1981-10-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas all Canadians are aware of the situation in Poland, and whereas all Canadians are aware of the plight of the Polish refugees in the camps in Austria, and whereas Canada has always come to the aid of those in need, notwithstanding established immigration quotas, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That the Canadian government move, without further delay, to admit those Polish refugees from the Austrian camps who wish to come to Canada, and to send food and clothing and medical supplies without delay to the camps where these Polish refugees are located.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis):
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.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on an urgent matter brought to our attention via the eighth International Symposium on Small Business. Canada's extremely high interest rates have made it virtually impossible for a growing number of small businesses to maintain sufficient flows of operating capital, yet present federal financial programs provide virtually no assistance in this area. The survival of Canada's small business sector is being threatened by the present shortage of working capital. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That the government open up the Small Businesses Loans Act and the small business development bond to allow entrepreneurs access to working capital and thereby stop the demise of our vital small business community.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Prime Minister has again broken his promise to have a budget in October and delayed the budget presentation to November 10 according to his telexed message to the provinces.
Clearly the budget contains dramatic cuts in EPF and equalization transfer payments to the provinces, and clearly the Prime Minister is afraid that if the provinces were aware of this reduction they would fail to support his constitutional

October 21, 1981
5.0.	43
package. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That this House of Commons call upon the government to produce a budget on October 27, 1981, to remove the clear suspicion that fiscal measures in the budget will not be directed against the provinces, and to come clean with the people of Canada and their provincial governments and give Canadians generally a new sense of economic direction.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EFFECT ON REMEMBRANCE DAY SERVICES-MOTION UNDER
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the Prime Minister's statement indicating that because of constitutional discussions the budget cannot be presented on November 3 in view of the Minister of Finance's commitment that a budget would be introduced before the end of October, and because the date of November 10 for the budget introduction, as indicated by the Prime Minister, illustrates again the Prime Minister's total disregard for our armed forces and for our veterans because of the impossibility of members of Parliament being able to return to their constituencies to pay their respects at Remembrance Day services, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That this House condemns the insensitivity of the government for its total disregard for our veterans and armed forces, and that this House further moves that the Minister of Finance introduce his budget on October 27, 1981.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ADMINISTRATION
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Lome McCuish (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since the government took office in 1980 it has given us high interest rates, loss of our homes, a 43-cent dollar, an unnecessary postal strike, regional tensions destroying national unity, a shattered rail system, and government by closure and order in council. It is destroying Parliament. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That, due to the Prime Minister's lack of leadership and total lack of compassion and understanding of important issues, this House asks him to allow democracy to take its course and instructs him to resign his administration and
to call an election, thus allowing Canadians to replace his uncaring government with a government ready to respond to the challenge facing this nation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43. The government is ignoring old age pensioners. One of my constituents writes:
I don't get to visit and used to enjoy Christmas and birthday cards. Now they are cut to a minimum. I gave up smoking. I do my own hair and make clothes last, and am still fighting a losing battle. I went through the depression and worry that history is repeating itself.
I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That this House urge the Minister of Finance to cease flogging the dead horse of the $35 increase in the Guaranteed Income Supplement, and do something meaningful to alleviate the plight of people, such as my constituent, by repudiating his high interest rate policy, thereby ceasing to practise monetary policy at the expense of the poor and aged.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED BOYCOTT OF NAMIBIAN URANIUM-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of recent CBC reports that a federal Crown corporation, Eldorado Nuclear Ltd., is profiting from the importation of uranium from Namibia, and in view of Canada's alleged commitment to the independence of Namibia, and the distaste of most Canadians for profits derived from oppression and exploitation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish):
That this House instruct the Government of Canada to require the Atomic Energy Control Board to withdraw any licences which permit the importation of uranium originating in Namibia.


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

October 21, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of some urgency. The former postmaster general announced that, at the beginning of the new year, the cost to consumers of stamps and postal services will rise significantly, the basic letter rate increasing to 30 cents. In light of the fact that postal rate increases and costly modernization have never noticeably improved basic service, and the fact that the proposed new increases will be of considerable hardship to thousands of Canadians, particularly senior citizens who rely on the daily mail for everyday business and personal use, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastines (Mr. Ellis):
That the government be soundly condemned for planning such an excessive increase in postal rates as a means of improving the postal service and structure, and that the postmaster general take immediate steps to ensure the increase is reduced to a more modest and appropriate level.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the government's economic policy is killing the beef industry in Canada by refusing to recognize the dire straits of cattle producers who are being forced daily into bankruptcy through a combination of high interest rates and high feed costs I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That the government establish immediate measures to assist cattle producers so that the vital beef industry in this country does not go down the drain.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Appeals have recently been made to a number of members of this House by Amnesty International on behalf of Mr. Alberto Altesor Gonzales, a former member of the Uruguayan Congress who has been unjustly imprisoned and frequently tortured for the last 6 years. In view of these appeals and the fact that Mr. Altesor is suffering from a serious heart ailment, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong):
That this House, with the support of many parliamentarians around the world, ask the government to seek the release of Mr. Altesor and grant him entry into Canada so that he may receive medical treatment, without which he may soon lose his life.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, today is the 101st anniversary of the signing of the contract for the first transcontinental railway. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That this House arrange a birthday party to celebrate the event and invite the Minister of Transport to attend in his Henry VIII costume, along with his caucus colleagues, to chop the cake which will be supplied by thousands of delighted train passengers who will also heap piles on the minister and his friends who, together, marked the occasion early last night by voting to disembowel 20 per cent of existing rail passenger service in this country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
12016

Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Last week both he and the Prime Minister indicated that the budget would be ready for presentation in late October, but that it would be delayed because the government gave priority to the Constitution. Now that the constitutional conference has been moved into November, will the Minister of Finance introduce his budget to this House of Commons next week rather than forcing Canadians to wait, while the government delays again the consideration of economic policy?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, it was in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition that I indicated I would be prepared to bring in a budget on November 3. That was the first time, as I recollect, that a member of the House asked for a specific date. That specific date was given after taking into account the rather careful and elaborate preparations necessary for a budget presentation, including the question of budget secrecy. At this point it would not be possible for me to advance the date-


Miss MacDonald:: Why not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -earlier than November 3. It may still be possible, depending upon the reply from the premiers, to have the budget on November 3. If that window opens I will be prepared to present the budget on that date.


REASONS FOR DELAY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance surely recalls that the Prime Minister, presumably after taking account of the elaborate preparations necessary for the budget, told this House last week that the budget would be brought in before the end of October.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Obviously the budget is ready to be brought in. Will the Minister of Finance tell us now why Canadians in Newfoundland who are out of work, nearly one fifth of the labour force in that province, with fish plants closed down there, and why 100,000 Canadians who stand to lose their homes because of the government's high interest rate policy, should be forced to wait another two weeks to have the budget brought down, when the Prime Minister of Canada has indicated in this House that the budget was ready for presentation next week? Why can we not have it next week? Why should the people of Canada have to wait?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I do not think the Leader of the Opposition is quoting the Prime Minister correctly at all.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He should check the exact words which were used on that occasion. I was prepared, and I am prepared to present the budget-


An hon. Member:: Let us have it then.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -on November 3. If Premier Peckford were as solicitous about the people of Newfoundland as the right hon. gentleman is, he would not have joined with the other premiers to deliberately suggest a date that had no other effect than to delay the budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister said in answer to my question that the Minister of Finance, and I quote, "plans to bring down a budget before the end of this month. I repeat, plans.


An hon. Member:: What does that mean?


Charles Joseph Clark: What that means is that the budget was ready for introduction on October 14 or by the end of October.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister of Finance now refuses, for some reason, to bring the budget down when the Prime Minister has said it is ready. Will the Minister of Finance tell us is there something in that budget that is so startling, so damaging to Canadians, so damaging to the provinces, that the government is afraid to bring it down before the constitutional conference? Is there something in that budget that causes the government to fear that introducing it on the date the Prime Minister said it was ready would jeopardize agreement on the Constitution?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition once again misquotes the words of the Prime Minister. After having read them correctly, he then repeats the words erroneously. At no point did the Prime Minister
October 21, 1981

state that the Minister of Finance was ready to bring in the budget next week. At no point was that statement ever made.
I had always stated, both inside and outside the House, that it was my intention to bring down the budget during the month of October; there is no doubt about that. It was repeated frequently. When it was my obligation to determine specifically the budget date, I announced in the House of Commons specifically November 3. That was the reply given to the Leader of the Opposition at that point, and the Leader of the Opposition accepted that date with no objection. Once that date was given, plans were put into place to make the necessary preparations, to do the necessary printing and to undertake the necessary distribution of budget documents throughout the country. That is what happened, and it is not possible now to bring in the budget before November 3.
However, I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition-he asked a question-that I am not afraid to bring in the budget because I think it will be greeted with considerable approval by the people of this country, perhaps including the provinces.


IMPACT OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance will know after reading Hansard that not only did the Prime Minister give the undertaking I quoted a moment ago but also, later that day in response to my colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, he said, and I quote the English translation:
I shall point out to him-
He was referring to the hon. member for Joliette.
-as I pointed out to his leader that the budget should be tabled before the end of the month-


Mr. Chenier:: Should.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is right, "should", and there is no question that the Prime Minister is right-it should be tabled before the end of October. The minister is saying that a budget which was ready last week is not ready any more. Will the minister tell us what has changed so that he cannot come immediately to the aid of Canadians who need aid? Will the minister tell this House of Commons why the people of Canada should be forced to wait and why they should be forced to give second place to their economic priorities simply so the Prime Minister can carry on with his preoccupation with the Constitution?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition is focusing on the wrong situation. I got up in the House of Commons and stated that the budget would be tabled November 3. I was prepared to carry through. Then the premiers, knowing full well that the budget date had been set, said, "No, we want a federal-provincial conference on that date". If the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a question, why does he not ask the premiers why they deliberately attempted to forestall a budget which was due on November 3?
Oral Questions THE ECONOMY


OUTFLOW OF CAPITAL TO OTHER COUNTRIES
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, that is the most transparent answer we have received in this House. It is the most transparent attempt at deflection onto someone else. The buck stops right there, on the government benches. The minister should say when he will table his budget, and table it. We are ready for it next week.
My question relates to a very important matter which I hope the budget will address. In the 12 months ending last June there was a record outflow of capital from this country, four times the average level of outflow during the whole of the 1970s. This was not made up of major items. There was a number of items too small to identify, but in aggregate the outflow amounted to $8.4 billion. Because of the downward pressure this puts on the Canadian dollar, it obviously causes interest rates for horn owners, farmers and small-business men to increase. What steps is the minister proposing to take to reverse this outflow of capital so that we can help home owners who are so severely hurt by the interest rates this outflow causes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member referred to a statistic relating to the end of June. Since that time, in order to remove pressure from the Canadian currency and to reduce pressure on interest rates, I made an appeal to the banks of this country which, by and large, has been carried out and met, to stop providing large loans for the purpose of takeovers. That has had a very important effect.
The second development since the end of June which should have a very positive effect is the energy agreement entered into between the Government of Canada and the government of Alberta. Both of these have been quoted recently by the Governor of the Bank of Canada as very positive steps in carrying out the objectives mentioned by the hon. gentleman.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the answer of the minister was directed to the large outflows of capital. What I am referring to is all the very small outflows of capital, individual decisions made by people in this country who have totally lost confidence in their government's ability to manage the economy of the country. That amounted to $8.4 billion, five times the level of the seventies. Since the minister has addressed the matter of the specific direction to the banks, what other steps is he proposing to take? Does he propose to extend that policy of specific direction to individual investors regarding an outflow of capital?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, once again drawing attention to the date mentioned by the questioner, namely, the end of June, since August, when there was very strong down-

October 21, 1981
Oral Questions
ward pressure on the Canadian currency, the currency has strengthened quite significantly. I believe that is attributable to the steps which I have taken. The hon. gentleman asks me about further steps. When the circumstances justify it, I will be making appropriate announcements to the House.


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for housing. Since the House opened the minister has been attempting to downgrade the seriousness of the housing crisis in Canada. Just yesterday he said, with reference to one of the documents that came out of his own department which related the serious situation of both home owners and renters to the high interest rates, that it was something with which he did not agree. Further, he said:
It was a document prepared by a person employed in the information section of the corporation.
Will the minister confirm to the House that he has circulated a document to his cabinet colleagues, with his own signature at the bottom, which lays out in great detail the seriousness of the housing crisis? If so, why did he say, as reported in today's Toronto Star, that there is no housing crisis in Canada?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I believe the answer to the question by the Leader of the New Democratic Party is in his question. Yes, I have been busy since October when interest rates started approaching 20 per cent. I have been concerned. I have been meeting with a lot of people. I have been taking a lot of advice. I have given advice to the government, pointing out my concerns about this problem. However, at no moment will I accept the wildly exaggerated figure used by the hon. member of 85,000 people going to be forced out of their homes before Christmas of this year. 1 think that is wildly irresponsible on the part of the leader of that party.


FORECAST OF DROP IN HOUSING STARTS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister once again refuses to answer the question. Just two hours ago I was given a 27-page document, with the minister s signature at the bottom. It contains virtually all the information that has been presented in the House since its opening. Specifically it states in this document-the minister can check the writing, and I am sure no one has forged his signature on the bottom-and I quote:
-starts will drop to an annual rate of around 135,000 for the remainder of the year-
That will be the lowest level in 15 years, and it will probably be 135,000 next year, which will mean that the record low in starts will continue. Furthermore, over the minister's signature it states that the rental situation will get so bad that "a black
market could develop". Does the minister stand by these views? Is the situation that serious? If it is, why is the government not doing something about it now instead of waiting for a budget a few weeks from now?


Paul James Cosgrove: were to examine the document that the hon. member is referring to, I would probably find that it is the document I referred to earlier in this House as being a document prepared for cabinet for consideration in preparation of the budget. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I will not comment on the specifics of the document. But I would indicate to the hon. member that anyone who can read English and read French and can read half a dozen other languages of the media of this country, and has done so over the last two months, would know there are serious difficulties faced by the housing industry, by the renters, and by people who are facing mortgage rollovers. That is why I gave advice to the government in preparation for the budget.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
John Edward Broadbent: I say to the minister there is nothing in this document that should be kept for secrecy purposes in preparation of a budget. Every member of Parliament should have access to this information.
I should like to ask the Minister of Finance, since the minister reponsible for housing has just conceded we have a crisis for renters, a crisis for home owners-


Paul James Cosgrove: I did not say that.


John Edward Broadbent: It says in the document that we have a situation where starts next year are going to be at the lowest level in 16 years. Since he has refused to bring in a budget we all want, why does the minister not bring in legislation in the next few days to deal with this serious economic situation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am as eager as my hon. friend is to give priority to economic questions.


Charles Joseph Clark: Show us.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe it would be unwise to bring in any type of piecemeal legislation until the country sees the over-all budgetary situation, so the citizens of the country can judge the validity of the measures that will be proposed. I should like to add that in present circumstances, when so many citizens are concerned about the economy, the economic questions should get an up-front debate and an up-front exposure in a specific period when people are not being distracted by outside events.
October 21, 1981


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. ADOLFO PEREZ ESQUIVEL, 1980 NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Adolfo Perez Esquivel, of Argentina, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for 1980.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: We have made a suggestion to the Minister of Agriculture about how to provide financing for the agricultural community at reasonable interest rates. In the latter part of August the Minister of Agriculture made a commitment that he would provide money to farmers at 14 per cent through the Farm Credit Corporation. Did the Minister of Agriculture take our suggestion to cabinet? If farmers are to receive the benefit of money at 14 per cent through the Farm Credit Corporation, why, within four weeks of his promise, did he allow Farm Credit interest rates to go from 14 per cent to nearly 17 per cent?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: I do not know what the hon. member is referring to, Madam Speaker. Any minister in charge of interest rate programs would like to see the interest rate as low as possible. The Farm Credit Corporation uses the past six months average cost of money for their formula. This worked out to 16% per cent. It was automatically triggered. We had discussions about freezing it at 14 per cent. I do not remember-and I will check all the tapes again-in my many speeches where I mentioned 14 per cent. I believe the furthest I would have gone was to say I would do my utmost to see it stayed at 14 per cent. However, I have no recollection of making a firm commitment that it would stay at 14 per cent.


REPORTED STATEMENT ON MINISTER'S POSSIBLE RESIGNATION
Thomas Gordon Towers: To help the minister's memory, the commitment was made in an interview after he spoke to the Canadian National Exhibition last August.
The minister has further stated publicly he will either get money for farmers at 14 per cent or he will resign. Could the minister give us the time frame in which we can expect one or the other? Or does he intend to cop out?


Eugene Whelan: The hon. Member refers to an interview. I am sure the interview is on tape, Madam Speaker. I do not recall saying it the way he
Oral Questions
stated it. The last statement he made is as erroneous as the first statement he made.


FUNDING FOR CORPORATION
Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron-Bruce):: The Minister of Agriculture will be aware that the Minister of Finance told the House yesterday-and I quote:
I am not so sure that a general infusion of funds into the Farm Credit Corporation is the answer to the special difficulties of certain groups of farmers in the country.
I should like the Minister of Agriculture to tell us what groups of farmers the Minister of Finance had in mind, and what groups of farmers the Farm Credit Corporation can help. At the same time, I would ask the minister to tell us how much money is left in the Farm Credit Corporation's budget for the fiscal year ending April, and how much of that money is available to farmers in Ontario.


