to say a few words. I will leave him a few minutes. Therefore, I will not put on record as I had intended the profit figures to show how well the oil companies have done and how lightly they have been taxed.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


David Orlikow: No. I like the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. I know that this question is important to him and I want to allow him a few minutes. I will find another occasion to put those figures on the record.
I want to deal with some of the points raised by the hon. member for York North. He wants to restrict the right of certain groups of public servants to strike. He calls them essential workers. Nobody likes a strike, not those who are adversely affected because a service they are used to has been withdrawn, and particularly not those who go on strike. All workers who go on strike lose the pay they would have received had they continued to work. Very few unions have the financial resources to give much in the way of strike benefits while workers are on strike. Workers do not go on strike lightly.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) put on record the small percentage of workers who go on strike as compared to the overwhelming majority who voluntarily settle their differences with their employers. I will not repeat what he said. When workers go on strike, it is usually with good reason. Often the reason has to do with pay. The hon. member for York North should not be surprised that, at a time when the cost of living is increasing by 12 per cent or more a year and workers are offered 3, 4, 5 or 6 per cent increases which would cut their standard of living, workers will not accept that. Sometimes they go on strike because living conditions are bad or their job security is threatened.
The hon. member said that public servants are not laid off. Many will be laid off because of automation and mechanization. The Post Office is a good example of that threat. Automation of the Post Office may have been necessary. However, the Post Office Department and senior officials were
very reluctant to give the kinds of guarantees the workers were entitled to so that they would not be displaced from their work. The hon. member shakes his head. If he would look at some of the studies done by judges in recent years, he would see that in every case a great deal of the responsibility for the dissatisfaction of the postal workers was put on management. The hon. member ignores that.
The hon. member wants legislation prohibiting strikes by essential workers. He did not tell us who they are. Are they the postal workers, hospital workers, librarians, those who pick up the garbage? Unless we know who he means, it is difficult to reach a sensible conclusion as to what we should do.
I point out to the hon. member that for many years a number of countries have had the kind of legislation which he proposes. For years Australia and New Zealand were held up as glowing examples of good labour-management relations. They had very complicated and sophisticated laws and regulations.
When times were good, the economies were booming and workers were receiving what they felt was a fair share of the increased productivity, there were very few strikes. In recent years, however, despite the legislation, they have had strikes. As the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier said, when workers do not have the right to strike legally, they strike illegally.
Let us look at our neighbours to the south. Over the years we have been accustomed to blue collar workers going on strike, the workers in the automobile plants, the mines and the lumber mills. That still happens. However, if you look at what has been happening in the United States in recent years, what do you see? It is the white collar workers, the professional people, those who, if it had been suggested ten years ago that they belonged to a union, would have been horrified and offended, who are going on strike.
Look at the record in the United States. In many cities there the teachers are now on strike although state laws prohibit it. Policemen and firefighters have been on strike. I am not saying I approve of those strikes. I say we should look at the reasons why any group of workers would go on strike, and try to deal with their problems, complaints and demands in a reasonable and sympathetic way. We could then cut down strikes, but not in the way suggested by the hon. member for York North.
The hon. member for York North made another point in passing with which I want to take issue. He suggested that in many instances, the workers do not want to go on strike but they are somehow forced to or coerced by the union or labour bosses. Nothing could be further from the truth than that, Mr. Speaker. There is a strike in my province against International Nickel Corporation in Thompson. That strike has continued for several months. The union negotiating committee several days ago, after meeting with management and with representatives of the labour department, has reached a tentative settlement. I have not heard today or yesterday what has happened. The news media reported that the workers were not satisfied with that agreement and were likely to reject it, despite the fact that their so-called labour bosses had recommended the strike.
November 5, 1981

The same situation occurred at Inco in Sudbury and it went on for many months. The same situation occurred at Stelco in Hamilton, Mr. Speaker.
I am not passing judgment, nor is any other Member of Parliament passing judgment with regard to these strikes. The point is, Mr. Speaker, that workers go on strike when they feel they are not treated fairly.


An hon. Member:: The Tories do not understand democracy.


