1981-10-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) told this House that he had increased the quota of eastern European refugees from 4,000 to 5,000, but of this total only 2,500 would come from refugee camps in Austria. Since Canada has taken 75,000 refugees in the past two years, since there soon will be 30,000 Polish refugees in camps in Austria, and winter is setting in, together with all the other hardships being encountered, and since the new quotas for 1982 will not help the present urgent situation, I move, under Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That this House direct the government to heed the urgent appeal for help from the Canadian Polish Congress and the foreign minister of Austria, Willibad Pahr, and immediately increase its quota of Polish refugees to Canada and send aid in the form of warm clothes, food and medical supplies to the refugee camps located in Austria.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Smith said no.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order please. There is no need to identify those who say yes or no.


An hon. Member:: Oh yes there is.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley).


Mr. Bosley:: Madam Speaker, I agree that there is no reason to identify the fact that David Smith said no.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That this House, in memory of the events that began 25 years ago on October 23 in Hungary, express its abiding opposition to the continuing totalitarian suppression of real freedom in Hungary and in all other countries so controlled, its sincere gratitude to those thousands of Hungarians whose reason for coming to Canada was so tragic and whose contribution to Canada has been so great, and its deepest sympathy to all those who lost family and friends in the valiant fight for freedom and against totalitarianism, whose sacrifice free people must never forget.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I too stand under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the government has promised that the Canadian Human Rights Act would be amended to protect the rights of the handicapped, and the report of the special committee made a number of recommendations in this respect, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House instruct the Minister of Justice to bring before the House amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act that would protect disabled Canadians from discrimination, as was promised in the Speech from the Throne, and that these amendments be in conformity with recommendation number one of the report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 22, 1981


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, whereas the Department of Agriculture has prepared a number of reports for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), with regard to the economic crisis facing the agricultural community in Canada for the years 1981, 1982 and 1983, particularly as it relates to the cattle producer, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That this House require the Minister of Agriculture to table those reports in this House immediately, so that all Canadians may understand fully the serious impact of this government's economic policies on the agricultural industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, yesterday in this House the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) stated that August figures indicated a sharp drop in Japanese automotive imports into Canada. Had the minister waited, with everyone else, to review the official figures that were released by Statistics Canada only today, he would have known that in fact in August there was an increase in Japanese automotive imports by over 2,000 units over the corresponding period last year. Despite the minister's 6 per cent voluntary reduction agreement with Japan, the level of such imports into Canada has increased by some 70 per cent in the last five months alone, contributing considerably to massive unemployment in this country. In view of these alarming statistics I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That the minister be instructed to take immediate action in obtaining assurances from Japanese auto manufacturers that their commitment made to Canada to reduce auto imports will be honoured.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron-Bruce):: Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the hard-pressed farmers of Canada. My colleagues, the hon. member for Bruce-Gray (Mr. Gurbin) and the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), and I have been asked to transmit to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) 1,792 letters from farmers in our area protesting the high interest policy which has had, and continues to have, a terrible impact on even the strongest and oldest farming operations. Since both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) have refused to meet with us to receive and discuss these letters, I am sending them by hand to the Minister of Finance. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bruce-Gray and the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe:
That this House deplores the disastrous effects the government's high interest rate policies are having upon Canadian farmers and calls upon the Minister of Finance to provide immediate relief before more farmers are forced into bankruptcy or distress sales.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, a report released earlier this year concludes that the great majority of Indians moving from reserves to cities do so in the hope of finding work, but are only successful in a few cases. Because the results of this situation are too often family breakdown, crime, alcoholism, and suicide, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the Minister of Employment and Immigration take seriously their responsibilities to Indian people and seek to address this alarming and urgent situation by studying the finding of this report, of the report of the Joint Working Committee on Native Women's Employment, and the Employment Task Force report so that new and successful ways can urgently be found to solve this problem.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.
October 22, 1981


FORESTRY
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of vital concern to all involved in and around the Canadian forest industry.
In recent weeks there have been misguided but increasingly heavy pressures on the United States government by the United States northwest forest industry, state leaders and congressional politicians, to limit imports of Canadian lumber drastically, a course of action which, if followed, would cause grave consequences to Canada's most important exporting industry already hard hit by lay-offs and plant closures. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly):
That this House urge the government to launch an intensive lobby and information campaign directed at appropriate United States congressional, state and forest industry leaders, pointing out the gross inaccuracies in United States complaints of allegedly unfair Canadian competition, and stressing that the prime reason for the current disaster in the North American lumber and housing market is the self-destructive monetary and fiscal policy-especially usurious interest rates-of the Reagan administration and other jurisdictions which slavishly follow the U.S. lead.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie):
That in its negotiations with the General Services Group of the Public Service, the Treasury Board, which is offering only a 5 per cent increase while inflation is known to be running at over 13 per cent, be required by this House to re-examine its offer to that section of the Public Service which is generally recognized as lagging considerably behind employees in the outside market who perform similar duties, a view that is supported by a recent declaration emanating from the Human Rights Commission.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
5.0.	43 ENERGY


DELAY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF OIL SUBSTITUTION PROGRAM IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, since the people of Canada were advised that the government was committed to the effective management of Canada's energy future through the Canada Oil Substitution Program introduced one year ago, and since the people of eastern Canada, including the people of Prince Edward Island who pay the highest energy costs in Canada, are still not able to obtain application forms, although the program was announced in the budget 12 months ago, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That this House condemn the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for allowing this important subsidy program to be tied up in red tape while thousands of eastern Canadians, who have already spent their hard-earned money converting, suffer from the inaction and incompetence of his ministry. And I further move that this House instruct the minister to release those application forms immediately.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCREASE SOUGHT IN CASH ADVANCE LIMIT-MOTION UNDER
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Stan Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent importance.
Whereas the combination of high interest rates and low delivery quotas is creating a cash shortage on western grain farms, and whereas the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Program was enacted to assist farmers meet these cash shortages, and whereas the maximum cash advance of $15,000 for farm-stored grain was put in place long before these days of 20 per cent interest and 13 per cent inflation rates, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse):
That the government accept the advice of its own Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee, and raise its cash advance limit to $50,000 per individual farmer.
This raise was promised by a former minister responsible for the Wheat Board in the 1979 election campaign.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 22, 1981
Oral Questions


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS FUNDS FOR EDUCATION AND HEALTH CARE-MOTION UNDER
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, whereas one of Canada's most worth-while achievements over the last 25 years was federal-provincial co-operation in funding post-secondary education, which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of young Canadians from modest income families being able to attend colleges and universities and achieve careers of great distinction, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That the government immediately cancel the proposed unilateral cut of $1.5 billion for post-secondary education and health care and return to the worthwhile pursuit of co-operative federalism.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for housing. I have before me a document which the minister admitted yesterday had been submitted to the cabinet over his signature. It indicates, on page 21, that at today's interest rate levels rental payments will have to increase by 39 per cent annually over the next five years for landlords to get any kind of return on their investments. In addition to shortages of rental accommodation, tenants will be faced with catastrophic increases in their monthly payments.
Since the report points out that close to half a million low income renters already pay well over 30 per cent of their incomes for shelter, what plans does the minister have to meet this impending crisis? And it is indeed a crisis.


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speakerty, thereby impacting prices renters have to pay. It was for that reason, for example, that last year, and again this year, as an alternative to assisting those people, the government increased its commitment to social housing through the rentals that people acquire by way of co-op and non-profit housing. That is why we increased those starts and why I was happy to say, the last time I answered the hon. lady's question, that, for example, as late as Saturday of last weekend I assisted in the start of another one of those projects to increase supply and to assist people at that income level.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, the minister of course knows, if he reads the document he presented to cabinet, that starts this year and next year in both rentals and in home dwellings will be down, and that will be a severe concern to both home owners and renters.


REVERSAL OF THIRTY-FIVE YEAR TREND
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I want to refer the minister to another part of this chilling document, and that is the statement in it that young families starting out are not going to be able to afford homes and face:
-tight rental markets ... waiting lists and doubling up with family and friends. We will thus witness a substantial regression in housing conditions following 35 years of gradual improvement.
Is the minister content to go down in history, as this document says, as the man whose policies produced substantial regression in housing conditions following 35 years of gradual improvement? Is that his intention? Is that what he is doing to this country, and is he content to do so?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, indeed that would not be my intention. I direct the attention of the hon. lady to published Canadian housing statistics which show, for example, that since I have had the responsibility for reporting to Parliament for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the number of starts since March of last year through to this year has gradually increased month over month and quarter over quarter, to reach a three-year high of 242,000.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul James Cosgrove: -the problem identified by the hon. lady was one of the ones foremost on my mind when, in the spring of this year, I met with my provincial counterparts and we discussed that problem. I indicated that the federal response at that time was, for example, to address supply coming onto the market in order to take some of the pressure off rent availabili-


LAY-OFFS IN CONSTRUCTION AND LUMBER INDUSTRIES
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, the minister knows, of course, that the document he presented to cabinet indicates that housing starts will drop off sharply this quarter and will be down tremendously next quarter. Because he has no clout with cabinet to put his proposals forward, I will turn to another minister, the Minister
October 22, 1981

of Employment and Immigration, or maybe I should say of unemployment and immigration.
I brought to the attention of the minister responsible for housing on Tuesday the fact that at the present rate of housing starts, which is well below demand, there are widespread lay-offs across the country, particularly in the construction industry and in the lumber industry. The report which the minister presented to cabinet indicates that housing starts will be sharply lower next year. It indicates a loss of 30,000 more jobs in the housing and construction industry. In the face of this crisis, is the minister considering policies to put these 30,000 construction workers and those in related industries back to work? Is he considering policies to do that, because the report says they will be laid off, or is he, like the Minister of Finance, content to write these people off as an aberration or a sampling error? Is that what he is about to do?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member had been listening to the statements by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, she would know that that minister is not content with conditions in the economy and has indicated that he intends to take very significant and major measures in the budget to deal with those factors. At the same time I would like to point out to the hon. member that we have arranged, for the second round, a new direct employment program that will provide thousands of jobs for Canadians, a program that had been cancelled by her government when she was in power, and that we will continue in the high unemployment areas. When it comes down to who is concerned about unemployment, I think the record speaks for itself.


HOUSING
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my questions are for the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I remind the minister that the great applause he received from his side might be an indication that he is in real trouble. This minister has a great deal of housing stock under his authority, particularly in the city of Mississauga. He has a lot of housing that could be sold to individuals. He could sell that housing at realistic mortgage terms like the Ontario Mortgage Corporation does, taking back mortgages at 10 and 12 per cent instead of insisting that these people pay all cash. One of the things that really bothers me-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I cannot have these long preambles. I have accepted one abuse, but I am not accepting another.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Is the minister prepared to sell this housing to individuals, taking back mortgages at realistic terms, or is he going to continue to insist on asking the highest price
Oral Questions
possible and insist that individuals pay all cash? Is that the minister's policy, and is he going to continue it?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the hon. member puts his finger on a very difficult problem faced by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, one which was reflected during the time his party held office previous to this government, that is, the responsibility of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, not only in addressing social concerns and social needs, but carrying on its business in a way in which it shows a good return and use of the taxpayers' resources.
While the Conservative government was in power the then minister of Public Works was authorized to borrow $200 million because the corporation found it difficult to compete in a depressed market for the sale of some of that housing. The corporation is attempting to get a good return for the taxpayer on the sale of properties that come back into the mortgage insurance fund. Our objective is also to serve social needs and to return that housing to people at reasonable rates.


SALES TO INVESTORS AND SPECULATORS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: I am glad the minister is interested in social matters, Madam Speaker. This is the subject on which I want to address him. Is he aware that his corporation is offering housing to tenants who live in that housing at prices in the neighbourhood of $38,000 in Mississauga, but is prepared to discount that housing to speculators and investors at $31,000?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: And he is insisting on all cash from the home owner, but he is working out some other deal in terms of a share arrangement with the speculators? Is he really the minister for social housing, or is he the minister of MURBs and speculation?


Paul James Cosgrove: I already indicated to the hon. member that, in fact, the corporation has to attempt to balance both; it has to attempt to balance sensibility and responsibility to people in need, with its responsibility to the taxpayers who provide the funding and wherewithal by which it operates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ASSISTANCE FOR HOME OWNERS RENEWING MORTGAGES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: I direct my question to the minister responsible for housing. According to yesterday's press the minister said, "There is an unofficial deal that has been worked out with the financial institutions to ensure that there would be no family losing their home through foreclosure until the budget is brought down." Mr. Colhoun, president of the Trust Companies Association, says he knows of no such deal. The secretary-treasurer of the Bankers' Association said,

October 22, 1981
Oral Questions
and 1 quote, "I am not aware of any deal like this." 1 should like to ask the minister if there is a deal and, if so, why have the financial institutions not been told? Or is this another one of his secrets?


Paul James Cosgrove: The
best way to respond to the question of the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party is to offer him a document signed by the President of the Canadian Bankers' Association. It is a response to an individual person's request for help, and indicates that the association has set up senior executives who are charged to overview each individual branch operation to respond to people's individual needs in order to avoid the problem the hon. member refers to. I would be happy to provide the document to the hon. member.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL GUARANTEE AGAINST LOSS OF HOME OWNERSHIP
John Edward Broadbent: I have listened with care to the minister's answer. He said a spokesperson for the Canadian Bankers' Association offered such a promise, even though the secretary of that association in yesterday's press said that no such deal existed. Considering there are families across Canada losing their homes every day and thousands more caught in this housing crisis, is the minister prepared to guarantee to those families that no family will lose their home before the budget is brought down?


Paul James Cosgrove: I share the concern of the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party. After the meeting between the Minister of Finance and representatives of the financial institutions I requested they accept that responsibility, which I view to be, in large part, their responsibility toward their clients. We have seen the results of this, Madam Speaker, in the Royal Bank's press release yesterday. We saw a statement that said, "We want a situation where no Royal Bank's client risks losing his or her home because high interest payments temporarily make monthly payments too heavy to bear."
Our objective-and I am sure it is shared because of the question of the hon. leader-is to see that all mortgage holders adopt that as an objective until budget time, and until the government indicates what its response is in concert with the mortgage holders.


REQUEST FOR PRE-BUDGET ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, everyone will have noted that the minister did not offer the guarantee I requested so that people would not lose their homes. In all that verbiage no guarantee was offered. This crisis is of immense concern not only to the families who are losing their homes but to those who are having to change their family budgets, or having to put another person out to work to maintain their homes because of mortgage levels. Will the minister take concrete action before the budget comes down to
help those families avoid this crisis? I ask that in the context that I have accumulated today more than 15,000 signatures of people who are concerned about the interest crisis, many of whom are from the minister's riding.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the answer to that question is yes. At a public meeting last evening in my riding I met with a number of my constituents. In response to that question, my office accepted a number of complaints and requests for help which were made. I will attempt to respond to those cases which are brought to my attention, those cases where there is genuine concern that homes would be in jeopardy before the other financial institutions respond to the Royal Bank initiative or the budget. I would be happy to receive any case from any individual Member of Parliament who is genuinely concerned there is a hazard that the home will be lost.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUERY RESPECTING ACTION BY MINISTER OF FINANCE
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The minister demanded in the past that the chartered banks take the first step in aiding home owners victimized by high interest rates. Also he demanded that the banks, "be fair, be compassionate and bleed a little". The minister will be aware of the five-point plan announced by the Royal Bank to which the minister responsible for housing referred. It will cost the Royal Bank about $2 million.
Now that the chartered banks have taken the initiative, is the minister prepared to bleed a little himself by introducing measures to aid hard-pressed home owners, or is he continuing to avoid the issue, which is the political equivalent of cutting his wrists?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, all I can say is to express my acknowledgement that the Royal Bank has taken a proper step in announcing an additional program of five points to assist home owners facing renewals. I believe it will be of assistance in certain cases. It will offer renewal at 16 per cent where conditions warrant, which will be quite helpful. I have stated to the financial institutions, in my several meetings with them, that I expected them to take some responsibility, and once they had demonstrated what the private sector could do it would be easier for the government to add, if necessary. I am moving in that sequence, and I am very pleased that the Royal Bank has moved in the correct direction.


TASK FORCE REPORT
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Finance who is clearly leaving the responsibility on the shoulders of the banks. I should like to point out how he moved 3,000 petitions complaining about high interest rates from his
October 22, 1981

desk to that of the Prime Minister. I feel this indicates how he would like to divest himself of any responsibility for fiscal policy.
In dealing with the task force, which is what 1 believe the Minister of Finance referred to when he talked about meeting with institutions, he stated in the past that he established a task force which included representatives of trust companies, credit unions and the banks to study these problems. When can we expect a report from the task force? Will a report be publicly presented to us? Is the task force working directly with the banks to devise more plans to aid people hurt by high interest rates?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the setting up of the task force came out of the meeting I had with financial institutions. It has met a number of times. One of the tasks or one of the primary areas of discussion was how general could an interest deferral scheme become applicable, could it be applied across all financial institutions? Here we have the Royal Bank moving ahead. I know the caisses populaires have already done very commendable work in adjusting their collection schedules to the requirements of the clients.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What is the government doing?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe in the sound operation of the private economy, the private sector in Canada, and I believe we ought to combine our efforts to solve the problems facing Canadian citizens. It would be possible at the proper stage to combine our efforts and relate what we may do to what has already been accomplished by the private sector. I believe further steps could be taken. I would be pleased to report at the appropriate time to the hon. member and to the House on the results of the monitoring of the task force which has been established.


VIA RAIL
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the impressive and extensive criticism of the decision to abandon rail passenger service, will the minister change his decision regarding Atlantic Limited or any of the trains, if facts raising a reasonable doubt about the correctness of his decision are presented to him?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I have already expressed myself quite clearly on the subject. I am quite willing to account for the validity of what we have done. But the decision has been made, the cabinet has passed an order in council to that effect, and there is no way that I can come back on that.
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET NEW BRUNSWICK REPRESENTATIVES
J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, the minister's answer speaks for itself in terms of fairness and regard for Parliament. Where the minister is not prepared to follow the democratic process through the CTC, will he agree to see, at once, representatives of the municipalities in New Brunswick that are directly affected by this cutback and believe they have solid evidence which justifies continuation of the train?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I just want to repeat what I have already said and what everyone knows. The law, section 64 of the National Transportation Act of 1967, allows the Government of Canada to do what has been done. There is a reason for that. It is simply that going to the CTC on such a number of routes would give piecemeal decisons on a single file, if one wants to put it that way. What is needed now-and my precedessors received the same recommendation from their advisers, VIA in particular-is a global approach to the rationalization of passenger railway transportation in Canada. The democratic process is being followed. The law allows the government to do that, and there is good reason for it.


REQUEST FOR DELAY IN SCRAPPING PASSENGER CARS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Transport who, like the minister responsible for housing, has been helping to stack the deck chairs on the Titanic. Legal action is being initiated today or tomorrow in the courts in Winnipeg, by the city of Melville, the town of Watrous, Saskatchewan, the Saskatoon Environmental Association, and the Saskatchewan section of Transport 2000, on the legality of the government's abandonment of certain train services, and since VIA Rail has announced the scrapping of 250 to 300 railway passenger cars, it would be physically impossible to restore those abandoned routes, should the minister's order be found illegal, because of the equipment which has been scrapped.
Pending a decision by the courts or, better, a decision by the House of Commons Transport Committee or the CTC, I should like to ask the minister if he will cancel or delay plans to scrap VIA equipment and cancel or delay the abandonment of certain passenger routes?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I think the legal aspect of this is quite clear. Should someone take legal action against a decision of the government, should there be an injunction to stop what is taking place now, I am quite sure the government will obey the law.

October 22, 1981
Oral Questions


DETERMINATION OF FINANCIAL LOSSES INCURRED BY PASSENGER TRAINS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, the Minister would then obey the law when it is too late to restore the routes, because the equipment has been scrapped. The minister neglects to explain how he is going to replace 250 or 300 railway cars that have been scrapped, with 50 new ones.
I have received a report from the Canadian Transport Commission which states that the determining of financial losses for passenger trains is inadequate. It recommends a thorough review of railway accounting systems as applied to VIA. Since the minister's decision to abandon VIA service is obviously based on outdated and inadequate information, as is pointed out by the CTC, will he at least delay, if not rescind, the abandonment of those passenger routes and appoint a commission of inquiry into the financial relationship between VIA Rail and the railway, since obviously VIA is being overcharged for services by CP and CN?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am quite sure that if my old friend, who is keen to inform himself fully on these matters, consults further with his advisers he will probably learn-and I am sure of it myself- that there has been quite a substantial improvement in the auditing and disclosure of information concerning costing order R63-13 of the Transport Commission. I think the president of VIA will recognize that quite easily.
In regard to costing order R63-13, I have to tell the hon. member that we have a joint study between Transport Canada and the CTC which is examining it in depth. I am quite willing to go to the Transport committee to discuss it with members of that committee because I think that these are really the major problems which confront us now. This particular aspect was to be looked at, and I would be very keen to go to the committee to learn member's views on the matter because this is the most urgent subject that has to be debated.


ETHNIC GROUPS
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. As we all know, tomorrow marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the beginning of the Hungarian uprising of 1956. In keeping with the spirit of the motion presented today by my colleague, the hon. member for Don Valley West, would the minister please express the sympathy of members of this House to all those who lost family and friends in that struggle for independence, and would he also acknowledge the great contribution that people of Hungarian origin have made to the development and cultural heritage of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Yes, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join in the spirit-I hear some objections from the other side of the House but I am sure that is not the feeling of all on that side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That really was not a question to elicit information.


INCOME TAX
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Is he in a position to report on the findings of an interdepartmental committee appointed to look into the whole question of taxation of northern benefits and which resulted in a remission order with respect thereto? Since the deadline of the remission order is getting closer and the budget is getting closer, is the minister in a position to tell us today what he intends to do to help northerners cope with the incredibly compounded cost of living in the areas of housing, energy, and all that is associated with today's crises?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I certainly share the idea that northerners are suffering under high costs possibly more than other people in other parts of Canada. As the hon. member knows, the remission order is in place until the end of December. The government is reviewing the situation, and at such time as the policy is changed an announcement will be made in the House. I have no such announcement to make today.


POSSIBLE BUDGETARY PROVISIONS
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the minister to address himself to the question of whether he is confident that there will be a reflection in the budget with respect to this very crucial problem. Could he tell us today whether the notion of using the Income Tax Act to allow northerners to claim greater deductions from their personal incomes in an effort to achieve more equality and fairness with others is acceptable, recognizing the need of northerners for greater incomes to allow them to cope with excessive costs? Is the minister confident that something will be reflected in the budget? Is he pursuing the notion of using the Income Tax Act to achieve greater equity and fairness with respect to raising taxes throughout the country?


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that the budget is under the purview of the Minister of Finance. It would not be my place to discuss the budget before it comes down. The hon.
October 22, 1981

member's representation is on the record and I am sure it will be appreciated.


PIPELINES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He will recall giving the House iron-clad guarantees many months ago that construction of the Alaska gas pipeline would go ahead as planned, that is, for completion in 1983. Reports coming from the Congress of the United States now have it that the U.S. authorities are reluctant to proceed on account of perceived anti-American provisions within the national energy policy.
Could the minister please tell the House whether any changes are to take place in the national energy policy, or if he plans any other course of action to ensure the timely completion of the Alaska gas pipeline in its entirety, as he previously promised this House?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I do not know where my hon. friend is getting his information. On the contrary, the information we have is that the United States administration is very supportive of the project. The best evidence of this is that the administration has sent a waiver bill to Congress for adoption, which is going to remove a lot of the obstacles that remain in the way of completion of this project. We have received no indication at all from the United States administration that it would be considering even a delay in the construction of that particular pipeline. We hope that Congress is going to live by its commitment, that is, the unanimous resolution passed by Congress a year and a half ago in which both the House of Representatives and the Senate fully endorsed the project and said that steps should be taken to make sure it is realized.


Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, according to the minister everything in the garden is rosy, but that does not seem to be the view taken by the hon. Mitchell Sharp, the pipeline commissioner. In a speech given in New York a few days ago he referred to what he called "a new element of uncertainty" that has been injected into the whole complex scheme.


An hon. Member:: Are you against it?


Dave Nickerson: With all due respect to the minister, Madam Speaker, I would suggest that his iron-cladding is getting a little rusty.


EXPORTS OF GAS TO UNITED STATES
Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is this: if the American sections of the pipeline through Alaska are not proceeded with, and if the
Oral Questions
sections of the line through the Yukon and northern British Columbia are not proceeded with-and you have to admit that this now looks like a distinct possibility-is it still the intention of the government to be prepared to authorize exports of Canadian gas through the pre-build section, or is it likely that it will reconsider those export permits in light of the possibility that the pipeline as a whole will not be built?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member referred to a speech given by the hon. Mitchell Sharp. For the purpose of fairness and honesty in this House, the hon. member should have read the whole sentence. Mr. Sharp said:
A new element of uncertainty was injected into this whole complex process with the election of a new administration under President Reagan last November.
That has nothing to do with the NEP. Since that speech the administration has removed that element of uncertainty by sending to Congress the waiver bill that I referred to, which indicates the administration wants to see this project proceed. As far as the possibility of cutting back on export permits that have already been granted is concerned, the government is not considering any such thing.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In March last, during the study of the estimates of the minister's department, we were all informed that the total program costs in budget year dollars for the new fighter aircraft would be just over $4 billion. In August Brigadier General Slaunwhite said that the program costs are now estimated to be $5.2 billion. Would the minister explain where the extra billion is going to be spent? Perhaps more important, could he explain where it is coming from?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I am very glad to be able to answer the hon. member. I may not be able to answer him in detail, but I can in a global way. I hope now there will be confidence in the F-18 aircraft because the Australians have just bought 75 of them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lamontagne:: The increase in cost was projected in the contract as part of the difference between the exchange on Canadian dollars, which, as hon. members know, goes up or down.


Mr. Epp:: Down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

October 22, 1981
Oral Questions


Maurice Lamontagne: In addition it is affected by the rate of inflation, which goes up and down also. We all hope it will go down.
If the inflation rate goes down and the exchange on the Canadian dollar goes up, the cost of the plane will be less. If it is the other way around, the cost of the plane will be higher.