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member would like a whole book in a short answer. If you were to allow me to recite a whole book, it would take the rest of the question period or else I could send him a written report. If the hon. member has an efficient researcher, I am sure he has been informed about the money available to the Farm Credit Corporation, because this is made public. He knows how much money there is in it. There is not enough money to take care of the farmers' indebtedness at the present time. He also knows from the press release we issued in regard to the interest rates for the Farm Credit Corporation that we will be bringing in amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation Act along the lines of what we spoke about earlier. The Minister of Finance concurred with this. In the same press release we said when the budget is brought in we will be taking care of those people in dire need, along the same line the Prime Minister mentioned. We never intended to look after everyone's financial interest through the Farm Credit Corporation, never in the history of this country-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


RATIO OF FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR ONTARIO FARMERS
Murray Cardiff: We would certainly support getting new legislation for the Farm Credit Corporation to help agriculture in this country. It is something that is lacking. The minister knows that.
Can the minister tell me how many Ontario farmers will benefit by the money left in the Ontario program part of farm credit? Or if he wants to take it in general terms, what proportion of the requests made in Ontario for farm credit can be met by the remaining amounts of money left in this province?


Eugene Whelan: The Farm Credit Corporation could never take over all bank loans, demand notes and floating loans. We are hoping the banks accept their responsibility for the problems they created by the

October 21, 1981
Oral Questions
loaning programs they initiated. We are hoping they fulfil their obligation to the rural communities in rural Canada and make amends for their improper way of loaning money. It is only a small percentage, Madam Speaker. This year the Farm Credit Corporation will lend approximately $500 million in rural Canada. This only covers the need of approximately 30 per cent of the requests by farmers for long-term loans. The banks should never have given demand notes, should never have given floating loans. The loans should have been longterm mortgages with fixed rates of interest. The hon. member knows as well as I do, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Bruce Lonsdale (Timiskaming):: My question is for the Minister of Communications. As the minister knows, this spring the CRTC ruled that the Canadian Satellite Communications Ltd. (CANCOM) would be allowed to distribute a package of Canadian radio and television signals to northern communities across the country. Subsequently many smaller northern and remote communities through their municipal councils applied to the CRTC to be terrestrial distributors. Now, however, the CRTC has ruled that municipal corporations may not be issued broadcasting licences because of chapter 377 of the Broadcasting Act which is an order directing the CRTC that municipal corporations are ineligible. Subsequent to that the CRTC wrote to these municipalities-


Some hon. Members:: Order. Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member proceed to his question?


Bruce Lonsdale: The CRTC told the municipalities the only way they would become eligible is if they provided community associations or committees-


Some hon. Members:: Order. Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I ask the hon. member to proceed immediately to his question, and I mean just that.


Bruce Lonsdale: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the minister advise the House if he is prepared to amend Section 3 of that direction and exempt municipal corporations, thereby allowing them to hold broadcasting licences and, if not, would the minister indicate what arm's length criteria would be acceptable, and what he considers to be effective control by municipal councils?


Mr. Crombie:: Simply yes or no.


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I believe there is no need to change either the Broadcasting Act or the regulations. A number of small communities in northern Ontario or in other parts of the country have indeed been licensed, not through the municipal governments but through the municipal governments helping local groups set up community associations or non-profit broadcast societies. This method of proceeding is one which the communities the hon. member represents could explore. Of course my department would be more than willing to help them explore that avenue.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It concerns the current subject of the hearings involving the oil companies before the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission and the allegations that they forced Canadians to pay an extra $12 billion over a 15-year period in increased costs for gasoline and heating oil. Mr. Jake Howard who, like Mr. John Robinette, is one of the hordes of very competent and very expensive lawyers representing the oil companies, has said that he would delay the inquiry if the Bertrand report is put in as evidence. This practice has been going on for a long time. These are the same companies that have been blackmailing us on the megaprojects, these are the same companies that have led to overcharges-


Mr. Ouellet:: Order, order!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I guess on Wednesdays questions are somewhat longer than usual after caucus. May I have a short question, please?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I just wanted to make sure the minister knew what the subject was. Will the minister tolerate the delays about which Mr. Howard and the other lawyers for the oil companies are talking? If not, what does he intend to do?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I believe that this question would be better addressed to the chairman of the commission. It is up to him to accept the evidence laid before the commission. As to tolerance or no tolerance, that is for the chairman of the commission to decide and not for the minister, who has no authority over the work of the commission at this time.
October 21, 1981


REQUEST THAT COMMISSION ISSUE INTERIM REPORT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, the minister's own lawyer, Gordon Henderson, said the following to the inquiry:
-not only did oil industry practices lead to... overcharging ... but the "predatory" and restrictive practices still are in operation.
My supplementary question is directed to the same minister. The minister could take action, if he is prepared to do two things. First, he could ask for an interim report of this commission so that we will get going on this thing and it will not go on and on. Second, is he prepared to change the industry by instructing Petro-Canada to increase its refining capacity and supply more oil for independent oil companies that can supply people without these kinds of rip-offs?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, in reply to the first question, I have already been assured by this commission and its chairman that they would act promptly with regard to this file. As for the second question asked by the hon. member, the evidence submitted to the commission will call for a report by the commission followed by a series of recommendations. I am sure that my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, myself, as well as the other Cabinet members will act on the basis of the recommendations included in the report of the commission.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On June 4, 1981, the minister announced quite proudly that Japanese automakers had agreed to reduce voluntarily the number of their exports to Canada by 6 per cent. At that time the minister said that the growing number of automotive imports into Canada was contributing considerably toward the high unemployment level. In an answer to a question in the House at the same time the minister assured us that there would be a substantial increase in the Canadian content of offshore imports. Being the accommodating fellow I am, I should like to give the minister an opportunity to report on the progress he has made since then, with regard to both the voluntary Japanese restraint program and the additional Canadian content in offshore imports, as promised by the minister.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, the arrangements the Japanese announced on June 4 cover the fiscal year from April 1, 1981, to April 1, 1982. They said they would restrain their exports to Canada in that period to some 174,000 units. At the time the
Oral Questions
arrangements were announced, exports for the period after April 1 to June were already under way, which was reflected in some increase in exports. I am happy to report that in August of this year there was a sharp drop in exports from Japan to some 11,000 units from the 19,000 level in the previous month. I look forward to this level being maintained for the balance of the fiscal year. If that is the case, the level the Japanese said they would maintain certainly would be achieved.
With respect to the achievement of greater Canadian content in imports, I want to confirm to the House that we have had a major achievement because of the agreement of the federal government to enter into a special duty remission program with Volkswagen Canada. They said that they would be establishing a plant which will hire some 500 people. They will be doubling the purchase of parts from independent Canadian manufacturers to some $150 million per year, with some 1,500 jobs. They will be maintaining a Canadian content level after 1983 of some 84 per cent, much higher than is the case required for existing Canadian manufacturers. I thank my friend for his constructive question.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL UNDERTAKING
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, I cannot believe the minister tried to answer that question with a straight face. He knows full well that since April 1 the number of Japanese automotive imports has increased to 90,893 vehicles, an increase of over 70 per cent. Even though that increase dropped somewhat in August, if this trend continues for one or two months they will never keep that promise. It is like the minister's industrial strategy. It has evaporated. His promise on the automotive industry has not materialized, and he is still here despite the high interest rates which are plaguing the country.
My supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Is he now prepared to be honest with Canadians, admit his failures in the auto industry, and at the same time revise his expectations regarding Japanese imports as well as Canadian content in Japanese automobiles and vehicles, as the minister promised, so that the industry can plan accordingly? Can the minister give us that undertaking now?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, certainly I do not accept the premise of the hon. member's question. We made efforts which were reflected in our arrangements with Chrysler, Ford, and other companies, as well as independent parts manufacturers that are moving toward the achievement of the objective of a stronger Canadian industry. Also we have begun to move toward our objective of greater Canadian content with respect to exports to Canada of companies not established here. The hon. member's premise is quite wrong. There is a lot more room and ground to cover. We are working actively to pursue and fulfil those objectives. I do not think my hon. friend is on the right track at all. In fact, from his questions he is right off

Oral Questions
the road when it comes to knowing what he is talking about with regard to automobiles.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance in view of the significance of his budget for Canadians, of which the minister is well aware. The minister has already told me that he would be able to table his budget before the end of October and he finally announced officially November 3 as the date of the budget. Can the minister tell the House today whether it would have been physically possible for him to table his budget before November 3 if it had not been for this conference?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 made it clear that once I had decided upon the date, or had indicated to the House the intention to proceed on November 3, preparations were put in place in the manner I described earlier in the question period. Therefore at this point it is not possible for me to advance that process, but at the same time, as I indicated earlier, if it turned out at the end of the week that the meeting on the Constitution is not to be held in Ottawa, as indicated in the Prime Minister's telex, I would proceed as normal on November 3.


THE ECONOMY
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, earlier the minister asked my leader to invite the premiers to set another date for the first ministers' conference, which would have allowed him to bring down his budget on November 3. Since the minister is aware of the problems confronting thousands of Canadians, including farmers, renters and home owners-this bears repeating and I believe that the minister is well aware of the problem in Quebec since he can hear from his 74 colleagues from that province-could the minister at least tell us whether, in his own mind, the government gives priority to the economy or rather to the constitutional reform? It seems to me that the Canadian people would like to hear about economic measures. As far as the minister himself is concerned, does the economy have priority over the constitutional reform?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, my priority is certainly the economy.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Oh, really!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: For that reason I was rather surprised that the premiers of the provinces, knowing full well that the date had been established for a budget, had suggested that very week for a federal-provincial conference.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It seems to me that a lot of people in Canada, including myself, will be wondering what was the purpose of that obvious effort to downgrade the importance of the economy.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: So, the premiers are writing your budget, are they?


INDUSTRY
Mr. Normand Lapointe (Beauce):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Keeping in mind the great many lay-offs in the footwear industry, particularly so in Quebec, and the ever growing share of the market cornered by imports, that is, already 58 per cent of the Canadian market, and this percentage having followed an upward trend especially since the devaluation of foreign currencies, can the minister tell the House whether he intends to maintain the import quotas as recommended in the report of the Anti-dumping Tribunal respecting the footwear industry?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my colleague has accurately described the problem of the footwear industry. We in cabinet take this problem very seriously. That is why we are very actively discussing our policy for that industry. We are fully aware of the fact that our current quota system will end December 1, and I want to assure my colleague and the House that within the next few weeks we will be in a position to clarify our policy. I hope it will be possible to set the footwear industry and its labour force well at ease.
October 21, 1981


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I understand that the minister met yesterday with representatives of farm organizations from western Canada who have formed a western grains research foundation. They will base its research, they hope, on the $9 million presently in the Prairie Farm Emergency Fund, plus a voluntary levy of one tenth of one per cent on grain sales. I wonder if the minister can tell me whether he supports the foundation's presentation and, if so, what steps he is taking to implement it.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I did not meet the group to which the hon. member refers. If it was here yesterday, I was in Saskatoon.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Oh, God!


An hon. Member:: Got a good welcome, too.


Eugene Whelan: I do not pretend to be God. The hon. member may think that I am.


Charles Joseph Clark: You think you are.


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member used the terminology "Oh, God". I want to tell him that God was probably there and I was also there; however, so were many people from all across Canada, and when I finished my presentation in Saskatoon I received a standing ovation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: They met with my officials. I have been in a meeting since eight o'clock this morning, and I have not yet had time to see the report from the officials.


AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS
Douglas Charles Neil: I would like to point out to the minister that the foundation is similar to a suggestion in my Bill C-245 to set up a research establishment. The minister is aware that the $9 million in the Prairie Farm Emergency Fund is not interest-bearing. At 15 per cent interest this means about $3,600 a day is lost to research. I wonder if the minister will give top priority to dealing with the foundation's presentation so that we can get along with the job of research in western agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member describes this fund in a manner which he knows does not operate like that at all. Any money which is held that way is held by the Receiver General. The hon. member is talking about interest rates which he knows do
Oral Questions
not exist; he makes a wide sweeping statement describing how much is lost, and he impresses a lot of people by that. However, he knows that he is as inaccurate as he could be. He knows that that money belongs to both the government and-


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Eugene Whelan: -was contributed to by the producers. He knows full well that if I could use that money, I would be using it tomorrow for research. I do not need to have anyone else tell me that research is important, and how they want to administer it. It will be used for research if and when we can take hold of the money and use it, as far as that goes. However, we look at the need for research in Canada and at the little contribution some are making. He knows that the producers in western Canada cannot decide among themselves how much of a contribution they should be making to research on a voluntary write-off, and this type of thing.


Mr. Andre:: Could you repeat that?


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member knows fully well that he is making a mountain out of what is not even an ant hill.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General, the minister responsible for ensuring that the RCMP obey the law in Canada. The Solicitor General has said that in his view the rule of law justifies a number of illegal activities which the McDonald Commission strongly urged be validated by legislation. He further indicated that he is continuing to authorize the RCMP to engage in activities which McDonald stated clearly violate the law.
In view of the fact that the McDonald Commission stated that tolerating any breaches of the law is merely the thin edge of the wedge, how can the Solicitor General defend his dangerous statements allowing the RCMP to decide which laws it is reasonably necessary to break, statements which clearly say that there is one law for the RCMP and another law for all other Canadians?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: I could certainly never justify that policy in the manner the hon. member opposite has attributed to me. What I did say, and in which I am supported by the law officers of the Crown and by some outside law opinions, is that there are special powers which are available to the police which are not available to ordinary citizens in the course of law enforcement activities, when it is reasonably necessary for them to exercise those powers. I think Canadians are very pleased and satisfied with the level of effective law enforcement that we have in this country, and I do not propose to see that diminished.

October 21, 1981
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The RCMP is complying, in its activities, with the rule of law. Therefore, to characterize its activities as illegal is totally unjustified. In fact McDonald himself did not say that they were unlawful; he said that they were not authorized by law, which is not the same thing as saying that they are unlawful.


CONSEQUENCE OF SUPREME COURT DECISION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, with that kind of contemptuous attitude the minister himself should be charged with aiding and abetting violations of the Criminal Code.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: My supplementary question to that co-conspirator is this: as a result of yesterday's Supreme Court of Canada's decision allowing the RCMP to breach the privacy of Canadians' confidential medical records, will the Solicitor General assure this House that under no circumstances will he allow the RCMP to request such confidential medical information from health care personnel in violation of laws, regulations, and possibly medical ethics?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I gather that my friend opposite is now calling the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada unlawful.
I directed that appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada when we had the decision of the court of appeal because I felt it was necessary for the RCMP and all of the other police forces in Canada as well to have a privilege in their relationship with informers. The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld that privilege. To suggest those activities are unlawful after the Supreme Court of Canada itself found that they were lawful is, to my way of thinking, a very grave and political distortion of what happened at the Supreme Court of Canada.


MEASURES TO IMPROVE SANITARY CONDITIONS AMONG JAMES BAY CREE
Mr. Rene Gingras (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Numerous representations were made last winter, and again this spring and summer, concerning health hazards in certain Cree villages at James Bay. I should like to know whether the minister has done anything to improve sanitary conditions on the James Bay coast?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I should like to say to the hon.
member that, through its parliamentary committee, the House has been made aware that all summer long we did closely monitor the question of the health of the James Bay Cree Indians, in co-operation with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and following a joint meeting of our officials and the ministers involved, as well as the health conditions in each of the villages whose environmental conditions were critical, so as to ensure that the various parties involved were discharging their responsibilities. The fact remains that those parties have to be convened. In mid-May I wrote to the Quebec minister, Mr. Pierre-Marc Johnson, whose direct responsibility it is now, asking him to hold such a meeting. I wrote to him again because I still had not received a reply around mid-September and 1 wrote to him again on October 15, this time suggesting that we both have a meeting with the Cree, on the assumption of course that Quebec would accept that.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House the the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Tuesday, October 21, 1981, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I presume that today you are almost ready to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) the day before yesterday. Before making my submissions to you, which are submissions in an area quite different from those made by the hon. member for Oshawa, may I point out that in Hansard at page 11912 for October 19, the issue now before the Chair is listed under the heading "Privilege". There is no mention made of a point of order. Similarly, in the index there is no mention made of a point of order. That oversight is carried forward into yesterday's Hansard.
I suggest for future reference, when one wishes to have access to these jewels of wisdom coming from hon. members and from the Chair, that in order to made it easier, it might be well to suggest to the Hansard office that they do list a point of order raised as such. There were the two questions, as the Chair will recall. There was a distinct question of privilege and a distinct question of order. It is to the latter that I wish to speak today.
October 21, 1981

The key citation mentioned by the hon. member for Oshawa comes from Beauchesne's fifth edition, Citation 327(2), which reads:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest.
The hon. member for Oshawa rested his submission and argument on the interpretation of the word "cited" as meaning "quoted", or a document quoted from. I wish to carry the submission beyond that and refer the Chair to the same Citation 327, but to paragraph (5), where in effect Beauchesne sets forth the definition of the word "cite". It reads:
To be cited, a document must be quoted or specifically used to influence debate.
In my submission, citing a document means two different things. Either the document must be quoted from or it must be specifically used to influence debate. The admission that a document exists or the reading of the salutation or address of a letter does not constitute a citing.
My submissions to you, Madam Speaker, will be resting on the argument that the document itself has been used extensively for three days in a row now to support a certain position taken by the minister in debate and, on the other hand, to support a certain position taken by the hon. member for Oshawa.
This cannot be gainsaid. If one refers to page 11906 of Hansard, it will be seen that the minister did attempt "to influence debate", to use the words of Beauchesne. He did this by specifically using the document in an attempt to influence his side of the question, not only with the hon. member for Oshawa but with the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and others on this side of the House. That appears in the right-hand column of Hansard for October 19, 1981, at page 11906 and again at 11907, where the minister went so far as to use certain figures in the document and deny the validity of other figures. The minister carried on with that yesterday in his attempt to influence the debate as to the validity or invalidity of the document.
At page 11970 of Hansard for October 20, the minister responded to a submission I made to the Chair. In part, the minister said:
I would say further that there is nothing in the report that was not in the newspapers yesterday.
He had other references in the edition of Hansard for October 20 which clearly can bring one to no other conclusion but that the minister was using the document to influence the position he was taking in the debate on the subject matter of the document, namely housing.
The key points under debate at the time were, may it please the Chair, first, that the minister referred twice to figures in the document; that was up to today. Today the minister made further reference to those figures. In addition, he referred to the cut-off in disposable income earmarked for housing. Very clearly those references are recorded in Hansard.
Point of Order-Mr. Broadbent
The second point I wish to submit to you, Madam Speaker, is that the House is placed in a position where there is a dispute between four members now, namely, the minister, the hon. member for Oshawa, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). My submission to you is that the rest of the members of this place are placed in the position that they cannot participate in debate because the document is not before them. Certainly it is not before any members on this side, although the minister's generosity has apparently extended to at least one and probably more members on his own side of the House.
I would just draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to the fact that this situation places all other members in the position that we cannot participate in this debate to determine which side of the argument we may wish to come down on. We are prevented from doing it because the document is not before us. It is my submission that this is precisely the situation that the rule respecting the tabling of cited documents was intended to avoid. In saying "cited" I take the definition in paragraph (5) of Citation 327, namely, that the document was "specifically used to influence debate".
The minister has attacked the document to support his view of the housing crisis. The Leader of the Opposition and others on this side have put forward the document as supporting the point of view exactly to the contrary. Members cannot appreciate whether the minister's reflections are accurate unless they see the document and understand the context in which the figures were used and how much the argument was dependent upon them.
In summary, therefore, I submit to you there can be no doubt that the document exists. From the minister's own mouth it was prepared in his own department, he has read it now, and since having read it he has again used it to influence debate. If it is in the possession of the minister and some other members opposite, it is the focus of debate and the minister has cited parts of it in a bad light to make his own case to influence debate. Members cannot evaluate the document or intelligently participate in discussion of it unless it is tabled so as to give all members a look at it. That is the purpose of the rule, in my submission. The minister has used the document to influence debate. Therefore, that constitutes a citing of the document and I ask the Chair to find accordingly and require the tabling by the minister of the document which has been used these past three days.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, after listening to my hon. colleague, I have the impression I have heard the same thing many times before in this House, and in fact it is not the first time the opposition party has invoked Citation 327(5) to claim that even if a minister had not purposely quoted part of a document, he had used it to influence debate.