David Orlikow: The hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young) says that Tories do not understand democracy. I believe that is a fair characterization of the member for York North. Part of the democratic system we live in is that workers have the right to belong to unions, and if workers are members of unions, they have the right to negotiate with their employers. They have the right to decide that they have not been able to reach an agreement that is fair and, therefore, that they will proceed to arbitration, voluntary or binding, or they will proceed to strike. The employer has the right to lock workers out. This is part of the democratic system in which this country and most democratic countries operate. I wish the hon. member for York North would understand that.
I shall deal with one more point, Mr. Speaker. Does everything I have said today mean that I do not believe there can be or should be any restrictions on the right of workers to strike? No, it does not mean that, Mr. Speaker. What I suggest to the hon. member for York North is that the best way to maintain harmonious relations between workers and employers, whether they be public or private, is to grant them the right to strike.
Does that mean that a group of workers who are part of an essential service should be permitted to go on strike and stay off indefinitely, regardless of the harm it may cause to the community? No, it does not mean that, Mr. Speaker. We have many illustrations before us where the governments, be they Conservative, Liberal or NDP at the federal or provincial levels, have said with regard to a particular strike that is adversely affecting the community that enough is enough. As I have said, governments, be they Conservative, Liberal or NDP, on occasion, when a strike has continued for too long and was really hurting the whole community, have passed legislation requiring those particular workers to return to work.
This is not a simple solution, Mr. Speaker. The agreement does not satisfy all those people who wrote to the hon. member for York North and some people who wrote to me. However, Mr. Speaker, it is a system that works best and impinges the least on the rights of workers, as it impinges the least on anyone else.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the wonderful advantage about private members' hour is that it allows Members of Parliament to advance any proposition they desire. It allows members on either side of the House, from time to time, to disagree with a proposition that is being advanced.
Right to Strike
At the outset, I have to say, so that it is quite clear, that the proposition put forth in the hon. member's bill, although it is couched in interesting words, "convenience, mobility and economic wellbeing of the public," amounts to a bill, if it were passed by this House, to prohibit the right to strike in the public service. Perhaps other hon. members will speak with regard to this matter.
I shall make my position very clear: I oppose the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: This does not say there are not some problems with respect to the public service that have to be addressed by the government and perhaps some day by this Parliament. We did address the matter in the Finkelman report, and nothing happened, as the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) said. We have some problems. In the few moments that I have, I think it would be a good idea if I asked hon. members to recall what Mr. Finkelman said. At page 124 of the first volume of the Finkelman report he said:
To my mind, to outlaw strikes by public servants at this juncture would be counterproductive.
I agree with that. He went on:
We should go to great lengths to make the bargaining process work better. "The best way of resolving impasses is to prevent them from arising." Then, if an impasse is reached, every possible step should be taken to encourage resort to arbitration, a technique whose time appears to have come. To compel public servants at this stage to rely solely on arbitration would tend to mobilize opposition to its use and would make of it in their eyes an evil to be avoided rather than a measure that might be looked upon as enabling employees to gain an equitable recognition of their needs without resort to disruptive action.
What Mr. Finkelman was advocating was a bit of good sense and an approach that would require the government and Parliament to examine a number of things.
We as a party have suggested, as the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier said, the establishment of a kind of public interest dispute commission. There is some doubt about the validity of that, but that was the suggestion put forward.
We have also suggested that this House should address issues that are negotiable but not arbitrable, to drive as many people as possible to see the efficacy of a reasonable settlement of disputes. As the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier said, "The record is not bad. There are violent exceptions but it is not bad".
Public servants, Mr. Speaker, are not sitting at home dying to get on the picket line. Public servants want their mail delivered, hospitals to operate, and teachers to teach. They are no different than anyone else. They are as inconvenienced a group as is any other group in society. What they want, I think, is for the government and Parliament to address the issues rationally.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: This is what we tried to accomplish in the joint committee. Perhaps that is what we will have to do again.
In closing, let me make a suggestion to the House. We have
had excellent results with parliamentary task forces and select
12560