Mr. Kempling:: Hurrah! We have a new minister of finance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, it is a very simple question, and that is why I have expressed it like that.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I almost got motion sickness in the middle of that answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


COMMITMENT TO NATO ALLIES
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, the minister has just admitted the effect inflation is having on the cost of the new fighter aircraft. Last spring he was boasting to our NATO allies that we would have a 3 per cent increase in our budget in real terms. In view of the fact that the inflation rate is considerably higher than he estimated, does he now intend to bring in a supplementary estimate or does he intend this to be just another broken promise to our allies and to the Canadian forces?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, with regard to the question as to whether or not our allies are satisfied with the performance of Canada within NATO or our defence agreements, I must say that we have not yet been criticized by our allies in this regard. I have just come back from a meeting of NATO ministers in Edinburgh, and no one seemed to accuse us of not doing our share. On the contrary, our allies were very satisfied with the way in which Canada always supports NATO statements or achievements.
As to whether or not we shall be introducing supplementary estimates for the Defence budget, I believe that what I have said will be confirmed in due time, namely that Canada is aiming at a 3 per cent growth increase rate for real defence expenditures.


IMPORTATION OF URANIUM MINED IN NAMIBIA- GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister is no doubt aware that Eldorado Nuclear Ltd., under licences from the Atomic Energy Control Board, for which the minister is responsible in this House, is importing uranium ore mined in Namibia and shipped to Canada via South Africa. He should also be aware that a senior official of the Atomic Energy Control Board indicated on television on September 15 that he was unaware this was happening, but that if it was, it would be against government policy, and indeed against the law. The next day the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that no such law and no such policy existed.
Given the contradictory positions between his agency, the Atomic Energy Control Board, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, can the minister tell the House what is the policy of his department, and what is the policy of the Government of Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Atomic Energy Control Board has reviewed this position. My hon. friend refers to a statement made by one official of that particular board at a particular time. That is not a statement by the board or the policy of the board. Since then I have been advised that the Atomic Energy Control Board has reviewed all the facts and has examined the situation. The board concluded that everything done was done according to the law, and that now law was breached in Canada by Eldorado Nuclear Ltd. That is a statement made by the Atomic Energy Control Board, and I have nothing to add to it. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has stated the policy of the government on this issue generally.


ISSUANCE OF IMPORT PERMITS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, the minister is saying no that no law or no government policy was breached. Can he assure the House that his agency will not be granting any further permits to Eldorado to import uranium that is mined in Namibia, which is in violation of 1970 and 1971 United Nations resolutions, resolutions which so far have been supported in spirit by the Government of Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Again, Madam Speaker, the Atomic Energy Control Board has reported that no law was breached. As far as the external affairs policy of the Government of Canada in terms of trade or other relationships is concerned, I suggest the hon. member should address his question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
October 22, 1981


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs 1 shall direct my question to his parliamentary secretary.
The External Information Programs Division of the Department of External Affairs recently put out a publication entitled "Urban Public Transport". The purpose of this publication is to inform other countries about the Canadian experience in public transport.
Unfortunately, when one looks through this publication, one finds that it does not reflect the Canadian reality, since it fails to give due recognition to developments in cities of the province of Quebec and does not contain the least reference to one of its most important firms, namely, Bombardier.
Can the parliamentary secretary tell the House what the department plans to do with this publication which, in my opinion, is incomplete?


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, this publication has been under review, and I consider that it does not faithfully reflect the transport situation in Canada. We have therefore ordered that it be withdrawn.


AGRICULTURE
Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Earlier this afternoon my colleagues from Bruce-Grey and Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe gave the minister more than 1,700 letters from farmers in our area who have been trying to make him realize the terrific impact the government's high interest rate policy has on farmers. In view of the critical financial condition of these farmers today, will the minister give this House the assurance that his budget will address this problem and bring relief to them? As well, will the minister move up the date of his budget so that measures can be put in place before farmers are forced to sell their land in a depressed market or have to declare bankruptcy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have received those letters which were addressed to the Prime Minister. They were signed by individuals, but they are exactly the same in most cases, having been mimeographed or printed. That does not in any way detract from their importance, however. I might add that I answered those questions yesterday and the day before.
Oral Questions
With respect to the budget date, nothing has changed since yesterday.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Wait until tomorrow. We will have a new date.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: With respect to the hon. member's concern as to the impact of interest rates on the agricultural community, I have already indicated my concern and awareness of this problem and that I was addressing it in the context of budget preparations.


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, I would urge the minister to look at the notations on those letters. Many of them are important, and I would hate the minister to dismiss them lightly.


REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION
Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, what immediate remedies does the minister have to help farmers in these distressed situations until such time as he brings down his budget in this House? Some farmers are not in a position to last until then. What immediate measures does the minister have to offer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I answered a similar question yesterday addressed to me by the hon. member for Oshawa.


Madam Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) rising on business of the House?


Mr. Nielsen:: I was, if the question period is over.


Madam Speaker:: Yes.


Erik Nielsen: I was going to rise to ask a supplementary question.


Madam Speaker:: I think we will hear the hon. member for Yukon.


INCOME TAX
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to that which was asked by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River, and it is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Has he received any recommendation from any of the officials of his or any other government department that his remission order with respect to the taxation of northern benefits not be renewed beyond the existing taxation year?

October 22, 1981
Business of the House


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, the answer was really contained in the question of the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River, in that he said there were officials from a number of departments working on this issue. I think it is fair to say that recommendations and a brief on the total issue have been given to myself, the Minister of Finance and other ministers of the government reviewing the situation, and at such time as there is a change in policy that will be announced in the usual way.


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 21, 1981, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have the usual question on House business. I presume we will be carrying on for the remainder of this week with Bill C-48, and that in all probability we will be carrying on next week with Bill C-48 as well. That seems to be the intention of the government. I wonder whether the government House leader would confirm that.
Secondly, it would appear that November 10 will be the likely date of a budget. The first estimate was the end of October, then it was November 3 and now it is November 10. Assuming that is going to be the date of the budget, I have had several members approach me with respect to the time-honoured practice of this House to adjourn for the Remembrance Day weekend in time to permit members to attend Remembrance Day ceremonies in their ridings.
The government House leader will know that certainly those of us who live in the far west will not be able to get home at all for Remembrance Day ceremonies if the budget, indeed, is to be presented on November 10. Is there any arrangement the government is considering which might ensure a continuation of that practice so the veterans of this country will not be slighted by our being kept here for November 10?
The third question I have for the House leader has to do with the motion standing on today's Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe:
That the Eighth Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Tuesday, June 30, 1981, be concurred in.
I was informed by the hon. member after I came into the House for the question period that he has been requested by
that committee to bring on that report for discussion this week. While I can understand the impossibility of that occurring this week, I have also been asked by the hon. member, who is co-chairman of that committee, to determine if it would be possible to accommodate a debate on that report next Monday. The House leader knows we had a brief discussion on this just prior to two o'clock, but it was not until after two o'clock that I learned for certain that the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe, who is co-chairman of the committee, had been specifically requested by his committee to bring that report on this week.
I wonder if the government House leader might cover those three points.


Mr. Pinard:: Regarding the first point, Madam Speaker, yes, we intend to continue considering Bill C-48, the Canada Oil and Gas Act, today, tomorrow and during most of next week, and we hope to conclude the debate before the end of next week. In any event, the order of business is always subject to change, prior notice being given, and in this respect, my hon. colleague should know that the schedule may be changed at any time, if necessary, to end the debate on the Constitution. Normally, unless there is a change in the order of business, which is the government's responsibility as my colleague is well aware, we should be dealing with Bill C-48 today, tomorrow, and during most of next week.
As far as Remembrance Day is concerned, the hon. member is aware that under the Standing Order 2(3), the House does not sit on Remembrance Day. This year, November 11 is a Wednesday. I am told that most ceremonies to honour our veterans take place on the preceding Sunday.


An hon. Member:: Yes, but not for the veterans-


Yvon Pinard: Regarding the request for the committee report, request No. 8 by the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), I have explained several times that in view of the business on the Order Paper and the many measures this Parliament must consider, under Standing Order 18(2), the government intends to use its prerogative to select the subjects to be debated each day, except of course on the opposition days the government is required to allow. So if the hon. member wants to discuss the report, even if it is at the request of his committee, we shall have no alternative, as I have already explained to him and to the predecessor of the member for Yukon, but to introduce a motion either to adjourn the debate or to proceed with the orders of the day, so that the government can deal with its legislative program and priorities, as provided under the rules of the House.
Once more, I am surprised this matter is being raised again, since at this stage of the session we have no alternative but to pressure members to expedite the government measures listed on the Order Paper. Again, I would ask the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe to be patient and not to make
October 22, 1981

members of all parties be here until five o'clock on Fridays and at two o'clock on Mondays, which would be the case if it were necessary to introduce a motion that could come to a vote, to enable the government to deal with government measures on the Order Paper. Well, we are having a frank and open debate on the floor of the House, and I am asking the hon. member to be patient, because as I have often said, and I say it again today, the reports prepared for us by the committee which is looking into the regulations in general have an impact on the committee system and also on future parliamentary reform, an impact which may be more or less direct depending on the circumstances, and I think it would be unwise and premature to discuss these reports before we negotiate certain changes in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons during the next few months. In the circumstances, my answer must be no, we are not prepared to consider the reports of this committee at this time, in view of the circumstances I have already mentioned which are very real, and as a result of which the government must consider as much of its business as possible to expedite the items on the Order Paper and start a new session as soon as possible.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader is labouring, as is probably the Minister of Finance, because he is not a veteran, and I mean no inference by that remark-


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Erik Nielsen: Don't say "shame". The hon. member opposite with the backwards collar who is interrupting is not a veteran either, I do not believe. But veterans consider this day extremely important, almost sacred, to them. I can assure the government House leader that Remembrance Day is held on the eleventh, and unlike many other holidays which might be celebrated on a Monday or Friday simply because they fall in the middle of the week, Remembrance Day is a single exception to that rule. It has never been held on other than November 11.
Many of us who are veterans want to go home to attend Remembrance Day ceremonies but we cannot possibly do so if we are prevented from leaving here until ten o'clock Tuesday night. We have either to stay here and listen to the budget or leave to join our veterans.
I am sure the government would want to accommodate the veterans' organizations under whose jurisdiction these ceremonies fall. I am also sure that many members, both veterans and non-veterans, want to participate in these ceremonies.


Mr. Beatty:: Madam Speaker, would the government House leader clarify his response with regard to the report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments? The minister made reference to parliamentary reform. Is he aware that the report my hon. friend from Yukon was alluding to had nothing to do with parliamentary reform
Business of the House
but was, in fact, a report on VIA Rail recommending the government bring forward legislation to create VIA Rail in line with the recommendations which you, Madam Speaker, made earlier this year in this House with regard to legislative items and the appropriation votes. The report has nothing to do with parliamentary reform; it is a standard report from the committee.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, regarding the last question, I would remind the hon. member that there are three reports under his name on the Order Paper, and if the report to which he is referring has no connection with parliamentary reform, at least one of the two remaining reports does have an impact on this matter and also appears on the Order Paper. In any case, if a report is connected with parliamentary reform, consideration of the report should be postponed until the matter of parliamentary reform is addressed, perhaps during the next few months, and as for the other committee reports, the government prefers, as is its prerogative, to deal with government measures first because of the time factor. So the same answer applies in both cases.
Regarding Remembrance Day, Madam Speaker, I do not know what the custom is in the riding of my colleague for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), but I can say that in my own constituency and in those of most of my colleagues here, that day is observed on the preceding Sunday. The laying of the wreath at the war memorial, a ceremony I make a point of attending, takes place on the preceding Sunday. In any case, if I understand correctly, the hon. member does not want the House of Commons to be in session on the 11th, the 10th, the 9th, the 8th and the 7th. In the circumstances, and since this year November 11 falls right in the middle of the week, on a Wednesday, we shall follow the Standing Orders of the House and the House will not sit on November 11.


Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, first I want to comment on the possibility of extending the House recess to accommodate Remembrance Day. I hope the fact that this discussion is taking place on the floor does not harden the position of the government House leader. Although there may be a number of Legions and other veterans' associations who hold their Remembrance Day services on the Sunday, there are still many who hold these services on Remembrance Day.


An hon. Member:: The majority do.


An hon. Member:: About 90 per cent.


Ian Deans: An hon. member to my right tells me it is 90 per cent. I cannot quarrel with that, but I am prepared to admit that it is many.
Rather than get into a fixed position from which we cannot move, perhaps the government House leader would agree to take the matter under advisement for the moment and we could have further discussion to determine whether there may

October 22, 1981
Business of the House
be some way to accommodate those members who must travel a considerable distance as well as the government's desire to proceed with House business in an orderly way.
I would also like to know the government House leader's position on bringing forward the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act which was promised in the throne speech. This amendment hopefully would end discrimination against the handicapped. This is a matter of considerable importance, especially during this International Year of the Disabled. We are getting close to the end of the year and I had hoped to see that amendment come forward. Although there is a great deal of business on the Order Paper, I do not think we should allow those things to interfere with a commitment made by the government in the Speech from the Throne.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, on those two matters-the Human Rights Act amendment and the decision on the Remembrance Day recess-I ask that the House leader defer a decision pending further discussion privately.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, regarding the last part of what the hon. member has just said, I will consider his suggestion and see what can be done. Regarding the first few words said by my hon. colleague, the flexibility and diplomacy he has demonstrated were doubtless inherited from his illustrious predecessor, and I am quite willing to postpone making a definite decision at this time to consider his request regarding Remembrance Day. I am told that although it is the custom in Quebec to celebrate this occasion on the preceding Sunday, the situation may be different in other parts of the country, and I think the members on the opposite side were ill-advised to take offence because I mentioned the practice followed in Quebec. Now I myself have not commented on the practice followed in other parts of the country. I am prepared to look into this.
Perhaps this debate is purely academic-the budget may be brought down on November 3. There is still a possibility that if the budget is not brought down on November 3 but on the 10th, we shall have to deal with the matter. I intend to look into this and see whether the House could extend its sitting hours at other times, or whether we should apply the Standing Orders, but Ido not intend to make any firm commitment at this time that 1 shall accede to the wishes expressed by my colleague and by the member for Yukon and discuss the matter. 1 am quite willing, but I do not want to give the impression that the budget will not be brought down on November 10.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Madam Speaker, I also want to ask the government House leader about the legislative intentions of the government with respect to the Human Rights Act amendment. I have, in fact, spoken with the Minister of Justice and indicated to him my party's concern about this legislation and the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act promised in the Speech from the Throne.
I attempted to be recognized today to ask the Minister of Justice when this legislation would be forthcoming. I was unable to get recognition-I make no comment on that-but I think the government House leader, in planning House business, can rest assured that we in this party are interested in the expeditious passage of that amendment which would put disabled persons in Canada under the Canadian Human Rights Act under the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission.
The government House leader should take seriously, in this International Year of the Disabled, the recommendations of the all-party committee of this House to bring forward this amendment, to deal not only with discrimination practised against the physically handicapped with respect to goods, services, facilities and accommodation, but to expand that amendment to include those who are mentally handicapped. I am sure the hon. gentleman's parliamentary secretary could clearly advise him on the content of the report.
We in this party, as I am sure all members of this House, have an interest in the expeditious passage of these amendments, especially during this Year of the Disabled. I hope the House leader will make serious attempts to bring this matter forward at an early date.


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, a very short intervention on the matter of November 11. The minister should be aware that every country which was involved on the allied side in World War II observes November 11 as a national holiday. He should be aware of that, and to suggest that we in this Parliament will not recognize it as a national holiday is a departure. Every year since I have been here-this is my tenth year-we have recognized Remembrance Day on November 11, and I urge the minister to reconsider that fact when he is reconsidering the intervention of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I would not like the people of this country to be misled by the hon. gentleman, who obviously was not in the House or, if he was in the House, was sleeping as usual.


Mr. Siddon:: That is an insult.


Yvon Pinard: What I said was that on November 11 the House in any case will celebrate that very important day and that the House of Commons will not sit, as provided for by the Standing Orders. That is exactly what I said, and I deplore the fact that the hon. gentleman did not understand or did not want to understand what I said very clearly, which was that in any case on November 11 the House of Commons will not sit.


Mr. McKenzie:: Madam Speaker, dealing with House business, I wish to make a plea to the government House leader with respect to changing the budget date. There are other days in the month of November. Surely to goodness the minister can find some other date. I want to point out to the government House leader that services will be held at the cenotaphs of cities all across Canada on Wednesday, November 11 and
October 22, 1981

that services are held by the Army and Navy and Legions on November 11. Members of Parliament are expected to be there. They are invited to be there. This is an insult and a slap in the face to every veteran and veterans' organization across Canada.
It is ironic that we just received a report from the Senate respecting problems within the Department of Veterans Affairs. The report is entitled "They Served, We Care". Perhaps the Liberals should change that to "They Served, the Liberals Don't Care".
Will the minister reconsider that date?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I think my hon. colleague must have been away too. He totally misunderstands the situation. He says it is an insult and a slap in the face, and he is all red. I wonder why he is so upset.
I want to be very clear, and I will speak his own language. What I said was that I was willing, even if the House of Commons in any case does not sit on November 11, to consider the possibility of accepting the request made by his colleagues and that we would look into additional hours for sitting on other days, if necessary, but that I was not in a position at this time to give a clear commitment on the part of the government.
Furthermore, I said that maybe this discussion is purely academic since the budget might well be on November 3. We do not know yet, it is too early.
I have shown some flexibility. I have shown some willingness to negotiate and discuss this situation. I merely stated what happens in Quebec because in Quebec there is a practice that we celebrate this on the previous Sunday. I recognize that that is not the case in my hon. colleague's province, but by saying what I said I did not slap anyone in the face, and that was not an insult to anyone. I was just talking about the facts.
All I am saying is that I want to be flexible and look into the situation. I do not think the hon. gentleman should be upset because of this. On the contrary, he should be much more courteous and accept that we on this side are willing to take into consideration all reasonable suggestions which are made by hon. members on the other side of the House.


William James Kempling: You get courtesy if you give courtesy.


Mr. Friesen:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to address a question to the government House leader. Perhaps it is time to ask a question about the charitable organizations bill which was tabled by the government early in this Parliament. I would like to know the mind of the government with respect to that legislation and what kind of plan the government has to bring that bill forward for discussion and debate.
Mr.Pinard: Madam Speaker, all the bills on the Order Paper are important to the government and the country, and I am willing to discuss a good timing for any one of them with the hon. member's House leader.
Pipelines


PIPELINES
Marc Lalonde: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. Minister for Energy, Mines and Resources on a point of order.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, earlier during the oral question period, I answered a question by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) and indicated that the American government had, since the speech made by the Hon. Mitchell Sharp, brought certain amendments before Congress. [English]
I would not like to mislead my hon. friend. The speech-
*


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: Someone already has the floor. Does the hon. member wish to speak on a point of order or ask a question or something? The hon. member said "a question of privilege". I can hear a question of privilege later.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, a question of privilege is normally heard at once. It is normally heard as soon as it arises because of the abuse of the rules of the House going on on the other side. I rise on a question of privilege affecting the rights of all hon. members. When we on this side of the House have attempted to do what the minister is doing now, we have always been sat down, and I do not think this sort of conduct should be permitted by the Chair, nor should it be engaged in by ministers. If there are any explanations to be made with respect to the minister's answers today, they can be made on statements on motions or at whatever appropriate time tomorrow.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: I am listening to a number of points or order. I do not know ahead of time what they will be about, so I allow people to express their points of order. Anyone can raise a point of order at this time-


Erik Nielsen: We know what they are about.


Madam Speaker:: -just as anyone might raise a question of privilege arising from the deliberations. I think what the hon. member for Yukon was doing was raising a point of order on the point of order raised by the minister.


Erik Nielsen: It was a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: Yes, but I think it was, rather, a point of
order.

October 22, 1981
Business of the House


Erik Nielsen: No, it was not.


Madam Speaker:: I have listened to the hon. member, who protests the fact that the minister is raising a point of order. However, the minister is allowed to raise a point of order, and I will recognize him.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I cannot understand why the hon. member for Yukon should make such a fuss because I have not even had time to state what my point of order is.


Erik Nielsen: You are correcting an answer.


Mr. Rossi:: Listen and learn, Nielsen.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I indicated in my answer that it was important to treat each other with fairness and honesty. I am afraid that in my answer I indeed may not have spelled out all the facts. I indicated that the Hon. Mr. Sharp had made a speech after the-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I thought the minister wanted to correct a figure or something he said in the course of question period. I might have allowed that, but I believe the minister is now trying to extend the answer which he gave during the question period. That is quite legitimate, but he cannot do it at this time. He might do it when he is asked another question on another occasion.


Erik Nielsen: Stop abusing the rules.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to House business. I have two questions. First, I will ask the President of the Privy Council, the government House leader, to indicate to the House the status at this time of a very important bill, Bill C-53, which would redefine rape as a violent assault rather than a crime of passion. This is a bill for which Canadian women have been waiting a long time. We on this side of the House have indicated our desire to see the bill go to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs quickly where a number of important amendments could be made. I cannot imagine that the Conservative party would wish to hold up such an important bill.


Mr. Paproski:: Shame!


Svend Johannes Robinson: We can hear from the justice critic of the Conservative party as to whether the members of his party are willing to co-operate on this bill. We can hear from him as soon as I sit down, but in the meantime I will ask the government House leader whether he is prepared to bring the bill forward at an early date in order to ensure that it gets to committee. I am sure the Conservative party will want to co-operate in seeing that the bill goes forward very quickly that day.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No question.


Svend Johannes Robinson: My second point relates to the question of Remembrance Day. I for one appreciate the flexibility which has been shown by the government House leader in response to interventions made on this side of the House. I am a British Columbia member, and the government House leader should be aware of the fact that I must be back in British Columbia at eleven o'clock on Wednesday morning. In order to do that I have to go back the previous day. I am sure that is the case with a number of British Columbia members. I trust that the minister will take that into careful consideration when deciding how to approach the way in which we honour the veterans of past wars.
As to the matter of Bill C-53, a matter which, as I say, is of great importance to Canadian women, when can we expect that bill to be called?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if we could reach an agreement with the two opposition House leaders, we could dispose of this by next Friday, provided there is one spokesman for each party and the bill is referred to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, which will require the co-operation of both opposition parties. This is one of the bills appearing on a list of bills being considered by the House leaders, bills which are assumed to be non-controversial and which could be disposed of on a Friday afternoon. So I am quite willing, as I have done before, to include the bill in the list of measures that could be disposed of on a Friday afternoon within the next few weeks.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I welcome the show of flexibility in the House leader. I hope that in the exercise of that flexibility he will recall that it was the Prime Minister who was First to suggest that budget day might be on the tenth and he should bear in mind at the same time that it demonstrated both a contempt for this House and a contempt for the veterans of this country by the Prime Minister who, of course, refused to serve in Canada's forces during the war.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald W. Munro: Second, he should try to bear in mind that there is no need for the Minister of Finance to be at the meeting of first ministers. The first ministers can meet at the same time as the budget is being read in this House.
The third point has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Burnaby-


An hon. Member:: That is not a question of privilege.


Donald W. Munro: No, it is not a question of privilege, it is a point of order. Third, I hope that in the exercise of his flexibility he will take into account the flight schedules between here and the west coast. Many of us cannot
October 22, 1981

leave on the morning of the eleventh and reach our homes in time for the ceremonies on the eleventh. Many of us cannot do so if we leave after seven o'clock the night before. It would be a sign of the same respect we have for the budget of this country and for this government if this side stayed away entirely from the budget speech, which we will read in the paper anyway.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I remind the hon. member that all of the excellent legislation that was passed during the last months and years for the benefit of veterans and their widows was strongly recommended and supported by the Prime Minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: In so far as the hon. member's concerns about flight schedules are concerned, in taking into consideration the request made to me today, I will be sure to look at all schedules to British Columbia. I remind him that most of my colleagues from the province of Quebec must drive to their constituencies much of the time. It takes them longer to get to their constituencies than it does for the hon. member to get to British Columbia.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I never cease to be amazed at what can cause political conflict. I hope that the House leader for the government will, as he said earlier, consider the matter and let us know what he decides. I hope he decides to do something about accommodating the needs of members. I do not want to conduct House business on the floor of the House, but with regard to Bill C-53 we would be quite happy to have one speaker on a Friday.


Mr. Laniel:: Madam Speaker, I would just like to say a few words as the member for Beauharnois-Salaberry and as a veteran. First of all, I want to point out that the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine does not have to tell me anything about veterans, because I am just as motivated as he is. The comments he made just now were an insult to me and to all French Canadians, to all Quebecers and to all members on this side of the House. And the same goes for the hon. member for Edmonton- I think this remark should be withdrawn as far as I am concerned-

I care for veterans just as much as he does.

Madam Speaker, if we ignore the initial aggressiveness of the comments made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, toward the end I think he realized that we have open minds on this side of the House. I myself had a few words with my hon. minister just now and I tried to explain to him that although in Quebec the ceremony is on Sunday, elsewhere in Canada the custom is to celebrate this occasion on the same day, November 11. I have on occasion been obliged to stay here in Ottawa because November 11 was
Order Paper Questions
on a Thursday and there was no Standing Order authorizing members to take the next day off if the holiday happened to be on Tuesday or Thursday.
In any case, Madam Speaker, I hope the unpleasant aggressiveness displayed by the Progressive Conservative Party, but not by the New Democratic Party, will be allowed to disappear. We shall wait for the dialogue announced by the President of the Privy Council and I trust a solution will be found.


Mr. Taylor:: Madam Speaker, with regard to Bill C-53, I respect the comment by the hon. member for Burnaby, but he has already spoken. Many of us have received representations from our constituents. It is not fair ball suddenly to close off the debate, particularly when it is suggested by somebody who has already spoken. I agree we have to move ahead quickly, but let us not deny members the right to voice the views of those who sent us here.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Jean-Luc Pepin: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for raising your voice so that I could hear you. I wish to table, in both official languages, the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Aviation Safety, also known as the Dubin report. I should mention here that the third report will likely be submitted by the end of the year, at least I hope so.


