1981-11-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, one goal of the National Energy Program is to promote energy conservation. However, in its usual shortsighted way, the federal government is actually encouraging fuel inefficient modes of transport by forcing domestic marine carriers to pay world price for fuel while not imposing the same price on surface carriers. Marine transport is three times more fuel efficient than rail, and eight times more fuel efficient than road transport. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That this House urges the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to reassess the application of the National Energy Program so that users of road, rail or water transport can make a choice based not only on cost but also on fuel efficiency, thereby fulfilling one of the most important objectives of the NEP.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has so far refused to do anything for people who have had to leave their homes because of poisonous UFFI fumes, and because he has done nothing so far for people who have to leave their homes because they cannot afford sky-rocketing mortgage interest rates, and since representatives of a now crippled housing industry announced today that housing starts are down 52 per cent and we would need a 150 per cent increase in housing starts to meet the Liberal government's own projections, I move, seconded by the member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation tender his resignation immediately before he throws us all out into the street.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) claims that Canada's treatment of its veteran population cannot be bettered anywhere in the world, but the United States can and does process its veterans' pension applications within 90 days, compared to Canada's disgraceful record of 46 months. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That this House demands that the Minister of Veterans Affairs act immediately to initiate changes in legislation which would reduce the pension application waiting period for Canadian veterans from the present unconscionable 46 months to not more than three months which is the limit in the United States.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and national necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has assured Canadians that he will not allow federally funded medical care to be undermined by lack of equal accessibility; and whereas the government of Ontario, following the government of British Columbia, proposes to charge user fees for hospital care which, according to the Hall report and the Parliamentary Task Force on Established Programs Funding, will surely deter sick people with low incomes from using hospitals, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):

November 9, 1981
That this House direct the Prime Minister to notify the provincial governments that if they charge user fees federal funding will be withdrawn.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Doug Frith (Sudbury):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the federal Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) received several standing ovations given by hundreds of Alberta Liberals during a speech on the new Constitution in Calgary on the weekend, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Mrs. Killens):
That this House unanimously grant leave of absence for the federal Minister of Justice to travel across the country spreading the joy concerning our new Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, 950 Canadian Hong Kong veterans may be subject to a rare Asian parasite which, since 1967, has been treatable. To date efforts to persuade the Liberal government to take a serious look at the problem have been unsuccessful. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That this House instruct the Minister of Veterans Affairs to launch an immediate study into this new parasitic disease and develop treatment plans for the 950 potential Hong Kong veteran victims.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ROYAL FAMILY
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That this House expresses its loyal congratulations to Her Royal Highness, the Princess of Wales, and her husband. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, on the announcement regarding the anticipated royal event this coming spring; and assures the royal couple of our loyal good wishes and continuing loyalty and interest.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the increasing state of unemployment, and especially the exceptionally high interest rates found on Canadian Indian reserves, and recognizing that many bands have been attempting to initiate long term, progressive and viable job-creation programs for their members, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That this House urge the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to make the long awaited commitment to the North Thompson Chu Chua Indian Band regarding the ARDSA application to improve the unemployment situation through an innovative economic development proposal.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, whereas the western division of CTC ordered the Rosedale-East Coulee CP-CN rail line abandoned on the date of the order in spite of the fact that, one, there are a million tons of potential coal to be mined and, two, Allied Chemicals of Canada are producing calcium chloride now on the route, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes):
November 9, 1981

That this House urges the Minister of Transport to place a stay on this order until all appeals have been heard.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, a recent appeal by employees of Heckett Engineering and Crosstown Mobile Wash was upheld by the UIC Board of Referees. However, the payment of benefits is now being withheld subject to a UIC decision on whether or not to appeal further. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration instruct the UIC not to appeal and to make immediate payment of all moneys these workers have been denied and to which they are entitled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Veterans Affairs 1 would like to direct my question to the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs who, I understand, is the Minister of National Defence. Problems are mounting within the Department of Veterans Affairs. Veterans are having to wait up to five years to have their pension applications processed and, to date, no headway has been made in reducing the excessive delays. Now, to add insult to injury, the Liberal government refuses to investigate the potentially fatal Asian parasite disease which may be affecting 950 Hong Kong veterans. The government refuses to do this, despite the fact that the Hong Kong Veterans Association contacted the Pension Commission close to three years ago and has yet to receive a response, and also despite the fact that a cure has been available since 1967.
Oral Questions
Will the acting minister launch an immediate inquiry into this potentially fatal problem, and will he report back to the House with his findings as soon as possible?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I will soon be able to relay the information I received from the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine concerning this subject of what he calls the Asian parasite disease. I am sure the Minister of Veterans Affairs will do his utmost to satisfy the Hong Kong veterans, as we have been doing for the last ten years. When I left the ministry I thought the delays in pension processing were being curtailed, and were decreasing very dramatically. With the new-


An hon. Member:: Bull!


Mr. Lamontagne:: -pension chairman coming in, with the help of the former one, and also with the nomination of Mr. McCracken we will investigate all the mechanisms of this pension problem so that the veterans would be satisfied with the direction we give.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I would like to point out to the acting minister that the standing committee was informed this year that matters will get worse within Veterans Affairs in dealing with the pension applications.


PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY MEDICAL EXAMINERS
A. Daniel McKenzie: I have another supplementary question for the same acting minister in regard to the medical advisory board. I would like the minister to launch another investigation into the recent disclosure that medical examiners in the Canadian Pension Commission are breaking the law by offering opinions on veterans' cases instead of simply providing medical advice. The minister will know that the situation has become so bad that veterans have been forced to take the government to court in order to have this practice stopped.


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I have noted the hon. member's remarks and I am sure that the Minister of Veterans Affairs will take note of them also. I think we will be able to correct the problem very quickly.


REQUEST THAT LEGISLATION BE INTRODUCED SIMILAR TO UNITED STATES SYSTEM
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, in Saskatoon on October 19, 1981, the Minister of Veterans Affairs made the following statement:
I haven't heard any critic say that Parliament should abandon the Canadian way for any other country's system.
That statement is not correct. We have asked for the
American system to be introduced in Canada. This request
was raised at a standing committee hearing earlier this year. I

November 9, 1981
Oral Questions
have raised the matter on numerous occasions in the House. Will the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs give a firm commitment to this House that he will raise this matter in cabinet and have legislation introduced in Canada similar to what is in force in the United States where pension applications can be processed in 90 days, and not five years?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I do not want to take up the responsibility of the present Minister of Veterans Affairs, who is most able to look after the problem.
I think the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine should be a little better informed about veterans and realize exactly how good this government has been to veterans. This is especially on the eve of November 11, which is the day on which we can demonstrate to our veterans that we took good care of them over the last 30 or 35 years.
When the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine tells me that we should introduce the American system into Canada in place of what we have, I think our veterans would have a lot to lose.


Mr. Clark:: How would you know?


Maurice Lamontagne: The American system does not apply the same way at all, nor does the American system have the same principles by which to evaluate what pensions or benefits our veterans should have or not have. However, I can say that this government has done tremendously well. In the last session we passed legislation to help widows of veterans. Both in this session and the next we will still try to improve that legislation.


COMPENSATION LEVELS FOR DIEPPE PRISONERS OF WAR
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, I regret that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is not here, particularly at this time of the year to answer for himself and for his department. Therefore, may I direct my question to the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs? Reports and studies have shown that Dieppe prisoners of war have a higher incidence of premature aging, pensionable disabilities and mortality rates than any other prisoners of war or war grouping, except for the Hong Kong veterans.
The present minister has spoken of justice and fair play in the veterans benefit program. Is it just, to compensate those who were prisoners of war for two and one half years or more at the same rate, or at twice the rate payable to prisoners of war who were detained for only some three momths?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker the Minister of Veterans Affairs is not in the House because he is representing the Canadian government at Vimy, France, making sure Canada is well represented.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Lamontagne: I will take note of the hon. member's question, and I will endeavour to refer it to the present minister.
I would like to tell the hon. member for St. Catharines that I appreciated the fact that he accompanied me on behalf of veterans on the recent pilgrimage to the eastern European countries. I think the hon. member should know that the Canadian government has done tremendously well in providing veterans benefits.


DELAY IN PROCESSING PENSION APPLICATIONS
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs. I will put my question very simply. What is the use of talking about a great and improved veterans affairs program if veterans who make applications for pensions are to be frustrated and delayed to the extent they are in the processing of their claims? The Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs is in a position to answer that question.


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I would like to elaborate on the question which the hon. member has asked. However, I much prefer to wait until the Minister of Veterans Affairs is here, who will be able to tell the hon. member what can be done and has been done in this matter. I think that would be a much better approach in view of the fact that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is now responsible for this matter.

[DOT] (M20)


HOUSING
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for CMHC who might better be called the minister of housing disaster. Recently the minister bragged that monthly housing starts have increased since he took over his portfolio. We now learn from the housing industry that housing starts are at their lowest monthly rate since 1960. October figures show a decrease of 52 per cent in housing starts compared to last year. Will the minister now tell the truth? Will he admit that the home building industry is in very deep trouble with high unemployment of building trades workers, and will he tell us what plans he has to encourage the construction of some
220,000	units of housing, which is the minimum required to keep Canadians housed?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will be encouraged to know, notwithstanding the drop in starts which she has identified for the month of October, that in fact the starts for the year 1981 will be increased over those of 1980, so that the anticipated starts for this year are still somewhere in the range
November 9, 1981

of 180,000, much above the low starts experienced in the industry last year.


BUDGETARY FUNDING FOR CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that, according to the minister's own signed report from CMHC, the housing prospect for new homes is in a disaster situation. Obviously the minister still refuses to acknowledge his own responsibility to provide leadership and some government solution. Over the past five years Liberal governments have decimated the CMHC budget. It has been cut from $1.6 billion in 1976 to a mere $350 million last year. As a result of this, CMHC no longer is involved in the production of housing but is merely a mortgage insurer. Will the minister demand a return to 1976 budget levels for CMHC, and will he restore this organization to its former role of providing housing that Canadian families can afford?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by the question of the hon. member as she represents an area of Canada that obviously is in need of assistance in housing suitable to people of lower and middle-income levels. I am surprised that she would not say, for example, that this government, in responding to that very difficult situation, has targeted assistance to areas of the country that obviously need assistance more than others. I know, for example, that the increased social starts in co-op and non-profit housing have been directed specifically to the city that she represents, the greater Vancouver area, and I know that is doing great good in that greater Vancouver area and the province of British Columbia.


REPORTED INCREASES IN RENTS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I should like to assure the minister that the people on this side of the House are concerned about housing right across the country.
We understand today that rents in Quebec, as in other parts of Canada, are increasing. But particularly today there comes a sad story for Quebecers whose rents are going to be increased 20 per cent, largely due to high mortgage interest rates. In other parts of Canada rent increases in terms of percentage of income are even higher. What does the minister intend to do, other than MURB programs which do not provide affordable rental housing, in a positive way to develop rental housing through CMHC?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, once again I am surprised that the hon. member in all of her questions today, and in the last question particularly, ignored once again the social component of CMHC housing under Section 56(1), which, during the last two years, has shown an increase from 25,000 to 30,000 starts in housing directed toward people who need that kind of housing.
Oral Questions
Why does she not recognize the good done by this government-25,000 to 30,000 starts out of what she says are starts down at a rate of 100,000? The hon. member should look at the percentage that this government is contributing toward the industry, specifically in her province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the Constitution. Since the media mentioned today that Mr. Ryan, Leader of the Opposition in Quebec, sent a telex to the Prime Minister of Canada which, it seems, contained substantial suggestions on breaking the constitutional deadlock between Quebec and Ottawa, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether he intends to follow up any of Mr. Ryan's suggestions, and could he also report to the House on the progress of negotiations which, I hope, are still continuing between the government of Quebec and the Government of Canada with a view to reaching an agreement that would be agreeable to all provinces, including Quebec?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, since Thursday when the conference was drawing to a close I have said on behalf of the Canadian government that we were prepared to seek accommodation on the three points with which the government of Quebec was in disagreement, and if solutions or compromise formulas could be found, we were prepared to look into these. To this day, and I checked earlier with the Minister of Justice, we have not had word from the government of Quebec. Actually, I think they wanted the conference to be a failure, and now they would not want it to succeed through the action of a compromise formula. Mr. Ryan has proposed such a formula which we will examine carefully I would first like to know what are the PQ government's views on the subject and, if it is a valid formula, we might look into it.


TELEX FROM LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN QUEBEC NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister in relation to the telex from Mr. Ryan, which I have not had an opportunity to see but which I understand has at least two elements. First, there are some specific suggestions regarding the three outstanding matters cited by the Prime Minister and Premier of Quebec to be at issue. Also, if I

November 9, 1981
Oral Questions
understand correctly, there is a request by Mr. Ryan, the leader of the Liberal opposition party in the Quebec National Assembly, that the Government of Canada be prepared to negotiate with the government of Quebec to enable the participation and involvement of Quebec in a full constitutional settlement.
Does the Prime Minister intend to respond positively to that request by Mr. Ryan and to do everything possible to involve the province of Quebec in a full constitutional solution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I honestly am not clear on what the Leader of the Opposition intends when he says insisting "on a full constitutional solution".
There are three areas on which the government of the province of Quebec indicated that it disagreed. I have indicated that we are prepared to look for some accommodation in those three areas providing they do not result in a position which would break up the accord reached with the nine provincial governments last week, and providing they ensured fairness for all Canadians.
I am really repeating my previous answer to the member from Saint-Jacques, but if the Leader of the Opposition has some further supplementary I would be happy to entertain it.


INCLUSION OF QUEBEC IN CONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, naturally we would like to have the opportunity to see as soon as possible the resolution which the Government of Canada I understand is drafting as a result of the accord signed between the Prime Minister and nine of the premiers. What I am interested in is having an undertaking from the Prime Minister that he will vigorously and fully pursue an agreement with the province of Quebec and that he will not place any artificial obstacles in the-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -any artificial obstacles in the path of an agreement. Would the Prime Minister give his undertaking on that; and also an undertaking that he would be prepared to respect what I understand to be the spirit of the request of Mr. Ryan, that spirit being that all efforts be made to include the province of Quebec in a constitutional agreement signed by and supportable by the other premiers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I believe my previous answers and what I have been saying since Thursday noon should satisfy the Leader of the Opposition as to the spirit and the willingness we have had about including Quebec in a final solution. In so far as the first point about the federal government drafting an amendment to the resolution is concerned, I want the Leader of the Opposition to take note that it has been the joint work of the federal and provincial officials to try to put into legal texts the
agreement that nine provinces and the federal government reached last Thursday and Lriday.
As to his other point about not putting up artificial barriers, I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition would define as an artificial barrier. Lor instance, on education and linguistic rights for minorities what would he consider an artificial barrier-the federal government trying to ensure that Englishspeaking Canadians in Quebec have the same rights Frenchspeaking Canadians in the other provinces now have? If we insisted on that, would that be an artificial barrier in the eyes of the Leader of the Opposition?


EQUALITY OF THE SEXES
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I suppose that so long as we have an implicit undertaking from the Prime Minister that he will respect the spirit sought by Mr. Ryan of an honest attempt to include the province of Quebec in this accord, we will have to wait to see the resolution which comes forward.
However, let me ask a specific supplementary question of the Prime Minister in relation to the resolution that is being drafted. Would the Prime Minister confirm that in the original accord, signed by himself and the nine premiers on Thursday, the opt-out or override provisions do not apply to the guarantee of equality of male and female persons which, the Prime Minister will recall, was set down deliberately in a separate section, Section 28, of the original resolution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think this is the question asked by the hon. lady in the New Democratic Party the other day. I had a chance to look this up since then, as I said I would-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Hon. lady?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If some can say "hon. gentleman", is it prohibited to say "hon. lady"?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Hon. member.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, would you like me to call her something else?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: My understanding is that in the work done by the federal and provincial officials the "notwithstanding" clause would indeed apply to that particular section.


Mr. Rae:: It shouldn't.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member says it would not.


Bob Rae: I am saying it shouldn't.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Oh, well, we know that the Leader of the Opposition has always argued that we should have a charter made in Canada by Canadians. Now that we will have our own Constitution, now will be his chance to have a charter
November 9, 1981

made in Canada by Canadians, and over the next years he will be able to fight to put back in the charter what we had in the original charter which his party combated tooth and nail for the past year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition asks me if we will make an honest attempt to seek some kind of compromise. We have been trying since Thursday. We have indicated to the Parti Quebecois, the Quebec government, that we are willing to hear some words from them particularly on the mobility clause, as we got from Premier Peckford, which would answer the problem the Parti Quebecois has with the charter as it is now presently conceived. We have not heard from them.
I just want to reiterate to the Leader of the Opposition that we have a duty to protect minorities, and we are trying to find a way to convince the government of Quebec that it should share in that duty of protecting minorities. I recall for the Leader of the Opposition that I believe it was less than a couple of months ago that he was speaking in Montreal and undertook to communicate with the Premier of Quebec to make sure that the government of Quebec would see its way clear in some way to protect the English-speaking minorities in Quebec. I wonder if he has since then communicated with the premier and if it would not be useful now for him to communicate with the Premier of Quebec to indicate his concern for these minorities, as he said he would a couple of months ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I find it rather strange that the Prime Minister should be putting questions to me, but I will not follow his practice; I will answer the question. The answer to the question is yes, 1 have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DETAILS OF ACCORD
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau is the only empty barrel with a mustache in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Chenier:: We want to keep you as leader, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, there is a great deal of heckling from the Liberal side, perhaps to stop questions about the equality of male and female persons. However, let me come back to the specific communique of the accord tabled in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister which says that there was agreement on the entrenchment of the full charter of rights and freedoms now before Parliament, with the following changes:
(b) A "notwithstanding" clause covering sections dealing with Fundamental Freedoms, Legal Rights and Equality Rights.
Oral Questions
The Prime Minister will recall that there was a deliberate effort made, when the original resolution was prepared, to put Section 28 in a separate section. That separate Section 28 is not referred to in the list of exceptions I have just quoted.
Is the Prime Minister telling us that the Government of Canada is now changing the accord which was signed by the Premiers? Are we going to have a resolution which has an opting-out or override clause applied to Section 28, when the accord did not have an opting-out or override clause applying to Section 28?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker, I am not saying that. The Government of Canada did not want to take anything out of the resolution which was before the House; nothing. We wish the Leader of the Opposition had supported it when it was here the first time, but I did say that the officials of the federal and provincial governments did meet on Thursday and Friday, and my understanding of that meeting is that this particular section would be subject to the "notwithstanding" clause.


Charles Joseph Clark: That changes the accord.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let me make it clear that everything in the charter now we would want to keep. Anything taken out is taken out because of the accord.


Charles Joseph Clark: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition says "No". I wish he would get hold of the nine premiers and get them to interpret the accord.
I can show a piece of paper too.


Miss MacDonald:: Shame on you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The lady from Kingston says "Shame". She did not support the charter when it was here.


Some hon. Members:: Right on!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: She did not support it when it gave absolute equality to the sexes. Hon. members opposite did not support it when it gave recognition to aboriginal rights.
As a result of the accord last week we have had to take certain things out, not because we wanted to take them out but because we were asked to take them out as the price of an agreement. I will not be saddled now with any weakness of the charter, which the party opposite refused to support and is now crying about because it does not appear in its entirety. They wanted a charter made in Canada. Let them sit down to work now and start making a charter in Canada. That means agreeing with the provinces that they should protect these people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 9, 1981
Oral Questions ABORIGINAL RIGHTS


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Section 91(24) makes it clear that the jurisdiction over aboriginal and treaty rights is an exclusive federal power. It is my understanding that the September ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada only limited the federal government's ability to affect provincial jurisdiction directly. We all recognize the importance of last Thursday's consensus. However, I would like the minister to confirm to this House that it is, first, within the powers of this House to re-entrench Section 34 fully, which this party will support and, second, that this action would not conflict with the September ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, we were very pleased to entrench these rights in the Constitution at the committee stage. As the Prime Minister indicated a few minutes ago, we agreed to a proposition that came from the provinces. It was a document presented to the conference by Premier Peckford. The aboriginal rights were not protected in that proposition. We asked whether it was a mistake that they were not there. The answer was no, they knew, that the provinces did not want to opt to entrench aboriginal rights both at the federal and provincial levels.
We remembered that the National Indian Brotherhood and the Metis had announced through the Indian association strong opposition to the way it was entrenched. Some of them were already campaigning in London trying to block our "demarches". What the Prime Minister did, when he realized it was being requested by the provinces not to be entrenched, was to reaffirm our commitment to entrench. He suggested to the provinces holding a constitutional conference on aboriginal rights so that the Indians, Inuit, Metis, provincial and federal governments could get together to find a solution that would be acceptable to everyone.


REQUEST THAT RIGHTS BE RESTORED IN CONSTITUTION
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, the important point for the House and the Minister of Justice to get hold of is that none of the major groups in Canada oppose Section 34 as it stands. They want something more. They wanted a consent clause included. This party is clearly on record that we want Section 34 put back in, fully entrenched. It is my understanding that that is supported by all members of this House. Section 91(24) of the British North America Act makes it abundantly clear that it is a sole federal jurisdiction. It can be put back in. The Supreme Court of Canada agrees with that. Will the Minister of Justice rise in his place and tell the native people of Canada, 1.3 million Canadians, that Section 34 will be put back in fully, as all members of this House think it should be?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I said, Madam Speaker, that we want to ensure that these rights are entrenched in the Constitution at all levels. We will do whatever is necessary to find words with which everyone can agree.
Everyone knows we took the initiative of putting that in the Constitution. We wanted it to be in the Constitution for all time. The Prime Minister asked the provinces to agree to a conference so that this would be entrenched in such a way that the native people, the provinces and the federal government, will be completely satisfied, and these people will be protected.


DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND REPRESENTATIVES OF NATIVE PEOPLE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. There have been reports that the Prime Minister would meet today with the Inuit and Indian leaders to discuss the constitutional accord of November 5 which dropped Section 34 entrenching aboriginal and treaty rights. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether such a meeting has already taken place? If so, what were the results? Has the Prime Minister agreed at least to entrench those aboriginal and treaty rights for all matters under federal jurisdiction?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I did meet with certain Inuit leaders in the presence and with the assistance of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We examined these questions. I expressed the federal point of view much as the Minister of Justice just did in his last answer. We were anxious to find a formula which would not only involve a recognition by the federal government of the existence of aboriginal rights, but a process which would hopefully lead the provinces to recognize those aboriginal rights.
The aboriginal people themselves know that their life, except in the case of the Territories, is lived out within the provinces and that they have many rights and programs which should apply to them at the provincial level. Once again, as the minister just said, we would prefer a solution which would not have the federal government go it alone and then perhaps leave the problem on the back burner forever, but try to involve the provinces as well as the federal government and the native peoples themselves in a solution which all could accept, as the minister just indicated.


STATUS OF NON-NATIVE RESIDENTS OF YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has mentioned the people of the two Territories quite apart from the native peoples in those parts of Canada. In view of the existence of paragraph (5) of the accord where special arrangements have been made to hear the views and concerns of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, can the Prime Minister explain why all of those thousands of Canadian citizens who are non-native living in Yukon and Northwest Territories have been left out in the cold with respect of this accord?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, unless I understand the Constitution differently from
November 9, 1981

the hon. member, those Territories are still part of Canada and still come under the jurisdiction of the federal government. In that sense the hon. member may be out in the cold with his party on this subject, but we do not think the native people or the northern people are.


HOUSING
Hon. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister responsible for housing. On October 30 last I referred to the Statistics Canada projections of seasonally adjusted housing starts of
135,000.	The minister at that time said I could draw some consolation from the real seasonally adjusted rate of 180,000. We now know that the seasonally adjusted rate, according to the latest figures from his own Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, is down to a disastrously low 104,500. What does the minister have in place, or what advice does he have for the government to change this disastrous course?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, in answer to a similar question I indicated that the strength in housing starts earlier this year was, for example, in March somewhere in the neighbourhood of 246,000 on an annually adjusted rate. The strength of the earlier housing starts will mean that the annual performance this year will be around 170,000. The one month's decline has to be balanced against the very high strength earlier in the year.
I hasten to indicate that, although starts were down in the month of October, early figures indicate that applications for mortgage funding, draws on mortgage funding, were up during the month of October. I expect that the months of November and December will contribute to an increase in strength in the market and in the industry for the balance of the year.


REQUEST FOR ADVICE FROM MINISTER
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, according to the minister's own figures, in terms of actual starts last year we had a disastrously low 158,600. We need
220,000	to meet minimum requirements. Indeed, according to CMHC's own projections, we will need 261,000 on a seasonally adjusted rate. We now have 104,000. We are told by the industry in terms of the rental situation that, apart from whatever government assistance there is next year, there will be no new rental units built next year, which means that the zero vacancy rate is now upon us. This spells a disaster, Madam Speaker, in the total housing industry. Everyone recognizes that but the minister responsible for housing.
What advice does the minister have for the people of Canada who, for the first time since the end of the Second
Oral Questions
World War, are facing a housing crisis of unprecedented proportions?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the strength and the seriousness with which the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) puts forth his question is somewhat hollow when you take into account that one of the things this government had to do last year, when it came into office, was to undo some of the harm done by the government of which he was a member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: For example, we had to reintroduce the MURB provision, to increase by 20,000 starts the provision of supply of housing in the country, and to increase the social components of housing starts. A study ordered up by the previous government of which the hon. member was a member, recommended that the government withdraw from housing, withdraw from social housing, and withdraw from MURBs. We have had a little catchup since the last government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PIPELINES
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources concerning the natural gas pipeline extension to the east of Canada. The minister knows that the gas pipeline extension was promised by the Prime Minister, that it was included in the National Energy Program and promised in this House by the minister. On August 11 the National Energy Board approved the pipeline extension. The government has been waiting for three months to answer this question that is so vital to the east coast.
Will the minister tell the House what the reason is for the delay, and when the government will approve this important economic project that will mean hundreds of jobs, and the expenditure of thousands of dollars for Canadian industry?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The project will mean the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars in the Canadian industry, not only thousands. The government has been very supportive of this project. It is committed to it. We are very happy that the National Energy Board has put forth a recommendation supporting the completion of a gas pipeline system right through to Cape Breton and Halifax. I expect to be in a position to announce a government decision on this recommendation from the National Energy Board very shortly.