October 21, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Broadbent
I may point out, Madam Speaker, that the entire line of reasoning used by the member for Yukon is based on replies given by the minister in question on October 19, 1981, on pages 11906 and following of Hansard, that is, during question period.
I should like to start by saying that question period has never been considered as a debate and does not constitute a debate, and consequently, it is impossible to claim during question period that a minister is trying to influence debate, because there is no debate. So, if there is no debate, my hon. colleague's line of reasoning cannot stand. The fact that reference was made to a document cannot, during the oral question period, constitute an attempt to influence debate, since we are not involved in a debate. In fact, according to parliamentary practice and rules, there is no debate during the oral question period.
We must also consider the context of the replies given, and we have here a subsidiary argument put forward by the minister. Allow me to read part of the first question which was asked by the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). Madam Speaker, what we should remember is that the document in question was invoked at the very beginning by a member of the opposition, by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who said in his question on page 11906, and I quote:
Another report did emerge on the weekend from CMHC, this one contending that 135 families a day-
The Toronto Star has a copy of the report, and I have a copy of the report, and then the leader of the New Democratic Party asked his question. So the document in question was first used by a member of the opposition. It would be grossly unfair to prevent a minister from referring in his reply to the question that was directed to him. With due respect, the minister in question had absolutely no choice but to refer to the documents invoked by a member of the opposition. But referring does not constitute quoting, and because the document was invoked by a member of the opposition, the document was not referred to in an attempt to influence debate, because debate had not been sought by the minister. The document was invoked by a member of the opposition and, I repeat, the oral question period does not constitute a debate. Finally, Madam Speaker, parliamentary practice and the authorities are quite definite about this, Beauchesne's Citation 327(3) on page 116 is quite clear in this respect, and I feel this should be the basis for any decision in this type of argument, and I quote:
A public document referred to but not cited or quoted by a minister need not be tabled.
This is a general principle which certainly applies here. Further on in Citation 327(4), the same principle prevails:
Only the document cited need be tabled by a minister.
Here again, unless a quote has been taken from the document, there can be no obligation to table the document. And finally, section (5), and I quote:
To be cited, a document must be quoted-
-which is not the case-
-or specifically used to influence debate.
For reasons I have already mentioned, and I do not intend to go over them again, there was no attempt during the oral question period to influence debate on a document invoked by a member of the opposition.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I submit that the point raised by the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has no basis at all, it has no basis in fact. We have a general principle that a minister is not obliged to table a document he has not quoted, and a minister cannot influence debate during the oral question period, because the oral question period is not a debate.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has raised an additional point I did not touch on. In two sentences I will submit to you that whether or not the question period constitutes a debate has been decided by your predecessor and, I believe, by yourself as well. The decision is that it does, indeed, constitute a debate for the purpose of this citation.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I would join briefly in the discussion you have before you. The question you have before you as to whether or not the minister in any way made reference directly to the document I think is quite clear.


Erik Nielsen: He does not have to.


Ian Deans: I am not suggesting he has to. I am suggesting, however, he did. Citation 327 of Beauchesne reads:
A Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he is prepared to lay it upon the Table.
I put to you that, as recorded at page 11906 of Hansard for October 19, 1981, in answer to a question from my leader, the minister said:
1 would ask the Clerk to return the report to him so thay he may reread the paper. I have, on two seconds reading, identified that they are talking about interest rates of 22 per cent.
The minister corrected, in his estimation, my leader's submission, pointing out that the document referred to a figure of 22 per cent.
I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that clearly was an effort by the minister to influence the course of the debate by quoting directly from a page in the document. On those grounds alone, without entering into any further argument, I suggest you could find only that the minister did in fact quote from the document.
October 21, 1981

I suppose the question before Your Honour now is, should the document be tabled. I submit that Beauchesne is clear, that where it has been reasonably decided that the minister did in fact quote from, or make direct reference to, a public document for the purpose of influencing a debate or, for that matter, influencing opinion in the House of Commons, the practice of tabling the document has generally been acquiesced. Rather than carry this on at great length, I would simply ask that the minister do what Beauchesne indicates most people in these circumstances have done in the past, and that is simply table the document.


Madam Speaker:: The resolution of this question would flow out of the definition one would give to what "citing" or "quoting". I suggest that a common sense definition of that would be that the minister would have to read quite extensively from a document in order to call it a quote. If he is referring to a figure that is in a document, or to a sentence or word, especially when it is in answer to a question put to him by another member of the House and that document is subsequently sent over to the minister so he may glance at whatever is referred to, I would say it is very difficult for me to find that the minister was, at that time, quoting from the document.
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), in quoting from Beauchesne, tried to pin his argument on the fact that Beauchesne does say that the document must be quoted in order to be tabled or specifically used to influence the debate.
I will not enter into the question whether question period is debate or not. Some Speakers have determined that sometimes it is debate. My interpretation is that it is not debate. I suggest that Beauchesne was not using the word "debate" in this particular sense when writing this paragraph.
I would also suggest that to be clear on what that paragraph means it should read that the document must be quoted "and" specifically used, rather than "or" specifically used to influence debate. The word "or" is a bit ambiguous. It means you could either quote from it or use it to further an argument, which I think did not happen in this particular case.
In support of my ruling, I would also refer hon. members to what actually happened. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) has quoted the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove), when he returned the document to the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), as having said that the member for Oshawa "may reread the paper". He did not say he had read it; he said the member for Oshawa may reread it, and I think we know that it was not read in the House.
The hon. member for Oshawa may have read it in his office but it was not quoted in the House. Then the member for Oshawa replied that the minister had not taken the trouble to read the document before returning it to him. So that was an admission made by the hon. member for Oshawa and it does support my position that nobody has quoted from or cited that document.
In this case the question which has to be resolved is whether the minister should be obligated to table that document. Since
Petitions
the rule applies to an obligation to table the document if a member has quoted from it, I must find that the minister may table the document if he so wishes; but I am in no position, according to our rules, to force him to do so.


PETITIONS
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 67(8) and request that the petition of the member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) regarding parliamentary procedure on petitions be read by the Clerk of the House.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for that petition to be read by the Clerk of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: Since the hon. member does not have the unanimous consent of the House, I cannot ask the Clerk to read the petition.


Frederick William Wright: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I rise under the same Standing Order and I quote from it as follows:
-or if it complain of some present personal grievance requiring an immediate remedy, the matter contained therein may be brought into immediate discussion.
I respectfully request that it be brought into discussion.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member needs unanimous consent for that also, or else an interpretation by me as to whether the matter dealt with in the petition would require an urgent debate.
I can deal with it immediately by asking if there is unanimous consent. I am in the hands of the House. I must tell the hon. member that this particular provision of the Standing Order from which he quoted cannot be used to require an urgent debate in the same way as the one provided for under Standing Order 26, under the guise of having a petition read and discussed immediately. However, I will put the question to the House. Does the House agree that the petition presented by the hon. member be immediately discussed? Is there unanimous consent?


An hon. Member:: No.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, you will recall that last week the same request was made and we had the opportunity to explain why unanimous consent was refused. I find it strange that members should choose a day of government business to make such a request. Why did they not do that yesterday? Why did the

October 21, 1981
Petitions
Conservative House leader not pick yesterday for this procedural debate instead of today? In my opinion, these are only dilatory tactics-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Although the minister's complaint about this procedural point may be quite legitimate, the fact remains that a point of order has been raised. I repeat: is the House prepared to grant the hon. member's request? There must be unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member does not have the unanimous consent of this House.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am not questioning any ruling which you have made but I fear we may be getting on to an undesirable track. With great respect, it may be the advice you are receiving, but there is nothing that I can find in the applicable Standing Order that requires unanimous consent. In my submission, paragraph (8) of that Standing Order gives the Chair a discretion.
Further, that discretion is placed in the hands of the Chair in order to protect the rights of members. With great respect, asking for unanimous consent is not an adequate protection of those rights because it is delegating that responsibility to government members who are going to say "no" to everything. If we get into taking this direction as a permanent part of our procedure, no petition will ever be discussed, even if in your discretion you might believe it necessary, because you will have established the precedent of requiring unanimous consent.
I submit that that question should be looked at very carefully. If the Chair chooses to exercise its discretion in the negative, that is fine, that has to be accepted; but I respectfully submit that asking for unanimous consent is not the correct way to proceed.


Madam Speaker:: I believe I pointed out to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright) that I could deal with it in two ways, either through my discretion or through asking for unanimous consent. It is not that the Standing Orders are specific on the matter of unanimous consent in the case of discussing a petition, but it is a device which is often used in the House because the House, of course, is master of its own destiny, and it is perhaps sometimes the better course to follow. However, prior to asking for unanimous consent I did tell the hon. member that if I were to use my discretion, I would feel that the matter is not urgent and does not require immediate debate.
I believe the petition calls for a change in the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders have existed for a long time. We
have been ruled by them for a number of years. Therefore, if the hon. member would like to see some changes in the Standing Orders he is, of course, allowed to discuss and to ask for that. There are other ways of doing it, and certainly under petitions I could not allow a discussion of that matter on the basis of urgency. While I accept the point of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), it was perhaps redundant then to proceed to ask whether the House would give its unanimous consent. However, I think it is quite clear that we cannot discuss it at this time.




Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I certainly agree that the Standing Order does not call for debate. Debate was not called for by the hon. member. He was not calling for debate but, rather, for discussion, as specifically defined and delineated in that particular Standing Order as being different from debate. However, at this point I would take Your Honour s advice.
Based on the precedent set by Mr. Maclnnis and Mr. Speaker as recorded in Hansard for December 11 and December 18, 1970, and in order to address this grievance, I ask Your Honour if you would at this point refer the subject matter of this petition to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Madam Speaker:: That part of the Standing Order would require unanimous consent, and it also requires notice. However, I can ask the House if it will give its unanimous consent to referring that particular petition to a committee. Does the House give its unanimous consent to the suggestion of the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: If Your Honour had referred to the point of reference I suggested Your Honour study, the Maclnnis and Mr. Speaker precedent, Your Honour would have seen that in that instance neither notice nor unanimous consent was asked for or involved. It was a decision directly by the House through Mr. Speaker to make the reference, and in that instance Mr. Speaker made that reference very directly.
Because of the complication of this matter, as a minimum I ask Your Honour to reserve on it until Your Honour has studied fully the matter and its implications. I refer not just to the implications mentioned by the House leader of the Conservative party but, indeed, to the full implications involved with a limitation of the rights of private members. I refer not only to the rights of private members but also to the rights of private Canadian citizens. Their last direct recourse to the House of Commons is through petition. That is the closest we

come to direct democracy in this House of Commons. We are removing that direct democracy more and more, and by setting the precedent Your Honour is setting today we are headed more and more in that direction, which I do not believe is desirable.
Speaking to that in more detail, if I may, I would also refer-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I have just looked into the precedent to which the hon. member is referring, and in the case of that precedent the procedure was the same. Unanimous consent was not given in the House for the petition to be referred to a committee, but subsequently the House leaders met and agreed that it should be referred to a committee.
We have followed the procedure and I have ruled on it. We have followed the procedure as it should be; that is to say that the House has now refused its unanimous consent for that petition to be referred to a committee. If subsequently the House leaders want to get together and do something else about it, I am in the hands of the House, but for the time being I cannot allow the hon. member either to continue discussing the Maclnnis case or the matter of having this petition referred to the committee because I have ruled on the question.


PRIVILEGE
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Given the peculiar and unique nature of the petition referred to earlier, I ask that Your Honour now refer to Beauchesne 698(2), which states, and I quote:
Petitions affecting the House will at once be taken into consideration in accordance with parliamentary usage in all cases of privilege.
The reason I have chosen this other passage is that I have tried all the other courses, and I now find that my rights as a private member are being inhibited. I am very concerned that the precedent Your Honour has just established infringes upon my rights as a private member and inhibits my capacity to act in a responsive and responsible manner on behalf of my constituency.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Disagreeing or commenting on a ruling or some of the Standing Orders does not constitute a question of privilege, so the hon. member does not have a question of privilege. He refers to Citation 698 of Beauchesne.
I have determined that this is not a case of urgency. It is quite clear we have followed the Standing Orders according to precedent and practice, and I would appreciate it if the hon. member would not continue to pursue this matter. The petition he has presented to the House may not be discussed or referred to a committee. We have decided on both those questions.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David Smith (Parliamenary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the correctional investigator which covers the period June 1, 1979 to May 31, 1980.


PETITIONS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, as I have done on each day since this session began, I beg leave of the House to lay upon the Table a petition signed by Canadians from communities large and small who are concerned about the prospect of being forced out of their homes by the high mortgage interest rate policy followed deliberately by the Liberal government.
Today I would like to lay upon the Table a petition signed by 16 residents of Wasaga Beach, Ontario; 44 residents of Port Colborne, Ontario; and 24 residents of the community of St. Thomas, Ontario.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,855, 1,856, 2,034, 2,564, 2,571, 2,613, 2,681 and 2,704.


Mr. Cossitt: Was Mr. Andrew Chatwood, former Liberal Member of Parliament for the constituency of Grand Falls-Labrador appointed to the Canada Pension Commission and, if so (a) on what date (b) what are his qualifications for this post (c) what is his salary to the nearest dollar?


David P. Smith: Yes.
(a)	November 27, 1980.
(b)	Mr. Chatwood is a native of Newfoundland. He served with the Royal Canadian Navy Reserve for two years and held a number of positions in the retail and administrative areas until his election to the House of

October 21, 1981
Order Paper Questions
Commons in 1966. Mr. Chatwood was a Member of Parliament representing the riding of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, from September, 1966, to June, 1968, during which time he served on a number of committees, including the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Between 1968 and 1973 he served as executive assistant to the Hon. Donald Jamieson, while he was Minister of Supply and Services, Transport, and Regional Economic Expansion. In 1973 Mr. Chatwood was vice-president, government relations, for the Newfoundland Refining Co. Ltd. Since 1976, until his appointment to the Canadian Pension Commission, he worked as a real estate broker, and in 1980 served as a director of the Ottawa Real Estate Board.
(c)	The salary of members of the Canadian Pension Commission is in the range $33,600 to $41,500.
MR. GUS MacFARLANE


Mr. Cossitt: Was Mr. Gus MacFarlane, former Liberal Member of Parliament for Hamilton Mountain appointed to the War Veterans Allowance Board and, if so (a) on what date (b) what are his qualifications for this post (c) what is his salary to the nearest dollar?