November 5, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
committees. Perhaps this is the kind of issue that should be addressed there. We must hear all sides of the issue and of the question.
I could go on for some considerable time, Mr. Speaker. I think we have a responsibility to the public service, no matter where we sit in the House of Commons, whether in opposition or in government. I think the government from time to time, and I say this with respect, has neglected its responsibility to the public service. Perhaps that is one way in which we could get to the truth. Sometimes it is a very enlightening experience.
May I call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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. 35 (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand when the House adjourned at six o'clock, Motion No. 35 had been under debate. I am quoting from the remarks of Madam Speaker at report stage of the bill when she stated:
Motion No. 35 standing in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) is consequential on Motion No. 36. However, Motion No. 36 causes some misgivings to the Chair. I refer the hon. member to Section 4 of Citation 773 in Beauchesne's fifth edition, which reads in part:
"(a) An amendment is inadmissible if it refers to, or is not intelligible without,
subsequent amendments or schedules, or if it is otherwise incomplete".
Then Madam Speaker went on to say:
However, the hon. member will be given an opportunity when these motions are called to present his views.
In light of this comment, I propose to the House that Motions Nos. 35 and 36 be considered together. I invite hon.
members to comment on the point which was raised by Madam Speaker.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 36
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 49
(1)	by striking out lines 15 to 39 at page 39 and substituting the following
therefor:
"49.(1) There shall be established in the accounts of Canada a revolving fund under the administrative responsibility of the Minister of the Environment, to be known as the Environmental Studies Revolving Fund.
"(s) In this section, "fund" means the Environmental Studies Revolving Fund.";
(2)	at page 28 by substituting the word "fund" for the words "relevant
fund" wherever the latter words occur; and".


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment on the point you raised. While we think we could perhaps present arguments which might have some influence, we are also impressed by the arguments on the other side of that particular question and, therefore, will not press the point.
While I have the floor I should like to raise a point of order dealing with the business of the House. We had an opportunity as a caucus to consider developments today. We recognize that within the next few days and weeks the business of the House will consist of a budget and the necessary debate and perhaps, sooner than later, discussions of matters constitutional. While we believe that Bill C-48 is not good legislation-we think it is very bad-and we hope that the government will change it, it is obvious at this stage of the proceedings, after days and indeed weeks of discussion, that we are unable or not likely to be able to convince hon. members opposite to change their minds. Therefore, perhaps government members and members of the NDP are willing-certainly I have that authority on behalf of my party-to give unanimous consent to a procedure which would allow us to consider all remaining motions on report stage of Bill C-48 and conduct all necessary votes this evening to dispense with this stage of the proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity of speaking with the government House leader, who is still engaged in his caucus, and have explained to him what has just been explained to the House by our energy critic. He will be in the House shortly. He seems to be agreeable. Between himself, myself and the House leader for the New Democratic Party, I think it is possible to work out a system whereby we could put these votes in such a manner as to occupy the least amount of time this evening.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any objection at all to voting; I am always prepared to vote at any time. In fact, we have been prepared to vote for some time. I listened to the hon. member who proposed that we could proceed to a vote. He said that there was a system which he was prepared to follow that might allow the vote to take place. Subject only to knowing what the system is, I would be happy to give my
November 5, 1981

agreement to proceeding with the vote tonight, right now, or whenever.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, apropos of what our acting House leader has said, there is a problem in that this would mean approximately 20 votes. We have no objection but it seems to me that 20 votes could take up about four hours.


Thomas Edward Siddon: That is fine.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I hear my friend saying that that is fine, but rationally speaking it may be helpful to have some sort of agreement as to-


Thomas Edward Siddon: Let's vote!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I cannot-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has the floor.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it might be helpful if there were some consultation before going into four or five hours of voting. It seems to me it might be smarter to agree on which motions could be dealt with by voice vote and which ones require a division.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is probably not aware that we had those consultations between five and six o'clock tonight. There were three alternatives, any one of which could shorten the voting procedure tonight. But in the meantime, while we are awaiting the return of the government House leader, I would suggest that Mr. Speaker request now the unanimous consent of the House to commence the voting, and when the government House leader arrives, he and I and the New Democratic Party House leader could get together to work out a system which I am sure we can do to shorten the voting procedure.


Mr. Cousineau:: Mr. Speaker, before you ask for unanimous consent, I would prefer that my leader be in the House at this time. Judging by what I can see all around me, if Mr. Speaker asks for unanimous consent, we will not give it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William James Kempling: You are holding up your own bill!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, if I may, that you announce the business as it is now before the House and proceed with it in the normal fashion. When the House leaders for the official opposition and for the government meet together with me, we could report back on how the voting should take place according to whatever arrangement we have made, and at that point perhaps we could proceed to the voting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At this stage it appears to the Chair that a helpful suggestion has been made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I wonder whether it would be the pleasure of the House that we continue the debate for a few
Canada Oil and Gas Act
minutes and when the government House leader arrives, I am sure the matter could be resolved. There appears to be a disposition to do so as far as the Chair can read the mood of the House.


