1981-12-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Auditor General has stated in his 1981 report that his auditors were denied information material to the audit. In particular he was denied documentation by senior officials on the direction of ministers, related to financial and management decisions. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That all financial and management information be available to the Auditor General and that all incidents of non-compliance be reported by the Auditor General to the House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that a skilled labour shortage is a prime concern facing many in the small business community, and in view of the recommendation of the all-party parliamentary task force on Employment Opportunities for the '80s, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That the federal government make a national, regional and local inventory and evaluation of all its training programs and institutions to ensure that they are being used to their greatest capacity, and that these training institutions and programs be used in co-operation with those existing in the private sector so that there is better co-ordination of training in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: 
FORESTRY
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since plans are completed for a maritime forest ranger school and training sawmill at Fredericton, New Brunswick, and the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have agreed to pay 50 per cent of the cost of establishing this complex, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That the federal government, faced with a 50 per cent demand for continuing forestry education for young foresters who lack facilities to make a significant contribution to their training, take immediate action to approve this project in cabinet so that current and forthcoming forestry programs in Atlantic Canada will not suffer from a lack of forestry technicians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INTRODUCTION OF DAYCARE FACILITIES AND PAID MATERNITY LEAVE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Last week when I abstained from the final vote on the Constitution I did so because I believed the rights of the unborn child were not adequately protected, and further, that society has not adequately provided the support measures necessary to assist women during pregnancy, working mothers and their children. I therefore move, seconded by the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House confirm its desire to see adequate daycare facilities and other assistance necessary to make childbirth and child rearing less of a burden and more desirable; and further, that we congratulate you, Madam Speaker, for your support of this cause by introducing daycare facilities and paid maternity leave for women working in the House of Commons, and further that this leave be extended to Members' staff. Library staff and Senators' staff.

December 9, 1981


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I seek the attention of all hon. members of the House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43. On Monday, December 2, 1981, the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency rightly lowered the price of eggs to farmers by two cents per dozen. This price reduction was triggered by their cost of production formula reflecting lower feed costs and interest rates. This responsible action contributes appropriately to our never-ending war on inflation. I therefore move, seconded by our agricultural expert, the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson):
That this House recognize, support and encourage other such moves by the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency and other similar commodity groups.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ENERGY CONSERVATION


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Once again the people of Atlantic Canada are being asked to suffer under this uncaring government. The Energy Conservation Assistance Program, ECAP, was created by the government over 14 months ago to assist home owners with the cost of insulation and off-oil conversion. However, in that time only 850 applications out of 4,000 requests have been issued. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is responsible for ECAP, do immediately release the applications to those who have asked for them, and that he guarantee that the assistance be delivered immediately on the return of the application forms, or be ECAPed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



THE BUDGET


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, whereas yesterday the President of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association reported that, as a result of the Liberal government's inept economic policy, 140,000 Canadians have already lost their jobs in the manufacturing industries, and that with the recent budget there will be no improvement in job opportunities in the coming months, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the November 12 budget be immediately withdrawn and replaced by measures which will increase job prospects instead of throwing yet more Canadians out of work.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, the results of a public opinion survey released today by the Gallup organization demonstrate that, if an election were held now, voters across Canada would elect a strong Progressive Conservative majority government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: The PCs lead the Liberals 42 per cent to 38 per cent, and top the NDP by a whopping 24 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That this House concurs with the judgment of the Canadian people that the Liberals should be turfed out of office and replaced by a strong majority PC government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
December 9, 1981



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I would like to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 which I hope gains the support of all the hon. members of this House. Whereas the number of Jewish people permitted to leave the Soviet Union in the past year has dropped precipitiously, whereas there is increasing harassment of those who have indicated their desire to leave the Soviet Union, and in view of the Soviet Union's refusal to allow study groups of Jewish people to meet and learn the Hebrew language, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson):
That this House make an urgent representation to the Soviet Union expressing grave concern over the Soviet Union's increasing violations of human rights in respect to those Soviet Jews who wish to leave that country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, prior to November 12, hundreds of Canadians had entered into agreements for sale of their land or business, and planned to use the income-averaging annuities to spread their capital gains over future years. This was both fair and legal, and enabled pioneers to provide for their families and for themselves for the remaining years of their lives. But then they were not robbed at gunpoint by a criminal, but, nonetheless, they were robbed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), whose voice stealthily crept into the homes of these Canadians who spent a lifetime building a nest egg for their retirement, and literally robbed these Canadians of such a great part of their earnings that their families are now left in ruins, bringing heartaches, frustrations, and maybe even suicides. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That this House begs and prays that the Minister of Finance will leave all laws as they were prior to November 12, at least for those who had carried out transactions that were then within the law.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



AVIATION INDUSTRY


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, the Quebec caucus of the Liberal Party passed a unanimous resolution which calls for an aerospace training centre to be located in Montreal, or nowhere. As this resolution has overruled a government appointed advisory group's recommendation which stated that the aerospace centre should be located in Winnipeg, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House call on the Minister of Transport and the whole cabinet to ensure that the benefits from the recently announced joint research and development agreement for the aerospace industry signed with the United States are distributed in a fair and equitable manner in all parts of the country and that Manitoba receive at least 10 per cent of the resulting benefits.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I put my question to the Prime Minister. On budget night I referred to the possibility of a tax revolt in this country as a result of the finance minister's budget. Since then I have received hundreds of letters of complaint. Just today I received well over 100 letters from people complaining about the impact of the budget. At a press conference today 23 national leaders of large organizations asked the government to withdraw the budget. People are expressing anger, depression and despair, and I am sure that hon. members in the Liberal Party are getting the same response. When will the government announce which parts of the budget will be changed, and which parts of the budget will be withdrawn in total?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member forgot to point out that it

December 9, 1981
Oral Questions
took courage for the Minister of Finance to make these proposals in the House, considering the privileges that existed in our tax system.
I may also remind the hon. member that since the Minister of Finance brought down the budget, I myself and the parliamentary secretary have had an opportunity to meet many groups and to listen to their views on the various provisions and measures contained in the budget.
I may also remind him that the Minister of Finance has pointed out several times that he was a good listener, that one of the objectives he wanted to achieve through this budget was equity, and that he was considering and listening to comments so as to make sure that the equity principle was observed in its various provisions.


REQUEST THAT CHANGES BE ANNOUNCED BEFORE CHRISTMAS RECESS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, many Canadians and companies have been left in total limbo or a total state of uncertainty with respect to their personal and corporate planning. The December 31 year end is coming up shortly, being only three weeks away. It will present a deadline within which many people have to make decisions. The budget attacks capital spending, it attacks savings, and spending plans are being put on the shelf pending some resolution to the uncertainty caused by the budget.
I put my question again to the Prime Minister. Will he commit to the House that any announcements of changes to the budget will be made in the House, and that they will be made prior to the Christmas recess?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I cannot inform the hon. member when and how the Minister of Finance will decide to give the House his conclusions after considering various budget measures. However, knowing how wise is the minister and also his respect for parliamentary procedure, there is no doubt that the Minister of Finance will take those steps at the appropriate time and in the appropriate manner.


REQUEST THAT BUDGET BE WITHDRAWN
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether my translation was working properly, but I thought the minister said prudence and horse sense. If the Minister of Finance had any prudence and horse sense he would not have brought in that budget; he would have known better than to bring in that budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The changes arising out of the 1980 budget caused the same type of disruption that this budget has, but
last year it was in a more concentrated way. This year it will affect many Canadians.
I will put my question to the Minister of State for Finance this time. Since the disruption caused by this year's budget affects so many individuals and so many companies, will the government consider as an option withdrawing the entire budget and starting fresh after the Christmas recess?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member really has not read, and certainly has not understood the importance of, this budget. If he had understood the meaning of equity, which underlies the tax provisions, and if he had understood the measures of restraint that formed the basis for the budget's financial framework, he would not be asking the government to withdraw the budget but would be joining the members on this side of the House who gave their majority approval yesterday to the principles of the budget.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I will address my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that we are now faced with the worst red ink figures in our relationship with the rest of the world in terms of trade, and in view of the fact that the president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association now says that 140,000 more people have found themselves out of work in the past three months, and bearing in mind there have been 67 plants closed down in Ontario alone, will the Prime Minister indicate, as he was one of the architects of the budget, whether he took this type of thing into consideration?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I would be very happy to convey the hon. member's representation to the minister. I believe he will be in the House presently.


DURATION OF RECESSION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I would direct my supplementary again to the Prime Minister. Now that the Prime Minister, working with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, has put in place conditions for a serious recession in Canada, will he indicate to the House how long he expects that recession to continue?
December 9, 1981


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, of course I do not agree with the premise of the question. Therefore, the answer cannot be given.


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for housing. Legislation was introduced yesterday in the province of Saskatchewan which will guarantee that no resident of that province will have to lose his or her home because of foreclosure, and this will have the force of law. Considering that the minister has made a promise to that effect at the national level, and in light of the fact there are 635,000 home owners in Canada who will have their mortgages coming up for renewal next year, is the federal government prepared to back up this vague promise with the security of law so that when these home owners go to the banks they will have a firm foundation upon which to deal?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I thank the leader of the New Democratic Party for the question. I had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the minister of housing for the province of Saskatchewan during my visit some few days ago. I should like to point out at the outset that the move is obviously in response to the fact that fewer than 100 home owners faced foreclosure during 1981. In response to that we feel the Canada mortgage renewal plan addresses the problems which the legislation that was introduced attempts to address. Indeed, it appears as if the challenge to the courts under this new legislation will result from the equitable rules we have already applied in the plan announced in the budget.
But more than that, Madam Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party, from the news reports on this legislation, and I have not read it, I am fearful that the introduction of it will have the effect of turning down the production of housing in that province and will, therefore, have the effect of creating further unemployment there. Most important of all, as I indicated to the provincial minister, I am disappointed that in the Speech from the Throne by that NDP government in that province there were no initiatives with new money to stimulate the construction of housing in that province; no money, for example, that parallels the $350 million provided by the Minister of Finance for Canada.


PROVISION OF MORTGAGE MONEY BY BANKS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister knows that the commitment made by the federal government falls 50,000 short of the number of housing units that are needed nationally next year.
Oral Questions
My second question concerns the point which the minister picked on, the thrust of the Saskatchewan legislation. As the minister knows, the legislation is intended to deal not simply with foreclosures but also with people who will be forced to sell because they cannot afford to renew mortgages. Both these points are covered in the legislation.
Therefore I would like to ask the minister, considering that the Minister of Finance has said in that immortal phrase "the banks must be forced to bleed a little", and considering that bank profits have risen by 182 per cent in the past five years as compared to only a 52 per cent increase in wages and salaries, will the minister now introduce a Canada home owners protection act that will force the banks to provide money for mortgages at an affordable level?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I cannot let the introductory remarks of the hon. leader of the NDP go unchallenged. The point that I was making to him was that the number of units allocated under the federal rental stimulus program-500 or 600-is 500 or 600 more than that which the province of Saskatchewan addressed in its budget. They addressed zero, a big zero.
Further than that, my fear is that this legislation, rather than helping the industry in that province, will have the exact opposite effect in that it will turn down housing starts and cause further difficulties to the housing industry in that province. As I have indicated, the Canada Mortgage Renewal Plan equitably addresses the problems of Canadians facing mortgage renewal. If they feel that they cannot meet the new payments, that plan is available to them and, of course, the option would be either foreclosure or sale. It is to meet those problems that we introduced that plan.


Mr. Mazankowski:: There are a lot of empty houses in Uranium City.


REQUEST THAT BANK ACT BE AMENDED
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister knows full well that the legislation which has come from this government will leave literally thousands of Canadians having to increase their mortgage payments by $200 to $300 per month, and this government is doing nothing about it. That is the reality.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Would he now answer the question which I put to him, and answer it in a straightforward way? Considering that the data is accurate, that bank profits are up by 182 per cent in five years which is more than three times the increase in wages and salaries, why does this government not restore to the Bank Act the principle that used to be there before the Liberals took it out, namely, that the banks have to provide mortgages at levels which the ordinary family can afford?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 9, 1981
Oral Questions


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the Canada mortgage renewal plan which was the subject of the ad which was published in the newspapers following the budget-


John Edward Broadbent: Is this a recorded announcement?


Paul James Cosgrove: -addressed the matter of an equitable response to people who were facing mortgage renewal. Using that equitable base as a guideline, we said that Canadians must address their problems first.
An bon. Member: Oh, yes.


Paul James Cosgrove: We felt that it was equitable that all Canadians, for example, pay a reasonable and fair amount of their income toward shelter costs.


John Edward Broadbent: A guaranteed income program for banks.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, how else can we justify introducing $350 million of taxpayers' money to support shelter and to support renters, if at the same time the hon. member is asking us to use large amounts of money to assist people who are building equity in their homes.
We said that people ought to pay up to a reasonable amount for their own protection, 30 per cent.


An hon. Member:: What about the banks?


Paul James Cosgrove: Beyond that we felt it would be equitable for the government to assist.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The President of the United States has said, "We have the evidence", and the U.S. State Department says that they have strong evidence "that Khadafy has been planning the murder of American officials both here and overseas". Has the Government of Canada seen this U.S. evidence, and do we agree that the leader of Libya has planned such activities? Second, have we taken any special measures to co-operate with the United States to prevent any Libyan agents from entering Canada and transiting to the United States and, if so, what kinds of measures have we taken?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have not had the matter raised with me before this moment and I know nothing about it, but I would be happy to enquire on behalf of the hon. member.