David P. Smith: Yes.
(a)	November 3, 1980.
(b)	Mr. MacFarlane, a graduate of McGill University, was coach and athletic director at Mount Allison University in Sackville, New Brunswick, and dean of men at McMaster University, Hamilton. Mr. MacFarlane served as a wireless air gunner in the RCAF during the Second World War. Between 1974 and 1979 Mr. MacFarlane was a Member of Parliament representing the Hamilton Mountain riding and served as chief government whip and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations. He was a member of a number of committees, including the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
(c)	The salary of members of the War Veterans Allowance Board is in the range $33,600 to $41,500.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was a Colonel Spencer, a military attache in the Canadian Embassy in Prague, Czechoslovakia and, if so (a) from what date to what date (b) has he returned to Canada and has he been appointed Commanding Officer of the Canadian Armed Forces Base in London, Ontario?
2.	Did Colonel Spencer make a public statement since his return to Canada in which he said in part, that his cook in Prague was paid in cigarettes and whisky rather than money for use on the black market and, if so, was this the policy of the government or strictly the responsibility of Colonel Spencer and is this done in other places abroad?
3.	Did Colonel Spencer take into account the possible effect of this disclosure on his former cook when his statement was read by officials of the Czechoslovakian government?
4.	Is Colonel Spencer's former cook still employed at the Embassy in Prague and (a) if so, in what capacity (b) if not, is the government aware of his whereabouts and well-being?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Departments of External Affairs and National Defence as follows:
1.	Yes.
(a)	August, 1978 to August, 1980.
(b)	Yes.
2.	In an interview on November 8, 1980, Colonel Spencer was quoted correctly as saying in Czechoslovakia "there are several currencies and the most popular currencies are Scotch whisky and western cigarettes". As an example he cited the fact that when he hired occasional domestic help they expressed their preference to be paid in whisky and cigarettes. It is not Canadian government policy to use this method of payment at this or any other post.
3.	Yes. His view was that the practice was so widespread and well known in Czechoslovakia that it would have no adverse effect on any former cook or helper.
4.	Colonel Spencer's former cook is not employed and indeed never was employed at the Embassy in Prague (see part 2).
(a)	Not applicable.
(b)	Yes.


Mr. Cossitt: Since the government was returned to office following the general election of February 18, 1980, and for three years prior to the general election of May 22, 1979, did the government re-examine taxation returns of Members of Parliament or companies in which they had a controlling interest and, if so (a) what was the number by province (b) what was the breakdown by political party (c) in each case, was it or is it government policy to take such a step with regard to Progressive Conservative and New Democratic Party members on the basis of vindictiveness or political considerations (d) for Liberal party members, was it or is it government policy to take such action as retribution for those who were considered not to be 100 per cent in favour of all party policies?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: The Department of National Revenue has not conducted a program of examining the tax returns of Members of Parliament as such. From time to time the returns of an individual, including one who is a Member of Parliament, may be examined in the ordinary course of events because of questions which arise in assessing or audit. No statistics are available which would make possible an answer to the questions raised.


Mr. Wilson: 1.	Did the SOGENER company act as an agent in the acquisition by Petro-Canada of Petrofina Canada Limited and, if so (a) what is the head office address and what are the telephone numbers (b) what was the date of incorporation (c) what were the details of capitalization, including paid-in equity capital, retained earnings and debt (d) what was the gross revenue and what were the net earnings in the latest fiscal year of the company?
October 21, 1981

2.	(a) What are the names and addresses of (i) directors and officers (ii) shareholders owning 5 per cent or more of common shares (b) what is the number of employees in the company?
3.	What are the principal business activities of the company?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Petro-Canada reports as follows:
1.	Societe Generate pour l'Energie was engaged by Petro-Canada to act as an intermediary in the Petrofina acquisition.
(a) Address, 16 Rue le Corbusier,
1208 Geneva, Switzerland.
Telephone number, 022 46 68 50 (b) - (d) Information proprietary to SOGENER.
2.	(a) and (b) Information proprietary to SOGENER.
3.	SOGENER is a "banque d'affaire" a merchant bank which specializes in investment and provision of financial and intermediary services primarily in energy resources or related fields.


Mr. Stewart: Did the Public Service Commission contract with Condor Litho & Carton Ltd., LaSalle, for games in the amount of $11,084 and, if so (a) what were the games (b) what number were printed (c) what was the cost per game (d) for what purpose will they be used (e) to whom will they be distributed?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Public Service Commission and the Department of Supply and Services as follows:
The Department of Supply and Services awarded a contract to Condor Litho & Carton Ltd., LaSalle, on behalf of the Public Service Commission, in the amount of $11,084.
(a)	The title of the game is "La grande finale".
(b)	1,250.
(c)	$8.87.
(d)	The game "La grande finale" is a teaching tool designed for public servants on second language training.
(e)	This game will be made available to teaching staff of the Public Service Commission and other departments for use in the classroom, (see (d) above).


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Under what circumstances may the Department of National Revenue make available to a third party personally-identifiable information relating to an individual's tax return without obtaining the prior consent of the individual in question?
2.	Were any requests for personally-identifiable information concerning individual tax returns received in 1980 and 1981 and, if so (a) from which departments, agencies, individuals or organizations (b) in how many instances did the department accede to the request?


Bill Rompkey: Order Paper Questions
1.	Section 241 of the Income Tax Act prohibits communication of any return and its content, including personally-identifiable information, other than for the purpose of administration of this act or in response to a subpoena from a criminal court. In addition, Subsection 241(4) allows the provision of returns of their contents, under conditions prescribed in regulation 3000, to the provincial governments for which there is a federal-provincial tax collection agreement, for the purpose of administration of an act that imposes a tax similar to those imposed under the Income Tax Act. Identifiable information derived from income tax returns is provided to other federal agencies where there is entitlement through one or more other federal statutes. Such is the case, for example, with the Statistics Act which authorizes the furnishing of identifiable data to Statistics Canada. While providing entitlement, these statutes also provide sanctions against secondary disclosures. In addition, information exchanges exist with governments of other countries under reciprocal income tax treaties.
2.	Requests for personally identifiable information, as extracted from income tax returns, were received during 1980 and 1981 from Statistics Canada, Health and Welfare Canada, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Finance Canada, the Auditor General of Canada, and from all provinces and territories having tax collection agreements with the federal government. All requests were acceded to as legal entitlement was clear.


Mr. McKinnon: Was a contract let to Standish Brothers Limited at Cookshire, Quebec for $26,460, for chemical vegetation control spraying at CFB Chatham, New Brunswick and, if so, what is the chemical agent that will be used?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: A contract in the amount of $26,460 was awarded to Standish Brothers Limited, Cookshire, Quebec, on behalf of the Department of National Defence for chemical vegetation control spraying at the Canadian Forces Base in Chatham, New Brunswick.
The commercial mixture used, sold under the generic name of Killex, contains the following chemicals: Mecoprop acid; 2, 4-D acid (Amine formulation); and Dicamba acid. These chemicals are registered under No. 9811 of the Pest Control Products Act.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

October 21, 1981
12032________________________________
Canada Oil and Gas Act MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, October 19, 1981, 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. 6 (Mr. Schellenberger) and 20 (Mr. Lalonde).
Madam Speaker:: Before this debate commences, I would like to make a statement concerning all of the motions standing on the notice paper at the report stage in relation to the bill now before the House.
In order to expedite the business of the House in an orderly manner, it is my intention to include in today's statement my views which I gave to the House on July 13 last, as recorded at pages 11463 and 11464 of Hansard.
As hon. members are aware, I indicated last July that Motions Nos. 1 and 2 seek to import a preamble into a bill which was introduced in the House without a preamble. For the benefit of hon. members I had quoted Section (3) of Citation 779 from the fifth edition of Beauchesne and also referred to page 531 of Sir Erskine May's nineteenth edition. These sources indicate that the motions appear to be out of order; however, I am still prepared to hear arguments.
In relation to Motions Nos. 3 and 4, a recorded division has been deferred on each of these motions.
Motion No. 5 has been carried.
Motions Nos. 6 and 20 were grouped for debate and are now before the House. These motions will be voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 will be grouped for debate, as I stated on July 13 last. However, since studying the remaining motions, it would be my intention to include with this grouping Motion No. 41 which deals essentially with the same matter. The motions will be voted as follows:
(a)	The question on Motion No. 7 will be put to the House by itself.
(b)	Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10 seem to offer alternatives and will be put to the House as follows:
(i)	The question will be put on Motion No. 8. An affirmative vote on this motion makes it unnecessary for the House to decide on Motions Nos. 9 and 10. However, a negative vote on the motion necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 9.
(ii)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 9 obviates the question having to be put on Motions Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 16. A negative vote on Motion No. 9 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 10 and the vote on Motion No. 10 also disposes of Motions Nos. 11,12 and 16.
(c)	Separate questions will be put on motions Nos. 13, 15 and 41.
Motions Nos. 14, 17 and 18 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 19 and 24, standing in the name of the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar), seem to go beyond the scope of the bill and therefore do not appear to be in order. The hon. member may wish to present arguments on this point later. For the benefit of the hon. member, I refer him to Beauchesne, fifth edition, Section (1) of Citation 773.
Motion No. 20 has been grouped with Motion No. 6. Motions Nos. 21 and 22 should be grouped for debate, with a vote on Motion No. 21 disposing of Motion No. 22. Motions Nos. 23, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 will be debated and voted on separately.
In my statement of July 13, I indicated that Motion No. 30 would be debated and voted on separately. However, it is my intention to group this motion for debate with Motions Nos. 31, 32 and 33 and to be voted on as follows:
(a)	The question will be put to the House separately on Motions Nos. 30 and 31.
(b)	The question will be put to the House separately on Motion No. 32, and an affirmative vote on this motion disposes of Motion No. 33. However, a negative vote necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 33.
A recorded division was deferred on Motion No. 34.
Motion No. 35 standing in the name of the hon. member of Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) is consequential on Motion No. 36. However, Motion No. 36 causes some misgivings to the Chair. I refer the hon. member to Section 4 of Citation 773 in Beauchesne's fifth edition, which reads in part:
(a) An amendment is inadmissible if it refers to, or is not intelligible without, subsequent amendments or schedules, or if it is otherwise incomplete.
However, the hon. member will be given an opportunity when these motions are called to present his views.
Motion No. 37 standing in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre appears to be inconsistent with Subclause
October 21, 1981

49(13) of the bill. In this respect, I refer the hon. member to Beauchesne's fifth edition, Citation 773(2), and I quote:
An amendment must not be inconsistent with, or contradictory to, the bill, nor must it be inconsistent with a decision which the committee has given upon a former amendment.
For this reason Motion No. 37 appears to be out of order; however, I would be prepared to hear argument later.
Motions Nos. 38, 39 and 40 will be grouped for debate and voted on separately. Motion No. 41 has been grouped for debate with Motions Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16. Motion No. 42 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 43 and 50 were ruled out of order in my statement of July 13.
Motion No. 44 standing in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre appears to increase the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board and seems to go beyond the scope of the clause it seeks to amend. However, unless I hear otherwise, I propose to resolve my doubt in favour of the member who proposed the motion. This being the case, Motion No. 44 could be grouped with Motions Nos. 45, 46 and 47 for purpose of debate with a separate vote on each motion.
Motions Nos. 48 and 49 will be debated separately and voted on separately.
Motion No. 50 was ruled out of order.
Recorded divisions have been deferred on motions Nos. 51, 52 and 53.
In my statement of July 13, I had indicated to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) that Motion No. 54 sought to establish a compensation fund to be administered by a board and that this would entail the outlaying of public funds. To this end, I refer the hon. gentleman to Section (7) of Citation 773 in Beauchesne's fifth edition. On October 15, as recorded at pages 11825 to 11827 of Hansard, hon. members presented their arguments for and against this motion. As there is some doubt in the Chair's mind as to the procedural acceptability of the motion, it is my intention to resolve this doubt in favour of the mover of the motion and put the motion to the House for debate.
Motion No. 55 has been carried.
Recorded divisions on Motions Nos. 56 and 57 been deferred.
If hon. members wish to have a copy of this statement they may obtain a copy at the Table.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I appreciate Your Honour's ruling. However, it is unclear in my mind as to when we will debate Motion No. 54.


Madam Speaker:: When the time comes and other clauses have been debated. The debate will follow in the logical manner.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The reason I ask is because we have just finished debating Motions Nos. 52 and 53, what I call environ-
Canada Oil and Gas Act
mental amendments. I take it we will not return to debate No. 54; we will wait until we get to No. 54 in sequence.


Madam Speaker:: I think that is logical. Is the House ready for the question?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What is the question? I am sorry, Madam Speaker, you asked if the House is ready for the question. I did not quite catch what the question was.


Madam Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Mr. Taylor:: Madam Speaker, are you referring to Bill C-48? If so, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) had the floor when we last finished.


Erik Nielsen: If there are no further speakers on this particular aspect of the debate, we are ready for the calling of the question and the hearing of the yeas and nays. It is my understanding that the vote is deferred on everything else.


Mr. Ittinuar:: Excuse me, Madam Speaker. I have been thinking in Eskimo and not listening to the debate in English so I did not catch what was going on! I would like to speak to Motion No. 6.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) has the floor.


Peter Ittinuar: Madam Speaker, I too would like to speak to the motion put forth by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) since it deals directly with an issue which is of critical importance to northerners, particularly my constituents.
I first wish to quote from an article by Douglas Fisher which appeared in The Toronto Sun on Monday, May 11, 1981 in which he quoted former United States President James Monroe:
The hunter or savage state requires a greater extent of territory to sustain it than is compatible with the progress and just claims of civilized life ... and must yield to it.
Might I suggest that Bill C-48 can be called the "Canadian Monroe". This was written in 1817. Therefore, I believe that Bill C-48 is an anachronism that is appropriate to the government across the way. In a general sense, this motion by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin tries to ensure that Bill C-48 will not prejudice the outcome of land claims negotiations which are currently going on between the Government of Canada and various native organizations across the north. The minister has repeatedly assured members of the standing committee of this House that Bill C-48 is neutral with regard to land claims in the north. He also said that passage of this bill will have no effect whatsoever on the outcome of these delicate negotiations.
However much I would like to, I am unable to accept that view and would like to give an explanation as to why. For the minister to say to us that land claims negotiations will not be jeopardized or affected by this bill indicates only too clearly that he lacks a precise understanding of what land claims are

October 21, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
all about. It is about time his understanding was improved, and I will be only too happy to assist.
First, let me talk about what land claims are not. Land claims are not a process whereby the aboriginal peoples of Canada give up all rights to their lands, especially those in the north, in exchange for some simple form of compensation which Bill C-48 does not even propose. This once-and-for-all type of approach worked for the government in the nineteenth century and, however much it would like to continue the practice today, the government must recognize the fact that it is no longer acceptable to the northern peoples.
There is a famous saying which says: "Those who do not learn from their mistakes are destined to repeat them". The people of the north are only too aware of the consequences of selling off their rights in the way that the government would prefer. They see how others in the south have been robbed of their own economic resource base, confined to reserves and left marginalized within their own home lands by accepting the government's approach to the making of treaties and the settling of claims.
The government is now inviting the native people to sit down and agree to the same types of settlements, in effect, to repeat the mistakes of the past; but all northern peoples say "no". They have a different vision of what land claims are all about. To them, comprehensive claims are the means by which their rights to the land and its resources will be recognized and entrenched. They are not approaching the government with the position that "everything must remain ours". On the contrary, they recognize that the resources that exist in their home lands are needed by their fellow Canadians and they are willing to share them.
But they do see land claims settlements as the vehicle which will ensure that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated. They seek to define, very clearly, their relationship with the larger society before development activities disrupt their communities irreparably-I emphasize that-and it is through land claims negotiations that they seek to accomplish this. They want to define, for instance, who owns the land, including surface and subsurface rights, and also how decisions will be made in the future regarding land use management, environmental protection and a variety of other crucial matters. In short, they want to define their economic and political rights for the future in such a way as to ensure that their needs continue to be met at least as much as those of southerners. They are not willing to become marginalized in their home lands, either economically or politically. They have made it very clear to the government that they are not simply out for a "quick buck", but want to reach settlements which will guarantee them a continual say over matters which so obviously affect them.
Over the last few years, organizations representing the peoples of the north have met with the government to discuss these matters on the assumption that they could be resolved through a process of negotiation. In fact, it was the government in its 1973 policy statement on native claims in Canada which recommended this process as the best way to achieve solutions. The native peoples have responded to this invitation in good faith and have produced, in a relatively short time, fairly sophisticated proposals which they feel would protect their interests and allow them to maintain their viability within the context of Canadian federalism.
I should like to note that in the next few months there will be a plebiscite in the Northwest Territories to determine the political evolution of the north, but this is opposed.
At the same time as it is pretending to negotiate a solution to these fundamental questions in the context of land claims, however, the government has brought forth Bill C-48. Bill C-48 stipulates that all revenues from oil and gas developments north of 60 are to go directly to the federal government, with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) having a remarkable degree of discretion to decide on the nature, pace and location of all resource developments in the area, something no other minister has ever had. Through Bill C-48 the federal government is serving notice to everyone involved that it sees these northern resources as its property to control and benefit from as it sees fit.
Coming as it does, when the government is also negotiating the ownership of northern lands and resources with the northern peoples, the bill forces us to conclude that the government is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. If we liken the present situation to that of the ownership of a house which is in dispute, we can perhaps see more clearly the injustice of the government's actions and the extent to which they will affect the outcome of claims negotiations by the Dene, COPE, the ITC and others in the north. Take, for example, a house, the ownership of which is in dispute. Two parties say they have a claim to the ownership of the house and its contents, some of which are extremely valuable. Each side acknowledges that the other has a claim, and instead of going through the courts to find a solution, the two sides agree that the whole matter can best be resolved through a process of negotiation.
While these agreed-upon negotiations are taking place, however, one party suddenly announces that it is taking over all the valuable contents of the house with the intention of selling them. Legally, this party's right to dispose of property on which there is an outstanding claim by a third party would appear dubious. And morally, such actions would be reprehensible at best, and would call into serious question the party's stated desire to achieve a negotiated settlement.
This is what the federal government is doing with Bill C-48. It is giving the northern peoples two different messages: one, it is saying: "We accept the fact that you have a legitimate claim to the areas of the north in question"; and second, it is also declaring that the resources on those lands and the right to decide how and when they will be developed belong solely to the federal government. By bringing forth Bill C-48 at this time, the government has, therefore, succeeded in making a mockery of the negotiation process which it initiated in 1973 through one of its own policies.
October 21, 1981

