1981-10-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That the government recognize the great contribution made to the growth and development of this country by earlier Polish immigrants, by introducing forthwith measures that would allow for the further immigration of Poles in such numbers so as to make an impact upon the large number of applications received from Polish people seeking entry to Canada through Vienna.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, this coming Friday will mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of one of the most tragic attacks on freedom ever witnessed, the invasion of Hungary by the U.S.S.R. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis):
That this House re-express both its condemnation of the U.S.S.R. for that invasion and its deep and abiding commitment to the return of a free democracy in Hungary and in all other nation states similarly suppressed, by interrupting its proceedings on Friday, October 23, at noon for one minute of silence in memory of those who gave their lives in the fight for freedom and against totalitarianism.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of this motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS GRANTS FOR POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, whereas the all-party fiscal task force unanimously agreed that any cuts to post-secondary education would seriously injure the institutions and block accessibility by less affluent students, especially women and rural students, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That the Prime Minister today withdraw the policy of cutting $1.5 billion from post-secondary education, particularly in view of the government's new revenue source of over $50 billion over the next five years.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to Standing Order 43. Recognizing yesterday's decisive victory in the Greek elections for the socialist party led by Andreas Papandreou, and recognizing that Canada was Mr. Papandreou's home for five years from 1969 to 1974 while he was exiled by the Greek military junta of the time, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House extends its best wishes to Mr. Papandreou and the people of Greece, and that this House celebrates the flourishing of democracy in the home of democracy and looks forward to continued friendship and co-operation between our two nations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 19, 1981


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, recent information, including two parliamentary task force reports, confirms that skilled labour shortages will affect Canada's trade, industrial, energy and economic future. At the same time Canadian young people fear dismal job opportunities. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That the minister responsible for employment immediately initiate measures to assess the needs and implement programs designed to meet labour needs, retraining opportunities, and to provide jobs for young Canadian men and women.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


KENT ROYAL COMMISSION
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, in view of the trip of the Prime Minister to Cancun, Mexico, and his concern for Third World Nations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That this House now takes the opportunity to endorse the formal request of Commonwealth journalists to reject those Kent Commission recommendations which would violate freedom of the press in this country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS SUPPORT FOR POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the recommendation of the parliamentary task force on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements against any reduction in general federal support for post-secondary education, and in view of the concern expressed by many students in Ottawa today that post-secondary education not be relegated to a purely economic concern, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong):
That this House instructs the government to forget whatever notions of cutbacks in this sector it may have, and that this House affirms its appreciation of the value of a liberal arts education and critical thinking in general as the best guarantee of sound and democratic social and economic policy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
# * *


CALL FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, since the government has broken the promise which it made to the people of Canada to keep energy prices below those that would have been in effect under a Progressive Conservative regime, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) had the obligation of fulfilling this promise instead of breaking it, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman):
That this House calls for the resignation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE LATE MOSHE DAYAN
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of great importance to every member of the House. On Friday, October 16, the world suffered the loss of another peacemaker in the Middle East. Moshe Dayan, a military man who spent many years fighting for a cause, and who, in the last few years of his life worked so tirelessly to establish peace in the Middle East, will be greatly missed by all of us who wish to see an end to hostilities in that region of the world. I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That this House convey through Madam Speaker its deepest sympathies to Mrs. Dayan and her family, as well as to the government and people of Israel.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That this House direct the Minister of Finance to take such steps as are necessary to ensure that there is a complete and effective moratorium on mortgage renewals until the relief that householders are being led to expect from the budget is made public on budget night, now only a fortnight off, so that both parties to mortgage renewals will have a more accurate notion of the tax climate in which the terms of those renewals will have to be made.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TELEVISION
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent importance. Whereas the residents of northern Saskatchewan have been avid followers of the Montreal Expos television broadcasts all summer; and whereas these viewers have now been deprived of Expos' games in the National League playoffs this fall because of a change in the viewing rights from the CBC to the CTV network; I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House instruct the Minister of Communications to do everything in his power with the CBC, CTV, the CRTC and other principals to ensure that the citizens of northern Saskatchewan receive the upcoming World Series games. These northerners, like all members of this House, would have liked to join all Canada in wishing the Montreal Expos well in their game today.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions CANADA POST


PROPOSED SPECIAL RATE FOR ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, the senior citizens and handicapped of this country rely almost totally on the mail to communicate with their friends and loved ones. A 30-cent postal rate will become an unacceptable hardship, on their fixed incomes. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That the government direct Canada Post to strike a special stamp for the senior citizens and handicapped of this country, at 50 per cent of the first class rate.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, American travel agencies send Americans to travel by Canada's railroad routes more for scenic reasons than any other. With the cancellation of the western transcontinental rail routes along with the famous dome cars, Canada's tourist industry stands to lose millions of American tourist dollars. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House demand that the Minister of Transport reinstate the western transcontinental routes as their uncalled for and ruthless cancellation will wreak financial ruin on the western Canadian tourist industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I will direct my question to the Minister of Public Works who is responsible for housing. He will know that there have been reports based upon a

October 19, 1981
Oral Questions
document attributed to CMHC, which indicate just how serious the housing and rental crisis is becoming in this country.
I wonder if the minister can confirm that he has received advice from his officials which indicates that current interest rates will create what his own department calls "unmanageable burdens" for more than 100,000 Canadians in the next two years. If, in fact, his department is anticipating unmanageable burdens which will force these people out of their homes in the next two years, will he now give us a guarantee that there will be action in the budget in November which will help these specific individuals?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, if the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is referring to the newspaper reports of the weekend which headlined some of the figures about which he is talking, I would like to indicate at the outset, number one, that I have not read such a report.


Some hon. Members:: You wouldn't.


Paul James Cosgrove: I understand that there is such a report. It is a communication within the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. At the outset I would indicate that the 100,000 figure is incorrect, and that it is as wildly erroneous as the figure given by the Leader of the New Democratic Party when he said that there were 85,000 families who would be out of their homes by Christmas. It is as wildly speculative as that figure.
I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that just last week he quoted from the Speech from the Throne, which stated that this government intended to assist people who needed help the most, and that we would move to assist these people. The Prime Minister indicated that in September, as did the Minister of Finance. I am saying that. However, I would caution the Leader of the Opposition, and advise him to read a bit further in the Speech from the Throne. As a matter of fact he should read the next sentence, following the words which he quoted, stating that this government does not believe that we would have to expend large amounts of funds in order to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
impact of high interest rates on home owners


Charles Joseph Clark: Frankly, Madam Speaker, neither I, nor the people in Canada who face the prospect of being thrown out of their homes by this government, care what the minister has or has not read. What we care about is what the minister is going to do. He says that the figures which have been quoted here in the House, and quoted as a result of documents from his department, are false. He tells us that he has not read those documents which are
false. However, would he confirm to the House of Commons that he has information as to the impact of high interest rates upon individual Canadians? Will he tell us if the figure of
100.000	is wrong?
How many will be thrown out of their homes? Will there be
99.000	or 98,000? Will he give us the figures that he has, and will he tell this House of Commons whether or not he is going to insist that in the budget which is to be brought down in November there will be direct and immediate action to protect those Canadians who are being forced out of their homes by Liberal government policy?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, since the middle of August when interest rates reached a level above 18 per cent, I have been working not only with officials of Canada Mortgage and Housing but also with representatives of the industry across the country. As late as Friday I met with the representatives of HUDAC and UDI regarding the impact of high interest rates. This morning, in Metro Toronto, I met with representatives of CASIRS on the impact of high interest rates. I have received information and advice as to the impact which I have indicated in those documents which have been prepared for cabinet consideration. They will be released when the budget is released, and when those figures are made generally known to the public.


REQUEST THAT BUDGET AID HOME OWNERS
Charles Joseph Clark: Since the minister responsible for housing has refused to indicate whether there will be anything in the budget to help these individuals, I guess the question that I must put to him is whether or not he has met with the Minister of Finance, and whether the Minister of Finance will have anything in his budget which will help these Canadians who will be thrown out of their homes. He may claim that there are only 98,000; his figures say that there are 100,000 to 110,000. We want to know whether that is the case.
I want to ask the minister a further question, quoting from the report which he has not yet read, concerning the rental market. The report from his department indicates that:
Rental investment will thus dry up in most markets and vacancy rates in most markets will approach zero by 1983.
This means that people will be thrown out of their homes and there will be no accommodation for them to rent, as a result of Liberal government policy.
Will the minister now tell this House of Commons, first, will there be action in the budget brought down on November 3 to help those Canadians being forced out of their homes; second, will there be action in that budget to reverse this trend of drying up rental accommodation in the country?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, unlike the government led by the Leader of the Opposition, this government has already acted to undo some of the harm inflicted by his last administration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: Number one, we moved to reintroduce MURBs, which have been responsible for 10,000 to 15,000 new starts in the last 18 months. We moved to increase the amount of social housing in this country, which the hon. member asked to have privatized and flubbed off onto the provinces, because his position while he was Prime Minister was to back away from housing.


ASSISTANCE SOUGHT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, this minister seems to have difficulty hearing as well as difficulty acting. My question was simple. Will there be a provision in the budget to help those hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are being forced out of their homes by Liberal government policy? And will there be specific help in the budget, which will reverse a trend that is drying up the construction of rental accommodation across this country and leading us into a situation where not only will people be unable to live in their homes, but in most cities and communities in Canada they will not have anything to rent?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition-


Mr. Nielsen:: Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Paul James Cosgrove: -of the Speech from the Throne, which he quoted in part in his first question when Parliament resumed. I would indicate to him that this government will indeed meet that commitment, namely, to assist those people who need help the most.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS PARLIAMENTARY TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my leader has been asking about one crisis in the country, namely, the housing crisis. I want to ask about another crisis, which is the impending crisis in health care and post-secondary education as a result of proposed cutbacks by the government.
I would have directed my question to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Secretary of State or the Minister of State for Social Development, all of whom are involved with this issue, and all of whom knew there was a student delegation in this city today and who took this opportunity, I have no doubt, to duck being here and meeting them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Crosbie:: Shame!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Great duckers.
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Therefore I will direct my question to the acting Prime Minister, whomever that may be.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: At the time of the last budget the Minister of Finance proposed cutting $1.5 billion from the amount that otherwise would be paid to provincial governments for health care and post-secondary education. In the wake of this, an all-party parliamentary committee was set up to examine the whole field of federal-provincial fiscal relations. My question to the acting Prime Minister is very simple. I would like to know from him or her the following: is it the intention of the government to accept the main thrust of that all-party parliamentary task force that no such reductions to either postsecondary education or health care should take place?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Acting Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am afraid that I will be unable to answer this question today.


Walter David Baker: Why don't you ask the
CTC?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is obviously a question for the Prime Minister or for the Minister of Finance to deal with. The Prime Minister is in Montreal today, and he is not attending the baseball game. The Minister of Finance was scheduled to be here, but he was slightly indisposed this morning.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Laniel:: He is renewing his loan.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am quite sure that the very serious question raised today by the hon. lady will be promptly answered in the coming days by either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance.


REPORTED CUTS IN FUNDING FOR POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, it is slightly prescient that the minister who chose to answer this question about reductions in post-secondary education and health care is the man who knows so much about VIA Rail reductions. I hope that does not augur too badly for post-secondary education.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In any event, I have another question to pose. The minister may be able to shed more light on this. In addition to the reductions that were indicated by the Minister of Finance, there are reports that his colleague, the Minister of State for Social Development, is now trying to impose much greater cuts upon post-secondary education, cuts that would do irreparable damage to our colleges and universities, amounting to some $7.5 billion over the next five years. Can the minister give us the assurance that at least that attempt by the Minister of State for Social Development has been beaten down, and

October 19, 1981
Oral Questions
that move, which would have the effect of crippling our colleges and universities, will not take place? If it does take place, it will in effect make our post-secondary institutions the privilege solely of the sons and daughters of the rich.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, it should be obvious to everybody that there was a reduction also in the standard of the questions being raised by the hon. member. Her first question was much better than the second one. The first one at least referred to a report of the committee of this House; it had standard, it had class. The second one refers to rumours about divisions between the Minister of Justice in one of his capacities, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Obviously I am not going to comment and report on gossip. The answer to these questions will come at the proper time, as I indicated in answer to the first question.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MADAME SIMONE VEIL, PRESIDENT OF THE PARLIAMENT OF EUROPE
Madam Speaker:: I should like to draw attention to the distinguished presence in our gallery of the President of the European Parliament, Mrs. Simone Veil, to whom I wish to extend a cordial welcome.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the minister allegedly responsible for housing. Another report did emerge on the weekend from CMHC, this one contending that 135 families a day between now and the fall of 1983 will lose their homes. The Toronto Star has a copy of the report, and I have a copy of the report. I find it astounding that the minister should get to his feet today and say, as he did just a minute ago, that he has not even looked at it or has not seen it. I would like to send him over a copy. He can have a look at it, and I hope, prepare himself for tomorrow's question period.
Since this has been an issue of profound concern in every community across Canada for the past few months, and since it has been raised in this House ever since it opened last week, why has the minister not taken the trouble to read the report, and why does he not report back to the House of Commons on its accuracy?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, I already indicated that this morning in Metropolitan Toronto I met with a group of representatives of Canadian home owners affected by high interest rates, who asked to make submissions to me; this was not a report from staff but actually people who are impacted by high interest rates. They asked to make a submission to me. I met with them. I then got on an airplane and came directly to this building.
I have not read this report, but I have indicated that, from the newspaper reports which say that by 1983 100,000 people will lose their homes, the report is wildly out of date. It is erroneous. It talks about starts in the first quarter as being
135.000	when we all know they are at 180,000, so it is over
30.000	out to begin with. If the hon. member, through his research staff, cannot do any better than that and cannot come up with something better than that, I think he should dig in a bit deeper.


QUERY RESPECTING MINISTER'S POSITION ON RENT CONTROLS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, when the report was done it was done on the assumption that mortgage rates would be at 21 per cent. They have only dropped to 19.75 per cent. I say that even the minister should be able to calculate that if the data that went into his report was accurate-he has not yet taken the trouble to read this report prepared by his staff and he should have read it weeks ago and not have to wait until it is raised in the House-this slight drop in the level of mortgage rates will not mean "boo" all in terms of the number of families who will lose their homes by next fall.
Since the report indicates that rent levels are going to climb astronomically next year as well, and since the minister in a CTV interview last April said he was opposed to the continuation of rent controls, and made the same point in a speech somewhere else last year, I would like him to take the opportunity to clarify the government's position. Is the minister now in favour of his old position, which is to abolish rent controls, which will be disastrous, or will he admit he was mistaken?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the difficulty in dealing with a report produced on such notice is apparent. It has to be apparent when you consider that the Leader of the New Democratic Party indicates he read and studied the report and then asks a question, what about interest rates at 22 per cent? I would ask the Clerk to return the report to him so that he may reread the paper. I have, on two seconds reading, identified that they are talking about interest rates of 22 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member for Oshawa seek the floor on a further supplementary?
October 19, 1981


REPORTED FORECAST OF HOUSING STARTS
John Edward Broadbent: The report that the minister has sent back, without taking the trouble to read, also notes that housing starts in the coming year would drop to
135.000.	That will be the lowest number of housing starts in 16 years. Since almost 20 per cent of those in the lumber industry in British Columbia who would like to be employed are out of work and since the level of unemployed construction workers stands at 10 per cent, would the minister agree with businessmen who have commented on the tragedy of this sector by saying the overwhelming reason for this situation is high interest rates, and that the only way we are going to see a turn-around in terms of job creation is by a drastic drop in the level of interest rates?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I did not go beyond page two of the report produced by the Leader of the NDP.


An hon. Member:: Wrong again.


Paul James Cosgrove: Based on the newspaper reports, which state that starts this year, 1981, not next year, will be at a rate of
135.000,	I would bring to the hon. gentleman's attention that starts to the month of September were at a rate of 191,000, which means that the report is 30,000 out in its projections to begin with. I would ask him to consider that, with the strength of the report he has in front of him.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS GRANTS FOR POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister who should be answering this question, I would direct it to the Minister of Communications who was the former Secretary of State. As you know, Madam Speaker, I, along with four members from across the way, served on the task force. We spent thousands of hours listening to evidence and considering the views of people across the country. We made a unanimous finding that any cuts would cut directly into the sinew of the post-secondary institutions in this country. Would the minister tell the House if it is the government's policy to continue with the cuts of $1.5 billion?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: As the
hon. member knows, during my appearance in front of the committee, of which he was a member, I indicated quite clearly that as far as the federal government was concerned we were able to identify some ten to 12 objectives which we feel are national objectives which ought to be met by the postsecondary system, and which are not necessarily being met at the present time. If you ally that to the fact that the federal government is financing something close to 59 per cent of the operating costs of post-secondary education in Canada at the
Oral Questions
moment, with the students meeting about 17 per cent of the remainder, the provinces about 21 or 22 per cent in an area which is their exclusive responsibility, it is quite clear that some rearranging should be done in this field.


FUNDING FOR FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS
Blaine Allen Thacker: It is clear that of $25 billion spent in this country on education, the federal government spends only $1.8 billion. The students at post-secondary levels will be getting a knife in the back again.
My supplementary question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He will know that the CAUT made a calculation of cutbacks affecting specific universities. The Secretary of State has four institutions that will lose something like $20 million. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration has two institutions which could lose $32.5 million. The Secretary of State for External Affairs himself has an institution which could lose $10 million. Are there any of you speaking up for post-secondary institutions in this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I think the record of support of this government for educational institutions is well known.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Well and favourably known. The hon. member's representation is quite unnecessary.


WESTERN DEVELOPMENT FUND
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. I suspect I would have more success if I were to ask questions of senior cabinet ministers at "the Big O", because that is probably where they are this afternoon. Indeed, I think we all should be there.
In February of this year estimates were tabled indicating that $350 million was to be spent this year on the Western Development Fund. To this point there has been absolutely no indication of any moneys being allocated or spent in Western Canada under this particular fund. I would ask the Acting Prime Minister whether or not the fund has been forgotten, like all the other major Liberal campaign promises made to western Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Reference was made to the Western Development Fund in the last budget of the Minister of Finance. He said that it did exist, and personally I was always told that it did exist.


An hon. Member:: You do not even know.

October 19, 1981
Oral Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: I hope the hon. member will have a clear indication in the coming days of the existence of that fund and its use.


CONSULTATION WITH PREMIERS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, we have been waiting for the government to indicate where it is to be spent. It has been allocated for this year. Could the Acting Prime Minister state first, whether there has been any consultation with western provincial leaders, as promised by the Minister of Finance with respect to this fund? Second, will he confirm the fact that the fund has been reduced by half, to $2 billion from the $4 billion originally dedicated to western Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am not
really in a position to indicate any more than I have. This will be shown in the estimates. I am just trying to cheer up the hon. member by telling him that when the Minister of Finance says something does exist, then it does exist.


GARRISON DIVERSION
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Two weeks ago Manitobans were heartened when the American Ambassador to Canada told us that the Garrison Diversion Unit, as it is now planned, would be scrapped. He promised documentation from President Reagan confirming his statement. However, last Thursday in Fargo, North Dakota, Interior Secretary James Watt told North Dakota farmers that he and the President supported Garrison. Does the minister have any idea who speaks for the American administration in the Garrison deal, or is that administration in the habit of telling both sides what each wants to hear?


Mark R. MacGuigan: We will have to allow the United States government to speak for itself. They have not said anything like that in their discussions with us on the matter. I have been trying to track down the veracity of that statement. If that statement was made, as reported by the hon. member, we will certainly seek clarification of those words from the United States government.


REPORTED CHANGE IN UNITED STATES ATTITUDE
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, I can assure the Secretary of State that that statement was made in a speech to farmers in North Dakota, last Thursday.
Under the Carter administration, both the President and Interior Secretary Andrus were actively opposed to the Garrison project. The situation is clearly opposite with the present
administration. In fact Secretary Watt did not even mention Canadian concerns in his Fargo speech. How will the minister's department deal with this change in attitude?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is assuming a change of attitude, which is far from clear. The money being spent so far on the whole project will not touch Canada in any aspect. The administration has made no official statement which contradicts its concern for Canadian interests. Apart from the new statement which the hon. member has brought to my attention, as indeed did the Minister of Manpower and Immigration earlier today, we have no evidence of any change in the administration's position. We are checking on that and will make the appropriate representations.


RIGHTS OF INDIAN WOMEN-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines responsible for the Status of Women in Canada, whom I also wish to congratulate at this time. I wish to ask her what the government intends to do about restoring the rights of Mrs. Sandra Lovelace of the Tobique Indian Reserve and those of thousands of Indian women like her in Canada, following the decision made this summer by the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Does the government intend to ratify the appropriate instrument at the United Nations and change the Indian Act?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Yes, indeed, Canada is in contravention of an existing convention because of the Indian Act, and it is an embarrassment to me and to every woman of this country. Just recently the cabinet ratified a decision to sign the United Nations convention which will effectively eliminate all forms of discrimination against women as soon as possible. We did so on the basis of the charter of rights. The cabinet has instructed the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to consult with the Indian people of this country in order to develop a mechanism by which amendments can be made as quickly as possible.
I might add that the support of the members of this House, and the support of the women of Canada, will be with us in the swift passage of the charter of rights and the constitutional package.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 19, 1981


SIGNING OF UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. I must say that I am pleased that this government has at long last adopted an attitude toward the question of the status of Indian women which was adopted some time ago by my government.


Mr. Chretien:: Vote for the charter, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am being heckled by the Minister of Justice, who perhaps holds against me the fact that I have not been a liberal very long.
Perhaps I could direct a question respecting timing to the Minister of State responsible for women. She has indicated that there will be a signing and a respecting by Canada of the United Nations declaration. Will that be immediate? Will that occur before the consultation with the native people? Will that occur simultaneously with an amendment to the Indian Act? When exactly will that signature occur, and what exactly will be the time delay before that signature occurs and before that anomaly, which has resulted in the Lovelace case and a great embarrassment to Canada, will be removed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Vote for the charter, Joe.


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, I am delighted that the right hon. member has indicated that he has at least some interest in becoming a Liberal. However, I would like to say the timing, as we see it, is thus: we will be signing the treaty as quickly as possible. At the moment we are awaiting the decisions of three provinces, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, which have yet to indicate to us that they will be along with us on the signing of the treaty. We will then institute proceedings to make the necessary amendments. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been instructed to do so. We have a maximum of three years in which to put the amendments into place. However, I hope those amendments will be passed long before that three-year period.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary West.


Mr. Hawkes:: Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate that I resent the implication that there are not men as well as women who are concerned about the issue addressed by the minister.

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE '80s


COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in the absence of a number of other ministers. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce should have in his possession the report of the special parliamentary task force on employ-
Oral Questions
ment opportunities for the eighties. In that report the all-party committee indicates clearly that it is the opinion of the committee that one of the difficulties faced in Canada today is the shortage of trained manpower. I wonder if the minister could give us an indication of whether he agrees with that over-all assessment and with the general thrust of the committee's recommendations relevant to correcting the situation.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, I think the task force has done an excellent job of exploring the problem, analysing it and presenting a vast range of recommendations. I personally agree with the conclusion of the report that one of our problems in this country is a shortage of skilled manpower. We in the government are actively reviewing the recommendations and actively working on other programs we were considering even before the report came out. I am sure the report will be a very useful input into the decisions we will be taking and announcing before too long.


POSITION OF MINISTER
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Communications. In view of the answer from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I wonder how the Minister of Communications can justify his answer earlier today relevant to the need to cut back funding for educational purposes. If in fact we face a shortage of skilled manpower in this country, has the minister not read our report, is he quarrelling with our report, does he wish to rescind his earlier answer, or will he hold firm and indicate that the government still intends to cut back funds in the face of that training crisis?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, that was not the intent of my initial response. I think I have been reinforced by what the minister has just stated. It indicates quite clearly that there are national goals which must be pursued in the educational field in Canada and that any one province trying to set up professional training cannot take into account the over-all needs of the country. If the federal government indeed is going to continue to be funding 59 per cent of the operating costs of the university and post-secondary education system in general in the country, obviously some national goals ought to be met by that system.


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications, and it has to do with reports in the press that the government is intending to make some changes in its proposed freedom of information act, specifically changes which would allow the RCMP criminal investigation and security staffs access to data respecting citizens' social insurance files, income tax files,

October 19, 1981
Oral Questions
family allowance files, and old age pension files, as well as to information on finance, marital histories, social welfare benefits, and employment histories. Is the minister contemplating changes in that legislation to the extent which has been set forth in this report, or will the minister leave that legislation alone so that Parliament can get on with it and deal with it?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I believe my views on the subject are well known. I would very much like to see Parliament deal with the access to information legislation as soon as possible. My understanding is that the opposition parties are now willing to deal with the matter, with a maximum number of hearings amounting to approximately six hours' duration. I will be very pleased to see if the opposition will live up to that undertaking in the weeks to come.
On the specific question, my understanding is that the McDonald report is being considered by legal experts in the Department of Justice. I am not contemplating any of the changes referred to by the hon. member. I certainly am not contemplating them at this moment. I have not received any recommendations to that effect from the Minister of Justice.


NORTH-SOUTH RELATIONS STATEMENT MADE BY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE ON INTEREST RATES
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Was the Minister of Agriculture speaking on behalf of the government when he stated in August, as reported by the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, about the interest rate policies of the government, "We're literally starving them to death by the millions" with reference to people in poor countries who cannot afford rising energy and interest costs? Second, the minister said, "It's crazy to try to control inflation with interest rates. You kill people with that."