ENTRY INTO CANADA OF LIBYAN NATIONALS
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I will try a supplementary question with the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Has Canada taken any measures to deal with the entry into Canada of Libyans or possible Libyan agents, transiting through Canada to the United States? Have we taken any special measures, or have we been asked to take any special measures by the United States? They seem to be very concerned and worried that some attempt might be made on the life of the President or other United States officials. If we have been asked, have we taken any such measures, and has the government considered whether we should ban travel to Canada by Libyans, or by Canadians to Libya? Is anything under consideration in this area?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, anybody applying to come to Canada would be required to have a security check, so all those who have come to Canada on student visas, or others, would be subject to those kinds of assessments made by the RCMP at that time. One step we have taken is to provide for additional checks on those who are already in Canada to determine whether there is any connection, and we are satisfied at this point that there is none. We have also undertaken to develop at our border points of entry particular screenings or assessments of those who might be crossing the border, based on consultations with American authorities. We are co-operating to the extent we can within the basic laws of this country.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I shall direct my question to his parliamentary secretary.
Since I am sure the parliamentary secretary is aware of a problem that is of particular concern to Canadian dairy producers, namely, the fact that agreement on a five-year plan which was to be signed in April has yet to materialize, can the parliamentary secretary give this House and the dairy producers the assurance that the agreement will be signed before December 31, and that the present subsidy will remain unchanged over the next five years?


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, in answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Joliette, I should like to point out that we have had a study made by Price Waterhouse Associates. We received the finished study a few days ago, and
December 9, 1981

the minister and the Canadian Dairy Commission are looking at the possibility of announcing a new dairy policy. Nevertheless, between now and January 1, it is expected that an increase based on production costs of dairy producers will be announced. For two days the minister and senior officials of the Department of Agriculture have met with more than 800 farmers or persons involved in the agro-food sector, and it is truly regrettable that there were no representatives from the government of Quebec.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, since I am asking a question that particularly concerns federal jurisdiction over dairy policy, I should again like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he can now give dairy producers the assurance that the subsidy of $2.66 will be maintained in the government's dairy policy for the next Five years?


Marcel Ostiguy: Madam Speaker, the subsidy of $2.66 was introduced by this government, and I can inform the hon. member that I do not believe there is any question of dropping this subsidy.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday the report of the Auditor General was tabled in the House, and the Auditor General has suggested that the development of generally accepted accounting principles for government and a comprehensive summary of financial statements are necessary and will require strong central direction and leadership within the Government of Canada. As the minister will know, this is now diffused between the Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance and the Receiver General for Canada.
Would the President of the Treasury Board assure this House that he will confer with his cabinet colleagues and establish the necessary amendments to the Financial Administration Act to provide the Comptroller General of Canada, through the Treasury Board, with the primary responsibility for the accounting and financial reporting policies of the government?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased indeed that the hon. member makes reference to the report of the Auditor General, which I did not have the opportunity to read yesterday before question period.
I must say I am very pleased with the over-all tone and content of the report, which I think the hon. member will agree demonstrates major progress across all areas of accountability in government and a great dedication on the part of this
Oral Questions
government to greater management and accountability practices. In keeping with that, my answer to the hon. member is yes, we are conducting studies at the present time. We hope to be bringing forward some technical amendments to the Financial Administration Act in the near future to make some adjustments, but we also hope to engage in an overview and an over-all study of the Financial Administration Act and the accounts at an early date.


OVERPAYMENT MADE TO CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport who, along with the President of the Treasury Board and many others, I assume is recovering from the surprising disclosure that Canadian National Railways was the recipient of a $53 million overpayment and, in addition, substantial tax benefits, when it claimed losses which in fact it did not have. A previous report of an auditor general, Mr. Macdonell, criticized the government for not verifying claims for railway subsidies, and I wonder what the Minister of Transport has to say about this overpayment and what he is willing to do about it. Is there also an overpayment of this magnitude to the Canadian Pacific Railway?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: No, Madam Speaker. The difficulty was created at the time of recapitalization of the CN in 1978. The mistake was uncovered by the Canadian Transport Commission in 1980. Payments were stopped at the time, and we are looking now at a way to recover what was overpaid at that time, so the problem will be resolved.


PIPELINES
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. We are constantly hearing predictions of gloom and doom from the benches across the way about such things as our economic relations with the United States. In this regard, would the minister kindly report on the status of the macro Alaska pipeline project?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the House will be happy to know that the House of Representatives has approved the waiver package put forward by the administration to the United States Congress.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: This step by the United States Congress ensures that all the legislative roadblocks to this major project have been removed and that the United States administration

December 9, 1981
Oral Questions
and Congress honour fully the commitment they made to the Canadian government last year when we discussed this matter with them and stressed to them how important it was that this project receive support from the United States Congress and the United States administration. We now hope that financial arrangements will be made to ensure the realization of this project in the private sector.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CO-OPERATION ON HYDROGEN PROGRAM
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In January of this year the minister of energy for Ontario requested the assistance and co-operation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in relation to energy research and development, particularly for hydrogen. In May of this year a special parliamentary committee suggested a $1 million hydrogen program. Up until two weeks ago there was federal-provincial co-operation respecting this program. Will the minister tell us why he asked his officials to stop discussing this with Ontario officials two weeks ago?


Marc Lalonde: I never made such a request, Madam Speaker. I think the best evidence of that is that there were meetings as recently as two weeks ago, and I presume there will be other meetings. I have never given any such instruction.
There are discussions taking place, I believe, with the government of Ontario and with officials of the government of Quebec, and we have indicated to other provinces which are interested in this particular technology that if they have any proposal to put forward, we would be happy to discuss it with them. I am afraid the hon. member's information is completely wrong.


REPORTED INSTRUCTIONS FROM QUEBEC LIBERAL CAUCUS
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I am afraid the minister's nose is starting to grow again. He will know full well that his officials had instructions two weeks ago to stop discussions with officials from the province of Ontario. It is unfortunate that the minister's main expertise is in political manipulation, as the people of Canada will know well when they consider the massive taxes they are paying on heating oil and gasoline and when they consider the stalled tar sands plants.
I ask the minister to confirm to the House that he has been given instructions from his Quebec Liberal caucus to make sure all investment in hydrogen occurs in the province of Quebec, to confirm that he has denied the province of Ontario
participation in a national energy program, and to confirm that in fact what he has done, because the province of Quebec has now boycotted the federal government, has been to stall completely progress in this important area of energy development for Canada.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I hope the forecast of the hon. member about my nose is absolutely without foundation.


Mr. Epp:: Just take a look.


Marc Lalonde: I can tell him that the rest of his question was even more without foundation. There has never been any discussion of the type the hon. member mentions. It is a lot of nonsense. I must tell the hon. member, without any reservation, that he is completely wrong from the beginning to the end of his question. It is totally without foundation.


REQUEST THAT ANNOUNCEMENT BE MADE ON ALBERTA MEGAPROJECTS
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Perhaps he can use the occasion of my question to make another announcement in the House on the megaprojects in northeastern Alberta. I am sure the minister is aware that the investment in one megaproject, either in Alsands, Fort McMurray, or the plant at Cold Lake is $14 billion. This would lead to 97 million man-hours of employment across Canada at a time when unemployment is at an all-time high. It would contribute $3.6 billion to Canada's balance of payments and help secure Canada's future energy supplies. When is the minister going to stop dragging his feet and make an announcement in this House that those megaprojects will proceed on schedule this winter?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have never dragged my feet.


REQUEST THAT CONCESSIONS BE MADE TO OIL INDUSTRY
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, the minister may not be dragging his feet but he is certainly dragging his nose. Will the minister confirm to this House that he will make the necessary concessions to the industry so that these megaprojects can get onstream and be constructed now? He knows that if the Alsands project does not proceed this winter, it will result in a full 18-month delay, if the go-ahead is not given by mid-December. Is he prepared to give this assurance to the House?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, we have had negotiations with the government of Alberta. An agreement was concluded in September on oil pricing and fiscal arrangements. Since then
December 9, 1981

we have had a number of discussions with representatives of the oil companies on the subject of tar sands projects. These negotiations have been conducted at the senior official level by Alberta, the Government of Canada and the companies concerned. On December 18 of this year we shall be having a meeting with representatives of Alsands and I shall be happy to report to my hon. colleague on the results as soon as the discussions involving the government of Alberta, the government of Alberta and the oil companies have been completed.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for housing. On December 4 the minister admitted to the House that employees of Studio S&B of Montreal had typeset the now famous ad on the Monday prior to the budget. That ad was sent out from Montreal by Purolator on Thursday, budget day. On November 17 the minister stated in the House:
I learned generally of the provisions of the budget... on Thursday afternoon ... My officials worked from five o'clock in the afternoon, through the evening, and early the next morning, and produced for my inspection that document which had been worked upon.
My question to the minister is: which of those contradictory statements is true?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, as I intimated in response to a question from the leader of the New Democratic Party earlier this afternoon, the purpose of the ad being prepared in readiness to be produced in newspapers across the country on the following weekend was to give Canadians an opportunity of knowing what the particulars of the budget were, and what the specifics of the program were so that, for example, provincial legislatures that were looking at the same problem, as well as individual Canadians, would know what the federal government was proposing. That is the reason why the material was prepared in advance. If it coincided with the budget provisions announced by the Minister of Finance, it would be released. It was authorized for release for delivery to the newspapers after the Minister of Finance gave his speech in the House of Commons on November 12.


WORK OF OFFICIALS ON EVENING OF BUDGET'S PRESENTATION
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, the minister just admitted that the ad was prepared in advance of the budget. I would ask the minister what his officials were working on from five o'clock in the afternoon until the next morning.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, there are a number of issues involved in the mortgage
Oral Questions
renewal plan, which the leader of the NDP hit upon this afternoon, such as the question of equity. For example, should the government decide to introduce grants rather than provide support to the financial industry for offering an interest deferral? That is one of the issues that generated a large amount of discussion between my officials, my office, officials of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as well as our representations over the last three months prior to the budget with officials of the Department of Finance and the minister.


RESEARCH
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for Science and Technology Canada. For some time Quebec has publicly claimed that the federal government gives more research grants to Ontario than to Quebec. Can the minister clarify these statements? Second, can the minister inform the House whether Quebec has refused to accept money from his department which was earmarked for national parks, especially in the Mingan Islands area on the North Shore?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, regarding the first part of the hon. member's question, some ministers in Quebec claim that the federal government is not doing as much for Quebec as it is doing for Ontario. This is entirely inaccurate, Madam Speaker. If we consider financial support for universities and industrial research, the funding for Quebec is quite similar, proportionally, to what is being done for Ontario, on a per capita basis. It is true that at the government level, much of our research is carried out within the departments in the National Capital Region. It has often been said that we do not communicate with the Government of Quebec on co-ordinating a science policy. That is not true. I have often expressed my willingness to listen to my Quebec counterparts and to discuss our problems. After all, it was Mr. Levesque who suggested that Quebec ministers should not meet their Ottawa counterparts; I did not. I am still willing to meet my opposite number, Mr. Morin, if he is agreeable. I believe the second part of the question concerns national parks, and I must say that we are also willing to co-ordinate our efforts for the purpose of creating new national parks in Quebec, but that, too, requires the co-operation of the provincial government.

December 9, 1981
Oral Questions


THE BUDGET
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance. The November 12 budget has hit many retiring low and middle-income people very hard and, I might add, unfairly. For example, those who retired after November 12 and are affected by the CNR-VIA cutbacks cannot place their retirement allowances or job termination payments into an RRSP or annuity. Of course this also affects farmers and small businessmen. They stand to lose up to half of their retirement funds to taxation. The Minister of State mentioned earlier that members of the government are prepared to do some fine tuning to the budget. Will he inform the House what he is doing to address the problem of former CNR and VIA employees?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, the Minister of Finance is still considering the provisions contained in the budget and the extent to which these provisions satisfy his concern for equity. As soon as he has thought the matter over and made any decisions that may be necessary, he will inform the House accordingly, and the hon. member's concerns will be considered by the minister.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERCEDE ON BEHALF OF RETIRED RAILWAY EMPLOYEES
Laverne Lewycky: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I hope he is a little more prompt in answering this question, because he has a letter from me that he has not answered for the past four months. Many of the CNR and VIA employees in my riding of Dauphin, and also in Yorkton-Melville, and hundreds of others across Canada are being forced to take early retirement due to the recent cutbacks. These people are faced, as I mentioned earlier, with losing up to half of their retirement allowances, their only income until age 65, through taxation.
Is the minister, who heartlessly oversaw the CNR-VIA cuts, prepared to show a caring attitude and help the cause of his former employees by seeking to put pressure on the Minister of Finance to have delineated a reasonable amount of retirement allowance so that it would be non-taxable?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the second question is absolutely the same as the first question. Obviously the answer is the same as the first answer.


An hon. Member:: You did not answer it the first time.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The problem raised by my hon. friend is a real one. There is no doubt that some arrangements had been made
for the retirement of people at VIA, CN and CP. The Minister of State for Finance and I have been talking with the Minister of Finance in order to reach a resolution of that difficulty.