PETITIONS
Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, I beg leave of the House to lay upon the table a VIA Rail petition of 4,100 names gathered in Edmonton, organized by the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and General Workers who are dissatisfied with the decision of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) by order in council to cut back VIA lines.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[Stage Direction]
October 22, 1981
Order Paper Questions
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,105, 2,402, 2,447, 2,654, 2,655, 2,688 and 2,705.
1976-77	1977-78	1978-79	1979-80	1980-81	TotalN.S. P.E.l. Nfld.	224,570 108,300 228,293	261,600 53,400 276,227	262,359 59,100 163,300	246,000 60,000 159,900	396,050 56,500 204,300	1,390,579 337,300 1,032,020Total	5,274,935	2,860,783	4,429,053	3,881,551	4,375,851	20,822,173


Mr. McKnight: 1.	What was the number of applications (a) received (b) approved from the provinces of (i) Alberta (ii) Saskatchewan (iii) Manitoba under the herd maintenance program and, for each province, what was the total dollar amount approved?
2.	What was the average period of time in terms of days between the time applications were received from each western province and the time when application approval and funding was sent out to each province?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
1.
(i)	Alberta
(ii)	Saskatchewan
(iii)	Manitoba
(a) Applications Received
2,537
18,156
9,180
(b) Applications Approved
11,098
7,084
(c) Total Amount Approved
$	972,184
17,800,674 12,535,433
2. Applications from all provinces were processed centrally in Regina. Average time between receipt of application forms and mailing of assistance cheques was 44 days.


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past Five years, what amount was transferred to the National Museums of Canada and, by province, what amount was granted to regional museums by the National Museums?


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows:
1. Funds voted by Parliament to the National Museums of Canada in each of the past five years:
1976-77	1977-78	1978-79	1979-80	1980-81
(in millions of dollars)
42.5	45.7	55.2	50.1	53.3
2. Amounts granted to regional museums by the National Museums of Canada:
1976-77	1977-78	1978-79	1979-80	1980-81	TotalB.C.	1,584,714	350,322	690,530	726,331	781,599	4,133,496Alta.	524,204	513,300	549,500	634,327	655,300	2,876,631Sask.	439,223	181,190	351,450	353,472	450,307	1,775,642Man.	652,990	314,100	552,006	537,451	671,050	2,727,597Ont.	426,592	474,200	495,508	461,300	417,795	2,275,395Que.	640,030	292,500	1,062,000	435,470	488,150	2,918,150N.B.	446,019	143,944	243,300	267,300	254,800	1,355,363
The above figures arc based upon the consideration of associate museums, those major museums and galleries in Canada which act in association with the National Museums of Canada to realize the goals of the 1972 national museums policy, as regional museums.


Mr. Flis: What percentage of total television viewing time did children under 16 years of age spend watching foreign programs during each year 1975 to 1980 and what was the percentage for (a) English-speaking (b) French-speaking children?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: I am informed by the Canadian RadioTelevision and Telecommunications Commission as follows:
The percentage of viewing time devoted to Canadian and foreign programs by children Aged 2 to 17*
Total Day (6 a.m. - 2 a.m.)
Program Origin			Children 2- 17			
		Anglophones			Francophones	
1977	1979	1980	1977	1979	1980Per cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per centCanadian produced	17	16	17	44	44	44Foreign produced	83	84	83	56	56	56All programs	100	100	100	100	100	100
Bureau of Broadcast Measurement, fall of each year. Source: CBC Research. No report done for 1978.
NOTE: Information prior to 1977 is not available.


Mr. Herbert: Does the government record full-time university student enrolment by province and by province of permanent residence and, if so, was there a significant change in the past five years in the percentage of out-of-province students?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada records annually full-time university enrolment by province and by province of residence. For the last five years for which data are available (1975-76 to 1979-80) there has been virtually no change in the proportion of out-of-province students in Canadian universities. In each of the Five years, the proportion has been approximately 20 per cent. There are some differences, however, by level of study. While the proportion of undergraduate students from out-of-province remained stable (17 per cent) the proportion of graduate students from out-of-province declined from 45 per cent in 1975-76 to 38 per cent in 1979-80. For variations by province, see table below.
October 22, 1981

Percentage of out-of-province university students by province, 1975-76 and 1979-80
Undergraduate	Graduate
1975-76	1979-80	1975-76	1979-80Per cent	Per cent	Per cent	Per centNewfoundland	8	7	42	49Prince Edward Island	18	17	-	-Nova Scotia	30	35	58	55New Brunswick	27	31	44	50Quebec	14	13	34	28Ontario	16	18	46	38Manitoba	17	17	41	41Saskatchewan	14	19	55	60Alberta	17	16	53	45British Columbia	21	16	55	50Canada	17	17	45	38
-Not applicable. The University of Prince Edward Island does not have graduate programs.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Does the government record the level of student fees at universities?
2.	Does the Canada student loans program provide assistance to university students adversely affected by preferences in provincial funding programs?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: 1. Statistics Canada publishes an annual booklet entitled "Tuition and Living Accommodation Costs at Canadian Universities" (Catalogue No. 81-219) which sets out the level of student fees at universities.
2. The maximum loan limits under the Canada Student Loans Act apply to all Canadian students who can establish a need for financial assistance. While the level of provincial funding, and hence the amount of Canada student loan element in the aid package, varies, all provinces, with the exception of Quebec which has opted out of the program since its inception, provide Canada student loan aid to the maximum permitted by the act where the need for such aid is established.


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of Regional Economic Expansion purchase feed pellets valued at $16,000 from Federated Co-operative Ltd., Brandon and, if so, for what purpose?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: contract in the amount of $16,000, was awarded by the Department of Supply and Services, on behalf of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, to Federated Co-operative Ltd., Brandon, Manitoba for the supply of "bull feed" pellets to be used to feed cattle at the St. Lazare Bull Station, seven miles north of McAuley, Manitoba.
Order Paper Questions BABCOCK MOTOR BODIES LTD.


Mr. McKinnon: Was a contract let to Babcock Motor Bodies Limited, Toronto for $812,851, for "vehicular furniture and accessories" and, if so, what is the furniture and what are the accessories?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Yes, a contract was awarded by the Department of Supply and Services, on behalf of the Department of National Defence, to Babcock Motor Bodies Limited, Toronto, Ontario, for $812,851, for the fitting of "vehicular furniture and accessories" which comprise of the following:
(a)	Pintle hooks (accessories)
(b)	Metal superstructures and tarpaulins (accessories)
(c)	Aluminum caps (accessories)
(d)	Removable fold-down bench seats (furniture)
(e)	Winches (accessories)
(0 Undercoating (accessories)
A total of 353 DND vehicles are being fitted in various configurations with the above items.


David P. Smith: 1 ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: As you know, Madam Speaker, I seldom rise at this time to question the abilities of the parliamentary secretary. However, I have asked a couple of questions on forces' aircraft being used for the transporting of cabinet ministers and others. One has been on the Order Paper since January 27 and the other since May 21. The question of January 27 asks the cost of the Prime Minister's trip when he got lost in Austria, and the second question is regarding the number of times the Falcon jets have been used.
1 do not know what the policy of this government is about the costing of aircraft trips, but on the other question, I was surprised to see the answer to a question by the hon. member for Leeds which was tabled in this House on October 16. The answer to question No, 1,996 indicated:
The list of executive aircraft used by cabinet ministers, as approved by the Minister of National Defence, in accordance with the guidelines outlined in question No. 169, will be available on a monthly basis effective October, 1981 (on request).
It is now October 1981. My requests are in question No. 2,035 on January 27, and question No. 2,519 on May 21. When will I receive my answers?


David P. Smith: 1 will take note of that representation and look into the matter.

Canada Oil and Gas Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, October 21, 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. 7, 8 and 9 (Mr. Andre for Mr. Wilson), Motions Nos. 10, 11 and 12 (Mr. Skelly), Motions Nos. 13 and 15 (Mr. Andre for Mr. Wilson), and Motions Nos. 16 and 41 (Mr. Skelly).
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, at this time, I should like to speak to the amendments before the House this afternoon. It is my intention to participate in the debate on the amendments, but since this is the first time I am speaking on the bill, I should like to give you a few impressions that I have gained from serving on the committee which led to the report stage in the House.
All hon. members on both sides of the House agree this is a very important bill. I happen to think some aspects of the bill are more important than the Constitution, Mr. Speaker. At this particular time we are debating this bill with indecent haste because, in the government's view, they have other priorities. We have to dispose of these mundane things in order that we may deal with the Constitution and with matters relating to the economy. People throughout the country are beginning to be very suspicious about the constitutional matters. With the Constitution being thrown in every time we are discussing something of importance, the people are beginning to get the feeling that they are engulfed in a smokescreen to disguise the real intentions of the government and some real, important issues.
Bill C-48, Mr. Speaker, will establish a pattern of government behaviour which will have far-reaching consequences and effects. I am not overly concerned or frightened when foreign countries make comments on what we do here, but it concerns me when our colleagues or counterparts in the United States, senators and congressmen, go to visit the President and demand that certain laws in the United States be enacted, laws which would have the effect of bringing reciprocal action to the kind of measures proposed in Bill C-48. In the history of western countries-at least not within the time we have participated in the association of western economies through OECD-there has never been a precedent where a government would go wantonly and deliberately and confiscate the assets of private corporations-and I am using the word "confiscate" advisedly-regardless whether these assets belong to companies of a domestic or Canadian origin or are of a foreign nature. That kind of approach to economic nationalism is one we cannot expect our trading partners and associates in the economic world, at least in the western economic world, to live with or put up with.
The United States has an act known as the 1948 Minerals Act. Under that act, upon the evidence that a foreign country is acting against United States companies operating in that foreign country, the administration is compelled to initiate immediate reciprocal action. We can only speculate what that reciprocal action might be eventually. I hope it is no secret to any hon. member of the House or to anyone listening outside that there are all kinds of Canadian companies operating in the United States and in other economic theatres throughout the world. Indeed, our national oil company operates in the North Sea. It is planning to go to Senegal. It is planning to go to the South China Sea. It is planning not only to be a window to the energy sector in Canada, but it is planning to be a window and a partner among multinational companies operating throughout the world. I would assume that if Petro-Canada had any intention to operate in the United States, we would expect some of their assets, which are the assets of Canadian taxpayers, might be confiscated there. Bill C-48 basically does this.
I served on the committee, Mr. Speaker, and at no time in my nine years of experience in the House have I been presented with a bill in committee that was so shoddily drafted in the first go around. Bill C-48 has 85 clauses in it. The government tabled 115 amendments to the 85 clauses in the bill.


An hon. Member:: Flexibility.


Frank Oberle: Flexibility, my hon. friend says. The government took no care at all. They were flying by the seat of their pants. They were testing the waters. They were flying some kites. Both opposition parties made a number of amendments.
We had every reason to believe and expect that the government would bring in measures to regulate the oil and gas industry. For the last ten years, the industry has been very anxious to learn what the measures would be. We have been questioning the government as to when they would bring in measures which would bring about stability to and confidence in the energy sector, confidence that was required by the oil companies. Serious decisions had to be made in order to maintain some kind of energy self-sufficiency in our country. After 1973, that had been lost and measures had to be taken to regain energy self-sufficiency. We are told by the government it will cost between $300 billion and $500 billion today to regain energy self-sufficiency in our country. Several multinational oil companies have to know what the government's intentions are with respect to land use policies in the north and with respect to regulations in the north that would affect their decisions.
The oil companies now know, if they are of foreign origin, that they are no longer operating in Canada under the same rules. If they are of foreign origin, irrespective of their contribution or the work they have done in our country before, irrespective of the pioneering spirit exhibited by the multinational oil companies, who came mostly from the United States, in developing our energy sector in the first place, they are now no longer wanted; and if they want to operate in Canada, they have to have at least 50 per cent Canadian ownership before
October 22, 1981

the minister will consider giving them a licence to operate on federal lands.
There are some companies of a multinational nature operating in our country who are solely-owned subsidiaries of other companies based in the United States. They appeared before the committee. We questioned them about their intention to rebuild their corporate structure to accommodate the government's new nationalization policy. Some of them told us that they would have serious difficulty meeting deadlines or with their shareholders in light of some of the minister's comments before the committee. In fact one member of the New Democratic Party was known as "the hon. member for Norway", because he always talked about Norway. But Norway never confiscated any private assets. It did certain things which the minister and "the hon. member for Norway" liked. Incidentally "the hon. member for Norway" comes from British Columbia. He said that Norway insisted upon 85 per cent government ownership in its oil industry. The minister was asked when he would realize this and attune his policies to such a trend. The minister answered, "This is just the beginning; give us time".
If I were a member of the oil industry, this would indicate to me that he may confiscate 50 per cent of my assets; but if I continue developing new wells, it may be more later on. This is not the kind of climate in which I would make any investment if I were a foreign or domestic oil company because I would fear, particularly now it has been clearly established that Canadian ownership means government ownership, that as soon as the multinational companies were chased out of the country I would probably be the next target of the government.
This bill is not just another piece of legislation. It is a doctrinaire expression of the government's definition of economic nationalism. I do not understand why our friends in the NDP are so upset with the government. As a matter of fact, Bill C-48 and the general energy policy of the government are precisely what the NDP requested-nationalize the oil sector. If they do not have the courage to do what socialists and communists like to do, namely, to assume government ownership of the tools of production, the next best thing is for the government to obtain ownership and control of the fuel which drives the machines and the tools of production.
The NDP should be quite happy about what the government is doing. One member of that party rose during question period today and said that the bad Americans were considering reciprocal action. Imagine what it would do to the Bronfmans, the great multinational whisky dynasty, if they were told that they would require a 50 per cent partnership in their U.S. operations. That might not be the end of it. The Americans might decide not to be compassionate and co-operative with us in the future when it comes to marketing our lumber and wood chips. The hon. member rightly expressed some concern because this has been suggested to the President by some lumber manufacturers in the western states. What would
Canada Oil and Gas Act
happen if the Americans decided to impose a 10 per cent white wood tax on spruce lumber? This is what the Japanese are doing in order to protect their sawmill industry. The effect in Canada would be that our industry, which produces $24 billion in export earnings every year, would be bankrupt, and the one million Canadians who are directly or indirectly associated with the lumber industry would probably end up eating bark off the trees. This is what would happen if the Americans chose the wood converting industries as a target for reciprocal action for what Canada is doing in the energy sector. Hon. members opposite may laugh, but when one sleeps next to an elephant one does not throw sand in its eyes every morning because, if it rolls over some night, one might find it very uncomfortable.
This is the reality of the matter. Also we are selling the Americans 60 per cent of our total lumber and wood fibre production, and 75 per cent of our industrial manufacturing capacity is traded with other countries. We cannot forever dump on them. We must realize that we live in an economic community, that we must trade with other countries in order to keep working, to pay wages and to make demands on the industrial sector as the unions normally do respecting higher wages and better working conditions. This is a legitimate pursuit, but it must be backed up by an industrial base. Our industrial base rests upon our ability and our aggressive approach to international trade.
I do not know the number of submissions which were made before the committee, but every intervenor, whether it was a union, a corporation, an oil company, an independent petroleum association or anyone who felt affected in any way by this legislation, complained about Clause 10 of the bill, which gives incredible discretionary powers to the minister. If it is our intention to ensure that the legitimate Canadian interests are protected with respect to the environment and their aspirations in the area of developing new sources of energy, the minister must have some power and some discretion.
All we are saying in our amendment is that there should be some checks and balances and some accountability. We are not afraid of the minister. We take him on every once in a while and embarrass him in the House. We are more afraid of his bureaucrats and officials because they make decisions such as the recent one to phase out 25 per cent of the operations of VIA Rail. I suppose the officials and the bureaucrats received some direction. They were told to slice $100 million from their budget. The minister said, "I do not care how you do it; just tell me how and give me some arguments which will protect my hide when I am questioned in the House of Commons." They gave him some arguments which have not helped to save his hide. These are the types of things which can happen if a minister has excessive discretionary power.
We would like some accountability. We would like a built-in appeal procedure. Most intervenors would have liked to control the powers of the minister in other ways, but the minimum requirement would be that the government accepts some form of appeal procedure. For example, a company which is no

October 22, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
longer in the favour of the minister or his bureaucrats would have some other forum in which to express its legitimate concerns, in which it would be listened to, and if the concerns are correct, they could be redressed.
We will have a lot to say. Of course we served notice on the government. I personally walked out of the committee, as did some of my friends in the NDP, on the day when we were about half way through consideration of the bill and the government laid its 115 amendments on the table. The government had accepted all those amendments which needed to be accepted by the time we were half way through the bill. It became painfully obvious that the government was in no way inclined to accept any opposition amendments. I asked some of my colleagues on the other side whether it was the intention of government members on the committee to give any consideration to any opposition amendments and, if not, whether we could be informed so that we would not have to sit any longer through the rather childish and juvenile exercise of simply saying yes or no to whatever the government told us. Without any precedents of which I am aware, the parliamentary secretary admitted that he had orders from the minister not to accept any amendments from the opposition or even consider them, but simply to deal with the amendments the government had proposed.
Of course, this points out how seriously the parliamentary and committee processes are in jeopardy. That is why I walked out of the committee and why my NDP colleagues walked out with me. The government is stuck with this bill in the House. The amendments will be debated as we go along, but if the government has any illusion about getting the bill through the House before the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) decides to sit down with the provincial premiers to discuss the Constitution, then it should think again.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-48. Certainly I must agree with my colleague the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), who indicated on the last day we debated this motion that this is the most important economic legislation to be presented to this House in this session.
Before I develop the concerns the New Democratic Party has about this bill, I should like to respond to the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) who expressed alarm at the call for retaliatory action against the national energy policy voiced by some in the United States. I feel very strongly that the concerns expressed by the congressmen and state representatives in the United States about our national energy policy are misplaced. The reason that they are now questioning a number of the economic "flows" between Canada and the United States is because of the effects of their own monetary policies and the Reaganomics program.
Following closely on the heels of "Thatchereconomics", "Reaganomics" have attempted to jack up interest rates to levels which will curtail production in the United States as was
the case in Britain. Unfortunately, it will appear that our own Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) is following the same disastrous course. We in this party wonder how long it will take before they all realize the error of their ways.
It has become clear that things in Great Britain will get worse before they get better and it appears that the same thing will take place in the United States. We hope that the budget which is to come down on or about November 10 will reflect a new thinking, will depict a willingness on the part of this government to admit error and that it will introduce policies to stimulate our economy instead of driving it to its knees.
In the past few days I had the opportunity to participate as an observer in the Eighth International Symposium on Small Business which was hosted by the federal government. It was a first-class symposium, and I must toss an accolade to the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe) for the positive way in which it was organized. It resulted in some of the most progressive dialogue on small business that I have heard in a long time.
I listened with great interest to the Japanese and Korean delegations outline in considerable detail the relationships between big business and small and medium business in their countries. When we compare their achievements with our track record, it is obvious that we cannot begin to match what they are doing. Korea and Japan recognize that small business plays a very critical role in the economy.
When we look at the record of many northern and western European countries we see that for decades their policies have shown an understanding and appreciation of the role of small business in the regional, local and national economies. That is not the case in Canada. We now have, however, an opportunity to change this through Bill C-48. We have an opportunity to introduce a policy that would present a clear signal to the small business community of Canada that we appreciate the role it plays; that we are prepared to put legislation in place to encourage the development of the small business sector, to provide the initiative that it seeks from senior levels of government and to give a clear signal that it should forge ahead with the megaprojects that are associated with Bill C-48.
We are told that in the next decade energy investment is likely to exceed $210 billion. The Royal Bank of Canada reports that within the next 20 years in Canada expenditures of over $1 trillion will occur in the energy sector. It is interesting to note that the amount to be spent on equipment will total $67 billion, three times the amount spent over the last 20 years. This projection is for the next decade.
There is an excellent opportunity now for the federal government to bring in legislation through simple amendments to Bill C-48 that would assist small business in many ways. I must admit to feeling a great deal of disappointment as I read through the various clauses of Bill C-48 seeking a statement that would indicate a willingness on the part of the federal government to source goods and services from Canadian suppliers. After searching with a fine toothed comb, the best statement I could find was to the effect that an exploration agreement will be required which will require the holder, prior
October 22, 1981

to commencing any work program, to submit a plan satisfactory to the minister for the employment of Canadians and the use of Canadian goods and services in carrying out that work program.
We must ask what the reference to a plan for Canadian content satisfactory to the minister means. Is that the strongest statement we can make to point out clearly to the small business community in Canada that we want to assist it, particularly in these difficult economic times? What is meant by Canadian content? The most common definition, which is that used by the oil industry in Canada, is that Canadian content means that the source of supply is located in Canada-simply "located" in Canada. That allows the product to be classified as Canadian when purchased in Canada through a Canadian supplier, even though the product is manufactured in another country. In other words, Canadian content is really another term for the Canadian market.
The EEC definition of Canadian content is that the last point of manufacture is a domestic Canadian operation. But that is also inappropriate.
The kind of definition that I prefer would provide that Canadian content is present when you deduct the cost of imported components from the total manufactured cost of goods produced in Canada and establish a minimum level of Canadian content in the end product. This would enable purchases of foreign content to be isolated and would also isolate the level of foreign components in Canadian products. In other words, it would then enable us to conduct research to identify clusters of imports, to develop technology through agreements with oil companies and to acquire the Canadian research and development necessary to displace those imports.
The oil sands projects, the frontier and offshore oil and renewable energy technologies offer opportunities for Canadians to become world leaders. As we develop the Canada lands over the next two decades, there will be an excellent opportunity for Canadian entrepreneurs to develop technologies, to carry out research and development through production and to become world leaders in this whole new energy technology. We ought to be maximizing Canadian participation from the very start in these new markets. We ought to be maximizing Canadian participation in every single project possible.
Over the next decade, 63 per cent of energy investment will be in energy areas for which Canadian industry has evolved a degree of expertise in supplying principally utilities in the conventional oil and gas industry, including land-based field explorations, development, refining and pipeline construction. Future manufacturing opportunities will consist of expanding production capacity to meet rapidly expanding equipment requirements and in isolating those currently imported that could be currently manufactured in Canada.
Why do we not build into Bill C-48 a serious "buy Canada" procurement policy? While we see the buy America program that exists in the United States and the requirements that Norway, the United Kingdom and many developing countries
Canada Oil and Gas Act
have made, we nevertheless maintain our tradition of being exporters of raw materials and importers of finished goods. Here is an opportunity to build into legislation a buy Canada program that means something. As I indicated earlier, that would be a clear signal to Canadian entrepreneurs that as members of the House of Commons we are interested in assisting and encouraging them in recognizing the role they play in our economy.
Let us look at a couple of areas of expansion of exploration in the Canada lands to see to what extent the materials could be sourced in Canada. If we were simply looking at land-based operations, drilling rigs and the like, I think it would be fair to say that 70 to 80 per cent could be sourced within Canada. Of course, when one looks at the importation of foreign rigs in total in terms of fabrication and associated equipment, it is certainly not doing very much for Canadian manufacturers and suppliers. I suspect that for the new fabrication industry in the province of Alberta, a level of 80 or 85 per cent is not unreasonable, given the new developments over the last two or three years. When it comes to the refining industry, equipment and materials for new construction normally account for 40 to 45 per cent of total expenditures, the rest being for labour and engineering services.
Canadian capacity to supply this expertise and equipment is estimated to be at least 90 per cent. This figure comes directly from the corporate planning department of Imperial Oil Limited. Presently, however, less than 30 per cent of this equipment is manufactured within a Canadian context. It seems to me that not only Canadian manufacturers of refining equipment but Canadian engineering firms could take a closer look at the role they could play on these megaprojects. Canadian engineering firms have not played a significant role, and only a few of Canada's largest engineering firms are capable of providing the over-all management for these projects. Perhaps Canadian engineering consortiums should be encouraged by the government to meet the Canadian content in design specifications.
Pipeline construction is another area where Canada is obviously developing technology in which other countries around the world are becoming more and more interested. We have a 30-year history linking regions over hundreds and thousands of miles in some instances. Investment over the next ten years for pipeline work is estimated to be in the neighbourhood of $17.4 billion. While pipeline construction, labour, engineering and management is 90 per cent Canadian content at the moment, 85 per cent of construction equipment is imported into Canada. Large vehicles, such as pipe layers, bulldozers, side boom tractors, are all imported from the United States and overseas.
We are suggesting in our amendment that we build some teeth into this particular bill, teeth that would provide opportunities for Canadian manufacturers and, especially during these difficult times, provide Canadian jobs. Our motion, No. 10, which I will put on the record calls for a work plan to ensure that:

