1981-07-13

Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker,
I rise on a matter of consuming concern to all Canadians. Inasmuch as the government appears intimidated by statements that postal workers will not be legislated back to work, and whereas the government should rather be motivated by the plea from groups such as the Chamber of Commerce of Oliver, British Columbia, who ask that government get the mails moving again before irreparable damage is done to the thousands of small businessmen already imperilled by the government's high interest rate policy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That this House condemn the government for its irresponsibility in eliminating all consideration of back to work legislation, thus playing into the hands of the CUPW leadership.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, the government's plans to slash rail passenger service by simple order in council pose a serious threat to many western communities. Saskatoon is slated to lose two ways. Not only is the east-west service of the Super Continental to be abandoned and replaced by day trains, but the city will lose its complete north-south connections with the scrapping of the Regina-Prince Albert route. Instead of double track, Saskatoon is getting a double cross and a double whammy. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the government cease its practice of reorganizing Canadian rail passenger service by executive fiat and that existing passenger service be maintained until there has been an opportunity for full public debate of the abandonment question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of obvious urgency. The strike affecting postal service in this country has swiftly become a cause of grave concern. In addition to creating a measure of varied inconvenience for almost all Canadians, the strike is forcing thousands of businesses to face the very real prospect of financial ruin. In light of the fact that the livelihood of many Canadians is in severe jeopardy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie):
That the government recognize the seriousness of the situation, accept its responsibility to the Canadian public, and take firm and immediate steps to end the postal strike.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on an important and urgent matter.
As the joint committee on official languages has admitted that practically no federal institution fully respects the Official

July 13, 1981
Languages Act, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That the House ask the government to respect its own laws with regard to services in the language of minority groups.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43 this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METRIC COMMISSION CANADA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Because of the postal strike the Metric Commission is using private courier services to distribute metric cook books at a cost to the Canadian taxpayers of $12 each delivered to Winnipeg. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the government launch an immediate investigation to determine how widespread this wasteful use of courier service is within government departments, stop the distribution of metric cook books at $12 a copy for Winnipeg delivery, and limit the use of private courier service to the delivery of essential documents.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the disruption in postal service is creating hardship for many Canadians, and many small businesses already hard hit by record high interest rates are forced to close their doors and lay off their employees, and whereas a prolonged strike will create hardship for many of the members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers who did not want a strike in the first place, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House direct the President of the Treasury Board to introduce legislation forthwith which would provide for an immediate resumption in postal
services and a legal obligation for both parties to resume negotiations, for passage in the event that both parties fail to resume negotiations immediately.


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, counting on the desire of this House to give help to those who are in need, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That this House calls on the government to introduce forthwith legislation to improve the pension position of women, such legislation to include in particular pensions for women between the ages of 55 and 65 who are alone and who are not in the labour market, it being the view of this House that the needs of such women should be met without further delay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, in view of the very strong protest made by the administration of the city of Edmonton, the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce, and hundreds of Edmonton citizens against the planned cancellation of rail service west to Vancouver and east to Saskatoon and Winnipeg, as a proposal completely and totally unacceptable to the residents of Edmonton, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour):
That the cabinet order public hearings to be held before any cancellation or reduction in service is imposed in order that the fullest consideration can be given these moves which will have such a disastrous effect on the economy and unity of western Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
July 13, 1981


POST OFFICE
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the almost total dependency of rural and small town Canadians on the mails for information, business exchanges, pension cheques, and numerous transfers of important personal data, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That the government assume the responsibility it has for the welfare of individual citizens, particularly those who do not enjoy the communication opportunities and advantages of those in cities and larger urban centres, and use the House of Commons time, provided by the opposition, to deal directly with the number of measures available to get the mail moving again.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONDEMNATION OF GOVERNMENT POSITION-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas in 1975 the 42-day postal strike cost the people of St. Catharines about $8 million, and it is estimated to date that the current postal strike has cost just that one community some $2.6 million in lost revenue and extraordinary expenses, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley):
That this House condemn the government for allowing the current postal strike to inflict this kind of loss on the business communities of this country without making any serious effort to negotiate a settlement.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
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, when Canada Malt in Calgary is required by the Canadian Wheat Board to ship malt barley to Thunder Bay or Vancouver by truck or train, whichever has the most favourable price for the Canadian Wheat Board and the said cost is charged to the farmer; and whereas some 30 per cent or more of the said malt is consumed in Alberta, but even so each farmer is charged the freight to
Oral Questions
either Vancouver or Thunder Bay, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone):
That the Canadian Wheat Board amend its regulations so Canada Malt will not be required to charge freight to farmers whose malt barley is not shipped to Vancouver or Thunder Bay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VIA RAIL
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 because this is a very urgent matter in the Edmonton area, and I would hope the minister would cease and desist from stopping VIA Rail service in the Edmonton area. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the minister disallow the CTC and DOT from stopping this service in our particular area.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question has to do with the postal strike, and I want to direct it to the Prime Minister because the matter is becoming of such grave concern to so many individuals across the country that it should no longer be left simply to one minister but should be the demonstrated concern of the whole government.
On Friday the government indicated it had no intention of meeting the union's one condition for reopening negotiations, and today Mr. Warren has indicated he does not intend to become a bargaining instrument, to use his phrase, of either party. The Prime Minister must know the damage which is being done to countless individual Canadians across the coun-

July 13, 1981
Oral Questions
try, and to countless Canadian businesses. I wonder if the Prime Minister will tell the House of Commons what initiatives the government plans to take today or tomorrow to end this crippling postal strike.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, we had made it clear that we hoped the issue would be resolved at the bargaining table. I believe it is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition took away from the government any hope that that would happen by forcing Parliament to stay around-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crosbie:: Do your job and govern the country.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -thus giving the union cause to believe that it does not have to settle because Parliament will settle the matter for it. I think that is contrary to the spirit of the law and contrary to the whole matter of industrial bargaining whereby the employer and the union try to negotiate an arrangement which is acceptable to both of them. If one party uses the strike route, as it is entitled to do under the law, then that route should be respected.
I repeat that the government is aware of the distress this is causing, or any strike causes. This strike is certainly one which is regrettable, but I find it unfortunate that the official opposition should have forced Parliament to continue sitting-


Mr. Beatty:: Now answer the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -at a time when the parties were seeking some way of solving the dispute by bargaining, not by enforced return.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we have all known for a long time that the Prime Minister would rather govern without Parliament and that he regards Parliament as a nuisance. We regard Parliament as an institution which has a duty to protect the interests of individual Canadians, and those interests are being deeply damaged today.


REPORTED OFFER TO SUBSIDIZE COMMERCIAL CLIENTS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister did not indicate what new initiatives he plans, except to let individual Canadians continue to suffer. But perhaps he will not let the rich and the powerful suffer. I wonder if the Prime Minister will confirm the report by the Canadian Press that the Post Office itself confirmed that before the workers went out on strike the Post Office contacted banks, insurance companies, and other rich clients of the Post Office, and offered to subsidize their courier services during a strike. Will the Prime Minister confirm that such an offer was made to the Post Office's commercial clients and that it was made several days before the strike began?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have no knowledge of that. I imagine it is another canard peddled by the right hon. member, but I will inquire.


STATEMENTS MADE BY POST OFFICE SPOKESMEN
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, let me direct a question either to the Postmaster General or the President of the Treasury Board. Can he confirm the Canadian Press story today that the Post Office offered to arrange private courier service for its priority mail customers several days before the postal strike began? Post Office spokesmen confirmed that today. The report cites Post Office spokesmen.


An hon. Member:: Who was that?


Charles Joseph Clark: Will the Postmaster General tell this House now whether that is a correct report and whether there was an offer to subsidize the mail of the rich and the powerful during the postal strike, prior to that strike's occurring?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of this. I doubt it very much. If the right hon. member were able to give a name, it would be very helpful. I will inquire, but this story surprises me very much.


Mr. Cousineau:: It must have been in the Sun, Joe.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION ON BACK TO WORK LEGISLATION
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question which is supplementary to that of the Prime Minister, who has given us a very interesting reason for refusing to consider back to work legislation. Not very long ago he said he would not introduce such legislation because Mr. Parrot would not obey it. Now he says he will not introduce it because Mr. Parrot wants it. Will he come clean with this House as to what his reason is?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, when the process of collective bargaining ends in a strike it is generally because the union wants to make somebody suffer, the clients, the employer and so on. This is the process now. That is why unions declare a strike, because they know there will be economic pressure on the employer to settle.
We know, Madam Speaker, one way of getting the union off the hook would be to settle the strike by legislating them back. Mr. Parrot said if that happened he would not intend to obey the legislation. That is not a reason in itself for not legislating them back. The reason we did not want to legislate is because we believe that in a system where we have free collective bargaining the matter should be settled by the employer and employee bargaining together, rather than by having Parliament step in and solve the problem-in this case probably for
July 13, 1981

the union because I do not think they have the support of the people. Therefore, they are happy to have the support of the opposition in a legislated settlement, rather than one which is reached through fair collective bargaining.


PLANS FOR RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, the public interest only seems to matter to the Prime Minister when the banks, insurance companies and others are not covered, which they already have been.
Not very long ago the current Attorney General set a record. In two years, when he was president of the Treasury Board, we lost 900,000 man-days to strikes and lay-offs. The current President of the Treasury Board has set a new record. In one year and four months we have lost 1,400,000 man-days from strikes and lay-offs. Will the Prime Minister tell Canadians this: why should any Canadian have any reason to believe that a settlement will be achieved under a man whose record is strikes, lay-offs, and days lost, and why will the Prime Minister not tell Canadians exactly what it is he will do if he is serious about getting the parties back to the table?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, any employer at any time can settle a strike by giving in to the union and giving them what they ask. As the President of the Treasury Board indicated the other day, if we were to give in to the maximum demand of the union it would be a salary increase of some 28 per cent in one year. That is the price which could have been paid at the outset to avoid a strike. However, we on this side believe it would have been irresponsible to introduce that kind of settlement. Since it is the opposition which has kept the House around, presumably to have a legislated settlement, maybe I could hear from the hon. member or his leader what they would be prepared to offer to settle the strike.


John Carnell Crosbie: Turn over the government.


QUERY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT MOVE TO RESUME NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Just a minute ago the Prime Minister said the two parties are bargaining. Regrettably, as everyone knows, that is not the case. The postal workers have made two steps to try to return to the bargaining table, the first where they said if the government would accept the conciliation board recommendations, they would go back, which the government turned down; then they said if Mr. Warren, the head of the new Crown corporation to be set up to run the Post Office, joined the table, they would go back. The government has turned that down.
Since in the bargaining process a conciliatory attitude is a two way street, I ask the minister when is the government going to make a serious move to resume negotiations?
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I certainly welcome that question, given the fact we have no preconditions for negotiations. I call that a conciliatory position, compared to a union which first of all establishes preconditions and then substitutes another precondition for the former precondition. It becomes perfectly apparent, Madam Speaker, that the union to date has shown no interest in negotiations.
In any event, I am pleased to advise the House that I have today requested Treasury Board to apply to the Public Service Staff Relations Board for the appointment of a mediator. Let us hope that this at least will be a step with which the union will see fit to co-operate.


ROLE OF MEDIATOR
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, with specific reference to the appointment of a mediator, will the mediator have the same mandate which the negotiators for the government had before talks broke off? Will the mediator be locked into the government's previously established position, which means that there will not be any mediation at all, or will he begin with an assumption that the government's appointed conciliation board recommendation is a pretty reasonable one, namely, that the cost difference between what the conciliation board recommended-which the union has gone along with but the government turned it down; it was only 2 per cent- and what the union is really after are non-costly work conditions, civilizing conditions, in the workplace? Will the mediator have a mandate which will enable him to make appropriate gestures in the direction of the government's own conciliation board recommendation?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, first, the mediator does not have a mandate. The mediator will be there to mediate between the parties. Since we are unable to bring the union to the negotiating table and talk directly with the union, we must have an intermediary. We hope the union will accept a mediator.
When I hear statements to the effect that some of these issues are not costly, I would remind the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party that some of the particular issues which will be the subject of mediation are very costly. I suggest that we are talking about a wide variety of issues. We have always been prepared to sit down and negotiate without preconditions, but we insist that the union come forward and accept mediation at this stage in order to unblock the impasse.


WORKING CONDITIONS AFFECTING WOMEN
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the same minister. The minister knows, if the mediation process is to be successful at all, that the mediator must take in there a different attitude than that of the government. Does the minister dispute the claim that the gap between the conciliation board recommendation and what the government has already indicated that it

July 13, 1981
Oral Questions
would be prepared to do is only to 2 per cent? The union has indicated publicly and privately time after time that it is interested in non-costly matters, working condition matters which substantially affect, if they are implemented, the equality of condition for women in the country.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, with respect to the question of the equality of the condition of working women in the country, we indicated before the strike began that that is an issue we would very much like to sit down and negotiate at the bargaining table, which we have been unable to do. Clearly that is an area in which we would very much welcome an exchange of views between the union and ourselves. Otherwise, when the Leader of the New Democratic Party says that privately and publicly the union has taken positions which are very conciliatory or not costly-


John Edward Broadbent: What about the 2 per cent?


Donald James Johnston: -I would remind the House that the union position to date has been simply this: if the government accepts en bloc the recommendations of the chairman of the conciliation board, then they are prepared to sit down and negotiate the contract they would like to have. It has always been the conciliation board report plus-


John Edward Broadbent: No, it has not.


Donald James Johnston: That has always been the official position taken by the union.


RAILWAYS
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is it still the intention of the government to cut back drastically rail passenger service in the country, affecting some 21 routes across Canada? If so, and given the fact that VIA Rail was never properly constituted or established under the parliamentary process, is it the minister's intention to bring to the Parliament of Canada a new VIA Rail act this autumn, as was recommended by the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments? If it is the intention of the minister to bring forth a new VIA Rail Canada act, would it not be reasonable for the minister and the government to defer any cutbacks in rail passenger services until such time as the mandate, the objectives, the whole regulatory mechanism and the route structure can be debated fully by Parliament?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, on the first subject, I am not in a position to comment because the decision of cabinet has not been made. On the other subject, that is the usefulness or necessity of having a VIA act, I am in full agreement with the views expressed by the hon. member and others.
The problem has always been with the agenda or the timetable of the House. In 1977 when VIA was created by an item in the estimates, presumably there were too many items on the agenda of the House. Last year I gave priority to the problem of the transportation of dangerous goods. This coming year, as the hon. member knows, we have the ports policy to bring up. We also have the independent air safety board to create. Thus, time is really the problem. Everyone agrees that VIA is entitled to legislation of its own as one of the major Crown corporations. I am committed to cabinet to bring forward a memorandum on the subject which might lead to that realization, whenever the time of the House permits.


REPORTED PLANS TO REDUCE SERVICE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, surely the minister realizes that the wholesale abandonment of several rail passenger services throughout Canada is a matter of very serious concern. I note that the minister nejther confirmed nor denied that this matter was under active consideration. Could he undertake to tell the House whether, in fact, some 16 abandonments and five reductions in rail passenger services are currently under active cabinet consideration? If this decision is to be arrived at through government edict, could the minister explain how the citizens in the communities which will be affected will have an opportunity to voice their objections and concerns in a formal way?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have no intention of confirming or denying indirectly what I did not confirm or deny in a direct way.


POSSIBLE DATE OF GOVERNMENT DECISION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: In order to clear the air, could the minister undertake to tell the House when a decision will be forthcoming, since it is quite obvious the matter is under active consideration?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is experienced in the art of being a minister. He also knows that this is unpredictable.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it deals with regulations concerning hazardous and dangerous products. In view of the fact that there have been six or seven incidents concerning the transportation of hazardous and dangerous products in the Calder area in Edmonton along the 127th Avenue right-of-way, what game plan does the Canadian National Railways have to handle a major disaster-God
July 13, 1981

forbid? We do not want a Mississauga or Sundridge affair in our area.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke to me about this subject a few days ago. I provided him with a number of scenarios with regard to what happens in the case of transportation accidents involving dangerous goods. At the time I told him the scenario varies a great deal depending on where the accident takes place, what kind of dangerous goods are involved, whether or not it is on a siding or a main line, etc. I agree with the hon. member that these scenarios are rather complex. Efforts are being made now through the regulations provided in Bill C-18, which was passed in the House about a year ago, to streamline these methodologies.
At the last meeting of the ministers of transportation I echoed the worries which the hon. member has. The provincial ministers of transportation and myself agreed that a maximum effort should be made toward simplifying these procedures. At the next meeting of the ministers of transportation I will bring forward ideas to that effect.


RAILWAYS
Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is he aware of the publication on Friday last of a statement signed by eight members of Parliament from the greater Edmonton area who fully endorse the protests made by the city administration of Edmonton and the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce who are protesting the cancellation of transcontinental service west from Edmonton to Vancouver and east from Edmonton to Winnipeg? Has the minister read this statement and can he give a commitment to the House that before any such cancellations are imposed on the people of Edmonton public hearings will be held in that city?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is no.


Douglas Roche: The attitude of the minister is rather cavalier considering the gravity of the situation which will have a tremendous economic impact on a trading area in which there are more than one million citizens in the fastest growing area in Canada.


TELEGRAM SENT BY EDMONTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, has the minister received and read a telegram circulated by Mr. Eric Geddes, the president of the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce, in which he says, in part, that this forthcoming planned cancellation "would greatly increase the feeling of
Oral Questions
alienation in western Canada."? Will the minister comment on the repercussions which are likely to occur from the point of view of national unity and transcontinental service if such cuts are imposed unilaterally by the government?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member made sure that I would receive a copy of the telegram. If I recall correctly he sent me a copy of it on Friday, which was when I read it. I have had a number of anticipatory protests from the Edmonton area to the same effect. I can only say that if what the hon. member and others fear is done, of course I will have to justify that action extensively.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, last week the Minister of the Environment met with the chief of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Will the minister inform the House about the discussions he had and about what may be ahead of us in the near future?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, the discussions I had with the head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Miss Gorsuch,* a week ago were successful in terms of their limited objective, which was to explain as forcefully as possible to the American administration our concern about possible proposed amendments to the American clean air act, and our concern that the negotiations with the United States for a trans-boundary air quality agreement be proceeded with as vigorously as possible. Within that context I can assure the hon. member that our discussions, which I think were vigorous, left no doubt in the minds of the officials of the American administration what the position of Canada was.
I must say to the hon. gentleman that we expect negotiations to proceed. I want to be neither optimistic nor pessimistic about the outcome of those negotiations. I think that the discussions will be difficult ones; but I believe that in the end the reasonableness of our position will lead to the conclusion of some satisfactory arrangement with the United States.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who may know that on July 27, two weeks from now, the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission will be holding a pre-hearing meeting to discuss the rules of the game in the

July 13, 1981
Oral Questions
investigation of the $ 12-billion oil company rip-offs alleged by the Bertrand report. Can the minister confirm to the House that a secret meeting was held on July 7 behind the backs of the majority of the intervenors, who total 40 in number, at which only the oil companies were asked for their input?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, it was not a secret meeting, but rather a first meeting between the lawyers of the Unfair Trade Practices Commission, the lawyers of the government in this case, and the lawyers of the accused, namely, the oil companies. This was a working meeting in preparation for the hearings to be held in the near future. The first public meeting to which will be invited the lawyers of third parties, that is the various associations wishing to express their views, will be held at the end of this month. This first meeting was therefore not exclusive, but simply a first meeting between the lawyers of the main parties involved in this case, and there will be other meetings to which third parties may be called and heard.


MINISTER'S POSITION ON PROCEDURE FOLLOWED
Ian Gardiner Waddell: I have before me the memo from the counsel, Mr. McDonald counsel for the commission, listing that meeting with Gulf, Imperial, Shell, Texaco, BP, Chevron, Irving, Petrofina and Suncor. The minister says that that was an encounter. It seems to me that it was a strange encounter.
Do I take it, then, that the minister approves of this procedure whereby commission counsel meets? This was not a public meeting. The other interveners could not come. There were only the oil companies. It was a meeting behind closed doors with the very companies which are being investigated. Does the minister approve that kind of procedure? Does he think that that will lead to what would appear to be a fair hearing?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, 1 am surprised at the reaction of the hon. member. It is quite normal in court proceedings for the lawyers of both parties involved, that is the Crown and the defence counsel, to meet in camera before the judge. This occurs frequently and there is nothing incompatible or wrong in this as long as both parties appear together before the judge.
In fact I can assure the hon. member that no final decision concerning the procedure to be followed during the public hearings will be made before the meeting at the end of this month where not only the Crown and the defence counsel but also third parties wishing to express their views will have the opportunity to do so.


DELAY IN SIGNING CONTRACT FOR WORKS AT PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: I would like to address my question to the Minister of Transport, through Your Honour. I provided advance notice to him last week. Can the minister tell us whether the proposed delay will be two months in the awarding of the contracts for access, site preparation, etc., for Prince Rupert? Will the delay to the contract which was closed on July 7 be two months, or will work start sooner, before the rains and the wet season hit the port of Prince Rupert?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Hon. members will remember that some months ago there was a discussion between the grain consortium and the National Harbours Board having to do with the ground at Prince Rupert, the famous "caisson" business. At that time the National Harbours Board decided to allow for a certain change in the site to be used for the grain terminal. That caused a two-month delay, which explains why we are now two months behind. The National Harbours Board has 60 days to make a decision on the site preparation contract, and that should be by September. But it is hoped that less time will be needed. Be that as it may, the time for delivery of the site to the consortium, is May, 1982, and that will be done.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I certainly cannot understand the delay of 60 days in the awarding of a contract, but I would like to ask the minister a supplementary question at this time. Would he be prepared either to confirm or deny, or to announce to the House, that the price for spring wheat and durum wheat will be much lower, approximately $4.75 a bushel, in the coming crop year? As Your Honour recalls, and I am sure that the minister does, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board had said that he would make an announcement in July, which is certainly about three months late. I think we would like to have an announcement now, Mr. Minister.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am not in
a position to do that, Madam Speaker, but the minister of state for the Canadian Wheat Board still has a number of days to go, and still live within the promise he made, which is to make the announcement before the opening of the new crop year.
July 13, 1981


APPOINTMENT OF GRAIN TRANSPORTATION CO-ORDINATOR-DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I also have a question directed to the Minister of Transport which is of considerable importance to western Canadians. The minister will recall that the position of grain transportation co-ordinator has now been vacant for almost a year since the resignation of Dr. Hugh Horner. Mr. Doug Radke has filled that position on an interim basis. People in western Canada are wondering when an announcement will be made with respect to a permanent replacement in that position. I wonder if the minister will indicate when he will be in a position to announce the appointment of a new grain transportation co-ordinator.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, those who wonder will not have to wonder very long.


REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE ANNOUNCEMENT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the minister's idea of a short period of time is since October last. Short periods of time in the west are not completely uncertain. I would like to ask the minister whether he is aware of the fact that if we get a few more rains in western Canada we face the prospect of a very major grain crop in western Canada this year, which would apply an extreme pressure in respect to the transportation of grain, which is very important factor for all of Canada. I want to ask the minister if he will not give consideration to making this announcement immediately, and allow us to make plans with respect to transportation of grain on an export basis.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I can only say that I will hurry.


TEXTILES AND CLOTHING
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question, directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, relates to a statement made last month regarding the five-year program for the Canadian textile and clothing industries. The minister will know that the government-appointed textile and clothing board, having completed the most extensive examination of those industries ever undertaken, urged the continuance of the current import levels through 1990 as its principal recommendation. Despite this, as I read the minister's statement, it expressly anticipates significantly higher imports of foreign textiles and clothing. I therefore ask the minister can he indicate to the House his estimate of the percentage increase of these imports by the end of the five-year program period?
Oral Questions


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, this is something under negotiation with the 16 exporting countries with which we have agreements; but I did say that we expected that the basis for these agreements would be the 1979 levels, which, I think, provides an approach which respects both the needs of Canadian producers and Canadian consumers.


PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT IN INDUSTRY
William Herbert Jarvis: Again, if I read the statement correctly, the minister's main thrust seems to be to provide for communities and workers who will no longer be engaged in the textile and clothing industries by the end of the five-year period, because the statement includes replacement of plants, job search, monitoring, early retirement benefits, and so on. This seems to anticipate a rather massive reduction in the number of textile and clothing workers. If I am incorrect, I wish the minister would correct me. However, of the current
189,000	jobs now in those textile and clothing industries, what percentage or number does the minister and his department anticipate will exist at the end of the five-year period?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend has neglected to mention that another major element of the adjustment program I announced along with my colleague, the Minister of Regional and Economic Expansion some weeks ago, was a program to assist in the modernization of the textile and clothing industry, and the firms in it, no matter where they are located. We believe that there is a tremendous potential for modernization so that we can be more competitive in both domestic and world terms. Therefore we do not anticipate a massive reduction in employment-


William Herbert Jarvis: How many?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -although the figures have indicated that in past years there has been some reduction in unemployment in that period. However, I would not want to estimate the figure at this time, because it depends a lot on how vigorously the industry responds to the opportunities we are providing through our $250 million fund for modernization, in becoming more competitive. A lot will depend on the vigour of that response, as I have said. Spokesmen for the industry have already indicated that they want to respond in a very active way by putting in new investment in the billions of dollars, far in excess of what we will be making available for modernization. I think that is a very healthy indication of what could be happening in future years.

July 13, 1981
Oral Questions ENERGY


FUTURE OF ALSANDS PROJECT AT FORT McMURRAY, ALTA.
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I will wait until he gets back, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Lalonde:: Go ahead.


Jack Wendele Shields: 1 am sure that the minister has probably been able to inform himself and has come to the conclusion that the postponement of the Imperial project in Cold Lake will mean a two-year delay. What efforts and initiatives is the minister taking, or does he plan to take, to ensure that the Alsands consortium does not cancel their project in Fort McMurray, which is another $12 billion project for this country?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, Mr. Leitch, the minister of energy for Alberta, and myself are due to meet in a few weeks. I hope that we will continue to make progress.
As the hon. member knows, the government of Alberta had taken a position that it did not want to discuss a separate deal for tar sands plants independently from a settlement on all the other issues. We will try to work along that line so as to arrive at a global settlement as soon as possible.
I have tried twice to see whether it was possible to arrive at an arrangement, to have an agreement on pricing, etc., which would deal with the tar sands plants but this is something the government of Alberta has refused. Therefore, we will try to work along the lines of getting a comprehensive settlement.