PETRO-CANADA QUERY RESPECTING LOCATION FOR HEAVY OIL UPGRADER IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Because of PetroCan's involvement with the heavy oil consortium, the upgrading consortium in Saskatchewan, will the minister explain to the House and the shareholders of Petro-Canada, and to the people of Canada, the preference the government has, or PetroCan has, as to the location of the heavy oil upgrader?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada and, as far as I know, Petro-Canada, have no particular preference as to the location of the heavy oil upgrader in Saskatciiewan. The leader of this group is Husky Oil Ltd., which is the largest shareholder. Examination of the various sites is taking place. I assume that the consortium, of which Petro-Canada is a member with various other corporations, is going to make an announcement shortly in that regard. Husky Oil is the leading company in that group and will be the one to make the announcement when they have reached a particular decision. As far as the Government of Canada is concerned, I can tell my hon. friend that the department that I head has taken no stand and has no particular views with regard to a particular site.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR SITE DECISION
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the majority of the publicly held companies in the consortium have expressed their preference for a location in northwestern Saskatchewan for the heavy oil upgrader, am I to understand from the minister that he is leaving that decision up to Sask Oil and The Government of Saskatchewan, disregarding the other 75 per cent of that consortium?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, what I have just said is that there is a consortium of companies, of which some are public companies and some private companies analysing this particular situation, and that I do not intend to interfere with their management decision as to where this particular upgrader should be situated. I believe Petro-Canada represents only a 15 per cent interest in this particular project. There are other parties, but those various parties are discussing this issue, I am sure. But, again, Husky Oil Ltd. as the leading shareholder in this project, will be the one to make the announcement in due time.
December 9, 1981


HOUSING
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister of housing. Is the minister of housing aware of a statement by a Hamilton radiologist, Dr. Dermit McLoughlin, who said with reference to families on McClure Crescent in Scarborough who have radioactive soil in their back yards that they should move out immediately? If he is aware of that, is the government prepared to purchase the homes of the affected families to enable them to move away before their health is threatened?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I am aware of newspaper accounts of the information that the hon. member has just introduced to the House. I must say, as the Member of Parliament for the riding affected where the homes are located, the allegation made most recently, one that is being repeated, was made earlier and it was checked by a number of other doctors in Metropolitan Toronto, I believe in the Hospital for Sick Children. There is some dispute among the medical profession as to whether the advice given that the hon. member has referred to can be verified by other medical practitioners.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I am trying to get the translation of the minister's answer. Is the minister saying that he does not believe that this matter is serious enough that the government should be offering to buy the homes of the affected families on McClure Crescent?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, on the contrary, this government believed that the matter was serious indeed. It was to that end that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources authorized and worked with the agency of government, the Atomic Energy Control Board, to move the affected material, upon it being identified. Because of applications to the Federal Court of Canada, the federal government was blocked in two attempts to move the material. It is because of an interim injunction granted by the Federal Court, blocking the federal government from moving that material, that we have been frustrated in our attempts, because of the risks posed by this material, to act on the matter.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT CONSIDER BUYING AFFECTED HOUSES
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, will the minister of housing tell the House whether he is recommending to the government that the government prepare itself to purchase the houses on McClure Crescent?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has
Oral Questions
indicated to the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto that the federal government would co-operate and assist with the removal of the material to a location just a few miles away from the spot where it is now. We are waiting for the decision of Metropolitan Toronto to have the material removed. All we need is the okay and the material will be removed with dispatch. As I indicated, that would be a less costly and a more practical solution than the one to which the right hon. gentleman has referred.


MINISTER'S RECOMMENDATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, is the minister of housing recommending against the government purchasing the houses on McClure Crescent?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, that request has been made. I have asked my officials to take a look at it. If Metropolitan Toronto indeed does not respond to the residents affected, then that is one of the options that this government would have to consider. I must say, Madam Speaker, that it is very frustrating that this government, which has offered financing, has offered expertise and offered its co-operation in the removal of the soil, and has been frustrated by other levels of government, but we still get the silly kind of question such as the right hon. gentleman has asked.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. The minister will know that the government presently has about $11 billion on deposit with the chartered banks. It is receiving only 13.5 per cent or so for that money. I was wondering why the government was not using its influence with the chartered banks, having all that money on deposit at such a low rate with those banks, so as to force them to reduce the prime rate of interest for business and others that borrow from the banks, say to 16.25. per cent, instead of 17.24 per cent?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, perhaps I may be allowed to make the hon. member a couple of suggestions. First, he should take another look at how chartered banks operate in Canada, and second, he should also look at the situation on the money market and how interest rates are set. If he does, he will easily find the answer to his question.

December 9, 1981
Petition


USE MADE OF GOVERNMENT MONEY
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. I am surprised he is so incompetent that he is prepared to lend money at 13.5 per cent and pay 19.5 per cent to borrow it.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Since he is prepared to lend money so cheaply to the banks, why does he not lend some of that money through the Bank of Canada to the Farm Credit Corporation-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: -or to the Federal Business Development Bank, or the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, instead of leaving it with the banks? Why does he not use it for the people of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I was trying to be polite in answering the hon. member. I omitted to say that he was incompetent and I just mentioned he was ignorant. What he should do before asking his questions is to look at market conditions and find out why a deposit is made in such and such a bank and why that deposit bears a given rate of interest. He would easily Find the answers to his questions. So, between incompetence and ignorance, I think I will let him be the judge.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the 153rd report of the Clerk of Petitions, stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) on Tuesday, December 8, 1981, and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege arises from answers given by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) who is responsible for housing, to questions posed yesterday by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and today by me. Yesterday my leader pointed out that the minister had told two different stories on two different occasions; today in my question I also pointed out that the minister had given two different answers on two different occasions.
I want to invite you, Madam Speaker, to consider a question of privilege which is not exactly covered by the rules. I submit to you that one of the privileges of a member of the House is to have the truth for herself, for himself and for the country. I invite you to set a precedent within the rules and to widen them. When it is clearly demonstrated to the House that a minister has made contradictory statements and when that minister refuses, when asked, to establish which of those contradictory statements is more correct, I submit to you that the House has a right to the truth.
In Beauchesne, fifth edition, page 12, Citation 19(2), there appears the following statement:
The failure of a Minister of the Crown to answer a question may not be raised as a question of privilege.
I am not raising the minister's failure to answer a question as a matter of privilege; I am not dealing with that. What I am raising is the minister's failure to clarify his answers, and the right of the House to the truth.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That particular point is certainly provided for by our rules, our precedents, and by citations from Beauchesne and Erskine May. What the hon. member is saying is that he does not agree with the practice that is indicated by the hon. minister. There is obviously a dispute as to the interpretation of a situation. The question may be dealt with through debate, through questions in the House, but certainly not in a question of privilege. If an hon. member is not satisfied with an answer given to him by another member in the House, that does not form the basis for a question of privilege. I have said that before and the hon. member, who knows that I have said it before is inviting me to interpret a question of privilege by criteria which are outside our rules. I do not know then under which criterion I could consider the question of privilege if it is not within the confines of our rules and precedents.
If hon. members want to change the rules and provide other occasions for the discussion of these matters when they disagree on the interpretation of facts, then I invite them to do so. Certainly, however, the hon. member cannot invite the Chair to rule outside of the rules. That is simply impossible and quite outside any conception that I might have of my role.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, what I was inviting you to do, within the ambit of your duties as Speaker, was to widen the
December 9, 1981

protection for this House; not the privilege, but the protection. You are the protector of the House in order to get at the truth. When we have contradictory statements, I invite you to consider a motion putting that to the committee-


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. member. I am not the protector of the House to allow hon. members to get at the truth. Who is going to determine what is truth? I bring the hon. member back to the situation we have been discussing in the House for a number of weeks and that is, can the Chair determine where "the truth" is among the different facts that have been presented before the House? If debate does not elicit this information, nothing else will and certainly not the arbitrary, or perhaps not so arbitrary, decision of the Speaker. I am not at all authorized and furthermore I am not equipped in my function, to determine where the truth is.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, on this question I would hope that your ruling is not to be interpreted as meaning that it is not within the province of the Chair to find that a question of privilege exists where a minister has been caught, red-handed, making misleading statements to the House. If there is one privilege upon which all members of the House are entitled to rely, it is upon the answers of ministers being consistent.
In order to give emphasis to the matter, I am going to contrast it with an example of something that happened several years ago. In the case before us the record shows that in reply to questions put by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) yesterday, the minister made one statement on the day referred to in the question and the following day made a totally contrary statement.
Questioning by the deputy House leader today demonstrates that the same thing has occurred again; one answer on one day and a totally different answer on another. In my mind that constitutes circumstances worthy of consideration as to whether they constitute a question of privilege.
May I draw to the attention of the Chair the precedent upon which I could rest my case exclusively but need not do so, namely, that contradictory statements or misleading statements to the House are matters which may be found to be questions of privilege.
I take the Chair back to a precedent which occurred in 1963 when the prime minister of the day, the late Mr. Pearson, in responding to questions raised by the opposition, stated to the House that the first he had heard of certain circumstances relating to the rather scandalous matters which arose on that occasion was when he had returned from a trip to Jamaica, I believe it was. It was only a question of having heard of the matter within the previous couple of days. It transpired, two or three days later, as the result of the work of the media and of members of the opposition, that his answer was incorrect and that the minister of justice of the day had in fact briefed the prime minister during a trip from Prince Edward Island to Ottawa. The clearly contradictory statements made by the prime minister of that day constituted a very real question of
Privilege-Mr. Lewis
privilege. I draw the analogy to the contradictory statements now under consideration.
After presentation of the case and a consideration of the contrariness of those statements, of course the Chair is at liberty to find that they do not constitute a question of privilege since they do not want to mislead members of the House. I submit to the Chair, however, that the hon. member who raised the question has a right to present enough of his case to the Chair to show the contradictory nature of those statements in order to at least bring it within the purview of the consideration of the Chair. What the Chair does with it after that is another question. Your Honour may well find that the circumstances about to be described do not constitute a breach of privilege. The bottom line, however, is that if a minister of the Crown misleads a member of the House, in my submission that is a very serious breach of privilege. I also submit, however, that the Chair is bound, in the protection of the privileges and rights of all members of the House, at least to hear the case in order to be in a position to make that decision.


Madam Speaker:: I think the hon. member hinted that the particular case which he raised concerning the Right Hon. Mr. Pearson had been dealt with through a question of privilege. I would want to verify that because the hon. member did not clearly say that; but if it had been, I would doubt very much that it was considered to be a question of privilege for the reasons he stated. When a contradictory statement is made in the House-and I would say that any hon. member is entitled to contradict himself if he so wishes-it is the duty of hon. members opposite to point out these contradictions and to challenge the hon. member because he had contradicted himself. However, it is not the duty of the Chair to do that, and the Chair has no means by which to do it, except by exercising a judgment on the substance of that question, which hon. members know the Chair is not in a position to do.
The hon. member spoke about hon. members having a privilege in the sense that they are entitled to consistent answers, answers which are not contradictory.


Erik Nielsen: They are entitled not to be misled.


Madam Speaker:: I agree that they would want to seek that kind of an answer from hon. members in the House. However, if they feel that they have been misled in any way or form, they have procedures to follow in order to solve that particular problem. Hon. members know what procedures they can follow. But certainly, if we resort to questions of privilege in all these circumstances, then the privilege of hon. members will certainly be in danger because we will have widened the scope so much that questions of privilege will be raised in many circumstances. I repeat to the hon. member that while a question of privilege gives a very special protection to hon. members, and because that protection is so special, we must use it with infinite care so that it not be dispersed in other matters.

December 9, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Lewis
Therefore, the matter raised by the hon. member is not a question of privilege. If an hon. member is not satisfied with the answer of a minister and feels that it is contradictory, he can deal with it in the House through all sorts of means, but not through the means of raising a question of privilege.


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I hesitate to speak on this matter, but Your Honour made a statement, which does somewhat concern me, that an hon. member of the House of Commons has the right to contradict himself. I say with respect that that statement, taken by itself, is a rather dangerous proposition, because what it envisages, at least in my mind, is that if I spoke what was held to be the truth today-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I do not know whether I used the correct words. What I did mean, and what remains a fact, is that if an hon. member does decide to make contradictory statements in the House, that is his funeral, and other hon. members-


Erik Nielsen: Well, exactly.


Madam Speaker:: -would easily be able to point out the contradictory nature of these statements. The Chair cannot tell an hon. member not to make a contradictory statement. It is not within the purview of the Chair to say such things. That is the only thing I am saying.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, there was some doubt in your mind as to the precedent quoted by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), my House leader; namely, the 1963 precedent. Your Honour had indicated some doubt as to his interpretation with regard to that precedent. I assume that Your Honour would like to look at that precedent to see how it applies. However, I say with respect that we must be very careful to ensure that the rules are not interpreted or applied so that there is really a licence for irresponsibility in terms of answers given, a licence which could be exercised in such a way that there could be contradictory statements, hon. members saying one thing one day and saying the opposite the next day, to the extent where the House could indeed be misled as a result of unparliamentary practice.
I think that, given the examples raised yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) concerning the minister responsible for housing, and today, by my friend, the deputy opposition House leader concerning the same minister, if those contradictions are allowed to exist, then not only will we have damaged the precious right of the question period but we will also have made a mockery of it in that ministers, for one reason or another, could say anything they wanted on one day and anything they liked on the other, with impunity. I have never thought that that was the purpose of the question period, nor what this House of Commons was all about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: It may be the minister's funeral, and it may be that we are observing his last rites here.
However, if Your Honour is reserving decision, it is very important that, with respect to the truth of answers in the question period-not the right of a minister not to answer- Your Honour should at least take an opportunity, which I think you gave yourself, to review the precedent which has been put forward by the hon. member for Yukon and to review the statements which were made yesterday in response to the questions by the leader and the deputy House leader of the official opposition with respect to this matter. While no one wants to widen the rights of privilege to the point that there is chaos in the House of Commons, and that is not the argument, I say, with respect, that they should not be so narrowly interpreted that they amount to a licence not to use one's best efforts to give the truth and a licence to mislead, because that was never the purpose of the question period.