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, why do we not ask the minister?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the interest rates in those countries are much higher than they are in Canada. Some of the people in those developing countries to which I was referring, if the hon. member wants to quote the whole text of the speech and listen to the tapes also-because it was all taped-are paying interest rates as high as 50 per cent. It is a form of usury.
The cost of fertilizer in those countries-and some of that comes from Saskatchewan-is three times as high as it is in Canada. Diesel fuel in those countries costs $5 a gallon and gasoline over $5 a gallon. Wages are $1 a day. Eggs cost $2.50 a dozen. What are we doing to them when they are being subjected to world costs like that? That was the context of that speech.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the minister said, "It's crazy to try to control inflation with interest rates. You kill people with that." How can the minister continue to associate himself with a government the central policy of which is precisely that?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that the Prime Minister attended several world meetings this summer and fall. He will be attending another one this week which is concerned with those very things I am talking about. I refer to interest rates, energy costs, and how we are to help the rest of the world. This government is concerned about those things.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration which I assume his parliamentary secretary can answer for me. In Hamilton, 50 workers have been laid off since July 31 because they work for two companies which do business primarily with the Steel Company of Canada. They have been denied unemployment insurance benefits throughout that period under section 44 (2) (a) because they happen to belong to the same international union, and in some obscure way some of their dues may well go toward supporting the strike fund. Does the Minister not think that kind of interpretation is too narrow, and that the section was never intended to be used to deprive people of what they were rightfully entitled to and for which they must make payment every week? Will he review it and have it corrected?


Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the question asked by my hon. colleague is indeed very important, and there are a number of aspects to the strike which is now taking place in his riding. It is clear that the Stelco employees who called the strike and who are thus supporting the cost of picketing are not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. The two subcontractors, the companies to which he has just referred, are faced with a serious problem, but we must understand that they are in the same situation as the strikers, that is, they made contributions to the parent company. That is why the employees of the two companies in question which have made a contribution to the company are not eligible. Of course, if we had more details we would be able to give this matter closer scrutiny, and what my hon. colleague suggests is a change in policy within the department. I am sure that the minister and
October 19, 1981

the other members will look into this problem and see if anything can be done.


REQUEST FOR EARLY CLARIFICATION
Ian Deans: Surely the parliamentary secretary and the ministry understand that for workers to wait from July 31 until today, almost seven weeks, without money, while they wait for the bureaucracy to grind ever so slowly to a conclusion, is unconscionable. I ask the minister, through the parliamentary secretary, will they now move to clarify this ridiculous anomaly and create fairness within the system that we have, to protect people against unemployment and the hardships of unemployment?
[ Translation]


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Madam Speaker, of course we understand what is happening to these workers but, as I mentioned before, the department is fully aware of the situation and will examine this case to see if anything can be done. As I have already pointed out, these strikers have broken the law and have paid dues like the strikers who called the strike.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and is with regard to enormous pressures on Canadian farmers caused, on one hand, by high interest rates and high input costs, and on the other by the lack of compensating higher incomes. The minister has been saying for months that Canadian lending institutions, specifically banks, have a responsibility to their farm customers. First, I should like to ask the minister what he regards this responsibility to be; second, how may we be assured this alleged responsibility by Canadian banks is being or will be discharged properly?


Eugene Whelan: In this country the responsibility with lending institutions is very great. When we investigated, we found that of the people who made representations to my ministry, 90 percent had been improperly lent money by the banks for term capital investment. The banks lent them huge amounts of money on demand notes and floating loans that should have been on 10 or 20-year mortgages. When interest rates increased they could not meet the payments. It is mostly in one sector of agriculture, and that is the red meat industry. The beef and pork production entities are in great difficulty. The horrible lending policies of most lending institutions is the problem. Under the present Bank Act we say there is room to lend the farmers the money on long-term financing and at reasonable rates of interest, giving them a moratorium on a 20-year mortgage of three years, and amortizing the first three years without capital or interest,
Oral Questions
until they organize themselves into a better marketing system. It is those farmers outside of a proper marketing system who are in financial difficulty today.


MINISTER'S PROPOSALS TO BANKS
William Herbert Jarvis: If the lending institutions, as the minister alleges, are at the worst ripping off their farm customers, or at the least not discharging their proper responsibility to those farm customers, can the minister tell us exactly what he wants the banks to do? Has that been communicated in exact terms to the banks? If not, when will it be, either by the minister directly or through his colleague, the Minister of Finance? What mechanism does the Minister of Agriculture propose to make sure that that, in fact, is what happens vis-a-vis the relationship between the banks and their farm customers?


Eugene Whelan: Under the present Bank Act, Madam Speaker, there is room for them to move. I have had meetings with the heads of the Canadian banking institutions as far back as May, when we became concerned with representations that farm organizations and farmers made to us about some of the things they foresaw happening. I have hundreds of letters where they made appeals to me about their financial situation. We have gone over this with the Canadian Bankers' Association. We met the president of the Canadian Bankers' Association less than two weeks ago. We discussed the very things I have mentioned to the hon. member. I also had the same kind of discussions with my colleagues, especially the Minister of Finance. We will have to be patient and wait until November 3.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I direct my question to the Minister of State for External Affairs. At the present time the deep sea Canadian scallop fishing industry is in danger of being totally destroyed due to indiscriminate fishing by the American fleet on Georges Bank. I therefore ask the minister, in view of the economic importance of this industry to Nova Scotia and, in fact, to all of Atlantic Canada, whether he has held recent discussions with his American counterpart concerning this important issue and, if so, what response was received?


Mark R. MacGuigan: On the question of the boundary arbitration, I can say we are in the final stages of negotiation. But the hon. member raises the other problem of the conservation of the fisheries, which will continue to be a matter of concern however the boundary question is settled. In regard to that I have to say our discussions with American authorities have not been satisfactory. There seems to be considerable resistance on the part of the American fishermen in accepting the same kind of

October 19, 1981
Petitions
regulations that Canadian fishermen are prepared to accept. We have not been able to make any progress in regard to that. I have not recently discussed this matter with Secretary of State Haig. I undertake to do so.


QUERY RESPECTING CANADIAN GOVERNMENT ACTION
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I thank the minister for that answer. It now appears that the United States is doing its utmost to destroy the Geneva convention on the 200-mile economic zone. Since most of what we have obtained so far in maritime terms beyond the old 3-mile limit has been obtained only by unilateral declaration, in light of the economic impact this American action will have on Canadian fishermen, on processors, and on our offshore resources, on our claimed jurisdiction over the Arctic archipelago and unregulated competition in the production of nickel through seabed mining, I therefore ask the minister what action he is planning to take on behalf of the Canadian people over this important issue?


Mark R. MacGuigan: The actions our government can take are limited, to a large extent, by those on which we can reach agreement with the United States. At the present time we have not been able to reach that agreement. I hope the American government and the fishermen it represents will hear the plea of the hon. member and Canadian fishermen. The settlement of the boundary dispute, and a settlement as to who is able to fish where, will not contribute very much to anyone's welfare as far as fish are concerned if the fishery stock has been depleted. Indeed this is a serious concern, as the hon. member has said. We are very concerned about it, and so far we have not had the co-operation that we would wish to see from the American fishing industry.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Friday, October 16, 1981, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, earlier in the question period in an exchange between myself and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove), the minister indicated that I was misinforming the House when I talked about a report prepared in his department that made certain forecasts in the housing industry dependent upon a 21 per cent mortgage. In my question I said 21 per cent, and I repeat it. I have checked the document with care and I found one reference on page 2, two references on page 3 and two references on page 6 to the 21 per cent, which is the figure I used.
The one slight bit of information on the minister's side is that one of the references, and one only, indicates 21 per cent to 22 per cent. Everywhere else the basic assumption of the report, which was the point of my question, indicated that the forecasts were based on a 21 per cent mortgage. The minister rose and misinformed the House when he said that what was discussed in the report was 22 per cent.
May I conclude with one point. He quoted the report-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid the hon. member is simply debating a question. There is dispute as far as the facts are concerned. The hon. member knows that this does not constitute a prima facie case of privilege. Unless the hon. member has another point to make, I cannot allow him to continue because it certainly does not constitute a question of privilege.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the point I was coming to was that not only did he misinform the House, but there is a very serious point of order at stake because he quoted from the document. Section 327 of Beauchesne's fifth edition reads:
A minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he be prepared to lay it upon the Table.
Since the minister was quoting, I think at last in this whole debate where the minister has not had the courage to produce the document, he has put his foot in it. As I understand the rule, he has quoted from the document and, therefore, he should table it before the House.


Madam Speaker:: My recollection is that the hon. minister referred to a figure in the document. I did not have the impression that he actually quoted from the document, but we could look at the "blues" to find out whether he really quoted from it. My recollection is that he just referred to a figure which was in the document. However, I will look at the "blues" and determine whether there is basis for the hon. member's point of order.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite in his question of privilege indicated that I misled the House. I should like to indicate that I well understand the embarrassment of the hon. leader when
October 19, 1981

he alleged earlier last week in the House that 85,000 Canadians would lose their homes before Christmas of this year. I understand the embarrassment from such wild statements, but his cheap theatrics this afternoon of referring to a report I have not read and then saying that I introduced it to the House is a pretty slim basis for a question of privilege.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Why have you not read it?


Madam Speaker:: It is quite obvious to the House that hon. members are debating, and that is not allowed at this time.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I would just express the hope that you will, as I know you will, follow the long-established practice and precedent in the House by hearing more than the brief submission of one member who raises a point of order before making your ruling. As I understand what the Chair has said today, the "blues" will be examined and the matter dealt with tomorrow. I hope before dealing with that matter that Madam Speaker will hear a further submission on a point which has not yet been addressed to the Chair and which I would like to raise tomorrow on the point raised by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


Madam Speaker:: What I have been doing in the House is following my own precedents. When I am certain that there is not a question of privilege invoked, I immediately rule on it. If I am given no arguments in the first four, five or six sentences that there might be a prima facie case of privilege, it is quite clear that I can say to the House that I feel there is no basis for a question of privilege.
As to the particular point raised by the hon. member, once hon. members have read the "blues" and if they feel they have some points to make, naturally I will listen to them tomorrow.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I was not referring to the question of privilege of the hon. member. I was referring to the point of order which in this instance has an equal importance. I should like to be heard on the matter tomorrow, since there is a point which has not yet been placed before the Chair, before the Chair makes its ruling.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, as I have done on each day since we began our sittings again last week, I would ask leave of the House to lay upon the Table petitions signed by Canadians concerned about the impact upon their ability to keep their homes because of the deliberate high interest rate policy of the Liberal government. These petitions come from communities large and small
Petitions
across the country. One petition is signed by 23 residents of the communities of Godfrey, Munster, Kingston and Harrow-smith in the province of Ontario. Another is signed by some 144 residents of the city of Bowmanville in the province of Ontario. Another is signed by some 914 residents of the city of Metropolitan Toronto in the province of Ontario. The fourth petition is signed by 2,409 residents of the cities of Brampton, Mississauga, Rexdale, Fergus and Georgetown in the province of Ontario.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I ask leave to present a petition protesting the government's intention to cut $1.5 billion from federal transfers to the provinces. This petition, signed by university students from across Canada, was assembled by the National Union of Students. This petition requests that the Government of Canada stop the cutbacks to education and social services, convene a public inquiry into post-secondary education, replace student loans with grants, ensure funds allocated to education are spent only on education, and make public the full, final report of the federal-provincial student aid task force.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a petition signed by 2,248 citizens who are served by the rail passenger service passing through Juniper, New Brunswick. It is my hope that this petition may be found in order by Madam Speaker and may become a subject matter for discussion in the House.
For Madam Speaker's information, this petition was engineered and conducted by a lady in a small village of rural New Brunswick. In support of her community, Mrs. Heather Pelletier of Juniper, New Brunswick, has collected 2,248 signatures.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I should like to present to the House of Commons a petition against the passage of Bill C-48, which would entrench the control and ownership by the federal government of oil and gas in the Northwest Territories. This petition contains the signatures of some 1,070 people from the Western Arctic constituency and objects in the strongest possible way to Bill C-48 in that it would prejudice the settlement of native land claims, block the evolution of responsible government in the north, and disable northerners from developing their own economy. The petitioners want to share the resources of the north with other Canadians, but at the same time demand that the interests of northerners be protected.

October 19, 1981
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,403, 2,440, 2,679, 2,726, 2,761 and 2,789.


Mr. Herbert: Does the Department of National Health and Welfare suggest guidelines for or determine the limits of family planning services in local community service centres that receive financial support from the department?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The Department of National Health and Welfare does not suggest guidelines or determine the limits of family planning services in any local community service centre that receives financial support from it.


Mr. Gamble: 1.	Did the Department of National Health and Welfare approve on April 21, 1981 a $90,000 grant to the Quebec department of social affairs for the development of family planning services in the local community service centres?
2.	Were grants for similar purposes approved for the 1981 fiscal year for the provinces of (a) Newfoundland (b) Prince Edward Island (c) Nova Scotia (d) New Brunswick (e) Ontario (0 Manitoba (g) Saskatchewan (h) Alberta (/) British Columbia and, if so, for what amount in each case?


Royce Herbert Frith: 1. On February 25, 1981, (fiscal year 1980-1981), the Department of National Health and Welfare approved a $90,000 grant to the Quebec department of social affairs for the development of family planning services in the "centres locaux de services communautaires".
2.	In the fiscal year 1980-1981, the following amounts to the provinces and territories, who have requested it were approved for similar purposes:
Newfoundland	No request		
Prince Edward Island	Yes	18,000	Education Co-OrdinatorNova Scotia	Yes	40,000	Demonstration in trainingprofessionalsNew Brunswick	Yes	13,000	Resource library, audio-visualand teaching aids purchaseOntario	No request	Manitoba	No request	Saskatchewan	Yes	40,000	Health promotion andcounselling for high risk youthAlberta	No request	British Columbia	Yes	30,000	Health education consultantNorthwest Territories	Yes	50,000	Family planning project for theNorthwest TerritoriesYukon	Yes	31,527	Family planning and family life
education


Mr. Beatty: What was the government's annual bill for electricity for the fiscal year (a) 1977-78 (b) 1978-79 (c) 1979-80 (d) 1980-81?


Paul James Cosgrove: The
following expenditures were made from Public Works Canada appropriations in:
$000's
(a)	1977-78	$28,073(b)	1978-79	$31,507(c)	1979-80	$34,567(d)	1980-81	$39,018
It should be noted that electricity may be included in some leases and, as separate figures are not kept for the cost of electricity, these are not included above.


Mr. Beatty: Do individual or bodies within the government currently have responsibility for making recommendations to the government relating to electronic payment systems and, if so (a) what is the name of the individual or member of the body involved and for which department or agency does he/she work (b) to whom are reports made (c) on what date was the responsibility for the systems first given to that individual or body (d) on what date does the mandate of the individual or body expire (e) since June 16, 1976, what reports or recommendations were made and on what date (0 what action was taken by the government as a result of any recommendations and on what date?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: In so
far as the Department of Finance is concerned: In April 1978, the government published a green paper entitled "Computer Communications Policy, a Statement by the Government of Canada." That paper contained a number of statements indicating the government's "current perception" on various computer/communications issues. Statement 16 of this paper said in part: "Recognizing the critical and pervasive role of financial institutions in the functioning of the economy, it is very important that, in the rapid evolution of computer/communications involving the payments system of the nation and other financial services, a competitive environment should be maintained and that developments be consistent with the general policies outlined herein. An interdepartmental working group was given the task of preparing recommendations to ensure the continuing development of an efficient and equitable payments system. It was chaired by the director, capital markets division, Department of Finance and included representatives from the Receiver General for Canada, the Bank of Canada, the Departments of Communications; Industry, Trade and Commerce; Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The working group's recommendations were presented to cabinet jointly by the Ministers of Finance and Communications. Subsequent to their evaluation by cabinet, the government, in January, 1975, published a position paper entitled, "Towards an Electronic Payments System-A Statement of Government Policy concerning Computer/Communications and the Pay-
October 19, 1981

ments System." In this paper, the government announced its support for a common user communications network for the payments system and the creation of four committees with responsibility to make recommendations relating to an electronic payments system: 1. Interdepartmental Steering Committee on the Electronic Payments System. This committee, chaired by the director, capital markets division, Department of Finance, is responsible for the over-all co-ordination of government policy on the electronic payments system, including the maintenance of liaison with committees 2, 3 and 4 as described below, (a) In addition to the chairman from the Department of Finance, this committee includes representatives from the Bank of Canada and the Departments of Communications, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Supply and Services, and Justice, (b) The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Communications. In addition, each departmental representative reports to his or her Minister, (c) January 1975. (d) No expiry date, (e) No report to date, (f) Not applicable.
2.	A private sector committee, the Canadian Payments System Standards Group (CPSSG), was given the mandate to develop standards and performance criteria that would be used in a common-user communications network for the payments system, (a) The CPSSG was made up of representatives from deposit-taking institutions, common carriers and computer equipment manufacturers and others, as required, including retailers. It was chaired by Mr. Roger Charbonneau of l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Montreal, whose services were provided through the auspices of the Bank of Canada, (b) The CPSSG reported to the interdepartmental steering committee on the electronic payments system, (c) January 1975. However, the chairman was not appointed until September 25, 1975, and the group's first meeting was not held until April 27, 1976. (d) The CPSSG expired with the submission of its final report, (e) Interim report was issued in February, 1977, and final report in July, 1978. (f) The report is currently under study.
3.	Justice Study on Legal and Consumer Issues. This study was conducted under the leadership of the Department of Justice. It was charged with the responsibility to ensure that the legal framework for the payments system evolves in line with new payments methods and that the legal and consumer aspects are considered. This study was conducted in consultation with interested parties, including the Departments of Finance, Communications, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Supply and Services, the Bank of Canada, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, (a) See above, (b) The Minister of Justice, (c) January, 1975. (d) The justice study committee expired with the release of its final report, (e) Final report was issued in October, 1980. (f) The report is currently under study by the interdepartmental steering committee. Discussions are also being held with provincial governments and other interested parties.
4.	Committee on Credit/Payment Cards. This committee, chaired by an officer of the capital markets division, Department of Finance, was established to examine the financial markets structure and competition policy aspects of generalized credit card systems and payment cards, (a) This commit-
Order Paper Questions
tee, in addition to the chairman, includes representatives from the Bank of Canada, and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and the Department of Justice, (b) The Minister of Finance, (c) January, 1975. (d) No expiry date, (e) No report to date.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Mr. Tim Porteous at any time employed in the Prime Minister's office and, if so (a) in what capacity (b) did he have any responsibility for the appointment of his brother-in-law, Mr. Don Marriott, as director of restaurants and catering of the National Arts Centre?
2.	Is Mr. Porteous at present the director of the arts division of the Canada Council?
3.	What is the complete record of Mr. Porteous in the public service?


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows:
1.	Yes.
(a)	Head of public statements division. Executive Assistant.
(b)	No.
2.	Mr. Porteous is the associate director of the Canada Council.
3.	Mr. Porteous has never been a member of the public service.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Do public servants, resident in provinces other than Ontario, receive any payment from the government of a sum of money equivalent to the amount of the benefit received by residents of the province of Ontario who are federal public servants, as a contribution towards the cost of Ontario Health Insurance premiums?
2.	Is any amount so received a taxable benefit?
3.	To the knowledge of the government, is such payment taxed by the applicable provincial authority?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: 1. The government, as employer, makes a contribution to the costs to employees of their provincial health care programs in all provinces (including Ontario) and the territories. In the premium-levying provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, and the Yukon territory, the government's contributions are paid directly to the provincial health authorities as a portion of the total premiums levied. In the provinces which do not levy premiums, and the Northwest Territories, the government's contributions are made annually in the form of cash payments to employees. The amounts of these contributions are calculated without reference either to the amount of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan premiums or the government's contributions thereto.
2. Both the amounts of contributions toward premiums, and the cash payments, are taxable benefits.

October 19, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
3.	Those contributions and payments are subject to provincial taxation in the same manner as any other taxable income from employment.


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


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, October 16, consideration of Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, and Motions Nos. 4 (Mr. Fulton), 34 (Mr. Ittinuar), 51 (Mr. Fulton), 52 (Mr. Ittinuar), 53 (Mr. Ittinuar), 55 (Mr. Lalonde), 56 (Mr. Fulton) and 57 (Mr. Fulton).
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, certain amendments to Bill C-48 have been proposed and presented to the House for determination. These amendments include a definition of a "spill"; the inclusion of an "authorized spill" in the provisions of the bill as equal in implication to that of "accidental spill"; the requirement of reporting a spill and informing those people likely to be affected; the liability for economic loss or damage resulting from a spill; the composition and use of a compensation fund; and the reduction in the absolute discretionary powers of the minister to make determinations affecting environmental considerations and the people who populate Canada lands.
In advancing and discussing these amendments and their ramifications, the intent is to strengthen and enhance this part of the bill which reflects acknowledgement of the larger and larger proportion that environmental protection assumes in the responsibilities of governments, industry and individuals.
Last week's distribution of the report of the subcommittee on acid rain gives emphasis and impetus to the environmental character of everything we undertake. It is entitled "Still Waters-The Chilling Reality of Acid Rain". It is a demand for more than lip service notation of this specific environmental disaster. The intent of the debate today and last week is that the same demand for adequate attention be put to the government.
In the report "Still Waters", the subcommittee recommends that the following elements be included in environmental protection legislation to effectively reduce pollution in general and particularly acid rain air pollution. First, the imposition of penalties high enough to ensure that there is no benefit from saved cost of compliance in case of non-compliance; second, the creation of a tribunal which would have exclusive jurisdiction over environmental law prosecution; and, further, the provision of a funding mechanism for class actions which would otherwise not be instituted due to inadequate financial resources on the part of the initiators.
Pending consideration and implementation of the reforms advocated in the previous recommendations, the subcommittee recommended that effective steps be taken to apply existing environmental protection legislation.
Last spring the Special Committee on Alternative Energy and Oil Substitution released a report entitled "Energy Alternatives". There, too, environmental anxieties were expressed in the section entitled "Environmental Concerns" on page 59, as follows:
The exploitation of energy cannot be accomplished without having some effect upon the environment, but different energy options affect the environment in differing ways and degrees ... It would not make sense to formulate an energy policy which would solve energy problems but create serious environmental ones.
That refers to energy alternatives.
In light of some of the provisions of Bill C-48 we must ask how the concerns of these special committees will be serviced with any degree of confidence and certainty. How will the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) possibly fulfil these recommendations which are within his mandate when, in fact, he can only act and react with the sanction of his superior minister? Where does this bill demand that environmental impact studies be a mandatory part of exploration and development? It does not, Mr. Speaker. It allows that the minister-not the minister responsible for environmental matters but the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde)-may require certain things. This, of course, will only be after considering his primary function and his ministerial responsibilities.
How is this discretionary power implanted in one person, one office-I think I should say two, in deference to the other minister who is present-translated into positive action for protection of this narrow envelope which encircles the globe we live on? One man, and one man only, will decide.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this important piece of legislation which bears such implications for the future of Canada. Our society, like every modern society, moves, manufactures, builds, farms, communicates, warms, cools, lives, on the basis of its energy supply and distribution. It may be trite to comment on the happy circumstance in which we Canadians find ourselves, with a variety and volume of energy sources unmatched in the world. It is also trite and increasingly unnecessary to remind ourselves and Canadians generally that the only impediment to a parallel, unmatched prosperity in Canada is that imposed by the policies of the government. It is a government which has had
October 19, 1981

nearly a quarter of a century of opportunity to enact its will upon the nation but there is unimpeachable evidence of a careless disregard for that trust. There is absolutely no valid excuse that can be advanced by hon. members opposite to explain and rationalize a situation in which Canadians sitting on absolute energy wealth are, nevertheless, petroleum supply dependent.
Just as it is Liberal government policy which has produced interest rates which are 4 per cent to 5 per cent higher than those in the United States, together with all the attendant social and economic woes which these irresponsibly invoked interest rates have imposed, so it is Liberal government "easy-way-out" energy policy and putting party interests before national interests that have produced the present unpleasant reality that Canada faces today regarding energy.
In this circumstance it ill-behooves the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) to frame her speech to this House last Wednesday with statements that contained, first and last, unworthy and uncouth criticism of members on this side of the House. No amount of such prima donna preening will lead Canadians to misinterpret the record of this government.
Before we discuss the proposed amendments to Bill C-48, Mr. Speaker, I think we should look at some of the remarks and accusations made by the Minister of State for Mines. Two questions were posed in the statement of that minister. The first was: How much has Conservative obstruction cost this country in terms of our stated goal of reaching energy self-sufficiency? The answer is not one day; not one dollar. The Canadian people know who has been the culprit in delay and in cost. The Canadian people understand the difference between the Conservative's 18 cents and the Liberal government's shameful betrayal in the form of 50-cent or 60-cent gasoline price increases.
The second question is: How many Canadian oil and gas companies have been denied an opportunity to participate in promising Canada lands exploration due to this opposition? Again, the answer to the minister's question is not one. The question should be turned around, rephrased and directed at the hon. minister and her government: How many dedicated, talented, hard-working Canadians, and how many drilling and servicing rigs have been forced out of Canada to the United States and to Australia by the policies of this administration? In the words of the minister, how much has this cost the country in terms of our stated goal of reaching energy self-sufficiency?
Perhaps forcing drilling and development activity out of Canada is this government's ultimate weapon in protecting the Canadian environment. Let me say that only when this government puts forward legislation which is above criticism and above improvement, and when the government starts listening to the people and allows elected members to participate meaningfully in the formulation and improvement of legislation, just that soon can it be expected that we will react in the manner that the hon. member for Nickel Belt seemed to
Canada Oil and Gas Act
suggest, namely, that this House should pass legislation quickly. Passage of bills will develop as we have confidence and as we can study and make suggestions. However, just so long as the attitude remains that the views of hon. members are a nuisance, relegated to the dark confines of committee from whence they can be ignored into oblivion, can it be expected that this House will be the forum for expression and opposition to imperial, impaired judgment.
The interpretation of "Trudeaumocracy" in this House does not impress us in the least, and it does not impress Canadians whose intelligence is continually misjudged and insulted. The constituents I am honoured to represent would most certainly support tough environmental conditions in this bill. They understand the pressures put upon an area's ecological balance by the influx of people and the influx of industrial and development activity. I believe that the people for whom I speak resent the degree of ministerial and bureaucratic judgment which can so often yield to an element of expediency, whether it be political or economic expediency.
The area which I represent has one of the most fragile ecological environments contained within our Canadian borders, with only 10 inches of annual precipitation, with a consequence that our lakes and our land receive little of the flushing, laving action which rains and snow provide. With the compaction of increasing numbers of citizens within its limited but favoured bounds, we can understand environmental concerns. We can understand and appreciate the necessity for those parts of this legislation concerned with protection of other environmentally vulnerable areas of Canada. I might say that we are impressed that recognition is given to the fact that adequate funding is one of the keys to protection of the environment. We will be making our case for similar financial recognition of the costs involved in protection of the Okanagan valley chain of lakes, affecting, as it does, the quality of lives for hundreds of thousands of citizens and tourists, and costs that exceed the resources which municipal and regional governments can muster.
Let me invite hon. members of this House to visit Okana-gan-Similkameen so they can develop an appreciation of why residents there are alert to protecting the ecology anywhere in Canada, including Canada lands. Come with me to view Vaseaux Lake, where more than 100 acres of lake surface is matted and destroyed for use by Eurasian milfoil. Come with me to Osoyoos; talk to Mayor Frost and his council, and talk to the chamber of commerce. Let them describe one community's uphill battle to preserve the integrity of their lake, with its attraction for tourists whose patronage is so essential to the economics of that area. Come with me to discuss environmental concerns with those who are alarmed by the possible uranium mining development.
Yes, the citizens of Okanagan-Similkameen are alert to the dangers which development brings to our area. We can understand and appreciate the reason for the environmental protection sections of this bill. We relate to the alarm stated by groups and individuals from lands covered by Bill C-48. That is why I must note that there are aspects of the environmental