Mr. Roberts:: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to you and to the House for arriving a few moments following the resumption of the discussion at eight o'clock.
I take it that the House leader for the official opposition is trying to be helpful in making suggestions about how the business of the House might be expedited and how we might be able to bring to a conclusion a debate on this motion and bring together the various amendments which have been made and vote on them all this evening. If I understand him correctly, that is what he is suggesting. I am not sure whether he has discussed this possibility with the House leader on the government side.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I interrupt?


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


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I interrupt the minister and assure him that I have done just that. The government House leader is at his own caucus meeting at the moment. However, I informed him and he said that he would be in the House as soon as he could. In the interim, I have suggested that we should give unanimous consent to commencing the voting in anticipation that we will be able to devise a means to shorten what could amount to 37 votes. I suggest that what we do now is to sound the bells.
Now that there is a representative of the government to give a response to that, I would suggest that, in the interests of expediting the business of the House, he should agree and we should sound the bells. That would bring his House leader back. I can assure him that we can work out an arrangement and get the voting over tonight and completely dispose of report stage of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has made a suggestion but the Chair is concerned from the point of view of procedure at this time. There is a motion before the House and it appears to the Chair that we have to dispose of that motion in an orderly way. I am sure there can be agreement to go through the motions quickly or to call them and then commence the votes.
It would appear to be procedurally irregular to simply discontinue discussion on a motion that is before the House and other motions which are at report stage without giving them some consideration by the House. If the House is of a mind, the Chair would simply at this time call the vote on the motions seriatim. I think it could be done quickly, and at the end of the procedure we could go to a vote.


John (Moody) Roberts: It is not that I am anxious to have the debate prolonged but I am concerned because I have not been completely privy to the conversations which have taken place

November 5, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
between our House leader and the House leader of the official opposition. As far as I am able to understand it, there has not been, or at least there is not available to members of the New Democratic Party present in the House, any knowledge, understanding or agreement about the course of action which has now been suggested.


William James Kempling: Sure there is.


John (Moody) Roberts: The hon. member says there is, but as far as I can understand from representatives of the NDP who are here, there is not.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. At this time the Chair is going to call the question on the motion before us, but before doing so the Chair-
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLaren).


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion has been made this evening, as I understand it, that we should dispose of the motions in the normal way and then proceed to voting in accordance with a procedure which was under discussion among the three House leaders. I believe the whips were involved as well as the House leaders.
The fact is that I have understood from the House leader between the hours of six and seven this evening that it was his expectation, as the result of discussions which were held earlier today about the business of the House, that debate on Bill C-48 would continue this evening and we would revert to other matters tomorrow. Another bill would be before the House tomorrow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has listened to the hon. parliamentary secretary. The House appears to be ready for a ruling in regard to Motions Nos. 35, 36 and 37. The Chair is prepared to so rule unless there is objection to that.


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, I would assume, if 1 am not mistaken, that the vote is taken when there are no other members who wish to speak on the motions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. At this stage, may I recall to the House that the Chair has indicated procedural concerns relating to Motions Nos. 35 and 36 and has invited debate relating to these motions.
Not hearing debate related to those motions nor any comment, the Chair is now prepared to make a ruling with regard to them.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, with my comment a moment ago I thought I was contributing to the orderly procedures in the House, but evidently that was not the case.
We have before us this evening Motion No. 35 which stands in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson). Under that motion we would have a situation where the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) would be solely responsible for the environmental studies revolving fund which is provided for-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, the Chair has grave reservations about the admissibility of these two motions, and is prepared to rule.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have just one sentence to contribute. For heaven's sake, I have never in my life seen a government so reluctant to pass its own legislation!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. For the reasons that have been indicated by the Chair and in accordance with the citations from Beauchesne, it appears that Motions Nos. 35 and 36 are inadmissible and will be ruled out of order at this stage.
The Chair will now proceed to Motion No. 37 which stands in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), which reads:
Motion No. 37
July 10, 1981-That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 49 by striking out lines 47 and 48 at page 40 and substituting the following therefor:
"ties under this act or any other act of Parliament and such payments shall not exceed sixty million dollars in any two succeeding fiscal years."-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It appears to be inconsistent with Clause 49(13) of the bill. I will read from the earlier ruling of Madam Speaker with respect to this motion when she said:
Motion numbered 37 standing in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre appears to be inconsistent with Subclause 49(13) of the bill. In this respect, I refer the hon. member to Beauchesne's fifth edition, Citation 773(2) and 1 quote:
For the reasons indicated by Madam Speaker, Motion No. 37 also appears to be out of order and is ruled inadmissible.
Three motions, Nos. 38, 39 and 40 are grouped for debate with the same mover and seconder for each.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 38
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 49 by adding immediately after line 40 at page 41 the following:
"(15) Any reports or other results of environmental studies paid in whole or in part by the fund under subsection (9) shall be made available, within a reasonable time after completion, to every person who is an interest holder and, at a cost no greater than the direct cost of copying, shall be provided to any person who so requests in writing."
Motion No. 39
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 49 by adding immediately after line 40 at page 41 the following:
"(16) The accounts and financial transactions relating to the fund shall be audited annually by the Auditor General and a report thereon shall be made to the minister.
(17) The minister shall, on or before the 31st day of December next following the end of each fiscal year, prepare a report, relating to the operations of the fund for that fiscal year, including, but not limited to, all environmental studies undertaken or completed and paid in whole or in part by the fund under subsection (6).
(18)	The minister shall forthwith cause the reports mentioned in Subsections (13) and (14) to be laid before Parliament or, if Parliament is not then
November 5, 1981