November 9, 1981
Oral Questions DELAY IN CONSTRUCTION


Howard Edward Crosby: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Madam Speaker, the National Energy Program indicated that we on the east coast would receive natural gas through the pipeline system by 1983. This has now been extended two years. Further delays will result in a failure to supply natural gas for even longer periods of time. I do not think the minister's answer is good enough in the context of his promises to the House, and the promises by the Prime Minister in the election campaign.
When will the gas line be constructed? When will we know about this thing? Why are there further delays over the three months the government has already had to consider the matter?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, again the government and myself have been the ones who have pushed for this particular program while the Conservatives were sitting on their hands.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: As a matter of fact, the hon. member well knows we had to prevail against the very strong reservations of the Conservative government of New Brunswick about this particular issue. I am very happy now that the government of New Brunswick has come around to support this project.
We have faced some problems with the particular route that has been proposed between Quebec and New Brunswick. We have also faced some objections from the government of Quebec. I have been working very hard in order to resolve those objections so that the project, once it is finally and formally approved, will proceed much faster than the way the hon. member suggested.
So far as the project is concerned, it is one of the top priorities of this government. I am not only confident, but I can tell the hon. member that the project will take place.


Howard Edward Crosby: When?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to ask my question in the light of the discussion that has gone on today about human rights, and I particularly ask the question about the state of El Salvador. In my hand I have a letter that the minister received from the Canadian Council of Churches indicating and asking for a change in policy respecting Canada and El Salvador. I also have here a letter recently released by the Conference of Canadian Catholic Bishops that says "that the military and Christian Democratic ruling junta in El Salvador is responsible before its own nation and before
the international community for extremely grave crimes. It is responsible for the crimes of extermination and genocide carried out against tens of thousands of El Salvadorans in a little over a year." That letter was signed by 33 bishops from Mexico, Central America, and Latin America, and by 210 priests. They praised the Canadian bishops for what they had done so far.
Does the Minister of External Affairs still believe that true representative democratic elections will be possible in El Salvador in March?


An hon. Member:: No.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, our policy on El Salvador has continued to be one of seeking peace through political means and not by military means. We have expressed this policy for months. We believe that the election, which is planned by the present government of El Salvador, will allow the people of El Salvador a democratic choice, if it is conducted in the proper way. We have indicated to that government that we are prepared to support them in every possible way, by observers, through technical assistance, or any other way, to conduct that election campaign in a fully democratic manner. It seems to me, Madam Speaker, that to allow the people of El Salvador themselves to judge the government of El Salvador is really the genuinely democratic way to proceed with a problem of this kind.


RECOGNITION OF POLITICAL MOVEMENT
Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, at the UPI meeting, an international meeting of parliamentarians in Havana, the Canadian delegation representing all three parties, and also the Chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, voted as a group to support the French-Mexican position of accepting the fact that the FDR is a legitimate, political force that must be dealt with. Will the minister tell this House whether or not the government is ready to move in that same direction?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, that initiative is largely discredited at this point. Certainly it is not one which we propose to join. I would say to the hon. member, Madam Speaker, that we are concerned about the problems of El Salvador, whether they arise from the right or the left. We are not concerned about the problems that arise only from one direction. We believe that the best solution is to allow the people of El Salvador themselves to decide. I wonder what my hon. friend finds wrong with democracy.
November 9, 1981


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. On Friday, November 6 of this year, the Prime Minister told the House he had asked for a federal-provincial meeting to discuss entrenchment of aboriginal rights in jhe Constitution. The purpose of the meeting would be to enable native peoples to express their grievances regarding the present draft. As the rights of francophones outside Quebec might also be recognized in the new Constitution by acknowledging their right to have access to the legislature and the courts of their province in their own language, across Canada, I wish to ask the Prime Minister, first of all, if he is willing and if so, on what conditions, to have, as is planned with the native peoples, a federal-provincial meeting to enable francophone groups outside Quebec to air their grievances as well? Secondly, if such a meeting is held, would it not be appropriate to invite Quebec's anglophone minority to the conference in order to dispel once and for all the preconceived ideas and misconceptions held in Canada on the constitutional rights granted this anglophone minority and to demonstrate how they compare with the absence of constitutional rights-education being the exception-facing francophone minorities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, before giving a direct answer to the hon. member's question, I should like to remind him that the new Constitution, if and when it comes into being, does more for francophones outside Quebec than any other document ever considered or enacted in this country for 114 years. At the federal level, it recognizes official bilingualism and the equality of both language groups. It does this in all areas, at all levels executive, legislative and judicial. It does the same in the province of New Brunswick, for the Acadians of that province. It also acknowledges the right of all francophone language minorities in other provinces to be educated in their own language. I admit that there is a qualifying clause "when numbers are sufficient to justify", but I may remind the hon. member that Quebec itself insisted on this clause in the St. Andrews and Montreal accord in 1978. So I think that to start with, francophones outside Quebec should take time out to celebrate, but not too long, to recognize the fact that the rights for which they have been fighting for 114 years have been broadly recognized, entirely as far as education is concerned, and in any case at the federal level from "un Atlantique a l'autre" to quote Mr. Caouette, in all federal institutions. As far as the future is concerned, I have never objected and never will to meeting delegates from associations of francophones outside Quebec, in order to find out whether the conference suggested by the hon. member would be worth while, but I should like to point out to him that, at this stage, it is no longer
Point of Order-Mr. Wenman
a matter of obtaining something from the federal government, since we have officially recognized language equality at all levels of federal jurisdiction. At this stage, it will be necessary to convince provincial governments to go a little further along the lines of Section 133 and other administrative provisions, as New Brunswick has done. So, a conference as suggested by the hon. member could only be worth while if the provinces agree to participate. This is more or less the answer I gave the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East, when I talked about a similar federal-provincial conference on native peoples. There is no need to convince the federal government-we have been fighting for this for the last 12 or 15 years-but to convince some of the provinces, and if the conference referred to by the hon. member could be instrumental in doing so, I shall certainly give it serious consideration.


POINT OF ORDER
Madam Speaker:: A question relating to the process of how public petitions presented to the House and reported upon by the Clerk of Petitions may be thereafter dealt with was raised in the House, notably by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) and the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). Last Wednesday I said I would look into the question and rule on it. I am prepared to do that today.
I shall not read the Standing Order to hon. members because I am sure they are well aware of it; it is Standing Order 67(8).
An examination of the history respecting petitions shows that long before Canada was settled the petition in the United Kingdom Parliament was an early form of the legislative instrument that became a statute when passed. This is to say, it was a document embodying a number of requests as articles and which became a statute by the simple process of combining a petition with its response.
What is referred to as the modern form of petitions grew up in the United Kingdom in the seventeenth century when Parliament had come to be regarded as a political and legislative body rather than as the highest court of justice. Petitions would ask for an alteration of the general law and an individual could, by petition to Parliament, pray for a redress of wrongs and expect an alleviation of difficulties. But the increased jurisdiction of the courts has permitted persons to institute proceedings in the courts to remedy wrongs and therefore the petition has fallen into disuse.
As Erskine May points out, the modern practice in the
United Kingdom of the proceedings relating to petitions arose

November 9, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Wenman
as a result of the fact that the procedure in the House of Commons imposed little restriction on the raising of debate and the presentation of petitions; they served as a method of introducing subjects from outside the House and could be used for obstructing other kinds of business. Accordingly, in view of the great increase in the number of petitions, Standing Orders commenced in 1842 and subsequently amended made the presentation of petitions a formal proceeding incapable, except in rare cases, of giving rise to debate. They came in by the thousands. Debate is only permitted at the discretion of the Speaker when a petition relates to a present personal grievance requiring an immediate remedy.
Some idea of the infrequency of the Speaker's discretion being invoked to permit discussion is demonstrated by the fact that the last time the Speaker permitted debate was in 1844, when a petition claimed that letters were being secretly detained and opened by the Post Office. The precedent also provides us with some idea of what constitutes a present personal grievance for purposes of permitting debate.
While in the United Kingdom no formal report is presented to the House, it is not customary for members to submit petitions to the clerk of public petitions for scrutiny before presentation in the House. Following that, the present U.K. practice provides that a member, when presenting a petition, may read the prayer and make a statement as to the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures and its material allegations. It may also be read by the Clerk. To proceed with it further, however, unless privilege is involved, the Speaker must find that the complaint relates to a present personal grievance.
This, however, is not quite the practice that has developed in this House. While in 1970 a member presenting a petition was denied the opportunity of explaining what the petition was about, the practice was subsequently developed for members to give a brief explanation of its content, from where it comes and the number of signatures. This is allowed today. While the substance of the petition may be set out by way of explanation when presented, the practice that developed once the report of the Clerk of Petitions had been reported is not to permit the petition to be read unless the House agrees by unanimous consent to do so.
Preliminary to seeking such consent, however, the Speaker must be satisfied that the content is a proper subject for a petition. Otherwise it will not be received, and for that matter the Speaker will have to be satisfied that it is receivable, whether or not there is a desire to have it read. In other words, the Clerk of Petitions certifies only as to the form of the petition; that is, that it is properly addressed and that it contains the formal prayer.
The Speaker having been satisfied that the petition is receivable, to permit the petition to be formally read would arise only where the member advises the House that the petition relates to a present personal grievance and he wishes to have it discussed, and the Speaker is satisfied that the prayer does relate to a present personal grievance requiring an immediate remedy. Otherwise, where there is no allegation that the
petition relates to a present personal grievance, the unanimous consent of the House would be required to have it read by the Clerk.
With respect to the subject matter of the petition of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West which he suggests relates to a present personal grievance requiring an immediate remedy, the hon. member will appreciate that, while high interest rates are a very serious matter, and whatever their cause, the petitioners are affected by them in common with many other citizens.
It seems to me, however, that the type of present personal grievance that the Standing Order has in mind is something akin to what was alleged in the 1844 United Kingdom case where the complaint was that one's mail was secretly detained and opened. In other words, it was personal in the sense that it did not arise as the result of the general law or, for example, as a result of the vagaries of supply and demand or as a result of the forces in the marketplace.
Second, the grievance would be one which could be alleviated forthwith rather than one which would require legislation or some other action, which is the case where interest rates are asked to be altered. In other words, the complaint of high interest rates is the very subject matter of a petition envisaged by Bourinot when he wrote, in 1916, and I quote:
The subjects embraced in these petitions are of a most varied nature. When the public mind is greatly interested in some question large numbers of petitions are presented in both Houses both for and against proposals which are being agitated in Parliament and in the press. This privilege is properly highly appreciated and in many instances assists Parliament in forming its opinion and in taking appropriate action.
But in order to discuss a petition in the House, both here and in the United Kingdom, in view of the great increase in the number of such petitions to either House, the rules mentioned earlier were laid down. Accordingly, while the subject of the petition the hon. member has presented is a very serious matter, one with which I may have the greatest sympathy, and while also it is certainly one of the very uses for which the practice of petitions arose, I am constrained by the longstanding practice both here and in the United Kingdom to say that it is not one where the Speaker has traditionally exercised discretion and permitted debate.


Mr. Wenman:: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order on the Speaker's report. I would first like to thank the Speaker for her very thorough attention to this matter which is of grave concern to me in respect to the role of a private member in this House of Commons. In view of the detail and the time with which she has gone into this matter, I would want to reserve comment subject to studying the report. I would ask her-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lloyd Wenman: The point of order is, what is the-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am having quite a hard time in getting the hon. member for Fraser Valley West to understand that, unfortunately, although I would enjoy the discussion once the Speaker has ruled, the Speaker may not entertain com-
November 9, 1981

ments or even points of order on the ruling. Therefore, the hon. member, even if he is giving me notice, should know that I will not be able to hear him.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: What I would ask then is that the Speaker refer the subject matter of the Speaker's report to the committee on rules and procedures.


Mr. Pinard:: Shame! Don't do that.


Madam Speaker:: Again, that would require unanimous consent. The hon. member would have to make a motion, I suppose. If the hon. member will now put it in the form of a motion, I will put it to the House; or else he can give notice of a motion for another date.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Thank you for your ruling, Madam Speaker. I shall take it under advisement and prepare a motion at another appropriate time.


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 Friday, November 6, 1981, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, this question concerns the matter I raised last week with respect to the microphone switching. While the matter arose out of a specific incident, before making my case to the Chair I want to emphasize that whatever I say with respect to those events, which will not be much, I do not want to be interpreted in any way as a reflection on the Chair's ruling in that particular case, because that would certainly not be my intention. Similarly, I do not want my following remarks to reflect in any way whatsoever, on the conduct of the ladies and gentlemen who operate the electronic console to my upper left.


Madam Speaker:: Let me interrupt for a minute to tell the hon. member that yes, this is a question of privilege raised on the matter of the microphones, and that the hon. member knows the rules well enough to know that as long as he keeps away from the matters on which I have ruled-that is to say, who has the right to answer a question, who determines who is supposed to answer a question and how the Speaker has to be neutral as to the possible double interpretation of a question-
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
he can speak about the question of the microphones quite freely, and I certainly welcome his comments.


Erik Nielsen: That, indeed, is my intention, although in my submission there will be one brief reference to that particular incident. However, when I have been heard out, it will be readily discernible that my main submission will concern the equality of hon. members in this House, the dangers of what I perceive to be the overtaking of technological progress which has been introduced to our House machinery, the prerogatives of the Chair, and, hence, the rights of hon. members.
One of the most basic powers or discretions of the Chair, which was referred to at the time of the last incident, is the right to decide to recognize during debate, including the question period, those hon. members who wish to participate therein. This applies, may it please the Chair, to both the questioner and the respondent. The use of this discretion ensures order and gives all hon. members the confidence that they are being treated equally. This is the main theme of my presentation today.
In my submission, this discretion which resides solely with the Chair should operate without any reference at all to the sound amplification system in this place, and the sound system should have no effect as to who is recognized and who is not. I have ensured that inquiries have been made of the individual switching systems in order to be sure of my facts.
The switchers should follow the direction of the Speaker at all times. The Speaker alone is sensitive to all the procedural considerations involved in recognition. In my submission, the switchers should have no influence or discretion at all-and there can be no room for either-with respect to influencing the proceedings on the floor.
In my submission, the same principles of operation have applied or, at least, should have applied, regardless of the sound system. From 1954 to 1964 there was in this chamber a system of microphones which hung from the ceiling and which a switcher controlled by zones, which included whole areas where hon. members on both sides of the House were sitting. From 1964 until 1977 there were two different systems, both featuring only one microphone per desk. Since 1977 we have had the present system with two microphones on a desk or one microphone on each desk of the pair.
In theory, as far as most members were concerned, these mikes simply went on when the Speaker recognized an hon. member who rose, regardless of the hon. member's position or function in the House or government. If the Speaker did not actively, viva voce, recognize an hon. member, that hon. member had no sound.
In my submission, it is now clear that there has been an important change in the interaction between the Speaker and the microphones, one which was never discussed in the House and which might have been very closely examined if it had been heretofore suggested. Perhaps with the introduction of television, or with the transfer of the switching function which occurred on January 2, 1981, just this year, from electronic services to the broadcasting service, which they probably do

November 9, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
not want, switchers exercise a discretion which they should not have, in my view, whether or not they want to acquire it.
Some of the old guidelines still seem to apply. All the other microphones go off if the Speaker rises. I can see no problems with that at all. Indeed, it is an electronic compulsion to be seated. There is nothing wrong with that.
Second, no questioner on this side has his microphone turned on unless actively vocally recognized by the Speaker. However, the Speaker at one time called upon a minister to reply to a question. You will recall that this aspect was discussed in connection with the previous incident. But this no longer happens. If two ministers want to rise, they have to sort themselves out. Indeed, this happened last Friday when two ministers rose simultaneously and stood for quite some time before the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) finally was the chosen one by mental telepathy. This is not a great problem.
A problem does arise if a minister rises to answer a question put to a backbencher, whether that question be put to a backbencher on either side of the House-because there are backbenchers who act in a certain capacity where questions are perfectly proper to be put to them. It is evident that the switchers simply keep to the practice-and I emphasize that the switchers are now keeping to the practice-vis-a-vis cabinet ministers, of allowing the floor to the most senior person desiring to respond. In my submission, that is the exercising of a discretion by the switchers which should be exercised by the Chair. This practice might be appropriate within cabinet, but in my submission it is completely inappropriate between a cabinet minister and a committee chairman.
Therefore, because a backbencher is very unlikely to try to outlast a minister in asserting his right to the floor, particularly if the minister's microphone light goes on and his does not, we have a serious procedural decision being made by someone who is not trained in procedure, indeed by someone who is not even an officer of the House, let alone the individual occupying the Speaker's chair to whom that discretion is exclusively reserved at the special request of all hon. members of this House.
I emphasize that members have reposed their confidence in the occupant of the chair. They have not reposed their confidence, perfectly competent though they may be, in those who operate the electronic controls in this House. That responsibility belongs to the occupant of the Speaker's chair and to no on% else.
The independence of committees as a result is threatened. But even more important, the equality of members is erased. A great discrepancy between the prerogatives of the government and those of the opposition is brought into being, and I want to highlight some examples.
If the Speaker does not personally make a choice but allows the situation to sort itself out with the microphone operator deferring, in cases of doubt, to seniority, does this mean that, first, any time a committee chairman rises he can be superseded by any occupant of the treasury benches, however much the question concerns the work of the committee rather than the work of the House?
Second, does it mean that a cabinet minister can seize the floor even if it is an opposition committee chairman who has been asked a question?
Third, does it mean that at any time a committee chairman is asked a question, any cabinet minister can take the floor if he is also concerned with the subject matter?
Logic would seem to compel an affirmative answer to all of those questions. If these advantages are to go to the government side through the growth of what I conceive to be an unwarranted growth of the microphone precedent-and perhaps we have not been alert enough in this House to have seen it happening because it has been happening by stages-are there to be any corresponding advantages accorded by the switchers to the opposition side? That is what it comes down to.
For instance, if I might parallel the previous hypotheses that I put to the Chair, will senior frontbenchers be able to rise and put questions cutting off backbenchers without the need to be recognized by the Chair, simply because they are closer?
Second, will the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) automatically be recognized for a question any time it is the Progressive Conservative Party's turn for a question and have his microphone turned on without the need for Madam Speaker to say anything?
Third, will the Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition House leader or a senior frontbencher be able to answer a question put to an opposition committee chairman if the question affects party policy or House strategy?
Logic would seem equally to compel a negative answer to all of these questions. Therefore, it is clear that the inequality between members and their right to recognition has been evolving slowly and I submit must be reversed by this House.
I believe this is a serious question for all members outside the cabinet, one which will lead to serious difficulties for members and for this House as a whole if it is not examined. I believe discrimination among members which has developed should be carefully examined by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Therefore, if you find a prima facie case of privilege-and I would certainly suggest that the circumstances, never having been considered by members, or by the House, perhaps it might commend itself to a decision that there is such a prima facie case here-I would move that the matter of the guidelines provided to those persons switching on the microphones in the House of Commons allowing members to speak-and to be heard, I might add-and the question of whether all hon. members are treated equally when they seek the floor, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to enable that committee to investigate the adequacy and the appropriateness of those guidelines, and report thereon to the members of this House.
I should also also say that for some time I have been concerned about the operation of electronic Hansard by means
November 9, 1981

of the television cameras and the still cameras behind the curtains, which I understand even after a limited three month intended experimental period are still with us. I am looking into the development of that aspect. I am concerned whether or not the guidelines that were set out in the resolution installing electronic Hansard by way of television cameras in the House are being followed. I will likely have a further question of privilege with respect thereto when I have completed my research. I merely flag the matter now so as to bring to your attention our concerns that there are very serious questions to be raised in this area of technological change and advance which may well have overcome, dangerously so, the procedures and practices in the House. I will raise these matters probably following the Remembrance Day recess. In view of that, you may wish to defer today's question and decide upon both at the same time, Madam Speaker.


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I have listened with interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), and I do not find that he has a question of privilege at all.


Ian Deans: It is not up to you.


David P. Smith: The remarks which the hon. member made are to be found in Hansard for November 4, 1981 at page 12503. He said:
I asked that my microphone be activated. I know that the operator heard me ask because he shook his head and made a gesture of helplessness because it had to be your decision that the microphone be turned on.
The only conclusion I can draw from these remarks is that somehow the hon. member for Yukon was under the delusion that somebody other than yourself could recognize him.
It is important to bear in mind Standing Order 12, which refers to the Speaker preserving order and decorum. It is also important to bear in mind Standing Order 28, which reads:
Every member desiring to speak is to rise in his place, uncovered, and address himself to Mr. Speaker.
Citation 117 of Beauchesne states, with reference to the Speaker:
He calls upon members to speak-
What could be clearer than that? It is certainly not the operator of the microphone system who calls upon a member to speak; it is the Speaker who does so.
If one looks at Erskine May's seventeenth edition at page 247, one will see that it states in reference to the Speaker "that he calls upon members to speak, a choice which is now never disputed." That is the phrase that is used in Erskine May to describe the duty of the Speaker in this situation. It sounds to me today as if somehow the hon. member for Yukon is in fact disputing that.
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
Also in Erskine May, at page 436, we find the following:
In so large and active an assembly as the House of Commons, it is absolutely necessary that the Speaker should be invested with authority to repress disorder and to give effect, promptly and decisively, to the rules and orders of the House.
What sort of disorder would we have if we had a bunch of members calling up to the operator of the microphone system? I am not clear as to the point the hon. member is trying to make. Is he somehow attacking the probity of the employees? If so, I would state that that is highly irregular and most unfortunate because they are not in a position to defend themselves and the judgments which they make. I would submit, in fact, that they do not make any judgments. They simply seek your guidance as to who in fact is being recognized.
It would seem to me there is no question at all as to what the question is on any other issue than perhaps those issues which may arise during the question period. It would also seem to me that on that particular issue you have ruled, and you did so last week or it may have been the week before. The position you took was that it was up to members on the government side to ascertain among themselves who was in fact going to answer a question, regardless of to whom it may have been specifically addressed.
The criteria which may be used by members on the government side as to who will defer or not defer is something in which the Chair does not become involved. The criteria as to who is going to answer are ascertained and set by members of the government as between themselves.
I submit that with regard to anything other than question period, Beauchesne, Erskine May and the Standing Orders are all quite clear; the Speaker calls upon members to speak. The role and function of the operator of the microphone system is simply to carry out the instructions of the Speaker, and that presumably would be to activate the microphone of whichever member has been called upon to speak.
Having regard to whose microphone is to be turned on in question period in response to a question, that is something you have already ruled on and made quite clear. I am staggered that the hon. member for Yukon has indicated he may wish to pursue a further question of privilege, because I submit he does not have one here.


Ian Deans: Briefly, Madam Speaker, I must confess that the argument by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was fairly long, quite involved and a little difficult to follow in all of its content. The question, as I understand it, is with regard to what has occurred simply because of the introduction into the House of Commons of these new-fangled electronic devices and how one deals with them. I am sure that from time to time we will have to take a look at how procedure develops when we introduce newer methods of communicating. I am sure also that we have to be cognizant of the fact that, with the introduction of the microphone system, which has been here for some time, the method of catching the Speaker's eye and being recognized and the concurrent responsibility of those who operate the

November 9, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
switches in another part of the chamber becomes even more complicated. I suggest, however, that we ought not to dwell unnecessarily long on this point.
The question that was raised last week, on which the Speaker has already ruled, is now a matter of history, and has established a precedent that we will follow for some time to come, I hope. It at least has clarified any question that might have arisen as a result of last week's misunderstandings. I do not really see how it would be possible, short of the Speaker's being put in the position of having to identify individually who is required to answer, for the system to work any differently from how it now works.
I want to suggest that, on balance, it works very well. The people who operate the switches that turn the microphones on and off do so with a great deal of care, and they maintain an alertness that is to be complimented. I am a little concerned that, in spite of the fact that it is stressed that this is not be considered a criticism, it cannot be seen as other than a criticism, which in my judgment is unwarranted and unjustified.
We would all like to be recognized from time to time, and there are times when we are not when we feel we ought to have been; but that is the prerogative of the Chair, and as long as those who operate the microphones turn on the one they are supposed to turn on at the time the Speaker identifies which microphone is to be activated, then we have no complaint about the way in which they do their job and they ought not to be drawn into debate on the floor of the House.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order because of some unwarranted remarks by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), who asserted just a moment ago that my remarks with respect to the conduct of the switchers cannot help but be seen as being critical. He has no right to question the word of an hon. member given in this House of Commons. When I preface my remarks by saying that I intend no criticism of the switchers, he must accept that, and I thought he would have had the good grace to do so.
In the meantime, I did send you a copy of a proposed motion should you decide that the whole question merits some consideration by a standing committee of the House representing the privileges of all members. It might commend itself, and I would not be at all averse to your Table advisers altering its wording, if that would make it more acceptable, to an examination in depth of this whole question which has never before been examined by a member's committee.