October 19, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
provisions of this bill which require-I emphasize require- criticism and require change.
If the notation has been made by hon. members who have spoken previously, the implication must be that the error is so glaring and so gross, and the remedies are so apparent, the government is so obtuse, and the consequences are so grave, that the point must be made and made again. We challenge hon. members opposite to do something to remedy the flaws that provoke our attention. That is what we suggest.
, The guts of our complaint about the environmental inclusions in Bill C-48 is simply that there seems to be a determination to ensure that in the future environmental concerns will be addressed with the same effectiveness that the Liberal government's National Energy Program has addressed the whole area of energy self-sufficiency and pricing. Why else would Bill C-48 relegate the Minister of the Environment to such a subservient role in the only area of his competency and mandate, allowing him to act only upon the blessing of other ministers whose primary responsibilities deny a detached objectivity in this secondary role?
We have the emperor Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and now we will be provided with the czar of energy, spreading his jurisdiction into environmental areas of concern in which he will have a paramount vested interest. Surely such conflict simply ensures the mediocracy of environmental protection efforts. To this aspect we take umbrage. It was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who, in presenting Bill C-48 to this House, acknowledged the importance of environmental protection in oil and gas exploration and said on December 11, in the first phase of this debate, that the bill contains:
-a whole series of provisions so that the government can be sure that exploration in the north and offshore is ecologically sound and that exploration work and the actual projects are respectful of the environment which, as everyone knows, is extremely fragile in these regions.
So said the minister-words, the intent of which is not totally borne out in the text of the bill.
On October 15, 1981, the same minister made this statement in the House:
-the minister will hold what 1 would call blank cheques from oil and gas operators which can be drawn to compensate claimants without proof of fault or negligence. This means that claimants will have two avenues open to them, one, the judicial process, the other a direct claim to the minister-
They will have the option of filing claims either before the courts or directly with the minister. That is wonderful, but it is noteworthy that the minister holds the power to respond. By his own admission he will merely allow the Minister of the Environment a corroborative role. That is the fallacy of the bill. The basic flaw is too much ministerial discretion. Where is the advocate for the environment? Where do the people who are most affected, the residents and the present occupiers of these Crown lands, have a voice and an effective instrument acting on their behalf? We now have a ministerial explanation of the purpose of the fund which is to be developed. Unfortunately, the bill does not explicitly state that purpose.
Canadians have learned only too well the degree to which they can rely on the word or the promise of this government and of those who speak on behalf of this government. As the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) noted on Friday, even if the present minister evoked great and general confidence, this act remains long after the present minister departs.
A recently leaked bulletin indicates the concern this government has regarding its loss of credibility with respect to energy pricing in light of its election promises to keep the price of gasoline low.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I must advise him that his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their indulgence. Recognizing that the credibility of this government is at an all-time low, as revealed by the recent Gallup poll, this must surely induce the government to take note of the suggestions made by members of this House and by groups such as the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, and most specifically amendments coming from that committee.
In the submission made to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee made some telling points. Let me quote from the section entitled "Control of the fund is in the wrong hands", which in part reads:
However, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, by the nature of his position, must weigh environmental protection against the need for development. EMR has an obvious first responsibility towards energy supply. That ambiguity can lead to conflict. Therefore, the Minister of the Environment should be the one in charge of the fund.
I must add that the possibility of this conflict occurring is intensified by the growing intimacy and relationship between the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and Petro-Canada, an intimacy evidenced by the appointment of Michael Phelps to the minister's staff while he benefits financially from a purported position within PetroCan. This is yet another unhealthy ignoring of convention.
Let me say in conclusion that I support the stated intent of this bill. We support the development of an adequate fund for its broad general purpose of ecological safety. We take issue not with the principle but with the substance and the detail. We ask specifically that the mandate of the Minister of the Environment be recognized, honoured and activated in fact and in act. I say remove the subordinate corroborative role in which the minister finds himself in the relationship established by the provisions of this act. We simply ask that in the area of environmental concern this bill not be emasculated but instead given a chance to work.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to the motions which have been grouped together for
October 19, 1981

this debate. Each of them deals with some aspect of oil and gas spills and the consequent threat of environmental damage.
Needless to say, the government is extremely sensitive to this danger and will continue to do everything within its power to prevent any such accidents. At the same time we are realists, and while we demand every care and caution, we must also be prepared for the worst should it ever happen. Appropriate measures have been designed to cope with any emergency that might arise.
As members are aware, the motions we are now debating are just eight of 57 on the Order Paper dealing with Bill C-48. That may sound like a lot, but I think it is a very healthy sign indeed. It reflects an awareness and real appreciation of the importance of legislation designed to bring long-term benefits to the country as a whole, and which has special significance for northern Canadians.
Each proposed amendment deserves our careful attention certainly. But in dealing with specific clauses and provisions we may run the risk of losing sight of the over-all thrust and objectives of the bill itself. For that reason, I would like to take this opportunity to give a somewhat broader focus to our deliberations and to correct certain persistent misconceptions.
As minister responsible for northern affairs, I am responsible for the political, economic and social development north of 60, for the over-all administration of northern resources and the co-ordination of federal activities in the two territories. Let me say categorically that nothing in Bill C-48 alters that responsibility in any way. It does, however, provide new opportunities for achieving northern objectives.
The bill will be administered jointly by my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and myself, but according to our respective jurisdictions. We have worked together closely in the preparation of this legislation; our two departments are pooling their talents and resources with the creation of the Canada oil and gas lands administration to achieve a shared national objective.
I think it would be worth while to expand on some of the provisions of Bill C-48 to ensure that there is no confusion in anyone's mind as to the responsibilities of my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and myself.
Because of the misconception that continues to be reiterated I will refer to the bill. The interpretation of "minister" under the two acts covered by Bill C-48 identifies the separate jurisdiction of the minister of northern development relevant to Canada lands in the territories and in the offshore of Canada's Arctic coast. Let us make no mistake that the ultimate political accountability in terms of Parliament for this bill for north of 60 falls on the shoulders of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Why don't you come to committee more often?


John Carr Munro: My colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I have agreed that the oil and gas management functions of our two departments will be pooled into the Canada oil and gas lands administration to be
Canada Oil and Gas Act
headed by an administrator who will be the designated official of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the minister of northern affairs, again relevant to each minister's respective jurisdiction as required by the bill.
The administrator will report to the deputy minister of energy, mines and resources and to the deputy minister of northern affairs, and at their direction will relate on policy matters to the assistant deputy minister of energy regarding energy policy and to the assistant deputy minister of northern affairs concerning northern policy. Northern policy includes energy policy north of 60.
A policy review committee including both assistant deputy ministers will provide policy guidelines and review all policy decisions of COGLA or the administrative body to ensure they are consistent with the requirements of energy policy and northern policy. The committee will be the instrument by which activities of the administrative body are integrated and harmonized with activities retained by both departments.
If I may reiterate, as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I am directly accountable for the following: first, environmental management and protection including responsibility for the environmental studies fund north of the line of administrative convenience defined in Schedule VI of the Canada oil and gas regulations; second, socioeconomic benefits for the people resident in the territories; third, negotiating strategies and agreement with territorial governments; and fourth, co-ordination of policy and over-all planning in relation to major resource development north of 60.
The management, then, of oil and gas rights in the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and adjacent continental margins is but one element of my over-all responsibility in the north, and when I say "my" I am referring to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and any succeeding ministers.
I have also been assigned responsibility for safeguarding the northern environment, for social and constitutional development, and of course native land claims.
I do not know how political accountability to this Parliament for all those policies north of 60 could be more clear, as well as those of my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources south of 60, and the bill quite clearly states that.
In carrying out these responsibilities I want to emphasize that we must strive to achieve balance in development; balance between renewable and non-renewable resource development, balance between the conventional wage employment activities and those that support the traditional native economy, balance between externally generated development and that from within, balance between using the land and resources and conserving them, and, last, balance between protecting the environment and developing the natural resources available to us.
11920

October 19, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Many members may be aware, particularly some members I see in this House-and perhaps they are very familiar with this-of a very recent and dramatic example of the kind of balance we have striven for and achieved as reflected in the government's decision respecting the Norman Wells oil field expansion and pipeline project this past summer. Of course, that was subject to a two-year delay in major construction. I say this decision is symbolic of the very thing I am talking about, the very mandate of this department as it was before C-48 and as it is to remain after C-48.
This decision was not arrived at lightly. In weighing the elements of the Norman Wells project the government asked the Federal Environmental Review Assessment Office, commonly referred to as FERAO, to consider not just the environmental factors but also the socioeconomic aspects of that project. The National Energy Board also studied the project, and both agencies held public hearings both north and south of 60 and reported positively, subject to specific terms and conditions.
I personally sought the views of northerners on this project through a series of public meetings held in Yellowknife and in the communities of the Mackenzie Valley last spring for this purpose, to achieve a governmental decision that could have balance between the local concerns and the industry's proposals, and reconciling those with the national interests. The decision on Norman Wells meets the criteria that I believe a northern resource project should meet.
Especially in view of the two-year delay, the pipeline project will be managed in a socially and environmentally acceptable manner, and at the same time it will provide enhanced job opportunities and economic benefits for northerners. I remind members as well that the decision to proceed with this project is subject to a delay in construction work toward meeting the concerns of the Dene and Metis regarding adequate time for negotiation of their land claim.
With respect to that project, by reconciling the interests of fulfilling that mandate the decision met with the approval, publicly declared at the time of the decision, of not only the territorial government and the Dene and Metis but, as to the resources, of the companies involved. This can be symbolic of what can be done to achieve a consensus on what on the surface would be conflicting interests, which have always been troublesome north of 60.
In this project and others, my department and I continue to meet our particular responsibilities to ensure that northerners benefit economically and socially from resource development in the north. With the co-operation of the territorial governments and the private sector, certain requirements have been laid down as a precondition for industry to undertake before commencing oil and gas activities. These conditions cover such areas as employment of northerners and protection of the environment.
To cite one notable example where this policy has produced very beneficial results indeed, I might refer to one development in the Beaufort Sea area. One company there has provided employment for 300 northerners and local economic benefits
in the order of $30 million. This has been accomplished by suasion and the co-operation of the industry; but also the enactment of this particular bill will enable a melding of resource management objectives with the other vital northern policy objectives such as employment and local business development.
Considerable progress has also been recorded through measures aimed at protecting the environment in areas of oil and gas operations. Exploratory drilling, whether on land or offshore, for instance, must conform with specific preconditions set by my department. Environmental impact studies have been required before many such activities have been approved.
Under legislation currently before the House, a revolving fund of $15 million will be set up by assessment on industry to cover the cost of such studies, to be conducted under the direction of my department. Complementary to the requirements of the Arctic Water Pollution Prevention Act, evidence of financial responsibility as well as the assumption of unlimited liability for damages will be required from industry for its offshore operations.
I cannot list here all the programs and initiatives related to oil and gas activities which have been undertaken in recent years. They deal with other considerations such as supplies to northerners of locally produced petroleum products, licensing policies, exploration agreements, technical developments and so on. But I think it should be clear to all members that even without Bill C-48 the government has had the interest and welfare of northerners clearly in mind in developing resource policies over the past two decades. That is a priority which will definitely, in my view, be strengthened by this proposed legislation.
In determining our strategies and directions we have counted heavily on the input of the northerners themselves. The extent of their participation is sometimes overlooked. It has ranged from frequent consultation on land use permits and socioeconomic plans to major discussions involved in the environmental impact assessment processes, and regional planning projects such as the Lancaster Sound study.
Nowhere is the contribution of northerners more evident nor, indeed, more appreciated than in the eight amendments to the bill accepted by the government in response to proposals introduced by the Inuit committee on national issues.
Briefly I should like to touch on at least some of these amendments which have so notably improved the bill itself. It was through the efforts of the Inuit committee that a key passage on aboriginal rights, Sections 5 to 7, was amended to read, and I quote:
Nothing in this act abrogates or derogates from any aboriginal title, right or claim that pertained to the aboriginal peoples of Canada prior to the coming into force of this act.
This was the clause that satisfied so many of the Inuit who had previously expressed concern about the implications of the bill.
October 19, 1981

Another Inuit amendment provided that an exploration agreement "may require equity participation by government and Canadians," including any aboriginal peoples who may be affected. That also was a significant improvement in terms of opening up the potential for joint ventures in the resource field.
Again, the Inuit committee suggested that an exploration agreement "may require training and employment opportunities" for disadvantaged individuals or groups. I hardly think there would be any opposition to that particular amendment. I regard the development of the north as fundamental to the future of the north. I regard, then, the development of human resources in the north as fundamental to the future of the north.
A great many northerners have also voiced their concerns during meetings with me personally and in countless letters. I submit that the government has moved ahead with this legislation fully aware of northern rights. Personally, I would like to express my appreciation to the many people who have devoted so much time and effort in producing what 1 am convinced will be an effective piece of legislation.
For the skeptics who still see something sinister in this legislation, 1 would like to deal briefly with a few of the more persistent allegations. First, Bill C-48 does not prejudice decisions respecting native land claims. The notion that it seeks to remove oil and gas rights from the claim settlement process is simply incorrect. I reiterate, Section 5(7) affirms that nothing in this bill interferes with existing aboriginal rights. I stress that Clause 61, respecting the replacement of oil and gas licences and rights, refers only to mineral rights held under former legislation and will not prejudice native claims.
If there are those who still doubt the government's good faith with respect to land claim negotiations, let them cast an eye on the recent decisions not only on Norman Wells but the Petro-Canada exploration agreement. Construction of the pipeline extension and exploration activities were delayed for two years in those instances to allow for issues related to land claims to be resolved through negotiation.


An hon. Member:: A slow death.


John Carr Munro: The issue of resource revenue sharing which we have heard so much about in this debate and ownership of resources in the continental offshore and elsewhere in the northern territories are simply not addressed in this bill. Those questions can be addressed subsequently in other policies of the government and in other legislation.


An hon. Member:: Change the working of the bill then.


John Carr Munro: As I have indicated, the bill does not change my responsibility for the protection of the northern environment. Indeed, it specifically assigns to me the duty to balance the need for resource development with the need to protect our northern environment while facilitating broadly-based economic development in the north.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
It can be said, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-48 will provide further means to achieve the objectives of the National Energy Program in the north and elsewhere. It was almost exactly a year ago that that program was introduced. At that time one of its goals was described as follows:
The people of the North should have more say in the decisions affecting resource development. They should enjoy more of the benefits, and bear fewer of the costs of northern resource activity. They must be assured that their interests will be protected, and that they have the opportunity to play a meaningful role in these activities.
Again, I would only remind hon. members of what happened with respect to the decision on Norman Wells to show that that can and will be achieved. That was how the government saw the situation a year ago. That is how we continue to see it today.
As I indicated earlier, we have a commitment to serve Canada's national interests and, in so doing, to make it possible for northern Canadians to contribute more meaningfully to that end.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think all of us in this House have regarded the north as extremely important to Canada's future. We see it in resource development. We see it in emerging technology; we see it in the growing self-confidence of the resource developers and, most important, of the northern people themselves. We see it in a new awareness of what the north means to Canada.
Now is the time for decision and action. To realize these opportunities we should act, I agree prudently, but promptly. Bill C-48, in my view, is an important step in the right direction. I urge its support by all members in this House.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the minister resumes his seat perhaps he would permit a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: This could be done with unanimous consent. The hon. minister has taken exactly his allotted time. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: The minister referred to some very worth-while objectives, including northerners having more say in the development of their resources. I assume he would extend those remarks to the protection of their environment as well.
The Yukon Legislative Assembly, 16 elected members, without dissent recommended to the minister that a certain person be appointed chairman of the water board. The minister disregarded that recommendation and appointed someone else who then resigned. Is it now the minister's intention, in keeping with his very laudable, expressed intention to allow northerners more say in the protection of their resources and environment, to accept the recommendations of the 16 elected members of the Yukon Legislative Assembly made to him without a dissenting voice by all three political parties?


John Carr Munro: Without agreeing precisely, I would point out that there is a law in place. In that context, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) will recall that I

October 19, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
agreed, on assumption of this portfolio, with the devolution of political responsibility, if you like, of the Yukon government which my predecessor, with the hon. member's acquiescence and encouragement no doubt, set out in a letter to the Commissioner at that time. I take it we see eye to eye on that. In that context, we are fully aware of what the law is with respect to the particular board the hon. member is talking about. There were three members to be recommended by the Assembly, there were three members to be appointed from the technical people-the department-and three were to be appointed by the federal government.


Erik Nielsen: What about the chairman?


John Carr Munro: We had the responsibility for the chairmanship. It was clearly set out in the legislation. We followed that law. If the hon. member has some objection to that law I have not heard of it up to now. He can legitimately recommend that it be changed. In the meantime, I advised well in advance the Leader of the Government at that time that as minister I would choose to follow the law and make recommendations as to the three. He was made well aware of it well in advance. He should not have been taken by surprise that the government of the day would follow the law and make the recommendations it is accountable for. The legislation makes us accountable. We are accountable for our appointees.
What happened in this particular case was that the territorial government of Yukon made its appointments. It chose to exercise its desire, and also its right, to appoint our appointments, for which we are responsible. In so doing it recommended the hon. member's campaign manager, as I recall. I wondered whether that particular person might be responsive to the government in terms of interpreting what we clearly perceive is our responsibility under the legislation. We exercise our true responsibility by making our own appointments, as indeed we should, until such time as the law is changed.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, I trust that my question to the minister will receive as lengthy but perhaps a more pointed response. On June 1 I asked a question of the minister regarding a section to which he has referred, Section 5(7), regarding aboriginal rights, particularly north of 60, and I asked for a legal opinion. On that date he said, "Yes, I can give a legal opinion". However, on September 2 the minister wrote to me and said, and I quote:
This is in reply to your letter of June 3, following the June 1 meeting of the National Resources and Public Works Committee.
Further to my commitment to endeavour to obtain a legal opinion for the committee concerning the impact of Bill C-48 on land claims and aboriginal rights, 1 regret that I will be unable to meet your request-
I wonder if the minister could inform all hon. members, because I think it is one of the crucial questions not only north of 60 but also on the west coast and in the maritimes, what the impact of Bill C-48 will be on aboriginal rights and on native claims. Certainly we have heard a wide variety of opinions, and I wonder if the minister could tell this House why he was
unable, after promising the committee-with native people present-to get a legal opinion on that.
Second-a very small point-could the minister tell us whether he supports the seven environmental amendments presently being debated in the House?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether we are arguing about semantics or technicalities. When I mentioned a legal opinion and when 1 made that statement, I meant that I would obtain a view in writing based on a legal opinion I would receive as to what the situation was.
I got that letter out, for which I personally accept the responsibility. I take it the hon. member would accept the fact that I would seek a legal opinion before giving my view as expressed in a letter which, indeed, I delivered. I made that quite clear in meetings that I had with territorial officials and the Dene people who were in my office. I am not sure whether members of the New Democratic Party were at that particular meeting, but I made that quite clear at that time. The views I expressed then with respect to this would not prejudice land claims-nor would my remarks in the House today-and are quite clearly founded on legal views I have obtained. I take the responsibility for giving them in this House. I have expressed my own view in letters and in my speech today.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House after a summer recess to address an environmental issue-I think that is the issue before us- not as an issue which represents the entirety of Bill C-48 but simply one subset in a set of six or seven amendments which have been proposed.
The environment is a topic about which I think it is generally quite difficult to get Canadians excited. Most Canadians in the present economic climate-and I think justifiably so- should be concerned about their capacity to hold on to their houses in the face of high interest rates or to their jobs in the face of increasing unemployment, which is a consequence of bad economic policies. Those issues are here and now issues because they represent our capacity to stay warm and cosy in the winter months and to have the sort of food which gives us and our families the kind of health we have come to expect in this country. However, environmental issues over the longer term are the sleeper issues. It is the destruction of the environment which will cause difficulty for all of us over the longer term.
As we approach something like Bill C-48 and the development of some of our energy resources in parts of Canada which are remote from our major cities, it behooves everyone in this chamber to do what he or she can to raise a degree of public consciousness about the importance for all of us of environmental issues over time. Perhaps in that context we should be a little more alert today than might be necessary in the future or might have been necessary in the past because it is my conviction that one of the tragedies of the present situation in Canada is that we have a government which has remained reasonably consistent since 1968, with one nine-
October 19, 1981

month exception. Therefore, we have a track record which we can look at, identify and project into the future.
There are many characteristics of the track record of the present government, but the one which I think must concern us in relation to environmental issues is this government's demonstrated record of caring not so much about what is good for Canadians but more about what is politically saleable at the moment, and the consequences for the future of this nation of that political saleability be darned.
If we look back to 1968 and track the decisions which have been made, we will find that characteristic. We find it as a consequence of some rather consistent attitudes. Whether we deal with social policy, in the way I have in the last 16 or 17 months as the employment critic for our party, or with other portfolios, such as the one I now hold respecting health and welfare, we find a rather consistent attitude on the part of the government in total, and some ministers more specifically than others, which ignores local advice.
If we look at this legislation and its clauses which deal with the environment, where do we find clauses which require a minister of the Crown, who resides a good part of each day and each week in the city of Ottawa, in the province of Ontario, at least to be the recipient of local input? Where do we find in this proposed legislation any clause or phrase which provides for a substantial degree of local control? We are dealing with a piece of Canadian geography which is large, which is different from one part of it to another and which is not well understood by those of us born and raised in the southern part of this country, and I think that includes most of us.
During the brief exchange between the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), a member on our side of the House, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), I heard the words "clear water," and that reminded me of an experience I had 13 or 14 years ago when I drove from Window Rock, Arizona some considerable distance to a place called Toyee. I arrived on the scene at Toyee, Arizona to discover what looked like a small-sized town. This town contained a school which was a bureau of Indian affairs school. As I drove into the town I saw many houses, dormitory buildings and classrooms. The outstanding characteristic of Toyee which first occurred to me when I arrived was the fact that about two-thirds of the houses, dormitories and classrooms were boarded up.
You ask yourself why. They look relatively new. They are not old-fashioned buildings that have been around a long time and lost their usefulness. They looked recently constructed, yet they are boarded up. As you encounter the local people, the people who live in Toyee, and ask them why these buildings are boarded up, they tell you the English translation of the Navajo word "Toyee', is "place of no water". The local people understood their environment. They understood that fresh water in Toyee, Arizona, was in short supply.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
In Washington, D.C., in the United States of America, the bureaucrats, the minister responsible, in their wisdom built a community designed to handle about 1,500 people. The environment, the clean water, despite modern technology, could support but 500 people. Therefore, we have accommodation and classrooms for 1,000 people boarded up because the minister and the bureaucrats were not required and did not have the wisdom to consult with the local people before they built the school.
That is the aspect of Bill C-48 which clearly disturbs me as I attempt to read it and comprehend its implications. Before joining the House of Commons, I worked in a university. I have tremendous respect for the skills and knowledge of many of my colleagues in that setting. But regardless of their discipline, they too are captives of their background and experience. However broad and however deep those experiences are for us, they are always limited.
I suggest to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that he is the captive of his experiences. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is also the captive of his experiences. The issue of northern development will affect the lives of all Canadians and most clearly the lives of those who live in that region of our great country. In proposing legislation that governs that region of our country, or any region of our country, with respect to those clauses and phrases which concern a minister or those who follow him, one should always consult with the local people if dealing with a sparsely populated region of this country where few of us have any direct experience or any direct personal, long-term investment.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development stood in this House a few moments ago and said that the control of the environmental impact study responsibility and the funds allocated would reside in the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources south of 60 and in the Minister of Indian and Northern Development north of 60. There was a certain sense of pride as the minister implied he would take those responsibilities seriously.
I have a thought which comes out of my personal knowledge: fresh water flows back and forth across that parallel; air travels back and forth across that parallel. I have sat in the House long enough to know there are conflicts among ministers. All is not sweetness and light on every occasion. I wonder what there is about that region of our country as we approach the 60th parallel that leads us to believe, when it comes to an environmental issue, that it makes a modicum of sense to appoint one minister responsible for air and clean water north of 60 and a different minister responsible for air and clean water south of 60. Would any rational human being reach the conclusion that that kind of structure is the proper kind of structure? I hear my colleague say that we are not talking about rational human beings. If we look at the behaviour of these human beings, I guess it is an easy conclusion to reach. Their behaviour in putting the bill before us indicates they have not acted in a rational manner; therefore, one may conclude they are not rational.