POSSIBLE COMMERCIAL ARRANGEMENT WITH OIL COMPANIES
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, there have been 16 months of failures, 16 months for this government to sit down and reach an agreement with the government of Alberta. Over and above that, I am sure the minister would agree that a commercial arrangement with the companies allowing them to see a profitable investment climate for themselves is the kind of thing that is required. Therefore, is the minister addressing himself to a commercial arrangement with the companies? Syncrude has cancelled its expansion. Cold Lake has postponed its construction, and Alsands has indicated it may follow suit. Is a commercial arrangement being negotiated? Without such an arrangement every major project in northeastern Alberta is being affected.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member refers to 16 months of failure. But he should also add all the other months when his party was in office when it could not reach an agreement either.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Wrong again.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is a falsehood.


Marc Lalonde: So, the period is even longer, and that we regret. I am sure that government when it was in office did its best to get an agreement, but it did not get one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: We had an agreement.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why don't you produce it?


Marc Lalonde: So we tried.
As far as the question of arriving at a satisfactory commercial arrangement is concerned, this is what we are negotiating with the government of Alberta at the present time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs my question is for the Prime Minister. Perhaps I could have the attention of the Prime Minister?


An hon. Member:: It is the guy over there with the flower.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark Willson Rose: My question is for the Prime Minister, who is well known for his interest in North-South problems. It concerns the tragedy of El Salvador. Is the Canadian government aware of the news yesterday from El Salvador in which the country's leading churchman, Archbishop Arturo Revere y Damas, attacked the army for "crimes against the church", including the murder of 27 additional civilians and the beating of nuns? Under the circumstances, how does the Canadian government justify its continued support for the current regime?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I think the statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on this subject have been quite clear. He has mentioned before in so far as the problem with El Salvador is concerned that the people themselves should settle their own problems in a political way, and that we do not want to be involved in such matters as those which the hon. member has just mentioned. We are aware of what is going on. I presume the question could be discussed further with the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


SHIPMENTS OF UNITED STATES ARMS
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, if the "can't fly minister of the F-18A fame" is going to be the prime minister, I suggest he wear a rose in his lapel.
July 13, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Or wear a pansy.


Mark Willson Rose: In the meantime while this tragedy of El Salvador is passed off, news reports indicate that the current U.S. ambassador is prepared to recommend further U.S. arms shipments to the government junta, while the ambassador's immediate predecessor, Ambassador White, just this weekend labelled such shipments as contributing to a slow motion coup by right wing officers.
Will Canada now stop backing this U.S. military policy in this sad little central American country, and instead urge in the strongest possible terms that the U.S. stop its proposed arms shipments and support a negotiated settlement?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I think it has always been the policy of this government to prefer a negotiated settlement whenever that is possible. I am surprised that the hon. member is so concerned about what is going on in El Salvador when his party just asked us to withdraw from NATO and NORAD, thereby leaving us defenceless against other people acting in the same way as those in El Salvador.


COMMUNICATIONS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, on Friday the Minister of Communications gave me a copy of a consultant's study on Telidon prepared for his department in December, 1980. I thank the minister for his courtesy. Does he disagree with the consultant's findings that if Telidon's customers are charged the projected $25 a month for service it would require a family income of almost $70,000? Also, if that were the case, there would be only
13,000	customers in Canada for Telidon by 1985?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I am told that other reports have been made on the same subject. For instance, the Hickling and Johnson report published in February, 1979, predicts that the Canadian home market will be 1.8 million sets by 1991. The predictions also made by Mr. Hough indicate a rather substantial market.
However, I point out that Mr. Hough's report was done before some of the major breakthroughs, particularly the adoption of teletext standards by AT & T in the United States. The general feeling of the department is that because of these developments some of the conclusions in Mr. Hough's report do require modification.
Oral Questions FIELD TESTING OF SYSTEM


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, Mr. Hough also complains that in studies which have been done on Telidon to date, field trials have not been done by charging customers for the service being provided and consequently are invalid. What field tests are anticipated by the minister for which customers will be charged the fair market value of Telidon?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, talking about field trials, and there are a number ongoing. There is a new Bell Vista field trial which will be ongoing in Toronto and Quebec City. I hope to be able to announce a new teletext field trial probably next week. We are obviously still in the field trial stage. We hope that the field trials will demonstrate that there is a market in homes for this type of technology. I should caution the hon. member and indicate that as far as videotex and teletext is concerned they are at the same stage as computers were a number of years ago. The initial paying market will be found first in businesses and institutions. It will be at a later date only when we expect to have a marketable videotex product for home consumption.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It has been customary to hold hearings before rail lines for freight or passenger service are discontinued. While the minister is not obligated by law to hold those hearings, it seems to me that because of the abandonment of the line from Halifax through Saint John, Sherbrooke and Montreal there should be a search for public opinion with respect to such abandonment. Would the minister explain why his department has made a survey but refuses to release the findings to the public and is not asking for comments on such a drastic action nor holding any hearings?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, should cabinet decide to do what my hon. friend is afraid it might, I will explain fully why it has done so.


IMPACT ON SOUTHWESTERN NEW BRUNSWICK
Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, is the minister saying to the people of the Maritimes and all the way west to Montreal that cabinet is going to decide without seeking any public input whatever with respect to abandonment of such a line? That leaves southwestern New Brunswick with virtually no access whatever to the passenger service to which we have been entitled since the initiation of rail passenger service over 100 years ago? Is that the way we are going to

July 13, 1981
Oral Questions
be dropped, just like a hot potato, with a shameless and no-guilt face?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am sure you will understand very well the position I am in. If I make any comment on that, it will be read differently by different people. I can only remind my hon. friend that there was a big "if' at the beginning of my previous answer.


POST OFFICE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to one I asked earlier of the Prime Minister and the Postmaster General who will now have had the opportunity to check with their officials. I am advised that the letter in question was written by Mr. Rolf Bischoff, marketing director for the Montreal postal district.
I would like the Postmaster General to stay in the House to listen to the question. Perhaps he wishes that the House of Commons had risen rather than stay here to answer questions. 1 cannot recall an occasion in this House of Commons when a minister has walked out in the middle of a question being put.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition rises at three o'clock, at which time he realizes I should cut off question period. However, I have allowed him to ask the question. I hope he will not rise so late in the future because I will not be able to recognize him, but I did allow that. I hope he will ask his question and be as brief as possible.


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 will ask my question if the minister to whom I directed it will come back to the House of Commons. Here he comes. The minister smiles at his contempt for the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: My information is that the letter in question was signed by Mr. Rolf Bischoff the marketing director for the Montreal postal district, that it was a letter dated June 29. The existence of that letter was confirmed to Montreal Canadian Press reporter Larry Black, both by Mr. Bischoff in Montreal and by Francis Harding in the Ottawa office of the Post Office. Will the minister responsible for the Post Office now extend to the House of Commons the courtesy that has been extended to Canadian Press and confirm to the House that such a letter was written, such an offer was made to look after the powerful clients of the Post Office and, most important, that this was done prior to the strike on June 29?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, immediately after that question was raised in the House, I contacted the officials of my department to obtain additional information. When the Leader of the Opposition rose to put his question for the second time, a page told me that I was wanted on the telephone by someone who would be giving me the answer to the question. So I left the House to take that call. I now have the information which I can make public and thus answer the question of the Leader of the Opposition. Madam Speaker, 1 must say that the Leader of the Opposition has misinterpreted that letter, that he was completely wrong to interpret it as he did, and that as early as tomorrow I will be in a position to shed more light on the question if we are given an opportunity to do so.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TABLE LETTER
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Postmaster General has referred specifically to that letter. He will know that even if the rules do not permit a minister to walk out in the middle of a question being posed him, they do require him to table correspondence and documents to which he has referred specifically. 1 ask the Postmaster General to follow the rules of the House and to table that letter to which he has made reference.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is obviously flouting the Standing Orders of the House. I have not seen any letter. I have no document in my hand. I said 1 would check. I sought information from my officials and they told me that, once again, the Leader of the Opposition is mistaken. I will look further into this matter and answer any question he may want to ask me tomorrow. For the time being 1 fully reprove the altogether unspeakable conduct of the Leader of the Opposition.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: On a
point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to draw your attention to two standing orders of the House which, unless I am mistaken, are still in force and perhaps too clear. I quote Standing Order 15(2):
Not later than 2:15 p.m., or 11:15 a.m., as the case may be, oral questions shall be taken up. At 3:00 p.m., or 12:00 noon,-
July 13, 1981

-it says 3 p.m., not 3:05 p.m.-
-as the case may be, the House shall proceed to the ordinary daily routine of business, which shall be as follows:
-and it goes on.
Secondly, Madam Speaker, Standing Order 39(5) is much more specific and coercitive. I quote the last few lines of Standing Order 39(5):
... provided also that the time allowed for a question period prior to the calling of the Orders of the Day shall not exceed forty minutes.
So in both cases, Madam Speaker, the Standing Orders are very clear, namely, that the oral question period may not go beyond 3 p.m. and may not exceed forty minutes. That is the first point of my argument.
The second is that the way the business of the House is directed and organized is based on and guided by the standing orders, by doctrine or by practice. It is the first time, at least in the seven years I have been sitting as a member, which is not all that long, that the same member was recognized more than once during the oral question period, I say to my knowledge, it is the first time that a member who has asked his main question and his supplementary questions is given the floor a second time a few minutes later after other members.
Madam Speaker, in my opinion, the current and very well known custom forbids us to allow this type of practice, and I respectfully submit that in keeping with the established practice, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) should not have been legally recognized when he asked his last series of questions. So, Madam Speaker, for all those reasons and considering that the Leader of the Opposition asked his questions after 3 p.m., that is after the expiry of the oral question period, pursuant to the two Standing Orders I quoted and to the established practice whereby a member may not be given the floor more than once during the oral question period, for all those reasons, Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House strongly object and we ask that the Standing Orders be respected in future and that the Leader of the Official Opposition not be given a preferential treatment which he does not deserve.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) is quite right. Our Standing Orders state quite clearly at what time the question period is supposed to end. However, he probably quoted it from memory because the oral question period is supposed to last 45 minutes and not 40 minutes as he indicated. Nevertheless, Standing Orders stipulate that at 3 p.m. the Chair must interrupt the oral question period. However, the President of the Privy Council has been sitting in the House long enough to know that from time to time, at his discretion, and for various reasons, for example the fact that some questions or answers are lengthy or because there is a great deal of commotion in the House, the Speaker chooses not to see the time and to go over the 3 p.m. or 12 noon limit, as is the case on Fridays. The rule is clear but the
Order Paper Questions
custom varies somewhat, yet I agree with the hon. President of the Privy Council that, whenever possible, we must try to end the question period at 3 p.m. and 1 try to do that as much as 1 can.
As for the fact that a member cannot rise a second time, it so happened, last week I believe, that the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) had the floor twice during question period, because he asked to be recognized and other members of his party who would have wanted to speak at the time remained seated to give him an opportunity to do so. So that can happen. Standing Orders do not prohibit a member from rising twice during question period. But I do take the remarks made by the hon. President of the Privy Council in consideration; he knows that I always try to apply the rules, but I think that this time I sided more with parliamentary custom.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the tabling of documents. A document was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). In direct response, the minister indicated that the Leader of the Opposition was misinterpreting the document, thereby referring to it. Will the minister take a look at that document and perhaps see to its tabling tomorrow?


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,852, 2,527, 2,565 and 2,641.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Is the chairman of the Canadian Film Development Corporation included in the corporation's conflict of interest guidelines?
2.	Does the chairman maintain an interest in a private law practice and, if so (a) with which firms and in what capacity (b) does the firm conduct any business on behalf of clients in the film industry?


Francis Fox: In so far as the Department of Communi-

July 13, 1981
Order Paper Questions
cations is concerned, the answer to the above question is as follows: 1. According to information received, the chairman of the board of the Canadian Film Development Corporation is not subject to the corporation's conflict of interest guidelines. However, the chairman, as a member of the corporation, is subject to the provisions of Section 5 of the Canadian Film Development Corporation Act.
2. As of the date this question was asked, yes.
(a)	As of the date this question was asked, Mr. Michel Vennat was a partner in the Montreal legal firm of Stikeman, Elliot, Tanaki, Mercier and Robb. While chairman of the board of the Canadian Film Development Corporation, he did not take part in decisions relating to clients of the firm who were in the film industry.
(b)	Yes; see 2(a) above.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does the government intend to take action with regard to the fact that the 1980 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Official Languages states there are 36 bilingual positions in the Post Office Department among Nova Scotia's 1,955 postal employees and, if so, what are the details?
2.	For what reason would it be necessary to have bilingual employees in Nova Scotia?
3.	What is the estimated percentage of persons living in Nova Scotia who speak the (a) English (b) French language only?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by Canada Post and Statistics Canada as follows: 1. In Nova Scotia, the 36 bilingual positions already in existence are deemed to be sufficient to meet present identified demand. However, Canada Post will continue to review and monitor the situation with respect to bilingual positions throughout the province.
2. As a federal institution, Canada Post recognizes an obligation to provide service in both French and English to Canadians in areas where a demand is established.
The most recent information on official languages capabilities was collected in the 1971 Census, which asked whether English or French were spoken well enough to conduct a conversation. For Nova Scotia, the official languages capabilities of the population in 1971 were:
English only:
French only:
Both English and French: Neither English nor French:
92.6 per cent 0.5 per cent 6.7 per cent 0.2 per cent
Similar information is being collected in the 1981 Census.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is Mr. Peter Studer a chauffeur with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and, if so, on the evening of Wednesday, May 26, 1981 was he driving Mr. Ed Clark, senior assistant deputy minister of energy?
2.	Did Mr. Studer telephone the Citizen with comments on the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville and, if so (a) did he do it on his own volition (b) was he ordered to do so by a superior in the government and, if so, what was the name of the superior?
3.	Did Mr. Studer advise the Citizen that the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville was incorrect in stating that the Prime Minister was "giggling and guffawing" outside the members' entrance of the House of Commons with the Minister of Finance and that it should have been the Minister of Justice and, if so, are Mr. Studer and his government associates aware that the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville is quoted in Hansard as saying "it was at this point that I noticed that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) was standing on the sidewalk adjacent to the members' entrance along with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien)"?
4.	Did Mr. Studer further advise the Citizen that the green bus for MPs was not moving because "there weren't any passengers to take anywhere" and, if so, are Mr. Studer and his government associates aware that there were two buses at the time the incident occurred and that one of the buses was approaching the Centre Block with passengers when stopped by the RCMP?
5.	Is it government policy to use chauffeurs and senior assistant deputy ministers to attempt to destroy the credibility of opposition members of Parliament?


Marc Lalonde: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. Yes, Mr. Studer is an EM&R chauffeur and he was driving Mr. E. Clark on the evening of Tuesday, May 26, 1981.
2 to 5. Mr. Studer on his own initiative was exercising his rights as a Canadian citizen.
3. The latest information on languages is from the 1976 Census, but that information relates only to mother tongue, as opposed to language currently spoken. According to the 1976 Census the distribution of the population in Nova Scotia by mother tongue was as follows:
Mother tongue English:	92.7 per cent
Mother tongue French:	4.4 per cent
Mother tongue neither English nor
French:	2.9 per cent


Mr. Howie: 1.	What number of applications were received and recorded by the Bureau of Pension Advocates but are not yet registered with the Canadian Pension Commission?
2.	Does the bureau consider it has sufficient staff to carry out the duties?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: 1. None. To protect the date of application, all claims
July 13, 1981

are registered with the Canadian Pension Commission immediately.
2. Yes.


David Michael Collenette: Before I sit down, Madam Speaker, 1 should point out to the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) that I am unable to give the answer to question 2,955, 1 believe it is; it is the other outstanding question on the Order Paper. I hope to be in a position to give that answer tomorrow.
1 would ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker;: Are the remaining questions allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the 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.
Madam Speaker:: As hon. members are aware, there are 57 motions standing on the Order Paper at the report stage of 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.
With the short time available to the Chair, and it was very short, I have had a preliminary look at a number of the motions. Motions Nos. 1 and 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) and the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), seek to import a preamble into a bill which was introduced in the House without a preamble. In this respect I refer hon. members to Beauchesne's fifth edition, Citation 779(3) and I quote:
(3) Where the bill, as introduced, does not contain a preamble, it is not competent for the committee to introduce one.
This citation can also be found in May's nineteenth edition at page 531. Admittedly, this refers to proceedings in committee; however, the same rules apply at the report stage, and to this effect I refer hon. members once again to Beauchesne's fifth edition, Citation 792. This is also confirmed by a ruling
Canada Oil and Gas Act
by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on June 11, 1973, at pages 394 and 395 of the Journals.
For all these reasons, regrettably, motions Nos. 1 and 2 appear to be out of order, but I would be prepared to hear argument later.
Motions Nos. 43 and 50, standing in the name of the minister, seek to insert new headings into the bill. Citation 710 of Beauchesne's fifth edition states as follows;
710 (1) The marginal notes, short titles of clauses and the headings of parts of a bill do not form part of the bill and, therefore, are not open to amendment. Journals, May 17, 1956, p. 568.
(2) The Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel is responsible for marginal notes and headings. S.O. 84.
For these reasons, the Chair will not propose the motions to the House.
Motions Nos. 3, 5, 14, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 will be debated separately and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 4, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56 and 57 should be grouped for debate and will be voted on as follows: (a) The question on motion No. 51 will be put to the House and a vote on this motion will dispose of motion No. 4; and (b) the question on motions Nos. 52, 53, 55, 56 and 57 will be put to the House separately.
Motion No. 54 standing in the name of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) seeks to establish a compensation fund to be administered by a board which would entail the outlaying of public funds. Once again I refer hon. members to Beauchesne's fifth edition where Section (7) of Citation 773 is on this point, and I quote in part:
(7) An amendment is out of order if it imposes a charge upon the Public T reasury-
For this reason the motion appears to be unacceptable, but again I would be prepared to hear argument at the appropriate time.
Motions Nos. 6 and 20 will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: (a) the question on motion No. 7 will be put to the House by itself; (b) motions Nos. 8, 9 10 seem to offer alternatives and will be put to the House as follows: (i) the question will be put on motion No. 8. An affirmative vote on this motion makes it unnecessary for the House to decide on motions Nos. 9 and 10. However, a negative vote on the motion necessitates the question being put on motion No. 9; (ii) an affirmative vote on motion No. 9 obviates the question having to be put on motions Nos. 10, 11 and 12. A negative vote on motion No. 9 necessitates the question being put on motion No. 10 and the vote on motion No. 10 also disposes of motions Nos. 11, 12 and 16. (c) Separate questions will be put on motions Nos. 13 and 15.
Motions Nos. 19 and 24 standing in the name of the hon. member for Nunatsiaq seem to go beyond the scope of the bill and therefore do not appear to be in order. The hon. member may wish to present argument on this point later. For the

July 13, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
benefit of the hon. member I refer him to Beauchesne's fifth edition, Section (1) of Citation 773.
Motions Nos. 21 and 22 should be grouped for debate, with a vote on motion No. 21 disposing of motion No. 22.
The Chair will now proceed to propose to the House motion No. 3 standing in the name of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if both you and the House would be willing to defer until later the question of the procedural propriety of motions Nos. 1 and 2. Quite frankly, speaking for myself, I had not anticipated any question there. I have not done any reading on the subject lately. Your view may prevail, but could we not leave Nos. 1 and 2 till later, perhaps to the end of the debate, and start now with No. 3?


Madam Speaker:: That is exactly what is to be done in practice. 1 am proposing to go now to motion No. 3. I know that preambles have sometimes been accepted, but I believe that is only with the unanimous consent of the House. However, the decision is deferred and we will proceed to move to motion No. 3.


James Aloysius McGrath: Motion No. 3
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,".
He said: Madam Speaker, this is a very important bill. Indeed, it is probably one of the most important measures to be brought before this Parliament and, of course, evidence of that fact is the amount of time devoted to the bill in committee and the number of amendments the House is now faced with at report stage.
In terms of the amendment I have placed on the Order Paper and is now before the House, it might do well for the House to recall that at the last first ministers' meeting in September we were told that certain questions were to be the basis of round two of the first ministers' negotiations with respect to the Constitution. I realize, of course, that that statement may have been overtaken by events, namely, the unilateral action of the federal government in dealing with the Constitution in the manner in which it has and which is now a question before the Supreme Court of Canada. The fact remains that not only was this undertaking made at the time of the first ministers' meeting in September, it was repeated during the course of the hearings of the joint committee on the Constitution. Whenever we attempted to raise this question we were told there was in fact a phase two of the negotiations.
We know, for example, that regardless of what happens to the constitutional package which is now before the Supreme Court of Canada, the Government of Canada will have to go
back to the provinces. We know that to be a fact, and I would be very surprised if during the course of these federal-provincial first ministers' negotiations and discussions the question of offshore jurisdiction and fisheries jurisdiction did not constitute one of the priority items on the agenda. I believe that to be a fact, and I believe that is an important fact. It is important to the argument I wish to place before the House.
If we read "The National Energy Program", the white paper of 1980 which preceded the bill which is now before the House, Bill C-48, we find the definition of Canada lands, and I quote from page 42:
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-
Then it goes on to say:
There is some debate as to whether offshore resources in these Canada Lands fall under federal jurisdiction. Notwithstanding a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1967 that lands off the west coast are within federal jurisdiction, both Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have laid claim to jurisdiction of areas off the east coast.
I will continue to quote because this is very germane to the argument.
The Government of Canada believes that the offshore resources belong to all Canadians. It is anxious to refer the matter of ownership quickly to the Supreme Court. 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.
Notwithstanding the stated position of the federal government within this policy paper, 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.
What I am saying is that this bill can only be construed by those coastal provinces as an act of provocation, hardly conducive to successful negotiations. I believe very strongly that negotiations are absolutely essential. Having the Supreme Court of Canada resolve disputes is not the Canadian way. That is not the way this country has survived for 114 years. That may be the way of our neighbour to the south, but that is not the way I want to see Canada go, and that is not the way Canada has been growing in the past. I believe very strongly that this question has to be resolved by negotiation.
I say that notwithstanding the firm belief I hold that Newfoundland has an ironclad case. I also believe in the strength and the validity of the Nova Scotia case. The argument is totally different from that which prevailed in ithe situation in British Columbia. In the Newfoundland case we can argue that we had jurisdiction prior to 1949. Indeed, we can establish that we had jurisdiction prior to 1949. The government of Nova Scotia has made the case that it was
July 13, 1981

given jurisdiction by letters patent from the Crown prior to confederation. These are not cases to be brushed aside.
1 have no desire to presuppose how the government of Newfoundland will act with respect to this bill, or the government of Nova Scotia, but I certainly hold to the view that it would be a great mistake to have this matter end up before the Supreme Court of Canada. I do not think that would serve the best interests of this federation of ours. 1 do not believe it would serve the best interests of the two provinces which are disputing this claim with the Government of Canada.
I certainly would not want to see the Newfoundland case brought before the Supreme Court of Canada because 1 believe there is another way, a Canadian way, whereby the Government of Canada, if it is serious about this, would sit down with the government of the province of Newfoundland and/or the government of the province of Nova Scotia and work out a settlement. I believe that is essential. Hence 1 have placed this amendment at the report stage before the House, because nobody will dispute the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada within the territories of Canada. Nobody will dispute these areas being defined as Canada lands. They are obvious, they are self-evident. But the question of the offshore is another question entirely, one which I believe should be the subject of negotiations.
Let me quote again from the policy paper of the government:
However, in its management of these resources, the Government of Canada is determined to take into account the needs of the region. It will use its regulatory powers to accelerate exploration in this area. Development must reflect the social and economic concerns and legitimate aspirations of the residents of coastal provinces.
What level of government is best able to reflect the social and economic concerns and legitimate aspirations of the residents of a coastal province? What level of government is best able to protect these special concerns? Obviously it is the provincial government. That is its principal responsibility. Representing a Newfoundland constituency as a Newfoundland member of Parliament, that is one of the problems I have with the position of the federal government. As a province we have been misrepresented as some kind of an ambitious young province which is on a power trip, trying to grab everything for ourselves and not wanting to share. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Premier of the province of Newfoundland, speaking on behalf of the government of Newfoundland-and 1 believe speaking on behalf of the legislature of Newfoundland-has made the point time and time again that the question of ownership is important to us because ownership will determine who controls the rate of development and the rate of exploitation.
The rate of development and the rate of exploitation are crucial, given socio-economic consequences. It is essential that the government of Newfoundland control the rate of development and the rate of exploitation because only the government of Newfoundland-I might say also the government of Nova Scotia; the argument applies in both cases-can truly reflect the social concerns of the people and can truly reflect cultural considerations.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
There are cultural considerations. The fishery of Newfoundland, for example, is tied up in the social and cultural fabric of the province. We cannot divorce one from the other. It is an economic question; it is a social and cultural question at the same time. Yet the rate of development, if this bill becomes law and if the federal government has its way, will be controlled by the federal government because the federal government by this bill is exerting ownership. It is not even waiting for the Supreme Court of Canada to rule, in accordance with the position the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has taken in the House and in accordance with the position the Prime Minister took at the last first ministers' conference. It is not even waiting for that. It is going ahead and has taken in all the area of the continental shelf, defining it as Canada lands and thereby taking unto itself the right to control the rate of development, with all of the socio-economic consequences that would flow from it.
I do not understand, Mr. Speaker, why the government would do this. 1 believe it is possible to resolve this dispute. Notwithstanding the hard lines taken by the governments of Newfoundland and Canada, I believe it is possible within the spirit of confederation to reach agreement on this question. Provided that the Government of Canada is prepared to recognize the right of the coastal province to control the rate of development and to reflect the social aspirations of its people, provided that it is prepared to concede that right, I believe it is possible to reach a fair and equitable agreement.
What is the position of the Government of Canada? Perhaps we will hear a little more about that during the course of this debate, but as I understand it, the Government of Canada holds to the view that is has ownership, and it approaches it from that point of view. Conversely, the Newfoundland government takes the same position.
In terms of the jurisdiction over and revenue from offshore oil, the Government of Canada's position is that it will treat Newfoundland the same as Alberta. Newfoundland would achieve, as I understand it, the same return from the offshore during a certain period as Alberta is presently enjoying, until the people of Newfoundland reach "have" status. In terms of equalization this means, as I understand it, until the per capita income of Newfoundland reaches the national average. At that time there is some kind of negotiated sharing agreement.
I do not believe that position is as rigid, in terms of closing the door, as it would appear on the surface. I believe it is possible within that framework to negotiate a settlement, bearing in mind, I repeat, the right of Newfoundland to control the rate of development. The people and government of Newfoundland want this matter resolved. It is important that it be resolved because, let us not kid ourselves, until it is resolved the rate of development of those important offshore resources is going to be deliberately retarded. In fact, in my view it is being retarded. Given the energy crisis in Canada, given the economic situation prevailing in Atlantic Canada, and specifically given the economic conditions prevailing in