The government responds to these types of charges by saying that it needs to consolidate its powers over oil and gas development in the north in order to manage them more effectively for the interests of northerners; that it needs to control the revenue from developments for the national interest, but that sufficient funds would always be returned to the north to ensure that residents there receive benefits. In other words, welfare. By this, the government is simply saying: "We will control everything relating to development in the north, but don't you northerners worry, we will continue to look after you". It is time that northerners, Mr. Speaker, native and non-native alike-and I represent them all-were allowed to look after themselves. It is time they were free of the kind of paternalism that Bill C-48 represents: It is time that they be allowed to have a say in the decisions which will affect them clearly. Bill C-48 succeeds in denying them all of these.
In response to the charge that Bill C-48 will undermine or prejudice the outcome of current land claims negotiations, the minister says that nothing could be further from the truth. He has stated time and time again, and with great assurance, that the provisions of the bill will not affect the substance of an eventual settlement in any way. He assures us that changes can always be made to this legislation in the future in order to accommodate the terms of any settlements. In other words, he is saying that, in spite of the terms of the current bill, everything still remains negotiable in the context of future claims negotiations, including presumably the question of the ownership of surface and subsurface resources. "Trust us", he has said to us many times. He is saying to the native peoples: "We will be willing to negotiate anything you want in the future, despite what Bill C-48 says."
While they would no doubt like to trust in the government's good intentions on this issue, the northern peoples are understandably reluctant to do so and for good reasons. They stem from the fact that, in the context of negotiations that have occurred to date, the federal government has been decidedly unwilling to negotiate the question of ownership of subsurface resources. In the only agreement that has been reached to date, that signed between the government and the Committee for Original People's Entitlement in the fall of 1978, it was clearly stipulated that northern peoples would not be allowed to select lands on which there were known oil or gas deposits. When the agreement was announced, the then minister of Indian affairs and northern development was quick to announce to other native groups that they could not expect a better deal than that which was struck with COPE.
Therefore, throughout the history of the negotiations the government has placed very strong limits on what it considers to be negotiable. It has said that the ownership of subsurface mineral rights is non-negotiable to all intents and purposes, and on the matters relating to political rights, these too have been effectively excluded from the process of negotiation. Despite the desire of northern peoples to discuss such matters in the context of land claims, federal negotiators have consistently been denied the mandate to do so.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
This means that the government is misleading us and the northern peoples when it assures us that everything will be open to negotiation in the future. While such promises may be technically correct, past policies reveal the extent to which the government will actually negotiate. In the past it has refused to negotiate seriously on those matters which affect the economic rights of native peoples and on those matters which relate to their political rights. This represents the government's approach to land claims negotiations in the past and it represents the government's policy today. Yet, the minister would have us believe that everything will be negotiable later on, if only we will agree to their taking control of the resources now. I am unable to agree with this.
The present motion is a very interesting one although it is somewhat naive. It challenges the government on the very point I am addressing. If the government is sincere when it says that everything will remain negotiable for the purposes of land claims even after Bill C-48 is passed, then it should have no trouble supporting this particular motion. After all, it would only be an affirmation of the impression the government is earnestly trying to convey.
However, if the government is unwilling to support this motion, we will have no other choice but to question its future intentions. If it does not support the motion, we will have every reason to believe that its promises and assurances are hollow. Thus it will be a warning sign to all those who are looking toward land claims to provide a fair and equitable basis for participating in Canadian society-a warning that the government is not to be trusted.
It is my hope that the government will respond to this particular motion in a way as to allay any such conclusions. As I said, the motion is somewhat naive in that it was written by someone who had very good intentions and a good heart, but in the context of the current negotiations we could not agree with some parts of it. Generally I support the motion. Hopefully the government will do so, as it is the only motion which recognizes any justification for claims in relation to Bill C-48.
[ Translation]


Hon. Serge Joyal (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, I was listening very carefully to my colleague, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar), especially since during the past year, as co-chairman of the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution, I was able to draw on his knowledge and experience of Canada's aboriginal peoples. His statements are always noted for their honesty and conviction, and the concerns he has expressed this afternoon cannot be dismissed lightly.
Monday evening I was listening while one of our hon. colleagues was asking a question-and I believe an answer is in order-in which he accused us, up to a point, of using Clause 34 of the constitutional resolution to confirm the rights of Canada's aboriginal peoples, and then turning around in Bill C-48 and ignoring completely any progressive measures we had taken previously in this respect.

October 21, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
I would like to read again Clause 34. I realize it represents the sum of concerted efforts by the hon. member for Nunat-siaq and several other members, especially my colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) and also, it must be said, of my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), all of whom emphasized the objectives Canada should pursue in this respect during the discussions we had on the subject last winter. Clause 34 of the constitutional resoluton provides, and I quote:
The aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
I feel this is extremely important. This is the basis for any action Parliament must take with respect to Canada's aboriginal peoples.
After listening to the comments made Monday evening, I happened to glance through the proceedings of the committee, and I was pleased to see that at least eight amendments had been made at the committee stage, probably thanks to representations by the hon. member for Nunatsiaq, the result being in most cases to confirm existing rights, in other words, to recognize the rights of Canada's aboriginal peoples. In fact, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to point this out, a clause was added to the bill. I am referring to Clause 5(2) and (3) which in fact specifically acknowledges that nothing in the bill changes any provisions previously agreed upon with Canada's aboriginal peoples. I have here Subclause (7) of the same clause, and I quote:
Nothing in this act abrogates or derogates from any aboriginal title, right or claim that pertained to the aboriginal peoples of Canada prior to the coming into force of this act.
This means that all matters which are being negotiated, all claims already pending and any rights that could be used as the basis for future claims are not affected by this bill. That is basically what is meant by Clause 5(7), an amendment that, I wish to emphasize, was made at the committee stage.
What will happen to subsequent claims? I believe that is a special concern of my colleague for Nunatsiaq. What will happen to claims that may be submitted once the bill has been passed or the constitutional resolution has been adopted? The hon. member mentioned that we wanted to withdraw from claims negotiations any lands that might contain oil or gas resources at the production stage. I wish to point out-he quite rightly mentioned claims that were settled through an agreement with COPE and he did so in great detail-that eight blocks of land have been accepted through COPE, seven blocks of 600 square miles each and one block of 800 square miles. It is true that within these blocks there are no claims with respect to gas or oil resources at the production stage. However, my colleague should know that the Dene and the Metis have, in this connection, submitted claims with respect to a well which is about to enter the production stage and is known as Norman Wells, a name that is so well known I shall not bother to translate it into French. Therefore, it is incorrect
to state that at this stage the government has refused to consider any possibility of negotiations that might concern wells or resources at the production stage or about to come into production.
When discussing the matter of claims to the lands in question, we must not forget the mechanism provided under Bill C-48 for future negotiations. Under the bill the governor in council may exclude from Crown lands any lands that may have been the subject of negotiations between the aboriginal peoples and the Canadian government. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) is given the power to exclude from Crown territorial lands any lands that may have been the object of a settlement between the aboriginal peoples and the Crown. Should wells be in operation in these lands compensation would be paid as in the case of any other resource recognized as being in production on such land. Nothing in the bill excludes from negotiations any wells that might be in production at the time of settlement. Moreover, the Constitutional resolution provides an extremely sound legal basis for negotiations and for compensation payments, in view of permits which may have been granted in the meantime or are granted once the bill is passed, until a fair system of compensation has been arrived at.
In my opinion, the amendments made at the committee stage-there are eight, I repeat-provide the mechanisms required to compensate each and every one of the native peoples of Canada who might have valid claims, judicially acknowledged by the courts, or again acknowledged in common agreement by the representatives of the federal Crown, and to ensure that the necessary financial or suitable compensations be the object of an agreement between the parties.
I believe that my colleague from Nunatsiaq rests his case on past experience to say, and rightfully so, that he has every reason to believe that they cannot rely on the good faith of the parties. He is right when he states that the best protection available to any minority is judicial protection, that is to say the protection of the rights enshrined in a law, whether it be that of the constitutional bill or Subclause 5(7) which may guarantee the fundamental rights of minority groups. In the context of native peoples in Canada, we can be glad that that will be the basis of all negotiations and all settlements with which we will have to come to grips in the near future.
In my opinion, that fundamentally changes the relationship which may have existed before between those peoples and the federal Crown. From the moment when the rights of the native peoples are directly enshrined in the constitutional statute, it can be seen that the federal negotiators will definitely not have the same room to manoeuvre. On the contrary, those peoples will have at their disposal the entire judicial arsenal to convince the authorities that the claims they may file are based on
October 21, 1981

aboriginal rights guaranteed as much by treaties, customs or conventions as by the wording of the act itself. And what is most fundamental, in my opinion, is that, and again I quote this part of Clause 34:
The aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
The rights confirmed by treaty are not the only ones to be mentioned. Mention is made of all the other rights stemming from customs, practices or else tacit acknowledgement. Therefore, nothing in this bill, especially under Subclause (7), restricts the claims which the aboriginal peoples of Canada have against the federal Crown with respect to those lands where, as of now, certain licences or certain permits may be issued. On the contrary, the bill gives to the minister responsible the discretion of forcing the companies and the business people that will henceforth develop those resources to take into account the cultural reality which is peculiar to those territories. The amendment related for instance to Subclause 10(2) and to Subclause 10(4) refers specifically to the participation of the aboriginal peoples, and I quote Subclause 10(2) (d), for it seems basic to me:
-equity participation by government and Canadians, including any aboriginal peoples of Canada who may be affected by the exploration agreement.
There was no mention in the previous legislation of the explicit participation of the aboriginal peoples of Canada in the equity of companies dealing with exploration of these resources. The bill now recognizes explicitly the absolute right of aboriginal peoples to equity in these companies. No provision of any previous legislation recognized this as explicitly. At the same time, Clause 10(4) deals with what are commonly known as affirmative action programs. Once again, nothing in any previous legislation provided for the possibility of including the aboriginal peoples for high technology and high responsibility employment. Once again, the minister responsible will be able to take action to ensure equitable participation, not only in equity, but also in the daily operation and management of these companies. It seems to me that enormous progress has been made.
Many groups have made representations to the minister, including the hon. member of the Christian hierarchy. As I pointed out earlier, these representations have resulted in specific amendments being made to the bill. I can assure the hon. member for Nunatsiaq that if I believed personally that this bill would jeopardize the explicit recognition of aboriginal rights to these lands and the resources they contain, if I had the least doubt that Subclause 7 of Clause 5 would reduce the rights of the native people to claim ownership of these resources, I would certainly not rise this afternoon to tell him that, as concerns what he and I are fighting for, that is to guarantee that the native peoples will from now on have an official share in Canadian resources. We are attempting today by a new initiative to reduce the possibility for them to have their claims settled by the courts since Clause 7 clearly shows
Canada Oil and Gas Act
that all our efforts since last fall are confirmed by this bill. It seems to me that the major progress accomplished in this bill is that from now on in any legislation which can affect the claims of aboriginal peoples, it will have to be recognized explicitly that no provision must affect or reduce in any way the rights of aboriginal peoples to claim their share of our resources. I repeat that Subclause 10(4) recognizes explicitly the full equity participation of aboriginal peoples.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, we shall be faced with difficult situations in the years to come. When the parties involved negotiate settlements based on historically discriminatory situations and when we deal with peoples who have been able to develop their resources and put them to good use without jeopardizing them, it is quite obvious that there has to be some resentment and that we have to leave the past behind. However, I believe that the best way to meet this objective is to act on the basis of clear and explicit recognition of the rights of the aboriginal peoples, and I still believe that the best way to solve this problem is to pass as soon as possible the constitutional resolution, and especially Clause 34, which confirms the absolute right of the aboriginal people of Canada to everything that has been traditionally recognized by treaties and native rights.
[English}


Mr. Schellenberger:: Will the hon. minister accept a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Would the hon. Minister of State accept a question?


Serge Joyal: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, the minister put great faith in the amendments to the Constitution as the basis upon which native people could feel satisfied that their rights to land and other rights would be affirmed; yet in that very Constitution, aboriginal rights are not defined. In fact, a specific section has been put in so that not only will the federal government and native people define aboriginal claims or rights, but also the provinces. We all know that provinces are very protective of such things as land resources. This is one of the reasons many of the aboriginal or native peoples of this country question whether, in fact, they have any protection as far as land and resources are concerned, and also why they question whether such an amendment as this should be placed in the bill in order to affirm that, in fact, they have some claim to land and resources in the north under this bill.
My question is whether the minister can confirm to this House that the definition will, in fact, include land and resources; and I know he cannot.


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question put by the hon. member, because it is ultimately at the root of the

October 21, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
issue of native rights. It is fair to suggest that when we attempt to define native rights, we are faced with a major difficulty. This is why the wording of Section 34 is so vague. It is both vague and all encompassing.
Had we included in Clause 34 an enumeration of either a restrictive or indicative nature of the kind of rights that could be included or the kind of things those rights might have contained, we would have been faced with insuperable difficulties. Clearly, the provinces, as he rightly suggests, are most reluctant to enter into a discussion process where the contents of those rights would be specified. The hon. member for Provencher, who took part along with us in all those discussions, was the first to suggest that. Within the framework of the constitutional conference envisaged in Section 36, the hon. member realized this, and I quote Section 36(2):
-respecting constitutional matters that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including the identification and definition of the rights of those peoples to be included in the Constitution of Canada.
Committee members unanimously recognized that had we gone into that process at this stage, we would never have seen the end of it, for the very good reason that those rights change. They take greater dimensions along the years. Current native land claims at this time are much more extensive than ten or 20 years ago. And it is better to have an over-all protection in principle stating the rights as a whole rather than to try, by way of an enumeration, even if it is indicative, to restrict the object of those rights. However, if I may answer more directly the question, native rights include both rights to the land and rights to the resources. When earlier settlements were reached with the COPE group, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq rightly suggested that the matter of resources already being explored were excluded.
But matters have changed since. I even mentioned to him that concerning the claims of the Dene and Metis, we were ready to consider, within the framework of over-all negotiations, the assessment and inclusion of resources already or close to being developed. Therefore, there is nothing in the matter of native claims that precludes claims on these lands or resources, whether surface or subsurface. The matter in my view must be examined in the over-all context of Section 34. In other words, what is involved here is the over-all rights, and those rights include social rights, property rights and other rights connected with the occupancy of the land.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the new minister. May I put a question at this point?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I allowed the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) to ask a question without the unanimous consent of the House because the minister's time had not expired, but it has now expired.
Therefore, unanimous consent is required for the hon. member to ask his question. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, may I express my pleasure that the hon. member has now become a minister. He is very young and progressive.

When the Constitution was being debated, the original draft was like this bill. It said nothing would prejudice aboriginal rights, and so on. It was determined by the native people, and ultimately by the committee, that it was not the best protection. The minister said that we should write the best protection in the law. We did this in Section 34. Is not that what the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) was saying today? Would the minister agree that we are only at the first stage? We have only these rather innocuous clauses in the bill which say without prejudice, that later they can participate, and so on. But we have not gone to a second stage and put real protection in this bill.
Would the minister agree with my logic? Also, would the minister tell the House which way the government will vote on another rather innocuous motion, namely Motion No. 6? 1 take it the government will be voting for that.


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, although he is also quite young the hon. member knows how to be cutting. It is true that at the committee stage we altered Section 34 which had a rather negative approach to take a more affirmative approach, which is to say, there are some absolute rights and they must be respected and enforced. However, there is a basic difference between the constitutional resolution and an act of Parliament. And the hon. member knows quite well that when we want to exempt a previous statute from the application of legislation, the negative approach is taken.
In spite of all previous comments, this bill suggests, and the hon. member who is a lawyer is well aware of that exclusive clause, that Clause 57 does not exclude but recognizes the full application of the Constitution Act since it states that this legislation does not interfere with the titles, rights or claims of the native people of Canada, which they held before the coming into force of the legislation.
Consequently, what is stated under Clause 34 as being the absolute right of native people is not at all excluded from or denied in paragraph (7). Clause 7 says that if you thought that Bill C-48 encroached on the rights of the native people as recognized in previous legislation, that is Clause 34 of the Constitution Act, you are mistaken, because that legislation is fully enforced. This is the thrust of Clause 7 but in simple and everyday terms. Therefore, what the hon. member suggests is that Clause 7 of that legislation should recognize the full application of Clause 34 of the Constitution Act. It is in short
October 21, 1981

what he would suggest as an amendment or as an assertion of natives' rights. But the hon. member is aware also that at this stage, at least the debate on this aspect of Section 34 has been delayed and that there is no way we could refer directly to Section 34. But I find his idea extremely interesting, because when the time comes for us to deal with various bills, once Section 34 of the new Constitution has been adopted, we will be able to refer to Section 34 of the Canadian Constitution. The hon. member is right. At this stage, however, we cannot yet refer to it, as Section 34 has not yet been passed. And I fully agree with his objective. That is essentially the approach we had taken last winter during the committee meetings on the Constitution.


Peter Ittinuar: Mr. Speaker, would the minister accept another question if the House gives me unanimous consent?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Peter Ittinuar: Mr. Speaker, I must commend the new minister on his obvious knowledge, good intentions and concern for the welfare of my people. However, the minister said there was mention of equity participation for aboriginal peoples. When I approached the minister with that proposal, he readily agreed that there should be equity participation by aboriginal peoples on oil and gas development. As a result he agreed to a new clause. This is Clause 10(2)(d), which reads:
Equity participation by government and Canadians, including any aboriginal peoples of Canada who may be affected by the exploration agreement.
However, the minister had refused to discuss with me any further expansion of that amendment to allow a mechanism for the participation of aboriginal peoples in equity, and just what kind of equity aboriginal peoples could take.
Therefore, I must conclude that this clause is hardly worth the paper it is written upon. The intentions behind it are good, but it has not been worded so as to grant real equity to the aboriginal peoples. Could the minister tell us just how he and his government propose to grant to the aboriginal peoples equity in these developments?


