1981-10-15

Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, tomorrow, October 16, the citizens and governments of more than 100 nations, including Canada, will observe the first World Food Day, which will serve as a rallying point in the search for solutions to end world hunger and poverty. The natural right of all human beings to food was backed by the report of the Parliamentary Task Force on North-South Relations, which placed particular emphasis on food and agricultural production. The report was supported by all parties in the House, and its main thrusts were endorsed by the government.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras):
That this House affirms its desire that practical steps be discussed by the heads of state or government of 22 countries who will meet next week for the historic North-South summit in Mexico so that early progress can be made in negotiating the economic issues now dividing North from South and, further, that the text of this motion be sent to the governments of all 22 states.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. There is a desperate situation in Austrian refugee camps, where over 20,000 Polish refugees are waiting to be relocated. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That the Canadian government act quickly to ensure that those Polish citizens seeking refugee status in Canada be accepted as conventional refugees; that provisions be made within the refugee quota to allow Canada to accept more Polish refugees this year than presently announced by the minister; and tha the
Canadian Polish Congress be commended for, and aided in, its efforts to assist needy Polish entrants to this country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I too have a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) recent statement that the government is willing to provide Financial help only to those who are in dire straits, and in view of the request by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) to increase the length of the runway at his local airport in Port Hawkesbury at a cost of millions of taxpayers' dollars so that he can land his JetStar, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That the Prime Minister declare cabinet members with" short local runways not to be considered in dire straits, and further that the government also reject the proposal to buy the Minister of Finance a smaller jet as a more economical solution to his terrible travel predicament.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas high interest rates, increased cost of living, and unemployment are particularly devastating to the native people of Canada, and whereas the government has already made cuts to programs for native people, such as the native Outreach Program, and further cuts to native housing, winter works, health care, education and training programs are evident in a misguided attempt by this government to economize in the very sector of

October 15, 1981
the Canadian population that requires the most intensive assistance, the native people of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That the government commit to this House that the budget for Indian Affairs and Northern Development will not be cut and that the government renew its pledge to fulfil its commitments to the native people of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Canadian veterans, those men and women who fought for this country, have to wait an average of 46 months to have their pension applications processed, and many will wait over five years. The War Amputations Association has been forced to take legal action against the Canadian Pension Commission to overcome the bureaucratic blockade. This disgraceful dilemma compels me to move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That the new Minister of Veterans Affairs be directed by this House to introduce corrective legislation immediately, using the 90-day United States process as an example, since many Canadian veterans are dying during the five-year processing period.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said yesterday in the House of Commons, small businesses, along with farmers, fishermen and home owners, are indeed suffering as a result of his government's callous and insensitive monetary policy. In an effort to rectify the situation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That this House urge the Minister of Finance to direct Governor Bouey to lower interest rates to reflect the Canadian level of inflation immediately, extend the life of the Small Businesses Loans Act, increase tax credits for research and
development through to production, and increase small business deduction limits to $200,000 annually and to a $1 million lifetime limit.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
I had the opportunity, with my colleagues on the transport committee, to travel on the new LRC train made in Canada by Canadians. As that train is not sufficiently identified as being made in Canada, and as we must promote that product of Canadian technology, just as Japan and France do their own rapid trains, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That this House invite VIA Rail and the manufacturer to adopt a typically Canadian logo to identify the LRC train, namely, a maple leaf that would stand out both outside and inside the LRC train.


Madam Speaker:: Under Standing Order 43, the motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, since the government plans to increase postal rates by almost 100 per cent while service is deteriorating to the point where some deliveries travel at the rate of one mile a day, and since the first priority of the Post Office should be to restore some semblance of efficiency and confidence in its operations rather than forcing Canadians to pay exorbitant charges for first-class postage rates when they are receiving third-class service, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley):
That the Liberal government adopt as its first priority quality of service and postpone any rate increases until such time as the quality of service has been brought to respectability.
October 15, 1981


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to underscore a report that the Liberal caucus has, without equivocation, endorsed the policies of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). If the members of the Liberal caucus are in full possession of the facts-and their faculties-they would be wise to heed the Prime Minister's advice to the press in Fiji when he said, "Don't follow me boys; I'm headed for a topless bar." Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga);
That Canadians, including the Liberal caucus, do not continue to follow the Prime Minister for, if we do, we shall all be shirtless and, hence, topless.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. This past summer many home owners, many farmers and small-business men were literally kicked in the teeth by the record high interest rates we have been seeing in this country. Many of them have asked me a simple question which I would like to put to the Minister of Finance now. Why is it Canada must have interest rates that are 3 to 4 percentage points higher than comparable rates in the United States?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member he ought to be encouraged by the development today which saw the bank rate drop by 64 basis points, which means that the bank rate has dropped almost 3 percentage points since its peak in August. I believe that is a more satisfying answer than an erudite explanation to a question which ought to be put on the Order Paper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: You have got to be kidding.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the arrogance of that answer to people who have been suffering this summer, and are going to be suffering for a long time under the policies of this government, is just incredible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: May I make some suggestions to the minister and ask him to comment on three of them. Is the reason because government spending has been running faster than the rate of growth in the economy, by almost 20 per cent for the current fiscal year? Is it because of the weak Canadian dollar, weak because of the policies that have been followed by the government? Is it because the government continues to pursue a policy of high government borrowing, which puts pressure on interest rates for all Canadians? Would the minister comment on those three possibilities?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has been appointed as finance critic for his party. Surely, when citizens ask him questions, he should be able to answer them without coming to the House of Commons to seek illumination. I am sure the hon. member for St. John's West did not have to come back to get answers to questions which he was asked when he was in that post. I would suggest he follow his procedure.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, when I was appointed finance critic, I had hoped that by putting straight questions, legitimate questions, to the Minister of Finance, I would get answers. I am not asking my colleague here to give me the answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Might I ask one very simple, basic question? Many Canadians know that the high interest rate on Canada Savings Bonds of 19.5 per cent has been forcing banks, trust companies and caisses populaires to hold their savings rate up and thus keep their mortgage rate as high as it is today. Is the minister considering reducing the level of the savings bond rate so that the whole level of interest rates can come down? Savers are getting a bonanza, but mortgage holders are getting killed.

October 15, 1981
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think that is an improvement in the questioning.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Now try the answer.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is a question directed to a matter which is under the administration of the Canadian Minister of Finance, and I am glad to answer it. The questions of interest rates in the United States and monetary policy in the United States, I would draw to the attention of the hon. member are not under my administration.


Mr. Crosbie:: Thank God for that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: When the rate was set for Canada Savings Bonds, at that particular time it was necessary to set the rate in order to compete with other financial instruments. It was set at 19.5 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Since the setting of the rate, of course I have set a limit on the amount of purchases by any individual. The concern that the hon. member has raised today was raised in earlier meetings with me by members of financial institutions because they, too, expressed the fear that this particular rate might have the effect of not permitting mortgage rates to drop. The fact of the matter is that, since the limitation was placed upon the individual purchase of Canada Savings Bonds, mortgage rates have dropped. I would hope, as a result of today's action by the Bank of Canada, that the chartered banks will find it possible to reduce their prime rates.


MINISTER'S POSITION RESPECTING CHARTERED BANKS
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister, who certainly fits the pattern of his Liberal predecessors. Every time there is a period of economic stress, someone else is to blame-the Americans, international conditions, the weather, and I even remember that anchovies off California at one time was the problem. Yesterday the Minister of Finance blamed the Canadian banks. He may be right; he may be wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Herbert Jarvis: But, Madam Speaker, there is one irrefutable fact. It is the Minister of Finance and his colleagues who were elected to manage the Canadian economy, not the chartered banks of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: Yesterday the minister said that he wanted the banks to search more diligently for a scheme which would cause them "to bleed a bit." When he said that, was it his attitude that it is up to those groups he accuses, rightly or wrongly, of ripping off home owners, small-business men, farmers and fishermen, to search for the answer to redress this rip-off? Is that the abdication of responsibility that he is now putting forward in the House of Commons?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, that is not the point of the answer. If the hon. member recalls, yesterday one of his colleagues brought forward a suggestion which had been made by the Bank of Montreal, namely, that that institution would extend the application of the Small Business Development Bond to unincorporated farmers, with the expectation that any costs which would flow from that extension would be picked up by the taxpayers of Canada. It is my view that in these circumstances it is fair to suggest to the financial institutions, particularly to the banks which have received very important powers from the Parliament of Canada, that they make a response in their capacity to meet the current challenge as a result of high interest rates. That is the point, and I think it would receive a very strong response among Canadians who expect the banks in these circumstances to do their part.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ROLE OF BANKS-MINISTER'S VIEW
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, there is someone more powerful than the banks in terms of economic policy. The power lies within the Minister of Finance; the legislative power and persuasive power. He knows it full well.
I want to ask him, plainly, if it is his view that the banks are getting fat off the backs of home owners, small-business men, farmers and fishermen? Is that his view? If that is true, does he intend to use his power and discharge his responsibility to redress this wrong? He can impose a scheme to redress that wrong and relieve those Canadians, if he wants to exercise that power.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I do not know why the hon. member is persisting in his efforts to take the banks off the hook in this particular circumstance. He does not know-


Mr. Stevens:: You are on the hook.


An hon. Member:: You are the hooker.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He does not know whether the banks are behaving responsibly or not. He does not know whether there is a rip-off or not. 1 wonder what the Conservative Party knows about economic policy in this country at the present time.


An hon. Member:: What do you know?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I know there is a role for the financial institutions in the present crisis. They have to take their responsibilities; they have to be fair; they have to be compassionate, and they have to make special arrangements to meet
October 15, 1981

the needs of their customers. That is what I have asked them to do, and I expect them to deliver on that request.


Mr. Clark:: What a fraud.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY OF THE HON. TIEMTARBOUM, MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND CO-OPERATOR, AND OF THE HON. SANFO, MINISTER OF ECONOMY AND PLANNING OF UPPER VOLTA
Madam Speaker:: I should like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Mr. Tiemtarboum, Minister of External Affairs and Co-operation of Upper Volta, and His Excellency Mr. Sanfo, Minister of Economy and Planning of the same country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to begin by saying to the Minister of Finance that the hook is big enough both for the government and the banks.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister who is responsible, allegedly, for housing. I asked him yesterday if he would produce an internal document for all Members of Parliament that clearly outlined the housing crisis in Canada. At that time he refused to do so. I have since confirmed that at least two Liberal backbenchers have been given this report and, possibly, many more members of the Liberal Party. Will the minister provide, as a matter of right, to every Member of Parliament and, beyond that, to all people of Canada, access to this document instead of restricting it to certain members of his own party?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I should like to comment on the phrase that the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party has used twice in the opening of this resumed Parliament, namely, "allegedly responsible for housing". 1 am glad he recognizes that I, together with ten ministers of the provinces, share in the provision of support for housing across this country. I am glad that he recognizes and sees that shared responsibility.


Charles Joseph Clark: What are you doing?


Paul James Cosgrove: I have to repeat my answer to the hon. member of yesterday. Yes, I would be happy to provide
Oral Questions
background papers that are used by the government in preparation of policy and in preparation of the budget, in accordance with the rules of this government and the conventions of this parliament.


FUTURE OF HOME OWNERS AND RENTERS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, according to the conventions of the Liberal Party, that means that we will never see the document. That is why I asked the question. I should like to ask the minister if he will confirm that, in the same document, it is shown that not only home owners are faced with this crisis but that during 1982 more than three million renters in our country will see their rents go up by almost 100 per cent, to an average of $750 per month? Will he confirm that that is also in the document? I also repeat, given the alarming situation which affects home owners and renters all across Canada, will he produce that document for all Members of Parliament?
[DOT] (M30)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, again I would have to indicate to the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party that, as the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, I cannot discuss the budget before it is presented, or anything that has to do with it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: The document to which I referred yesterday, which I had in my mind-I do not know which document the hon. member has in his mind-is work that is prepared for me to give advice, as the minister, to the Minister of Finance in preparation for the budget. Therefore I cannot discuss that document before the budget is presented.
On the matter of alarm, I would say that the headline in The Toronto Sun this morning-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: -saying that 85,000 Canadians will lose their homes before Christmas, has to be the result of the irresponsible statement of the Leader of the New Democratic Party yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: Further, I would have to say that this government has indicated it will not permit that. It has indicated that in the budget it will protect those people. That has to be the height of irresponsibility by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it is precisely because we want to get the correct figure that we have demanded the document which the minister is refusing to provide to the

October 15, 1981
Oral Questions
people of Canada. That is the important issue, and I intend to raise this matter on a question of privilege at three o'clock, because certain hon. members sitting on the other side of the Elouse have that document. But I would like to go to the Minister of Finance-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I will. At three o'clock, I will name them. I would now like to go to the Minister of Finance.


BANKS AND BANKING
John Edward Broadbent: Considering that in recent weeks the Minister of Agriculture has been complaining about the banks, that even the minister allegedly responsible for housing has been complaining about the banks, and that yesterday the Minister of Finance said the banks should bleed a little, will the government, at long last, quit whining about the banks and bring in legislation which will force the banks to put up mortgage money which the average Canadian can afford?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, when a decision is reached to bring in any such legislation, I assure the hon. member that he will be among the very first to know.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


THE ECONOMY
John Carnell Crosbie: My question, Madam Speaker, is directed to the Prime Minister. On April 24 last year, the Prime Minister made a commitment. He said:
We will not reduce the deficit at the expense of creating more unemployment.
On January 10 last year, he said:
We must endorse the right of every Canadian to have a job.
Eight hundred and ninety-one thousand Canadians were actually out of a job at the beginning of September. These are not aberrations. They are not sampling errors, as the Minister of Finance claimed yesterday. They are flesh and blood human beings in dire straits because they are out of jobs.
In Newfoundland, almost one fifth of the whole labour force-17.8 per cent-are out of jobs. Half of all of the fish plants in Newfoundland are closed and the people are out of work.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John Carnell Crosbie: Order, yes! What we want is some order and justice, not just words.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: My question to the Prime Minister is this: what special programs will he now institute? Never mind waiting for this mythical budget. What will he now announce? What can he announce in the next few days to put some of these people back to work, to carry out those promises that the Canadian people trusted him to carry out when he made them last January?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am rather pleased that the hon. member is drawing attention to the commitment I made last January, and some months before that, that we would do our best to create jobs while at the same time fighting employment, because-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: You've wrestled employment to the ground, Pierre!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Because I happen to-


Walter David Baker: You've wrestled the country to the ground!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know what hon. members are getting excited about over there, Madam Speaker. They must realize that they have a whole session ahead of them; and if they start shouting on the first day, what will they do for an encore next month and the months after that? It is not watching them that is bothering me; it is listening to them, and they are shouting too loud.


Walter David Baker: Try answering the question!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: So, in terms of job creation-


Madam Speaker:: Order!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Prime Minister!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In terms of job creation, Madam Speaker-


Charles Joseph Clark: Back to Fiji, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -during the year ending in August, 1981- that is the 12 months finishing last August-372,000 new jobs were created, and that is twice as many as the 200,000-


An hon. Member:: Where?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -in Canada-which were created in the 12 months before that. Internationally, Canada has continued to outpace every other major industrialized country in the creation of new jobs.


Mr. Nielsen:: In interest rates, too.
October 15, 1981


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If one compares the first quarter of 1980 to the first quarter of 1981, the growth in employment in Canada has gone up 3.6 per cent. The next fastest was Italy, at 1.9 per cent. The next was Japan, at one per cent. In the United States, it was zero. In Germany, it was zero. In France, it was minus 2 per cent; and in the United Kingdom, it was minus 5 per cent.
Therefore, it seems to me that is the answer to the hon. member for St. John's West, that indeed we have created jobs at a faster rate than any of the other major industrialized countries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


JANUARY, 1980, STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER
John Carnell Crosbie: We can see, from the Prime Minister's weak answer, how many trips he has been on to get those figures.


Charles Joseph Clark: That's right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: What we are excited about is that while the Prime Minister is on more roads than Bob Hope and Bing Crosby, 891,000 people are unemployed. In Newfoundland, 4,500 of 9,000 fish plant workers; 650 trawler men-over half the trawler fleet force-are unemployed. Ten thousand fishermen are unemployed; 17.8 per cent of our people are unemployed; yet the Prime Minister does nothing except travel around the world with his platitudes. That is what we are excited about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order! I would appreciate it if the hon. member would put his question.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes. My question to the Prime Minister is this; what did the Prime Minister mean when he said, on January 10, 1980, "We must endorse the right of every Canadian to have a job?" Was that just a gigantic bluff, or did he mean it? If he means it, what is he going to do about it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member shouted less and listened more, he would know what we have done about it.


John Carnell Crosbie: What?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have created jobs at a rate faster than any other industrialized society.


Walter David Baker: That's great comfort on UIC.


Charles Joseph Clark: They all work for Petro-Canada, don't they, Marc?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand that the hon. member is now the critic on foreign affairs.


Walter David Baker: You are the critic on foreign travel.


John Carnell Crosbie: And I've got a lot to criticize.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure the hon. member has a lot to criticize, but why does he begin with critizing the foreign travels of the Prime Minister to the Commonwealth, or to Korea-


John Carnell Crosbie: They produce nothing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Are these trips that he would advise against, as a critic?


John Carnell Crosbie: I would advise you to look after us first.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member shouts that he would advise that we look after him first. That is the job of his leader; that is not my job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member raises the question of Newfoundland. He should know that we have assigned special employment funds for Newfoundland.


Walter David Baker: You gave Rompkey a job.


John Carnell Crosbie: Two million dollars.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But if the hon. member wants to do some shouting, maybe he would shout at Premier Peckford, who is the premier of that province, and I would ask him what he is doing to match our special help for the fishermen in Newfoundland.

[ Translation]


HOUSING
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, I shall direct my question to the minister responsible for housing. I was very happy to hear him say earlier, contrary to what his leader said yesterday, that he would defend and protect home owners, and I conclude from this that, contrary to what the Prime Minister suggested yesterday, the minister intends to do something. In the document mentioned earlier it is also recognized that renters-and speaking of renters, the Prime Minister is well aware that there are more renters than home owners in Quebec-would have even greater problems than home owners because of current interest rates. Can the Prime Minister at least tell us whether he will introduce measures to help not only home owners, but renters as well?

October 15, 1981
Oral Questions


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, yesterday when I spoke both inside and outside the House on the government's commitment in the Speech from the Throne to assist people who need help most, I was not contradicting either the leader of the party, the party, or anyone else in the party. I was reflecting and repeating the commitment of the government in its Speech from the Throne, the commitment of the Minister of Finance and the commitment of the Prime Minister made earlier in September that we will indeed carry out the commitment to assist home owners as we undertook to do on those occasions.
in an effort to alleviate the hardships of those who are hit the hardest. I must also point out to the hon. member, who knows the Constitution very well and who keeps a jealous eye on the powers of jurisdiction of the province of Quebec, that rent control comes under provincial jurisdiction and that, if he believes that renters are being badly treated, he should appeal to those responsible for rent control in Quebec.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Epp:: How?


Paul James Cosgrove: In answer to the inquiry about assistance to renters, yes, Madam Speaker, we are aware of the tight rental markets and the difficulties of young people in tight rental markets. It is for that reasons we increased the amount of social housing commitments across the country last year.
It was a commitment on the part of this government newly coming into office which contradicted the advice given to the hon. member's leader in the last government, which was to totally wipe out all of the social programs, under the Matthews report. That is what we have done. I have indicated that, by looking at our record, hon. members will see that we will continue that commitment.
[ Translation]


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary. Since it is impossible to obtain a valid and encouraging answer for all Canadians, I shall direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I repeat that there is a much greater proportion of renters than of home owners in Quebec. Since I was asked earlier what we had done for renters, I must point out that I remember quite well, and the Prime Minister will also remember, we had suggested a program for home owners and that this program was opposed because it provided nothing for renters. In these circumstances, since nothing has been done either for renters or for home owners, could the Prime Minister, in his desire to serve people that he knows quite well are now having problems, show some compassion and assure them that some corrective action will be taken in the short term since the Prime Minister and all his colleagues from Quebec are well aware that these people are suffering hardship and expect an answer from the capital? This time, I hope that I have the right capital, Mr. Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I pointed out yesterday in an answer to the hon. member that I agree that many people in Canada, including home owners, renters, and other groups of people, such as farmers, and so on, were suffering from the results of inflation. This is why I told the hon. member, as I had already told his leader, that we intended to address this problem in our budget


Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the fact that the minister's industrial strategy has been decisively rejected by his government; in light of the fact that we now have over 1,000 more lay-offs at Chrysler in Windsor, lay-offs at de Havilland, and mine closures in Newfoundland, the collapse of businesses across the country because of the government's high interest rate policy and because of the collapse of consumer demand, will the minister now reconsider and keep the one promise that I am sure overjoyed the Canadian population, and that is that he would resign if interest rates rose above 14 per cent?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, it is obvious that my hon. friend will be gone from this place a long time before I will.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Another broken promise.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I am not sure the minister's support is the kind I was anticipating, but my supplementary question is to another one of the cabinet's emasculated rebels, the Minister of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark Willson Rose: A steer.


Bob Rae: He is one of the steers in the cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AGRICULTURE
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. The minister delivered a manifesto at Nukko Lake in June, in which he stated:
October 15, 1981

Some serious work is being done about changing the banking system in this country-
This statement was later denied totally by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Agriculture delivered another manifesto in Port Elgin just recently, in which he stated:
I won't stay on as your minister of agriculture if something isn't done in the next few short weeks to bring relief to farmers, that is practical and workable.
Could the minister tell us if this threat of resignation is to be taken in the same category as that coming from the emasculated rebel from Windsor West, or is this in another category? Can we expect the minister to resign if something is not done immediately?


An hon. Member:: When Gene?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
measures we could consider by way of general legislation to help the artistic, cultural, and creative community in general, would be a revamping of the Copyright Act. My colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and myself have decided to go ahead and to give the very first priority to such a bill. I have actually announced the setting up of a committee within my department which includes Mr. John Hylton of Toronto, Mr. Andre Raynaud, a well known Montreal economist, and Mr. Claude Brunet, a lawyer who is an expert in that field. I have every confidence, Madam Speaker, that with the co-operation of my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, we will be able to bring forth a bill within approximately 12 months at the most.
As to the second part of the question asked by my colleague, concerning fiscal measures aimed at helping the artistic and cultural sector-


Walter David Baker: That cheering is the kiss of death.


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question!


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will have to wait.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: And so will the farmers.


PROGRESS REPORT ON COPYRIGHT ISSUE-MEASURES TO HELP CREATIVE ARTISTS
Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. The minister has undoubtedly noticed in the galleries the presence of prestigious representatives of the stage. Considering that a few months ago the minister issued a release on copyright, could he give us a few details on the progress of that file and could he reassure the artistic community by telling them whether the government is contemplating the adoption of measures to remove the financial difficulties which many people are facing, particularly the creative artists who are at the beginning of their careers?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. We are all aware of the great interest he has in the cultural and artistic world. Just as he did, I noticed the presence in our galleries of two of our own artistes, Mrs. Diane Juster and Mrs. Denise Filiatrault, whose presence here in the Canadian Parliament 1 am pleased to note.
As to the gist of the question, Madam Speaker, I will say that in my opinion one of the most significant legislative


Some hon. Members:: Order!


An hon. Member:: They are not interested!


Francis Fox: -a suggestion which is extremely challenging, that is obvious, and which concerns Canada's entire artistic and cultural community, but excluding my colleagues across the aisle, I must say to him that of course the matter comes under my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and that if he has precise measures to draw to his attention-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peterborough.
* *
*


VIA RAIL
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I will try to be as brief as the minister who preceded me! Intercity VIA Rail service will shortly be terminated between Toronto, Peterborough and Havelock. I remind the minister and this House that this is the last passenger rail service connecting these communities at present. The figures supplied to the minister have never been audited and the minister refuses to have them audited. In light of the fact that yesterday in the House the minister agreed to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport to give reasons for the termination, could the minister agree to have those figures that were supplied to him by VIA Rail, audited prior to the termination of these VIA Rail lines which will eliminate 20 per cent of the passenger rail service in Canada?

October 15, 1981
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I must say I am very, very sad to hear the interpretation given to that part of the policy statement we made on July 27. What we said was that commuter trains should be operated by the provinces.


Charles Joseph Clark: And economic policy by the banks!


Jean-Luc Pepin: In the past commuter trains were not subsidized by the federal government. The Leader of the Opposition should know that. What we suggested was only that. I take almost for granted now that Mr. Snow, the Ontario minister of transport, will do that. At the meeting in Winnipeg he asked me would the Canadian government make sure that costing order R-6313 would be made available to the provincial government in order to take over that responsibility should they decide to do that, as I suggest they will.