October 19, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
We shall go one step further. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his successor will be faced with dilemmas. There will be pressures on the part of Canadian people, in any kind of energy crunch, to move forward and produce the oil or the energy we need. If the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources proceeds in that fashion, and if in fact we are in any kind of crisis, then the pressure will be tremendous.
In those circumstances, in view of the political heat which can be generated in this House and the pressure which can be brought to bear on ministers by grass roots organizations, will that minister have, as his or her number one priority, the intention to protect our environment, or will he or she be more likely to proceed and to say "To heck with the environment; we are going to produce the oil". I suggest that nine times out of ten the minister will say "Produce the oil and to heck with the environment."
That is why I think the amendment which would make the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) responsible for environmental issues, whether they occur north of 60 or south of 60, is one which members of this House must support. If we reach beyond this House to people who may be watching the proceedings this afternoon, may we say to them that they have a responsibility to get in touch with a minister of the Crown, or with the Prime Minister, and express their concerns about a piece of legislation which has environmental provisions in it that will clearly be forgotten, subverted, or ignored? This piece of legislation is the responsibility of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Their greater responsibility to the people of Canada lies in the direction of production and development. They are not the watchdogs of our environment. They do not have the background and they will not have the primary mandate which would allow them to do the kind of job Canadians have a right to expect from their government.
As I said in the beginning, environmental issues are generally not the most compelling issues for Canadians on a day-today basis. If we pollute our fresh water supplies and continue to pollute our air, the long-term consequences for all of us are horrible to contemplate. In an age such as the one we are now in, with the complexity of our industrial growth and development, surely we in the House of Commons can fund and mandate a ministry with the sole major preoccupation of protecting the environment. When we create an environmental ministry to protect us over the longer term, surely we should look at every piece of legislation which involves the environment and has provisions related to the environment. We should say absolutely that the responsibility for enforcement and for allocating the necessary dollars to conduct the studies to protect us should reside in that one department of government with a total mandate and advocacy stance within cabinet and the House dedicated to the long-term protection of the health of Canadians through environmental protection.
It is inconceivable to me that party discipline and party loyalty could ever be called upon in the House to back a
provision in a bill which has such long-range potentially negative consequences for the health and well-being of Canadians. There are times, places and issues which should take us beyond the hurly-burly of daily politics, beyond the rigidity of party power. In that category of events is the issue of the environment. In its simplest terms, it is clean air and clean water and their protection over time.
There are other problems. There is a general lack of clarity from time to time. I see my time has run out, but in conclusion I say that all of us in the chamber have a responsibility, in terms of this piece of legislation, to back the proposed amendments which would protect us in the future.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I speak on this particular piece of legislation and the environmental resolutions before us. It is important to recognize that this is not a good piece of legislation. People have said that it is immoral in terms of its orientation toward the rip-off of resources. People have said that it allows too much discretion on the part of the minister and that it sets up conflicts of interest between development for Indian people and environmental issues. By and large, all of this is true. There has been a reluctance to place in the legislation guidelines under which we would like to see oil and gas developed. The entire bill is extremely vague. It does not provide any security for Canadians as a whole, particularly native people. Indeed it will create some very questionable situations in terms of the environment.
I am pleased to see a former minister of Indian affairs in the House. I should like to address some of the specific predicaments this legislation will create for the native people and communities in an area defined by the government as Canada lands, the area off the coast of British Columbia.
It just so happens that a very determined and active band council from the community of Waglisla on the coast of British Columbia about 300 miles north of Vancouver is in Ottawa for today and next week. They are very concerned about Bill C-48. I hope some of the recommendations in my speech which have also been put forward by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) will be adopted by the government and acted upon.
I am sorry that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) is not able to be here. I listened with a great deal of attention to his presentation. I was under the impression he was to be in Toronto today and not in the House. The band which is here presently has been trying repeatedly to meet with the minister. Hopefully in the next day or two that meeting will be forthcoming. It is very difficult for people in the north or in the far west of this country to plan adequately and to follow up on commitments if they cannot meet with ministers and officials to discuss their plans and obtain basic information on how such legislation will affect them. We are asking those communities to bear all the risks. They will take all the risks while the oil companies of the urbanized areas of central Canada will move in, rip-off the resource and leave.
October 19, 1981

I should like to run through some of the areas which will be affected by this bill. There is the community of Bella Bella and the band council which is in Ottawa today. Also there is Bella Coola, which is an interesting place. It is where Alexander Mackenzie, the first Canadian to cross the country, landed. As a matter of fact, the ancestors of the present band were there to meet him. The attention of the government has not really developed beyond the attention which was given to it by Alexander Mackenzie. The only level of development in that community is the struggle of those people in planning.
Another native community in my riding is at Gold River, the Mowachaht band. They have a small settlement at Friendly Cove and another one at Tahsis. One of the individuals there, an Ambrose Maquinna, happens to be a direct descendant of the Maquinna who met Captain Cook at Friendly Cove several hundred years ago. He is also a hereditary chief of the group. That was the beginning of the bad times, and it has become worse under the Liberals. Let us cook the Liberals.
There is Klemtu, a community in which the government allowed the shutting down of a cannery. It meant instant unemployment for the whole native community. For two decades the community has been struggling to get rolling again. Government bureaucrats travel in and out of that community on chartered aircraft; there is no problem. But the people who live in Klemtu and want to go to the hospital must pay $233 for a charter flight to go 35 miles in order to connect with a flight to Vancouver. Their children were unable to come home from school one particular Christmas because the British Columbia government refused to put in a ferry. That is the responsibility of the federal government. It contributed $9 million to improve coastal transportation and told British Columbia to go it alone. We are not imposing any criteria, and the people of Klemtu suffer. They pay anywhere from three times to ten times the price we pay for food in stores, if they can get it and if it is in a fit condition to eat. Percy Star, the chief of Klemtu, has been struggling for years. They were supplied with electricity a little while ago. They have been working on that project since 1923.
The Kitasoo band has been struggling against a government that does not really care and does not really know where they live.
Oweekano is another beautiful example. In the community of Oweekano the electrical plant broke down and it was without electricity for eight months. I should like to see what would happen if the city of Ottawa was without electricity for eight months. Perhaps the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) could make the government move faster to fulfil its responsibilities. At the present time the generators in Oweekano are ready to break down again and still there is no help from the government. The community wrote to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but did not receive any acknowledgement of its correspondence. The government has cancelled a memorandum of agreement and its financial contract with this community.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
The Tsulquate is another major example of government neglect. One could ask members in every row of the government benches and not find one person who knows where Tsulquate is or the conditions in which the people there live. Yet the councils and the people of these communities are dedicated and are pushing ahead, but without resources.
The Fort Rupert is an advanced band which lives in an ideal location. The band is making progress but certainly not as much as it would like to and could. If the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the government would assist it instead of handicapping it, it would make tremendous progress.
In Queen's Cove and Nuchatlitz, which is the home of the Ehattesaht band, the same thing is happening. When the last round of oil drilling occurred on the west coast of Vancouver Island, there was virtually a blowout off Tofino. If we should get a blowout there, it is not the people of Ottawa or of central Canada or Vancouver who will suffer the consequences, it is the Ehattesaht band, the communities of Nuchatlitz and Queen's Cove that will be covered in oil.
This group of people is experiencing tremendous problems with development. Unemployment ranges from 70 per cent in good times to 100 per cent in off seasons. Most of the communities have enormous unemployment. The government does not even know that they exist. The organization set up by the government confounds development, thwarts planning, withholds resources and unnecessarily complicates their lives. They have never had a land claim settlement. That is their hereditary land. Cook and Mackenzie came along and brought the civilization of the white man which only made things worse. By and large, through this legislation I think we have to begin to orient our thinking to the plight of the native communities.
Today their representatives come here for information. They would like to know what is going on and how they might be invited to participate. They have questions about how their land claims will be dealt with. This is an extremely important question because the people who will benefit from the development will be those in the oil companies and the urbanized areas of Canada. If we should get a blowout off the Queen Charlotte Sound like the Ixtoc blowout, Owikeno Lake would fill with oil and on the whole coast of British Columbia-the marine culture and fishing industry would be destroyed. The total burden of the risk would fall heavily on these communities.
In terms of environmental enhancement, social enhancement and the benefits of economic participation, I suggest the government should insist that oil companies working in the area and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources begin a dialogue with the people and give them information about what will happen. They should also make funds available so that the people can hire the necessary consultants and experts and then plan for and participate in whatever opportunities become available.
I would also urge that the government move forward with the land claim issue so that the people can participate in this

October 19, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
matter and share in the resources. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and other ministers have told us what a great bill of goods this bill is and I am sure they would want the Indian people from the west coast of British Columbia and, indeed, all Indian people to share in those resources and not be ripped off and forgotten.
There are other communities on northern Vancouver Island that are affected, such as Port Hardy, Port Alice on the west coast, Port McNeill, Alert Bay and Sointula. These communities have been isolated for years. They are basically single industry towns where the men work in the community but young people have nothing to do. For years they have been deprived of the social amenities available in large urban areas. Many people say that if they do not like it they should go back there. But, Mr. Speaker, these communities supply the raw materials which give other people in this country jobs in manufacturing industries and provide the social amenities they enjoy. Yet these are the people who are forgotten, although it would not take much effort to go to them and see what faces them.
All of a sudden, there are indications of interest. You can see the sharks moving in the pool already. They know that there will be action so the speculators and promoters are trying to take up options and nail down the opportunity to make money. They are interested in land development and are slightly ahead of the local planning efforts in the communities. As a result, the cream is skimmed off and hauled away. The same thing has happened in Norway, Scotland and to some degree in Newfoundland where governments have been late with the basic planning.
If this legislation is to pass, I urge the government to inform the communities about what will happen to them, and to provide funding so that the communities can hire consultants and expert planners to assist them. This is necessary so that communities are not ripped off and high-graded by the professional speculators in this country and in the United States who derive enormous wealth from taking advantage of the small communities that do not have access to funding and expert planning.
By the time they become aware of what will happen in their area, there is not much they can do. The plans have been made and the local people left out, although it is they who will ultimately bear the expense of development. Perhaps the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources could send people into the communities to tell the local councils, the regional boards and the band councils what is going on. They could indicate whether they would be able to participate in the planning.
In my area there are 15 municipalities, five regional boards and 17 native communities that do not know whether they will even be given information or whether they can participate. The federal government should make money available to those communities so that they can begin taking part in planning now. There seems to be about a two-year lead time. That is a godsend because it gives time for adequate planning. If the communities are aware of the effect this legislation may have
on them, then they will have time to make plans and prevent the bad experiences which have occurred in other areas from occurring here.
I urge the government to make that information available to the people involved. Funds should also be made available. Compared to the tremendous royalties that the government will rake in, the funds required for planning would be but a drop in the bucket and would be of tremendous help to the communities.
In talking about development on the west coast of British Columbia, I should like to take up my favourite topic, the coastguard. I see a colleague opposite from the committee grinning. I suppose he is wondering what the coastguard has to do with exploration for oil and gas in British Columbia. I would ask him to cast his mind back to the Ixtoc incident when it took nine months to cap the oil leak into the Gulf of Mexico. That area does not have the handicaps of the west coast such as terrible weather, reefs, islands, fog and, generally, difficult marine and air navigation. The coastguard would be a tremendous help in that area. I have checked with the coastguard and apparently there is nothing in their five-year plan which deals with offshore drilling on the central coast of British Columbia. There is no vessel traffic management system for the central coast so that ships will not pile into each other or run aground as they did in Alert Bay and other places. Numerous vessels have gone down but no search and rescue unit is available.
Referring to the communications system, let me just use this little example. There is a little native community on the west coast called Kyuquot. I forgot about that in my rundown. All the fishermen are exposed to the areas which could blow out. There is a weather system there. The fishermen leave at four in the morning to go fishing; they listen to the weather forecast the night before, if that is all they can get over the transcribed broadcasts, which states that the winds are light and variable and that all is well. They sail out at about 4.30 in the morning; and when they are out about 20 or 30 miles, all of a sudden it is blowing 70, out in the open Pacific. The next stop from Kyoquot is Japan. It is a really interesting time.
A couple of towing companies just recently lost barges there. They were getting their weather forecasts from the night before, which were the only forecasts available on the transcribed broadcasts. They got out there, the winds were blowing very strongly and they lost their barges which were full of goods. I wonder that the insurance companies do not sue the Government of Canada for failing to provide adequate weather forecasts. The Government of Canada cancelled the weather ships. We need good forecasting there. However, at least as far as I can understand, the coastguard is asleep at the switch. We need vessel traffic management and search and rescue facilities there. We need environmental protection against an oil spill close to the Port Hardy area or the central coast area so that if drilling goes badly and if, in fact, a decision is made to accept those risks, at least we can move quickly, capitalizing
October 19, 1981

on the experience of others, to protect that very delicate and very difficult area.
Navigation in that area is always a hazard, especially in winter. I hate to travel in that part of the country. I literally fear for my life in the wintertime, and experience shows that that is probably a legitimate fear. Yet these people want to go and drill for oil and gas in an earthquake zone. The last time we had a severe accident out there, it took ten days to find six people who went down in a Beaver. That falls pretty well squarely on the government. The government would have found them in one and one half hours if there had been a functioning ELT on the aircraft, and that strikes very close to home.
We need that coastguard attention to that area. We need development in that area for the protection of the people who live there. This government has an obligation to provide some protection against the tremendous risks that it is asking the residents of that area to bear. It has an obligation to tell them what is happening. It has an obligation to put forward funds. The province of British Columbia and the Government of Canada should be putting up funds so that those communities can develop effective community plans so that they are not ripped off by the class of speculators who are already in those communities, buying up land and promoting opportunities which will enhance themselves rather than the community. I think it is vitally important that some very serious attention be paid to that matter.
I see that the Speaker is giving me the eye.


An hon. Member:: The evil eye.


Raymond John Skelly: The evil eye. I appreciate his tolerance. Certainly, these are vitally important aspects for the people who live on the central coast and the northern Vancouver Island area of British Columbia. That assistance is vitally important. I call the attention of the government to that and hope that it will respond in a positive and effective fashion. I hope its ministers will be able to meet with people from that area to discuss the problems they face, and perhaps some solutions toward making it a better place to live, which would resolve so many of the problems.



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 Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski)-VIA Rail-Request that Minister reconsider decision on future of passenger services; the hon. member for
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Peterborough (Mr. Domm)-VIA Rail-Cancellation of passenger services; and the hon. member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell)-Fisheries-State of industry in southern Nova Scotia.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, and Motions Nos. 4 (Mr. Fulton), 34 (Mr. Ittinuar), 51 (Mr. Fulton), 52 (Mr. Ittinuar), 53 (Mr. Ittinuar), 55 (Mr. Lalonde), 56 (Mr. Fulton) and 57 (Mr. Fulton).
Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today about Bill C-48, which is an incredibly complex bill. There are virtually hundreds of sections and subsections, when they are all added together, which will affect huge areas of land on the west coast, in the north and in the east. The bill has gone through first and second reading. It went into committee, where virtually dozens of witnesses appeared. Hon. members on all sides of the House spent a great deal of time considering the various powers and authorities, and conflicts of interest which arose, and have now proposed a number of amendments. Right now we are debating some seven amendments dealing with the environment.
I think the important thing to recognize is that none of the amendments to this bill and motions for amendment which are now before the House is spurious or anything like that, whether put forward by the official opposition or the NDP. These are amendments about which people have talked for many hours, and regarding which we have heard the evidence. We have heard from the experts who came from all across the country and from all of the various interest groups, and they have proposed a series of amendments which are now before the House.
My first point is that it is a major disappointment to me that the government does not accept more of these amendments which, as I say, are reasonable in every respect. I would urge the government to accept them and I do not know why it would not. It is a bit similar to the constitutional committee, where virtually dozens of amendments put forth were perfectly good amendments and would have improved that bill for the people of Canada; yet the government accepted only its own amendments from its own members. A couple of amendments from our side and maybe one or two from the NDP were accepted, more by way of tokenism than as a real acceptance of amendments which would have improved the bill.

smacks of retaining colonial status, which I believe is unacceptable to the west. Fortunately, in Alberta we have control over our resources but it took a huge battle to win that control. A provincial Liberal government fought from 1905 to 1921 for the resources but failed. It took the United Farmers Association who fought from 1921 to 1930 to secure resource control. So for 25 years the people of Alberta, while residents of a province, did not have control over their resources. Those resources were controlled by Ottawa. It was only when that control got into the hands of the provincial politicians, who were closer to the people, that decisions on development were made protecting not only the investment climate but the environment as well.
I believe that is exactly the case with the north. People making the decisions concerning the environment, the rate of development and where lines should go, should not be a distant group of people in Ottawa, however well intentioned they may be. There is no doubt that our civil servants are highly trained and skilled, but by virtue of being in this fairyland, on the hill in Ottawa, they have no idea how people actually live and work out in the field. I believe people out in the field can make far better decisions. We will still have oil development, there is no doubt about that because they want it. But when the native and Inuit communities come up with a package giving a rate of development that will be in their best interests as well as everyone else's, surely the focus of that decision should be with them and not on a distant Ottawa.
One thing westerners have learned over 75 years is that decisions to be made will be made on a political basis. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) said that he and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources can work together, that they will work together and that they have created a committee, presumably of experts, who will make decisions. However, if there is a dispute between the two departments, who will solve that dispute? In other words, which ministry will make the decision? Depending upon which department makes the decision, what will the basis of that decision be? From where I stand, coming from the west, there is no doubt that the politics of the situation will rule. In other words, the people of southern Canada, who elect more members into this House, will make a decision in their best interests rather than in the interests of the three or four members of Parliament who represent the north.
Why would the courts not be authorized to make that decision? Better yet, why would the government not have an independent ombudsman who could make those decisions? Decisions would then be made out in the open after a hearing rather than being made behind the closed doors of the government in power, whichever government that may be.
I was amazed when I looked at the bill to see that there was no statutory authority at all for the creation of a committee to make these types of decisions. What is the authority for this committee that has been set up? It will clearly add a bureaucracy which will in turn add enormous cost and create an enormous time delay.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Donald W. Munro: It would be by convention.


Blaine Allen Thacker: My colleague said it would be by convention. I am not all that impressed with the government's upholding of convention.
A major point of conflict will be between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who, under this bill, has far too much responsibility, and the environment minister. At the very least I would encourage the government to make it crystal clear that the final decision should be made by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts). In his day-to-day contacts with people across this country, he will be meeting citizens who care for the troposphere and the continuation of mankind beyond the next 25 years, certainly beyond the next election.
I would like to go through some of the sections that have been amended. Motion No. 4 is a good proposal. This motion would define spills. Surely to goodness when a government brings a bill before the people of the country setting up all sorts of serious offences, particularly if individuals are involved, a clear definition of its terms should be spelled out so that people and corporations can decide what is or is not a breach. We have no definition of what is a spill in this bill. One of the motions is to call that definition. Surely that is a motion that could be accepted. If there is no definition, the courts will ultimately decide and that involves an enormous time delay and enormous cost. As different types of spills occur, reference will have to be made to the courts again and again.
Motion No. 51 would remove any distinction between an unauthorized and an authorized spill. Surely that is an area of incredible silliness on the part of the government. It is putting clauses in the bill which sort of say that if you authorize a spill, that is fine, and it does not matter how big it is. But if it is unauthorized, however small it might be, you are subject to penalty. That puts a power, again not in the hands of politicians particularly, but in the hands of the bureaucracy. Our common experience with the exercise of bureaucratic discretion is that it invariably becomes arbitrary and unilateral, however well intentioned the individual might be.
Motion No. 53 substantially clarifies the liability of anyone who has violated the environment under the terms of the bill. It does so by specifying that compensation must be paid when pollution impairs, for example, one source of income through loss not only of personal property but also of natural environment. This clearly would be of great interest to the natives in the north and should be accepted instantly by the minister, and for the life of me I do not understand why he does not stand up and do so immediately.
I was disappointed, as were other members, that the Chair disallowed Motion No. 54 proposed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) on the grounds that it would entail the expenditure of public funds. That amendment was designed to establish a multimillion dollar compensation fund based on

October 19, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
letters of credit from the parties involved in exploration. In the face of damage, compensation to the individual would be awarded through the letter of credit. Surely that would be a worthy motion to be accepted by the government. Again, I have not heard a rational, realistic answer from any of the speakers in the House as to why that amendment was not accepted. There would not be any loss of face for individual Liberal members or the Liberal government. These are proposals designed to make the bill more satisfactory, and so that this nation can continue to go on for many, many years.
In summary, sir, it is most important I believe, first of all, that the conflict of interest between the two ministers be firmly resolved. There should be no doubt about that. Second, there should be this compensation fund that is adequate; and, third, we should have a much more clear definition of how the people in the north are going to be able to ultimately take over responsibility for their resources, just as the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan ultimately took over theirs. What will happen once this bill is firmly entrenched is that it will be virtually impossible for the native community to ever get full provincial status with control of their resources. They simply would not have the numbers of people to do it. It is important for that to be done now and I believe this bill should, indeed, be put off until that occurs.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, there are a good number of issues I would like to address today, one of them being ownership as it relates to my province of Nova Scotia. Unfortunately I will leave that one because I want to take this opportunity to express my views regarding Bill C-48, and to clarify the important role which the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has played and intends to play in the future in the matter of this legislation before the House. This also provides me with the opportunity to show that there is absolutely no foundation for the criticism made by the members of the opposition to the effect that environmental matters are not adequately dealt with under this particular piece of legislation.
I have no quarrel with members opposite who have referred to the great economic importance of the fishing industry to this country and the need to protect and preserve the fishery resource and the environment generally. I can only conclude that their criticisms are based on a misconception of the provisions written into the bill. My intention now, therefore, is to go into some detail to explain to hon. members opposite that the proposed legislation includes various provisions which are sufficient to dispei the fears of those, including myself, who are concerned about the protection of Canada's fisheries and oceans.
For the benefit of this House, I might perhaps point out that under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act the duties, powers and functions extended to the minister include the following:
(i)	sea coast and inland fisheries,
(ii)	fishing and recreational harbours,
(iii)	hydrography and marine sciences, and
(iv)	the co-ordination of the policies and programs of the Government of
Canada regarding oceans.
In accordance with these duties, powers and functions, the minister is responsible for the administration of the Fisheries Act, the legislation which governs the management of Canada's fisheries and which dates back to confederation. Neither I nor the minister have to be reminded by members of the opposition that the protection and preservation of the marine environment, including fish and fish habitat, is fundamentally the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc).
I also wish to point out to members opposite and to remind this House that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is not only entrusted with the protection and management of fisheries, but also has a vital operational and advisory role in terms of the oceanographic and hydrographic aspects of ocean resource development as a whole.
That being so, I am fully aware that exploration for and the eventual production of offshore oil and gas may pose potential hazards to fish resources, to fishing activities and to the marine environment in general. As well, I as a member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada am aware that the offshore oil and gas activities are likely to have a significant impact on the socioeconomic welfare of Canada's coastal and fishing communities.
Both oil and gas, on the one hand, and fisheries, on the other, are resources which are invaluable in terms of Canada's economic future. However, it would be a step backward if the oil and gas resources were allowed to be developed at the cost or to the detriment of the fishing industry. It should be remembered that the life of an oil well is limited to a relatively short economic productive period. The fishery, on the other hand, is a long-term resource that will continue to provide livelihood and food, as it has done for centuries. It is my belief, and one which is shared I am sure by all members of this House, that the oil and gas industry must not unduly interfere with the fishing industry or, indeed, damage it in any way.
In saying that I do not wish to create the impression to my colleagues or to the public at large that I am opposed to offshore oil and gas development. Clearly the oil and gas sector is a major component of the Canadian economy. Oil and gas development must go ahead in a responsible manner; that is to say, in a way which deals adequately with fishing and environmental concerns.
I have said before and I state again that I firmly believe these two industries can coexist in harmony, and I am confident that my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, (Mr. Lalonde), shares this view, as does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has made a diligent attempt, in my view with successful effort, to ensure the inclusion in this bill of provisions which will adequately serve to protect and safeguard those very concerns which have been expressed by hon. members in this House and by those who appeared before the committee.
October 19, 1981

I believe the need for co-operation and liaison between the departments in this matter is mutually recognized by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In this spirit the two departments have in my view collaborated closely and have united their efforts over the last months to accommodate the matters dealing with fisheries interests raised in representations before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. It is my view and belief that those matters have been duly taken into consideration by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in the latest revision of that particular piece of legislation.
Before I address myself to the specific aspects of this bill, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is also responsible for national programs in oceanography and hydrography. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is carrying out studies and surveys in these two scientific disciplines in the principal area of hydrocarbon exploration and planned production. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is actively involved with the regulatory agencies and with the industry as well as in matters related to the physical hazards to offshore drilling operations of such things as ice and icebergs, ocean currents and waves. The principal objective of this activity by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is to assist in the design and development of safe and efficient offshore structures, and the safe conduct of related shipping operations. In this manner, not only is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans contributing to the economic development of offshore oil and gas, but-and I would emphasize this-it is contributing directly with measures that will help ensure the protection of the marine environment and its living resources. Simply stated, the likelihood or risk of environmental damage is considerably reduced by making sure that every possible safety procedure is built into the offshore operations.
In my view, any scheme devised for the protection and preservation of Canada's fisheries and oceans and the socioeconomic welfare of fishermen and coastal communities must necessarily provide for preventive as well as remedial measures. It is true that all environmental damage cannot be compensated. It is precisely for that reason that preventive measures must be established to minimize the possibility of events which could lead to an environmental disaster. As is often said, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Preventive measures include the entire range of scientific research, risk analysis and contingency planning and so on, while remedial measures include devising fast and effective clean-up methods and providing adequate compensation for any damages that might result.
One provision in the bill deals with the establishment of an environmental studies revolving fund, a proposal which has received the full support of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans from the earliest stages. The proposed fund will then ensure studies required for the assessment of new areas or studies not carried out by proponents or government through
Canada Oil and Gas Act
established responsibilities will be undertaken. It has been agreed that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will play a vital role in the administration of this fund and in the designation of study areas and requirements.
I should also emphasize that the consultative arrangements between the Departments of Energy, Mines and Resources and Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerning oil and gas development have been in place for a number of years. It is not just yesterday or the day before that they came into place. By means of two senior level committees, the resources management environmental committee and the interdepartmental environment review committee respectively, expert advice is provided on all matters relating to the regulation of oil and gas development. This includes matters such as draft regulations, oil spill contingency plans, approval of leased areas and specific environmental conditions. In addition, scientific information on the marine environment is provided directly on an ongoing basis both to the government agencies concerned and to the fishing industry as a whole.
The bill also proposes the establishment of a new Canada oil and gas lands administration which would bear over-all responsibility for regulation of oil and gas activities on all Canada lands. I have been assured that similar consultative mechanisms to those already in existence will be maintained. In fact, because of the extent of anticipated development in offshore areas, I have been assured by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources before committee and, indeed, in this House, that my concerns respecting fisheries and marine environment will receive particular attention.