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for Nunatsiaq asked this question which, in fact, is in two parts. The first one concerns naturally the equity issue: What reasonable, acceptable and responsible share in the ownership of these resources should the aboriginal people hold? And the second one, which is a corollary: How are we going to determine what is fair and what is not? That is essentially the object of his question.
I indicated a while ago that, once Clause 34 of the constitutional act has been adopted, we will have to start new negotia-
Canada Oil and Gas Act
tions based on the new legislation. Therefore, all the claims which the aboriginal people may have on federal Crown lands will have to be based essentially on ancestral rights or treaties, and no longer on wide discussions concerning their legal basis. When the time comes to determine what is fair, we will have to decide within the global context of the claims which every group will want to bring to the negotiation table, what the Inuit propose, what the Dene and the Metis propose, what obviously COPE has already started to negotiate and what the CYI has proposed or intends to propose for debate. The share of equity to be attributed to each of the aboriginal peoples, with regard to the lands concerned will be based essentially on the rights recognized in Clause 34. If the conclusion is reached, through arbitration or judicial process, that their share of equity is to exceed that of the majority, the matter will be settled essentially through arbitration or judicial process. There will no longer be any paternalistic stand to be taken saying: the symbolic participation of our aboriginals must be saved, they must have some equity. The claims of the native people then will be based exclusively on their rights. Why? Because for the first time those rights will be recognized in our statutes. Therein will lie the difference in future negotiations. I can tell my hon. colleague that the negotiations in which we took part in the past easily took on a paternalistic hue, but will no longer do so because the rights of Canadians will be enshrined as those of an adult people full master of its destiny and fully able to determine through arbitration, judicial process or free negotiation what the respective share of each will be in the equity and development of those resources. That, to my mind, is the essential difference; this should reassure the hon. member with regard to the meaning of the word "equity" or "participation" will be given in the administration, the management of those resources.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister might entertain one more short question. I think he has given us some fairly good insight into a problem we have been raising for some time. The dilemma we have been expressing over a period of time relates to the permission for oil and gas development to proceed under this legislation in which no specifics are written. This is largely a discretionary piece of legislation, with the power to make decisions affecting aboriginal people left in the hands of the minister. As my colleague, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar), has said, the clause providing equity is not really worth very much. What we have to do is to expand and define some of these things.
We suspect that the oil and gas development in my area will proceed very rapidly. Some of the aboriginal people in those communities have not even reached the state of defining their claims. There is a group of them in Ottawa right now who have defined their claim and would like to have some response before the oil and gas development proceeds. Some claims have been made and others have not even been defined at this time, yet the oil and gas developments are proceeding.

October 21, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Once this development proceeds, it will shape the communities. The infrastructure will already be in place and the patterns of production and exploration will be completed. What we have been trying to do is to get more definition in order to allow the pacing of development so the people in the region can participate meaningfully in the planning of activities and in the activities themselves. If this legislation goes ahead at the rate it is now proceeding, these people will be left out, and their land claims will not be recognized and they will have no benefit. I would like to hear some comment in that regard.


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for affording me the opportunity to answer these questions because, as the hon. member mentioned, these are problems we will have to address in any future legislation dealing with or affecting the rights of native peoples, and I do not think it useless for my colleagues to become aware of the situation as are those hon. members who raised these issues.
The problem which my hon. colleague brings up is a very real one. What will happen with future claims which we cannot provide for just now or what happens with present claims which some native groups or peoples cannot make at this time. This is a very important issue since their rights are affected with regard to resource ownership and management as well as their very lives and environment as the hon. member mentioned. What must be recognized at this stage is that Clause 34 acknowledges and affirms their rights, and if it is shown in the settlement of claims over these lands that these people had strict ownership rights with regard to these resources, they are entitled to a generous compensation either of a financial nature, of which there are many examples, or through lands that could be made available to them in similar conditions. We cannot, at this point, provide for everything and some groups may indeed be in dire circumstances, but the important thing is that their rights are protected. They are protected because the ownership rights of these people over these resources are recognized.
When we say in Clause 34 that aboriginal rights are hereby confirmed, the basic right remains, regardless of whether these rights are confirmed now or will be in the future. There will be some form of compensation and it will be possible in the settlement of the claim to offer these people the same protection and access to the resources they would have had if they had made their claim in due time. Yet the hon. member must admit that it is impossible to provide for everything. Many of the native peoples who appeared before the committee could not define aboriginal rights. It is an evolutionary notion. Its contents increase rather than decrease. Its meaning and its implications increase in keeping with our knowledge of history, treaties and past practices. Therefore the implications of this recognition or rights will not lessen, they will extend, and will only place more responsibility on representatives of the Crown
and on all corporations which may become involved in those areas. That is why I want to reassure the hon. member that this aspect and these implications are protected because the rights of those people will be upheld, and all claims that may be laid will be based on full and total ownership of these lands and resources.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Motions Nos. 6 and 20 were grouped for debate but are to be voted on separately. I will begin with Motion No. 6.
The question is on Motion No. 6 in the name of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Schellenberger) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on Motion No. 20 in the name of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 20 (Mr. Lalonde) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Madam Speaker's ruling, which was read earlier today, Motions Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 will be grouped for debate.
October 21, 1981

Motion No. 41 will be grouped with those I have just mentioned.
I will read the motions individually. I might alert hon. members to the fact that I will be looking for a mover and seconder in each case.


Harvie Andre: Motion No. 7
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 10 by striking out line 13 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"10.(1) The minister may enter, subject to Section 56, into an".
Motion No. 8
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 10 by adding immediately after line 33 at page 7 the following:
"(3) The minister, when entering into an exploration agreement shall impose terms and conditions which maximize the potential for Canada's medium and long-term security of oil and gas supply from domestic sources and which have due regard to the economic and financial viability of oil and gas enterprises."
Motion No. 9
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 10 by striking out lines 34 to 37 at page 7 and lines 1 to 6 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) Every exploration agreement is subject to section 56 and to the terms and conditions set out in the schedule to this section.
SCHEDULE A Terms and Conditions Manpower and Procurement
1.	In respect to the use of Canadian labour
(a)	the interest holder shall submit to the minister, on or before a date to be fixed by him, a detailed manpower plan designed to ensure
(i)	the maximum possible use of Canadian labour, and
(ii)	the maximum possible use of labour indigenous to the region in which the exploration or production is to be undertaken; and
(b)	subject to any amendment approved by the minister, the manpower plan referred to in paragraph (a) when approved by the minister, constitutes the interest holder's manpower plan, and the interest holder shall comply therewith.
2.	In respect to Canadian participation and content,
(a)	the interest holder shall design a program for the procurement of all goods and services that ensures that
(i)	Canadians have a fair and competitive opportunity to participate in the supply of goods and services,
(ii)	the level of Canadian content is maximized so far as practicable, with respect to the origin of products, services, and their constituent components,
(iii)	maximum advantage is taken of opportunities provided by exploration and development on Canada lands to establish and expand suppliers in Canada that can make a long-term contribution to the Canadian industrial base, and
(iv)	maximum advantage is taken of opportunities provided by exploration and development on Canada lands to foster research, development and technological activities in Canada;
(b)	the interest holder shall submit to the minister, in such detail as may be required by the minister and on or before a date to be fixed by him, a report setting out
(i)	the program referred to in paragraph (a), and
(ii)	the procedures that the interest holder proposes to follow in order to implement that program including such procedures as the minister may require respecting prior approval in respect of proposed contracts or Clauses
Canada Oil and Gas Act
of contracts specified by the minister and including procedures to ensure to the minister's satisfaction that proposed contracts for the supply of goods or services from outside Canada will not involve unfair trade practices;
(c)	subject to any amendment approved by the minister, the report referred to in paragraph (b) when approved by the minister, constitutes the interest holder's procurement policy and procedures and the interest holder shall comply therewith; and
(d)	prior to the submission and approval of the report referred to in paragraph (6), the interest holder shall make no major purchases without prior approval of the minister.
3.	The company shall provide the minister, prior to the execution thereof, with copies of every proposed contract for the procurement of goods or services that require the prior approval under the procedures referred to in condition
2(*)(ii)."


Raymond John Skelly: Motion No. 10
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 10 by striking out line 37 at page 7 and lines 1 to 6 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"factory to the minister. This work plan will outline the major activities to be undertaken and the procurement program for goods and services related to these activities. The work plan will ensure that
(i)	Canadians have a fair and competituve 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 in 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."
Motion No. 11
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 10 by adding immediately after line 6 at page 8 the following:
"(3.1) In furtherance of the objectives described in 10(3) (amended) the holder of the exploration agreement shall
(i) 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;
(ii)	provide to all bidders on contracts undertaken in carrying out the exploration agreement to same bid specifications and announce changes in bid specifications to all bidders at the same time;
(iii)	evaluate the bids received in terms of the extent to which bidders use Canadian goods and services;
(iv)	not establish specifications, time periods and delivery conditions for contracts which are designed to unnecessarily exclude Canadian companies."
Motion No. 12
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 10 by adding immediately after line 6 at page 8 the following:
"(3.2) The minister shall establish an advisory body which shall be called the Canadian Content Committee. This body shall be made up of representatives from Canadian labour, from the major industries which will provide sourcing for offshore and northern exploration and production activities and from the oil and gas industries. The committee shall

October 21, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
(a)	participate in the establishment of the regulations under C-48 prior to the issuance of any exploration agreements;
(b)	review on an ongoing basis the information provided by agreement holders concerning Canadian content as stated in the work plan and in documents submitted to the committee as provided for in Clause 50(3) and make recommendations to the minister concerning all aspects of Canadian and foreign purchases and contracting by the holders of agreements or licences;
(c)	make recommendations to the minister concerning the pace of exploration and or production in Canada Lands in order that investment decisions, development work and facilities construction in Canadian industries participating in this exploration and production be given due consideration. The committee shall 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;
(if) make public its findings and recommendations on a regular basis by publishing these in the Canada Gazette and by any other means it deems appropriate."


Harvie Andre: Motion No. 13
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 10 by adding immediately after line 23 at page 8 the following:
"(6) Where the minister enters into an exploration agreement under this section, he shall first cause notice of such agreement to be published at least sixty days before the coming into force of such agreement, at the expense of the prospective agreement holder and such notice shall include a description of any requirements made pursuant to this section."
Motion No. 15
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 18 by adding immediately after line 41 at page 10 the following:
''(4) Every production licence is subject to section 56 and to the terms and conditions set out in the schedule to this section.
SCHEDULE TO SECTION 18 Terms and Conditions Environmental Concerns
1.	Prior to the granting of a production licence, an interest holder shall submit to the minister
(a)	the results of studies in respect of social and economic matters, environmental and fisheries concerns as may be ordered or directed by the minister; and
(b)	the recommendations of its environmental consultants for the protection of fisheries and the environment.
Manpower and Procurement
2.	In respect to the use of Canadian labour
(a)	the interest holder shall submit to the minister, on or before a date to be fixed by him a detailed manpower plan designed to ensure
(i)	the maximum possible use of Canadian labour, and
(ii)	the maximum possible use of labour indigenous to the region in which the exploration or production is to be undertaken; and
(b)	subject to any amendment approved by the minister, the manpower plan referred to in paragraph (a) when approved by the minister, constitutes the interest holder's manpower plan, and the interest holder shall comply therewith.
3.	In respect to Canadian participation and content,
(a) the interest holder shall design a program for the procurement of all goods and services that ensures that
(i) Canadians have a fair and competitive opportunity to participate in the supply of goods and services,
(ii)	the level of Canadian content is maximized so far as practicable, with respect to the origin of products, services, and their constituent components,
(iii)	maximum advantage is taken of opportunities provided by exploration and development on Canada Lands to establish and expand suppliers in Canada that can make a long term contribution to the Canadian industrial base, and
(iv)	maximum advantage is taken of opportunities provided by exploration and development on Canada Lands to foster research, development and technological activities in Canada;
(b)	the interest holder shall submit to the minister, in such detail as may be required by the minister and on or before a date to be fixed by him, a report setting out
(i)	the program referred to in paragraph (a), and
(ii)	the procedures that the interest holder proposes to follow in order to implement that program including such procedures as the minister may require respecting prior approval in respect of proposed contracts or classes of contracts specified by the minister and including procedures to ensure to the minister's satisfaction that proposed contracts for the supply of goods or services from outside Canada will not involve unfair trade practices;
(c)	subject to any amendment approved by the minister, the report referred to in paragraph (b) when approved by the minister, constitutes the interest holder's procurement policy and procedures and the interest holder shall comply therewith; and
(d)	prior to the submission and approval of the report referred to in paragraph (b), the interest holder shall make no major purchases without prior approval of the minister.
4.	The company shall provide the minister, prior to the execution thereof, with copies of every proposed contract for the procurement of goods or services that require the prior approval under the procedures referred to in condition
3(*)(ii).M


Raymond John Skelly: Motion No. 16
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 line 44 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor: "unless the minister has ensured that the applicant has conformed to exploratory agreement requirements regarding the use of Canadian goods, services and labour as described in Clause 10 Subsection (3), (3.1) and (3.2) and will continue to operate in compliance with these requirements in exercising his rights under the production agreement and the minister is satisfied that the". Motion No. 41
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 50 by adding immediately after line 4 at page 43 the following:
"(g) in respect of procurement of goods and services or other contracts entered into in furtherance of an exploratory agreement or production licence work plan on an ongoing basis throughout the term of the exploratory agreement in a form described in the regulations."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: If I understand the will of the House, I will now recognize the hon. member for Calgary Centre.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity, in my new capacity as energy critic for my party, to participate in a substantial way to the second part of the report stage of Bill C-48. I will try to do my job as well as my predecessor did, although that will be a major challenge.
I cannot say that I welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill because, quite frankly, I hoped and believed that a responsible government would have withdrawn Bill C-48, given the developments of the past year. It is now a year since the National Energy Program was introduced. In my opinion, the NEP had more to do with a revenue grab, had more to do with
October 21, 1981

a power grab in the sense that this government desired to have a more direct day to day interventionist role with regard to the oil and gas industry, and perhaps other industries as well. Energy, per se, was merely the tool through which the government pursued the goal of having more power and more money.
Let us assume for a moment that the government in fact does believe and support the notion of Canada becoming self-sufficient in oil and gas. Let us assume the government really does want to develop Canada lands, the area north of 60, the offshore area, that it wants to develop the oil and gas potential of those areas. If that were true, surely a responsible and reasonable government would recognize that Bill C-48 needs to be substantially amended in order to achieve those goals.
It is abundantly clear there is no way under Bill C-48, which is that part of the NEP which deals with Canada lands, that we will become self-sufficient by 1990. That is not an opinion held exclusively by me or by my party. That is an opinion held by every outside expert organization that has examined the question.
The National Energy Board, an independent organization whose members were all appointed by the Liberal government-if they have a bias it would be Liberal, not Progressive Conservative, though I do not think they have a bias-after months of public hearings and extensive analysis by their in-house experts, has concluded that there is no way we will be self-sufficient by 1990, perhaps not until well into the next century.
The Economic Council of Canada has reached the same conclusion. As I say, every outside organization has come to this conclusion. Clearly, industry is not responding to the National Energy Program in the way predicted by the minister a year ago. The regime they have put in place is not producing the kind of development and activity necessary to become self-sufficient. What does that mean?
I would like to quote from a statement made by the Vice President of Exploration for Petro-Canada, Mr. Robert Mene-ley, at the committee hearings on Bill C-48 held last February 12. Mr. Meneley said:
Bill C-48 by itself will not cause exploration and development to take place as it is only a component of the over-all system. The level of exploration and development activity will be dictated by how the oil industry uses the following equation:
Prospects for finding oil and gas reserves minus
The cost of finding, developing and operating productive areas minus
The economic rent which is collected in total in the form of royalties, taxes, Crown share and minimum requirements for Canadian participation.
If the industry view of that equation is that positive economic benefits flow to them at the end, then activity will take place.
Petro-Canada was supposedly established to give the government a window on the industry. Well, the window shows that
Canada Oil and Gas Act
the industry has to believe that the equation works out properly before it will make any investments and before the government gets the development it wants.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that that is what the government wants in the first place. I believe what the government wants is money and power. But let us assume that the government also desires self-sufficiency; it should accept the advice of its "window on the industry" and examine what is happening. According to all public statements by people in the industry, that is, the people who have to put up the cash, we know that the development the government supposedly hoped for simply will not occur under the NEP and under the part of Bill C-48 dealing with Canada lands.
In addition to having had the benefit of a year's examination of this by the industry, on September, 2 as a result of the energy pricing agreement between Alberta and the federal government, there was a very substantial change to the fiscal arrangements dealing with Canada lands. I am not talking about provincial lands here. The energy pricing agreement called for the phasing out of depletion with respect to Canada lands in order to put them on the same basis as provincial lands.
I put forward the following simple circumstance. If Bill C-48 contained the proper fiscal regime prior to the September 2 energy pricing arrangement, then clearly it cannot contain the proper fiscal regime today because there has been a substantive change. Depletion has been phased out. If the government was telling this House and the country when it introduced Bill C-48 that, in its judgment, Bill C-48 was the right and proper fiscal regime, the government must be lying to us now in saying it is still proper because there has been a material change in its own rules through the elimination of depletion allowances.
We have now had the benefit of a year's experience with PIP, the Petroleum Incentives Program. That was supposed to be the replacement for depletion on provincial lands and superdepletion on Canada lands. When PIP was announced last fall, a number of oil companies, particularly junior oil companies, came to the government and said, "We would like to take advantage of this program. When can we expect to receive these grants?" They were told they would receive them by about May of 1981. Some of those companies then went out and borrowed money at 20 per cent and 25 per cent in order to engage in the exploration which the government said it wanted them to carry out. They are still waiting for that money. The latest promise is "maybe next summer". A number of those companies will not be in existence next summer. They will be out of business. PIP turned out to be something the government could not administer in terms of provincial lands. The government was incapable of administering it. Indeed, there was a bit of hilarity when all the officials from Ottawa showed up to open the grants office in Calgary. They were frantically running around town trying to hire some consultants to tell

October 21, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
them how to figure out how to do it. As we know, as a result of the September 2 agreement that has now been transferred to the provinces-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Alberta accepted.


