1981-07-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgency. In light of the fact that the government has established a double standard for postal delivery during the current strike, a standard which promotes subsidized courier service for wealthy clients of the Post Office, and because such service has not been made available to small business clients, most of whom have had to resort to courier dispatch at their own expense; nor has such a service been offered to lower income or needy Canadians, a growing and great majority of the population, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek):
That the government be soundly condemned for creating two types of postal service in Canada, one for the rich and another for the poor.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POSTAL STRIKE-CALL FOR RESTORATION OF SERVICE TO ALL CANADIANS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the Government of Canada has chosen to violate its own postal monopoly by contracting with private couriers to provide continued Priority Post services to favoured customers, and whereas many direct mail businesses, such as World Wide Industries of Richmond, British Columbia, are faced with laying off hundreds of employees immediately as a consequence of the government's incompetent tolerance of the national postal strike, I move under Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie):
That the government admit to the catastrophe which it is causing for thousands of small businesses and their employees, and that it take immediate
action to restore postal services to all Canadians, instead of giving favoured status only to wealthy customers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INVESTMENT PRACTICES OF ALBERTA GOVERNMENT'S HERITAGE FUND-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas some great Canadian companies such as Petro-Canada, Dome, Seagram and the CDC are showing their faith in the entrepreneurial spirit by Canadianizing the petrochemical industry through astute business takeovers, and whereas the Alberta government has seen fit to invest its Heritage Fund in no risk, low yield bonds, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. Campbell):
That this House condemns the Alberta government and its Premier for not investing its energy royalties in the future of Canada's oil and gas industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) himself has confirmed that before the current postal strike the Post Office made a sweetheart deal with its rich so-called priority clients to provide them with mail delivery during the strike at rates subsidized by the taxpayer. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney):
That the government move immediately to ensure normal postal service at normal rates for all Canadians, including the thousands of flower shops across Canada, such as "Hearts and Flowers" and others in Charlottetown, P.E.I., for

July 14, 1981
whom the strike is especially critical because they receive most of their orders by phone and, therefore, rely on the mails for payment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during his trip to Washington indicate that he now thinks that interest rates are too high, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House directs the Prime Minister to practise what he preaches and initiate a made-in-Canada interest rate policy to protect farmers, small businesses and home owners instead of merely waiting for Washington to do something about it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the usual provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers has accepted a federally appointed mediator, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain):
That this House congratulates both sides in the postal dispute for demonstrating good sense despite the interference of members of the opposition who have hampered negotiations by advocating that Parliament legislate an end to the strike, and that this House begs those members from the Conservative benches who advocate greater government interference and tinkering and regulation, to keep their noses out of this matter.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DEMAND FOR RESTORATION OF SERVICE TO SMALL BUSINESSES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that yesterday's revelation of the offer made by Canada Post prior to the postal strike guaranteeing the delivery of mail for big businesses and financial institutions, subsidized by the taxpayer, only further confirms the government's complete disregard for the difficulty that this postal disruption imposes on the small business sector and other Canadians not considered as priority clients by the Post Office, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House instruct the government to take immediate steps to ensure that the small business sector and other Canadians most unable to absorb the costs and hardships of this current round of essential service disruptions be guaranteed regular mail delivery at normal rates and, failing this, that the government at least allow small businesses to suspend remittance of employee income tax deductions, pension plan contributions and UIC premiums until full postal service has been restored.


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


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. At the present time a physician in my constituency is facing a very serious problem in administering to his patients, many of whom are required to take correctional pain therapy using special medicines obtained from Germany, the United States, Toronto and Vancouver, and his supplies for these patients are held up in the mails. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the government make arrangements forthwith to effect the delivery of these urgent medicines at all physicians similarly affected in Canada, preferably by the immediate restoration of full mail service.


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


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, small businesses in greater Winnipeg and in Manitoba in general are suffering from very serious cash flow prob-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EFFECT OF STRIKE ON SERVICES PROVIDED BY PHYSICIANS- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ADMINISTRATION
[Stage Direction]
July 14, 1981
[Stage Direction]
lems brought about by the present postal strike. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), the only minister in the federal cabinet from Manitoba, is not returning calls from affected small businesses, nor is he prepared to state his position in reference to the strike.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Epp):
That the Prime Minister appoint a new member to his cabinet who will be responsive to the needs of the people of Manitoba, answer his telephone calls and assist in a return to normal postal service for the small businesses of Manitoba, not just for the rich corporations as is the case presently.
Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, small enterprises with business dependent on a functioning Canadian postal service, such as Beaven's Custom Cannery in Summerland, B.C., and the businessmen of Oliver, B.C., who have expressed their distress through the Oliver Chamber of Commerce, all demand resumption of service. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer):
That the Postmaster General instruct the Canada Post Office to demonstrate the same concern for small-town customers as it has done for its larger, city-based customers to whom it offered priority service at normal rates during any work stoppage, by moving resolutely to restore full postal service.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR RESTORATION OF ORDINARY MAIL SERVICE-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Post Office is honouring its contract with the rich and wealthy who can afford other methods of mail delivery but doing absolutely nothing about the mail for the rest of the people, and whereas small businesses, ranchers and farmers must pay their employees, make instalment payments on income taxes, etc., etc.-in other words, they must have a cash flow or go under-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
Oral Questions
That this Flouse urges the Prime Minister to get off his arrogant perch, give some consideration to the every-day people for a change, and restore ordinary mail service for everybody, not just the rich.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquit-lam (Miss Jewett), I move:
That this House urges the government, in view of its stated recognition of the role of spouses working in the home, to bring before the House legislation to provide pensions for all homemaker spouses, in their own right, equivalent to those earned by contributors to the Canada Pension Plan, thus recognizing in full, for pension purposes, the contribution to our society made by those who work in the home.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. I should start by indicating that we on this side of the House are extremely glad to see that both sides have accepted the proposal to return to bargaining if the mediator is successful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John William Bosley: I might say it is extremely doubtful the government would have even offered to go to mediation unless the House were sitting this week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, the Postmaster General yesterday indicated he was not even aware of an offer made June

July 14, 1981
Oral Questions
29, before the strike began, by management in his department who sent a letter to Priority Post customers, those rich enough to afford it. That letter guaranteed normal service at normal rates during the strike, with any additional costs incurred to be borne by the government. I repeat that the minister said yesterday he was not aware of it.
Could the Postmaster General please explain to this House how he justifies guaranteeing and subsidizing mail delivery for the rich and powerful, while he ignores or, worse, bankrupts ordinary Canadians?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, let me say that I totally disapprove of the line taken by the Leader of the Opposition-


Mr. Crosbie:: I guess you do.


André Ouellet: -yesterday, and by the hon. member today in saying we divide the service and give different treatment of various kinds of Canadians. It is absolutely untrue and unfounded that we are subsidizing the rich in this country in relation to postal services.


Miss MacDonald:: Only part of the time.


André Ouellet: The reality is quite the contrary, Madam Speaker. We, as a government, took every step necessary to assure pensioners, indeed every Canadian who receives social benefit cheques, that they will receive them despite the strike. Indeed, we are subsidizing those services for those in need in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: Secondly, we have a service called Priority Post which is addressed not only to the rich and to large firms in Canada, but to a number of Canadian businessmen, large, medium and small. They are paying a premium price for that type of service, on which the Post Office has made a good profit in the past and hopes to do so in the future.
The Post Office has taken every step to protect its clients, to keep them rather than to lose them to private couriers. And I want to say, Madam Speaker, despite the heckling on the other side by those who do not want to listen to the answer, that we are not subsidizing the rich. We are doing our utmost to keep a profitable service for the Post Office, one which brings in substantial revenue, and we intend to continue to do that despite this very regrettable line taken by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday.


NEED FOR RESTORATION OF FULL SERVICE
John William Bosley: We are now in a position, Madam Speaker, where the Postmaster General finally admits that he has indeed maintained services for those parts of the system which he describes as profitable, while leaving everyone else who depends on the mail to hang out to dry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I would like to get an answer to a question we asked last week. In defence of not bringing in back to work legislation, the answer we were given was that any strike, anywhere, is bound to hurt someone. Now that we know whom the government will hurt and whom it will protect, will the Postmaster General please tell this House how long he intends to continue a practice such as this before he will recognize that the public interest is not just those who can afford courier services or Priority Post, and that thousands of ordinary Canadians desperately need their mail contract honoured and their mail service restored?
(Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, only a few days ago, on July 7, the hon. member for Provencher asked me whether we would attempt to maintain postal services in the small rural post offices in Canada. I told him then that of course we would try as much as possible to maintain services in those small post offices since the government is committed to deliver pension cheques, family allowances cheques and various social security cheques to the most needy Canadians. Notwithstanding the Progressive Conservative opposition, we will try to honour the contracts we have signed with Canadian companies-large, medium-sized or small-which use the Priority Post and pay a high price for that service.


REQUEST THAT SERVICE BE RESTORED BEFORE ECONOMIC SUMMIT MEETINGS COMMENCE
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, my final question is directed to the Postmaster General who at least finally has the honesty to admit that he is trying to divide postal customers into two classes-first class and the rest of us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John William Bosley: Since the government is headed by a gentleman who presumes these days to roam the world telling the rich nations that next week's economic summit meeting should focus on help for the poor nations, will the Postmaster General guarantee to ordinary Canadians that the Government of Canada will practise in Canada what it preaches abroad, that normal service at normal rates for all will be restored before next week's summit meeting, not just a continuation of the service for those who are least hurt and can afford a strike the most?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, in my opinion this persiflage simply does not help solve the current labour dispute. The irresponsible attitude of the Leader of the
July 14, 1981

Opposition and of the hon. member for Don Valley West can only encourage the Canadian Union of Postal Workers not to return to the bargaining table and not to negotiate a new collective agreement. If our negotiations with the postal workers have not progressed very far until now, the fault lies with the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Don Valley West, Madam Speaker, who rather than say-


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Balderdash!


Mr. Kempling:: You are silly.


Mr. Huntington:: Nonsense!


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, when we say the truth to members of the opposition, they start yakking and yakking because they do not like it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I would invite the minister to complete his answer.


André Ouellet: To my mind, Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition was taken in by Mr. Parrot. Instead of urging the postal employes to accept our offer of $25,000, he led them to believe that he would force the government to legislate them back to work. In my opinion, when it comes to irresponsibility, the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition puts him on the same level as Mr. Jean-Claude Parrot.


ADVICE FOR PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD PRIORITY POST
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, a government which would provide postal service to the corporate elite during a legal strike can hardly be called responsible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Neither can that be construed as being conducive to successful labour negotiations. I want to ask the Postmaster General, who has the responsibility here, what advice he has for the thousands of Canadians who cannot afford Priority Post, who cannot afford this special privilege service, but who, as Canadians, are entitled to equal treatment from their Post Office? What advice does he have for these Canadians who are-


Some hon. Members:: Louder, louder!


James Aloysius McGrath: If it is necessary to get the message across, I will yell louder. What advice does the Postmaster General have for the thousands of Canadians who are being forced to close the doors of their small businesses and to lay off their
Oral Questions
employees because they cannot afford this elitist Priority Post service?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member for St. John's East has asked this question because I can tell him that, in fact, Priority Post customers include a number of small businessmen from Newfoundland.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Name them.


André Ouellet: They include prescription optical suppliers, photographic dealers, small retail stores, drug companies, logging equipment dealers, television and stereo dealers, rental suppliers, and a small butler from Newfoundland. All of these businessmen, who are not large companies, are depending on a service for which they pay much more than 17 cents a letter. They are paying dollars for this type of service. These are services from which the Post Office is making a profit and from which we hope to make a profit in the future; but with the help of the Conservative party the future of Crown corporation is being destroyed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: It is no wonder that the Post Office has deficits.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, it is incredible that the Postmaster General of Canada would stand in his place and espouse a position which says that "if you are prepared to pay the price we will give you the service". That is the line he is taking in this House. I say to him that there are people in this country who cannot afford to pay his price for postal service and by the thousands they are wiring members of Parliament every day because they are going out of business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EQUITY OF TREATMENT
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the Postmaster General has had experience in this area. He knows that the acceptance of mediation does not necessarily lead to the bargaining table. We are now into the third week of this costly strike. What is the minister prepared to do to ensure equity of treatment to Canadians who are suffering? What is he prepared to do for these people, since he is evidently prepared to serve the corporate elite who are well able to sit out this strike?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the very reason we can keep this service going is because Priority Post

July 14, 1981
Oral Questions
normally goes directly from the customer to the nearest transportation point. It does not go through the Post Office and there is no sorting involved. This is a service which has been in existence for years that permits clients who wish to enter into a contract with the Post Office to have their mail picked up at their place of business and be delivered directly to another point. We have been able to perform this service for a number of years, and we hope to continue performing it.
The consequence of the irresponsibility of the Leader of the Opposition and of some of his colleagues has probably made it impossible to continue the performance of this service.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has asked me for my advice to settle the current dispute. The answer we can give to the public who are suffering from the strike is that there is a possibility to have a negotiated settlement between the parties involved. A mediator will be appointed and, hopefully, members of the opposition party will remove themselves from this conflict and not put their noses in it, allowing the parties to negotiate, rather than intervening very negatively in the way they have been doing thus far.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I would have asked a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but I will ask it of the Minister of State for Trade. I think he would be interested in it. As he knows, we are suffering a considerable deficit on manufactured products. There are two situations currently being carried on in Canada which further erode our trade position.
First of all, will the minister look into the persistent rumour that Budd automotive of Kitchener will close, and that the frames it makes for mid-sized cars will be brought into Canada from a U.S. manufacturer? Will the minister bring to the attention of General Motors the fact that the trade balance on manufactured products is at an all-time high, in terms of a deficit to Canada, and that the auto pact requires that a fair share be manufactured in this country, and we will not accept the decision to close Budd?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (Trade)):: Madam Speaker, since the domestic automobile industry comes under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I am not aware of the specific instance alleged by the hon. member. I will discuss that with the minister upon his return to the House. I do hope, though, that the hon. member has noticed, in the last couple of months, that a Canadian automobile company, General Motors, assisted by the Government of Canada, negotiated the largest transaction
in a foreign market for automobiles in the history of Canada. That was a $100 million plus deal: a sale of 13,500 cars to Iraq.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, that information will be invaluable, I am sure, given the fact that all of the frames for all of the cars will be manufactured in the United States. That is really a silly answer.


CROSS-BORDER TRANSFER OF PRODUCTS
Ian Deans: Now let me ask the
minister a question in relation to yet another very difficult situation. Wabco, located in Stoney Creek, has been on strike for nine weeks. There have been no meetings. The parent company in the United States is filling every single order in Canada from its U.S. parent facility. Will the minister look into how it can be that companies can so easily transfer their products across the border, thus undermining the Canadian public, undermining the Canadian employees, and undermining Canada's economy at the same time?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I want to correct a statement that the hon. member just made. One of the reasons that Canada was able to obtain that contract with Iraq was the fact that we guaranteed that those cars would be manufactured and assembled here in Canada, and not in the United States. That is the reason we got a contract.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward C. Lumley: With respect to the second part of the hon. member's statement, I will confer with my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MAJOR GENERAL CHATICHAI CHOONHAVAN, MINISTER OF INDUSTRY, THAILAND
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Major General Chati-chai Choonhavan, Minister of Industry for Thailand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POST OFFICE
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General, who is now getting briefed by the President of the Treasury Board on what the postal strike is all about.
July 14, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yesterday he knew nothing about the letter with respect to Priority Post. Today he is an expert. In 1978, after one day, the Postmaster General brought in legislation mandating the CUPW back to work. This year he is talking about extending the strike for an indefinite period. Since he is applying a double standard-the Post Office is now in effect providing a service for the wealthy of this nation and not for the average citizen, the pensioner, the poor and the rural person-how long does the Postmaster General think the hardships, which the Prime Minister acknowledged yesterday were being endured by the average citizen in Canada, can be allowed to continue? Does he believe, as does the President of the Treasury Board, that this strike can continue all summer until Parliament reconvenes in the fall, or is it his opinion that some action will have to be taken within a reasonable period of time? He knows that if it was not for the action taken by our party, there would be no development in terms of mediation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The only reason they are back is because of our side.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate to the hon. member that, if he insists on talking about double standards, I will remind him that the government has taken every step to deliver the socioeconomics cheques free to all of the pensioners and the recipients. In this regard the Post Office has worked out an agreement with the letter carriers and with other unions of the Post Office to make sure that these cheques will be delivered. Therefore, indeed, we are doing this free of charge to our customers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Who are your customers?


André Ouellet: When we give information, the Conservative members of Parliament do not like that. The other service that the hon. member talks about is a service for which customers pay a much higher price than 17 cents. There is, indeed, a big difference between the two, and the government makes no apologies for having taken every step to make sure that the poor of this country will continue to receive their cheques through the services of postal employees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: In relation to the second part of the question-


Madam Speaker:: Order. There has to be some kind of limit to answers.


MINISTER'S VIEW ON LENGTH OF STRIKE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, on the basis of the answer of the Postmaster General we now
Oral Questions
know what he is, but we do not know what the price is. I want to ask the Postmaster General a supplementary question in terms of his statements in 1978, where he said the government staunchly believed that public interest must override personal interest, and it was a fundamental belief of the government that when an individual's right becomes a public wrong action has to be taken. I want to ask the Postmaster General, as the person who has responsibility for the Post Office, and in view of the Prime Minister's admission yesterday that there are widespread effects of this strike on the average citizen, how long does he anticipate that this strike will be able to proceed. Will he answer that simple question, or does he think that that matter is not of enough importance to the Postmaster General of this country? How long can we wait for a settlement?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, there is one thing that I could say in answering this: as long as the opposition is going to stay in Parliament, with the type of questions it is putting, there will be absolutely no settlement, because-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: -their attitude is fuelling the conflict and the confrontation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: I can predict, for the hon. member, that the minute that the union membership, and particularly the union leader, understand that there will be no way out for them via legislation to bring them back to work, they will then understand that the only course for them to follow is to go back to the table to negotiate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: We hope that this will become very clear in the coming hours, and that they will realize that there will be no legislation, and that they will then be able to go back to the table and negotiate with the Treasury Board nominees who are waiting for them 24 hours a day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Jack Burghardt (London West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. As the minister is well aware, because of the postal strike many small businesses are experiencing cash flow difficulties. Would the government be prepared to assist some of these businesses by relaxing the collection of federal funds such as sales tax, income tax deductions and the like from these affected businesses?

July 14, 1981
Oral Questions


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, my department is quite aware of the difficulties that small businessmen find themselves in at the present time. 1 have been consulting with my colleague, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism. I can assure the hon. member that we have been in touch with the Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen, and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and that we will be treating remittances on an individual basis.
I can assure small business of every possible latitude under the law. We understand their difficulties and will be taking them into consideration. There are arrangements for them to make their payments at chartered banks or offices of my department across the country. We will provide every possible latitude under the law.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but it touches on the minister's responsibility as Postmaster General so it will give him a real chance to show whether he is prepared to treat all Canadians fairly.
My question is in connection with what people are to do about interest charges on their credit card accounts during the postal strike. In view of the fact that only two provinces, Quebec and Alberta, have laws which protect consumers from paying interest charges until they know what the particulars are, can the minister say whether the federal government is considering any federal consumer protection law which will give all Canadians a chance to avoid paying interest on credit card accounts during the postal strike?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, this question re-opens the issue of whether it would be appropriate to have federal legislation in the area of consumer credit. The hon. member will recall that a few years ago, the liberal government introduced such a bill, which was then strongly criticized by the Progressive Conservative Party. If the hon. member can assure me that his party has changed its mind in this regard and that the Conservatives now have a new policy in this area, it would be very interesting to discuss this, and we could perhaps introduce a similar bill to the one which we put forward a few years ago to protect all Canadian borrowers.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERCEDE WITH BANKS AND CREDIT CARD COMPANIES
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, the minister may be aware that the banks, considering themselves under federal legislation, are ignoring the two provinces where consumer protection laws are in place. We need something much stronger. We need something from the federal point of view, which will apply to all Canadians. In the meantime will the minister intercede with the banks and credit card companies on behalf of many unwitting consumers across the country who have been nailed by high interest rates, and ask them to forestall interest charges on overdue accounts on the understanding that they will be paid in full within 30 days upon restoration of mail service in the country?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I know that several of my colleagues are concerned about this issue. I shall certainly refer the suggestion made by the hon. member to the Minister of Finance, but I understand that the Minister respnsible for Small Businesses and the Minister of State (Finance) have already examined the matter.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and I hope that the Minister of Justice will return for my supplementary question.
I assume that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has now had time to read the report of the health and welfare committee which was tabled last week, containing urgent recommendations for federal action on behalf of Canada's children. Particularly since the summer is upon us and we are fearful that this report will be buried, will the minister tell the House when this report will go to cabinet and what action she intends to take, personally, particularly with regard to establishing a children's bureau or secretariat that will advocate on behalf of Canada's children?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I am now examining the report which was tabled in the House of Commons only at the end of last week, and unfortunately, since the House is still sitting this week, we have had to cancel today a working meeting scheduled for this afternoon. It will take us a few weeks to put into practice the various recommendations, evaluate them, examine the costs, and so on, and it will not be possible to report to the House immediately.
July 14, 1981


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TAKE CHARGE OF PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as Minister of State for Social Development. In our view Canada's children deserve an independent minister who will be their advocate and will report directly to cabinet, and will provide an independent budget for a children's bureau. Since the main function of the ministry of social development has been to cut back on social welfare programs rather than to initiate new programs such as are required for children, will the minister tell the House if he agrees with the recommendations of the health and welfare committee that he, himself, should be in charge of programs for children? If so, what does he intend to do to improve the lot of Canada's children?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I have nothing to add to what the Minister of National Health and Welfare has replied. The report was received last week and we are in the process of studying it.