An hon. Member:: Don't bet on it!


David Charles Dingwall: It has also been agreed that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will be fully consulted in the drafting and developing of new regulations relevant to its mandate and responsibilities.


An hon. Member:: They made 100 recommendations and not one was accepted. Let's make that clear.


David Charles Dingwall: In order that the advice provided through these mechanisms properly reflects the concerns of fishermen and the fishing industry, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has already established direct consultation with the fishing industry in the form of regional committees. In fact, the first of these committees, in the Scotia-Fundy region, held its first meeting recently in Halifax.
I would like to state, therefore, that in my view there is due recognition of the needs and requirements of the fisheries, the fishing industry and the marine environment and that these needs are accommodated and properly recognized in Bill C-48 and the administrative procedures now being established to meet the needs of that particular piece of legislation.
I turn now to the liability and compensation provisions in Clause 80 of the bill which constitute, in my opinion, a significant component of the remedial aspects to which I referred earlier. One of the important features of the liability

October 19, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
and compensation scheme of Bill C-48 is the absolute liability regime whereby no proof of fault or negligence is required to establish liability.


An hon. Member:: To the maximum of $30 million. That is absolute.


David Charles Dingwall: This goes beyond the strict liability regime found in similar legislation which allows the alleged offender to escape liability if the damage in question results from circumstances beyond their control.
There have been allegations voiced in this House that the definition of "spill" in the bill excludes "authorized spills". Closer examination of the relevant provisions, however, will reveal that liability under the bill applies regardless of whether a spill is authorized or unauthorized.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Charles Dingwall: I might add that this modification appeared in the latest draft as a result of consistent representations made, I believe, by all members of Parliament, particularly members on the government side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Charles Dingwall: Furthermore, the liability provisions include not only damages resulting from spills but also compensation for damages resulting from debris on the ocean floor. The provision is undoubtedly far-reaching in terms of relief for the fishermen, the backbone of the fishing industry, and others who may have their gear damaged by discarded equipment from the oil industry. In this context, Mr. Speaker, I might add that the wide definition of debris which has been incorporated in the bill also came about as a result of an insistence on the part of fishermen, MPs and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Another significant feature of the liability and compensation scheme is the inclusion of loss of income, including future income in the definition of actual loss or damage. I must emphasize that this provision goes beyond the basis for the award of damages under common law and in my view it is unprecedented in any similar type of legislation. Again, this major improvement was brought about in large part by the efforts of members of Parliament as well as by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Another feature that is important from my own perspective is the extended limitation period for claims now incorporated in the bill. On the basis of scientific advice from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans it was agreed that the proposed limitation periods should be extended. I am now satisfied that the revised limitations in the new version of the bill are much more realistic in terms of assessing damage or potential damage to the living resources. Furthermore, the compensation scheme under the bill provides for financial responsibility in the form of a letter of credit, a guarantee or indemnity bond. This provision will enable potential claimants such as fishermen to gain access to funds immediately without being
subjected to inherent difficulties often associated with going through the courts. That is a major benefit under this legislation.
I wish to point out that over the years there has been a steady and fruitful exchange of views between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. This consultation process has been reflected in the participation of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in various advisory groups, as I have already pointed out.
However, in the context of this bill co-operation has been further strengthened by the mutual consultations which the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources have had with respect to the many modifications which, I believe, are now found in the bill. My colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has given me as well as other members of Parliament the full assurance that his consultative process will be carried on in the future with respect to the enactment of regulations governing a wide range of subject matters relevant to the mutual interests of both the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
I might also add that in some areas there are consultations which involve not only the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources but also the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of the Environment. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans will also be providing expert advice through the proposed Canada oil and gas lands administration.
I think I have quite clearly demonstrated the absence of any foundation for the allegations raised in this House that the environmental provisions of Bill C-48 are inadequate. I wish to reiterate the fact that consultations between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources are and will continue on an ongoing basis with respect to all matters under Bill C-48. Indeed, the latest version of the bill, in particular the provisions relating to liability and compensation, in my view reflect the considerable efforts expended by all members of Parliament. I wish to emphasize that hon. members on this side of the House as well as hon. members opposite played a role in bringing that to the attention of both the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In that regard I think we can all pat ourselves on the back.
I wish to conclude my remarks on this particular aspect of Bill C-48. I hope to have a chance in the near future either within this House, on the hustings or, indeed, in my own province of Nova Scotia, to address that question and that issue which is so often attacked by hon. members opposite, that of ownership. I do not really believe that is the issue at all in Nova Scotia. The issue really is the benefits which accrue from oil and gas activities.
October 19, 1981


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, when one rises to speak about Bill C-48, one feels somewhat like the Arab felt when he entered his harem. He knew what he was there for; he just did not know quite where to begin.
There are many aspects of this bill about which one would want to speak. I will restrict myself to a quick word about what the previous speaker referred to, the role of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc), and address the main part of my remarks in reply to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), who told me I did not have very much patience in listening to his speech. At least I was here to listen to his speech, and I want to reply to it.
With respect to the previous speaker, I suggest to him that he might want to look at the reports of the department to which he referred and specifically the report of Mr. Grinnell, who wrote a report on the implications of offshore petroleum development for Atlantic fisheries, a socioeconomic overview. This was released by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in August, 1981. At page 29 of that report the author says, and I quote:
The U.K. experience tells us that a rapid escalation of petroleum activities can offset routine gains in employment and business activities by losses in environmental values and social conditions, as well as sharp increases in cost of living for those on fixed incomes or in work areas not associated with the petroleum industry-without a commensurate increase in income. In addition, industries competing for labour and space with the new industry, and marketing products in competion with those from industries in low cost situations, may have economic problems. Fishing, if conducted inefficiently, can be particularly vulnerable.
He went on to say why. I just quote that to say that I would not want to see the impression left with fishermen that they will not be vulnerable in many ways to the rapid escalation of oil and gas development about which this bill talks.
1 want to refer to some of the remarks made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources because he gave the impression that everything is hunky-dory, that this bill is fine, that it can proceed and so forth.
With reference to north of 60 the minister has succeeded in doing a strange thing. For the first time in my memory and in the memory of many people he has united the Northwest Territorial government, the Dene and the Indian people in the Northwest Territories, the Metis and the non-status Indians in the Northwest Territories, the Yukon Territorial government, the Indian brotherhood in the Yukon, the non-status people in the Yukon, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and all the Eskimo organizations, business in the north, labour in the north and environmental people in the north. As a matter of fact, everybody in the north opposes this bill, including even the municipalities in the north. He has succeeded in bringing unity to the north in the fact that all oppose this bill. All are united against it.
The question is why. Perhaps it is somewhat of a breakdown in communications or in understanding. This bill sets out a strong regime, in many ways, compared with previous regimes.
I see in the gallery today a representative from the department, specifically Dr. Crosby, who did a very good job in his department working to try to get a hard-hitting regime to-
Canada Oil and Gas Act
gether to deal with the oil industry and other aspects for the first time in a long time. The previous regime was disastrous. However, what has happened with this bill is that in the process the minister, who likes to ram things through, has forgotten to consult in a real way with the northern people. That is very important because they are the ones who have to live with this development.
What the bill does is speed up the development, so the minister should not be surprised when we stand up on behalf of northern native people and other northerners and on behalf of environmental groups and say, "Wait a minute; be careful; fix this bill up, if you can, and see what is happening as a result of this development." It will speed up the pace of development. What else is the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources there for? Its job is to push development. We would not expect these good doctors in the department to do anything else. That is their job. However, we in Parliament, as politicians and as people representing the entire country, must make sure that in putting a bill like this through we protect the interests of certain groups which will be affected by the bill.
This bill has generally been ignored by the press. Look at the press contingent here today. Everybody is interested in the Constitution or in the economy, perhaps, as people should be, but this bill is a real sleeper because it causes some very dramatic effects in the north and offshore. Environmentally speaking, this bill would set a pattern for an environmental regime and for other matters.
When he spoke, the minister gave the impression that the bill would go through easily. Of course it will; it is a question of power. The centre in Canada has the power at the expense of the periphery. That is what the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) meant when he was talking about development overriding the interests of the native people and environmental concerns. Granted, hon. members opposite can do it, but I say to the government that they pay a price. I suggest that the government be prepared to accept motions we present, motions the opposition Conservatives present and, of course, some of its own motions. Even at this stage the government should add amendments to the bill.
In dealing with the bill we in the New Democratic Party have had four main criticisms. The first is that the bill emphasizes Canadianization. We say it is a giveaway because 93 cents of every exploration dollar basically goes toward replacing the big American boys with big Canadian boys. Is that a change? We say no. It will make the Dome Petroleums and the NOVA corporations rich. The Dome Petroleums and the NOVA corporations will rush to drill in the Beaufort Sea and in the north at the expense of the environment.
Second, we have criticized the bill because it overrides the concerns of native people. Liberal members opposite do not have to care, but I put it to them that the Anglican church has informed the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that it favours complete withdrawal of the bill. This surely must have some influence. The Roman Catholic bishop Paul Reding read a statement from the Archbishop of Edmonton, Joseph N. Mac-Neil as follows:

October 19, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
I believe this legislation could, in effect, seriously prejudice the settlement of native land claims and further relegate the people of the North to a colonial status within Canada. This issue will have a dramatic influence upon the lives of thousands of our fellow Canadians.
In fact, the minister says this bill is neutral with respect to land claims. You cannot be neutral with respect to land claims. If you are going to develop the north, you have taken all that property off the table in the negotiations. Once again, the native people in the north will become like the native people in southern Canada. They will be the people standing by the road when the trucks roll by; they will be in skid row in Regina or Vancouver instead of taking their proper place in the development of the country. You have to do that by settling land claims first. That is why the matter is there. This bill, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, may be unconstitutional.
I remind the members that section 34(1) of the Constitution Act says this:
The aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
That principle was accepted in the Constitution. That principle was right. It is a very progressive and ultimately radical principle. The government is to be congratulated on this because it recognizes that the country is made up of the founding peoples, the native peoples, the original peoples, the two other groups, the French and English, and then the multicultural group, the group that came afterwards-that is the genius of the Constitution. It is a wise document. You cannot then come along with Bill C-48 and completely ignore that principle.
Let me now deal with a third criticism of the bill: the environmental aspect. The minister looking over at me said in his speech, "What are you worried about? Dome Petroleum have been drilling. They have drilled hundreds of wells and there has been no spill yet." But, Mr. Speaker, this bill means there is going to be an immense speed up in development. We do not know how to handle offshore spills.
A report in the Ottawa Citizen of May 9, 1981, stated this about a meeting in Resolute Bay, Northwest Territories:
A spokesman for Dome Petroleum Ltd. of Calgary admitted Friday when questioned by concerned Inuit that his company does not have the ability to clean up a major oil spill in the Northwest Passage.
But Ed Pessah told a public hearing that his company, which is proposing a fleet of icebreaking tankers to ship Arctic oil to southern markets, is studying methods to clean up major oil spills and hopes to be able to do that by 1986.
Ed Pessah said:
We probably could not clean up that oil spill today but we are hopeful that we could by 1986. We could not give that guarantee today.
We are here today discussing a bill with inadequate environmental protection, when Dome Petroleum admits, contrary to what the minister told the House, they cannot control an oil spill in the Arctic. What kind of leadership is this? "Have patience," says the minister. The minister should have listened to the remarks made to the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) and the member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) when they talked about specific proposals we made. Why did the minister
not say, "We will accept those proposals. They make sense." For example, we wanted to define an oil spill. I will not go into this in detail, Look at Hansard on page 11796, and you see that the hon. member for Skeena refers to the reasons for defining an oil spill. He talks about cumulative leaks being just as bad as a big spill. That is why you must have a definition of what an oil spill is. He cites the experience in Wales in these words:
Let us look at the experience elsewhere. In Wales, the harbour authority has defined a spill as anything over a few barrels. What this has done is to give a mandate to the local authorities to watch the chronic oil pollution problem closely, but it has also meant that the companies involved have taken the time to train their employees properly and have recognized the importance of controlling these kinds of spills. Incidentally, when a quantified level was set, the spill rate in Wales dropped to one spill in 100 from previous levels.
We advocated that when we brought forward Motion No.
52.	In an excellent speech to the House the other night, the hon. member from Nunatsiaq really dealt with the matter in detail. If you look at what he said, Mr. Speaker, at page 11831 of Hansard, you will find he defined why we want Motion No. 52 of the bill. He dealt with the method of compensating people for spills.
He also dealt with another matter. This is a grave matter. It is dealt with in Motion No. 53. You heard the hon. member from Mississauga also make the point. Bill C-48 would only allow you to go to court over a spill, to sue, or to go to the minister if your property were directly affected. In the north they have walruses and other groups of animals. Those groups are not privately owned; they are owned collectively. If the minister knew anything about the north, he would know that. They are viewed as being owned collectively. We heard a northern native and a southern lawyer say this. If you were to read their speeches together-and I suggest the government might want to do this-they might want to adopt Motion No.
53.	I believe they make sense. They were saying you have to give the people in the north a way to sue for their general loss. You have to give people of the north a way to identify the general loss. We have an amendment for this. We asked the companies to report spills and incidents. We asked there be a time delay because you might not be able to find the loss for a little while. These motions make sense to me.
We have also included Motion No. 34 in this group. I suggest it is worth looking at. It was partly outlined in the remarks made by the member for Nunatsiaq. Motion No. 34 deals with persons or groups directly affected by oil and gas activities being funded so they are enabled to participate effectively in the studies and in the hearings. Surely the interest holders and the oil and gas producers should bear the cost of funding the environmental studies in a revolving fund and should refund, at least, in part, those persons or groups affected by the activities. There should be an advisory committee comprised of representatives from the oil and gas industry, public interest groups, aboriginal people and other groups. At page 11832 of Hansard, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq outlines this in some detail. I ask the government to take a look at this particular amendment. I will not go into it in any
October 19, 1981

more detail. However, they should look at it because I believe it is worth while.
The government has made a big mistake with regard to this bill. This is a centralized bill. It is brought down by this government against the wishes and without really consulting the members of the people of the north.
I heard the minister say that in the committee say, "We heard from all kinds of people. We sat for so long. We heard from the government bureaucrats and from the industry. That is who we heard from." We had only one day with the northern people, and the committee refused to go up north. What kind of way is that to run a country like ours? This is a big country. The north is our last frontier. We should at least hear from northerners.
1 will conclude the substantial part of my speech, Mr. Speaker, by suggesting to the members opposite that they take a look at the amendments we proposed in good faith. It will not cure their bill, but it will help it a bit.
The other point I will make in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, is that when I was a younger lawyer, I went to a hearing in Inuvik as counsel to the Berger inquiry on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. I did not understand, at first, things about the north. I thought like a southerner and did not understand then the point I just made about collective ownership of animals. I remember the night when Sam Raddi appeared before the inquiry in Inuvik and gave a very quiet speech. Mr. Raddi is blind. He speaks very quietly. He spoke about the time when he was a boy and his father told him that if the animals ever left the Beaufort Sea, the people would go; if the animals go, the people go. It is not just a question of killing polar bears and seals because we in the south may happen to like polar bears and seals. It goes further for northern people. It will kill them if they lose those animals. It will kill their culture. The minister should know better. He should stop this bill. He should go up and consult the people of the north about it. Before third reading, he should try again to talk to the northern people.
We want to keep our northern environment. All parties in the House share this view. We are a northern people. If one reads Canadian literature, one finds over and over again illustrations of how we are northerners. Although we live in southern Canada, we think of ourselves as northern people. There is not a member in the House who does not want to preserve the northern environment. I have been through three or four years of hearings on this matter, and I find that the only way we can preserve the northern environment is by tempering the development of the north, which the minister wants to bring in through Bill C-48 full flight.
It must be tempered with some balances. It must be tempered with a settlement of native land claims and by including all northern people in this bill. In that way we can have both the northern frontier and the northern homeland intact for the people. That is the point we in this corner of the House are making.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, indeed it is a pleasure to join in a debate which is not on procedural matters. This departure is somewhat unique for me as in the last little while I have been concentrating on procedure and points of order when speaking in the House of Commons.
I do not intend to come before the House today to talk about this bill in any great depth. However, I have been present in the House during the last year while this bill and the National Energy Program have been before us, and I am somewhat surprised that we are still debating this measure in the month of October, a full year after the National Energy Program was brought forward.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) lamented the fact that there is only one reporter from the Canadian Press in the gallery today. Perhaps that answers his question. We know the excellent objectivity of the Canadian Press in general and its good judgment because it is so attuned to political life in the country. Since more reporters are not present, perhaps it means that there is no great fuss out in the country and perhaps this is, then, a good bill. Perhaps the fact that there is only one reporter from the Canadian Press tells us that there is no great uproar about this bill, and that we should pass it.


Ian Deans: What is your definition of "objectivity"? You started a libel suit against them last week.


David Michael Collenette: I hear the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) heckling me. With all his years of experience, I would have thought he could detect when someone was talking tongue-in-cheek and when someone was talking in a straight sense.


Ian Deans: Will the hon. member accept a question?


James Ross Fulton: Talk about the environment.


David Michael Collenette: The hon. member is trying to seek the floor. I do not know whether we should allow him to interrupt the debate. I did not want to cause any fuss; I have been in the middle of enough fuss in the last year. It was very innocent of me to think that at 5.45 p.m. I could rise to talk about Bill C-48.
This bill has been before us for a long time. The minister mentioned that 30 speakers had been heard on Motion No. 3. We are now on the third day of debate dealing with the environmental motions. Hon. members should realize that when report stage was conceived in the 1969 rule changes- and I stand to be corrected-it was meant to be a helpful device so that after deliberation in committee the government, in particular, could come forward with amendments to the floor of the House which had not previously occurred to the government and were the result of committee deliberations.
Earlier in the session we saw that report stage on Bill C-57 was regarded by the opposition as another attempt to delay the normal passage of bills. If we consider rule changes in the new

October 19, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
year and we come forward with some work for the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, I hope we will reflect on how report stage is continually being abused. If we continue with this bill at the same speed, we will still be on it well into the new year.
There is one theme running through the discussion on Bill C-48, both on this side and the other side of the House, that is, the need for some orderly rules governing the development of exploration for resources on the Canada lands. I think everyone would agree that we need this. The fact that we are debating this bill ad nauseam has an unsettling effect on the country. We are not establishing a regime for orderly development. Hon. members of the NDP, those self-righteous gentlemen and gentle ladies from the nether regions of the political spectre, fail-


Pauline Jewett: Is that how you talk about the west? No wonder you did not get any votes there.


David Michael Collenette: -fail to appreciate that the things they are supposedly fighting for are being hampered by their continual delay to face up to the issues with respect to the development of the Canada lands. We saw this on Motion No. 3. Actually, it was not the NDP who prolonged the debate; it was the official opposition.


Ian Deans: Make up your mind.


David Michael Collenette: They prolonged the debate after the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) stated, as reported in Hansard of December 7, 1980, that we need quick passage of the bill. I am not sure whether the fact that he made this statement a year ago and the bill is still before us is the reason he is no longer the energy critic of his party. The point is that the official opposition has delayed the bill, yet originally it called for its speedy passage. The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre talked about unilateral action. I will relate this to the motions at hand and the need for orderly development, but as reported on page 5675 of Hansard, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre said:
Bill C-48 confirms the Government of Canada's unilateral approach in yet another area of policy, and that is in the area of offshore jurisdiction over resources.
The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre castigated the government for so-called unilateral action. It is not unilateral action. What is being done in this bill, especially in Motion No. 3, is simply to confirm the status quo. I might say in passing that the official opposition should be castigated because the prolonging of debate on Motion No. 3 severely prejudiced the very sensitive negotiations now under way between the government of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada respecting the sharing of wealth from the offshore. The opposition has prolonged and continued these debates. Before I talk in depth on the other motions, I should say that the official opposition seems to be the only institution or force in the country which is out of step with public opinion on the Canadianization policy and on the National Energy Program.
The premier of Ontario embraced so-called free enterprise in Queen's Park. He embraced the tenets of the National Energy Program by having his government acquire a stake in one of the large multinational oil companies. Obviously there is widespread support for the NEP and its Canadianization provision. As on so many issues facing the country, whether it is the Constitution, the charter of rights, citizenship in the 1940s or the flag, it is the official opposition, the National Progressive Conservative Party, which is bringing up the rear, failing to come to terms with the modern reality of modern Canada.
What about these particular environmental motions? If one read them individually, one would think that the NDP is claiming some exclusive right on behalf of all Canadians to protect the environment. This is not true. I resent somewhat the implication in the House that it is only our friends in the New Democratic Party who have environmental interests at heart, that it is only the NDP who have the native people at heart. I resent that, Mr. Speaker. This motion of moral prudity and exclusivity is somewhat offensive.
The minister pointed out that environmental concerns have been addressed in this bill. This government set up the Berger Commission. 1 understand that the hon. member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) was involved with that commission and its report was embraced by the Liberal side of the House. After the government has proved, over the years, its serious concern for the environmental effects of development in the north, his party comes in with a group of motions.
That party talks about oil spills, Mr. Speaker, but the minister pointed out that there has not been an oil spill of any great significance. That does not mean that there will not be and that we should not be concerned that there might be in the future. But to date there have not been any great oil spills because, so far, the rules under which exploration has occurred have been controlled and monitored by the government. I submit that conditions are being enhanced in the bill that is before us.
My colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, talked about native opposition and about Section 34 of the Constitution Act. But he defeats his own argument, Mr. Speaker. In the constitutional resolution the government is enhancing and protecting native rights. In no way will the provisions of this bill run counter to the charter of rights when it is implemented.
I think the hon. member's argument is somewhat rhetorical when he claims that we have not thought this matter through. If he reads the bill closely, he will see that every attempt has been made to be sensitive to native and environmental concerns.
The minister spoke of the attempt of members of the New Democratic Party to diffuse responsibility for environmental protection through the use of these motions. I should like to know where the Tories stand on this question. That is the party that claims to stand for efficiency in government and which
October 19, 1981

talks about giving leadership. What is their stand on the amendment in question in which the NDP proposes a more diffused responsibility over environmental concerns? We have not heard from them on this point. I think it is essential that one department and one minister have overriding responsibility for the environmental provisions of the bill.
The minister also spoke about the assistance the bill affords individual citizens to protect themselves against environmental damage. The judicial process is upheld and individuals who may be adversely affected will have the right to make a judicial appeal. The minister spoke about blank cheques from the industry so that citizens would receive compensation. 1 am not sure of the details of those so-called blank cheques but it is evident that the bill will require the industry to be responsible for cleaning up any spills or environmental hazards that occur as the result of resource development. The opposition argues that point but the trouble with them is that they look at every little nuance-


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) on a point of order.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would quote the clause he is referring to. We have heard an awful lot of hot air and misquotes from the hon. member. We have a number of motions before the House-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette).


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I offended my friend from Skeena. Perhaps we should look at the speech made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the speech made last Thursday night by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) who outlined the weaknesses of the NDP amendments. I do not propose to hold up the House at this point. I understand that the hon. member for Skeena wishes to speak. Let him get to his feet and say his piece.


An hon. Member:: He has already spoken.


David Michael Collenette: He has already spoken yet he would try to deny me, a humble member of this House, the right to make some small impact on the debate.


An hon. Member:: Speak to the motion.


David Michael Collenette: In summary, Mr. Speaker, these amendments must be rejected for the reasons I have outlined.


Mr. Andre:: The Globe and Mail was right.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the government would take its responsibility and see that this legislation becomes law as soon as possible.


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


David Michael Collenette: In British parliamentary democracy there is a theory that if a government is elected, then obviously it has a responsibility to put policies forward. It has a responsibility also to have those policies debated, but at some point it has to move on. It is not closure; it is adequately airing debate. The hon. member opposite said that I was spewing forth a lot of hot air. I would remind him that 30 members of this House spoke on Motion No. 3. If one must talk about hot air, then perhaps one should look at one's own party.
I think we must get on with passing these clauses and I hope the debate can be wound up tonight so that we may clear this very important piece of legislation off the agenda of the House of Commons. Then we could move on to the macroeconomic debate that the Tories want. All summer they have called fora macroeconomic debate to deal with the so-called poor economy of the country, yet they permit their members to stand up, one after the other, to filibuster this bill.
I did not mean to get so passionate in making these comments Mr. Speaker; I was just trying to be helpful to hon. members opposite. Before I sit down, however, I must say that I think it is high time that members of the public who watch us on television or read the debates, and even the lone reporter from the Canadian Press-wherever the lady might be-


Mr. Taylor:: She could not stand you.


David Michael Collenette: -take note that this bill should be passed into law, and soon.


Gordon Edward Taylor: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I cannot recognize the hon. member if he is not in his proper seat.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) on a point of order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the words of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) are pretty hollow when you realize that three Liberals spoke. Three Liberals held us up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on Motion No. 4 in the name of the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar).