Harvie Andre: The reality is that no banker today will accept as collateral the fact that a company might be getting a PIP grant in the future. The reality is that the banking community will not accept that as collateral because the banks have now had a year's experience with a government that does not deliver on its promises. The government promised the companies these PIP grants, but it has not delivered. Bankers now will not authorize loans to companies, even though those companies might qualify fully for those PIP grants, because they know from experience that those grants will not be provided.
The combination of all those factors has caused the industry collectively-the people Petro-Canada has acknowledged must be motivated if we are to have the development that is necessary-to say that we have to scrap it and start from scratch. Indeed, the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada, representing 200 member companies which are, in the majority, Canadian owned, sent the following telegram on October 13:
On behalf of more than 200 members of the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada we urgently request you demand referral of Bill C-48 to Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce to permit study of economic impact not only on Canadian oil and gas industry but entire economy.
The telegram is from Robert Brawn, president of the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada. After a year's experience, the association is saying that the NEP and Bill C-48 do not work and need to be re-examined. The association says we should send the matter to a forum where another examination and another discussion can take place because, as things stand now, we will not achieve the goals the government says it wants to achieve. I repeat for the third time that I do not think the government was being honest about its real goals.
Besides the inadequacies of the fiscal regime Bill C-48 describes, the tremendous discretionary power granted to the minister and his officials is almost as serious a drawback. Clause 10, the proposed amendment of which we are now discussing, represents just two of 57 items which allow ministerial discretion. Under the best of circumstances, discretion represents a risk. In such circumstances, one might be dealing with an organization the credibility of which is beyond doubt, or with someone who has a history of keeping his word. Even in such circumstances, discretion represents a risk. Nobody likes to put forward great amounts of capital to make investments or to put at risk his company or his individual worth in a circumstance in which another person can exercise some discretionary power in such a way as to mitigate or undercut the value of that investment. This government has absolutely no credibility in the business or financial communities in this country because of its history of flip-flops, absolute falsehoods and distortions. The NEP itself was full of absolute and total falsehoods.


Mr. King:: Deceit.


Harvie Andre: The proper word would be unparliamentary when dealing with that kind of government, a government the people know cannot be trusted to keep its word or its promises or even to honour its contracts. When the power of discretion is added to that, it represents a tremendous risk. Giving discretionary authority to that kind of government means taking a tremendous risk.
Clause 10 of Bill C-48 says that the minister may enter into an exploration agreement relating to Canada lands in the manner provided by this legislation. That is in Clause 10(1). This represents a different way of handling the allocation of Canada lands. It is different from the method used with respect to provincial lands and different from that used by other countries. As a result of many, many years of experience, the province of Alberta, for example, most of the states in the United States and most of the democratic countries of the world, have a system of land allocation which involves bidding. It is a closed bidding situation in which the government simply puts forward offers for bid purposes respecting certain lands. It may be a matter of access for exploration activities. Companies bid. The high bidder wins. It is a democratic and fair way of doing things, and it is open. Most of the time it is the most efficient way of doing things. However, this government says, "No, we will not do it that way. We will have a situation whereby we will have exploration agreements with individual companies". The government wants to make arrangements on a one to one basis with companies for exploration on particular lands. Instead of taking the democratic and time proven method of allocating lands, the government uses the bureaucratic, red tape, government interventionist method of handling things.
I should mention as an aside that while adopting this procedure, they still claim that they are implementing deregulation, that they are trying to cut red tape, and that they believe in the private sector and in competition. While making those claims, they bring in a law like this. They ask why we think they have no credibility. It is obvious.
One of the disturbing things about this method, as opposed to the traditional method of submitting closed bids with high bidder winning, is that in the agreements the minister works out with companies, there is no check on their behaviour. In fact, Clause 12 specifically states:
The Minister may enter into an exploration agreement without a notice calling for the submission of proposals-
In other words, Clause 12 specifically states that if a particular oil company is a good company, because it may have given the minister's kids a job for the summer, or perhaps because his brother has many shares in it, or the president of the company happens to be the leader of the Liberal party in Alberta-who knows what the circumstances could be-the minister may favour that particular company under that clause or under Clause 10. Without any public notice, he can sit down and work out a cosy little exploration agreement with

the company, thereby turning over what could be millions or hundreds of millions worth of dollars to that company, with no check.
I remind hon. members that this would be done by a minister who, as has been proved to us in just the last few weeks, is not above using under-the-table methods to get the kind of assistance he thinks he needs to accomplish his goals. We are dealing with a minister who has a proven track record of not being above board in the way he handles things, yet we are being asked to pass legislation that would permit this kind of action.
As I say, Clause 10 states that the minister may enter into an exploration agreement. In Subclause (2) it states:
An exploration agreement may require the completion of specified work programs within specified periods, leading to and including the drilling of one or two wells within the term of the agreement,-
In other words, these exploration agreements will require the drilling of one or more wells. One wonders where to begin. One wonders who wrote that.
Exploration involves geology, geophysics, and only then is the well drilled. It is quite possible that a company may acquire a land position, engage in an extensive geophysical program that is running a seismic, and decide on the basis of the seismic that it is not worth drilling a well.
Drilling a well in Canada lands can cost anywhere from a few million to a hundred million dollars. As a result of running the seismic, an exploration company may decide that a well is unnecessary. The legislation we are about to pass says that an exploration agreement must include the drilling of one or more wells. This is an absurd notion. The agreement also includes the terms and the payments, disposition, reporting and disclosure of information, equity participation by Canadians, as well as the surrender, cancellation and transfer of interests under the agreement.
Suppose that a company signs an exploration agreement with the government. It may then find it is unable to complete the drilling of the wells called for in the agreement for any one of a wide number of reasons that could not be considered prior to the signing of the agreement.
The clause says also that the question of surrender will be part of the agreement. In other words, you cannot automatically surrender. If you decide to walk away from the property, you cannot do it automatically. It is something that has to be negotiated.
A circumstance might arise where the minister obliges you to drill a hole in the Arctic at the cost of who knows how many millions of dollars, something that you do not want to do and cannot afford under the circumstances. If you do not obey the minister, if you say you are not going to do it, you become subject to the provisions of Clause 57 which deals with offences and prosecutions. If you contravene or fail to comply with any provisions of the act, you can end up, on summary conviction, with a fine not exceeding $100,000 or imprisonment for up to a year, or both, or, on conviction on indictment,
Canada Oil and Gas Act
you imght receive a fine not exceeding $1 million or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both.
What we are being asked to pass is language that says, "You will do what the minister tells you, and if you do not, you can go to jail for five years." That is literally what it says. You wonder what kind of Gestapo-minded person writes this stuff and asks us to pass it.
The other provisions in this bill deal with reporting and disclosure. You may be in violation of the securities commission regulations. You are in a dilemma if you are caught in that position.
What we are asking by way of Motion No. 7 is that the provisions of Clause 56 come into play. That clause simply says that when a minister makes a decision, he must give notice of that decision. The person affected by the decision may ask for a hearing before the minister. The minister may be asked to publish, indicating in writing his reasons for that decision. If there is argument, the matter may be taken to the Federal Court for adjudication.
That is all this motion asks for. It asks that we have the ability at least to prevent the kinds of potential abuse I talked about and to have an open decision-making process which will require the minister to state why he is making decisions, require him to listen to objections by way of a hearing, and allow the person affected to take the matter to the Federal Court, if he feels so inclined. That is hardly a terrible or unreasonable provision.
When this bill was in committee we received a large number of submissions from a wide variety of organizations. Almost every single group that appeared before us had comments and suggestions to make about Clause 10. I refer to Imperial Oil, Norcen, Aquitaine, Husky, Canadian COIA-I forget what that stands for-the Canadian Shipbuilders and Ship Repair Association, the Canadian Petroleum Association, the Norwegian government, Stat Oil of Norway, The Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Bar Association, Dome Oil, the Northwest Territories government, the Yukon government, the Inuit Association, the Independent Petroleum Association, and others. Every single group that appeared before us had criticisms, and had suggestions for improvement of Clause 10; some more severe than others. The government did not listen to any of them. The government made no change, even though it went to committee.
In Motion No. 7 before you today, we say that, in view of this widespread criticism it received from everyone who looked at it, and in view of the questions raised in the submissions from everyone who looked at it, a reasonable person would say this clause should come under the provisions of Clause 56. Clause 10 should come under the provisions of Clause 56 which would require the minister to state what are the reasons for his decision. It would require the minister to listen. It would require the minister to provide a hearing for those affected by his decision, and would allow them to take the matter to the Federal Court of Canada, if they felt so inclined.

October 21, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
I do not understand why this motion should not receive approval from the members opposite. Without the provision, you literally have a situation where the minister can say, "You shall drill this well; you shall complete this program." A company might find it impossible to do this because of certain circumstances. Perhaps the interest rates might go up again; perhaps the bankers might demand repayment of the loan; perhaps the company has a runaway well in some other area, which has caused a great drain on the capital; perhaps its vice-president has been assassinated. Any one of a million things could happen to cause a company to be unable to fulfil its obligations. In those circumstances, according to the bill before us, that company could be penalized enormously by the minister or, alternatively, sent to jail, according to the provisions of Clause 57. Perhaps a month ago one could have said, "Oh, well, maybe that is what the law says; but, in fact, by convention, by practice, by tradition, we never imposed those kinds of penalties".
We now know, Mr. Speaker, what the government thinks of convention, of practice, of tradition; the government thinks of it as absolutely nothing. It is the height of folly to put within the grasp of these Gestapo-minded people, the ability to, in fact, throw someone in jail for failing to obey an instruction. We now know the minister is not above using under-the-table methods if it suits his purposes. I will have more to say on other motions as they come up. Motion No. 7 cannot be viewed in any other way than as a reasonable motion, one that any fair-minded group of people would readily approve.


Raymond John Skelly: I should like to speak in the debate in the fair and temperate manner of the hon. member preceding me.
Before I speak on the important amendment before us, I should like to cast my mind back to the committee hearings. Bill C-48 is interesting. As with previous budgets and other legislation the government tends to handle it in an interesting way. When Bill C-48 was brought in, it gave the Conservative Party apoplexy; it gave the oil industry apoplexy. It flashed a slight bit of hope for the Canadian people in that maybe there was going to be something in it on Canadianization. Maybe we were going to have a bit of compensation for the colossal rip-off that the oil companies have perpetrated on the Canadian people and the American people. Maybe now we will have a window on the industry and supervision of development that would capture the benefits of employment and opportunities for Canadians and for Canadian industries. It is a beautiful tactic. The bill looked all right on first reading, but it gave the Tories apoplexy; it gave the oil companies apoplexy; and it gave the United States government apoplexy.
We knew in time the Liberal government would deposit the bill in committee, and gut it. And gut it they did.
The Tories, with their apoplectic barnstorming in the House, giving themselves hernias, right, left and centre, screaming and tearing their hair out about this bill, arrived in committee with tears running from their eyes, with their noses running, hollering and yelling. But, by gosh, halfway into the bill, when the government's amendments appeared and the bill
was gutted, they overrule the oil companies and say, "We can live with this." The Tories allowed it to slide out of committee, without fighting for key amendments, the ones that are in front of us now. After listening to the preceding member's speech, I find that the job of the energy critic of the Tory party is to be for the oil industry, and that is all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond John Skelly: In the amendments before us again, the question is to capture industrial benefits for Canadians. We have bashed our heads on the wall to try to get this message through to the government. I believe they understand it, but they are reluctant to move. It is a question of capturing employment opportunities for people who live in the more remote areas of this country. Those people have acted as gofers to the banks under the Bank Act; those people have acted as gofers for the oil companies. It is an attitude that would make a dinosaur look progressive.
On the other hand, this particular organization has recognized the problems facing the Canadian people. And yet, because of the pressures that face them from the Americans and from other people, they are willing to put in broad, vague, discretionary provisions that will allow them, once again, to sell out the Canadian people. If you were to look at the history of economic development in his country, you would find that Canadians have been sold out. In essence, they are no better than this group here.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is the most important piece of legislation to come before parliament in a long time. In this last reflection of the act, it is important that we include a specification to make a commitment to future generations and to those people who have been left out of the mainstream of development, such as natives and other Canadians.
The issue in the bill is to capture industrial benefits, to create employment, and basically to provide opportunities in areas of the country and for the Canadian industry where they have not heretofore existed.
The bill asks for guidelines. Our amendments ask for guidelines that may be enforced. We want advisory committees so that the exchange of information can flow from the government and the oil companies on what they intend to do to businesses and to labour in this country, those who have been left out and who will continue to be left out of the mainstream. The money will go offshore to Norway, it will go offshore to Britain, and it will go offshore to the United States.
I shall repeat this one more time to see if it penetrates. In 1976, 60,000 jobs were created by the oil industry in Scotland, 100,000 jobs were created in Britain as a whole, and 200,000 jobs were created in the United States. The message is very clear. If we do not include guidelines and specify what we want to capture of the law and regulations, we will not have those benefits. The money will go across to Britain and Norway, both of which countries are far more advanced than we are. We are already giving away a lot to the Japanese people even before we get started.
October 21, 1981

The appeal is clearly to do something. It is the last chance, the beating of the head on the wall. We must try to convince them. We in this party and the Conservatives proposed amendments to capture these benefits. The government did nothing about it. We said, "Never mind the amendments. Show us a structure in place of the good faith you talk about." Because of the GATT arrangements and because of the sensitivity on the part of the United States, we cannot do anything about that. There they sit on their bums, minds in neutral, doing nothing for days on end. They forced us to filibuster, to try to delay and, they said, give it adequate consideration. Eventually they said, "Yes, we in fact have something in place. As a matter of fact, we would be prepared to give you a peek at what we have in an in camera session." They did. They trooped in the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), the forgotten old rebel of the hidebound party over there. They trooped in the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) with a bevy or a covey of bureaucrats. Essentially they trooped out a model similar to the British offshore supply office.
As far as megaprojects and their outward spin-off effects as well as the projects that will be affected by Bill C-48 are concerned, the Royal Bank estimates that they will cost over $1 trillion in two decades. This volume of expenditures staggers the imagination. Certainly it is beyond the very limited scope of comprehension of the hon. members opposite.
I should like to give an outline of what Britain did. Once Britain realized that it was very late and that it had lost an opportunity, it put in place an organization called the offshore supply office. Britain said that it wanted to sign a memorandum of understanding with the oil companies which would be of benefit to the British. It put in place a whole host of monitoring engineers. It forced the companies to report quarterly on acquisitions within Great Britain and where the other acquisitions had come from. A host of people analysed this information, reported back, updated their memoranda of agreement and generally began to acquire benefits. From there it developed liaison teams which would go out to British industry to explain where the oil companies were and what they needed. They would evaluate the industrial capability of British firms and try to bring the two together, so that British firms would be voting on the contracts and would get rolling. Also Britain put together a research and development component which studied the whole business. This component studied the academic community, the business community and oil and gas producers. They indicated the kinds of basic research they would have to undertake. Every year they would identify approximately 80 or 100 major projects which gave Britain- and indeed Norway in its model-a leading edge in the technology of oil and gas development.
Finally, let me point out that the pressure from Britain, Norway, United States, Japan, Taiwan, and other industrialized areas that want to participate in our oil and gas development, will be tremendous. They have the research and development. They have developed the technology. They will force it
Canada Oil and Gas Act
on us unless we do something. This was the role of the British offshore supply office. It was a major effort to capture a share of business opportunities and employment opportunities for the British people. They did. They reversed the trend years later, but at least they got it around to where they were in very good shape.
The minister trooped in this model. It looked good. He told us about an office of industrial and regional benefits. He said that they were making it out of an old organization already within the Department of Industry, Trade and Commere. When we dug around, we found that it was the original task force on Canadian participation struck by the Honourable Judd Buchanan. It consisted of four people who held 60 meetings with oil companies in a closet and never told anyone else in Canada. There was no direct input from Canadian business sources. There was no direct input from Canadian labour. No concrete information was received from sponsor companies on contract activities. There were 60 meetings in seven years, and absolutely nothing has resulted. There were four people on a part-time basis. This was the level of commitment of the Canadian government from 1975 to the present, roughly seven years.
Now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce tells us that he is committed to capturing those benefits, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tells us that he also is committed, even though it is not in the legislation and there is no guarantee upon which Canadians can hang their hats. He showed us a structure similar to the British offshore supply office. We asked them to do this. He outlined how they will be responsible for evaluating exploration agreements conformity, and so on. There will be 12 people monitoring over $1 trillion in expenditures. They have put 12 people in place. This group is probably not capable in terms of resources. I am not talking about individuals. I am talking about a group with human and economic resources and the capability to evaluate the Canadian benefits, to develop agreements, to evaluate what is ongoing, such as research and development, marketing and the various functions of the British offshore supply office. They will not require quarterly reports. They will not require a group of monitoring engineers to determine whether they are complying with the act and whether Canadian businesses are given opportunities. They are not setting up a liaison with Canadian industries and labour in the regional areas to see what is happening. In fact, 12 people could not do it. That would be one person per province and two bureaucrats in Ottawa.
Basically this is the most colossal sellout of Canadians that I have ever seen in this place or in my experience as a person observing Canadian history. It is sad and disgusting. If there was one ounce of commitment over there, we would not be talking about 12 people monitoring an office of industrial and regional benefits. We would be talking about a major commitment, not a committee that reports to a director general lost somewhere down in the bowels of EMR. We would be talking about a committed organization with top level access and the ability to evaluate and move quickly. It is more than revolting.
12048

October 21, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Where are we today? Enormous expenditures are facing us in the oil and gas industry. There are tremendous numbers of people out there in Canada who do not have even basic information on how they will participate at a time when developments are coming on very quickly.
The previous speaker mentioned the oceans industry group. They came before the committee. They knew what they wanted and what they needed in terms of advisory committee status, input, and constructive relationships with the government and the oil industry in order to ensure that the people in the maritime industries in Canada can meaningfully take advantage of them. There is nothing here; 12 people could not even take an effective look at one of those industries. We have the Canadian shipbuilding and repair association. Granted, we have been forced into development in some areas, but we have not scratched the surface in terms of the benefits that organization envisioned. The hon. member responsible for that organization and for discussing its problems with Members of Parliament has beaten his head on the wall for years trying to talk to the government and to achieve some progress. We have talked about a merchant fleet for Canada, which is a long overdue idea. We have talked about the development of the Canadian shipbuilding industry and all allied trades. There will be hundreds of millions of dollars spent in that industry, but we have seen no commitment. There are no guidelines in the bill. There are no requirements in the bill to provide assistance. There is no ability within the office of industrial and regional benefits to capture that. We will rely on Dome and its Japanese partners to build the Canadian marine industry. It is tremendously unfortunate.
The Canadian Labour Congress came before the committee. It was very serious about the inadequacy of this legislation. In short, the only organizations which wound up happy with the gutting of the bill were the oil companies and the Conservative party.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: C'est la menu- chose.