July 13, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Newfoundland, I think it is nothing short of criminal that we are not allowed to enjoy the returns from these resources and share them with the rest of Canada by providing energy for an energy hungry nation which could be, given the right policies, self-sufficient and one day will be.
In a letter to a member of the Newfoundland legislature which appeared in the press on July 6, the Prime Minister, reasserting the position outlined in the policy paper, said this:
We have constantly held the view that the Government of Canada owns and has jurisdiction over all offshore resources and that if the provincial governments disagree, the matter should be referred to the Supreme Court.
Nothwithstanding our views on the ownership question however, we are eager to get on with the job of developing these resources in close co-operation with the coastal provinces. While in the government's view, these resources belong to all Canadians we recognize the special opportunities and problems which their exploitation will create for the provinces nearest to them.
I see a glimmer of hope in that paragraph of the letter. I see the door being opened a little bit. I hope 1 am not overstating the case because I believe you have to get back to that kind of flexibility, that kind of give and take which has characterized relationships between the provincial and federal governments, if we are to resolve this issue satisfactorily and quickly. It is that kind of give and take which will make it possible for us to reach agreement.
I do not think I am exaggerating if I read in that paragraph a sudden awareness of what the Newfoundland government has been trying consistently to say throughout, namely: We must contol the rate of development and exploitation; we must be in a position to protect the interests and aspirations of our people, the social, economic and cultural fabric of our province. In addition, there is the very delicate environmental question with respect to the fisheries resources because, let us face it, we are talking about a renewable resource. If managed properly, it will be there for all time. Of course, here we are talking about a finite resource, although we are told there is a very extensive amount of reserves.
I believe very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that the time is right for us to get on with an agreement. I say with respect to the hon. gentleman who sits over there and holds the responsibility for dealing with the provinces on matters of energy, he is not going to get anywhere by being abrasive. He is not going to get anywhere with the provinces by being insulting, condescending, by refusing to recognize the legitimate rights and aspirations of the provinces within the two layer governmental system that is our country. Failure to recognize the sensitivities of the provinces with respect to their own jurisdiction under the existing Constitution will get the minister nowhere, as has been demonstrated by his experience in dealing with the provinces.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, there are other equally important aspects of this bill which will have to be dealt with either at report stage or third reading. There are the environmental aspects of the bill. The question of a major blowout, for example, and the damage it could do to our fisheries resources, our groundfish stocks on the continental shelf. These are the most prolific fishing grounds in the world. We know what happened in the Gulf of Mexico when they were not prepared
for it, and I hope we have learned something from their experience. When I had the responsibility of administering Canada's fisheries I sent observers down there to experience first hand how they were dealing with the environmental impact of that massive blowout.
In the time I have remaining I would just like to reaffirm the position we put forward as a government, which has been deliberately misinterpreted time and again. I want to state our position with respect to the offshore which was contained in a letter dated September 14, 1979, from the Prime Minister to the Premier of Newfoundland. That letter outlined four principles as follows:
(1)	That the province of Newfoundland should own mineral resources of the continental margin in so far as Canada should own them.
This is important because the Premier of Newfoundland stated-and I agree with him-that every member of the Newfoundland House of Assembly agreed with him that ownership determines who will control the rate of development and the rate of exploitation. This is why it is crucially important. It is not ownership in terms of wanting to grab it all for yourself and not wanting to share it with Canada. It is ownership in terms of managing the resource. It is ownership in terms of saying to the oil companies: "This is the rate at which you will develop, this is in the rate at which you will exploit; the rate has been determined by the socioeconomic factors of the region". The letter continued:
(2)	That ownership and legislative jurisdiction would be consistent with and subject to the division of legislative competence as between Parliament and the provincial legislatures under the Constitution of Canada.
This is also important because it takes into account and recognizes the pre-eminence or paramountcy of the Government of Canada in protecting the environment and of the Fisheries Act, which certainly controls development in terms of its impact upon the environment. It is the law of the land. Nothing is changed by the dispute, nothing is changed by the Canada Lands Act. It will still hold true, just as it would have held true if the agreement we offered the provinces had been consummated. The letter continued:
(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.
This was the proposal we put forward. It was simple, straightforward, and designed to satisfy the legitimate concerns of Newfoundland with respect to what is a very delicate environment and its legitimate desire to protect that environment and the renewable resources it produces not only for ourselves but for the world.
Newfoundland is the poorest province in Canada. It enjoys only 53.6 per cent of the earned income of the average Canadian. Its unemployment rate continues to grow. None of us in Newfoundland can take any pride from the latest unemployment figures which show that the rate of unemployment in our province went up, whereas it went down slightly in the rest
July 13, 1981

of the country. Considering that unemployment insurance represents one twelfth of all personal income in Newfoundland, compared with one fortieth in the rest of Canada, it is not difficult to understand why this question is so important to us. We feel it is a matter of absolute urgency. I feel it is absolutely essential that they get back to the bargaining table.
This is not a panacea for our economic ills. It will be very expensive oil to produce and, hence, the rate of return will not be that great as from oil produced onshore. It will be some considerable time before the benefits start to flow to us. Granted, there will be spin-off effects. We know of the experience in Scotland and in Norway. We can learn from what happened in these countries and benefit from it. Indeed, studies have indicated that certain things should be in place, and they are being put in place.
All of these things notwithstanding, it is not difficult to understand why oil companies, which have spent millions and millions of dollars on exploration and drilling, are in no hurry to get on with it. It is because they feel-and I think this is a reasonable position-that the question of jurisdiction must be resolved soon. It should not be resolved by some long, drawn out litigation before the Supreme Court of Canada, but by serious negotiations between the Government of Canada and the government of Newfoundland. These negotiations would take place within the spirit of confederation, the spirit of sharing, in the spirit of Newfoundland not wanting it all for itself, but wanting a part of it, wanting to get on with it, wanting to share it with the rest of Canada. But Newfoundland must reserve as its bottom line-and this is nothing to negotiate-the right to control the rate of development because we know how crucial it is to the very delicate social and cultural character of the region in question. That is all we are requesting. It is not unreasonable.
Within the bounds of that limitation, within that general area, within the spirit of the July 6 letter of the Prime Minister to which I just referred, and within the spirit of the speech he made in St. John's earlier this year, I believe there is a degree of flexibility coming into this difficult bilateral question between Newfoundland and the Government of Canada which was not there before. I caution the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to recognize it for what it is, to seize upon it and to take advantage of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take part in this debate. This bill has been a long * time in committee. I want to make some comments about the committee hearings. There are some very important aspects of the bill, especially for people who live on the east coast, on the west coast or in the north of the country.
Recently I looked at a cartoon which appeared in the Alberta Report on May 29, 1981. It depicted the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) as a chef. He was lifting the lid on a cake dish. The words "Lalonde' NEP Amendments" appeared on the lid. Since he had lifted off the lid, one is able to see the amendments which were made in
Canada Oil and Gas Act
committee. The cartoon depicted a four-layer cake, each layer indicating an amendment. The first layer was entitled, "Back-in compensation". This means that the government changed its original position and made it a little easier on the companies in which Petro-Canada will take a carried interest. The second layer of the cake read, "Royalty holiday expansion". This means that the government gave the companies a little longer in their royalty holiday-a tax break. The third layer indicated, "Exploration Licences Extended"; and the fourth layer of the cake read, "Petroleum Tax becomes 'Royalty-Deductible' ".
In other words, the cartoon was trying to show that, as a result of the amendments to the bill brought in by the minister in committee, the people who benefited were by and large the oil companies. The minister did not bring in any amendments to benefit other affected groups. One group was mentioned, that is, the people who make their livings on the east and west coasts fishing or operating pleasure boats in terms of environmental concerns, and the northern governments and their role. The government brought in amendments which basically helped oil companies. In doing so, it is my position that basically the government was giving in to American and oil company pressure.
Recently we have heard a lot in the news about Americans pressuring the Canadian government and the minister saying that he would stand up to that pressure on oil policy, yet we see here the government giving in to American pressure. First, it makes it easier for the bigger companies by bringing in the amendments which are set out in the cartoon to which I referred and, second, it has backed off from Canadian control of the oil industry and is not requiring the stringent degree of Canadian control which was in the second reading draft of the bill.
I say that the government gave in to the Americans and that the companies are happy. As a matter of fact, it was indicated in the Financial Post that after the minister brought in his amendments to Bill C-48 oil stocks rose. The companies are happy, but who lost out? I say that all Canadians have lost out as the result of the amendments of the minister. We will not really have a Canadian-owned industry off the east coast, the west coast or in the north. We will pay more in incentives and grants. We will pay so much in incentives and grants-92 cents to 93 cents of every dollar-that with that money we could buy Dome Petroleum and some of the bigger companies to whom we are giving the money.
Third, the companies will not be Canadian controlled. They will be, American controlled shells. The bill speaks of Canadian ownership, not American ownership. Thus, when we talk about the east coast and the oil plays there, such as Hibernia, and the control of those plays, we will see large American companies such as Mobil still calling the shots. Supposedly this is a government which favours Canadianization.
Worse, there are no job guarantees for Canadians. The environment is lost. Under this legislation the minister can even authorize a spill. There is no role for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) to play in this bill. The bill deals

July 13, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
with the development of the east and west coasts by the federal government through the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. That is a department which wants to develop oil and gas. That is what it should be doing. It should not be the guardian of the environment. We need a balance. The Department of the Environment should be involved.
The previous speaker, of course, dealt with offshore resources. Again, a balance is needed in this area. The bill which is before us purports to take all the control of the offshore, the east and west coasts and the northern offshore, and give it to the federal government without really consulting the provinces, or even listening properly to the provinces or the northern government. We say that the ownership and management should be left to the provinces. I would like to deal with the east coast and the west coast to illustrate my point. The ownership, development and management should be left to the provinces. It is the same situation as that dealing with land. Perhaps I can explain the importance of this point to people who live in central Canada. I speak as someone who comes from a west coast constituency.


Mr. MacLaren:: The west part of Etobicoke?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The hon. member opposite comes from the west coast, too, but he lives in Etobicoke now. He once lived on the west coast. 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. Thus, the provincial government should control it. The reason they want to control it is that they want to have control of the pace of development since that will affect them directly. In simple terms that is why they want control of offshore resources.
I sometimes do not agree with the rather blustery language of the Premier of Newfoundland, or the cold and hard language of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) when he replies to that Premier. Canadians should look at the problem in the context of simply having the provinces control their offshore, since it is just an extension of the land. They want to control the pace of development. They are right in wanting that. Then if there is a big find of oil or gas, such as Hibernia, the provinces should insist that they have a role to share that with the rest of the country. As I understand it, that is co-operative federalism and the way it would work.
Then someone might ask what the role of the federal government is to be. Are we to leave it out? Is there no government for Canada? That is the argument the Prime Minister has used; but he is avoiding the issue. Of course there is a role for the federal government. It has a role with regard to the environment, fishing, international affairs and the free mobility of labour. In many ways there is concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government. Let us face facts; that is how the situation will be worked out, is it not? Instead, however, we have the federal government jumping the gun and bringing down a pretty strong clause which even takes Sable Island for the government.
We on the west coast are particularly interested in the pace of development, since during the course of the committee
hearings we learned from witnesses such as Chevron that in a few years it will be ready to drill on the west coast. There has been a moratorium on the west coast. I suggest that members look at the excellent brief presented by the West Coast Env-rionmental Law Association to the standing committee. This brief was given on April 2, 1981. I will not repeat what is in the brief, but I will say that the concern that we on the west coast have about our environment and about drilling is present in that brief. We would like to see a public inquiry held before there is any continuation of drilling.
I have said that the government did not listen to the provinces of the east and west coasts, and it did not listen to northerners. I am particularly concerned about the last group. I proposed that the committee travel up north and listen to the people there. They do not think they have received a fair shake in this bill. Why could we not go up north and listen to the people there, considering that they were not consulted, considering that their offshore will be developed and that the pace of development will speed up? They were not properly listened to before the bill was presented. The people of the north were unanimous. They asked that the committee come up and listen. This view was held by the governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, the Dene Nation, the Inuit Tapiri-sat, the Metis Association and the many associations of the north.
I have a letter before me from the Catholic Bishops of the north pleading for fundamental justice. It is a fundamental principle to have a fair hearing. The committee heard from oil company after oil company and bureaucrat after bureaucrat, yet we never really heard from the ordinary people of the north. They want the right to be heard. Why? Because their lives and their land will be affected.
Frankly, I am surprised that a good Quebecois like the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would apply such a colonial attitude to the north. I am surprised that he would take such an inconsistent attitude. His attitude is inconsistent with the Drury report, which was a government report on the north made by a former colleague of the minister who said that the northern territories should have a fair share, a piece of the action with regard to oil and gas revenues. Where is this provided for in the bill? Nowhere. The people of the north should have some say in environmental control since there are great dangers of oil spills on their offshore and in the Beaufort Sea. The minister's attitude is inconsistent with the Berger report. It is inconsistent with the government's own National Energy Program which talks about consulting northerners. His attitude is inconsistent with reality and logic. If there is to be proper development in the north and native people and northerners are to be included in that development, then they must have a better say in the matter than they have now.
I have said to the minister that the ideal thing to do would be to do what the Americans did when they developed the Alaska pipeline. Land claims were settled before they began construction of the line. They made sure the native people had a part to play in the future of Alaska. The American government was prepared to do that. We were not prepared to do
July 13, 1981

that in Canada and we will have nothing but trouble because of it. We may even eventually have rebellion in the north if we do not listen to the people of the north. There is a great judge of the north, a great Canadian hero who many people do not know about. His name is Judge Sissons, the first Supreme Court Judge of the north. He travelled around and brought justice to the people of the north. Someone said he brought justice to every man's igloo in the north and he literally did. He was made of the stuff heroes are made of. The native people of the north called him the one who listened. He was prepared to listen to them.
Having agreed to go up north, the Liberal majority on the committee, on the instructions of the minister, rescinded the resolution to go up north. I do not understand why we could not take that extra time and at least give the people of the north a fair hearing.
During the course of the debate on this bill we will be proposing numerous amendments. I am speaking specifically about the offshore amendment. Before 1 sit down I would like to talk about other areas of importance in the bill. We will propose amendments dealing with the grants and the giveaways. We will say that one needs to have equity. Let us take back some control if one is going to give 93 cents of every dollar. We will point out, too, that this is consistent with the pattern of the National Energy Program. There is a lot of big talk and a lot of talk of cancellation. But ultimately the furthest the National Energy Program may go is that there will be a replacement of the big American guys by big Canadian guys. We will make Dome Petroleum and the NOVA corporation and some of those companies the Standard Oil of Canada. We will make them the giants, and all through Canadian grants and incentives.
The Canadian people are starting to see in this bill that Canadian ownership is Canadian private ownership, not Canadian public ownership. I think Canadians are ready and want to have public ownership of their resources. I suggested in the committee, and I suggest now, Your Honour, that if one looks at the regimes of Norway and Great Britain, one will find that they are a lot tougher than this one. They do not have the 25 per cent backing. They are a lot tougher. I just want to read, if 1 may, what the vice-president of Petro-Canada told the committee. He told the committee that the land tenure and rent collection regimes proposed by Bill C-48 are less onerous than those applied elsewhere. He said that Petro-Canada developed a model of the economics of developing a field similar to the current Hibernia discovery off the east coast at a wellhead oil price of $41 a barrel. Then he set down how much money would be made, how much profit would be made, in millions of dollars. I will not go into those figures, but it is far higher in Canada than it would be in the United Kingdom or Norway.
Mr. McNicholas, the manager of the economics and public policy of Petro-Canada, in a letter to our chairman of the committee dated March 25, 1981, had this to say:
Canada Oil and Gas Act
It is clear from the above analysis that the development of a field like Hibernia yields higher present value returns and comparably higher rates of return on capital invested in Canada under NEP rules than in the U.K. or in Norway.
If these multinational companies are prepared to accept tougher regimes in Norway and in the United Kingdom, why do we not have these kinds of regimes in Canada? This is what our amendment will try to do. It will try to bring this regime up to a tougher standard.
This bill also speaks of the difference, when we are developing the offshore, between ownership and control. This bill talks about Canadian ownership. However, it is control which is important, so that we do not just have a number of dummy Canadian companies, dummy consortiums, which will be really controlled by Americans. That will be consistent with our history. We have been a nation-and this government has been the most to blame-which has allowed our oil and gas industry to be controlled by foreigners. We have done it again and again, and even after this bill is passed we are going to continue to do that.
Therefore, let me sum up by saying this. We believe that the provinces should control the offshore, but there should be an overriding federal power. There should be concurrent power, in the federal government and the provinces, in a number of areas like the environment, shipping, fishing and so on. Finally, there should be revenue-sharing as a result. That is the way Canada can work fairly.
I hear the hon. members criticizing and shouting at me. I say to them that they are very confident, that they can impose regimes on areas of the country where they have no members. They do not hesitate to impose their will on places. Now they are allowed to do that legally. However, I think that they should be very careful and should try to listen a little bit before they do that. The north is a prime example. They are imposing a regime on the north, and they are not even prepared to give a fair hearing to the northern people.
Finally, I say that this bill has been amended under pressure, I submit, from Americans. The government is yielding to pressure. It is also coming from the oil industry. My friends to the right, the Conservatives, are happy with this bill in many ways. They co-operated in getting it out of committee. They agreed to the closure in the committee; but when it was passed, they fought the bill in committee to try and get these things through, on Canadian content, on Canadian control, on a tougher regime, on a fairer regime for the coast, on a fairer environmental regime for fishermen and environmentalists, and finally, on a fair regime for the northern governments. Therefore, as a result of these changes which the committee has made to the bill, the people who have gained have been those in the oil companies, the large multinational companies and the large Canadian companies. The people who have lost are Canadians, as a whole, and specifically a number of groups.
Frank Scott, the great poet, a great Montrealer who is now in his eighties, I believe, once wrote a poem about the north and Canada. I remember one line from it: "A large land silent,
11470

July 13, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
awaiting the struggle". The struggle has come in the north and in the east and west coast, because Bill C-48 will speed up, more than anyone in the country now realizes, I think, the development of our offshore and our north. We have to make sure that we have the toughest possible regime which will protect the interests of ordinary Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in this debate at the report stage and to consider various amendments which have been proposed to this most important bill. I recognize, indeed, that this is a major piece of legislation which has great significance for the future development of oil and gas resources in Canada, and particularly all those resources which are in the Arctic and the offshore. This bill represents a major step forward compared to any previous legislation which has been put forward in the past, and, unfortunately, was never passed, for various reasons.
Up until now, this whole sector, that immense part of Canada which is part of the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and all the offshore, was controlled only via regulations adopted by the federal government; and some of the regulations, going back 20 years, have been completely outdated. Therefore, Bill C-48 brings a modern regime to Canadian lands, a regime which will compare favourably with any other regime set up elsewhere in the world and will ensure that the people of Canada as a whole are going to benefit from these developments. When 1 say the people of Canada as a whole, I obviously include, more particularly, the people in the regions neighbouring those developments or the regions in which those developments are going to take place.
This bill has given rise to extended debate. It was the hope of the government that this bill would have been considered only in the fall, at the committee stage and for third reading. As Your Honour knows, last week the government proposed that we adjourn and reconvene some time in October to pursue discussions of various legislative measures. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has decided that we should keep on sitting in case legislation concerning the postal dispute is required, rather than adjourn and have the House resume at any time if such a measure is required. Today we are beginning this report stage. 1 do not know how long we will debate this project. Obviously, it will depend on how long we are required to stay before an adjournment is agreed to by the opposition. As far as we are concerned, we are very happy, nonetheless, to see that debate can begin on this particular measure. My parliamentary secretary gave a commitment that the bill would not be proceeded with on third reading before the House resumes in the fall. We certainly intend to keep this commitment, assuming, however, that the House will adjourn.
I want to repeat that if the House is kept in session through the whole summer and into September, we will obviously have to proceed with this bill; but I assume that the official opposition will conclude that it is reasonable to have some adjournment at some stage during the course of the summer.
The committee has had 73 meetings and heard 130 witnesses during that time. 1 have remarked that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), as a good former Torontonian, talked about many aspects of this bill. He referred to a cartoon in the Alberta Report. I suggest that he should have read, rather, an article by Bob Hepburn entitled "The NDP's Energy Headache", in which this analyst, having attended the recent NDP convention, concluded-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He was not there.


Marc Lalonde: -that the NDP, as usual, is completely wishy-washy, if not completely awash, on the subject.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He was not there.


Marc Lalonde: The NDP did not even give birth to a mouse. The whole debate on energy at the recent NDP convention clearly showed that the NDP, as in so many other areas, does not know whether it is going or coming.
As far as the points raised by the hon. member are concerned, I want to stress particularly his argument about the people of the north not having been heard. This is a most unfair statement to make as far as the committee is concerned. If the hon. member had attended all the committee hearings, he would have realized that many representatives of the north came, including some very outstanding representatives. For instance, representatives of the government of the Northwest Territories, the Dene people and the Inuit were present. They made their representations. They were heard. Numerous briefs were presented on behalf of various organizations in the north. I am amazed that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kinsway had the gall to say the people of the north have not been represented when two members from the north, the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) and the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar), participated very actively in the debates of that committee. They brought a most constructive approach to those debates.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is what they are saying, not me.


Marc Lalonde: 1 want to congratulate both members for the positive attitude they took and for the genuine effort they made in bringing improvements to the bill. Many improvements were accepted. I commend also the Inuit council on national issues which went to work and put forward constructive amendments and made strong recommendations respecting the bill.
In addition, I should mention that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) had a few words with me. I did not see him too often during the committee hearings but I know that he was otherwise busy. Nevertheless he expressed his interest. However, the notion that three members of Parliament for the north, no matter from which party they come, would not be speaking for the people of the north appears to me to be the most outrageous statement to come from another member of Parliament. This kind of notion that members of Parliament in
July 13, 1981

this House do not represent the people of the north, that they do not speak for the people and that only the local governments and local voluntary associations are speaking for the people, I do not accept.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I recognize the minister should have an opportunity to speak and that 1 can reply at another time, but he should not misrepresent what I said. I never said members of Parliament were not representing people; the northern people said that. That is a deliberate misrepresentation on the part of the minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) does not appreciate the interpretation the minister is giving to certain words. However, that is a question for debate and is not a point of order.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I hope this irrational interruption will be deducted from the time allotted to me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have 40 minutes.


Marc Lalonde: I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Indeed, I believe I have 40 minutes.


An hon. Member:: You don't have to take it.


Marc Lalonde: Therefore, I will not include this intervention. Nevertheless, I must remind the hon. member that the committee voted for additional meetings and voted to pay for the expenses of the people of the north who wanted to appear before the committee. Those proposals were agreed to by the committee and reiterated by the chairman.
In addition, at the invitation of the hon. member for Nunat-siaq, two members from the Liberal party travelled north and visited various communities. They met a number of people.


Mr. Wilson:: Who paid for that?


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member is suddenly worried about who paid. As the hon. member well knows, members of Parliament are entitled to ten trips across the country every year. He could have taken the trouble of going north as provided for by the rules of this House, along with any member of his party; but he did not bother to use that privilege. So I say to the hon. member that is his problem.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is a pretty weak defence.


Marc Lalonde: Recently I went to the western Arctic. There I met representatives of various communities.
On the issue of amendments, there are several dozen amendments before us today. Well over 100 amendments were considered by the committee: some were passed and some rejected. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has referred to a cartoon in the Alberta Report. He should have been more attentive in committee. He should have known that
Canada Oil and Gas Act
there were many more amendments than those referred to in the cartoon. I remind him that an amendment was brought forward by the government which specifically guarantees the rights of the aboriginal people and says that this bill does not affect in any way, shape or form the titles and the rights which the aboriginal people in this country may have.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is laughable.


Marc Lalonde: My hon. friend says it is laughable, but that is exactly the same clause as that found in the constitutional resolution which his party supported.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is right.