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I wonder if you are in a position to inform us on the ruling of the Chair with regard to a question I raised on Friday last. I asked that the votes on Motions No. 51 and 4 be split for the purpose of determining if Motion No. 4 dealt strictly with definitions

October 19, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
while Motion No. 51 was an operative section. I wonder if I could have a ruling on that before you put the question on Motion No. 4.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. If the House wishes to dispose of the motions separately, the Chair is quite agreeable to that.
The question is on Motion No. 4 of the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar).
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on this motion stands deferred.
The question now is on Motion No. 51. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 34. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) on a point of order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps Your Honour could clear this up for me. There was a motion that we include another section which Mr. Speaker had ruled out, and I just wonder if you could tell us before we proceed whether there has been a ruling on that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: To which motion precisely is the hon. member referring to?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Number 54, I think.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The Speaker will rule later on No. 54.
The question is on Motion No. 52. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 53. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
October 19, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on a point of order.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last I raised the question with regard to the appropriateness of Motion No. 54 which, in order of sequence, would come next for voting purposes. I put before Madam Speaker an argument in favour of the motion as it stands, contrary to the decision made by Mr. Speaker in a ruling tabled on July 13, 1981. I wonder if I might have a ruling on Section 54 before we proceed with the vote on the subsequent sections.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Again I am informed by the Clerk that Madam Speaker has said that she will make a ruling on Wednesday on this specific motion, Motion No. 54.
The question is on Motion No. 55. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Motion No. 55 (Mr. Lalonde) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on Motion No. 56. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 57. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
It being past six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At 6.08 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I understand several motions were disposed of before the dinner hour this evening. Accordingly, the House may wish to consider Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde).


Mark R. MacGuigan: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 5 by adding immediately after line 39 at page 5 the following:
"(7) The members of any advisory body appointed under subsection (6) may be paid for their services such remuneration and expenses as are fixed by the governor in council."
and by renumbering Subclause 5(7) as Subclause 5(8).

October 19, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, we in this party do not have any profound objections to this clause which provides that the minister may appoint an advisory body to advise him with respect to matters relating to the administration of this act and that the governor in council be empowered to pay for their services. In theory, that provision is reasonable. But as we know from experience with the operation of this government in the last few months and years, we know that what is sometimes a reasonable procedure turns out often to be not so reasonable. I do not know that we could find the appropriate language, and indeed it is regrettable that it is even necessary for members of this House to express the hope that this provision be not inserted for the purpose of allowing the minister to reward and remunerate his friends and associates.
It would be nice if we could have some provision in here to ensure that the sleazy behaviour regarding Messrs. Maurice Strong, David Beattie and Joel Bell with respect to the CDC will not be repeated here. It would be nice if we could find the appropriate language to ensure that this particular provision will not be used for some under the table sleazy payments to assistants of the minister. It would be nice if we could find some way to ensure that this provision will not end up as a way for the minister to reward campaign workers, defeated candidates and other loyal Liberals, a habit that has developed with respect to these types of appointments.
Prior to six o'clock today we heard the speech of the former parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). He talked about the coming parliamentary reform, perhaps in the new year. One parliamentary reform, which the record of this government indicates is vitally necessary if we are to restore some public respect for this body and for the government, is a reform wherein appointments such as this be made subject to review, so that the remuneration of people who are appointed to advisory boards, boards of directors and various government appointments be made subject to public disclosure and public review. As well perhaps we should assign an advise and consent role to this House, similar to that in the United States. Obviously with a government whose only moral code is the Criminal Code, this kind of unconventional, immoral behaviour is bound to continue. I do not think it does justice to the taxpayers of Canada who ultimately have to pay these salaries.
With the caveat, Mr. Speaker, that some of us in this Parliament at least do find that kind of behaviour by the government sleazy at best, I say on behalf of my party that we have no objection to Amendment No. 5


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments on this particular amendment moved by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). I must say that the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre)-


An hon. Member:: The sleazy member from Calgary.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I did not call him that, but he has a peculiar way of supporting that proviso. On behalf of our party, I also support the amendment. However, I might point out that this is a provision for appointing advisory bodies. There are no specifics as to what the advisory bodies are or who will be on the advisory body. It is a provision to pay the people who are appointed to these advisory bodies. I wish I could be more encouraged by the level of appointments.
For instance, let us take Petro-Canada. I think hon. members opposite, the governing Liberal party and our party share some views on Petro-Canada. We want to see Petro-Canada work as the national oil company for all Canadians. I am quite proud of my Petro-Canada credit card, except when I have to pay the charges incurred by using it. Members opposite from eastern Canada will be getting Petro-Canada credit cards when Petro-Canada converts all the Fina gas stations in the east. People will respond to Petro-Canada. You will see it happen. We saw it happen out west. People will come to those gas stations. The people of this country are proud of Petro-Canada.
Some appointments were made to the board of Petro-Canada recently. I am still trying to figure out what Mr. Jerry Grafstein of Toronto knows about the oil industry and what his particular expertise is entitling him to sit on its board.


Erik Nielsen: There are others.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I know there are others, as the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has said. Maybe I will get to those in a moment. There is also someone from the Yukon. At least she can say she lived in the north. I do not know if Mr. Grafstein has been north of Bloor Street. Actually I knew Mr. Grafstein years ago. He is a very competent man, but why is he on the board of Petro-Canada? Why do we not have a native or an Inuit on that board, or why do we not have some environmental people or some small business people? What about some of those people who are retail gasoline dealers representing their point of view? What does Mr. Grafstein have to contribute to Petro-Canada? What is his raison d'etre for being on the board?


An hon. Member:: He is a big "L" liberal.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is right, he is a big "L" liberal and this is a patronage appointment. Are we about to be voting here for patronage appointments? I hope and trust that is not the case as this has never happened in the past except for Petro-Canada and in respect of numerous other boards. I hope these will not be patronage appointments.


An hon. Member:: It is a good program for exchanging people.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is a good program to exchange people from being Liberal fund raisers to becoming members of the board of Petro-Canada. That is a strange exchange.
October 19, 1981


An hon. Member:: Between private enterprise and government.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I just returned from the election campaign in Nova Scotia, and when driving around during the campaign I saw some steam coming up from the road and I could not figure it out. Finally the person who was driving me told me that was just steam coming from the new pavement. I told him the road looked fine, but he said that they had paved the road because of the election campaign. They pave the roads there during election campaigns, and one could see the steam coming up because it was so fresh.
What I am saying is simply this. Let us not make such gross political appointments. My predecessor, as the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, Mrs. Holt, lost the election and found herself on the National Parole Board. Mr. Grafstein has done organizing, fund raising and media work for the Liberal party, and so he finds himself on the Petro-Canada board.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that Roman Emperor Caligula, appointed his horse to the counsel once. I do not think the Liberal party would ever have done that if they had been in power in Rome. I am sure they have the horses, but the problem is they could not vote or could not contribute at election time. The only point I want to make about these boards-


An hon. Member:: They have had horses vote before.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I do not know if the hon. member is listening, but the point I simply make is, let us try to have some real, genuine northerners appointed on these boards, or people who are concerned with this particular matter. Let us not make this a place for political hacks. I would like to see this specified. How can we really trust this government in many ways? I see the Secretary of State for External Affairs sitting there. He is my old professor from law school at the University of Toronto.


An hon. Member:: He is not that old.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Another professor who has been around for some time says he is not that old. He is not that old, but I would draw the attention of the House to a speech by Mr. Peter M. Towe, ambassador of Canada, made to the American Gas Association in New York City on October 13. I have the notes for his speech. He said, and I quote from page 7 where he spoke of the National Energy Program:
What the Canadian government does intend is to mobilize predominantly private Canadian investment from existing companies, pension plans, insurance funds and individuals and to encourage their investment in the oil and gas industry.
I am glad the ambassador was straightforward because that is what I have been saying in the House. Canadianization is basically the exchange of a large foreign company with foreign private capital for Canadian private capital. Let us not mistake this as taking under public ownership the Canadian oil industry.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Mr. Towe then went on to say this:
Some critics are concerned that the NEP's Canadian participation provisions might be the first step toward similar policies for other economic sectors. I can assure you that this is not so.
What we are getting here is in fact the government backing off from an industrial strategy. I am sure we will be referring to this later, but the point I am raising now-especially since the Secretary of State for External Affairs may speak on the motion, and I want to give him a chance to reply-is that here is a Canadian ambassador announcing policy. I did not know that was the role of an ambassador, but clearly that must be the government's policy. It is going to back away from the industrial strategy it promised.
What I say with regard to this motion is that we should really nail down, if we are going to have an advisory board, who is going to be on the board, how it is to be representative, what it is to do, and so on. If we do not do so, we are going to get this type of person I spoke of appointed. I do not call them sleazy because there are some very sincere, experienced and dedicated politicians on that side of the House.


An hon. Member:: Too experienced.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My friend says "too experienced". Be that as it may, what I am worried about is that if this is not nailed down, we will see the kind of appointments that are almost worse than that of Caligula, the appointment of political hacks and bagmen, with the worst of the old system of political patronage in which this party and this government have been known to indulge. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a very brief interjection at this point because, to those of us who have served at one time or other on the Standing Committee of the House on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, it is self-evident, when you look back at the last 12 or 13 years of history when this government has been in charge of this country, that there has been a consistent longterm tendency to appoint members to boards and commissions and to retain that power of appointment within the government. It is the case, in terms of this recommendation, to further retain the power to set the compensation that shall go to those members of boards and commissions. My good friend to my left has identified the issue of Jerry Grafstein's appointment to the Board of Petro-Canada. I simply want to say to the Canadian people that more and more of their lives are being governed today by appointed bodies which are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Each time this happens, in all these little bits and pieces, whether we are talking about the Post Office, the Canada Lands Surveys Act, as we now are, or Petro-Canada, we are turning over a bit of freedom in the sense that the people no longer have the clear opportunity to examine the wisdom of what is being proposed.
I cannot help but reflect on how much happier I would be with a proposed amendment that, instead of using the words "Governor in Council", we used the words "The Parliament of Canada". Then the amendment would say that whatever advisory boards might be appointed by the Parliament of Canada,

October 19, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
compensation should be decided on some kind of regular basis by the Parliament of Canada. In that way the people of Canada who pay the taxes in this country would have some right to a clear-cut, careful examination of the qualifications of the people who are to serve in this capacity and the remuneration which should accrue to them.
1 could not let this kind of a motion pass without rising, at least briefly, to say that we are putting one more nail in the coffin of Canadians in the sense of turning away from the Parliament of Canada and the power of the electorate of this country toward government by groups appointed in secret and remunerated in secret because of this lack of public examination of their qualifications and compensation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime
Minister and Minister of Finance): I will not be long, Mr. Speaker, but I have to respond to what the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) just said. He said the appointments were to be made in secret and the remuneration would be determined in secret. Nothing can be further from the truth. The minister and governor in council will make the appointments. They are public appointments. The remunerations are public and the hon. member can find out about them either by asking the minister in the House or by asking him in committee or by seeing them published in The Canada Gazette. What is secret about that? The hon. member is standing here and dragging a red herring down the centre of the chamber.


An hon. Member:: We want to know if their houses are going to be mortgaged.


Mr. Evans:: I think we should get on with this debate and quit listening to that kind of nonsense.


An hon. Member:: If it was such a great idea, why didn't Joe
do it?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I suppose than anybody would have to accept the amendment before us as recognition that at some time advisory boards will be used. I wish to point out some of the major concerns of our party and of members of other parties in committee about the role of advisory boards. The legislation should provide for the establishment of specific advisory boards and set out the roles they should play.
I would like to run through what we felt were some of the major shortcomings in this legislation and why advisory boards might be one mechanism which would meet our concerns. The bill leaves tremendous power in the hands of the minister and, as a result, the decisions that affect the lives of Canadians on the west coast, in the north, not the east coast, will be centralized in the hands of the minister.
It is unfortunate that this bill allows for something that we heard complaints about just a few minutes ago, that is, secret dealings. There is a great deal of fear that proper explanations and information will not be available and that opportunity for
input will not occur because of the powerful discretionary role of the minister.
Advisory boards would be of utmost value in overcoming this situation. Such boards should have very specific guidelines dictating their role. The amendment we are considering does not go far enough. There is only provision in the legislation for the appointment of advisory boards. There are no guidelines in the bill and we will only see advisory boards appointed if the minister deems it necessary. He is authorized to pay them but, in my opinion, this legislation should contain guidelines. Advisory boards should be appointed for a specific purpose and guidelines provided. None of this is set out in the legislation before us.
Our party tried to have this included in the legislation, as did the Conservative Party, and some Liberal members tried to get the matter reconsidered. It is unfortunate that the minister and the government did not see the benefit of including it in the legislation.
Bill C-48 is largely an effort to rule by regulation. Other concerned members have expressed the view that the Government of Canada is governing by regulation, by cabinet decision not involving the decisions of the selected representatives and not involving the participation of the people.
By governing by centralized power and by a very centralized bureaucracy, I hope the government will realize it is losing touch with the people, that it no longer has relevance. It is very concerned about its image and about federal input into projects. It is a big concern for them, and we see that by the advertising budgets they use in trying to get at that problem.
The real dilemma is that the government has left the people. It sits here in Ottawa and makes decisions about over-all budgets, but in the rural areas of Canada the federal government is an obstacle to the way of life. There rural Canadians can no longer relate to their government. During the past week there was a small group of people here trying to see a cabinet minister, trying to talk to someone who affects their lives. They had a difficult time even getting an appointment. Some ministers are open and make a tremendous effort to see these people but others keep their doors locked, both here and in regional and district offices. The right to make decisions in the community has been removed totally. The right to provide meaningful input into the decision-making process has been virtually denied. The whole concept of centralizing the bureaucracy and governing by regulation has created great havoc in this country. Advisory boards which would represent major interests would go a long way to making Bill C-48 more palatable and more meaningful to people at the local level.
I question the goals contained in this bill. It has been said here that this legislation will not, in the final analysis, meet the needs of Canadians. We will be pouring enormous amounts of money into megaprojects that will just create enormous profits for the oil companies. There is great fear that those megaprojects will draw money out of Canada.
We have been assured by the minister that his intentions are honourable. His goals may not be clear, but certainly they are
October 19, 1981

there to benefit Canadians. But he will not put those guidelines in the bill, he will not include anything that Canadians can hook onto. We fought tooth and nail to get an advisory board on industrial benefits that would bring together industry, labour and government into a forum that would meet regularly to exchange information. Many people in industry wanted to get involved but had no idea what was going on. Labour, a major component of the Canadian economy, consulted individually, but there was a real need for a solid advisory board to ensure that industrial benefits came into Canada. The minister refused to accept the concept.
The measure before us goes a small distance toward allowing that advisory boards could be appointed, but we need those guidelines spelled out. We should set up advisory boards to provide meaningful input into government so that the decisions they make are relevant to people who live in Newfoundland, B.C., or Nunatsiaq. These advisory boards are absolutely critical. They would involve local people in decision making and give them a sense of participation in government.
Unfortunately, members of the government have been pushed east of the Red River. If things keep going as they are, we will see them pushed right out the other end. People do not see the reason for the decisions which have been made by the bureaucracy, nor do they find them helpful. I know this is not the intention of hon. members opposite. I have talked to them about these problems. They are aware of them and are sympathetic but somehow there is slippage and when these decisions are made, people do not identify with them. The people do not identify with the goals that are set, nor with the decisions that are made. They really resent the removal of decision making from their communities.
There is still a chance that we can deal with significant amendments and include the question of advisory boards. I think it would serve the government well in terms of its longterm interest. It would certainly be of great benefit to the people in Canada living in small communities which stand to be affected by this legislation.
I would like to say a few words about patronage, too, because it is a very interesting subject. I suppose the intended goal of patronage is to reward people who have served an organization for a long time or who have been influential and helpful and to have a political ally on those boards. Governments often do not have to worry about defection or anything else. One tries somehow to balance the question of qualification and patronage. However, there is a reaction in the community. I point to Spadina as one of the things we all look on as a colossal blunder in terms of patronage. What was the justification for removing the elected representative? I suppose in the final analysis it was a victory for democracy, which I have heard some hon. members suggest.


Mr. Peterson:: Order. Relevance.


Raymond John Skelly: This is relevant in the sense of patronage on advisory boards. I hate to test the patience of the hon. member
Canada Oil and Gas Act
opposite, but the question we have to ask is whether, when those advisory boards are struck, they are really doing themselves or anyone else a great favour through the patronage appointment. I refer to the blatant appointment of someone on the basis of his political attachments rather than his qualifications and commitment to good decision making in the community. I urge hon. members opposite to do whatever they can through the normal channels of this government to make sure that what happened in Spadina does not happen to the advisory boards because they would be totally ignored, laughed at and scoffed at by the people in the community as being irrelevant and not representing their interests. There would be further alienation, and that is not healthy for anyone. It would break this country into a group of regional bickering individuals rather than making it a united country. It goes back to advisory boards and the question of input.
Patronage is extremely important. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) has had some experience with patronage in the conducting of the census, and that blew up all over the block.


Mr. Blais:: It worked very well.


Raymond John Skelly: The minister should check in some of the communities to see how the next census goes, unless he makes some modifications. He will find out how well it went. However, I doubt whether the minister will be here for the next census. At least we can hope.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The turnover over there is a lot more rapid than it is over here.


Raymond John Skelly: There is not much left west of the Red, and there is not likely to be much left east of it either. Remember Spadina.
We should be looking at specific advisory boards. The legislation should mention advisory boards on the environment. It is vitally important that organizations committed to protecting the environment have a forum in which they can meet regularly with government and with industry and talk about the problems facing it. As time goes by, those advisory boards on the environment would be extremely important and would provide a tremendous service in terms of input on prevention and specific knowledge of the areas involved. Specific knowledge of areas involved is critical. The bureaucrats in Ottawa do a good job. They work hard and are committed, but they do not know what it is like down in the small communities in the mud and the blood. They do not know what it is like trying to get by.
I want to use a small example of how an advisory board or how even decent consultation in the town of Comox would have helped. One day a bureaucrat in Ottawa was drawing a map of the town of Comox to show what the zoning was around the air base in order to protect the airways. That was a very intelligent move. It is too bad it was not done 20 years ago before build-up occurred on the flight paths. The bureaucrat forgot to use a topographical map which showed Comox was on a hill. Consequently, his flight path protection area was

October 19, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
about 60 feet below the level of the ground, nobody could obtain building permits and they could not register anything in the land registry office. Had there been consultation or advisory boards, or had some local decision making been requested, that would not have happened. The key to that is a specialized knowledge of local areas, and good, solid consultation is absolutely vital. Eventually the government managed to straighten out the Comox problem before an enormous hardship was caused, but there are several other major problems there because federal government planning is done in Ottawa.
The federal government rides roughshod over local communities. If there was an advisory board and a consultation mechanism in place, that would not happen. There would be good, solid decision making which would affect the lives of people in communities in a positive way instead of an edict coming down the wrong way which is misunderstood or misapplied. Communities see the federal government as an opponent rather than as a facilitator which assists people in making better use of their lives.
An advisory committee on the environment just makes damned good sense, and it is unfortunate it is not provided for in the bill with good guidelines set down. It would protect everyone.


Pauline Jewett: But they don't really want it.


Raymond John Skelly: I think they do want it. I see them as just being on the wrong track. They have good intentions, but they are on the wrong track which does not lead to the goal. Perhaps I am too naive. There is the odd one over there who is good, I have to admit that, but good for what?
In view of the consultation process with respect to native people, we have seen over the years that an advisory committee is vital. The technique of the government is to divide and conquer. I realize the federal government has been harried. It is not an easy job to balance resources against need.


Mr. Ittinuar:: They want to prove they are more powerful than nature. They want to spill oil on us and kill us.


Raymond John Skelly: It will be interesting to see what happens when one of those seabed pumping stations under the ice in the Arctic lets go. We are all concerned that that does not happen. We on this side, on that side and everywhere are concerned. It is the route to the goal that is vital. Hon. members opposite have definitely chosen the wrong route. Many of the people of Canada feel that way; witness the present popularity of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen).
The question of native people is vital and a matter of great concern to me. Many of the people in my riding will be affected by the policies set forth in this bill. If we were to set up an advisory committee of native people, that committee would give us a good, sound basis from which to work with respect to this bill. Such a committee would give us a basis for decisions that would be relevant for their communities and, in the long haul, relevant for all Canadians. But no way; we go back to the old standard game of divide and conquer. As a
result, nobody gets anywhere. We do not get together as a group to re-establish a greater sense of community. We are back to the old adversarial system of the government against the people. Frankly, it would be a tragic mistake to continue this. An advisory committee would be a mechanism by which we could move away from it. There is nothing to fear; the input from people and the dialogue which would be established would be extremely positive.
The situation is the same with respect to northern people. In the north there is a very delicate social and economic environment. There is a great fear that we are watching the gold rush all over again. The industry roars into the Arctic and strips it of its resources, but somehow the benefits do not stay with the northern people. An advisory committee on the north is a good idea and would provide enormous benefits.
The last thing is the industrial benefits approach. This matter has worried me a great deal. There were enormous battles in the committee and, to the credit of the government, it moved. It feared desperately that its GATT partners would do it some dirty deed if it attempted to write into the legislation mechanisms to ensure that Canadians share in the benefits and that employment opportunities are launched in Canada. The government did run into difficulty but it did come forward as the bill progressed and made a suggestion, to its credit, with respect to constructing the equivalent of the British offshore supply office. Certainly the resources allocated are limited, but the one thing that is vitally important is an industrial benefits advisory committee. Even if it does not appear in the legislation, such a committee should be struck.
The labour movement must be a part of the decision making. It is a major player in the Canadian economy. The federal government, through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the provincial governments must attempt and struggle to get the regions of this country working toward economic benefit.
The whole process of communication is vitally important. The government and the industry must exchange information. The government must be advised correctly with regard to positive benefits and with regard to the ways the Canadian industry can develop to meet the needs and to ensure that the benefits stay here, not as happened in the case of Britain, Norway and some of the others which started late and with inefficient mechanisms and which provided the benefits to the United States.
In spite of the fact that the amendment is weak, that the bill is very weak in this area, there is still an opportunity for the government to go forward and set up advisory committees. I certainly urge them to do so. It would provide better contact between the people affected by this legislation and the government which is attempting to implement it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 19, 1981


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 5 (Mr. Lalonde) agreed to.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin) moved:: Motion No. 6
July 10, 1981-That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 5 by adding immediately after line 44 at page 5 the following:
"(8) No land or oil or gas interests relating thereto shall be withdrawn or withheld from negotiation in the settlement of any claim, right, title or interest for any reason other than the creation of a national park in which all natural resource development is prohibited."


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@for Mr. Lalonde: Motion No. 20
July 10, 1981-That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 24 by adding immediately after line 12 at page 15 the following:
"(4) Where the minister is satisfied that a commercial discovery does not extend to any Canada lands subject to a production licence he may, by order subject to Section 56, exclude those Canada lands from the area subject to the production licence."