FISHERIES
Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In view of the fact that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans uses fish stock quotas as a management tool in the Atlantic fisheries and has publicly expressed its commitment to improving the quality of Canada's fish products, why has the minister decided to implement a policy of limiting the size of replacement vessels to the size of those they replace, when this policy can be shown to be an inefficient fisheries management tool and will limit fishermen's ability to adopt technological improvements which may require larger vessels, and therefore actually interfere with the department's policy of improving the quality of catches?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, it is a well known fact for those who follow these matters, as I am sure the hon. member does, that the catching capacity considerably exceeds the biological capacity of our oceans. We are endeavouring to keep some control over the expansion of the fisheries.
There are some cases, however, where it would not be logical to maintain a foot-by-foot replacement policy. Following representations by a good number of members on both sides of the House, in particular on this side, I have asked my regional directors to look at where adjustment can be made and a tolerance be acceptable which in fact does not so much increase the capacity of catching as the quality enhancement of the catch.
Oral Questions POST OFFICE


DELIVERY OF TAX REBATE CHEQUES TO YUKON RESIDENTS
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Postmaster General. Approximately 1,000 tax rebate cheques for residents of the Yukon are held up in the Vancouver district taxation office. These northern residents cannot receive delivery of their cheques. Just today in question period the Postmaster General reconfirmed the delivery of socioeconomic cheques to Canadians. The government has therefore made arrangements for delivery of UI cheques and pension cheques. What arrangement has the Postmaster General made for delivery of tax rebate cheques?


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, as I answered in the House last week, we have made arrangements for taking the refund cheques from the offices of my colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, and distributing them to our district taxation offices across the country. Unfortunately we do not have those in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. I am consulting with the Minister of Supply and Services to see if there is some way we can efficiently do that. It is not as easy, though, because of the way refund cheques are processed. They are processed in a much different way from the normal social security transfer payments. I am actively working to see if we can come up with a means of doing that. In the meantime, if there is an emergency situation and somebody needs a cheque for an emergency, then I think we can find ways and means of getting it for them.


TELEGRAM OFFERING SERVICES OF YUKON GOVERNMENT
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, Madam Speaker, there is an emergency when 1,000 residents of the Yukon are waiting for cheques. They are now paying 20 per cent at the bank for money. That is the emergency.
In view of the fact that the district office of the minister's department in Whitehorse was closed, and therefore those cheques cannot now be distributed from that point, the hon. Chris Pearson, leader of the government of the Yukon, has telexed to the minister offering any employee of his government, any service and any office, in order that those cheques can be distributed. What has the minister replied to Mr. Pearson? What arrangements have been made?


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, I have not seen that telegram, but when I do see it I will be glad to respond and take Mr. Pearson up on any offer to which we can reasonably respond.

July 14, 1981
11514_______________________________
Oral Questions AIRPORTS


WINNIPEG INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-RELOCATION OF RUNWAYS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Last year a study entitled "The Winnipeg Area Airport System Study" was completed by the Department of Transport. It indicated that two of the existing runways at Winnipeg International Airport would be moved as part of a key expansion program for the whole aerospace program in Manitoba. That of course, will fit in with the location of the $14 million hangar that is going to be established by PWA and some 50 additional jobs as the start of an expanded role for Manitoba's aerospace industry. Will the minister indicate whether his department has given the go ahead for the movement of these runways so that this aspect of the Manitoba aerospace industry can go ahead and, hopefully, we in Manitoba can have more jobs in the aerospace industry?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Madam Speaker. I am glad the hon. member prefaced his question the way he did, because there is a master plan for the Winnipeg airport. It is the result of ample consultations with the public. Everyone was invited to come and make his case. In this master plan, an area is reserved for hangars. The PWA company has not found that location to be convenient to its own use. For a number of months the discussions have been going on between my officials and Mr. Eyton. I am a bit hesitant because I have received conflicting information. I have a confirmation from the airline that no agreement has been reached and consequently they will delay construction of the hangar. However, I have an indication from the government of Manitoba that PWA will now agree to build the hangar on the west side. If my friend will be patient I will attempt to find out who is right and who is wrong in this matter, and report to him urgently.


EXPANSION OF AEROSPACE INDUSTRY IN MANITOBA
Jack Burnett Murta: I think the Minister of Transport will probably find in his investigation that the position the Manitoba government has taken is closest to being the correct position. He should keep uppermost in his mind the fact that it is more than a question of moving runways and a question of noise which was talked about in the report. What is involved at the present time is an expansion of the aerospace industry in the province of Manitoba. That is the key. That is the area the minister and his department should zero in on and everything should be done to facilitate that area.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, we have already zeroed in on that a number of times with great sympathy and eagerness in order to ensure that the economic advantage goes to Winnipeg and Manitoba. At the same time, you cannot simply for the sake of that specific project, however important it appears, say that the master plan
goes out the window, and kill the efforts which have been made over a period of time to determine the best way in which the Winnipeg airport should be developed. It is a balance between advantages and disadvantages, as we so often find in life.


INCOME TAX
John Carnell Crosbie: My question is for the Minister of National Revenue. The minister knows that the fishery in Newfoundland to date this year is not very favourable. On June 23, in connection with tax assessments on fishermen, he told me that 1,457 fishermen in Newfoundland had received 50 per cent garnishees of all their earnings. He said that 50 per cent had been contacted in order to enter into reasonable arrangements for payment. The minister received a telegram from the Newfoundland Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers Union on Friday last advising him that the department is still automatically requiring a 50 per cent payment of all fishermen's earnings, despite their repeated representations and hardship cases. They say they are unable to get any favourable reaction from National Revenue. Will the minister advise what action has been taken by his department in view of this telegram from the union, which represents nearly all of the Newfoundland inshore fishermen?


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, I have received a representation from the Newfoundland federation of fishermen. I and my officials will be meeting with the union tomorrow morning to go into the matter in some depth and to see what exactly is the problem. I repeat that we are not firm at all on the 50 per cent garnishee. We have come to arrangements with individual fishermen when it has been brought to our attention. We want to treat each individual case as a separate case, and treat each one on its merits. There is no across the board policy that everyone must pay a 50 per cent garnishee. I will be meeting with the union tomorrow morning, and hopefully as a result of that we can clarify these difficulties.


MEASURES TO ASSIST INDIVIDUALS
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the government is unable to deliver the mail but it certainly appears determined to collect its taxes. In view of the remarks by the minister earlier today that he is going to take steps to see that small business and the like affected by the postal strike will not have to make their tax payments on time and pay the interest penalties as a result of that,-I presume that is what he is arranging, and the interest is at least 12 to 14 per cent if you are not paying your taxes-will the minister let the House know tomorrow or the next day what steps he has taken to stop this very severe treatment of taking over 50 per cent of the gross earnings of the fishermen in Newfoundland who
July 14, 1981

admittedly must owe taxes or this would not be a proper legal procedure? Also, will he report what steps he is taking to relieve them as well as the small business community from some of these burdens? Will he inform the House later in the week just what steps are being taken?


Bill Rompkey: With regard to individual fishermen, Madam Speaker, if the hon. member has individual problems where fishermen have been assessed and they find it an undue burden, will he contact me personally, let me know what they are, and give me a list of names? I will ensure that my people are in touch with them directly in order to reach an adequate pay-back period with them.


PIPELINES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The minister knows that the pipeline consortium which proposed to build the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline is trying to get financing in the United States. Yesterday in Anchorage, Alaska, James Edwards, the Energy Secretary in the United States, was quoted as saying that the Reagan administration:
-"has some real concerns" about asking U.S. consumers to pay for current construction on the project's Canadian leg regardless of whether the most difficult segment across Alaska is ever completed.
The article further states that this, and I quote:
-is the first clear cut indication the White House opposes major elements of the financing package the pipeline's backers are developing.
The government promised that it had guarantees from the United States. It promised that Canadians would not end up paying for what is essentially an American pipeline. I would like to ask the minister about these ironclad guarantees and what he is going to do about the fact that it appears the Americans are backing out slightly with regard to their support for this pipeline.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I understand that the Prime Minister discussed this issue with the President on July 10. The discussion was positive. The President reaffirmed the commitments which he made during his visit here in March. We expect amendments to be introduced in the American Congress shortly which will attend to this matter.


QUERY RESPECTING EXPORT OF CANADIAN GAS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, with respect to that conversation with the United States the Canadian Press story reports, and I quote:
Oral Questions
Reagan assured Trudeau the United States is "deeply interested in coming to an arrangement" about reducing acid rain, but said only that the administration "will continue to examine" problems associated with the pipeline.
That does not sound very positive or ironclad. Is the minister now prepared to say to President Reagan, Secretary Edwards and the U.S. administration, that unless they are prepared to help with legislation in the United States-and we all want to see the whole pipeline built-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Maybe my friends don't, but if they will just listen-that the Canadian government is prepared to cut off at some point the exports of Canadian gas through the prebuild, that it is not open ended, that we will cut that off if the American government is not prepared to pass legislation in the United States to support the financing of the whole line?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the presidential assurances during the visit in March were given not only to the Prime Minister privately but, to my recollection, they were given in this very chamber and, I presume, heard by the hon. member. We are satisfied with the tone and content of our negotiations with the Americans on this subject at the present time.


SUGGESTED CANADIAN ACTION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I have one final question. It is all very well for the minister to say that, and we heard the President. The fact is that here is James Edwards saying these things yesterday in Alaska, and we know of the conversation with Prime Minister Trudeau.
The American government has said it does not want American consumers to shoulder the burden of building a pipeline, part of which is the rest of the Canadian section. The minister must know that if we build that section and the Americans do not complete theirs, then the Canadian taxpayer will lose some $2 billion to $8 billion. What is he prepared to say to the Americans, beyond just saying in this House that we have some jelly-like assurances? What is he prepared to say? I would suggest something he can say. Will he say: We will not give you cheap Canadian gas unless you give us some guarantees that you are going to do something about building this whole line?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member seems to misunderstand the tenor of our present negotiations with the United States. As I mentioned in my answer to his first question, we expect a package of legislative amendments to be introduced in the U.S. Congress shortly which we believe will provide for the financing problems, and it is because of that expectation that we do not have to engage in the kind of threats the hon. member was suggesting.

July 14, 1981
Petitions


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, on May 28 I rose to ask a question of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) regarding his policy of an across-the-board promotion of immigration officers at Canada's major airports, and he responded, in part, as reported in Hansard at page 10012 of that date:
Those were the discussions we had with the unions, and they are in agreement with the basic redrafting of the categories we now have implemented in the department.
My question of privilege is not a matter of a disagreement with the minister, or taking a different point of view; it is a fundamental matter of being able to believe the minister and whether he has accidentally or deliberately misled the House with the information he gave me in his answer of that day.
Yesterday I received by courier, priority or not I do not know, from the Canada Employment and Immigration Union a statement that refutes categorically the statement the minister made in the House. I quote just briefly from that letter to indicate that the minister misled me in the House in the answer he gave me. The official-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I get the impression very clearly that the hon. member is entering into debate. There is a disagreement between what the hon. member thinks the minister has told him and what in fact are the facts. That does not constitute a question of privilege.
Furthermore, a question of privilege should be raised at the first possible opportunity. This question dates back to May 28 and, therefore, if it had been a question of privilege it must be settled on an urgent basis; otherwise neither the House nor the hon. member would be able to function. I think the fact that the delay is so long in itself proves that this is not a founded question of privilege. Therefore, I must rule that the hon. member does not have a question of privilege.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, on a further question, I received this letter only yesterday-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of a number of individuals requesting assistance from the government in meeting problems associated with health and financial loss over the urea formaldehyde problem.


CHARITABLE FOUNDATIONS
Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications) moved: that Bill S-23, to incorporate the Jules and Paul-Emile Leger Foundation, be read the first time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe) moved: that the fourth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Thursday, July 17, 1980, be concurred in.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, as I rise today to move the motion for concurrence in the fourth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, I have in my hand Volume 1 of the Consolidated Regulations of Canada. Those members of the House who have taken the time to read Volume 1 from cover to cover, as I am sure most members have, will know there are some 775 pages in Volume 1 and that the volume weighs some 5.5 pounds. This is only one volume of a series of volumes of the Consolidated Regulations of Canada. In fact, there are some 18 volumes which all told include some 14,420 pages.
The contents of the Consolidated Regulations of Canada are probably not fascinating reading which most Canadians would have beside their beds each night to read before drifting off to sleep. They contain a number of regulations, a number of ordinances and other provisions which often appear from their titles to be a bit archaic. We have the Guardianship of Veterans' Property Regulations, the Dominion Water Power Regulations, the St. Andrews' Airport Zoning Regulations, the Flying Control Locks Order, just to give four examples of some of the regulations that are contained within these 18 volumes. Also included within these 18 volumes are regulations which affect every Canadian and touch every aspect of our lives, and often which are much better known to Canadians.
Parliament has granted to the government authority to regulate virtually every aspect of our lives, from the homes we
July 14, 1981

live in to the clothes we wear, the ability to open a business, the safety of our working conditions, from what we watch on television to whether we hear about the temperature outside in Celsius or Fahrenheit degrees.
In 1980 there were some 1,164 statutory instruments registered. Up to June 30 of this year there had already been 572 registered statutory instruments. Those were only the registered statutory instruments; countless more go unregistered each year.
My purpose today is not to argue or frighten people about the extent of government involvement in our day to day lives. That is an issue perhaps for another day. Nor is my purpose to argue that it is not often both proper and necessary for Parliament to give the government a grant of power to operate without having to come back to Parliament to obtain new legislative changes. It is proper, it is appropriate and it is necessary in very many instances that this be done. The case I want to make today on behalf of the standing joint committee is that if Parliament is to continue granting vast powers to the government which will enable it to act without seeking further approval from Parliament, we have the obligation to our constituents and to the people of Canada to ensure that those powers are discharged properly, that the rights and liberties of the subjects are protected, and that there is vigilance constantly exercised over the way in which the government is doing this.
It is absolutely essential if we are to discharge our responsibilities as members of Parliament that we look very carefully at the whole issue of delegated power and how we ensure that the rights of Canadians are not diminished as a result of our increasing tendency to give these vast grants of power to the government.
On Friday of this week it will have been one year since I tabled in the House of Commons the fourth report of the standing joint committee. I might mention that it is typical that the committee operates by unanimity. This is a unanimous report which is representative of the feelings of members of the committee from all sides of the House of Commons and the Senate. Because of the committee's method of proceeding whereby historically we have proceeded on the basis of consensus and unanimous agreement wherever possible, the government should be giving special attention to the recommendations in this fourth report, which represents probably the single most important report on regulatory reform to be presented to Parliament in the history of Canada. It is a report which commends itself to all members of Parliament. It is one which deserves urgent attention from the government.
As I say, one year ago this Friday this report was first tabled and brought to the attention of the government. The standing joint committee was asked to study the whole process of delegated legislation and to recommend what procedures and improvements could be made.
It might be useful at this point for me simply to explain what we mean when we talk about subordinate legislation or
Committee Reports
delegated legislation. Increasingly as we read legislation which is tabled in Parliament, we find that the government has also included clauses which give it power to make regulations to put into effect the policies contained in the legislation and to make those regulations some time after the legislation has been passed. It does so without having to come back to Parliament to ask for changes in the legislation.
All delegated legislation draws its authority from Parliament. It draws its authority from a specific statute, unless it is made under the Royal prerogative, which is very uncommon. Consequently, when the government is given by Parliament carte blanche authority to regulate in a particular area, it is essential that we have procedures in place which protect Canadian rights and liberties and ensure that Parliament has not simply given up its responsibility to exercise proper scrutiny over the rights of all Canadians.
When we recognize the fact that this Parliament has powers extending even to the life and death of Canadians, to questions relating to war and peace, and to whether or not Canadians should have jobs or homes of their own, we realize that our obligation as members of Parliament to oversee the discharge of those powers is very important indeed. If we fall down on the job, if we do not discharge that oversight properly and simply grant power to government where there is not proper scrutiny and when Canadian rights are not protected, then we render Parliament irrelevant and do a serious injustice to the people we are here to represent.
As I debate this report, I want to pay tribute to the members of the standing joint committee because the report itself had its genesis prior to my membership on the committee. It was well under way at the time I became chairman of the committee. I want to express my thanks to each of the members of the committee who contributed so much in terms of drafting, in terms of research and in terms of trying to make this information available to the public and the Parliament of Canada, information which we feel is very important to improve Parliament's functioning and to ensure that the rights and privileges of Canadians are properly protected.
I want also to pay special tribute to Mr. Graham Eglington, who was committee counsel and whose tireless efforts were essential in our being able to present a report which I feel is excellent.
I would like also to mention that the committee stands on the shoulders of two giant former parliamentarians. One of them is well known to every member of the House of Commons. I refer to Mr. Ged Baldwin, former House leader for our party and a former House of Commons chairman of the standing joint committee. The other gentleman, who was an outstanding parliamentarian and perhaps the outstanding scholar in Canada on constitutional matters, is Dr. Eugene Forsey, a former senator. These two gentlemen did a tremendous amount to make the committee what it was, to ensure that it did its job properly and to pave the way for us to present the report which is being debated today.
I think it is appropriate that members of the committee and members of the House of Commons should ask me, as I move