October 22, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
(i)	Canadians have a fair and competitive opportunity to participate in the supply of goods and services to oil and gas exploration, development and production activities;
(ii)	maximum advantage is taken of opportunities provided by gas and oil exploration and production to establish and expand industries in Canada which can make a long-term contribution to the Canadian industrial base;
(iii)	Canadian and local content is maximized so far as practicable with respect to the origin of products, services and their constituent components;
(iv)	Canadians be given employment preference is cases where suitably qualified Canadian citizens or landed immigrants are available. Where labour requirements are such that Canadian citizens or landed immigrants are not suitably qualified in sufficient numbers and the labour requirement is ongoing for the length of the agreement, the agreement holder will undertake to provide on-the-job training for Canadian citizens and landed immigrants in order to maximize as far as possible and reasonable, Canadian labour participation."
The significant unemployment figures in Canada today represented by all sectors of our employment base, from the most sophisticated professional areas to the every day labourer, are a crime. Yet so many of our projects which are taking place on Canada lands require imported expertise. This is certainly a slap in the face for our government and its on-the-job training, apprenticeship, research and development programs and the like.
We are suggesting that the holder of an exploration agreement should open all contracts having a value of $50,000 or more to public tender and submit in reasonable numbers invitations to bid to individual Canadian suppliers. Those bids should be evaluated in terms of the extent to which bidders use Canadian goods and services. We suggest also that the minister establish an advisory body, to be made up of representatives from Canadian labour, from major industries and from the oil and gas companies, to provide sourcing for offshore and northern exploration and production activities. This body would then make recommendations to the appropriate minister concerning the pace of exploration and/or production in Canada lands so that investment decisions, development work and facilities construction in Canadian industries participating in this exploration and production be given their due consideration. We are suggesting that the committee should also have the authority to recommend to the minister that approval of exploration agreements and production licences be delayed in order that benefits accrue to the Canadian economy.
To us these do not seem to be revolutionary, outlandish recommendations. They seem to be recommendations that most other countries of the world already follow. Wherever possible and wherever feasible, why not give the benefit of the doubt to a Canadian company? Why not give the benefit of the doubt to a Canadian engineering firm as opposed to a firm from overseas or from south of the border?
We feel very strongly that Bill C-48 is a golden opportunity for Canada that we should take. We feel that it is now time like never before to send out a clear message to the Canadian small business sector through Bill C-48 that we would like to see them obtain the recognition and appreciation that they so dearly deserve.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a few words on the record concerning Bill C-48. I
would like to talk in particular about the motions we have placed on the Order Paper to correct this piece of legislation.
I would just like to point out why we are presenting these amendments. In fact, they call upon the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to stand by this government's goal to Canadianize the energy field. The minister has been given a great deal of discretionary power, probably too much. Clause 10 of this bill does nothing to ensure that the minister will act responsibly toward his goal of Canadianiza-tion. We are very concerned about his discretionary powers when we see some of the devastating effects the National Energy Program has had on the Canadian oil industry and when we look at some of the statistics on what has happened in Canada as a result of this particular program and this government's involvement in energy.
In one case we have the development by Imperial Oil Limited of the $12 billion Cold Lake heavy oil extraction plant in Alberta remaining suspended. Just imagine what a blow to the economy the stoppage of this $12 billion project is, the result of this government's energy policies.
I would like to comment further on these discretionary powers. Let me quote from a submission made to the committee dealing with Bill C-48. This was a presentation from Chevron Standard Limited which made one of the better presentations regarding ministerial discretion. It points out:
The second feature of the bill which is rather all pervading is the broad discretionary powers granted the minister. Although there are some discretionary provisions which grant the right to appeal, many others do not. Even those granting the right to appeal provide that the initial appeal is to the minister whose decision is the subject of the appeal-he is asked to be the judge in his own case.
That could be disastrous with the present minister of energy, particularly with the record of this government in the energy field. The brief goes on to state:
It would seem to be asking too much to expect the minister to reverse himself on appeal so that such appeal would not appear to be of much value other than as a first step to a further appeal to the Federal Court. There is, of course, no review of the minister's actions by Parliament or by the Cabinet.
That is another danger. The brief goes on to state:
We would like to deal with a few specific areas where we feel the discretionary power could adversely affect Chevron.
Section 44(1) provides that the minister may designate a discovery of oil or gas a "significant discovery" and under Section 45 order the drilling of up to three wells at a time in relation to the "significant discovery". The definition of "significant discovery" is so broad that the minister could in fact declare any discovery no matter how small to be a "significant discovery". The definition makes no reference to economics, so the minister does not have to concern himself with whether or not a discovery is an economic one that would permit him to issue a drilling order. Such discretion could be used to force the drilling of uneconomic wells, or to place a company in a position that its only alternative is to surrender the pertinent Canada lands.
The Chevron brief goes on to state:
Section 49 provides for the establishment of two 15 million dollar environmental funds, one for each of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. These funds are to be funded by holders of Canada lands not necessarily equally nor in any ratio or proportion but only " ... in the manner determined by the minister ...". Under
October 22, 1981

this section each minister has the right to determine the manner and amount of payment by each holder of Canada lands into the fund.
In addition, he has the right to determine which environmental studies he deems are necessary and the amount to be spent on each. As the funds are depleted below one-half, the minister assesses Canada lands holders for such amounts as he sees fit to raise the total to the original 15 million dollar limit. With such easy access to funds there will be nothing to inhibit indiscriminate use of these moneys to perform studies that could be highly questionable or which would otherwise be done routinely or of necessity by the government. Surely there should be some legislative restraint on the use of these funds for only legitimate studies required for the conduct of exploration or development of Canada lands. Surely also the holder contributing the funds should have some say in their expenditure.
Section 48(1) allows the minister to order an interest holder whom "in the minister's opinion" has the capability to commence production to .. commence producing oil or gas for use in a Canadian domestic market and deliver the oil or gas so produced at the times and places and in the quantities specified in the order, for sale to persons specified in the order, at prices specified in the order,. .." Once again there is no requirement that such production, delivery or sale would be economic or even technically feasible. Even though an appeal from this decision is allowed, one should not be put in a position of having to resort to the courts on these matters which are in effect the sum of the company's producing operations.
No wonder we are seeing oil companies' rigs leaving this country. In the latest edition of the "Energy" magazine we find an article under the heading "The sad, southward journey of Rig No. 8". This rig No. 8 belongs to the Blocker Drilling Company Canada Ltd. This rig consists of 1,150 tons of components and it will be placed aboard a fleet of 49 trucks for shipment south to Williston, North Dakota. Three cheers for Williston; I am sure it is going to be very pleased with the National Energy Program introduced in this country. North Dakota is not one of the wealthiest states, but we are certainly helping it out to a great degree by driving rig No. 8 down to Williston, North Dakota. The article points out that this is being done strictly because of the National Energy Program. It also states:
-only one of Blocker's 10 rigs will stay in Canada this year. Twelve members of rig No. 8's crew will move to Williston-
Mr. Blocker says he figures he is going to stay down in the United States also. This is why we are objecting to the giving of any more discretionary powers to this minister. He has been an absolute disaster to date with his energy program, and to give him more discretionary powers would be a great danger to Canada, especially in terms of Canada becoming self-sufficient.
The Chevron brief goes on to point out:
Without rules governing the exercise of such wide discretion there are no guidelines nor precedents to rely on and an uncertainty as to the possible exercise of discretion will exist. Day-to-day ad hoc decisions limit the ability of the company to plan its operations.
That is why rigs are leaving. There are further statistics about rigs leaving because of this minister's decision on energy, the National Energy Program and all the rest. In Alberta alone close to 150 drilling rigs have left the province and 30 per cent of the energy service sector is closing up shop with thousands of workers losing their jobs, just to name a few. That is why we are objecting to this minister having additional powers. The Chevron brief goes on to point out:
Canada Oil and Gas Act
With two ministers given the power to make decisions on identical matters even greater uncertainty is surely to be the result.
We feel that the granting of such broad powers to a minister is unwise-
That is an understatement, Mr. Speaker. The brief continues as follows:
-but are even more concerned with the minister's power to delegate these powers under Section 5(5) to anyone he sees fit regardless of qualification. If the minister were to be required to make all of the decisions which will be required of him under this bill, there might be less desire to have all of this discretion.
The wide unrestricted discretionary power to be vested in the minister, without statutory right to appeal in at least some instances, opens the door to ministerial arbitrariness and consequent abuse.
Although we do not suggest that the minister or his delegate would act in bad faith, that possibility exists. The discretion might be exercised to give political or familial advantage. It might be exercised frivolously, unfairly, in bad faith, out of spite, or as disciplinary action.
When a minister of the Crown can do that, it puts the industry in a bad position. The submission goes on:
All these bad faith uses are to be feared and we expect that Parliament will be vigilant to limit such possible abuses-
We are doing our job on this side of the House by opposing these abuses.
-especially in this case since Parliament, the general public and the person affected will not know about the abuse because the minister exercises his discretion in private. We suggest that Parliament set out in the bill guidelines on the exercise of the discretion and require the minister to report to Parliament regularly on this matter.
We fully support that. It is almost a dictatorship for a minister to have these kinds of powers.
I want to point out that the minister professes to have Canada's interests in mind. He should put them down on paper. This is exactly what Motion No. 9 would do. It would ensure that Canadians would profit from the spin-off benefits from the energy sector. This is exactly the same schedule used by the government in the Northern Pipeline Act. It is hard to believe the government would be so hypocritical as to say it would protect Canadian interests in one case but not in the other. Maybe this is not so hard to believe when you consider its enormous flip-flops on energy pricing, interest rates and the rest.
I would like to offer a few more examples of our concern about these discretionary powers. It has been estimated that the whole National Energy Program will result in a loss of over $3.5 billion in investment by the industry in 1981. We cannot be working toward energy self-sufficiency with that loss of investment. Each dollar spent in Canada by the industry creates another $1.70 in further economic activity. This means the National Energy Program will reduce Canadian economic output by $9.5 billion. This equals 3 per cent of the gross national product at a time in which it is doubtful that the gross national product will grow by more than 1.5 per cent this year.
Recent studies show that each job created in the industry results in almost three more jobs being created in the economy. It is difficult to measure the jobs lost or not created because of the National Energy Program. It is clear a long-term downturn

October 22, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
in industrial activity will have an impact on employment. This is already evident in the western provinces.
The Economic Council of Canada forecast a healthy and vigorous energy industry which would lead to 750,000 jobs in Canada during the 1980s. Loss of energy investment will result in almost 1 per cent higher unemployment and a 1 per cent loss per year in economic growth.
Earlier this year I read into the record a list of eastern Canadian firms which have been affected by the National Energy Program through loss of orders. I will go through the amounts in a moment. I also read the list of Alberta suppliers affected by the National Energy Program. How can the government possibly say this program is good for Canada? Rigs are leaving, money is leaving and there are cutbacks in investment. Dozens of firms are losing contracts. Eastern Canadian industries who are suppliers for most of the oil industry in Alberta are being devastated by cutbacks or cancellation of purchases. According to a survey in Alberta to which 41 companies responded, $1,470,000 in revenue was lost by eastern suppliers in the last quarter of 1980. The forecast cutbacks to eastern suppliers in 1981 will amount to approximately $20 million. In the same survey, loss of revenue to Alberta suppliers amounted to approximately $2,500,000 in 1980. In 1981, revenue losses are expected to be approximately $30 million. This is from a survey of only a small segment of the oil industry in Alberta. This is why we are so concerned about the energy minister having discretionary powers, or any power at all.
It is my hope the government will reconsider these discretionary powers. No minister of the Crown should have such dictatorial powers, especially the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with his record in the energy field. I hope the government will reconsider and support the motions placed on the Order Paper by the Conservative Party with regard to this legislation.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party I would like to wind up the debate on these particular motions which, as I have said before, is perhaps the third part of this bill. It is a lengthy bill, but if you divide it into four parts it is not that complicated. The first part concerns the effect of oil and gas development on the north and native northerners. A number of motions deal with that aspect.
The second part concerns the environment and there are a number of motions directed to that as well. We have dealt with both those areas.
Third, there is industrial strategy-or lack thereof-in the bill, the Canadian content provisions, industrial spin-offs, the area which my hon. friend from Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) thoroughly dealt with this afternoon. We are just winding up that part now.
Then we will turn to the fourth section of this bill which, in my classification, is the whole area of Canadianization, all the grants and the role of Petro-Canada in what I call the phony Canadianization. We will have a number of speakers addressing this part of the legislation to get our message to the country.
I call this bill a sleeper. I expect to hear some hecklers saying that I am putting them to sleep. The minister of energy is here and he is already asleep. The bill is a sleeper in the sense that the issues involved are the real issues in modern Canada today, issues such as native land claims, the environment in the south and the north, east and west coast exploration and development, industrial spin-offs, industrial strategy, relations with the Americans with respect to Canadianization and the role of Petro-Canada, public enterprise and private enterprise and the way we will develop the north, that vast storeland of materials of which Frank Scott, the poet, once said: "It is silently awaiting the struggle". He wrote that almost 30 years ago or perhaps earlier, and now the struggle has begun. That is why this bill is important.
Let me say something about an industrial strategy. In our motion we have chosen to set out what the industrial strategy should be. In other words, we have chosen to set out some specifics about getting some Canadian content. To use the words of the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), we have chosen to put some teeth into it so that Canadian business and in particular, as the hon. member said, small business-for which the hon. member is a real fighter in this House-can get some benefits.
The Conservatives have proposed some amendments. I will not go into the detail of those amendments. By and large they are vague and put in as a response to the thrust of our amendments in the committee.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is true. We were the ones who presented amendments to the committee. We held the committee up. We filibustered in the committee and we make no apologies for that. We did that to try to obtain benefits for Canadian business. Where were the Conservatives? Nowhere. They even co-operated with the Liberals in order to end the committee debate. Just look at the committee record; it is all there.
The Liberals are showing signs of backing off with respect to the Canadian content provisions. If we look at the original draft of this bill and the amendments brought in by the minister in the committee, we see that the minister was a little afraid of American pressure and, in fact, changed the provisions of the bill and made them more vague and more behind the scenes rather than up front. I will come to the reasons for that in a moment, but I suggest this is a mistake.


John Horton McDermid: He has never been up front in his life.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I want to deal with some of the amendments, first of all Motion No. 7. Motion No. 7 is a motion put down by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), formerly the Conservative energy critic but now the finance critic. We are opposed to that motion, mainly because of its reference to Clause 56 in the bill. Clause 56 refers to court
October 22, 1981

challenges of decisions made by the minister. We think that is unnecessary. We think it is just a delay mechanism. We think it is just inserted in the bill on direct instructions from the big boys in the oil industry, the friends of the Conservative party, who want that in there so that they can stop an active minister of energy from properly implementing this bill.
We do not object to the minister's having discretion. If we look at many of the Conservative amendments-and we will come to them later on-we find that they deal with trying to stop the minister's discretion. They try to tie it up. We do not object to the minister's having discretion. What we object to is that discretion being exercised behind closed doors. We object to discretion being exercised with input only from a few civil servants in Ottawa. Those people might be distinguished civil servants, but they have not had experience in the field or, if they have, it was some time ago. They are not out there as industry, labour and local people are. That is why we have introduced Motion No. 12.
If we look at Motion No. 12, we see that we propose an advisory body so that when information goes to the minister and he exercises his discretion, there would be a committee on Canadian content made up of representatives from labour, industry, the people of the north and the people affected. The committee would participate in making the regulations.
The minister has said to us that we do not need to do this, that we do not need to specify ail this Canadian content and all these requirements. He has said that we do not need to put teeth, as it were, into the bill because he can simply act by way of regulation or by way of a closed interdepartmental committee.


An hon. Member:: We have seen that before.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The problem is that we cannot trust that system. We are asked to trust. How are we to be sure that there is to be no back-off? This government is backing off from its energy policy bit by bit and piece by piece, and that will become obvious in the next few months.
Some people might want to read the speech of Peter M. Towe, the Canadian ambassador to the United States, given in New York on October 13, 1981. It was referred to by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) in a question the other day. It was a very important speech. I am going to quote from page 7 of that speech. The ambassador said this:
One especially unfair reaction to the measures we shall be taking to increase Canadian participation is the charge that the Canadian oil and gas industry is being nationalized. "Hijacked" said the Wall Street Journal in one of its more recent flights of editorial fancy. That is certainly not the case. What the Canadian government does intend is to mobilize predominantly private Canadian investment, from existing companies, pension plans, insurance funds and individuals, and to encourage their investment in the oil and gas industry.
I underline "private".
The government does intend to enlarge the presence of the national public sector in the oil and gas industry. Petro-Canada, for exemple, is playing and will continue to play a crucial catalytic role in high risk frontier development. But the public sector share of the industry will continue to be quite small, and the government is committed to vigorous competition in both the private and public sectors.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Then he went on in his speech at page 11 to say:
Some critics are concerned that the NEP's Canadian participation provisions might be the first step toward similar policies for other economic sectors. I can assure you that this is not so.
That is the end of the Liberal industrial strategy, the end of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) and the end of the whole progressive thrust of the government, all in response to the Americans and all because of fear. We have to say to our American friends that we are a good neighbour but that if they were in our place they would not permit an industry to be so foreign controlled as is our industry. They have a "buy American" program. We should have a "buy Canadian" program. What else do the Americans expect? That is not unreasonable. We have to say to them, "What kind of nation is it that conducts foreign policy by getting its best neighbour, Canada, mad?" That does not make any sense.
I do not think the government should back down as a result of any American pressure. The government appears to be doing so. That is why we put in Motion No. 12. We put in Motion No. 12 so that it would be set out that there would be a committee of local people, labour people and business people to advise the minister. They could help in the setting up of regulations and so forth.
The government has had some experience in this. Last summer there was a task force on megaprojects chaired, I think, by Shirley Carr of the Canadian Labour Congress and Bob Blair of NOVA Corporation. It can be done. There is precedent for it and it should be put in the bill.
With respect to Motion No. 11, again we propose a very practical amendment. The amendment would simply open up the bidding process for Canadians. I will not go into the details of Motion No. 11, but it states in part the following:
-open all contracts of a value of $50,000 or greater undertaken in carrying out the exploration agreement to public tender and submit, in reasonable numbers invitations to bid to Canadian suppliers;
Again as the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap said, let us put some teeth into it. But the minister will not accept these motions. It seems to me they are very reasonable and practical suggestions. The minister came into the House the other day and suggested that this bill took a long time in the committee and that there were many problems. I respectfully suggest to the minister that when he proceeds with his next bill, if he were more flexible and prepared to accept some practical amendments-he is not known for his flexibility-he would not have as many problems.
I can conclude my brief remarks by saying that what we want to do is put a "buy Canada" program into legislation, and this is the bill to do it. A previous speaker said that one of the banks placed a figure of $1 trillion on energy megaprojects, energy development on the east coast, on the west coast and in the north. This is very crucial legislation. We should not be asleep while this bill is going through.
12080

October 22, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Some member was referred to as a hewer of wood. What are we? Hewers of wood and drawers of water. Someone said passers of gas fourth class.


An hon. Member:: Spillers of oil.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Whatever we are, we are still a nation that is basically a colony. We were a French colony, became a British colony and now we are an American colony. We are not prepared to do for ourselves what we should have done a long time ago, and that is insist on a real industrial strategy. When talking about creating an industrial strategy, our ambassador to the United States said "I can assure you that this is not so". He said that we are not going to proceed to one. One can see that from Bill C-48.
I offer to the government, other parties and members very concrete, sensible, reasonable amendments which would allow us to have a "buy Canada" program in this bill. It will help small business and other Canadian business get some of the benefits in these great developments that are about to come in our country.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I find little pleasure in rising to participate in debate on a bill of this sort which, rather than spelling out Canadian development and planning for Canadian self-sufficiency, stagnates the opportunities which have presented themselves to Canada at this moment in our history. Stagnation of the future is not pleasant to discuss, not even for an opposition member let alone a government member.
There are some things being very seriously overlooked as this question is considered. We were called the friends of the oil industry by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). One becomes a reasonable friend of those who will develop our oil supplies and bring us Canadian self-sufficiency in our fuel requirements, and in turn make a major contribution to our own self-sufficiency in a fiscal, monetary way as well as in an energy way. This program before us, both the National Energy Program and this bill which invokes some very unacceptable parts of the program, is not a pleasant subject for anybody who is willing to go just a little further than the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has chosen to
go.
We are looking at a program which has put a constraint upon employment. It has done this virtually coast to coast in Canada. As an over-all policy, it has been an inhibitor of our development and economic expansion rather than a developer of the same. The evidence is there for anyone who reads the Financial Post, Financial Times, The Globe and Mail or any one of dozens of publications which have been very careful to analyse the structure.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: I doubt whether the hon. member has read any or he would not have made the interjection.
We are talking about megaprojects. Megaprojects which might have taken place in the oil industry have been stymied by the greed of the federal government, not by any wish for the development of Canada, because had there been a wish for Canadian development and oil self-sufficiency, there would have been stimulation instead of stagnation. There would have been stimulants instead of sedatives. That has been the characteristic of this structure which the government has put before us.
We have the imposition of ministerial control over the oil industry under this bill to a degree that will be very seriously detrimental to the industry as a whole. Who is going to take the risk of expending moneys of their own or their stockholders in the development of further supplies of oil or gas when they know that if they get a lease from the government, they will not be their own managers? They will instead find that the government, the minister, the bureaucracy, will be the managers, the dictators of the use of the land which they have opportunity to explore. There can be no confidence by any thinking businessman if he enters into a contract under this situation.
I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway that this is an opportunity for the minister to go behind closed doors and reward any friend of the Liberal party with a contract. This is a situation in which huge portions of the industry will never dare utter a word of criticism. Contributors to political campaigns of members on your left, Mr. Speaker, once this is publicized, will be stained in the opinion of the present minister, and there will be very little hope of their getting any concessions in this structure. There will be a friendly allocation of lands as a reward for loyalty and support from those companies and their executives.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway mentioned the figure of a trillion dollars. With respect to hon. members, I think that is beyond the comprehension of anyone in this House. Is there any plan by this government whereby a trillion dollars can be raised for the development of the oil industry within Canada? Does the minister expect the taxpayers of this nation to be prepared to accept a trillion dollars in costs to develop this? Let us take a look at what has happened in some of the other countries mentioned by speakers both on my left and on your right, Mr. Speaker. They suggested that the United Kingdom had gone a different course. Unfortunately, I do not have the clippings in my hand that would be necessary to substantiate the statements, but three statements have come out of the United Kingdom in the last two years, not all from the present U.K. Prime Minister.
A move was taken by the Labour party to sell part of the stock of British Petroleum. The United Kingdom owned different blocks of that stock over a period of years-I believe it was as high as 60 per cent and as low as 49 per cent-until the socialist government of that country decided it would be advantageous to the United Kingdom to sell some of its stock in British Petroleum.
The most significant thing about that company and the government ownership of it was that the government did not
October 22, 1981

interfere with management. British Petroleum was a corporation which could operate on its own designs and make its own plans for the future, even though voting stock control was held by the United Kingdom. Such has not been the case with Crown corporations in this nation, and we can never hope that such will be the case under a government like the one on your right, Mr. Speaker.
Let us go one step further. Not only did they sell shares in British Petroleum, but an announcement appeared in the press that they needed five million pounds for the proper ongoing development of the Crown corporation which was exploring, owning and trying to deliver oil to the United Kingdom from the North Sea. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom decided in his wisdom that there was no way that the taxpayer, the credit of the United Kingdom or any other source of funds could finance that work under a Crown corporation.
The result was that a group of experts, accumulated over a period of years, was going to be disintegrated, fired, because the taxpayer could not finance that national corporation. I ask those on my left to take note of this. Because the taxpayer was not considered capable of financing it, the Crown corporation planned to discard the regulatory, exploratory, developmental capability of the staff that it had accumulated.
That is the history of the great U.K. success in the oil industry. Let us carry this one step further. The government of the United Kingdom-and this takes in both the Conservative and the Labour parties-is finding it might well be desirable to liquidate its ownership of the Crown corporation and allow the private enterprise structure to go forward, who might be able, without burden to the British economy, to finance proper development of North Sea oil. That is the success that the United Kingdom government had, even when they kept hands off management, which this government has never done.
May I now call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 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 Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-Public Service-Cost of living differentials applicable to airport firemen; the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski)-Railways-Request for introduction of VIA Rail legislation; the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap)-
Water Pollution
The Economy-Request that Governor of Bank of Canada be instructed to lower interest rates.
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, notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Notices of Motions Nos. 22, 5, and 35 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.

Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena) moved:: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House before March 2, 1981, copies of all correspondence, telegrams or communications exchanged between Mr. John Aird and cabinet ministers and/or their past or present staff regarding the permit for Amax Limited at Alice Arm.
He said: As is usual, Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a motion for the tabling of papers that the government has failed to provide, information that should be generally available to the public, or at least to members of this House.
On January 21 of this year, I placed this motion on the Order Paper asking the government to respond by March 2, 1981. Three weeks after the deadline, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council replied in the House. The parliamentary secretary's reply is on the record and, in my view, is not adequate. I therefore asked that the motion be transferred for debate here today.
Let us take a look at the reasons, Mr. Speaker. First, the parliamentary secretary replied that the Departments of the Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, and Indian Affairs and Northern Development did not have any correspondence, etc., with the elusive Mr. Aird. However, and this is clear to all members of this House, my motion asked for the release of correspondence between any cabinet minister and/or their past or present staff.
The parliamentary secretary has produced a limited reply that avoids all other federal departments, ministers and their staff, past or present. Why was that specifically done, Mr. Speaker? I would like to address myself to that matter today.
I think it is clear that the parliamentary secretary should go back to his office, call or correspond with all the other departments that he has skipped over and ask them whether they have in their possession any correspondence with Mr. Aird regarding the permit for Amax Limited at Alice Arm. Until the parliamentary secretary does that, there will be an