Madam Speaker:: I interrupt the hon. member because he is going in a direction that I feel is completely removed from what we are trying to discuss and look into more precisely. There is no licence to tell the untruth in the House.


Walter David Baker: One or the other is true, or they are both false.


Madam Speaker:: The goal of the opposition is to try to elicit answers on certain matters and situations and to get the facts straight from the government side. The rules and the total process of Parliament exist for that reason in particular.
I cannot accept the arguments of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). Hon. members know full well that if they want to accuse the minister of having been inconsistent or contradictory, they can do that, and they have other ways of doing it. However, of course, those other ways require the hon. members be very precise in their own facts when they challenge the minister's exercise of responsibility. I invite hon. members to do that if they feel they can, because that is the process; but not through a question of privilege. Despite the fact that hon. members on this side are inviting me to enlarge my interpretation of a question of privilege, I cannot do it in this particular circumstance because the problem, as exposed to me, does not incite me to do so.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on this matter since Your Honour has not had an opportunity-nor have 1, nor had the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to consult the precise precedent to which the hon. member for Yukon made reference.
I am really rising to signal my interest in reserving the right to pursue, tomorrow or on another occasion, the question relating to the facts I will outline. No one in the House disputes the ruling which has been made by Your Honour and others in the Chair that a difference of opinion between hon. members is simply debate. What we have here is a difference of opinion by the same minister with regard to the same set of facts which are on the record. I would just make the observation in passing that, as Your Honour would know, a minister of the Crown has an unusual duty to the House, having sworn an oath as Privy Councillor, and that is a duty to tell the truth.
December 9, 1981


Erik Nielsen: That's the point.


Charles Joseph Clark: There is no doubt at all about a minister's right not to answer; but I would suggest that there should also be no doubt at all about the right of private members of this House of Commons to be able to count upon the answers which are given by a minister when a minister chooses to answer.
We are put in a situation here where, on at least two occasions, the minister responsible for housing has given directly contradictory answers. We do not know which of his answers we are to believe or, indeed, if there is a third, fourth or fifth answer which he may offer later on which will be contradictory to those that he has put forward at this point. I can quite understand the Chair's reluctance to widen the rules. The difficulty always, when a new situation arises that has not been confronted squarely by the rules in the past, is that an interpretation is required. A reluctance to make an interpretation on the grounds that it would widen the rules could have the effect of narrowing the rules. It could have the effect of narrowing the rights of Members of Parliament. I am sure that is something that none of us would want to contemplate lightly.
I rise at this point simply to indicate to you, Madam Speaker, that I would like to reserve the right to pursue the matter raised by my colleague, the deputy House leader of the
official opposition, referred to by my colleague from Yukon and my colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), either tomorrow or at another time.


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, in the event that you are still hearing submissions on this point, there is one point on which I would agree with the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), that is that there is nothing in Beauchesne, Erskine May or in any precedent of which I am aware that would constitute a precedent to enable you to rule that this matter is a question of privilege.
It really boils down to the fact that members opposite are saying they do not like the answers given by the minister responsible for housing. That is fine.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David P. Smith: There are answers given consistently in this House which members opposite do not like. For you to make a ruling, Madam Speaker, that would create a precedent that somehow you are to become the arbitrator of what is or is not the truth would put the Chair in an absolutely impossible position. I think it is a political matter. It is a matter for debate.
Hon. members say the minister has made contradictory statements. But in whose opinion? It is in their opinion. Not everyone will share that opinion. In my opinion, it would put the Chair in an impossible position to have to render an opinion as to whether ministers may or may not have made contradictory statements.
Privilege-Mr. Lewis
I agree with you, Madam Speaker, that a member has the right to change his or her position on some matter. I remember hearing stories about Mackenzie King when he was in Parliament. Members opposite would frequently rise and quote something from Hansard that he had said. But Mackenzie King would always say "Read on, read on". And if members read on, they would find that he had come down on both sides of the issue. This situation frequently occurs.


An hon. Member:: That is all very helpful.


David P. Smith: As situations may change, positions may change. I think it would put the Chair in an absolutely impossible position to create a precedent along the lines suggested here today.


Madam Speaker:: I have not completed my ruling on this particular question. I was only responding to the invitation of the hon. member for Simcoe North to widen the interpretation of what I consider constitutes the basis for a question of privilege.
I think most of the interventions I have made to date have conveyed to hon. members that I am not prepared to do that without further consideration of the question by the entire House. I want to live by the rules which the House have given me to protect.
I do feel at this point, after the discussion we have had, that I cannot find a prima facie case of privilege in the facts as exposed by hon. members.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has reserved the right to look into the precedent which was quoted. I suggest that perhaps he could raise a new question of privilege as soon as possible. He may do that with proper notice, of course. It would be helpful if he would indicate to the Chair where he finds the basis for a question of privilege. I will await that. However, for the time being the matter is closed on this particular question raised by the hon. member for Simcoe North.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I should tell you that both the Leader of the Opposition and myself perforce must be absent tomorrow at the appropriate time. Therefore, the earliest the matter can be raised will be Friday.


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I assume you misunderstood the reason why I rose earlier and have been rising for the last five or ten minutes. I have been rising to make a submission to you prior to your making a ruling.
I must say to you that if there has been that misunderstanding in your mind then I accept that. If you did appreciate that I was standing to make a submission to you before you make your ruling, I must say that I resent it very deeply.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member knows that the Chair may decide when it is sufficiently informed to make a ruling on a particular question. I heard several speakers. The Chair is not obliged to listen to all members who want to speak on a

December 9, 1981
Introduction of Bills
question of privilege or on a point of order. At some point the Chair has the discretion to end the discussion.
I usually find the intervention of the hon. member quite useful, but in this particular case I felt that I had all the information that I required.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the report on the inquiry on the purchase by Petro-Canada of Petrofina Canada Inc., in accordance with the provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act.


PETITION
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of my constituents. The purpose of this petition, signed by 651 citizens of the town of Pickering, is to indicate to the government the wrongful attitude of Petro-Canada to a hard-working lessee of a Petrofina station.
The nature of the petition is a plea from the customers that the government intervene on their behalf and demand that Petro-Canada permit this lessee to continue operating a full service station rather than a self-service gas bar, and be allowed to continue to offer full mechanical and maintenance service that has not only been profitable but serves his customers and my constituents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-644 to amend the Canada Labour Code, (strikes in public monopolies).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, I will quote briefly from the explanatory notes of the bill itself as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to prevent strikes and lockouts in essential services controlled by monopoly corporations engaged in businesses under federal jurisdiction. Where management and labour failed to come to terms on a new collective agreement, the bill would render the report of a conciliation board binding on them.
This narrows down the legislation to focusing on the most damaging service sector of the economy, namely, the Post Office, which in its last strike cost the small business community alone a total of $3 billion.
Because this sort of legislation receives widespread support from all Canadians, I would hope it would receive the support it deserves from both sides of the House of Commons.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,169 and 3,490.


Mr. Thomson: Was "A Calendar of my Country" published by the Canadian Unity Information Office and, if so (a) in how many copies (b) what was the planned distribution (c) at what cost and was the cost met from the budget or supplementary estimates?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: "A Calendar of My Country" was published by the Canadian Unity Information Office
(a)	in 250,000 copies,
(b)	distributed with order forms to all Members of Parliament, Senators, a selection of youth organizations and educators across Canada; and to those who responded to advertisements in "Quill and Quire" and "Les Enseignants",
(c)	the cost for printing was $116,800 and was met from the on-going CUIO operational budget for the fiscal year 1981-1982.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the main estimates for 1981-82 of the Privy Council, under what statutory authority does the government pay a motor car allowance to Ministers without Portfolio or to Ministers of State?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: See
Senate and House of Commons Act, S.43, (2)(a).
December 9, 1981


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 58 in the name of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) is acceptable to the government. I ask, Madam Speaker, that the other Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 58 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 58-Mr. Crombie:
That an order of the I louse do issue for copies of all studies carried out or commissioned by the Department of National Health and Welfare into the possible health hazards associated with the use of the fungicide captan and for a copy of a letter sent on March 31, 1981, from Dr. A. B. Morrison, assistant deputy minister, Department of National Health and Welfare, to Dr. J. E. McGowan, assistant deputy minister, Department of Agriculture, urging that the use of captan be banned or severely restricted.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Herbert:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was two weeks ago that I asked the parliamentary secretary to look into Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 34. It is a motion which requests communications in connection with trade, tourism and cultural exchanges between Canada and the Caribbean area. I drew his attention to the response I got from the Department of the Secretary of State, that they were awaiting a report from the subcommittee which is studying our relations with the Caribbean area, and I suggested to him that the production of these documents might be useful to the work of this committee. I wonder if he has been able to obtain an answer from the department as to why these documents cannot be produced.


David P. Smith: Not at this point, Madam Speaker, but I will take note of the hon. member's representation and make further inquiries.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Mr. Friesen:: Madam Speaker, 1 would ask that motion No. 69, which calls for the production of papers regarding gazetted order in council calling for the establishment of civilian internment camps, be transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 69-Mr. Friesen:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings, memos, telegrams and communications relating to the Order Respecting Emergency Planning, P.C. 1981-1305, May 21, 1981, Registration SI/81-76 June 10, 1981.
Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Shall the remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, December 3, 1981, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres that Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, when I finished last Thursday, I was having quite a time of it with the socialist members here to my left. I was interrupted by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) who, I thought, was asking a question by the inch and, indeed, he was. I measured it and it was seven inches long. At a minute per inch that is how much of my time I gave to him in the debate. I hope he appreciates that. I hope he sits there and listens as a result of those interjections, particularly by the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). I am sorry he is not here today. He must be at a committee or somewhere. He was assisted by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.
When I was explaining that they were not going to support this legislation but would vote against it, they agreed with that. I suggested the reason for that lack of support is that the measure does not go far enough, and they agreed with that. They want to see the bill go as far along the road to nationalization of this industry as possible. That is a rather hypocritical stance to be taking.

December 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
They asked in their interjections whether I care about the aboriginal people, and do I not care about environmental concerns. Indeed I do, but let them not be so hypocritical as to take the stance, all in support of the native peoples, that nothing should be done until native land claims have been settled in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, and then turn around and say to the government that they want it to go further in this bill than it has. It seems to me these are mutually inconsistent stances. That is not unusual from that corner. Indeed, I often think they should instal another translation booth down there because, while their friends across the way in the Liberal Party understand their particular language, we have grave difficulty in understanding jibberish, and that is what usually comes from over there.
When I was speaking to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about the uranium cartel, he made some interesting statements about that arrangement. He has allowed some tiny tidbits of information to slip out in his glib, offhand way. In off-the-cuff, carefully prepared press statements he has said: "Well, we cannot let out the information because that would be contravening the combines legislation in the United States, and we do not want to have our relationship deteriorate any more than it already has with that country." But what about the Canadian combines legislation? Are the oil companies not now under investigation by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission? Are they not faced with accusations of doing exactly what this government is doing under those uranium arrangements? None of these matters have seen the light of day. They are just like what actually happened in respect of the Petrofina purchase; they will remain forever hidden as long as those hon. rascals stay over there. Surely these matters ought to be elucidated before the House conveys new major powers on the government. This government having done the things it has done, surely there is no limit to what it will do under this legislation.
Another major consideration about this bill is the matter of self-sufficiency. Government spokesmen, one after the other, have suggested that the bill will move the country toward self-sufficiency. That is bunkum. All the evidence points the other way. The government's so-called Canadianization program has exactly the opposite effect. It has driven capital out of the country in a flight unprecedented in modern times. We have heard the accurate statistics given by the hon. members for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) and Calgary South (Mr. Thomson). Canadianization has forced small Canadian companies to the wall. The 25 per cent back-in clause will remove from the remaining Canadian companies any opportunity for profitable operation.
Finally, the policy pursued by this government of increasing state intervention has antagonized our friends, our clients and our best customer, the United States. The United States sees in the philosophy of this legislation, which is only the tip of the iceberg, an objective that is not financial and not economic but, rather, ideological. The government is moving on a broad front to exert its authority in every area of economic and
political activity in a way that no government in the history of this country has ever done before.
The government has interfered with freedom of the press, and it is in a position to threaten and intimidate the media with intimations of government control. The government has placed the economy in a straitjacket and destroyed the ability of the country to meet new economic challenges. The government has acted both illegally and arbitrarily in demolishing a large segment of this country's ground transportation system at an enormous potential increase in transportation and energy expenditures.
Meanwhile, in the energy field, serious problems involve bringing new sources on-stream and initiating the use of alternative energy resources. The bill does nothing to solve these problems. It merely reinforces the government's capacity to interfere, to intervene, to harass and to intimidate operators in the energy field. In the poll which was taken the other day on what Canadians feared most in this country today, 44 per cent indicated they feared big government, especially this government which is not worthy of any further trust. A government which has shown itself to be secretive, power-hungry, spendthrift, arrogant and dishonest does not deserve any new accretion of authority.
Those are some of the reasons why this bill should not be proceeded with at the present time.
I have tried to be entirely objective in my remarks last Thursday and now. My last plea is strictly a parochial plea, Mr. Speaker, and I would like the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), who, I understand, is speaking next in this debate, to explain his way around this, that what the government is planning with this bill will deny forever the control over resources to the Yukon and any province which might be created out of the Northwest Territories. Without that control, without those resource revenues, we can forget about ever becoming a province, and that minister has been a part of that plot and the philosophy to prevent it ever coming about. Let there be no mistake about that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it was certainly nice to hear the detached and objective point of view that was given by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I noticed that he made some reference to the Petrofina situation. I do not know exactly what he had in mind. I, for one, am very interested in being explicit in the House. If he would care to be explicit in the House on some occasion and even explicit outside the House, it would be very interesting to see what he had in mind.