July 14, 1981
Committee Reports
concurrence in the report today, why I waited one year almost to the day before asking for concurrence by the House of Commons in this unanimous report of our standing joint committee. The answer is simple. It is that we felt that the government should be entitled to a chance to study the report. We hoped that the government's having been given that opportunity, concurrence would be forthcoming and we would see fundamental reforms taking place which would ensure the better functioning of this Parliament.
Hon. members will recall that on a number of occasions publicly in the House of Commons I have asked for a reasoned response from the government to our report. The government has indicated that it is not yet prepared, even after a year has gone by, to make a full report on the committee's recommendations, and it has asked that the committee not move for concurrence in its report, that it be held at least until fall so that this committee report could be lumped in with the report of the Economic Council of Canada and the report of the select committee which studied regulatory reform earlier in this session, and that perhaps a new parliamentary committee would be stuck to study the reports of these other committees.
Now is not the time for more studies. Now is not the time for another committee to study a committee to study a committee. Now is the time for action. This report makes a comprehensive analysis of the processes which are in place today. It finds them wanting and makes a series of recommendations-I believe 66 in all-which, if put in place by the government, could go a long way toward protecting Canadian rights and enabling members of Parliament to discharge their responsibilities properly.
For the committee to wait at this point and for us simply to allow Parliament to adjourn for the summer recess without calling for concurrence because it is inconvenient for the government would undermine the whole role of the committee, which has the responsibility of reporting to Parliament when it feels that action is required or when it feels the government has taken an action which is improper in some way. For us simply to await the convenience of the government on the ground that it has asked the committee not to ask for concurrence and not to ask that these reforms be made at this time is simply to turn the committee, which is a watchdog or scrutiny committee, into the handmaiden of government. No member of Parliament would ask that of the Public Accounts Committee, which is similar in its function to our committee, and surely no member of Parliament would ask that the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments be simply turned into a handmaiden of government, the reports of which would be discussed only at the convenience of the government.
It is particularly appropriate that there should be concurrence today as well because Parliament is going into overtime. It was the intention of the government to have Parliament wound down for the summer recess, and we were not to be sitting this week. That means that every day we spend this week is found time. It is time which otherwise would not have been spent debating legislation because Parliament would not
have been sitting, if the government had had its way. Consequently, no one can argue that debate on this matter at this time would be blocking the government from legislation which it had been intending last week, for example, to bring forward. Time is available. It is incumbent on members of Parliament on all sides of the House to debate the report. I think it is in the interests of the people of Canada and of this Parliament that a full and fair debate be held on this report, that debate conclude at the end of the day with concurrence in the report and with action by the government to begin to address some of the concerns of the committee, many of which have existed for several years.
The issue of what the role of the committee is and what the role of Parliament should properly be is really the fundamental question we are called upon to debate here today. Because what we are talking about goes right to the heart of parliamentary government itself. It often seems as if the issues being debated in the committee-when we listen to the names of the regulations which are being discussed-are archean or in some way irrelevant to the pressing concerns of Canadians, but they are not because the principles involved-the principle of Parliament's oversight of delegated legislation, the principle of the rule of law, the principle of natural justice, the principle of whether or not the government is acting within the confines of authority granted it by Parliament-are principles which are central to the whole life of our parliamentary government and extend back over centuries. They are principles for which people have fought and died over the course of many, many generations. This is why the debate we are having this afternoon is essential, why it must be allowed to continue this afternoon and why action must be taken by the government as soon as possible.
I could not myself this afternoon more eloquently make the case on behalf of the committee than the committee does itself in paragraph 6 and 7 of its report. Let me read them because I think they outline the fundamental issue at stake here today. They read as follows:
Subordinate legislation is an historically accepted means of governance. There is no longer any point in arguing that it is fundamentally improper or that it should be used only occasionally or for mere matters of detail. What is essential is to surround the making of subordinate legislation with procedural safeguards and measures of control so that the rights and liberties of the subject, which it is the object of our constitutional order to protect while maintaining a viable system of government, may be secured as well under subordinate legislation as under statute. Subordinate legislation must not become a means, even unwittingly, of suppressing rights and liberties or of subverting parliamentary supremacy over the law. The Crown's power has never stood higher; the potential for its abuse has never been greater.
7. Subordinate legislation may be inescapable and the implementation through it of policy, even policy never debated by Parliament, may be inevitable; but that is no reason to allow subordinate legislation to be made without adequate check, without any democratic element in its formation, and embodying any provisions Parliament's delegate chooses. There are still matters which are not meant to be dealt with by delegated legislation and which should be soberly weighed by Parliament. The confining of subordinate law to its proper sphere, and the regularisation of its use will be impossible of accomplishment if Parliament continues in the habit of giving larger and vaguer grants of law making power to the executive in skeletal statutes many of which are devoid of any clear enunciation of policy. Such blanket grants of executive power as are contained
July 14, 1981

in, for example, the Petroleum Administration Act, the Energy Supplies Allocation Act of the Fisheries Act, were rarely made under the Tudor sovereigns who certainly prized administrative convenience and jealously guarded their control of the machinery of state. It is odd that in a supposedly democratic age government values its convenience, its control of the administrative system and its monopoly of information no less. What future can there be for individual liberty, for the rights of minorities and for democratic and participatory traditions if the highest end of government is its own ease, the exercise of power without public accountability? The need to abide by procedural rules, the stern restraint of the rule of law, the control of arbitrary if well meaning acts, all these may make government awkward. But the rights and liberties of the governed require that government not be untrammelled. Liberty is usually prickly and often untidy and asymmetrical. It wants, as Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper has observed, that certain beauty of mathematical order so beloved of those who respect power and what it can achieve.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the issue before the House. That is what we are debating. It is the role of Parliament itself, the safeguarding of the rights of the citizens of Canada. That is why this debate is so essential. Parliament is all that stands between the people and all powerful government, able to sweep away their most cherished rights with a wave of its arm. What is at issue is whether Parliament is discharging its responsibilities properly, or even, given present procedures, whether we have the ability to do our job properly. The committee's finding is unequivocal, that in fact we have not been discharging that responsibility properly, that in fact the procedures currently in place frustrate the ability of members of Parliament to do their job properly.
The committee's report, Mr. Speaker, makes some 66 recommendations which we feel are urgently required if Parliament is to discharge its responsibilities. We believe the government has had enough time over the course of a year to prepare a substantive response to our recommendations. Now is the time for action.
Let me review briefly for the House some of the recommendations made in a number of critical areas simply to set out a framework for this debate today. First, in response to a series of issues which have dogged the committee since its creation, the committee has called for a new subordinate legislation act. I mentioned earlier the number of pieces of subordinate legislation which were published each year, and yet the average Canadian, perhaps the average member of Parliament, is not aware of the fact that many of the laws we have which are made in the form of subordinate legislation are not even published, not available to members of Parliament, and are not set out for scrutiny by the standing joint committee.
We have every right to be concerned, Mr. Speaker, about our democratic liberties, when Canadians find themselves the subject of secret law. Yet that is what the committee has found on occasion after occasion. Some of the delegated legislation goes unpublished. Much of it is held by the government to be beyond the purview of the committee which was charged by Parliament to study this delegated legislation and ensure that it stayed within the bounds set out by Parliament.
We have asked, first of all, as part of this new subordinate legislation act, that we should provide expressly for the existence and continuation of the standing joint committee, which we would rename the standing joint committee on regulatory
Committee Reports
review. The change of name is simply to make the function of the committee more apparent from its title.
Second, we have asked that we clarify once and for all what is a statutory instrument; when the committee's jurisdiction begins; whether an instrument must be published in the first place or can remain secret-because we must not have secret law in this country. We on the committee believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is an essential issue which has to be dealt with.
Another recommendation which we believe is essential and which Parliament should be dealing with today is that all bills which include regulation-making authority in them should have the relevant clauses referred to the standing joint committee for study following second reading. That study would be concurrent with the policy study which would be taking place in other standing committees. The committee has not even asked for authority to amend legislation. All we have asked for is the ability to study it and make recommendations back to Parliament and the other committees studying the policy aspects.
We believe the request we have made is a very limited one, but one which is fundamentally important. Because what we have seen happen all too often, Mr. Speaker, is that the government has been granted vast authority to legislate by regulation without ever going to Parliament and justifying the need. There has only been one instance where the committee's recommendations have been followed. You will remember that was on the Post Office Crown corporation act where the committee asked and the government agreed to send those regulation-making clauses to committee. You will also remember that as a result of the committee's deliberations the government agreed to amend the legislation to make it a better bill, to ensure that it would not in fact be giving itself the power by regulation in the dark of night to sweep under its arm by way of the Post Office monopoly all telecommunications in Canada. That was the effect of the bill had it gone through unchanged. Our committee met, dealt expeditiously and in a non-partisan fashion with the bill, and its recommendations were accepted in large part by the government and resulted in a better bill, one which better reflects the intentions of Parliament and better protects the liberties of Canadians. This is why we believe it is essential to have this sort of expert study on which powers the government should properly be asking for before they are granted by Parliament.
We have asked, Mr. Speaker, that the appropriate cabinet minister report to Parliament within three months of any report respecting delegated legislation. We believe Parliament is entitled to have a response to standing committee reports. Indeed, had this recommendation been accepted by the government before, we would have had the government's response to our fourth report some nine months ago. It is now 12 months since the report was first tabled.
We recommended, Mr. Speaker, that committees of Parliament should have the right to review delegated legislation on policy or on their merits at any time. In essence, you would have a standing order of reference to committees to ensure that delegated legislation is studied on a continuing basis, and

July 14, 1981
Committee Reports
that Parliament discharges that oversight responsibility. By and large our committee confines itself to questions related to procedure and process, but we believe it is also appropriate that other standing committees charged with looking at the policy being followed under delegated legislation should have the right to call up those regulations at any time and have a study on the merits of the policy embodied in those regulations.
We recommended that for the first time there be standardized procedures in this Parliament for motions of disallowance and of affirmation. We have suggested that motions of affirmation should take place under specific circumstances where we feel they would be particularly justified. There are four in particular. First, where the enabling powers may substantially affect the provisions of the enabling or any other statutes; second, where they impose or increase taxation, fees or charges; third, where they lay down a policy not clearly identifiable in the enabling act or make a new departure in the policy; fourth, where they involve considerations of special importance.
We propose that in other instances not included under those four principles five members of Parliament should be enabled to move motions of disallowance, and there should be a right to ensure there is a debate in Parliament and that a decision is made. Parliament should have the right properly to scrutinize these regulations and nullify them if it feels it is important do so.
We have also proposed in this report, Mr. Speaker, another important departure from present procedures. In some instances the government follows procedures related to notice and comment to ensure that interested Canadians have a chance to be heard before a new regulation is put into effect. Sometimes it has an effect on government policy, sometimes it does not. By and large this is a matter of discretion on the part of the government. We want to see it regularized as a standard procedure to ensure that Canadians do not find themselves in a situation where rules are changed in the dark of night, where their rights are taken away from them, where their ability to hold jobs is taken away from them, where their ability to act without running into penalty is taken away from them without any opportunity for input.
This is why we have asked that wherever possible the government give notice of its intent to issue new regulations and that when draft regulations are available they be properly scrutinized by Parliament and by the public. They should be made available in draft form before they are put into law. Wherever possible, social economic impact analyses of new proposed regulations should be provided and made public so that Parliament and the people of Canada can weigh these public policy considerations to try to decide whether the regulations are justifiable in the first place and what the goals and purposes will be.
We have asked that the government issue quarterly a regulatory budget in which it would give notice of the intended
regulation-making which will be taking place in the following quarter. We have also asked when regulations are public that there be an explanatory memorandum. If Canadians simply pick up a regulation and try to understand its purpose, its form or how it is in fact changing the law in Canada, it is often impossible for someone to do it unless they have had extensive legal training. If the law of Canada is made incomprehensible for members of Parliament and for members of the Canadian public, how can we ensure that proper justice is being done? It is essential to provide every possible avenue to ensure that Canadian participate in the making of legislation and that they fully understand it.
We have proposed as well that a new regulatory council be set up, composed of representatives of regulatory agencies, of government departments, of public interest groups and of industry, to look from time to time at the whole issue of regulations and to make recommendations, which would not be binding upon the government. It would make valid and useful recommendations to the government when it is engaged in regulation-making.
We brought to the attention of the House in our report a very important issue on which Madam Speaker, since the tabling of our report, has supported the committee and has moved. I am referring to the following concern:
That the making of extensive subordinate laws under votes in Appropriation Acts should stop and that all existing subordinate laws made unde votes be subject to review as to merits by the appropriate Standing Committees.
The House will remember that a few weeks ago Madam Speaker moved to strike down attempts by the government to give itself a great deal of authority through Appropriation Acts when that authority should have more properly been granted through legislation being brought before Parliament. When we realize that the passenger service structure for Canada and the whole of VIA Rail was put in place not by legislation being brought before Parliament and being debated here so that we could talk about the future of the passenger service in Canada, but put in place through a dollar vote which gave the governor in council carte blanche to make regulations as it saw fit, we can see how inherently flawed such a system of asking for this authority through Appropriation Acts would be.
We have asked that where the departments of government make a decision with regard to delegated legislation on the basis of opinions of the Department of Justice, that our committee and the public should be entitled to see those opinions. What conceivable basis could there be for witholding from Parliament an opinion of the Department of Justice as to whether or not what the government was doing was legal or illegal, whether or not it had the authority to do it? Yet time after time when the committee questioned whether Parliament ever gave the government the authority to act in the way, we were told that the minister was given an opinion by the Department of Justice and that Parliament and the committee would be deprived of the right to see that opinion.
We are not asking for something which is unheard of in other jurisdictions. In fact, if one studies the procedures
July 14, 1981

followed in other jurisdictions, it is commonplace that the explanations be given when the departments of justice in other jurisdictions have indicated that the actions of governments were intra vires and when serious questions were raised as to delegate legislation.
We have also proposed that amendments be made to make things more simple for the fisheries department, which has a particularly difficult situation. In the past the committee criticized the whole concept of sub-delegation. We have said that when Parliament delegates power to the agents of Her Majesty, that that power cannot be sub-delegated to make laws which affect the rights and privileges of people. Yet in the case of fisheries regulations we recognize that such sub-delegation may be necessary. We have asked that special provision be made for the fisheries department because we recognize that it is a special case, one which deserves special attention.
Finally, we have asked, as the Economic Council of Canada also recommended, that the government put in place sunset procedures to ensure that from time to time Parliament reviews the activities of its delegates, so that when programs are put in place by regulation parliamentary committees from time to time can call up those regulations, ask for a report and a review as to whether or not they are achieving the purpose for which they are intended, and whether or not they are doing it the best way possible.
We recognize by and large that those reports would have to be done by the government, but we believe they should be made available to the Parliament of Canada. Parliament does not discharge its responsibilities to the people who sent us here properly if it does not from time to time review the programs it created to ensure that there is a need for them and that the mechanisms in place are still the best means of achieving those purposes.
I am pleased to say that when I was a minister in the Clark government we were working on precisely such legislation which would allow parliamentary committees to call up program evaluations or to insert clauses in legislation to ensure that they were either lapsing after a certain time or were brought back before Parliament for review to ensure that they were still valid, necessary and achieving the purpose for which they were intended.
There is nothing in these recommendations which should be viewed in a partisan light. The issue is not one of the rights of government versus the rights of the opposition. The issue we are discussing today relates to the rights of the people of Canada and to the responsibility of Parliament. They go to the heart and the substance of the whole purpose of Parliament.
If our role increasingly in the future is to be simply to pass broad enabling legislation which gives the government the power to do whatever it wants at its convenience, then we might as well send this Parliament home because we are not doing our jobs; we are not doing what we were asked to do. This is why it is essential to have a full debate on this issue today and that it be concluded with concurrence in the report. This is why it is essential that we not wait any longer. After one year, how much longer need we wait to have a substantive
Committee Reports
response? If parliamentary committees are to be taken seriously and are to function in the way intended by Parliament, how long must Parliament and the people of Canada wait before receiving a substantive reponse from the government as to its recommendation? How long must we wait when we bring to the attention of Parliament the fact that present procedures are subverting the purposes of Parliament itself? How long must we wait before action is taken to correct those activities and to ensure that Parliament can discharge its responsibilities properly?
Canadians of all ages have an interest in the debate which is taking place today. Perhaps the debate is more fundamental than any other debate which will take place in this Parliament. It goes to the issue of the role of Parliament itself, to the preservation of our democratic institutions and to the protection of the rights of Canadians. Other issues with which we deal, be it the Constitution, the economy, agriculture or pensions, are vital issues affecting Canadians which deserve serious consideration by Parliament. But this is an issue which revolves around the role of Parliament itself and the preservation of our democratic system of government. It is one which deserves Parliament's attention today. It is one which deserves serious attention by the government and fast action; not more studies, not more reports, not more committees. It deserves more action in terms of legislation being tabled in Parliament and in terms of agreement by hon. members on all sides of the House to the recommendations in this report.
We believe that our report is essential and should be acted upon. We commend the members of the select committee for the recommendations which they have made. We believe that the government would be well advised as well to act on its report and to act upon some of the recommendations included in the Economic Council's reports.
But we say that our report stands on its own, that it is complementary to the other reports. It merits consideration and concurrence today. It merits action from the government without further delay. Canadians expect no less of us. Surely this is the action which should be taken by our Parliament before we recess for the summer break.
I call upon the government to ensure that today, before the day's end, there is a full and complete debate on this report. I call upon the government to allow members from the New Democratic Party, from its own side and from my side of the House to be heard on this non-partisan issue. It is an issue which affects all Canadians. It is one in which the government has a responsibility to show that it is serious, that it respects the rights of Canadians and that it respects the role which Parliament must be playing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette).

July 14, 1981
Committee Reports


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I rise-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I put it to the parliamentary secretary that, in order that there may be at least one voice from each of the three parties, I wonder if he would not be willing to let me speak at this time instead of him.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be discourteous to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but the normal practice is that we alternate from side to side. The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) has moved concurrence in his motion and Your Honour has recognized me to respond.
I do so briefly, Mr. Speaker-


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Mission-Port Moody, on a point of order.


Mark Willson Rose: I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 29 and move:
That the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre be now heard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Mission-Port Moody is out of order. He was recognized on a point of order. The parliamentary secretary has the floor.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) knows, he was not given the floor at the appropriate point in time and therefore could not move the motion under Standing Order 29.
From the point of view of the government, I must say we are somewhat surprised that this motion has been brought forward today. I know there has been some discussion from time to time about the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe moving concurrence in his motion, but, as I told him and the members of the steering committee of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments about two months ago, the government would seek its co-operation in asking the hon. member and his committee to wait until this coming fall, when the government would be in a position to introduce a discussion paper in this House for all members to look at, taking into account the concerns of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe and the committee of which he is co-chairman.
The hon. member knows full well that some of the recommendations made by his committee, which, incidentally, has done excellent work over the years, have been implemented by the Treasury Board. He also knows that the recommendations that the committee have made have far-reaching implications for the the future of parliamentary democracy. One should not idly suggest by the moving of concurrence in this report, with little notice, if any, that we should deal with this very complicated subject in this particular way. I was only informed before question period that the hon. member would be moving this motion today.
In the Speech from the Throne the government said that it wants to look at all aspects of electoral and parliamentary reform. The hon. member knows, since it has been discussed with members of his party through the normal channels, that the government will be working on this subject over the course of the summer and would like to embark on a discussion of parliamentary reform, taking into account the recommendations of his committee and the very excellent recommendations of the special task force chaired by the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson), who is in the House this afternoon. The government wishes to take into account all of these various recommendations and bring forward a discussion paper in order that we may look at this subject in a nonpartisan way and decide the future course of Parliament and the future role of parliamentarians.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, without being too derogatory, that I am somewhat appalled that the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe has the gall to move this motion this afternoon, knowing full well that it is the government which has the responsibility under Standing Order 18(2) to determine the business of Parliament. That is a basic premise upon which our parliamentary system operates. One party has the confidence of the electors of the country to form a government. It is that party which has the right, under the Standing Orders, to introduce legislation and to set the priorities for business each and every day.
Members opposite know full well that it was the government's intention, after discussions with the House leaders, that we should adjourn last Friday. We know there was no formal agreement but there was a general understanding that we would adjourn last Friday. The government feels somewhat sad that this general understanding was not carried forward. For example, we know that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has stated that he and his colleagues will not allow Parliament to adjourn unless certain conditions are met. It is this party which forms the government in this country. It is this side which has the constitutional and parliamentary prerogative to set the business of the country. And it is this side which has the right to set priorities for discussion in this Parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In effect, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council is challenging the right of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe to have brought on this debate, as though it was out of order for him to do so. He is talking about Standing Order 18, and so on. I contend that in view of the ruling by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux any member of the House of Commons can, at any time, put forward a motion for concurrence in a report of a committee. It is not out of order for this to have been done. It is out of order for the present speaker to be contending that something has been done which is wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the motion for the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe.
July 14, 1981


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell the parliamentary secretary that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is before the House and the parliamentary secretary has the floor.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing on procedural grounds against the right of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe to move concurrence. I am stating an elementary fact of parliamentary life. It is the government which sets the legislative timetable for Parliament. The government decided, in view of the attitude expressed by the Conservative party, that it would choose to call Bill C-48 for discussion this week. We debated that bill yesterday and we intend to debate it again today. Thus, it is quite clear that the kind of debate which we have had thus far this afternoon from the hon. member opposite is a dilatory tactic to prevent the government from discussing the very important legislation dealing with oil and gas in Bill C-48.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is a well known and justifiable tradition in this House that the motive of any member who carries out his function in accordance with the rules be not impugned. The hon. member opposite has made reference to the fact that, apparently, there is some dilatory tactic being undertaken by a member who has stood in his place, who is co-chairman of a standing committee approved by members of the government, as well as the opposition, and who has presented a report which has been ready for discussion for some considerable period of time. I think the point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's motion has been recognized by the Chair and it is before the House. The parliamentary secretary has the floor.
As far as the impugning of motives is concerned, what the Chair has heard was relatively minor compared to a number of other situations which have taken place in the House.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to provoke my friends from the Conservative party any longer. Therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 24, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans):
That the House now proceed to Orders of the Day.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Standing Order 24 of the House provides that:
A motion for reading the Orders of the Day shall have preference to any motion before the House.
Standing Order 32(2) provides that such motion is not debatable.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed please say nay.
Committee Reports