An hon. Member:: What about the audited figures?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is completely wrong to believe that the commuter transportation at Stouffville, at Havelock, and Barrie will be eliminated. We have given one year to the provincial government of Ontario to discuss these things-


An hon. Member:: Havelock is not a commuter line.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -and take over these responsibilities. So, it is a pessimistic view of the world which is reflected in the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


APPOINTMENT OF ROBERT TITLEY AS DIRECTOR OF RAIL PASSENGER SERVICES
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, the minister has obviously forgotten his letter and his communication with the minister of transport in Ontario, Mr. Snow. He advised Mr. Snow that the rail lines between Havelock and Toronto are not to be considered as commuter service and are therefore not the responsibility of the provincial government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: My supplementary question, notwithstanding the Minister of Transport's own background with Power Corporation, which until recently owned Voyageur-Colonial, is this: would the minister agree that his department is in danger of becoming, or has already become merely an arm of the bus lobby, especially in view of the recent appointment of Mr. Robert Titley, formerly an executive with Voyageur, as a new director of rail passenger services with Transport Canada? Appointing this gentleman as director of rail passenger services is like appointing the fox to look after the chickens.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order! The first was a supplementary. The hon. member cannot have a third supplementary.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I think the question is so unfair and so low in style that I do not think I should honour it with an answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: If my hon. friends are looking for that kind of background, they should know that my father was a CN employee for 45 years.
With respect to Mr. Titley, an officer of my department, he is also a former employee of the Canadian Transportation Commission. That should be sufficient.


Charles Joseph Clark: Maybe he works for Petro-Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Those are two points to underline the unfairness of the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
 * *


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Next week the right hon. gentleman will be attending the North-South Summit meeting in Mexico. I know he places great hope in this, as I do, and I wish him well.
In that particular part of the world violence and war are destroying much of what the development cause of the world is hoping for. In regard to El Salvador, since the last sitting of this House last summer, President Mitterand of France, President Portillo of Mexico, and other countries like Ireland, Norway and Nicaragua have said they believe that the FDR in El Salvador is a legitimate political force which must be taken seriously, and they have called for negotiations to stop the war. In light of that development, what is Canada ready to do, and what is our present position?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's support for my visit to Cancun next week to deal with the problem of injustice as it exists between North and South countries. I am satisfied that the hon. member's party is less reactionary in its view of the problems of injustice than the party opposite me.


An hon. Member:: What about your own party? What about the 991,000 unemployed here?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It seems to think any effort to help the Third World is wasted on the Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Charles Joseph Clark: That is a falsehood, and you know it.


An hon. Member:: That is even below your standard. That is not true; it is a cheap shot.
October 15, 1981


Walter David Baker: You should apologize.


Madam Speaker:: Order. There has been too much heckling today. We are spending too much of our time on heckling and not enough on questions.


An hon. Member:: Look on the other side, too.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says that is a falsehood. I would like to know the meaning of his innuendoes that he has made repeatedly these past two days that I have been travelling too much. All of my travels in the past year have been to countries of the Third World or directly connected to discussions of a solution to the problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is why you were skiing in Austria.


An hon. Member:: Is that why you were in Fiji?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Walter David Baker: Why do you not answer the member's question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: One member shouts Austria and another asks about Fiji.


An hon. Member:: Answer the member's question.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order. I would appreciate it if the Prime Minister would try to ignore the hecklers and, as much as possible, give his answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but there are too many innuendoes and direct accusations coming across the floor.


An hon. Member:: If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.


An hon. Member:: We are over here!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think even the NDP realize I cannot deal with 20 questions at the same time.


An hon. Member:: He asked the question.


Madam Speaker:: I have to recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon East if he has a supplementary question.


An hon. Member:: Let him answer the first question.


An hon. Member:: Yes, and make the Tories listen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


QUERY RESPECTING CANADIAN ASSISTANCE TO INITIATE NEGOTIATIONS
Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, I do not really feel the question I asked was one to be laughed about. In the last two years 30,000 people have died. It was two years ago today that the junta, seven members, took over the country. Since then there has been a civil war in which the poor have suffered and died by the thousands. Colonel Adolfo Arnoldo and Dr. Hector Dada, two of the junta members, have indicated there is no possibility for the war to come to an end. Nor is there any possibility for elections next March, as had been promised.
I believe that Canada is truly a neighbour of the north to El Salvador. I seriously ask the Prime Minister, and I would hope that this House would seriously listen, what positive action is Canada ready to take to help the negotiations begin?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the-


An hon. Member:: Tell it to Reagan!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What is that?


Charles Joseph Clark: Stop play-acting Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not have any lessons to accept from the Leader of the Opposition.


Charles Joseph Clark: You should.


Walter David Baker: A lesson in good manners would be helpful.


Bob Rae: Answer the question!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the members of the New Democratic Party are asking questions and are interrupting me in my own answers, I don't feel I have to answer those questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Welland.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that the minister inaugurated an investigation into the effects of urea formaldehyde foam insulation last June, could the minister explain what the findings of this commission have been, and when he intends to take action on its Findings?

October 15, 1981
Oral Questions


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I must inform the House that the investigation is still ongoing and should be completed sometime in November. As soon as I receive the report I will make it public and the government will naturally take the required action following its publication. In the meantime, I can tell the House that tests are now being performed in several Canadian homes in order to determine the extent of the problem, to reassure those whose concerns are unfounded, and also to provide advice to those whose health may be affected by this substance. Canadians are being kept abreast of the results of the tests. As soon as we have obtained a representative sample we will also make it public in order to shed as much light as possible on this whole issue.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, if I could get his attention. During the course of the postal strike this summer I think perhaps all hon. members might agree that the dumbest comment uttered by any Canadian fell from the lips of the Postmaster General when he said:
I can't accept that businessmen have to rely on the Post Office to make a living. If they do, they better find other ways.
I ask the Prime Minister whether this statement reflects government policy and, if it does not, will he publicly rebuke the Postmaster General for exhibiting such insensitivity and ignorance on such an important subject?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question because it gives me the opportunity to explain clearly what I said at that time in the context of the strike. I think that what I said was nothing but a plain truism, meaning that people cannot rely exclusively on the postal service during a strike. I am absolutely astounded by the way this statement was interpreted and blown all out of proportion. I surely am the first to recognize that the Post Office is absolutely important and vital to thousands of small businesses in Canada and that the impact of a strike may be greater for small businesses than for other sectors of the economy. But what I meant by that statement was that the business community had to use some degree of ingenuity in a strike situation rather than ask the government to legislate the employees back to work. The government did not legislate at the time-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


André Ouellet: The strike was settled, and I think that it is in the interest of good labour relations that it was-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


André Ouellet: -without Parliament having to interfere. [English]


Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, that is as pitiful a defence as we have ever heard in this House.


COST OF POSTAL STRIKE TO SMALL BUSINESSES
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the minister responsible for small business. On the basis of studies done in his department, could he tell us what was the cost to small businesses of the postal strike?
[ Translation]


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, I do not have that information.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Wednesday, October 14, 1981 and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Order as to form.


PRIVILEGE
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege pertaining to an answer given to me in the House yesterday by the minister responsible for housing and repeated again today. The question of privilege concerns a very important document which outlines the crisis in housing in Canada today.
I want to say at the outset that the question of privilege, however, does not deal directly with the thousands who are going to lose their homes, as important as that is; nor does it deal with the problems of renters, as important as that is; nor does it deal with the thousands of people who have lost their jobs as a result of the cutbacks in housing, as important as that is. The question of privilege pertains to the fact that a document prepared by a minister of the Crown has been made available, not to other ministers of the Crown involved directly in cabinet work, for which there is a long-established tradi-
October 15, 1981

tion-even though we do not accept all of that tradition-of keeping such documents secret and private, but that a document, which we think contains information which every Canadian should have in his or her hands, has been made available to certain members of the House of Commons who are not ministers of the Crown and denied to other members of the House of Commons.
More specifically, I know that the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre), who is not in the cabinet, has had this document made available to him. My information is that it has been widely distributed to hon. members on the government side. Therefore, my question of privilege is that in terms of their rights members of the House of Commons ought not to be distinguished as to whether they sit to the left of Madam Speaker or to the right of Madam Speaker; every member of the House of Commons ought to have precisely the same rights.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry that I have to call the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) to order. This question of the distribution of certain documents to some hon. members and not to others has often been raised in the House as a question of privilege and, of course, hon. members will recall that I have had to rule that in those particular cases they were not prima facie cases of privilege.
I must remind the hon. member that, first, as the hon. minister has not quoted from the document, he is not required to table it in the House; it is also his responsibility to circulate certain documents to whom he wishes. That is entirely his responsibility. The Chair is not able to determine what documents are essential to a debate; that is the responsibility of the government.
This might be a legitimate complaint on the part of the hon. member, and he might bring it up on other occasions, but he certainly cannot raise it as a question of privilege. Therefore, I must rule that he does not have a question of privilege.


PETITIONS
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is to request of you, under Standing Order 67(8), that my very brief petition be read by the Clerk.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member might request that. The report has been tabled, so I think that request is quite legitimate. However, the hon. member will know that he cannot have the petition read unless he has the unanimous consent of the House. Therefore I must ask the members of this House if they give their unanimous consent to having the petition presented by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) read in the House. Does the House give its unanimous consent to the request?
Petitions


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I think that it would be a departure from the ordinary routine of business in the House. Therefore, we cannot give our consent to his suggestion because we indicated that a budget would be brought in within the next few weeks and that any debate of the kind suggested by the hon. member would tend to delay our proceedings and consequently some worth-while budget measures. We are thus unable to give the required consent for that reason.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member does not have the unanimous consent of the House to have his petition read. Therefore, I cannot accede to his request.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, I rise on a separate point of order, but under the same provision, Chapter XII, 67(8). I must say I was not suggesting that we have a debate as was outlined by the minister. I was simply asking that it be read. That was the permission I was seeking. Perhaps he misunderstood the question. I was asking simply for a reading of the material that had been brought forward.


Madam Speaker:: The minister did say that a reading would interrupt the normal business of the House and, therefore, he could not give his consent. As well, he understood from the hon. member that it was just a matter of having it read. He did not give his consent to that. Therefore, the hon. member does not have a point of order.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: My point of order relates to the next section, which reads:
-if it complain of some present personal grievance requiring an immediate remedy, the matter contained therein may be brought into immediate discussion.
The first request I was making, and which was rejected on the basis of unanimity, was for a reading. At this point I am asking for this because of the personal imminence of the situation. I can give a specific case where in fact a group of Canadians will lose their homes if this matter is not discussed now. It is imminent and significant that the matter be discussed at this moment on their personal need. That is the reason for the petition and why the petition should be discussed.
There is nothing in Standing Orders to suggest this cannot be discussed. Because of that and because of the concern expressed by the members of the House of Commons, I would now request that we have not a debate but a discussion of this subject matter.


Madam Speaker:: My understanding of the situation is that if the hon. member did not get consent for a simple reading of his petition, for reasons which I do not have to describe, obviously someone in the House felt it was not urgent or opportune to disrupt the normal business of the House in order to deal with what the hon. member has suggested the House

October 15, 1981
Petitions
should do. The logic of this situation is that if hon. members do not want the petition to be read, then obviously they will not want to discuss it.
I remind the hon. member that petitions in this House have not usually been discussed. The rule read by the hon. member I believe refers to a different meaning of the word "petition" from the one which is accepted within the confines of our rules. When petitions are tabled in the House, a report is made as to their form. They might be read by the Clerk upon request if there is unanimous consent.
The only precedent I can find with regard to some follow-up to a petition was in the case of Mr. Maclnnis where the petition was referred to a committee. It was not discussed in the House at the time the hon. member is now suggesting this one should be. I think I can resolve this matter quickly by asking the House if it gives its unanimous consent to discussing the petition or to some kind of follow-up to that petition. Does the House give its consent to the suggestion?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I am just about to announce an opposition day for next Tuesday. That will give the hon. member the opportunity to raise any issue he wishes.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member not having unanimous consent, the matter has therefore been disposed of.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: On the point of order, Madam Speaker, I wish to quote from Beauchesne, page 213, citation 694:
While a member has clearly a right to ask that a petition be read, it is a privilege, like many others, subject to the approval of the House itself. In case of opposition, the Speaker will put the member's motion "that the petition be read", formally to the House.
Nowhere can I find that it requires unanimous consent.


Madam Speaker:: I quote from Beauchesne, citation 695, at page 213:
A petition having been presented, and being in order as to the form, may, with unanimous consent, be read by the Clerk, and may thereafter, with unanimous consent, be referred to a committee.
That is citation 695 of Beauchesne.


Ian Deans: On the same point of order, I would suggest that the member is not asking that it be read by the Clerk but that the member himself be allowed to read it, which is not what is referred to in 695 but rather what is referred to in 694.


Madam Speaker:: I have to remind the hon. member that he may be asking for that, but that provision does not exist under our rules. The only thing that can happen with a petition is that, with the unanimous consent of the House, it may be read by the Clerk, not by the hon. member. Other things may then happen if unanimous consent is given to the reading of the petition.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You mentioned that the precedent that has been set is that petitions
have been read in the past and, second, that they have been referred. There is no precedent in this House of Commons relating to discussion, as is stated under section 67(8). This would be a new precedent. You in fact would be creating a precedent by this decision.
I would ask that you give this very careful consideration and perhaps reserve judgment. The discussion of petitions is the most basic and fundamental right of democracy; it was a right before democracy was even created. The right of petition being a pre-democratic right, that right of petition must be given full opportunity in this House of Commons. Therefore, I ask that you consider it very carefully because there is no precedent that I can see nor that you have quoted which relates to immediate discussion, or in fact to a full majority being required for that.


Madam Speaker:: I will not entertain any further discussion because I have already ruled on this question. There is no precedent where a petition has been discussed in this House. I go by the rules which do not tell me clearly that a petition can be discussed if certain things happen. There is no precedent that allows me to permit the hon. member to have his petition discussed. The procedure by which that can happen did not take place in this House. The hon. member did not get unanimous consent for the first part of that procedure. That is why I ruled that we could not pursue the hon. member's suggestion. We should close debate on this because I have already ruled on it and the precedents of the House are quite clear.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the new House leader for the Progressive Conservatives (Mr. Nielsen) and to tell him that the House leader usually inquires on Thursdays about the business of the House. Since he no doubt forgot to do so today, allow me to briefly summarize the business of the House for the next days. First of all, today and tomorrow we will proceed with Bill C-48 dealing with oil and gas and the Canadianization of our oil industry. Consideration of this bill will extend into Monday. Next Tuesday will be an opposition day, after which we will resume debate at the report stage, and I do hope that we will complete third reading of Bill C-48 before next Thursday. This work schedule will be followed for now and in the future until further notice, and I am thinking in particular of the notice provided for in the House order for the conclusion of the constitutional debate. Should the government decide to use this order of the House to end the debate on the Constitution, it must give notice, and I want to make it clear that this notice could be given any time as of today. However, the normal order of business will be as I just
October 15, 1981

indicated and will not be changed unless the House is otherwise advised, which includes the possibility of the notice required under the agreement reached for the conclusion of the constitutional debate.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I was intending to rise just before orders of the day were called, as I believe to be customary, to establish the routine business. In any event, it would have given the House the opportunity of proceeding more efficiently through the daily routine business without interruption. I wonder if it is going to be the intention of the government House leader to continue the practice of holding House leaders' meetings.
I was grateful to him last week when he called me about 45 minutes before his press conference to inform me of the business of the House for the remainder of this week. My colleague from Nepean-Carleton informed me that in the past it has been customary to hold regular House meetings on a weekly basis, with rare exception. I believe it would be desirable to continue that practice; however, perhaps the government has something else in mind as a result of the changes to my left as well as here. I would hope we could re-establish the custom of holding those meetings.
Perhaps that would do away with the necessity that faces me now of inquiring of the government House leader whether it is the intention to allot the remaining four opposition days, which I understand must be allotted before December, so that we may deal with them in an intelligent manner with the House leader for the New Democratic Party.
Secondly, in view of the reluctance of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Finance to provide members of the House with information as to the date of the budget, perhaps the House leader could be more forthcoming and inform members of the House when that budget date might be.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, there is no question of reinstating the practice of holding meetings of House leaders because this practice is still being followed. There is therefore no need to reinstate it. We did not meet this morning quite simply because there was no change from what I had mentioned to my hon. colleague on the telephone last week and because I wanted to confirm it for the benefit of the other members on both sides of the House. It is certainly most essential for us to meet as often as necessary, and I do not restrict this to one meeting a week. It has sometimes been necessary to meet several times a day, and this could happen again. We have had that experience not so long ago. However, it has also happened that we did not have to meet in over a week because the business of the House was not proceeding quickly enough. If we were to complete the debate of Bill C-48 sooner than expected, I would certainly hasten to call a meeting, even before next Thursday. If my learned colleague
Business of the House
tells me that we shall be voting at the report stage of Bill C-48 on Monday, I shall be happy to hold a meeting Monday evening to plan the next day's business. However, let us wait and see what happens, but the principle involved is very important: it is necessary for the House leaders of all parties to meet in harmony as often as need be to ensure the smooth running of this Parliament. This is the responsibility of the House leaders. I congratulate the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party on showing concern and I can assure him of my full co-operation in this regard.
As concerns the date of the budget speech, it is of course up to the Minister of Finance to set it. I am not in a position to contradict the replies that he or the Prime Minister have already given about this matter. It seems that the minister will be able to bring down a budget probably at the end of this month or in early November. In any event, I want to point out that the order of business will be announced as early as possible after we learn what will happen and that the only thing which could delay any bill, including the budget bills and the budget itself, would be a change in priorities; but if this were the case, I can assure the hon. member that he would be so advised within the time limits provided under any agreement or our rules.


Erik Nielsen: I listened very carefully to the government House leader; however, he did not cover the point I raised with respect to the allotment of the remaining four opposition days. I suggest to him we should have an early meeting, because it is simply impossible to deal with a division of allotted days between ourselves and the other opposition party in the House if we are going to be given them piecemeal. We must have some foreknowledge of when they are going to be called so that we may deal with them. I wonder if he might cover that point.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, there is no established practice with regard to a formal meeting for the designation of allotted days. On the contrary, it is a prerogative of the government under Standing Order 18(2) to set the sequence of government business. And my colleague knows quite well that I cannot break away from tradition and undertake to seek the advice of hon. members opposite every time we want to designate an allotted day. However, I want to say in all fairness that if he wants to submit a list of convenient days, as his predecessor used to do, although I cannot promise to accept his suggestions, I can assure him that 1 will give them very serious consideration.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I have a couple of matters I would like to raise. First of all, I am happy to meet at any time. I recognize that members of the House are expected to be prepared to deal with any matter on the Order Paper at any time, but it is difficult to order one's own life when we know

October 15, 1981
Business of the House
we only have an understanding as to the business of the House until Tuesday of next week. More specifically, when the information was given out earlier this week on what we were going to deal with, the government House leader indicated we would go to Bill C-23 in the event we completed Bill C-48.
I would like specifically to ask whether or not it is still the intention of the government House leader to proceed to that piece of legislation immediately in the event we complete Bill C-48 by the end of next week. Failing that, I wonder if we might even get a hint as to the order of business that might be called for next week in order that we can alert people to be as prepared as possible and thereby expeditiously deal with the matters that are before us.
Before I sit down, Madam Speaker, I might say, in regard to my colleague for whom I am filling in temporarily, that his state of mind would be improved considerably if the government were to give serious thought to legislation dealing with widows' pensions. I am sure he would be back in the House forthwith, and happily, if he could see passed through all stages and given royal assent a bill which would improve in particular the lot of women in this society.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: 1 also wish to take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. colleague on having assumed those important duties and to wish a speedy recovery to his predecessor. He has now asked what bill would be brought in if consideration of Bill C-48 was completed by next week. I cannot go back on what I said to him last week; on the contrary, however, if it should happen that we had to change the priority which I had indicated to him he would certainly be advised in due time. As for the business for next week, I gave a good indication a while ago in my reply to the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. However, if my colleague wants to have an idea of what we will be doing in the following weeks, and that seems to be the intention of his question, I will remind him that we are still in the same session that followed two elections held in less than a year and that there is still a backlog of bills on the Order Paper.
Up to now we have passed 65 bills but there are still about 20 on the Order Paper and each of them is important. We would like to dispose of them before Christmas. There is also the budget debate coming up; and as a result of the budget some bills will have to be considered and also of course that major bill on oil and gas now under consideration. Essentially this is our calendar up to Christmas and I hope that we will make sufficient progress to enable us to begin 1982 with a new session, but I cannot at this time make such a commitment. However, I wish to assure my two colleagues that we will meet as often as necessary and, of course, starting next week.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I want to ask a question with respect to the responsibility within the ministry for a certain statute. As my hon. friend knows, Bill C-43 dealing with freedom of information is before the committee in the name of the previous secretary of state. There is now a new Secretary of State; in the recent shuffle, the Minister of Labour has become the Secretary of State. The minister who had joint responsibilities for that portfolio and that of communications is now the Minister of Communications. Could the House leader indicate who will be responsible for the conduct of the legislation through the House, namely, the legislation known as freedom of information?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, according to the latest information, the minister who has piloted the bill through the House so far will continue to do so; should technical alterations in the bill be indicated, we will take what steps are necessary to obtain the required consent and make what changes are required. That is the gist of the information I was given; should I be mistaken, I shall see to it that the hon. member is advised accordingly as soon as possible.


Mr. Beatty:: Madam Speaker will remember that on a number of Thursday afternoons prior to the summer recess I asked the government House leader what intentions the government had with regard to responding to the fourth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. At that time the government House leader indicated that the government was working feverishly to come up with a response to the committee's fourth report, to the report of the select committee of the Economic Council, as well as to other proposals dealing with parliamentary reform. Now that the House has been reconvened, may I ask the minister whether he could indicate when this material will be put before the House?


Yvon Pinard: It is true that the reports mentioned by the hon. member do have a bearing on parliamentary reform generally and, more specifically, on the structure of committees. I have already indicated that we worked very hard on parliamentary reform during the last few weeks; we are still doing so. But the question remains as to whether or not the proposed reform should be negotiated with House leaders before the end of the current session or early in the next one. That is a matter on which I should appreciate the views of the hon. member and my other colleagues. In any event, I am not in a position to say today exactly when the proposed amendments and improvements to our Standing Orders will be brought in; that is, before the end of this session or early in the next one. That is something that will in all probability be determined in the next few weeks.
October 15, 1981

In the meantime, it is absolutely unthinkable that we should devote the time of the House, that is so precious, to a premature study of those reports which are doubtless important in themselves but which one way or another will be considered by the House or in committee within the framework of a reform of our Standing Orders.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table in both official languages the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry which deals with "Still Waters, the Chilling Reality of Acid Rain".
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to present to the House this petition on behalf of 6,507 deeply concerned citizens from the Hamilton area, including myself, requesting the Government of Canada clearly to define and guarantee the right to life of the unborn child in the proposed charter of rights, and that this guarantee be
Order Paper Questions
granted to all from the moment of conception to natural death, acknowledging the dignity and the worth of human persons, including those still in mothers' wombs.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise again today to present some petitions on behalf of Canadians across the country who are asking for help for those citizens of Canada who are threatened with the loss of their homes as a result of the deliberate high interest rate policy of the Liberal government.
I must say that I regret that the government House leader refused two earlier petitioners in this matter the opportunity to have their grievances stated in their Parliament, but that is consistent with the practice of a government which would force these Canadians out of their homes.
I am presenting petitions from the city of Pickering with 1,061 signatures, from the cities of Oshawa and Toronto with 342 signatures, from residents of the Durham Condominium Corporation of the city of Pickering with 416 signatures and also one signed by 829 residents of the city of Mississauga.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, I should like to present a petition to the House signed by some 11,400 New Brunswickers and other citizens of Canada who are completely discouraged and disgusted with the arrogance and unilateral decision taken by the government to cut certain VIA Rail services.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 118, 1,322, 2,183, 2,790 and 2,805.


Mr. Cossitt: Is the government prepared to recommend to the House of Commons that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be authorized to examine various means of shortening the period of time necessary for holding general elections including the developing of a permanent system for registering voters?