Erik Nielsen: I will be explicit.


John Carr Munro: I personally invite him to do so.

I will begin my remarks by indicating that I think an appropriate answer to this last challenge which the hon. member for Yukon set out that this legislation will deny forever the attributes of provincehood should it occur north of sixty-the ownership of resources and all its other aspects-is that it is obvious the hon. member knows different because if we were to think otherwise, it would make me think that, at least, the hon. member is lacking in any fundamental intelligence. I am sure all hon. members know that it is just not the case. We have far too much esteem for his astuteness and intelligence to accuse the hon. member for Yukon of being fundamentally stupid.
The fact of the matter is, and the hon. member for Yukon knows this, that the current situation in the Yukon and Northwest Territories is that they do not have ownership or management of resource areas. The hon. member has known that for some time. To change that situation would require legislation passed by the Parliament of Canada, and that is precisely the situation as it now is under this legislation. If we should face the fundamental question of making provinces out of the Yukon and Northwest Territories at some subsequent time or decide that not only full and responsible government should come to the Yukon-it has almost come to the Yukon now-then-


Erik Nielsen: Rubbish.


John Carr Munro: Well, I am sure that the hon. member did not think so when he was part of the previous government in which his colleague, the minister of Indian affairs and northern development at that time, came up with the so-called "Epp letter" that devolved a great deal of political responsibility to the Yukon, and, as I recall, the hon. member for Yukon had a good deal to do with it. It was most laudatory in terms of impact and full responsibility for the government of the Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: A first step.


John Carr Munro: He cannot criticize it now after praising it ten months ago. Perhaps I should rise on a point of order and talk about the fundamental contradictions-not alleged against the minister of housing from one day to another- but against the hon. member for Yukon for the number of his contradictions within ten minutes.


Erik Nielsen: I invite you to do that.


John Carr Munro: I would remind him again, and through him the people of the Yukon, that his bill has no impact on the status of ownership or management of lands and resources to any degree whatsoever. The situation remains entirely as it always was.


Erik Nielsen: No control.


John Carr Munro: It is for an act of volition on the part of this government and the government of the day, if it wishes to change that situation. That is the case now, as it
Canada Oil and Gas Act
has been since the Yukon and the Northwest Territories came into being.


Erik Nielsen: That is exactly what we are complaining about.


John Carr Munro: The hon. member says that that is exactly what they are complaining about. He attributed to this bill those qualities, clearly stating that this changed the rules of the game and created a new situation in his view. Now he is saying "exactly" when I said that it did not change the situation one iota. I wish he would make up his mind.
What we are debating today, Mr. Speaker, has had a lot of scrutiny over the last year. Aside from the required parliamentary examination, it has been analysed in the news media. The energy resource industry has carefully probed it in both letter and spirit. The provincial and territorial governments have taken a hard look at it, as well as the people for whom it has very immediate and great social meaning. I am referring, of course, to the northerners, native and non-native, who realize the importance of non-renewable resource development in their future.
If I may, I would like to use the time available to me today to set forth as clearly as I can some of the broad concepts of Bill C-48 and what it is going to mean to Canadians in terms of future energy and national economic growth.
It would be difficult to view this legislation in isolation from the National Energy Program which was introduced only two months before Bill C-48, almost exactly a year ago. In point of fact, both pieces of legislation complement one another. Both are integral components of an over-all government thrust aimed at eliminating Canada's dependency on imported energy supplies and in giving Canadians greater ownership and control over their own petroleum resources.
We are all well aware of the global economic convulsions resulting from the dramatic escalation of OPEC oil prices in the 1970s, to say nothing of the temporary interruption of the supply. Canada did not escape unscathed. Indeed, many economists say that we are still feeling the effects today.
Even before those traumatic events, there was widespread recognition in Canada that our existing oil and gas legislation was outdated. It goes back more than two decades and is utterly inappropriate to our current resource needs.
The legislation as it now exists does little to spur exploration and development of new sources of gas and oil. The legislation that we wish to replace makes no mention whatsoever of the needs and aspirations of our aboriginal peoples and does not have sufficiently stringent environmental safeguards.
It was against this background that the National Energy Program was devised. As hon. members are aware, the new legislation provides for incentives to encourage petroleum exploration and production. It establishes firm ground rules as to how these activities will be conducted and by whom. It will secure for the people of Canada an equitable share in resource development. It also makes clear that no resource development will be undertaken at an unacceptable cost to the environment.

December 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
At the same time, and most important, it provides that native Canadians must be given an opportunity to participate in and benefit from resource development in the north.


Dave Nickerson: That is not in the bill.


John Carr Munro: One thing that Bill C-48 does not do is prejudice the negotiation of native land claims settlements. The notion that it seeks to remove oil and gas rights from the negotiating process is simply not true. As a matter of fact, in view of the recent constitutional developments, it may be of interest to point out that Bill C-48 contains the following clause which hon. members will recognize from the constitutional resolution which is now on its way to England. It says:
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.
The government has been fortunate in receiving substantial input from northerners in preparing this legislation. Indeed, no fewer than eight of the amendments accepted by the government originated with the Inuit Committee on National Issues. Important contributions have also been made by the Dene Nation, the Council for Yukon Indians, the Metis Association of the Northwest Territories and the governments of the two territories.
One of the northern groups which expressed deep concern about the possible implications of Bill C-48 is the Committee for Original Peoples' Entitlement, commonly known as COPE. Its president, Mr. Sam Raddi, wrote to my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), and myself seeking reassurance that the legislation now before us would not impinge upon the agreement in principle reached late in 1978 on the COPE land claim. On December 8, just yesterday, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I both signed a letter to Mr. Raddi, which I think has particular significance regarding aboriginal claims and the comprehensive claims of all the native peoples north of 60. The letter read in part as follows:
Bill C-48 does not interfere with existing aboriginal rights and specifically does not contradict the government's commitments under the COPE agreement-in-principle. More explicitly, we both confirm to you that neither Bill C-48 nor, more importantly, action taken pursuant to Bill C-48 will foreclose any element of a settlement arrived at with COPE on the basis of the commitment expressed in the COPE agreement-in-principle.
The letter went on to express our belief that the agreement in principle should be interpreted as including the 25 per cent Crown share to be created under Section 27 of Bill C-48. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I, therefore, added in the letter that it was the government's intention to provide for the transfer of these interests to the Inuvialuit in any final settlement based on the 1978 agreement in principle. This satisfied Mr. Raddi, after a history of much soul searching and unhappiness with respect to Bill C-48. He replied on the same date-that is, yesterday-expressing the gratitude of the Inuvialuit for our efforts which had, in his words, "resolved
our long-standing concern" about the possible effects of Bill C-48 on the COPE agreement in principle. Mr. Raddi wrote that COPE would like to interpret our actions as an indication of "a renewed commitment on the part of this government to honour its agreement with us". I do not think I am being overly optimistic when I look forward to the resumption of negotiations toward the finalization of the Inuvialuit settlement.


Erik Nielsen: Are we going to be involved?


John Carr Munro: Yes, you will be involved, as you have been involved. If the hon. member is referring to the Yukon government, I am glad to hear him talk about involvement. The position paper we are ready to put to COPE has been advanced to the Yukon for its comments before it is put to COPE. We asked for the views of the Yukon government. I cannot think of a greater expression of our desire to involve the Yukon government. I will not comment on what happened after it was sent.
The government views resource development in the north as an ongoing process involving all levels of government, including those of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, the northern people and, of course, the private sector. A prime example of this ongoing process of involving all the key elements-the native peoples of the north and certainly the governments of the north-in terms of any type of resource development is the Norman Wells oil field expansion and pipeline project. I can point to no greater example than that. Hon. members might recall that, in relation to that particular pipeline project, there was a great deal of apprehension north of 60. People were concerned that the rights of native peoples north of 60 might be prejudiced. The Roman Catholic Church, the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada and all the major church groups expressed grave concerns about the Norman Wells project. The leadership of the entire Dene nation and the Metis were expressing severe reservations about the Norman Wells pipeline project. It became symbolic of the polarization which surrounds any development project north of 60. It polarized the entire community-or it seemed to-in very real terms into pro-development and anti-development sentiments. In my view there was no greater challenge facing any government than that particular project in terms of opening up development in the north. Indeed, the forces of polarization had to be undermined. The community and the heretofore perceived adverse interests had to be reconciled so that that project could move ahead. Indeed, that is precisely what happened. A compromise was reached. The compromise was to approve the project but to delay its commencement north of 60 for a two-year period. This received the approval not only of the Northwest Territorial government but also of the proponents-the developers themselves-Esso Resources and Inter-provincal Pipe Line. However, more important, it brought on side the very people who were most concerned about the impact of the project, the Dene Nation and the Metis. When the decision and all its elements were announced by the government, they supported the decision to go ahead with

Norman Wells. How was that done? It was an example and tangible evidence of the commitment of the government to involve northerners in every stage of the development of Norman Wells. There was a pattern to ensure that northerners would be involved in the development of the north. There was a package of joint ventures. Roughly $1.5 million were put up to allow, in this case northerners, to participate with the oil company whether it was with respect to oil rigs or other types of involvement. Over four years, $10.5 million were put up for special training to ensure that northerners participated in the actual construction of the pipeline and also in the running of the oil field. It was a management regime made up of northerners which would govern the day to day operations of the whole project. There was an advisory committee made up of northerners to advise the minister on the monitoring, from a political point of view, of the project throughout its entire history. There were social and community development moneys totalling $4.5 million put up to ensure that we could cope with the social and community fallout effects of the pipeline.


Erik Nielsen: You did not even consult the northern government on this bill.


John Carr Munro: What more tangible evidence can there be? Money was put up front so that the territorial government could provide an infrastructure for the pipeline. What more tangible evidence could there be of the involvement of northerners in a major project and a solution which brings on side the territorial government, the native peoples and the developers themselves than the proposal we put before them? Rather than specious allegations which have no foundation I am offering the people of the north concrete evidence that that can be done and that there was the political will on the part of this government to see that it would be done.
To achieve our 1990 goal of energy security and to maintain that position in the years ahead, an enormous and continuing capital investment in energy projects will be required. It is the intention of the National Energy Program to get Canadians fully into the oil and gas game for the first time in our history. The bulk of the necessary investment in conventional oil and gas will be generated in Canada as before but with a better balance of ownership. Some of our megaprojects such as those in the oil sands will, no doubt, require additional capital from outside Canada. Canada will continue to welcome such investments. The returns will be generous.
Bill C-48 is crucial to the development of long-term stability of oil and gas supply in Canada. The frontier regions may or may not help to meet a significant part of Canada's energy needs in the 1980s but we all hope they do, and passage of this legislation is essential if that hope is to have a realistic chance of fulfilment.
I would like to reiterate that Bill C-48 will be administered jointly by my department and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. With this in mind, the two departments will set up the Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration- COGLA as it is commonly referred to-pooling the resources
Canada Oil and Gas Act
of each and reporting to myself and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
This legislation is designed to take into account and be adaptable to the concerns of native people and other northerners. It is also sensitive to the process of political change in the north. Again it is in no way intended to prejudice the outcome of ongoing discussions on major issues such as land claims and the political development of the two territories, each of which is important in its own right and deserves the benefit of full discussion and negotiation.
Bill C-48 is good legislation. It is good for the nation and its economy, good for the territorial governments, good for industry and, more particularly, it is good for the people who live in the north. As such, it deserves our support.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I recommend this bill's adoption by my colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the government has been able to make an agreement with the Committee for Aboriginal Peoples' Entitlement. I am also happy that Mr. Raddi has expressed his gratitude. However, with regard to the rest of the north, it remains to be seen. I am afraid I am not going to be so kind, given the nature of this bill, to the Liberal side and other people in the country in general.
The invoking of closure is the latest testament to this government's apparent thirst for power over the Canadian north. Bill C-48 has rightly been called an unprecedented power grab by the federal government. I suppose it is only being consistent when the government tries to bring debate to a close with this type of procedural power play.
This bill remains unacceptable to myself, my constituents and all northern residents for a great number of reasons. Before I get into these in detail, I think it is important to again remind hon. members of the true significance of this bill. Only by viewing it in its proper historic context can we appreciate its potential impact on the country as a whole and the north in particular.
To average Canadians, the title of this bill makes it appear quite innocuous. It is just another bill before the House, people might conclude, but nothing could be further from the truth. It must be understood by the Canadian people and by members of the House that what we are seeing in the government's National Energy Program, of which Bill C-48 is the main plank, is a move to structure the economy in a way that is unparalleled since the days of the national policy of 100 years ago.
The original national policy was designed to exploit the resources of the west for the benefit of the dominant commercial interests in central Canada. While it contained a variety of measures designed to build up the national economy, two main elements characterized its approach to the western frontier.