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, July 13, consideration of Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, and motion No. 3 (Mr. McGrath).
Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as we were concluding our discussions yesterday evening on motion No. 3 pertaining to Bill C-48, I noted that two themes had emerged in our discussions. One was the misgiving on the part of some in the opposition that the bill would somehow delay the realization of the petroleum potential in our Arctic areas and in the offshore. I had cited several examples of recent expansion of activity in those areas which give lie to the misgiving.
What we have also seen during the course of recent years is the need for a clear statement to guide those active in the exploration and development in the Canada lands. They must know the terms and circumstances under which that exploration and development can go forward. In our desire to see the terms clearly established, we are joined by the spokesman on energy questions on the Conservative benches, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson). Earlier in our discussion of this bill he noted the need to proceed expeditiously with this legislation, welcomed it as being overdue and praised the minister for bringing it forward. I am pleased to note that there is broad agreement that this legislation is necessary and indeed is a matter of some urgency, that in fact it does not hinder but rather promotes exploration and development in the Canada lands. Indeed, since last night we have seen yet another example of initiative being taken in the frontier areas with the acquisition by Husky of the lands held by Shell Explorer.
I turn to the second theme of our discussion as we were concluding last night, which is a misgiving on the part of some of the opposition that somehow this legislation would preclude
the benefits of exploration and development in the Arctic lands and in the offshore areas flowing to the adjacent provinces or territories. Quite clearly from a number of statements which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and others in government have made on a number of occasions, it is not our intention to deny to the adjacent areas the full benefit of the revenues flowing from oil and gas exploration and development.
We remain eager to negotiate an arrangement with Newfoundland and the other offshore provinces. We made that very clear on a number of occasions, most recently during the course of this spring. We have offered revenues to the provinces from oil and gas exploration and development comparable to the situation in Alberta today.
With specific regard to the motion put forward by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), the proposed amendment would delete that part of the definition of Canada lands which refers to offshore areas. This definition that would thereby be deleted does not apply to areas within a province. If it were ultimately determined that a province has jurisdiction in the offshore, those areas over which it has jurisdiction would not be part of Canada lands. In the absence of such a decision, the definition permits the exercise of federal jurisdiction over offshore lands which the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1967 British Columbia reference found to be within federal jurisdiction. The definition of offshore areas is also consistent with the work of the Law of the Sea Conference on the question of coastal state jurisdiction and certainly will not create any international problems.
I might also note that the definition in the bill does not state that the submarine areas in question are owned by Canada. Indeed, with respect to the areas outside the territorial sea, that is the 12-mile limit, it is doubtful that Canada could maintain a claim of ownership under international law. The definition clearly states that Canada lands are those that belong to Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada or in respect of which Her Majesty in right of Canada has a right to dispose of or exploit those natural resources. Those words refer not to ownership but to Canada's authority under international and domestic law. I would ask the hon. member for St. John's East to bear in mind that the reference within the bill is not there by accident. It is there to repeat the claim of Canada over the disposition of the natural resources in the 200-mile zone.
I have cited some reasons why it would obviously be against the whole tenor and purpose of this bill if this motion were to carry. We would have a bill that would in some curious way relate only to the territory of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. All offshore areas would be excluded whether in the Arctic, Pacific or Atlantic. For those reasons, as well as others I have cited, the amendment is unacceptable to the government.
July 14, 1981



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. 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 Winnipeg Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)-Veterans Affairs-(a) Appointment of full-time minister (b) Decentralization of department; the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-Combines-Request for release of report on uranium cartel-Request that independent prosecutor review evidence; the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse)-Bank Act-Query respecting possible revisions to control interest rates.



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 motion No. 3 (Mr. McGrath).
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised to find myself in mid-July speaking to motion No. 3 on Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act. Motion No. 3 deals with the Canada lands concept. It is to this concept that I wish to direct my remarks.
Simply stated in the most naked terms possible, the National Energy Program objectives are energy self-sufficiency, greater participation by Canadians, fair pricing and revenue sharing. I think most of us in Canada accept those program objectives as worthy and worth working toward.
The delivery of these objectives requires dialogue, sound fiscal policy that delivers incentives to the system, and federal-provincial agreements. Instead, we have a government that approaches these desirable objectives with confrontation, socialization and the new word that is creeping into the vocabulary now meaning the same thing, "federalization", and extensive regional division. This is growing daily as a threat to our national wellbeing and is the direct result of the resolution on the Constitution and the twisted, devious policies that many
Canada Oil and Gas Act
of us in the west feel are being delivered by this government to implement the straightforward objectives of the National Energy Program.
Several times in the past I have spoken in the House and have warned this House that we must update our parliamentary system and structure. It is now evident that the British parliamentary system is failing us as it has failed others, in that it has served only the population centres of countries instead of giving equal representation to widely spread regions.
Instead of revitalizing the Senate of this Parliament so that Parliament could address regional needs and aspirations of the nation, this Liberal, socialist government uses it as a receptacle into which it drops people who need protection from the law or people who merely get in its way in its quest for perpetual political power.
We hear a lot of statements to the effect that the Constitution and the National Energy Program are in the interests of all Canadians. Indeed, last night the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) reminded us, in a question to my colleague the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche), that what the government is doing is in the interest of all Canadians. Mr. Speaker, this has a very good ring to it but it is as deep and as truthful as the great call in 1968 to a just society, on the repeated calls in Speeches from the Throne for equity and fairness. We have heard this ring through the various speeches, utterances and rhetoric of this government.
"In the interest of all Canadians" means "in the interest of the population centres that deliver and sustain federal power". "In the interest of all Canadians" means "in the interest of the people of Upper and Lower Canada". The use of the Canada lands concept as addressed in motion No. 3 is nothing more than a massive money grab for the people of Ontario and Quebec.


Mr. McRae:: Nonsense!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The hon. member says nonsense. I would ask him to please listen. That is the way the people in the Atlantic region and western Canada feel.
What are hon. members opposite afraid of? Had we respected the truth and fact more than playing with shallow politics, today we would probably be in the final stages of completing the Mackenzie Valley pipeline which would deliver gas energy from the northern slopes of Alaska down to the midlands of the United States.
Had we worked towards the objectives of the National Energy Program, we would have preserved all the energineer-ing and talent and production capacity that was in place for the Syncrude plant and would have phased it into another tar sands plant. By now we would have started a massive in situ plant. We would have had our nation and people at work instead of having close to 1.25 million people idle. We would have been well on our way to balanced budgets and would be able to afford the standard of life and welfare that we want for the people in this country. We would have been well on our way toward energy self-sufficiency and there would have been

July 14, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
a happier, more co-operative attitude at large within our great country.
The benefits to all parts of Canada from expansion in the west and in the north and in the Canada lands are tremendous. Those benefits are not regionalized or localized; those benefits are there for the whole of the country. The manufacturing demand that would have filled the plants of Ontario and Quebec would give bounty to all.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have listened with interest for the last few minutes to the hon. member's speech. He has yet to be relevant to the motion under consideration. This is not a general, second reading debate. Motion No. 3 is specific and is under debate and I would ask that you request the hon. member to be relevant to the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Chair would ask to be excused. I had a conversation with an hon. member and I did not pay attention to the words spoken by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). Of course, hon. members know that their remarks have to be relevant to the business before the House. Without having heard what the hon. member said, I have to accept what the parliamentary secretary has said. We will hear the hon. member for Capilano.


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I cannot see why I should entertain a further point of order. I have just said that I will recognize the hon. member for Capilano. I said I had not heard the remarks that he made before. He will now address himself to the bill. I cannot see why any further point of order should be entertained.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a different point of order. It is a practice of this House that when the House deals with the first amendment at report stage, it is given a great deal of leeway in terms of relevancy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I think the Chair has recognized that in the past. The Chair has not criticized anything that the hon. member for Capilano has said. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Capilano; I hope hon. members will understand that. I simply recognized what the hon. parliamentary secretary brought to my attention, perhaps rightly or wrongly, I do not know. 1 was having a conversation with a fellow member and now I recognize the hon. member for Capilano. The House can judge whether his remarks are relevant to the motion or not.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I think we should get this absolutely straight. The hon. member for St. John's East rose on another point of order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I see no point of order here. The hon. member for Capilano.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the four minutes lost by that intervention be added to my time if I need it. I do not see that the point of order was relevant and I can establish that my speech referred strictly to the Canada lands and the background of facts related to the Canada lands. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council would listen instead of flapping his mouth every time anybody stands up in the House, he might learn something and he might get a feeling for the country and for some of the people who come from the outback.
One of the troubles with people elected from Upper and Lower Canada on that side is that they do not hear. They are arrogant, they are autocratic, they shove everything down our throats and then expect to have a feeling of friendliness and structure and building in this country. This will not happen as long as they have the attitude of the parliamentary secretary.
We talk about equity and sharing, Mr. Speaker. When the OPEC prices exploded, did the governments of Ontario and Quebec help share the oil-fired cost of electricity in the maritime provinces of the Atlantic? Just a minute, Mr. Speaker, I think this is quite relevant. No, they did not. We talk about equity and sharing and that is what the motion with respect to Canada lands is about. We heard it from the Minister of State for Mines last night. If she can make interventions on that same issue, surely I can address the intervention that she was allowed by the Speaker last night.


David Michael Collenette: Speak to the motion.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: We have heard the argument that Upper and Lower Canada need this sharing because they shared their wealth with the west at the time OPEC prices were lower than the delivered price of western oil into central Canada. During that decade from 1962 to 1972 the people of Ontario and Quebec paid over $639 million-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. With all due respect to all hon. members, I would invite them to address themselves to the motion. There will be ample opportunity for the hon. member to address future motions in this bill in the precise words he is using now, but I would invite him to speak on this motion.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With great deference, we sat here yesterday and heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Simmons) speak for 25 minutes without referring once to the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, order. Order, please. We could certainly go back to yesterday's Hansard and together review what happened and we might admit that a few of the speeches were not relevant, but I think perhaps if the hon. member was here and had listened to both speeches, he would have found that the parliamentary secretary was perhaps relevant to the speech of the speaker who spoke before him.
July 14, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The Chair also accepted those remarks. But we have to draw the line at some point. I do say once again that the Chair has been very, very lenient in the past, but I would invite you, and that is all I can do, to speak to the motion.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, equity and sharing is central to this motion, it is central to the bill and it is central and germane, in the opinion of the opposition that is at large in this country, to this piece of legislation. Motion no. 3 deals with the Canada lands concept. I am speaking to equity and sharing, and the lack of equity that is in this bill as far as we in the west are concerned and as far as those in the Atlantic regions of this country are concerned.
The motion deals with the matter of offshore rights, the matter of the extension of confiscation and so-called Canadi-anization of practices that were completely successful in the development and exploration work being done on those lands and offshore. That is all part of the equity and the sharing I am addressing right now. That lack of equity and fair sharing goes way back and is deeply embedded in the evolution of this whole matter of federalization and so-called Canadianization which many of us feel is absolute confiscation and a denial of the fundamental principles that built this great continent.
May I say that the province of British Columbia is very surprised to find C-48 before the House, as there was a distinct understanding that this matter and this business would not be before the House before the fall.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: 1 know that the mouthy experts over there are absolute masters in dealing with the extremes of legal interpretation, and if there are masters anywhere in the world who are experts in the tricky use of language, they are over there, and that is what they are relying on now.
The fact remains that at large in this country there is opposition among governments which are concerned with aspects of this bill that are involved in motion No. 3; aspects that are very important to the Atlantic provinces and to the province of British Columbia. The government, by bringing this matter forward at this time, is not living up to the impression it left at large within those provinces. They have not even been extended the courtesy of being notified of the amendments on the Order Paper addressing a matter as important as the Canada lands concept that we are speaking to in this motion right now.
We are talking about people keeping their word. Has the government kept its word?


An hon. Member:: Sure we do.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Why then did the government see fit to defeat an opportunity to debate one of the most important matters ever placed before this House, the motion put today seeking concurrence in the report of the Committee on Regu-
Canada Oil and Gas Act
lations and Other Statutory Instruments? Why did the government defeat that if it felt it did not have the opportunity to leave this bill to the fall, as it said it would and as it gave the impression it would to all the provinces?
The province of British Columbia is on the eve of a meeting with its sister maritime provinces in the Atlantic, but it has been waiting, as have the maritime provinces, for a promised letter from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources- waiting, waiting and waiting. Where is that letter in order that the meeting can proceed, so the provinces would have some knowledge of what is in the dark secret halls of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources? I suggest that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) use the executive mail service that is available to the large corporations and banks in Canada and have that letter delivered to the provinces which are concerned and are waiting for some kind of an insight as to policy and what is to be on the table next.
The parliamentary secretary said just this afternoon that the government was anxious to negotiate in this area. If the government is so anxious to negotiate, and if its rhetoric keeps coming out that way, why then is the government not doing as it says it will do with the provinces involved? Why is the government interfering with the progress of a meeting that is awaiting that letter? The issue addressed in motion No. 3 is important to my province. That province has had no warning and has not even seen the amendments, as I have said.
On the matter of offshore rights, my province has been to the courts. In 1967 there was a Supreme Court decision in favour of the federal position. But in 1976, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that waters inside the boundary between headlands inside those baselines fall within the jurisdiction of the province. As soon as that B.C. Court of Appeal decision came down, the federal government, in its anxiety to cause confrontation everywhere, launched an appeal, and since then has never proceeded with it. Why has it not proceeded with that appeal? Why has it not cleared that area?
There has been a moratorium on drilling and exploration in those coastal waters of British Columbia. Why has that moratorium been in effect?
It seems that the socialists in this country are intent on zero or negative growth. They have been interfering with the progress of every megaproject, every exploration project and everything that could deliver us to energy self-sufficiency by the year 1990. That is the deliberate plan of this government. The basic fundamental objectives of the National Energy Program are simple, concise and in place, and all they need is some fiscal policy and a government which wants to achieve energy self-sufficiency rather than impose a revolution and a change in the form and style of government to interfere with the freedom and liberty of people, as this government is doing.
The government should heed the warnings of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). This matter of the Canada lands concept is truly a political matter of great importance to the provinces and the people on both coasts. It

July 14, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
will not be resolved with technical and legal arguments. It is truly a political matter. We have to be able to talk it out in this House if we are to understand our position as people living in widely diverse regions in a vast land.
I hear again the moans and groans of the people from Upper and Lower Canada, and I tell you there is trouble ahead if you do not open your ears and retain some of the appeals we keep trying to make. We will fracture into tribes such as those in Africa if the government does not listen, does not hear, does not get back to the bargaining table, does not negotiate and does not work to reach a consensus.
Arrogance and autocracy are absolutely obsolete today. They are obsolete in the work place. They cause all the confrontation we have between management and labour. They are obsolete in national politics. This country needs some gentle, loving care. It needs some talking; it needs to talk out our differences, it needs to reach and negotiate an understanding, and it needs to get back to the processes leading to consensus.
There are more intelligent ways of achieving the National Energy Program objectives than confrontation, confiscation and the very dishonest use of the word Canadianization. I urge the government to return to consensus-seeking procedures, for in my opinion the wellbeing of our country, Canada, is at stake, and the federal Liberal government's zeal to federalize is betraying the Atlantic regions and the western regions of Canada.
In the moment I have left I will return to the words "equity" and "sharing" because those are essential elements of this debate. It is in the interests of all Canadians, we keep hearing, that we move on the Canada lands. Let me tell hon. members that of the present price of $1.66 for a gallon of gasoline, the federal government, according to figures provided by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson), takes 56 cents; the Ontario government takes 25 cents; the Alberta government gets 22.7 cents; the producer gets 19.3 cents; the refiner gets 33 cents; and the dealer gets 10 cents. This adds up to $1.66.
Hon. members opposite keep talking about the interests of all Canadians. They keep thinking that this country will stay together as a co-operative federalist state. They talk about equity and fair sharing being the motivation which drives them to these types of policies, but nothing could be further from the truth or more divisive.
The Canada lands concept is a serious issue to the Atlantic regions and to the western regions. The definitions within the legislation are not known; nor is this amendment known to my province; and I urge hon. members opposite to go slowly so that full and studied input is available from our regions before this legislation goes too much further in this House. There are other matters we can be debating, matters such as concurrence in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, which would give us time to get our regional inputs together on this important bill.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow on the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), and to support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).
The matter before the House today boils down to one basic question: who owns the resources under the Canada lands? In particular, with respect to motion No. 3 we are dealing with the question of who owns the resource potential in the offshore areas in the Atlantic and Pacific coastal regions.
I would like to quote from the National Energy Program just briefly as referred to at page 42 where it is indicated that the federal government recognizes the difficult nature of this dispute. In fact, the government claims, in the very meritorious-sounding document released almost a year ago, that it is anxious to refer the matter of ownership quickly to the Supreme Court. The document states the following:
Uncertainty about the legal control over such vital areas is not conducive to the rapid development of the oil and gas potential of this promising region, which can contribute to Canada's energy needs and the economic aspirations of the region.
All that sounds great. That is very high sounding rhetoric, but it is completely contradicted in the initiative reflected in Bill C-48, which would allow the federal government to lay claim, without constitutional amendment or legal clarification by the courts, to all those potential resources in the Canada lands areas without any provision for revenue sharing with the provinces, let alone recognition of the fact of provincial ownership as a basic aspect of those regions' entering into Confederation, and without any regard for provincial involvement in the management and development decisions in those Canada lands.
What we are dealing with is a federal attitude which treats the north, the west, our Atlantic provinces and British Columbia as colonies, as the hon. member for Capilano has stated, and the sole raison d'etre for those colonies is to serve the central provinces of Ontario and Quebec. This is the view of this centralist government. The more remote regions of Canada are there merely to be raped and exploited by the Liberal plunderers.
These far flung regions of Canada are soon going to revolt against the power hungry, selfish attitude of the federal government. The federal philosophy seems to presume that regional growth and prosperity are wrong, because the government itself has contradicted the high sounding rhetoric of the National Energy Program. However, the truth is that decisions taken in the regions are very much superior to decisions taken
3,000	miles away in Ottawa by a group of uninformed bureaucrats and greedy Liberal squanderers. There is absolutely no evidence to justify the federal claim that it can do a better job of managing our natural resources than the provinces have done over the last several decades.
Let us examine the credentials of these centralists, these economic socialists whose narrow attitude toward Canada is reflected on the editorial pages of the Ottawa Citizen but hardly anywhere else in the country. What have they done
July 14, 1981

recently for Canada? Let us look at the track record. How is the Post Office doing lately, or the armed forces? What about the state of our national economy, with interest rates at the level they have reached, the high cost of food and housing and the $20 billion projected federal deficit for the present fiscal year alone? What about the futile constitutional farce, the DREE farce and the CRTC farce, and what about the disaster of VIA Rail and the mismanagement of our transportation systems in western Canada? Look at their cynical, distrustful attitude with regard to the role of the private sector, in particular with respect to development on Canada lands. At the same time, the feds continue to amass windfall profits by ripping off Canadians through usurious levels of taxation.
Look at the basic disaster of the National Energy Program. Look at the drilling rigs flooding out of Canada, wells being capped, jobs being lost in all parts of this nation and major energy projects collapsing before our very eyes because of the incompetence of this government. How can the federal government possibly claim that it is the single, all-knowing, competent agency for managing our offshore minerals and hydrocarbon resources?
I sat through many weeks and months of committee deliberations trying to get information from federal experts who were there on behalf of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), and I was sorely disappointed to find that all those experts were there to do was to protect their minister and his political mission in life. They would not provide information, and, I hazard to say, they are not capable of providing that information. In fact, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), who has operative authority over 85 per cent of these Canada lands, did not appear at the committee more than once or twice during the whole four-month period of deliberations. It is not a widely known fact but it is certainly reflected in the bill, that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has jurisdiction over all decisions regarding exploration agreements and development permits above the 60th parallel. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is apparently trying to expropriate that authority from the native peoples, as well as their trust in the minister.
How can these centralists be so cynical as to deny that our regional governments have certain expertise and knowledge peculiar to their areas which federal policymakers cannot possibly experience or comprehend?
Yes, I predict that before long the regions of Canada will mount a massive strike against these arrogant, power hungry masochists who are wreckling our national economy. They will stop producing oil, as Alberta has done. They will stop using the Post Office. They will close up their businesses, as they are doing at the present time, and refuse to pay income tax. They will stop buying Canada Savings Bonds, as Canadians are already doing in record numbers, and they will abandon their mortgages.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
This strike against the central government, Mr. Speaker, is where we are headed if we allow these insane policies, spearheaded by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), to continue to destroy our beloved nation.
On the question of resource ownership, particularly offshore resources, it is a fact that since the adoption of the BN A Act, ownership of natural resources has been entrusted to the provinces. These resources are the basis for building local economies, for development of communities, and for financing opportunities, employment and services to people living in those sparsely populated, far-flung regions of Canada. To build a future, Mr. Speaker, the people of those areas were granted in 1867 the right to elect their own regional governments, and to pursue their own heritage within a great country.
Why were the provinces given all these powers under the various sections of the BNA Act? Why were they given the power over education, land title and property, hospital and medical care, mining minerals, timber and royalties? Why were they given the power over business, their licencing, and incorporation, over provincial justice, and generally over all matters of a local or provincial nature? They were given that authority because the wisdom of another age saw that those kinds of decisions had to be made close to the people. They could not be gathered together and expropriated to a federal government 2,000 miles away from most of these far flung regions.
So the provisions of the BNA Act affirm the federal nature of our political institutions; the "dignifying", if you like, of the regions; giving those regions some cause for aspiring and hoping that they might energe as individual and unique entities within the rich fabric of this nation. Therefore, the federal government has no right to change this concept now.
Conversely, Mr. Speaker, the maritime regions have every right to those resources which they brought with them into Confederation, to the same degree that Ontario and Quebec have profited by their resources and have annexed vast tracts of additional land in this century which have brought them great prosperity. The province of Quebec annexed 379,000 square miles in 1912, virtually tripling the land mass of Quebec. The province of Ontario added 237,000 square miles in the north and western regions of the province, with federal consent, virtually tripling its area merely to fuel the necessities and provide for the essentials in developing the local economies in those two great regions. Ever since the first potash was produced in the Ottawa Valley by your ancestors, and perhaps some of ours, for use in the production of soaps, waxes and other important products, and ever since the first hydro electric station was established by Sir Adam Beck on the Niagara River, Ontario has been free to develop and own its resources without federal interference.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a number of legal precedents to the provinces' case with regard to ownership of offshore resources on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. We have the