Yvon Pinard: The
idea of a shortened election period was discussed in previous Parliaments, notably in 1976 when the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections studied the Chief Electoral Officer's report, "An Examination of Possible Ways of Reducing the Electoral Period". In its seventh report of April 29, 1976, the committee recommended that the government consider shortening the election period to 47 days. On November 5,

October 15, 1981
Order Paper Questions
1979, the previous government introduced Bill C-21, which proposed to reduce to a minimum of 47 days the period required to hold general elections and byelections. Bill C-21 was never debated in the House of Commons prior to the dissolution of the Thirty-first Parliament. On January 26, 1981, the present government introduced Bill C-58, which is virtually identical to the earlier bill. Bill C-58 received second reading on July 3, 1981.
* The feasibility of various ongoing voter registration systems was examined by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections as part of its study of the above-noted report by the Chief Electoral Officer. In its reports of April 29, 1976, the committee made no recommendation about the establishment of a permanent system for registering voters.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	(a) What are the names of the privately-owned companies which receive financial backing from CFDC (b) on what date did they first receive financial assistance (c) what was the cost to CFDC for (i) 1979 (ii) 1980 (d) what are the projected costs for 1981?
2.	In what location is the head office of each company?


Francis Fox: for the production of a specific film. However, the CFDC's financial participation in the individual film may have commenced in previous fiscal years with loans made to the producer for development of the script and the property, prior to the production company's incorporation. This is in keeping with the corporation's policy of participating financially in the production and, since 1981, distribution of individual films, rather than providing operating capital to companies.
(c)	CFDC's financial participation in the production of these films was:
(i) for 1979-80	$8.95 million
(ii) for 1980-81	$6.1 million
(d)	The corporation's operational budget includes $2.75 million for assistance to the production and distribution of Canadian films. This amount is additional to the $4 million interim financing fund announced by the Minister of Communications on June 6, 1981.
2.	See No. 1(a) above.


Mr. Miller: 1.	On how many days last year was the area collector for Victoria actually in Victoria supervising national revenue customs operations for Vancouver Island?
2.	Does the area collector for Victoria live on Vancouver Island and (a) if not, is the government paying for his transport accommodation and food when he is actually on the Island (b) if so, what amounts have been paid and for what items?
3.	On what date was the present area collector for Victoria hired?
4.	How much time has he spent on Vancouver Island supervising customs operations in the past year?
5.	How many customs employees resident on Vancouver Island applied for the Victoria area collector's position?
6.	Was the present area collector for Victoria hired as a PM4 to allow him to qualify as a PM5 in Vancouver after he has met the qualifying time as a PM4?
7.	(a) How many persons are in acting supervisory positions in the Pacific regional office (b) what are the positions in which acting supervisors are currently placed (c) on what date will the positions be filled with permanent staff?
8.	(a) Did 16 persons apply for a PM2 position at Sidney and were all applications judged to be not qualified (b) did any of the applicants have previous experience in the position (PM2) (c) does the Department of National Revenue or officials have a specific candidate they wish to place in the position who failed to qualify on the first competition (d) on what date will the next competition be held for the position?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
Since being appointed the area collector for Victoria on June 2, 1980, he has actually supervised customs operations at that point for a total of 98 days, as of the date this question was asked.
2. The area collector resides in Victoria when supervising the local operations, however, commutes to Vancouver on the weekends where he maintains his residence.
Order Paper Questions
(a)	When in Victoria the collector is not compensated by the government for transportation, accommodation or food except when visiting his outport operations, i.e., Nanaimo, Campbell River.
(b)	No amount has been paid.
3.	See reply to No. 1 above.
4.	See reply to No. 1 above.
5.	One employee who actually resided on Vancouver Island applied for the Victoria area collector position.
6.	The present area collector for Victoria was the successful candidate in a national competition and was appointed to the PM-4 collector's position. He was not hired as a PM-4 to allow him to qualify for a PM-5 position in Vancouver.
7.	(a) There are presently three persons in acting supervisory positions in the Pacific regional office.
(b)	The positions in which acting supervisors are currently placed are:
PM-6 manager B.C. and Yukon operations PM-5 manager regional operational services PM-5 manager investigations.
(c)	It is expected the aforementioned positions will be filled by permanent staff within the next few months.
8.	(a) All applicants for a PM-2 position at Sidney were
tested in accordance with the normal selective criteria and were judged as unqualified. There were 20 applicants originally, four withdrew, the other 16 were interviewed.
(b)	Of these applicants, 12 had limited supervisory experience either in an acting capacity or when performing similar functions.
(c)	The Department of National Revenue or its officials do not have a specific candidate identified to place in the position.
(d)	The anticipated date of the next competition for the position will be in five to six months.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Does the government contribute part of the cost of the Ontario Hospital Insurance Plan (OHIP) premiums to public servants and, if so (a) how many public servants receive the benefit (b) what is the basis for the payment?
2.	Was the contribution of the government increased when the premium was increased?
3.	Is the amount of the federal benefit taxable by the (a) government (b) provincial governments?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.	The government, as employer, pays a portion of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan premiums of federal public service employees.
11824

October 15, 1981
Order Paper Questions
(a)	That contribution toward OHIP premiums is made on behalf of approximately 100,000 employees, and
(b)	until the recent increase to the OHIP premium rates effective July 1, 1981, the government contribution was based on 50 per cent of the premium for single employees and employees with one dependent, while for employees with more than one dependent the contribution was slightly greater than 50 per cent of the premium ($20.60 of the total premium of $40).
2.	The government contribution was not increased when the OHIP premiums were increased effective July 1, 1981, so that employees assume the full cost of that premium increase.
3.	The government's contribution, as employer, toward the OHIP premiums of federal public service employees, is a taxable benefit in the hands of those employees, and is therefore subject to both (a) federal and (b) provincial income tax in the same manner as any other taxable income from employment.


Mr. Skelly: 1.	Were officials of Noranda Mines Ltd. and MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. transported between Powell River and Vancouver Island on July 15, 1981 aboard a Canadian forces vessel and, if so (a) under what circumstances (b) which vessel was employed?
2.	Was compensation made to the Crown and, if so, in what amount?
3.	Are Canadian Forces vessels now available to certain parties, including union officials, to travel between industrial installations on the coast of British Columbia?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes.
(a) and (b) A group of industry officials, in response to an invitation by the Commander Maritime Forces Pacific in accordance with his community relations program, embarked on HMCS Gatineau which was conducting routine exercises in the area between Powell River and Nanaimo.
2.	Not applicable. See answer to parts 1 and 3.
3.	The travel aspect of this activity is purely incidental. Groups, such as industrialists, union officials, youth movements, service clubs, chambers of commerce, political leaders, etc., are routinely hosted at Canadian Forces installations in order to better acquaint a wide cross-section of Canadian society with the aims, missions and activities of the Forces, their personnel and equipment, as part of ongoing community relations programs.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 1,681
could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Stewart: 1.	On what date was the superannuation plan for public servants, RCMP and the military established?
2.	What is the current percentage of payroll deducted from an individual contributor and what is the government's matching contribution?
3.	Are contributions held in a separate trust fund or do they become part' of the government's general revenues?
4.	What percentage of interest was paid when the fund was first established and what is the current rate paid by the government?
5.	What amount is currently in the pension fund?
6.	What amount of interest did the fund earn in each of the past ten fiscal years?
7.	What would the fund have earned in interest if contributions had been invested in Canada Savings Bonds in each of the past ten fiscal years?
8.	What payments have been made from the fund in each of the past ten fiscal years?
9.	To the knowledge of the government (a) how are some of the larger pension funds of large Canadian corporations handled (b) are companies required to hold the funds in trust (c) what are some of the average interest earnings per annum in relation to three or four of the larger private sector pension funds?
10.	Is the rate of interest paid to the Public Service Superannuation Fund reviewed and, if so (a) how often (b) by whom (c) are representatives of the Public Service consulted before a rate of interest is struck?
Return tabled.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, October 14, consideration of Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, and Motions Nos. 4 (Mr. Fulton), 51 (Mr. Fulton), 52 (Mr. Ittinuar), 53 (Mr. Ittinuar), 55 (Mr. Lalonde), 56 (Mr. Fulton) and 57 (Mr. Fulton).
October 15, 1981
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker will recall that on July 13, 1981, at the time Your Honour gave your rulings on the appropriate motions to be put to the House, you indicated with regard to Motion No. 54 that the matter could be further discussed at an appropriate time.
I should like to ask, if I may, that the matter be discussed now since that motion will be coming before the House very quickly; and in the event that the decision is upheld or reversed, I ask that members be given time to prepare for the debate.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member may rise on a point of order and proceed now if he wishes.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, it is the same point of order as that raised by the previous member regarding Motion No. 54 which I drafted. I drafted it with great care taking into account precisely the point that Your Honour raised. Citation 773(7) of Beauchesne reads as follows:
An amendment is out of order if it imposes a charge upon the public treasury-
I took great care in drafting the motion. The two points to which Your Honour referred were in relation to the formation of the compensation fund.
On today's Order Paper the motion reads, in part, as follows:
" 19.2(1 )(a) A compensation fund shall be established by the Minister of the Environment to provide for damages.
No cost is involved there. It goes on:
(b)	the compensation fund shall be funded by all persons who obtained an authorization under paragraph 3.2(1 )(b) by letters of credit totalling at least $500 million.
Funds are definitely mentioned in subclause (b) but they would be raised from the industry itself and the various corporations involved. There would be no direct charge under those letters of credit against the public treasury. The motion continues:
(c)(i) the compensation fund shall be administered by a board appointed by the minister and will be called the "Compensation Fund Board."
(ii)	in addition to federal officials the board referred to in (i) above shall consist of representatives from onshore and offshore fishing organizations, native groups, territorial and provincial governments, and industry.
Again, there would be no cost to the public treasury. That clause was discussed in committee and it was specifically drafted so that members of the board would be extracted from all those areas of the country-from provincial, municipal and territorial governments, native organizations and fishing organizations-and they would be voluntary members of the board. The costs of the necessary travel and so on necessary in
Canada Oil and Gas Act
order to participate in board activities would come out of the compensation fund itself and not the public treasury.
The other points raised in Motion No. 54 relate to the actual administration of the fund and the fact that the governor in council can make regulations to govern the administration of the fund. That would not cause any direct draw to be made on the public treasury.
With all respect to the Chair, I think it is clear that Motion No. 54 can be considered as an amendment that does not fall within citation 773(7) of Beauchesne. It is clearly something that can be debated. It is a viable amendment and, in my view, is certainly one of the most important components for the protection of the public interest in Bill C-48.


Mr. Roy MacLareo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we have a motion under discussion that, in effect, would provide for the establishment of a board to come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) and which would administer funds obtained from licence holders through letters of credit. I understand the argument from the hon. member opposite is to the effect that somehow this proposed amendment does not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown.
I would draw the attention of the hon. member and the House to page 182 of Beauchesne, citation 540, which reads in part as follows:
-an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown not only if it increases the amount but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge. And this standard is binding not only on private members but also on ministers whose only advantage is that, as advisers of the Crown, they can present new or supplementary estimates or secure the royal recommendation to new or supplementary resolutions.
The principle here is simply that the initiative with respect to financial expenditures must come from the Crown and the grant be made by Parliament. The reverse situation, one which the expenditure of money is recommended by Parliament and the Crown would concur, is impermissible.
Motion No. 54 sets out Clause 19.2( 1 )(d) as follows:
(d)	any person(s) claiming for damages may apply directly to the compensation fund-
Then it goes on:
(e)	the board shall review the case and make payment to the person filing the claim.
Accordingly, the amendment requires that payment might be made to all claimants. However, subclause 19.2( 1 )(f) provides that the compensation fund shall recover its award from the letter of credit. Thus there is always, initially, a charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the scheme which may or may not, where no fault is found, be recoverable from the letters of credit.
In respect of two of the government's amendments to this bill, a revised royal recommendation has been obtained from the Crown on the advice of the responsible minister. However, this option is not available to a private member who does not

October 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
have any position as an adviser to the Crown. It can also be argued that the motion would extend the objects and purposes of the financial allocation in respect of the bill, since no such administrative body is contemplated under the present bill. It is an entirely new review system.
The current section of the bill which this scheme would replace provides a strict liability recovery without review, with recourse to the courts where damages incurred are in excess of the strict liability limit. This must of necessity be a much more limited system in terms of administrative cost than the amount proposed by the hon. member opposite. If the motion in fact infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown, I submit that no question can be heard upon it nor can an amendment to the royal recommendation be obtained on the initiative of the member.


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment briefly on the intervention made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). I have looked at Motion No. 54 very carefully and my understanding of the motion conforms with that of the hon. member for Skeena, not with that of the parliamentary secretary. The pith and substance of the motion is not the establishment of any board, any modality or any instrumentality for the administration of the fund in question; the main thrust of the motion, as I understand it, is the establishment of a multimillion dollar compensation fund based not on money from the treasury, not from the federal government per se, but on letters of credit from parties actively involved in exploration or development on Crown lands.
In the case of environmental damage from such activities as exploration or development on Crown lands, compensation to affected individuals or groups would be awarded from funds based on the letter of credit of the individual operator found to be at fault. So the money does not come from the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey), the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) or from the consolidated revenues of the Crown; it comes from a fund especially established for that purpose which would place a burden on people found at fault and in violation of the environment.
For that reason, I do not think the motion violates any parliamentary, governmental or political convention that this House must follow. I urge Your Honour to bow to the very strong argument made eloquently by the hon. member for Skeena and to favour his interpretation, which conforms with my own, rather than that of the parliamentary secretary.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I first want to urge upon Your Honour the importance of the ruling on this amendment. I submit that the portion of Beauchesne which was quoted by the hon. parliamentary secretary is an inappropriate section to be used under the circumstances. Citation 540 of Beauchesne speaks directly to any change in the amounts appropriated by the government, by the Crown, within the bill before us.
We on this side of the House, including my colleague the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), are not attempting to make one single dollar change to the amounts to be appropriated by the Crown for the purposes of this act. As the parliamentary secretary indicated, Section 540 of Beauchesne says that no amendment can increase, nor can it alter, the terms and conditions relating to the amounts of money appropriated. The amendment before Your Honour in no way alters the terms and conditions attached to the amounts of money to be appropriated by the government for the purposes of Bill C-48. My hon. colleague from Skeena has drafted an amendment, the financial consequence of which will fall upon the sector of the economy which is most involved, and will not require one single dollar of expenditure by the Crown. Therefore, to rely on Citation 540-


Erik Nielsen: Could I ask the hon. member a question at this stage?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) seeks to ask the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) a question. Does the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain consent?


Ian Deans: I guess that if he has a question, Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate.


Erik Nielsen: I would refer the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) to 19.2(l)(c)(ii).


Ian Deans: Of what?


Erik Nielsen: Of the composition of the board-of Motion No. 54. I take it we are discussing that. The second subparagraph of paragraph (c) says "in addition to federal officials", and then the paragraph goes on to talk about the composition of the remainder of the board. Who would be paying the salaries of those federal officials? On appointment to such a board, would they cease being federal officials? Would their salaries be suspended? I am a little at a loss to know how a federal official could continue to be a federal official while his salary is being paid by someone else.


Ian Deans: I know that the hon. House leader for the official opposition is asking this question somewhat facetiously-


Erik Nielsen: No, no.


Ian Deans: -since he knows full well that the federal officials mentioned in this section are already mentioned in the bill, that they are not additional federal officials but the same federal officials.


Erik Nielsen: Who pays their salary?


Ian Deans: In addition to that, if it were the wish of the government to deal in one way or another with that particular portion, I put it to Your Honour that the federal officials named do not in any way impinge upon the right of a Member of Parliament to move an amendment of this type for the
October 15, 1981

purpose of setting up a board which will be financially carried by a sector other than the public sector. If it were the wish of the government, it can deal with the matter of the federal officials as a subsequent amendment to the entire bill.
I want to put it to Your Honour that the important point here is that the purpose of that section of the parliamentary procedure which denies to a private member the right to bring in a money bill deals directly with the power of the Crown to administer all matters of finance which require public expenditure. I say to Your Honour that it would not only be inappropriate to rule this particular amendment out of order, but it would also do a grave disservice to the role of Members of Parliament if they were not able to move that a privately funded body be put in place to oversee the possible environmental damages of the actions of private bodies operating under the act.
Therefore, I ask that Your Honour give very careful consideration to this matter, because it has far-reaching consequences which are even beyond the amendment that we have before us. It can reach to the very right of individual members to move legislation setting up bodies which will be funded outside of Parliament and to which the Crown has absolutely no financial obligation, and would render the role of Members of Parliament somewhat less than it has been widely held to be.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any other hon. members on this same point of order? I believe the hon. member for Skeena has been recognized once on the matter and cannot be recognized a second time.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have just three brief points, basically agreeing with the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan). I do not know whether the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) agrees with his colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough, but I take it that he does, as well as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).
My three points are simply these: first of all, that there is no charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, either indirectly or directly, on the face of this legislation; second, that this amendment fits in with the scheme of those other amendments which we are debating now; third, I submit that if there is any question in Your Honour's mind, it would be better to err-if I can use that word-on the side of putting it before the House and having it debated and voted upon, rather than chucked out, as it were, on a preliminary matter or as a technical objection. In other words, it would be better to put it before the House if it is not absolutely clear from the argument. I think it is clear, but perhaps it is not considered to be absolutely clear. It seems to me that it makes better sense to put it before the House and have it debated and voted upon, because that would be the better way to approach it. Those are my three points on the matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any other hon. members who wish to be recognized on the point of order with regard to
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Motion No. 54? If not, the Chair will defer decision on the matter and we will resume debate on Motion No. 4.


Ian Deans: May I rise on a further point of order?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain on the same point of order or another point of order?


Ian Deans: On a further point of order, if I may. On Motion No. 4, including Motions Nos 51, 52, 53, 55, 56 and 57, we would like to ask whether or not it might be possible to have Motion No. 34 included since it deals primarily with the same subject matter and it has been ruled in order as suitable subject matter for debate at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the House to have Motion No. 34 included with the same grouping for both purposes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq) moved:: Motion 34
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend thetOil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended by deleting Clause 49 and substituting the following therefor:
"49. (1) There shall be established in the accounts of Canada a revolving fund to be known as the Environmental Studies Revolving Fund.
(2)	The fund shall be under the administrative responsibility of the Minister of the Environment and shall include a sub-fund for each prescribed area of Canada lands.
(3)	The fund shall be used to Finance studies into the environmental and social aspects of any activity before, during, or after the work has taken place.
(4)	(a) The minister shall order initial regional, environmental and social studies before any activity is to take place.
(b) Where deemed necessary by studies carried out in (4) (a) above, the
minister shall order the necessary studies into each activity.
(5)	The studies referred to in subsection (4) shall be submitted to appropriate environmental and social impact assessment and review procedures before a decision to proceed is granted under this act or any other act of Parliament.
(6)	Following the studies and impact assessment and review procedures referred to in subsections (4) and (5), the Minister of the Environment shall determine whether exploration agreements or production licences shall be granted.
(7)	Every effort shall be made by the minister to ensure that persons who may be affected by the proposed activity are notified of the impact assessment and review procedures. Notices of public hearings related to such procedures must be published in The Canada Gazette.
(8)	The minister shall provide funds, in accordance with regulations to be determined by the governor in council, to public interest groups, representatives of aboriginal peoples and other persons or groups who may be affected by oil or gas activities to allow them to conduct research, prepare submissions for public hearings and otherwise participate in the impact assessment and review procedure.
(9)	All reports from the fund shall be public.
(10)	There shall be credited to the relevant fund all amounts levied in respect thereof under this section and there shall be charged against the relevant fund all amounts directed to be paid therefrom under this section.
(11)	Every party who is an interest holder on the coming into force of this act shall, at the times and in the manner determined by the minister, deposit for payment into the relevant fund an amount based on the rate fixed by the minister for the purposes of this subsection.

October 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
(12)	The rate to be fixed by the minister under Subsection (11) or (18) shall be based on the area of Canada lands subject to the relevant interest that are situated within the relevant area or prescribed region, regardless of the nature of the interest.
(13)	Where an interest owner consists of two or more holders, any levies under this section shall be collected and remitted on behalf of the interest owner by the representative of the interest owner for that purpose.
(14)	Every party who, after the coming into force of this act, enters into an exploration agreement under this act shall, at the times and in the manner determined by the minister, deposit for payment into the relevant fund an amount based on a rate that equals the sum of the rates fixed under Subsections (11) and (17) with respect to the relevant fund.
(15)	No interest holder is liable to make payments into the relevant fund under both Subsections (11) and (14) in respect of the same Canada lands unless those lands were Crown reserve lands in the period between the making of payment under Subsection (11) and the entering into of the exploration agreement referred to in Subsection (14).
(16)	The minister may direct payment from the relevant fund of the reasonable costs of such environmental studies relating to the area or prescribed region subject to the relevant fund as the minister determines are necessary, after consulting with the relevant advisory committee established for such prescribed region under Subsection (22).
(17)	The rate referred to Subsection (11) shall be fixed by the minister in such a manner that, as far as possible, the payments into the relevant fund under that subsection do not, in the aggregate, result in there being an amount in the revolving fund established under Subsection (1) that exceeds the total amount fixed under Subsection (21).
(18)	Where the amount of the relevant fund falls below one-half of the total amount fixed under Subsection (21), every interest owner who has made a payment into the relevant fund under Subsection (11) or (14) shall, at the times and in the manner determined by the minister, deposit for payment into the relevant fund an amount based on the rate fixed by the minister for the purposes of this subsection.
(19)	On January 1st of each year the minister shall adjust the fund to reflect the rate of inflation and shall assess, according to Subsection (11), a rate to bring the fund back up to the amount set out in Subsection (21).
(20)	The minister shall, when fixing the rate referred to in Subsection (11), as far as possible, ensure that the amount does not exceed the limit placed on the fund in Subsection (21).
(21)	The fund shall not exceed 100 million dollars.
(22)	Advisory committees shall be established for the prescribed regions by the minister to advise the minister on all matters relevant to this section save for Subsection (23), and such committees shall include representatives from the oil and gas industry, public interest groups, aboriginal peoples and other persons or groups who may be affected by oil and gas activities in such regions.
(23)	The Government of Canada is committed to enter forthwith into discussions with the aboriginal peoples of Canada, who may be affected by resource development activities in Canada lands, on:
(a)	appropriate environmental and social impact assessment procedures and other protections regarding Canada lands and the inhabitants thereof, particularly aboriginal peoples; and
(6) appropriate legislation to be recommended by the Government of Canada in order to implement the matters agreed to under this section.
(24)	The governor in council may make regulations for the following matters:
(cf) designation of prescribed areas referred to in Subsection (2);
(b)	preparation and submission of environmental and social studies;
(c)	rules respecting the environmental and social impact assessment and review procedures;
(id) eligibility and other requirements for funding of such persons or groups referred to in Subsection (8);
(e) administration and operation of the Environmental Studies Revolving Fund; and
(/) creation of advisory committees referred to in Subsection (22).
(25)	The minister shall report annually to Parliament on the operations of this section."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There will be a modification to include Motion No. 34 in the grouping of the clauses for the proposed purposes.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the end of the day, I was half way through my speech on what were then seven environmental motions which would amend Bill C-48 at the report stage of Parliament's deliberation on the legislation. With Your Honour's indulgence, with the remaining time, I now wish to complete my remarks. All of those motions relate to Clause 80 of Bill C-48, concerning oil-spill type pollution from resource activities on Crown lands and standards for compensation to parties hurt by it. Motion No. 4, as I understand it, would actually amend Clause 2, not Clause 80, by adding a definition of "spill". The proposed definition would, I think, helpfully broaden what is considered a violation of the environment under the legislation.
Motion No. 51 would remove any distinction between an authorized and an unauthorized spill for the purpose of, for example, awarding damages to an offended party. To my mind, Motion No. 51 makes a lot of sense on the grounds that pollution is pollution whether the source is authorized or not. Moreover, damage to either the general environment or to a party's property is no less severe just because the cause is authorized.
My party and I welcome Motion No. 52, which would require that the proper authority be informed beforehand of any authorized pollution, and that the same authority, in turn, give immediate notice to the aboriginal peoples and others who may be harmed by the discharge. Perhaps such requirements will, for example, help the native peoples protect themselves against pollution from activities at their back door. At the very least, if I may say, these people will know what is being done to their habitat in the face of resource development in their area.
Motion No. 53 substantially clarifies the liability of anyone who has violated the environment under the terms of the bill. It does so by specifying that compensation must be paid when pollution impairs, for example, one's source of income through loss not only of personal property but also of the natural environment from which the income is produced. To my mind, this motion would make the bill much more sensitive to the particular circumstances of native peoples, who are often hurt more by the indirect effects of pollution than by its direct impact on their personal property. In my view, in the view of my party and I think in the view of others in the House, compensation should be paid in either instance.
I must confess that the import of the minor amendment-I think it is minor-proposed by the Minister of Energy in Motion No. 55 escapes me, so I shall reserve judgment until a fuller explanation is provided, perhaps by the parliamentary secretary who was in the House a few moments ago and who no doubt will be speaking later.
October 15, 1981

Certainly Motion No. 56 has my full support, for it rightly seeks to recognize in the bill itself that damage to the environment often becomes discernible long after the actual offence has been committed. Thus, any time limit on when a claim for compensation may be instituted must be sensitive to such situations. At present, Bill C-48 does not reflect that reality. I welcome Motion No. 56 because it attempts to redress the problem.
Motion No. 57 would require the minister to launch a public inquiry into any activity that violates the environment by the standards of the bill. As the legislation stands, the minister may initiate an inquiry, and I stress the words "may initiate". But he is not required to do so. In my view, the minister should be required to do so under specified conditions.
We have dealt with Motion No. 54 and I have expressed myself on that question. I regret that it was not included in the original grouping of the motions under debate now. Let me stress that the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee was very much in favour of the idea behind Motion No. 54. I think the motion as expressed and moved reflects pretty well the import of the representation made vigorously by CARC and it certainly reflects something of my own thinking on the question.
If I may conclude, the bill before us at the report stage will govern the way in which some $300 billion will be spent on the exploitation of energy resources on Crown lands in the next decade alone. Some $300 billion will be spent in the next ten years, but trillions of dollars will be spent by the end of the century. It is clear that the government intends to have only a tiny proportion of such large amounts devoted to the protection of the environment. That will be of as much concern to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) as it is to me.
Worse still is the government's decision to perpetuate in Bill C-48 its habit of entrusting environmental responsibilities, not to the Minister of the Environment, who I see in the House today, but rather to ministers whose principal preoccupation and mandate are the promotion of resource activities that pose the greatest threat to the environment. The resultant conflict of interest is so apparent that one is hard pressed not to assume it constitutes a deliberate effort on the part of the government to undermine the role and responsibilities of the Minister of the Environment himself.
If we do anything else today and in subsequent days in the context of these motions, it should be to redress that very serious problem which I think is more fundamental than the specific problems addressed in the motions themselves being discussed this afternoon.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity, with the regrouping of these motions together, to say a few words to the House about this particular bill. As hon. members know, I have taken every opportunity to describe and defend this bill both here in the House, privately with members of the House of Commons and with members of the committee, before whom I have appeared several times during the first
Canada Oil and Gas Act
part of this year. I think hon. members will testify that I have invited constructive proposals on every occasion and in every forum and I have considered the views tendered most carefully. In this regard, it is worth remembering that suggestions were made by some 140 witnesses who appeared before the parliamentary committee.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I understand the rules, the minister is not to give a speech on what he has or has not done on this bill, or on what the committee has done. We are debating these particular motions. He should address his speech to these motions. These are motions and proposals before the House and he should debate them.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed to hear that kind of comment from my friend in the New Democratic Party. While I have barely said a few words about the motions before us, I think it is important to put the situation in perspective. I invite my hon. friend to show some patience. He will find that I am going to say a few words about the specific motions he is talking about. In the event the hon. member has forgotten already, I thought it important to remind him that we have had very extensive debates on this particular bill. We have heard 140 witnesses. A large number of amendments have been proposed by the government, by the Conservatives and by the New Democratic Party. A good number of these amendments not only were considered but also were adopted by the committee. In that respect, I think I have certainly exercised my responsibilities to maintain the coherency and consistency of the legislation.
Bill C-48 is an important part, but it is only part, of a comprehensive program that is designed to protect Canadians from the dangerous and volatile energy crisis prevailing in almost every country in the world. As such, it is indeed a fundamental element of our energy program and policy.
The programs now before the House deal with the important questions of protecting the environment from oil and gas exploration and development. My colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) and I have pledged to develop northern resources in harmony with the aspirations of aboriginal peoples and local territorial officials with due regard for the fragile northern environment.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Nonsense!