Madam Speaker:: I will try to deal with this matter in as much detail as I can in answer to the problems that have been put forward by the hon. member. I happen to think that the introduction of the sound system in this House has not had a bad effect on the traditional equality of members in terms of their right to express themselves. As a matter of fact, I believe that the introduction of these electronic devices has been done quite well, and I might add has been done through the co-operation of all parties in this House and with the help of those members of the different parties who had been delegated
to the special committee that studied the whole matter of introducing broadcasting in the House of Commons. They should be commended for the way they have allowed us to introduce broadcasting in this House, because the system in my view, and in the view of many people who have come to visit our country, is working quite well. We have succeeded in giving an electronic interpretation to the application of the Standing Orders and the manner in which the electronic devices are activated in order to reflect what our rules really mean. It still remains in this House that the only way for a member to be given the floor is to be recognized by the Speaker.
The microphones are only activated when the Speaker recognizes a member by the name of his constituency. That remains the only way to be recognized in the House. It has nothing to do with the matter of a microphone in front of a member being open or not.
The hon. member is arguing that because microphones in front of a member are sometimes activated he might be compelled to speak, and therefore being compelled to speak he would automatically have the right to speak. But unless the Speaker gives him the floor and gives him the right to speak, he does not have that right.
Another way in which the Speaker might give someone the right to speak is to act negatively. That is to say, during question period, where I do not normally recognize a minister to answer a specific question, if the Chair feels that a question does not relate to a minister's departmental business, the Speaker would intervene and not allow that minister to answer the question. A member should not feel that he automatically has the floor because the microphones are open in front of him. For instance, the other day an hon. member was seeking the floor and because I had not yet recognized him the microphone had not been activated. Therefore, he was not able to be heard in the House. In a case where a member would begin to speak solely because he had the microphone open in front of him, the Speaker would intervene in order to restore order in that situation.
The Speaker has perfect control of those switches, I might add. Perhaps this is a technical detail which some hon. members are not aware of, but I have two buttons on my chair. One button switches my microphone on. If I were trying to bring order to the House and could not be heard and for some reason or other the console operator could not activate my microphone, I have the possibility of putting my own microphone on. I have another button which completely controls the sound and shuts it off if an hon. member who was speaking in my view did not have the right to speak at that particular time. So despite the fact that the hon. member for Yukon is arguing that the operator of the console may have certain discretion in activating one microphone or another, I have the ultimate discretion. The control of who has the floor in the House has remained entirely in the hands of the Speaker, which I believe is a clever interpretation on the part of those members who
November 9, 1981

studied the introduction of the broadcasting system in the House.
There was some confusion which arose the other day, but I have ruled on that particular circumstance. I repeat, the console operators make no decisions. They activate the microphones on my instructions, and I still control members who may or may not speak in this House. Should there be an error, I have the possibility of correcting that error by turning off the microphone.
Moreover, it is quite clear and I reiterate that a chairman of a committee may answer a question; but he may also not answer a question if he so chooses. The Speaker has no way of forcing or obligating a chairman of a committee to answer a question. A chairman of a committee remains free to express himself or not to express himself in the House. If he does not want to answer a question, even though the question is narrow enough that the Chair should allow it, a chairman of a committee is free not to answer the question.
If last Wednesday the chairman of a committee had been a member of the opposition, it is possible that a member of the opposition would not defer as readily to a member of the government. But that is not of the making of the Speaker. The other day we had a situation where the chairman of the committee deferred to a minister of the government. If it had been a chairman who sits on the opposition side, perhaps he would not have deferred so readily to a minister of the Crown. The reasons for that would appear obvious to anyone who sits in this House.
I am grateful to the hon. member for Yukon for raising these points because it is always good to question certain practices; but it seems to me that the system has been working very well and I cannot accept the points raised by the hon. member.
The hon. member for Yukon has raised a number of hypothetical questions, such as if it had been the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) or a chairman on the opposition side, etc. I have to remind the hon. member that the Chair cannot rule on hypothetical questions. However, it is beneficial to look at hypothetical questions because they might occur exactly in the way the hon. member has described them today. I would be happy to give them some thought in case I had to rule rapidly in the House on one of those questions.
I find I have to rule him out on privilege on the matter he has raised, but if he would like the question to be studied further, his motion is quite appropriate and he could move a notice of motion to be discussed in private members' hour. That would be the proper time to do it. But on the question of privilege, I must rule that I do not find a prima facie case.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I certainly do not want to follow the course of a private member's motion. Since it affects all hon. members, I consider the matter to be serious enough for me to ask that perhaps it be placed on the agenda of the next House leaders' meeting to see if we cannot get an all-party agreement after we return from the Remembrance Day ceremonies.
Plight of Home Owners
In the meantime, Madam Speaker, I was rather curious to learn that the decision to establish the sound system here as part of our House of Commons function was made some time before the setting up of the broadcast services, the TV and electronic taping, and it was kept separate under the switching function called, I believe, the switching branch under the jurisdiction of the Chair. On January 2, 1981, the whole function of the sound system of this place was transferred to the jurisdiction of the broadcasting service of this place. I have not been able to trace the history and authority for that. I assume it would have been under the authority of the Chair, but I was wondering whether this decision had gone before any standing committee or special committee of the House before it was made, or even if my predecessor, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), had been consulted. That is a point which concerned me as well.


Madam Speaker:: I cannot answer that question. I would assume that the consultations were had because that broadcasting commission-no, I think it was dissolved a little before that date, so I do not know about the consultations. I still feel that the decision that the Speaker remain entirely in charge of the broadcasting system is the right one. I am sure the hon. member does not want to question that.
There is just one other detail I want to discuss with the hon. member. He mentioned that before we televised the proceedings in this House, the sound system operated by zones. We have the same thing today. When an hon. member rises, sometimes two microphones are switched on. When an hon. member stands in the aisle, the microphones on either side of him are open. That does not mean two members in that zone can speak at the same time, but in order to produce a more effective sound the console operators apparently create a zone when an hon. member rises. Another microphone is switched on. This is not always so; it depends on where an hon. member stands. If he stands in front of his seat, I notice that only one microphone is open, but if he stands in the aisle, sometimes microphones on either side will be open. Zones are created because that is a necessity if we want quality sound, and I suppose we have to leave that decision to the operators at the console because we do not know much about the quality of sound and they do.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I happen to be
the first member to present a petition since your new ruling

November 9, 1981
Order Paper Questions
regarding petitions, and I hope I will be able to abide by the ruling.
I have before me the names of 4,012 constituents of my riding of Halton who are indeed concerned about the insensitive attitude of the government toward the plight of home owners and the very real threat of their losing their homes because of high mortgage rates. I would like to present these 4,012 names as a petition to this House of Commons, demanding that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) include in his forthcoming budget provisions that will alleviate the economic burdens that high interest rates have created for unsuspecting home owners and/or potential home owners.


PENSION ACT
A. Daniel McKenzie: for leave to introduce Bill C-641, to amend the Pension Act (administrative delay).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, I wish to make just a few brief remarks respecting the bill I am introducing today. This bill would amend the Pension Act. It would impose a 90-day limit at the initial stage and a 45-day limit at each of the two levels in the appeal process. If a decision was not made within any of those periods, the applicant veteran would automatically be awarded the full amount claimed by him.
What this means is that the Department of Veterans Affairs would have to complete all three stages of a veteran's pension application within six months. If it can be done within 90 days in the United States, surely to goodness we in Canada can do it in six months. At the present time it takes an average of 46 months to process a pension application, and this is totally unacceptable to hon. members on this side of the House and particularly to members of the Conservative Party.
I am limited in what I can present in a piece of legislation, but the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) and the government are not limited in what they can present in a piece of legislation. I hope the McCracken study will be completed by next month and that the Minister of Veterans Affairs will introduce a piece of legislation similar to legislation in the United States, so that we can have a process in Canada whereby we can process pension applications within 90 days and not five years.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,316, 2,390, 2,664, 2,698 and 3,012.


Mr. McKenzie: Was a decision made to change the time of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's newscast "The National" from l i p.m. to 10 p.m. and, if so (a) on what premise (b) what will be the cost and in what manner will it be paid?


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: It was announced by the CBC in March, 1980 that "The National" would be telecast at 10 p.m. on week nights. This change is expected to take place early in 1982.
(a)	The decision was made following a thorough study which concluded that 10 p.m. was the best time in the evening schedule for the CBC's national information program, in part because the total viewing audience at 10 p.m. is estimated at 714 million, compared with 4.2 million at 11 p.m. The earlier time also makes it possible to mount a major daily current affairs program immediately following "The National". This program will run until 11 p.m. on week nights and, with "The National", will provide a full hour of comprehensive news and current affairs coverage at a convenient time for most viewers.
(b)	The basic cost of "The National" will remain unchanged.


Mr. Herbert: What percentage of the total expenditures of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was spent (a) in Quebec (b) outside Canada in the last year for which figures are available?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: In the fiscal year 1980/81: (a) 32.35 per cent; (b) 0.39 per cent.
Note: Re (a)-relates to expenditures in Quebec in respect of the following: French services division, Montreal English services, Ottawa area, northern service and head office, Radio Canada International, and engineering headquarters.
Re (b)-relates to CBC's foreign offices.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Did the government provide funds to the Fathers of Confederation Memorial Citizens' Foundation and, if so, in what amount, on what date and under what conditions?
2.	Is there an arrangement for continuing the funding and, if so, what are the conditions?
Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Communications): In so far as the Department of Communi-
November 9, 1981

cations is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows:
1.	Yes, $2,800,000 between 1962 and 1964, on condition that the remaining 50 per cent of the estimated construction cost be forthcoming from the provincial governments and the private sector.
2.	There is no arrangement for continued funding to the Fathers of Confederation Memorial Citizens' Foundation.


Mr. Young: What was the total operating budget for the Canada Council in the fiscal year 1980-81 and what amount was allocated for (a) administrative costs (b) commissions of inquiry into the arts (c) disbursements of grants to artists?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: The Canada Council's total expenditures amounted in 1980-81 to $52,645 million, not including a $654,000 item for the operation of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO. These were broken down as follows:
(a)	Administration	8,903,000(b)	Commissioned studies	49,000(c)	Grants and services to artists and arts organizations	43,693,000


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Secretary of State for External Affairs conclude an agreement with the People's Republic of China to compensate certain Canadians for properties seized from Canadian owners after the 1949 revolution and was the total amount of compensation $340,000?
2.	Does the figure of $340,000 represent a full amount of all claims by Canadians and, if not, what was the full amount and for what reason did the government settle for less?
3.	What is the total estimated value of all property and goods lost by Canadians as a result of seizure in China after the 1949 revolution?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. Yes.
2.	No. The figure of $340,000 represents a realistic assessment of compensation obtainable from China for Canadian claims in light of documentary and other evidence surrounding the claims.
3.	It is impossible to determine with any exactitude what the total value of all property and goods lost is. The agreement deals only with provable claims of eligible Canadian citizens submitted to the Government of Canada.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (for Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: that Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I am particularly pleased to have this opportunity to speak during the third reading stage of Bill C-48. Indeed, this is something of an historic occasion in that it was a year ago that the National Energy Program was tabled in this House. The bill on which we are now embarking at third reading will put into place significant parts of that total program.
The importance of the bill now before us can hardly be overestimated. It is a key element in the total National Energy Program. The bill provides the essential framework for the careful management and successful development of the tremendous petroleum potential of the Canada lands, those federal lands in the north and offshore.
At the same time, the bill provides for the people of Canada an equitable share in the development of their own petroleum industry while helping to ensure that that development is carried out with the greatest regard for the safety and integrity of the people and environment of the frontier areas.
Debate on this bill both in committee and in this House has been thorough and fruitful. A number of members from both sides of the House have worked hard to bring forward useful suggestions which have been incorporated as amendments in the legislation now before us.
The NEP has come a long way in the past year. There have been disagreements about what we are attempting to do, and we have resolved many of them. As part of the National Energy Program we took a major step forward recently with the conclusion of agreements with the governments of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. Those agreements are of great importance because they allow Canadians to get on with the job of creating our energy security. However, they are important for another reason. They show that, despite differences of opinion, two levels of government in Canada can sit

November 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
down and negotiate and find common ground to resolve such differences. This augurs well for the future of federal-provincial relations.
At the time we signed the agreement with Alberta there was much discussion in our media about who had won and who had lost.


Mr. Waddell:: Consumers lost.


Roy MacLaren: I believe, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) said, that both the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta won but, more importantly, the people of Canada won.
One characteristic of our position throughout the discussions with the provinces was that we were always willing to moderate our approaches, but we held fast to three basic principles underlying the National Energy Program: security of supply, a greater opportunity for Canadians to play a role in their own oil and gas industry, and a fair system for the sharing of petroleum revenue. Those principles emerged from the negotiations even stronger because they now have the clear support of both levels of government, including the support of governments which had opposed them in the past.
During the long committee hearings on Bill C-48, it was suggested by some members that the legislation was somehow an attempt to shift the attention of the petroleum industry away from Alberta to the frontier areas. Some members asserted that the government was attempting to try and push through legislation for the frontier lands while leaving major questions with the government of Alberta unresolved. As the agreement with Alberta proved, there was no validity to that charge.
Because of our agreement with Alberta, the prices of gasoline and home heating oil will rise, gradually and predictably, under a made-in-Canada formula which will ensure that Canadian prices are kept well below the world levels and yet will provide the government and industry with those revenues necessary to achieve oil self-sufficiency by 1990.
We have met our commitments to the Canadian consumer. Compared to the Conservative budget of 1979, by 1984 wellhead oil prices will be lower, natural gas prices will be lower and prices at the pump will be lower. By 1984 the Conservative budget price for a barrel of conventional oil would be almost 30 per cent above our settlement price with Alberta. Similarly, natural gas prices will be more than $3 lower per thousand cubic feet than under the Conservative budget.
Further, we achieved protection for Canadians against sudden OPEC price increases by setting a ceiling of 75 per cent of the projected international price. That is indeed a good deal for Canada. As I said, we have come a long way. However, there is still some way to go. Having completed our discussions with the provinces of western Canada, we are currently engaged with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia in seeking solutions to some differences that have existed between
us with regard to our offshore resources. We are confident that the spirit of finding common ground that came to characterize the negotiations with Alberta and the other two western provinces will also be characteristic of the negotiations with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Certainly we for our part will do everything reasonable to ensure that this is so.
The agreement reached with the western provinces on pricing is important to petroleum development in the Atlantic offshore in that it creates a special price for what is now commonly called new oil. This price recognizes that new development, particularly oil sands and frontier projects, faces high costs. An extra incentive is needed to encourage the operators of these massive projects to commit themselves to the sizeable and innovative production and distribution systems that they will necessitate.
If offshore oil was ready now, it would be worth an estimated $46 a barrel. However, offshore oil will not begin production until 1986 or thereabouts, at which time such oil will fetch a higher price. "New oil" prices are higher than those offered for older, conventional oil, reflecting the reality that potential producers of new oil must see the prospect of an attractive return on their investment if they are to put up the dollars needed to bring these new supplies on stream.
The government has faced its responsibility to ensure that oil self-sufficiency is achieved in such a way that the benefits exceed the costs of this enormous undertaking. I refer to the costs and benefits in the broadest economic and social terms. In measuring them, the government had to take into account a truly national interest which is different from the interests represented by the other participants in the petroleum field. By definition, our task is more onerous and complex than that faced by the petroleum industry or any other industry, or by the oil producing provinces or any other provinces.
I should like briefly to recall for the House the situation that confronted the government when the National Energy Program was developed. We knew that higher Canadian oil prices were inevitable, largely as a result of external developments over which Canadians had no control. We saw the benefits of those increases going to an oil industry more than 70 per cent foreign-owned, an industry which had become a net exporter of capital in recent years. It was also an industry which, in spite of the spectacular oil price and cash flow increases of the 1970s, had been unable to sustain Canada's domestic oil production.
Conventional oil reserves have declined by more than one third during the past ten years. Geological prospects for new conventional oil discoveries in western Canada do not suggest any major change in that trend. On the contrary, conventional oil production in western Canada has been projected to decline in the 1980s even if oil exploration continued at a feverish pitch.
One can see why the government began to question the merits of immediately raising conventional oil prices toward world levels. The benefits in terms of additional conventional oil supplies would be relatively small for basic geological reasons. Further, the cost would be borne by Canadian con-

sumers while the benefits would not be fairly shared by Canadian investors because of the industry's ownership.
That was one part of the picture. We also knew that the bulk of Canada's future oil and gas would be coming from the oil sands and the frontier regions to which Bill C-48 applies. We knew that most of these oil and gas lands, the Canada lands, were leased to foreign-controlled companies. It was therefore likely that the progress made in recent years toward increased Canadian ownership of our own petroleum industry would be stalled or even reversed in the future as these new multibillion dollar supply projects were developed.
We faced then a jigsaw puzzle of problems, but with one common theme. They all related to the necessity for a dynamic energy program in Canada in the 1980s and beyond. For our part, we developed a program that embraced that necessity in the most careful and comprehensive way.
In pursuing our oil self-sufficiency target, we shall spend several billion dollars on oil substitution and conservation programs during the decade of the 1980s, an estimated $3 billion of that by 1983 alone. We aim to reduce oil consumption to 10 per cent of the total energy demand in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors by 1990. We are convinced that it can be done. Saskatchewan and Alberta have already achieved that target.
Even with the massive switch away from oil, there will be a need for huge new investments in additional sources of oil and in other forms of energy. The agreements with the provinces provide that there is a stable foundation for such investments. Our energy program affirms the principle that Canadians are entitled to share more fully in the growth of their own petroleum industry, but also seeks fairness for all Canadians in oil pricing and revenue sharing. These goals are entirely compatible with our achievement of oil security.
There is a much more basic question than compatibility. Opportunity and fairness are prerequisites for the achievement of our oil security. This is not only because the government has made a decision to that effect. Most Canadians would simply not tolerate the national economic, social and political costs of an energy policy that threw more money at the industry in the hope of increasing supply, while not doing anything to lessen demand or create increased opportunities for Canadians themselves in their own petroleum industry.
One way or another, Mr. Speaker, energy development will demand a large share of our wealth over the next years. The government is determined to create the environment in which the necessary growth can take place. In that respect some comments by the president of the Investment Dealers Association are especially pertinent. He stated recently that this country stands on the verge of the largest and most challenging two decades of new capital investment in its history. He estimated that Canada will need $1.5 trillion of new investment between 1981 and 1990, 36 per cent of which will be made in the energy field.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Those are staggering figures, Mr. Speaker. The figures might prompt some to wonder whether Canada can generate enough investment itself to meet those needs. The president of the Investment Dealers Association is optimistic that 94 per cent of the $1.5 trillion required can be generated here in Canada, with a mere 6 per cent imported. I should like to quote the president because he made a particularly telling point that all of us should keep in mind. The president noted:
All of us should be planning and preparing now for a world of opportunity and growth.
In the National Energy Program, we put a great deal of emphasis on opportunity. Canada has in place the most generous fiscal incentives for exploration of any jurisdiction we know of. It provides Canadians with encouragement to participate in the petroleum industry. We added to this base a sliding scale of direct grants into the new incentive system designed to give the greatest benefit to those who are most vigorous in exploration and who raise their Canadian ownership level to be eligible for the grants.
For the maximum incentive grants in 1981, the minimum standard is Canadian control and at least 65 per cent Canadian ownership. This standard will rise to 75 per cent by 1986. The maximum grants payable under our incentive program are 80 per cent of exploration costs in the frontier regions, a powerful encouragement for exploration of those promising prospects. These incentives are also available to individual investors.
Bill C-48 makes available to current lease and permit holders, as well as to new players in the industry, an entirely new regime which includes as one element a 25 per cent Crown share. The new regime, including the Crown share, is a vehicle formulated to provide that exploration and development of the vast resources in the frontier lands so that it moves forward quickly but carefully.
As I have noted in the past in this House, under the program there will be a 25 per cent federal cash incentive grant available to all explorers, foreign and Canadian alike, to offset the 25 per cent Crown share. This grant means that the government will be paying, and ultimately the Canadian taxpayer will be paying, its own way. The Crown share will not be a free ride.
Under the legislation, if the Crown corporation converts to a working interest during the exploration stage, the government in effect pays almost twice for its interest during the balance of that stage. The private interest holder will continue to receive the minimum 25 per cent exploration grant in respect of his 75 per cent interest, while the Crown corporation will pay 100 per cent of its 25 per cent interest.
Considering these two sources of funds combined, almost 44 per cent of exploration costs will be met by or on behalf of the government. Clearly, the government is being generous to all explorers.
Unlike the policies of other countries, Mr. Speaker, in
seeking to redress similar ownership situations, this government has offered profitable inducements to Canadianize, not

November 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
to expropriate. The operations of foreign-owned firms are very profitable in Canada. To the extent that they increase opportunities for Canadians to participate with them, they can be even more so under the terms of the National Energy Program.
Undeniably, some of the guidelines for companies in the industry have changed, but the changes are fair and equitable. The program gives foreign companies an incentive to seek Canadian shareholders and partners. To the degree that they do, they can benefit from the same higher exploration grants that companies which are Canadian controlled can enjoy. Many foreign-controlled companies have recognized the legitimate concern of Canadians with respect to their own petroleum future and have begun to rearrange their affairs to take advantage of the benefits of the program.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, Canadianization is working. Canadians overwhelmingly support it. Since the National Energy Program was announced one year ago, foreign ownership of the petroleum industry has declined about 6 percentage points and foreign control by approximately 10 percentage points. Canadianization of that sort has not only been endorsed by the governments of the producing provinces but by the vast majority of Canadians.
In a recent survey conducted by the Canadian Petroleum Association, 84 per cent of the Canadian public favoured the government's Canadianization policy. Moreover, that same survey showed that 70 per cent of the Canadian public believed, quite rightly, that Canadianization will increase the number of jobs available to Canadians. Clearly, Canadians judge the National Energy Program and its Canadianization aspects as important towards fulfilling the attainable goal of 50 per cent Canadian ownership of the oil and gas sector and energy self-sufficiency by the end of this decade.
Indeed, these objectives, reflecting upon the rate of Canadianization since the announcement of the National Energy Program, are within our grasp. The future of the Canadian oil and gas industry under the provisions of the National Energy Program and Bill C-48 are bright indeed.
Throughout the long course of the debate in both committee and the House of the legislation now before us, considerable discussion has centred on the application of the 25 per cent Crown share to petroleum rights already issued before passage of this new act. Both in committee and in the House we have illustrated that there is a related and significant difference between the current Canada lands regime and that in Bill C-48. Stated briefly, under the present system holders of exploration rights are required to return to the Crown at least one half of their acreage, which in certain cases involves up to 30 per cent of their discoveries prior to obtaining production rights.
I find it difficult to understand the argument of those who contend that the current regime's provision for return of acreage does not present burdens to those exploring, while they see a burden in the new legislation. In fact, Bill C-48 ensures that holders of exploration rights will not face the prospect of returning some part of the lands. The new legislation allows
explorers to retain production rights to the entire area of an oil or gas field.
To ensure that all Canadians can participate, and to give our Canadianization program an early boost, the government decided to increase the size of Petro-Canada, the national oil company. This decision is reflected in Petro-Canada's agreement to purchase Petrofina. That transaction underlined our determination to proceed with our Canadianization goals, but it equally supports our promise that such acquisitions will be under market conditions and at fair prices.
Canada's national oil company, Petro-Canada, spent $130 million in the Atlantic offshore in 1979, and $255 million in 1980 in the search for new sources of oil and gas. Expenditures for 1981 are expected to reach $400 million.
Of course, as a federal Crown corporation Petro-Canada is committed to the concept of Canadianization, including the growth of our own industrial capacity to provide goods and services for petroleum development.
We are not the only ones who believe in the significance and success of Petro-Canada's role in the industry. A recent study of Petro-Canada by the U.S. General Accounting Office on Petro-Canada selected four principal functions of Petro-Canada as a national energy policy instrument-to act as a window on the industry; to produce oil and gas; to capture extrinsic social or economic benefits for Canadians; and to import oil. The General Accounting Office in Washington concluded, and I quote:
-our study indicates that Petro-Canada has made an important contribution to improving Canada's energy situation, and is likely to play an increasing role in this regard under the Canadian government's new energy policy.
I should like to emphasize the importance of the Canadianization program as it applies to offshore development. As a result of this legislation, Canadian companies will now have a chance to participate, not only in actual offshore exploration, but also in a significant number of offshore supply industries.
The government is helping in several ways to encourage greater Canadian participation in the search for offshore oil and gas. I have already mentioned the petroleum incentives program which will provide direct incentive grants to companies engaged in offshore exploration and development. With this encouragement, private Canadian exploration firms are expected to increase greatly their involvement in drilling and to attain a sizeable share of Atlantic offshore activity.
The National Energy Program also assures that companies engaged in the search for reserves in the Atlantic offshore, as well as in the other areas of the Canada lands, will give a fair competitive opportunity to Canadian suppliers of goods and services. This Canadianization of onshore support facilities will help the Atlantic provinces gain jobs and increase levels of industrial development. As well, the use of Canadian goods and services will lead to the developoment of technologies that can be exported, thus having a positive effect on our balance of payments.
November 9, 1981

Small Atlantic firms can participate in offshore resource and onshore support activities both individually and through joint ventures. The federal government will strongly support Canadian firms based in the Atlantic provinces as they move to grasp opportunities and create additional jobs.
Through Petro-Canada, the petroleum incentives program and other Canadianization provisions of the National Energy Program, Canadians will be major partners in all offshore development.
The opportunity for Canadians to play a greater role in the development of our own petroleum industry is also an opportunity for foreign-owned firms to accelerate their own efforts through co-operative ventures.
As I have mentioned, multinational corporations are in good position to benefit from this activity as a result of the 25 per cent cash incentive grant available to all explorers and their strong land positions in the frontier. Farm-ins and other co-operative arrangements will further increase Canadian participation.
To achieve our 1990 goal of oil self-sufficiency and security and to maintain that position in the years ahead, an enormous and continuing capital investment in energy projects will be required. It is the intention of our energy program to involve Canadians fully in the petroleum game for the first time in our history. The bulk of the necessary investment in conventional oil and gas will be generated in Canada, as before, but with a better balance of ownership. Some megaprojects, such as those in the oil sands, will no doubt require additional investment from outside Canada. Canada will continue to welcome such investments. The returns will be generous.
Under our new energy program there will be ample growth and action for everyone during the next decade and well beyond. Investors are not oblivious to the kind of long term, fundamental strengths I have mentioned. When the chips are down, the industry's ability to replace and to expand its production over the longer haul is what really counts. That opportunity certainly exists in Canada.
These opportunities, however, will be undertaken with the greatest concern for the people who live in the Canada lands and the frontier environment. The National Energy Program and Bill C-48 have both illustrated through their provisions understanding and compassion for the rights of the native people of the Canada lands. Nothing in the act abrogates or derogates from any title, right or claim that the aboriginal people may have had prior to the coming into force of this act. The native peoples have the assurance of the government that this bill will not prejudice the fair resolution of land claims.
If there are those who would question the government's good faith with respect to land claim negotiations, let them consider the recent decision on the Norman Wells pipeline and the Petro-Canada agreement. Construction of the pipeline extension and exploration activities were delayed two years to allow for issues related to land claims to be resolved through negotiation. Native peoples should enjoy the benefit but bear fewer of the costs of northern resource development. Bill C-48
Canada Oil and Gas Act
ensures this and more. It ensures that northerners' interests are protected and that people living in the north have the opportunity to play a more meaningful role in these activities, not only in terms of manpower but also in important social, economic, political and environmental consultative processes.
Bill C-48 is not an environmental bill, but it goes to great length to augment existing environmental legislation and to provide additional security for the fragile environment of the Canada lands. Although the emphasis of the new regime is on the early assessment of Canada's oil and gas potential on these lands, it will not be done at the expense of the environment of the north or, for example, offshore fisheries. There are provisions for the environmental revolving fund to cover the costs of regional studies relating to industrial activities. There are also a number of optional provisions that assist in the supervision and control of oil and gas activities and land management. These take the form of amendments to the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act of 1970. They deal with such matters as pollution prevention requirements, the reporting of oil spills, and oil spill liability requirements, including the requirement for absolute liability on the part of operators and compensation for damage caused by oil field debris jettisoned overboard or left near wells on the sea floor. They establish new authorities to prevent oil and gas spills, to implement remedial measures, to hold operators financially liable for actions that cause spills, to allow responsible authorities to intervene in the remote event of a spill and, at the operator's cost, to hold inquiries regarding spills, debris and accidents, and to allow for punishment for offences. Such provisions and others will influence the companies' operational behaviour. Moreover, they will induce further research by industry as well as government into preventive techniques and equipment and the development of improved oil spill countermeasures.
There are a number of other provisions in Bill C-48 governing environmental matters in Canada's northern and offshore areas. For example, there is a provision dealing with the early release of environmental information and another to permit remedial orders for environmental reasons. Clearly, the bill goes to great lengths to ensure the safety of our precious environment in the north and offshore.
As I said at the beginning, this is an historic occasion for this House. Throughout the past year we have listened carefully to what both supporters and critics of the National Energy Program have said about it. We made changes when there were compelling reasons for doing so. But when we knew we were right, we held firm to our position. In the weeks and months ahead there will no doubt be more listening, more discussions, more fine tuning of the program. But the basic program is in place; it is now working and the Government of Canada is getting on with the job of wisely managing Canada's energy resources.