July 14, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
claim of Newfoundland that they came into Confederation bringing title to their offshore resources. We have the Nova Scotia claim, as documented by the charter of William Alexander in 1621, giving that province title to all lands as far out as 120 miles off the coastline. In the case of British Columbia we have a Supreme Court decision, at least in so far as the inshore waters from headland to headland are concerned, which says the resources beneath those waters belong to the province of British Columbia, not to Canada as a whole. That could be interpreted as a rather selfish statement-


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Thomas Edward Siddon: -but it is not because it has been the history of this country that all those regions which have prospered and developed with the benefit of their resources have in fact contributed to the national cause and the strengthening of this nation in a very generous fashion. That will continue, Mr. Speaker.
However, let us look for a moment at the leaked cabinet document respecting the first ministers' conference last September. Let us consider what it had to say about this question. The document recognized that all ten premiers felt the offshore areas within the immediate vicinity of provincial boundaries should belong to the provinces. The federal government put forward a proposal at that time agreeing to perhaps a 100 per cent "provincial-type" revenue sharing on those resources. Furthermore, there was an agreement or proposal that:
-bilateral joint bodies would be responsible for over-all managementof these resources. Reading from page 18 of that document, Mr. Speaker, it is plain that the government viewed it as being essential that:
-if there is to be any possibility of reaching agreement with the coastal provinces, that the federal proposal be modified to give greater recognition to provincial desires for a significant voice in managing the offshore.
This present initiative, Mr. Speaker, as reflected in Bill C-48, flies completely in the face of that advice which the government received last September in advance of the first ministers' conference. It flies completely in the face of the Supreme Court initiatives, it flies completely in the face of all legal precedents. Therefore, I contend that what we see here is a dog-in-the-manger attitude on the part of the federal government which wants to push this legislation forward now unilaterally and without granting any role for the coastal provinces, contrary to their own undertakings last September. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a cheap, childish and greedy way for the federal government to deal with the provinces. Instead of negotiating in good faith, it has chosen to mount an attack on the provinces. As in the constitutional initiative, they mount an attack as a smokescreen to cover up their own foul smelling plots.
The federal government chooses to deny the far-flung regions of Canada a resource base which they so desperately need to rise above colonial status, to rise above welfare dependency and poverty. In putting Bill C-48 forward in this way, the government has shown little maturity-in fact, none; no wisdom, and no compassion in their treatment of the coastal
regions which might one day benefit from Canada lands resources. They have chosen instead the meat axe approach last summer of coming out sounding good and then coming along to chop, chop, chop, without regard for the views of the duly elected governments in those regions.
What about the future of the Atlantic region, Mr. Speaker? I was looking through some data yesterday in respect of the economic development of the four Atlantic provinces in particular. It is interesting to reflect on this data's significance. The graph I display here shows the per capita income from all revenue sources among the various provinces. It shows the Atlantic provinces are 33 per cent below the average per capita income enjoyed by Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan. Of course, at the present time Alberta's income is considerably higher. However, it seems to me to be a ploy of the federal government to equalize the bars on this graph so that the per capita income in every province is identical. I think if that should happen, it would be a sorry day for Canada because it would destroy mobility, the quest for opportunity in this country; in fact it would be completely contrary to the history of the first 100 years of Canada when Ontario and Quebec regard massive benefits from confederation.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, 1 will not be long in concluding my remarks on motion No. 3, which seeks to amend Bill C-48. Before the dinner hour I commented on the future of the four Atlantic provinces which would be affected by the amendment put forward by the hon. member for St. John's East. I referred to a graph which displays the income per capita from all revenue sources. It shows the four Atlantic provinces in recent times receiving approximately two-thirds of the national average revenue per capita. Do the Atlantic provinces have to consider forever being on the dole or dependent on the good graces of the federal government to enjoy prosperity?
In the context of Bill C-48 and the particular amendment before the House, the questions we are asking are: Will the Atlantic region ever have an opportunity to grow and prosper? What say will their provincial governments have, the governments of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, in the development of their offshore resources? Will Bill C-48 enable those regions to become self-sufficient in oil and gas, or will this legislation hinder such development to the detriment of the Atlantic region, as is happening most demonstrably in western Canada at the
July 14, 1981

present time? If such development should proceed on the offshore lands of the Atlantic coast under the provisions of Bill C-48 and under federal jurisdiction, will the Atlantic provinces be assigned the same milk-cow status which western Canadians have tolerated for several decades?
1 need only refer to two other tables which I have before me to show the reflections of history upon those great Atlantic provinces which were the founders of Canada in so many respects. If we look at the graph showing the density of population by land area for the four Atlantic provinces, we find that in the case of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick the population density is some six times the national average, and considerably higher than that of the province of Ontario. Even in the province of Newfoundland, if we deducted the land area of Labrador, we would find that there is a reasonably high population density, approaching the national average. One would hope that the people concentrated in these regions might be able to find to some degree their own destiny using the benefits of their natural resources.
If we look at another table of Canadian Demographics based on the 1971 census, we find that the greatest migration of peoples within Canada is from the four Atlantic provinces to Ontario. More than 10 per cent of the population of each of those provinces in recent years has migrated to Ontario-10 per cent from Newfoundland, 14 per cent from Prince Edward Island, 13 per cent from Nova Scotia and 11 per cent from New Brunswick.
Why are we encouraging the furtherance of a regime managed from Ottawa which will keep Atlantic Canada forever on the dole and will encourage people to move to Ontario and to other areas away from the vast potential residing in that region?
In conclusion, I submit that we should all support the amendment of the hon. member for St. John's East to assure the future wellbeing of the Maritime areas of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, after having listened to this debate over the last few days, I should like to speak tonight in an attempt to come to grips with the issues raised by hon. members opposite and with some concern that there are definite problems with the amendment in a number of areas. First, the amendment is drafted improperly. Second, the amendment as drafted has grave consequences for the control and jurisdiction of any government in Canada over the offshore.
I should like to refer to these matters and also to indicate to hon. members that the way the bill is drafted now is, in fact, proper and the only way it could be drafted to ensure that the word "Canadian" is used in the broadest sense and indeed to ensure provincial participation in the resources which lie offshore.
Let me start by reading precisely what is to be amended by the motion of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Canada Oil and Gas Act
McGrath). Bill C-48 gives the definition of "Canada lands" and refers to the right of the federal government to exploit resources located on the Canada lands, meaning those situated in the Yukon Territory, in the Northwest Territories, on Sable Island, or those submarine areas, not within a province, adjacent to the coast of Canada.
The key to this clause with regard to part (b) is those submarine areas not within a province. I hope hon. members opposite will keep that in mind as I go through my speech, since it is a very important point. The bill says that the definition of Canada lands applies to those submarine areas which are not within a province. I will go on to show why that is extremely important. The bill says:
-adjacent to the coast of Canada and extending throughout the natural prolongation of the land territory of Canada to the outer edge of the continental margin or to a distance of two hundred nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured-
The amendment which is put forward by the hon. member for St. John's East indicates that we are to strike out lines 17 to 25 at page 1 and lines 1 and 2 at page 2 and substitute the following therefor: "west Territories". If we do that, then we would be striking out line 17 which now says "west territories, Sable Island", and we would simply be substituting "west territories", and the bill would then read "situated in (a) the Yukon territory or the Northwest Territories."
The problem is that there is a subclause (a) in that clause. There cannot be a subclause (a) if there is not a subclause (b). In other words, the hon. member's motion should strike out lines 16 to 25 on page 1 and lines 1 and 2 on the next page. Instead, it strikes out words beginning at line 17. First, there is an improper drafting of the amendment. Second, there is a serious problem with regard to the nature of the amendment and what it attempts to do.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated earlier today, the amendment would strike out from the definition of "Canada lands" all offshore lands which are associated with Canada. There is a very distinct definition which has to be made between the offshore which belongs to Canada, over which Canada has title, and the offshore the resources of which Canada has the right under international law to exploit the resources but to which it does not have title. Indeed, no country has title beyond 12 miles. At one point in time the limit was three miles.
The point is that neither Canada nor the provincial governments have title, or can lay claim to title, over lands beyond 12 miles from its coasts, under international law. As a result of the hard efforts and the hard work of the Government of Canada in the negotiations under the law of the sea, we were able to obtain, along with other coastal states, the right to exploit the resources from 12 miles to the extremities of the continental shelf, or 200 miles. But that does not give the Government of Canada or the Canadian people ownership over that territory. It gives us the right to develop and exploit the

July 14, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
resources, whether they be marine resources or natural resources in the form of minerals or petroleum. But we do not have title. Thus, when members opposite raise the issue of provincial ownership of the offshore, at the very most they can be talking about the first 12 miles and no more because there is no way that they, nor we, can own beyond 12 miles. When we look at the speeches which have been delivered with regard to this bill, we find a singular lack of understanding of what the state of the law is, not only in Canada but in the world, with regard to resource ownership offshore, and the nature of Canada's rights in that respect.
Additionally, the amendment goes on to strike out all reference to the offshore. Effectively it is then saying that Canada has negotiated under the law of the sea for the right to exploit resources beyond 12 miles for naught. With regard to the resources which are defined in Bill C-48, neither Canada nor the provinces would have the right to go beyond 12 miles. In other words, if this amendment were accepted, then Canada's stake, Canada's ability to say that we have the right to manage not only the east and west coasts but especially the Arctic, could be lost.
Canada has been working extremely hard against pressure from the United States, for example, with regard to its claim over Arctic waters. If Canada were to withdraw and say that Canada lands include the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, without saying anything about offshore, in a way we would be saying that we are giving up our claim. We would be saying that we are not staking our claim to the Arctic waters. That would be the height of folly, after Canada has worked so hard to obtain title, in a sense to obtain the right to exploit the resources in these areas, as well as the east and west coasts, offshore and the fishery. Then, to state in a bill which deals with Canada lands and the right of the Government of Canada, the people of Canada to exploit those resources-


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would permit a question at this point.


John Leslie Evans: If there is time at the end of my speech, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to entertain a question.
I will try and go through the speeches of members opposite to document as clearly as possible where I think they have been off base, not only irrelevant in many of their speeches, and not dealing with the amendment which has to do with the definition of Canada lands and the exclusion of the offshore from that definition, but harbouring, a misconception of want is involved and what the government is trying to do. We have heard from the hon. member for St. John's East, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), and most recently from the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Sid-don)-I used to live not far from his riding. Last night the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) accused the government of trying to grab provincial resources. If we just talk about the east coast, there are no resources to speak of that we know of within 12 miles of the coasts of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. The resources are much farther offshore. If what I have said is correct, and if what I have been told by legal advisers to whom I have spoken recently in order to come to grips with this issue being raised by members opposite is correct, we do not have title to that territory and, therefore, if there are resources, they cannot be provincial ones. As a result, how can that be a grab of provincial resources?
The ownership question is one which is crucial in this debate. We have heard about socialism and we have heard about it not being equitable. I will speak to the question of equity in a moment. We have heard that this bill is a rape of provincial rights. Again I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what provincial rights? If the provinces had rights over the offshore, why is it that the province of Newfoundland, for example, could not control the fishery of its coast with regard to foreign fishing fleets coming in and taking the fish stocks? It was not until after Canada negotiated the continental shelf agreement that we were able to manage our own fish stocks off the east coast. The accusation that this bill is a rape of provincial rights is simply a red herring, so to speak.
I would like to go on and look at the issues raised by the mover of this motion, the hon. member for St. John's East. As reported at page 11464 of Hansard he said:
Notwithstanding the stated position of the federal government within this policy paper-
A policy paper which was put forward on offshore resources.
-on the floor of this House and during the course of committee hearings, that it would like to have this matter of jurisdiction between Newfoundland and Canada and Nova Scotia and Canada, the offshore question, resolved by the Supreme Court of Canada, we are presented with a bill-which in essence is a fait accompli-which defines "Canada lands" as the very areas the federal government feels are under dispute and which it feels should be adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Canada.
That is absolutely false. What does the bill say, Mr. Speaker? I refer you to my comments with regard to the definition of Canada lands. The bill referred to "those submarine areas, not within a province". "Not within a province" means that if the Supreme Court rules that a province has title over that to which it has some claim to jurisdiction, it will go out 12 miles. That will be "within a province" under this definition.
What about the rest of the territory going from 12 miles to the continental shelf? There is no claim to ownership of that. The Supreme Court is not going to rule that Canada owns that or that the provinces own that. Under international law there can be no ownership. There can be the right to exploit the resources. There can be no question that the bill is carefully and properly drafted to take into consideration precisely the concern being raised by the hon. member for St. John's East.
The hon. member for St. John's East went on to say that this question of ownership, meaning within 12 miles, has to be resolved by negotiation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said on more than one occasion that the federal government is perfectly willing to sit down and negotiate management. If you do not own something but have the right to
July 14, 1981

manage, then the only thing you can negotiate is joint management. Newfoundland has been told, for example, that the federal government is willing to enter into a joint management agreement over those lands and that revenue sharing would be the same, from 12 miles to the continental shelf which Canada has the right to exploit, as it is for the province of Alberta.
The hon. member opposite asks why Newfoundland cannot own the offshore, meaning beyond 12 miles, I presume. If I have to go through that again, then I think there is a serious question of their listening or understanding.
The hon. member for St. John's East dealt with the question of ownership in his speech. After listening to him yesterday, I am quite confident that he was not talking only about the first 12 miles but was talking about the entire continental shelf, out to 200 miles and in some cases beyond, where the continental shelf goes beyond the coast of Newfoundland. That is the basic flaw, the basic fallacy; it cannot be owned.
The other point is that Canada has negotiated this treaty with other nations and Canada has the right to exploit, and also the responsibility for any occurrences which happen within that area under which Canada has been given jurisdiction. Therefore, if there are obstructions to navigation, the Government of Canada is responsible; if there is pollution, the Government of Canada is responsible according to international law, and the Government of Canada is responsible for the management of the fishery.
The question then arises, how can the Government of Canada be asked to be responsible for anything that occurs in that region which happens to violate international law and then be told that all developments and all management of the resources in that area must be under the exclusive control of the province? That is asking the federal government to take responsibility for something over which it is being asked to give away all authority. By any rational calculation, that is simply unacceptable. At the most, it should be precisely what the Prime Minister has offered to the province of Newfoundland: a jointly managed arrangement where the federal government can protect itself against those claims which arise in international law as the result of its negotiated treaty obligations over that territory.
Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker. That is the reality of the situation. The questions that have been brought out by the other side indicate that they have not read the bill and that they do not understand what this particular clause does and does not do. Hon. members opposite do not understand the reality of the 12-mile and 200-mile limits.
Let me go on now to indicate that this lack of understanding not only relates to hon. members opposite, Mr. Speaker, but also to the province of Newfoundland. The hon. member for St. John's East referred to a letter from the Prime Minister to the premier of Newfoundland outlining four principles. The first is as follows:
That the province of Newfoundland should own mineral resources of the continental margin in so far as Canada should own them.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Canada does not own them, Mr. Speaker. It owns them out to 12 miles. There is a statement saying that as far as Canada should own them, the province of Newfoundland should own them.
The letter continues:
That the Government of Canada should continue to have legislative jurisdiction in certain areas such as the environment, shipping and so on.
They must have this because under international law, they have responsibility for those areas and therefore must have the legislative jurisdiction to protect the people of Canada.
Earlier the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) spoke about the same basic issue, and effectively said that there should be concurrent power in the federal government and the provinces in a number of areas such as environment, fishing, shipping, and so on and that, finally, there should be revenue sharing as a result, and that is the way Canada can work and be fair to all.
We could not agree more, Mr. Speaker. That is what has been offered, not only to Newfoundland but to New Brunswick, to British Columbia, to Nova Scotia.
I become more than a bit concerned when time after time, day after day, on bills such as this, with regard to an amendment that is improperly drafted and misconstrued, we hear the opposition harangue the government for doing something that the government is not trying to do. If hon. members opposite would read that definition carefully, they would see that it is not the intent of the federal government to strip away provin-cially-owned resources or to rape the provinces. The intent is to ensure that Canada protects its international claim under treaty to those areas off its coasts for which we fought so hard to obtain the international treaty. There will be sharing, there will be equity, but let us keep the question of equity and ownership and those realities in proper perspective. I hope, in the speeches that follow, hon. members opposite will keep these things in mind as they go on with their discussion of this amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether there is time to permit a question or two of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans). In his comments, the hon. member suggested, first of all, that the law of the sea convention has been concluded and ratified and is now universal law. He should know, of course that it is not even concluded.
The other point he suggested in his speech-and I wonder if he has it clearly in his mind-is whether the federal authorities, when negotiating international agreements, negotiate only in those areas and for federal purposes only and do they negotiate on behalf of all of Canada, including provinces-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is really making a speech. If the hon. parliamentary secretary wishes to reply, he may.
11534

July 14, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to respond very quickly. First of all, the hon. member is correct: the law of the sea convention has not been concluded. That makes my point even more firmly. If there is no formal treaty, we have even less claim than we had before under a treaty. As a result, how can we possibly talk about ownership in that situation? When the Government of Canada negotiates a treaty with other nations, it does so on behalf of all Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With all due regard, the hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the motion of my colleague from St. John's East which reads:
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 2 by striking out lines 17 to 25 at page 1 and lines 1 and 2 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"west Territories".
There are a number of points I would like to make. First, I would like to say a few words in reply to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans). His argument is as difficult to grapple with as it is to grasp an eel in a large barrel of water. If you poke at it, it goes to the top. If you try to grab it, it will disappear. In other words, you get nowhere. Actually I have never tried to do it, but I believe that to be the case.
The parliamentary secretary stated that he consulted legal authorities. I wish he had the courage to tell us the legal authority for the legal opinions he has given. Perhaps he might consult with his colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) who might correct the jailhouse lawyer opinion he has just given us.


John Leslie Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The answer is the Department of Justice.