Marc Lalonde: It is not laughable. It is a fundamental guarantee given to the people of the north, particularly the aboriginal people of Canada. There are amendments which will guarantee the aboriginal people the possibility of participating actively in the development that will take place in the north, either as individuals or through their co-operatives and the corporations they may set up, etc. These amendments have been brought forward by the government. Other amendments provide for the setting up of advisory bodies which will ensure participation by the people in the regions in the development that will take place and, in working closely with the government, in controlling the development that will take place.
Canada lands represent the future of this country in terms of resources, and in terms of oil and gas in particular. All the analysts indicate that the future security of this country in terms of oil and gas is most likely to come from the Canada lands.
What do we call Canada lands? This bill does not make any particular grab for jurisdiction; this bill provides only that what were Canada lands before continue to be Canada lands. There is no extension of jurisdiction nor any grab for it. For the last 30 years at least the federal government has legislated Canada lands.
As I said, we have been acting essentially through regulations, a very poor way, and with regulations that are very inadequate. Now we are coming forward with a proper legislative framework to ensure that the people of Canada will know the rules of the game. They will know that Parliament will have pronounced on the legislative regime to apply to Canada lands. This means essentially at least 40 per cent of the resources left in this country, probably more. It means all of the lands we find in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and all of the water resources surrounding Canada, off the west coast, in the north and off the east coast. These are Canada lands. These are the lands for which we as the Parliament of Canada are responsible on behalf of the people of Canada.
There are those, and we hear them on the other side, who are afraid of assuming their responsibilities, who feel that the Parliament of Canada or the federal government cannot be trusted with the responsibility of ensuring an orderly develop-

July 13, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
ment of those lands; that those lands and the resources that are there should be hived off to whatever regional or provincial governments there are. We as national parliamentarians and as the Parliament of Canada are too far removed, too weak, so short of imagination that we will not be able to ensure in those lands a regime that will benefit the people of the regions and all the people of Canada. We will not be able to have a regime which will ensure development and at the same time protect the environment and the rights and interests of others, such as the fishermen.
The solution of those opposite is to say: "Hive it off to the provinces; let the locally elected people in the regions run it, the national government cannot do it". That is not the view of this government. It is not the view for any proper national government of this country. In fact, there is not one federation in the world where the offshore resources belong to the regional governments, the provinces or the states, not one.
Members opposite are afraid to take responsibility for protecting the interests of Canada. They believe this should be up to the provinces, territorial governments or other groups. That is not our view. Our view is that those lands belong to all the people of Canada. The immense wealth that is there belongs to the people of Canada as a whole.
The Parliament of Canada is the guardian and trustee of the immense wealth which should be developed and protected in the interests of the people of Canada as a whole and the people of the regions concerned in particular. That is our view. That does not mean that this national government is not interested and concerned about a proper role and a proper share for the people in the neighbouring regions or the provincial or territorial governments of the regions where there are Canada lands. That is not our view. Over this past decade our view has consistently been that we want an arrangement with the provincial and territorial governments to ensure that there is proper development and that it is carried out on a co-operative basis.
It is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who initiated an agreement with the maritime provinces many years ago. The three maritime provinces agreed with the federal government on a regime for the development of offshore resources in the maritime provinces. What happened? The agreement which was arrived at voluntarily by the various governments was later cancelled by some provincial governments. Unfortunately, since then it has not been possible to arrive at another agreement.
It was not the federal government which cancelled the agreement. It had been willingly entered into by the four governments concerned. At a certain stage some of those governments withdrew their agreement. Since then we have consistently tried to work out an arrangement with the provinces concerned so that this development takes place on a co-operative basis. We continue to strive to arrive at such an agreement.
Any agreement has to take into account the rights and responsibilities of the national government for the people of Canada. We differ from the parties opposite because we believe that the people of Canada, through their national government, have an interest in this. Some members opposite say that the rate of development of the Canada lands should be left to the neighbouring governments. We disagree fundamentally in that regard. Do we want a situation where a particular province could block indefinitely the development of resources in the offshore areas or in the north while the people of Canada are importing oil and are unable to develop those resources that are needed for this country? Do we want a situation where Premiers could do with offshore resources on lands or waters which belong to the people of Canada what was recently done by the Premier of Alberta when he cut off production because he did not like the price?
When the resources belong to the people of Canada, would it be responsible to have a situation where the Premiers or heads of various governments could veto development? We do not agree with that. We want to arrive at arrangements where development is done on a co-operative basis, where the rights of the regions and the people in those regions are protected and at the same time the rights of the people of Canada are protected by their national government. That is our belief.
The notion that a particular region of this country could prevent the people of Canada from getting the benefit of resources which belong to them is one which we as a government cannot accept. In that regard we dissociate ourselves from the position of the parties opposite.
We have had meetings with some of the provincial governments concerned. I am sure there will be more. We have indicated that we are eager that provinces such as Newfoundland will be a major beneficiary of such development. As the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has indicated, that province is in a difficult economic position. It is one of the poorest provinces in this country. It is important that any development which takes place is done in such a way that it does not hurt the economy and social life of Newfoundland but ensures a dynamic society and economy for that province. That is the position of this government. That is the type of arrangement we would like to arrive at with the government of Newfoundland as well as those of the other maritime provinces, British Columbia and the governments in the north.
This does not mean that the courts have no role in this regard. I find it strange that some members would appear scandalized at the notion that the national government could go to court if there is no agreement on some issues with a particular provincial government. The provinces can take the federal government to court every day of the week. Those opposite find that quite normal. In fact, they think it is great if a province takes the federal government to court. I believe the same role should apply to both sides.
Sometimes there are honest disagreements between citizens of this country or between governments of this country. If you cannot work out a deal in a civilized society, the judicial system is asked to arbitrate and decide who is right and who is
July 13, 1981

wrong. There is nothing scandalous about that. That is the way every civilized society has operated in the past. That is the way democratic society in this country will operate in the future. For example, the issue regarding offshore jurisdiction is before the courts at the present time. That is not at the initiative of the federal government. I remind hon. members there was a joint reference on the west coast between the B.C. government and the federal government. It was an agreed reference. The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the federal Parliament had jurisdiction offshore on the west coast.
As far as the east coast is concerned, particularly Newfoundland, there is a case before the Federal Court of Appeal at the present time which has been initiated by the Seafarers' International Union during which the issue of jurisdiction is being debated, and I suspect that the court will be called upon to arbitrate in this respect and both the Newfoundland government and the national government will be mise en cause; they will be called in as intervenors in that particular case. We will see what will be the results of that particular litigation.
As far as we are concerned, we are not closing the door even now on pursuing negotiations between the governments concerned which would arrive at a satisfactory conclusion for all. Therefore, what we have put forward in this bill is a whole train of measures which will ensure that for the first time the people of Canada, through their national government, are going to be significant beneficiaries in a very direct way from the development that will take place in Canada lands. For the first time the Canadian people will have a 25 per cent interest in the development of Canada lands. For the first time there will be very tough rules whereby there will be requirement for procurement of goods and services and Canadians will be able to compete for the procurement of those goods, and Canadians will find themselves in the advantageous position of seeing their ability fully exploited and their manpower fully used in the 12 projects that will take place in the north.
Quite clearly there will be significant development in years to come. In the view of this government-and we have appreciated the representations made before the committee, as well as through letters from all kinds of groups in the country who are concerned about the people living in the regions-this will remain a very, very high priority and a very high source of concern.
I submit that we have debated long enough. This bill has been before Parliament since December. I have referred to the 73 meetings that took place before the committee and the 130 witnesses who have been heard. I submit the people of Canada expect the Parliament of Canada to act at a certain stage, and certainly on an issue as important as this one, on a bill that has so much significance for the future of those lands and the future of energy security in this country, I hope Parliament will make up its mind eventually and reach a conclusion.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, in the two minutes left to me, I merely want to stress the importance of the bill. This bill concerning Canada
Canada Oil and Gas Act
lands is the most important measure brought forward by the Canadian government in the energy field in many years. The bill covers the entire Arctic, all offshore mining rights. Those are the areas which in the coming 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. That is why we have provided in this bill, for example, that Canadians will be directly entitled to a 25 per cent interest in any future developments on Canada lands.
We have taken steps to ensure that Canadians will remain strongly competitive when they sell their assets or provide their services. We have taken steps to ensure that the economy and the Canadian workers throughout Canada may benefit from developments taking place on Canada lands.
We have also taken steps to ensure that the areas in the vicinity of those developments are the first to benefit from them. The Prime Minister has said so repeatedly, as I have. Discussions and negotiations are being pursued with the governments concerned with a view to making sure that developments on Canada lands will take place in an orderly way that will be of benefit not only to the regions concerned but generally to all Canadian citizens whom it is our duty to represent as parliamentarians, as members of the Parliament of Canada. In that sense, we reject the opinion that federal parliamentarians do not have the guts, the imagination nor the sense of responsibility needed, in short, the courage to make sure that those developments can take place for the good of all Canadians whom it is our duty to represent here.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks I will confine myself to the question of the offshore, which is the subject of this motion moved by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). Let me say that the minister who has just sat down has really represented today the Liberal party in its true arrogance and its true scorn for anyone who is not of that one ilk, its true blindness and smugness.
This is not a unitary state, this is a confederation, and the Liberal Party of Canada epitomizes certain central Canadians in the kind of approach the minister indicated today, blindly and smugly believing that no one else in Canada should ever have their day in the sun. We are never to have our day in the sun in Newfoundland; we are never to have our day in the sun in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick. If there is a prospect in those areas of wealth from some offshore resource, that is not to be permitted to be ours. We are not to have that by right. We are only to have that-and 1 use the minister's language-if those people opposite, in their great wisdom, their great benevolence and great mercy, decide to give it to us.
The minister said in his speech that these resources belong to the people of Canada as a whole. These resources that are offshore belong to the people of Canada as a whole, as though

July 13, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
if they are owned by Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. they do not belong to the people of Canada. In other words, Alberta should not have owned its resources in the first place, nor Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Ontario or any province, because if they owned those resources they do not belong to the people of Canada as a whole. That is a whole new concept. The minister said they have to belong to the people of Canada as a whole but can only if this government owns them; that is, the Government of Canada.
He then said: We will give a proper share to the provinces. Does this government not see that we do not want it to give us a proper share. We say we are entitled to it. We say it is our right. We are not coming up here like lap dogs with our paws out looking for gifts from the great Liberal governing party of Canada. That is not acceptable to us. We do not accept it. It is ours by right. It should be ours not to be given to us by the great Liberal hegemonists of central Canada who think the rest of the country has to bow to them as long as they can continue getting the majority in the ways they have in the past. We do not want this minister giving us one thing. We are not going to put ourselves at his mercy down in Newfoundland, having him or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) give us something. We do not want to be given anything; but we want what we say we are entitled to. We want what we say we have the right to. We are not going to plead with the Liberal Government of Canada for anything.
Let us consider the legal position. I do not care what the Supreme Court of Canada would decide on legal grounds is the position with reference to offshore resources. I do not care if the Supreme Court of Canada would say for technical, legal reasons it is legally owned by the Government of Canada. I would say: So what! Our party would say: So what! That might be the technical, legal position, but it is not the right moral position. It is not the right equitable position. It is not the right confederation position. It is not the right spirit of confederation position. So we do not care what the Supreme Court of Canada would say in Newfoundland; it will not satisfy us because we do not see any reason why we should be treated differently from the other provinces of Canada.


Mr. Cullen:: The Conservatives do not care what the Supreme Court says.


John Carnell Crosbie: Perhaps you cannot understand that. Let me say it again. The technical, legal position which might or might not confirm the federal government as being the technical, legal owner is irrelevant to the whole situation, completely irrelevant.
I refer to a document from the Parliamentary Library, "Offshore Mineral Resources: Legal Aspects". It says this at page 2:
At Confederation, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario retained ownership of the "Lands, Mines, Minerals and Royalties" and all "Public property" then belonging to them; this was embodied respectively in Sections 109, and 117 of the British North America Act. This proviso was also
made applicable to Prince Edward Island and British Columbia when they joined Canada.
In the western provinces, the situation differed initially, as the natural resources were reserved to the federal government when Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba were carved out of Rupert's Land. However, the BNA Act of 1930 subsequently transferred the same rights to those provinces.
Do you understand, Mr. Speaker, that Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba had no legal right to their resources until 1930 and that they were in fact technically, legally owned by the Government of Canada? That is why I say I do not give a fig what the Supreme Court of Canada says is a technical, legal position on the offshore resources. They should receive the same treatment as the resources in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba received in 1930.
What happened in 1930? The British North America Act of 1930 subsequently transferred the same rights to those provinces. When Newfoundland became part of Canada in 1949 it was put in a similar position by term 37 of the Terms of Union. Thus, there is historical and legal justification for provincial resource ownership.
Then, of course, there is a dispute about the offshore resources. It is a technical dispute. Are they within the boundaries of the provinces? And so on and so forth. The Supreme Court of Canada made a decision with reference to British Columbia in 1967 which is persuasive but not conclusive as regards the other provinces because the technical, legal aspects with reference to Newfoundland have to be decided with respect to the law of 1949 and not the law of the nineteenth century and so on.
So our party takes a fundamentally different view. We take the same view that the Parliament of Canada took in 1930 with reference to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, that resources belong to the provinces, and just because they are under the salt water off the physical shores of the province makes not one whit of difference to that principle, that equitable principle, that principle of confederation, that fair principle, that just principle on which Canada was set up in the beginning and under which Newfoundland entered confederation in 1949. That was the understanding we had of the situation.
Up to 1971 we had a government in Newfoundland which did not care about the offshore. It did not defend Newfoundland's position. It did not put forward a case. I refer to the Smallwood Liberal government. It surrendered to the federal government. It was prepared to cast off the offshore resources. As a matter of fact, it is a lucky thing it did not go any further because it had given a whole series of permits to Mr. John Shaheen and to Mr. John C. Doyle of Canadian Javelin and the like. All it ever did with the offshore was give concessions to these favourites of the then Premier.
In 1971 that situation was changed. A new government took over in Newfoundland and adopted a different attitude to the offshore and has dealt with it in a much more serious and convincing fashion. It has set up an administration and a regime and a department that can administer it, that has people involved in that department just as good in every way as the people involved in the civil service of Canada or of Alberta,
July 13, 1981

Saskatchewan or whatever. We in Newfoundland are ready to handle our full responsibilities as owners of those resources.
What about this view that somehow Newfoundland has suddenly become rich? You can forget that, Mr. Speaker. Newfoundland is still the least rich province of Canada if we just look at one example of that, and I am quoting now from a document of May, 1980 prepared by the government of Newfoundland. They point out that in 1978, the latest year for which statistics were available, Newfoundland ranked a dismal last in the nation in terms of earned income, income that we earn down there. It is not given to us, not transferred to us, not coming from somebody else, not given-you put your hand out like a poor old trained seal and somebody puts it in your hand; it is earned income that people earn. We are the last of the ten provinces in Canada, and if we take Newfoundland per capita earned income at 100 in the year 1978, Ontario was 208. It had double the per capita earned income of Newfoundland. Our disparity was 108 per cent compared to Ontario. British Columbia was 205. Our disparity was 105 per cent compared to British Columbia. And so on down to Prince Edward Island, which was 14 per cent better off than Newfoundland was in earned income in that particular year. That is the situation of Newfoundland.
Supposing Newfoundland-and this argument applies to the other Atlantic provinces also-is recognized by the federal government, no matter what the legal, technical position is, as being the owner of those resources just as if they were under the land, just as if we were Alberta, Saskatchewan or British Columbia. The federal government would not be giving much away. The federal government would still have the right to impose a corporation tax. The federal government would still have the right to impose any means or method of taxation, direct or indirect. It would still have all its tremendous constitutional powers that it has today in relation to the resources of Alberta, Saskatchewan or wherever they are. It would be no different.
Now, this year Newfoundland is going to get $782.4 million in transfer payments from the Government of Canada; $416.7 million in tax equalization. When we include all the established programs financing, $782.4 million is a sizeable amount in relation to Newfoundland. But I point out that Quebec is going to get over $6 billion and that even mighty Ontario is going to get $4,909 billion, and so on. Do not think that Newfoundlanders are the only ones getting money under these programs. We are getting $416 million in tax equalization.
If Newfoundland at some point becomes entitled to the royalties and a lot of the revenues that come from the ownership of oil and gas resources, then it will no longer be receiving $416.7 million in tax equalization. It will no longer need it. That will save the Government of Canada $416 million and, of course, in ten or 15 years' time it will be a far larger sum. If the four Atlantic provinces become self-sufficient and self-sustaining because of offshore resources, it would save the Government of Canada hundreds and hundreds of millions, even billions, of dollars.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Why is this government so dedicated to the position that these areas must be kept dependent? Because that is what they are saying in this bill. That is what they are saying in their oil and gas policy. "We are dedicated to the proposition that you in the Atlantic provinces and Newfoundland will always be dependent on us here in Ottawa" and "If you do not do as we tell you to do, we are going to punish you," just as this government is punishing Newfoundland and Newfoundlanders today in every way, shape and form they can-


Mr. Breau:: Nonsense.


John Carnell Crosbie: -in their restriction of spending and federal expenditures in that province. I do not have time today to document it but I can, and that is why the minister opposite who represents us is going to have to run. He is going to be like Hughie Shea, the fastest man on two wheels ever to go through the Goulds. He is going to be the fastest man on two wheels ever to go through Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador unless he changes some of his actions when the next election comes.
We are not a have province. The Prime Minister indicated in a speech to the Liberal party in Newfoundland that he is ready to discuss this issue and to try to get some resolution of it. He says he wants Newfoundland to have 100 per cent of the revenues. This is all weasel wording, of course. What revenues? He says he wants us in Newfoundland to have 100 per cent of the revenues. He does not define what they are. He says we should have those revenues until we become a have province. What is a have province? Who defines it? Who decides when Newfoundland becomes a have province? We have just seen this House pass legislation to provide that Ontario is a have province when, according to the equalization formula, it is a have-not province now.
We just passed in this session legislation to change the definition in terms of "have" with respect to Ontario, because Ontario was entitled to tax equalization until we passed those recent amendments. So who can define what a have province is and what a have-not province is? Is Newfoundland, if it entered into such an agreement with Canada, to leave it up to the Government of Canada to decide when it is have and when it is have-not, and when it loses the revenues? When it loses oil and gas revenues because it is a have province, how can it remain a have province? If you had all those revenues and they made you a have, and then the federal government says "You are a have" and they take the revenues back, are you still going to be a have, or are you going to be a have-not? That is some deal to offer the province of Newfoundland! I hope the Prime Minister is going to be a bit more serious than that.
The Premier of Newfoundland has written the Prime Minister to say that he is ready any morning, afternoon or night to meet with him and discuss this issue, to try and negotiate some settlement. However, he is not going to throw away Newfoundland's rights and opportunities just because the squeeze has been put on by the mighty Liberal government in Ottawa

July 13, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
to try and bring Newfoundland to its knees by cutting back federal spending, by treating the province with shabby manners, insulting statements from federal ministers about provincial ministers and the like. It is a disgusting exhibition of bullying and arrogance of the worst type.
Now, Mr. Speaker, on September 5, 1979 the then prime minister, now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), met with Premier Peckford. Then on September 14, 1979 a letter, which my confrere the hon. member for St. John's East has referred to, was sent which outlined four principles to resolve this whole issue. If we had continued in office, the offshore issue would be settled now. There would be substantial progress toward developing the Hibernia oil field. This is another example of how this government's arrogance, stubbornness and wrongheaded policies are holding up self-sufficiency in oil and gas for Canada.


An hon. Member:: Another failure.


John Carnell Crosbie: As long as this dispute continues, the development of Hibernia and other fields is going to be delayed. Another failure. The Cold Lake failure. The Alsands failure. The economic failures. The hypocrisy of their economic policies. Oil rigs leaving the country.
Today the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) gave us one of his best examples of reptilian arrogance, reptilian bootheeling. You could hear his jackboots cracking on the floor of the House as he explained how he represented all Canadians, he and only he, and his government. They do not represent the Canadians who live in my district, they do not represent me, they do not represent the west at all. They are arrogating unto themselves the idea that they represent all of the Canadian people. The premiers do not represent anyone, just the people in the provinces. Well, it is the ten provinces that make up Canada, and those ten premiers together equally represent the people of Canada-


Marc Lalonde: They cannot agree. What can they agree on?


John Carnell Crosbie: -not just the members elected to this House. This is a confederation, Mr. Speaker, not a unitary state. This is not yet a Liberal dictatorship, even though they want us to carry on as if it were.
The minister said Newfoundland should be-he said "should be"-a major beneficiary of offshore development. Thank you, Mr. Lalonde. Thank you for these small mercies. I am sure your fellow cabinet minister, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey), and the four other Liberal members from Newfoundland are saying to you every day, "Thank you, Mr. Lalonde."


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: They are tipping their caps to Mr. Lalonde.


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


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Minister. Thank you, Mr. Minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I am sure hon. members get carried away and forget that hon. members should be referred to by their constituencies and not by name.


Some hon. Members:: Carry John away.


Marc Lalonde: Carry him away.


John Carnell Crosbie: They are saying every day, "Thank you, Mr. Minister."


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member, at the end of his speech, could take ten seconds and summarize the important points he has made.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, that shows you why that gentleman is a parliamentary assistant; that is the highest he is ever going to reach. He is never going to get one centimetre higher. In the metric system or in any system in the world, that parliamentary assistant will never go one iota higher.
The gentlemen of the NDP are used to discordant singing; they had a lot of it out in Vancouver at a recent convention.


An hon. Member:: Ask Benno Friesen. Where is Benno Friesen?


John Carnell Crosbie: Where is he?


An hon. Member:: He was there.


John Carnell Crosbie: We do not have all that long to speak in this debate, Mr. Speaker, and I probably have only-


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have all summer.


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, we do have all summer unless the government listens to reason, and probably they will.


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


John Carnell Crosbie: The minister referred to the maritime agreement. Well, that was entered into by several Liberal administrations in the Atlantic provinces which have been swept out of office.


Marc Lalonde: The Hatfield-


John Carnell Crosbie: The Hatfield administration. I will not say any more than that about that. When the Buchanan government came to power in Nova Scotia and the new PC government of Prince Edward Island, that was the end of this maritime surrender agreement entered into by those Liberal governments. It was terminated because they were no longer going to go along with that. They are hoping the hon. gentlemen opposite will come to their senses.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Hatfield-


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Hatfield can speak for himself. He certainly appears to do that.
We are not happy with this bill. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) suggested we were. We

July 13, 1981

are positively unhappy with this bill and unhappy with this government. We are not the happy hookers of Ottawa; that is the hon. gentleman's leader who jumped into bed with the government on the Constitution and on energy, and they have been in bed ever since. Now they are trying to wriggle out of bed by trying to convince the Canadian public they are no longer happy hooking with the Liberal government.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Who closed off the debate?


John Carnell Crosbie: Do not accuse us of being happy with this bill. We are determined to oppose this bill. Why did the hon. gentleman not ask this House of Commons committee to go to the east coast and talk to the people?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He did.


John Carnell Crosbie: Not just to the north, but to the east coast, the west coast and the north to see what conditions are actually like. Get out of central Canada; leave the salubrious atmosphere of Ottawa and see what life is really like. See what the people down there-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carnell Crosbie: I will terminate quickly, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Terminate, terminate.


John Carnell Crosbie: 1 just say, Mr. Speaker, if we pass this motion-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Did I hear someone disagree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Agreed.


John Carnell Crosbie: Is there agreement for me to carry on?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I gather there is not unanimous consent.


Marc Lalonde: Next time, John. There are 57 amendments; you have 57 speeches.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that
Canada Oil and Gas Act
the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Social Security-Minister's commitments to improve pensions for women, (a) request that minister press for action by government, (b) minister's role in advocating income tax reforms; the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)-Post Office-service provided by rural offices during postal strike, (a) treatment of employees who remain on duty; the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek)-Post Office- government position on postal strike, (a) suspension of right to strike.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, and Motion No. 3 (Mr. McGrath).
Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to say on this particular motion moved by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I think what we have seen in the last hour or so has been quite an interesting display. It is interesting that the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) would find it necessary even to rise after what was a rather excellent presentation by the senior member in the Tory caucus from Newfoundland, the hon. member for St. John's East. He is a man who has been here for some years and who demonstrated his knowledge of the subject this afternoon. I listened with great interest to what he had to say and, while I did not agree with everything he said, he certainly made a very good case. I for one, as a fellow Newfoundlander, certainly want to congratulate him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: I find it a little disconcerting and revealing that the hon. member for St. John's West thought it necessary to rise and make an effort to improve on the arguments of the hon. member for St. John's East.


Mr. Nystrom:: The junior member.


Roger Simmons: I found it really significant that the junior member, the hon. member for St. John's West, could not identify himself with the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's East, but elected in this important debate to carry on the feud which has been evident between them for some years, especially since the junior member came to this chamber.

July 13, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
It is not often, Mr. Speaker, that I come to the defence of my good friend, the hon. member for St. John's East, being of a different political stripe and all that, but I think it is a bit of a pity that an attempt has been made to humiliate him in this House this afternoon. The implication is made by the hon. member for St. John's West that somehow the hon. member for St. John's East was not able to put the argument forward, and that he, the junior member, had to rise and elaborate and embellish the argument, as it were. Indeed, in some instances he took a very different tack from the hon. member for St. John's East. Mr. Speaker, I think the record should show that.
Just to make a quick and passing observation before I come to the substance of the motion before us-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Don't do that. Don't stop now!


Roger Simmons: -I thought some of the wind had gone out of his sails. He was just a shadow of his former self today. There was lots of sound and lots of fury, all signifying not very much. He was really not up to it today. If hon. members observed closely, his heart was not in it any more. I suppose it is very difficult. It becomes embarrassing to rise in the chamber and go through the motions of identifying with the hon. member for St. John's East, a gentleman one rarely identifies with on anything. It was more important and significant that he found himself defending the premier of the province which the hon. member for St. John's East, the hon. member for St. John's West and I represent in the House. He placed himself in the position of actually being on the same side of an argument as the Premier of Newfoundland. It must have been galling and very embarrassing for the hon. member for St. John's West.
A week or so ago on a very related issue he took quite a different stance. The hon. member for St. John's West is not known to be silent on many issues, but let me draw the attention of the House to a matter on which he has been extremely silent, and not only he but the hon. member for St. John's East as well.
A short while ago in the House the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) rose and told the House that the government was prepared to facilitate the movement of hydro through the province of Quebec. We all know the stance of the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) on it. He is on the record as being against it; the hon. member for Yellowhead opposes it. We know that the Premier of Newfoundland is very much in favour of it because he came out and said no. We must give the man credit: he came out and said that he was happy with the new initiative of the government.
What did the hon. member for St. John's East say or what did the hon. member for St. John's West say on that particular issue? If they are as concerned about energy issues as they affect the economic future of Newfoundland as they purported to be in the House this afternoon, where is their voice on the issue of transmitting hydro through Quebec? Where is their voice? It has been completely silent. There was not one tittle,
not one syllable, not one word from the hon. member for St. John's West; not a word, not a syllable, not a phrase form the hon. member for St. John's East on the issue. Why? It was because they were caught.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is not the subject.