October 22, 1981
Water Pollution
even darker cloud over the government's handling of this entire issue.
But that is not all. Let us take a quick look at some of the other motions for the production of papers that this government has so far refused to deal with. Motion No. 45, a motion to have "any reports that have been prepared for or by any department and any reports that have been forwarded to the government by Amax" is being dealt with, it seems, in the most unprofessional way that I have seen this government act. The reports I have asked for appear to be trickling into the government-that is about the best way to describe it-so until the rest of the reports "appear", I assume the government will continue to leave this motion on the Table.
Motions Nos. 62, 63 and 64 ask for copies of government documents that were released to the so-called scientific review panel that was recently held to look into the Amax situation. It is interesting to note that these letters and correspondence were forwarded to the panel for their general use, but have not been released to the public, nor to the independent scientists who have grave concerns about the implications of the dumping of tailings at Alice Arm. Once again, I think all members of this House and the general public have a right to ask why.
As with the present motion we are debating and with the ones I have listed above, I am prepared to debate them for the full time allowed under the rules of this House until such time as the government is prepared to release them.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, we have yet to hear from the government whether they intend to comply with Motions Nos. 62, 63 and 64 which I placed on the Order Paper in June. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) could endeavour to bring that forward to the House in the near future.
I first raised the Amax issue here in this House on July 8, 1980, and have been questioning the government about the sleazy way the cabinet passed the only special order in council of its kind to allow Amax of Canada to dump toxic mine wastes into Alice Arm in British Columbia.
Since then more and more information has come out to condemn the government's actions. Four out of five government scientists, for example, on an internal government committee, were so concerned about the deleterious effects this project would have on the environment that they voted against it. However, the government decided to allow the project to go ahead, despite the legitimate scientific concerns of their own public servants.
Even the recent review of the project identifies three heavy metals that will negatively affect, and perhaps permanently affect, the marine environment and the foods that grow there.
Church groups, trade unionists, native groups, environment groups and members of Parliament from both parties on this side of the House, I might say, have all spoken out on this issue. However, the government, afraid of losing face, still refuses to release the crucial documents on this matter.
I remain convinced that this is one of the most important environmental issues to come before us in recent times, not
only because of its significance, but because of the precedent the Liberal party has set in this matter. It is important because of the nature of the way the government allowed this development to take place.
Motion No. 43 is extremely important because of the involvement of the Liberal party, not just members of the Liberal cabinet but the party itself, in granting the dumping permit to Amax. Amax of Canada was handed the Alice Arm tailing deposit regulations on April 4, 1979. I think we all recall, Mr. Speaker, that it was almost dead centre in the middle of a federal election. There were no committees sitting; this House was not sitting; there was no opportunity for members of Parliament, the press, any member of the public or any special interest group to find out exactly what was going on and how it came to be.
This special permit, the only one of its kind in Canada in all of Canada's history, allows Amax to dump an average of 10,000 metric tons of slurry tailings per day for a period over 26 years into the environmentally sensitive Alice Arm inlet. In fact, the order in council was issued behind the closed doors of cabinet during the election just two years ago. Even the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) admitted that the notification to the people of the area could have been better.
What happens in the smoky back rooms of the Liberal party? This is a question I would like to address. And who participates in these gatherings is something I think all members on this side of the House would like to know more about.
The Parliamentary secretary's refusal to consult other departments, departments, I might say, that would be the most likely to have had correspondence with Mr. Aird, leads to some serious questions indeed. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Aird is the present Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario and has been a longtime Liberal and a member of the Amax board of directors. Wallace Clement, in his 1977 study "Continental Corporate Power", identifies Aird as part of "Canada's internationalized elite". His position as a Liberal senator and his participation on numerous corporations has led Clement to say that it "should be evident why Amax finds him a useful member of its board".
Amax is not a small, struggling corporation that needs Liberal, Tory or Socred handouts. The company has an international reputation as a plunderer of resources and an outfit that pays little or no attention to environmental concerns. That record is certainly clear to see for any member of the House who would care to go to the Parliamentary Library and look at the track record of Amax internationally on environmental matters.
Canada is not left untouched. On June 4, 1980, Mr. Aird was appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario. He was replaced on the Amax board by none other than the former president of the United States, Gerald Ford. Aird was also the chief national fund raiser, or perhaps as we in the House better know it these days, the bag person, for the Liberal party. He has held that position for some time for the national Liberal
October 22, 1981

party. It might be interesting to note that Premier Davis is hiring more Liberals these days than he knows.
Peter Newman in Volume 1 of "The Canadian Establishment" quoted Mr. Aird's views on making deals, as follows:
For instance, if you're in a town where there's a Royal Bank and you go and tell the manager you are a director of the Bank of Nova Scotia, you're going to be looked after.
We know who has been looked after in the Amax deal. Mr. Aird was also a member of the Permanent Joint Defence Board. Molybdenum, an important mineral used in the industrial arms race, is produced by the Amax mine at Alice Arm.
The CBC program "The Fifth Estate" did a feature story on the Amax situation on April 15, 1981. Their research showed that Mr. Aird's law firm represented Amax in Ottawa. I should like to quote directly from the transcript of that program as follows:
Mailing: Scandalous is a word that's frequently tossed around in this dispute, and so is the name of John Aird. The Lieutenent-Governor of Ontario had been one of the Liberal party's most important fund raisers. He was also a member of Amax's board of directors in the U.S. when the special dumping permit passed cabinet. Though his law Firm represented Amax in Ottawa, Aird denies any personal involvement.
What does this information tell us? The Liberal party, desperate for votes in its 1979 losing cause, approved a special dumping permit for Amax, the only one of its kind in Canada and one which vastly exceeds existing fisheries and oceans legislation, the Fisheries Act, and the metal mining liquid effluent regulations. We all know how industry has the government in its hip pocket. It does not take long to learn how these deals have been made between the companies and Liberal cabinet ministers.
The Amax issue will continue to hound the government until all the facts are clear. Along with other groups I have called for a full public inquiry into the situation, but I have been continually turned down by most members of cabinet. The scientific review panel which was set up by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans dealt only with some of the so-called scientific aspects of the project. Many independent scientists have challenged the findings. However, the issue is more than just a scientific one. There are important social and moral questions involved which have not been addressed in any way by the Liberal party.
Perhaps the most important social question is the entire approval process that Amax underwent. Canada does not have a legislative environmental assessment procedure, so that projects like Amax, which was challenged by the majority of the government's informed scientists-and I think this is a crucial point-can be quietly approved without public input. With an open and public assessment process the public would be assured that projects are mounted with proper studies and proper input.
Should the government have allowed this project to proceed? I encourage Liberal members to read The Global 2000 report, which reads as follows:
Water Pollution
The effect of heavy metal concentrations on the development of marine organisms is only beginning to be understood. They are among the most environmentally persistent substances. They cannot be transmuted or destroyed and, in concert with certain bacteria, have the insidious attribute of combining with organic substances to form highly toxic metallo-organic compounds.
I think this is the most important issue other than the tabling of the documents for which I am looking. I am referring to the way the permit was given out and its actual impact not only on Alice Arm and on the biological organisms there, but its actual impact on man, the native people of Kincolith, the Nishga people in that area, and on the commercial fisheries and species which are taken out of that area and their ultimate genetic and biological impact upon man.
I mentioned earlier that the review panel set up by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans identified three heavy metals that must be abated or there will be serious damage to the marine environment. A brief entitled "Some Moral and Ethical Considerations Relating to the Condition, Management and Utilization of Fisheries of the Pacific Coast of Canada" was presented to the Commission on Pacific Fisheries Policy by the Anglican Diocese of Caledonia, the Anglican Diocese of Yukon, and the Anglican Church of Canada. In it they said the following:
Mining, hydroelectric and forestry operations are bound to have a deleterious effect on fish populations. Yet it is the native people who inhabit the coastal watersheds, who will firstly and most directly be affected by such changes. It is the Nishga people who are most vulnerable to the Amax mine operation at Alice Arm even though they were ignored in the decision-making process which led to the issuing of the permits.
It is a crucial issue which is rarely addressed any longer in the House. The moral implication of the act, in my view, has serious ethical questions surrounding it. Surely the government will come to its senses, realize the damage it has caused and order a full public inquiry. Amax can operate safely but the fact of the matter is that it does not.
Before the debate is over today the people of Canada would like at least a commitment from the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council that he will survey the other offices to see if they have had any correspondence, etc., with Mr. Aird on this matter. Until that is done I do not consider this matter closed. It will not go undebated. I am hopeful other speakers will rise in the House to address themselves to the very serious issues which are held within this motion and the reasons it is being debated today.
At the beginning of my speech I said I would continue to question the government's motives on this project until I received some answers. There are additional motions for the production of papers which I will also continue to pursue on the Amax issue. Amax at Alice Arm, British Columbia, has become a watershed in Canadian environmental issues. Future projects like it will be put under the same scrutiny which Amax has undergone. As soon as the Liberal government realizes this, the better off we will all be, certainly our children.
I trust that in bringing this matter in this way before the House the government side will demonstrate the strength of Parliament, the intent to pursue freedom of information in the

October 22, 1981
Water Pollution
real way and in the spirit of the Canadian way, and put before us the documents which in fact exist.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Ordinarily I would recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Tobin), but I understand he has allowed his place to stand in favour of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro).


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on the other side of the House for ceding their place in my favour because of a prior commitment which I have at six o'clock.
I do not share the political biases expressed so vividly by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). At the same time I rise to support the request he made in this motion for the production of papers connected with the permit. Indeed, I would have preferred seeing this request broadened to include all papers related to the issuance of the permit.
There has been a controversy over the permit issued to Amax for a long time, at least two years to my knowledge. We know influence peddling when we see it. We saw it recently in the designation of certain executive assistants and the special privileges allotted to them, but there is more in this matter than just influence peddling. There is the entire matter of the environmental concerns surrounding this operation. It is time we had all the papers before us to settle once and for all the argument which has gone on altogether too long.
In a matter of this sort we should return to the fundamentals. Any human disturbance of the environment or the status quo in the physical world cannot fail to have consequences of one sort or another. Even the employment of horses to draw vehicles in public streets had environmental consequences which involved social and economic costs to repair. Our parents were prepared to pay those costs. The problem which must be solved, both in general and in particular, whenever a matter of environmental disturbance comes before us is whether the economic and social costs are too heavy to bear, taking into account the social, economic and, in this particular instance, the military consequences of failing to proceed with the development or to proceed with it in a more costly way. This is a difficult formula to work out but I submit it is one under which we will either have development or will not have development.
Let us consider the problem of acid rain. The cost of proceeding as we are now will be high. We may not even be able to calculate that cost at present. Just because that cost will fall upon the generation that is to follow is no reason that we should ignore it today. Certainly the cost of preventing acid rain will be high. We must ask ourselves whether we are prepared to bear that cost today and in the future so that we may leave to the generation that follows an environment of which we can be relatively proud. That consideration of whether we should defer costs to the next generation or face them today must enter into a formula of this kind. We would like to
bequeath to our children both clean environmental standards-and this matter was raised by the hon. member for Skeena-and a morality that looks beyond our pocketbook.
I favour production of these papers because we cannot possibly work toward that formula until we have all the facts before us-not just the possibility of influence peddling but also the scientific facts and the social impacts that will be felt. One way to achieve that is through a public inquiry. The hon. member for Skeena pointed out that the permit was issued in the midst of an election. There was no public inquiry.
There is no question that costs are involved and Amax may be able to meet those costs. On the other hand, they may be so high that Amax may have to look for its molybdenum elsewhere.
I deplore any suggestion that Amax is being picked on just because it happens to have an operation in Namibia. Some of the attacks on Amax imply that. Amax has a permit and has been a responsible operator. In May of this year when there was a break in the tailings line, the company stopped operations. That indicates it has operated within the limits of its permit. If the permit was wrongfully issued or if there was no other way of removing the tailings, those matters should be examined.
There is a good deal of evidence on my file that it would be much more expensive and have much longer term consequences if those tailings were deposited on land and allowed to leach into Alice Arm than is the case at present when they are being taken down well below the surface and allowed to settle in an area which actually forms a pocket at the bottom of Alice Arm.
When considering the effect of depositing those tailings in the marine environment, I think we should also take into account the fact that many years ago there was an operation at the Kitsu mine and the tailings went into Alice Arm. It is true that at that time we did not have the same notion of the environment that we have today, so to that extent there has been progress. There was not full recognition of the environmental impacts before that permit was issued. I have evidence on my file from the Department of the Environment which indicates that the measures taken into account at the time of the issuance of that permit were all that needed to be taken into account-the toxicity, the amount of clouding or whatever the terminology is, of the tailings and the fineness of the grind were all up to the standards set by the Department of the Environment.
We also know of the objections raised by the Nishga council. I have been led to understand that they were offered employment opportunities at the mine-again, a demonstration of responsible corporate citizenship-but I understand that those offers were put aside, if not rejected. There seems to be some indication that another form of recompense was sought by the Nishga. These facts ought to come out so that we can judge whether the permit was properly issued in the first place.
October 22, 1981

The controversy that surrounded the Amax operation eventually resulted in the creation of a commission appointed by the government to examine the scientific evidence related to the deposit of the tailings in Alice Arm. Dr. Mclnerney of the University of British Columbia was appointed to chair the commission. I believe the report, with recommendations, has already been presented to the government.
I regret that when the appointment of the commission was announced, the Nishga refused to testify. They have legitimate concerns and I think they ought to have brought them before the inquiry. These concerns are now being conveyed to us by the local representative and this is legitimate, but still, I think it would have been better if they had appeared before the public inquiry to answer questions put by the commissioners, who could have determined to what extent the complaints were valid.
I endorse the action taken by the hon. member for Skeena in requesting these papers, although I would have liked to see the request cover more than just those aimed at the so-called, rightly or wrongly, influence peddling involved in obtaining the permit in the first place. In addition, I would like to have before us the environmental, social and economic factors that went into the decision to issue the permit to Amax in the first place.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the Government of Canada, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) and his department are always very much concerned that the environmental standards set by that department, the Department of the Environment and, indeed, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern! Development, are adhered to. We respect the wish of any group, any individual or any member of this House to raise questions in order to ensure all regulations are being followed from an environmental point of view. That is the crux of the issue today.
On the other hand, the question before us today is not one of environmental regulations being met or not being met or whether all safeguards have been imposed that should be; instead, we have heard the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) put forward a carefully orchestrated series of insinuations. I personally believe that hon. members should keep in mind that they enjoy the protection of this House and should not abuse it.
I want to point out that through his insinuations the hon. member for Skeena has called into question the integrity of the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario. Standing Order 35 reads:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of His Excellency or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof. No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
The first sentence is the relevant point here. I notice that the Chair did not rule or call the member to order today, but I
Water Pollution
would like to reserve my right, to raise a question of privilege after examining the blues. I say to my colleague opposite who spoke on behalf of the Conservative party that I respect the intelligent and rational way he approached this issue. I reserve the right to raise a question of privilege later concerning the comments made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) in so far as they reflected upon the integrity of the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.
My first reaction to the motion for debate presented by the hon. member for Skeena was one of astonishment that he would choose to waste the time of this House on an issue that has been already adequately answered, explained and, I thought, laid to rest some time ago.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am somewhat concerned because, in the first instance, I had some difficulties while the hon. member for Skeena was speaking and I have been taking some time to consider his remarks and to review the authorities on the subject. That ought not to be interpreted as leaning in either direction with regard to what the hon. parliamentary secretary has now referred to as a possible question of privilege.
Second, I am concerned that the hon. member for Skeena is not present at a time when the parliamentary secretary has indicated that there may be a question of privilege involved.
Finally, I am concerned that in the normal course of events, questions of privilege are usually raised as quickly as possible when the occasion arises.
I think the Chair has a duty to all members. There is some concern about the remarks, but again I underline the fact that I am not predisposing myself or any other occupant of the chair to make a judgment in that regard. It is sufficient, in my view, that the parliamentary secretary has noted the matter. He will realize, and he does realize I am sure, that if he is going to raise such a matter, he will want to proceed in the ordinary fashion and not at a later indefinite, date, and that after giving the matter some thought, he will proceed as he wishes. I think we should close the matter off, but that does not mean it is not open for debate. I will, however, take it as notice that a possible question of privilege has been raised, and the parliamentary secretary will proceed as he sees fit.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I began to make my point regarding a possible question of privilege and what I believe to be the calling into question of the integrity of the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, I was somewhat disappointed to see the hon. member for Skeena scurrying behind the curtains and out through the door. That in itself is disappointing, but what is doubly disappointing-and I have to turn away from my text once again-is that as the hon. member spoke, I asked myself what is being accomplished here today. Are we hearing from the hon. member the honest heartfelt concern of a member for a certain group of people in the province of British Columbia, namely, the Nishgas?


Mr. Manly:: Absolutely.

October 22, 1981
Water Pollution


Brian Vincent Tobin: Or are we having the convoluted kind of argument which led to a series of insinuations? I am afraid that my opinion of the gentleman who has left the Chamber as soon as I stood in my place to answer his questions now leans toward the latter argument, that indeed his remarks were nothing more than an attempt to score political points. I am sorry to have to disappoint him.
Let me then state categorically, and as clearly as I can, that the Amax decision was reached by means of the normal regulatory process and after a very careful review of the data which indicated that the method proposed for disposing of the tailings into the inlet would not jeopardize the fisheries resource. The suggestion that some political pressure was brought to bear to influence the decision is completely without foundation. The decision was reached purely and simply on the basis of the scientific facts which were on hand at that time.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has stated on more than one occasion that he was quite satisfied that a sound decision had been reached and that there was no valid reason to delay the start-up of production at the Amax mine, with its accompanying employment and economic benefits for British Columbia and Canada as a whole.
It would be useful, I believe, if I were to re-emphasize the factors which were taken into account in approving the Alice Arm tailings deposit regulations. This was not a decision that was taken flippantly or in great haste, but one that was made only after a detailed technical examination of data on various tailings disposal alternatives available to us carried out by staff of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment.
By way of an example of the thoroughness with which this task was carried out, I might mention that more than 40 technical reports on the biology and oceanography of Alice Arm were reviewed to assess the immediate and long-term risks associated with maintenance of a conventional on-land tailings impoundment, as compared with the existing underwater disposal system. Following this extensive study, the conclusion drawn was that a properly designed marine tailings disposal system would not adversely affect the fisheries resource and, on balance, would be preferable in this particular case to a containment pond on land.
The minister, in making his decision, based his approval of the tailings deposit regulations on the following factors. The first factor was the conclusion that Pacific salmon and other important fishery resources would not be adversely affected. The second was that tailings deposited from the mine would not extend outside of Alice Arm. The third was that the tailings would keep to the bottom of Alice Arm at a minimum depth of 100 metres. The fourth factor was that the alternative method of tailings storage, that is, on-land impoundment, would represent a threat in perpetuity to salmon resources entering Alice Arm. This conclusion was arrived at in view of the high rainfall and the steep topography of the area, which meant, in effect, that the permanent stability of an on-land storage basin could not be assured. I feel this is a very important point and one which has been frequently overlooked
by those critical of the underwater disposal system. I note a point made by an hon. member from the Conservative Party who spoke a few moments ago.
Having satisfied himself as to the technical aspects of this disposal system, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) has freely admitted that there still remained a nagging thought that perhaps the experts might have miscalculated or slipped up somewhere along the line. It was for that reason that he was not unsympathetic, nor unresponsive, to the concerns expressed by the Nishga Tribal Council on behalf of the native people who live in the vicinity of Alice Arm that some damage might be caused to the fishery resource as a result of the mining operation.
Because of this, and to make doubly sure that we were doing the right thing, the minister asked for the establishment of a review panel of independent and highly respected scientists to go over all the data and reports on which the decision was based and to publicly report their findings. He opted for a scientific review panel, rather than a public inquiry which was advocated by the Nishga Indians, because the evidence on which the panel would have to base its findings was almost exclusively scientific or, at best, very technical. However, it was made very clear to the Nishgas, and to any other groups or individuals interested in the issue, that the panel would be prepared to meet with them and hear their views or evidence, and that all reports of the panel would be readily available to the public.
The minister, and most others involved in this matter, were disappointed that the Nishgas, for reasons best known to themselves, decided to boycott the review panel. In view of the concerns they had raised and their repeated demands for a public inquiry, it was somewhat difficult to understand their position. However, that was their decision, and a decision we can only choose to respect.
At the same time, it is somewhat ironic that the conclusions of the review panel are now being questioned by the Nishgas and others because of the lack of any Nishga participation in the public hearing although they themselves had every opportunity, and in fact were invited, to participate but chose not to do so.
In the recruitment of members of the review panel, considerable care was taken to ensure that competent and independent scientists were appointed. Its chairman was Dr. J. E. Mclner-ney, who is chairman of the department of biology at the University of Victoria and a specialist in the physiology and behaviour of fish. The other two members were Dr. R. W. Burling, professor of oceanography at the department of oceanography, University of British Columbia, and Dr. W. K. Oldham, a member of the faculty of civil engineering at the University of B.C.
I should say, as I mention these three highly prestigious and respected scientists, all from the University of British Columbia, that I think the hon. member for Skeena almost called their competence into doubt today. I am somewhat
October 22, 1981

surprised that a member from the great province of British Columbia would give any hint at all of doubt about the integrity and competence of these three distinguished British Columbians. It is worth while repeating what the panel's terms of reference were. They were as follows:
1.	To examine and advise on the adequacy of the Alice Arm Tailings Deposit Regulations for protecting economically important fisheries resources and Indian food fisheries of Alice Arm and environs.
2.	To examine and advise on whether planned tailings deposit practices are likely to meet the terms and conditions of the regulations.
3.	To assess the planned monitoring program to determine whether it will be adequate to detect violations of the terms of the regulations or impacts upon fish and fish habitat, and to recommend necessary improvements.
4.	To consult with interested agencies and parties knowledgeable about the issue.
5.	To examine and recommend any alternative tailings disposal methods which could significantly reduce or preclude hazards to the fisheries resources.
6.	To recommend further courses of action in the future which in the opinion of the panel, may be necessary to address the issue.
7.	To prepare two reports: as soon as possible an interim report recommending any action deemed important for protecting the public interest, and a final report by July 1, 1981.
The scientific review panel went about its work with great dedication and diligence and, starting around the end of March, 1981, consulted with knowledgeable people in various parts of British Columbia, and held open public meetings at Prince Rupert and Vancouver. In between meetings, they studied an immense amount of correspondence and reports which had a bearing on this unquestionably important subject.
In the early part of May, the scientific review panel produced its interim report which commenced with the statement, which I will quote because it is most significant today. It reads:
It is the panel's considered opinion that, in the short :term, the public interest will not be jeopardized by the continued discharge of Amax mine tailings to Alice Arm. Accordingly, no major restrictive actions are deemed necessary at this time.
That was the interim report on this matter. The panel's final report was issued on July 24 and consisted of a document of some 154 pages, in itself a somewhat remarkable feat considering the fact that the three scientists involved started their task only four months previously.
The summary findings of the revew panel have already been given considerable publicity, but I feel it would be appropriate if I repeated them to the House at this time. These were the panel's conclusions, and I quote directly from the report which it presented:
(a)	With the possible exceptions of cadmium, lead and zinc in the solid form, no deleterious effects are expected to result from the daily deposit of 12,000 metric tons of Amax/ Kitsault tailings into Alice Arm, in accordance with the Alice Arm Tailings Deposit Regulations.
(b)	The following substances, in both solid and dissolved forms, all occur in concentrations which are the same or less than local background conditions: arsenic, copper, iron, mercury, manganese, nickel, uranium-235 and its daughter products, radium-226, thorium-230 and lead-210. Moreover their dissolved concentrations in the tailings all meet or are less than Canadian surface and drinking water guidelines and objectives except manganese, which slightly exceeds an aesthetic drinking water guideline.
(c)	In the dissolved form, cadmium, lead and zinc all occur at concentrations in the tailings equal to or less than local freshwater background conditions, and all
Water Pollution
three meet or are less than Canadian surface and drinking water guidelines and objectives.
I would emphasize the word "less", Mr. Speaker. The findings continue as follows:
(e) A "cloud" of fine tailings containing approximately 4 per cent of the total daily solids from the Amax/Kitsault discharge is not expected to result in increased loads of dissolved substances in the Alice Arm water column.
I could go on and on. I make the point that the speech we have heard today from the hon. member for Skeena is not relevant to the environmental question. What we have heard, if anything, is an attack on the integrity of the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and, I submit, an attack on the integrity and the competence of the three noted scientists of the University of British Columbia who carried out the study and made this report.


An hon. Member:: Read the papers.


Brian Vincent Tobin: What papers? You make a charge and I say to any hon. member who makes a charge in this House, "Back it up," and I use this expression not in any emotional sense, "Put up, or shut up."
In response to the specific term of reference to examine and recommend any alternative tailings disposal methods which would significantly reduce or preclude hazards to the fishery resource, the panel concluded that the marine disposal method was environmentally preferable to any sort of land disposal scheme that is technically feasible. This confirmed the earlier conclusion arrived at by departmental experts with regard to the land storage alternative.
The panel recommended a number of actions and that further studies be undertaken, the most significant of which are as follows:
1.	The tailings outfall pipe be extended to a depth of 100 metres to ensure regular compliance with the regulations.
2.	Research on methods to reduce cadmium, lead and zinc in the tailings should be accelerated. Implementation of an abatement program for these substances is recommended as being highly desirable.
3.	A variety of research projects are recommended to provide an improved understanding of oceanographic processes in Alice Arm and biological effects of mine tailings.
4.	In future, approval of special regulations should be contingent upon the preparation of an adequate environmental impact statement, and an opportunity for public scrutiny and input should be provided.
I take great pleasure in telling you that on these specific recommendations the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has already held discussions in British Columbia and subsequently has been in touch by letter with the president at Alice Arm to ensure that the intent of these recommendations is being carried out.
In summary, I would simply say again that I have done my homework, not having been privy to an examination of the scientific data and facts concerning the environmental question at Alice Arm, but I was disappointed to hear an unsubstantiated series of insinuations designed more to score political points because I expect more of the hon. members. This was done on the backs of the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, of the

October 22, 1981
Water Pollution
scientists from the University of British Columbia and, saddest of all, obviously on the backs of the Nishga Indians.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise very briefly on a point of order. I took care not to interrupt the hon. member while he was speaking, but I noted that he made some mention of the fact that I was not in the House. I would just like to inform the House that I was called out for a few moments. I am back and I want to say, in view of the hon. member's remarks, that I had hoped he would take the time to read the motion we are debating. We are debating the tabling of papers, not the environmental question.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to read the motion into the record again, as follows:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House before March 2, 1981, copies of all correspondence, telegrams or communications exchanged between Mr. John Aird and Cabinet ministers and/or their past or present staff regarding the permit for Amax Limited at Alice Arm.
All that the government needs to do, Mr. Speaker, is to agree to that and release the papers. Then people can judge for themselves. Does the government agree to tabling this? Does the government agree to table all correspondence that has taken place? We would like to know that. The people would like to know that because serious questions have been raised.


Some hon. Members:: No!


An hon. Member:: Why?


James Douglas Manly: The parliamentary secretary has said that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) was involved in a carefully orchestrated series of insinuations. He questioned his motives. I would like to point out to the parliamentary secretary, and to all hon. members opposite, that if they wish to question the motives of the hon. member for Skeena, they will also be questioning the motives of the Nishga people, of all Indian people on the northwest coast, of church groups and unions, all of whom are vitally concerned in getting this basic information so that they may know what has happened in the past.
The parliamentary secretary said that the hon. member for Skeena reflected on the integrity of the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. I do not wish to comment on that, but I simply want to reiterate the facts that up until September 12, 1980, the present Lieutenant Governor was on the board of Amax. On September 15, 1980, he became Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. I would like to ask why it was that he resigned.
I would like to read into the record some material from the Canadian Parliamentary Guide relating to the Hon. John Black Aird and the corporate directorships which he still holds.


An hon. Member:: Is that criminal?


James Douglas Manly: He is listed on page 783 of the Parliamentary Guide for 1980 as holding the following:
General Counsel and Director: Reed Shaw Osier Limited. Deputy Chairman of Board and Director; Algoma Central Railway. Vice-President and Director; Pacific Atlantic Canadian Investment Co. Ltd. Director; American Climax Incorporated. Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Tungsten Mining Corporation Ltd. Consolidated-Bathurst Ltd., Dominion Glass Co. Ltd., National Life Assurance Company of Canada, Rolland Paper Co. Ltd.
That is a fairly impressive list, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: What is the matter with that? What is your point?


James Douglas Manly: The point is that up until September 12, 1980, John Aird was a member of the Board of Directors of Amax, and he thought it was necessary to divest himself of that directorship before he assumed the lieutenant governorship of Ontario.


An hon. Member:: We all do.


James Douglas Manly: I would like to stress the importance of having these papers released. I remind hon. members-


An hon. Member:: What papers?


An hon. Member:: What does that mean?


James Douglas Manly: -of the papers that are mentioned in the order. I remind hon. members that this permit for dumping of effluent was given in the middle of the 1979 election. The Indian people were not aware of what was involved-


Some hon. Members:: Come on!