November 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLar-en) would permit one question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I think the rules are known, and this could be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLaren), it is difficult to know whether to laugh or to cry. It is inconceivable that any responsible parliamentarian could be so far out of touch with what in fact is happening and the reality of what is going on. He paints a picture of a glorious Canadian oil and gas industry working to its limit, expanding the economic horizons of the nation, finding the oil and gas we will need, and Canadians in great abundance participating.
What in fact is the reality? I would like to quote from an address to the Ontario Petroleum Institute by William Riedl, chairman and chief executive officer of Alfred Bunting and Co., Limited, on October 20, 1981, so it is just three weeks old and is up to date information. He stated:
The outlook for the Canadian Petroleum Industry at this moment is very bleak. Step by step the Canadian Federal Government has increased its control over an industry it neither understands nor trusts. Only recently Energy Minister Lalonde declared that IPAC (Independent Petroleum Association of Canada) lacks creditability. We are drifting further away from the three simple goals established by the federal government's National Energy Program initially outlined in October 1980. The first goal of security of supply is becoming unreachable with respect to oil as energy companies defer projects such as Alsands, Cold Lake and exploratory drilling due the inadequate expected returns on investment. The Canadian Petroleum Association has called the NEP and the recent Energy Agreement a disaster for the petroleum industry and concluded that Canadian oil self-sufficiency by 1990 is impossible. The second goal of an equitable energy price was recently negotiated by the two levels of government (Federal and Alberta) but with the exclusion of a very important third party- The Petroleum Industry. The result was two happy governments and a shortchanged petroleum industry; not to mention the poor consumer. As one industry commentator said recently, both governments acted like 'pigs at the trough'. The third goal, Canadianization, is also seriously in trouble due to overstrained balance sheets. Enough of the overview, let us look at some statistical facts.
Then he goes on to outline statistical facts; not simple assertions by a parliamentary secretary who either has no respect for the truth or knows not of what he speaks, but facts which point out that every single observation made by the parliamentary secretary is in fact phony and untrue.
The parliamentary secretary said during the course of his remarks that Canada has the most generous fiscal arrangements for oil and gas exploration in the world. That statement could have been made by a candidate for the flat earth society, because if he believes that, he believes the world is flat. The people who spend the money, the people who are actually
putting up their money and drilling for oil and gas, are leaving Canada in droves. Over half of the drilling capacity of this country has left. Canadians who the parliamentary secretary believes should be overjoyed at the good things the federal government has done for them have left Canada. They have given up on Canada. We have driven them out of our country.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Harvie Andre: To this the parliamentary secretary says, "How wonderful things are, and what a great opportunity Canadians have for participating in what is going on!"
The Fraser Institute estimates that next year Canadian companies will be drilling 10,000 oil and gas wells in the United States. By comparison, they will be drilling 5,000 in Canada. The Canadians who should be overjoyed at what the parliamentary secretary and his minister have done will be exploring twice as much in the United States as in Canada. In response to this, he replies, "How marvellously pleased they are at the National Energy Program." If the whole population of Alberta were to migrate to Montana, I doubt the people could stand the glee. I am sure they would collapse and die from the sheer joy which would overwhelm them. I imagine there would be a party lasting for months when that last oil and gas executive leaves Canada. When that last rig goes, the Liberal party will have a month-long celebration of the tremendous success of the National Energy Program!
As I say, it is hard to know whether to laugh or cry. The fact of the matter is that the National Energy Program is supposed to achieve energy self-sufficiency. The National Energy Board is an organization set up by the government, and all the appointees were made by this government. The board has a large staff of experts. They studied the question of self-sufficiency for months with public hearings across the country. They concluded that not only will we not be self-sufficient by 1990, but that we will probably not be self-sufficient until the next century. The reply of the government is: "No, we will be self-sufficient". Why? Because the minister said so, and how could we question that?
One will not believe a bunch of people at the National Energy Board who only spent months studying the subject. One will not believe the Economic Council. Certainly, one will not believe the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada. After all, they are in the industry and cannot be trusted. One will not believe the Canadian Petroleum Association. Those are big companies and cannot be trusted. No, what one will believe is the kind of pap-nonsense-put forward by the minister and his parliamentary secretary.
The reality is that the National Energy Program and Bill C-48, which is the fallout from it, are only peripherally related to Canada's energy security. The real motive was indicated, and I am sure inadvertently, by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) when he spoke in Sherbrooke, Quebec, on October 22 of this year, as reported by the Canadian Press. I quote from the Press report:
Lalonde said a stronger threat to Canadian unity than Quebec nationalism could soon be posed by the growing wealth of Alberta. Canada, he said, could
November 9, 1981


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Alberta's poor, eh?


Harvie Andre: It has everything to do with that. I hear some giggles-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Oh, come on, Harvey. Alberta is not poor.


Harvie Andre: -from the Liberal rump here. He says Alberta is not poor. I question any New Democrat, Liberal or any other person who calls himself Canadian who says that it is better for Canada to continue to, rely on Mexico-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I didn't say that.


Harvie Andre: -on Venezuela and on the Middle East than to pay domestic oil prices, to pay other Canadians, western Canadians, for their oil and gas development. Yet that is the essence of the National Energy Program. That in fact is what has happened. The reality is that this minister of energy, as evidenced by his statement in a speech in Sherbrooke, Quebec, considers it far more dangerous for Canada that there be wealth in Alberta than that we be energy self-sufficient or that we continue to increase or maintain our reliance on Middle East and OPEC nations. It is truly tragic. I hope for the sake of the country that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will remove that person from his portfolio. He is doing incredible disservice and damage to Canada.
The parliamentary secretary talked about the energy pricing agreement and winners and losers. As indicated by Mr. Riedl of Bunting and Co. Limited, the real loser was the consumer. I have to chuckle at the frequency with which the government talks about this made-in-Canada oil pricing scheme, the implication being that the price of crude oil in Canada is independent of what happens in the rest of the world. The price is blended, Mr. Speaker. The domestic price and the imported price are blended together to get a price at the refinery and therefore at the pump. If the world price goes up,
Canada Oil and Gas Act
the consumer pays more; it is as simple as that. To suggest that there is some separation because of this made-in-Canada thing is as accurate as the falsehood that we will be energy self-sufficient in 1990 as a result of this policy. That is total fabrication.
Canada lost money as a result of the year that elapsed between the announcement last year of the National Energy Program, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) was somehow tricked into reading the program of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the pricing arrangement that was arrived at on September 2 this year. In that year $10 billion left Canada. That $10 billion left Canada never to come back. Had that $10 billion stayed here and had it been invested in Canada, it could have generated untold jobs, economic prospects and so on. Instead, that money has been lost to Canada as a result of this one year's delay in achieving a pricing agreement.
What did the government get for its one year's delay? It did not get the crude oil pricing regime it wanted. In fact, one year later, on September 2, 1981, the federal government caved in and acquiesced to the same crude oil pricing arrangement that was offered to the government in July, 1980. The federal government got nothing in that regard. There was a complete loss, a tremendous cost to the country.
The parliamentary secretary said that people had falsely implied that somehow the National Energy Program was designed to direct activity away from provincial lands to Canada lands. He assured the House that was not the case and that the energy pricing arrangement showed that. But he neglected to mention that when the NEP was brought down originally it contained a provision to eliminate the depletion allowance provided for provincial lands but it was retained in the case of federal lands. If that is not a deliberate, barefaced prejudicial move against provincial lands as opposed to so-called Canada lands, I do not know what is. Finally, a year later, after the government realized it was unable to act unilaterally and that Canada is a federal country, the federal government was forced to reach an agreement with the provinces and that particular provision was dropped. It was not dropped voluntarily; the government was forced to drop it.
The real losers as a result of the NEP and of the stupidity last year are the ordinary Canadian citizens, especially those who have been renewing mortgages this year. It is ironic that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) has sat here daily for the last few weeks taking abuse for the high interest rates that people are paying on their mortgages. It is unfair really because it is not his fault. It is the fault of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his partner in crime, the Minister of Finance, who read out that absurd policy last year.
That is not an opinion held by me in isolation or by my party. It is the opinion of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Bouey. He indicated that the National Energy Program is responsible in large measure for the higher interest rates in Canada vis-a-vis the United States. No less a voice than the Governor of the Bank of Canada said that. Therefore, Canadians who are feeling the pinch of high interest rates, who have

November 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
had difficulty in renewing their mortgages, can give grateful thanks to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and to his friend the Minister of Finance.
The other day we heard the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) trying to deny that he had ever threatened to resign if interest rates were not brought down below the then outrageous 14 per cent. He went on some crazy tirade that somehow high interest rates in this country were attributable to some people in this party who support the American program, or some other such convoluted reasoning. In any event, the minister was trying to put the blame for everything that was happening on the United States and partly on us because supposedly people in this party support some of the things that have happened in the United States.
If one reads today's edition of The Globe and Mail, it shows that interest rates in the United States rose 20 per cent last year whereas interest rates in Canada rose 50 per cent. Why did Canada's rates increase 50 per cent in the last year as opposed to an increase of 20 per cent in the United States? The answer is very simple. Canada has a National Energy Program which has caused that increase in interest rates. We owe it all to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
It is incredible to hear the parliamentary secretary say that the National Energy Program is such a great success. One has to wonder what planet the parliamentary secretary lives on or where Canada stops for him. It must stop at Etobicoke. He must not know any part of Canada west of there. If he were fulfilling his responsibilities as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, he would be aware of the number of drilling rigs and Canadian companies that have left this country, and he would not be making these absurd statements as to how wonderful this program is for Canadian companies.
What is this program doing for Canada? Over the weekend I had a look at the Annual Review of the Economic Council of Canada for 1980, which produced an addendum following the introduction of the National Energy Program last year. The Economic Council examined the National Energy Program, put the material into its econometric model and concluded that as a result of that program inflation in Canada would be a couple of points higher that the council had originally predicted, that unemployment would be a couple of points lower, and that Canada would have higher interest rates. Generally speaking, the Economic Council predicted a pretty gloomy 1981 as a result of the National Energy Program.
The Economic Council was bang on in terms of all its dire predictions for 1981 resulting from the National Energy Program. Yet members opposite stand up without even blushing and say, "Isn't this a wonderful policy and isn't it working marvellously?" We hear that Canadians should be truly grateful they have such a marvellous government in charge, such a smart minister and such brilliant civil servants advising him. But if they were a little smarter, we could have interest rates as high as 30 per cent and perhaps unemployment at 15 per cent or 20 per cent. Who knows? We could even drive every last drilling rig right out of the country if these people were a
little smarter. But what gets me is the fundamental dishonesty of this government, which is claiming that the National Energy Program, particularly Bill C-48, is designed to help Canadians participate in the oil and gas industry.
I shall read part of a submission made by Husky Oil Operations Ltd. to the committee studying Bill C-48. Husky Oil is a Canadian company. Most of us recognize the very prominent Canadian on its board of directors, Tommy Douglas, who is a former energy critic for the New Democratic Party. I am sure they get excellent advice from Mr. Douglas. What does Husky Oil, this Canadian company that is supposed to be such a tremendous beneficiary of this marvellous Bill C-48, according to the minister, have to say? Let me quote:
Bill C-48 appears to have been written in anticipation of setting out rules and powers to control and manipulate a hostile reluctant industry. These financial tools and discretionary powers combined with the preferential treatment of Crown corporations in Bill C-48 and the stated objectives of the NEP on public ownership leave the private sector wondering whether its role in Canada lands is just an interim one. Any private sector company that takes C-48 as drafted and NEP documents as written is forced to add an element of risk resulting from possible government involvement.
That is a very mild way of saying: "What the blazes are you guys doing? All you have done is complicate things and made it that much less attractive for Husky Oil to consider going up there".
I would like to refer to perhaps not quite as temperate a remark from another Canadian company operating in the high Arctic. This is not a company as big as Husky Oil. It is just a small Canadian independent, 100 per cent Canadian owned and started by a Canadian, a good westerner. He is perhaps not as good a Canadian as an Etobicoke Canadian, but he is a good Canadian to some of us. According to a letter from the president of this company, Paramount Resources, if Paramount was a foreign corporation "we might be enraged; as a Canadian company we can find no words to describe the rape and plunder the Canadian government has perpetrated on our company." Rape and plunder is how this Canadian oil company describes what the Government of Canada has done to it.
What does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources say? He says: "We are really proud of what we have done for the Canadian oil and gas industry; we are really happy." They are proud of the rape and plunder they have perpetrated on this company. They think it is marvellous and a tremendous success. One wonders what planet they live on, let alone what country they live in. We wonder what ordinary Canadians have to do to get through to the thick skulls of those people who keep making those kinds of statements, in view of the overwhelming factual evidence that this program is a disaster and is damaging Canada very, very severely.
Bill C-48 will not work. It is supposedly designed to bring about the efficient, effective and reasonable development of the oil and gas potential in the Canada lands. It will not work, and that I suppose is the saddest part of the whole thing.
November 9, 1981

Because it will not work we will not get the kind of development the country needs, and because of that we will not be self-sufficient, we will not have the kind of economic benefit that could come from that kind of development. We will in fact continue to be under-achievers compared to our potential and we will continue to do a little bit worse than we could do. We will continue to have the drag of an economy that is not working as well as it should, given our potential, because of the consequences of this bill.
The fiscal regime-that is, the sharing of revenues between the Crown corporation, the government directly and the industry-is probably not going to be satisfactory. I say "probably" in that it is very difficult to know what the fiscal regime ultimately will be. There is so much ministerial discretion in terms of price, who you can sell to, when you can sell, how fast you can produce, etc., that there is no economist alive who can tell you in fact what the fiscal regime is. But the best estimates that have so far been produced indicate it is probably not satisfactory, and there is probably not going to be enough left by way of a reward to make it worth while.
The 25 per cent confiscation by the federal government is something that will take a long time to live down. There is nowhere a precedent in the democratic world for a government confiscating privately owned assets without some form of payment, without some expropriation procedure which provides for an adequate and proper payment in return for the seizure of those assets.
The Canadian government has established a precedent for supposedly democratic countries, and it is a terrible precedent. It is going to colour our relationships with other countries for a long time. It will colour the attitude people have toward this country, and it is going to colour the attitude of investors.
The Royal Bank of Canada recently did a study which indicated that we as a country are going to need some $300 billion for energy developments over the next decade, and of that we will require some $60 million from offshore or foreign sources because we will not be able to produce that much capital within Canada. If we are going to get that $60 billion, with the kind of precedent established by this confiscation we are going to pay through the teeth for that money. The investment world now has proof that Canadians cannot be trusted to keep their word, that the Canadian government will in fact confiscate and expropriate without repayment.


An hon. Member:: That is nonsense.


Harvie Andre: That is the tragedy. I hear the hon. member from Moncton over there saying it is nonsense. I refer him to a study by Frost and Sullivan, a New York based consulting firm in the business of assessing political risk. It is a well-known company which puts us in the same category as Algeria, Ecuador, Columbia and the Dominican Republic in terms of the risk of expropriation. That is the view of the experts who assess the risks of this sort of thing vis-a-vis other countries in the world. That is the category we are in now. Of course, he does not really care. If the people in the city will not be able to take VIA Rail any more, I guess he can swallow this too.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
The ministerial discretion in this bill, involving some 57 areas, makes it absolutely impossible for anybody to plan. How can anybody sit down and assess whether an investment is justified? We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in any one of these plays, and nobody makes this kind of decision strictly on faith. They must have some justification or some sense of what the rules are going to be under which they operate, but how can they with 57 different areas of ministerial discretion, discretion exercised by a minister who has demonstrated that he will seize private assets? That is a severe detriment to investment. As Husky Oil has said, it "is forced to add an element of risk." That is certainly not going to increase investment; it will slow it down.
Finally, there is no recognition in this bill of the role of the Yukon and Northwest Territories governments. In some way the bill almost sets up a kind of a new East India Company. In the old colonial days the British set up the East India Company to look after commerce for their new colonies and to be a kind of government to the colony as well. Under this bill that is what Petro-Canada is; it is a kind of new government in the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
I come from a part of the country which for the 30 years of existence as a province was denied its natural resources. The prevailing view was that those country bumpkins, those clodhoppers, farmers and ranchers really could not be trusted to have natural resources under their jurisdiction, that the federal government must keep them under a national umbrella.
That is exactly what the government is saying to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. It is saying that although it likes them well enough, it does not trust them enough to give them a say in how the land they live on will be developed. Big daddy in Ottawa will look after them. Big daddy is a lot smarter than they are and more capable. The government is saying: "Because it is dark all winter and you probably drink too much and eat too much caribou, it affects your brains. You cannot be trusted and we will look after you from Ottawa."
Perhaps worse than that is the fiscal regime which is giving so much of the potential rewards of economic rent, to use the latest jargon, to Petro-Canada. It has effectively put any future income that may come to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon beyond their reach. If these territories were to reach provincial status and try to gain for themselves what other provinces have, they would find it impossible because the economic rent which normally would accrue to their government has been taken up by Crown corporations and is no longer available to them.
That is one of the fundamental reasons why I think it is a serious mistake to give Petro-Canada this 25 per cent gift. I believe it is a way of denying the people of the Yukon and Northwest Territories access to the economic rent which Petro-Canada is taking. The transference of 25 per cent of all the land to Petro-Canada or some other Crown corporation means that 135 million acres will be under its jurisdiction for exploration. That is the same amount of land which the Exxon
12656

November 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Corporation has in the entire world. When you compare the Exxon Corporation to Petro-Canada-this is not to belittle Petro-Canada-the reality is that you are comparing a seven eleven corner store to the Hudson's Bay chain. Exxon is a huge company, and even if you do not like that corporation, it is quite efficient and knows how to find oil and gas. If Petro-Canada is to do the same kind of exploration on its land as Exxon does on their lands, I calculate that their building in Calgary would have to be 854 storeys high to house the geologists and geophysicists. In reality, there is no possible way Petro-Canada or any other company-and this is not a reflection on the individuals or their company-can justify having that much land.
If the Canadian government were truly interested in the development and exploration of Canada lands, it would try to ensure that the lands were spread out among as many different companies as possible. Through that multifaceted approach, with many companies, geologists and theories, the sparks of creative input would provide the kind of discovery and new development needed to produce the oil and gas we need.
The worst situation we could have is having a single oil company in charge of oil and gas exploration in Canada, which is a step in that direction under Bill C-48. That is the worst thing which could be done if the government is considering Canada's oil and gas future and is concerned about developing our oil and gas potential.
We have now reached the final stage of debate for Bill C-48, the first part of the National Energy Program. The bill has been changed a lot in committee and some of the worst parts were improved, but it has not changed enough to make it a viable piece of legislation. It has not changed enough to ensure that oil and gas development on Canada lands will occur.
Ironically, the ministerial discretion which I rightfully criticized may, in fact, contain our salvation. What is happening now is that the government, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said recently, will declare the National Energy Program a victory, a success, in spite of the fact that the evidence is to the contrary. I predict that the government will then proceed to make the necessary changes to accomplish what cannot be accomplished under the National Energy Program and Bill C-48 as it now exists. They will be able to utilize the discretionary authority provided for under Bill C-48 to in fact do things quite differently from what was contemplated in this bill originally and from what is outlined in the National Energy Program. Hopefully it will be in a way which will bring about the development this country needs.
As the Economic Council of Canada said in their 1980 Annual Review, not only does the energy circumstance in Canada offer some potential for economic development in the 1980s, but it may be the only thing Canada has going for it in the 1980s. The projections of the Economic Council of Canada indicate that without a buoyant, active energy program throughout the 1980s our inflation rates and our employment rates will be out of sight. Only through actively and aggressively pursuing energy self-sufficiency, not just by talking
about it but by causing the development of our oil and gas potential, does the Economic Council see us surviving the 1980s with reasonable inflation rates, reasonable unemployment rates and a reasonable growth rate.
The Economic Council was precisely correct about what effects the National Energy Program would have over the course of this year. It would indeed be foolish to ignore their projections in terms of what will happen throughout the 1980s if we do not pursue self-sufficiency and pursue it vigorously.
I started off by criticizing the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for the absurd speech he made-and I have not changed my mind-but I ask plaintively and hopefully whether this is all part of some political game. Now that he has declared the National Energy Program a great success, as he did in his speech, will he kindly put that speech aside, get that nonsense out of his head and work with his minister to try to put in place the policies and programs that this country so desperately needs?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 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 Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-Marine Transport-Minister's position respecting Cast shipping group, (b) Request for general inquiry into east coast shipping; the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm)-Metric Conversion-Suggested penalties for food store owners; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand)-The Constitution-Charter proposals on language rights.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
MEASURE RESPECTING OIL AND GAS INTERESTS The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres (for Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) that Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech I want to say to the member for
November 9, 1981

Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) who spoke before me that I would rather take my advice from Mr. Tommy Douglas than from Imperial, Gulf, Shell, those large companies that the hon. member obviously takes his advice from. At least Mr. Douglas has always been a spokesman for the working men and women of this country rather than the corporate interests my friend so obviously speaks for in his speech.


An hon. Member:: What about Husky?


An hon. Member:: Shell never works.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will resume my speech when my friends to the right have settled down. I was going to say that this bill has been debated for a long time. I believe it should be debated for a long time because every new and challenging issue we face in Canada is contained in this bill. The future of Canada is wrapped up in this bill and it is worth while spending a lot of time on it.
I called the bill a sleeper, but by calling it a sleeper I did not mean that all the issues involved in the bill were putting us to sleep, although some of the speeches on the bill-my own included at certain points-probably did tend to put members to sleep. However, if we look at the bill we find that there are parts of it which touch on things about which we are really concerned, debate every day in this House and touch on every day in the question period.
This bill deals with the environment in northern Canada. I should not say it deals with it; it skirts around it and ignores it. But the issue of development as against protecting our environment is one with which we now have to struggle all the time. This bill opts for rapid oil and gas development in Canada lands, meaning the east and west coasts and the north of Canada, areas which have the most fragile environments in the world. We should be concerned and, judging by the letters and responses to our speeches on this bill I and some of my colleagues have received, Canadians are also concerned. This bill touches on the northern territories of this country. We are all northerners. Even though most of our people live along the border, this is a northern country and we think of ourselves as northerners. That is a good part of Canada; it is part of what makes us different from Americans and people in other parts of the world.
We hope that the northern territories will evolve into very distinctive and fascinating provinces. I do not think many Canadians have yet grasped the possibilities for an Inuit province in Canada. We have just begun to grasp that, but it cannot be a province unless it is given some resource revenue and some resource control. This is an issue in the bill, and it is to the great regret of, I think, all of us in this House that the fledgling northern territorial governments in the Yukon and Northest Territories which are just beginning to get on their feet were not really consulted respecting this bill. I spoke to government officials in Yellowknife and talked to people from Whitehorse, and I realized that they were not really consulted when this bill was drafted.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
That brings me to another issue with which we struggle all the time. The hon. member for Calgary Centre mentioned this without perhaps really articulating it very well. I refer to the hinterland of Canada. Even those of us from Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia feel that we are in the hinterland. What do the people of the north and parts of Newfoundland feel about the power and the role of the hinterland in controlling the scope and pace of their development as against the power of Ottawa, the bureaucracy in Ottawa and the power of international industry and about how they control things? That is an issue in this bill.
With respect to offshore energy I spoke about whether the moratorium on drilling in British Columbia should be removed. 1 spoke about how fast we should speed up the development of Hibernia and who should control it, the province or the federal government. That is all in this bill and it is very important.
There is another issue we on this side of the House have tried to raise, apparently with not a great deal of success, although we are just beginning the fight and, I think, will eventually win it. The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) will talk about this after I have finished speaking. That issue concerns an industrial strategy and taking all the money for this development and making sure that Canadian business and industry, and especially small business, are given a role. We do not want them to be passed by. With respect to native people I am fond of using the analogy of a native person standing by a highway as a truck passes by. I have seen that personally on the Mackenzie Highway in the Northwest Territories. That is almost a symbol of development, passing native people by, and that is what happens in this country, but development has also passed by our Canadian small-business people. The important aspects of an industrial strategy, Canadian content and so forth are ignored by this bill.
The bill is also important for foreign relations. It deals with the whole question of sovereignty in the Arctic, how we control our north, how we raise the flag there and so forth. There are international implications. Foreign lobbying with respect to this bill reached the Conservative party in this House, which changed the bill and tried to stop its appearance in this House.
Finally, the bill is an outstanding example of the weaknesses in the National Energy Program. This bill is at the heart of that program. It is the guts of the program, and what it shows-and I will speak of this later in my speech-is a program which consists of giant giveaways and grants, without taking sufficient equity or control for the government. This bill would give grants to private companies and build up large Canadian private companies at the expense of consumers and small Canadian companies. This bill will continue a system we thought we would put behind us. The Canadianization in this bill is phony, and I will give examples later on of why Canadianization as we understand it is different from the Canadianization referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLaren).

November 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
1 have learned a great deal from this bill and, before hon. members heckle me and say "It's about time" and so forth, let me say I have learned all this during the course of the year, in committee day after day, at all the stages of this bill in the House, in press interviews and statements outside the House and in discussions with my colleagues and with other members of the House. In watching this bill develop I have learned a great deal, and I will tell hon. members what I have learned: "Them that's got power gets." Those who do not have power, no matter how just their cause, lose. This is the problem with the Canadian political system, and it has shown up in this bill. Greed and privilege seem to triumph over justice and equity, and that is sad.
That can be seen now with respect to the Constitution. The provincial premiers have the power, so the native people lose out. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wanted the support of our party, he was prepared to accept an amendment to the Constitution relating to native peoples. Now that he has a deal with the provinces, he forgets about that.