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: I have difficulty knowing why we would debate the two motions together. I do not see the relevance between the two motions. I will now speak to my motion.
What I am proposing in this amendment to Bill C-48 is to make it clear in the law that frontier lands, Canada lands on which oil and gas discoveries are made, are not exempt from native land claims. Many have said that under certain amendments contained in the bill this is done. Given the non-definition of aboriginal claims, I suggest it is not distinctly clear that Bill C-48 would cover any lands subject to claim by native people, given that certain discoveries are made on those lands. Native people have reason to question the government's good faith with respect to land claims. They question this because of the government's record. The claims in the north have proceeded very slowly. I can look at the Dene land claims and the COPE agreement as an example of this. They have been working on these agreements for a number of years. They are really no further advanced as far as the settlement is concerned.
Then we look at the first modern land claim agreement, the James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement. As was pointed out in the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development this year, which resulted in an inquiry being conducted by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), that agreement has not been adhered to in good faith. According to the law read by several legal people, perhaps it has been adhered to; but as far as an agreement made in good faith is concerned,
Canada Oil and Gas Act
it has not been. It has affected the health of the native people in the north. Many of the benefits that should have been accrued from moneys that were put aside in that agreement have not come forward.
The natives are justifiably concerned about the future of their aboriginal rights, especially after the constitutional resolution that was proposed. For the first time, aboriginal rights are being defined by the federal government, the provincial government and certain native people who shall be appointed by the federal government. It is understandable that a great deal of concern exists among northern natives about their future, about their unresolved land claims and about the benefits they should receive from the exploration of oil and gas in the north. This is open to question. Bill C-48, if passed, may result in further exploration in those areas.
The aboriginal people of the north are at present gearing up to settle their land claims. At this time, Mr. Speaker, aboriginal title has not been relinquished. The government has, nonetheless, decided to put forward Bill C-48. It is a wide-ranging piece of legislation. Many amendments have already been discussed and some are still in need of discussion. The bill covers virtually every aspect of the oil industry in the north and offshore. In doing so, it will have an enormous impact on the native people of the north.
The other day I was looking at a map of the lands around Great Bear Lake given to Petro-Canada. Those lands are of enormous size. Much of that area is at present open to claim.
Many northern native groups are concerned, justifiably so, that their land claims are in jeopardy owing to Bill C-48. These groups include the Dene, the Inuit, the Council for Yukon Indians and the Metis. They have organized a responsible opposition. Their responsible opposition to the bill was put forward to the standing committee. I was a member of that standing committee. We agreed one day to send members to the northern regions. Most members of this House do not understand the implications of this kind of legislation. The very next day the government rejected travel to the north. Had the members of the committee travelled to the north and allowed themselves even a few days in the north to hear the justifiable reasons for concern from northerners, it would have benefited this House and this country a great deal.
Because the provisions of this bill are to be enacted before the claims in that region are settled, the native people are very concerned that lands subject to claim will be withdrawn from them because of exploration and development. This is a very important concern. That concern has often been brought to me and to other members of this House by way of telegram, by way of hearings before the committee, by telephone and in person. The people in the north seek a voice in developing the lands dealt with in Bill C-48, lands that are under claim by the northern people. They benefit from the resources that exist there. They look forward to this development. They realize that, to a large extent, their economic future depends on the development of the land. They look forward to the jobs that may be created and to the wealth that will adhere to these people, should oil and gas be discovered in that region. There

October 19, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
is also concern about what might happen to their cultural well-being if, as a result of this bill, they lose any rights to the land.
I should like to repeat to the House a statement made by a witness who appeared before the standing committee. I am sorry I do not have the exact quote from the committee's proceedings. He said:
To us, an aboriginal rights settlement represents the means by which we intend to regain control over our own destiny while remaining an integral part of Canadian Confederation. This must mean the ability to influence the pace and direction of development in our region so that our institutions and values are not overridden by rapid resource exploitation. It means equally some measure of access to the revenues which will accrue from developments which take place on our lands. It means also the right to determine the kind of developments which take place on our lands and to prevent adverse impacts on the peoples and the environment of the North from oil and gas developments.
I suppose that statement says it all. First, it indicates a concern about the pace of development and how it affects claims. Second, it indicates a desire to participate in some of the wealth, a matter which is not addressed in the bill. No trust funds have been set up to allow native peoples to move forward politically and economically and thus benefit from any oil and gas which may be taken from this region. Surely that should be a concern of government and of members of Parliament. The only basis for development which the north has at the present time is the resources which may be taken from those lands. This was said before the committee by the witness. Third, he indicated that northerners want to determine the pace of development to some extent, which is one of the reasons why members have brought up the need for advisory boards. Because there is a complete lack of assurance in this legislation that these people will have any influence over the resource development of the lands of the north, and because they fear this will not be negotiable once development is begun, native groups are understandably deeply concerned by the implications of Bill C-48.
I recall that the COPE negotiations were going on, oil and gas exploration in the Beaufort Sea was allowed, and immediately these lands were withdrawn from negotiation by government negotiators. Perhaps there was no legitimate claim, but at the same time it was an example of the reason for the great concern about this legislation in the north.
There is also a feeling among native groups that Bill C-48 makes a mockery of so-called aboriginal rights contained in the proposed Charter of Rights. By virtually ignoring aboriginal title, the bill would seem to deny its existence despite the support given it in the charter, even though the definition clause is open to a great deal of question by native peoples.
The conflict is obvious and is clearly a cause for concern. It is because of the concerns of native peoples that I have put forth Motion No. 6. While it is true that nothing in the bill indicates that the drilling of oil or gas wells means that the land is ineligible for claims or settlements, problems may well arise. I have given some reason for that in referring to the COPE agreement and its development. The concern is there. This is why I believe we should put something positive in the
bill so that native people need not fear the removal of certain lands due to the striking or finding of oil or natural gas. The activity occurring afterward will necessarily involve interests competing with those of native peoples, so a claim will be much more difficult to settle. Such land might be deemed ineligible for the negotiation process. Harry Daniels of the Native Council of Canada before the committee said:
Once the drill rigs are up and production centres on the drawing boards and approved by government, there will be no turning back. Do you really think that under these circumstances the government would withdraw these lands?
The amendment I propose is a simple one. It reads:
No land or oil or gas interests relating thereto shall be withdrawn or withheld from negotiation in the settlement of any claim, right, title or interest for any reason other than the creation of a national park in which all natural resource development is prohibited.
I believe this type of protection is essential. It means more than any other amendment which has been proposed so far by the government for the protection of native peoples and their claims in the next few years. It is essential to entrench in this bill the right of natives to negotiate in respect of any land to which they believe they have a claim, regardless of its resource potential. This amendment is put forward in good faith, to protect legitimate land claims. Certainly I hope the government will consider that it has some merit and add it to the bill as it now stands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the motion of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger), I think there has been some confusion because the motion appears to be designed to ensure that no land or oil or gas interest relating to that land may be withdrawn or withheld from land claim settlements in northern areas. There has been a misunderstanding because the purpose of clauses Nos. 5(2) and 5(3) is to allow the withdrawal of lands from the Canada Oil and Gas Act. As the hon. member mentioned, these lands would be withdrawn from the purview of the act to establish a national park or in the event of a claim settlement with a native or aboriginal group, for example.
The purpose of the clauses to which the hon. member's motion refers is in no way to allow the government to withdraw lands from negotiations with regard to land settlement with the native community. In fact it is the opposite. For example, if there is such a settlement or the intent to establish a national park, these clauses allow the government to withdraw the land from the purview of the Canada Oil and Gas Act to facilitate precisely the negotiated settlement or the creation of the national park. I think there has been a misunderstanding. This is why the government will oppose this particular motion.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger). I want to say on behalf of my party that we will support his motion. I welcome the motion; I think it is a very well-intentioned one. But I might say it is somewhat
October 19, 1981

innocent and a bit vague. I am not trying to be a rigid ideologue, as I was called a few minutes ago, or someone who professes to have all the answers, because we do not have all the answers. The minister said that this bill is not neutral with respect to land claims. That is absolute nonsense. To parade that statement around the country is ridiculous and misleading. The minister should know better.
The motion and the speech of the hon. member touched briefly upon the problem with this bill. How can we have development of the north, go ahead with physical development, and be neutral toward a claim over the physical environment, the pace of development, the social impact, and all these kinds of things? The Conservative party attacked this bill by indicating that it gives the minister too much discretion. If the hon. member looks at it, he will see that the minister's discretion is very rigid. We looked at this as we tried in committee to make the bill more neutral to native claims.
First I should like to indicate why we wanted to make it neutral toward native claims. On this side of the House we are convinced that settling the native land claims is the only way that we can begin to give native people their rightful place in this country so that they may become real partners in this development. They should not be left out of this bill.
You will recall that when I spoke this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned a native person standing at the side of the road and a truck going by. That is the image or the symbol of past development in this country, and I know that the hon. member opposite wants things to be different.
I should like to elaborate on what I mean about the discretion being rigid. There is provision in the bill that the minister can deal with the Crown's share. He can give it to a government organization like Petro-Canada but he cannot give it to a native development corporation, an aboriginal corporation or a local corporation in the north. There is no such provision in the bill.
I have said before that the bill is not neutral and I want to say something more about that. There will be physical development but that is not neutral. As development is speeded up, it will have an effect on the environment and that is not neutral. It changes things; it has an effect. There will be social impact as development advances and that is not neutral; it has an effect. To say that the bill is neutral is just absurd on that physical level. For example, there is no mention in the bill of giving the native people any part of the royalties, nor is there any mention of giving them equity in the development. There is no mention of giving native people or the northern territorial governments any rights of revenue sharing. If the territories are to become provinces and we would like to see that, and if they are going to take their place in Canadian confederation-


Erik Nielsen: When?
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Ian Gardiner Waddell: With respect to the Yukon, I would like to see it take place as soon as possible.
If all that is to come about, then there has to be a basis for it, but there is nothing in the bill to give native people a role. There is no provision for them to sit on an authoritative decision-making body-not just a token advisory body but one that would decide what the environmental clean-up would consist of or a body that would decree that there would not be development around a certain town because it was countrary to the needs of the native people. That is real power, but instead the power will all be in Ottawa with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. If the government were really serious, however, that is the kind of power it would give to the native people.
What does the government propose to give to the native people? It proposes short-term employment for about 10 per cent of the population, and when the development is all over, they will again be standing at the side of the road as the trucks go by.
We in this party support the motion, Mr. Speaker. I hope that members of the Conservative party will challenge the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) on third reading and demolish his weak argument that this is a neutral bill with respect to native land claims and native rights. It is not; it is a contradiction of Clause 34 of the Constitution Act and sooner or later-it may take a long time but I hope the day will come-the government will realize that.
Those are some comments from this side of the House regarding Motion No. 6, Mr. Speaker.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us tonight is a very important one. It sets out the regulatory aspects, guidelines or game plan for the oil and gas exploration and development in the north. Certainly what happens in the north will have a significant impact on the future of our country.
I am concerned about the bill in its present form because I really believe it lacks several serious and important elements, one of which is consideration of the impact it will have upon the environment. I spoke on that matter briefly the other night and it has been debated to a certain extent today.
I am also concerned that the bill fails to adequately consider the impact that oil and gas activity will have on people who live on the Canada lands, because it fails to consider the rights of the native peoples who have lived on those lands for generations. As it stands, the bill does not make provision for the aboriginal rights of the native people to dwell on those Canada lands north of the 60th parallel. There is no reference in the bill to claims that might be negotiated after it is enacted, and I think that could be a very dangerous omission. The land claims that exist today are far from being settled; in fact, for some native people the process has just begun. The government did not see fit, however, to include a provision in

October 19, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
the bill to protect the claims of the native people. We may wonder why those provisions were not made and we may doubt whether the government has any real concern for the native people who live on the Canada lands.
As the bill reads at present, only claims settled prior to the enactment of this legislation would be protected, but obviously, Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. We must have some form of written guarantee that lands under development would not be left out of any future negotiations. Although there is nothing in the bill that exempts developing lands from land claim negotiations, it is unlikely that the federal government would be willing to negotiate when the drilling rigs are actually in operation and when matters have proceeded from the drawing board to the oil patch.
The government has not demonstrated, so far, that it is willing to consider negotiations on the land claims. I think that gives us reason to believe that once the activity has begun in the north, it is unlikely that the government would be willing to listen. We can see that it has very little concern for native problems and it will be less likely to listen when activity has come to a head than it is now.
Motion No. 6 which has been placed before us by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) is very specific and important. It begins to deal directly with the problems created by the bill before us. I should like to read the motion into the record again because it is important and deals with the problems that we may face. The relevant part of the motion reads as follows:
No land or oil or gas interests relating thereto shall be withdrawn or withheld from negotiation in the settlement of any claim, right, title or interest for any reason other than the creation of a national park in which all natural resource development is prohibited.
This means that the concerns of the native people will not be pushed aside and forgotten once exploration has begun. Lands that are under development will not be exempt from any negotiations for aboriginal rights.
I firmly believe that this amendment must be included in the bill, Mr. Speaker. The guarantee for the protection of native rights must be provided and there must be a guarantee that the natives will have an opportunity to pursue a fair and just settlement of their aboriginal rights. Without this amendment and the guarantee, I really believe that native claims will be prejudiced. This is particularly important now when we are at such a crucial point in the negotiation of land claims.
Up to date, negotiations with the government have proceeded very slowly; in fact, negotiations are, to a large part, not yet under way. For example, if we look at the Mackenzie Valley, we find that the federal government has not yet even named a negotiator to continue negotiations in that area. It is clear that they would rather see the possibility of further negotiations, just tossed out the window. Last year, the government finally began to look at settlements on part of the land, the lands that we are discussing tonight; but, again, we see a bit of a dirty pool game going on there, because as negotiations were beginning, so were the hearings on the application to build the Norman Wells pipeline. Does that sound like fair play? Does it sound like an earnest attempt to settle outstanding land claims?
It is no wonder that natives fear for their future and for the future of their children, because this bill does not give an indication that the government remembers them or that it considers their rights. It just seems to clearly demonstrate the lack of concern of the government for our native people. That lack of concern of the government is not new. In fact, back in 1969, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said:
I think that all of us feel a sense of guilt, not so much toward the Indian as toward the fact that we have not addressed our minds to this problem.
That was 12 years ago; and in 12 years, the government has not seriously or genuinely addressed these concerns. Is it not now time to address it? If the Prime Minister was really feeling that guilt 12 years ago, then why are we not seeing some action taken now, if not in the past 12 years? I do not think we can afford to ignore these concerns any longer, because native concerns are not like some problems; they will not simply disappear. They will not disappear until native rights on Canada lands have been settled. That problem will not go away. We should not let the government just push them out of the way and push them out of our areas of concern.
Through history, there have really been very few assurances that the government is concerned about these problems. These people have always been pushed around. They have always felt as though their rights have been ignored. Then, suddenly, a little while ago, along came the Constitution and the Charter of Rights including, in particular, the entrenchment of native rights. Suddenly it seemed as though there were some kind of a positive step, because the government was finally willing to notice these concerns and it was finally willing to stop ignoring our natives.
Then along came Bill C-48. All of a sudden we had a mockery of that whole Charter of Rights. We see that the intentions there were, in fact, very hollow. The principles of Bill C-48 run exactly contrary to the principles which were outlined in that charter. In fact, the bill goes even further than that, and contradicts the principles which were laid out in the National Energy Program. The National Energy Program indicated concern with the impact of resource development on native peoples and northern Canadians. I would just like to refer to one particular part of that program. It reads:
There will have to be assurances that the interests of the residents of this region are protected, and that they have the opportunity to play the role they desire in these activities. The native residents of the region seek-legitimately- more say in the decision affecting energy development, and claim-rightfully- that they should enjoy more of the benefits, and fewer of the costs, from northern resource activity.
It sounds good, but there are an awful lot of hollow words and empty promises, because not very long after the introduction of the National Energy Program, along came Bill C-48 which clearly contradicts the generous and positive sounding claims that we saw in the National Energy Program.
October 19, 1981

So, where are we? What are we to believe? Are we to believe that the government is truly interested in people, such as those we are dealing with here, and their rights, as was apparently demonstrated in the NEP and the Constitution? Or should we, in fact, be paying much more attention to the actions of the government, and a whole lot less attention to its words? I think that Bill C-48 clearly shows us what the government is up to. It clearly shows us that its interest is really in disposing of rights and concerns. It has demonstrated very little interest in aboriginal rights. I doubt whether it has ever had any real interest or whether it will ever have any real interest in the end. A Toronto columnist, Mr. J. B. McGeachy, had this to say about the matter:
We sing about the north, but we live as far south as possible.
Coming from a part of Canada which is in the north, that is a familiar tune to me, and it is one that I can clearly identify with. This government does sing about the north. It sings about the resource potential, and it sings about development which is possible in these vast lands; but, as this columnist has pointed out, it somehow wants to stay in the southern part of Canada. It only wants to reap the benefits. It does not ever want to set foot on these northern lands.
When we were dealing with this bill in committee, it was proposed that we visit the north; in other words, that we go into this area to discuss with the native and aboriginal people their concerns on their own home base. The government was not interested in that and, as a result, we ended up not going north.
The reversal of that decision really exposes the raw bone of blatant disregard for native concerns that we have seen from this government. It has demonstrated no concern for the people, no concern for their culture, and no concern for the political development of the north. The only interest which seems to be demonstrated is to take as much as possible without giving anything in return. I wonder if it is any wonder that the natives do have a fear for their future. I wonder if it is any wonder that they do mistrust the government, a government which seems to rule from an armchair, thousands of miles away from the problems and from the reality of the situation.
The native people have a real and just cause for fearing exploitation because they have been exploited and they have been given the raw end of the deal. I think that all of us have tasted the bitterness of exploitation. We have all known, to some extent, the feelings arising from rights being taken away when we were too helpless to fight back. These particular people have tasted that bitterness of generations. For generations, they have known the government as an agency which is far away, an agency which knows little about the real problems, and an agency which does not care and which cannot be trusted.
I think that all of us would like to believe that we live in some sort of an enlightened nation, one which operates under democratic principles, where people are equal, and where all people are given the same basic chance. However, when we look at this bill, we find that it is nothing more than an
Canada Oil and Gas Act
illusion. We really begin to see the true intentions of the government because it continues to exploit these people, it continues to ignore their concerns, and it continues to infringe upon their rights.
People of the north have been subjugated to the status of a colony for a long time. By enacting this particular piece of legislation, we only confirm that status. The irony of that whole process is that we are now hearing lots of talk about bringing home our Constitution from Britain to erase any hint of colonialism from our relationship with the United Kingdom or with Britain. The irony is that while we are erasing the colonialism from the past, we are confirming it in the present and entrenching it in our future.


Erik Nielsen: Good point.


Albert Glen Cooper: As this bill stands, unamended, it will only confirm the permanent status of the north as a colony.


Erik Nielsen: Good point.


Albert Glen Cooper: It will be an area which will continue to be exploited. We must introduce provisions to allow people to rise eventually above that status of a colony. We must allow them to participate in the development of their lands, and we must allow them to benefit from the natural resources which will be extracted from those lands.


Erik Nielsen: Right on!


Albert Glen Cooper: In short, we must allow them to enjoy the freedoms and benefits enjoyed by us; freedoms and benefits taken for granted by Canadians living in the southern parts of our country.


Erik Nielsen: Even Halifax.


Albert Glen Cooper: Native people must be given a chance to negotiate with the federal government because these people have never really pushed for their rights on Canada lands. Traditionally, this land has belonged to them and at present it belongs to them. They dwell there, and they have made their homes there for generations upon generations. If the government is truly interested in negotiations, it has to show that interest. It cannot jeopardize in any way this negotiation process. The government must show its interest in coming to some sort of a solution before oil and gas activity begins out there and before it is too late for natives to have any say in the development of those resources.
I believe that if this bill is passed as it stands, those rights will be prejudiced. Effectively, the rights of natives will have been swept under the rug. We will see nothing more than what we saw in committee, which was a power play by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). I believe that it is dangerous to designate lands to oil and gas activity before provisions have been made for further negotiations and before a meaningful solution to this problem is reached, because going ahead like this does not bring native rights any closer to any kind of settlement. This kind of action contradicts the

October 19, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Charter of Rights which the government brings forward so proudly. It makes a mockery of everything that we as Canadians like to believe we stand for. If the bill is passed without the provision, the natives will lose forever their right to regain control over their own destinies. They will lose the chance to gain the revenue from developments that will occur on their own lands. I believe this proposed amendment must be included otherwise our native Canadians will never enjoy the full benefit of Canadian citizenship.	.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate by commenting on this area of concern. I have read the provision which the hon. member for Wetaski-win (Mr. Schellenberger) has carefully put forward. Very clearly, the principle put forward is completely acceptable. It is a questionable practice to allow the exploitation of resources to go ahead before dealing with the fundamental issue of who owns the land. Maybe the problem is with the drafting. As the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) has said, there is a problem in drafting the legislation. But whatever it is, the key point is the principle. That principle was hammered home time and time again in committee. The government felt that it had protected the future or the existing interests as more information became available through detailed study. But clearly, nobody except government members accepted that position. Again, it was a discretionary matter. We were told by government members that a clause was included in the bill to ensure that after exploration, after the production facilities have been put in place and after we see what the social and environmental impacts there are, and perhaps even after the resource has been exploited and exhausted, it will still be possible to come back and make a claim. That is rubbish. I cannot find anyone who would accept that concept other than the government. I think the government is fooling itself, but it is not fooling anyone else.
This is very difficult, and there is definitely a misunderstanding, as the parliamentary secretary suggests. But I think the understanding is on the part of the government. There is a desperate need for some action on this particular land claim provision in the bill. We cannot allow alienation before some firm commitments are made. As my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), has said, this bill is not neutral. It does not adequately protect the interests of the native people of Canada in sharing or participating in the development. The establishment of the land claim is extremely difficult.
We talk about the north. There is a lot of activity in the north now. The northern people are trying to work out claims. They are negotiating positions, and so on. But we must also take into account the west coast where things are very different.
The native people who live on the west coast are at various stages of development. Some very sophisticated bands have worked out land claims. They have attempted to define their interest in the lands on the west coast and have presented it to
the government. The process is moving very slowly, whereas the development of oil and gas offshore on the west coast is moving much faster. The technology is in place. Procedures will evolve much more quickly than the native people can deal with it, unless the government specifies in the legislation exactly what it is going to do to protect their interests.
The west coast is unique. The native people who live there have an interest in the land and the sea from which they try to make a living. Most people there are committed to living on government welfare. They do not like it. They have been alienated from their land already. I would have a hard time expressing it better than the previous speaker who suggested that for 200 years we have inflicted a totally colonial regime on the native people, and that this particular bill and its intent confirms it for the present and entrenches it for the future. It could not be said better.
On the other hand, I think the opposition members in this House, together with the native people, particularly those in the north and on the west coast, are determined to break that colonial status. They want to share adequately by defining their interest in that area and by having the government acknowledge it and provide action in good faith. The land is of interest and so are the forest and mining resources. But we must not forget the sea. The native people of western Canada have a long tradition with the sea in the area immediately adjacent to the west coast. Defining that will be a complex problem. The resources in the sea are seriously affected by all this activity. We need a provision in this legislation which stops the alienation process before the land claim is developed.
I would urge members to travel through the native communities located on the west coast. The inhabitants like to talk about the place where they live. They like to talk about themselves and their history. Native people are very close to their parents and their grandparents. Tradition is handed down through generations. For instance, the way the land and the sea is used is locked into an oral history that has been transmitted down through families in great detail and with great consistency. You can travel down a fjord in a boat with the west coast natives of British Columbia, you can pass a point and they will tell you that their ancestors used to live there. They will tell you what they did, but it always relates to the sea. Marine resources are the base of that civilization. The history and mythology of the natives which have been transmitted through the generations really develops a land claim. People, both old and young alike, who live and work out there can tell you all about these people and what they did. History is the base upon which these claims will develop, but it will take a lot of time. There is a great deal of archeological evidence which confirms the oral history, the interest in the land and the marine environment.
Some bands have a very high level of development. They have established land claims and they are working diligently toward defining them. But this is very difficult to do. Some bands do not have even basic means of day-to-day survival. All of their resources are committed to that survival and they are certainly inadequate. They do not have resources to begin to
October 19, 1981

work out a land claim or to begin to negotiate with the government. But two years from now holes will be punched in the sea bed. There is even talk about exploring river beds. Obviously they are hoping to find oil and gas. What the government legislation proposes is to allow that development to proceed quickly. This would have an impact environmentally, socially and economically without giving adequate protection to the native people who need time to define their claims, to develop their resources and so begin to negotiate with the government. That is a big mistake. We have heard from the native people, from opposition members, from church groups. In fact, a whole range of people in the Canadian society have brought the concerns of the native people forward. But the government has said, "Enough, discretion is all right". The government says to us, "Trust us, it is in the mail." But that is simply not good enough. This is a very complex area in respect of which the assurance of the government is needed. We need an assurance that the government will recognize the principle put forward in the previous member's motion. If the government had come forward and opened up in a forthright manner, a lot of the delay this bill has seen could have been avoided. That delay could have been avoided by a statement of principle and a clear expression of the government's intent.
Let me give you an example. We who worked in that media unfortunately had to resort to a filibuster and to delaying tactics. This was extremely hard on everyone, including government members who had to sit there and listen. But our goals were very specific. The investor benefit section was vital. We needed some definition. The government had a program all along. We asked them to hold a closed meeting if they were afraid the information would get out, but to let us know in that way how the government intended to provide protection. We wanted the government to show us some developments or mechanisms such as the British offshore supply office. We wanted the government to put this into the legislation and to do something specific rather than just to ask us to trust it. First, we cannot trust the government, and history would indicate it is often going in another direction.
After weeks of battling, by gosh, the government said, "Okay, you win. We will have an in camera session". It was good. However, the government just would not express the principles to be used or demonstrate the mechanisms so that one could have some confidence that Canadian interest would be protected.
We face the same thing here with this motion. The drafting of the amendment may not be the best. There are certain aspects that I would question, but on the other side of the coin there is the vital principle that the government must do more because this whole question of trust is lost. There is nothing in this on which the native people can hang their hats. We want a definition because too much has been lost in 200 years.
I would guess, casting my mind back a bit in history, that the west coast in British Columbia was run by three Indian chiefs; Tatoosh who lived at Cape Flattery, Wichininesh who
Canada Oil and Gas Act
lived in the old Nanaimo-Alberni riding at Long Beach, now the federal park, Pacific Rim, and another chief, Maquinug, who lived at Friendly Cove. They ran the west coast of Vancouver Island. The descendants of the Hilson people were here today trying to talk to ministers of the Crown. Reputedly, their ancestors travelled from Hawaii and Polynesia. They lived in a community called Waglisla. The sea is the resource that supported all those people. There is a tremendous history of the native people in western Canada. There is a long relationship with the land and sea, and there is a belief that if we give the native people an opportunity, they can define, substantiate, share and participate, as the rest of us hope to share and participate, in the benefits of those resources.
The colonial system that was imposed on them from the time of Cooke and Alexander Mackenzie and the others who came was very clear. These native people lost their access to the forests to the major forestry companies; MacMillan Bloe-del, Dorman, Rayonier and IT & T. All of them now own the forests of British Columbia and the Indian people have been dispossessed. The Indian people used to have a large number of fishing vessels, but Jack Davis and subsequent ministers have taken away those vessels, and now most of them are on the beach. The wealthy white men from other walks of life, the moonlighters and interlopers, have now taken the fishing industry away from them, and the native people are now on the beach. They have lost their resource base; they have lost access to the sea. The Indian people have lost access to the forest. The provincial government has cut them off from their traditional resource base. Their actual reserve lands on which they live have been cut down.


An hon. Member:: Jack Austin will get it back for them.