Marc Lalonde: I expect the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to be able to address this issue tomorrow and I hope that the hon. member opposite from the New Democratic Party who is interrupting-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is complete nonsense.


Marc Lalonde: -and who is talking through his hat again, will be here tomorrow to listen to what my colleague has to say rather than shooting off his mouth as he is tending to do today.

Canada Oil and Gas Act
The provisions of this bill allow millions of dollars to be devoted to environmental studies involving local inhabitants in planning their own collective future.
Other provisions of this bill-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is going to be all done in Ottawa.


Marc Lalonde: -will strengthen the already rigorous regulatory powers of the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act. I would like to remind hon. members that hundreds of wells have been drilled in Canada's frontier over the past two decades without one single instance of environmental mishap. Our experience and expertise ensures that such mishaps will be avoided by all practical methods of effective regulation and supervision.
My partner in this bill, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Silent partner!


Marc Lalonde: -will be collaborating closely with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) on ecological matters. I will resist members opposite who attempt to fracture and fragment authority further by having groups of ministers responsible for different provisions of this bill. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in particular must retain the undivided authority to balance the various diverse interests of the north. I fully endorse this view and expect to do the same as far as exploration and development below 60 degrees is concerned.
If we want this administration to proceed effectively, we must have one minister in charge of and responsible to Parliament for implementation of various aspects of the legislation. The public has to be able to identify a minister who is responsible for all aspects which are covered in the bill before us.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Nonsense!


Marc Lalonde: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, what has happened to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) during the summer, but he certainly seems to have been struck by a strange disease, perhaps called babbling disease!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is just nonsense you are spouting. It is complete nonsense.


Marc Lalonde: I think the hon. member might take a little time-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You have taken all the power unto yourself. Roberts has gone.


Marc Lalonde: -to cool off. I suggest he get a glass of water and cools off before coming back.
Despite the excellent environmental record of the government and regardless of the strict environmental provisions in
this and other legislation, an oil or gas spill remains a possible occurrence. Should such a thing occur, the government has made available two methods for prompt and sympathetic compensation. First, we have preserved the ability of claimants to use the existing judicial channels which have always been their right. That will continue to be their right if this is what they prefer.
Second, the minister will hold what I would call blank cheques from oil and gas operators which can be drawn to compensate claimants without proof of fault or negligence. This means that claimants will have two avenues open to them, one, the judicial process, the other a direct claim to the minister who will be in the position to compensate those claimants without such claimants having to prove fault or negligence by the operator.
This step, in particular, represents a very considerable improvement over the previous situation and should any accident occur, people in the north or people concerned with offshore development will Find themselves with two avenues to follow whereby they can be rapidly and fully compensated for any damage they may sustain.
While there remains a number of other important provisions to protect the environment, the environmental studies and the virtually unlimited compensation provisions are worthy of support by all three political parties in this House.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this legislation and these motions which we are considering in the House today are legislative measures of extreme importance aimed at guaranteeing that the oil development in the Canada lands, that is to say in the Arctic and offshore, will be carried out in an orderly fashion to ensure the environmental protection, which is of great concern to this government. This bill, in particular, provides a mechanism whereby the citizens will have the possibility of obtaining compensation should they suffer some damage as a result of oil exploration in particular. They will have the option of filing claims either before the courts or directly with the minister and they will be paid a compensation with funds which will be supplied by the oil companies. This will enable offshore fishermen for instance, to get compensation quickly and without even having to prove that the operator was at fault or negligent.
In addition, the legislation we are studying today is a basic component of the energy policy of Canada since it will provide for orderly development, as I said, in the petroleum sector, but it will also ensure that Canadians will be able to enjoy much greater control over their resources and much greater ownership of future development. Indeed this legislation provides that any development must be owned and controlled, at least up to 50 per cent, by Canadians. I know that several members want to speak on this subject and I have no intention of unduly extending the debate.
October 15, 1981



I note that over 30 members spoke on Motion No. 3 only and this is only one of 57 motions that we have to consider. I urge hon. members opposite to give careful but speedy consideration to this bill. This bill has been extensively considered and debated. In fact, for ten years this issue has been debated without resulting in legislation. We now have agreement with the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. We are in negotiation with the province of Saskatchewan. We are in negotiation concerning offshore resources with the Atlantic provinces. As far as the industry is concerned, it now has certainty as to the price it can expect for any discovery it will make and the price it can expect for the products it will discover.
Conditions are now adequate for development taking place on Canadian lands. We need those resources. We are proposing a bill which ensures that this development will take place with full respect for the highest concerns in the area of the environment. I urge hon. members to support this bill and adopt it so that we can get on with the job and ensure that the people of the north and the people of the Atlantic provinces benefit soon from the developments they wish to see take place in this regard. The developments will benefit not just the people of the north but all the people of Canada.


Peter Ittinuar: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in a debate in the House which concerns the north, however meaningless that debate may be in terms of substantive changes to the bill in question.
When I spoke in the House in December, I expressed some anxiety that northerners would be forced to pay all of the environmental costs of the non-renewable resource development which this bill intends to accelerate and that they would receive none of the benefits that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) intimates. I will talk about their concerns later in this debate in connection with the motions in question.
I would like first of all to talk specifically about the environmental aspects of this bill which affect northern people. My colleague the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) has already discussed the general inadequacies of the environmental regime proposed by this legislation. As far as northerners are concerned, the proposed amendments represent an absolute minimum of what is required to protect that land from irreparable environmental damage.
We have a large economic stake in the preservation of our environment and, on principle, should have much more input into environmental decisions affecting us. I do not think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has ever really consulted people from the north in this regard.
I will address each of these motions individually. Motion No. 4 concerns the definition of an oil spill as "100 litres or more of oil or other foreign substance". This amendment is very important to northerners, as a huge oil spill would have
Canada Oil and Gas Act
disastrous consequences, as most hon. members know. That is obvious, but chronic dumping of small amounts can be just as damaging to the ecologically sensitive Arctic waters. Northern hunters and fishermen must be protected against gradual destruction of their source of livelihood. It does not matter whether marine fish and mammals are killed slowly or all at once; the result is the same and equally destructive to the traditional northern economy.
Motion No. 51 concerns compensation for authorized as well as unauthorized spills. There are two important principles at stake here which must be protected. One is that those who suffer the economic and social costs of environmental pollution must always be eligible for appropriate forms of compensation. The other principle is that those who cause such pollution must always be held responsible for their actions.
As the bill stands, people affected by oil spills fortunate enough to have the blessing of the government would not be eligible for such compensation. We think this is wrong. It will not matter to the people in the area of a spill if the pollution has government approval. The effect on the environment and on people's lives will be the same. To free the government from any liability in such cases, therefore, will be to deny people who are affected their basic rights. I urge my fellow members, therefore, to support our motion and thereby prevent the government from applying a double standard to the issue of compensation. And, I repeat, it does not matter whether oil spills are authorized or not. What matters is that people's rights to be compensated for the effects of environmental pollution must always be maintained without exception.
Motion No. 52 also concerns provisions for compensating spills. Specifically, it requires that authorized and unauthorized spills be reported to the chief conservation officer and that he in turn notify the peoples affected. In many ways this motion is a follow-up to the one I have just been discussing, since it tries to put into practice some of the principles I have already mentioned. If we agree that people should always have the right to be compensated for damage done to the environment on which their lives may depend, then it seems only reasonable that we also grant those people the right to know about the causes of that damage. In other words, if we grant them the right to claim damages, we must ensure that information about the sources of pollution is made available to them. Compensation provisions for peoples in the current bill may prove meaningless in many instances if reasonable notice of such spills is not given to the people who may be affected.
It should not be left to the aboriginal peoples to piece together, after the fact, where and when oil spills have occurred and who should be held responsible. To make the provisions for compensation effective the northern peoples will need ready access to information on the nature and source of any oil spills which may have affected their environment. It should be the responsibility of the government to see that this type of information is collected and made available to those people. The proposed Subsection 19(4) is designed to ensure that information on all types of oil spills is acquired by the

October 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
chief conservation officer. This would include both authorized and unauthorized spills.
The proposed Subsection 19(5) is intended to guarantee that information about all types of oil spills is communicated to those peoples who may be affected so that they may begin the process of obtaining appropriate compensation without undue delay.
Motion No. 53 refers to kinds of damages for which people may claim compensation. From the point of view of my constituents the bill as it stands is far too narrow in scope, which is something-if I may have the attention of the minister for a moment-I have not been able to communicate to the minister and his colleagues. It means that aboriginal peoples cannot claim for loss of their future incomes if these have been reduced by the effects of pollution. Furthermore, it means that people cannot claim for damages to property which is not privately owned. For instance, if a walrus herd or a fish run is seriously affected by an oil spill, then the people whose livelihood depends on them cannot seek compensation for the loss they suffer.
In this regard the people of the north are not even getting the same deal as east coast and west coast fishermen who, under Section 746 of the Canada Shipping Act, are allowed to recover for loss of income, including future income, resulting from damage to the fish stocks caused by pollution, even though their fish are not in privately owned water. And they are not getting the same deal as the aboriginal peoples in Alaska, who are eligible to receive compensation for any and all damage done to the lands "structures, fish, wildlife or other biotic of natural resources upon which they rely". This is a provision of the trans-Alaska pipeline authorization act of 1973.
The purpose of our proposed Section 19.2, therefore, is to ensure that people can receive compensation for all types of possible losses caused by oil spills and other types of pollution. This will include individual and collective losses as well as the loss of future income.
I would like to emphasize that the proposed amendment to Clause 49 of this bill does not ensure the adequate environmental protection which is urgently required for Canada lands. They are merely interim measures until a comprehensive regime can be put into place through appropriate legislation, which I advise the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) to introduce.
I note that Motion No. 34 has now been included in this group of motions, and I will speak to it. Motion No. 34 concerns one of the key environmental provisions of this bill. It deals with the environmental studies revolving fund. Bill C-48 as it is presently drafted divides the fund into two, giving discretionary power to both the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Our motion calls for the establishment of a single fund under the Ministry of the Environment. Perhaps those two can start fighting.
While we see the value of government involvement in the resource sector, it is imperative that the government remove discretion on environmental studies from the departments which have the greatest interest in advancing the pace of development, namely, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The amendments proposed in Motion No. 34 are based on the following principles. First, it must be clearly indicated that social as well as environmental considerations are covered by Clause 49 of this bill. Second, environmental and social studies and procedures in relation to Canada lands must be under the jurisdiction of the Minister of the Environment.
Proper environmental and social impact assessment and review procedures must be established. The present federal Environmental Assessment Review Process-EARP-is totally inadequate. The new procedures need not be established under Bill C-48, but the bill should at least contemplate such procedures as an integral part of the decision-making process.
Persons or groups directly affected by oil and gas activities under the act must be funded so as to enable them to participate effectively in the relevant environmental and social studies, public hearings and impact assessment procedures.
Interest holders, that is the oil and gas producers, should bear the cost of funding the environmental studies revolving fund and should fund, at least in part, those persons or groups affected by oil and gas activities in a prescribed region of Canada lands.
Advisory committees comprised of representatives from the oil and gas industry, public interest groups, aboriginal peoples and other groups or persons directly affected by oil and gas activities should be established from the prescribed regions within Canada lands.
Subclause (23) (a) of Clause 49 commits the government to discussions on environmental and social impact procedures. Considering the enormous impact of accelerated resource development in the north, it seems incredible that there is no legislated environmental impact assessment process in place. I advise the Minister of the Environment to get started on that. A comprehensive review of the existing procedures for assessing environmental and social impact is imperative in order to mitigate the negative effects of development in the north.
In the National Energy Program, the minister has stated that "our energy options are wide enough to preclude any sudden rush to energy choices that may compromise our social and environmental goals". His statement was a reaffirmation of the government's responsibility to inhabitants of the north and "the preservation of the peculiar ecological balance that now exists in water, ice and land areas in the Canadian Arctic". The government should demonstrate some consistency between what it says and what it does. Discussion of the environmental and social impact procedures is crucial to sound and responsible planning for northern development.
October 15, 1981

Subsection (23)(b) of our amendment in Motion No. 34 foresees the drafting of appropriate legislation following discussion of social and environmental impact procedures proposed in (23)(a). A precedent for such provisions is found in Section 2.5 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Sincere discussions should lead to enlightened legislation on these matters.
Madam Speaker has suggested that Motion No. 54 is inadmissible. That is really unfortunate because for native northerners some sort of mechanism which would help them to obtain compensation without having to resort to costly court procedures would be most welcome.
Bill C-48 as it is presently drafted limits claims of liability to two years after the damage has occurred. This does not make much sense considering that some damages to the ecology are not immediately evident. The amendment suggested by the hon. member for Skeena in Motion No. 56 is much more reasonable in limiting the time for claims to two years after the damage costs or expenses occurred or became evident to the claimant.
If oil and gas activities in Canada lands results in death or injury or danger to public safety or the environment, we feel that the public has a right to know the facts. A public inquiry in these cases should be mandatory and not left to ministerial discretion.
I would like to conclude by repeating what should have already been made obvious over the past six months. Northerners are not happy with Bill C-48, with perhaps the exception of my hon. friend from Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). They were not consulted on the contents of the bill before it was introduced and they have legitimate fears about accelerated oil and gas activity on their lands. They will shoulder the burden of the serious and inevitable negative consequences of exploration and development and they still have no guarantee that they will have any of the benefits.
Environmental protection is one of the northerner's deepest concerns because when boom-and-bust non-renewable resource development has passed them by and when southern resource developers have abandoned their operations taking the resources and profits with them, northerners will still have to find a way to make a living from a scarred and radically altered land. Therefore, as the bill stands, without any of these amendments it cannot be supported.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand today and speak on Bill C-48, particularly Motions Nos. 4, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57 and now No. 34, all dealing with the environment. I put forth the proposition that the window dressing it gives to the protection of the environment is just that.
I would like to refer to the remarks of the minister who spoke just a few moments ago. He said that the government had spent a great deal of time describing and defending the bill. I agree. That is exactly what the government has done, resisting at every opportunity concrete suggestions as to where the bill could be improved.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
It is important to put the bill into perspective. To do this, we have to go back a bit in history, actually to the time of confederation in 1867. Under the terms of confederation, Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia formed the confederation of Canada. Each province brought in its resources and the control over those resources.
In 1870 the three prairie provinces were transferred from a trapping and trading preserve of the Hudson's Bay Company. That took in virtually the rest of Canada except British Columbia. Those three prairie provinces became virtually a colony of the new confederation. That was not dissimilar to what is happening today with the ten provinces and it is not unlike the position the Yukon and Northwest Territories find themselves in today.
I would like to zero in on 1870, at which time Manitoba was declared a province. However, it was still de facto a colony because it could not control or own its natural resources. That was a direct result of the Riel rebellion. It does not take much to know exactly what happened at the time of the Riel rebellion.
When development of the resources was taking place, the people within that area had absolutely no say as to how they would be developed or how the environment would be protected. There was no consultation other than window dressing. We have a repeat of that in Bill C-48, particularly as it relates to the amendments under discussion and to the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
I have discussed this a number of times. I have discussed these amendments with my colleague, the member for the Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). There is dissension, there is upset in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, because we are, in fact, repeating history and treating the citizens of the Northwest Territories, be they Inuit, be they treaty Indian, be they Metis, be they white, in exactly the same way as the federal government in pre-1870 treated the province of Manitoba, and again in 1905 in the way Alberta and Saskatchewan were treated. Alberta and Saskatchewan were carved out of the colonial territories and called provinces.
We all know that the Northwest Territories and the Yukon are some day going to want to be classed as provinces, to be brought into this great country of ours as equal partners. Now is the time to start treating them that way. It was all done in 1905. The confederation of provinces at that time in 1905, when Alberta and Saskatchewan were carved out, kept the resources, if you look back to the wording, for the purposes of Canada. That is exactly what is happening today with the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. We are going to develop the resources in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories; we are going to look after all the environmental aspects; we are going to look after the rate of development. We are going to look after all those things for the good of Canada. It is all going to be done from Ottawa.
It is important to put things in perspective, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) said earlier. I

October 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
did not get all the quote, but I think I have the gist of his argument. He said 140 witnesses appeared before the committee. How many of those 140 did the minister, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources or the bureaucrats in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources actually listen to? Not one, to my knowledge. Where did the submissions go? I do not know. They did not appear in Bill C-48. Where were the native people? Where were the Inuit? Where were the northerners?


An hon. Member:: Where were the Tories?


Jack Wendele Shields: Where were the NDP?


An hon. Member:: Where were the Tories when we voted to go up there?


Jack Wendele Shields: Why did we not meet in the north on the home ground of the people of the Northwest Territories and Yukon, as was proposed?


An hon. Member:: Because you sold out.


Jack Wendele Shields: It was within the minister's power to do exactly that: to allow the committee to travel. The request was made; the request was denied. How do hon. members think the residents of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon feel when there is absolutely no consultation, or at best a very small window-dressing type of consultation?
The minister says that we will develop the north in harmony with the aboriginal people. How does he know it will be in harmony with the aboriginal people if he will not sit down and discuss it on their home grounds? How is it going to affect their way of life? It is going to have a dramatic effect, we all know that.
I live in the town of Fort McMurray. When I first moved there 17 years ago it was a very quiet community of somewhere around 3,000 people. Because of an impending megaproject development, the Great Canadian Oil Sands at that time, the government of the province of Alberta decided in that day to class it as a new town and to administer that new town from the city of Edmonton, from the seat of government in the province of Alberta. This is some 300 miles south of the town of Fort McMurray.
They came in with their experts from Edmonton and said, "We are going to develop your town. We are going to develop the area. We are going to be conscious of the environment. We are going to preserve your natural resources. We are going to make this a model community." We had experts; they were in the form of old-timers who had been born there or had lived there for some 30, 40 or 50 years. They were old-timers like Clare Peden, Walter Hill, Alwyn Tolen, Andy Gaudet, Mac McCormick and Alice Haxton. They were not consulted, or if they were it was window-dressing type consultation. It was not until the people in Fort McMurray decided, in their wisdom, that they were going to control their own destiny, that they were going to be taken off new town status, that they were not going to let the government control the development in the
community, that the community actually started to develop in the way that the people in Fort McMurray wanted to develop it.
I relate this only because it is exactly the same situation we are facing here today. Ministerial discretion in Bill C-48, particularly as it relates to the environment, is absolutely scary. The minister says that he is going to collaborate with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts); he will collaborate with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc). He says, and I quote, "I will not have the authority given to other ministers that rightfully belongs to me". In other words, the minister of energy is going to become a superminister: "I am going to develop the north; I am going to do it in my way; I will consult once in a while with the minister of fisheries; I will talk to the Minister of the Environment. But it is me; I am going to take the responsibility. I will not have the authority given to the other ministers that rightfully belongs to me."
I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that the authority does not belong to him. The authority belongs to the people of Canada. The authority belongs to the people in the Northwest Territories. The authority for development belongs to the people in the Yukon. But true to the Liberal way of doing things-"Just watch me!" That is what we keep getting.
I go back to the minister's first statement where he said, "We spent a long time describing and defending this bill, pounding away." Then he has the audacity to come into the House and say that we have been talking about this for quite a long time and we should get it out of the House. We will get it out of the House, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. I suggest we will get it out of the House if he will for once listen to what the amendments say and realize what they do.
We do not wish to see the power that the minister wants for himself placed all in one hand. We would like to see this set up in a way that would be more equitable. We want to see more involvement of the residents of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. The minister said that there is compensation and that we could go through judicial channels, knowing darn well that judicial channels can take five or ten years before things can be settled. Then when the settlement is reached, the man who uses judicial channels finds a good portion of his settlement is eaten up by lawyers' fees. Surely we have enough foresight to see some of the problems that will arise. Surely we should set up a board which will judge fairly.
The minister controls the great giant, PetroCan. If a claim is made against this company, the minister hears his executives-and of course some of the executives of PetroCan are even on his own staff-telling him one thing and then he is supposed to sit there and judge and say, "Yes, you have a claim against PetroCan; we will pay it." Surely it is ludicrous to think that he can sit there and do that. Mind you, he is making himself into a superman. Perhaps he thinks he can do it, but I do not think any man could do it. There are no King Solomons, particularly in the Liberal Party.
October 15, 1981

The minister referred to the judicial process, and then he went on to say that he will hold blank cheques. He could write a blank cheque to compensate anyone he wants at any time. I say that that has shades of a pork barrel. I clearly see the opportunity of misusing this power, if he has blank cheques and people come in for compensation. I see lots of compensation before elections. Is that truly what the minister wants to be accused of later on? He is putting himself in an intolerable position. I wish the minister would heed the advice we are trying to give him.
The minister went on to say that they would carry on development in an orderly fashion in the north. By whose definition will it be in an orderly fashion? I know, it will be by the minister's definition and by the definition of the bureaucrats in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. I should like to suggest that perhaps there is another definition of orderly development, and that is that of the people living in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. The minister should go and talk with some of the people who have experienced and seen orderly development in places like Cold Lake, Bonnyville and Grand Centre where there have been projects coming in and then not coming in. That is not orderly development. That same thing will happen to the minister and his department. It was not orderly development in Fort McMurray when Great Canadian Oil Sands built their megaproject there. It became considerably more orderly when Syncrude arrived, because the local people had the autonomy to make decisions at that point in time. The local school boards had the autonomy to say that they would build schools. The local hospital boards also had autonomy. If they had to wait, as they did previously with Great Canadian Oil Sands, for a government only three hundred miles away to make the decisions, the experts and the bureaucrats could not make them. I suggest that the experts, the bureaucrats and the minister cannot make decisions for the people in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I urge the government to give consideration to the proposed amendments.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)-Veterans' Affairs-Backlog of pension applications; the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes)-Manpower- Request that minister meet with women's outreach groups; the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-VIA Rail-Request that standing committee consider matter of passenger train abandonment.
Canada Oil and Gas Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, and Motions Nos. 4 (Mr. Fulton), 34 (Mr. Ittinuar), 51 (Mr. Fulton), 52 (Mr. Ittinuar), 53 (Mr. Ittinuar), 55 (Mr. Lalonde), 56 (Mr. Fulton) and 57 (Mr. Fulton).
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the tragedy of Bill C-48 is being demonstrated in the debate today, that is, its effect upon the environment. We have an area which is equivalent to, or possibly larger than, the United States, but certainly larger than most nations in the world, coming under the Canada Oil and Gas Act.
In dealing with offshore, Arctic and northern resources, the federal government had an opportunity to develop a regime in those areas which would have really considered the people in the north and their desires. It would have given them an opportunity to have some say in how development proceeded and when it proceeded. It would have provided an opportunity to co-ordinate through this act co-operation among several federal government departments and provincial governments. They could have dealt with fisheries and oceans matters and the concerns of the fishermen in regard to this act. They could have had ample co-ordination with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) in some of the areas of responsibility on which he should be speaking. Certainly in regard to northern development we would have expected that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) would have played a large role in drafting legislation which would have a tremendous impact upon northern communities and their resources. But we are dealing with an act which does not involve any co-operation between ministers. We are dealing with a bill which will put massive powers in the hands of one minister who is responsible for no one, except for the massive grab of resources in the north and off our coasts.
We should be aware of why they are in such a desperate rush for the spoils, for the oil and gas in the north and off our coasts. This is the responsibility of the government; it lies right on its head. Because of its economic and energy policies of the past, Canada finds itself in the position of a net importer of energy, dependent upon foreign oil for supplies to eastern Canada in particular. It was a policy of selling out resources in the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s at very low prices to any buyers, without any idea of the long-term needs of Canadians in the main centres in the south or certainly any consideration of what the massive energy projects at this time would mean in the north and off our coasts. It was a sale of energy at $3 and $4 per barrel for oil to the United States until the 1970s. Then we finally realized that we were becoming short of our own

October 15, 1981
Grain Transport
energy supplies and had to go to foreign markets with exorbitant prices. OPEC prices have led us to a situation where many Canadians are lulled into the position of almost accepting any kind of energy development regardless of where it is, the environmental concerns, the fisheries concerns, or the concerns of the northern community. The minister has no concerns. Certainly he is not listening to those concerns or accepting a policy in this bill to reflect the real concerns people have expressed in committee and in the petitions which have been received, some of which were submitted by constituents of mine.
May I call it five o'clock?