sitting on any of the first 15 days thereafter that either House of Parliament is sitting, and such reports shall stand permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry of the House of Commons"-
Motion No. 40
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 49 by adding immediately after line 40 at page 41 the following:
"(19) For the purpose of assisting the minister with the administration of the fund, and payments therefrom, the Governor in Council shall establish and set the terms of reference of one or more advisory councils each consisting of not more than ten members serving without remuneration to be selected from outside the public service of Canada, and appointed by the Governor in Council to hold office for such term as the Governor in Council may determine with members representative of interest holders, provincial or territorial governments and native and public interests.
(20) Except for meetings dealing with clauses of information exempted from public disclosure by regulations, or with proprietory information of an interest holder, every portion of every meeting of an advisory council established under Subsection (15) shall be open to public observation."


Erik Nielsen: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and subsequently I will recognize a government spokesman.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There seems to be some confusion and disarray over there, which certainly was not intended. I did telephone the government House leader and informed him of the intention of this party to assist in passing this legislation this evening, in view of the circumstances explained by our energy critic. So, rather than having any further confusion-I am convinced that we can come to agreement in 10 or 15 minutes with respect to the method of dealing with the votes tonight so that we can have the entire report stage disposed of-I suggest that you might put to hon. members the suggestion that, with unanimous consent, we rise for 10 or 15 minutes, have a House leaders' meeting and work the method out, then come back here and vote on the entire report stage.
The government House leader is now here. He will recall that I called him. I just finished suggesting that Mr. Speaker might, with the consent of all members of the House, suspend our sitting for 10 or 15 minutes so that the three House leaders can work out an arrangement-which I am sure can be achieved in 10 or 15 minutes-and so that we can come back and vote on all motions to dispose completely of the report stage of this bill by 9.45 or ten o'clock tonight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council has the floor.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for my absence, but it is true that around eight o'clock I had a telephone conversation with the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. The bells had just stopped ringing when I reached him. I spoke with the House leader at 8.02 or 8.03 p.m. Maybe he came to my office before that, but I was in caucus.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Erik Nielsen: Seven forty-five.


Yvon Pinard: Seven forty-five? Well, I spoke to my hon. colleague at eight o'clock when the bell was ringing, not before that. It was not 7.45.


René Cousineau: Seven forty-five; no way. You have the wrong clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is a proposal that the House adjourn for 10 minutes so that the House leaders can confer. This would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I will come to that, if you please, but I just want to rectify what was perhaps an error made by the hon. gentleman. He did not speak to me before eight o'clock. That having been said, when we spoke together-I was in a caucus-he told me that he intended to allow all amendments and the report stage to be voted on tonight. I agreed to that, and I still agree to that. Now he suggests that we meet together and try to orchestrate or organize the vote so that it does not take too long. I am willing to do that. We are willing to do that, and when we come back in 15 minutes, hopefully there will not have been disagreement. Then the bells will ring to call the members and, when we are ready, we will vote.