Mr. Irwin:: Who sent us to the provinces?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is what happens, and this bill shows it. Whenever the industry has cried out, it has received basically what it has wanted.
There have been eight changes to this bill, but they have not helped environmental groups. They did not win. They have not helped native groups nor northern groups. Those changes have helped the industry. That was the only flexibility this governe-ment showed, apart from a few token clauses without prejudice to native claims, which mean nothing, especially since native claims are not even in the Constitution now. These things in the bill mean nothing, but every change in the bill benefits the industry.
I can go through the changes chapter and verse. It is a little late to do that now, but one result of the debate last week is that the royalty holidays have been extended. There were modifications to the 25 per cent Petro-Canada back-in. In the future companies will be paid a little more for the back-in privilege. There were modifications respecting the date of pioneer production so that rich industry could escape more taxation. Every change made generally helped the industry. That is what the Liberals did for the industry, and they did not do much for northerners or native people. It was shocking that our Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works did not even go north to talk to the native people. It is disgusting. I asked for support from my Conservative friends. I tried to filibuster in the committee so that we could go north. What did the Conservatives do? They got together with the Liberals, ended the committee and brought the bill back here. It was shameful and shocking that northern members could agree to that.
The first clause in the bill deals with Canada lands. The native people are the majority on Canada lands. We did not even consult those who are the majority. What kind of democracy is that?
It was instructive to me to see the positions of the parties respecting this bill. The Conservative party fought tooth and nail and brought out every dinosaur in its caucus to fight for the oil companies, to stop the 25 per cent Petro-Canada back-in and to attack Petro-Canada. That was their strategy and their position on the bill.
When we pointed to Suncor in which Bill Davis of Ontario bought a percentage, the Conservatives said that was different.


Mr. Stewart:: What's different about it?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is my point, what is different about it? My friend might read a column in The Toronto Sun by Claire Hoy. I do not know whether he is a supporter of this side of the House, but the article states:
To the NDP, you should not only buy into companies, you should buy control, a position which makes sense if you accept the principle of government intervention.
That is the point we have been making in this debate. This bill, with its Petro-Canada back-ins and giveaways, does not do anything to give control of the energy industry, Canada's most important industry, to the Canadian people. It gives control to the multinational companies and a few large Canadian companies.
I want to deal with some of the Liberal policies reflected in this bill. I want to make three points. First, we should remember it was past Liberal policy that got us into this foreign ownership crisis. Now they are proposing only half measures to get us out of it.
By and large it was not people on this side that got an industry which is more foreign controlled than any other country, industrialized or non-industrialized, would permit. They got us into it and now propose half measures to get us out of it.
My second point is the 50 per cent Canadian ownership which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources spoke about so glowingly. That does not necessarily mean Canadian control. Foreign domination will remain. My colleagues and I made that point consistently throughout our speeches. However, we have had no real reply from the other side of the House.
Third, the Liberal's Canadianization plan means privatization. What we are talking about is public ownership and control. Let that be clear. That is what the parliamentary secretary talked about when referring to Canadianization. These flaws are all reflected in this bill.
I want to talk a bit about the Liberal record. In 1974 the Prime Minister promised that we would have 50 to 60 per cent Canadian ownership in all new energy projects. He did not keep that promise. Now he is promising 50 per cent Canadian ownership, not control, by 1990.
The parliamentary secretary stated that we had made great progress. He mentioned that we had gone up to about 35 per cent Canadian ownership, a 5 per cent increase as a result of
November 9, 1981

all the actions in the last year as a result of the National Energy Program. We have spent $6.8 billion to get an extra 5 per cent, up from 30 per cent to 35 per cent. We could have taken that amount of money to purchase Imperial Oil. Overnight we would have 50 per cent Canadian ownership. This government does not have the guts to do that. Instead, it wants to wrap itself in the flag of Canadianization. It is a sham, generally and specifically.
I have raised the fact time and again that even with this bill one will be able to get around Canadian ownership standards, which are not even defined in the bill. They will be defined in another bill. I pointed to the example where a group in an oil play in the Arctic could be 70 per cent owned by Imperial Oil and 30 per cent owned by Petro-Canada. Surprise, surprise! That is 51 per cent Canadian ownership.
I have said this three times in this House. I will not go into the statistics again. However, it was never denied. In the specifics of this bill, Canadian ownership is a farce. It does not mean Canadian control at all. We suggested specific amendments, but the government refused to accept them.
Why do we see foreign control as bad for us? Contrary to the free enterprise argument that my friends on the right were advancing, saying that Canada benefits from foreign capital, the multinational companies are net capital exporters. They take more out of the country than they put in.
In the period 1975 to 1980, the petroleum industry was a net capital exporter to the tune of $4.1 billion. Those figures come from the government's own petroleum monitoring agency report. The petroleum industry's assets have risen 359 per cent, from $14.6 billion in 1973 to $53.4 billion in 1980. That capital gain is controlled mainly by foreign shareholders at the expense of Canadian consumers and taxpayers.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) gives us a bad time for not supporting the oil companies and the industry. The Canadian people think the industry is very fat and rich. We know that some of the small companies are hurting. We can help some of the small Canadian companies. By and large the Canadian public sees this as a big, fat, rich industry. It is going to continue to get rich under the new deal between Alberta and Ottawa, cooked up at the expense of the consumers.
In 1980 the oil industry's profits represented almost 30 per cent of all profits earned by the non-financial sector of the economy. It is a rich industry getting richer and it is expanding into other segments of the economy. Its power and economic wealth is controlled by foreigners, but it can pressure Canadian policy makers. The evidence is here. Look at Cold Lake and Syncrude-blackmail tactics and capital strikes. They will not go ahead unless they receive more money and benefits, more of the cream. That is why we say we cannot let this happen.
What do the Liberals propose to do? At the very least they propose what I would call half measures. Here is what Marc Lalonde said in New York.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The hon. member must refer to ministers by the departments they represent and members by the constituencies they represent.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. 1 am quoting from an article that names him. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) said in New York on November 18, 1980:
Do you suppose that a party proposing to reduce foreign control to 50 per cent within ten years would be regarded as anything but cautious to a fault? I doubt that Americans would tolerate anything like 50 per cent foreign ownership in any major industry-let alone a vital, basic industry like oil and gas. And to tolerate it at a time when that industry is claiming an enormous and ever-rising share of the national wealth is simply unthinkable.
He is prepared to tolerate it to the extent of 50 per cent. That is a half measure. What the national energy policy does is replace the big foreign-owned companies, largely American, such as Exxon, the friend of the hon. member for Calgary Centre and the Conservative Party, with large Canadian companies such as Dome Petroleum and Nova Corporation. It is replacing the Rockefellers and the Mellons with the Conrad Blacks and the Bob Blairs. That is fine. They are Canadians. However, are they going to do anything different from the multinational oil companies?
What guarantees do we have that privately-owned Canadian oil companies, subsidized with our money to the tune of 93 cents for every dollar spent on exploration-and I will come back to that in a moment-will act any differently from foreign-owned companies? Does anyone believe that the $12 billion price rip-off of the consumers as set out in the Bertrand report would be any different if we replaced Dome or Norcen for Imperial or Gulf? I am not so sure. I would like to think it would be but I am not so sure. I will tell you why I am not so sure, Mr. Speaker. The goal of these privately-owned oil companies will be, first of all, to push for higher prices and, second, to push for more exports. You can see that now. Listen to the call for gas exports from Alberta. Third, they want more tax concessions. Look at their criticism of the National Energy Program and of this bill which gives them all kinds of tax incentives.
It seems to me that if you want to have true Canadianization, Mr. Speaker, you have to make Petro-Canada a leader in the industry and you have to make it number one. That is true Canadianization. I think the Canadian people would support that idea.
Under the National Energy Program, the taxpayers of Canada will fund a Canadian-owned company to the maximum of 93 cents on every dollar spent on exploration in Canada. That is what my friends call free enterprise: a ninety-three-cent subsidization. What does the government get back? The government gets back 25 per cent Petro-Canada back-in. The government gets back a 10 per cent royalty, which is one of the lowest in all the industrialized countries. The government will get a percentage in income tax, if that is not deferred forever.

November 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
What kind of free enterprise is that? It seems to me that this is a great rip-off of the Canadian taxpayer. That is exactly what this bill does. You do not have to believe me Mr. Speaker, because I will quote the words of the parliamentary secretary who said an hour ago in this House that "Canada has in place the most generous system of grants and incentives of any country." That is the kind of system that is being set up in this bill.
From 1977 to 1980 the federal Liberal party gave income tax breaks to the foreign-controlled resource sector worth a total of over $13 billion, without getting any equity or ownership in return. Over the same period, income tax collected from the petroleum industry was only $5 billion. What the NDP is saying and what we have said in our amendments to this bill, something that was ignored by the government which is not flexible at all, is that it is time the consumers and taxpayers of Canada who have funded the growth and profits of this industry get some ownership in return. If we are paying the piper, it is time we called the tune. We can only do that through majority public ownership.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I regret the fact that no one has spoken in French on Bill C-48. I thought all the provinces, including Quebec, had an interest in the energy issue. I have said that the Progressive Conservatives, the Tories in this House, were certainly speaking on behalf of the big oil companies in the course of the debate. Only the NDP spoke on behalf of the people. We support Petro-Canada. The Progressive Conservatives do not. We want Canadians to control the oil industry. That is definitely not the position of the Liberal Party. [English]
Before I sit down, I should like to raise another point, and that is why I wanted to ask a question of the-
[ Translation]


Mr. Cyr:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding a statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). He said that none of the francophone members took the floor during the debate. I want to say that this bill has been before the House for over a year, that it was sent to the committee where Quebec members took part in the study of the bill in committee and that we were in the House-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The hon. member may wish to take part in the debate after me. I should like to hear the position of a member from Quebec, because I have not heard the position-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I did not recognize the point of order and I do not think the hon. member should have responded to it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Obviously the hon. member will have the chance to speak after I have completed my remarks and to set out his position on this bill. The hon. member cannot have it
both ways. Either the hon. member wants to speak on this and set out a position-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Again, I would invite the hon. member to address the Chair. I do not think the debate should be entertained across the floor.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the government and the parliamentary secretary specifically to respond to this matter of the effect of Bill C-48 on aboriginal land claims. I hope that the member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) will speak later on in this debate on this very point.
There are two points. First, the government says that this bill is neutral, to use the minister's words, toward aboriginal land rights. Our view is that the bill is not neutral. How can the bill be neutral if the government develops oil and gas resources quickly, as this bill proposes to do, and opens up a regime to do that? It is taking it off the bargaining table with the native people. That is a point on which the minister and I disagree. The minister suggests that he will bring in legislation after this bill is passed and we will have to look at it.
More specifically, I have in my hands a telegram from the Inuvialuit, the Inuit people near Inuvik. The telegram is from Sam Raddi, the President of COPE. In his telegram Mr. Raddi specifically challenges the government to include in a speech from one of the members of the Liberal party an undertaking that this bill will not affect a contract that was already entered into. I shall read a paragraph from Mr. Raddi's telegram. It reads:
To put the issue simply, do you agree that the intent and language of the agreement in principle-
-and that is the agreement with the Inuit-
-with respect to our 7(1) (A) lands where there were encumbrances as of July 13, 1978 is that the Inuvialuit were to receive all of the Crown share, or to say it another way, we are to receive all of what the Crown would have received had they retained ownership in 7 (1) (A) lands. Yes or no. This is a fundamental and simple question that you should have no trouble in answering quickly. Should you agree with our statement with respect to the agreement in .principle and if it is not your intention to alter that commitment in the agreement in principle you should have no difficulty in giving us your consent to the three commitments we requested on October 21, 1981.
The point is that this is a specific example of a bill actually affecting native rights which have already been negotiated. I challenge the government to answer the concerns of those people. If it cannot do that, it cannot say that this bill is neutral with regard to northern rights.
I want to conclude by saying that in this bill we, the NDP, have taken positions on environment, on industrial spin-offs, on Canadian content, and on protecting the rights of northerners. The government has not been responsive to these issues; but we have not lost the fight. That fight will continue. We will continue the Fight in other ways and in other bills and in the areas that are affected.
I should like to say-I think this is where my friend, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) fell down-that what we have to do in this bill and in the energy policy is to nation build and to recapture for ourselves the ownership of
November 9, 1981

our resources and their development. We must give our children and our children's children a better share in a world where an adequate supply of energy is fundamental. I think the Canadian people understand that. I think they know that energy is fundamental, and that what we do with energy and how we develop it will really determine the future of succeeding generations in Canada.
We will not settle for no loaf, like the Conservatives, or for half a loaf, as the Liberals propose in this bill with its glaring weaknesses. Mr. Speaker, we want the whole loaf; we want control of the energy industry by the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, as we go into the final stages of debate on Bill C-48, I should like to make a few comments. One of the major concerns that this party has about Bill C-48 is the powers that it gives to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde).
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) for stating the position of the New Democratic Party. If anyone had any doubt about NDP philosophy, it would have been removed by the speeches we have heard on Bill C-48 over the last few days. That party is completely and totally opposed to the free enterprise system. If it could destroy more industries by nationalizing them and socializing them, it certainly would. I will point out what it would cost the Canadian people to go along with nationalizing industries. There would be a loss of investment money, a loss of jobs, and companies would move out of Canada.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said that this party is the spokesman for the oil companies. Mr. Speaker, this party is the spokesman for every small Canadian business. I will speak up for Canadian business and do everything I possibly can to oppose this socialist legislation of the Liberal and NDP parties and its onslaught on Canadian business. The people most affected by Bill C-48 are the small Canadian businessmen, and the government is out to get them.
In his speech this afternoon, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLar-en) spoke of cheap gas and cheap oil, but there is no cheap gas or cheap oil, Mr. Speaker. In the 1980 federal election campaign the Liberal party promised Canadians that energy prices would stay low. It claimed that the price hike would be less than half of what this party had planned, and that it would negotiate an increase of less than 14 cents. Depending upon the location in Canada, in 1980 gasoline prices rose by between 22 cents and 29 cents per gallon, far in excees of the promised 14 cents. The Liberals were returned to power after campaigning against our energy price proposals, and since then gasoline prices have risen in some areas by as much as 65 cents per gallon.
Increases due solely to federal taxes amount to 36 cents per gallon, which is twice the 18 cents per gallon excise tax proposed in our budget. Since that election the price of home-
Canada Oil and Gas Act
heating oil has risen by 44 cents per gallon and more. This situation will be further strained in the next few years when the federal-Alberta agreement allows crude oil prices to rise at almost double the rate of our proposal.
These energy price increases have been imposed without benefit of the energy tax credits that would have provided $250 for a typical low or middle-income family this year as a hedge against the price increases. I will say no more, Mr. Speaker; the real facts are evident.
This is the sort of false information that the Liberals are sending out to their constituents, but what is new about that?
I have here a document sent by the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) to his constituents in Halifax in December 1980. It contains a graph headed "Gasoline Crosbie vs MacEachen" and shows that under the Crosbie pricing plan, in 1981 gasoline would have cost $1.56 per gallon or 34 cents per litre while under the Liberals the price would be $1.36 per gallon or 30 cents per litre. That is totally false, Mr. Speaker. In Halifax, and in parts of Nova Scotia, at the present time the price is around $1.74 per gallon. A colleague from Nova Scotia informs me that it is even higher than that, but this is what a minister of the Crown told his constituents in a document he sent to all of them. He claimed that gas would only cost $1.36 in 1981. We find out now that in Nova Scotia people are paying $ 1.74 or more.
In the last federal election the Liberals also told the Canadian people night after night on national television that they would lower interest rates. That was another lie. There was also all the nonsense about cheap gas.
Let me put on record what the Liberals have done for the Canadian people in the area of energy since they were returned to power, Mr. Speaker. On November 1, 1980, a tax of 80 cents per barrel was imposed. This translates into about six tenths of one cent per litre or 2.7 cents per gallon. This tax was imposed to help cover the cost of subsidizing refiners for the difference between domestic and world prices, which is about $20 per barrel.
On January 1, 1981, the same tax was increased by $2.50 per barrel, which amounts to 2 cents per litre or 9 cents per gallon. We did not hear anything about that from the Liberals in the last election campaign. The message was that we would get cheap gas.
On March 1, 1981, retail prices climbed about eight tenths of one per cent per litre or 3.6 cents per gallon to reflect an increase of $1 in the wellhead price of oil on January 1. By agreement, oil companies do not pass on a wellhead increase to consumers for 60 days.
On March 3 of this year a special tax of 75 cents per barrel or about six tenths of one cent per litre or 2.7 cents per gallon, was imposed because of the Alberta production cuts.
On May 1 of this year a special levy of $1.15 per barrel was imposed, which is almost one cent per litre or 4.5 cents per gallon. The purpose of this levy was to finance the bulk of Petro-Canada's $1.46 billion of Petrofina. This was not required, but $1.46 billion in Canadian funds went to Belgium.

November 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
I fail to see how that would help Canada or the Canadian consumers. The Liberal policy of paying world price for imported oil costs Canadians $500,000 per hour.
On June 3 of this year consumers were dealt a double whammy. The special tax implemented because of the Alberta cuts was increased by $1.10 per barrel to $1.85. At the same time the government increased by $1.25 per barrel the tax aimed at helping cover the cost of subsidizing refiners for all imports. As a result, prices rose immediately by 2 cents per litre or 9 cents per gallon. It is up, up, up, Mr. Speaker. So much for the government's phony statement in the last election that Canadians would get cheap gas.
On September 1 of this year retail prices increased by eight tenths of a cent per litre or 3.6 cents per gallon because of a July 1 increase of $1 per barrel in the wellhead price. The litany goes on and on and on, Mr. Speaker.
One of the groups I will speak up for at every opportunity is the Canadian Petroleum Association which is comprised of small Canadian firms. I am proud to speak up for that group which is being shafted by Liberal-NDP policies. The October 1981 bulletin of that association quotes from a speech of the chairman as follows:
In October 1980 our ability to meet the challenge of oil self-sufficiency was practically destroyed with the introduction of the NEP (National Energy Program) and the federal budget.
It is interesting to note that in a recently published report, the National Energy Board has supported industry's position that "Canadian oil self-sufficiency by 1990 is futile unless the energy industry receives higher returns than provided under the NEP.
Since last October the Canadian Petroleum Association, which is comprised of small Canadian businesses not multinationals, has been urging governments to return to the negotiating table to settle their revenue-sharing differences and to return a reasonable share of the revenue to the industry. The industry cannot continue to function if its cash flow is going to be cut off. Also, there is mention about the huge profits of the multinationals. I am not a spokesman for multinationals, but I want to point out that just about all of these major oil companies have been borrowing money every year to continue with their exploration, and all their large profits go into exploration.
There was also an excellent document put out by the Nisku Businessmen's Association in Nisku, Alberta, earlier this year explaining the impact of the National Energy Program and the tie-in with Bill C-48. It is entitled "The Impact of the Federal Budget and National Energy Policy on 41 Oil Service Companies in the Nisku Business Park." It goes into great detail as to how the companies will be laying people off and will be buying less goods and services in Ontario and Quebec. I fail to see how that is helping Canada or the Canadian consumer in any way at all. The report states:
Of the responding companies in our survey, 49 per cent indicated that they had some type of branch office located in Alberta or northern British Columbia. Some of the locations included Grande Prairie, Calgary, Lloydminster, Edmonton, Brooks, Fort St. John and Fort Nelson. Most of the branch offices were involved in either sales, manufacturing, repair, storage or supply.
Out of the existing branch offices, 40 per cent will be shut down as a result of the budget.
Liberal policies will not cause companies to shut down in the OPEC countries, Venezuela or Mexico, because the government is pouring out money every day, paying the world price for imported oil instead of reaching agreement with the producing provinces, which could continue with oil exploration if they received a half decent price from the Liberal government; and there is oil in every province in Canada. With its policies, the government closed down 1,400 wells in Saskatchewan and brought the oil exploration industry in Manitoba to a grinding halt.
In another paragraph, the document reads:


LOSS OF OPERATIONS IN CANADA
[Stage Direction]
One of the implications of the budget was the movement of business across the border to the United States.
I have gone into that at great length. These policies have certainly benefited the United States: North Dakota, Montana, Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas.
The document states further:
Prior to the budget's announcement, none of the firms responding to our survey had operations located in the U.S. As a result of the government's actions, 34 per cent of the companies indicated they would be moving a portion of their business outside of Canada.
I fail to see how that is helping anyone in Canada. The document goes on to read:
This movement will involve from 10 to 50 per cent of the firms' total operations with an average of 30 per cent.
It should be noted that most of these Figures result from company forecasts. This may change as the situation concerning the budget changes.
Concerning the effect on employment in relation to the Liberals' energy policies, the document reads:
As of October 1st, 1980, the companies surveyed employed 3138 in Alberta and 1456 in Nisku.
After the budget was introduced they employed 2965 in Alberta and 1201 in Nisku.
This resulted in a loss of 255 jobs at Nisku or in the Nisku offices of the firms surveyed plus an additional loss of 173 jobs in branch and field operations.
Considering the large amount of oil service and related firms in Alberta, these figures from only 41 firms could represent a great loss of jobs throughout the province.
The report goes into some detail on the effect on other industries. Of course, most of these industries are located in Ontario and there are a number in Quebec. The report states:
It is an economic principle that when one section of Canada's economy is affected by some event, other areas are also directly affected. This can be seen in the cutbacks in orders to suppliers from the oil and oil related firms in the Nisku Industrial Park. The federal budget and NEP have caused slowdowns and loss of sales in these firms, which in turn decreases their expenditures on supplies and inventories.
Through our survey we obtained a list of suppliers in Alberta and eastern Canada who have been affected by the decrease in spending.
The document goes on to list dozens of firms, and also names the general industries in Canada which have been affected by the National Energy Program and Bill C-48. It also points out the following:
November 9, 1981
[Stage Direction]
As a result of cutbacks or cancellations of purchases by the 41 companies responding to our survey, $1,470,000 in revenues was lost by eastern suppliers in the last quarters of 1980. Forecasted cutbacks in purchases to eastern suppliers in 1981 will amount to approximately $20,000,000 from these 41 firms.
It is no wonder that we have lay-offs and high unemployment in eastern Canada. The document goes on and on about the effect of the NEP on the industry right across Canada. It is unfortunate that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did not read this document. Just about every day one can pick up another document and find out about another business which is moving out of Canada, another large portion of money moving down to the United States because of Liberal policies, and nothing is being done about it. The October issue of the Energy Month states:
But in spite of the security blanket provided by the U.S. market, all manufacturers realize that they are vulnerable without Canadian sales. Wally Kuchar, president of Tri-Service Machine Ltd., is very blunt about the situation. "If it wasn't for the U.S. and Reagan's policies, we'd have had to lay off half our people.''
Is that not a great policy that we have here in Canada? The article states further:
Gus Carscadden echoes the same view; "If it wasn't for the U.S., we'd be in desperate straits.'' Other manufacturers concur.
I have another document called the Alberta report. Earlier this year it was called the casualty report number four. Of course, the casualties have certainly been rising. It points out that since the publication of the National Energy Program on October 28, 1980, the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors has published periodic reports on the exodus of rigs to the United States. It states that from October, 1980, to March, 1981, 114 drilling operations moved to the United States. Forty-nine service operations moved to the United States. Is this not wonderful? Is this not really helping us? These insane socialistic policies are just great. Also, from April 1, 1981, to August, 1981-
Ian Gardiner Waddell: That's only the Alberta report.


A. Daniel McKenzie: -seventy-five drilling operations were to move. In servicing operations, 58 rigs were out of service. These are the figures for the summer of 1981. There were 124 rigs out of service and 126 servicing operations. How on earth will we reach energy self-sufficiency?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please! It being six o'clock, 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.
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon before the supper break I was commenting on the casualty reports with
Canada Oil and Gas Act
regard to drilling and servicing operations being forced out of the country because of the Liberal government's energy policy and Bill C-48. I want to conclude my comments on the casualty reports. It has been pointed out that half of Canada's 1980 rig capacity would be idle or in the United States by mid-1981 and that $850 million worth of Canadian rigs would be in the United States by mid-1981, and will not be back. The resulting job loss is 20,000. Yet we are told that this is good for us.
I commented earlier today with regard to information which the minister of state responsible for fitness and amateur sport was sending to his constituents. In this respect I congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), for exposing the false information which this minister is distributing to his constituents concerning gas prices. I have extracted a page from the householder sent by the minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport to his constituents. In it he points out that gasoline in 1981 under the MacEachen formula will be $1.36 per gallon. We know perfectly well that gasoline is not $1.36 a gallon; it is $1.74 and more. How can we believe anything the Liberals tell us about anything when this kind of false information is being sent out to constituents? I suppose this type of thing is going out all across Canada. Therefore, I offer my congratulations once again to the hon. member for Halifax West for exposing this minister of the Crown, this great Liberal, who has been sending out this sort of information to his constituents.
We had a debate earlier today on the subject of why nationalization of industry is so great for Canada. I have not seen any evidence that it is great at all. I would like to quote some remarks made by another colleague of mine, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). On October 29, 1981, as reported in Hansard at page 12322, the hon. member for Capilano said:
I wonder why that great NDP haven and example of the perfect life for the masses-I am speaking of Sweden-has backed away from increasing state ownership, to the point now where the state owns less than 5 per cent of the economy.
The Swedes have learned their lesson with regard to state ownership, infringement of the private sector, driving private enterprise out of the country, etc. and they have reduced state ownership to 5 per cent. I have not heard any of the NDP members reading that into the record.
It is amazing how many people across Canada have done research into the Liberal government's energy policies, its energy program and Bill C-48 and have exposed all the weaknesses. A recent article written in Calgary stated:
The probability Canada would be oil self-sufficient by 1990 was "close to zero," says a report by the Canadian Energy Research Institute.
The institute said it expected oil imports would peak in 1985 at 83,700 cubic meters or 526,000 barrels a day, an amount equalling 28 per cent of the domestic demand.
"The federal government's goal of self-sufficiency by 1990 will not likely be achieved unless there is a very substantial departure from anticipated crude oil supply and demand patterns. In fact, the expected value of oil imports by 1990 is 71,000 cubic metres a day (24 per cent of domestic demand)."
"While the probability of imports being less than one third of domestic demand in that year is .82, the probability of imports being eliminated by 1990 is close to zero,"-

November 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Therefore, Canada will keep pouring money into OPEC, into Venezuela and into Mexico. We are told by the Liberals that this is good for us and that it is great for Canada. I fail to see how that is great for Canada. It is great for OPEC, it is great for Mexico and it is great for Venezuela, but it is not great for Canada. What Canada will experience is loss of jobs and more rigs and investment money leaving our shores.