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Motions Nos. 22 and 5 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.
OO)

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 16, 1980, consideration of the motion of Mr. Herbert:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest completed study on grain transport in western Canada.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House last debated this motion, the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) had the floor.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat ironic that by tomorrow it will be one year since we engaged in this debate. We spent one hour talking about the motion of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), on October 16, 1980. It seems doubly ironic because the motion asks that a report be made public that was, in effect, already public, but was not available to the House of Commons when all farm leaders and anyone interested in the grain business had easy access to it.
I was about halfway through my comments on the report and the comments that had accompanied it when we were interrupted almost one year ago. You may recall-although I doubt that most hon. members will-that we were discussing various problems in the transportation and movement of grain from country points to the point of unloading into ocean shipping. I had pointed out that most of the recommendations of the report were either well in hand or work was going on toward them. We had gone through improvements to the
country elevator system, improvements that needed to be made with regard to co-ordination on the railroad and improvements in allocating grain.
One aspect of the report has not been completely put into place in this regard and that is basically the proposal in the Booz-Allen report to start paper pooling of rapeseed. Paper pooling has gone on with all other western grains for a good number of years. It is simply a matter of making certain that the grain that is picked up from the various elevator companies is allocated to their terminals at the other end in approximately the same ratio as it was unloaded from the elevators in the country. No one loses any grain in this way. There is the advantage of not breaking up trains into 15 or 20 pieces so that a Pioneer elevator car goes to the Pioneer terminal while three other cars go to the Saskpool terminal and seven go to the United Grain Growers terminal. Instead, the whole thing would be dumped in one terminal. They would simply keep track of how much of each grade and variety goes into the terminals and at the end of the week or month they would try to unload the trains in such a way that the amounts of grain shipped would coincide with the amounts of grain received.
That kind of agreement has not yet been worked out for rapeseed. This means extra breaking up of trains and extra time taken at the seaports because companies insist on having their own carloads of grain unloaded at their own terminal instead of working the thing out on paper.
Aside from that, most of the other recommendations of the Booz-Allen report are well in hand. I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. member who raised the question in the first place-an issue that is now two and a half years old-direct most of his remarks to the Crow rate and the problems he thought it was causing for the railroads. I was surprised, not because I did not expect that kind of comment from the government side, but because the Booz-Allen inquiry was specifically instructed not to deal with that issue and it did not. I was surprised that the bulk of the discussion from the government side seemed to revolve around the Crow rate. It seems to me that the real reason for introducing this motion is not to gain access to a document that is, in effect, public but is, once again, to provide an opportunity to make comments about the Crow rate.
I think the understanding of the Crow rate is not as complete in eastern Canada as it might be. Without going through the history of it, I would like to point out what a present day move away from the Crow rate would do to the agricultural industry in western Canada. The examples I am going to give today will be from Alberta and this is specifically for the purpose of making the best case possible for the people interested in the Crow rate. Many groups in Alberta are now on the side of those who want to do away with the Crow because they think that in some way it will assist the economy of the province and will particularly assist livestock producers in the province.
I should like to quote from a recent issue of the "Wheat Pool 'Budget' " which is published by the Alberta Wheat Pool. An article in the December 1980 issue reads as follows:
October 15, 1981

Livestock feeders and other analysts sometimes envisage a much larger cattle and hog feeding industry if statutory rates for moving grain across Canada were eliminated. Impressive figures are often quoted reflecting supposed increase in employment, investment and value added benefits if only the Crow or statutory rate could disappear.
In Alberta ... If the Crow rate was removed and assuming that the number of cattle fed in Alberta would increase, the economic import could be measured in terms of additional barley consumed and additional packing plant activity.
Let us look at some real numbers now. The article goes on:
If the number of cattle fed increased by 10%, about 6.9 million bushels of barley would be required to feed them. The production of 51 million additional pounds of beef at a margin of $20 per hundredweight-
This was written last Christmas and now there is no margin per hundredweight.
-would provide a net benefit of $10.2 million to the feedlot operators of Alberta. If the number of cattle increased by 25%, an extra 17.2 million bushels of barley would be used and a net benefit of $25.4 million realized.
Remember that figure, Mr. Speaker; a net benefit of $25.4 million. The article goes on:
If statutory rates, however, for grain transportation disappeared, it can be assumed that the price at which feeders buy barley in Alberta would decrease by approximately the increase in the freight rate.
This must be placed in the context of the current situation where approximately 114 million bushels of barley per year are exported from Alberta. The article goes on as follows:
The 42 cents increase would apply on all of this except the additional barley utilized by feeders. In the case of 10% increase in cattle production the higher freight rate would apply on roughly 107,500,000 bushels of barley. With a 25% cattle increase, 97,200,000 bushels would be affected. This would represent a monetary loss to Alberta grain producers of $45 million and $41 million respectively.
It must be remembered that this is being compared with a $25 million gain. To this would also be added the net loss in the value of barley consumed which would amount to a loss of income of almost $60 million. So in order to realize a gain of about $25 million in Alberta, which would be the chief beneficiary of doing away with the Crow rate, farmers would need a loss of $190 million to $200 million annually. That would be the benefit of doing away with the Crow rate, Mr. Speaker! I think the recent announcement by some government ministers on October 9-


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


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to enter the debate to support the motion made by the hon. member opposite requesting a copy of the latest completed study on grain transport in western Canada. At the outset, I must confess that my interests are not directly related to the matter of western Canadian production of grain and grain movement within that area, but that my interests are of a more general character.
First and foremost is the matter of the flow of information to Members of Parliament, to which we have addressed ourselves on various occasions in this House. We have before us Bill C-43, which provides for access to information of a general character. It is unfortunate that this bill is being held
Grain Transport
in committee and is not being processed through this House. I can cast blame in the direction of my colleagues to the left in the New Democratic Party who have held that bill in committee day after day, month after month, when the people of Canada and the members of this House could have the benefit and the advantage of the information which ought to flow forward under the bill. This is just one more example: a report which could be requested-indeed, demanded-under proper access to information legislation of the kind proposed in Bill C-43.
Our concern must be broader than the particular information which is now requested to be brought before this House. We must find a general solution to the matter of the free flow of information, not only to members of this House, but to all Canadians who need and desire that kind of information. There should be no difficulty for any member of this House to support the motion, and to support the hon. member in not only requesting but demanding this report and any other information which is necessary to make intelligent assessments not only of grain transportation and production, but a great variety of other matters of interest to members of this House.
The grain industry in Canada is one which suffers from or is exposed to a high degree of government control and regulation. That is another reason for requiring the administrators of those government controls and regulations to make full and complete disclosure of what is happening in terms of the implementation of the regulations and the effect of their administration. I believe that the private sector should be given every encouragement to grow and develop in this country. I believe that it is a part and parcel of the solution to the economic woes of this country to encourage and foster the private sector in its growth and development. But as it happens, for historical reasons the grain industry has been subjected to great government control. We have organizations such as the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Grain Commission and so on, all of which have an element of control over various aspects of the grain industry.
We think of western Canadian grain producers as being affected by this regulation, and we think of eastern millers as being equally affected. But there are a great many other aspects of industrial Canada which are affected by the policies applied to the grain industry in Canada. Of course, my special interest relates to the shipping industry. At first glance, one might not relate the problems of the Canadian shipping industry to this particular subject. But let me tell Your Honour, and let me make it very clear to every member of this House, that the Canadian shipping industry is very much affected by this control and regulation which is applicable to the grain industry.
By way of example, it was stated very recently that there is a threat that the Government of Canada will remove the subsidy payable in respect of the eastward transportation of grain and grain products by rail and shipped to export markets through the port of Halifax, the port of Saint John, and other east coast ports. The removal of this subsidy at this point in time would result in something like a $23 additional expense

October 15, 1981
Grain Transport
per tonne which would eventually have to be paid by the primary producers of the grain. This would also destroy a very important branch of the Canadian east coast shipping industry.
From the port of Halifax alone approximately 400,000 metric tons of grain are shipped to European and export markets. In addition, another 200,000 tonnes of flour are shipped through the port of Halifax to Cuba and beyond. I understand that flour has been purchased by the Russian government for delivery in Cuba. There is a program sponsored by the Government of Canada whereby flour is given to Third World and developing nations as a kind of gift from the Government of Canada. Much of that flour moves through the ports of Halifax and Saint John. Over 600,000 tonnes of product are moving through the port of Halifax. Just to give some idea of the magnitude of the tonne movement of grain alone, in 1980 there were 25 ship landings in the port of Halifax. In terms of revenue, even to the National Harbours Board, that is a considerable sum of money when one realizes that the wharfage charges per vessel amount to several thousand dollars. In addition, of course, there is the employment of stevedores and all the spin-offs which result from that kind of port activity.
Therefore, when the Government of Canada is considering a matter like the subsidy paid on eastern movement through east coast ports of grain and grain products, there is a broad backlash to any change in policy. It is one more piece of evidence showing how so many Canadian industries and so many Canadians are affected by government regulatory policies. Therefore, when the government says that it must cut back on government expenditures, it must recognize that the problem has been created by government involvement in the particular field in the first instance. Thus, it is not a simple matter of the saving of taxpayers' dollars. It is a matter of destroying the whole policy which has been put in place for historic reasons and which has existed for many years.
My concern in this matter of acquiring information on the grain industry and in assessing government policies which affect it and the other related industries, such as the Canadian shipping industry, is that we must be very careful and cautious because the economic result of changes in policy could be quite disastrous. If the port of Halifax, for example, were to lose that kind of grain movement of over 400,000 tonnes of grain and over 200,000 tonnes of flour, it would be a major disaster. It would result in a great deal of direct loss of employment and revenue to the port and to the Canadian shipping industry. It is with that in mind that I concern myself with this subject. But it is also of concern in the search for greater freedom in the distribution of information, not only to members of this House, but to Canadians in general.
On the Atlantic coast, and particularly in the province of Nova Scotia, we are experiencing difficult economic times. The port of Halifax this week has suffered the loss of one of the major shippers, Trans Freight Lines, which compounds the problem which has been created by the removal of Dart container lines to the port of Montreal. This is all involved in
and related to policies of the Government of Canada in the transportation field.
I hope that members on the other side can exercise more influence over the policies of the Government of Canada; and hon. members on that side should also remind themselves of their great responsibility in this area. They must assure Canadians that government policies and changes in government policies are not brought about for the benefit of one particular area or region of Canada to the detriment of another area or region of Canada. This is why we stand so often in this House and talk about the energy problem, as my friends from Alberta do, while my colleagues from the east coast talk about other government policies. We are concerned that the Government of Canada does not always recognize the adverse effect of its policies on particular areas of Canada. The east coast is a definite example. Western alienation arises from the improper application of and changes in government policies.
I want to take this opportunity to say to the government that this is one more illustration where the policies affecting grain and grain transportation can result in great harm to an area of Canada affected by changes in government policy. What we need is total disclosure of information and the opportunity to assess those government policies so that all can be assured that the policies are fair to all Canadians.
I would like to yield to some of my other colleagues who want to speak on this subject, particularly the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) who, as a western Canadian, I am sure has great concerns, just as we all do.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this important subject this afternoon. Grain transportation is very important not only to western Canada but also to all of Canada. It is particularly important now when we have extremely high interest rates, interest rates that many of us feel are not necessary.
One of the reasons we have to suffer high interest rates, we are told, is that we have to attract foreign capital to Canada. It seems to me that rather than borrowing the money and raising interest rates to attract foreign investment, a better way would be to sell the products we are capable of producing in Canada. I would argue very strongly that one of those products is grain. If we can sell grain as well as other such products and if we had the proper kind of transportation system to get those products to export markets, that way would be better than raising interest rates. It would be much healthier for the whole economy. We would be earning dollars. Those dollars would be earned, not borrowed, and would not have to be paid back.
Grain transportation is a subject very important to western Canada, but I think all Canadians would agree that it is a subject of considerable national significance.
The government member who moved this motion is interested in producing a copy of the latest study on grain transporta-
October 15, 1981

tion. I am sure that all of us would be in favour of more government openness as far as government studies are concerned.
It is interesting to note also that we should have this subject introduced under Motion No. 4 today. It is roughly a year ago today since the co-ordinator Dr. Hugh Horner, of the Grain Transportation Authority, resigned. Since that time the government has not seen fit, nor has it had the courage, the inclination or the interest, to appoint a permanent co-ordinator to replace Dr. Horner. In fact, the Grain Transportation Authority has been without a co-ordinator for longer than it had one. That gives hon. members some idea of the importance which this government attaches to grain transportation in western Canada. As I have pointed out, it is vital and important to the whole country.
Although we are taking some time in the House today to talk about this subject, I learned this afternoon that the Department of Transport is in the process of what I think will amount to the dismantling of the Grain Transportation Authority. I learned today that a study on the effectiveness of the Grain Transportation Authority is to take place, under the direction of Mr. Tony Burgess, a member of the Grains Group. I think it is well known that he was, at best, lukewarm to the idea of a Grain Transportation Authority in the first place. It is obvious to those who have followed the success of the Grain Transportation Authority that someone who will look at it in terms of its effectiveness, who was really not in favour of it in the first place, is less likely to give it a fair hearing.
The Grain Transportation Authority has been in existence for about two years. Half of that time the Grain Transportation Authority has not had a permanent co-ordinator. Instead it has had an acting co-ordinator. If a feasibility study is to take place on the effectiveness of the Grain Transportation Authority, at least it could have been operating under a permanent co-ordinator and not an acting co-ordinator, because I think that is an unfair position in which to put the acting co-ordinator. I think also that the timing of doing an assessment on the Grain Transportation Authority is unfair because it has not been given a fair chance to operate. So I say again that I think it is ironic that the member who moved this motion is a government member. We are more concerned about grain transportation on this side because we have more members from western Canada and are the first ones affected.
Our party would be very much in favour of having all studies inquiring into grain transportation made public. We heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) announce figures on the embargo payments here two or three months ago. We were told when the embargo payments were made that we would have access to the information which the government used to decide on the level of compensation. We have seen none of those yet. Therefore, in the name of openness and freedom of information, as far as the government is concerned it should make public as many studies as possible. After all, studies are paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, and those Members of Parliament who are concerned with the
Grain Transport
wellbeing of our constituents should have access to that information to provide it to our constituents.
There are many things I could say on this matter. Grain transportation is a topic worth several days of debate in this House. The Booz-Allen report, which is not mentioned in the motion is, I gather, what the hon. member is referring to when he refers to the "latest study". It is some two or three years old now. Two Snavely reports have been issued as well as several other reports done internally on grain transportation. On several occasions we have tried to get copies of some of the work done by the Grains Group within the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and also Transport to some extent. We have been unsuccessful there. If the hon. member opposite who moved the motion could prevail on some of his colleagues on the government benches to see fit to make more than the Booz-Allen report public, we would all appreciate it and it would be to the betterment of grain transportation in western Canada.
I believe it was the member who moved the motion who spent a good deal of time on the Crow rate. Last summer quite a bit of agreement on a solution to the problems associated with the Crow rate came to pass. The Crow rate is a very complicated and touchy subject as far as many westerners are concerned, but we did see groups who were affected by the Crow in western Canada having come virtually to a consensus. They had agreed on most of the major stumbling blocks, but the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stepped in and said that unless there was unanimous agreement his government was not prepared to move on a solution to the Crow rate.
At that time it was pointed out to the Prime Minister, and I think it needs to be said again, that it was fine for the Prime Minister to be unilateral as far as the Constitution was concerned, but when it came time to deal with a practical matter, a matter affecting western Canadians' livelihood as well as our ability to feed and clothe our families, immediately we have to be unanimous. I think that was a very sad situation for the Canadian way of doing things which is by consensus. Again I have to find a certain amount of irony in this, although I fully support the intent of the motion as far as making information more freely available, which has been paid for, and gathered by the government.
I know time is getting short. I do not know if any government members wish to speak, but I know that my colleague from Red Deer (Mr. Towers) has some words to say. I would like to yield whatever time is remaining to him if that is possible.


Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the debate initiated by my colleague for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) is extremely important in view of the fact that it concerns transportation in Canada. As it is directly related to the issue of grain, we are dealing with the two elements which have brought about relatively fast development in this country,

October 15, 1981
Grain Transport
both on a geographic and an economic level, and this to the advantage of all areas of the country since both eastern and western Canada benefit greatly from grain transport. What I found somewhat surprising was the fact that the papers which our colleague requested for examination have already been made public, which means that there was no government restriction to direct access to this information. In any event, I would like to emphasize in this regard that the Department of Transport has done a lot in the last ten years to modernize the Canadian railway system. I was listening earlier to my colleague opposite, who is also a member of the transport committee, and we were able last year to visit various places in Canada and many associations, where several groups made suggestions and comments about the areas where the Canadian government could be much closer to the people with a view to upgrading existing equipment.
I repeat that not only does western Canada benefit from grain transport and not only does central Canada receive all the benefits of agriculture and western grain, but that the east also benefits from it. In this regard, in a very recent report, Harbours Board Canada showed that the quantity of grain shipped from Vancouver has been substantial in the last ten years because of the Canadian railroad network, and that moreover, with the Ridley Island project north of Vancouver, we shall gain one of our most important terminals for grain shipments by 1985. It is therefore quite obvious that the matter raised by my colleague for Vaudreuil affects not only western Canadians and transport itself, but also the economy as a whole. I know that in the last three years, the Canadian government has decided to invest $70 million a year up to a maximum of $700 million to modernize the railway network of Canada. On top of that, the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has announced that during the next three years, total expenditures to modernize Canadian railroad equipment will be indexed by 10 per cent, which amounts to $40 million more for the next three years. Three times $70 million give $210 million, plus $40 million, which means $250 million. I therefore believe that the government has demonstrated its will to modernize Canadian railroads. However, in my opinion, the minister cannot be accused of not having requested information from-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but pursuant to our Standing Orders, the time allotted to the motion of the hon. member for Vaudreuil has expired.

According to Standing Order 48, a minister of the Crown has the right to a five-minute reply at this point. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bockstael) seeking to be recognized. The unanimous consent of the House for him to be recognized in place of the minister would be required. Is there consent?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, does the mover of the motion not have the floor for the first five minutes?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Standing Order 48(2) is very specific. It states:
When debate on a motion for the production of papers, under the order "Notices of Motions (Papers)", has taken place for a total time of one hour and thirty minutes, Mr. Speaker shall at that point interrupt the debate, whereupon a minister of the Crown, whether or not such minister has already spoken, may speaFfor not more than five minutes, following which the mover of the motion may close the debate by speaking for not more than five minutes.
Is there unanimous consent?


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, since the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board is not a member of this House it has been one of the real problems that we have had to come to grips with in trying to get whatever bits of information we can regarding the movement of grain in western Canada. I question the right of another minister to speak to this motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The order of the House is quite clear. Any minister of the Crown has the right to speak for five minutes at this point. The parliamentary secretary wishes to be recognized. Is there unanimous consent to recognizing the parliamentary secretary?