David Kilgour: I think the parliamentary secretary is aware that I used to work for the Department of Justice. I challenge him to name one individual, man, woman or child from there, who would come forward and give his name as agreeing with the legal opinion the parliamentary secretary just gave in this House.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) just made the point that the law of the Sea Conference has neither concluded nor been confirmed. The 12-mile limit does not yet exist. Does the hon. member for Ottawa Centre pretend that the province of Newfoundland no longer has rights over its continental shelf? Does he believe that those rights passed from Newfoundland to the federal government in 1949 and that Newfoundland now has no right to advance in World Court an argument with regard to ownership off its shore? 1 will run out of time if I spend much longer on the nonsense the parliamentary secretary has been giving us.
Bill C-48 defines Canada lands as those areas the federal government feels are in dispute and upon which it believes there should be an adjudication by the Supreme Court of Canada. I wish to quote from the white paper, as was done by the hon. member for St. John's East. It is the white paper on the National Energy Program. I have to call it what they call it. I quote:
Under the British North America Act, large areas of Canada fall within federal jurisdiction. These Canada lands, which comprise almost twice the area of the 10 provinces combined, include the area off Canada's coasts-
I will quote only that far. That is hardly the way to deal in good faith with the provinces affected. It is another way of the federal government saying, "what is mine is mine and what is yours I am going to seize through legislation, and you can try to get it back in the Supreme Court of Canada". That is what this bill amounts to in legal terms.
I now want to deal with the position of Newfoundland with respect to offshore rights. Perhaps this sounds better coming from a western Canadian than from someone who lives on the island. There is not a single Canadian I suggest, over the age of 14 from St. John's to Nanaimo who does not know that Newfoundland's resources offshore belonged to that province when it was a dominion at the time it came into Confederation. Prior to 1949, Newfoundland occupied a unique position: It obviously owned its offshore resources to the extent that any country could own them under international law.
Both the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and the hon. member for St. John's East (McGrath) put the problems of their provinces here very eloquently. "We will let you have the revenue up to the point that you become a have province" said the hon. member for St. John's East of Ottawa's position. As was pointed out, Newfoundlanders now have half the income of the average Canadian. Is there a single person in this country, other than the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and his moutons silen-cieux on that side who feels this is a fair way to treat the people of Newfoundland with regard to their offshore mineral resources?
Is this good faith? Is this a good way to treat people who voluntarily came into our Confederation in 1949? In my part of the country, this is called tricky dealing.


Mr. Wilson:: It's bushwhacking.


David Kilgour: As the hon. member for St. John's West said yesterday, it denies the people of Newfoundland their "place in the sun." I suggest it is enough to make any member of this House vomit. Our own party policy was referred to by the hon. member for St. John's East who quoted from a letter by the leader of our party dated September 14, 1979 as follows:
(1) That the province of Newfoundland should own mineral resources of the continental margin in so far as Canada should own them . . .
(3)	That the Government of Canada would continue to have legislative jurisdiction in certain areas such as the environment, shipping and so on.
(4)	Those principles would be confirmed by the signing of an agreement between the two governments and by appropriate legislative action and constitutional change.
July 14, 1981

It is an absolute mystery to me how any Liberal member from Newfoundland can accept what these grab and seize people are trying to do with the legitimate offshore resources of 750,000 Newfoundlanders.
I read carefully the speech of the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). He actually said something with which my party can agree. Speaking to the parliamentary secretary to the so-called energy minister, he said, and I quote from page 11,468 of yesterday's Hansard:
He should understand that on the coast the people see coastal areas as an extension of the land. It is like land only it is under water.
I think hon. members of my party, and in fact all Canadians, can share in that view of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.
I now want to deal with the speech of the energy minister. If I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Energy Minister is not well loved in western Canada, Newfoundland or anywhere else, I think you will know what I mean. At page 11,473 of Hansard, the energy minister said:
The bill covers the entire Arctic, all offshore mining rights. Those are the areas which in the decades will provide for Canada the energy security it needs.
We feel as a government that those resources belong to all Canadians and that we should see to it that all Canadians benefit from them.
This implies all sorts of things. It implies, for and, that the so-called energy minister does not give a tinker's damn about the Cold Lake project in Alberta. Let me quote from an article by Ronald Anderson in the July 10, 1981, edition of The Globe and Mail. It reads:
And when Imperial announced its suspension of Cold Lake, a spokesman for Energy Minister Marc Lalonde said airily that the company had to make its own decision, almost as though Ottawa did not care about the suspension.
Does any member opposite deny that in fact they do not care about the consequences of the Cold Lake project cancellation? The article goes on to read:
Meanwhile, Mr. Lalonde, after a tour of Dome Petroleum Ltd. drilling operations in the Beaufort Sea, is reported by The Canadian Press to have talked confidently about the possibility of an oil surplus in Canada by 1990.
The minister, I suggest in parliamentary language, is stark raving mad if he thinks Canada is going to have an oil surplus by 1990 under his energy policy.
[ Translation]
I may speak French at this time. The Fathers of Confederation were right in 1867 when they guaranteed to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec the ownership of "lands, mines, minerals and royalties" and "public properties". The foresight of our ancestors should still be an inspiration for Canadians today. Unfortunately, this government makes no attempt to create harmony among the ten equal partners that the Canadian provinces should be. Everywhere, this government is creating conflicts. The latest energy aberration of the Liberals is that of the minister responsible for this sector.
With the virtually avowed intention of breaking up the alliance of eight Canadian provinces against the constitutional
Canada Oil and Gas Act
position of this so-called Liberal government-and I have to laugh at this term-the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) offers Newfoundland to expropriate a corridor on Quebec territory so that it may export its electricity to the other provinces or the United States. It is most incredible that this corridor could be expropriated and that electricity could be transmitted over more than 900 miles without having to maintain this high-tension line at a higher cost practically than any profit that might be made. In return, what will this government ask Newfoundland? Will it be to give up its offshore mining rights? Will it be a tax on any profit derived from the sale of this electricity?
The government sets the provinces against each other the better to rule and impose its own views. It is totally unable to solve the energy problems facing all Canadians. If the National Energy Program is as good as the promises concerning the price of gas, I have to be very doubtful about the relevance and the effectiveness of Bill C-48. The major questions that all members opposite should ask themselves is whether it is really necessary to centralize in Ottawa what might well be achieved through consultation-are those opposite aware of the meaning of the word "consultation"?-with those who must live every day with the problems created by this government.
Had this government expended as much energy on trying to reach an agreement with the provinces as it did on making them aggressive, I am not saying that federal-provincial relations would be the reflection of undying love, but we certainly would not be talking about separation, divorce and Supreme Court settlements for everything at every moment. Canada should have a national energy program, fair enough, but we have to draw the line when the implementation of that program is going to be detrimental to what took us 114 years to build. We Progressive Conservatives had initiated a detente with the provinces; we covered more ground towards harmony in six months than it took this government to foster hatred and mistrust in one week. It is easy to depict the state of current relations-a country made up of ten provinces and two territories which are on the verge of breaking up as a result of a lack of appreciation for the Canadian reality and the nearly nonexistent concern over Canadian regionalism. That is not what I wish for my country, but that is what is very likely to happen if this government or a better one fails to settle the various problems which confront us. Mr. Speaker, how can anyone considering this bill believe in the good faith of this government when that same government cannot even see eye to eye with Alberta on the price of oil from that province, or else with Quebec on the substitution of petroleum for gas or electricity? [English]
Perhaps Mr. Speaker, you will permit me to quote on this from a letter I wrote which appeared in the current issue of "Saturday Night" on the subject of the national energy policy. I think I speak for many in western Canada and elsewhere. I wrote:
The reality is that provincial resource control to most westerners-

July 14, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
The reality probably is the same for most in the Atlantic provinces as well. The article states:
-provincial resource control to most westerners today is perhaps as important in a juridictional sense as language and culture are to francophone Quebecers, because resources give us for the first time an opportunity to become full partners in our own country. The federal assault on the oil and natural gas of the three mostly westerly provinces, under what the government insists is a "national" energy policy, is to many of us the equivalent of parking tanks on a fellow countryman's front lawn.
That is in economic terms. The quotation continues:
In terms of its effect on many western livelihoods, and on the goal of achieving national self-sufficiency in these two products-
These two Canadian products-they advertise on television telling us to "buy Canadian", but oil and gas are not Canadian products, I gather, according to these turkeys. Gentlemen from rural ridings will know how turkeys are regarded among the animal kingdom.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member is straying a little from the amendment before us. I invite him to return to the subject of the amendment.


David Kilgour: I guess the rest of my speech, Mr. Speaker, does not really relate to the motion. How much time do I have?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: About five minutes.


David Kilgour: I take it the Chair is enforcing the relevance rule tonight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: These attempts to enforce the rules are strictly impartial on all occasions.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, my respect for the rules and the Chair is such that I will not continue to deal in irrelevancies. I would ask, sir, that in future when people get up and talk about anything except the bill or the matter before the House, the Chair will impose the rule with the same vigour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The chair recognizes the difficulty in always being consistent, but does its best.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope the Chair will ignore the hon. member's last remark. 1 should like to start off by complimenting my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East, (Mr. McGrath) on his motion that we are debating today. It is one of tremendous importance for people who live in coastal provinces. I am glad it is before us and is so well debated, with the odd exception.
I thought the parliamentary secretary was somewhat irrelevant. He was talking about its not being the intention of the government of Canada to strip the resources from the provinces. He should recall what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) said last year when he was touring Canada. He was asked why the government was so keen on imposing the strict regime it was imposing on Alberta. He remarked, "We need the money, and you get the money where the money is." With remarks like that coming from cabinet ministers it is very
difficult for people to accept the statement that it is not Canada's intention to strip any of the resources from the provinces.
I was impressed by the speech last night by my colleague the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Fries-en). He made some comments about the New Democratic Party energy critic. I took particular note of them when I read his speech over today. My colleague mentioned that this 38-year-old adolescent, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), had avoided giving any idea of the position of his province. He claimed to be speaking for his province several times during his speech, but not once did he mention what the province of British Columbia has in the way of a policy concerning resources. I thought he might at least have given us Mr. Barrett's policy on the resources in British Columbia, but he managed to avoid both.
I believe the hon. member is setting a new record in the House of Commons for spurious and irrelevant points of order and questions of privilege. He may well end up in the Guinness Book of World Records over this, but he comes by it honestly. 1 believe he inherited it from his predecessor, Mrs. Simma Holt, who is noted for the same characteristics. Hon. members will recall that Mr. Speaker Jerome used to be very fast when the then hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway rose on a question of privilege. We used to time her at about 90 seconds before she would be asked to sit down so that the House could go about its ordinary business.
I agree there were some good points in the hon. member's speech about the attitude British Columbia has to its tidewaters and the waters particularly between Vancouver Island and the mainland. Except when the usual NDP anti-American paranoia crept in, the hon. member was making some sense. One should treasure it when it comes from that source.
I would like to remark that once again the Progressive Conservative Party is the only one left to speak for British Columbia or to advance British Columbia's aims in this House, particularly in energy matters.
Let us look at the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) for a moment. The minister was accurately described by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) when he said that Marc Lalonde would manage to pick a fight going to church in the morning. He did something similar in the House on March 12 when I asked him if he was aware of the effect his energy policy and his incursion by means of the excise tax into the natural gas market between British Columbia and the northwestern United States had on the budget in my home province, to which, in his usual fashion- although he was not on his way to church that day-he said:
Madam Speaker, I am only sorry that the hon. member believes the Socred propaganda of that particular government in its budget.
One can see how this minister goes around rather like Typhoid Mary spreading discontent and abrasiveness everywhere he goes.
July 14, 1981

I thought it might be beneficial if I were to read a few remarks from the budget the minister considered to be propaganda. He might obtain an understanding of how the government of British Columbia operates. It is the elected government of British Columbia. I do not belong to the party which forms the government there, anymore than I do the one which forms the government here, but it is in power there and has a right to express its policies. The Hon. Hugh Curtis from southern Vancouver Island said the following during the budget speech:
The problem of slow revenue growth would have been difficult enough even without the measures announced in the October federal budget. Now, the situation has become critical. The Canadian government has introduced new energy taxes that directly reduce provincial revenue. More significantly, the federal has increased the tax burden on the petroleum industry and has reduced the incentives to explore for and develop new oil and gas fields in British Columbia.
He went on further:
Over the period 1980-81 to 1983-84, federal taxes have a very real potential of reducing provincial revenue by over $1 billion.
In answer to my question on March 12, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources pretended that there was no effect on provincial revenues. He gave this curious answer:
Madam Speaker, every gas consumer in this country is paying the same amount of federal tax under the last budget.


John Leslie Evans: You are not being relevant and you know it.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: He completely ignores the fact that there are only three provinces in Canada which produce natural gas, and their ability to tax it is limited by the price at which they can sell it. The minister lives in a funny dream world.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have to ask that the hon. member be somewhat relevant to the bill. He is talking about Bill C-57. This is Bill C-48.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the parliamentary secretary is challenging the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway about spurious points of order. I do not know, but gas lands are offshore as well as on the Canada lands. I believe gas reserves also come into this. However, the fact is that these matters are dealt with in the energy policy, and this bill is part of the energy policy the government is bringing in. This bill would have a considerable effect, and hon. members opposite do not seem to understand that. When one is trying to sell a product like natural gas in the United States, the Americans pay only so much, and then they start finding cheaper alternatives. That is what is happening to British Columbia at the present time.
The Hon. Hugh Curtis went on to say:
This government is not prepared to consider borrowing to pay operating expenses.
I am sure this would shock the parliamentary secretary something terrible.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He just left.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Allan Bruce McKinnon: This is what the finance minister in the British Columbia government said:
This Government is not prepared to consider borrowing to pay operating expenses. Too many governments have adopted this shortsighted way out of their financial difficulties only to find that tough decisions become even tougher to make as the debt load accumulates.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must ask the hon. member to address himself a little more specifically to the amendment before us. He is straying from the subject matter of the amendment.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I bow to your wishes, of course. I understand that some hon. members across the way blanch considerably at the mention of a government which is not prepared to borrow money to pay operating expenses. Perhaps I should go on to things less strange to them.
With respect to the problem concerning offshore resources, there are really two competing claims or philosophies which have been operating for many, many years. First, there is the federal authority which is based on the "authority in matters of trade and commerce" which is spelled out in the BNA Act. This conflicts directly with another item spelled out there whereby the provinces own their natural resources, which gives them a proprietary interest. I thought it might be of interest to hear what an expert in this field says. I refer to Dr. Bushnell of Windsor University. He says:
No one doubts that the provinces do own their natural resources-
This was before the parliamentary secretary made the opposite statement. However, Dr. Bushnell said at that time:
No one doubts that the provinces do own their natural resources (except for those which have been granted to private persons, and of course the granted resources could be acquired once again by the provinces), and that ownership rights allow the provinces to collect revenue.
What is the effect of this dichotomy between the provinces with their claim and the federal government with its claim? The provinces have power because they have the ability to determine the terms of leases and grants of mineral rights. The power of the federal government rests within the trade and commerce section of the BNA Act which permits it some pricing authority. There can be deadlocks, and there is one at present between Alberta and the federal government. The federal government has been gathering power in this area for several years, and quite a bit of it is due, of course, to the findings of the federal Supreme Court. Bushnell goes on to comment about this as follows:
In the interpretation of the trade and commerce power the Supreme Court has since 1957 expanded the Dominion's power from the attenuated position given it by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council... it would not seem feasible that the same Court, as long as a majority of the judges maintain the same interpretation of the trade and commerce power, would take with one hand and give back with the other by allowing proprietary rights to overcome the restriction on provincial power achieved through the trade and commerce power. Possibly allowing provincial control through the exercise of proprietary rights could be viewed as a compromise position, in that the exercise of proprietary rights has only the effect of nullifying the negative impact of the trade and commerce power and not the affirmative impact. Thus the provinces, through their proprietary rights, would be able to control natural resources in the absence of Dominion legislation. But in order to create that so-called compromise position the Court would have to give section 92(5) of the BNA Act an

July 14, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
interpretation which to date has not been given to any other provision in the Constitution. Section 92(5) would have to be interpreted to allow the province to legislate in relation to trade and commerce because it is dealing with provincially owned property.
The position of British Columbia is of course fairly well known. They were one of the later provinces to come into Confederation, and it is ridiculous to think they came in leaving their offshore behind- them belonging to some world power or something. They had the rights to the offshore before they joined Canada, and made a strong case in 1967, as mentioned by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). They lost that case in the Supreme Court of Canada. However, the B.C. court of appeals ruled that the waters and seabed of the Juan de Fuca Strait, Georgia Strait, Johnson Strait and Queen Charlotte Strait belonged to that province. I understand the federal government lodged an appeal in that case which has yet to be proceeded with.
Now, it might be of interest to examine the history of this dispute. One of the hon. members opposite claims there is something immoral about not accepting the Supreme Court decision, as though it were carved in stone. In 1978, at the first ministers' conference on the Constitution, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) accepted offshore resources as an item on the agenda for constitutional review at the behest of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. In February, 1979, at the first ministers' conference on the Constitution, the Prime Minister tabled a draft of the federal proposal that accepted the principle of concurrent legislative authority over offshore resources management.
A significant part of the judgment handed down in 1967 was that it applied only to British Columbia. However, the federal Department of Justice said the decision almost certainly means the BN A Act, the basis of the Canadian Constitution, will have to be amended before B.C. can gain offshore jurisdiction. Oil exploration off B.C.'s coast has shown little promise, but mining concerns have expressed interest in manganese nodules on the seabed floor.
It is obvious in following this that there is room for compromise. I feel quite certain that if the federal government were at all certain it has the right to these offshore resources, it would not be offering any kind of deal to a province. The smash and grab artists on the other side will give you absolutely nothing that they are not forced to give you. I think when they talk about a 75-25 split in the case of the Atlantic provinces, they are in fact admitting they have a very weak case.
What is needed is an honest, sincere look at the situation. We cannot go on with the stalemate between Alberta and the federal government. Other provinces do not wish to find themselves in a position where they have to exert their rights and harm other Canadians in order to protect their own interests. Yet this is what they are being forced to do by the abrasive Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we can somehow or other come to an intelligent compromise where by the rights of the provinces will be respected, and we will get away from the
philosophy of the Minister of Justice that because they are so quick to take more money which belongs to other people.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise and speak on Bill C-48, motion No. 3 as it relates to the Canada lands, and particularly to the offshore resources.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has brought to the attention of this House something he is very concerned about, and I believe he made a very good presentation on behalf of his province. I would like to draw a parallel between what we find in the province of Newfoundland, and the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, indeed all of Canada as it relates to the energy policy in Bill C-48, and what we are dealing with in this House. The average income in Newfoundland is $4,000.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Leonard J. Gustafson: The average income in Ontario is $9,800. Here we have a small province which, when it came into Confederation, was looking for a better future. Now we have a government which, under a disguised energy policy, is making a power and money grab. This is not an energy policy at all because it has not created one extra barrel of oil. In fact, we have lost thousands of barrels of oil in western Canada. I think it was well put by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) when, in speaking in Estevan, Saskatchewan to a group of people who are very discouraged by this policy, he said this is not an energy policy, this is a policy to grab power for central Canada. Make no mistake about it.
Now, what is the parallel we see here between Newfoundland, which thought it had a right to fish in the ocean and bring back fish for the province-and it did-and which thought it had some oil. They did not know it was there a few years ago, but suddenly there is a newfound wealth. Now the power grabbers from Ottawa want to take this newfound wealth and filter it through this place. Well, they are going to spill a lot of it, I tell you. What is the parallel here to Saskatchewan and Alberta? The whole energy policy is designed along the direction laid in Bill C-48. Investigate this closely as in the coming days we will be relating it to how the government is seeking to nationalize the oil industry, and you will see that never before has a bill been brought before this House which has taken such great steps to nationalize the oil industry as does this bill before us. Through Petro-Canada, the government takes 25 per cent of all existing oil resources in the Canada lands, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. All that has to happen is for that percentage to change from 25 to 50 to 75, and you have a nationalized oil industry in Canada.
I want to say without equivocation: this policy is not going to work. It is going to have repercussions which we in western Canada have already felt very severely. What have those repercussions been? We have driven out 170 oil rigs. The independent oil people tell us that they believe we will lose half the fleet or 250 oil rigs. The energy policy has driven out 85 service rigs and along with the oil rigs and the service rigs,
July 14, 1981

many winch trucks, caterpillars and other related heavy equipment. What has the loss been to Canada? We have suffered a tremendous economic loss under this energy policy. Who knows what the people of Newfoundland will lose? These are people who, like the people of Saskatchewan, need it. What does this do to Canada?
We in the Conservative party view Canada as a great chain and each province as a link. British Columbia contributes some lumber; Alberta, some oil and some gas; Saskatchewan, some wheat; Manitoba, some wheat and some power; Ontario, the great manufacturing area of the country, various manufactured goods such as rubber and so on. In fact, Ontario might be the greatest loser when it comes to the energy policy before us. The parallel is that Canada could become a nation of great strength, with each province making its contribution as a link. But if we have a government which wants to seize power from every one of those links, the links will be broken down and we will not have a Canada.
Is it any wonder that the people of Newfoundland are somewhat concerned about their industry and their resource, just as the people of Saskatchewan are very concerned about their resource? It is interesting to note that even the NDP in Saskatchewan woke up about a year late. They supported the government until it got itself into a mess which I do not think it can straighten out. Mr. Blakeney will have to bear a certain responsibility in the history of the country in allowing the Liberal government and the Liberal-NDP coalition to bring about an energy policy which has had a devastating effect upon the whole economy of the country as no other business arrangement has had in the history of Canada. Some people project that the energy policy is costing Canadians in lost opportunities and spin-off benefits about $1 million per hour, or $24 million per day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Again I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I am trying to convince myself-and I would like the hon. member to convince me-that his argument has any relevance to the motion before us. For the benefit of hon. members, motion No. 3 reads in part as follows:
-be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 17 to 25 at page 1 and lines 1 and 2 at page 2-
Again for the benefit of hon. members, those lines read:
-Northwest Territories, or Sable Island, or
(b) those submarine areas, not within a province, adjacent to the coast of
Canada and extending throughout the natural prolongation
of the land territory of Canada to the outer edge of the continental margin or to a distance of two hundred nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of Canada is measured, whichever is the greater.
If hon. members want to refer to Canadian ownership, they can do so when we discuss the bill because it is not included in the motion. I invite hon. members to address themselves to the motion.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have sat through this debate and have tried to pay close
Canada Oil and Gas Act
attention. I understand Your Honour wants to maintain the general rule of relevance. I am sure that is the intention of every hon. member of the House. I sat through the speech of- and I make no reflection on Your Honour's observations-the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Simmons). The difficulty is that he did not say one word with respect to this amendment, and there was no intervention by the Chair. Yet, when we rise to talk about this motion, the Chair intervenes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. That argument was brought forward this afternoon. The answer which I gave to that argument this afternoon was that when hon. members make their remarks, we in the chair often give quite a bit of latitude and are very lenient as far as the rule of relevance is concerned. We had listened to the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), and I would say that most of his remarks strayed from the motion. Therefore, I had to be lenient also with regard to the parliamentary secretary, but on two occasions in the middle of his speech I asked him to direct his remarks to the motion before us. I want no one to feel offended if I do so again. I invite hon. members to address the motion before the House. If not, I do not know why they would need a speaker or someone in the Chair. We have a rule of relevance, and I hope hon. members will abide by it. The hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it is Comox-Powell River, which is a little distance beyond Selkirk-Interlake.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are now part of the Canada lands.