Erik Nielsen: That is acceptable, Mr. Speaker, and I want to clarify a misconception. It was immediately preceding eight o'clock that I spoke with the government House leader; however, 1 did speak with his office personally at 7.45. I understand it would have taken some time to reach him and for him to call me back. We had the same problem this afternoon when he was calling with respect to other matters.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I have absolutely no objection to voting. I just ask, Sir, that rather than adjourn the House, which would necessitate our coming back then to deal with the outstanding motions, which will have to come before the House in any event, while the three House leaders are meeting Your Honour might simply go through the outstanding motions which are yet to be discussed or dealt with and. When we return, since there does not appear to be any necessity for great debate, as we will have completed all the business that should be before the House the bells could start ringing. We could then proceed with the votes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is in the hands of the House.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I want it to be clear that when we vote, it will be on all the amendments and the report stage tonight. I want that to be clear, and I want it to be clear also that the bells will ring for the time necessary to call in all the

November 5, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
members and that the time of the ringing of the bells will be unlimited. I do not mind if the bells ring now and we work out the agreement while they are ringing, but if hon. members opposite prefer that we adjourn for 15 minutes, I do not mind that either.


Erik Nielsen: 1 suggest we ring the bells now and get down to working out the details of the voting arrangements. I hope it will be possible for the government to have its members here so that we do not have bells ringing for one, two or three hours. We would all like to see this matter disposed of as quickly as possible, perhaps by 9.45, ten o'clock or whatever. 1 certainly hope the ringing of the bells is not extended.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I put it to you that to ring the bells at this precise moment would require us, after the bells had rung and the votes had been taken, to return to the votes which have not yet been dealt with at report stage. I ask simply that we complete the votes which are still outstanding at report stage before the bells ring.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has a proposal to make to the House. If someone would care to move all the outstanding motions in one motion, they could be voted on as one motion.


Erik Nielsen: With consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This would require the unanimous consent of the House. It would then be possible to vote seriatim the items which have been stood up to this point, which would meet the point of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). Is someone prepared to move all the remaining outstanding motions at once with the unanimous consent of the House?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I will so move and prepare that motion in writing, if I can have your patience for a moment or
two.


Mr. Lonsdale:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of clarification. Could you perhaps advise the House how many motions are outstanding at this time and under whose names they are put?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In answer to the question, I have put the question on Motions Nos. 38, 39 and 40. One subsequent motion is Motion No. 42. Motions Nos. 43 and 50 were ruled out of order. Motion No. 44 is out of order. Motions Nos. 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 should be voted. Motion No. 50 was ruled out of order. Motions Nos. 51, 52 and 53 have been completed, with recorded divisions. Motion No. 54 would have to be put, and that would be all.


Erik Nielsen: That all outstanding motions be called as one-now-and the yeas and nays recorded.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to accept
this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
Following the ringing of the division bells:


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with the government House leader, with the House leader for the NDP and with the Clerk and other Table officers as a result of which there has been a general consensus that we can expedite the voting this evening and disposition of the report stage of this resolution if I seek the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the motion which caused the division bells to ring, which have just stopped, and at the same time stipulate the understanding that unanimous consent would also be sought, if the first suggestion is adopted, to the suggestion that all the remaining outstanding motions be disposed of without debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member be permitted to withdraw his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed. Is there unanimous consent, that the remaining items should be voted on without debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed.
The first question is on Motion No. 38 in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson).
Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
November 5, 1981


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is now on Motion No. 39 in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson).
Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 40 standing in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 42 standing in the name of the hon. member of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde).


Marc Lalonde: Motion No. 42
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 55 by striking out lines 18 and 19 at page 47 and substituting the following therefor:
"and where an interest is cancelled the Canada lands thereunder become
Crown reserve".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think your gaze was deflected for a moment. No one on this side stood.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Under the circumstances I declare the motion carried.
Motion (Mr. Lalonde) carried.
The question is on Motion No. 44 standing in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson).


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 44
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 56
(a)	by striking out lines 18 and 19 at page 48 and substituting the following therefor:
"and place for a hearing before the National Energy Board and, on receipt of such request the Board shall appoint a time and place for a hearing."
(b)	by striking out lines 24 and 25 at page 48 and substituting the following therefor:
"of which a hearing has been held, the National Energy Board shall consider the representation made".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motion No. 44 appears to increase the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board and goes beyond the scope of the clause it seeks to amend. For that reason Motion No. 44 is ruled out of order.
The question is on Motion No. 45 standing in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson).