Erik Nielsen: We on this side will provide that unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members opposite for giving me this opportunity to reply on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). Throughout this debate on a private member's motion there was reference made to the Hall commission report, the Snavely report, and the Booz-Allen report. Many of these reports are highly technical and voluminous. They have been and are still available to anyone requesting them.
The department is prepared to provide a staff person to help give briefing details on the contents of these reports to any hon. members if it would be helpful. The reports have been available for some time. The Booz-Ailen report is the latest; it was published in July 1979. Unfortunately, this report was not printed in both official languages. If it is required, the department is prepared to undertake the production of a summary translation of the Booz-Allen report for any hon. member requiring it in the French language.
We want to congratulate the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) for having raised this question. Grain transportation is not only a western issue. Central and eastern Canada have a deep vested interest in the health of the grain industry. During the winter months when the Seaway is frozen, an ambitious rail shipping program is undertaken. Grain moves by rail from Thunder Bay to Montreal, Quebec, Saint John and Halifax. Each port has grain elevators and benefits from this transshipment. It is therefore important to note that the hon. member for Vaudreuil has rendered this House a great

service in drawing to our attention the fact that these reports should be made available to all hon. members.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I feel I should make a few remarks at this time to explain, first of all, why I would put such a motion on the Order Paper. As I said in my remarks in October of last year, I noted in the spring of last year that the subsidy on the Crowsnest Pass rates between 1974 and 1977 had increased by some 70 per cent. The variable costs of Canadian National during the same period increased by some 40 per cent, and the variable costs of Canadian Pacific in that same three-year period increased by 62 per cent.
Figures in my possession-I am speaking of the spring of 1980 since the response to the motion is dated April, 1980- show that we could be involved in an expenditure to the consumers, whether it be through taxes or a cost incurred by the two railways, in the order of $1 billion. This is not an objection to the spending of those moneys. I look upon the benefits which are obtained from such subsidies as being a national benefit.
I felt, however, that there is insufficient knowledge, particularly in my part of the country, of the amount that is contributed to help the western farmer. I felt it would be a good thing therefore that any information available to the government should be made public. I therefore asked for an order of the House. I think it important that I read the motion again. It reads:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest completed study on grain transport in western Canada.
I had no knowledge at that particular time of what the latest study was. It turned out to be the Booz-Allen study which has been made public and was available to the public.
I wish to take the minute remaining to me to talk about our system because it is relevant. A motion is put on the Order Paper in order to ensure that the public at large is not only made aware of a document but has access to it. When a document is tabled, any member of the public has access to that document.
When the response is made in this House, one cannot at that time have any knowledge of what is in the document and, for that matter, one is in the rather embarrassing position of having to request a transfer for debate, because, of course, there has to be an instant response.
Having seen the document, the Booz-Allen report, which was sent to my office, and having referred to it in my remarks on October 16 of 1980, it is abundantly apparent to me that not only has the document been made public but also that it has had a considerable degree of circulation in the public domain. However, I reiterate that the motion referred to the latest study and, until the document was seen, one could not tell what the latest study was.
I should raise one other point. When a document is tabled, presumably one can make some request that it be sent to the
Grain Transport
appropriate committee for study. I do believe that is important and can only be done after the document has been tabled in the fashion described. Under the circumstances I feel that perhaps there should be a change in our procedures. Perhaps a member should be given at least 24 hours to make the decision on whether a motion should be transferred for debate.
Under the circumstances it would appear to be a futile exercise to go through the procedure of voting on whether we want to have a document which is already tabled and in general circulation. I therefore request the unanimous agreement of this House to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has requested unanimous consent to withdraw his motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Erik Nielsen: Ordinarily, Mr. Speaker, it would be my custom to accept the hon. member's assessment that he has seen a copy of the report which he says has been made available to him. I do not know whether that is the latest report of the study he has requested. I have not seen the Booz-Allen report, and there are many hon. members on this side who are in the same position; plus the fact that the motion is in keeping with the government's own stated intention to become freer with information.
I would therefore like to see the report, and I withhold that unanimous consent.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
It being past six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At 6.21 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, and Motions Nos. 4 (Mr. Fulton), 34 (Mr. Ittinuar), 51 (Mr. Fulton), 52 (Mr. Ittinuar), 53 (Mr. Ittinuar), 55 (Mr. Lalonde), 56 (Mr. Fulton), and 57 (Mr. Fulton).
Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to continue the comments I started before the dinner hour. At that time I was discussing one of the reasons for the big rush into northern and offshore energy resources. That was basically the sellout of our resources in the 1960s and early 1970s to anybody who would buy them. Now we are in the position where we must, in all haste, it seems, despite environmental concerns, rush into northern and offshore oil drilling, exploration and exploitation.
Much has been said about the silence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro). I should like to speak about the matter of fisheries now and the silence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) which is equal to that of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I would point out that Canada is currently the world's leading fish exporter, selling about $1 billion worth of fish abroad in 1980.
We have rich fishing grounds off both our eastern and western coasts. Landings by east coast fishermen in 1980 were valued at $491 million; landings off the west coast were valued at $174 million. In all, over 76,000 full and part-time fishermen depend on fishing for all or part of their income, as do another 25,000 fish plant workers. The Canadian Labour Council, in its brief to the national resources committee estimated that for every three jobs created in the fishing industry, two more are created elsewhere, and in processing, two jobs are created for each direct processing job.
In my own province of British Columbia, and on the east coast as well, sports fishing is also part of the way of life. It
October 15, 1981

provides recreation as well as being a revenue source through tourism. As well, the fishery is one of the main supports of the traditional way of life of many coastal native Indian communities. Without the fishery, which has been a part of their lives for many thousands of years, native people in my own riding of Nanaimo-Alberni and elsewhere on Canada's coasts would lose a crucial source of food and employment.
It is simply unbelievable that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has not sought greater protection for the many Canadians who need the fishery-protection from possible damage to the marine environment due to the adverse effects of oil spills, well blowouts and other damage. It is unbelievable as well that no provisions are made for adequate compensation in the event of a disasterous spill or blowout. This is particularly hard to believe in light of the knowledge we have gained in recent years about the awful consequences of such environmental emergencies.
In February, 1970, for example, the tanker Arrow sank at Chedabucto Bay near Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia. About 190 miles of shoreline were contaminated with oil and countless fish and shore birds were killed. It cost Canada $3 million to clean up the mess even though much of the shoreline could not be restored.
In 1978 off the coast of Brittany, the Amoco Cadiz went aground. The captain of this Liberian freighter was accused of "gross dereliction" which could not and should not be excused. This did not help the French fishermen, oystermen or lobster farmers whose livelihood was destroyed by the 64 million gallons of oil that were dumped over the 100 miles of ruined shoreline. Clean-up costs for this, the largest oil spill in history, were estimated at $600 million. Again, in March of 1979, in Cabot Strait the British oil carrier, Kurdistan, hit an iceberg, split in half, and dumped its cargo of about 29,000 tonnes of bunker oil. This spill cost $7 million to clean up. But the greatest, largest marine oil disaster that we have ever seen was not an oil spill at all; it was a well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, the so-called Ixtoc blowout. In June of 1979, an offshore oil well owned by the Mexican Oil Corporation Pemex started spewing oil uncontrollably into the Gulf of Mexico; by the time it was capped ten months later it had spilled 140 million gallons of crude oil, some onto the coast of Texas and Louisiana. The cost of this clean-up was close to $1 billion by the time the well was capped in March of 1980. The blowout meant losses for resort owners, for Gulf shrimp fishermen and for Pemex itself.
In May of this year, a spokesman for Dome Petroleum admitted in Resolute Bay that his firm would not be able to control or clean up an oil spill in the Beaufort Sea should such a disaster take place. Yet Bill C-48 sets the stage for full speed and full-scale development of the Beaufort and other northern areas.
Again we can say that ministers entrusted with the protection of the north and its people have failed to take care of the areas entrusted to them. The Inuit people of Baffin Island say
Canada Oil and Gas Act
that this amounts to little more than "cultural genocide"; their spokesman pointed out to Dome that if a spill in the sunny, warm and ice-free Gulf of Mexico could not be prevented or controlled, then there is little hope of preventing one in the often dark, cold and icy Arctic.
We should not lose sight of the concerns that have been expressed by the Ministry of the Environment concerning the chronic, creeping effluent generated by offshore drilling and exploration activities. The ministry is so concerned, in fact, that in a report issued in 1978, it says that "the long-term degradation of the world's continental shelves may not be due to catastrophic spills. It may be due to the gradual deposition of small amounts of pollutants over time." These pollutants- drill cuttings and fluids, solid industrial and domestic wastes, industrial fluid wastes and oily production water and the onshore facilities and pipelines associated with offshore works are the ones identified-are capable of devastating salt marshes, fish spawning grounds, shellfish areas and the estuaries and channels that fish need to feed and spawn in.
At the same time, the report says that most of the problems are not technical but rather "traceable to specific weaknesses in offshore drilling and production procedures and management systems." In other words, we should not blame the tools or equipment, but rather the care and consideration for the environment with which they are used. The report goes on to say that for the government, "the only adequate response is to require offshore operators to meet high standards of housekeeping and water disposal."
This bill, as it has been presented to the House, does not set such high standards. It does not, for example, establish clearly enough the definition of an oil spill; for this reason the NDP has asked for changes that would clearly state that an oil spill should be defined as any amount of 100 litres or more of oil or any other substances foreign to the environment. We should be establishing the sort of high standards of housekeeping-


Marc Lalonde: It is a low standard.


Edward Allan Miller: -and water disposal sought in the environment minister's own report.


Marc Lalonde: We cover it, from one drop on.


Edward Allan Miller: Oh, the minister assures us now that it is his intention to cover oil from one drop on. It was one metre on-


Marc Lalonde: Anything is an oil spill, anything.


Edward Allan Miller: Well, that's quite reassuring, but-


Marc Lalonde: Why only 100 litres?


Edward Allan Miller: -it really does not point that out in the bill, as we interpret it. We cannot take the assurance of the minister that it will cover spills any less than-


James Ross Fulton: We know what his guarantees are like: ironclad.

October 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Edward Allan Miller: Eighteen cents to the gallon. We should also cut down our haste in allowing offshore oil drilling and exploration.


Marc Lalonde: You want to lower the levels.


Edward Allan Miller: We have had a moratorium on petroleum development off the west coast of B.C. for ten years. Bill C-48 would allow the lifting of this moratorium. At least I appreciate the minister's finally listening. I do not know if he is hearing, but he is listening.


Marc Lalonde: You bet.


Edward Allan Miller: Bill C-48 would allow the lifting of this moratorium. It would allow the foreign-owned petroleum companies which own leases on the west coast to go ahead with drilling as soon as possible. In other words, they will be able to drill before we are assured they will adhere to the kind of production procedures and management systems that the environment ministry's report of two years ago called for.


Marc Lalonde: Nonsense.


Edward Allan Miller: In fact, the only thing that currently stop Chevron Standard Limited and other large lease holders off the B.C. coast from going ahead with drilling as soon as this bill is passed is a jurisdictional dispute between the federal government and the province of British Columbia.


Marc Lalonde: Nonsense.


Edward Allan Miller: Surely this is not enough to assure commercial, sports and native fishermen that they will be able to look forward to their fishery ten, 20 or 25 years in the future.
So we must add the name of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) to the list of those whose silence has been so noticeable during the time the government has pushed this bill through Parliament. We must add his name because the provisions for protection of the environment in the case of a spill or a blowout are so weak. So here we have the ministers who are entrusted with protecting native people, the northern environment, the fisheries and oceans of Canada and the coastal environment; we have them accepting legislation that will put these people and these common trusts in severe jeopardy; we have them silently accepting legislation, in her words, for which others had felt some responsibility until now. These ministers have hardly taken the initiatives they should have taken to make sure that their responsibilities were carried out under this bill. The energy minister has told the national resources committee that these ministers will get their chance to set up resources management committees after the bill is passed; but we do not see it here in the legislation, and we cannot take the assurance of the minister into consideration under the conditions in this bill. Let us see it, and then we will believe it. The minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) has been called a silent partner to Bill C-48. Certainly, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans can also be classified as a silent minister.


An hon. Member:: Silent, I don't know about a partner.


Edward Allan Miller: Well, he does not seem to be in partnership under the bill anyway.
We should clearly establish in this legislation the responsibility of firms that undertake work in our north or off our coasts. Such firms must be made accountable for any environmental damage or economic loss to fishermen, shellfish harvesters, residents, other companies and others affected by the bill.
This bill is also weak in the provision it makes for inquiries into oil spills and other mishaps. In fact, as currently worded, the bill puts it at the discretion of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) whether an inquiry into an accident will be held, and it says nothing at all about public inquiries. We would like to see it clearly stated that an inquiry must be held and that it must be conducted in public. This is the intent of Motion No. 57, which has been moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).
These amendments, if adopted, would certainly improve the quality of Bill C-48 as a piece of legislation; but their adoption would not, I suggest, end the fears of fishermen, and other coastal Canadians who depend on the oceans and coastal waters of the nation to gain their living. It would not reassure the resort owners. It would not reassure the native hunters and fishermen who believe so strongly in the land and in their communities. The reason it would not reassure them is that they have no faith in the ministers of the government opposite who have done so little to live up to their mandates to protect the environment and the people. This is why the members of my party have worked so hard in their constituencies, in the committee on natural resources and in the House to get the government to reconsider Bill C-48, to slow down its general rush through the House in its desire to get at Canada's offshore natural resources.


Marc Lalonde: Eight months in the House.


Edward Allan Miller: Eight months in the House, and we still have a poor bill, Mr. Minister.


Marc Lalonde: Some rush.


Edward Allan Miller: We should be taking steps to assure Canadians who will be affected by this legislation that they will not have to pay the costs of social upheaval and environmental damage without seeing any of the benefits that these developments will provide. When we have fully taken care of the concerns of those who justly fear for their homes and their environment and their livelihood; when we have made sure that the benefits will go to Canadian taxpayers, workers and suppliers; when we have put proper environmental safeguards into effect, then we should proceed with the development of our resources in the full knowledge that we are not going to sacrifice more than we gain in the process.
In conclusion let me say that this rush to northern and offshore resources is reminiscent of the rush to exploit the conventional oil reserves in Alberta and Saskatchewan and to
October 15, 1981

sell them off at low prices. You are rushing into an area without considering the kind of input which the people in the north and those dependent on our offshore resources, such as fishing, have asked the government to consider.
This bill could stand many amendments. We in this party are disappointed that those environmental concerns expressed to the government in committee have not been addressed in any way in this bill.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this evening to speak on Bill C-48, and the amendments that are attached thereto, Nos. 4, 34, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56 and 57. I understand that Motion No. 54 is still under consideration. I hope that the government will attempt to come to grips with Motion No. 54 in the near future because I believe it is vital to this bill and to the wellbeing of the country as a whole.
First, my concern about the bill is primarily from an environmental standpoint. I think it is imperative we recognize that although it is necessary to press on to energy self-sufficiency in Canada, environmental concerns and the concerns of the little people of this country are taken into consideration, specifically, the fishermen who are involved with this particular exploration. We cannot afford to eliminate the difficulties which this bill might impose on them. We cannot afford to eliminate those difficulties from our thoughts in our mad rush to develop new energies of which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is fully aware. They are short lived at best in the total concept of energy necessities over the period of the next few decades.
In the opinion of many Canadians, as well as that of a good many members of this House of Commons, this bill in all of its ramifications leaves a great deal to be desired. What it attempts to do, unfortunately for the people of this nation, is to set up a mega-ministry. This was aptly pointed out by the hon. member who spoke previously, but it will not work in the best interest of Canadians who have to continue to make their livelihood and to feed their families.
In the minister's wisdom and in the judgment of the bureaucrats who are anxious in their own way to appease his insatiable appetite, what we are faced with is a situation in which the minister has provided himself with more and more power. The agreement with which we are faced between the various ministries of the government-and it would be interesting to know the details behind it-is that the minister of energy will now take on the robe and cloak of spokesman, critic and absolute authority for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) under whose jurisdiction, I believe, this bill should fall; as well as that of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc). Speaking of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I am shocked that he is not in the House this evening and that he has not shown sufficient interest to be here when a subject of such vital concern to his department is before the House and will be before the House for the next while. Also, it is just as disconcerting that, for some reason or another, the Minister of the Environment, who should be just as interested, is not here this evening.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Marc Lalonde: He was here this afternoon.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Yes, he was here this afternoon, but after all it is his job, and his department and his salary are being financed by the taxpayers of Canada.


Marc Lalonde: He is working now.


Robert Alfred Corbett: It is his responsibility to be here and to appreciate the concerns of other Canadians because there are more than two Canadians in this House of Commons and in this country besides the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of the Environment. But apparently the minister has been given the task by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to attend to a more important function, and that is the matter of the Constitution. Why has the minister not been given the opportunity to voice those concerns that must be his as the Minister of the Environment, or does he care? I suggest that the entire portfolio of the Minister of the Environment is nothing more than a paper tiger. Interestingly enough, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources took exception a few moments ago to my remark that the Minister of the Environment should be interested in environmental concerns. But I see that that was passed by, as most other things are, by this government.
The amendments and the bill call for the establishment of two funds. It is very difficult to determine what these two funds intend to establish and do. Apparently $50 million or $100 million will be set aside. Perhaps the minister would like to give us his wisdom and tell us exactly how much the amount will be when he responds to the various positions that have been put forth in this connection. However, there are to be at least two funds set up, perhaps jointly funded, for the study of environmental impacts as well as for social studies. The term social studies is a very nebulous term, but it has to do with the impact the bill will have, primarily with regard to the Arctic region of Canada, which comprises some 40 per cent of the land mass.
I would suggest that this government has probably spent more money on studies and on the studious pursuit of the realities in Canada than any other government in the history of confederation. Despite the amount of money they spend on their education and their efforts to gain so-called knowledge for the benefit of their members, it is absolutely astounding that members opposite should portray themselves as such a studious group. They have to be the most inept government in the history of even their own party.
We have seen the definition in this bill of an environmental study. Again, it is nebulous. We have seen their definition of social study exercise but we have seen no reference to what they plan to do in the event that people in this country end up suffering. That is the history of that government.
Just take a look at our current situation. I could take up not only my allotted time but a full month or even a year to talk

October 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
about the government's callousness toward things like VIA Rail, mortgage rates, etc.
I would like now to turn my attention to energy. What will happen in this country if there is an oil spill, gas leak or some other catastrophic event? What they are doing is preparing themselves only for known situations.
Mr. Speaker, in the short period of time we are discussing, energy exploration is relatively new. The fact is it is minor oil spills, the mystery spills, as they are called, that are the most devastating to the people of this nation. That is the issue we should be addressing ourselves to. It is the garbage which is deposited into the sea, into our environment, which we must concern ourselves with.
I suggest that my colleagues and most of the people in this nation who make their living from the sea agree that there is very little attention paid to the mystery spills and garbage being dumped into the sea. The government has said that fishermen and other people who are adversely affected by these oil spills will be compensated in some manner through a fund yet to be determined. But no provision has yet been made. There is no particular direction given to those affected as to how they might make application to this never-never fund which is not even in existence.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if this government is truly interested in the best interests of Canadians and in Canada, as it would have us believe, it would set up a specific fund with a specified amount of money-certainly close to the amount it is prepared to spend on environmental studies-for the compensation of people whose daily lives could be adversely affected.
Mr. Speaker, it has been stated by knowledgeable people that a major oil spill in an environment which is so ecologically critical would have a tremendously adverse effect. I refer, of course, to an accident involving a tanker or a well site blowout. This government makes no provision for any compensation for people living in areas affected by such a situation.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out a matter about which the government is already totally aware. This is the proposal for an oil refinery to be erected in the State of Maine to which the province of New Brunswick has taken exception, to which I have taken exception, and to which apparently the government has taken exception. The government has stated it is prepared to pass regulations to make sure that the oil refinery in the State of Maine is not fed.
The time has come for the government to realize that it is the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) who should have a high profile in any decisions which are made that could adversely affect fisheries or any aspect of life in Canada. In order to do that, the government will have to be firm and will have to tell people in other jurisdictions that they will not be allowed to infringe upon the environment and the way of life we enjoy as Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I have a report before me which is put out by the Department of Fisheries and by Environment Canada
which is an environmental risk index for the siting of deep water oil ports. I would like to quote from that report. It says:
It is possible to build a deep water oil terminal wharf off Eastport with depths alongside in the range from 80 to 90 feet. However, entrance to such a facility is via Head Harbour Passage, which is noted for its strong tidal streams, tide rips, and whirlpools. Its narrowest point is 1,800 feet wide between the coast of Campobello Island and a 27-foot shoal. Tidal streams in this passage sometimes attain a rate of nearly five knots. At the intersection of Head Harbour Passage with Western Passage, tide rips and whirlpools are formed at certain stages of the tide.
These strong tidal streams in the narrow entrance to Eastport would make it extremely difficult, and at times impossible, to manoeuvre and berth VLCC's in this area. In fog and reduced visibility, the difficulties of navigating such vessels would be further compounded.
This has been brought to the attention of the government on many occasions. The establishment of this company in East-port, Maine, would result in the emission of half a ton of sulphur dioxide and a ton of the oxides of nitrogen and 300 pounds of particular matter into the air every hour of the day, 365 days of the year. What has been the government's response to this proposal? This response has been forthcoming from this government since 1974. It is prepared to pass a regulation, if necessary, to prohibit the passage of super tanker traffic through Head Harbour passage.
Let me bring hon. members up to date on what has transpired. The Environmental Protection Agency has been ordered to grant a permit to the Pittston people which would allow them to discharge waste water into the Bay of Fundy region. There is a referendum going on today in the town of Eastport as to whether the residents of that community want the Pittston group, which has one of the worst histories of protection of the environment on the entire North American continent. Today those people are being asked to consent to the Pittston group's moving into Eastport. The time has come for the government to act. If the government is prepared to pass a regulation, let the government pass it now. Let the government deal with matters of environmental concern. Let hon. members opposite no longer pay lip service to the fact that the environment of our Canadian children and grandchildren must be protected in the future.
This government has made no move whatsoever in that direction, and it will be a sad day indeed if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is allowed to speak for the absent Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) and for the Minister of the Environment, absent this evening, both of whom should be heard. It will be a shame, and a shame on the government if it allows that to happen! These ministers, who should know and who should have a voice respecting where environmental funds are being expended, should be involved in the decision-making process. If they are not being denied that right, then certainly the citizens of Canada, the people who make their living from the sea and the people who have to feed their families are being denied that right of being involved through their spokesmen who are supposed to represent their particular interests in this House of Commons.
October 15, 1981

1 urge hon. members present not to allow that to happen. It is the duty of every one of us who represents people who have to feed families in these days of dire plight to ensure that those people are ably and aptly represented.

Mir. Jean Lapierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State): Mr. Speaker, to follow up on the comments of the previous speaker, I believe that it is of course important to put things back in their context. He regretted the absence of the Minister of Environment (Mr. Roberts), and at the same time tried to separate the protection offered in Bill C-48 from all other legislation aimed at protecting the environment in the Arctic and elsewhere in Canada.
Of course, the pace of northern development will accelerate, probably in spite of the gloomy prospects by our colleagues opposite and especially their former energy critic, who was under the impression that this bill would prevent his friends, the companies, from investing in the north. 1 do not think that the motions now before us bring any major surprises. I see some members of the New Democratic Party are here tonight to defend them, and I have but one regret, and that is that at the time of the vote in the committee, they were not even there to move these amendments. This is perhaps a belated reaction. I remember that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) was in a great hurry that day. He was not there to introduce his amendments, when the committee could have disposed of them one way or the other. However, the bill provides these two funds for the environment. A while ago, I heard someone say that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) had been completely ignored in this matter, and as we all know, this minister will be responsible for the environment fund north of the 60th parallel. We must also remember that all the other provisions included in the EARP and other environmental provisions still apply.
Let us look at the amendments proposed. Our colleague from the north came back earlier to the arguments which we heard during one of our trips over there, and especially with regard to the definition of a spill. I believe that he has misunderstood or else that he is becoming exclusive in his wish to overspecify, because if he excludes the general terms of the section as presently drafted and limits application of this provision to spills of over 100 litres, the bill will not protect us against smaller spills, and I do not see any advantage in having such a restrictive definition. In fact it might be a mistake, or perhaps not enough lawyers on the other side have examined this motion, but it would be completely useless to include this restriction. Frankly, I believe that it would be harmful and would prevent any control over the smaller spills that many people fear.
With Motion No. 51, even authorized spills would come within the purview of the act. Obviously, this amendment would create a legal contradiction since illegal authorized
Canada Oil and Gas Act
spills would be included. I fail to understand how something which is authorized can be illegal at the same time. This is of course a problem of semantics, and in any case to dispel the fears of hon. members opposite Section 19.2(1) will provide for a spill, whether authorized or not, which occurs offshore.
As for Motion No. 55-

It would make the person from whose work the spill resulted liable for actual loss or damage suffered by any person as a result of any such spill. He would be held responsible for what he has done, and I do not see why we need that new amendment.
Motion No. 52 provides for the reporting of authorized spills to the chief conservation officer and for the giving of notice of any such spill to the aboriginal groups affected. Such provisions could be made and would be more appropriate in regulations made in respect of authorized spills as provided for in subclause 19(4).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, but that will never be done.


Mr. Lapierre:: You never know. We should be hopeful. It would be hard to put that in the bill and oblige the minister to give notice. Notice could be given to whomever is concerned, but we should not put it precisely in the bill. I think the place for that is in the regulations, and when the regulations are out and printed, I am sure hon. members will be able to check on them. If you are not satisfied, I am sure you will voice your dissatisfaction.


Mr. Blaikie:: We will not be able to debate them.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I am sure the bill will not be here forever.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Neither will you.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Maybe you are looking for that.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is never forever when there is closure.