James Douglas Manly: Hon. members opposite can laugh, but we all remember that during the late 1960s and early 1970s people were very concerned about mercury pollution in the English and Wabagoon River system. People were not aware of what the effect of mercury pollution was until a decade ago. Now we are aware of some of the dangers of this kind of dumping, yet we are continuing to do it.
The people in the English and Wabagoon River area are having extreme difficulty getting some kind of compensation. At Alice Arm, the Nishga people do not want to be involved in long litigation to get compensation for past wrongs. They want to prevent damage to their environment right now.


An hon. Member:: That is fair enough.


James Douglas Manly: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) feels that Amax has been a responsible corporate citizen. He suggests that it is wrong for us to mention their operation in Namibia, a country wrongfully held by the government of South Africa. The United Nations has condemned South Africa for this. I suggest to the hon. member that this is all part of a pattern of rip-offs by that company.
If members opposite believe there is no foundation to the suggestion of political pressure brought to bear in the issuance of permits, let them accede to this request and have any correspondence or telegrams between John Aird and cabinet
October 22, 1981

ministers or their staffs released to the public so that everyone may know what has taken place. Why not release the background papers relating to the issuance of these permits? Let us clear up any doubt that exists, and let the people know.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I say to my good friend from Skeena (Mr. Fulton) that this is the old one-two punch from the Newfoundland end of the country.
I share the view of my hon. friend from Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) who is Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc). I cannot see what the issue is, frankly. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has given a full explanation in this House of the manner in which Amax was permitted to dispose of its tailings. There was a detailed examination of the environmental impact undertaken by the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The House knows there was a special review of all the data on which the decision was based. This was done by an independent panel of competent scientists from outside the government. The result of that inquiry showed there would be no significant negative impact on the fishery in Alice Arm.
These are the facts and even the member for Skeena has not disputed them. They are on public record. I ask, as did my hon. friend from Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe; what papers does the hon. member want? He has the results of the independent panel, and there is all kinds of documentation on this issue. The message is always the same. If there had been something in the scientific findings that hinted at skullduggery or wrongdoing, I would be inclined to think he might be on to something. But he is just on a wild goose chase. What does the hon. member for Skeena want? He has the categorical statement of the minister that the Amax decision was reached through the normal regulatory process. Even a cursory glance at the record should tell him that the approval was straightforward, proper and not different from many other decisions made in this context.
I submit that the hon. member for Skeena does not particularly want to look at the record. He does not want to be baffled by the facts. He has got himself a lot of ink out of this one, you must remember. Like any politician, he is reluctant to let a good thing go.


An hon. Member:: A headline hunter.


Roger Simmons: What is most contemptible, Mr. Speaker, is that he is prepared to waste the time of the House on this issue, which he has done for many hours in this session and in the last session. He has unnecessarily raised the fears of the people who are most directly involved, despite all the facts to the contrary. Since he is the member for that region, he should be providing some sort of leadership in getting to the bottom of this issue. But what does he do? He shunts the record aside. He asks that the realities be ignored, and presses on to get a
Canada Oil and Gas Act
few more headlines. That might be very good short-term politics, but it is not terribly responsible.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has noted an editorial in the Vancouver Province which described the Amax situation as a storm in a teacup. After listening to the rhetoric of the hon. member for Skeena and then looking at the report of the review panel, the Province said, and I quote directly from the editorial: "We now learn that the Amax tailings are less poisonous than our tap water".
I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: With great hope I ask the hon. member that he not move the adjournment of the debate. We are not at that stage. We are simply at six o'clock, and if the hon. member will allow the Chair not to consider that suggestion, we will adjourn until eight o'clock.
The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[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. 7, 8, 9 (Mr. Andre for Mr. Wilson) and Motions Nos. 10, 11, 12 (Mr. Skelly) and Motions Nos. 13, 15 (Mr. Andre for Mr. Wilson) and Motions Nos. 16 and 41 (Mr. Skelly).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When the debate was interrupted at five o'clock this afternoon, the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) had the floor.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, earlier I mentioned the steps which had been taken by the government of the United Kingdom when it found itself facing rather large expenditures in the field of energy. Let me read a short excerpt from Keesing's "Contemporary Archives". It reads: "Together with unspecified fiscal adjustments to be made later, certain increases in direct taxation and the sale of

October 22, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
part of the public holding in British Petroleum, but partly offset by additional expenditures to help employment and investment, these further measures are estimated to enable the public sector borrowing requirement to be cut by two billion pounds."
I read that because the public sector has a place in the United Kingdom, even under socialism. Second, the Canadian people should have an understanding of the amount of public money which will have to be collected, either from the sale of bonds, at whatever price the market will extend to this country, or from taxation.
I would like to see this country proceed with this bill and this policy with its eyes open and with an understanding of how that trillion dollars is going to be raised. Can the public treasury support that kind of expenditure? It will have to on the route we are taking.
This government has been guided more by jealousy than by practical economics. Its jealousy, coupled with philosophy, has led it to decide that those provinces which have it shall have it taken away; the control, the revenue, the whole ball of wax is going to be appropriated by the national energy policy and by this legislation. However, the taxpayer is going to have to pay.
The question that must be asked in this mixup, this maelstrom of policy, is why the minister, the government and the backbenchers support the idea of behind doors dealing. If there are assets in the Canada lands, why are they not going to be auctioned off instead of dealt out as favours?
This is no laughing matter, no sneering matter. There is not a nation in the world with assets which deals them out without a public auction. Even worse, when we go behind closed doors, there is no obligation on the minister to reveal to the public at large what has been given to whom and how it is being managed. There is no secrecy requirement in the auction of lands with potential in the energy field.
This is merely a way to set back development, coupled with the almighty power vested in the judgment of the minister or his designated civil servant. If you are not frightened by any other regulation or civil service dealing with the public, just stop and think. In the income tax field, the fishermen, farmers and foresters today are being charged and challenged to prove that they are innocent. Are we going to find ourselves in a comparable situation to this?
I fear for this country. It discourages an aggressive individualist approach to the development of all things which are the best for Canada. In all other jurisdictions, whether it be Australia, the United States, Indonesia or some country more socialist than that, there is encouragement for foreign capital to come in on a contractual basis, knowing precisely where they stand, what their future may be, what their reasons are, and what their tax burden will be.
We do not extend that to our Canadian exporters or to multinational exporters. We constrain them to the point where Canadian companies are the ones pouring their money into Indonesia, Australia, the United States or any other area which promises a firm and fixed structure, something we lack.
There have been three about faces since 1976. This government has made contracts, rules, regulations and laws which, directed by their jealousy and greed, they have now cancelled. Nobody knows from one year to the next where he will be. Nobody has any way of knowing where he will be tomorrow, let alone a week from now after this act is proclaimed, because it will be in the hands of a greedy, shortsighted minister with respect to the values that this great resource could give to this land.
There is another sphere of Canadian activity where fear is experienced. It would be ridiculous for an executive of an oil company to attack this government and then expect to get a contract from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), or the administrator of the Canada lands regulations and licensing. We have extended that part of our life in which fear is the dominant factor. It is a gag on the expression of public opinion by an individual involved in the efforts of this land.
We have carried it to the point where we have alienated our friends. We need friends. However, we have alienated them by regulations which have prevented our development of hydroelectric capabilities because we have not chosen to extend export permits for the short-term relief of the United States and the long-term economic gain of Canada. That has been denied because of jealousy and greed by this government. Provinces and corporations have been denied the right to export energy which might be generated from nuclear fuel. With what result? The economic energy group of Canada is virtually bankrupt. We will probably be writing off more of their bills sometime within the next two years. This would have been absolutely unnecessary, had we not been blinded by greed and jealousy. It would have done another thing for us; it would have done a great deal to improve our balance and to strengthen the weak Canadian dollar which is at present contributing to inflation. This has been done by blundering, jealous or greedy individuals.
What industrial strategy do we have? This bill cannot be considered, or any part of it, without a projection of how the people of Canada will generate a trillion dollars in 20 years. What is the government going to do to encourage the cash flow which would make it happen? Are we, in fact, going to strangle our own development? Should we be so greedy as not to accept foreign investment? Or, even worse, discourage Canadian investment in our own resources? These are tragic and suicidal approaches to the long term and best interests of Canada. I say to every member of the government, we need a long-term plan for a trillion dollars. If this energy package is going to generate that kind of money, then this is what we should have. But let us see it in black and white.
This government does not have a five-year energy policy because it has changed its tune several times in that five-year period. I am one who is concerned and interested in Canadian ownership of our energy structure, as is any hon. member. I believe I am more realistic than those in government who say
October 22, 1981

that all we have to do is to tax the stuff and the Canadian people will pay for it, or that all we have to do is to borrow the money, from God knows where, in the quantities we require, or that all we have to do is to put together a package whereby the free enterprise system, coupled with the state-I am not saying that we should abandon it-has a chance to play its part, and Canada has a chance to enjoy its riches.
Are you going to be jealous of Newfoundland? Obviously, you are, because you have impaired development of Hibernia by changing the regulations or refusing to give in. Are you going to be jealous of Nova Scotia with its offshore oil and gas? Is that what you are jealous of? Are you jealous of Saskatchewan? Are you jealous of Alberta?
This is not the way to build a harmonious nation; it is a way to divide it. This is not the way to develop a nation; it is a way to divide it. Let us give this nation some hope, some incentive. Let us scrub the stupid regulation structure which is extended to the minister and to his bureaucrats.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The principal purpose of Bill C-48 is to ensure that Canadians have the right to decide their energy future. The vast oil and gas potential of the Canada lands, when coupled with provincial resources, will ensure that Canadians have the opportunity to achieve oil self-sufficiency by 1990. The legislation before the House helps to give Canadians the mechanism to achieve both a greater degree of participation and energy security.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roy MacLaren: Linder the British North America Act, Mr. Speaker, the federal government was given jurisdiction over those immense areas now called the Canada lands, with their tremendous energy resources beneath. Those resources we intend should benefit all Canadians. That potential will, however, only be realized by recognizing that the government has the responsibility to accelerate exploration in the Canada lands. This will be done, as earlier speakers on this side of the House have said, with the greatest regard for the needs and requirements of the people of the regions and the fragile environment of the north and of the offshore. The Canadiani-zation of the petroleum industry, a subject which has been touched upon a number of times during our discussion of the motions now before the House, ensures that the benefits derived from our abundant energy resources will stay here in Canada where they belong. The government of Alberta, in its recent agreement with the national government, and more recently the government of British Columbia, has endorsed Canadianization. In the case of the government of Alberta, it has undertaken itself to pay for the incentives to ensure that petroleum development goes forward, and at the same time, that Canadianization is promoted. Not to be excluded is the Ontario government, which we have seen recently take a one quarter share in Suncor.
Beyond the government's initiatives, there is now a whole panoply of private sector initiatives. It is difficult to open a
Canada Oil and Gas Act
newspaper without noting yet another development, developments which are promoted by the Canadianization incentives in the National Energy Program and, indeed, in Bill C-48 now before us.
The promotion of Canadian exploration, Mr. Speaker, will not only ensure that Canadians control their own energy destiny, but it will also allow Canadians to participate more directly in their own energy and economic future.
Some time ago, a prime minister of Canada stated, and I wish to quote him:
-To an ever-increasing degree our resources have been in the control and under the ownership of a nation other than Canada. While we welcome foreign investment, at the same time we do ask that this investment be for the benefit of Canadians, with Canada's destiny constantly before those who control its industry ... This vast, but exhaustible resource shall provide not only for the economic expansion in our country... but at the same time maintain for Canadians their sovereignty over their country because no nation worthy of the name can maintain its political sovereignty unless it has every regard for the maintenance of its economic sovereignty.
That Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, was John Diefenbaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: He would support the bill.


Roy MacLaren: The legislation we have before us, partly by providing a Crown share on Canada lands and a minimum of 50 per cent Canadian ownership from any production on those lands, will ensure a higher degree of the use of Canadian goods and services. That emphasis in the bill, which has been touched on so often by my friends in the New Democratic Party, is, indeed, an area where we as a government have placed great importance; but that is not to say we look for the exclusion of foreign participation. We look for a judicious mixture.
Our objective of Canadianization is really very simple. It is to increase the share of the oil and gas industry owned and controlled by Canadians to 50 per cent a decade from now. Our emphasis is on making room for Canadian oil and gas companies in the industry in Canada; not on forcing out foreign companies. There is no question that we intend to give Canadian companies the opportunity to grow more quickly.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Guigan) noted recently, what we have not intended or done is to make the operations of large international oil firms unprofitable. For example, the net cost to U.S. firms exploring in Canada will remain lower than in the United States. In Canada we are dealing with an extraordinary situation. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, non-residents owned nearly 80 per cent and controlled over 90 per cent of Canadian oil and gas assets, as the minister further noted. They also controlled nearly 100 per cent of the assets employed in refining and marketing operations. Canada did not have a single Canadian multinational oil company; not even a small one.

October 22, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Those are circumstances which we on this side of the House do not wish to see continue. This is why we have put in place incentives for Canadians to play a greater role in their own petroleum industry. Not only does the legislation look toward the greater participation of investors, but also it promises thousands of new jobs, in the energy sector and in the supply of goods and services.
In that connection, I remind the House that when this bill first came before committee we recognized that, as originally drafted, the relevant provisions did not adequately reflect our intent that Canadian suppliers of goods and services should have a fair and competitive opportunity to share in procurement with respect to oil and gas exploration and development activity on the Canada lands, without at the same time discriminating against non-Canadian suppliers. Accordingly, during the course of the committee work, we modified the industrial benefit provisions in the bill so as to stipulate clearly that Canadian manufacturers, consultants, contractors and service companies have a full and fair opportunity to participate competitively in the supply of goods and services.
Not only did we do that in committee, we went further. With regard to the employment of Canadians, companies active in the petroleum industry will be required to submit a detailed manpower plan and to maintain close contact with the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission in the development and implementation of their plans. We shall expect such plans to include advance specifications of labour requirements and sourcing, recruiting procedures, training programs, company mobility plans and local hiring programs. The companies will need to indicate in detail the steps being taken to maximize the opportunities for Canadians to participate in the planning, construction and operation of the projects. In short, this legislation, while respecting all our international obligations, will give Canadians, whether in large businesses or small, new opportunities to participate on a competitive basis in the supply of goods and services.
Some reference has been made earlier today by an hon. member of the New Democratic Party to the laudable initiatives of the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Lapointe) to promote a more viable and active small business sector in our economy. Small business initiative can, for example, spread more into the petroleum industry through the creation and promotion of consortia.The Government of Canada will not be laggard in providing such incentives to small business.
At the other end of the scale, megaprojects will also receive the active promotion of the Canadian government. Reference was made to the major projects task force report tabled earlier this year. That report was a notable achievement in business and labour co-operation which looked toward more active involvement for Canadians in the great new projects, many in the hydrocarbons industry, which will benefit all Canada.
To that end, a major projects office was established in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce which will ensure every opportunity for Canadian companies to participate on a fair and competitive basis in the development of our own energy resources.
Some reference has been made to the need in Canada for an advisory committee, involving business and labour as well as government, to ensure the maximum participation of Canadian suppliers of all types in our petroleum development. One motion which is now before us looks toward such a commission, and indeed sets forth the terms of reference for it. Such a possibility is covered by a motion which we have already adopted. It provides the minister with the opportunity to establish an advisory committee wherever the need is identified. The motion is neither necessary nor desirable when we have already acted in that area.
Much has been made of ministerial discretion under this bill. It has been claimed by some hon. members opposite that the minister's discretionary powers are somewhat too great. However, in such a vast and underpopulated country as Canada, especially in the great territories of the Canada lands, considerable discretionary power must be invested in the minister. Circumstances differ widely from project area to project area. It is simply impossible to reduce the varying circumstances, whether they be offshore, in the Arctic or on the lands of the north, to some sort of simple formula which would define the circumstances in every case.
In fact, what we need in this country, in the vast areas of our north and offshore, is some degree of discretionary power. Yet the discretionary powers envisaged for the minister are little compared to those vested in the minister of energy of the province of Alberta, an area which is much more populated and developed than the Canada lands. Let me cite one or two instances of ministerial discretion in the province of Alberta under the Alberta mines and minerals act. The minister may:
-restrict the disposition of or withdraw from disposition any mineral (defined to include petroleum) in any specified area in any manner he may consider warranted.
That is ministerial discretion. If that were not enough, the minister of energy of the province of Alberta may also:
-acquire by expropriation any estate or interest in mines or minerals (defined to include petroleum) where the minister is of the opinion that any or any further exploration for or development of those mines and minerals is not in the public interest-
If that discretion were not enough, another section of the same act goes on to indicate that the minister of energy for the province of Alberta may:
-demand that "a lease shall be in such form as may be determined by the minister and may include ... any other terms and conditions the minister prescribes".
I should like to quote one more example of ministerial discretion in Alberta in order to make the point. Under the Alberta petroleum and natural gas reservation regulations, there is the following stipulation:
The minister from time to time may make such orders as he may deem necessary for the effective administration of these regulations, and where any questions arise pertaining to the interpretation or application of these regulations, the minister shall be the sole judge and there shall be no appeal from his decision.
October 22, 1981

This is only a sampling of the range of discretionary powers given to the Alberta minister who has power over an area much smaller and much more developed than the Canada lands. If such discretionary power is needed in such circumstances, are we to believe that no discretionary rights are required in the more challenging area of the Canada lands, where the climate is harsh and environmental concerns are more sweeping?
I should also remind the House that in some 13 places in the act there is the right of appeal against ministerial discretion if it is considered that it has been implemented in an arbitrary fashion. In all such instances, the minister's discretion is subject to review.
I want to turn for a moment to Motion No. 7 as an example why we on this side of the House oppose the motions brought forward by the opposition.
Motion No. 7 would amend Subclause 10(1) to add the words "subject to Section 56"; that is, subject to appeal. The effect of such an amendment would be to make the entry into an exploration agreement subject to the appeal process, which is to provide for a review of certain important orders made by the minister under the act. This would provide an opportunity for those affected by an order to object to it and to make representations.
In our view, it would be inappropriate to make Subclause 10 subject to Section 56. Subclause 10(1) merely provides that the minister may enter into an exploration agreement in the manner provided. In most circumstances, the minister would call for proposals and from those submitted he would select one for the negotiation of an exploration agreement. Upon the successful conclusion of such negotiations, the minister would enter into the exploration agreement.
It is difficult, for me at least, to see who would have an interest in applying to the minister for a hearing at that juncture. Certainly it would not be the party negotiating the exploration agreement with the minister. We believe that provision has already been made to deal with the intent behind the motion, and therefore, in our view the motion becomes unnecessary.
I should like to give one more example of a motion which, in our view, is unnecessary; Motion No. 9. Again, it is not clear who would launch an appeal under Section 56 as would be foreseen in this motion. It provides that every exploration agreement would be subject to the terms set out in the proposed Schedule A, which deals with manpower and procurement. The proposed provisions are drawn from the Northern Pipeline Act. While such provisions may be suitable in respect of a bilaterally negotiated agreement with the United States, it is doubtful that such explicit provisions would be appropriate in the quite different circumstances of the Canada Oil and Gas Act.
There are a number of other specific motions before us which I could deal with, but I believe that my time is just about up, Mr. Speaker. I will conclude by saying that the basic
Canada Oil and Gas Act
purpose of the clauses concerning Canadian procurement and ministerial discretion, is to help promote the Canadianization of our petroleum industry, a policy which carries the broad support of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), acting House leader for the New Democratic Party.


Ian Deans: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I hope I turn out to be a good actor. It is a difficult job, as you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, to fill in, even temporarily, for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Had he been here this evening, I think he would have wanted to add a few words to the debate that has taken place over the last few days, but since he was unable to be here, I might just take two or three moments to put some thoughts on the record with which I am sure he would concur.
I have listened to the debate off and on with considerable interest and sometimes I have wondered what we are talking about. You would swear that we were talking about a resource belonging to someone else from which we hoped to gain some advantage. And sometimes during the debate it would be difficult to realize that what we are talking about is a resource that belongs to every Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Not only are we talking about energy self-sufficiency for the future, but surely we are talking about maximizing the benefits to Canadians today and in the future of the exploitation of that resource.
In considering the fairly intricate legislation which is before us, the test that must be applied is the test of history. You have to begin with an understanding that, generally speaking, we have not been able to fully utilize the benefits that we ought to have received from resources that were Canadian in the first place. You need only look at the way we have wasted opportunity after opportunity in every single resource field to understand the perils that could lie ahead unless we are extremely careful about how we draft this legislation and what guarantee we put into it.
I am sure many members have travelled across northern Canada. I do not refer to the far north but to the area that might be called mid-northern Canada, that area that has been exploited over the last half century or more-Timmins, Chap-leau, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, northern Ontario, and the rest of the country. One only has to travel that country to see the way the resource was exploited for the benefit of the few to the detriment of the many. One only has to look at the devastation that was left, and then try to measure the cost against the benefit that we in Canada received.
An example is the mining industry. Did we receive any substantial mining machinery manufacturing as a result of having that magnificent mineral resource base in this country? Can we see in Canada a mining machinery manufacturing

October 22, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
sector which is second to none in the world and which reflects the value of Canada's resource? No, Mr. Speaker, it cannot be found. For mining machinery we go to the United States, to Scandinavia, to Germany. We bring it in, we pay for it, we mine our ore, take it out and ship it away.
Then there is the forest industry, an industry second to none in the world, but do we have a substantial world-class leading edge forestry machinery manufacturing industry in this country? No, we do not.


Mr. Kelly:: Yes.


Ian Deans: Development could and should have taken place because this country was so fabulously rich in resources. At every turn we missed taking advantage of that for this generation and for future generations. Now we have been given another opportunity. Now we have again discovered that we are rich. We can be self-sufficient. But whose direction are we going to follow? Are we going to assure that in Canada there will be the development of the machinery that extracts from the ground and below the ocean? Are we going to make sure that a machinery manufacturing base is established in this country on a world scale? Are we going to take advantage of the tens of millions-of trillions-the Royal Bank says that it will be a trillion dollar expenditure-over the next 20 years? Does anyone have any idea of what a trillion dollars is? When you go to the bank to cash your cheque, can you imagine what a trillion dollars looks like, even spread over 20 years? I certainly cannot and most of my constituents cannot. But one thing 1 do know is that unless we take advantage of every opportunity to use that money to secure the economic wellbeing of this country for the next generation, we will once again have sold out our birthright.
That is what we are talking about in these amendments. That is exactly what these amendments speak to. We are talking about maximizing industrial benefit for Canadians. We are talking about maximizing employment opportunities, not only now but over the course of the development, by putting in place an industrial infrastructure, thus guaranteeing that we will be on the leading edge of technological change for the requirements of future generations. We are saying that as we tax Canadians, either through the tax structure or through the payment for the resource needed to heat their homes, to run their cars and to operate their businesses, by far the vast majority of those tax dollars should be used in Canada to provide Canadians with the kinds of opportunities that will secure the future of Canada.
That is what this is all about. That is why these amendments are here. We want to learn a lesson from the errors of the past. We want to learn, as my good friend from British Columbia has said to me many times, how to take advantage of mistakes made so as not to make them over and over again. We need not look back into our own history to see the errors. We need only look at the mistakes made in Scotland.


An hon. Member:: They made a lot of mistakes like that.


Ian Deans: That was not only when they let me leave. But when the North Sea oil was discovered, mistakes were made. The British had finally put their hands on energy self-sufficiency, but in the their haste to take advantage of it, they found themselves losing out in terms of the economic benefit they might have reasonably obtained from the significant investment that had to be made.
The Economic Council of Canada, in a study of the North Sea oil development, points out that 60,000 jobs were created in Scotland in 1976. One hundred thousand jobs were created in Britain over all, but 200,000 jobs were created in the United States as a result of the North Sea find and the economic development resulting from the British taxpayers' investment in the development of the project.


John Horton McDermid: In Canada, too.


Ian Deans: Are we going to do the same thing? Are we going to learn? It took some time, but the British finally twigged. They realized that they were paying out millions and millions of pounds, but the significant benefits from the project were flowing to other parts of the world.
In other words, the long-term benefits of economic and industrial development and the job opportunities that follow were flowing out of Britain. Therefore, the British offshore supply office was set up. That particular structure may not be entirely applicable in Canada, and in that connection I want to propose another one.


Mr. McCauley:: Why don't you get to the bill?


Ian Deans: It is interesting that the hon. member should ask that. It is an indication of a lack of understanding of what is contained in the legislation or of its import. However, I do not expect anything more or less.
Let me say that when the British finally understood what it was all about, they finally took steps to correct it.
What do we propose?


An hon. Member:: Heaven knows!


Ian Deans: I think the Liberals are feeling a little nervous tonight. I do not blame them. It has been through successive Liberal administrations that the rip-off has taken place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: It is because of that very narrow view of the future of the country that the country is in the present mess. I can appreciate the Liberals' embarrassment, but they should not compound it with their interjections.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: There are people in this country who have devoted a great deal of time, effort and energy in trying to come up with solutions. To a great extent, we have incorporated much of what these people have recommended in the amendments we placed before the House.

I want to say to government members, those who are listening, those who are reading and those who are chatting, that it might serve them well, since it is not yet too late, to think a little bit about whether or not they are in fact maximizing their return on this huge investment that has to be made.


Norman Kelly: Have you read it?


Ian Deans: Have I read the bill? Yes, I have read it. I have reread it. I have carried it back and forth to Hamilton on my weekly visits. I have sat in my office in the middle of the night fretting over it. I want you to know that this bill has been committed to memory.


An hon. Member:: That is your fault.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that in having committed the bill to memory, it has distressed me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You should be committed.


Ian Deans: My colleague asks me whether I dream about it. I want to tell hon. members that I have nightmares.


An hon. Member:: Tell us how wet your pillow is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: The kind of comment that flows at this point is a reflection of the lack of concern by Tories and Liberals for the future of the country.
Let me suggest to government and Conservative members who, noisy though they are, still have a grain of common sense left somewhere, I am sure, that they should take a moment or two to compare what we have recommended in our amendments with the recommendations contained in the major Canadian projects and major Canadian opportunities book produced by a joint effort of business and labour in Canada. I think this is probably a blueprint for the future of this country if it is read, understood, utilized and instituted. I will summarize an interesting article written by Deborah McGregor in the Financial Times of Canada, dated June 22, 1981, I hope she sends me a note thanking me. Part of the heading reads "Canadian content is crucial". Deborah McGregor writes:
Essentially, the 96-page report is a resounding vote for the use of Canadian content in the $440-billion worth of major projects planned across industries from energy to defence over the next 20 years.
That is exactly consistent with what we are saying. This whole approach is what they are dealing with, and we have to give recognition to that. The article continues:
It is an unabashedly nationalistic document-
We are all nationalists these days, even the most right wing Conservative is a nationalist in his or her own way.