Roger Simmons: The hon. member for St. John's West conveniently says that that is not the subject. Now he wants to split hairs. He wants to say that we should not talk about this kind of energy. Let us compartmentalize it now to satisfy the hypocrisies of the hon. member for St. John's West; let us talk about oil today and leave hydro energy over there because it might embarrass him. I am not too concerned if I embarrass the hon. member for St. John's West on this particular occasion. If he wants the floor to tell us where he stands on the transmission of hydro through Quebec, I will yield the floor to him for a moment. In two weeks he has not said a solitary word on the subject. We still do not know where he stands. He has two fairly clear choices. Does he stand with the federal leader of his party or with the provincial leader of his party? He cannot do both because they are diametrically opposed positions. One is for it, the other is against it.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am ready to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the hon. member for St. John's West seeking the floor on a point of order?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is a point of order only in the sense that the hon. member offered to let me speak on this issue. Let me make it quite clear that on the issue of the spurious announcement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, it was something he might do in a proposed bill if it was passed by the House. It was all very speculative. The government is still not committed to it.


Marc Lalonde: Where do you stand?


John Carnell Crosbie: It is hardly worth passing a comment on it.


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


John Carnell Crosbie: I am quite disappointed in the illusion which has been created this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Often invitations are given across the floor requesting the viewpoints of certain members, but at this time I invite the hon. parliamentary secretary to conclude his remarks on the motion before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I think I demonstrated the seriousness of my invitation by allowing him the floor to state his position. It became clear-and Hansard will show how clear-that in the three or four sentences he uttered he avoided giving any position. He cast aspersions on the legitimacy of the legislation being proposed and that kind of thing but he avoided skilfully, as only he can do, giving a
July 13, 1981

position of any particular kind. He has still managed not to state a position. He was just given an opportunity in the House. Let the record show that he has no position on this issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. An opportunity was also given to the hon. parliamentary secretary to confine his remarks to the motion.


John Carnell Crosbie: Stop trying to overtake your cabinet colleague. You are not getting anywhere, Roger. Rompkey is firmly attached to the cabinet table.


Roger Simmons: He is doing very well. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) is doing very well despite the vicious attack on him this afternoon by the hon. member for St. John's West.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: I quite agree that it is difficult to do two things at one time.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You are doing it.


Roger Simmons: It is difficult to address oneself to this bill and to respond at the same time to the irrelevancies raised by the hon. member for St. John's West. If I erred in that respect I am genuinely sorry. I was attempting to respond to some of the issues he raised, but they were so far off the subject at hand that in the process I got fairly far afield in my response. One mistake the hon. member for St. John's West makes repeatedly-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: This is not the Newfoundland legislature.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Keep trying, you will get a seat in the Senate.


Roger Simmons: Which is more than you can hope for; the cutoff is 75.


John Carnell Crosbie: Pitfield for Newfoundland!


Roger Simmons: Hon. members opposite are in an euphoric mood. None of their leaders is here today, so they can afford to be somewhat euphoric.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Crosbie is here.


An hon. Member:: That is what he said, that there are no leaders over there.


Roger Simmons: When I am not praying that the present leader will continue as leader, I pray that the hon. member for St. John's West will be the leader because he would be the second best thing for us on this side.


John Carnell Crosbie: Thanks for the publicity.


Roger Simmons: One of the mistakes the hon. member for St. John's West often makes-and he made it again in discussing
Canada Oil and Gas Act
the item before us-is the old "them" and "us" dichotomy. Members of his party do it generally. They talk about the Government of Canada as "them". It is part of the opposition mentality which I suppose they have grown used to over the years. They never see themselves, the Tories, as government. Aside from that they have developed an adversary role that somehow the Government of Canada is out there, is "them" and that the provinces are "us". Who does the hon. member represent here? If he wants to be in provincial politics, let him be in provincial politics. Indeed, he was there for some years with somewhat of a reputation.
He talked about Newfoundland being the last in earned income in Canada. He was a Liberal minister for a couple of years in Newfoundland. Then he got tired of that and he was a Tory minister for five years. Is he saying that those seven or eight years were all for naught, that he made no contribution toward raising Newfoundland by its bootstraps? Is that what he is admitting to the House in this particular instance, that his eight years as the great white hope in the Newfoundland cabinet was all for naught? Is that what he is telling us this afternoon?
Let me take a look at the comments of the hon. member for St. John's East on this particular bill. It is to his credit that the hon. member for St. John's East gave us his views on the bill. The hon. member for St. John's West gave his views on just about everything but the bill. The hon. member for St. John's East made some fairly pertinent comments on the issue we are supposed to be addressing this afternoon. I will respond to several items in no particular order. Perhaps it will be the order in which he mentioned them or the reverse order.
He talked about ownership controlling the rate of development. Certainly he did not really believe that. There are all kinds of examples around him, both in this field and in other endeavours, where ownership per se does not control the rate or nature of development. That is another one of those red herrings which gets dragged in to support motherhood causes.
In the process he tells us about how his leader, the then prime minister, the hon. member for Yellowhead, went down with a letter in which he articulated several points as a proposal. We do not dispute the accuracy of that particular statement. We all remember that the letter of proposal was put to the Premier of Newfoundland. But what the hon. member did not tell us about, and what the hon. member for St. John's West did not tell us about, was the other meeting between those two leaders, the Premier of Newfoundland and the then prime minister. They did not tell us about the meeting which took place during the first week or so of February in the Confederation Building in St. John's. In that meeting the then prime minister was asked, in public, in front of the press, by the Premier of Newfoundland whether before the election he would put in writing, not a proposal, a set of ifs, but a commitment. That is where the bluff was called. To his credit, the Premier of Newfoundland called the bluff.

July 13, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
We all know the result since it was broadcast on national television that night. When put to the test the leader of the Conservative party, the then prime minister, said he could not do that. He refused to do that. He was prepared to do anything verbally or by way of ifs and proposals, but given the clear request of the Premier, in public, in front of television cameras and journalists, he said quite categorically that he could not do that. He could do anything but commit himself in writing to what he was attempting to convey verbally to the people of Newfoundland.
It seems to me that if we are considering events in history, if we are going back and talking about the Tory record on this particular issue, then we must keep in mind that given the one opportunity to put their money where their mouth was, given the opportunity to correct the record and to give a firm undertaking to the government of Newfoundland on this issue, they reneged and backed away from it. They refused quite explicitly, not by implication only but quite explicitly, to be part of any such arrangement. Is there anyone in this House who will deny that, Mr. Speaker? Is there anyone here who does not remember that day when the then prime minister of Canada said quite categorically and publicly that he was not prepared to put it in writing at the particular time?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Give us the reason why.


Roger Simmons: If there are whys about which I am not aware, and if there are reasons, there is a great deal of opportunity for members opposite to place them on the record. What I am saying here today is that the two spokesmen from the Tory opposition who spoke in this debate this afternoon carefully avoided any reference to that particular issue because it is something which they would like to forget. Newfoundlanders do not so easily forget that kind of misrepresentation.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Tell us the whole truth.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders do not so easily forget that kind of deception.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The minister agrees that it is a total distortion.


Roger Simmons: What is a total distortion, Mr. Speaker, is what the then prime minister tried to perpetrate on the people of Newfoundland. The Premier of Newfoundland, to his credit, called his bluff. He called his bluff two weeks before the last general election. If the Tories' policy has changed on this subject, then I am not surprised. In the last two weeks their policy has changed on the postal dispute. The hon. gentleman for Yellowhead said two weeks ago that he was against a legislated return to work. Suddenly his party has ramrodded him into the reverse position. That is not strange. I call to mind Jerusalem and other issues on which they changed their minds.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: What about PetroCan?


Roger Simmons: We can talk about Petro-Canada and a number of other issues. I am not surprised if they do a flip-flop on this one. They are used to doing flip-flops. Perhaps they
have now found a way to weasel and flip-flop out of this particular offshore issue as well.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Why does the minister not take him aside and tell him what is right or wrong? Total distortion.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) will have an opportunity to tell us what he knows about distortion when the time comes. I have given him a couple of examples which he might want to elaborate on. I invite him to elaborate on the Jerusalem issue, Petro-Canada, the postal dispute and the Newfoundland offshore. These are just starters while he is preparing his notes. His party sits on both sides of the fence, depending on the day of the week, the convenience of the moment or the votes they are trying to garner. We all know their record on this particular issue. My advice to him is that if he keeps sufficiently silent about these issues they will go away, along with the embarrassment caused by them.


Mr. Siddon:: Let us hear something positive.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I am listening but I do not hear much that is positive.


Thomas Edward Siddon: You have the floor.


Roger Simmons: I am glad to hear I do have the floor. Perhaps the hon. member opposite would honour that for a few moments and allow me to say a few words on this particular bill. If he does not want me to respond further to his colleagues, the hon. member for St. John's East and the hon. member for St. John's West, and if it is too embarrassing to look at the loopholes they have allowed themselves, I will throw away the rest of the notes I have with respect to their comments and I will come to the gist of the matter, which I hoped they would have spent more time on.
The hon. member for St. John's East talked about deleting the references to Sable Island and the offshore waters. Thus, by implication, he would leave out the coastal provinces altogether. He would leave out the north altogether. In the process he implies that somehow this would strengthen the case, both legally and politically, made by Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and other coastal provinces in respect to their adjacent coastal waters. In fact, the deletions which are being suggested by the hon. member for St. John's East would do nothing more than weaken Canada's claim to sovereignty over these waters to the 200-mile limit. If effected, his deletion would have the net effect of weakening Canada's claim to sovereignty while at the same time doing nothing whatsoever to address the problem he seeks to address.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise in support of the motion which has been presented by my good friend and colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I think it is a very fundamental and
July 13, 1981

important amendment and one which bears serious consideration.
The motion proposes to limit the application of this bill to the lands known as the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, eliminating the other sections which are the offshore areas, for a couple of fundamental reasons. My colleague takes exception to the general principle and thrust of the bill. More important, there is a very fundamental jurisdictional question which is of the utmost importance and which should be considered in its most important paramountcy.
I do not want to respond or react to the flim-flam and rhetoric we heard from the previous speaker. I think you and I both know, Mr. Speaker, that he spent very little time talking about the bill or the amendment we are dealing with. One thing I would like to point out, and which hopefully will set the record straight, is that in terms of the Conservative government's position with respect to offshore resources there were four fundamental principles outlined in a letter from the then prime minister to the Premier of Newfoundland. The previous speaker would have been aware of this had he listened to the speech of the hon. member for St. John's East.
As I said, that letter outlined four fundamental principles. So far as Canada's ownership of the mineral resources of the continental margins is concerned, they should be within the care, control and ownership of the provinces. There were three other principles which were contingent upon that very fundamental one. There was absolutely no question that the province of Newfoundland should own the mineral resources of the continental margin, in so far as Canada should own them. That is very clear. Certainly there should not be any equivocation on that whatsoever. I am sure that the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and our energy spokesman will have something to say about that as well. The parliamentary secretary did not bother to listen to the facts.


James Aloysius McGrath: He is gone. He has left the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The fact of the matter is that the parliamentary secretary spoke and ran. Obviously he did not listen to the presentation by the sponsor of this very important and fundamental motion. I think it should be seriously considered and earnestly debated by all members of the House of Commons, and particularly by those who are directly affected by it.
One has to find it very strange that, at a time when there is a clear jurisdictional dispute, we have a piece of legislation before us which really sets out effectively to close the door through unilateral action. This point is mentioned in the National Energy Program booklet which was presented at the time of the budget, and reference is made to it. However,the reference is very light and fluffy. It is flippant and really tends to wash over the importance and the fundamental nature of the issue. At page 42, it is stated:
There is some debate-
Canada Oil and Gas Act There is some debate!
-as to whether offshore resources in these Canada lands fall under federal jurisdiction-
It is referring to the area off Canada's coasts.
There is some debate as to whether offshore resources in these Canada lands fall under federal jurisdiction. Notwithstanding a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1967 that lands off the west coast are within federal jurisdiction, both Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have laid claim to jurisdiction of areas off the east coast.
The Government of Canada believes that the offshore resources belong to all Canadians.
It goes on to say that it will provide a formula, as alluded to by my colleagues from Newfoundland, to:
Provide 100 per cent of provincial-type resource revenues to the adjacent province, subject to arrangements whereby, when the province reached an agreed level of wealth, these revenues would be shared with other Canadians.
One cannot have half-ownership or quasi-ownership. One either has ownership or one does not. As my colleagues, the hon. members from both St. John's East and St. John's West have stated very categorically, Newfoundland believes very profoundly that the ownership of its resources is equivalent to the same ownership which applies to the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, or any other province for that matter; but particularly to those provinces where, in 1930, the right to the ownership, control and management of those resources clearly became a matter for federal jurisdiction. There can be no equivocation about that.
The sponsor of this motion takes exception to the fact that this legislation will provide for the management, the rate of development and the control of a non-renewable resource which the province of Newfoundland believes is rightfully a resource which belongs to the province of Newfoundland. Of course, there is very definitely a concern as to the pace of the development of that resource, when and where and how it should be explored and developed. There is certainly an impact which will accrue with respect to the social, economic and environmental realities. The provinces believe that they have a rightful say in the way in which their resources will be developed.
Instead, as the federal government points out in the National Energy Program, it is determined to take into account the needs of the region and is determined to exercise its responsibility. I quote again at page 43, where the National Energy Program states:
Unfortunately, the offshore resource issue was not resolved.
It admits right in the National Energy Program that the offshore resource issue has never been resolved; yet it proceeds with legislation to include that area which is under dispute. It is a very fundamental issue. Further, it says:
However, in its management of these resources, the Government of Canada is determined to take into account the needs of the region.
Notwithstanding the fact that the offshore issue has not been resolved, and notwithstanding the fact that the province of Newfoundland does not concur, it intends to forge ahead in a unilateral way. It goes on to say:

July 13, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
It will use its regulatory powers to accelerate exploration in this area. Development must reflect the social and economic concerns and legitimate aspirations of the residents of coastal provinces. Furthermore, Canada's east coast fishery resources and the general environment must not be damaged in pursuit of energy objectives.
The acceleration of exploration in this area promises thousands of new jobs, supplying the services and goods needed to carry out the program. This represents one of the most exciting opportunities available to this region.
What is the goal of the provinces? What will be the role of the province in determining the economic, social and environmental goals and objectives, or the job opportunities? What role will the province of Newfoundland play? I am sure that the government of Newfoundland, whatever stripe it may be, speaks for the people of Newfoundland. Given the political realities of our country, it always seems quite normal and natural that the government which is closer to the scene is in the best position to determine the local economic, social and environment aspirations. Surely, that makes common sense.
However, here we have a bill and a policy directive which unilaterally imposes the federal government's thrust upon the development of a resource which could turn Newfoundland and other eastern provinces into have provinces, which could provide a dynamic way of life for their people, which could provide employment opportunities and improved technology, and above all would contribute to the goal of self-sufficiency. We on this side of the House still believe that goal is attainable.
It goes on to say on page 44:
indeed, properly managed, the exploration activities could provide the basis for a major, sustained, economic upsurge. The Government of Canada will ensure that these opportunities are realized.
What guarantee do we have that this government will ensure that economic opportunities will be realized for the people of Newfoundland or the people from the north? It certainly does not have a very good track record. Look at what is happening to rail service today. We have a government hell-bent on dismantling the rail passenger service in this country after the Canadian Transport Commission studied, assessed and developed a route structure which this government has not even given a chance to be tested. We now have a situation where unilaterally, by cabinet edict, we are going to dismantle some 16 routes and cut back service on five others. That is to be interpreted as serving the best interests of Canada, without any local participation, without any avenue for appeal, without any formal way in which the people and the communities affected will have an opportunity to voice their objection? People are afraid of that. The people of Newfoundland and the people who have the potential to develop offshore energy resources are concerned that they will be left in the cold. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting the principle and the general thrust of my colleague's amendment.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) stated that we have not heard from the ordinary people of the north and the offshore, and I agree with him. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) took exception to that comment. However, I believe it. What will happen is that
through the centralized, organized and bureaucratic mechanism which will govern these activities from the ivory towers in Ottawa, the ordinary people will in fact be overlooked. The minister replied that provincial governments do not act in the best interests of the people they represent. That is the implication. The hon. member suggested only the federal government has the power and the compassion to speak and act on behalf of Canadians in general. I believe people of local governments have a better understanding and a better view of the aspirations and needs of a given community or region than any federal bureaucracy, or minister for that matter.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in his remarks chose not to deal with the amendment. He talked about many things contained in the bill. He suggested that the bill is a major step forward. I suggest, however, that many will see it as as major step backward, especially when you look at the potential of bureaucratic centralized control. The minister places a very high priority on developing the potential of Canada lands. I suggest that if he is placing this high priority on the development of resources in the Canada lands, he should reaffirm his government's position on what it intends to do to develop further conventional supplies in the western sedimentary basin. Is the government writing the western sedimentary basin off? It appears that it is, given the fiscal tax regime it has established, given the way in which the National Energy Program is being applied and interpreted and given the fact there seems to be much foot dragging in getting a realistic pricing agreement. Perhaps the government is writing off the synthetic projects. The government does not seem to be too concerned or alarmed that the $12 billion Cold Lake heavy oil plant project has been shelved indefinitely, or at least for two years. It is $12 billion today with inflation at 10 per cent to 12 per cent, and with inflation at 20 per cent to 25 percent two years from now the cost will be $15 billion. What about the jobs that have gone down the drain? What about the cost of providing expensive imported oil which has been estimated at approximately $5.8 billion because of the delay?
This minister must take the people of Canada into his confidence and tell them what the government intends to do with respect to the other potential developments, the conventional sources and the synthetic sources. It appears that we are on the threshold of another postponement with the Alsands plant. What will that do to our goal of energy self-sufficiency? What will it do toward bolstering our economy? Those two megaprojects need to proceed if we are to ever recover economically and gain any semblance of the goal of self-sufficiency.
The minister again today chose to attack Alberta in his abrasive and continuing arrogant fashion. It seems to me that it is time for this minister to settle down. He has won the war in terms of pitting central Canada against Alberta. Why does he not sit down now and try to negotiate an agreement? I am convinced that had it been anyone else sitting on the treasury benches who was called upon to work out an agreement with
July 13, 1981

the province of Alberta, by now we would have had an agreement. No one can continue to attack in that abrasive and arrogant fashion and expect to get a deal. That is the problem.
I must say we are getting rather disgusted by this minister's actions and by his attitude.
We know that the minister of energy did not want to get a deal. The minister visited Edmonton twice in the spring of 1980. He spent about 100 minutes attempting to seek a deal. In reality he was barely crawling through the hoops. He has failed to take advantage of a fundamental political opportunity. I would say that he has created a political error of historic dimension. I would accuse him of an action which could only be classifed as premeditated abdication of his duty.
In order to be an effective energy minister, one must have not only the knowledge and the political skill, but the trust and confidence. And above all, he must be seen as fair and reasonable. Unless this minister is prepared to change his ways and demonstrate some of these attributes, I suggest we will be a long time in getting an energy agreement.
Further, the minister of energy should stop misleading the people of Canada. He should stop accusing Alberta of being a filthy rich and selfish province. I think the evidence now clearly reveals that based upon a gallon of gasoline sold in the province of Ontario, the province of Ontario is receiving more in terms of revenue than is the province of Alberta. To be exact, out of a charge of $1.66 a gallon, the government of Ontario receives 25 cents or 15 per cent of the total proceeds, whereas the government of Alberta in its royalties receives 22.7 cents or 14 per cent of the total. The federal government receives 56 cents, which is about 34 per cent of the total, with the balance going to the producer, the refiner and the dealer.
I suggest it is time for the minister of energy to level with the people and lay out the facts so that everyone can understand who is the bad guy in the negotiations. If he can change his attitude, level with the Canadian people and try to establish an environment and a climate of trust and confidence, we can move ahead. We must move ahead in order to achieve our economic-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this motion, I must say that my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Crosbie) has put before the House in a very succinct manner two views as to how we believe Canada should develop its resources.
The government in its bill sees the development of Canada generally through the eyes of a centralized bureaucracy only. While I say that is not totally invalid because we need that component, it is not the only component making up Canada. The other component consists of our regions. I will come to that, but first I want to thank the hon. member for St. John's East in putting forward the two views of Canada so clearly.
W. A. Wilson, a member of the press gallery, a journalist respected by members on both sides of the House, makes the
Canada Oil and Gas Act
point in an article that traditionally the view of Canada was focused on the larger metropolitan areas. That is how the view of Canada evolved and it was the determining factor. While that view is still valid, it is not the only valid view for Canadians. The view seen from a small Saskatchewan town, from a coastal community in British Columbia or from Newfoundland is as valid for the development of Canada as is the view held in the traditional centres of opinion in this country. That is central to what we are discussing here. When we discuss Ottawa, that word is not used to deprecate the city or the central government. Rather, it is an expression of the view that whatever comes from the treasury benches here is more valid than the view from any other part of the country. I cannot accept that. I want to say why.
The federal government says that regardless of the fact that the matter is before the courts, it is going to use its majority to pass unilaterally a definition of Canada lands. That definition of Canada lands is such that everything which is not clearly defined by provincial boundaries is automatically Canada lands. That is the general thrust of Bill C-48. Those people who are affected by activity outside provincial boundaries such as citizens living in Newfoundland will obviously be affected by offshore activity such as fishing, drilling for gas and oil or whatever. The person living north of the 60th parallel in the Territories will also be affected. Those affected by these boundaries will be subject first to the view of this government and the definition in this bill.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is trying to change the definition in the bill. What is fundamental in what the amendment does is that it says that what is effective on land in terms of resource ownership and management, should be operative offshore.
I found it rather interesting that the minister brought forward his strongest argument against this motion for the following reason. I cannot quote him word for word, but I hope I am paraphrasing him accurately, or at least repeating correctly the sense of what he was trying to project. He said he could not accept this motion because the premiers could then do offshore what they are doing on land.
What are they doing on land? They are drilling for oil, for natural gas, building tar sands plants and trying to create the Cold Lake project. That is what they are doing on land.


Roger Simmons: They are stopping the Cold Lake project.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, and you know why. This government is only willing to give them $18.75 a barrel, and yet it will give Mexico $40. What the premiers are doing on land is moving Canadians toward energy self-sufficiency, not only with regard to fossil fuels but in developing hydroelectric power.
The premier of my province has been working with other premiers in western Canada to develop a hydroelectric energy grid which would tie in not only with other parts of Western Canada but with other projects as well. Megaprojects, hydroelectric projects, oil and gas projects require co-operation. The

July 13, 1981
11484____________________________________
Canada Oil and Gas Act first responsibility of this minister is to develop a co-operative plan. To date he has been an abject failure in that regard.
I want development in the offshore the very same as is happening on land, that we drill for oil and gas, develop hydroelectric projects and so on. That is what I want to see happen. However, this bill will bring about the opposite. Just as we have seen the postponement of projects or the fact that projects are more difficult to bring on stream, I fear the same will happen offshore.
Some members might be surprised that one who lives in the longitudinal centre of Canada should speak on this bill dealing with an offshore project. The reasons are the following. Some provinces at the moment are defined as have-nots. I find that definition difficult to understand because they might have cultural or social advantages which other regions do not have. However, speaking in economic terms, 1 want those provinces to have an economic activity which will have growth and which will be based on their natural advantages. That is what 1 want to see happen.
If the earned income of the average citizen in Newfoundland rises, that not only benefits the citizens of that region, it benefits the entire country.
There is a philosophy which is becoming part of the Canadian psyche. It is believed that if people in a certain region have a better income, somehow the country does not benefit; however, when an Albertan progresses, Canada benefits or when a Newfoundlander progresses, Canada benefits. What is this philosophy that makes us fear growth in a given region?
When income is earned, we spend that income. We do not spend it narrowly in the region in which it is earned. That income is spent across the country. The country benefits through growth. I cannot understand a government which believes we have to restrict growth because one area might get ahead of another and that is not good for Canada. I need not say any more about that because it is so obvious.
There is another point I want to make regarding this motion. When the three prairie provinces entered confederation, they were regarded as not being competent to control their own resources. In fact, the province of Manitoba has been longer in confederation without owning is its resources than it has been in confederation while owning them. It is a have not province.
The provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan entered in 1905 and received their resources in 1930. I do not want to be negative toward the Liberal members. A lot of them are my friends and I know they hold their views as sincerely as I do. However, I had a discussion with a former member of this House, a predecessor of mine in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We were discussing northern Canada. He said to me that the government made a mistake when it gave the prairies their resources in 1930 because now they are holding the rest of the country up for ransom. He said the government will not allow it to happen again in the north.
That philosophy is detrimental to this country. The prairie regions finally acquired ownership of their resources in 1930 when an amendment was made to the British North America Act. That is significant. If you look at Canadian history, there is a view that the prairie region was helped by other parts of the country during the depression. That is a historical fact. However, why did the prairie regions need that help? Might it be the case that if they had their own resources and made some money from those resources, they might have been in a different situation in the thirties? History does not record that. If history does not record that, how can it record that Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island or British Columbia in the west could not have the growth which would, first of all, take their provincial averages up to a higher level and then benefit the whole country? One of the reasons that the prairies had difficulty during the depression, I submit to you, was that they did not have control of their resources. The same situation exists on the offshore today. It is a parallel. Why should the Atlantic provinces not have that control?
I found it interesting to read in the documents on federal-provincial relations that the province which has been most definitive and vocal over the years in terms of defending provincial rights has been the province of Ontario. The reason Ontario, its premiers and its government have been so vocal is that they knew that as mineral resources were developed in that province, if ownership and control were removed, in spite of its industrial base it would be in trouble.
What the hon. member for St. John's East is asking for is ownership and control. He mentioned the socioeconomic reasons. It is interesting that the very thinking the hon. member for St. John's East put before the House today dominated the federal government when it passed the Northern Pipeline Agency Act. Before that pipeline could be built, the government put in socioeconomic conditions. I remember during the time of our government when I had the responsibility, and when I talked to the present minister, I knew these things had to be put in place before we could start building the pipeline. What is different in that situation from the one that is now being proposed?
There is another concern I have, one which was mentioned by the hon. member for St. John's East. Magnanimously, he has not confined his amendment to Newfoundland, the maritime region or British Columbia. He has drafted his amendment in such a way that other regions which have not even come into consideration would also be included. Let me give you just one example. Manitoba and Ontario border on Hudson Bay. The so-called inland ocean exists there, but who owns the offshore resources there? Is Manitoba to have no claim to the mineral wealth that might lie under the waters of Hudson Bay? These are the questions that are before the courts. These are the questions on development that should be answered. I cannot accept a unilateral bill such as the one before me which says that for all times this has now been
July 13, 1981

decided by Parliament, because I see that as being negative to the country.
Let us consider the attitude of the people in the north. I worry about northern development, particularly with the attitude this government has. If everything north of the 60th parallel will be defined as Canada lands, I have had enough experience and have talked to enough people to know that the people of the Yukon and the residents of the Northwest Territories see themselves first as Canadians, and what they want is to see development in those regions so as to stop depending on the federal money which pours into that area. Just look at the budgets. They want to stand on their own feet because they have earned that income and thus are contributing to Canada. I have not met people north of 60 who say: Just give us those mineral resources and we will show you what we will do to you in the south. That is just not their attitude. Their attitude is that those who live in the north should have the first benefits from those resources. Surely that is the fair and equitable manner in which to proceed.
1 wanted to spend most of my time putting forward my views of Canada. However, the parliamentary secretary who spoke made one point to which I should like to respond. I do not want to spend all my time rebutting that which has been said on the other side.
That hon. member said that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), had his bluff called in February 1980 in that he had not been willing to put in the form of an agreement a promise he had made in a letter regarding the offshore ownership by the provinces. 1 want to say to that member as sincerely as I can, and I am sure he will accept that, the reason was not that the Prime Minister or this party reneged on its view of the offshore, but rather that we had been defeated in this House and there was an election campaign in process. The then Prime Minister stated very clearly that he did not believe it was his parliamentary right to commit a future government to the position in which this government finds itself without receiving a mandate from the people of Canada.
I think that is the manner in which parliamentary democracy functions, and 1 suggest to the parliamentary secretary that those were the facts of that question. The former Prime Minister had committed his government but he obviously needed a mandate to put it into agreement form.
What I am saying to hon. members on the opposite side is that I believe this amendment is in the interests of Canada. I suggest that because the matter is before the courts we should not proceed along the lines the government has suggested, but rather along the lines of the amendment the member for St. John's East has proposed to this House.