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 45
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 56 by striking out lines 27 to 29 at page 48 and substituting the following therefor:
"and shall on request by any person who has requested notice in writing, whether such request relates to one particular decision, declaration, determination or order or to all such actions of the Minister, specifying the decision, declaration,".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

November 5, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 46 standing in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke-Centre (Mr. Wilson).


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 46
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 56 by adding immediately after line 29 at page 48 the following:
"(4) Except for meetings dealing with classes of information exempted from public disclosure by regulations, or with proprietory information of an interest holder, every portion of every meeting of a hearing conducted pursuant to this section shall be open to public observation."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion 47 standing in the name of the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar).


Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq) moved:: Motion No. 47
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 56 by adding immediately after line 2 at page 49 the following:
"(6) Notwithstanding anything in this act, where the Minister proposes to make an order in respect to:
(a)	the granting of exploration agreements, leases, permits, special renewal
permits, and production licences;
(b)	declarations of significant discovery;
(c)	drilling of wells;
(d)	declarations of commercial discovery; and
(e)	the matters described in Section 48,
the aboriginal peoples affected by such an order shall be given reasonable notice by the minister through their authorized representatives."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion 48 standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 48
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 71 by striking out lines 3 to 9 at page 55.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 49 standing in the name of the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar).


Peter Ittinuar: Motion No. 49
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 76 by adding immediately after line 4 at page 59 the following:
"(iv) requirements for the carrying out of environmental and social programs,
studies or procedures as determined by the Minister of the Environment or by
regulation of the Governor in Council."
November 5, 1981


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 54 standing in the name of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena) moved:: Motion No. 54
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 80 by striking out lines 25 to 44 at page 64, lines 1 to 43 at page 65 and lines 1 to 12 at page 66 and substituting the following therefor:
"19.2(l)(a) A Compensation Fund will be established by the Minister of the Environment to provide for damages.
(b)	the Compensation Fund shall be funded by all persons who obtained an authorization under paragraph 3.2(1 )(b) by letters of credit totalling at least $500 million.
(c)	(i) the Compensation Fund shall be administered by a board appointed by the Minister and will be called the "Compensation Fund Board."
(ii) in addition the federal officials the board referred to in (i) above shall consist of representatives from onshore and offshore fishing organizations, native groups, territorial and provincial governments, and industry.
(d)	any person(s) claiming for damages may apply directly to the Compensation Fund for the recovery of funds due to a spill or related damage.
(e)	the Board shall review the case and make payment to the person filing the claim.
(f)	the letter of credit referred to in Subsection 2(b) shall be received, and where an individual operator has been found at fault the Compensation Fund shall recover the award from the letter of credit.
(g)	where the damage costs exceed the individual letter of credit supplied by the proponent, the compensation shall be made from the letters of credit as a whole.
(h)	The Minister shall report annually to Parliament on the operations of the fund and the board.
(i)	the Governor in Council may make regulations for the administration of the fund and the board."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Last July Madam Speaker indicated that Motions Nos. 1 and 2 seek to include a preamble in the bill which was introduced into the House without a preamble. For the benefit of hon. members, Madam Speaker quoted Section (3) of Citation 779 from the fifth edition of Beauchesne's and also referred to page 531 of Erskine May's nineteenth edition. These sources indicate the motions appear to be out of order, and I so rule.
The House will now proceed to taking the deferred divisions on Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act. Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 3.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Motion No. 3 (Mr. McGrath) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No.
52.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you now proceed to Motion No. 38, followed by Motions Nos. 39, 40, 45 and 46 seriatim and request unanimous consent to apply the recorded vote just taken on Motion No. 3 to each of those motions individually, you will probably receive consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the recorded vote on Motion No. 3 will apply to Motion No. 38 (Mr. Wilson)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the recorded vote will apply to Motion No. 40 (Mr. Wilson)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the recorded vote will apply to Motion No. 45 (Mr. Wilson)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the recorded vote will apply to Motion No. 46 (Mr. Wilson)?
November 5, 1981

Canada Oil and Gas Act


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 52 (Mr. Ittinuar). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 52 (Mr. Ittinuar) negatived.