December 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
One was the securing of control over the land and the other was the building of a transportation system to ship out the resources. When we look at the government's National Energy Program and the bill that is now before this House, it is obvious that a direct parallel exists between the national policy of the 1880s and the National Energy Program of the 1980s.
The purpose of Bill C-48 is to accomplish both of these goals, only this time on a different frontier. The designation of lands in the north as Canada lands is an explicit attempt by the government to solidify its control over those areas in preparation for the development it seeks to promote.
While in the west it was the CPR that was the main vehicle for extracting resources, in the north it will be pipelines and super tankers. By securing its control over the north with Bill C-48, the government is laying the legislative groundwork for these eventualities. I regret to say that we will probably be seeing them sooner rather than later.
There is reason for all Canadians, not just northerners, to be concerned about where the National Energy Program and Bill C-48 are taking us. Since the Second World War, this government has tried to tell Canadians that the best way to overcome our economy's traditional reliance on resource exports has been to invite Americans in to build up our industrial and manufacturing sectors. Now with those branch plant operations closing down at an alarming rate and the failure of post-war economic policies becoming all too apparent, the government is once again moving to make resources, this time energy, the centrepiece of Canada's economic development policy.
There are many elements in the bill which provide thinking Canadians with cause for concern, but I would like to touch on four in particular. They are ones which I and my colleagues in the NDP have been fighting the hardest since this bill was announced in the House.
Let me review first some of the deficiencies of this bill which should be of great concern, as I said before, to all Canadians. First, the bill is being sold to the Canadian people as a piece of legislation that will lead to the Canadianization of the oil and gas industry. As my colleague the hon. member from Van-couver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has pointed out time and time again, this is a complete sham. For one thing, Canadianization implies to most of us that the industry will be under the control of the people of Canada. However, this is not what this bill will accomplish in the least. Instead, it will continue to promote the domination of the oil industry by a few large companies, including the multinationals.
When the government assures us with great nationalistic pride that its goal is to achieve 50 per cent Canadian ownership in the industry, it is perpetrating a sleight of hand on the Canadian public.
It forgets to tell the Canadian people that U.S. oil companies will still be able to have majority control of the oil industry through their subsidiaries. In effect, the only thing Bill C-48 will do will be to encourage foreign firms to set up
dummy corporations within Canada to qualify for the lucrative tax benefits so willingly provided by this government.
The government is also taking great nationalistic satisfaction out of the proposed 25 per cent interest that will accrue to PetroCan. Does this represent any sort of progress when we realize that in 1945, for example, the government was taking a 33 per cent interest in Imperial Oil's activities in Norman Wells? The government would have us believe that we are coming a long way toward greater control over our own resources with this bill, but the "Mack Truck" loopholes and the gorgeous tax benefits to the major players in the industry will soon prove otherwise.
All Canadians also have reason to be concerned with the industrial benefits that will supposedly result from this bill, or should I say the lack of them? For a bill that supposedly sets the framework for national economic policy over the next quarter century, the lack of any provisions to ensure industrial spin-offs is a scandal.
In Norway it is clearly stipulated that 50 per cent of all contracts generated by oil and gas development have to go to domestic industries. In Britain it is required that 52 per cent to 57 per cent of all equipment orders have to be placed with British industries. What do we in Canada get? Only the stipulation that developers submit a plan "satisfactory to the minister" for the employment of Canadians and the use of Canadian goods and services. Flaccid criterion at best, Mr. Speaker.
If Canada is going to embark on a program to systematically exploit its non-renewable resources as fast as possible, the least we can do is to try to make sure the benefits get spread around as much as possible within our own country.
Canadians also have cause to be concerned over the potential impact on the environment that this bill will allow. First, it allows the minister in charge to completely usurp the responsibilities of the Minister of the Environment for protecting the environment on Canada lands. That is like putting Peter Lougheed in charge of aboriginal rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Ittinuar: There will be an unavoidable conflict of interest situation created by this, only now it will be resolved internally within the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, depending on whom you believe. This can only serve to limit public information, public involvement and public accountability, and when push comes to shove, it is all too predictable where the government's priorities will lie.
What of compensation for peoples affected when the inevitable pollution occurs as a result of this government's rush to develop offshore resources? My good friend and hon. colleague, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) has been particularly effective in driving home the point that this bill is woefully inadequate in this regard.
The bill stipulates that people cannot be compensated for oil spills caused by the government, despite the fact that it gives

the minister explicit authority to allow such spills. It does not allow for people to be compensated for loss of future income as a result of environmental disruption. Of particular interest to my constituents is the fact that it does not allow for damages to property which is not privately owned. In short, it gives people whose lives depend on the protection of the physical environment very little protection indeed.
While there are reasons for all Canadians to be concerned with the directions being taken by Bill C-48, northerners and aboriginal peoples, such as myself, have particular reasons to be concerned. I see a smirk now on the faces across the way. I think that is why there are no Liberals north of 60. If there is a direct parallel between the national policy of the 1800s and the National Energy Program of today, what does this mean for us? Doctor Tony Clarke, of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, has pointed out, quite correctly I feel, that there are contradictions in the Canadian experience of national economic planning. He notes, for example, that:
While attempting to be an instrument for nation building and economic independence, it often results in new forms of colonialism. Economic strategies are aimed at opening up a new frontier and exploiting its resources ... The first victims are generally those for whom the frontier has been a homeland, namely, the native peoples.
With the opening up of the west under the national policy, there is no question that native peoples were the first victims. They are still the victims. Those who sought to defend their basic political and economic rights were dealt with by both the military and the courts.
Let me first deal with the process the government has used to get this bill enacted to illustrate the reasons for a lack of trust. Take the matter of consultation. There is seldom a day that goes by whereby a government representative does not wax eloquent about the need for consultation with aboriginal peoples on matters which affect them. Unfortunately, the extent to which they extol this principle has proven to be in direct proportion to their own unwillingness to live up to it. The introduction of the present bill provides us with perhaps the most shocking example of this. No single piece of legislation has ever had the potential impact on northern native peoples such as Bill C-48 will have. Yet, let me illustrate the kind of consultation that has taken place. I will read the words of Mr. Jim Bourque, the President of the Northwest Territory Metis Association, which described how he found out about Bill C-48. He said:
I did not know anything about the bill. In fact the way I first ran across it was through a friend who got it in the mail with a little note from somewhere down here saying read this, because it is devastating to you guys... but as far as government officials are concerned, no, no one has ever spoken to us.
This was part of his presentation to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works on March 27, 1981.
If this characterizes the extent to which the government has been willing to take native people into its trust in preparing this bill, Mr. Speaker, what right do we have to expect that things will be any better once it is in place? I am sorry to say there is more. At the same committee meeting, Mr. David Joe,
Canada Oil and Gas Act
of the Council of Yukon Indians, described how his people were not only kept in the dark about Bill C-48, but actually deceived. He spoke of a meeting between CYI and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) which had taken place on December 6, 1980, shortly before Bill C-48 was introduced. The meeting was about up-coming land claims negotiations. CYI was pressing to have resource issues placed on the agenda.
According to Mr. Joe, the minister:
-suggested to us that it would be appropriate if we discussed the matter with the government of the Yukon. He indicated there was no real federal policy, if you like, that was in his mind at that point in time. It is ironic that the bill was subsequently introduced perhaps two weeks after this discussion. It is apparent, to me at least, that the government had a strategy with respect to resources north of 60. But for him to forgo the kind of discussion we would have had at the table by simply saying we do not have a strategy at this time is in my estimation certainly bad faith.
These comments merely illustrate the lack of consultation prior to the introduction of this bill. The same lack of interest in northerners' views has been apparent while the bill has been processed through the House, particularly in committee. Most of the committee's time was taken up with hearing the views of industry. To say that they have an interest in the bill would be an understatement. The time given over to hearing the views of all northerners was small in comparison. In March, when a delegation of native leaders was appearing before the committee, a motion was moved by my honourable colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway which would have had the committee seek the permission of the House to travel north to solicit greater input from northerners.
Afraid to say no, I believe, in front of northern delegates, the committee, with the consent of its members from across the floor, approved the motion. Those who viewed the Liberal members' support with suspicion had their expectations confirmed at the very next meeting. With the native representatives safely out of town, the Liberal members of the committee immediately voted to rescind the previous motion. However, I believe that the northern people have been doing their part. In our efforts to clearly define our relationship to the rest of Canada before development pushes us aside, we have put together proposals for the sharing of economic wealth and political power in the north.
In the case of the Inuit, for example, we have proposed the creation of a whole new area of political jurisdiction within the eastern Arctic, which we hope would eventually achieve full provincial status.
We have said time and again, Mr. Speaker, that we do not want to exclude development from the north; we just want it to be carried out in a way that is compatible with our own cultural and economic interests. We plan to be living in the north long after the last drop of oil has been taken out. In the meantime, we do not want our culture and environment decimated for the short-term gains of others outside of the north.
We have been invited by the government to sit down and negotiate a resolution to our outstanding claims. Negotiations to me, Mr. Speaker, imply a certain amount of give and take. So far, from that side, we have seen precious little give and a

December 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
lot of take. Negotiations also require a certain amount of good faith on both sides. At the same time as the government is negotiating northern claims, it introduces this bill which is intended to make northern energy resources the basis for this country's economic development for the next quarter century. At the same time it is assuring native people in the north that everything is negotiable. It served notice to all of us that it intends to retain secure control over the resource wealth of the north, for the benefit of the so-called "national interest".
Since the bill was introduced a year ago, ministers of the government have been insistent that aboriginal claims would not be jeopardized by it. Recalling my comments regarding consultation, I have come to the conclusion that the more the government emphasizes a particular point, the less likely it is to be true. I strongly suspect that this will be the case with Bill C-48, regarding its implications for land claims, depending on who will be the next minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
One of the most critical elements in any land claim negotiation is the question of ownership and control of nonrenewable resources. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has said to me in the past that Bill C-48 will not preclude anything in the way of settlement. He assures us that anything is possible and that the current legislation can always be changed to accommodate whatever is negotiated in the way of settlement in the future. However much I would like to believe him on this-and I hope he is right-I am afraid that the hon. minister is moving into the theoretical plane when he makes such remarks.
The government has been eager to offer aboriginal peoples assurances that the bill will not affect their claims. It says that it even has legal opinions to back up this belief. But when the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was asked in the House to present those legal arguments so that those who are skeptical can be reassured, he has refused to do so. If the legal opinions, in fact, support the government's contention, why should they have to be hidden and what does he have to lose by sharing them with us? One would think that it would be to his and his government's advantage if those legal opinions existed. In fact, his determination to withhold them speaks volumes about what must really be at stake for aboriginal peoples with the passage of this bill.
Throughout all of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I have tried to draw the parallels between the National Energy Program of today and the national policy of the 1800s. I should like to conclude my remarks by again alluding to that parallel and say, if I may take liberties with the words of Frank Underhill, a noted historian, that "What this country needs is the moral equivalent of Bill C-48".


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, once again I have an opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C-48, the Canada oil and gas act.


Mr. Waddell:: You are one of the few Liberals who is interested.


David Charles Dingwall: The main thrust of this piece of legislation was perhaps best summarized by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) when he appeared before the committee, and subsequently when he spoke in the House. He noted the thrust of this legislation, and I think it is worth quoting him when he said:
It is a key element of the National Energy Program. It will provide the framework far the careful management and successful development of the huge oil and gas potential of the Canada lands for many decades. And it will at the same time secure for the people of Canada an equitable share in that development while helping to ensure that it is carried out in a safe and environmentally-acceptable manner.
That is the thrust of Bill C-48, put very succinctly.
Before I go on to the substantive part of the legislation, I should like to deal with the process which has culminated in the bill coming to a vote.
There have been many opportunities for Members of Parliament to examine the legislation. In fact, we have been dealing with it for approximately one year. My colleagues and I have never objected to the lengthy and detailed scrutiny to which the legislation has been subjected; in fact, we have welcomed it. All Members of Parliament have had an opportunity to speak to the issues, to propose amendments and to vote on the bill at its various stages. In fact, to date 235 speeches have been made on this piece of legislation. The Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works held hearings and considered amendments to the bill for approximately six months. During those deliberations, 140 witnesses were called to testify and some 70 meetings, lasting a total of approximately 130 hours, were held. Hundreds of amendments offered by all political parties were considered and over 100 were accepted by the government.
It is worth noting who the witnesses were. There were numerous representatives of the oil and gas industry, various witnesses from related industries and individuals from the academic community. We also heard the views, oral and written, of representatives of Canada's original peoples as well as elected representatives of the territorial governments. We heard submissions and various assertions presented by Members of Parliament from all three political parties. We heard the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), as well as officials from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I think it is worth reflecting for a few moments on who the witnesses were, and I think we should congratulate those who appeared before the committee and offered frank and, in many instances, helpful suggestions on how to make a good bill better.
The bill was in committee twice as long as the Foreign Investment Review Act and three times as long as the Banks and Banking Law Revision Act. The committee reported this bill to the House and debate resumed for several days in July. Since we resumed sitting in October, Bill C-48 has been the sole subject for consideration, with the exception of the Consti-