Mir. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan): Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
Canada Oil and Gas Act


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.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. When the House took recess at six o'clock, the Chair had recognized the hon. member for Manicouagan.


Mr. Maltais:: Mr. Speaker, I am almost embarrassed to speak before such a large audience. I think there are people here from all over the country who have come to hear us. I am all the more happy to take part in this debate on Bill C-48 as for the people of my generation, for the younger generation of Canadians, this is indeed an extremely important measure which seeks to place Canada lands under the control of the government of Canada for purposes of exploring and developing the oil and gas deposits found in those lands which are, of course, owned by the government of Canada.
I listened this afternoon to the remarks of some colleagues who were in fact saying that the major problem was directly related to the area of the coast of Newfoundland or British Columbia, because these offshore resources belong to the provinces or fall under provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal tonight not so much with the letter but with the spirit of this legislation. As I listened this afternoon to all those who spoke against the bill, with all kinds of variations, of course, I realized that it was mainly because of legal issues and technicalities that they were opposed to it, because they pitted provincial jurisdiction against federal jurisdiction. Now, Mr. Speaker, to really understand Bill C-48 which is before us, we must go back to our Constitution and see how things have evolved since 1867. At the time the Fathers of Confederation drafted the British North America Act, the term natural resources applied to resources found in all four provinces then making up the Canadian Confederation, namely lumber, fisheries and fur. That is what was meant by resources at the time.
At the time, all provinces enjoyed justice and equality. However, the situation gets a little more complicated in the twentieth century when one resource is required by all the people of the country. When can a province claim rights over a natural resource and set its price, and when should the federal government do so? That relates to the spirit of the law more than to the letter of the law, as I was saying before. Our country was founded on a concept of sharing. In this regard, I believe that in the east as well as in the west there has been a time since Confederation where some region or another has had to pay for the rest of the country. There was the case of

July 13, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
western grain during the depression, when grain prices were much higher than everywhere else in the world and subsidies were set up to help western farmers. Prices were even higher in Canada than anywhere else to help farmers to sell their grain. Later on, it was oil and the Borden line because of which people in Ontario had to pay more for their oil than other Canadians.
There has always been a time in Canada when someone paid a bit more for a shared resource. For young Canadians, there is nothing worse than to hear representatives of each party or group of citizens throughout the country try to emphasize the egoistic aspects of such an issue, because when a province has an important resource and expects benefits from it, it wants to keep it for itself. This is what is happening in Newfoundland now. The same thing happened when Quebec wanted to claim Labrador because as we now know, there are important resources in Labrador. However, what young Canadians want to see in this country is a sense of sharing rather than not a war among leaders. Yet, what is now happening in Canada is indeed a war among leaders, a war among premiers.
We saw this again recently at the First Ministers' Conference and when the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) took part in the latest Federal-Provincial Conference in September: The provinces still wanted a bigger share of the pie, but without sharing their own resources with Canada as a whole. This is where we have a problem in Canada, because we do not consider the population as a whole, but rather each of the provinces. As for us, as the government of Canada, we were not elected to represent a region. We were not elected to see to the next election, but to see to the welfare of the nation and of future generations. In this regard, what does Bill C-48 do? It gives the Canadian government, our government and our Parliament, certain powers over Canada lands to manage more effectively and more rationally the resources of the country, the heritage of 100 years and the guarantee for the Canadian people of a secure future.
When we read-and this is important-the exact provisions contained in Bill C-48, we are surprised that the other side would oppose it because, far from stripping the country, of its resources, the purpose of the bill is as follows:
To regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas production and Conservation Act.
Do we agree or not that we are living in a country where wealth must be redistributed, even though we might have to find the proper mechanism to do so? Basically, this is somewhat of a paradox, but Canada is perhaps one of the rare countries where two problems can be well identified. We have great wealth in this country and a resource sharing problem. We do not know how to share, how to be fair. All we know is how to grab this wealth, how to keep it for ourselves without
allowing the Canadian government to share it among all Canadian men and women.
That should be elementary for anyone, man or woman, sitting here in this Parliament and we should be able to reach a consensus easily. As for me and the generation I represent, what disillusions us increasingly is the sight of artificial conflicts, conflicts based strictly on absolute power or the power to grow richer at the expense of other Canadians. I say that without political prejudice because in Quebec we had a referendum that was undeniably an extremely painful experience since we criticized each other in search of reasons, which often turned out to be excuses to score a point, but always at the expense of the whole community.
I heard the hon. member for St. John West (Mr. Crosbie) say this afternoon that Newfoundland needs its offshore resources to do away with the equalization payments and because it wants to grow richer. That is what Canada wants for each one of its parts, allow it to grow richer, but not at the expense of the Canadian people as a whole. I have a strange feeling that there are 12 countries in Canada, two territories and ten provinces and if anything is left over, then it can be given to the federal government.
When we have transportation problems, and I see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is here in the House, everyone turns to him, beginning with me, asking him for very costly things about which it is sometimes very difficult to tell whether they are needs or whims; no one ever hesitates to turn to the federal government to ask for more. But when the time comes to put something in the central pot, one's share of the pie, everyone objects; and it is stranger still to see the Newfoundland premier go to the federal government asking it to request of Quebec that it allow an energy corridor through its territory, while at the same time asking the federal government not to touch the offshore resources under the pretext that they belong to his province. In other words, they use double standards. As I understand it, the Progressive Conservative Party, when they were the government, were in the position to realize that over a nine-month period. They had difficulty getting into an agreement, they could not even agree with Alberta on a pricing formula at the time. They could not agree either with Newfoundland on a program that would have been acceptable to both parties. But now they would have us give everything to each province under the pretext that this would facilitate an agreement. This is out of the question, it is a matter of attitude. As far as I am concerned, I am first and foremost proud to be a Canadian, and I recognize that Quebec and the other provinces should contribute to the central treasury, the central budget, the Canadian treasury to allow for redistribution. I cannot agree that a province or a region be allowed to monopolize the whole amount, claiming it as its own.
I think Bill C-48 is clear on that. Let us put aside the legal question of who owns the 200 miles of coast, let us now factually examine what the Minister of Energy, Mines and
July 13, 1981

Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is proposing. He is simply proposing that from now on, we may Canadianize to a greater degree and even reach energy self-sufficiency with what we already have. To that end, through a most detailed and specific legislation, he is proposing that Parliament take a direct involvement in Canada lands. It is my basic impression that such a proposal deserves united, enthusiastic acceptance from Canadians, because what this is all about is truly a heritage, and the development of that heritage to the benefit of all. And what I mean by that is that this is just as beneficial for French, English and native Canadians, because the term "Canada lands" includes, of course, the Territories and the Amerindian lands. And the pooling concept means in the first place that those groups agreed to be part of the Canadian whole and that provinces also agree to take part in that pooling.
In the course of our discussions here or in committee, we often forget that reality, and in our own provinces or areas we say we have been short-changed, we do not get our share. Provinces like Alberta that were comparatively poor at first, now are in a favourable position and get ahead of the other regions. The same goes for Newfoundland. When Newfoundland accepted to join Confederation, after two referendums, other Canadians paid its way in. So much the better if Newfoundland can now strengthen its economy, but it should not be forgotten that Newfoundland is part of the Canadian whole just as any other province. It becomes very tiresome for young Canadians to note that our proceedings are strictly based on the past. When I mentioned the natural resources of 1867, I explained a while ago that they merely consisted in the navigable waters, furs, timber and fisheries, and now that we are speaking of an essential product called oil, it has become an instrument of blackmail.
Now Bill C-48 provides, of course, that the distribution of resources be planned and requires also that the provinces should not resort to blackmail with respect to any of those resources. I hope that the members opposite will give us later an answer on that point. Is it possible to build Canada while giving more energetic power to the provinces without taking all Canadians into account? What would you say of a country such as Canada where a province would become filthy rich at the expense of the other citizens of the country. It is not normal, and such is not the purpose of a government, but rather to redistribute wealth, to give freedom and to promote the movement of goods.
If there is no agreement on that principle, then I understand that hon. members opposite might not share the philosophy of this government. And in this respect I think that the party to which I belong has made its position extremely clear in the last election because that was precisely one of the issues, namely to achieve a greater Canadianization and sharing of our natural resources. We could have entered into legal technicalities and undertake a point by point study of what is proposed in Bill C-48, but what would be the use of it if at first there is no will
Canada Oil and Gas Act
to live together and to share the profits as well as the deficits, the joys as well as the hardships of belonging to the same country?
When travelling around the country, we see people look so sullen. Do you know why? It is often due to the fact that our leaders by artificial means are fostering conflicts within the people. Once a conflict opposes two provinces, the federal government is being asked to take sides in the decisions to be made as is the case of the energy corridor requested by the province of Newfoundland that would go through Quebec. I could mention many such examples where the federal government was asked to be the referee when various parties are engaged in a litigation. I suggest we often forget that we have been sent here to promote greater unity among the Canadian people and although I do not expect you to fully agree on what a government can do but in this case it is quite obvious that it is a matter of sharing a resource and the benefits derived from it. This to me seems quite clear and I cannot understand why members of Parliament should be reluctant to pass such a bill. It is clearly spelled out in the bill that we are dealing with Canada lands. The purpose of this bill is not to deprive the Canadian people of their revenue but on the contrary to increase it. This is the philosophy underlying this bill, and that is what hon. members opposite have a tendency to forget.
I would like it very much if the opposition could reply to that in a few minutes. What is the argument in favour of the fact that such an important energy resource ought to be given to one province or another without Canadians as a whole being able to benefit from it? I would like to have evidence that a country can be built on economic disparity, on unfair distribution of wealth. I hope someone will give us that evidence in a few minutes. And when we go here and there, if we read the newspapers about what is happening in England, what is going on almost everywhere in the world? The problem stems from a shortage of wealth, a lack of sharing, and here we have the impression-I would even say that sometimes I have the conviction-that what we are trying to do is to widen the gap with respect to sharing and redistribution. As we are debating this bill, instead of looking strictly at the financial aspect of the operation as far as one province is concerned, we should put more emphasis on the spirit which ought to unite all Canadian men and women and try to find a formula or a prescription whereby Canadians might take pride in their own energy resources.
I think that even the former prime minister of Canada, the Hon. Joe Clark, would agree that Canada is one of the few countries that can claim to have enough resources to be completely self-sufficient in energy within 10 years. The big challenges for us to take up are to be able to control our own potential, to develop it, to make it much more economic and to use it as an extraordinary leverage. All Canadians and particularly parliamentarians should bear in mind that we govern one country and not 12 countries. I think we have a very important

July 13, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
step to make to change our mentality and our morality in government. It is overdue, and for two years, since I came here, I have had the impression that we talk about 12 countries. I wish we could speak of one country, of equal citizens. When the time comes for Canadian men and women to apply for a passport, they are glad to receive one with the name Canada on it. I think we should also be proud to have the same energy prices across the country and the same right to share our Canadian heritage. Mr. Speaker, I ask members of the opposition to answer the few questions I asked them, bearing in mind that we are one country and that we are Canadian men and women who are proud to be Canadians and to share our own wealth.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interests to the remarks of the preceding speaker. I will not try to answer point by point some of the rhetorical and some of the substantive questions he asked. We must keep one thing clear. We do not have a nation or a country by preaching from the rooftops on the beauty from sea to sea. We do not have a nation or a country by hon. members standing in the House and saying "Let us all be homogeneous, let us forget history and start anew". 1 agree with the hon. member that Bill C-48 and its complementary bill. Bill C-57, which has already been disposed of in the House, is the two-pronged attack of the National Energy Program or the nationalized energy policy of the government, depending on what one wants to call it. This is the government's policy. There is no doubt that it is looking to the future.
It is ironic on July 13, in the doldrums of summer one day before Bastille Day that we are debating this bill. I have not heard the French try to change the name of Bastille Day because to do so would smack of something anti-historic for France. They are proud of some of their history. I can understand the argument about whether it should be Canada day or Dominion Day.
The hon. member spoke sincerely from his perspective, but one of the problems in the country is that members of Parliament and people of good faith, who keep talking about the quality and history of Canada and who want all the problems solved overnight by one act, forget the history of the land. There is nothing different personally between the hon. member and myself. There is a fundamental difference in our recognition of the history of this land.
I will not go into all the intricacies and complexities of Bill C-48. Once any speaker gets into the bill, it could take hours. Hon. members have debated this bill in committee. Obviously they have done much more detailed work than I because I was not a member of the committee. The speech of the hon. member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) fits very well with what 1 wanted to say. I am not talking about the generality or the principle of this bill. I am not talking about sharing or redistributing the oil revenues, about oil companies making too much money, about Alberta being too greedy, about the
Quebec government taking Newfoundland to the cleaners on the James Bay contract, or about Joey Smallwood selling out part of the birthright of Newfoundlanders many years ago. Now Newfoundland wants to try to come in by the back door because it has lost by coming through the front door for 20-odd years. I will not deal with those matters.
We are talking about an amendment which was put forth by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I hope the hon. member will read the bill. I think what I have to say will answer his question, from my point of view, because there are many other principles involved in the debate. When we reach clause 1 of a bill, as we did with this bill when we dealt with it for a brief time at second reading stage before closure was invoked and the bill went to committee, that is when a member can talk about the principles of a bill. That is when he can talk about the cross currents. I thought we were talking about an amendment to the bill put forward by the hon. member for St. John's East. What he wants to do through his amendment is to recognize the history of this land and recognize what this land has been until Bill C-48 was put before us. The greatest mythology in this debate occurs when we talk about Canada lands.
I listened to the hon. member opposite and he was partly right. I hope he appreciates why we in the east, in Atlantic Canada, feel rather aggrieved and threatened by this bill. It is because until now we have not been part of Canada lands. Look at the bill and the interpretation of Canada lands therein. Clause 2 of the interpretation section of the bill reads:
"Canada lands" means lands that belong to Her Majesty-
That is ownership.
-in right of Canada, or in respect of which Her Majesty in right of Canada has the right to dispose of or exploit the natural resources, situated in
(a) the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories,-
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, who owns that now? Canada owns those lands now-the people of Canada. At present there is a contest, a debate, an argument if you will, in which they say they want in effect statehood or provincial status, or autonomy. But I will not get into that subject tonight. Let us not have any more of these red herrings, these oil slicks dragged across this debate about Canada lands.
Most parts of this bill affect ownership, distribution and administration. The federal government now has certain rights. There is an argument on our side as to what the federal government intends to do even with lands it owns, such as the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories. This debate began after Madam Speaker made a ruling this afternoon in which she suspended the debate on motions Nos. 1 and 2 and ruled that we move on to motion No. 3 put forward by the hon. member for St. John's East. His motion would strike out the second part of the meaning of Canada lands. He suggests this be done in a very fundamental way. In effect, he wants it admitted that Canada lands means the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories and not, as stated in the bill:
July 13, 1981

2(1 )(b) those submarine areas 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;
In simple language this amendment says that the Government of Canada, without consent, without any joint federal provincial arrangement, owns the submarine lands adjacent to the coastlines of the Atlantic provinces. That is why we in that area have been, historically, on the receiving end looking for some economic strength and growth.
We finally started to see a glimmer on the horizon when we saw oil rigs offshore. I will not get into the question of who shares what, whether it should be 60-40, 50-50 or the back-in provision of 25 per cent. In my opinion those are iniquitous under the act. I know the formula has been changed. This is a principle which almost every Atlantic Canadian firmly objects to. We object most strenuously to it. Using the rhetoric, which is what we can use-in other jurisdictions they would use bullets-we will object until the cows come home, until we are forced to vote on this bill to unilaterally give away what we had historically even before Confederation. That is the point which makes us aggrieved, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: These are not my words. Unfortunately, in the 20 minutes I have I do not have the time to go through the entire history. But in view of the sincere comments made by the hon. member opposite, it would not hurt to repeat some of that history. Part of the problem in Canada is that we do not have instant pudding history. The situation becomes worse when you begin to pollute the pudding that you do have. The situation worsens when history is ignored. I am talking about the British North America Act, the charter of James I or William Alexander's charter which set out the definition of Nova Scotia. I am talking about Nova Scotia; the hon. member for St. John's East talked about Newfoundland. Nevertheless, the general principle applies in terms of maritime offshore resources.
I would like to speak specifically in terms of Nova Scotia. Hon. members opposite can ask rhetorical questions. The bill we are debating says that for the first time the federal government will own these Canada lands which are set out in the interpretation section of the bill. This raises a philosophical question with regard to the words "in right of Canada". We are all Canadians, let us share and share alike. The federal government has tax policies to help the sharing. I ask the hon. member opposite, who must appreciate this fact: why should we in Atlantic Canada, and in Nova Scotia, be the only provinces which do not own their natural resources in adjacent areas of the sea? Does he not appreciate the history of this land? Let us take James Bay for an example. When this country was formed in 1867, Canada lands of the day included one half or one third of Quebec. I do not plan to just pick on Quebec. I will talk about the tar sands development and the mineral wealth of northern Ontario. These, too, were parts of the country which formed Canada lands of the day. The term
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Canada lands seems to be something new from the heavens, an open sesame to the new world and a new distribution service wherein everyone will be treated equally. We will share the bubbles from gas and the slickness of oil. We will share. I want to share, but that is not the topic of debate this evening.
As far as I am concerned, when we are speaking about motion No. 3, why should we in Nova Scotia sit quietly back and allow the federal government to come in and say, "The history of Nova Scotia since 1621 is wrong. We own it. You must come to us on bended knee and find out how we will administer it?" Why should we in Nova Scotia who, prior to confederation, had control of our offshore mineral resources, allow the government to come in and take Sable Island where a great deal of the action is today in terms of oil and gas, especially gas? As my hon. friend said this afternoon, a provincial government fell on the issue of ownership in 1978. The present Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) tried to defend the federal position of a 75-25 share to administer the wealth and to try and reach a practical sharing formula. As we all know, the trouble with that principle is that he who owns the resources calls the tune. There is no doubt that if you own a resource, you can direct its development. We do not feel that confident when there are competing interests in a country such as Canada with a federal government away in Ottawa which perhaps gives priority to the development of a resource which we thought we had owned since 1621. I say to the hon. member opposite, partly in answer to his question, that he would be just as aggrieved if the situation were reversed historically.
I am all for the Canada lands which were created in 1867. At that time they became trump cards. There was James Bay, which I am all for. It is one of the great creations of our engineering skills in Canada. As we all know, Hydro Quebec is a fantastic colossus which has economic clout in terms of the dollars which it produces for Canada and Quebec. The mineral wealth being ceded to Ontario and the development of the tar sands in Alberta were not part of the original confederation agreement. That is when Canada gave Canada lands to those parts of the country, and since then they have become very valuable.
Let us not kid ourselves about this bill in terms of distribution. This bill does not affect those ex-Canada lands. It affects and directs the development of the present Canada lands, the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, and then it adds to Canada lands parts of Canada which were not defined in the term before.
That is the whole point. Your Honour and I could go back to section 109 of the BN A Act which makes it very clear as to who has jurisdiction of the mineral resources and the seabed of Nova Scotia. I am not going to confuse everyone by reading a lot of historic definitions; but, in effect, the definition of section 109, as most hon. members are aware, is:
All lands, mines, minerals, and royalties belonging to the several provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick at the Union-

July 13, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Of course, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Upper and Lower Canada were the four original partners. We all know that. The section continues to read:
-and all sums then due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals or royalties, shall belong to the several provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in which the same are situate or arise, subject to any trusts existing in respect thereof and to any interest other than that of the province in the same.
Section 7 of the British North America Act states:
The provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall have the same limits as at the passing of this act.
In terms of Nova Scotia, what were the limits at the passing of the act in 1867? Where does one get that? One has to go way back to the original charter given by King James the First to Sir William Alexander, dated September 10, 1621. I have a single-spaced typewritten copy of part of the definition, which I will not bore the House with reading, though it is very interesting and has a lot of old history in description; but 1 am going to read a part of the definition to show Your Honour that the reason we feel aggrieved, threatened and a little angry is that in current times we define the boundaries of Nova Scotia and talk about the promontory of Cape Breton in this manner. The definition says, amongst other things:
-all the lands upon the continent with the rivers, torrents, bays, shores, islands or seas lying near to, or within six leagues (approximately 21 miles) from any part thereof, on the western, northern or eastern parts of the said coasts ...
-and to the southward thereof where Cape Sable lies, all the seas and islands to the south within forty leagues (approximately 140 miles) of the said shores, including the great island commonly called the Isle of Sable on Sablon, lying south-south-east in the ocean about thirty leagues (approximately 105 miles) from Cape Breton aforesaid-
Then listen to these interesting words. The people back in 1621 must have been genuises to know that we would be so immature as to get involved in a dogfight like this, because it was written in very interesting English. Actually, it was Latin. They did not write English or French in those days. They were a little retarded. They wrote Latin, and this is the translation. This is why, of course, I have a private bill respecting the name of Nova Scotia, because I believe the proper name is Nova Scotia, or New Scotland. However, we will not get into that for the moment; not yet. Listen to what it says at the end of the definition. It reads as follows:
-and if any questions, or doubts shall hereafter arise upon the interpretation or construction of any clause in the present letters patent contained, they shall all be taken and interpreted in the most extensive sense, and in favour of the said Sir William Alexander, his heirs and assigns aforesaid.
Of course, Sir William Alexander was the fellow who got the whole chunk of Nova Scotia, and that was the start of it. I already read the section of the BNA Act which gave a smaller definition and, in effect, said there was no change. However, it goes on much further than that. As we all know, there have been a few wars in Atlantic Canada, in New York, and also in North America. In every war and in every treaty since the treaty of New Trent and the Treaty of Paris, Nova Scotia has been defined to include the lands and seas, and depending on what definition one adopts, it is either 40 leagues off sea-it always includes Sable Island-or 30 leagues for those who are not nautical. I am not the most nautical person, but 30 leagues is 105 miles. That gets one pretty far into the adjacent lands
offshore. The French, under the Treaty of New Trent in 1713, acknowledged that. It has always been acknowledged.
In terms of Nova Scotia, and there is another claim. One can talk about statute law. No one objected for 115 years that Nova Scotia was passing statute law to control Sable Island or to make sure the fishermen did not throw, in the words of one law, "awful" or "offal" into the sea.


Some hon. Members:: Awful!


Some hon. Members:: Offal!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That was one of the first pollution bills, way back in 1770. Fishermen were allowed to throw awful offal into the sea, and no one objected to that. Under the statute law of Nova Scotia in 1700, revenue officers of Nova Scotia could go on to Sable Island and haul in those people who did not pay taxes. There are all sorts of laws which apply to the sea, and also, in particular, to Nova Scotia.
There have also been many royal commissions on boundaries. Every commission in Nova Scotia starting in 1846, as well as the governors of the day who redefined parts of the boundaries, has cited not only Sable Island, but 21 miles or 140 miles contiguous to the shore line, once one sorts out the phraseology of the legal description. The interesting thing is that in the description of 21 miles and 40 leagues, or 140 miles, the 140 miles is very relevant, because that is the distance to Sable Island. Sable Island is within 40 leagues of Nova Scotia's coast.
The most interesting thing in this whole problem of section 3 and the amendment of my friend is to come right down to something which is most relevant and which has not been answered. For over 100 years we in Nova Scotia have been giving leases for mining coal in offshore areas which extend much farther than six miles. The interesting little twist to this is that the federal government itself passed a statute, when Your Honour and I were hon. members in this House, creating Devco. Who was it that assigned the mine leases to the government of Canada in the name of Devco? Was it the Government of Canada, in the name of Canada, which assigned the mineral leases to Devco, a creature of this federal House?
I see the very stimulating and distinguished Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) here tonight. She is from Sudbury where mining is most relevant. She knows my brother who works in mining part of that area. Perhaps she could answer my question.
It was not the federal government that ceded leases to Devco. It was the province of Nova Scotia, which had legally assigned the leases years earlier, which ceded those leases to the Devco Corporation.