Jean-C. Lapierre: The motion would delete from subclause 19.2(1) the liability of a person responsible for a spill or debris for the cost and expenses reasonably incurred by the Government of Canada in acting to deal with such a spill or debris. In place of that provision, the motion would substitute a broad provision for liability, economic loss or damage resulting from spills or debris including loss of hunting, fishing and gathering opportunities of aboriginal peoples.
The provision was suggested in committee as well and, in substance, was adopted in an amendment to Clause 19, subclause 19(3). I do not have to repeat it. The version was adopted on the basis that with the addition to the existing provision on "actual loss or damage", of "loss of income and loss of hunting and gathering opportunities of aboriginal peoples," all of the essentials of the proposal would be included. The one notable exception that may be raised relates to the

Canada Oil and Gas Act
collective loss in certain circumstances, recognizing the right to bring class actions.
I do not think we are in a position to authorize that type of class action. Everyone realizes how the provinces are working on class actions. In Quebec, for example, there are bills with regard to that. I am sure the provinces will be given the opportunity to bring class actions.
As a result of the original wording in subsections (a) and (b), in cases where damage occurred in excess of the strict liability limits, there could be no additional recovery by an injured party from the negligent operator, only from any other persons who contributed to the damage. Thus, where there was negligence, and no contribution to that negligence from any other party, the injured party would be precluded from recovery above the strict liability limits. This, however, is not the intention; the new wording provides that where there is negligence, there may be recovery from any person responsible. This would include the negligent operator, subject to the strict liability provisions in subparagraph (a). Any amounts paid to the injured party as a result of subparagraph (a) would be deductible from the amount recovered on the basis of negligence, under paragraph (b) as a matter of common law.
[ Translation]
Finally, as far as Motion No. 56 is concerned-

The motion would amend the limitation provision in respect of claims under Clause 19.2. The period now provided is two years from the date on which, for example, the damage resulting from the spill occurred, but not later than six years from that date. The proposed amendment would extend the first period to the extent that the date on which the damage occurred may, in some circumstances, not be coincidental with the date on which the damage became evident.
The sense of the amendment is not unreasonable, but when the vote comes, the government will have to reflect on it.
Motion No. 57 would amend clause 19.4(1) so that the minister would be required to establish a public inquiry in every circumstance where a death, injury or danger to public safety or the environment resulted from a spill or debris or an accident related to any activity to which the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act applies.
The bill now gives the minister the discretionary authority to establish an inquiry under the Inquiries Act in circumstances such as those described above. Amending a clause in the manner proposed would unnecessarily restrict the minister's discretion. There may well be circumstances where no inquiry need be held. The proposed amendment would nevertheless require the minister to hold a hearing in every instance, and leave him open to action if he failed to do so. Indeed in that sense the amendment goes against the normal drafting convention-a lot of people like conventions these days-in that, for the above reason, such obligations are not normally placed on a minister in such circumstances.
In so far as the nature of the hearing is concerned, whether or not it is public, again the proposed amendment would
unnecessarily restrict the minister's discretion. There may well be circumstances, for example, where the nature of the inquiry to be made dictates that the hearing should be held in private in order to obtain the necessary information, or that the nature of the inquiry is such that a public hearing would be unnecessarily burdensome. Conversely, should it be appropriate, there is no reason why the minister cannot direct a public hearing under the provisions of the bill.
The motion is, in addition, somewhat inconsistent internally in that it provides that the minister must hold a hearing. However, he is not obliged to appoint qualified persons to conduct that inquiry, but may do so.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the proposals we are debating tonight have of course been discussed at length in committee. The pros and cons have been weighed. Still I must congratulate all my colleagues of the New Democratic Party who have paid particular attention to the whole environmental question.
I am convinced that, had they had the thoughfulness and patience to wait for the votes, these amendments could have been submitted directly to the committee and we probably would have been able to negotiate some of them. I know that my colleague from Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) has done a lot of work. Indeed he is the author of several amendments in this bill and it would have been appreciated if other members had worked along that same line and with the same openness of mind.
I am convinced that the members of the Progressive Conservative Party did not have quite the same interests and perhaps not the same sensitivity. This bill may be far from perfect, of course, but I suggest that if there are abuses or if the fund turned out to be unnecessary or if there were other circumstances the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) would not hesitate to act, probably on the recommendation of his colleague the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) or of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts). Earlier someone was concerned by his absence in the House this evening. Well, we have been given the formal commitment that the Minister of the Environment would be consulted and party to all environmental problems which might crop up in the development of the Arctic. The minister's name does not appear in Bill C-48 but I think that is much more for reasons of an administrative nature than for reasons of environmental conscience.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that with this bill we will not witness another performance such as we saw in committee where hours and hours were wasted in mini-filibusters. Not only will Canadians benefit from the development of those resources but so will those who are waiting to invest and develop those regions of the country to the benefit of all the people. I hope they will not hold them hostage through Bill C-48 by saying: it has to be changed, thus trying to prevent the development of the Arctic. I know that all hon. members are anxious to see
October 15, 1981

Canada achieve self-sufficiency as soon as possible. I also know that in spite of our differences, we are all in favour of preserving our resources, but that we want a Canadian industry to develop the far north. Nobody can deny that great progress has been made as a result of this legislation; still, because it dates back some 20 years it had to be reshaped and streamlined to meet the needs of the economic reality of this day and age-in fact we are almost faced with an energy crisis-and that this bill is a cornerstone of our energy policy. We have met considerable opposition from the very beginning, especially because hon. members on the other side had no faith in our energy policy, but we had concrete results after only a few months. We have reached agreements both with Alberta and British Columbia-and we hope we will reach similar agreements with the others very soon. We were called all sorts of names- I shall forever remember that the hon. members of the Progressive Conservative Party, these self-appointed champions of Alberta, were so mean. And yet, on the night the agreement was signed, we quickly ran out of champagne because of the large number who wanted to celebrate the occasion. Perhaps the people felt that we had chosen the hard line. In connection with this bill, people are dissatisfied, but I am sure that as soon as the facts are known, there will be major finds and discoveries in the north, and that as soon as Canadians feel more secure, they will all be in favour of this bill; I suggest that the opposition would be wrong and irresponsible if merely for the sake of political gain, it delayed the passing of this bill which most Canadians are demanding, especially those who are anxious to participate in the development of the north.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I was younger than I am now, one of the things I learned from my elders and many other people was that actions speak louder than words. It seems to me Bill C-48 is one of the government actions which speaks louder than the words they have so appropriately enshrined in the constitutional package with respect to treaty and aboriginal rights. When you add Bill C-48 to the announcement of the go-ahead on the Norman Wells pipeline, when you add it to what is happening in James Bay, and when you add it to a number of other things this government is responsible for, it gives one the feeling that perhaps the celebration with which the aboriginal rights amendments in the Constitution was greeted may have been a bit premature; at least so long as the government is being run by the present party in power.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Bill C-48 is not neutral, I think, with respect to aboriginal rights or land claims. I will not say any more about it except to say I think it is intellectually dishonest to claim that any such piece of legislation can be neutral with regard to such a matter. Anything that has such an effect on a region in
Canada Oil and Gas Act
which these other things are in dispute can hardly be said to be neutral. That is simply a position not worth defending; it is indefensible.
I want to speak tonight about the question of the environment. That is what the amendments are addressing right now. I should like to say to the House Bill C-48 is an unusual, conceptual opportunity, if you will, for the House of Commons and, indeed, for the Canadian people. It is in the response of the three political parties to Bill C-48 that we can see some of the differences that exist among the three parties in the House.
Let us begin with the Progressive Conservative Party. All along they have been with the oil companies. They do not make any apology for this. They think the private sector can do a better job than the public sector; with the exception of the Conservative government in Ontario which seems to be ideologically backsliding of late. The Tories have been with the oil companies. Their major objection to Bill C-48 has been that it involves more public ownership, and it involves more involvement for Petro-Canada. They are not that concerned about the environment. There are some members of the Conservative Party who are concerned about the environment, but if they want to be intellectually honest, I think they have to realize that as long as they want to be defenders of the profit motive, they cannot at the same time be defenders of the environment. Much of the damage that has already been done to our environment has been done in the name of the profit motive; shortcuts that have been taken, technology that has not been installed, rivers that have been polluted, people that have been poisoned. All this happened because you could save money by not doing it. You could increase your profit margin by not doing it.
The Conservatives and the NDP oppose Bill C-48 fundamentally for different reasons. I want to make this clear.
Then we have the Liberals. The Liberals are moving down the road toward state capitalism, or what we might call ministerial capitalism. This bill gives all power, in heaven and earth, to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Lalonde). It does not even distribute it among other ministers in the cabinet. It gives the minister and the government more power over the corporations and more power over northerners in general. I would submit in the final analysis it gives the minister more power over northerners than it does over the corporations, because it still gives the corporations far too much of a free hand. What we are concerned with here is not just the corporations but with the people in the north who are being ignored, not only in substance but also in process, in the way this particular bill has come into being and is proceeding.
My party agrees with public ownership. We are not upset that Petro-Canada is getting more of a role to play in the development of our oil and gas resources. However, we have a different idea about what public ownership is and what it ought to mean for the Canadian people. Mr. Speaker, we want the Liberals to know we are not satisfied that Petro-Canada exists; that is not good enough. We want to see Petro-Canada simply embody a certain kind of economic development, indeed human development. It is about time we started to talk

October 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
about human development and left this narrow economic vision behind. We have a different idea of what Crown corporations are from that of the members opposite when they speak about Crown corporations and public ownership.
We want Crown corporations to be environmentally responsible. As I said before, we want them to embody a new kind of development. Because they are backed up by the wealth of the nation, and because they are backed up by the collective mandate of the Canadian people who say we want to be involved through our government in the development of these vital resources, we want them to do it in a different way. We do not want them operating at arm's length like any other business. We want them to make the kind of sound decisions that should be made. If they do not have the technology to deal with an oil spill, then let them not drill. If they do not know how to deal with certain environmental problems, then let them wait until they do.
These are the kinds of decisions that can only be made by institutions which are not in bondage to the profit motive. In that respect, we support the notion of public ownership; but we do not think it is the kind of public ownersip we are getting from the Liberal government. This distresses us. The idea of compensation, the idea that after all the seals are dead and all the fish are floating belly up someone will be compensated-is totally inadequate. There are things in this world, I would like to tell my hon. friends opposite, that there is no compensation for. He has a narrow, legalistic, individualistic view of the world which supposes that somehow people can be compensated for the general destruction of the environment which belongs to everyone. For the neglect you make possible in this bill, the whole world ought to be taking you to court. The notion of compensation will just not wash when it comes to the environment. The government will have to rethink, its categories. It will be too late by the time it gets around to it, but nevertheless it will have to do so.
Another thing we do not like about the kind of development we receive from the great Canadianizers over there is that it is development from the centre, out to and on the periphery, and it is the development of the north by people in Ottawa. It is not only state capitalism, it is state, centralized, ministerial capitalism. We believe that development in Canada needs to be more decentralized, more democratic, and needs to take more account of what the people north of 60 believe about development in their area. We believe that economic development, even if it must be public, has to respect the various northern communities, because in the final analysis a publicly-owned polluted world is no better than a privately-owned polluted world when it comes to the quality of the environment. Hon. members opposite should not think that they are making any great moral strides simply by allowing Petro-Canada certain rights north of 60. We will not be satisfied by that.
We see here a kind of frozen, arrogant vision on the part of the government at a time when Canadians are looking for leadership. They are looking for some way to be led out of the
treadmill on which they find themselves in regard to energy consumption. Instead, we find the Liberal government frantically digging up the country, trying to find and extract whatever resources they can so that they do not have to face the difficult questions of conservation and demand, so that they can meet their balance of payments because they did not develop the economy of the country correctly in the first place. They have this frozen vision. I think it is tragic. We see it in the emptiness of the answers of the government day after day. Whether they are questions on finance, energy, or whatever we ask about, we are lucky to get anything that even bears a remote resemblance to an answer.
The government is not facing the question of demand versus supply. It is not facing the question that we cannot continue to have the present kind of energy consumption and that simply finding resources in the north and getting them out as quickly as possible is a self-defeating proposition in the final analysis. We must change our way of consuming these resources, not just for our own sake but for the sake of people of the future and people around the planet who exist now. If they are to have a reasonable share of the opportunity to live abundantly, we in Canada and we in the western industrialized nations will have to come to some very, very difficult realization of where we stand with regard to energy consumption and energy growth. This is what is so empty about Bill C-48, apart from its total inadequacy vis-a-vis the environment. What is empty about it is that it does not recognize any of these realities.
I do not have much more to say, except that Bill C-48 has all kinds of power, but no purpose, no perception or perspective; it is just raw, unadulterated power. It is sort of the bare bones of what is left of the Liberal vision of Canada. I regret that this is the case. We need to begin to see, whether publicly or privately-and of course I prefer publicly-that in public ownership there is the possibility of the kind of development which cares for the future, cares for the planet and cares for everyone in the world. Until we receive that kind of public sector development from the Liberal government, the New Democratic Party will not be satisfied.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I was most interested in the comments of the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) who indicated that there was perhaps some value in the amendments before the House. He went through the amendments and suggested, perhaps obliquely, that there should be some changes and that the minister should look again at the propositions put forward by the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).
I was very disappointed in the efforts of the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). He did not talk about the amendments of his colleagues. He proceeded to talk about nationalization, Crown corporations and public ownership. He did not pay attention to the fact that the greatest oil spill this world has ever seen was caused by a national oil company in Mexico. It was an oil spill which it took nearly four months to
October 15, 1981

stop. It caused the greatest amount of pollution ever. There is no magic in public ownership with respect to pollution. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill ought to know that. Rather than rave on about public ownership, I am surprised that he did not deal with some of the worth-while amendments his colleagues put forward. I say, "worth-while" not because they are well written or well thought out, but because they get to the important points which must be dealt with and are not dealt with by the minister in the bill.
First the minister is faced with Motion No. 4 which defines a "spill" as a spill of gas or oil, some gunk or whatever, which may be in excess of 100 litres. The minister said, "I would stop all spills, even spills as small as a drop." The minister knows that it is important that there be some quantitative definition of a spill. After all, if the kid who fills up the fuel tank of a diesel tractor and happens to overflow it a bit, we cannot end up with a public inquiry, a report to a conservation officer, and the rest of it. That is impractical. When someone spills half a barrel of fuel amounting to 100 litres or more, this is very damaging to the environment.


Marc Lalonde: What about 50 litres?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I challenge the minister to make an amendment and define what is a spill in the act, other than the absolutely stupid definition in clause 80, Section 19(1) wherein it reads:
-"spill" means a discharge, emission or escape of oil or gas other than one that is authorized-
In other words, if he says that it is okay and it is authorized, it is not a spill. Slop it all over the place, dump oil on everyone, it is not a spill if it is authorized. The minister said that if one drops a drop of extra oil, it is a spill, but if he authorizes it any way you fellows want to put it, that does not count.
I see the minister smiling over there. How could he conceivably suggest to the House of Commons that if he authorizes some company or some agent of a company to spill oil, dump oil, dump bunker or whatever, it is not a spill, he is not liable for it and the company is not liable for it; no one is liable for the damage? The damage may exist, the environment way be hurt, but the minister specifically says that the Crown is not liable. The Crown can authorize a spill and the Crown has no liability. Presumably the person authorized or directed to spill has no liability either. I guess the people in the riding of my colleague, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq bear the brunt of it. That is the kind of thing that happens. It is all right if the minister authorizes it. Surely the amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena, with respect to Section 19.1 and the amendment with respect to the definition of "spill" must be carried, because they are sensible amendments.
The minister is in the House and after I have finished speaking, I expect him to stand up and say that he is going to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to file amendments which would be better written and better described than these. I think the drafting by my colleagues in the NDP is just
Canada Oil and Gas Act
horrible and incompetent but the minister could file amendments that would cover those problems.
I should like to deal with the question of liability for a moment. The bill is not clear enough in making an operator or concessionaire who has an oil lease or whatever from the minister, absolutely and completely liable. In the United States, when the legislation with respect to the trans-Alaska pipeline authority was proposed, it provided that all damage, no matter who caused it, no matter how it was caused, whether by negligence or otherwise, was the responsibility of the person or operator involved. In other words, it was "no fault" legislation. That is the kind of legislation we have in Ontario with respect to spills caused by those who transport oil products and the like and with respect to those who store oil products and the like.
I have a client who, by mistake, turned the wrong valve and it let out not much more than 100 litres of stuff into a small creek. He did his best to clean it up and paid a $5,000 fine in my riding of Mississauga. He did his best to stop it; it was not his fault; it was a mistake and there was no evidence of negligence. There is no fault legislation in that province, and there should be no fault legislation in this bill.
The same thing applies to the construction industry. A number of members of this House who have been involved in the construction industry know that when a man on a construction job does not wear his hard hat, the employer is fined. It does not do the employer any good to say, "I told him to wear his hard hat and I supplied him with it." It is the employer who pays the fine and who is penalized. There should be the same requirement with respect to pollution and environmental matters in the north. It should be no fault legislation and this bill does not have it.
Amendments Nos. 51 and 55, although poorly drawn, attempt to create a no fault situation and they must be supported in the event that the minister does not bring in better amendments. I challenge the minister to do something that must be done. He has a poor bill and he ought to know that and he ought to clean it up.
I want to go on now to the question of damages, Mr. Speaker. There is provision in this bill that a person be entitled to collect in a lawsuit, of all things, the actual loss or damage that he suffers. There is now an attempt by the minister in Section 19.1(3) to define actual loss or damage. 1 want to say to the House and the minister through you, sir, that the normal interpretation of actual loss or damage is what is generally known in civil courts as the kind of damage you can get in a contract lawsuit-actual, proved damages. There is an attempt in subsection (3) to broaden it but it does not broaden it properly, and the minister knows that it does not because he had the benefit of good legal counsel. It is important that this House understand that the terms "actual loss or damage" are really terms that define loss or damage to real proven losses.
Let me demonstrate, Mr. Speaker. Suppose that because of a spill in the riding of Nunatsiaq a musk ox herd is destroyed. Which person can sue for the loss of the musk ox herd? Whose herd is it? You can sue for your actual loss or damage, but

October 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
who owns the herd? Who knows who owns the herd? Maybe the Crown owns the herd or maybe the aboriginal people own the herd. Can they prove they own that herd? Under no circumstances can they, but the act says it is only a person who can sue. Which person? Can a band sue? Can a community sue? Under no circumstances, Mr. Speaker. A person can sue, but he must show that he has lost something. How does a person show he has lost something because a musk ox herd was destroyed or a herd of walrus was destroyed or a bunch of beluga whales was destroyed? How do you show that you have lost something? If you can prove that you have been hunting these particular animals and that you have lost a cash amount from the sale of their hides or whatever, and you can prove what you have sold at other times and you anticipate a loss in future years because you can no longer hunt them because they do not exist, then only you can get compensation. What about your children, then? Your children do not count. Only you can sue. You cannot sue for your children or your children's children. If the herd is wiped out the best you can get is your actual loss or damage. That is what the minister has done to the people in the north.
I say to my friends in the NDP that I am glad they brought these amendments forward-but they are not good enough. They are poorly drawn, they are incompetently drawn. I say that it is the obligation of the minister at this point to take the major amendment of the hon. member for Nunatsiaq, Motion No. 53, and redefine it to include all kinds of damage going into the future. When you destroy a place where you can gather things in the wild, when you destroy a herd, when you destroy, perhaps, the spawning ground of trout, then you have done something for which it is almost impossible to prove damage.
I was thinking about this earlier, Mr. Speaker, and I said to myself that even if you could prove damage, how would you do it? I was in Baker Lake once. The people there go fishing for lake trout. They feed them to their dogs. They toss a fish to the dogs. What do they use the dog for? They do not need a dog now because they have a skidoo, so what is the value of the dog? As a matter of fact, if there is no feed for the dog, perhaps then they would kill the dog and not have any problem. But what are their damages? A can of dog food? A bag of Kibble, or something like that? Will they have to go to the supreme court of the Northwest Territories to collect the value of a can of dog food or a bag of Kibble? That is the kind of thing that is in the concept drawn up by people in Ottawa who think that the north boundary of Canada is the Meach Lake resort and that the south boundary of Canada is the Ottawa airport. They do not understand what is going on. They suspect that because there has been some damage, one can start a lawsuit. One could start a lawsuit if it is worth taking a lawsuit and worth hiring a lawyer; but would one hire a lawyer because one does not have a fish to feed one's dog? Where are the damages? With what does one pay the lawyer, even if one does collect?
An hon. Member; Fish.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The answer is that, and that is not an answer. This statute is not an answer to protect people with respect to the hardship they will suffer if there is, in fact, environmental damage. There was a suggestion made by the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee. There was a suggestion made in amendment 54, which may or may not be before the House, that there be some sort of fund, that there be some sort of compensation board to which one can apply and the compensation can be assessed by an assessor, the concept which perhaps exists with workmen's compensation. Perhaps that is the way we should be going. However, this concept of actual loss or damage to be determined in a court of law, despite the easing of that concept in Section 19(3), is just not good enough for Canada. It is certainly not good enough under these conditions. It is not what we would accept in southern Canada. I point out to Your Honour that the people of Mississauga would not accept the proposition that if someone dumped some oil in a creek, the ratepayers along the side of the creek would only be entitled to their actual loss or damage. How does one figure one's actual loss or damage when the water in the creek in the backyard gets polluted with oil? What is one's actual loss or damage? One does not drink out of the creek and one does not fish out of the creek. What is one's loss or damage? I must really say that this minister has not thought it out. It is about time that he and this House understood that this section, in terms of damage, is not good enough. It is no answer. If the minister will not produce better amendments than those which are before the House, then this House has an obligation to vote for the amendments presented.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Before I finish, I want to deal with two other amendments. First, in connection with amendment No. 57, which involves "may" or "shall", there has been a lot of discussion in the past dealing with statutes concerning what "may" or "shall" should mean. Section 19(4), found on page 67 of the bill, calls for a public inquiry if there is death, injury or danger to public safety or the environment. It says that the minister may direct an inquiry. The problem we have here is that the section probably encompasses too many conditions. Clearly, if there is a death on an oil rig, perhaps there are other procedures which could be followed, in terms of a coroner's inquest and the like, or other police procedures. Perhaps a public inquiry would be required. However, the section goes on to include danger to public safety or the environment. When it is apparent that there is something which may pose a danger to public safety or the environment, surely to goodness the minister has an obligation to call an inquiry-not "may" call an inquiry, but an obligation to do so. In as much as the section does not divide the issues between death and injury, and that particular problem, we must vote in favour of the proposed amendment.
I again say to the minister that he can cure the problem. He can cure the drafting. If he will cure the drafting, that would make better legislation. However, in the event that he will not,
October 15, 1981

then the proposed amendment in Motion No. 57 must be carried.
Lastly, in connection with damages and the limitation on damages alluded to in Motion No. 56, one can only sue for one's loss or damage if one sues within three years of the event. The problem there can be very simply demonstrated by one simple case: somewhere in the back boondocks someone makes a spill on the spawning grounds in a creek, or whatever, of salmon or trout; and because these fish do not come back to their spawning ground for four years in some cases, one does not know that there is any damage because one continues to fish for the next three years; and then all of a sudden there are no fish. All of a sudden, four years later, there are no fish. One looks at the statute and finds one is out of court because the damage occurred three or four years ago. Therefore, I say to this House that Motion No. 56 and the other amendments must carry unless new amendments are presented to this House by the minister. I ask the minister to do that before this bill is put to a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, the debate we are addressing tonight is really on a very important motion, namely Bill C-48. It is probably one of the most important bills that we have debated in this House since I have been around because it affects so many areas of our lives. It will have a dramatic effect on the north and on the offshore areas of Canada. It will have a dramatic effect on the environment of both of those areas. It will affect the future job prospects for our young people. It will affect the future of our industry, and it will affect the opportunities for our young people in Canada. More specifically than that, Bill C-48 will be affecting the northerners. It will affect those people in several ways; first of all, in terms of development, and in terms of spin-off from that development, such as transportation, jobs, and even education. This bill will really have an effect on everyone in Canada. In fact, it will affect anyone who uses oil and gas, which is virtually all Canadians.
Therefore, I should be taking pleasure in participating in this debate; but, in fact, I am finding very little pleasure in participating, probably because of the weeks that we have spent on this bill in committee. Those weeks have left a bad taste in my mouth. If Your Honour can imagine it, we are dealing with an important bill which will have such a dramatic effect on the northern parts of our country and the offshore areas, and yet the committee which has been dealing with this bill has not once travelled into the area which will be affected. I have never seen such a glaring and obvious example of a government from afar. It is the kind of thing we hear complaints about all the time. It is the kind of thing which has been reinforced in committee on this particular bill. A good number of witnesses appeared before us in committee from native groups, northern communities, northern business people, environmental groups and industry, and the list goes on and on. Each of those groups was treated the same, but the government acted a lot like the proverbial three monkeys: their
Canada Oil and Gas Act
eyes were covered and they did not want to see anything; their ears were covered, and they did not want to hear anything. The only exception to that rule was in fact, their mouths, which seemed to be open all the time and going in a number of different directions. The government clearly demonstrated its blind, unthinking, unhearing, unswerving ambition to achieve its own goals; goals which had no concern for the people who will be affected. The government demonstrated its set mind. Its mind had been made up. There was no intention of changing it. That became more and more apparent as committee time went on and on.
Therefore, as I speak tonight I have a tendency to feel that it is nothing more than an exercise in futility. Just pausing briefly, let me say that I think it is important that we look at the purposes of this bill which is so important to all of us. It is a bill which really introduces new guidelines or a new regime for oil and gas production in what is commonly called Canada lands. In other words, it is the rule books. It is the game plan. It is the whole system which will control the development of oil and gas in the Yukon, in the Northwest Territories and in the offshore areas of Canada.
The effects of this bill will be seen long into the future. We can see that it is important. It is dramatic. That is the purported purpose. But after those weeks in committee, a person begins to question what the purpose of the bill is. You begin to wonder if it is not any more than an opportunity or an attempt to crown the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) as nothing more than the emperor of the north, something to allow him to rule unfettered and undeterred the very people who will be affected, such as the northerners, the natives, the environmentalists and the business people. In fact, he is even undeterred or unfettered by his colleagues, such as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) or the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts). Effectively, what has happened is that time spent in committee has reduced what should have been a lofty opportunity to nothing more than a simple play for power.
I want to focus for a few moments on the motions before us tonight, Nos. 4, 51, 52, 53, 55, 57 and now also Motion No. 34. All of these motions really focus on the environmental concerns in Bill C-48, and as such they are an extremely important part of this bill. The question is what kind of treatment will they receive at the hands of the government? Looking back at the committee hearings we can see that the whole debate tonight will probably fall on deaf ears.
The Minister of the Environment, who should have been keenly interested in this bill and should have been keenly and dramatically involved in its drafting and in the various elements of it, did not even appear before the committee. One begins to wonder why. Perhaps it is because emperors do not like shadows. What happened to the environmental groups which appeared before us, such as the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee? A number of those groups appeared