Raymond John Skelly: The unfortunate part of compelling absolute and strict relevance on the first clause of a bill is that it is difficult to set the context within which the debate will take place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. That argument was also raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). Again, I must remind hon. members that we are not dealing with the first clause of the bill. We are dealing with motion No. 3, and I hope hon. members understand. I have clearly read motion No. 3. I am at the disposition of the House. If there is unanimous consent that we discuss the whole bill, I will accept it.


John Leslie Evans: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Otherwise, I will invite hon. members to discuss the motion.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of being broad in the sense of discussing everything under the sun.


John Leslie Evans: Respect the ruling of the Chair.


Donald W. Munro: This particular amendments affects the definition of Canada lands. The last speaker was talking about revenues and ownership. Section 40 deals

July 14, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
with Canada lands and the royalties derived therefrom. Canada lands must be properly defined in terms of revenue. Obviously this is a money bill. The government is seeking more funds for its treasury. In that context, the limitation we seek on Canada lands is intented to restrict the extent to which revenues can be derived. Therefore, the relevance between funds collectible and the Canada lands is quite obvious.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: With all due respect, I am sure the hon. member speaks with certain authority because of the long time he has been in Parliament, but I must say that the same speech could be repeated after we have passed the motion and are discussing clause 2. Motions are brought to discuss specific problems which hon. members find in a bill. The hon. member for St. John's East wants to have this particular clause excluded. I should like to be convinced by speakers as to why the motion was brought, but certainly when one wants to discuss the whole energy policy, it should be done when the bill is being discussed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the reason I framed the amendment and moved it in the first place was that the exclusion of coastal areas from the Canada lands would mean that the revenues from offshore resources would accrue to the provinces. Revenues are at the very heart of the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: If you are now ruling, Mr. Speaker, that it is irrelevant to raise the question of revenue, then there is nothing left to discuss because you will have destroyed the whole thrust and purpose of the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I do not think I said that it was not relevant. I said that if the energy policy is to be discussed at length on this motion, then the Chair must take a stand at some point. I heard the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) talking about the energy policy and about the Canadian ownership program, which comes after motion No. 3 and which is not included in it. Therefore, the debate could be repeated again. If members wish to include in the debate the pricing dispute between Alberta and Ottawa, then I do not think that has any relevance to this motion at all. That is where I wish to draw the line. If the Chair is wrong, then I invite hon. members to guide me on this point.


James Aloysius McGrath: Alberta is now enjoying the revenue from these Canada lands, and the same is true of Saskatchewan.


Leonard J. Gustafson: I hope that the time which has been used in debating this issue will not be subtracted from my allotted time.
I will try to follow very carefully, and I believe I have, the issues which are before us. Nothing is more important to the energy policy of this country than the offshore oil relating to the Canada lands and its submarine areas. We are talking about an area which includes ten provinces of this country and from which some day the greater part of oil and energy may be
produced in this country. Thus, this issue bears a direct relationship to the energy policy. In the total concept of Bill C-48 there is nothing more important to discuss than the submarine areas and the issue being raised in motion No. 3 as to who controls these resources and who is to receive the revenue from them. If we cannot address ourselves to that issue, then there is nothing to address.
However, the parallel I was trying to draw here has to do with the concept of the government taking control through its energy policy, and particularly through Bill C-48. This is why the hon. member for St. John's East has addressed the important area of who controls that resource. In fact, in my opinion that is why we are having so much trouble in terms of the whole energy policy. Who controls the resources in the provinces is one thing. The whole question is that of control. This is the reason we are having so many problems with regard to the Constitution-we are talking about who controls resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: If this House is to be limited to the point where we cannot discuss this vital issue which is before us, then we are in serious trouble in Canada. What is happening to the people of Newfoundland and their resources? This government, every member of Parliament on the Liberal side and 98 per cent of those in the New Democratic Party, will have to bear the responsibility of bringing a change to government patterns, something that has never happened before in the history of this country.
The traditional direction of dealing with offshore oil, or with oil found anywhere in Canada, has been that the government of Canada-the Liberal government-has a method of taxation and royalty which brought in a fair share of income for the people of Canada. We in the Conservative party believe in a fair share with regard to offshore oil for the people of Canada, and particularly the people of Newfoundland. Let us bring this about through the traditional method of taxation and royalty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: Let us not bring this about through the nationalization of our oil industy, because if that is done to the people of Newfoundland, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia then they can expect that their gold and nickel mines and their steel industry will be nationalized in the same way our great oil industry is being nationalized by this government. One day every member of Parliament will have to bear responsibility for that to the people of Canada.
Before Bill C-48 is passed, I hope the government comes to the realization of exactly what it is doing. There is no more important area than that covered by motion No. 3, which relates to the area surrounding British Columbia, the maritime provinces and Newfoundland. It just so happens that right now off the coast of Newfoundland the development is such that we are focusing our attention on that area. One of the problems we always have is that we cannot see the forest for the trees. After listening to the Minister of Energy, Mines and
July 14, 1981

Resources (Mr. Lalonde) for 18 months, I do not think he is under any illusion as to what he is doing through this bill and what he is doing to the people of Newfoundland, which parallels what he is doing to the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Along with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), he intends to take from the provinces the very control of those resources which under the BNA Act, and under documents which were prepared before Newfoundland entered Confederation, they had the right to control.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: There is no question in my mind that the minister could reach a pricing agreement in one day if it were not for the fact that the provinces of Newfoundland, and the other provinces, are concerned with the issue of the control of resources offshore.
In closing my remarks I say that if Canada is to remain a strong chain, if it is to remain with its links binding the country together, then let us address ourselves to Bill C-48 and take a long clear look at what the Liberal government is bringing upon the people of Canada by trying to nationalize the oil industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to have 20 minutes to speak on motion No. 3. I believe it is the key motion which is before us. More than that, I think it is what differentiates this government from the opposition, the Tory Party in particular, and surprisingly enough from the New Democratic Party.
What we are really talking about on this side of the House is a bill which defines what is a nation. What is being talked about on the opposite side of the House is the whittling away of a nation so that there is nothing left.
Let us look at the motion which is before us, since it is a very interesting one. The Chair has just read the gist of the motion. It would remove Sable Island from the definition of Canada lands. That is the first thing it does. Let us consider Sable Island for a moment. The first time I saw mention of Sable Island was in Article 91.9 of the British North America Act, where the island is included under the powers of the Parliament of Canada. What we are trying to do is to amend the British North America Act. We are taking something in the British North America Act and saying that it is no longer there; it is not part of Canada lands.
I am not a lawyer and I do not want to spend a lot of time on this side of the situation, Mr. Speaker, but in the British Columbia case which dealt with who owns the territorial waters and the continental shelf, the province of British Columbia or the federal government, the most obvious reason that the British Columbia claim did not hold up was that the matter was not covered in Section 92 of the British North America Act.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
As I recall my history, when the Fathers of Confederation were setting up this country, they had an image of what was across the border that scared them. One of the reasons this country was put together was the possibility of attack from across the border. When they wrote the British North America Act, which was later passed by the government of Great Britain, they were interested in setting up something which was much stronger. Unfortunately, members of the Tory party today forget that it was our first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, who wanted a very strong nation.
One of the things that the Fathers of Confederation did was to leave in the hands of Parliament those things that were not enumerated.
In many ways, we are trying to take away from the British North America Act something which I think all of us believe only the British Parliament can do. I will grant, Mr. Speaker, that there is a considerable difference in the case of Newfoundland. There is no question about that. In the case of British Columbia and the other territorial waters off, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, jurisdiction was just to the edge of the ocean. Anything east of the Pacific Ocean was in the province of British Columbia, up to the border of British Columbia. It was the same with the other provinces. In the case of Newfoundland we are dealing with quite a different concept and I will not go into it now. I certainly will not get into the question of international waters.
Since I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if I could carry on a monologue.
I should like to make the point that we have the Geneva agreement and we have treaties. We are talking about the 200-mile continental shelf which permits only the state, that is, Canada, to exploit land in that continental shelf or beyond the 12-mile limit of what is known as the territorial ocean.
How, as a self-respecting nation which belongs to the summit group and which is hosting a meeting of the most powerful non-communist states in the world next week, can we say that we are no longer in control of that area but that the provinces have control of it? I do not understand this.
I do not understand how the two opposition parties can put themselves in the position where they want to change the British North America Act right in this House. They do not even want to ask Britain to do it. After all the fuss the Tories made about going to Britain or even going to the courts to find out whether we could do it, we are saying that Sable island is no longer part of the Canada land. But there it is, in Section 91(9), Sable Island. Section 92 does not mention the offshore or territorial waters, so clearly under the British North America Act it is within the realm of the Parliament of Canada. Are we to accomplish this by just changing one act?
There is nothing to stop us from doing it, Mr. Speaker. But there is a very serious question about whether it would have any relevance. We can always make laws that contravene the British North America Act, but of course the courts would not sustain them.

July 14, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Another thing about this provision has bothered me for a long time, Mr. Speaker. At the beginning of my speech I mentioned what is the key to the whole of Bill C-48 and that is, again, the question of what is a nation and the question of the provinces owning resources and the federal government owning resources.
In another place I raised the question when the hon. member for St. John's East was present. I did not make a complete argument then and I was not able to get back to the question. I always respect anything that the hon. member for St. John's East does, because he does it very thoughtfully and very carefully. His answer disturbed me, however, and having thought about it a good deal, I should like to respond to it.
Basically, what I said refers not just to the province of Newfoundland, but also to the lands in the north, the lands claimed by the Dene nation. There is a long history of manipulation of small states, and provinces, or what have you, throughout the world, particularly in the United States and Australia, by large multinational, global corporations. Traditionally, it has always been easier to manipulate a state or a province than to manipulate a whole country. I think this is important and I think it should be remembered, particularly by the NDP. There are many stories about this kind of manipulation in states such as Oklahoma and Texas, and it was a major factor in the whole offshore fight.
As I recall, the hon. member for St. John's East said that, coming from Ontario, I was being patronizing by saying that Newfoundland could be manipulated. I said something else, and I will come to that in a minute. I thought about this, because actually I asked: would it not be better if the province of Newfoundland, if the Territories, the Dene peoples' land, and so on, had a sharing arrangement? In the case of Newfoundland, the Government of Canada has offered 100 per cent of the revenue to that province. Would it not be a better situation to let the federal government face the multinational companies?
The hon. member for St. John's East replied that I was being patronizing, or something to that effect. He can correct me if I am not telling the story properly. I thought about northern Ontario where I come from. Precisely the same thing has happened to us in northern Ontario, a weak but large part of our province. We are virtually treeless now, or will be treeless if we do not do something very quickly, because the province of Ontario has been manipulated by a large number of paper companies over the long term. Basically we are now in a position where the economy of the north is in serious jeopardy. In light of this I have someting to say to the province of Newfoundland, to the other Atlantic provinces that would be involved as the result of this motion, and to the people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory. It is much better at this stage that we as a nation share in these resources. We should share the revenues with those parts of the country which have the resources. However, the ownership or control of these kinds of resources and the resources in those areas which would be excluded by this motion must remain in the hands of the federal government, from the international point
of view, the British North America Act and the equity of the whole country.
The people of Canada should understand the meaning of this motion. This motion would take away from the people of Canada control over those lands which belong to this country and offshore resources which under international law and the British North America Act belong to this country. Every Canadian should know what is happening in this House tonight.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that this has been a spellbinding debate. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) and the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) certainly have rare gifts and unique views of the universe, and certainly opposite.
Tonight I want to deal with something which fits directly into my riding. The area off the west coast that is seriously being considered affects directly Comox-Powell River. The shallow basin that exists there has an estimated 300 million to four billion barrels of oil, and maybe as much as 90 trillion cubic feet of gas. That sits right off my riding in Queen Charlotte Sound, Hecate Strait, Johnstone Strait and off the west coast of the island. Motion No. 3 deals with the definition of Canada lands. The Northwest Territories and the Yukon certainly are lands that belong to the Government of Canada as well as the offshore area in the Arctic.
These, however, are not clearly Canada lands. There are other claims, such as aboriginal claims of peoples who were here before the tenure was decided. Those questions must be decided. Ownership of the oil and gas in those lands are called into question. This provision deals with it before those claims have been dealt with. I suggest that removal before dealing with those questions could be removing somebody else's property, and that should be effectively dealt with.
I now want to deal with the other submarine areas adjacent to the two coasts, British Columbia and areas off the Atlantic coast. I understand this motion would advocate that we delete Sable Island and the adjacent submarine areas. That makes sense, but certainly from very different points of view than those raised by members opposite and members to my right.
The two basic questions we face in this bill is, first, that the federal government advocates total jurisdiction. The second major issue, and it has been raised effectively by my colleagues to the right, is the question of tremendous discretionary power in the hands of the minister.
The basic question is: should the federal government have complete jurisdiction over development of oil and gas in offshore areas adjacent to the provinces? I feel, as do a lot of others, that the answer to that question is no. Bill C-48 gives the federal government total jurisdiction and gives the minister unfettered discretionary power. The minister continually justified that in committee saying, we really do not know what is going to happen, we want a free hand". Over the period of history of oil and gas in Canada, no one can dispute that.
July 14, 1981

The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan and many others have said that the oil companies have taken us to the cleaners many times and the federal government was in power during that period of time. We find that in this bill there is no clear statement of what the goals should be. The minister and others responsible should have clear instructions to move effectively toward the goals we want to achieve.
We have a bill which moves for complete jurisdiction in areas that have a long history of control over their internal economies and their resources. 1 suggest that the arguments the government members have put forward are very weak. In fact, they miss the point.
The government members have said we need this power and this control, that in order to keep Canada together we must have energy self-sufficiency, and we have to ensure adequacy of supply and fairness of access. They have also said that they want a share of the revenue in that endeavour. They believe that across Canada there should be an equalization of opportunities for Canadian citizens, that health care, education and the basic expectations of Canadian citizens have to be met and, therefore, that is a source of revenue that should be shared.
Basically there are two points, the energy security and access question and the sharing of revenue. Those goals are correct, but this bill is not the mechanism. We already have mechanisms in place giving complete jurisdiction to the federal government, and to give the minister unfettered discretionary power, and does this bill, without laying out clearly the goals and how he is to achieve them, will create a serious problem.
I suggest this massive appeal to Canada as a nation that it will somehow be destroyed if the provinces are given an effective say in resource development and development of their local economies is a false argument. If we in British Columbia control our resources and resource development, it does not mean that Canada will suffer. There is already the National Energy Board Act and other legislation which governs how energy resources are to be allocated in this country. There is the Income Tax Act and other provisions by which revenue can be taken and dispersed in order to ensure equalization and fair opportunity. It is basically wrong to prohibit those long-standing coastal states from having a meaningful share in the say with regard to development of their resources.
The other side of the coin has been the very compelling and persuasive arguments from my colleagues to the right who say there should be total provincial control over those resources. It is interesting when we look at the dilemma. In the case of British Columbia, over the years there has been the development of oil and gas by multinational corporations, corporations with budgets and financial influence greater than this country. They have not served the best interests of this country. They have largely been let lose by this Liberal government to do their deeds. It will be an interesting and difficult problem to be solved for those multinationals, both the Canadian and foreign owned ones.
The first prime minister of this country presided over what was called the Liberal-Conservative party. That party built an
Canada Oil and Gas Act
organization in the 1880s called the Canadian Pacific Railroad which ripped off this country from stem to stern. There was a combination of the Liberal-Conservative party, the Bank of Montreal and the Canadian Pacific Railroad. We still have not recovered from that rip-off.
In the 1980s we are creating another CPR out of Dome Petroleum, almost the same mechanism. We will have a very large multinational corporation within Canada. That is not the key point in this. The problem is that those large corporations in provinces like British Columbia and areas like the maritime provinces will be able to whipsaw, thus causing enormous problems. The whole business of corporate blackmail over a period of time has been a problem. What we would find with total provincial control is manipulation of those provincial governments with economic power and clout that would be difficult to resist. So total controls may not be the answer. There is another thing to consider in my area.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Raymond John Skelly: Be very careful and read the resolution to the end. Maybe by the end of the presentation I will be able to develop the total concept.
In British Columbia we have had a very interesting small group of people who have capitalized on an enormous amount of economic development in that province. Throughout my area, where much of this offshore drilling and development should take place, there are small communities which have been left out of the mainstream of economic development throughout the history of that province. They are left out today, and when the oil and gas in their communities is developed and removed, they will still be left out because there is a small group of individuals who tend to capitalize on the economic opportunities to reap the benefits. If we look to the east coast, we recognize those names today, whether it is in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Newfoundland. In those areas they are in position and working. In British Columbia there is clear evidence that they are mobilizing, and the government of British Columbia and the Liberal government in Ottawa have done nothing to make sure those other communities participate in the economic benefits.
The whole question of total provincial control means that multinationals would have a very large say, with possibly whipsaw and cost problems. There are local oligarchies which have always benefited at the expense of many other segments in those provincial societies. They would tend to work with those multinationals to benefit.
There is also the question of federal resources. If in fact an oil spill should occur off Rivers Inlet, Calvert Island, Bella Bella, northern Vancouver Island-wherever it happens to occur-such as the one that took place in the Caribbean that cost $1 billion to cap, the province of British Columbia is not going to cap that; it is not going to clean it up. It will require the resources of the federal government. If you have to take responsibility for long-term consequences, there is a question