Raymond John Skelly: Yes, but unfortunately it is not acceptable to Canadians.


Frederick John King: What about the government? Does it have any responses?


Raymond John Skelly: Has the hon. member ever heard any given? I could go on and on with what I feel are colossal mistakes.
In the previous discussion with the Minister of State (Mr. Joyal) there was an attempt to establish a dialogue and an understanding of the problems faced by one group which definitely wanted to participate on an equal basis in the development and enhancement of the infrastructure. I think he grasps the problems and is willing, through discussion, to do something about it. I guess that is what we are asking the government to do. Here we have the last chance before us. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce should come to this House. I noticed that none of the ministers responsible are present today. This is probably one of the most significant sections of the bill, yet none of them are present in the House.
It is important that we get a commitment. Either we should adopt some amendments or we should defer them so that if the government has a better mechanism-we are not married to the amendments which are before us tonight-it could draft one which will capture the benefits and give us some specification on it. The minister should rise in his place and say that the office of industrial and regional benefits is not a joke and that right now his commitment is perhaps to supply some more resources to it. However, the government does not know. There is no commitment beyond that. What we are hoping is that we will see an organization structured such as the British offshore supply office. If that is the mechanism the government would choose, I would urge the minister to rise in the House and give us an indication of what he is going to do, rather than wait for President Ronald Reagan to put pressure on the government, and having it in return sell us out completely, as it has done so many times in the past. Mark my words: the sellout appears to have begun.
We heard from across the aisle the other day that they can ease up because the Canadianization of that industry is not a serious threat and that it probably will not go much further. We saw an indication that they were clearly backing off on a badly needed review and on the upgrading of the Foreign Investment Review Act. Basically, the pressure is there and there is nothing to compel them to capture those benefits in Canada. There is no structure in place to assist them with it. When the pressure comes from other members in GATT and from the Reagan administration, which is already looking at sanctions against Canada, believe me, that government will follow its historic pattern and sell out the Canadian people, as it has done so many times in the past.
What should we do? Members in our party will be discussing this particular set of amendments. As our critic for industrial development in Canada said, it applies vitally in that area. We want to hear the minister rise and respond. Even the Conservative amendment is better than the clause as it appears in the bill. If our amendments are not acceptable, let the minister rise and tell us so; give us an example of one which would meet the objectives and would be acceptable to the government. If that is not the route to take, then let him show us something similar to the British offshore supply office, not a token effort which will repeat the inadequacies or incompetence of the last organization which sat there for seven years and did absolutely nothing.
I have some brief summary remarks to make concerning another aspect. For years, Canada has talked about an industrial strategy. I know the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has been up front in suggesting that the government must come forward with some concrete planning in a very complex country. We have watched the oil companies and the banks clean up at the expense of Canadians, with the aid of government policy.
Basically, what we need is an industrial strategy, and believe me, this is the platform. This is the last opportunity that Canadians will have to launch easily a comprehensive industri-
October 21, 1981

al strategy which will not only improve the lot of our generation, but of generations to come. If we miss this opportunity, that is all we have. It will be very difficult to gain the kind of momentum that this particular activity, the offshore oil and gas development in Canadian lands, will give us. We will get into megaprojects eventually, but someone else will be building them for us. I guess it is highly unlikely, with the lack of initiative of this particular government, that we will ever seriously start harvesting the resources of the sea and the seabed; but, again, the opportunity to leap out from this piece of legislation by a proper handling of these amendments will be lost for all time if we do not move now.
For a long time the minister has advocated an industrial strategy. He said that he was going to resign if interest rates went higher. 1 wonder if he was indeed serious about it. Stacked against him on the other side of the cabinet appear to be people such as the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) and the Senator. It is unfortunate that in this House we cannot question the individual responsible for the economic development and the over-all planning authority of Canada.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We try.


Raymond John Skelly: It is extremely unfortunate, but we have him. We have the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and, indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), committed to a policy which will not see intervention in the Canadian economy in order to undertake planning to develop our industrial strategy. I think the minister is lost; but if I am mistaken, I would certainly like to see him rise in his place and talk clearly to us about a set of amendments that will guarantee the capturing of those benefits, or at least a structure of more than 12 people which will give us some assurance that we are going to have those benefits. The cabinet is split down the middle, with all the power stacked against the Canadian people. Believe me, I do not think that we are going to see the benefits spin off to this or to future generations of Canadians.
The impediments are that there are no guidelines or requirements. We are asked to look at Liberal good faith. The hon. member who spoke previously had at least correctly analysed the value of Liberal good faith: "Trust me. It is in the mail." The government is unwilling to take political risks.
I cast my mind back. There are other components to the industrial strategy, and I think we are watching the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) sell out the competition policy in Canada. He has watched the banks rip us off, he has watched the newspaper industry rip us off, and he has now watched the development of a very strong piece of competition legislation, which would perhaps curtail the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few people in this country. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs goes out to meetings of chambers of commerce in Montreal and Alberta, gutting the competition policy of this country. The competition policy is as vital to an industrial strategy as the over-all plan or the specific set of plans which should be developed. Therefore, the government over there is unwilling
Canada Oil and Gas Act
to take political risks on behalf of the Canadian people. Frankly, it is disgusting.
Concerning bureaucrats, I suspect that half the problem with the government over there is that it is locked in. It has been there too long, it has become fossilized. The bureaucratic conservatists in the civil service provide it with advice. It has fought other battles before and it is not prepared to inject new blood and to give the new blood over there some power, those people who have their heads turned toward the coming end of the twentieth century. I think the hon. member, as evidenced by his outburst, is probably one of those who might be given a chance sometime. I have noticed some progressive ideas coming from him occasionally.


An hon. Member:: Thanks Ray.


Raymond John Skelly: Well, we will see. Again, there are token efforts. There is an unwillingness to take political risks. The Foreign Investment Review Act seems to be a way of injecting foreign investment in Canada. There was great hope that that organization would protect us from foreign industries and allow Canadians more ownership and more Canadian participation. In fact, it has just become a clearing house for foreign investment in Canada.
PetroCan was created, I guess, back in the old '72-74 government. The concept eventually developed, and then was allowed to spin its wheels for years and years. Now, when our backs are more than against the wall, PetroCan blossoms out, and the government is taking some serious industry and putting a window in the industry; and a big window it is. However, for years unwilling to take the political risks until the oil company had ripped us from stem to stern, the government is willing to move now when it is too late. We are past the eleventh hour.
There are some serious questions concerning Canadianiza-tion and accountability. If we are looking for an industrial strategy and if we are looking to capture industrial benefits from the modern day CPR, Dome Petroleum and some of the other Canadian ownerships, certainly it is a worthy goal; but undoubtedly, what must come beforehand is a clear expression of policy that we do not want those corporations taking employment and industrial benefits offshore. We want them committed to a policy of developing those benefits within Canada. That policy is not clear. It is absolutely imperative that the government come out with a clear statement that the industrial benefits are the responsibility of those Canadian companies.
A great many of my colleagues are vitally concerned about representing their constituents. Members of Parliament from British Columbia especially are watching the collapse of the forest and fishing industry and many of the other basic resources that are tied heavily to the 90 per cent figure in the United States market. They have serious concerns about the manufacturing industries and about the fact that the opportunity for continuous development and stability is not appearing.

October 21, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Members will want to speak on that. They will want to hear the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce make a commitment that the offshore supply office will not be a sellout or a token effort. They will want to hear that amendments are possible to this legislation to improve its strength, even if it is at the eleventh hour.
I think I have made my point, and I hope before this drags on forever that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will come into this House and lay out a clearly planned structure. Alternatively, I hope that amendments will be made requiring the government to ensure this country captures the industrial benefits, and creating the employment that is possible. I hope that attention will be paid to regional development, and that participation in equity and benefits will be accorded to the aboriginal peoples.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I think I can say that I agree with the previous speaker from British Columbia that Bill C-48 is one of the most important economic bills that has been before this House for a long time because it deals with one of the trump cards in Canada's resources.
It is very easy to use the expression "Canada lands" liberally, but to the extent of what we are talking about, it is beyond the comprehension of most of us. It is not only oil and gas we are debating in this bill but the theory of how the people of Canada who own this resource economically preserve the maximum amount of return from that which belongs to them.
Almost 25 years ago, I made my estimate of the value of the oil and gas in that area. In these ensuing 25-odd years, I have not changed my judgment one bit. We will see out of these Canada lands a minimum of 100 billion barrels of oil but, even more important, probably about 600 trillion cubic feet of gas. Those figures are meaningless unless you put a dollar value on them. If my estimate is correct, the dollar value would be in the range, although I think it will be exceeded, of the $8,000 billion to $10,000 billion that we are seeking in this legislation. Forgetting all about politics and everything else, but in the interests of Canadians of the present and the future particularly, I agree with the previous speaker that it is our duty to ensure that this one great trump card, which has been in people's minds for 40 or 50 years, should not be wasted by poor drafting of the legislation dealing with it.
This particular amendment moved by the Conservatives is a simple one. Clause 10 gives a very dangerous precedent in that it allows negotiated agreements by the minister with any oil company that he chooses, but although a dangerous precedent, it is fine in principle. But the dangers in it are so real that the Conservative amendment simply says that when the decision is made, it be allowed to come up for review under another clause, Clause 56 in the bill. Regardless of the instructions the government whips have given to their members concerning this motion, surely just because the amendment was moved by the official opposition is not grounds for turning it down. We are not talking here about partisan politics. What we are talking about is a large chunk of the future of Canada, not only the finding of oil and gas, the development and the sale of it, or
the great energy supply it gives us for the next 100 years, but all the industrial spin-offs that will continue long after the oil and gas is gone. I hope this moderate amendment will be accepted, stating that when this complete power of negotiation is given to a minister, the act would require the provision to be reviewed, as a means of preventing a mistake from being made.
The part I want to emphasize gives me no pleasure. I do not think I will be disbelieved when I say, with regard to this business of oil and gas economics and administration, that, going back into the 1930s and particularly since the war, I have worked with great interest and I tried during my day to bring in regulations that would protect the Canadian people and optimize the development of our various resources.
I had to undertake, in complete opposition to outside oil companies and Canadian companies, a series of regulations which were radical then but are now accepted by Norway, Venezuela and the United Kingdom as being legitimate and modern. But in these 1961 regulations we had these radical new provisions that worked on the basis of equity between the owner of the resource, the people, and the companies who were the partners. They had to get enough to pay their costs and give them a competitive return on money they invested. Because we accepted them as partners and accepted the minimum requirements of meeting that return on capital which they had to make, we were able to get agreement. Those regulations were put in abeyance on the change of government in 1963. It was not until 1976 when a minister in the Liberal party brought in the 1976 regulations which were based on the same philosophy as the 1961 regulations. We on this side were able to support that minister. Some hon. members will remember that it was Mr. Buchanan. I congratulated him after that long period of ten wasted years on bringing in the regulations that allowed the Canadian public to be protected and allowed the Canadianization program to proceed on an economic basis. It also protected the government and the companies from charges of improper actions.
This is where this bill has gone wrong. This bill has turned back the philosophy of oil regulations in the world some 50 years. We have gone back to the concept of grabbing as much as we can of the resource in the early stages. Because we are grabbing so much, we are putting the companies which are trying to develop the resource into a negative cash flow position in the early years of development. This means in practice that we put the whole oil and gas reserves of the future into the hands of the big international oil companies, because the smaller companies, which only have a few billion dollars worth of reserves, cannot cope with the tremendous money power of the big internationals.
Even though the government, members of the NDP and members of the Conservative party, are all in agreement with giving maximum opportunity to Canadians to participate in this great resource of ours, the realities are that if we do not set this up so that the small company can survive in the early
October 21, 1981

days of the operation, we will have lost the Canadianization component and turned the wealth over to the big international companies.
I have seen this happen in Alberta, British Columbia and the province of Saskatchewan. There was a government in Saskatchewan which was dedicated, when it was first elected in 1948, to principles of socialism. It made tremendous efforts through this type of negotiated agreement, yet its efforts failed. As a result, the government, through its premier, Tommy Douglas, gave its words in the House in Regina that it would work in partnership with private enterprise and that there would be no expropriation of those companies. In effect, that government welcomed the big companies, which had to go along with the type of regulations that existed, and the Canadian industry in Saskatchewan was brought to its knees. That was a government which was sincere and intelligent and fought hard, but it faced up to this reality and accepted the fact that if you are operating on a type of regulation under which only the big guy can survive, you have to turn the property over to him.
This particular regulation which deals with the setting up of exploration agreements is fine in principle and we should give it all the backing we can, but in reality, it is based on trust, and that is wrong. Do these oil companies trust the government? Do these oil companies trust each other? There is no way that they do. These are the most experienced fellows in the world in dealing with governments in all countries of the world. They know exactly where the weak chink is in every armour of any party in any country in the world. They are not stupid. They find the way to out-compete their competitors by dealing with human beings who make up the team on behalf of the government. This is not just a question of bribing politicians, it is a matter of an insidious advance they make on the basis of mutual self interest to the civil servant and the politician.
Believe me, I have seen many nations in the world caught up in this same problem. I have seen Canadian companies in competition with companies in other countries around the world in the development of oil, particularly in some of these new countries, and being squeezed out, even though the local government wanted a Canadian company. The reason was that they could not compete as Canadians with that type of insidious approach taken by skilled oil companies which have many years of experience in dealing with governments of newly developing nations.
The reality is tough, and the least we can do here to protect our own reputations as Members of Parliament is not to oppose this type of clause, Clause 10 of the bill, but to try to make it better and to give it a half decent chance of working, and to do so by putting in a provision giving us the right to review the minister's reasons. That will force him to make certain he does not do things for any reason whatsoever, whether idealistic or any other reason that is bad.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
I do not want to go into all this muck and dirt of how it operates. I supported this type of proposal when I was minister but could not get it accepted because the oil companies were opposed to it. Why are they opposed to this type of rule in Clause 10? They know that human beings run governments, and they do not trust each other. They would rather deal with a formula under which everybody gets the same chance. As I said earlier in my remarks, when you have to deal with so much value, there is no limit to what the human mind can do to find ways of beating out competitors by using proposals that look so much better, but underneath hold all the devices which result in a sellout.
I should think everyone of us here, when we come to vote on this amendment proposed by the Conservatives, should support it, adopting a principle which applies to one of the other clauses of the bill, namely that after the minister has taken all this power and used it, he must give his reasons, and these reasons, as in other clauses of the bill, are subject to review.
If you want to read the section, it is Section 56. I am not a lawyer, but I am sure that of all the convoluted ways of protecting the public some are surely there. This will require time, but if we leave all this power in the hands of one man without any form of review, we will be walking into a trap we will all be ashamed of, and, worse than that, we may hand over all this wealth amounting to several trillion dollars to those who know best how to deal with human beings in negotiating agreements.
I want to conclude by making an appeal to all hon. members of the House. I know how these things are decided. It has probably already been decided in the caucuses of the various parties how each party is supposed to vote. I would still like to believe that this is a parliament in which we talk and sometimes listen, and that my remarks and those of the member from Calgary and the member from British Columbia have made some impact. This amendment by the Conservative party should not be judged just on the basis that it comes from the Conservative party, but should be judged as to whether it would make this a better bill. In my estimation, Bill C-48 should be dropped entirely for the reason that we are simply turning all our wealth over to foreign international oil companies. That is how it will turn out, in spite of all the incentives we have planned. I know the arithmetic, I know the cash flow technique, I know the discounting backwards, and I know how closely the companies figure things out. Even though we cannot promise perfection, at least the right to review might enable us to stop some of these things from happening.
That is the sum total of my remarks, Mr. Speaker. I hope I have had a good hearing today and that members will give every consideration to the suggestion that this amendment can only improve the bill. Thank you very much.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall I recognize the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) and then call it six o'clock?

October 21, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River will have the floor if he is here at the appropriate time tomorrow afternoon. It being six o'clock,
pursuant to Standing Order 2(1), the House now stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, October 22, 1981