Erik Nielsen: If the Chair will now call Motion No. 57 and ask for unanimous consent to apply the vote taken on Motion No. 52 it will probably be forthcoming.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the same vote to apply to Motion No. 57 as applied to Motion No. 52?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 7 (Mr. Wilson).
November 5, 1981


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 7 (Mr. Wilson) negatived.
[DOT]	(2235)


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if the Chair were to call Motions Nos. 8, 9, 13, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28 seriatim individually and ask for unanimous consent to have the vote just taken on Motion No. 7 applied thereto, it would be surprising if Your Honour were to discover any dissent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 4.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if the government is fortunate enough to avoid having its members continue to resist the legislation which they attempted to do prior to the bell, and if there are no maverick actions on that side, I suggest you call Motions Nos. 17, 22, 30, 31, 34, 41, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53, 54 and 56.
We might be fortunate enough to achieve unanimous consent that the vote which has just been taken on Motion No. 4 apply to each of those, if called seriatim.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we agree, of course. However, for the record, I shall enumerate again the motions mentioned by the hon. member. I believe he inadvertently omitted one, so I shall repeat the list: Nos. 10, 17, 22, 30, 31, 34, 41, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53, 54 and 56.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Yukon in accord with the list?


Erik Nielsen: Yes.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to draw to your attention that the hon. member for Yukon had missed vote No. 10.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 10 in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). Is there unanimous consent that the vote which applied to motion No. 4 shall also apply to Motion No. 10?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on Motion No. 10 (Mr. Skelly) which
was negatived on the following division:

November 5, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
(Division No. 109)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Anguish	Hovdebo	OrlikowBenjamin	Jewett (Miss)	ParkerBlackburn	Keeper	RaeBlaikie	Lewycky	RiisBroadbent	Manly	RobinsonDeans	Miller	(Burnaby)de Jong	Mitchell	RoseFulton	(Mrs.)	SargeantHeap	Nystrom	WaddellOgle	Young-27.
++NAYS
Andre
Appolloni
(Mrs.)
Axworthy
Bachand
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate)
Baker
(Nepean-Carleton)
Beatty
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Berger
Blais
Blaker
Blenkarn
Bloomfield
Bosley
Bossy
Bradley
Breau
Bujold
Burghardt
Bussieres
Caccia
Campbell
(Miss)
(South West Nova) Campbell
(LaSalle)
Chenier
Chretien
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Collenette Comtois Cook Cooper Corbett Corbin Corriveau Cdte (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Crosby
(Halifax West) Cullen Cyr Darling Daudlin De Bane de Corneille Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Domm
Dubois
Dupont
Ellis
Messrs.
Elzinga
Epp
Erola (Mrs.) Ethier Evans Fennell Ferguson Fisher Flis Foster Fox Fraser Fretz Friesen Frith Gamble Garant Gass Gauthier Gendron Gilchrist Gimalel Gourde (L6vis)
Gray
Greenaway
Guilbault
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hargrave
Harquail
Hawkes
Hees
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payettc
(Mrs.)
Hopkins Howie Hudecki Isabelle Jarvis Jelinek Johnston Joyal Kaplan Kelly Kempling Kilgour Killens (Mrs.) Kushner Lachance Lajoie Lalonde Lambert Lamontagne Landers Lang Laniel Lapierre Lapointe (Charlevoix) Lapointe (Beauce) Lawrence LeBlanc
Lefebvre
Lewis
Lonsdale
MacBain
MacDonald
(Miss)
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacKay
MacLaren
Malepart
Malone
Maltais
Marceau
Mass6
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCauley
McCuish
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McMillan
McRae
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Munro
(Hamilton East)
Murta
Nielsen
Nowlan
Obcrlc
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Paproski
Parent
Patterson
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Regan
Reid
(St. Catharines) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore) Roche Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Siddon
Simmons
Smith
Messrs.
Stevens	Tobin
Stewart	Tousignant
Tardif	Towers
Taylor	Turner
Tessier	Vankoughnet
Thacker	Veillette
Watson
Weatherhead
Wenman
Wilson
Wise
Wright
Yanakis-196.
Motion No. 10 (Mr. Skelly) negatived.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, for the sake of order, to complete this evening's record, I want to state for the record that I believe there is agreement that the votes taken this evening by unanimous consent will be treated in Hansard and in the other records of the House as though they had been standing votes.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That will increase substantially the batting average of those members who are present this evening.


Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-48, an act 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, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Because of the hour, the adjournment debate usually scheduled will not take place.
It being 10.53 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.53 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



Friday, November 6, 1981