Raymond John Skelly: He has still yet to prove himself, and I am hoping that the uranium cartel will not impede his opportunity to contribute to the native people. I say that seriously.
The key in all of this is recognition by the government that the native people have a claim to those resources. The problem is that the exploitation, development, the infrastructure, the commitment of the resource and the exhaustion of the resource, will have taken place before the bands are even able to define their claims. I defy the parliamentary secretary to get up and tell me how, once this is all in place, they are going to participate. He suggests the situation is incredible, but quite honestly these people do not believe the government any longer.
The hour is growing late, but the issue is certainly no less serious. Perhaps the point has been made. Clearly the motion is worth while and worthy of support in view of the fact that there is nothing from the government in this bare bones legislation which provides a guarantee against dry holes, oil spills, with moneys and benefits going elsewhere, with the native people left with open mine pits, clear-cut forests or possibly a destroyed marine environment on which their entire livelihood is based.
In terms of the delays the government has experienced with regard to this bill, it would be interesting to have one govern-
11952

October 19, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
ment member, perhaps the Parliament Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who I know is vitally concerned about this issue, stand up and acknowledge the principle. Perhaps these amendments are not drafted in the way the government would exactly like them, but certainly the underlying principles are vital. The provisions in the legislation are clearly not adequate. We have the old story that there is too much government regulation, too much centralization and too much discretionary control, and without these provisions the oil companies with the louder voices will eventually shape policy at the expense of other people.
I see that my time has just about expired, Mr. Speaker, but I would certainly invite the parliamentary secretary or anyone else over there who might have some consideration for the native people to make some comment. Thank you.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I want to support strongly the motion of the hon. member for Wetaski-win (Mr. Schellenberger), and I hope to prove to hon. members on the government side why they too should support this motion, particularly if they are sincere with regard to that which is already in the bill.
Let me refer to the motion which would add, "nothing in this act abrogates", and that means repeals or cancels, or "derogates", which means detracts or takes away, from any aboriginal title, right or claim that pertained to the aboriginal peoples of Canada prior to the coming into force of this act. When I read the second paragraph I see that it says the governor in council may by order-not in this House but by order-for any purpose or any condition set out in the order, withdraw from the application of this act such Canada lands as are specified in the order. It is all-embracive. The amendment simply states that any claim or interests the aboriginal people have will not be withdrawn; that is, the lands will not be withdrawn. How can the government refuse to support that amendment if it believes in that which already exists in the bill? If Section 2 is to become all-embracive and have power over the other sections because it comes before, then there is a very serious and severe contradiction in the legislation.
That is not the only thing which disturbs me about this bill. I do not really know what the policy of the government is with regard to our aboriginal people. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that prior to January, 1981, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was asked to include aboriginal rights in the Charter of Rights by a member on this side of the House. The Prime Minister said that he would in no way include aboriginal rights in the charter unless he knew what aboriginal rights meant, unless aboriginal rights were defined. That is the gist of what the Prime Minister said. In January, 1981, a provision on the rights of the aboriginal people was placed in Section 34(1). It reads;
The aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
I reiterate, "recognized and affirmed". Now I would like to know if the Prime Minister has a definition of aboriginal
rights. I think it is important that he have such a definition because when I started looking into government policy I was astounded to find an order in council which set out government policy in regard to aboriginal claims, that is an order in council dated August 8, 1973, which has not yet been either discharged or denounced by the Liberal government. It is still in force. If it is in force, then Subclause (7) of this bill is meaningless. I will read what the order in council says:
__the government will negotiate claims and settle claims according to the policy
in the Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs.
It simply says the government will negotiate a settlement with the Indian and Inuit people who have not entered into treaty relationships with the Crown. These settlements will be based upon the loss of their traditional use and occupancy of lands in those parts of Canada where native rights, based on traditional use and occupancy, have not been extinguished by treaty or superseded by law.
In other words, the government has set out three caveats in that order in council, which is still on the books, with respect to the claims of Indian and Inuit people. The first one is that the government will only negotiate and settle claims based on land and occupancy of land. In other words, the whole culture of the Indian and Inuit people will be ignored unless they live on the land, unless they have already placed a claim on that particular land and occupy it. There is no consideration for negotiation whatsoever. That is set out in law. Consequently, the amendment to this bill will mean nothing. The government will simply point to the order in council of August 8, 1973, which still stands.
What do we mean by aboriginal rights? Aboriginal rights go beyond land occupied. Most Inuit and Indian people, or at least many of them, make their living by hunting and fishing. They do not live on those lands, they hunt and fish on them. They do not occupy them by building a house on them, in that sense of occupation. The rights they had when the white man first came to this land, such as their language, their dances and their political social and economic cultures, all of these are part and parcel of aboriginal rights. They are being ignored in this section. It deals only with land, and even then there is a caveat placed on the land-that they must occupy it. They must have already had a claim to it. I think the Inuit and Indian people should take careful note and find out about this policy mentioned in the charter of rights and find out if it has not already been lost before the charter of rights is passed.
The next caveat set out in the order in council says that the government will only negotiate and settle claims which have not been extinguished by treaty. When the government, for example, negotiates with the Inuit or Indian people for a number of years, it insists that the Indian and Inuit people give up all rights; those held in the past, those they have currently, those they might have in the future, all rights not specifically extinguished by agreement. Well, that is going too far. I suggest that is a caveat the Indian and Inuit people would want discarded before the section in the charter means very much.
October 19, 1981

There is a third caveat: the government will only negotiate and settle claims which have not been superseded by law. If any government, provincial or federal, since the beginning of this country, has passed any act or bill or order in council taking away a right from the Inuit or Indian people, then the government will not negotiate. They will not even talk about it. Again, I suggest to our Indian and Inuit Canadians that they take a very careful look at all the enactments since the beginning of confederation to find out whether they will have any right to make a claim or even if they can negotiate. What does that piece in the charter say? It says:
The aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
What does the order in council say? It says that the government will not negotiate unless the Indian and Inuit people make a claim and occupy the land. They will not negotiate unless the traditional use and occupancy have not been extinguished by treaty. They will not negotiate if any part of that has been superseded by any law or enactment or order in council.
Where does that leave our Indian and Inuit Canadians? Does this section in our Charter of Rights pull the wool over the eyes of our Indian and Inuit people, in the hope of pushing it through before they find out all these things? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if this government is sincere in giving aboriginal rights to our Indian and Inuit people, our native peoples, they would define aboriginal rights and denounce and discharge the order in council which was passed on August 8, 1973. If their policy means anything, let the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) or the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) stand up and say that the order in council has been annulled and discharged. They should stand up and say that they will annul and discharge that order in council and they should even pass another order in council that it is no longer the policy of the government. Then the Indian and Inuit people might have some hope of getting a fair and equal settlement. Ever since white men came to this country, the Indian and Inuit people have been exploited. We have not given them an opportunity to develop their skills. Even now our education system does not go far enough. The withdrawal of Outreach funds by the government will have a detrimental effect on the Outreach programs on at least one reserve of which I know in my constituency and I do not know on how many others across the country. The Outreach program of the University of Calgary on the Stoney reserve has done a tremendous job, with the result that young people there have been able to get the necessary basic training to go to university. Some have graduated with degrees and today are playing their part in developing this country. However, cutting back funds will affect that Outreach program. We have exploited them; let us not continue to try to pull the wool over their eyes.
I ask this government to denounce this order in council program it has been following and to be above board. Let us put the record straight, let us say we will leave all that in the
Canada Oil and Gas Act
past and we will now define aboriginal rights with the help of the Indian and Inuit people, in a way which is fair to everyone.
That is all our Indian and Inuit people are asking for. If the government will not do that, I for one will be very apprehensive about anything it says about aboriginal rights.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to address myself to the rights of the native peoples of Canada. Only a little while ago the constitutional resolution proclaimed the aboriginal rights of the native peoples of this country which the present Bill C-48 denies. I therefore support not only the amendment before us but, indeed, other amendments my party has brought forward.
I am delighted to see the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal), now a minister of state, here in the House tonight because it was he, as co-chairman of the joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on the constitutional resolution-


Raymond John Skelly: Who was the other co-chairman?


Pauline Jewett: I have forgotten.


Raymond John Skelly: How soon we forget.


Pauline Jewett: It was he, as I understand it-I may be misled-who gave encouragement to the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) and other members of this party to press for the introduction into the constitutional resolution of Section 34(1), already referred to this evening, in which the aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
When the government acceded to the amendment this party proposed, one part of which included the strengthening of the aboriginal and treaty rights of the native peoples of Canada, it was my understanding that at least this co-chairman, and perhaps both co-chairmen, of the constitutional committee were enthusiastic and anxious to see this clause entrenched. That is not to say that the clause is perfect, but most of us thought then, and still think, that the courts are likely to give this clause paramountcy; that the fears of many of the native peoples of Canada that their rights will still be denied them are, we hope, not genuine fears; that they are not real; that they need not fear; and that we feel that the clause will be respected and given paramountcy by the courts.
But what happens to an hon. member when he joins the cabinet? I congratulate the minister on his appointment, but what happens? Either he has not studied the bill before us and the amendments before us or, if he has studied them, he has not realized that the bill itself absolutely denies the very aboriginal rights that he and all of us, at least in this party, spent so much time affirming. It seems to me that this is giving with one hand only to take away with the other. The very same thing could have happened, and the minister responsible for the status of women today assured us it would not happen, as far as native women are concerned. If I heard correctly today in the House, she said we would not wait for the three-year moratorium period, assuming the constitutional resolution is

October 19, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
passed, before we ensure that the inequities now in Section 12(l)(b) of the Indian Act are removed. Yet at the very moment one minister of the Crown is saying we will not continue with these inequities, the government, in a related field, namely, all matters relating to land claims, fishing and hunting rights and so forth, is saying we will perpetuate injustice, unfairness and inequities.
I urge the Minister of State, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, before it is too late to bring his voice to bear in cabinet and elsewhere to ensure that the amendments which have been proposed and are still to be proposed will in fact be looked at much more seriously by the government. It will be too late, as far as the native people of Canada are concerned, when exploration and development has surged into the area of the Canada lands with no serious regard for the needs of the native peoples of this country or for their wishes or their genuine concerns, which we all say we share. If the government does not act now, it will be much too late, so I urge the minister, just as his colleague today said she would urge the government, to take steps immediately to rectify the inequities caused by Section 12(l)(b). I urge him to take the same steps with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and, indeed, with the whole government.
Similarly, I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), who was here a moment ago, will also involve himself in this question of native rights. Hon. members might think this is not a matter which would ordinarily concern the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I agree that he has a great many other concerns, but I know that the last thing he would want or, indeed, any of us want, would be another reference to the United Nations Human Rights Commission comparable to the Sandra Lovelace case. This case, however, concerns deprivation of the rights of the native peoples of Canada and particularly the right to have land claims and other claims negotiated. I cannot say for sure that could come before the United Nations commission, but it might come before it.


John Leslie Evans: Speak to the motion.


Pauline Jewett: I am speaking passionately to the motion. I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be concerned, just as I hope the Minister of State, who was a co-chairman of the constitutional committee, would be concerned because he too spent a good deal of time on the constitutional resolution, and I am sure he too was grateful that Section 34 was introduced, strengthened beyond its original form. He too, therefore, must want to see the amendments we are proposing and the amendment I am at present addressing accepted by the government in order to ensure that injustice and inequities as far as the northern peoples of Canada are concerned will not prevail.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
["The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.\nAt 10.28 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Tuesday, October 20, 1981']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I should like to remind members there has been difficulty recently with regard to the amount of time members speak. Seven minutes is allotted for the question and three minutes is allotted for the reply. The Chair is obliged to keep to the time limit.



Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: On October 14 I posed a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), arising out of his announced statement of July 27 cutting back VIA Rail services by 19 per cent, and affecting some 1.2 million passengers and, particularly, some 1,600 railway workers, plus countless other jobs which will be indirectly affected as a result of the cutbacks.
I asked the minister to reconsider seriously this illogical and shortsighted arbitrary decision, given the fact that we are in serious difficulty with the economy. Unemployment is running at a high rate. The cutbacks will affect the areas of Canada that experience the highest level of unemployment.
The reply the minister gave confirms to my colleagues and myself that little thought had gone into the social and economic impact of such a decision on the workers and their families, particularly in the eastern and western regions of Canada. They will feel a tremendous impact from the cutback of the transportation services which are needed and used.
The minister said he would be prepared to come before the committee to explain his decision; but he did not say he would be prepared to defer the decision. That is simply not good enough, Mr. Speaker.
He also suggested we could have dealt with this matter under our broad terms of reference that was issued by the House with regard to the study of transportation matters in Quebec and Ontario, which the Standing Committee on Transportation undertook this summer. The minister knows very well the mandate was limited. It dealt only with transportation matters in the province of Quebec and Ontario. The cutbacks we are dealing with affect all of Canada, not only the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. We had limited time. This being a national issue, it requires a lot more study and a lot more time than the minister is prepared to give it.
In the response of the minister we are simply being given a whitewash. He will come before the committee, wax eloquent and try to explain his position, without hearing the other side of the story. This is simply not good enough. Lay-off notices, Mr. Speaker, have already been issued. CN in Montreal
October 19, 1981

announced for the first of September that some 560 positions will be affected by the cutbacks of VIA Rail; two fifths of the positions in Montreal, two fifths in Winnipeg, and the balance in Moncton. VIA Rail has issued lay-off notices; 133 in Quebec and Atlantic Canada, 166 in western Canada, some in Ontario and a few others in administrative and accounting positions. This works out to 313 people.
The cutbacks, Mr. Speaker, occur in areas of high unemployment; mainly the province of Quebec, the Atlantic region and in western Canada, particularly in the city of Winnipeg where the bulk of the lay-offs will take place. There are other matters, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the minister, his officials and his cabinet colleagues did not consider the tremendous impact this will have on the future economic development opportunities both in the west and in the maritimes with regard to tourism.
Japanese tourists rely very heavily upon the use of rail service. They are big spenders. They are major contributors to Canada's balance of payments, particularly with the large amount of money they spend. The Canadian government tourist office suggests that the Japanese spend an average of $2,000 per capita when they come to visit the country. This is in addition to the payment for their travel and their hotels. Altogether, some 25,000 Japanese visitors travel through western Canada by train. We are looking at a potential loss of some $50 million if those opportunities are gone.
The minister also suggested that he will save some $100 million. We challenge that figure just as we challenge the statement that he could revitalize rail passenger services by abandonment. In short, he will not achieve that saving. The $30 million will be paid out immediately for adjustments, relocations and training programs for the people who will be laid off.
The actions of the minister constitute a very dangerous precedent. If he is absolutely sure his decision is correct, I challenge him to take his decision to the public and let the court of the Canadian public judge it. If he did, he may be apprised of the tremendous hardships and sufferings his decision will inflict upon hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country.
The minister's act constitutes a very dangerous precedent, in my view. I hate to say this, but by virtue of the fact that the minister refuses to go through the normal and traditional process of public hearings, either through the Canadian Transport Commission or through a parliamentary committee, what he is doing constitutes a cowardly act. I hope he will reconsider the action he has taken and will allow the committee to study this matter. In order for it to be studied properly and fully, he must defer the decision. I plead and urge the minister to do so.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and the cabinet made a decision to implement a reduction of rail passenger services in Canada which would
Adjournment Debate
create operating economies in order that these savings might be used for the purpose of acquiring new passenger trains and equipment for both the Atlantic and the western provinces. By reducing the operating deficits of VIA, the capital budget would correspondingly experience an increase.
I have with me notes for an address by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) to the Canadian Transportation Research Forum on June 11,1980, in which he said:
On the passenger side of rail transportation, the ever-increasing debt incurred by the federal government in subsidies is a major problem which will have to be dealt with. This fiscal year alone, $424 million will go toward subsidizing rail passenger service. This is especially urgent when considering the impact on rail's competition, the bus mode.
The hon. member for Vegreville understated the problem because in 1980, seven million VIA Rail passenger tickets were sold and the subsidies amounted to $490 million.
We have in Canada two transcontinental services. The intention is to reduce them to one line to avoid a duplication of services. The transcontinental services account for more than half the operating deficit. The second transcontinental service will be replaced by daytime intercity services. Alternatives are therefore being put forward by the government. The cabinet has considered this matter three or four times. It was a difficult decision to reach, and the cabinet has no intention of reversing it.


VIA RAIL-CANCELLATION OF PASSENGER SERVICES
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, the president of the Toronto-Havelock Line Passenger Association said in his organization's submission to the Progressive Conservative task force on VIA Rail and the all-party committee on transport:
It is absurd to believe that VIA Rail will actually revitalize Canada's rail-passenger service by discontinuing service, especially the most promising one. By careful study, subsidies to the retained routes are found to be as much as 13 times greater than the stated subsidy to the Toronto-Peterborough-Havelock service.
It can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that VIA Rail's revenues have been understated. It is further suspected that deficits have been purposely inflated by a disproportionate allocation of costs to passenger trains-costs that should rightly be charged to freight operations.
With that in mind-and I would add, incidentally, that the association's opinion has been endorsed by an actuary who reviewed the route's fiscal situation-it was particularly distressing to me last Thursday, October 15, when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) refused my request in the House that the figures he uses to justify the termination of VIA Rail service-19 per cent of the service in Canada-be audited.
As he had tentatively agreed, at least, to appear in person before the Standing Committee on Transport to justify cutting Canada's rail-passenger network by 19 per cent, I was hopeful that he would, in addition, agree to allowing the costing procedures he used to justify the Toronto-Havelock route to be audited. Very serious questions have been raised with regard to these figures and out of a total yearly sum of approximately

October 19, 1981
Adjournment Debate
$350,000 which is involved on that line, some $100,000 or thereabouts is in question.
On Thursday, the minister sidestepped the specific question with regard to the cost justification on the Toronto-Havelock route by claiming that he viewed the route, and others in Ontario, as essentially of a "commuter" nature. This is despite a clear understanding which the minister shared with Mr. Snow, the minister of transportation and communications for Ontario. Mr. Snow was good enough to forward to me a letter of his where he said that the Minister of Transport concurred that the Toronto-Havelock service is intercity in nature and is being dropped because of the losses it is incurring".
Now we have two elements in the dispute over this particular route. First, is it essentially a commuter-route or an intercity service? Second, are the losses which the route is allegedly incurring enough to shut it down? The minister has since said that this route is "-dominated by commuter traffic and cannot be justified as intercity service if the commuter element is removed". That is to say, the route as it stands now is an inter-city type service because quite clearly the "commuter-element" can hardly be practically removed and constitutes merely a semantic sleight-of-hand which the minister's officials are so obviously reduced to. How on earth can the "commuter-element" possibly be removed? This is quite absurd. There is obviously a "commuter-element" on virtually every passenger train in the country.
The minister also refers in his letter to the published CTC decision contained in Order R-32317, where it found that the Rail Transport Committee "-intends to review this case with the purpose of deciding whether or not the Toronto-Havelock Service should continue to be designated as a passenger-train service".
I do not see why this justifies the minister's precipitous action. It is the function and purpose of the CTC Rail Transport Committee and not that of Transport Canada or the minister's office to decide whether or not it is indeed a passenger-train service. If the minister wants to discuss the CTC order, let him discuss the order's final recommendation which reads as follows:
Accordingly, it is the decision of the committee that... the Toronto-Havelock service shall not be discontinued.
They reached this decision despite having weighed the same evidence as has the minister, presumably.
However, the minister finally admits in his letter to me that:
It is the type of traffic rather than the losses they are incurring which led the government to terminate (the line).
In that case, I suppose we need not squabble about that odd $100,000 which the minister so airily dismisses, and concentrate on the route's "traffic". The minister's definition here deserves close scrutiny, preferably by the rail transport committee of the CTC, or at least by Parliament's Standing Committee on Transport, for as the rail passenger association's brief describes:
1)	Less than 50 per cent of passengers and less than 20 per cent of revenues can be attributed to commuters travelling within the Metropolitan Toronto region.
2)	The average number of passengers carried per train on this particular service equals or exceeds the average number per train on the Quebec City-Windsor corridor services.
This House needs a full explanation from the Minister of Transport as to why he refuses to have his figures audited or questioned by the CTC, and why he has resorted to an order in council to terminate 19 per cent of our passenger rail service in Canada without a public hearing and against the wishes of the CTC and an all-party standing committee on transportation.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, in its decision of May 29, 1981, the CTC had strong reason to believe that the Toronto-Havelock service might be essentially commuter in nature and therefore not entitled to subsidies because the Railway Act does not provide for the subsidization of commuter services.
Havelock is 101 miles from Toronto. Havelock service is, however, commuter traffic dominated. VIA Rail conducted a survey of the Toronto-Havelock service earlier this year. On a typical work day, ten people boarded the train in Havelock and 239 disembarked at the Union Station in Toronto from the westbound train; the reverse was true on the eastbound train. VIA found that 55 per cent of the passengers board at the last two stops closest to Toronto; namely, Agincourt and Leaside. Only 25 per cent of the passengers using this train service go beyond Burketon, which is 47 miles from Toronto.
It is the type of traffic which led the government to its decision to terminate subsidy payments on the line in question. It was recognized that these trains perform an important function for commuters. The date of termination was set one year in advance to give the government of Ontario ample notice that it might integrate these services into its own commuter network.


FISHERIES-STATE OF INDUSTRY IN SOUTHERN NOVA SCOTIA
Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question was asked on June 2, 1981, of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc). I do not want to repeat the question, but it related to the state of the industry in the southern end of Nova Scotia. I am sure that many people consider this to be one of the best fishing areas in eastern Canada.
The history, goes back prior to my question. It was on April 6, 1981, that I first asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans if he would set up an independent study group of fishermen and processors, big and small, as well as one economist, to study the distressing situation in the process of one month that was developing. Of course, no study was done, and I think what happened in June and July was a result of that.
The fishermen did come and meet with the Fisheries Prices Support Board, and I must say that we were well received; so well received that one has to look at what we got out of it. We got a $14 million fisheries prices stabilization program for
October 19, 1981

haddock, announced on July 24, 1981, approximately four months from the time I first spoke in the House concerning the crisis. This price support was on future inventory, not on past inventory. Therefore, the cost to the processors of storing the inventory under this program was of no consequence at all because it was kept back so that prices would increase in the marketplace.
This was not well received by either the fishermen or the industry. Nor has it been acted upon. In addition, 1981 was a very poor year. It all started back between January and May, 1981, with the haddock catches. At that time of the year only the offshore fleets on the east coast are fishing and many plants are in operation. I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary knows of plants operating last year during a period when they normally do not operate.
In the maritimes from January to May, 1980, the catch increased from 14,000 pounds to upwards of 19,500 pounds. In Newfoundland, the catch increased from 1,500 pounds to 5,200 pounds. No wonder the plants were working when they normally would not have been, no wonder there was no fish on the east coast later in the year, and no wonder that in southern Nova Scotia, even if there was fish, there was no market for it because there was a glut in haddock. Prices to fishermen went down at that time from 25 cents, which was the lowest last year, to 17 cents in May and June of this year. Prices have not gone up that much even though no haddock was being caught in that area except for the months of August and September.
We can blame marketing conditions on the province, on industry and on the federal government. I would say that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should be hitting very hard on the marketing end at the federal level. But then he turned to quality. I have something to say about that. It is not, in my view, a global statement as indicated in his press release from Marystown, which reads that all fish should be bled and gutted and that the minister wished that the five provincial ministers of fishery would implement this regulation.
At the beginning of September the federal government funded a $14 million stabilization program, virtually saying that the offshore fleet does not have any fish to supply to the plants. "Therefore," they said, "We will let them open up early and we will give them additional quotas because the scientists have found that this year there are more fish for the big offshore fleet to catch." If they have so much additional pollock or cod quotas they will also have a by-catch of haddock of 10 per cent. But when will that take place? It will take place in September and October, which is the last period of the year when our fishermen have the best of the season to fish. But prices are depressed, both the price of haddock to the fishermen and prices to the small processors. Because the catches are not high, the plant workers will have insufficient unemployment insurance stamps as a result of this terrible glut which started at the beginning of the year and ended with the department bringing in a $14 million stabilization program. Then another branch of the department, under the fisheries
Adjournment Debate
management plan, amended the plan halfway through the year allowing the offshore fleets to return to the inshore waters to capture additional quotas which they felt was their due and just reward. They could not wait until October 15. They had to go then.
This is a prime example of government departments not finding out what one is doing on the one hand and what the other is doing on the other hand.
I would like to state now that quality will not enhance marketing conditions as far as fishermen in the southern end of the province are concerned unless the department, instead of just issuing quality improvement directives, indicates what we need and what will bring the prices up. You cannot go to a group of fishermen who are icing and whose fish has commanded the best of price right across the land and say they have to do something different when they are out for two days at the most with good icing facilities on their boats and when the local plants are receiving the highest prices, and when the only reason quality is perhaps not so good is that the big multinationals do not have the same quality standards as some of the smaller businesses.
The fact that I have to stand here tonight compounds the fact that the issue has been before this House since last April. I feel very strongly that the department should have a handle on this issue. It does not have a handle on the situation over the entire season. We are now coming up to the time of new quotas with a new season starting in January with depressed markets, and the department has done nothing, in my view, to cure the situation by its policies over the summer, particularly those of price stabilization from the Fisheries Prices Support Board. This could have been good except that the inventory being bought was future inventory and there was not that much to buy at the time. The department then allowed the offshore fleet to come in in September, depressing prices that should have been going up at that time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to tell the member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell) that I appreciate her concern and very earnest representation on behalf of her constituents. Indeed, it has been a difficult year everywhere in fisheries in eastern Canada, and I know that in Newfoundland in many cases the bottom fell out of the cod market.
The hon. member mentioned quality several times during her comments. I became aware of an interesting fact some time ago which I think illustrates the need for quality in the fisheries in Atlantic Canada and, indeed, on the west coast of Canada as well. The total world production of fish and seafood is 74 million tonnes. Canada produces just one million tonnes. We are not in a position to assume we have some kind of monopoly in respect of fish and seafood. Indeed, we do have to prepare a quality product if we want to get to world markets.

October 19, 1981
Adjournment Debate
The state of the fishing industry in southern Nova Scotia has been characterized by a glut of haddock products on the U.S. market which is causing low prices to both Canadian and U.S. fishermen. Canadian haddock landings have risen from
19,000	tonnes in 1976 to 51,000 tonnes in 1980, with landed value ranging from $8 million to $25 million during the same period. U.S. landings have increased almost four times from 1976 to 1980. During the January-July period, 1981, Canadian haddock landings were 30 per cent higher than in the similar period of last year. Prices for haddock to the southwest Nova Scotia fishermen were as high as 35 cents per pound, round, earlier this year, but have dropped to approximately 17 cents in May and June and increased to 19 cents per pound last September.
An additional factor in the oversupplied U.S. market is increased haddock block shipments from Norway and Iceland,
haddock that is marketed in competition with our products. Here is where quality once again comes into question. Southern Nova Scotia fishermen as well are affected by the recent decline of cod prices received. The U.S. cod market has been dull in recent months and has affected all of eastern Canada.
I should like to say in closing that, at the request of the industry, the Fisheries Prices Support Board reviewed the situation in June and was authorized, effective July 25, 1981, to implement a price stabilization program for haddock. The board continues to monitor the situation with respect to haddock and, I assure you, with respect to other species as well.


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 10.28 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, October 20, 1981