tution and the economy. We have been plodding painfully through 57 motions to amend the bill further. I remind hon. members that all of these motions were considered by the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
There are times when governments have the luxury of prolonged contemplation. There are times when governments can allow for prolonged and wide-ranging discussion, but ultimately the time for action and decision arrives. Canadians demand it. Canada's energy situation demands it, and I suggest the time is now. The motion before us today challenges this House to act. Let us not avoid this responsibility which is bestowed upon all Members of Parliament who are the representatives of the people of Canada.
Perhaps not every member of the House accepts every word of every section of the bill as it now stands. But every member of the House will acknowledge that the need for this legislation is great and that the time for implementation of this new regime is long overdue. The legislation which this bill will replace is over two decades old and utterly inappropriate to our resource needs today. This legislation does little to spur exploration and development of new sources of oil and gas, makes no mention of the aspirations of aboriginal peoples, and does not have sufficiently stringent environmental safeguards. I suggest that is perhaps one of the most important, substantive portions of the bill.
The urgency of this situation was recognized by a previous minister of energy, who attempted to replace this outmoded legislation in 1971. Unfortunately, that bill died on the Order Paper. The need for a comprehensive new regime governing the offshore areas and the frontier has been recognized by prominent members of the opposition as well. The argument was put quite succinctly by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) who said in Parliament on December 11, 1980:
The broad objectives of this legislation are worthwhile and certainly acceptable. One might go so far as to say that they are motherhood; they are intended to increase production and Canadian ownership, as well as to provide a very stable tax environment. I agree with the minister when he says that it is important to have this legislation. We have been waiting for it for about ten years now.
After criticizing the government for not bringing this legislation forward promptly, little did I suspect that a bill which the hon. member describes as important, and indeed, even as motherhood, would face prolonged obstruction and opposition procrastination for almost one year.
We on this side of the House have been very active. Members of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works had an opportunity to travel to western Canada, although I admit the travel was limited. While there we had an opportunity to meet with the various sectors of the oil and gas industry, with some native persons and with some academics. I think it can be said that members of the committee from all parties became aware of the concerns of the people of western Canada in regard to Bill C-48.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
In addition to the trip that the committee made out west, a number of members on this side of the House made a special journey to western Canada on their own time and at their own expense, to meet with additional individuals. We were given further information and were brought up to date on how these measures will affect people out there. I think that has had a tremendous influence on what is contained in the bill now before us.
Over the same year, we made significant progress on most aspects of our ambitious and comprehensive National Energy Program. As opposition parties demanded, we have achieved new oil and gas accords with the producing provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia. We have also begun serious negotiations with Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and British Columbia concerning offshore resources. Finally, we have established an attractive price for new oil from Canada lands which, taken in conjunction with the petroleum incentives program, will stimulate new exploration and production.
How can Members of Parliament justify their efforts to delay a bill which will encourage greater Canadian participation in the petroleum industry operating on Canada lands? The Conservative government of Alberta supports the Canadi-anization provisions of the National Energy Program. The Social Credit government of British Columbia supports the Canadianization provisions of the National Energy Program. The NDP government of Saskatchewan supports the Canadianization provisions of the National Energy Program. Moreover, judging by their acquisitions of Suncor shares, I suggest that the big blue machine in the province of Ontario supports the Canadianization provisions as well.
Finally, 84 per cent of Canadians support our government's Canadianization policy, as indicated in an opinion survey sponsored by the Canadian Petroleum Association.
I suggest that Conservative members of this House need to confer with their Conservative colleagues in Alberta. The New Democratic Party, which I have often referred to as the pink rump, should also consult with their friends in Saskatchewan. They will learn, as other Canadians have learned, that Canadianization is welcomed and, indeed, is an essential part of a national energy program.
I wish that opposition members would feel the same sense of accomplishment and achievement as I do. A decision which hon. members opposite have taken was well described by the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) in his speech to this House on October 19, when he said: "We had to resort to a filibuster and to delaying tactics. This was hard on everyone, including government members who had to sit and listen". We all know of occasions where the opposition deliberately obstructs the work of Parliament, but rarely do hon. members boast of it so openly and brazenly.
Today I wish to tell the hon. member that we cannot sit and listen forever. We have not been elected to Parliament to provide him or his party with an audience, merely to sit and

December 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
listen, as he puts it. We have a responsibility to protect Canadians from the dangers of a volatile world energy situation. This responsibility requires action, not indecision. Both opposition parties have contributed to the delay of this bill. More than 120 hon. members have spoken on this bill in Parliament. The incurable disease I call PetroCan paralysis, a disease which numbs Conservative thinking and paralyses Conservative action, has spread from this aspect of Conservative energy policy to include all aspects.


Mr. Paproski:: I have got to leave, I am sorry.


David Charles Dingwall: Let me quote from the former critic of the Conservative Party before he, too, fell victim to the PetroCan paralysis. Once again, speaking on December 1, 1980, during the debate on this bill, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) said:
This delay is shocking ... It is irresponsible to expect companies to operate in an environment when they have no idea what the ground rules will be... This delay... going back to 1970, has cost Canada valuable years in reaching oil self-sufficiency. It is important that we get on with the job now.
From the start, we recognized the need for long, intensive and comprehensive consideration of Bill C-48 in all its challenging complexity. We have also allowed for the necessary time to debate this bill, and more. We have demonstrated the high degree of flexibility appropriate for such a bill. We have accepted advice regarding amendments from a variety of sources. I think it important that we recognize the contribution of all Members of Parliament, particularly those in the National Resources and Public Works Committee. In addition, we should single out two persons, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLar-en), as well as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources himself, for demonstrating that high degree of flexibility and receptiveness to changes as they relate to amendments to the bill.
I must say that we are not grateful for the hindrance we have also received from some quarters in this House at certain points in the process. At this late stage, we do not accept the prospect of further undue delay. The process is now drawing to a close, a close which is every bit as necessary as the preceding stages of consideration which have assisted so much in making a good bill better.
As I have already suggested to hon. members, we are not talking of a process lasting one year to date, but one lasting more than ten years since notice was served of the intention to update this legislation. In neither the specific case of Bill C-48 nor in the longer-term search for a new regulatory regime for the Canada lands can hon. members make a serious case for being the victims of unseemly haste.
In the final analysis, the test of whether and when this bill should be passed is not that we have fulfilled a need for full and fair consideration. The real test is the content of the bill itself. This bill passes this test at every crucial point in the challenge of meeting Canada's energy needs for the next ten years and beyond.
We have heard a great deal about the number of witnesses who appeared and the amount of time Members of Parliament spent on this particular piece of legislation. However, I want very briefly to touch on a few amendments and proposals which were made in committee by hon. members opposite and on this side. An amendment was proposed to change the definition of "significant discovery", in that particular section to read:
"significant discovery" means the first well on a geological feature that indicates by flow testing the existence of hydrocarbons in that feature and, having regard to geological and engineering factors, indicates the existence of an accumulation of hydrocarbons that has potential for production.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Read that in English. It would help the companies, too.


David Charles Dingwall: In addition, there were amendments to the exploration agreements and the PIR, the progressive incremental royalty. The PGRT was accordingly amended to make it deductible. Of course, the environmental studies revolving fund, as I said earlier, makes a very important provision in this particular bill. If amendments were made to that, I am sure the fund could be applied on a region by region basis.
There were other suggested amendments which were considered. One particular area of concern raised by committee members and by those individuals who had appeared before us was the provision relating to the industrial benefits. I am happy to say that there were modifications to the industrial benefits provisions which clearly stipulate that Canadian manufacturers, consultants, contractors and service companies will have a full and fair opportunity to participate competitively in the supply of goods and services.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That was a retreat.


David Charles Dingwall: This particular provision has great significance for Canada, because if we are to rid ourselves of the label of a have-not province, or the have-not provinces, we will have to take advantage of that opportunity which is about to come in the oil and gas industry so that we can provide meaningful employment to the people in Atlantic Canada and they, too, like other Canadians, will have an opportunity to build homes, raise families, and prosper in society.
In addition to this particular provision, I have referred to the Canadianization provisions. The minister has included, in this particular bill, a provision in Section 5(6) whereby advisory bodies can be set up at his discretion. This is important because in the administering of this particular act there would be situations where it may be necessary to consult with certain people in the industry, to consult with various native groups, fishermen or what have you, to make certain that the provisions of the bill are being carried out with the intent that we all know.
The final comment that I would like to make in terms of the substantive portion of the bill concerns the absolute liability provisions. As an hon. member from Atlantic Canada, I am very pleased that that particular section dealing with the claims which may or may not be made by fishermen is written
December 9, 1981

in the way it is. The absolute liability regime where no proof of fault or negligence is required to establish liability is indeed a far-reaching measure. Closer examination of the relative provisions, however, will reveal that the liability under the bill applies regardless of whether this bill is authorized or unauthorized. For Your Honour's edification, that was a particular point which I think all hon. members would agree had to be clarified, and I am happy to say that it has been clarified to the satisfaction of all hon. members.
The liability provisions include not only damages resulting from spills, but also compensation for damages resulting from debris on the ocean floor. Another significant feature of the liability and compensation scheme is the inclusion of loss of income, including future income, in the definition of actual loss or damage. I must emphasize that this provision goes beyond the basis for the award of damages under the common law and, in my view, is unprecedented in any similar type of legislation.
Bill C-48 is crucial to the development of long-term stability of oil and gas supply in Canada. The frontier regions may or may not help to meet a significant part of Canada's energy needs in the 1980s, but I believe all hon. members hope they will. Passage of this legislation is essential if that hope is to have a chance of realization. However, we know the longer future of oil and gas development in Canada lies in our untapped frontier regions where the bulk of our conventional oil and gas resources are projected to be found. The time for making that future possible is now. That is why the regulatory stability to be provided by Bill C-48 is so essential at this time. There is an enormous, emerging momentum building up for exploration in the frontier. With the help of Bill C-48 and a number of supporting initiatives in the National Energy Program, we will soon see this tremendous potential being harnessed at precisely the optimum moment in our history.
The National Energy Program provides an opportunity for Canadians to begin to participate in the development of their own oil and gas resources on a grand and growing scale. That is the only scale of participation sufficient to ensure that the benefits of frontier oil and gas development are sufficiently great for Canadians to justify the high costs of this undertaking. I need hardly add that a major share for Canadians in frontier oil and gas opportunities is also essential to the goal of fairness in sharing the benefits of petroleum industry growth. Canadians are more than ready to do this job in co-operation with those companies, mostly foreign owned, which currently hold the bulk of the promising acreage in the frontier.
Bill C-48 and supporting national energy initiatives provide a regime second to none in the world for both Canadian and foreign investors to build a truly outstanding store of usable energy and energy wealth, for themselves and indeed for all Canadians.
Members of this House know that the goal of enhancing Canadian participation in frontier oil and gas opportunities could hardly command a greater degree of public support.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Hon. members also know, indeed they have told us repeatedly, that the existing regime for frontier oil and gas was simply not getting the job done either for Canadian participation or supply development.
I believe the need to act expeditiously will be apparent to anyone with a real desire to see Canada begin facing the frontier oil and gas challenge in full measure. That is why I have not the slightest hesitation in supporting a measure necessary to ensure that this bill is carried forward in an efficient manner with all due regard to both the responsibilities of this House and the energy needs of the nation. The time is now.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak during the final moments of debate on Bill C-48. I believe the two main points that should be discussed have been identified by the previous speaker. The discussion has to centre on both the mechanism of closure and also some of the aspects of the substance of Bill C-48.
Before getting into those two major points, I want to spend a little time on points made by earlier speakers, particularly those contained in the speech made by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall). He mentioned Canadianization. It should be very clear to people across Canada that the Progressive Conservative Party strongly supports Canadianization. What we have a great deal of difficulty with are the types of measures in this bill and the types of things that have been done so far by this government opposite which do not represent Canadianization but represent, or may represent, nationalization, more government involvement, more interference and more difficulties down the road in terms of developing our industry.
Just as an example of the kind of difficulties that can occur, I will mention Petrofina because that company has been referred to today. I can think of a case in my own constituency concerning Petrofina. An honest dealer who works for another oil company wanted to start up a gas station. He bought land, part of which was owned by Petrofina. This dealer cannot now open up a gas station because Petro-Canada has control of the land. The dealer has asked for release, and there is not another gas station in the area and they will not give him the release. Therefore, this dealer has been prevented by Petro-Canada from earning a living on the basis of the Petrofina purchase. This is just one example. There can be more of these sorts of things as we see more and more direct government involvement through Crown corporations. This should be of real concern to all Canadians.
I believe the previous speaker repeatedly mentioned closure and he ended his speech with the words "The time is now." There would be no argument from this side of the House that it is high time that legislation be brought in to deal with programs that have occurred in the oil and gas industry, but that is not the point. The question is, what changes should be made? The hon. member made reference to the red rump. We in this party make many references to the red rump. We identify them as the red rump of the sheep on the other side of the House. I just point that out because I want it to be clear.