Mr. Crouse:: That is hard to believe.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Gary Francis McCauley: Not the Conservatives.


Ian Deans: Let me put it again because I can hear hon. members muttering, and 1 want to be sure you all hear it. The article reads:
It is an unabashedly nationalistic document, arguing that emphasizing Canadian content-whether it be in the form of manpower or supplies for the project-is crucial to the country's industrial well-being.
Please note the words "emphasizing Canadian content". The group goes on to explain in its report that there is absolutely nothing wrong with spending your money in your own best interests. They also point out that there is nothing to be ashamed of in taking Canadian tax dollars, which are to be spent in Canada, and using them to build an industrial base for Canadians.
The report goes on to make some recommendations. I see my time is running out but I want to run through these recommendations quickly with you because I can tell from the way you are listening, Mr. Speaker, how interested you are. This is the first recommendation, and I want hon. members to listen because I know they have not read this and I want them to hear it for the first time. The first recommendation is:
That a special agency be set up, run by labour and business but funded by government, to monitor planning on major projects and to ensure that project sponsors comply with Canadian content guidelines. Chief among those guidelines would be that first preference be given to Canadian owned suppliers in the planning and purchasing for projects.
I would like to see any member stand up and tell me that he does not want to see Canadian industry assisted by Canadian tax dollars developed in Canada. Let him get up and tell me he does not want the benefits of the jobs, and he does not think we should give preference to Canadian companies in the development of the Canadian industrial sector as a result of megaprojects that are, we hope, about to create energy self-sufficiency.


An hon. Member:: It's in the bill.


Ian Deans: The bill does not contain it. The second recommendation is:
That companies be willing to pay a premium of up to 3 per cent of the total project's cost for Canadian content.
The bill does not contain that. The third recommendation is:
That Canadians should have full access to top managerial, technical and professional jobs on the projects.
The bill does not contain that. The next recommendation is:
That where foreign capital is needed for projects, it should come in the form of debt instead of equity, so that Canadians have the fullest opportunity to share in the ownership of the projects.
The bill does not contain that. Finally it is recommended:
That skill shortages among Canadian workers be improved by a variety of means-
The recommendation goes on to tell us what they are.
To conclude, what I am saying is simply this. We have seen how badly the natural resource base of the country was

October 22, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
managed in the past. We can learn from the experience of other countries which have fairly recently come into the oil and energy business and have been able to monitor the losses they have incurred. We can look at this and we can learn. I suggest to this government, before it is too late, that it put into this legislation in explicit terms the guarantees that will make sure Canada benefits from the development of Canada's resources and that they be of lasting benefit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by dealing with the matter that is before us, unlike some other speakers in this debate we have just heard tonight. Let me just outline for the record that the matter before us is a matter of motions that basically amend Clause 10 of Bill C-48. That clause in turn deals with the matter of exploration agreements and the ministerial discretion involved in the issuance of these exploration agreements. I merely wanted to put that on the record to show that very little in legislation is ever new. Any person who has experience in legislative matters or has involved himself in legislation in the provinces of Canada or in the federal Parliament will know these are simply regurgitated provisions from other statutes. Anybody who has dealt with urban planning will recognize these provisions as what is known in that field as "contract planning".
What these provisions do is very simply this: after enacting very complicated statutory provisions with great restrictions and protections, the provisions allow you to simply set them aside, sit down with a person who may be a friend, or a person with whom you can deal at arm's length, and write whatever deal you want to write. That is what an exploration agreement can do. That is why we are concerned with this matter and that is why we want some amendments to make sure that any exploration agreement which is written will be fair and will have the protection of other provisions of the act which check ministerial discretion. That is why we are here tonight.
I could go on and talk about the specifics of the bill, but I am afraid earlier speakers have got me off that subject. I want to deal with the remarks by the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren), because I never heard such a massive distortion of the National Energy Program and the effect it is having and is going to have on Canada and Canadians.
I will dismiss my friend from the NDP to my left by simply saying this. It would be nice to think that all Canadians were willing to sit down and pool all the resources in one pot and divide them up by the number of people in Canada. That is not the way the system works, and it never will work that way. Those people had better start to realize that and they had better start dealing with the practicalities and realities of Canadian life.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Edward Crosby: Let me tell you that this country was built on initiative and incentive. It was not built on giveaways, it was not built on sharing the wealth, and it will not last for another
decade if that is the principle by which we are guided. We have to build incentives into our system, we have to encourage initiative, and we have to get Canadians working. We cannot give our resources away, and there is no reason for those who have worked and earned something to share with those who refuse to work and earn. I will stand on that principle and defend it anywhere in this country.
The hon. member for Etobicoke North, as I indicated, gave a dissertation on the National Energy Program, of which this Bill C-48, the Canada Oil and Gas Act, is an emanation. It prompted me to get the Canadian Parliamentary Guide to have a look at the background of that hon. member. I saw right away that he was once in the diplomatic service. I do not know if that accounts for his kind remarks about the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), but I can say that he certainly is a diplomat and put the best possible light on the effects of the National Energy Program and of Bill C-48 which arises from it.
He is wrong in practically everything he said about the National Energy Program. Let met make it very clear that I am no lobbyist for the oil industry. I am a simple lawyer from Halifax, Nova Scotia. I have spent my time on the legal aid program, I have spent my time on social services, but I have difficulty getting oil companies to deliver oil to my premises on a winter night, the same as do many other Canadians. But I want to say this. The private sector, whether you like it or not, is the sector which has developed the energy system in Canada, and unless that private sector is encouraged to go on with that development, it will certainly not happen. It is as clear as that. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is not going to man one oil rig anywhere. He is not going to bring in one barrel of oil and, in most cases, the people he has put in place to do that do not know any more about the industry than he does. If you do not believe that, go and ask anybody.


An hon. Member:: That is absolute baloney.


Howard Edward Crosby: The hon. member says it is "absolute baloney". Unfortunately the member does not go out to the Alberta oil sands. He does not sit down with the members or representatives of Syncrude to talk to them and find out what their problems are. He does not go to Cold Lake to see what is happening there.
The National Energy Program and Bill C-48 deal with Canada lands. Canada lands, for those who do not realize it are the offshore lands on the east coast of Canada and on the Pacific coast, and the lands in the northern part of Canada in the high Arctic. The rules and regulations which relate to the development of those lands are quite different from the rules and regulations that govern the development of the land in more developed areas. When the parliamentary secretary comes before this House and reads provisions from the Alberta legislation and says that those same provisions are justifiable in relation to an oil rig that is miles off the coast of Canada and that the government should govern exploration in the high Arctic, he is simply not giving the facts, because that is not
October 22, 1981

true. We are not talking about oil rigs in place a few miles from a city like Edmonton, as is the case with Leduc. We are talking about very dangerous and difficult conditions offshore and in the high Arctic.
The legislation which the government is bringing before this House has to stand on its own merits. It is not like any other legislation in Canada. It is not like legislation in Alberta, and the minister cannot justify it on those grounds.
Another aspect of the National Energy Program is Canadi-anization. As the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) pointed out, everyone is in favour of Canadianiza-tion. We would like every company in Canada to be owned by Canadians. We would like every project in Canada to be conducted by Canadians. But is it realistic to expect that at this point in time? Is legislation the way to achieve it? Is that how you encourage people to buy and own things-by passing a law? I do not believe so. You must motivate people to buy, you must encourage them to invest. You should make it clear that Canadianization is good for all Canadians. But you cannot make it happen by passing legislation in Parliament.
What is Canadianization? The government gives us the example of Dome Petroleum. It issued press releases saying that Dome Petroleum, a company exploring in the Arctic, allegedly building supertankers and LNG carriers, doing all sorts of things, is an example of Canadianization. It tells Nova Scotians it is going to build shipyards. It tells people in the Arctic it will bring out gas, develop oil resources, and so on.
The officers of Dome Petroleum said they would follow the National Energy Program and would Canadianize. They said they would set up a company called Dome (Canada) Limited and issue shares to Canadians. This Canadianized company will be developed under the National Energy Program. It says it is going to do things like that because this program can work.
I heard the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) say that Dome could supply Canada's energy needs if it brought in all the projects it had on the drawing board. We do not need to look any further. Dome Petroleum could solve Canada's energy problems and make Canada energy self-sufficient. The government set up Dome Canada, which marketed its shares to ordinary people across Canada. I am told that people in Alberta mortgaged their houses to buy shares in Dome Canada. Those shares cost $10 each. Today they are worth in the region of $5.50. Is that Canadianization?
You cannot make Canadianization happen by law. Instead, you must encourage it by setting up realistic programs which take into account the realities of Canadian business life. It must happen because people realize and recognize that it is a good thing and want to participate.
We know the value of Canadian ownership. We are Canadians too. We want Canada owned by Canadians, but we want it to come about in a logical manner, a manner consistent with the principles upon which this country was built. It is not simply a matter of legislative draftsmen and a couple of
Canada Oil and Gas Act
bureaucrats, who think they know something about energy and the oil industry, sitting down and developing a National Energy Program and drafting a legislative measure like Bill C-48.
Unfortunately, there are members in the NDP opposition who embrace the bill and say that it will work and that this is the way to bring about Canadianization.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We have not said that.


Howard Edward Crosby: It will not work. What we are all trying to do is to achieve energy self-sufficiency for Canada so we will be in a position where we do not have to depend on foreign powers. We do not have to cross oceans to buy on the world markets. We will have all our own energy supplies. Is that not what the members of the New Democratic Party want? Is that not what the government wants? Is that not what every Canadian wants?


An hon. Member:: We can have even more.


Howard Edward Crosby: The question is, how are we to achieve it? In Alberta they have a massive natural resource called the tar sands. They may have to get the tar sands out with equipment bought in West Germany or somewhere like that, but the resource is there. They are getting the oil out and are taking it out of the sands, and it is there now.


An hon. Member:: That was the same reasoning which was used to destroy northern Ontario.


Howard Edward Crosby: They have tons of it. It is there to the tune of 100,000 barrels a day. But they cannot develop it because they cannot get the price for it. It is not economically feasible. The government says it is not going to negotiate. It is not going to give them that price. It is going to keep that development suppressed. There will be no development until the developers negotiate a price agreeable to the Government of Canada. We are talking about dollar bills. Developers want a certain amount of dollars to get that oil out of the ground and into Canadian vehicles and homes.
One can argue, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources argues, that you do not need that much money. I do not know how he knows that they do not need that much money. But if he cannot get the people who are developing the oil sands to carry out the project for that price, and if he still thinks it can be done for that price, why does he not get someone else to do it, if he is correct in his figures? There are businessmen across the world who are only interested in making dollars. But the answer, of course, is that he cannot get anybody, he will not get anybody, and he will not even try. So, if the developers will not accept the price, the project is finished and we will not get energy self-sufficiency from that one source.
That would be all right, Mr. Speaker, if we could utilize other sources, such as the east coast of Canada, the submarine lands off Newfoundland or off Nova Scotia. The submarine lands off the east coast contain massive deposits of

October 22, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
hydrocarbons, so they say. I hope it is true. Developers say that in Hibernia the oil is there, it has been found. Yet they are not taking it out of the seabed. They are not taking it from the seabed because it is not worth their while. They are not getting enough money, they say. I do not know whether that is true or not. But neither does the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Mr. Speaker, if we are to achieve energy self-sufficiency, which is the whole purpose of any energy program, we have to deal in an honest and sensible way with these problems. The Alberta tar sands project has to go ahead, not for the benefit of the government of Albeta but for the benefit of the manufacturers of Ontario, in order to make it possible to develop the massive machinery that is needed in Canada. These projects simply have to go ahead.
Nova Scotians and people from Prince Edward Island should know that they are affected by these matters, that it is a contribution to the national wealth and the economy. We are all affected. The task of the government is not to railroad Bill C-48 through this House by the force of its majority. The task of the government is to achieve energy self-sufficiency for Canadians. We can do it by developing the Arctic, by developing the Alberta tar sands and by continuing the search and development of oil and gas off the east coast of Canada. It can be done. The question is, why is the government not taking the action which will ensure that these projects are carried out?
Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment briefly on a number of other matters which are affected by this bill. But first I would like to comment on something said by the hon. member for Etobicoke North. The hon. member referred to the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker and said he would have supported the National Energy Program. I can tell the hon. member that it is not so. If the right hon. gentleman were in this House, he would be out of his chair in a flash, and I will tell hon. members why. You will be surprised, Mr. Speaker, to know that I worked for an oil company in 1962 when the right hon. gentleman was prime minister.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am not surprised.


Howard Edward Crosby: I worked for legal aid too, a lot longer than you did, son.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is not true.


Howard Edward Crosby: The right hon. gentleman implemented a policy by which Canadian oil had to be used west of the Ottawa valley. That oil cost about $10 or $12 when the world price for oil was under $2. He did not quarrel about the price of oil. He developed the Canadian oil industry. The hon. member could not be more wrong. Mr. Diefenbaker developed the Canadian oil industry by providing a price which allowed the industry to bring the oil out of the ground and to develop a viable industry in Alberta, which today is probably saving the Canadian economy.
The hon. member needs a lesson in history. Mr. Diefenbaker was willing to bite those bullets. He was willing to ensure that the Canadian industry was developed, and he was not going to quibble about prices. He was not going to argue with people. It had to be done, and he did it. That is why we have an oil industry today, and the hon. member opposite and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources are doing just the opposite. They are trying to destroy the Canadian energy industry by not taking a realistic view of the price. They are trying to buy off consumers in Nova Scotia and elsewhere with unrealistic policies which relate to pricing, the result of which is that the energy projects which are so necessary to achieving selfsufficiency in energy in Canada are being delayed, discontinued or abandoned. Oil rigs are leaving Canada. There is ample evidence of that. Projects are being delayed. We are not getting on with the business of energy self-sufficiency.
I think my time is coming to an end. However, there are many other problems involved in this bill and in this particular provision of the bill. It is partly a matter of trust. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his government have lost the faith and the trust of the Canadian energy industry. That may be the biggest obstacle to development today. There is no longer the kind of trust in the government that is necessary to encourage the private sector to get on with the business of developing the projects necessary to achieve energy self-sufficiency.
I have spoken about western Canada but, of course, my heart is in the development of resources off the coasts of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. I do not believe for one minute that that development will go ahead in this climate of distrust. I do not believe that development will go ahead until the government re-examines its policies and legislation like Bill C-48, listens not only to members of this House but also to the energy industry across Canada, and reviews its policies in the light of the valid criticisms which have been made.
There is no need for furore in this House on subjects like energy legislation. Surely all hon. members realize and recognize that not just members of this House but all Canadians are trying to achieve the same goal. In opposing provisions like Clause 10 seeking amendments and challenging other provisions in this bill, we on this side of the House are trying to achieve one thing: we are trying to get the government to re-examine its policies, to look at the criticisms which are being made and to act upon them because we think if that action is taken, if policies are re-examined, if the proposed laws are rewritten and if a sensible approach is taken to pricing and to other aspects of the energy dispute, then the private sector, even if with the help of Petro-Canada, will get on with these projects. We will achieve energy self-sufficiency and not be involved further in debates like this, which are damaging not just to the Canadian economy but to all Canadians. They create regional conflicts which are totally unnecessary.
I will finish simply by saying; let us get on with the task. In the interests of Canada and Canadians.
October 22, 1981


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have taken a keen interest in this bill, Bill C-48. We spent a fair amount of time on it in the committee. All members of this House worked on it there. We have done a number of things because I think we feel it is an important bill.
I have a particular interest in the energy field because my riding depends on the energy industry to a large extent and has an interest in it. In fact, roughly 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the jobs in my riding are created directly by the energy industry. If we think about it in real terms, that means roughly one job in five. In addition to that, of course, capital is generated for the community and for the constituency. There are dramatic spin-off effects in my riding.
Bill C-48 applies to what we call Canada lands, which I have always known as the Northwest Territories and the Arctic. My interest goes back a long time, mainly because the town in which I grew up, the town of Grimshaw, was called Mile Zero of the Mackenzie Highway. For years the Mackenzie Highway was the only route into the Northwest Territories, and as a result of that, any goods, food, equipment, produce or anything which had to go up into the northern communities, had to go up through my community. I grew up with a sense of the north, a sense of its importance, a sense of its potential, and a sense of the opportunities which are in that area.
I feel that Bill C-48 is a very important bill. As I have said in other talks I have given on this bill, I think it is literally the beginning of the future of the north. It is literally the foundation of what will happen in that part of the country. One thing I feel is absolutely essential is that we recognize that anything this bill does must deal with long-term opportunities for the north.
This week I have had an opportunity to reflect on just what "long term" means. My wife's grandmother is visiting us in Ottawa this week, and she is a little over 90. I will not give her exact age because I might get into deep trouble, but there are some real implications when we think about what she has seen in those approximately 90 years. She has seen the development of the car from nothing more than a bit of steam and wood and nothing very sophisticated to what we have today. She has seen the total development of the airplane industry, to the point where we now have jumbo jets flying around the world. She has seen many things happen in those 90 years. She has seen us advance from having no airplanes to seeing a man walk on the moon. For that reason, this bill is really important because we are talking about the future of the lands up in that part of the country. We are talking about beginnings, and this bill is a foundation or a jumping off point for development in that part of the country. The question right away is, what will happen in the next 90 years in that part of the country? I feel very strongly that Bill C-48 is an important bill. It has to be dealt with very carefully. It should be given very careful consideration.
Tonight I would like to focus on the motion which deals primarily with what we call ministerial discretion. I am very concerned about ministerial discretion because I think there are some dangers and some possible abuses of power involved.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
I believe one of the dangers is centralization of power. I think it can be very serious if we concentrate power into just a few hands or in just a few people.
The second danger in ministerial discretion as it affects this bill is the fact that it involves government from afar. Westerners are familiar with that kind of experience, familiar with some of the frustrations that can bring about. The ministerial discretion in Bill C-48 may result in effectively developing an atmosphere whereby a government from afar can exist. We have the territories which are many miles away from this House of Commons. If decisions are made here by one minister or a small group, a very strong case can be made for the development of government from afar.
The other danger is that you end up with decisions made behind closed doors. Those decisions automatically become suspect because they cannot be questioned. No one knows what has gone into them. When they are made behind closed doors, there is always a question, always a concern.
The fourth point ties in all of my previous points. Ministerial control is concentrated in a small area. If we look at the ministerial discretion in this bill, we find that the minister has tremendous power. I want to illustrate that by dealing briefly with one part of the ministerial discretion.
Under this bill, the minister has the power to tell the producer, the oil company that happens to be involved, whether to produce or not, how much to produce, where to ship what is produced, when to ship and who to ship it to. It even goes so far as to say at what price the product will be shipped. That is quite frightening. That literally covers the whole aspect of the development of oil and gas in our Canada lands in the north.
This was discussed with the minister in committee. I and other members questioned him on it. We asked the reasons for it and the importance of it. His response basically was, "Trust me." Why should we trust him? Aside from the personalities involved, and I do not want to get into that, we must recognize that we may well be talking about 90 years, a long time. This is just the beginning. We must recognize that this is the foundation or footing for the long-term prospect.
Even though this minister may not abuse the power, he will not always be the minister of this department, not always the minister responsible for this legislation which will have such a dramatic effect on the north.


An hon. Member:: Thank heavens for that.


Albert Glen Cooper: My colleague says, "Thank heavens for that". We as Members of Parliament with responsibility for this bill must make decisions that protect us for the future. Legislation must look to the long term, and we must recognize possible abuses and dangers in the long-term development.
No one would argue whether discretion is necessary. I do not argue that. What I argue is the level, scope and possibilities of discretion, especially when that discretion has very few boundaries, checks and balances. There is a fine line between

October 22, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
good legislation and bad legislation, and a fine line between discretion and an abuse of power.
I want to deal briefly with those clauses of the bill that involve ministerial discretion. Under Clause 10(2), the minister determines the exploration agreement which includes the dates and terms. Under Clause 12(1), the minister may enter into an exploration agreement without a call for public tenders, if he determines that is not in the public interest. Regardless of whether this minister is the minister for all time, which he will not be, at some point in the future that clause has to be subject or open to some kind of abuse. There must be some form of protection to assure us that no minister or government will abuse those very fundamental privileges.
Under Clause 14(1), the minister may select any proposal put before him. There is a lot of power there. Under Clause 15, if there are no other proposals put in front of him, he may enter into a proposal with any party he chooses. We do not know whether the conditions of the first proposal are the same as for the second. Things could change. That too is open to abuse.
Clause 35 really intrigued me. It allows the minister to change the operator, to go in and, on his own, to literally change the operator of a particular drilling program going on in a part of the country. This opens up a whole series of questions and concerns, or at least it should. That is pretty fundamental.
Let us take Dome Petroleum Canada as an example. It could be developing an oil well in the north, have taken it from the exploration stage through financing by initial investors, through the initial development, until the well is drilled and ready to operate so that it can bring the oil out of the ground. The minister can walk in under the authority of Clause 35 and change the operator. In other words, he can say to the operator, "You have done a wonderful job, a super job, and now it is time to let somebody else take over". That can cause all sorts of problems and have all sorts of implications. It is subject to abuse.
I referred earlier to Clause 48(1) (a) as having far-reaching implications. It talks about the minister ordering the commencement or continuation of drilling, where to deliver the product, when, what quantity and at what price. As I said, it covers the whole gambit in the development of oil. All of those powers are concentrated in one man and are in the hands of a few of his officials and colleagues.
Subclause (b) gives him the right to cease production. That kind of power or authority centralized in one area becomes extremely worrisome. We can see the potential for abuse. The opportunity for misuse is wide open.
Clause 48 is subject to appeal under Clause 56. Let us look briefly at Clause 56. Motion No. 7, which we are addressing tonight, calls for Clause 10 to be subject to appeal under Clause 56. The minute we think of a hearing, we think of some sort of arbitrator, judge or jury, or someone to whom we can present our case. You become the complainant and they the defendants. When one thinks of an appeal process, one thinks
of a neutral board one can address, lay his claim before, make his case and hope for an unbiased, neutral and fair hearing.
Let us look at Clause 56. Who holds the hearing? The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) holds the hearing. Who is the judge? Again, it is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Who is the jury? It is the minister. Here you have a complaint on this side against the minister, Mr. Speaker. You appeal it. Who do you appeal it to? Not over here but to the same minister. I believe this is something we should be concerned about.
This bill is important. We are talking about the development of the north. We are talking about the future of the north. We are talking about the opportunities for northern people, northern Indians, northern Eskimos. We are talking about their opportunities for jobs. We are talking about their potential for education. We are literally talking, Mr. Speaker, about their future. Any bill that does not properly address that, that does not fairly look at their needs, that does not fairly look at the potential they have, and that does not, in some manner, in a very definite, careful and fair way present them with an opportunity, is not doing its job. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, there is room for abuse.
If we were to look at the goals of Bill C-48, as my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), said, we should be looking at energy self-sufficiency for our country. That has to be our concern. We should be making sure the bill addresses development. We have to see that development focuses on Canadian companies and uses Canadian employees and Canadian people. Any bill we bring forward has to benefit Canadians. I do not mean just the Canadians living in Toronto, and I do not mean Canadians living within 50 miles of the American border; I mean the Canadians that live in that area, and I mean the Canadians that live throughout the rest of Canada. We have to address that.
Motion No. 8 addresses those issues. It addresses oil selfsufficiency for our country. Motion No. 9 talks about Canadian content and the importance it has for our country, the importance it has for our potential, and the importance it has for our future. Motion No. 15 first deals with the environmental concerns we have to face in an area such as we have in this country, an area that is ecologically very sensitive. Second, it deals with the Canadian content of manpower obligations and manpower opportunities.
I was in Inuvik a couple of weeks ago. One of the things the mayor of the town, who appeared before us in committee, talked about is the opportunities available to people in this country to develop their job skills, to employ them in working in their home areas, to earn a livelihood, and to contribute to our country and to our economy.
My time has just about run out, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion, let me pose a couple of questions. First, why do we not have any public boards to which appeals could be made? Why do we not have an opportunity for public appeal? Why do we have one appeal opportunity only, and that is to the minister
October 22, 1981

who is the target of your complaint in the first place? Why does this bill not address the importance of diffusing power? I do not mean diffusing it from Ottawa to Hull; I am talking about diffusing it from the federal government to the territorial government, which will want to have provincial status one day. Why does this bill not protect the people from all kinds of abuses of ministerial discretion, a possibility which we can see when we study the bill for nothing more than a few minutes? This is an important bill. It provides an important opportunity. It gives Canadians an important chance. We have to do it right the first time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 7 in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson). 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to an agreement reached, the motion stands deferred.
The question is now on Motion No. 8 in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson). 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: According to the agreement reached, the motion stands deferred. The question is on Motion No. 13 in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson). 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion stands deferred. The question is now on Motion No. 15 in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


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 nays have it. I declare the motion defeated.
Motion No. 15 (Mr. Wilson) negatived.
The question is on Motion No. 41 in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: According to the agreement previously reached, the motion stands deferred.


William James Kempling: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 16
(a)	by striking out line 19 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"ment shall not exceed ten years from the or, where"
(b)	by striking out line 23 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"successive terms not exceeding ten years".


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I was looking at the list of motions and their grouping. I wonder why we have not had a division on Motion No. 16 as well as on Motions Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In reply to the hon. member, in terms of the grouping, my understanding is as follows: an affirmative vote on Motion No. 8 would dispense with Motions Nos. 9 and 10. A negative vote on Motion No. 8-and this vote cannot be determined until after the period of deferment has been reached-would mean the question on Motion No. 9 would be put. A negative vote on Motion No. 9, would mean that the question on Motion No. 10 would have to be put. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 9 would dispense with Motion No. 10. But an affirmative vote on Motion No. 9 would avoid the question being put on Motions Nos. 10, 11 and 16. A negative vote on Motion No. 9 requires the question being put on Motion No. 10. A vote on Motion No. 10 also disposes of Motions Nos. 11, 12 and 16, seriatim. Whether or not a vote would have to be taken on Motion No. 16 depends upon the series of votes.