Erik Nielsen: They are not interested over there.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Statements have been made on behalf of the oil industry recently by small Canadian businessmen and by spokesmen for small Canadian oil companies to the effect that Canada's energy policies will cost at least 60,000 jobs across Canada. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) have band-aid programs to create unemployment. They are on a treadmill going backwards. There is no way they can cope with the damaging energy policy that will cost Canada 60,000 jobs. Canada is on a disaster course with this energy policy, Bill C-48 and all the rest of it.
There was an excellent editorial in the Peterborough Examiner recently. A thorough study was done in it of the Liberals energy policy. In part, this editorial reads:
Canadians should open their windows and howl their rage till Ottawa hears it.
Never, surely, have so many been taxed so much for so little. Never, surely, have political promises been broken so cynically.
This is just what we witnessed in the last federal election. The Liberals were going to lower interest rates and give us cheap gas. It is unbelievable what Liberals will say and what they tell the Canadian people.


Erik Nielsen: They have given us a lot of gas.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Yes, as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) said, the Liberals have given us a lot of gas. The editorial in the Peterborough Examiner continues with these words:
It is quite useless to upbraid the Trudeau government for the despicable way it has reneged on its election promise to keep energy price increases below the 18 cents a gallon the Clark government was proposing as increase in the excise tax on fuel. The Liberals have no shame about such cynicism; they showed that in 1975 when Trudeau brought in wage and price controls, blatant reversal of a firm promise given in the 1974 election.
It goes on to state:
Surely the sting of another four cents a gallon, hard on the heels of so many other increases in energy prices since the Liberals regained office, will prompt Canadians to demand an end to blatant Liberal dishonesty.
We should shout in unison that we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more. Otherwise, we shall continue to get what we deserve for putting out trust in such a government.
The last opportunity the Canadian people had to give the message to the Liberal government was the recent byelections in Spadina and Joliette.
Of course, we have seen further evidence of their blatant lies and false information sent out to the Canadian people with the
minister sending out false information on gas price increases, as the minister of state for fitness and amateur sport has done.


An hon. Member:: Diamond-toothed Gerry.


A. Daniel McKenzie: We have now heard the hon. member for Halifax suggest that he is "diamond-toothed Gerry." That is probably a very good description.
There are a number of others in our party who wish to speak on this subject tonight. I hope they will emphasize the dishonesty of the Liberal Party in the false information it is sending out on energy prices, oil and gas prices, lowering interest rates and what have you. We have to keep up this attack relentlessly to get the message across to every Canadian citizen, the taxpayers, to show them what kind of government they have.


An hon. Member:: They cannot be trusted.


A. Daniel McKenzie: They certainly cannot be trusted. They say they will lower interest rates. They will lower the interest rates, my foot! I better sit down before I blow up, Mr. Speaker.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, this House is now engaged in the final review of Bill C-48 which enacts the Canada oil and gas act. The detailed consideration given Bill C-48 on second reading, before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works and at report stage has questioned the value and effect of virtually every provision of this bill, yet we know that inevitably the government will utilize its majority in this chamber and in the other place to stamp a mark of approval on this legislation. Our task in this final review is to make one last attempt to prevail upon the government to change the more onerous and disruptive provisions of this new Canada oil and gas act. In the presence of a government majority, which in some particulars is aided and abetted by the New Democratic Party, this may be an impossible task, but the effort to expose the unfair and unconscionable provisions of Bill C-48 will at least bring the dangers of this legislation to public attention.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Edward Crosby: Let me review the basis-I will deal with them later, Mr. Speaker, after I have concluded my remarks. And when I go off the cuff, in my usual fashion I will slay those members of the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Edward Crosby: I might have to interrupt my comments now and start on them right away.
Let me review the basis for Bill C-48 in my attempt to expose to public light and condemnation the damaging aspects of this legislation.
The bill is intended to implement the National Energy Program which was unveiled in this House on October 28, 1980, as part of the budget introduced by the Minister of
November 9, 1981

Finance (Mr. MacEachen). That fact, the introduction of a National Energy Program as part of the government's financial and fiscal policy, is vital to an understanding of the purpose and effect of Bill C-48. One might ask why it is so. The reason is that the proposed Canada oil and gas act is not in a real sense an energy bill, it is a financial bill. Its true purpose is to gain federal control over some of the most important resources in this nation, the petroleum resources in northern Canada and in the coastal submarine lands. Indeed, that is the real purpose of the National Energy Program. It will result in federal control of energy resources.
Let me explain this point. For most of this century the emerging wealth of Canada has been based on the construction and manufacturing sectors of the economy;- the builders of ships and vessels, the manufacturers of automobiles and equipment, and on the process of natural resources like timber, metals and petroleum. Until recently the resources themselves were relatively cheap, particularly petroleum. Today depleting resources such as petroleum and base metals are more valuable. As a result of the combine formed by the oil producing nations that form OPEC, in one decade they raised the price of a barrel of oil from the $4 level to the high of $44 in Canadian funds. It is very easy to recognize that the federal government was anxious to switch its concern from the manufacturing sector and the excise tax revenue it brings to the natural resources sector and obtain direct ownership of the wealth produced by energy resources.
Let me provide an example. Cape Breton in Nova Scotia has vast supplies of coal adjoining its coast. For years; indeed, exactly one century following confederation, the federal government gave no attention or concern to these coal resources. The province of Nova Scotia administered the mining leases and licences that affected the coalmining industry and that resource. In 1967 the principal operator of the Cape Breton coal mine simply abandoned the operation, placing thousands out of work and causing economic havoc. Here is the point. The Government of Canada had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to assist the province of Nova Scotia to salvage the operation of the Cape Breton coal mines. By agreement with the province of Nova Scotia, the federal government established the Cape Breton Development Corporation to take over the operations of the coal mines. I make no complaint about that action. It was justifiable on both economic and humanitarian grounds. Here is the unusual aspect of that arrangement.
The federal government asked the province of Nova Scotia to transfer and convey to this Crown corporation, Devco, the Cape Breton coalfields lying under coastal waters off the coast of Nova Scotia; that is the submarine lands. The obvious inference is that in respect of the submarine coal resources, the Government of Canada believed that ownership rested with the province of Nova Scotia.
Let us look at Bill C-48. First, it applies to the Canada lands and it contains a definition of those lands. It says that Canada lands include those submarine areas adjacent to the coast of Canada.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
My point is, when the federal government was dealing with the coal resources that lie in the submarine lands off the coast of Nova Scotia, it made no claim to ownership. But when it was discovered that those same lands off the coast of Nova Scotia and, indeed, off the coast of Newfoundland and other coastal provinces, might contain petroleum resources, then the federal government took a real interest. As I said, its concern and objective is to gain control of these energy resources.
That is my point. For a century the federal government had no wish to involve itself in Nova Scotia submarine lands, either in relation to coal or petroleum. But, in the 1970s the global picture changed and the federal government has changed its attitude. Its motive and intent is to capture the resource industry, and the government has a number of techniques to accomplish this end. One of the techniques it will use to reach this goal is, in the case of the submarine lands, its claim of ownership. The same applies to northern lands. Again, the federal government is claiming ownership without regard to the Northwest Territories' and Yukon's authority. In the case of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, the federal government is using its taxation and trading powers to gain control.
I have underlined the need to examine Bill C-48 in the context of the National Energy Program. I believe I have also demonstrated that the principal motive and intention in establishing the National Energy Program is to gain control of the revenue from energy resources, especially oil and gas. There is no doubt that the government, which controls the wealth of the nation, exercises the real power in this country. The federal government is unwilling to share that power, and this is the real problem in Canada today-the failure of the government of Canada to deal fairly and properly with the provincial governments.


Erik Nielsen: They share it with the NDP.


Howard Edward Crosby: My colleague for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) says it wants to share it with the NDP. I say to the hon. member for Yukon that there is no doubt that many of them support the federal government in this action. They want the federal government to control the wealth of this nation. My friends in the NDP would certainly stand up to be counted on that issue. They want to help the federal government gain control over natural resources and to gain power in many other areas.


An hon. Member:: Who do you want to control it, someone outside the country?


Howard Edward Crosby: I want the control in this country to vest in a proper balance between the federal government and provincial governments. That is the basis of our confederation. That is what happened in 1867. The provincial governments got together to form one Canada. Under that arrangement, they gave powers to the Government of Canada. Those powers are very clearly outlined in the British North America Act, as are the powers and authorities of the provincial governments.

November 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Unfortunately, my friends to the left probably do not know what that distribution of power is. If they do know, they do not care because after 100 years of confederation they want to throw out all the rules and start over again. That would be fine, Mr. Speaker, if you had the consent and concurrence of the people of Canada, but that does not occur simply by presenting a bill to the House and having it enacted with the force of a pre-ordained majority, with the help of a rump opposition.
We have different principles in this party. We believe in fair play between the federal authority and the provincial authority. We believe that is the basis of confederation and that is the only way to accomplish such a change. We saw in Canada a demonstration of that this very month. We saw a demonstration of what happens when the governments across Canada sit down and bargain fairly. They can achieve an agreement. They achieved an agreement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said time and time again in the House could not be achieved-the very agreement that the leader of the NDP said could not be achieved. It has been achieved. The government is not telling us the truth. They do not know the situation.
We can achieve an agreement just as easily on natural resources by sitting down at a conference table with the Prime Minister of Canada acting in a fair and proper manner with the provincial authorities. There is no need to be here fracturing a piece of legislation called the Canada oil and gas act. We can come to an agreement on provisions that are appropriate, proper and fair to all governments in Canada and to all Canadians. It is the Government of Canada led by the Prime Minister that does not want to achieve agreement. It is not the people of Canada and it is not the provinces which do not see the good sense of coming to an agreement on these things. They have proved that. The government said it could not be done, but it was done and let us put that to rest right here and now. Agreement can be reached if the approach at the bargaining table is fair and honest. If the NDP have learned nothing from the constitutional process, I hope they have at least learned that. Do not blindly back the Prime Minister and his government in their attempts to force their will on the Canadian people. Examine, in an honest way, what they are doing and stand up for the people of Canada who want to see an agreement achieved by the appropriate democratic and parliamentary process.
If my friends to the left need any more lectures, I will be glad to give them, but I am here to talk about the Canada oil and gas act as contained in Bill C-48.
The National Energy Program sets out certain goals, some of which have already been dealt with by some members but they bear repeating. The three goals set out in the National Energy Program under the signature and imprimatur, as we say, of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) are these: Canadians want to seize control of their own energy future through security of supply and ultimate independence from the world oil market.


Erik Nielsen: Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.


Howard Edward Crosby: That is right. They on the other side certainly do not see anything. I do not know what they hear.
The first goal of the National Energy Program as outlined in the document is the securing of energy supplies. I assume that the minister meant self-sufficiency in energy for Canada and Canadians. Who could quarrel with that goal?
The second goal outlined in the National Energy Program is that Canadians will be given the real opportunity to participate in the energy industry in general and the petroleum industry in particular. I will have a lot to say about Canadians participating in the energy industry in general and the petroleum industry in particular in accordance with the plan promulgated by the Government of Canada.
The third goal is that a petroleum pricing and revenue sharing regime that recognizes the requirement of fairness to all Canadians, no matter where they live, must be established. I can dispose of the third goal quickly. We all know that is the blended price, the made-in-Canada price that we talked about in the election campaign. The government is going to bring everything together and charge a price that is fair to all Canadians. Well, my colleague, the hon. member for Win-nipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) has put that issue to rest for me. He indicated that the minister in charge of fitness and amateur sport, also dubbed Secretary of State (Mr. Regan), outlined for the public what the price was to be. Not only was he foolish enough to say it, he put it in a document which he then circulated to the people of Halifax. He said the price for gas in the city of Halifax in 1981 would be $1.36 a gallon. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is only November 9, and I defy you to go anywhere in the city of Halifax or in the province of Nova Scotia and buy a gallon of gas for under $1.80.


Mr. Paproski:: Shame on Regan.


Howard Edward Crosby: I think that is the end of the third goal of the National Energy Program. They have already lost that one, and I think it is behind us. I do not think anyone believes there is anything about a fair petroleum pricing policy in this document. Revenue sharing is another matter and I will deal with that.
Those are the three goals of the National Energy Program. Perhaps we should review the energy situation in Canada and assess the goals of the National Energy Program in these other areas which are not yet abandoned, and deal with it on that basis.
As I understand it, Canadians consume about 1.8 million barrels of oil per day. This results in a shortfall of approximately 400,000 barrels a day. That means 400,000 barrels of oil have to be imported into Canada on a daily basis to supply the needs of Canadians. I am familiar with that statistic because I live on the east coast which does not have access to Canadian oil supplies, and we Canadians who live on the east coast are the consumers of the 400,000 barrels of oil per day. We are very thankful to all Canadians that they subsidize the purchase of that foreign oil at the rate of 400,000 barrels a day because that oil today costs about $44 Canadian per barrel, and that would be an absolutely disastrous burden on the
November 9, 1981

residents of the maritime provinces and Newfoundland and that part of Quebec which does not have access to Canadian oil. At current rates we are talking about an expenditure of some $4 billion a year to pay for that supply of offshore imported oil. Of course, as we all know, the beneficiaries are foreign states and nations. Those funds leave Canada and never come back, so when we are talking about energy self-sufficiency and about goals for a national energy program, let us remember that this very day about $10 million is leaving Canada to purchase foreign oil.
1 do not think anyone has to reflect on that problem for very long to realize that something has to be done about that right away. An obvious goal of any energy program for Canada, whether it is stated in the document or not, must be to create and develop projects which will eliminate the need for imported foreign oil. Those projects must take place in Canada and preferably be projects which benefit Canadian industry.
What are some of the projects? Offshore exploration is going on off the east coast of Canada. Particularly in the case of Newfoundland there is a high level of activity which has already indicated producing wells and has given indications of very substantial oil supplies for the future. However, it is expensive, and we must encourage people in the private sector who are willing to take on projects like offshore exploration, particularly in waters which are iceberg infested, deep and create a great many problems in the course of drilling and development.
The high Arctic is a second area of activity. 1 am sure my colleague, the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) is interested in those projects. Again the development is fraught with difficulties and high costs. Added to that is the fact that development is very uncertain. In many cases the companies are carrying out new techniques in attempting to develop Arctic oil and gas, and they are up against very difficult obstacles. We have to have a national energy program which will encourage that kind of development.
A third major project area in which I have a particular interest is the Alberta tar sands. I had occasion to visit Alberta and to examine some of those projects, particularly in Fort McMurray but also in Cold Lake, and I was very much impressed with the work being carried on there by the private sector. Millions of dollars are being invested. In some cases the projects have been brought to completion and are producing vast quantities of oil-100,000 barrels a day in one project- and even we on the east coast have a great interest in seeing those projects go forward successfully because they will, in combination with offshore exploration and Arctic exploration, develop the self-sufficiency which is required for all Canadians.
The purpose and the ultimate goal of a national energy program must be to produce energy self-sufficiency for Canada and for all Canadians, and we ought not to take into consideration regional concerns only because in this goal of energy self-sufficiency we must recognize that there is a
Canada Oil and Gas Act
national interest. Whether there is a need for a program of Canadianization as described in the National Energy program, whether there is a need to take over assets and take them away from the private sector-


Erik Nielsen: Nationalization.


Howard Edward Crosby: -and whether there is a need to nationalize the petroleum industry and the energy industry is another question, and I will not hesitate to give the answer to that question. It is not necessary.
I want to review in greater detail the objectionable features of Bill C-48 from the particular perspective of Nova Scotia. Under Bill C-48, as I have indicated, Canada lands are defined as including the submarine lands off the east coast and off the west coast. Let me review very briefly the history of the claims to the submarine lands on both coasts. In the case of British Columbia it was decided some time ago by the Supreme Court of Canada-as I recall, in 1968-that the federal authority owned the lands off the coast of British Columbia. That Supreme Court decision was not entirely definitive, and I understand the government of British Columbia even today makes claims for some of the submarine lands off the coast of British Columbia, particularly the lands within its territorial waters, as they are called.
However, in the case of Nova Scotia, and I can include the province of Newfoundland as well, there has been no such court decision, so it is open to the province of Nova Scotia to make a claim to the submarine lands. That claim has been made and is based on historical fact and precedent. By a letter dated May 12, 1981, in relation to Bill C-48, the Premier of Nova Scotia informed the Prime Minister of Canada in no uncertain terms that the province did claim the submarine lands which would otherwise be included in the definition of Canada lands contained in Bill C-48. The premier said in his letter that the government of Nova Scotia claims management jurisdiction of all mineral resource wealth in the seabed in the area to which the Government of Canada in Bill C-48 is making claim. The claim is based, as I said, on historical fact and precedent, but the premier pointed out in his letter that Section 109 of the British North America Act is clear on the point. For the record, that section states:
All lands, mines, minerals, and royalties belonging to the several provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick at the Union, and all sums then due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals or royalties, shall belong to the several provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in which the same are situated or arise-
The provisions of Section 109 of the British North America Act simply carried beyond the date of confederation in 1867 whatever claims the province of Nova Scotia had to territorial lands. I will not put on the record of this House again the historical basis of that claim, but I will review it briefly by saying that prior to confederation in 1867 Nova Scotia had jurisdiction and ownership of the offshore by virtue of the Royal Charter of King James which was granted to Sir William Alexander and which was dated September 10, 1621.

November 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Subsequent events, not the least of which was the control, management and supervision of the Cape Breton coal mines which are contained in the submarine lands off the coast of Nova Scotia, all indicate continuance of that claim to the present time. Indeed, the province of Nova Scotia has enacted a petroleum resources act which is similar in some respects, although not in the most onerous and disruptive respects, to the provisions of Bill C-48. In short, the province of Nova Scotia claims to own the very lands to which Bill C-48 refers.
Now the conflict is created. I will not speak of Newfoundland. I will limit my statements to reference to the province of Nova Scotia. A conflict of ownership and control has been created, and what does that conflict do to the exploration of the resources in offshore areas? It creates grave doubts and uncertainty in the minds of the companies and operators who seek to explore and develop these resources. Time and time again representatives of the companies which are carrying out resource exploration off the coast have indicated that this uncertainty has delayed developments, has caused decisions to be made which have resulted in cutbacks on the amounts expended for exploration, and has given rise to other difficulties. The effect of the continuation of this conflict means a retardation of exploration activities on the east coast.
I asked in the House whether the Prime Minister was going to do anything to resolve this conflict. He immediately responded that the matter could go to court. There are several ways of resolving the conflict. The least appropriate of these is a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada or any other court.
Having seen the result of the reference of the constitutional proposal, I must say I have a little more faith in that process and procedure than I had before. More important, I have had less faith in the judgment of the law officers of the Crown who are advising the Prime Minister and his cabinet with respect to the federal claim to offshore resources.
We have seen in the last few years two constitutional cases which indicated that the law officers of the Crown were mistaken; in one case they were in grave error. We had before the House a bill to revise and change the structure and status of the Senate. As we all know, that bill was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada as being beyond the powers of the Parliament of Canada. We now have several reasons to doubt the legal opinion upon which the government is acting. Maybe one should approach the courts, particularly the Supreme Court of Canada, with a little more faith in their ability to right these obvious wrongs.
I have already said to the members of the NDP, who are now clearing the Chamber, that the way to resolve disputes is fair and proper negotiation. I have already said that the offshore resource dispute can be easily resolved in this manner. Let us hope that the Prime Minister has learned from his experience in the last two weeks and that he will sit down with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to work out an agreement with respect to offshore resources so that those
interested can go on with the business of exploring and developing the natural resources which lie off the coast.
This is a matter of grave concern to all residents of Nova Scotia, and I suspect of Newfoundland and the Atlantic area.


Erik Nielsen: And the north.


Howard Edward Crosby: And the north as well. I will confine my comments to the province of Nova Scotia. Our hope for the future, for development, for equality among the provinces and regions of Canada lies in resources in our submarine lands. To lose those resources to a greedy Government of Canada without appropriate compensation will take from the people of Nova Scotia their opportunity for equality.
I already addressed some remarks to the matter of oil pricing and that goal of the National Energy Program. We have seen the effect of the oil pricing policy on the prices of consumer gasoline and home-heating oil. We know it is a disaster. It does not have any offsetting factors like an energy tax credit or anything of that nature. The Government of Canada has just thrown the effect of its pricing policy in the laps of consumers and home owners.
There is another aspect to the pricing policy. That involves revenue sharing. The unfortunate part of the very high retail prices is that at a time when consumers and home owners are paying tremendous prices for gas and home heating oil, the companies and operators who seek to explore and develop Canada's petroleum resources are not receiving a sufficient return to enable them to carry out the projects which I have already indicated we need.
What are those projects? In his very valuable pamphlet called "Energy and Industry" Barry Beale indicates that industrial procedures arising from petroleum development over the next decade should total $210 billion. He says this about these projects:
Of the $210 billion anticipated to be invested in the various energy sectors, roughly 37 per cent will be spent on energy supply programs that are relatively new to the Canadian experience and, in many cases, new to the global experience. Oil sands, heavy oil, and frontier oil and gas exploration and development in hostile environments are cases in point in which Canadian enterprises are in the forefront of global activity. These areas require an advanced and evolving technology to overcome technical limitations to their exploitation. Manufacturing opportunities will be defined over the next decade by the extent and speed with which these technical limitations are overcome and by the resolve that energy proponents bring to exploiting the resource. This in turn relies on the economic and political environment within which these investments must take place.
That says it all. We have to rely on the economic and political environment in order to have these essential projects go forward. There are benefits for all aspects of Canadian industry in these projects. As I found out, this is not confined to Fort McMurray, Cold Lake, Alberta, the high Arctic or the coast off Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. All Canadians can share in these developments, particularly the manufacturing sector.
We all have a very great interest in a fair revenue-sharing policy as a result of which these projects will be carried out. The other side of the coin, that is, that these projects will not be
November 9, 1981

carried out, will mean that for the next decade and even more we will be dependent on foreign nations for our energy supplies.
I want to speak very briefly about the involvement of Petro-Canada in the Canada Oil and Gas Act, in particular dealing with the provisions under which Petro-Canada can opt in to energy developments. I do not know the details of the arrangements among the oil operators. I know they are very complex and complicated. Those arrangements are the basis for the financing of their projects. It may well be you can enact a provision which will allow another party to come in at a late date and become involved in the project.
To say the least, this is a matter of real concern to energy operators. They do not know what effect this will have, whether it will destroy their ability to gain financing and so on. To say the least, the government has the responsibility of ensuring that the effect of these opting in provisions that benefit Petro-Canada will not have an adverse effect on Canadian energy development. So far we have heard far and wide that that is exactly what these provisions will provide. They will retard energy exploration and development in Canada.
Just a little aside on the matter of Petro-Canada. We do not always agree with the government side. If there is to be some real benefit to Canadians arising from the establishment and operation of Petro-Canada, all of us would be quite willing to make that admission. However, we have to wait and see.
Right this day Petro-Canada is engaged in spreading its operation across Canada. Just a few weeks ago in Halifax we had a great unveiling. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) was not there, but some of his Liberal colleagues were there for the great unveiling. Down came the curtain and up came the Petro-Canada sign.
That is not very amusing. What is amusing is that a few days later a certain service station operator registered the public complaint that he was forced by Petro-Canada to purchase its products. When he had been a dealer for Canadian Petrofina, he was allowed to have other tires and commodities on his premises. He had occasion to go before reporters and other media representatives to tell them that a terrible thing was happening. "Petro-Canada is making me purchase their products. They are saying that I cannot have any other products in my station." The interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, is that that complainer was my Liberal opponent in the last federal election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: How do you like that? The great defender of Petro-Canada is now saying on stage and elsewhere, "What is this company doing to the small-business men?"


An hon. Member:: He changed his mind.


Howard Edward Crosby: He changed his mind. That is right. There will be many more people changing their minds when Petro-
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Canada stretches across this nation and starts overcharging on credit cards and will not change your tires when you get a puncture in them. There will be a lot of flack about Petro-Canada. Do not worry about that. I hope it all comes home to sit on your doorstep, Mr. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc). I hope you get it all.
There are two important areas I should like to cover, but my time is running out. One is international relations. The Canadian National Energy Program and the Canada oil and gas act are hurting our relations with our great neighbour, the United States. The NDP might be interested in that. They might want to disrupt our neighbour. They might want to deal with El Salvador and Cuba and so on. But I would rather have a good relationship with the United States of America. I might be alone in wanting that, but that is my position. You can take Cuba, Poland and Hungary. They are all having their difficulties. I say, let us not disrupt our relationship with the United States.
The Canada oil and gas act protects the environment. It has a provision on the environment. We all know about environmental funds in Nova Scotia. We have a $60 million marine environmental fund which the government cut off. It said that $60 million was enough. I will tell the hon. members that $60 million will not take care of half of an oil spill.
I want to end on this note, Mr. Speaker. The Canada oil and gas act and the National Energy Program are like anything else. There has to be a balance based on common sense and good judgment. What government and the private sector have to achieve is a sensible balance. That is not occurring in the Canada oil and gas act and in the National Energy Program, Mr. Speaker.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I must say that there has been so much wind blowing from my right that I have got myself a cold tonight. I ask my colleagues to bear with me.
I am very happy tonight to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-48, the Canada oil and gas act. I must say that I am not very happy at the fact that this is the last chance I will have to speak to the bill. Although we have already voted on the amendments to Bill C-48 that some progressive members had attempted-all of them have been voted down, I might say- there are a number of things that nevertheless must be said. I am certainly looking forward to talking about them in the next few minutes.
Before going into that, however, in recognition of my Tory friends I should like to comment on that devastating strike we saw in Canada a little while back that literally brought the economy of Canada to its knees. It is a strike the effect of which we will all feel for a considerable period into the future. Of course, I am talking about the strike of the oil companies, of capital, that pulled some very sophisticated techniques out of the hat, and their inability to force the federal government to backtrack on the national energy policy. We saw the orchestrated exit of oil rigs crossing the 49th parallel, and we saw the threats to Canada or the blackmail of Canada that the

November 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
heavy oil projects would be closed down, that the tar sands operation would be shut down. We heard the threats that they will not move into the frontier lands and not continue with the offshore exploration because this government's policy is too heavyhanded.
With the voices to my right helping them in their orchestration and the assistance of their Tory colleagues from Alberta, and even of some American congressmen and senators, they were able to convince the federal government that they needed to back off.
One group that was not taken in by the rhetoric and the scare tactics of the multinational oil companies was this group of members in this corner of the House, namely, the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: The unfortunate thing about Bill C-48 is that it gives the impression that this is a major step toward Canadian-ization of our oil and gas industry.