Mrs. Erola:: Why?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Why would they, under the purport of section 3, if they owned the area, cede and give to themselves that
July 13, 1981

which they already owned? Here is a beautiful example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand does.
However, let us come down to the part that I mentioned when I started my remarks. All other provinces of Canada have ownership of their resources without any equivocation. I am talking about the ownership of the resources; I am not talking about what the federal government owns in the Northwest Territories or the Yukon.
I have already said that section 7 of the BNA Act gives Nova Scotia and New Brunswick the same rights they had at the time of confederation. As I have already said, other provinces have had fundamental ownership since confederation. North Ontario is an example. The mining area of Sudbury has been added to Ontario. It has helped Ontario, and it has helped Canada. I have already mentioned James Bay, Alberta and Saskatchewan. However, the tar sands are in Alberta. My friend talked earlier about the bill here before the House in terms of the hydro line and obtaining rights to convey hydro across the territory of Quebec in the same manner as gas and oil were conveyed across other provinces. The premier of Quebec has said that this right of way is a violation of the sovereignty of Quebec. I am not going to debate it. I know that my friends in Newfoundland and the premier of Newfoundland feel very strongly about this bill. However, imagine the sense of violation that the premier of Quebec would feel, and, certainly what the premier of Alberta would feel, even more so, if, unilaterally, the federal government, which initially gave them the lands which are now James Bay and the lands which are now the tar sands, were to say, "Well, that was not really in the public interest. We want to revoke that unilaterally"? That would just show Your Honour-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: More, more!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I just want to conclude with one sentence. It is rather ironic to me-I am going to be very unprovocative tonight-it is really an amazing thing to me-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect, the hon. member has already exceeded his time by two minutes.


Some hon. Members:: More, more!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We need the unanimous consent of the House to proceed. There is not unanimous consent of the House.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, at an earlier stage of this debate, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) made a few remarks. I think it is high time that we again put the record straight, even at the expense of being somewhat repetitive. Perhaps, though he may be a slow learner, at long last he might be able to take it in. First there was some correspondence between the then prime minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition
Canada Oil and Gas Act
(Mr. Clark) and the Premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Peckford, and I think it only proper that some of that correspondence be read into the record once more.
On August 23, 1979, Premier Peckford wrote to the then prime minister of Canada in the following terms:
On a number of occasions we have discussed the ownership of the mineral resources of Newfoundland's continental margin. In those discussions, I outlined to you the province's legal and moral claims to ownership and the importance which I place on this subject.
To restate my position briefly, I regard the development of the province's offshore mineral resources as both the greatest hope and greatest challenge facing us. The development of these resources in accordance with the priorities and objectives of the province would enable Newfoundland to become a strong member of an enhanced Canadian Confederation. On the other hand, the development of these resources at a rate, or in a manner, which is inappropriate to the province would do irreparable damage to our social and economic wellbeing.
It is our belief that this challenge can only be met if the province has ownership of, and jurisdiction over, its offshore mineral resources.
I wish to emphasize the next portion and bring it to the attention of members opposite. It reads:
Accordingly, we greatly appreciate your support of Newfoundland's position and the position of the federal Conservative party that Newfoundland's undersea resources should be treated constitutionally in the same manner as if they were on land.
That is Premier Peckford's understanding of the position adopted by the then prime minister of Canada and it is spelled out quite clearly.
Let me read some of the then prime minister's answer to Mr. Peckford. In part, this letter dated September 14, 1979, reads:
As you pointed out during our meeting, the strong feelings which Newfoundland has expressed on the offshore mineral resources issue down through the years have flowed from its history. It is fitting, therefore, that I confirm to you, the Premier of Newfoundland, the adherence of the Government of Canada to the principles enunciated. At the same time, however, I wish to take the opportunity presented by the publication of our exchange of letters to confirm that the Government of Canada is prepared to see these principles applied to the resolution of the offshore issue with all provinces concerned. Indeed I am sending a copy of this letter to all the Premiers because all are interested in the matter to some degree and will, in due time, have to deal with it in constitutional discussions.
Attached to that letter was an annex. Its heading reads "Basic Principles Concerning Offshore Mineral Resources". The following is the first item:
The province of Newfoundland should own the mineral resources of the continental margin off its coast in so far as Canada is entitled to exercise sovereign rights over these resources in accordance with international law. Such ownership should be, to the extent possible, of the same nature as if these resources were located within the boundaries of the province. The legislative jurisdiction of the province should, to the extent possible, be the same as for those resources within the boundaries of the province.
I will not read items 2 and 3 because they go on to reaffirm the position. But let me read item 4 of the annex to the letter dated September 14, 1979, from the then prime minister of Canada to Mr. Peckford. Item number 4 reads:
The above principles will be further confirmed and implemented by the signing of an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Govern-

July 13, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
ment of Newfoundland and by appropriate legislative action and constitutional change.
Perhaps the issue which the hon. member for Burin-St. George's was raising was the comprehension of Mr. Peckford that if perchance, and that chance did arise, the Liberal party should take over the Government of Canada, he wanted the further commitment of a Conservative government that those resources would in fact be lodged with and be the property of the province of Newfoundland.


Roger Simmons: That is where Clark reneged. I have those letters and he reneged. He flip-flopped, just as he did with Jerusalem.


Fred Alward McCain: He did not renege.


Roger Simmons: He did an about-face.


Mr. Kempling:: You are a Newfoundland sewer pipe.


Some hon. Members:: Order, please.


Fred Alward McCain: I wish the hon. member for Burin-St. George's would be as silent and polite while I speak as I was when he spoke.


Roger Simmons: You were not here.


Fred Alward McCain: I was in this House and I heard every word of the hon. member's speech.


Roger Simmons: You didn't understand it.


An hon. Member:: Talk about slow learners.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Fred Alward McCain: A lot of slow learners were brought into the House who are sitting on your right, Mr. Speaker. It is regrettable for the good of Canada, but some of the loudest complaints come from those who are the slowest learners.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: A whale off the coast of Newfoundland would not make as much impolite noise as the hon. member for Burin-St. George's is making right now. He would understand the difference between blowing and sucking.


William James Kempling: He sucks and blows at the same time.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The yappy dog over there.


Fred Alward McCain: I repeat, the Premier of Newfoundland understood that he could not trust the Liberal party, and the epitome of his cause of mistrust has been vocally expressed here tonight by the hon. member for Burin-St. George's who has failed to be a loyal Newfoundlander by not supporting the concept of coastal provinces in Canada in general, owning the resources, as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition said, "as if they were resources on land".
The committees had been established to do the negotiating. A cabinet committee had been established. Members were assigned to the committee to take in the necessary parts of their particular portfolios as the particular portfolio concerned an agreement to be made. The total negotiating package had been set up and was in place. Negotiations were about to begin. That is a far cry from the misleading remarks which have come from the hon. member for Burin-St. George's.


Roger Simmons: What is misleading? I referred to the same letters you did. He reneged on it.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker, can you not keep that fellow quiet?


William James Kempling: Who has the floor?


Fred Alward McCain: If the students of a former teacher of this House had been as diabolical in the interruption of his work as he is now, how would he have dealt with them as a disciplinarian? How can he expect you, Mr. Speaker, to deal with him as a disciplinarian of this school? I am sure he demanded more consideration from his class than he is willing to give to this House of Commons.
A number of things cause great concern in this House. It has been proposed that a pipeline be built from Montreal to Atlantic Canada. We are now in the process of passing a piece of legislation which, in 55 instances, allocates to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) ministerial discretion. I am concerned about that because it has been ministerial discretion and the tardiness of the various agencies of the Liberal government of this land which have created the present situation. Should the pipeline be built to take gas from Sable Island to central Canada or should it be built from Montreal to take western gas to eastern Canada? If we have not had such greed for political profile on your right, Mr. Speaker, we would know in which direction to build that line. There would have been sufficient exploration and development off Sable Island to enable us to say today where that line should go. If present exploration is indicative of what is there, then the line should definitely be built from east to west in eastern Canada rather than from west to east. We may be getting ourselves involved, as a result of procrastination, deliberation and over-regulation, in the construction of a line which may cost $100 million or more to reverse if and when the dreams, aspirations and reasonable hopes of those drilling off Sable Island are realized.
We are in a position where the government has said, and it has been repeated here today, that the assets of Canada should be shared. I am rather concerned about the approach of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) who indicates that the central government of Canada should exercise all the authority. In the country from which he came there was nothing any stronger than the constitutional rights of the States. Nothing more was carved in stone than the right of
July 13, 1981

each state to have two senators in the United States Senate. In that senate was vested the authority to protect the rights of every state in the union, new or old.
Under our system we do not preserve state rights carved in stone, as they do in the United States. We would have the existing rights further disrupted and diluted if and when the constitutional package which has been before this House so long were passed. I cannot comprehend how a man who should have obtained his philosophies in a native land which appreciates democratic rights and state rights would ask Canadians, and his own constituents in particular, to accept that the federal government should have all the rights. Nothing could be further from what he was taught to believe.


Roger Simmons: When did he say that?


Fred Alward McCain: By his very loud-mouth support of this bill he said that. He has said just that. He has interjected enough that it is pretty clear where he stands.


Roger Simmons: Come on.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Go up to the Senate with Stollery.


Fred Alward McCain: I suppose you will give me an extra five minutes to deal with the manners of this man.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. A number of members are calling on the Chair to intervene. I remind them that heckling is an honourable tradition. The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte has participated in the response, heckling and using some of the same expressions. I think he is doing quite well on his feet and I do not see the necessity of interrupting.


Fred Alward McCain: Very well, Mr. Speaker. Where does the share of the federal government fit in a confederation? That has already been doled out to the federal government in income tax by an early constitutional amendment. What other share will the government get in a healthy economy with rapid development which this country is ready to receive and capable of developing?
The government gets a share because the unemployment insurance payments would go down. They would save half a billion bucks, maybe more. It gets another share because welfare payments will go down. Under the present Unemployment Insurance Act, welfare payments as part of a cost sharing program, are costing more. It will probably make another half a billion a year there. The government gets another share because the highly paid employees of any developmental structure are going to be paying personal income tax on a high level. 1 do not know what the estimate of that would be. That is the third share. The government gets another share in the form of income tax from the corporations, companies or individuals conducting the development. It gets other revenues in every tax field from every spin-off of an improved economy. How much does this government want to try to persuade Canada that it should get off the backs of the provinces? It is hypocritical for a government to say it does not
Canada Oil and Gas Act
get anything out of the development of oil when its gets it in every direction by reduced costs of government and increased revenues which amounts to billions of dollars.


Mr. Gustafson:: It wants to whole hog.


Fred Alward McCain: You get this by reducing federal expenditures and by increasing national revenues. The problem is that an ill-managed government has spent to the extent that it cannot cope with the programs it has put in place and which it has costed and forecast with great inaccuracy. Rather than say a mistake was made, it is reaching higher and higher with greed for political profile at the expense of the provinces in this and so many other situations.
This party was asked what it would do were it in power with respect to the right of way for electricity to pass through the province of Quebec. That was one of the most superfluous questions I have ever heard. There was a deal made by federal Liberal government under Mr. Pearson, with a Liberal government negotiating for Newfoundland under Mr. Smallwood's direction and a Liberal government dealing with the problem in the province of Quebec under Mr. Bourassa. I say to the Liberal government of this day and its party supporters that it is a pretty dirty bird that will foul its own nest and ask its successors to move in and clean it up. You fellows clean it up. Your predecessors created it. Don't ask us what to do about it, we didn't create it.
The Bible says that the son shall answer for the sins of the father, and so the sons will just have to take the punishment and come up with the solutions that will create a unified, harmonious Canada. While they are doing that they should bear one thing in mind. Montreal has been supplied with oil by an international pipeline from Portland as well as from other sources. New Brunswick has undertaken an interprovincial and an international electric grid. Without rights of way, these projects would have been impossible. There is to be and there will be a maritime energy commission at some point in time. That will depend on the freedom of transmission of electricity through the provinces of Canada for it to be successful.
I submit that if there is to be energy transmitted from one province to another, if we are going to bring gas from Alberta to Montreal, then can we not bring electrical energy from Newfoundland to New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario? This is what should have been thought about when those three great Liberals were laying down the plan which is causing the problems of today. It was the acquiescence and lack of foresight which create the problem.


Roger Simmons: Are you for or against it?


Fred Alward McCain: Just like an artesian well.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, an artesian well has clean water.
t


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He's more like a sump pump.


Fred Alward McCain: Perhaps the federal government could improve its approach in the fashion it is trying to negotiate with the provinces. The history of the resource industry of Canada,

July 13, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
regardless of the resource, has proven to responsible governments, beyond any measure of doubt whatsoever, that a specific royalty is detrimental to development. The only royalty which a province or federal structure should seek is on a profit-sharing basis.
One of the biggest mining developments in New Brunswick employs a couple of thousand people. It would never have got off the ground if the province of New Brunswick had applied a specific royalty on the specific minerals which were withdrawn from the soil at Bathurst. It was by agreement between the Hon. Hugh John Flemming, then premier of New Brunswick, and the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker as prime minister of Canada that a new formula was devised to make work in Bathurst through the development of our resources, with the province to get a percentage of profit as a royalty.
If a percentage profit had been the basis for royalties in western Canada and in the mind of this federal government, those 500 oil wells in Saskatchewan would still be producing, and those 175 rigs which have left Canada would still be drilling. Anybody who has any love for Canada whatsoever and understands the business concept of a free world knows there must be a new formula.
In spite of all the bellyaching from your right, Mr. Speaker, let me point out one thing. The relations between the Leader of the Opposition when he was prime minister and the provinces of Canada at no time cause a shutdown of wells or a reduction in oil delivery. Nor did it interfere with exploration. Nor has it caused the postponement of any development or exploration, and when that contrast is drawn, the government should only speak of its own performance with a sheepish look and a covered face.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by observing that the demonstration we have seen in the last hour put up by the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) indicates he certainly is no beautyrest. He has created an ache in the backsides as no other member has since that late appointee from Spadina to the other place.
Let me begin by saying that the debate on this bill is right now totally out of place. What we ought to be debating are matters of the Post Office and the fact that potentially 1,000 to 1,500 businesses per month, will go bankrupt as a result of the postal strike, if this government does not get the Post Office working again. Here we are debating Bill C-48 at the report stage, even though there was a commitment to save it for a fall debate.
We have before us Bill C-48, even though off schedule.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benno Friesen: Let me reply to the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). It seems to me that since the last election the Liberal government has made certain the people from British Columbia are alienated from the government. To
speak on behalf of British Columbia has fallen to the lot of only one party, and that is the Progressive Conservative Party whose members now speak on behalf of British Columbians.
I remember the debate on the Constitution and I cannot remember members to my left speaking on behalf of British Columbia during that debate. As a matter of fact, we had an indication of the direction those members want to go when it came to a discussion of natural resources at that time. I fully recall, and I checked with Hansard, a speech made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen). I recall very clearly that he said the former Premier of British Columbia, the Hon. Dave Barrett, indicated at the 1975 federal-provincial conference that if the federal government would promise it would nationalize the natural resources of the provinces, British Columbia would gladly turn over its natural resources to the central government. That was the commitment Dave Barrett made in 1975, and I think members to my left will acknowledge that. The hon. member for Kootenay West approved of that commitment. Incidentally, that is why the New Democratic Party during the Constitution debate supported the Liberal Party in the matter of ownership of provincial resources. In a sense we have to say who speaks on behalf of the people of British Columbia.


An hon. Member:: The NDP.


Benno Friesen: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway wants to speak on behalf of the central government, letting the central government acquire all the resources that belong to the province of British Columbia. He speaks on behalf of the north, and that is fine, it is part of his mandate as a critic for that party, but somewhere along the line somebody has to speak on behalf of the people of British Columbia.
It seems to me we are dealing not only with the resources of that province, we are dealing with the inheritance of our children and their children. What members to my left and also those across the way would like to do is to develop an irrevocable act that would for all time turn over those resources to the central government, thus prohibiting future generations in British Columbia from having any kind of control over those resources.
This amendment is vital. For the record I want to say it was the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who proposed an amendment to Bill C-48 which is entitled "An Act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands", which should more honestly read "an act to confiscate oil and gas interests in Canada lands". The hon. member for St. John's East would like to see his amendment accepted so this act would have no authority over offshore resources.
I should like to have heard the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway speak on behalf of the offshore resources in British Columbia, resources of very vital interest to the people of that province. As he knows, interest in offshore resources in British Columbia is growing rapidly. The land is being parcelled off for future drilling. There is increased interest in drilling for gas in the ocean waters of British Columbia, but that interest will never be developed until this question is settled and until
July 13, 1981

those who are interested know who is going to control, manage and own those resources, and to whom they will be accountable in the development of those resources.
For the future of the economy of British Columbia and for the protection of the cash flow of British Columbians we have to speak to this issue. I would urge members on my left to support this amendment in order to preserve the resources of British Columbia for British Columbians. As long as there is this vagueness and this vagary, we will have stagnation in that industry offshore.
The Liberal Government's position is that the central government should own those resources, take in all the revenue possible and then take what it deems to be surplus revenue and give it back to the provinces. This is the same kind of program we have for many other taxes in the country. The trouble is that the central government spills so much; the money sifts through its fingers through accounting errors. The bottom line is that the federal government makes the provinces vulnerable to the caprice of a centralist government. The centralist government determines what the payback for these resources ought to be to the provinces.
British Columbia happens to be a producing province which is in a prosperous state. Let us consider the condition of the Atlantic provinces, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, which are on the threshold of becoming have provinces even though historically they have been have-not provinces. Let us consider how much they would still suffer from the caprice of a central government determining, by the whim of Ottawa bureaucrats and a formula they would devise, what payback ought to go to those provinces after the resources have been developed. As long as this is in the control of the central government, that government will act capriciously with those provinces.
Our party has made a clear declaration of where we stand on this. The province ought to control the offshore resources in the same way as the provinces control the land resources. Saskatchewan and Alberta have land-based energy resources. Those provinces which have offshore energy resources ought to enjoy the same kind of benefits. The problem is that whenever the federal government has tried to manipulate those land-based resources, the provincial economies have been destroyed.
1 was talking to a friend from Alberta just a few days ago. I said to him, "Things are going pretty well in your town". He said, "No, things are shut down". In this particular case it was an auditor from the revenue department who had gone out to one of the towns in Alberta where oil drilling is the chief industry and, instead of there being 60 cats operating, there was one, merely because of the manipulative power of this central government.
We in our party are convinced that a province which enjoys an ocean shoreline ought to be able to develop resources offshore in the same way provinces can develop those resources on land. However, this is not just a matter of constitutional right and interpretation; it is a matter of stewardship. It seems to me that wherever the federal government has been involved
Canada Oil and Gas Act
in resource development, particularly on northern land, its stewardship has left much to be desired. When we were in government one hon. member opposite came to me and said, "Why are you people so intent on granting provincial status to the Yukon?" He said, "Look at all the money the Yukon brings into the federal treasury". That is the nub of it all; the federal government wants to prevent provincial status in the north; it makes money because the Yukon has a territorial government and is not operating on behalf of the territory but on behalf of the Central government. It is a matter of stewardship. As long as resources are in the command of the central government, stewardship will be left wanting.
Canadians have become convinced that the entire energy policy is not a matter of self-sufficiency or a matter of supply; it is a matter of money for the federal Treasury. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) pointed out this afternoon that through tax dollars the central government is the greatest beneficiary of the energy policy. The province of Ontario gets more tax dollars out of petroleum energy than the province of Alberta. That is very poor stewardship.
As a member for British Columbia I want to speak on behalf of the province of British Columbia, which has a vital interest in this particular amendment the passage of which would ensure that the province of British Columbia, as well as the provinces of the Atlantic, would maintain control of all the energy resources and mineral resources offshore in the same way it controls other resources. Should the amendment of the hon. member for St. John's East be accepted, the province of British Columbia would benefit. Incidentally, so would the federal government because the federal government would get its due in terms of tax dollars.
I trust that hon. members of the House will accept the motion of the hon. member for St. John's East, and that the provinces which enjoy maritime coastlines will be able to control their own natural resources.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I too want to speak in support of this motion introduced by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I think it is good to begin this debate at report stage on this very important motion moved by my colleague because, although it speaks directly to the question of offshore rights for the coastal provinces, it brings us directly to the larger issue of Bill C-48 and, indeed, the government's energy policies, which are directly based on the government's philosophy of management of the country's resources, and that is a philosophy which I profoundly oppose.
The hon. member for St. John's East made a distinguished contribution this afternoon when he insisted that it is the right of the coastal provinces to control their own rates of development. Indeed, as the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) told us earlier this evening, the provinces in the Atlantic area which those two members represent had ownership of their resources when they entered Canada. I represent a province, Alberta, which had to struggle to acquire that ownership long after we became part of Canada, and if today hon. members from Alberta are fighting strongly to retain

July 13, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
control of the resources in our province, so too we fight on behalf of those coastal provinces which had those rights when they came into confederation.
This motion brings us directly to the heart of the bill and the philosophy of the government. The rights of the provinces, whether obtained at their entry into confederation or provided to them by amendments to the Constitution in 1930, are at the very heart of the continuation of the development of this country, which is based on regional strengths. This is a confederation, and I have to say with great sincerity that I believe the government is operating from a unitary philosophy. It is not the provinces and the rights of those provinces which are uppermost in the minds of hon. members opposite, but it is their desire to control from the centre of this country all aspects of its development. That has led to the unfortunate National Energy Program and the Canadianization concepts therein.
Before I leave the speech made by the hon. member for St. John's East on the motion now before the House, I would like to underline a very important phrase the hon. member offered for our consideration. The hon. member defended the case of Newfoundland regarding the right to offshore mineral development out 200 miles and in the seabed beyond as far as the coastal lines prevail. He said to us that what Newfoundland wants is the right to control the development of that heritage which is Newfoundland's and the right to control the economic and social ramifications that development brings the indigenous community around it so that it would be developed with the best interests of the community involved in mind. So too in Nova Scotia. The hon. member for St. John's East said it is important that we have that rate of development controlled so that Newfoundland can then proceed, in the spirit of sharing, to share with the rest of Canada. I believe it is not the intention of Newfoundland, any more than it is the intention of Alberta, in exercising control of the development of resources, to hold the benefits of those resources for themselves. It is abundantly clear that Alberta has shared the benefits of its heritage. Indeed, we can make the case, and have made it very strongly, that by accepting a price far below the world price for our energy, we have made a significant contribution to the wellbeing of Canada. If you go back to the beginning of OPEC and the rise in oil prices, this contribution amounts to some $30 billion. While we are not looking in particular for a great amount of credit for that because we have done it in a spirit of developing Canada as best we can from all regional points of view, at the same time I think it ill behooves the government, particularly the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to keep insisting that these problems with respect to Alberta could be solved if we had a better sense of sharing.
The same is true of Newfoundland. When the benefits of high technology become operative in securing the development of mineral resources in our coastal provinces, whether it be the Atlantic coast or the Pacific coast, I believe these provinces will operate in the same mode as Alberta, which is in a spirit
of sharing with the rest of Canada. However, they cannot do that, any more than we can, if they roll over and allow an excessively centralist government to dominate the ownership, control and development of those resources.
I have a number of things that I wish to say about Bill C-48, Mr. Speaker, as we proceed. I am not going to go into them all tonight. I would draw your attention only to the importance of the motion put before us by the hon. member for St. John's East concerning the protection of the rights of coastal provinces with respect to ownership of their resources.


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like to ask the hon. member to tell me who negotiated the 200-mile limit and more, the provinces or the Government of Canada?


Douglas Roche: Well, I do not know that that is a point of order, but I am glad to proceed into the question of the negotiation of the 200-mile limit and the whole aspect of the Law of the Sea. I do not know whether Mr. Speaker is going to welcome a lengthy intervention, and I will be glad to return to that, but let me just tell the minister that of course it was the Canadian government that negotiated the law of the sea. However, I would say the Canadian government's intervention would only carry as much weight as the province's agreement to participate in a national policy on the law of the sea. I believe the provinces have made a distinctive contribution to the formulation of the policy which was advanced. I hope the minister is not trying to suggest the government's policies on the Law of the Sea have been all that wonderful, because I would draw to her attention the briefing published by the North-South institute in March, 1981, entitled "Canada: The Third World and the Law of the Sea" in which the fundamental point is made that there has been an acquisitiveness underlying the policies of the Canadian government and a reluctance for revenuesharing.
The hon. member for St. John's East made the case this afternoon, which has been referred to by others in the course of this debate, that revenue sharing in Canada can only be done if there is a proper understanding of ownership and a proper exercise of the rights of ownership. So, too, revenue sharing internationally can only be done if there is a proper understanding of the rights of ownership of other countries. I believe that what the provinces have done so far is to help in the formulation of a realistic Canadian policy which respects ownership and then goes on to the larger question of revenue sharing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I was hoping perhaps the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) might wish to indicate if he was prepared to accept a question, but I do not have that choice before I know whether or not the minister wished to ask a question or make a point of order. So I have to recognize the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) on a-


Judith A. Erola: I have another question, Mr. Speaker.
July 13, 1981


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Perhaps we can make it clear that it will be with the permission of the hon. member if he chooses to entertain it.