Harvie Andre: A point of order. It was our intention, at least, that on Motion No. 8 a decision would be rendered by yeas and nays. Perhaps some members straightening the seams in

October 22, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
their trousers gave the Chair the wrong impression of our intention.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I heard the voice vote and I declared the motion lost. There are five members on the opposition who rose. The division stands deferred according to the procedure adopted by Parliament.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is naivete or inexperience on my part, but the problem I have is that the vote itself has not yet been taken since it was deferred. I am concerned that simply by losing the voice vote it is automatically assumed by the Chair that the recorded vote-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is in error. There are no automatic assumptions by the Chair. When the actual vote is taken, a decision will be made at that point whether or not subsequent motions have to be voted. Until such vote is taken a decision cannot be made.


Ian Deans: If I may ask for Mr. Speaker's guidance on a point of order, I am concerned that at the time the vote is taken, which will be some days from now, the votes that will be put to the House will be only those votes which are recorded-


Erik Nielsen: As deferred.


Ian Deans: Yes, the only votes which will be put to the House will be the votes that are recorded as deferred at that point.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is mistaken. At that point the Chair will proceed as indicated in the statement by the Chair. If, for example. Motion No. 8 is decided in the affirmative, some others are not necessary. If it is decided in the negative, at that point the Chair will proceed to put the other votes.


Ian Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready to deal with Motion No. 14?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a few remarks to Motion No. 14 before we dispose of it. Motion No. 14 deals with the exploration agreement and, in particular, with the time or the duration of any agreement written between the minister and whatever company or association of companies the agreement includes.
The original Bill C-48 came before the House and then went to committee. It contained the language that the term of the agreement was not to exceed five years. In presentations before the committee by representatives of the industry and others who appeared, very strong representations were made that five years, given the nature of the lands in question, was in fact inadequate. Five-year exploration agreements and leases are typical in areas such as provincial lands, onshore lands or
easily accessible lands, and it is a reasonable period of time. But five years in areas under the jurisdiction of the Canada lands, in the Arctic, offshore, in iceberg alley off Labrador and so on, are simply inadequate. For example, the drilling season in the Beaufort Sea in an excellent year, if everything goes well, may be four months. For a third of the year one can drill in the Arctic if everything goes well. If five years is appropriate for Alberta where we do not have these considerations, where we can essentially build year round, then perhaps 15 years is more appropriate for the Beauport Sea.
Certainly Dome Canada has explored in that area for more than five years. Everyone hopes its discoveries are commercial, but this is not known yet. It is still very much in the exploration phase, even though Dome has been up there for far more than five years. It was suggested by some of the witnesses who appeared before the committee that the language of that clause should read a minimum of five years rather than a maximum of five years in order to give some certainty. The Bar Association indicated that five-year terms for exploration agreements may well be too short, thereby resulting in uncertainty on the part of the industry and consequently greater difficulty in concluding agreements. Certainly banking institutions, the people who put up the money and the investors, will want a little more certainty and a little more time before they proceed.
Motion No. 14 would merely suggest that the language of Clause No. 16 be altered so that the terms of an exploration agreement did not exceed ten years. It would allow that extra bit of time. It could be cut back if circumstances warrant. For example, if one authorized an exploration agreement off the coast of British Columbia where year round drilling is possible, five years may be appropriate. On the other hand, if one is looking at an exploration agreement in Lancaster Sound, which is an area geologists consider to be highly potential, five years is hopelessly inadequate for an exploration program in that area. In the interests of, in fact, putting in place legislation which will lead to the development of this area, the government would be well advised to take this extension.
I realize that subsequent to the original act, there was an amendment by the government to add the language, "Where the minister considers it necessary, eight years may be the extension." This was a concession to the original error in judgment. This language is very awkward-"The term of the agreement shall not exceed five years or, where the minister considers it necessary, eight years." The amendment before the House would clean it up. It would be a lot more reasonable, given the nature of the lands in question and the fact that we are dealing with the high Arctic, offshore areas such as iceberg alley off Labrador, and so on. An extension to ten years would be highly reasonable. Therefore, I commend it to the government. I suggest the government would be improving its own legislation considerably by accepting the motion.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to participate just briefly on this motion. We on this side of the House are opposed to this amendment. The House must understand that there is relentless pressure by the
October 22, 1981

industry, even by segments of the government of the United States on behalf of the oil industry, to get this bill amended, watered down and changed so that the industry can continue its beneficial regime of past years.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you could take a look at an article which was written in 1973 by Professor Andrew Thompson, entitled, "Canada's Petroleum Leasing Policy-A Cornucopia For Whom?". The criticisms in that article were really the beginnings of this bill. It referred to a regime which was pretty easy on the oil companies. We virtually gave away our leases in the north, with no time limit, with no concern for whether they should be developed once they were given, with no concern for what was happening up there in the area of industrial spin-offs.


An hon. Member:: The Canadians would not take it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am not referring to the Canadians who would not take it. We gave it to people who could afford to do it. At that time it was foreign capital. It is true that a lot of Canadians would not do it. Perhaps they did not see the benefits, but they do now. I do not think we should make a similar mistake. There was relentless pressure to water down the bill, and the government has watered it down. Instead of strengthening the bill, the government has watered it down. I know that the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) wants to put forward the interests of his friends in the oil industry, and that is fine. On this side of the House we are prepared to listen to those claims if they are reasonable. In the past they have not been.
A few minutes ago I heard the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) speak about the tar sands. But he did not know anything about the tar sands. He talked about private enterprise in the tar sands. The government has offered the people who are developing the tar sands world price for their oil, but they have said that they want more. They always want more, more. That was even too much for the Premier of Alberta. Apparently it was not too much for the Conservative party, but it was too much for the Premier of Alberta who finally threw up his hands and said it was too much.
The government has backed off this bill very substantially. It backed off by changing the Petro-Canada "back in" somewhat. It backed off from the original draft by changing the Canadian content requirement because it was too tough in the original draft. It backed off the royalty holidays to the industry. In a few days we will get to all these items where the government has backed off. It backed off slightly in this section by changing the term to eight years. I suggest that the government ought not to back off any further, Mr. Speaker. That term should be kept at five years. I know what my friend, the hon. parliamentary secretary, will say. His speech will be to the effect that this is the difference between the Liberals and the NDP-the Liberals are for eight years, the NDP is for five years, and the Tories are for ten years. He thinks he has the radical middle now, but I would call it the muddled
Canada Oil and Gas Act
middle. That will be the tenor of his speech, so he does not have to make it.
I say that we should not back off any further on any of these clauses. We have already backed off far enough and we should keep this clause as it is.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) suggested that since his party takes the position that the duration should be five years and the Conservative party spokesman proposed ten years, and since the Liberal party suggests eight years, that I would be satisfied with the legislation as it stands. He is right. The normal term under an exploration agreement in Bill C-48 is five years, with the provision that the minister may grant an extension to eight years if he considers that exceptional circumstances warrant it. In our view, the ten-year term proposed is too long to permit a holder of an agreement to have the right to explore on Canada lands without the scrutiny 1 that would be involved in renegotiations. We recognize, however, that there will be occasions when the particular circumstances require an extension. It is for that purpose that we have provided for the possibility of an additional three years, for a total of eight years. We believe that this is sufficient time to permit exploration to go forward. We certainly want to avoid the situation which has occurred in the past where companies with exploration rights have not taken the initiative in developing those rights for the benefit of the Canadian people.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 14 (Mr. Wilson) negatived.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 17
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 8 to 10 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"rated in Canada and be Canadian-controlled and have Canadian ownership
rate of not less than fifty (50) per cent in 1981, fifty-five (55) per cent in
1982, sixty (60) per cent in 1983, sixty-five (65) per cent in 1984, seventy (70)
per cent in 1985, and a minimum Canadian ownership rate of seventy-five
(75) per cent in 1986 and so on; or".

October 22, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have a captive audience opposite, but I have only a few minutes in which to start this speech on the Canadianization part of the bill.
Generally speaking, this government has been a disaster in the last couple of years. The only bright spot that the public thought it could see was Canadianization. In my speech tomorrow and the speeches of some of my colleagues, we shall show what Canadianization is. It is a bit of a sham because the public thinks it is public ownership. It is not, Mr. Speaker; it is changing the big boys-the Rockefellers and the big American boys-to big Canadian boys, the Domes, the Novas and so on. In the course of my speech, I will show how Canadians will suffer once again as a result of this. They will put up the money for exploration and development, and it will go into a few private pockets. Instead of American pockets, it will go into the Canadian industry's pockets but not into the pockets of the people.


Mr. Evans:: Not true.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I would ask the hon. member opposite to read the bill and then come here tomorrow and listen to my speech on Canadianization.
The Canadianization requirements are simply empty promises, Mr. Speaker. Under this bill, the control of our oil industry, which is still 75 per cent foreign controlled-


Mr. Gray:: Sixty-seven per cent.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We will talk about that tomorrow and I will give the figures then. In 1974, the government promised that it would take the country to 50 per cent Canadian control and ownership. It promised that again in 1979 and in 1980, and we will likely hear it again in 1981.
In my speech I will make the point that the taxation and carried interest provisions of the bill do not reflect the schemes found elsewhere in the world today. In Norway, the state-owned company receives 50 per cent to 80 per cent carried interest versus the proposed 25 per cent carried interest proposed for Petro-Canada. Great Britain and Norway both impose taxes double or triple those contained in Bill C-48.
In my speech I will show that once again we are the suckers when compared to the regime in Norway, Great Britain, even Australia and Mexico. I will deal with each of those regimes and show how ours compares.
I shall also show in some detail what will happen as the result of this bill. I shall suggest that in the stock market we will see a lot of small Canadian companies that will be shells for foreign multinational oil companies. The bill provides for grants of 93 cents on every dollar. Just think of it, Mr. Speaker, you get 93 cents from the taxpayer to drill in the north, in the Canada lands, the west coast, east shore and offshore.
Talk about wealth; my friends to the right talk about capitalism. There is no capitalism here; it is simply government largesse. The government will pay 93 cents out of every dollar required to drill, but will we get public ownership for
that? No, just a limited public ownership through Petro-Canada. Dome and Nova and all the other corporations will be made rich, and the Canadian taxpayer will pay. I shall show all that in my speech, Mr. Speaker.
I ask hon. members opposite the name of the largest oil company in Canada. Is it Petro-Canada? No, it is Dome Petroleum. Let us admit that Canadianization is not public ownership. It will rip off-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, on July 15 I rose in the House to ask a question of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). I was speaking on behalf of some of my constituents, the firemen at the Vancouver International Airport. They are concerned about the strength of their position in bargaining for a wage settlement in a bargaining unit comprised of maybe 20, 30 or 40 people.
The government's position as the employer is that national unions represent national employees across Canada. The minister admitted to me in the House at that time that this does create a problem of disparity for employees. I pointed out to him that whenever you have equality on a national scale, you have a high level of unfairness for the employees. Local conditions in each area of the country vary so much that a national agreement creates benefits for one area and problems for another area. For example, wage scales of the firemen at the Vancouver International Airport compare very unfavourably with those of their fellow employees in New Brunswick. In some parts of the country, employees have a wage scale of $3,000 a year more than their counterparts either in the local city or the provincial fire departments. On the other hand, the firemen at the Vancouver International Airport are paid about $6,000 a year less than their counterparts in downtown Vancouver or those who work for the provincial government.
The employees at the Vancouver International Airport are paid the same as those in Moncton, but the cost of living in the two areas is astronomically different. I do not know how the President of the Treasury Board can work for an agreement which is supposed to be equal when it is incredibly unfair.
He admitted in his answer to me that it is unfair and that the government is trying to work out regional benefits for some
October 22, 1981

of the employees, I suppose some kind of a cost of living clause or something like that. However, it has not been forthcoming. I suggested to the minister that what we need perhaps are regional bargaining units in order to strengthen the hand of some of the employees in the regions. The minister told me that would not be the right way to go. I am not sold on the idea, but 1 simply tossed it out as a suggestion as something that might protect those in the most vulnerable positions.
It seems to me that whenever you have the government promoting this kind of equality it favours the strong rather than the weak. The strong are either those in a bargaining position who can easily expose the vulnerability of society by withdrawing their services-as firemen could do across the country-or those who have large voting blocks within the union. That is precisely the problem we are faced with in the national unions today, for example, a bargaining union in British Columbia consisting at most of several hundred people and a bargaining unit in central Canada comprising several thousand people. You can see what would happen in a national vote with numbers like that. It reminds you a little of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) referendum formula and how that is supposed to work for the country.
There is no way employees who work for the federal government in British Columbia will ever end up with a package to meet their needs, because the large voting block in central Canada will consistently outvote them.
It is in the interests of the President of the Treasury Board to have a national union so that he can always pit one group against the other. Is that his scheme? It is the same scheme the federal government uses in supposedly trying to solve disparities invoked upon the people. The government settles with one tribe and antagonizes several other tribes. This is exactly what it is doing with the national unions.
What happens then is that those who are working in the British Columbia region are focusing on those working in central Canada and they become the enemies or the antagonists, rather than the employer. This is not a bad scheme.
I am focusing right now on the matter of the employees of the fire department of the Vancouver International Airport, but the same thing holds true for immigration officers, those working in the penitentiary services, the parole service, or any of the other bargaining units in the PSAC. Whenever you have a national union bargaining for all employees across Canada, you have inequality that creates an innate unfairness with regard to large segments of that union within the country.
As I said, it is in the government's interests to promote that kind of friction within the union so it can get the kind of package which is cheapest and looks best for the employer, but works a hardship.
I should like to know from the parliamentary secretary tonight whether there is to be something laid on the table for the employees at the Vancouver International Airport, because they will soon be in a strike position and they need a settlement. Even if they were not in a strike position, the disparity
Adjournment Debate
they are facing in their salaries is sufficient to make some of them lose their homes, and it is taking away the money they need for their groceries. I would like to have a commitment from the parliamentary secretary tonight that there is going to be some kind of settlement which will recognize the element of fairness that should be part of all bargaining and which will provide a settlement for those workers at the Vancouver International Airport.


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


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, I may misunderstand the nature of this debate, but I thought the Public Service Alliance insisted on a national or uniform pay scale right across the country, while it was the Treasury Board that was attempting to negotiate regional rates of pay that are in some way related to the average rates of pay of outside firefighters in the areas where those firefighters are employed.
So, I am pleased to tell the hon. member that the negotiators are prepared to consider any proposal by the union to rectify regional disparities. I think the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) and the hon. member opposite can find common agreement with that understanding.
As for the establishment of several bargaining units for such a widespread group of firefighters, I would have to tell the hon. member that this appears unlikely, but such a matter would have to be decided by the Public Service Staff Relations Board.


RAILWAYS-REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF VIA RAIL LEGISLATION
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, the question I raise this evening arises from a question I posed on July 13, 1981 as it appears at page 11454 of Hansard. At that time I directed that question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) asking for clarification about a rumour at that time of a potential cutback of roughly 20 per cent of VIA Rail services in Canada. The minister indicated he was not able to give a firm answer in the House at that time but that he was in full agreement on the need for a new VIA Rail act and other items that were ancillary to the improvement of VIA Rail.
Since that time, as you know, action has been taken by the minister through his announcement of July 27 when he announced the cutback of some 20 per cent of Canada's rail passenger service in a unilateral and arbitrary manner, at which time the House was not in session, and at a time when Members of Parliament and members of the public had no opportunity to consider that decision.
Mr. Speaker, I find the minister's action shameful and it is causing a great deal of anger, outrage and regional discord throughout the country. The decision has grave implications for hundreds of thousands of Canadians who use and rely on
12106	COMMONS
Adjournment Debate
the rail passenger service in this country. It has grave implications for at least 1600 workers who will be affected directly, plus countless other workers who will be faced with job losses and dislocation as a result of the indirect effects. There is no question that this decision has long-term implications for many people.
While I am happy to see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) in the House this evening and I appreciate the fact that he is here-I know he is a very busy man who has a lot on his platter-I was expecting his parliamentary secretary to be here this evening to talk about the cutbacks and how they relate to the labour component of the service. It is interesting to note that the parliamentary secretary who, although he is loyal to the minister and does support wholeheartedly the actions of the minister, represents a large area-the Winnipeg area-where some 500 people will be directly affected as a result of this cutback. He is also aware, I am sure, that the removal of the Northern Transcontinental will have a tremendous effect upon the tourist industry. 1 am sure he is aware there will be no direct service between Saskatoon and Winnipeg. The town of Rivers, Manitoba, will be deleted from this service; Watrous and Melville will have no service at all. It is a very serious state of affairs.
The other thing that bothers many of us is that there is a double standard in the minister's announcement. He has given the commuters a year to adjust and respond to his decision, but for those most affected by the regional and trans-continental cutbacks, the guillotine will fall on November 15.
Today, in the House, the minister admitted the costing order is out of date, inadequate and unfair. That view was shared by the Canadian Transport Commission, in a decision which was published recently with regard to a hearing that was conducted in the Province of Manitoba. The minister admitted as well that there would be changes. The costing order is at the heart and core of the financial problem with VIA Rail. Under the costing order, 63 per cent of their budget is uncontrollable because it is spent on services that are provided by CN and CP, which is basically a carte blanche, cost-plus or open-ended, however you want to describe it. Since the minister acknowledged that we should have a new VIA Rail act to outline clearly its mandate, it should be brought before the Parliament of Canada for a full parliamentary debate.
Since we have such a problem with the costing order, I cannot see why the minister is proceeding with such undue haste. Lay-off notices have been served, new schedules are being implemented. I heard today that they are scrapping some of the existing railway passenger cars in anticipation of the cutbacks on November 15. To all intents and purposes, it is a fait accompli.
I understand legal action will be launched tomorrow. Even while legal action is being taken, all these things are happening. The minister is forging right ahead. There is a vigorous debate going on in the House, the Senate, the Joint Committee on Regulations and Statutory Instruments, as well as throughout the country. The minister proceeds in his arrogant and arbitrary fashion. It is not inconsistent with the actions of this
DEBATES	__________October 22, 1981
government, as evidenced by its pursuit of the Constitution and the energy program.
The minister should understand that clearly because I think he does understand Canada. He has had much experience travelling back and forth across this country, working on the constitutional task force.
Given the fact that the minister understands the regional make-up and the diversity of this country, I cannot for the life of me understand why he would refuse to conform to what has become a very historical and traditional practice in this country, and that is the practice of holding public hearings on issues which are so important and fundamental to the Canadian people. The minister refuses because he says it would take too long and that he is not excited about giving the CTC a direction. Well, the routes which are being dismantled were in fact established through very extensive public hearings, based upon the criteria of public convenience and necessity by the CTC. If the government of that day did not agree with the CTC decision or directive, it should have used Section 64 then. It should not wait two years before using it. To me that is really the fundamental part of the violation of the spirit and the intent of Section 64 as it conforms to the principle enshrined within the National Transportation Act. I think this is a very, very dangerous precedent.
Today I was handed a document, which was provided by the Railway Transport Committee, the rail economic analysis branch, dated October 21, 1981. I would be pleased to table it because, out of 18 different applications, on only two occasions were public hearings not held. The precedent is clearly established. I urge the minister with all the conviction I can muster to reconsider his plan and to give the Canadian people an opportunity. I urge him to give those who are affected an opportunity to be heard. I urge him to defer the decision and let the Canadian traditional and historical process in this country work. I think the minister will find that his job will be a lot easier, and he will derive a great deal of satisfaction-


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


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by the psychology displayed by my friend, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), here tonight and the other day. I took it for granted that he was a man of great passion, dedication and rather rapid action. I thought that was him, but I can now almost believe that he has been saved for the demonstration of the opposite by the fact that he stayed in power for a relatively short period of time, because the only thing he has been talking about-or the main thing; I should not be unfair-besides the great lessons of democracy he has been giving me and others so generously is the concept of a delay. He is looking for a delay. He thought he would bring about delay by invoking action through the Canadian Transport Commission, which he knows well would have taken two, three or four years. There is no other way.
October 22, 1981

There are 21 different routes to look at when holding public hearings.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Parliamentary committee.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Then, realizing that I would not go for that and realizing that the route we have taken by order in council is quite legal under Section 64 of the National Transportation Act, he took a second kick at the can by suggesting that the matter should be sent to the parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport and delayed there until June 20 or thereabout.
Then tonight he says we should delay it until we have found a miraculous formula for the financial relationships between the railways and VIA, that is, an amendment to costing order R63-13.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Just offering you a way out.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That would take some time also. Then, on July 13 he said we should delay until we rewrite the VIA legislation. That is four occasions for delay. When do you do anything under that system?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There are options for you. Take one of them.


Jean-Luc Pepin: One cannot do anything under that system, so I came tonight really to talk about the VIA bill and to cheer up my hon. friend by saying that I take that responsibility very seriously. The last time I told him I was in favour of one. Now I have received the first approach to it from my department. I suggest that when he was holding my portfolio he too asked his officials to provide him one. I do not know. Maybe we could exchange notes at some point. At least we could exchange a verbal communication. The choice I will have at one point- and I am quite willing to talk about it with my predecessor-is a long bill or a short bill. What would be included would be a structural part and a more dynamic part. The framework of that is being developed now. I should be presenting it to cabinet in the coming months, but I am not at all reluctant to talk about it in the Standing Committee on Transport.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: But you won't have a railroad by then.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but the time alloted to him has expired.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNOR OF BANK OF CANADA BE INSTRUCTED TO LOWER INTEREST RATES
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, October 14, I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on behalf of the Spadina voters who sent me here if he would instruct the Governor of the Bank of Canada to lower the interest rate structure to a tolerable level. The minister's reply was disappointing. He merely saluted the worn-out dogma that high interest rates are anti-inflationary. Is he still asking Canadians to believe that he will cure high prices by pricing
Adjournment Debate
money higher than this country has ever seen before in order to cool down inflation? This was the policy of the late Conservative government, to concentrate spending power in the hands of a few, a policy that pleases those few and only those few.
This is still Conservative policy, as shown by the fact that when the leader of the nominal opposition asked questions on this last week, he was careful to avoid asking that the interest rate be brought down. He just said, let's have a review. He asked that there be subsidies to home owners rather than a new interest rate and investment policy that would bring health back to our economy.
What is disappointing and new is that the Liberal government, through the Minister of Finance, has also completely surrendered now to the philosophy of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. This present government and the one before it proved this policy to be a failure.
Inflation ran at 10 per cent in 1977. In four years, while inflation rose from 10 to 13 per cent, interest rates were going from 12 to 15 to 18 to 20 per cent and beyond. They had nothing to do with stopping inflation.
The government's new energy prices, up one third from last year, are sure to push inflation higher still. Will the minister care if interest rates rise to 25 or 30 per cent? The question is, how long can we wait for the minister's dogmatic policy to cure inflation? In fact, his cure is worse than his disease. His high interest rates are not cooling down demand as much as they are choking off production and supply and making inflation worse.
The number of officially unemployed jumped in one month, September, by 18 per cent. That is, 144,000 more Canadian men and women are not allowed to work productively. Does the minister like that cure for inflation? The Spadina voters clearly do not.
Small business bankruptcies jumped in that same month by 26 per cent. Spadina is the major small business centre for Ontario, if not for Canada. We have retail stores, specialty service shops, hundreds of textile and clothing manufacturers and distributors, the printing trades, the office furniture and supply trades, the restaurant and entertainment establishments and many more small and medium-sized businesses. Does the minister take pride in driving them into bankruptcy at a rate now increased by 26 per cent?
We have, I admit, very little farmland in Spadina, but our people do like to eat. We are told by the National Farmers Union that farmers now no longer spend 15 but 30 per cent of their income on carrying charges. No wonder grocery prices are rising faster than any other part of our cost of living. The banks take their share before we eat.
Does the minister plan to price food absolutely beyond the reach of Canadian working people? That might cure inflation in a sense, but not many of us would be around to enjoy it. There is, of course, one small group who are not suffering. The assets of the five largest banks in Canada went from $42 billion in 1970 to $260 billion in 1980, a fivefold increase.

October 22, 1981
Adjournment Debate
Their profits went from $362 million in 1970 to $1,186 million in 1980, an increase of two and one quarter times. During that time, this Liberal government, whose Minister of Finance tells us about his daily conversations with the bankers, generously reduced their effective tax rate from 46 per cent to 16 per cent, less than a bank teller pays. How did the banks respond to that handout? Those corporate welfare bums increased the spread between the rate they pay to their depositors and the rate they charge their borrowers by 50 per cent.
The working men and women, Mr. Speaker, and small business operators of Spadina have recently shown this government that they are not the docile and stupid voters that this government thought they were when it sprung the Spadina byelection. If the minister persists in feeding his friends, the bankers, by starving the people who produce the wealth in Canada, the rest of the Canadian voters will soon send them the same message.


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) has suggested, as the primary thrust of his comments, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) give the Governor of the Bank of Canada a directive to immediately lower interest rates. I think members of the House should remember that the fundamental cause of high interest rates we now face is the rate of inflation. There are also other factors. We have talked about these in the House a number of times in the past. Those factors related to the degree of monetary restraint that is being followed by the Bank of Canada. It relates to the growth of demand for credit that we have seen in this country. It relates to the U.S. interest
rate situation, which is a contributing factor. It relates to the supply shocks we have seen in the marketplace over the last three to four years, the rapid rise in international oil prices, food shortages or crop failures in certain parts of the world at different times. All of these factors have led to our inflationary situation. All of these factors, Mr. Speaker, are leading to high interest rates.
The Bank of Canada, Mr. Speaker, has one tool and one tool only at its disposal; that is the growth rate in the money supply. It can make the money supply grow faster or it can make it grow slower. The Bank of Canada cannot, by some wave of its magic wand, nor can the government, cause interest rates to be 15 per cent, or 30 per cent or 5 per cent. It relates to the supply of credit. The Bank of Canada has control over the supply of money, but that is all.
If the Bank of Canada makes the supply of money grow faster, as in the particular situation we are in now, certainly in the very short term, because there is more supply of money, interest rates would tend to come down. The effect of that, Mr. Speaker, would be that in the medium term we would have worse inflation than we have now. In fact, we would have higher interest rates and higher inflation in the medium term than we have now. Now is the time for us to attack the problem of inflation, Mr. Speaker, and get it down, once and for all, and to set the stage for stable and sound economic growth and employment, low rates of inflation and prosperity in the future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 10.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.28 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, October 23, 1981