Erik Nielsen: Confiscation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Of course, it is put together by some of the best myth makers in Canada, and I am referring here to the Liberal Party of Canada, who are able to convince and dupe the Canadian public into actually believing that this is a major step forward in bringing some rationale and sense to the oil and gas industry of Canada.
I think it is important, when we consider Bill C-48, that we recognize what resource we are actually speaking about. We have heard a great deal about the national energy policy. We have heard a great deal of rhetoric about the industrial strategy needed for Canada. We have heard a great deal about reforming the textile industry, making necessary changes to the automobile industry, looking into the forest industry and the necessary changes that are required there. We know about the various resources that need to be developed. We have talked about copper, lead and the uranium industry in Canada. We include in that same group the oil and gas industries as resources that need to be strategized, manipulated, nurtured and encouraged through the national energy policy.
I think it is important that we recognize that we are talking about a very strategic resource. It is not the copper, uranium, lead, or textile industry, it is not the auto industry or the forest industry; it is the most strategic resource in our western culture. Our western way of life is literally dependent upon this particular resource. Therefore, we in the NDP feel that it should receive very special attention, certainly more special attention than we have seen given to it in the NEP, as translated in Bill C-48.
Let us look at some of the fundamental issues we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker. We are dealing here with a certain frontier mentality that is nothing new to Canada. In many respects, it has built this country ever since the turn of the century, particularly in western Canada. We also recognize, when we see the frontier mentality at work, that we see a very cruel
mentality, a mentality that is insensitive to people and to places. I need not remind any of the hon. members from the mining frontiers of British Columbia of what was done to the landscape there, of what the fur and timber frontiers did to the west coast and to the Indian people. We are again repeating the same kind of approach.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Dome Petroleum.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We are moving into the north.


Erik Nielsen: Will the hon. member permit me a question on a point of order?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops-Shus-wap (Mr. Riis) indicated he would accept a question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I will accept a question toward the end of my deliberations, Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to, especially from the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Erik Nielsen: The frontier.


Nelson Andrew Riis: From the frontier. After decades of watching the frontiers of different elements move across our landscape and the inevitable devastation that followed them, surely we have learned enough not to repeat the same process north of 60.
I do not think there is any question that what Bill C-48 does is primarily to say to the oil industry, you have carte blanche to move into this area, despite their lack of sensitivity to the very strategic and sensitive ecology north of 60 and their total lack of any concern for native people and for northerners generally.


Erik Nielsen: Have you been there?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Of course I have been there. I have been to the Arctic and to the north many times. I have seen what the exploration crews are doing to the Arctic communities and what the exploration crews are doing to the landscape in our Arctic, where they leave their mark not for ten years, not for a decade or two, but perhaps for generations-


Erik Nielsen: How long were you there?


Nelson Andrew Riis: -where the same landscape was disrupted by explorers many decades ago. Those marks are left on that very sensitive landscape.
We felt in the NDP that if we were to introduce Bill C-48, which refers specifically to the areas north of 60 and offshore, we should consult with the government of the north and certainly consult with the native peoples of the north. We put that proposal forward in committee and asked our Tory colleagues to support us. Did they support us? No, they did not. Did our Liberal colleagues support us in committee? No, they did not. They refused to hold hearings in the part of the country that was obviously going to be adversely affected by the clauses in Bill C-48.
November 9, 1981

When we speak of exploring for oil and gas in the Arctic areas, the offshore and northern areas, another fundamental question is who should do it. Should it be the foreign controlled oil companies that by and large carry out this exploration, or should it be Canadian companies owned and controlled by the people of Canada? Certain elements in this House would suggest, as they have tonight, that foreign enterprise should carry out northern exploration. We in the NDP feel very strongly that Canadian enterprise should be the moving force in the north and that it should be publicly owned wherever feasible.
Another question is who will benefit from Bill C-48. Will the northern people benefit? We should ask the families attempting to raise young children in some of the exploration areas of the north about that and see how fascinated they are with this bill. Perhaps we should ask some of the ecologically conscious people who are concerned about what this bill will do to the environment of the north.
Who will this bill assist? With foreign enterprise involved as the major decision makers, once again it will be southerners who will take advantage of the frontier areas for those from even farther south, in the head offices of Houston, Dallas and New York.
As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) made clear, the energy policy is made possible through giveaways by the federal government to the major oil companies. This is an absolute giveaway. I was surprised to hear member after member of the Progressive Conservative Party stand up in the House and rail about the necessity of free enterprise in the frontier areas without mentioning that out of every dollar spent on exploration in northern Canada, not ten cents, not 25, 50 75 or 90 cents but 93 cents, come from the people of Canada. How much do the oil companies put up? They manage to put up about seven cents on the dollar for exploration. Yet the Progressive Conservatives have the courage to speak about free enterprise. Where is the free enterprise in that particular equation?
We in the NDP are very concerned about the small business community in Canada because we hear its death knell being sounded today. Bill C-48 is one more nail in the coffin of small business in this country. When we talk about small business, we are talking about something in the neighbourhood of
940,000	firms which provide four out of every ten jobs in Canada outside of the public sector. We are talking about the only sector of our economy that is actually creating new jobs.
We know what big business is doing-it is merging, buying out, expanding its monopolies. Small business is where the job-creation programs occur. It is where research and development is carried through to production. It is where the new, innovative and creative ideas in manufacturing occur.
The government has missed a golden opportunity with Bill C-48 to provide a clear signal to the small businessmen of Canada that it recognizes their role, that it wants to encourage them, to support their efforts by building in to the program a
Canada Oil and Gas Act
very sophisticated, sound and strong "buy Canada" procurement policy. Why not "buy Canada" when it comes to the megaprojects planned for our country? Why not buy goods and services from Canadians rather than foreigners wherever possible?
I do not want to suggest for a moment that the purchasing agents of multinational oil companies are ogres or are insensitive. After all, these are usually people from Dallas and Houston who have come up to Calgary and Edmonton and farther north to lnuvik, Aklavik, and Tuktoyaktuk to do business. They need equipment, and their natural inclination is to contact their friends and colleagues in Houston and Chicago when they want to buy. It is the old boy system where you help out your friends.
When foreigners are making the decisions about procurement in Canada, it is not surprising that they look to their friends in the United States and to Germany and to Japan. We in the NDP ask why that should not be changed and a "buy Canada" policy made part of Bill C-48 to require that, whenever possible, goods and services be purchased from Canadian suppliers.
Incredible sums of money will be involved in servicing equipment in the north. In the next decade $210 billion will be spent on developing northern Canada.


Ian Deans: Most of it outside the country.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Most of it outside the country, as my colleague says. The Royal Bank of Canada estimates that in the next 20 years in excess of $1 trillion will be spent developing megaprojects and exploring Canada lands. The unfortunate thing is that most of that $1 trillion will go to foreign suppliers. But that need not be the case, Mr. Speaker. We know that 85 per cent of the cost of exploration could come from Canadian sources. We also know that 90 per cent of all equipment for refineries could come from Canadian manufacturers, although at the moment only 30 per cent comes from Canadian manufacturers.
Canada is recognized as being quite sophisticated in the areas of training and education. We probably have one of the best educated populations in the world, yet most of the people in the engineering consortiums responsible for the engineering on the megaprojects come from San Francisco, Los Angeles, Detroit or Chicago. Surely the government has an obligation to provide the leadership necessary to pull together our own engineering expertise in order to develop our own resources?
Most of the labour used on our pipeline construction comes from Canada, but most of the equipment does not. About 60 per cent of the equipment used on Canadian pipelines is imported from the United States and other countries. Virtually all of this equipment could be manufactured and supplied in Canada, Mr. Speaker. Much of the skilled labour that will be required to develop Canada lands will have to be imported because the Liberal government did not plan to develop the expertise required for these projects.

November 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
The opposition parties put a lot of work into amendments to Bill C-48, Mr. Speaker. Of course, the government did accept eight changes. It changed the bill in eight ways, but then we must ask who benefited from those changes. You can bet it was not the native people of northern Canada, it was not the governments of northern Canada it was not the northern environment and it was not the small businesses in northern or southern Canada; predictably, the large corporations benefited. Changes were made for their back-in clauses, royalties were reduced and tax-escape clauses were introduced. All the changes were to help the large corporations, mainly foreign corporations operating in Canada's north. Of course, when one thinks about it, what could one expect from a government that refused even to go into the north and talk to those people who were to be directly affected by this legislation?
One of the myths which is perpetuated in this House almost every time someone from the Tory party stands up to speak is the extent to which we need this foreign investment, that it is absolutely mandatory for foreign companies to become involved in our oil industry. The surprising thing is that Canada is unique in the world. Canada is one of the only oil producing countries in the world that has not taken bold steps to control and own its petroleum industry. We are unique. We are a world leader. We have sold out more than any other country in the world. One can take a look around. Great Britain has taken a major step with its British National Oil Corporation. This corporation has first claim on 51 per cent of the share of the oil production off Great Britain's coast. Its purchase is negotiated at market prices. The BNOC may offer participation to joint venture partners, including foreign-owned firms, but it retains control of all projects. I think it is important, as my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, indicated, that it may change control, not only ownership, but certainly control must be the important thing.


Howard Edward Crosby: Sell it all.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Norway now has new gas finds off its north coast and substantial deposits off its western and southern coasts. In Norway, Statoil, the government oil company, can take up to a 70 per cent interest in any block of land that it does not already hold. Statoil takes this interest after a find but before development, and makes no payment at all for past exploration expenditures. Yet we hear a howling and a yowling from the Tories, particularly, saying that this particular Bill C-48 is an expropriation bill. It takes from the oil companies. Takes what from the oil companies? Does it take the natural gas and oil from the oil companies? I think it begs the question: who is it that owns that oil and gas now? Of course it is the people of Canada who own that oil and gas. We are simply saying that it is time that we developed these resources ourselves and that the benefits stayed in this country.
What about Australia? Certainly Australia is recognized as being one of the free enterprise countries of the world, but foreign companies are allowed to explore there. However, only Australian and naturalized foreign investors are allowed to
produce energy from the resources, even in Australia. What about Mexico? We import oil from Mexico. Mexico took care of its situation there many, many years ago, back in 1939, and has nationalized its oil company.
Yes, we are a leader. We have sold out this strategic resource more than any other producing country in the world. We in the New Democratic Party are not very pleased at that prospect, and we feel it is time that major steps were taken to obtain control once again over that particular resource.
Let us go back to the myth that foreign oil companies are required to bring capital into this country. I think that we cannot overstate it. My colleague, the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway, has mentioned many, many times that the oil industry policy in Canada results in a net export of capital out of Canada. Our oil industries are net capital exporters. They do not bring money into the country, in spite of all the glossy ads that we see taken out in our national newspapers, again to justify what no other country producing oil and natural gas has accepted. Net capital outflows between 1975 and 1979, the last years for which we have statistics, amounted to $2.1 billion. If one were to add the dividends and interest payments that also left the country during that same four-year period, we would find that a total of $3.7 billion flowed out of Canada, a net export of capital of $3.7 billion.
Surely that should put to rest some of the arguments that we cannot do it ourselves and that we depend upon foreign investor in this particular sector. I will be the first one to say that we ought to welcome foreign investors and expertise of any kind. But surely it is time that Canada took major steps to ensure that this strategic resource is understood and controlled by Canada.
It is a sad day when people ask us, "How much natural gas do we really have left? How much oil do we really have?" It is sad when we have to respond that we do not know because we do not control it. The oil companies know how much natural gas and oil they have under their leases, and they are not telling each other. They are certainly not telling the rest of Canada. I think it is a sad day when such a strategic resource is controlled in a fragmented way by foreign capital.
Another myth, of course, is that the national energy policy is resulting in a major Canadianization of our industry, a major step toward Canadianization. I think it is important that we continue to emphasize that 65 per cent of our industry remains foreign controlled. It is something that, again, we in this party simply will not accept, and we will keep fighting until that percentage point is considerably reduced.
Another myth we keep hearing about is that the PetroCan Company of Canada is becoming too powerful. Even with Petrofina acquisitions, PetroCan ranks as Canada's eighth largest oil producer and Canada's third largest natural gas producer. Up to this point, we were quite proud of that. Unlike our Tory friends, we feel proud, for example, when we drive into our PetroCan stations.
I must say that when I go into the various stations around my riding and ask the operators how they are doing, they are
November 9, 1981

very pleased. Their business is up and growing. When one goes into a PetroCan station, one is investing in one's own company. It is not a foreign oil company that one is serving. It seems to me that this will be a challenge for Petro-Canada in the future. We must be different from the others. Petro-Canada must be accountable to the people of Canada. Petro-Canada must operate in a very businesslike manner. We must be very careful, as my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, has indicated, that it is not run by Liberal hacks, as we see all too often when it comes to Crown corporations, and that it does not start the corporate jetsetting about the country typical of so many of the private oil companies.
Here is an opportunity for Canada, endorsed by the people of Canada, to develop new techniques and new energy fields, to use Petro-Canada as an opportunity to move into the use of methane gas and hydrogen, and geothermal energy. It should be more than simply an oil and gas company, because I do not think there is anyone in this chamber who would say that oil and gas as a critical, strategic resource will be around much longer. The price will simply not be there. We have to move into other areas. We have to be innovative and take some real initiative to move into the development of new energy technologies. Surely, Petro-Canada provides us with that ready vehicle to move into wind energy, methane gas, hydrogen, geothermal energy, and on and on, and to take that initiative. We should see it as an energy company, not simply as an oil and gas company.
In closing, I would like to say that we in the New Democratic Party are disappointed that the progressive amendments which we put forward were not considered and given a fair hearing. We will continue to struggle to ensure that the next time a bill like Bill C-48 comes before us, it will mean something, and it will take into consideration the sensitivity of the northern and other environments, and that it will be sensitive to the people who will be directly influenced by the bill, such as the Inuit, Indians, Metis, and governments of northern Canada. It is time that the government became more sensitive along all these lines, but the fact that it is not is not surprising. Why should it become sensitive now? This government has shown an incredible insensitivity to westerners. Look at the recent decisions on VIA Rail. One could say it has an insensitivity to easterners, as well. It has an insensitivity when it comes to supporting economic infrastructure in western Canada. It is not surprising that once again through Bill C-48 the Liberal government has shown an insensitivity to the people and to the environment of northern Canada.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I had asked the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) if he would permit a question provided his allotted time had not expired. If it has, I would ask for the consent of the House. Would the hon. member permit that question now?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke of the frontier in his speech. He knows of the aspirations of Yukoners and those in the Northwest Territories who strive so mightily toward provincial status. Without the revenues derived from resource development, this is not achievable. I think even the hon. member will recognize that. Will the hon. member say whether his party, in view of the fact that we in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories were not consulted whatever with respect to the provisions of Bill C-48, agrees with us that Bill C-48 should not pass at all unless resource revenue sharing arrangements are made with the governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories with a view to the achievement of provincial status of those two territories at the earliest possible moment?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly respond to that very thoughtful question. First, I would remind the hon. member that in committee we were very anxious to consult the people of the Yukon.


Ian Deans: Who stopped us?


Nelson Andrew Riis: We felt that it was absolutely necessary to consult not only with the territorial government in the Yukon but with the native people, as well as other people from the Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: They all came.


Nelson Andrew Riis: When we asked to have that supported in committee, the Tories did not give us that support, if I recall correctly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: That is absolutely true.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Ian Deans: I thought you asked a question. No one told you how to answer your question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I recognize that the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) may wish to engage in a debate or raise a point of order, but it would only be fair for me to allow the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) to continue his comments before I entertain a point of order.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: If the hon. member is raising a point of order, I have no choice but to recognize him, and I will.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, a member is entitled to rise on a point of order at any time, of which I am sure you are aware, to correct a statement that has been made by an hon. member.


Ian Deans: No, that is debate. He is not entitled to do that at all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: What the hon. member said is not true.

November 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Ian Deans: Of course it is.


Erik Nielsen: And he knows it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I would ask the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) to permit the Chair to speak.


Ian Deans: I will be delighted to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The first issue I have to deal with is that if an hon. member rises on a point of order, I must and I will recognize him. The second issue is of a minor nature relating to microphones and lights on members' desks. I see that may be at issue, and I am prepared to deal with that if it is necessary. The third issue is that the hon. member for Yukon apparently has a disagreement with another hon. member. That is not a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: A correction is.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to mislead the House intentionally. At first the Tories endorsed the concept that it would be a useful idea to travel and to meet the people in the north, both in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon. However, when the government refused to do that, we wanted to continue the debate to force the government to move in that direction. But the Tories voted with the Liberals to close off that debate. It was at that point that I determined that perhaps the Tories had decided they were not prepared to travel in the north.
Second, I will respond to the question posed by the hon. member concerning the status of the Yukon government and the concern that we would have for frontier development. I am concerned about the insensitivity to people and to the land in the frontier areas. This insensitivity was demonstrated during the gold rushes in the Yukon. It has been demonstrated in any frontier movement anywhere in the world. That does not necessarily have to occur. There are exceptions to that rule. It is that sensitivity that we in this party call for. When it comes to territorial government, we are certainly supportive of it.


Erik Nielsen: What about provincial status?


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on third reading of Bill C-48. Some months ago we had second reading. As members of the opposition, we raised quite a number of points upon which we were opposed in principle. We identified these issues, such as the confiscation provisions, the ministerial discretion provisions and those types of provisions enabling a minister and a bureaucracy in Ottawa to direct where a well is to be drilled. They might be good people, but may not have the technical skills or the expertise and, because of some political consideration, may direct a company to drill in spot A rather than in spot B, whereas the well should be drilled based on seismic evidence.
We pointed out that the amount of land given to Petro-Canada under the principle of the bill would be grossly
excessive, it being 135 million acres. We raised the issue of the treatment of the Yukoners as a people and the people in the Northwest Territories and their aspirations toward provincial status.
Those of us who live in the west, and particularly those of us who come from Alberta, know of the incredible battles that had to be fought before we achieved ownership of our resources. Indeed, it took us 25 years to achieve that end. Do hon. members opposite realize that it was 1930 when we finally achieved ownership? A Liberal provincial government fought from 1905 to 1921 for this right, but it was unsuccessful and it was turfed out of office by the people. The UFA party in 1924 actually debated a resolution to separate from Canada. That is how deeply westerners felt about the issue. The resolution was defeated, but Alberta was successful within six years after that and achieved ownership of resources. I believe that is why we in this party have a greater sensitivity toward the aspirations of the people in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories. That matter was raised at second reading as being one we should want to follow up at committee stage, at report stage and at third reading.
Our party has raised the question of self-sufficiency in oil. We dealt with that. As hon. members know, the bill went to committee as is the practice after second reading. I believe some 35 witnesses appeared before the committee. Many changes were proposed by expert witnesses, interested parties and the environmentalists who appeared before the committee. As a result, the government itself proposed over 100 amendments to the bill. That has to tell you something about the initial drafting of the bill, Mr. Speaker. It is somewhat like the constitutional resolution which one would have expected to have been well thought out and drafted. Instead, it required dozens and dozens of amendments by the government side to correct poor draftmanship, poorly thought out ideas and concepts. The same thing occurred with Bill C-48. I believe the government itself made over 100 changes. Our party, the official opposition and the New Democratic Party proposed many changes as well, the vast majority of which were not accepted by the government. We moved on to the report stage which we dealt with recently. We had 57 motions which were dealt with in over 30 votes. Those amendments were not amendments that were put forth for narrow partisan reasons. Many of the amendments were justifiable as a matter of logic and concern, whether it be for the sake of the environment or the definition of a spill or the type of notice we give to the native peoples of the north.
I am really disappointed that the government would not have some mechanism whereby those amendments could be genuinely considered and some of them accepted. The report stage is the time when ordinary Members of Parliament become involved with members on the government side in a process, whether it be in a special caucus on the government side or in full caucus, whereby amendments are genuinely considered by the ordinary members. What happens is that the minister and his bureaucracy become so committed to the bill
November 9, 1981

they really lose their sense of judgment, of being able to recognize what is reasonable. I think ordinary backbenchers, if they have genuinely studied this issue and are informed, would then say: That is a reasonable amendment, why not accept it? If that were so, it would make the whole process of government at the federal level much more responsive to the genuine needs of this whole large country. I am sure we would all agree that no one person or bureaucracy can get a real grasp of this country and the intricate needs of small regions. I am disappointed the government has not done that, but I hope it will at some point in the future.
Why did the government reject these opposition amendments? Why was there no movement on confiscation, on ministerial discretion, on the amount of land that is covered and on the treatment of Yukoners? I do not know the answer. I believe the government members who come to the House should take more time and give genuine thought to the legislation the cabinet and the bureaucracy put forth. If that does not occur, then this House and our government, with a cabinet and a bureaucracy which are supposed to be responsible to the whole House and its members, are not fulfilling their function, and party loyalty is far too great a concern on the part of members.
Perhaps we should change our rules so that if a government is defeated on a motion to amend a bill, it will not reflect on the question of whether the government has to resign. This should clearly be a free vote and the government should be able to say, "Okay, members, you are not happy with that. We will take it back, work on it again, change it and carry on." It would then be only on major bills, the budget, the throne speech and some major pieces of legislation that a government would have to fall. On these ordinary bills that would not be the case. Hon. members who come from the Arctic and the Yukon really know what will work in the north, so their opinion should clearly be worth more and should be listened to.
We are now at third reading stage, and I want to make it clear that I certainly disagree with the bill and will have no hesitation at all in voting against it. I want to set forth once again the major reasons I am opposed to the Canada oil and gas act, Bill C-48.
First of all, we know the area of land we are dealing with is that vast territory off the west coast of B.C., all the northern territories and the area off the east coast to the extent the federal government has jurisdiction. It encompasses 135 million acres. That amount of land is greater than all the land in the world that Exxon is involved with.


An hon. Member:: It is half of Canada.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Is that not amazing? As the hon. member points out, it is half of Canada. That is more land than Exxon is involved with in the entire world. As the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) points out, if Petro-Canada were to bring on sufficient staff, geologists, engineers and physicists, in the same proportion as Exxon has done, in order to deal with that amount of land it would have to have a building in Calgary one square block and 854 storeys high.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


An hon. Member:: Don't tell them that, they will build it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: And they will populate it, too.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: And the taxpayer will pay for it.


Blaine Allen Thacker: That shows how patently impossible this is. Therefore, we have to ask how they are going to develop that land. I suppose the answer is that the government is either going to buy out other multinational corporations, about which I will have a few words to say, or it will develop more Crown corporations from scratch to go in and develop that land. This is a great potential for Canadian companies but, unfortunately, as a result of the National Energy Program, the government has virtually forced many of the active and creative Canadian companies out of the country because there is a better deal for them elsewhere.
My second reason is the 25 per cent confiscation provision. That rule applies not only to non-Canadians but to Canadians as well. I suppose if it applied only to non-Canadians, we might say we should try it once and if we get away with it, that is fine. Very likely we would get away with it because the government has systematically built a case against the multinational oil companies, making them appear evil in the minds of the ordinary Canadian citizens. That is a misconception because multinational corporations are as much a part of this world and will be as we are ourselves. We have an incredible number of multinational corporations, including Petro-Canada.
The minister of energy wants Petro-Canada to be all over the world. It is involved in the Norwegian Sea, in the Far East and off Mexico. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wants it to be able to go to Tanzania, as he did, so he can say, "We will have our state oil company come in with $250 million." So PetroCan is a multinational corporation.
If we expect to expropriate or confiscate 25 per cent of non-Canadian companies, we should surely expect that same type of conduct to occur in other countries. What kind of example is that for the Canadian government to set for the rest of the world? When they start taking 25 per cent of Petro-Canada's assets in Tanzania, or 25 per cent of the assets in Norway, Switzerland, or wherever they might be, we will not be very happy. There is no way around it, the 25 per cent confiscation rule is just theft, pure and simple.
The rationale used is that the government gave tax deductions, super-depletion and, therefore, that it is justifiable. If that is so, then surely the government could take over all farms because they are very important and farmers have had tax deductions. All of us must surely be slaves because we have personal exemptions, marital exemptions and child exemptions. The rationale is wrong as a matter of principle. Surely we would want to take over children, because they are very important.

November 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) seemed to indicate that because oil was so strategic, the government had to have state control of it. I suppose nothing is more important than farms, so we better take them over. We cannot entrust children to their ordinary mortal parents, so the NDP would surely want the government to take them over. What about clothing? We could never leave the manufacturing of clothing to ordinary Canadian companies. That is just too important. Man needs to have homes, clothing and food. We would then take over the food. We would have to take over clothing, and then, by God, we would be in dress uniforms, as they are in some countries, because the bureaucracy would find that a common uniform would tend to make us more unified. Then I could not come swinging in from the west in my western suit because that would be embarrassing for some chap here. We would all wear a common red outfit, I presume.
This confiscation is not the Canadian way. It is not something we want to start. It is not something with which we want to inculcate in our children, the idea that the government can take advantage of creative people coming in and investing their money by taking it away from them. It is not a concept we want to promote.
I will now turn to the third major reason why I am opposed to this bill. That reason is simply the incapacity of Crown corporations, such as Petro-Canada, to act as a creative, searching force in the oil and gas industry. The oil and gas industry is far too technical and complicated for a Crown corporation to be involved in. It is not a utility, such as a dam on a river from which you obtain hydro power. That is there all the time. The oil and gas industry needs enthusiastic searchers who have to do complicated exploration and seismic work. It needs specially skilled people to take part in the production of wells and to develop them. Oil is not just sitting there in a pool under the ground; it is locked into the sand and shale. We need people with incredible skills to lift it to the surface and maintain it so the wells are not watering out; people who can get a 60 per cent or 70 per cent return from a pool of oil rather than just 30 per cent.
1 am thoroughly convinced that it is impossible for a Crown corporation to achieve that. I am not saying that the people within the Crown corporation are incompetent, but because of our democratic system of government, that system will grind them down. An example of that is the Post Office. There is nothing wrong with the individuals who work there but because of the system of responding to politics, they are incapable of performing their function. Recently we wrote off $800 million to the CNR, and this has occurred every few years in the past. The Atomic Energy of Canada corporation is another Crown corporation for which we just wrote off $600 million to make its books balance so it could be in the black. We wrote off $196 million for the CBC last year. The reason is that a Crown corporation cannot function in particular in the oil and gas industry. People like Masters and Grey who have a concept and an idea, are the real searchers. They would be stifled by the accounting process and responsibility which
they would run into in a Crown corporation and they would not last long.
What would happen once a Crown corporation was unionized as this one will be? What would happen if we had a strike and an oil well were shut down? The shut down of an oil well could interfere with the pressures of oil flow versus water, gas or steam, and the well would simply be lost. It could be a total loss and that is exactly what would happen if there were a strike. I have seen it happen in my house where the electricity, which was controlled by a provincial Crown corporation, was shut off because of a strike. The pipes in my house froze, as well as in other people's houses, and when they thawed, they blew up. Apartments had to be vacated. That is what happens when a Crown corporation has too much power. The unionized employees in Petro-Canada stations across the country will have the right under law to go on strike, and they will.
Under our system today where different companies are in competition with each other, they can be played one against the other thus making them unable to force their will on the industry to fulfil its needs.
A classic example of a Crown corporation being unable to respond to the needs in the country was the recent change that took place in the service station industry. We have gone from full service stations to self-serve. That change caused enormous difficulties for individual operators who invested their money, found it uneconomic and then went bankrupt. If those stations were owned by a Crown corporation which reports back to a minister, it would be impossible to make that change in the industry, even though it was an absolutely essential change, because its employees would all be voters who lobby through a minister and the government's reputation would be on the line. We would have to spend millions of dollars to keep those stations operating even though they were uneconomic.