Douglas Roche: I certainly welcome the opportunity of answering questions rather than trying to ask them, but if the minister will let me proceed for a few moments, at the end of my speech I will welcome her questions and will try to leave her some time.
I think, Mr. Speaker, what we are attempting to do as a centrepiece of this particular motion before us is not to go into the larger questions of the law of the sea-which again 1 say to the minister ought to be debated in this House, and 1 fault the government for not having brought before the House a significant debate on the law of the sea-but rather to concentrate for a moment on the rights of the provinces.
The bill before us is an expression of the philosophy of the government regarding the best way to maximize its take from the offshore provinces, indeed from the north, the two central aspects of the Canada lands which are before us. The sensitivities of the people of the north and the provinces bordering the oceans are apparently just inconveniences the government lightly brushes aside. So far as members of the government in this House are concerned, they evoke the same kind of yawn which must have creased marie Antoinette's lips when she heard the poor of Paris clamouring for bread. That unfortunate queen misread the mood of the people, as indeed the present government misreads the mood of the north and the coastal provinces.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has proclaimed self-sufficiency and Canadianization as the goals of this bill. I do not know how we can seriously believe his words when we see the most recent report of the Canadian Petroleum Association, when we recognize the decision to put the Cold Lake development on an indefinite hold, which indeed could put it off into the far distant future. That plant would have produced 167,000 barrels a day by 1987. I do not know how the minister can keep proclaiming that he has the best interests of the development of energy in Canada in mind when the Canadian Petroleum Association in its review said:
The 1981 spending outlook has been dimmed by the National Energy Program. The Association's projections prior to NEP foresaw exploration and capital expenditures in excess of $10 billion for the year. It is now expected that only approximately $6.5 billion will be spent. This would be a reduction of 22 per cent from the 1980 spending level. The impact on the industry's activity level will even be greater because of inflationary cost increases: e.g. drilling completions are forecast to drop to 6,400 compared with 9,200 in 1980. An early resolution of the energy impasse is required to improve the investment outlook.
This is the fundamental background with which we began debate at report stage of this bill. The government is showing the same disregard for the feelings of the north, to touch on the north for a moment, as it showed for the feelings and the claims of Albertans.
I should like to refer to the report of the Canadian Catholic Bishops' Social Affairs Commission wherein it indicated:
Canada Oil and Gas Act
In effect, this proposed legislation would further entrench the people of the North in a situation of colonialism in Canada. It not only threatens to violate the aboriginal rights of the native peoples but it also threatens to deny all the peoples of the North some of the basic democratic rights and freedoms which we have to know and expect in other regions of Canada.
The question before us is very simple: Do we care for the future of the inhabitants of the Northwest Territories and for the future development of the coastal provinces of our great country? Do we want both these tremendously important areas of Canada to be truly a part of the Canadian mosaic? This bill, particularly in its form at report stage, does not give me much hope. I believe it is a selfish bill, the enrichment of Ottawa being its principal aim. This is the fundamental point I wanted to draw to the attention of the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola). It is a bill without a vision. It is a bill that the people of the north and those of the coastal provinces will remember with bitterness for many years to come.
In the moment remaining I would say that we ought to think seriously about the northern leaders' conference which was held in Yellowknife in March of this year. It categorically castigated the present government for ignoring the most crucial concerns of the north-those of political development, the settlement of aboriginal rights, as well as resource ownership and control.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources continues to demonstrate before the House and the country a spirit of confrontation rather than one of co-operation. He is taking steps to move us backward in the true development of our resource strength which our country and indeed the world needs. The policy whereby we continue to import offshore oil in the amount of $5.5 billion to $6 billion this year, in my judgment, ought to be most severely criticized. This oil is needed in other parts of the world. We have sufficient oil here if we put our own act together to develop and produce it properly. This policy should not be criticized on grounds of politics or partisanship. It should be criticized on grounds of fairness for a world in need of resources. The very idea of closing a $12 billion oil plant because we cannot reach an energy agreement is a problem beyond belief.
Hon. members on this side are determined to keep putting these points of view forward. I know how little the government listens, but we on this side of the House will show some determination by speaking out on behalf of true energy development, on behalf of all people of Canada, and on behalf of true regional development. It is our duty, and it is what we intend to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 know the hon. Minister for Mines is seeking the floor on a point of order and 1 know it is intended as a question for the hon. member for Edmonton South. Is there unanimous consent of the House to extend the hon. member's time for a moment in order to permit the hon. minister to ask her question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

July 13, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to the subject of the law of the sea to which the hon. member referred. If the resources at the bottom of the high seas which, if we follow the law of the sea treaty, are to be shared by all humanity or all people in the world, does it not follow that those resources which are at the bottom of the sea within Canadian jurisdiction should be shared by all Canadians?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Who said that they would not be?


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I thought I dealt with that question when I emphasized what the hon. member for St. John's East said earlier in the day. It is the intention of the province for which he spoke to enter into a spirit of sharing with the rest of Canada. In the law of the sea the minerals at the bottom of the ocean in the high seas ought clearly to be put under the jurisdiction of an international institution because they do not belong to anybody out in the high seas. The revenue from that ought to be shared on an equitable basis, particularly with land blocked and geographically disadvantaged states. Those minerals which will subsequently be developed at the bottom of the sea on the coastal areas of Canada belong to Canada-


Judith A. Erola: That is right.


Douglas Roche: -but we will enter into a revenue-sharing formula. This revenue-sharing formula will be arrived at by the concurrence of the provinces which have the actual ownership. I believe that is what makes Canada.
In conclusion, the hon. minister is reflecting her reaction to my answer on the question of the unitary concept of Canada that we are opposing. We are saying that Canada is composed of a confederation in which the policies of our government, of our national stance, are arrived at jointly by the federal and the provincial governments. Certainly this will come into play in the revenue sharing concept of the minerals at the bottom of the sea on the coastal areas of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I was about to recognize the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), but I must look to my right at this point and recognize the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLaren).


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, during the course of our discussion today on the amendment advanced by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) we have heard some discussion of the questions about oil supply in Canada and of the broad question of meeting our oil needs at the end of this decade. We have also heard another principal theme in our discussion, namely, the more legalistic question of ownership of offshore resources, whether they be on the Atlantic coast, on the Pacific coast, or in the Arctic regions.
Let me attempt for a moment to comment on the first of those two major themes in our discussion on the question of the exploitation of resources on Canada lands. The suggestion was made this afternoon and this evening that this legislation would somehow act as a hindrance to the achievement by
Canada of the goal of self-sufficiency in the petroleum field. In fact, there is no evidence to substantiate such an allegation. On the contrary, there is ample evidence, some of which I should like to cite for the benefit of the House, that the very opposite is true. One broad purpose of the National Energy Program is to ensure that Canadians enjoy self-sufficiency in oil, as they already do in hydro-electricity, coal, uranium and natural gas, by the end of this decade. In the evaluation of our potential supply it is obvious that the offshore resources on the east coast, which have now largely been outlined, and those in the Arctic which are on the way to being determined, will play a significant part in the provision of self-sufficiency in oil for all Canadians. That exploration, that exciting new development in Canada's energy future will, in part, come about as a result of the incentives which have been provided in the past and which will be provided increasingly in the future for Canadian-controlled companies to bring those resources to the benefit of all Canadians.
We have seen the example of Dome Petroleum with its ambitious schemes in the Beaufort Sea, schemes which also involve a degree of Canadianization which hitherto were not present. We know of the NOVA corporation's commitments in the Canada lands. As indicative, indeed, of many other arrangements, we have seen the arrangements between Shell and Norcen. We have seen the participation of a number of smaller Canadian companies, and I wish to note in particular their participation in the offshore exploration where they were not present in the past. Indeed, it would be an unusual week when the readers of at least the financial pages of our newspapers were not to note some new commitment by petroleum companies, particularly Canadian companies, to participate in the exploration and development in the Canada lands. I would submit that, in fact, the regime which is set forth in Bill C-48 does not in any way hinder or discourage the development which we all seek. On the contrary, it provides a framework in which that exploration and development can proceed.
Members of the House may recall that some years ago Bill C-20 offered a new regime to replace the existing somewhat ill-defined regulations to govern exploration and development in Canada lands. Unfortunately, that legislation died on the Order Paper when an election occurred. We now have before us Bill C-48, which sets forth in a coherent and comprehensive fashion the terms on which exploration and development will occur in the Canada lands. Quite obviously, this legislation is timely. Indeed, in my view, it is overdue. It provides the petroleum industry with the ground rules on which it can proceed with investments, with an assurance of the terms on which investments can be made.
We have before us a bill which defines the relationship of the federal government and the oil companies active in the Canada lands. It is not a bill about native people's claims. It is not a bill about the ownership of any particular area, or claims to ownership of any particular area in the Canada lands. What the bill does is to set out the terms and conditions for explora-
July 13, 1981

tion and development in the frontier areas. As I have said, companies can proceed with assurance as a result. In short, we shall have a regime which will stimulate further development in the Canada lands and help to ensure that all Canadians can enjoy the benefits of oil self-sufficiency, as they do in all other areas of energy.
The second major theme which we have seen develop in the debate today is that of ownership of offshore resources. I assume that members opposite have in mind the idea that somehow this bill prevents any further discussion or consideration of how the revenue from what we all hope will be the successful exploration in the Canada lands will be shared. Obviously, the bill does not do that. Indeed, I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that the bill states quite clearly that Canada lands means lands that belong to Her Majesty in the right of Canada. If they are not lands that belong to Her Majesty in the right of Canada, then they are not affected by this bill. Also, in the second part of clause 2 we refer to submarine areas not within a province. If there is some debate, some dissension about what are Canada lands and what are not Canada lands, whether they are within a province or not, then that can be challenged in the courts. Indeed, this afternoon the minister made some reference to the fact that a case currently being heard in the federal court-as I recall, a case initiated by the Seafarers' International Union-may well address this very question of the ownership of offshore resources and the right to exploit those resources. But that, to my mind, is taking an unnecessarily legalistic view of the question.
The fact is that this government has, on numerous occasions, indeed, as was noted by the hon. member for St. John's East, offered to engage in serious discussion with the Maritime provinces of our country to determine a way in which those offshore resources will be explored and developed. The government has indicated its willingness to commit itself to a regime which would provide the adjacent provinces with revenues which would bring them the opportunities which all of us seek for our citizens, providing the adjacent provinces the opportunity to benefit fully from the exploration and development. There is no question here of a grab. Indeed, the land in question is clearly under the authority of the national government of Canada. I include Sable Island. Quite obviously, as is set forth in article 91.9 of the British America Act, the federal Parliament has legislated jurisdiction over Sable Island. Thus, I cannot think why the hon. member for St. John's East sees any particular advantage in deleting that reference when it is a reference enshrined in our Constitution.
With regard to other points made by the hon. member for St. John's East, I would submit that the deletion of the clause would in no way strengthen the legal, or even the political, case made by the adjacent coastal provinces. In fact, in my view and in the view of the government, such a deletion would merely weaken Canada's claim to sovereignty over those waters to the 200-mile limit. If this motion were adopted what
Adjournment Debate
we would have would be a deletion of all reference to the 200-mile limit. By extension, we would weaken our claim to sovereignty over that area. I noted earlier that the definition provided in the bill excludes submarine areas not within a province. Therefore, that responsibility for all or part of those waters may be devolved to adjacent provinces without any amendment to Bill C-48. There is no need for amendment if such a devolvement were to be made. Rather than clarify the offshore dispute, in our view, the amendment would only serve to confuse the issue and leave unclear the responsibility for such important matters as environmental protection.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, July 3, as recorded in Hansard at page 11167, I put a series of questions to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). The questions raised three main points, and I shall refer to them; but I hope it was clear that the thrust of all three was the same, namely, that I think it is most unfair to the senior citizens of this country that there is so much delay in dealing with the question of raising pensions.
The first point that I raised had to do with a particular group who are being shortchanged. I refer to women between the ages of 55 and 60, and between the ages of 60 and 65. I put them in those two different groups because the discrimination against them varies a bit. In the case of those between 60 and 65, the discrimination is against single women, women who are alone, as opposed to those who can qualify for the spouse's allowance. In the case of those between 55 and 60, the discrimination is against all of them in that there is no federal pension for people in that age bracket.
Earlier today, when I moved a motion under Standing Order 43 along this subject, one of my friends, to have a bit of fun, suggested to me that I was violating the Constitution because I proposed something that seemed to discriminate in favour of one sex as opposed to the other. Of course, my immediate reply was that there is provision in that same Constitution to ameliorate the plight of disadvantaged groups; and women in those two age brackets, from 55 to 65, are certainly a disad-

July 13, 1981
Adjournment Debate
vantaged group. I welcome the things that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said about doing something for women in these groups; but I confess that much as I enjoy the position that the Minister of National Health and Welfare takes, and much as I am ready to quote the things that she says, it does annoy me that we are told again and again that this is a time of restraint, that there is no money, and all the rest of it. As I said in response to someone who used that line the other day, that has been the line of ministers of finance from the day when the minister of finance, back in the middle twenties, told J. S. Woodsworth that there was no money for a pension of $20 a month.
My second point in my question on Friday, July 3, had to do with the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) keeps telling us how strong the economy is, and we get these reports about the billions of dollars which are around. How does the Minister of National Health and Welfare square with that her being told that, so far as increased pensions are concerned, she just has to wait? She said, "When I see the money, when I see the colour of the necessary billions of dollars, I will be at the door of the Minister of Finance." I want her at the door of the Minister of Finance right now.
Then my third point had to do with the fact that the same minister of National Health and Welfare has some very good ideas about tax reforms which ought to take place. We liked her proposal for a child tax credit as opposed to deductions from taxable income. She has other suggestions. She points out the many loopholes there are in the tax system which result in those who are not in need getting all sorts of benefits, cutting down the money which is available to provide pensions or assistance to those who need it. On that score, too, I want her to be knocking much more seriously on the door of the Minister of Finance than I feel she is.
As I say, those are the three specific points that I put into my question. 1 know that when parliamentary secretaries are assigned to answer questions in the late show, they like to have the member stay on the questions that he asked. Sometimes I see faces over there go ashen when the member gets up and talks about something else altogether. My hon. friend must be ready to answer. She is the only parliamentary secretary and the only Liberal over there tonight. She is the Liberal party. She will realize that I am dealing with the very points that I raised in my question.
As I say, the thrust of all that is that it is not good enough to talk about doing something for senior citizens four or five years down the road, just before the next election sometime in the eighties or nineties. I hope I can say it without giving offence to anyone: I felt this last Thursday night. I said it when I opposed the bill which was before the House that night. 1 expressed the hope that members generally having done so well for themselves, both in pay and pensions, would have some conscience about these things, and I want to see action very soon.
Therefore, I present to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mrs. Appolloni) the points that I have raised. I hope she has the answers to them. I hope also she will assure me that she will get behind the Minister of National Health and Welfare and push her for action soon, not just before the next election. Our pensioners need substantial improvements now.


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to answer the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). If my face is ashen it is because it is hard to dispute the hon. member. He is reasonable, and he makes very good claims, with which I personally agree. Nevertheless, I am sorry but I have to repeat what the minister has said over and over again because it is the truth. As the hon. member has rightly said, the minister is extremely sympathetic to this question but she does not have the money. The answer is that simple and that horrendous.
The government does have a clear responsibility to provide pensions for the elderly, and it discharges this responsibility through the Old Age Security program and through the Canada Pension Plan. However, as the hon. member knows well, direct assistance to other persons, that is to those who have not reached the pensionable age, in a provincial responsibility. The provinces already provide benefits for these groups through cash social assistance and through a variety of free services. The federal government also plays an important role in the provision of these benefits since it pays for 50 per cent of their cost. That is a fact not generally known by the public.
One does question the desirability of a universal program to assist people between the ages of 55 and 65. Such a suggestion implies that the majority of Canadians in this broad age group requires this type of assistance. I do not believe that is the case. Even if we were to make it universal, the trouble would be that people who do not need the money would benefit from it, whereas people who need it desperately would have to do with so much less.
Some might see this idea of lowering the age requirement as being tantamount to reducing the qualifying age to 55 for Old Age Security pensions. Here again we find another problem. Even setting aside the enormous cost it would imply, we must recognize that such a move might work as an incentive for individuals to leave the work force much earlier and thus disrupt our socioeconomic structure. Thus, the ultimate cost, social and economic, might be even higher than the more than $3 billion of direct initial federal expenditures which would be required.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It would provide jobs for younger people.


Ursula Appolloni: The government has committed itself to the elimination of poverty among the Old Age Security pensioners who live alone. This is the government's first priority and it is a costly one.
July 13, 1981


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary has been made familiar with the rather rigid rules of the adjournment motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No money and she ran out of time.


POST OFFICE-SERVICE PROVIDED BY RURAL OFFICES DURING POSTAL STRIKE. (A) TREATMENT OF EMPLOYEES WHO REMAIN ON DUTY
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, on July 7, as recorded at 11,266 of Hansard I asked two questions of the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) regarding the present strike. Just to put the questions into context, in my part of the country, eastern Manitoba, there is no post office that is closed and there is no postal worker who is on strike. What we are receiving in that area is local mail delivery. For example, a letter posted at a local post office will find its way into the post office box of the individual post box holder.
The postal workers in the region-and I conveyed this in a question-asked me whether the government would be willing to set up a route system whereby letters posted in one post office destined for another town could be taken in bulk by the Post Office to the post office in question and there distributed to the mail boxes. That has been done before.
I had a meeting with my postal workers on Saturday last. They repeated that request and pointed out the manner in which the system could work. What would happen obviously is that within that trading region in a regional area, we would be able to continue our postal service.
I want to say publicly that I commend those postal workers for continuing to have those post office open and giving us postal service. I personally feel that a negotiated settlement is best. However, I suggest that consideration might be given to a cooling-off period during which the postal workers would come back to work. Negotiations would continue during that time.
First, 1 am asking the parliamentary secretary whether the government will consider this inter-postal distribution system in order that within a trading area that work could continue. The question I ask is whether the government would guarantee these postal workers the right to continue working and that they not be locked out, as they were in 1978, or dismissed from service and after a while having to go on unemployment insurance.
Those workers felt the union was putting pressure on them and would discipline them. In the Friday, July 10 issue of the Winnipeg Free Press, there was an article entitled "CUPW spokesman 'disowns' non-strikers". 1 quote from that article as follows:
Pat Miller said that at the conclusion of the strike, the 15 to 20 members of CUPW's Winnipeg local in Altona, Morden, Winkler and Steinbach will have an opportunity to show cause before the local's three-member disciplinary committee why they should not be thrown out of the union.
In rural areas I hear this time and time again. The union workers say there is really no point in voting because the vote has already been taken. No matter how they vote, the strike
Adjournment Debate
will be called. A strike situation in a rural community is quite different from a strike situation in a larger centre. These are neighbours and friends. Frankly, these people feel that a negotiated settlement would be much better.
In my second question I ask the parliamentary secretary what guarantee the federal government would give to these postal workers who have chosen to stay on the job and give us local postal service and who, if the public press is to be believed, could be facing disciplinary action. What guarantee will the government give these people to continue working even though the mail supply might dwindle and these people may be locked out? I recommend that they not be locked out but be commended for the service they are giving.
Those are the two questions I would like to have the parliamentary secretary answer. As I say, I believe that a negotiated settlement is preferable. I suggest that instead of legislating a settlement here on the floor of the House of Commons, what should be considered is a deal whereby we could have a cooling-off period. Work could then resume in the Post Office, mail services would be reinstated and negotiations undertaken. I understand from both sides that should they come to the table, the postal strike could be settled in a matter of hours. I hope that is the course to which the government will direct its attention.


Mr. Norman Kelly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, if I may reply to the first question raised by the hon. gentleman, I would like to suggest very strongly that not only would it be impossible to transport, sort, forward and distribute large volumes of mail through these tiny rural offices, but an effort to move national mail through these centres could be interpreted as encouraging strike-breaking on the part of another bargaining unit, and that, of course, is something the government does not want to do.
As far as the second question is concerned, I can reassure the hon. gentleman that the minister is very much in sympathy with the hardships caused in rural communities by the postal strike, and we will attempt to continue to provide as much local mail service as possible through our rural offices to reduce these burdens. We will continue to monitor the situation on a daily basis to ensure that our responses are the most appropriate for that particular time.
Unfortunately, when legal work stoppages occur by one of the postal groups, the end result is often insufficient mail volumes to justify continued employment of all other postal employees. Thus, with the current strike of inside postal workers, the letter carriers as well as others have had to be placed on off-duty status. The minister sincerely hopes that the parties can resume negotiations in the near future and settle this postal disruption before the burden of the strike affects any additional Canadians.

July 13, 1981
11502___________________________________
Adjournment Debate


POST OFFICE-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON POSTAL STRIKE. (A) SUSPENSION OF RIGHT TO STRIKE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my topic this evening as well is the Post Office and the current strike to which all Canadians are being subjected. As we all know, the right to strike within the Post Office and other essential government services was granted by a Liberal government in 1967. since then a dozen or more strikes have taken place within the Post Office itself, nearly one per year. In fact, since 1975, in the last six years, seven strikes within the Post Office, have taken place; in other words, more than one in each year, and all those strikes under Liberal government administration.
Yet today we find ourselves faced with inconsistency on the part of the front benches and of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau); inconsistencies such as this: During the 1978 postal strike which the Liberal government legislated "back to work", the postmaster general at the time said "when an individual right becomes a public wrong, Parliament should terminate the dispute. That was less than three years ago. Last week the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) of this same government said, in so far as legislating postal workers back to work is concerned, "I think if you are saying you have to legislate, then you are saying there should not be a right to strike". I am paraphrasing. That is the inconsistency. The government legislated the postal workers back to work after a stoppage of work of one day in 1978. Today the government is saying that perhaps it will let them strike all summer.
I have another quotation by the Prime Minister of just last Monday. When asked about legislating the Canadian Union of Postal Workers back to work, he said, "we cannot legislate CUPW back to work because they will disobey the order". That is probably one of the most ridiculous statements made by any prime minister or politician. If he is afraid to legislate a law because someone would disobey it, we should not have any laws at all.
That same Prime Minister of that quotation a week ago said today, in response to a question dealing with legislating the postal workers back to work, "we cannot legislate CUPW back to work because that is what they want." That is a total inconsistency within a week. I submit that these are political games.
Canadians are hurt badly by any essential service strike, but particularly by this strike. In 1978 the interest rates small businessmen had to pay were between 7 per cent and 10 per cent. They have to borrow money when they cannot depend on day to day mail delivery. Small businesses depend on day to day mail delivery for their cash flow. Today that interest rate is 20 per cent. Small businesses are paying somewhere around 21 per cent, 22 per cent and perhaps 23 per cent, and the government is sitting back and saying, "We cannot deal with the situation because we must be fair." Yet all the reports, including one by Judge Rene Marin's commission of inquiry, have concluded that there are serious problems within the Post
Office. For example, the Post Office has a deficit this year of $457 million. The study estimated an annual loss due to theft, arson and vandalism in excess of $4.3 million. For example, between 1975 and 1979, $10 million in government cheques were lost in the mail.
One of the demands CUPW is making is that there not be cameras to show people stealing and vandalizing, but that is what they have been doing, according to the report by Judge Rene Marin. I believe the government should start being consistent and start being tough with the union because the union's demands go beyond its needs. Even according to the union, the monetary problems have been solved, yet the union is trying to hold the Canadian public to ransom. It is doing just that, and Canadian industry is losing to the tune of nearly $10 million a day. Unemployment is affecting nearly 10,000 workers a week as a result of the postal strike. Businesses are dropping like dead flies off the ceiling through bankruptcy as a result of being robbed of the essential service of day to day mail delivery.
I am not suggesting that we should eliminate the right to strike in essential services right across the board, although that is the wish of the majority of Canadians. However, I believe we should suspend the right to strike in essential services until this government has stopped dealing in an ad hoc, hit and miss way with postal strikes and with strikes in other essential service sectors. The right to strike should be suspended until this government has come up with a policy to reduce the number of strikes and the possibility of strikes taking place in the essential sectors of our economy. It should introduce legislation dealing with sector bargaining, for example, or providing that at least 51 per cent of the rank and file members vote in favour of a strike, instead of just a select few who speak on behalf of all 23,000 postal employees.
Perhaps the government should introduce such legislation as the Taft-Hartly Act in the United States which would postpone a strike date by 60 days until negotiations can take place.
In closing my remarks this evening I urge the government to take specific action in this matter and to stop dealing with these very serious strike situations in this country on an ad hoc basis. The government should come up with a full-fledged, long-term policy which would at least reduce the hardships which are being faced by all Canadians as a result of strikes in essential services in this country.


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, 1 point out to the hon. gentleman opposite that although the legislation he referred to was introduced by a Liberal administration in 1967, it was passed with the support of all three parties of this House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Norman Kelly: That is something he should remember. He should remember too that the Public Service Staff Relations Act created 80 bargaining units, each of which have the option of choosing one of two dispute resolution methodologies, either of which the employer must accept. There is no option whatso-
July 13, 1981

ever on the part of the employer. One dispute resolution method is final binding arbitration; the other is known as the conciliation-strike method.
The Public Service Staff Relations Act imposes an additional requirement on groups which choose this latter strike method. The additional requirement is that members of the group who perform duties necessary in the interests of the safety and security of the public do not have the right to strike. However, to date, and I would point this out very strongly to the hon. member opposite, there has been no contention that the inside workers of the Post Office have duties which are necessary in the interest of the safety and security of the public. Specifically, then, the inside workers of the Post Office are a group that the Public Service Staff Relations Act envisaged as having the right to bargain collectively and engage in strike action if necessary to resolve a dispute with their employer.
I should also like to take this opportunity to correct a misbelief held by some that Treasury Board or the government selects the chairman of the conciliation board. The truth is that unless the parties, in this case Treasury Board and CUPW, agree on a chairman, he or she is appointed by the chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board.
Adjournment Debate
It should also be made clear that while the recommendations of a conciliation board chairman can be useful in assisting the parties to settle their differences, they are in no way binding on either party. For example, it is not unknown for one party or the other to reject a conciliation board report even, when one's own nominee has concurred with the recommendation.
In the present dispute, we have CUPW insisting that the employer accept without reservation the recommendations of the conciliation board chairman as a prerequisite to resuming negotiations to obtain further concessions which the chairman has not recommended. Mr. Speaker, the parties themselves must resolve this dispute. It may be that goal can be facilitated by the presence of a mediator, but it will not be facilitated by continuing the imminent possibility of back to work legislation. The sooner both parties realize it is their responsibility to achieve a settlement, the sooner a settlement will be achieved.
This is not to say that given a reasonable time to achieve this objective, the government would not act decisively to end the dispute if the continuation of the strike began to create a severe emergency. Everything that can be done will be done, Mr. Speaker, but the emphasis must be on the parties achieving a voluntary settlement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
At 10.27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, July 14, 1981