July 14, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
of resources. I am convinced, after listening to testimony, that we are not talking about the possibility of an oil spill occurring, we are talking about the timing of such an oil spill. Whose resources will pay for cleaning it up and who is going to have a say in the standards? I would urge my colleagues to the right to consider that maybe total provincial control needs better definition; maybe it needs some slight change.
The last thing we have to take a serious look at is the whole question of some very deep rooted economic disparities. Total provincial control has never been able to address this in the past. With the opportunity to develop this oil and gas, I doubt whether we will be able to see, with control in provincial hands, the removal of disparity among some of those communities. Possibly in terms of provincial control we have to look to a different mechanism.
On the other side of the coin of provincial control, we have a couple of items. First of all, decisions should be left as much as possible in the hands of the people whom those decisions affect-local communities and regional areas. They have the right to make the decisions that affect their lives. The argument for provincial control is sound in that respect. Local authorities with an opportunity to develop those resources would be more accountable. There is no doubt that a politician in British Columbia, or a government there or in Nova Scotia is more accountable to the people than a government in Ottawa. There are as many members of Parliament from the greater Toronto area as there are from the entire province of British Columbia. When you address a question from British Columbia to central Canada, or the Parliament of Canada, it is diluted down a tremendous degree. National priorities are far higher than local or regional priorities.
Therefore, as my colleagues on the right I think correctly pointed out, local control is imperative. Local control would have an opportunity to be more accountable to the needs of the people, whether they are associated with the disparity question, a response to environment or the strengthening of small economies. If you give control of oil development to the provinces, the local or regional areas, you will strengthen those communities in my area. You will provide more improved transportation. We have sat in this House and battled for years over improved transportation. If those communities on the coast of B.C. had improved transportation, their entire economic development, their stake and their position would improve, but this falls on deaf ears in this House. Maybe if this oil is developed under local control, the transportation system will improve and develop. We would then wind up with strengthened communities and improved transportation systems, and, by and large I think an improved situation.
We have a strange dichotomy here. We have the Tories on the right arguing for total provincial control and we have the Liberals with national interest in equalization and, basically, an energy security structure, arguing for federal control. Maybe the ultimate solution is a new approach, one that says there should be co-operative development of those resources, and that as much as possible the federal government should set standards for the development and define, in agreement with
the provinces, where development can occur. If the provinces were in a position to meet those agreements, those minimum standards, they could develop and improve beyond that in ways that would be meaningful to those people. What we will wind up with is maybe a new approach, maybe one which says that the federal government should sit down with the province of British Columbia and discuss what offshore oil and gas development could mean to that province and where there could be a meeting of minds. Possibly there should be the passing of reciprocal legislation to give momentum to that kind of agreement.
Then beyond that point possibly British Columbia, in agreement with the federal government, could take control of developing an area, which is really developing resources that are within the confines of the province of British Columbia, in Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound or in Johnstone Strait, and in that way maybe we could deal with both aspirations- with the question of equalization and resource sharing. In this way we could settle the question of control over those resources in order to provide security on a national basis, as well as provide tremendous local benefits by giving British Columbians an opportunity to say how local communities will be strengthened as a result of the development and how transportation should be improved.
We could also decide how to remove pockets of deep-seated and chronic disparity such as exists in the Indian communities. Under the present system they will receive the oil spills and probably the negative effects of such development. Probably they will not be given an opportunity to participate and to share in the economic benefits. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Though I am usually brief, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I could complete my remarks in one minute. Perhaps I might call it ten o'clock and start tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, on June 23 of this year I directed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) regarding the appointment of a fulltime Minister of Veterans Affairs. In the Department of Veterans Affairs today we have a very serious problem regarding the processing of veterans' pension applications, some of which take from one to five years to process. I pointed out at the time that the present minister has not been able to find a
July 14, 1981

solution to the problem. I asked that the Prime Minister inform us when he would be appointing a full-time minister who can deal with this very serious problem in the department. We received one of the evasive and uninformative answers we usually receive from the Prime Minister, regardless of whatever question we are posing to him.
I also asked the Prime Minister whether the government would be considering leaving the Pension Commission in Ottawa in order to rectify the one to five years' delay in processing veterans' pension applications. We received some more typical Liberal gobbledygook on that.
At a recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs the chairman of the Pension Commission pointed out that he has very, very serious problems finding personnel who wish to transfer to Prince Edward Island and, of course, this is delaying the processing of veterans' pension applications.
Speaking in the House on July 10 of this year with regard to Bill C-82, which was amendments to the Pension Act and the Compensation for Former Prisons of War Act, the acting Minister of Veterans Affairs pointed out:
-I am confident this legislation will have the support of all parties. It is further proof of this nation's resolve that veterans and their survivors will continue to receive just and generous treatment.
At the present time, veterans are not receiving just and generous treatment if they have to wait up to five years to have their pensions processed, and we have a serious problem with respect to a very high percentage of veterans passing on before their applications can be processed. I have called this before an absolute national disgrace.
Because I received no firm or concrete answers from the Prime Minister to my questions to him, I wrote him a letter with respect to this problem, and I understand that officials in the Pension Commission and in the Department of Veterans Affairs are in the process of compiling an answer to my letter.
The letter I wrote to the Prime Minister was dated June 25, and I called for the appointment of a full-time minister of veterans affairs. I also pointed out that there are two main factors causing a malaise within the department. In the first instance, the legislation which the department has to deal with is cumbersome and archaic. As the chairman of the Pension Commission has pointed out in the Standing Committee of Veterans Affairs, he is hamstrung with the present legislation. There is no way he can process veterans' pension applications any quicker. It will take from one to five years under the present legislation. That is why I am on my feet tonight. I am on my feet to request once again that a new piece of legislation be introduced as soon as possible to cut out all this rigmarole veterans have to go through before pension applications can be processed.
I will give hon. members the exact wording of what we heard from Mr. Solomon in the standing committee on May 28. Mr. Solomon stated:
These procedures-
Adjournment Debate
Referring to the Canadian legislation.
-although they are marvelous safeguards, take time, and they are hamstringing us in many ways.
In my letter to the Prime Minister I said that the aging veterans in this country simply do not have the years left to wait for this hamstringing, time-consuming legislative process to run its course.
In a letter dated June 2 of 1980 Mr. Chadderton, the chief executive officer of the War Amputations of Canada, listed the names of some 370 veterans associated with that organization alone who died waiting for their pensions. The War Amps are dealing with this figure in gathering detailed statistical information which is required before it can make applications to the Pension Commission. This figure is in addition to the applications the Pension Commission already has in hand.
I understand the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs is going around privately challenging these figures. I understand there are phone calls going on at the present time challenging the figures; it is not 50 per cent, it is some other figure. That is not the point at all, Mr. Speaker. We need a piece of legislation to get rid of this archaic nonsense of taking up to five years to process a veteran's application. That is the point, not whether it is 40, 50 or 60 per cent.
I have gone into great detail in my letter to the Prime Minister with regard to actual individual cases which have come to my attention. Every day there is a member of the Conservative party who comes to me and says: What are we going to do about the Pension Commission? What are we going to do about getting these applications processed? That is all I have listened to since I have been the spokesman for the Conservative party on veterans affairs. We have evasive answers from the acting minister. He has absolutely nothing to say, and tries to slough it all off on his officials. We are getting absolutely nowhere. Some of the Liberals are laughing; it is a big joke with them.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) comes to the House with an argument short on facts and long on fiction.
I want to deal with the two points he raised in a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on June 23 as reported at page 10885 of Hansard.
The hon. member asked the Prime Minister when he would appoint a minister of veterans affairs, and if he would consider having the headquarters of the Canadian Pension Commission stay in Ottawa and not relocate to Prince Edward Island.
Since the death of the Hon. Daniel MacDonald, Mr. Speaker, the acting Minister of Veterans Affairs has been responsible before Parliament for the portfolio. In this House, before its committees and the committees of the other place, the acting minister, being himself a veteran and a former POW, has been a stalwart representative of the interests of veterans and their families. The Prime Minister, when answering the

July 14, 1981
Adjournment Debate
member, took the opportunity to state once again his intention of appointing a minister. Hon. members will recall the previous government had designated one minister to be permanently responsible for Veterans Affairs and National Defence. This was done in spite of and in complete disregard of the wishes of veterans as expressed in the vigorous campaign mounted by the Royal Canadian Legion.
So for the hon. member to come here this evening and berate the government and the Prime Minister for not appointing a full-time minister immediately when his own government had put the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) permanently in charge of both National Defence and Veterans Affairs, I think is completely incongruous.
In addition, the relocation of the veterans affairs head office to Charlottetown was announced on October 26, 1976. The decision applied to the department and the four agencies, and was part of the government's policy of decentralization whose goals were: To move the administration of federal government programs closer to the people directly affected by them; to increase the presence of the federal government in communities where it has been low and where activities of a national nature can contribute to national unity; and to reduce the disproportionately high concentration of federal employees in the national capital region.
The relocation of Veterans Affairs involves the transfer of some 760 positions to Charlottetown of which 271 are with the Canadian Pension Commission. Presently, there are 160 DVA employees working in Charlottetown. The number of employees who agree to move will not be known until nine months prior to the official date of relocation of the positions. At present, the expected date of relocation for the Canadian Pension Commission is September, 1983.
The relocation has received the approval of three governments including the previous one, and I can assure the House that every effort is being made to minimize any disruption in the service provided to veterans. We are confident that veterans and their families will be as well served by departmental and agency employees working from Charlottetown as they were from Ottawa.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg Assiniboine is inflaming passions with statements not based on fact but based on his own great imagination.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I will send your answer to all the Legions in your riding.


COMBINES-REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF REPORT ON URANIUM CARTEL. (A) REQUEST THAT INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR REVIEW EVIDENCE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight with respect to the persistent questioning of the government by members of my party concerning the uranium cartel and the subsequent charges which have been laid respecting a number of companies in Canada including Crown corporations within which two senior government officials
were named in the information as unindicted co-conspirators, namely, Mr. MacNabb and John Runnalls.
Our inquiries with respect to the uranium cartel activities have, to a large extent, been directed toward the whole concept of determining whether or not the government has any understanding at all of the traditional parliamentary concept of ministerial responsibility. The government has consistently refused, in answering questions on the floor of the House of Commons and outside the House, to say whether Messrs. MacNabb and Runnalls acted on their own or on the instruction of the government. It is a rather peculiar evasion of a very essential and important fact respecting this matter.
It went to the extent that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) would not even tell us whether the government was prepared to provide counsel for these two people in the course of the legal proceedings which are about to take place in the prosecution.
Mr. Donald Macdonald was the minister during a good portion of time during which, the allegation is made in the information, there was a price-fixing arrangement respecting domestic prices in Canada. Mr. Macdonald indicated the following in a CBC interview:
I can certainly say that there is absolutely no indication at any point to myself and I am sure other federal officials that the companies were getting together to take advantage of the situation-
Also he indicated that no one at the federal level was consulted about domestic prices following world prices. But there are a number of instances which are now a matter of public record that fly in the face of this contention on the part of Mr. Macdonald and of the response of the government. First, the Gulf memorandum of March 8, 1974 clearly indicated that the officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources recognized that Canadian utilities must be prepared to pay export prices. Second, the companies themselves were initially very concerned about the combines law. Third, apparently cabinet discussed the possible domestic consequences of the cartel at the outset of the arrangement. Fourth, we have the simple and bald fact that Messrs. MacNabb and Runnalls are now named as co-conspirators.
I will not comment on whether or not any further charges should be laid. It is really impossible to tell. That is the reason we are trying to get more information as to why a greater number of people who were clearly involved in the cartel arrangement were not joined, even as unindicted co-conspirators, or named in the information.
Officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources were involved. Either the minister knew what was happening at the time or he was ignorant. In either event, there are serious problems. The government is attempting to reduce the issue to a narrow legal one and trying to escape any further questioning on the basis that the matter is now before the court.
The principle of ministerial responsibility is basic and goes beyond the technical, legal culpability. This has nothing to do with the notion which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) advanced in the House that you must trust somebody.
July 14, 1981

I should like to refer to the fifth edition of "The Government of Canada" by R. MacGregor Dawson and revised by Norman Ward of Saskatoon. Page 176 of the book reads as follows:
The minister at the head of every department is responsible for everything that is done within that department; and inasmuch as he will expect praise or assume blame for all the acts of his subordinates, he must have the final word in any important decision that is taken.
It continues:
R. L. Borden, when leader of the opposition, aptly described the ideal situation as follows:
A Minister of the Crown is responsible, under the system in Great Britain, for the minutest details of the administration in his department; he is politically responsible, but he does not know anything at all about them. When anything goes wrong in his department, he is responsible therefore to Parliament; and if he comes to Parliament and points out that he entrusted the duty to an official in the ordinary course and in good faith, that he had been selected for his capacity, and ability and integrity, and the moment that man had gone wrong the Minister had investigated the matter to the full and punished that man either by degradation or dismissal, he has done his duty to the public. That is the way matters are dealt with in Great Britain, and it is in that way, it seems to me, that our affairs ought to be carried on in this country.
Mr. Macdonald, the minister in 1972 and 1975, was interviewed by the CBC yesterday morning in Edmonton. In the course of that interview, he was asked by the interviewer whether at any time the reports which Crown corporations had to make to government involved the price being charged for uranium on the domestic market. In his response, Mr. Macdonald said in part:
No, 1 don't think so any more than the kind of conduct ... by CBC employees should be a matter of day to day surveillance by ministers-
The interviewer interrupted, but Mr. Macdonald went on to
say:
Just let me finish, please, you can trust the operations of the Crown corporations to officials to whom you have confidence and that was done and the question has now been raised by the Combines people as to whether or not the management of those two corporations exceeded the law in what they did.
In reviewing the annual reports of Uranium Canada, which is a Crown corporation, I find it peculiar when looking through the reports from 1972 to the present time to find out exactly what is reported to the minister. This is a Crown corporation of which Mr. Runnalls and Mr. MacNabb were officers.
I wish to make two observations. The first is that Uranium Canada had no personnel and that the administration of that corporation was carried out exclusively by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. There were no employees of Uranium Canada. Who were the officers of Uranium Canada from 1972 to 1975? The president was one Jacob Austin, otherwise known as Jack Austin, otherwise known as Senator Jack Austin. In one of his aliases, he was deputy minister to the minister of energy, mines and resources and, in fact-


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the two questions raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn). The first question is a request for the release of the report on uranium cartel.
Adjournment Debate
On September 30, 1977, the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), made an order pursuant to paragraph 8(c) of the Combines Investigation Act requiring the Director of Investigation and Research to inquire into the marketing of uranium with a view to obtaining all the facts and determining whether a violation of the Combines Investigation Act had occurred. In other words, the Director of Investigation and Research was required to conduct an investigation into the question of whether any individual or corporation had committed an offence. The Director carried out the investigation, and then on May 25, 1981, a report on the evidence gathered was submitted to the Attorney General of Canada pursuant to section 15 of the Combines Investigation Act in order to enable the Attorney General to decide what course should be followed.
It has always been the policy of the Department of Justice not to release reports made to it on investigations conducted into the commission of alleged offences. This applies whether the investigation relates to alleged violations of the Combines Investigation Act, the Income Tax Act, the Narcotic Control Act, the Customs Act and so on. The reason for the policy is simply based on considerations of fair play. If the person or corporation who has been investigated is not charged, to release the report on the investigation could very well amount to publicly accusing him of violating the law without the person concerned having any opportunity to defend himself or herself. On the other hand, if a charge is laid, then the results of the investigation are made public under the circumstances which are controlled by a court of law. That is to say, the evidence that is submitted must be admissible evidence and the accused person must be given an opportunity to make full answer and defence. I repeat, this has always been the policy of the Department of Justice and, as indicated, is based on considerations of fair play and natural justice.
The second question is a request that an independent prosecutor be appointed to review the evidence. When the Director of Investigation and Research commenced his inquiry, he-not the government or any member of the government-chose Mr. John Brown of the Toronto firm of Blake, Cassells and Graydon in September of 1977 to assist him in the inquiry. After working on the case for over three years, Mr. Brown reported his conclusions to the Director of Investigation and Research in April of this year. As already indicated, the director, in turn, referred the case to the Attorney General of Canada last May. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) sought further direct advice from Mr. Brown on the question of whether prosecution was warranted. He was advised in the affirmative and Mr. Brown has been appointed agent of the Attorney General of Canada and special prosecutor on the case.
There is absolutely nothing upon which to base any suggestion that Mr. Brown has acted throughout other than in a capacity totally independent of influence from the government. Indeed, any suggestion of that kind would simply be an unwarranted and unfounded reflection on Mr. Brown's profes-

July 14, 1981
Adjournment Debate
sional integrity. For these reasons there is no basis for a request that yet another independent counsel be appointed to review the evidence.


BANK ACT-QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE REVISIONS TO CONTROL INTEREST RATES
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to protest the answers to questions about interest rates given in this House, in light of the statements on the same subject made outside the House. There seems to be some discrepancy between what is said in the House and what pass for answers outside the House.
It all began when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was quoted in the press. This is only one quote from many speeches delivered around the farming community this spring. In the Western Producer of May 14, 1981, there appears the following:
During his Humboldt address, Whelan also severely criticized the banks for showing what he called their lack of responsibility toward the problems farmers are now facing with high interest rates.
The article goes on:
Whelan added it was "criminal" that efficient producers are going bankrupt over high rates.
Earlier the same article had this to say:
Whelan said he will try to get the amendment into the Bank Act during the current review of the act.
The Bank Act was dealt with seven or eight months prior to that time, Mr. Speaker. When the question concerning the statements of the Minister of Agriculture was raised in the House, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) replied that he believed that the matter was clarified the previous week in the House when the Minister of Agriculture acknowledged that he did not have in mind the revision of the Bank Act. He added that he did not have that in mind either. That should have put an end to the doubt about the government's policy with regard to interest rates. We know from experience that the Minister of Agriculture quite often engages in flights of fancy. He is well known to be an expert spreader of that famous bovine barnyard product which he spreads very quickly and deeply. But we now find that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been engaging in the same game.
Before his trip to Washington to prepare for the summit, the Toronto Star of July 10 had this to say:
I think the Minister of Finance (Allan MacEachen) has made it clear that we think that real interest rates are far too high.
I am not sure whether the Minister of Finance has said that, but apparently the Prime Minister thinks that. The article also reads:
He was expected to ask Reagan today when his interest-rate policy is going to work.
The article went on to say:
It was the first time Trudeau spelled out Canada's position on the contentious economic issue.
And, later:
But although interest rates "are far too high" Trudeau said he would not start an argument with Reagan at the summit meeting.
This is another indication of the solution to the high interest rate problem. The Minister of Agriculture provides his assessment, and his solution was an amendment to the Bank Act, which we have just finished amending.
Then the Prime Minister engages in another strategy, which is hope. He made it very clear he hopes the U.S. strategy will work because we do not seem to have any strategy in Canada that will deal with the problem of high interest rates.
The Prime Minister's commitment is not particularly strong, however, as he is quoted in the press as saying, that although interest rates are far too high, he would not start an argument with Reagan at the summit meeting. The summit is reserved for important issues, yet the most important issue raised by the Prime Minister, according to the press report, was high interest rates.
I am not satisfied with the replies we have been getting from the government, Mr. Speaker. Members of the government are creating an expectation of action with a clearly stated intention in the House by the finance minister of doing nothing.
I have outlined to the House the statement made to the Prime Minister prior to his talks with President Reagan. I . have reviewed the promises made by the Minister of Agriculture to amend the Bank Act when he knows and we know that the Bank Act was amended just seven months ago. Where was the minister with his proposals seven or eight months ago when the Bank Act was open for amendment? Why did he not support some of the amendments that my colleagues offered to regulate interest rate and to regulate the bank spread? He was strangely silent when he could have been taking action. I think the people of Canada deserve to know what the real interest rate policy of the government is, Mr. Speaker.


John Leslie Evans: There are important reasons why the government is not prepared to contemplate direct control over the interest rates paid or charged by the chartered banks.
First of all, in the context of over-all monetary and exchange rate policy, variable interest rates are an essential part of the mechanism for moderating extreme variations in demand, production, prices and the exchange rate. The fixing of interest rates would tend to result in greater instability in these other important variables. As we know, the current high level of interest rates reflects to a considerable extent the current and expected levels of inflation, as well as current events in the United States and the tightening of monetary policy in an attempt to bring inflation under control. To fix interest rates at an artificially low level in these circumstances would discourage savings and encourage borrowing, thus exacerbating the demand supply pressures and would undoubtedly lead to economic inefficiencies and a worsening of inflation.
July 14, 1981

A second, equally important, aspect of the government's interest rate policies is that connected with the over-all efficiency of the financial system to gather and allocate savings. In this setting, it has generally been government policy to leave interest rates free to be determined by the forces of supply and demand. The rationale for this approach has been that the market mechanism is more finely tuned and tends to allocate resources over all more efficiently than government directives. Also, if the government were involved in the rate-setting business, it would have to be certain that the structure of rates were appropriate, and that the spreads allowed the banks were adequate to meet their capital needs and to provide an adequate return to shareholders. Further, it would be grossly inequitable to control the interest rates paid and charged by the banks without also imposing similar controls on competing institutions and other supplies of credit in the market place.
Adjournment Debate
Furthermore, the imposition of interest rate ceilings on particular categories of loans could result in a drying up of the supply of funds being made for that purpose. Financial institutions, as other corporations, cannot be expected to lend out funds to customers at rates of interest below the level which they must pay to gather those funds from savers in the system and to cover the credit risks and administration costs associated with their lending and borrowing operation.
In addition, it has not been the policy of the government to implement measures to provide broadly based relief from the effects of high interest rates to specific sectors of the economy.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Wednesday, July 15, 1981