An hon. Member:: Like Mirabel.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I suppose Mirabel is the classic example where something like $20,000 a day-


An hon. Member:: A million dollars a day.


Blaine Allen Thacker: A member tells me a million dollars flows into Mirabel.


Mr. LeBlanc:: Close the airports and privatize them too.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Maybe it is a good idea.
The fourth reason, carrying on this debate-


Roméo LeBlanc: Privatize the highways while you are at it.


Blaine Allen Thacker: The hon. member is starting to work in the right way. It shows that perhaps wisdom can be achieved with advancing years.
Another reason why the government should not be involved
is that it is virtually impossible for a government to be both a
participant in an industry and a regulator. It is impossible
November 9, 1981

because it leads to a conflict of interest. As an example, when Petro-Canada bought Pacific Petroleum, it cost $1.5 billion. It did not have the money, so it went to a consortium of Canadian and U.S. banks and borrowed the $1.5 billion. They were able to give a special preference share because of the tax loophole. The deal went through on November 10. They took advantage of this tax share where the banks do not pay any tax on the interest they earned, and on November 17, seven days later, the government closed that loophole for any other Canadian company which might have wanted to take advantage of it.
When we examine that deal we find that a senior deputy minister is on the board of directors of the corporation. That is an automatic conflict of interest, and the Crown corporation took advantage of something which the other corporations could not do. Later we found that a vice president of Petro-Canada wrote the budget which gave Petro-Canada those incredible advantages over those other companies which were operating honestly and decently in the industry.
The final flowering of the practice, Mr. Speaker, has become evident recently when it was found that a minister's assistant is in the active employ of Petro-Canada even though he has never worked for the corporation, and that he is receiving mortgage benefits. It is clear that the conflict of interest becomes almost unbelievable.
I would rather see the government sit back and be the regulator. I do not care how stiff the rules are so long as they are fair for everyone. I have another example for the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters). The example is that of Pemex in Mexico, their national oil company. It does not have the facilities or skill to put out an oil fire. It always has to call in the multinationals because they have the skills and creativity. Red Adair goes all over the world to put out oil well fires. The national oil company of Mexico drills a well, it blows out and we have almost the entire Gulf of Mexico destroyed because of that blowout. It did not have the capacity to figure out how to stop the blowout. It did not have any regulations for it. Why would they have regulations in Mexico? The state oil company is carrying out the operation. The state oil company would not do anything against its national interest. Therefore, Mexico does not have regulations.
We find the same situation in Canada. The regulations which should operate in the industry should be strict and are strict for everyone except Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada receives preference in the the oil leases and, if that does not work, it receives a 25 per cent back-in. That does not work, so we now have the flowering of the policy which is an absolute 25 per cent confiscation. The government is going to make the company work even if it has to take every cent from every Canadian because the government's reputation is on the line. That is what happens when a Crown corporation is in an industry in which it should not be.
I will turn now to the National Energy Program because the Canada oil and gas act is really the flowering of that policy. It is a story that perhaps most members do not understand. It starts back in the 1930s and goes into the early 1970s. There
Canada Oil and Gas Act
was a conspiracy in the oil industry, and it was a conspiracy not to dupe Canadians or North Americans or Europeans; it was a conspiracy between our governments, the seven international oil sisters, against all of the producers, whether they were in Nigeria or Saudi Arabia. For 50 years we held them down so that oil came into Montreal at $2.35 a barrel. When the father of the Shah of Iran said, "That is not enough, pay us more," we cut him off at the knees. Our governments knew that and participated in it. That was wrong. We treated those people badly, and we are now going to pay for it because when they obtained economic power, they raised the price. But what had happened in the meantime was that we had designed all our infrastructure, whether it had to do with manufacturing or farming, for artificially cheap oil and petroleum. The adjustment becomes very difficult.
But did we face the adjustment? No. In 1973 and 1974 our great Liberal government said, "We are going to protect our Canadian citizens." Hon. members might say that is a good policy, but that sends a signal, and it is now spelling the doom of the automotive industry in North America. Those Canadian men and women who are out of work in Windsor and all along that corridor can relate their unemployment directly to the decision of the Liberal government in 1973 to hold down the price of oil.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Come on.


Blaine Allen Thacker: The hon. member should just listen because that decision sent a signal to us as Canadian citizens that we could continue to buy big cars. It sent a signal to the car manufacturers that they could continue to produce big cars. Meanwhile, in Japan and Germany where they had to go to world prices because they had no oil, they turned their skilled people, their engineers, designers and architects, to the task of energy conservation in cars and buildings. As a result, eight years later they are cleaning our clocks in the automotive industry, and it is directly the result of that Liberal policy to keep down the price of oil.
Government can hurt us; there is no doubt about it. The Liberals are masters at promising one thing and doing another, and they have definitely hurt ordinary Canadians. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) claims to speak for ordinary Canadians. That was the message in his speech tonight. I think he honestly holds that view, but was he really speaking for Yukoners and the people in the Northwest Territories? I have not heard him speak in connection with this bill about their aspiration to provincehood and to control the wealth from their minerals.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is what I said in my speech, exactly that.


Blaine Allen Thacker: 1 did not hear that. I will be delighted to read the hon. member's speech, but that surely was not in it. Was he speaking for Canadians' controlling the oil industry? No, he was speaking for government control.


Ian Deans: Are they not Canadians?

November 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Blaine Allen Thacker: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kinsgway and I have an honest disagreement. He honestly believes that a cabinet, a bureaucracy and a state oil company can make decisions in the best interests of ordinary Canadians whether they live in Tuktoyaktuk or St. John's.


Ian Deans: While you think that the multinationals in Houston can make a better decision.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Multinational corporations can control the oil industry no more than they can fly to the moon. The provinces decide where they drill. Who decides whether land is available to an oil company? The provinces decide that. Who decides where they drill? The provinces decide. Who decides at what rate oil is produced? The provinces decide. Who decides the price? The federal government decides that. Who decides whether any oil is exported? The federal government decides that. The oil industry is the most controlled industry in the whole nation. We then have to ask under those circumstances what ownership really means.


Ian Deans: Why, then, are they so eager to hold onto it, pray tell?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Ownership means absolutely nothing under those circumstances. They get a rate of return, and the rate of return has been such that 2 per cent to 3 per cent of the value of their assets leaves this country. That is the cost we pay for that capital. Under the NDP philosophy we would buy them out. It is true that we have spent $6.8 billion to buy an additional 3 per cent or 4 per cent of the oil industry. All that money has left the country. We have had to borrow the money, and the money is costing us 20 per cent. Instead of losing 2 per cent to 3 per cent on a dividend, we are losing 20 per cent on the debt equity. It is absolutely absurd. The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap admitted tonight that we are buying an industry which is at the end of its rope. Why are we spending billions of dollars to buy an oil industry which by the year 2010 will be gone?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Will you support us if we take over the solar industry?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Why do we not instead take that money and put it into new wave technology? What did Atlantic Richfield do with the money? What did Pacific Petroleums do with its $1.5 billion, and what did Petrofina do with its $1.5 billion? They are putting it into the new wave, so that when we come to get hydrogen power and solar power, from where will we buy the energy units? We will buy them from the successor of Petrofina, and we will be holding the tail. This makes no sense, as a matter of principle. If we took $1.5 billion and put it into hydrogen research, we could then have Canadian companies leading the next wave of energy. Those are the points I and other hon. members have made right from the beginning of proceedings on this bill. I plead with hon. members opposite to use some common sense, to try to get to the minister and to get these decisions through because there are some good ideas in
what we on this side say, whether or not hon. members opposite like it.
I see my time is passing. I would like to say a few words about the monopoly power implicit in Bill C-48. It goes back to the discretionary power the minister has. We know how a minister is always controlled by his bureaucracy. Nobody can dispute that. We now see the government organizing an attack on multinational oil corporations and anything that is big and powerful. The government is organizing an attack on the newspaper industry. It is fascinating that the government should do that because the government itself is the largest monopoly and power in our whole society. The government spends five or six times more on advertising than the other major advertiser in Canada. I think Proctor and Gamble spends $24 million a year on advertising, and the Government of Canada spends about $125 million a year. Do we ever see the government trying to stop its own growth? If it did bring in genuine combines legislation, the government would be stopping itself. How will Petro-Canada handle 132 million acres of Canada? That would make Petro-Canada such a powerful corporation that it would be a world and law unto itself. Why does the government not look at itself and break itself down? Why does its competition law not apply to government rules as well?
This bill will have an effect on the business climate. Its 25 per cent confiscatory dimension has virtually destroyed our reputation in the international field, and there is no doubt that that has occurred and will affect us for many years. We as Canadians cannot afford that because we still have a small population of only 23 million people stretched out over the assets and resources of half a continent. In Canada there is more land per person than anywhere in the entire world. Because of our unique cultural and historic development, most of us are the decendants of immigrants. Most of our ancestors were poor and did not have capital. Canadians got into the habit of putting their money into banks. The banks then invest it by lending to corporations which did business. As a result, we do not have enough incentive or desire within ourselves to get out and take risks. The Americans have this. That is something we could be stimulating. It was occurring in the oil and gas industry until bill C-48 came along. Most of the companies taking over the gas industry, at least in Alberta, were Canadian-owned companies. They were often men and women who had worked for multinationals, saw the chance to get out, went out and incorporated their own companies, hired their own searchers and engineers and became Canadian corporations doing the drilling because again the multinationals do not-


An hon. Member:: Call it ten o'clock.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Sir, I had better call it ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I thank the hon. member for calling it ten o'clock.
November 9, 1981



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, the question to which 1 want to address some remarks this evening was raised in this chamber on June 30, 1981. It involved an inquiry to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) concerning the relationship of the Canadian National Railways Company with the Cast shipping group. The relationship between CN and Cast and my concern about it goes back in time to January 1981 when I first raised the question with the Minister of Transport.
At that time I was concerned about a very substantial investment by CN in the Cast shipping group in the area of $50 million. It had come to public knowledge that these funds were being used to purchase or construct ships in foreign shipyards, particularly Korea and Yugoslavia. Other funds were being used to purchase equipment abroad. This is a major concern in relation to Canada's shipbuilding industry and Canadian manufacturing in general.
The minister indicated in January 1981 that he thought the CN investment in Cast was a very valuable one for that transportation company and for Canadians. It followed subsequently that the concern in relation to the Cast-CN arrangement became relevant to events in the port of Halifax. In particular, in February 1981 one of the major users of the Halterm container pier in the port of Halifax announced they were leaving the port to utilize the port of Montreal. That company was the Dart Container Line. Their departure from the port of Halifax became a matter of major and serious concern. Subsequently and more recently, in September 1981, another major user of the port of Halifax, Trans-Freight Line indicated it would discontinue its service to the port of Halifax. In part, the reasons for these business decisions was the declining activity in the North Atlantic container traffic. This is a fact of life faced by all international shipping companies.
Let me say at the outset that I firmly believe in the free enterprise system and I firmly believe that international shipping companies have the right in our system to make business decisions in accordance with their own best judgment. What is at stake here in moves like Dart and Trans-Freight Line is the application of government policies, in particular the government policy which permitted the Canadian National Railways Company, our national transportation company, to invest in the Cast shipping group. While it has a Canadian connection, it is basically a foreign-owned company.
Adjournment Debate
We are very much concerned about the role of the Canadian National Railways Company in this activity. We are not about to have the president of the Canadian National Railways Company, Mr. Robert Bandeen, tell us how to handle our affairs. I refer particularly to an article that appeared in the Halifax Mail-Star in which Mr. Bandeen indicated that politicians should stop crying and start selling the port. Of course, Mr. Bandeen was protecting himself. In fact, the substantial investment that the Canadian National Railways Company made in Cast is proving to be a very inappropriate investment for our national transportation company. Not only does it have ramifications in relation to other shipping lines, the indications are that the investment will not be productive.
At present the Canadian National Railways Company has a book value investment of some $60 million which will yield a return of approximately 7.5 per cent in respect of some of the funds, and a return of not much more than 12 per cent in respect of other funds. This is at a point in our financial history when government savings bonds yield 19 per cent interest annually. The investment itself is of serious concern to the Canadian taxpayer. More important, Mr. Speaker, and the point I raised in June and previously in January, is that there is need for a general investigation into north Atlantic container traffic, particularly in the light of these involvements between land transport companies like the Canadian National and ocean transport companies like Cast. The relationship that has developed between the Dart shipping group and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has also given rise to concerns that are now being considered by the Canadian Transport Commission.
The important point I should like to raise now is the fact that the water transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission has ordered the Canadian National Railways Company to appear before it and show cause why this investment in the Cast shipping group should be allowed. What has the CN done? Has it complied with the request of the CTC? No; it has started an appeal against this decision and asked for a delay so that we will not be able to find out the ramifications of this investment and of the relationship between Cast and CN. The real danger for all Canadians and for Canadian transport is that we will develop into a very limited service between organizations like Cast and the CN, leaving no room for independent operators.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question refers to legislation before the U.S. Congress which would restrict the movement of U.S. bound and U.S. originating containers through Canadian ports.
Behind the hon. member's question, of course, is his well known concern for the prosperity of the Port of Halifax. He attributes the recent loss of the Dart shipping group to unfair competition from a rival container line known as Cast. The reason he raises the U.S. legislation is that Cast's aggressive

November 9, 1981
Adjournment Debate
marketing practices were mentioned during the Congressional hearings.
As far as the legislation itself is concerned, the hon. member knows that Canada sent a note to the U.S. in June, 1980, objecting to the extraterritorial nature of the legislation. Both the state and justice departments in the U.S. were heard before the subcommittee studying the legislation and expressed concerns. Although the legislation narrowly passed the subcommittee, there is no reason to assume that it will become law in the near future.
The hon. member's real concern is evidently the role of Cast and the fact that Canadian National holds an interest, albeit a minor one, in Cast. The hon. member will remember that the gentleman who criticized Cast's practices during the congressional hearings himself represented a U.S. east coast port. Since his port was in direct competition with Canadian ports, his testimony must be seen in the light of the interests he represented.
The hon. member will also remember from answers given in the House by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), from evidence presented during an opposition day debate last March, and from a number of "late shows," that the Government of Canada has shown itself to be committed to the Port of Halifax. Neither the departure of Dart, nor the recent rumours regarding Zim containers, which appear to be unfounded in any case, can in any way be traced to government actions that are alleged to discriminate against Halifax. There is no need for a special investigation since the matter is currently in the hands of the CTC, which is continuing its investigation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate this commitment and share the optimism of many of the people in the Halifax port community regarding the future of their port.


METRIC CONVERSION-SUGGESTED PENALTIES FOR FOOD STORE OWNERS
William Henry (Bill) Domm: On Wednesday, November 4, I rose in the House and asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) if he would withdraw the order in council which specifically states that as of certain dates in 1982 it is the intention of the Consumer and Corporate Affairs people to confiscate imperial weigh scales, to issue fines as high as $5,000 on summary conviction to people who continue to use imperial weigh scales, and, if all this fails, to use its right through order in council to sentence to jail terms, in other words, to put retail merchants in Canada in prison.
The minister responded by saying that the government had received the co-operation of the private sector on the implementation of metric. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker. It is misrepresenting the facts as they pertain to the implementation of metric in the retail food sector. If the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Lapointe) had been perfectly honest when he answered the question, he would have
advised the House that the president of the Canadian Federation of Retail Grocers said that they did not wish to move to metric in the retail grocery stores of Canada prior to the United States moving to metric. We know that the United States Congress has decided not to go metric in the retail food sector for at least ten years and maybe never.
If he had been perfectly honest, the minister would also have advised the House that Loblaws Companies Limited, which represent over 15,000 retail outlets in Canada, including 307 corporate stores and 1,300 affiliate franchise supermarkets, has advised both the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) as follows:
We feel strongly that cost justification must be shown prior to the implementation of the metric system in the retail food industry.
If the minister were perfectly honest with the people of Canada and this House of Commons, he would have responded that the Working Group on Scales in the food industry, a volunteer group of retail merchants and consumers, had the following to say:
The retail food industry members of the Working Group wish to recommend strongly to the government that the scheduling of retail food scale conversion to metric units in Canada, which appeared in The Canada Gazette Part I of 28 February, 1981, be delayed so that conversion will take place at a time closer to when retail food scales will be converted in the United States.
If the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs were perfectly honest, they would have reported to the House that Pat Carson, the corporate manager for Loblaws, has stated that it will cost between $2.5 million and $3 million to convert scales in their stores alone. He added that it would be irresponsible not to say that the cost would have to be borne by the consumer, and for that reason they are opposed to metric in the retail food sector.
The minister has not told the whole story about consumers either. The Peterborough Examiner of May 11 reported on a survey by retail merchants in the grocery business which showed that if the government goes ahead with the legislation, it will be against the will of the public. Surveys have been taken by Dominion Stores in Peterborough and Sherbrooke where the pilot studies were conducted which indicate overwhelming opposition to metric at this time when the United States is not going metric.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that we are not getting the correct information from the minister in question period. On October 26 The Wall Street Journal reported that the United States metric board has been told by the Reagan administration that it is walking its last mile. The United States is going back to using miles on highway signs, to Fahrenheit on the national weather service, and will deal in inches and feet.
I have a letter from the minister responsible for consumer affairs in the British government which states that the British government has abandoned the compulsory element in metrication and is letting the pace of change be voluntary in the remaining sectors of trade and industry and up to the individual firms or industries directly concerned.
November 9, 1981

I should like to know why the minister continues to mislead this House and to bring in orders in council which will lead to fines, imprisonment and confiscation of equipment under a program which in the beginning was voluntary, at the choice of the sectors as they moved into metric.
Instead, the government has taken it upon itself to force metric on the retail food sector. None of the evidence supports metric for the retail food sector, and I challenge the minister or his representative in the House tonight to name one organization, one business group or one retail outlet that supports metric for fruit, vegetables, meat and fish. As you know, Mr. Speaker, 70 per cent of our trade is with our American partners to the south and they have no intention of going metric in the retail food sector.
Of all the countries that agreed to go metric in 1971, when this House also agreed, not one is left. Britain has abandoned its metric commission, Mr. Reagan has given his commission until March 1, 1982 to fire everyone connected with it. There is no longer to be a metric commission in the United States to implement the metric system by force.
Why do we, representing 7 per cent of the population of North America, march into metric against the will of consumers, against the will of retail grocers, against the will of consumer groups, and, I can assure you, if we were all to be honest, Mr. Speaker, against the will of the majority of members in the House?
Therefore, would the minister please give us some facts? He should not continue to mislead us by saying that 95 per cent of the world is going metric in retail food. That is a lot of nonsense. The fact is that some of the world has gone metric, but not by force, not by regulation, and not by order in council. It has gone forward because it has been to the advantage of some countries to go metric, whether in the automotive industry or whatever. They have not gone metric because some cabinet members behind closed doors have passed an order in council threatening them with jail terms, fines and imprisonment if they do not advertise and use only SI-Systems International-French metric, eliminating all forms of imperial measure here in Canada.


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) has made a number of statements and assertions, most of which are open to question. He has cast doubt on the answer that the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Lapointe) made to his question in the House on November 4. I am not here to represent that minister who is quite capable of answering for himself; but I would like to respond, in particular, to the charges that the hon. member for Peterborough has made concerning Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
I must say that I am puzzled as to what document the hon. member is referring to when he suggests that it is the intention of this government to jail those who do not comply with the
Adjournment Debate
regulations governing metric conversion in the retail sale of individually measured foods. I can tell the hon. member that it will be the responsibility of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to enforce these regulations made under the Weights and Measures Act in exactly the same manner as all other such regulations are enforced.
The hon. member may be interested in knowing that our well established inspection practice involves first, informing non-complying retailers of their obligations under the law, in this case to advertise and sell individually measured foods as required by these regulations. Then, we encourage the retailers to take whatever action is necessary to comply with the regulations. Should a retailer not take action to comply with the regulations, he would be advised in writing that continued non-compliance would result in the initiation of prosecution action.
Should a retailer be prosecuted for non-compliance with these regulations, I might point out that the highest penalty that could be imposed for cases such as these would be a maximum fine of $1000, for each offence-not $5,000, if I understood the hon. member correctly. I might also point out that devices would only be seized in those instances where it would be required in the gathering of evidence for enforcement action.
I would also like to assure the hon. member that we do not anticipate that extensive enforcement action will be required to ensure compliance with these regulations. We have every confidence that retailers of individually measured foods will convert to metric as required commencing January 4, 1982. Surely, the hon. member realizes that Canadian retailers have been, are and will be good corporate citizens who will obey the law.


THE CONSTITUTION-CHARTER PROPOSALS ON LANGUAGE RIGHTS
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Mr. Speaker, on October 23, of last month, the Ottawa Citizen and the Montreal Gazette stated on their front pages that the minority language provisions for education found in Section 23 of the constitutional proposals would be weakened to make them compatible with Bill 101 in Quebec. When I read those headlines in the newspapers that morning, I was shocked and upset. I came to the House at two o'clock in the afternoon and put a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). I asked him whether it was true that the government intended to weaken minority language provisions for education in order to get an agreement with Quebec on the Constitution. The Minister of Justice answered me by stating that he was committed to minority language education for French and English-speaking Canadians on an equal basis throughout the country. He was not clear in stating whether or not the government intended to change Section 23 or weaken it in some way to get an agreement with the other provinces.

November 9, 1981
Adjournment Debate
Since that date, a lot of water has passed under the proverbial bridge. We now have an accord which was reached last week on November 5 between nine of the premiers and the federal government. While I congratulate them on that agreement, I am disappointed with a few provisions.
It is still not clear what language legislation will apply in Quebec with respect to education. While the nine premiers in the majority English-speaking provinces have agreed to the proposals in Section 23, and I must say that is quite an accomplishment, it is a first in Canadian history to have nine provinces agreeing to such a provision, on the other hand it is still not clear what will apply in Quebec. The government has said it will give some time to the government in Quebec to reconsider the provisions and perhaps negotiate some further settlement with Quebec.
First, I want to make it absolutely clear that in this controversial area I do not see how we can have one provision with respect to minority francophone rights applying in the nine majority anglophone provinces and something different applying in the province of Quebec. I do not think it would be acceptable to have two different provisions on language rights, one applying in Quebec and the other applying in the anglophone provinces.
Second, I do not see how we can retreat or weaken Section 23 to satisfy Quebec and therefore weaken it with respect to all of the other provinces as well when, as I say, for the first time all the anglophone provinces have agreed to such a provision. To backstep at this stage would be ridiculous and unacceptable in my view.
Premier Levesque, who is my premier, returned from the constitutional conference last week. He has stated, and he stated again this evening in the Quebec National Assembly, that he was betrayed by the other provinces and the federal government. He said that they ganged up on him and that this is just another example of English Canada stepping all over French Canada.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I will go over each point, how can it be said that English Canada is ganging up on French Canada when patriation has been agreed to? That was one of the items included in the accord. To the degree that the Constitution will be removed from Britain and made completely within the control of Canadians is that ganging up on Quebec?
Third, to accept an amending formula proposed by the government of Quebec with the seven other provinces, the so-called "Gang of Eight" even with the minor change, is that to be considered ganging up on Quebec? For the nine provinces and the federal government to agree to a charter with a provision whereby the provinces can override in many basic areas, can that be considered ganging up on Quebec?
Finally, when you have nine English-speaking provinces agreeing to what Mr. Levesque had proposed himself a couple of years ago, namely, that the other nine provinces agree to French-speaking education for the French-speaking minorities, how can you describe that as ganging up on the province of
Quebec when they agreed to French education in those English-speaking provinces? That is beyond me.
I again put it to the government and to the representative of the government who is here tonight that I can see no justification whatever for weakening Section 23, the section relating to minority language rights and education, or for applying something different in Quebec from what will apply in the other provinces. There is no justification for weakening that section or for applying something different in Quebec to what will apply in the other provinces. It was a great step forward for these other provinces to agree to what Mr. Levesque had proposed. Therefore, if he cannot see that, I am sure the people of Quebec will see it and will readily, once they have examined the proposals of this constitutional accord or agreement, see there is no such thing as ganging up on Quebec, but in fact that it is doing things that Quebec has asked for historically over many years.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question raised by my hon. colleague. The federal government has always supported, and continues to support, the principle of granting minority language education rights equally throughout this country. This is not the time that we intend to back off from that principle.
We have achieved a historic accord with nine provinces and the federal government, having agreed to patriation, an amending formula and a charter of rights which contains Clause 23 granting minority language education rights across this country.
We were all very disappointed to hear this afternoon and early evening that Premier Levesque has rejected our offer for further negotiations. He said he will not negotiate, he will intensify his lobby in London and he will henceforth boycott all federal-provincial conferences other than those which deal with Quebec's economy. This is most disappointing, particularly in light of the agreement he came to in terms of granting reciprocal language rights in St. Andrews in 1977.
As my hon. colleague asked in his question, how can it be said that we are ganging up on Quebec when we and the other provinces are prepared to grant reciprocal rights? How can it be said we are ganging up when the federal government announced that in order to try to reach some accommodation with the province of Quebec we would be prepared to enter into discussion on the three points which Mr. Levesque feels are contentious?
Dealing with the last of those three points, language rights, Mr. Ryan has proposed one type of possible alternative. As you are aware, it has always been our position, and it is contained in the charter, that the federal government and the provinces would allow access to English-speaking schools in Quebec whether or not the parents received their schooling in Canada. Mr. Ryan has proposed an alternative which is called the "Canada Clause". The Canada Clause would allow access
November 9, 1981

to English schools in Quebec to those children of Canadian citizens who received their primary school instruction in Canada. This is a slight change to what we have been proposing. It would have very limited application. We have indicated, as the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has indicated, we would be prepared to consider this if it were to be acceptable to the government of Quebec. We are attempting to achieve an accord with the province of Quebec so that all ten
Adjournment Debate
provinces can go with the federal government to London to get our Constitution back.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 10.29 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, November 10, 1981