October 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
before us, but they were ignored. Their submissions were never reflected in this bill. Once again, I envision those three monkeys.
This is a crucial time in terms of the development of Canada's north and in terms of Canada's offshore. It is not a time for covered ears or covered eyes. It is a time for keen and careful listening and a time for thoughtful and careful watching. It is a time for us to discuss Canada's future. The area that we are discussing tonight is really Canada's last frontier. It is Canada's future garden of resources. It is even Canada's future breadbasket. In other words, this whole area is Canada's golden opportunity. Through Bill C-48 I think all Canadians right now are gambling a bit with our future, and we are gambling heavily on this particular part of our great country. Any time anyone gambles, the first thing one should do is look at the odds. We have to cover those odds and we have to do our best to increase our chances for success.
Today, as we look at this bill, that is exactly what we have to do at this time. We have to lay the groundwork, the footings and the foundation now for whatever will happen in Canada's frontier areas in those Canada lands. If we wait until tomorrow, or next week or next year, it will be too late. Things are beginning to happen now and now is the time when we must address these fundamental issues.
Environmental concerns really become fundamental and become key to this whole discussion and issue before us tonight. I think environmental concerns really mean the difference between two options, one is short-term development, which will benefit a few people, and the other is long-term development, which will benefit all Canadians. Obviously for all of us, the short-term option is really no option at all. What we have to strive and seek for is a long-term option. That is what we want, that is what we need, and that is what we must achieve.
To my way of thinking when one talks about the environment, there are two elements to the discussion. The first is the physical element, the second is the social element. The physical element means the land, the water, the tundra and the air; all of those things that can concretely touch the tangible aspects of the environment. The second area of the environment is the social one. That is more difficult to grasp because it affects people, such as natives, Eskimos, Indians and white men who live in the north. It affects their livelihood and their whole way of life.
This evening I want to focus primarily on the physical elements of the environment, and hopefully, if time permits, touch to a small degree on the social elements of the environment.
Last summer I travelled to Taiwan. Taiwan is an interesting country. It is a small country but it has a great many people contained in its small land mass. In fact, the whole of Taiwan is smaller than the riding I represent, yet it has a population four times that of all of Canada. In Taiwan, environmental concerns become very obvious. If you take a few acres and damage them, that damage sticks out like a sore thumb. It
becomes so obvious that anyone can see it. Therefore, concerns become much more magnified.
To contrast that, two weeks ago I travelled to Inuvik in the Northwest Territories. It seems that in the Northwest Territories you can fly for miles and miles and miles. One does not see any sign of man. There are no signs of an end to that country. As far as you can see, it seems to be water, land, water, more land and more land. To spoil a few acres in that vast area would be like dropping an ice cube in the Great Lakes. One would think that it would have virtually no effect.
Just to envision how much land we are talking about in this particular area, let me say that we are talking literally of 40 per cent of the entire area of Canada. It is a tremendously vast and unspoiled area. Just because of its size, we tend to think that we have nothing to worry about, but the truth of the matter is the vastness and seemingly endless area gives a deceptive impression. This huge area does have a very thin skin; it has a very fine ecological balance. It is slow to repair itself and it is slow to heal after it has been abused.
Now is the time for some serious listening and serious thinking. Now is the time for serious discussions concerning the environment in that area. It is now that we have to lay those plans to address the situation before it is too late. Now is the time to protect this very fragile environment.
Now I want to look briefly at the motions before us. First, let us look at Motion No. 4 which reads in part:
"spill" means an amount of 100 litres or more of oil and any other substance deemed foreign to the environment.
Obviously the purpose of that motion is very simply to define what is meant by a spill. Colleagues and other speakers before me have done a good job of demonstrating just how essential it is that we know what a spill is and that we define that particular element in this type of bill.
Motion No. 51 simply tries to differentiate between an authorized and an unauthorized spill. It wants to remove the distinction in terms of environmental damage and in terms of responsibility for that damage. I think it is obvious that damages are damages, whether they are caused by an authorized spill or by an unauthorized spill.
Motion 52 is an interesting motion. Having lived in part of Canada's north, I found it particularly interesting. It says very simply that any spills must be reported to the chief conservation officer. He must then notify as quickly as possible the aboriginal peoples who might be affected. That may seem like an unimportant amendment to many people, but what often happens in an area so far removed from its government, the bureaucracy here in Ottawa being responsible, is that the people most directly affected are the last to hear about it. I feel this amendment is essential.
Motion No. 53 expands liabilities and deals with some of the liabilities that result from a spill. It is important because it takes into account such things as livelihood, as an area where
October 15, 1981

people can glean their livelihood. That, too, is of fundamental importance when talking about an area such as the north.
Motion No. 56 is also unique to the north. It recognizes the fact that what may seem like slight damage today, may have a significant effect tomorrow. Damages which may have occurred a short time ago, or even earlier, may still be the subject of a claim.
Motion No. 57 states that the minister must launch an inquiry in the event of a spill. That is important because one of the things which became obvious while studying Bill C-48 was the massive amount of ministerial discretion provided in the bill. This motion clearly addresses that question. The minister does not have an option; he must report that spill and launch an inquiry.
All these motions are important because they attempt to address the environmental concerns in the north. They attempt to begin this new regime, game plan, on a sound and solid footing.
The question that begs an answer is whether the government will listen and for once make some real and positive changes to Bill C-48, or will it be the same as we experienced in committee?
I want to touch briefly on some of the social aspects of the environment in this part of our country. Having lived there, I know what it is like to have one's resources exploited. I know what it is like to have decisions about your environment made by bureaucrats and governments from afar. I know what it is like to lose jobs to southerners and to travel thousands of miles just to get some education. I have seen the traumas people go through to get the education they require, just to be employed in their own home towns.
This government has to recognize that these people will be dramatically affected by the provisions of Bill C-48 because of the unique northern environment. Their entire living environment is likely to change. The government has to recognize this problem and to deal with it so we may all benefit. The short term benefits for a few is not a solution for us in this particular situation. We must look for a long-term benefit for all. 1 believe that Bill C-48 is literally Canada's future. The government should carefully consider the serious impact of this bill. I hope it will listen, hear and make some meaningful changes to Bill C-48 which will have a positive effect on all Canadians.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak in support of my party's amendments.
First, I would like to speak to amendment No. 4, which requires that there be some quantitative definition of what constitutes an oil spill, setting it at 100 litres or more. The hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) has said there is no need for such a definition, it can be left to ministerial discretion.
I might point out that in my coastal riding in British Columbia there was an oil spill. It resulted in an oil slick three quarters of a mile wide and a mile long. The people who contacted the environmental agency were told it was an Tnsig-
Adjournment Debate
nificant spill, and no action was taken. We have tried to find out what guidelines there are for action in case of an oil spill. Up to this time we have seen no action on the part of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts). That is why I say it is absolutely essential there be some specific quantity set in a definition so we will know whether or not there is a spill. The 100 litre definition, I think, is important because it indicates that incremental spills continued over a period of time can be just as devastating to the environment as one much larger spill. It is important that we have that definition.
Another important amendment requires that notice be given to the aboriginal peoples most affected by a spill, as well as environmental officials. There should be financial protection for the people who are affected. Another amendment makes an inquiry after a spill mandatory.
All these amendments are essential if we are going ahead with this kind of legislation. The Indian people in British Columbia have the slogan "The Land is the Culture". You cannot separate the environment from the total life of the native people in the north. Next week the minister responsible for multiculturalism is hosting a gala in honour of the tenth anniversary of the multicultural policy. I remind hon. members of this House that culture is more than a matter of dances, singing and folk tales. It is a whole way of life, and unless we take some action to protect the environment, we will see a culture destroyed.
In June, when the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) appeared before the committee, he promised there would be a legal definition. Why have we not seen that definition? We require it. It is not obvious, as he says; people want to know how land claims will be affected. I think the minister owes it to this House to provide that definition.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, on July 15 of this year I directed a question to the then acting minister of veterans affairs. My question was the following:
At present there is a backlog of 4,500 pension applications which are taking up to five years to process. The pension chairman has stated that he is hamstrung by the present veterans legislation. He says that the delays will get worse. Statistics
11856

October 15, 1981
Adjournment Debate
provided by veterans organizations show a 50 per cent death rate while waiting for pensions to be processed. What is the minister going to do about this?
I received a non-answer, and no action has been taken since that time.
I would like to take a moment before I continue with the debate to congratulate the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. Campbell) on his appointment to the cabinet as Minister of Veterans Affairs. We wish him well, and I want to assure him that he will receive full co-operation from this side of the House.
However, we must ask the minister to table new veterans legislation immediately. We cannot wait for the McCracken inquiry. Mr. McCracken is to file some kind of report in 1983.
I will go into some statistics as to why we cannot wait until 1983 for some action. All the minister has to do is to obtain a copy of the United States legislation whereby veterans pension applications can be processed in 90 days. If that can be done in 90 days in the United States, it can certainly be done in 90 days in Canada.
I just want to give an example of the types of letters we are receiving from constituents. I want to read from a letter I just recently received from a lady veteran in my riding who, in 1978, appealed an assessment on her pension. At that time she was told she would have to wait up to two years before she could get it. She said the following in her letter to me:
My God, I could be dead by then! Maybe this is what they want, but I certainly do not.
In September of this year, the same lady veteran received a letter from the Bureau of Pensions Advocates telling her that they might get around to giving her some kind of answer in June of 1982. That is a national disgrace. We cannot accept that, and we cannot wait until 1983 for something to be done about it.
I am sure the minister is aware that there has been a recent decision which could make thousands more Canadian veterans of the Second World War eligible for pensions. This decision was made by the War Veterans Allowance Board. This means that there could be thousands more applications in the near future. If what there is now cannot be handled, I do not know how thousands more will be handled.
The minister will have to give serious consideration to leaving the pension commission here in Ottawa. One of the problems he will have will be the moving of the pension commission to Prince Edward Island because the pension commission deals also with RCMP and Department of National Defence pension applications, so I want the minister to have a look at that.
We on this side of the House are not saying every veteran is entitled to a pension. What we are saying is that veterans are entitled to answers within a reasonable period of time, not up to five years. There are even cases in which it takes over five years before there is some type of answer to pension applications. Even by 1986 there will still be about 650,000 veterans in the country with whom to deal, so the problem will not disappear. It will get worse.
I recently received an answer to an Order Paper question which gives complete detail on this complicated procedure. I have here three pages of red tape. It is nothing but a bureaucratic blockade. I am sure it is designed strictly to give defeated Liberal candidates jobs on these boards and commissions. They are loaded with them. This is the most ridiculous blockade I have seen in my life. I suggest the minister look at this complicated procedure in his department.
My colleague from Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) received a letter from the Royal Canadian Legion at Port Carling which states:
It was resolved at our last general meeting that I write you and draw to your attention the disgraceful and deplorable situation regarding war veterans pensions.
This is a concern right across the country. All members receive these kinds of letters.
The Royal Canadian Legion Ontario Command sent a letter to their veterans whom they assist with pension applications. They tell them not to expect any kind of answer for at least two years. That is absolutely ridiculous. They then have to wait another three years to find out whether they will get a pension.
Another group in Ontario is organizing under the name of The Unsatisfied Veterans' Association. I quote in part from their letter:
-we plan to recruit as many unsatisfied veterans or dependants as possible. Once we have coast to coast members, we plan to hold a nationwide protest at all DVA offices throughout the country.
Their main concern is the slow processing of veterans' claims, which is a concern right across this nation.
The McCracken inquiry certainly is not acceptable. The minister will have to take immediate action. He should get hold of the American legislation. If they can do it in 90 days, we should be able to do the same.
The minister is even being sued. The War Amputations of Canada based in Ottawa says that the medical advisers to the pension commission often recommend how pension applications should be decided, exceeding their authority and usurping that of pension commissioners. They have launched a legal action stating that many medical examiners are breaking veterans pension laws. Mr. Chadderton, the chief executive officer of the group said in an interview that the medical advisers are a bureaucratic blockade.
I hope the minister will give some information this evening as to what he is going to do about this bureaucratic blockade. Will he give us a commitment that he will table new legislation, not in 1983 or 1984 but immediately? The veterans are entitled to better treatment. We demand immediate action from the minister with regard to this disgraceful situation.


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) for the opportunity to
October 15, 1981

add to the answer he received from the then acting minister of veterans affairs on July 18, 1981.
I first want to say it is true that the Canadian Pension Commission is experiencing some delay in the processing of applications for disability pensions. However, I think it is fair to point out that the majority of the difficulty is at the first level only. As the hon. member is aware, this problem was addressed directly by the then acting minister of veterans affairs. I want to assure the hon. member and this House tonight that I am committed as well to providing prompt and effective service to the veterans and their dependants.
The American legislation to which the hon. member refers is fundamentally different from our Pension Act. These differences can be seen in the manner in which the veteran is treated. In Canada, the Canadian Pension Commission acts as a medical detective on behalf of the veteran and researches the medical grounds on which it bases its decisions. It tries to relate present day disabilities to the relatively short period of time of military service over 36 years ago.
Most applications received by the Canadian Pension Commission are for disabilities that are associated with aging, such as arthritis, heart, chest and back conditions or failing eyesight or hearing. The gunshot wounds and the obvious war-related injuries were dealt with years ago. The Canadian Pension Commission must research carefully each case, or risk having to turn down the veteran's application. The Canadian legislation gives the veteran the benefit of the doubt, and the Commission does an excellent job of helping veterans find the relationship between today's disability and the wartime service so that they can be considered for pension. In fact, Mr. Speaker, at the first level, 40 per cent of all claims received are approved. If we consider all stages of appeal, 54 per cent of all claims registered by the commission are approved in whole or in part. When we consider that we are dealing with events which are at least 36 years ago and are trying to relate them to present medical conditions, the difficulty becomes obvious.
The United States situation has a much younger veteran population-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. minister that the adjournment to date is so structured that every minute beyond the three minutes he is allowed is depriving another hon. member of his opportunity for debate. It is a tradition that the Chair is strict in that regard. Perhaps the hon. minister might take a sentence to wrap up what he is saying. Then I have to recognize other members.


W. Bennett Campbell: In summary, the Pension Act was created by Parliament on the advice and recommendation of veterans' organizations and the Woods committee. I am sure the hon. member would agree with me when we say that he gained very little support in his efforts to change the basis of our pension legislation.
Adjournment Debate


MANPOWER-REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET WITH WOMEN'S OUTREACH GROUPS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sitting here wondering when we are going to see legislation that acknowledges a debt of gratitude that all Canadians owe to those who have served them, instead of producing defensive, bureaucratic gobbledygook. Pensioners are hurting. I hope we see legislation put before us quickly.
I would like to begin by congratulating the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bujold). I welcome him to the late show. It is unfortunate he has to be here so late in the evening. I can assure him that we are both here because on June 16 the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), once again refused to answer very simple and basic questions. That is a habit he has. I hope he will not lead us astray this evening with a script that will again not answer my questions, and that will attempt to lead Canadians astray. This is the pattern we have noticed over the past 14 or 15 months. It would be refreshing to see a change.
On June 16, I asked the minister two simple questions. First, would he meet personally with representatives of women's Outreach groups? He replied, "My officials will meet", trying to leave the impression he would meet with them when, in fact, he did not have the courage to say, no, he would not meet them." The second part of my question was also very simple. I asked: will he guarantee to this House that the moneys available for women's Outreach programs in Canada this year will at least be equal to those of last year? We got a long song and dance. If you studied what the minister said, you would find that he will increase the bureaucracy and cut the budget of women's Outreach groups; yet he tried to leave the impression all was well. In the interim, when not one of us was here to question him, this minister, who does not make statements in the House but makes statements to the press, put out another press release. In the press release of September 17, he bragged that for Outreach there is an additional $2 million. Then come the critical words: "it is being made available." What is the difference between those words and the words "is being given to?" There is a sense of certitude about expenditures that are being given to groups. There is no sense of certitude about moneys being made available. If you listen and study the wording of this minister, you are immediately suspicious that he has got himself another headline; he has left Canadians with the impression he is providing funding to Outreach. The cautious, clever man, or the cautious, clever woman in an Outreach group, would look at those words, "is being made available," and would say, "I bet come January 1 will find another announcement of other moneys being made available." This $2 million that sits here now will not go into Outreach. I defy the parliamentary secretary to rise now and guarantee that it is going to Outreach, not to any other purpose, or is it simply available as a possibility and in one month, two months or three months will be made available to some other group for the purpose of another headline?

October 15, 1981
Adjournment Debate
In the same press release, the minister told us that he was in the process of evaluating Outreach and that when the evaluation is completed he will decide whether that $2 million will be given. Then we dig a little deeper and we find that the minister has hired a firm from his riding, as he does so many things for his riding. It takes the power of the ministry to serve all Canadians. He put it in a little chunk of Winnipeg. It is the evaluation of a Canada-wide program. Then we become suspicious that there will be a report down the road which indicates clearly to Canadians that Outreach is not so good, that the minister does not really have to take the available $2 million and give it to them, that he could take that $2 million and not spend it, or give it away someplace else. The parliamentary secretary should rise and tell me that that will not be the conclusion. He should do that clearly when his turn comes.
There is a little bit more double talk. In May the minister came to Alberta and said, "Why are you native people so upset about what we will do to Outreach?" On about May 15 he said, "Don't worry". Then on July 1, within six weeks, all employees are fired, funding is terminated and the equipment is turned back to the Crown corporation. That is the word of the minister with whom we are dealing in the House. He did not make the announcement in the House, he made it to the press. He went out and made the killing announcement to the press, not to the House where we would have a chance to question him, to bring it up in the adjournment debate.
I say to the women and the native people of Canada in Outreach, that if they look at the main estimates, this minister, in the crunch with other ministers of the Crown, lost so much money in his over-all budget that 20 per cent of the programs of that department, as we have known them, will not take place in this budget year. No matter how hard we push, he will not tell us where those cuts are occurring. We will have to read the budget with the care which is required to enable us to conclude that Outreach is one of them and that what replacements there are will simply consist of a few more bureaucrats.
I bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary the new report of the special task force. Recommendations Nos. 13 and 109 indicate that Outreach is cost-effective and that people with special needs are helped. The minister should pay attention, increase the funding, and make it happen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. This is the first time since the resumption of this session this fall that we have had an opportunity for the adjournment debate. On behalf of other occupants of the chair, I should like to inform hon. members that the rules are seven minutes for the questioner and three minutes for the reply. This occupant of the chair, and others as well, will from this moment on ensure that hon. members are not permitted to exceed those times. I am sorry this evening has not gone off very well, but I would ask hon. members to co-operate if they can.


Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague from Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) for his good wishes, and I trust that the answer I will give him tonight will not prompt him to follow up with another question of this kind.
In the first part of his question, he mentioned that the minister had refused to meet with women's groups. I think it is a lot more useful to solve certain problems and to allocate more funds than to meet people without having anything specific to tell them. The hon. member says that the announcement that was made in September should have been made in the House. Unfortunately, the House resumed sitting only yesterday, so it would have been difficult for the minister to make that announcement in the House. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the answer the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) gave in June still holds true, but I would like to add certain facts.
First of all, the Treasury Board approved the allocation of an additional $0.5 million to the Outreach program for 198182. These funds come from other commission programs and were allocated to the regions.
Secondly, despite what was said earlier, that the minister allocated the majority of funds to his province and his region, the short-term contracts which the Ontario region signed with the sponsors of Outreach projects were because of a lack of funds changed to provide for 12-month terms. Thirdly, the hon. member for Egmont mentioned the various policy options presented to the minister with regard to the Outreach program. The minister is now examining these options concurrently with the report of the Task Force on Employment Opportunities for the '80s.
Finally, the hon. member for Egmont also said that at the time the minister wanted to secure additional funds for the Outreach program. I am therefore pleased, Mr. Speaker, to advise the House that, as mentioned previously, an additional sum of $1.5 million was recently approved by cabinet and the Treasury Board for 1981-82. The minister is now-reviewing the allocation of those funds which will be used to finance existing and new projects for women and the handicapped. However, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that the minister hopes these additional funds will allow him to increase by a third the number of Outreach projects for women.


VIA RAIL-REQUEST THAT STANDING COMMITTEE CONSIDER MATTER OF PASSENGER TRAIN ABANDONMENT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) a question concerning the cutbacks he announced
October 15, 1981

in passenger rail service on July 27, to take effect on November 16, a brief month away from now. My colleagues and I thought it very important that on the first day of Parliament since the announcement, we should be front and centre in our opposition to these cutbacks. The minister avoided face to face criticism for a while by waiting until after Parliament recessed for the summer to make his announcement, but now he is going to face the music, whether he likes it or not.
Yesterday 1 asked the minister whether he would refer the cutbacks to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons and cancel them until after the committee has had a chance to pass judgment on them. Earlier, he had offered to come before the committee and explain his decision. That is not enough, Mr. Speaker; it is not what we are after. An explanation of such a stupid decision makes it no less stupid and no less regrettable. 1 am asking the Minister of Transport to refer it to the committee in such a way as to make possible the reversal of his July decision.
This decision must be reversed, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of energy conservation, for the sake of jobs, for the sake of tourism, for the sake of the future of passenger rail service and for the sake of national unity.
Mr. Speaker, since I have been in this House I have not been one to get up and play the national unity game. I do not take kindly to everyone using national unity as a blanket in which to wrap themselves and thus be saved from having to defend their arguments, while they in fact do more harm to national unity than help it. But I sincerely think that such significant cuts in western Canadian and Atlantic Canadian train service, so that new equipment can be purchased for the Quebec-Windsor corridor, is a grievous error.
Like the government in general, I guess the minister just does not realize what he is playing with when he plays with the ability of Winnipegers to go by train to Saskatoon or to Edmonton or the ability of Edmontonians to go to Vancouver directly by train.
The railroad is not only a fact, it is a symbol of Canadian togetherness. And having one man from Ottawa hacking and slicing away at our rail system, by order in council yet, without public or parliamentary input, is a grievous, grievous error indeed. It shall never be forgotten. Never! The centre shall never live down this attack on the regions. By the next election, the only thing protecting the Liberals west of Thunder Bay and in the maritime provinces will be the game laws!
Democracy demands that the cutbacks be suspended and re-examined by an informed public. If the government proceeds, then I can only assume that we are much further along the road to government by decree than I really wanted to believe. I for one will not be content until we have a fully integrated and comprehensive transportation system in which passenger rail plays a crucial role, whether it is taking campers to their cottages or tourists from sea to sea. I spoke about this
Adjournment Debate
in my first speech in this House of Commons nearly two years ago this week. I will speak out as long and as often as it takes to get through the thick skulls of the Liberal government that it had better sit up, respect and invest in passenger rail service.
I am very anxious to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bockstael). He comes from Winnipeg. He has Symington Yard in his riding. However, it will not be his riding for long unless he can help persuade the government to renege on its stupid decision to make the cutbacks in VIA Rail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, over the years a number of inquiries and royal commissions appointed to look into the problems of railway passenger services recognized that there existed a duplication of services and an overcapacity in the Canadian railway system. This overcapacity in the system is still largely with us today, and we continue to subsidize and maintain a large mileage of uneconomic, low density passenger traffic lines-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Trains were full.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: VIA Rail was established in 1977 to rectify this situation by the end of 1980. Its objectives were to attain a reduction in subsidies to rail passengers-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: In Winnipeg.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: -to have a rail framework that would put an end to the duplication of services; to establish rail fares that reflect an improved commercial viability; to have rail service maintained where no other travel alternative exists.
In order to maintain transportation subsidies within a framework of responsible spending of taxpayers' money, the minister would have been forced to give the CTC very explicit instructions to attain this objective.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: They had lots of money for Mirabel.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Members would have complained that the minister was interfering unduly in the role of the CTC. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) wants to have the matter reviewed by the Standing Committee on Transport. The minister welcomes the opportunity to defend and justify the government's plan in a public forum. He has indicated his willingness to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport to do so.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Big deal.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Perhaps, when all the facts are on the table, members will realize that the plan makes a good deal of sense.

October 15, 1981
Adjournment Debate Mr. Blaikie: Don't say that in Winnipeg.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted, and accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock.
At 10.28 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, October 16, 1981