December 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
The hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) mentioned the potential impact this bill will have on the people north of 60. I think the impact with which we are faced will affect people on the east coast, the west coast and all across Canada. We share his concern about the potential impact this bill will have on all Canadians.
I will turn now to the comments made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro). He had about five major points. The most telling one was the denial he made that this bill in itself represents in any way an infringement on the fundamental rights of Canadians or Canadian companies to own property. There can be no argument that this bill and its main impact with its retroactive 25 per cent back-in provision on Canada lands leased by oil and gas companies represents an infringement on the ability of Canadians and Canadian companies to own property. This kind of thing is in keeping with the general tone of government policy today, and it is something to which I will return in a few moments.
The second point made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerned existing legislation. It should be pointed out to the Canadian public, and it should be clear to the Liberal Party that forms the government, that governments in power since the oil embargo of 1973 have not reacted properly when it was clear that major changes were needed. It was the responsibility of Liberal governments to make changes to legislation. It is their fault that we are now faced with a crisis. They are now saying that they can use this bill as a justification and a rationalization for closure.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said that this bill in some way will help to provide Canadians with an equitable share of the oil and gas industry. But what it has done is provide the Liberal government with the major return. Canadians are faced with terrific increases in prices across the board for heating oil and gasoline. There is another 50 cents that will be added in the coming year. Canadians are not the ones who are getting an equitable share. The Canadian government is because of its profligate ways and its horrendous borrowing, the Liberal government having had to raise revenue. The Liberal government is the major beneficiary of this so-called equity.
As a result of recent changes in oil and gas prices, the revenue from a barrel of oil is divided as follows: the federal government receives $18.50, the Ontario government receives $8.32 and the Alberta government receives $7.56. Who is paying all this money? The Canadian public. But the federal government reaps the major benefit.
The minister talked about protection of the environment. I believe he talked in a very supportive way of the legislation and the fact that it would provide the safeguards and make sure the environment was respected. At the same time, he neglected to talk about the discretionary powers and the track record of this government in terms of environmental protection. The most glaring example is the government's effort in Toronto to remove radioactive soil and dump it in the Camp Borden area. That is the kind of environmental sensitivity this
government has, and this is the kind of thing we have to be concerned about when we look at the protection the environment might have under this type of legislation, particularly in view of the discretionary powers of the minister.
Finally, the major point he was trying to make was that this bill would in a major way help to achieve energy self-sufficiency. The goal of energy self-sufficiency was first established by the Progressive Conservative Party in 1979. This was a policy the whole country could relate to, one the importance of which is known to the people. In fact, we did not have an energy policy in Canada until that government made this a major goal. We had not had the need for energy self-sufficiency in this country identified until that time. That was a goal we established. It is a goal that the party and the government opposite are now the beneficiaries of, and it is one I think we all hoped we could achieve.
The fact is that the mechanism for achieving this goal is something that will not only be avoided by this kind of bill, but it is something which is continually thwarted by a number of measures brought in by this government, the most recent of which is the budget. I will return to that in a moment with figures to show where we will be in energy self-sufficiency with our shortfall. This bill clearly is not going to help satisfy any of those goals. In fact, it has had a net negative effect.
I should like to return for a moment to the background of the conditions we are now facing as we look at this bill. Bill C-48 is certainly one of the flagships of the government's National Energy Program. If we want to consider an example of government flagships, and we had time, we could think about the Canadian navy and how well the flagships of government activity in that field have served us. The dedication the government has given the Department of National Defence in its support for that department over the last number of years does not speak well for this measure if it is to be the flagship of the National Energy Program.
We have had at least 13 years of successive Liberal government policies in relation to energy and the economy which have today put our country into a situation which everyone knows compares only to that of about 30 years ago. We are experiencing a most severe recession, and statistics revealed today show that it will probably be worse next year. That is the kind of thing nobody likes to hear. It is the kind of thing that is entirely unnecessary, but it is the consequence of the policies of successive Liberal governments.
It is difficult for members of this party to accept the kind of promise made by the party opposite at election time. That government has made promises in respect of cheap gas, cheap heating oil and lower interest rates. All those promises have proved to be like the promise in respect of wage and price controls. They were promises made in order to get elected but never kept. This government goes on in ways which get us into deeper and deeper trouble.
The economic climate of this country is certainly depressed, and it is depressing to talk about it. The fact is that those
December 9, 1981

people who are now unemployed and those who face the loss of their jobs in the coming year must know that this Liberal government is responsible, and that as a country there is no need for our being in this situation. It is not necessary because, since Canada became a nation, we have had the resources and the opportunity to move ahead. What we have not had is the kind of direction needed to maximize the potential to put us in the position of having full employment, and the energy security, optimism and hope for the future which I think all Canadians deserve.
I should like to turn now to the mechanism of closure. I guess the most dramatic use of the mechanism of closure I have experienced was last summer when we sat here in the House of Commons in an effort to achieve in some way a quick and effective resolution to the Post Office strike. At that time, as the opposition was mounting pressure on the government to get something done to achieve a conclusion to that situation, this government brought in closure. We wanted a conclusion to that strike whether that meant legislation, which this party would have supported, or something else. The government has legislated postal workers back to work in the past. We wanted that conclusion even if it meant taking away the right to strike from essential services, something which I think all Canadians would support. What this government chose to do, at a time when business was reeling from the pressure of high interest rates, when small businesses were going bankrupt and faced a total loss of $3 billion, was to bring in closure. Perhaps it was because the weather was too hot outside and therefore we were still sitting in the House of Commons, but whatever the reason this House used closure and prevented us from terminating that Post Office strike.
This government has actually brought in closure nine times since 1979. One occasion when it brought in closure before last summer which strikes me as being dramatic was after two weeks of debate on the Constitution. At that time the government felt it was justified in using that measure. I do not know how the comments of the previous speaker related to that time, that period of two weeks when we were considering an entirely new constitutional framework for Canada. I do not know how hon. members opposite can justify, rationalize or square the use of that measure with the people of Canada. I do not know how individual members of the Liberal Party can go back to their constituencies and justify the government's continual use of this mechanism which in fact overrides the democratic principles upon which this House functions. I think this was expressed best by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) a couple of days ago. He said that members opposite will have to justify this use of closure by the government in relation to important national issues; they will have to justify overriding the democratic process of this House of Commons.
Perhaps another use of closure that will come to the minds of many Canadians was during the pipeline debate. In that regard it was interesting to hear the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) make an announcement, as a result of a question in the House by one of his own members, about the passage by the United States government of meas-
Canada Oil and Gas Act
ures which will in fact secure the ongoing development of this pipeline. The thing that surprised us on this side of the House is that hon. members opposite should have been so relieved. We had so many guarantees for so long regarding the construction of this pipeline that there seemed to be no problem, at least to us on this side of the House. For that reason it was with a little bit of confusion that we received that announcement through the efforts of that Liberal backbencher. Perhaps the minister had a reason for making this announcement today, in spite of the fact that he has given us repeated assurances that everything was A-OK.
As this program is part of the ongoing implementation of Bill C-48, I think the initial reaction to the total program by different sectors in varying regions of Canada was that it had some favourable measures. Canadians from central Canada were among the first to give their initial reaction to this bill and they indicated that, on the basis of the National Energy Program, they expected energy security and less expensive oil and gas. They anticipated an end to the difficulties which had existed for several years in trying to negotiate agreements between the federal government and the provinces. I cannot speak for the people of Quebec but it appeared to be a beneficial program according to the people of Ontario. I believe this same attitude was reflected as well in eastern Canada.
However, the realization evolved that this program was not going to solve all the problems. In fact, more problems were created which became evident by the fact that it took at least another year to reach an energy pricing agreement. When that agreement was reached last fall, the consequences were entirely different from what most people in central Canada had originally hoped for.
I think the government has done a very wise thing politically by selling to the Canadian public all of the ingredients of this legislation under the name of Canadianization and presenting it as a single package. It is a complex and difficult issue to understand, and to present it in the name of Canadianization is a term which is very well accepted. Hon. members opposite know that this party strongly supports the intent of the word "Canadianization".
As far as the reaction of industry and the people at large in western Canada to the National Energy Program is concerned, I believe that their awareness of the consequences was much greater. Their appreciation of the results and their concern for some of its difficulties was greater initially.
In many ways, some of their fears and concerns were proven to be valid because the minister had to make adjustments to some of the provisions in order to accommodate the realities in terms of prices which would help the industry survive. These changes were necessitated by the increasing number of rigs and workers leaving Canada because they could not function in an uncertain environment, one in which there was not a guaranteed return on their investment. I think this was a major factor the minister had to deal with in terms of making
13904

December 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
adjustments which were reasonably equitable to the country as a whole.
I would like to talk about the initial reaction to this program by the industry. For example, the executive of TransCanada PipeLines wanted to see the implementation of the more favourable parts of the National Energy Program and thought that the program as a whole was legitimate in terms of the country trying to develop a sense of national identity, that it was not something which needed to be feared but needed to be developed. It is clear from recent public submissions made by executives of TransCanada PipeLines that some of their worst fears, which were not initially revealed, had been realized. They now know that the net impact of the National Energy Program has been negative and will continue to be so unless more adjustments are made to it. There are other examples which I will not go into right now.
I would like to discuss further the self-sufficiency aspect of this National Energy Program by quoting what Woods, Gordon have to say about the effect of the National Energy Program and self-sufficiency. Woods, Gordon states:
The NEP document states, "it would be premature and unwise to count on the frontier to solve the oil supply problem". A CPA forecast (which does not include frontier production or new tar sands production) results in a shortfall of 740,000 barrels per day by 1990.
That is at least double, if not triple, the shortfall we have today.
As we continue, in spite of the fact that the Liberal government has almost turned consumption off-not because of conservation but because they have restrained business so much that they do not need any more-we have a situation now in which, if we were in full production of oil and doing what is possible, the shortfall that was feared in the last several years would still be apparent and real. The conservation measures which have been attempted are starting to have an impact now, and as much as hon. members opposite deny this in their remarks and their philosophy, the increased business price has had more to do with that than anything else. The Liberals fought an election on this and now they are again the happy beneficiaries of the fact that Canadians will turn to less use of oil and gas, and will use smaller cars because they cannot afford the prices which the Liberals have heaped upon them.
Another result of this so-called Canadianization program which has been undertaken has been a large outflow of capital from Canada. The figures vary but the latest figure I heard mentioned about a month ago about the outflow of capital from Canada was $10 billion, money which has gone to the United States and possibly other countries. This is a result of the effort to achieve more Canadian ownership. There has been an increase of Canadian content in the oil industry of from 27 per cent to 31 per cent. One of the serious consequences is the enormous pressure put on the Canadian dollar and the interest rates which this reflects. It is my hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has taken this situation into account, because it appears that the government has to slow that process down to reduce competition for capital in
Canada so that we do not face continuously the kind of economic pressure which our economy cannot stand today.
While the goal of increased Canadian ownership is admirable and one which would be supported by all sides of the House, the speed and amount of capital required to meet this goal is something the minister must take into account while doing his economic planning.
As this discussion culminates I think what we will see as the result of this program during the short time it has been in existence-approximately a year-is higher prices than we have anticipated. There has been no real improvement in our ability to be self-sufficient. There has been an aggravation to the economic recession we are in and Bill C-48 now takes us into an area in which the government is retroactively confiscating property.
This bill will increase ministerial discretion in the entire energy field. We have here a major move by the government to become intimately, aggressively and completely involved in the energy system in Canada. I would like to put that into the context of things that have happened over recent years in this country. That context has a very important message in terms of where this government is going and where the Canadian people can expect to be in the future if the government continues in power and on the same course it is on now.
In spite of the concern of New Democratic Party members that the government is not involved enough, through its budget the government is now more involved and taking more out of our gross national product than ever. It is more involved in a financial way than it has been at any time since the end of the Second World War. There has been a succession of measures taken by this government, which I am sure has been influenced enormously by senior civil servants. The government is involved in social programs to an extent never achieved before. The government is involved in health care and in all parts of the social system in an almost complete and total way, to the point where private involvement is very, very limited.
Now the government is involved in the energy system. Granted, it is involved just by way of introduction at the present time, but through this bill and the remainder of the National Energy Program there is the potential for almost total involvement. The government has the potential to control the entire energy system.
The final step)-and this is achieved through budgetary measures-is government involvement in business and the financing of small businesses and farmers all the way up to larger businesses and large corporations. I am sure hon. members opposite can respond to that, but I think the important proof of that is what happens in terms of the ability of the individual to own property. The Constitution has been the subject of a considerable amount of discussion lately, and I will not try to put this matter into that context; but there is no question that the ownership of property is not guaranteed by the Constitution.
December 9, 1981

There are some hon. members opposite who suggest that some of the budgetary measures were not a mistake but that they came at the wrong time; they are really what they wanted but at the wrong time. That is one point of view, but the more worrisome point of view is that those measures were not a mistake and really were designed and intended.
With respect to the ability of the individual to own property, I think some of the measures in the budget should be of major concern to all Canadians. I will not go into technical details, but I will mention the capital cost allowance changes, the changes in the capital gains tax, the changes in the incomeaveraging annuities and the changes respecting the ability of an individual to give a mortgage to somebody who wants to buy his business. Within a very few years all those changes will have the net result of making it almost impossible for an individual to buy a business or a farm. Those changes will make it undesirable for many people to retire on farms. There will be a tremendous impact on people who want to own property.
The government has taken the last step in the budget. It has taken the last major step into that wonderful world of socialism. Canadians across the country should recognize this and understand it. I suppose it is a cause for glee among some hon. members. While their motives are honest and while in their responses they can jest, what is happening is a tragedy.
If there are any examples of independent business left in this country, one is the example of independent cattlemen. They are the last free enterprisers. They do not have a marketing board. They have been doing their own thing. There are many who would accept marketing boards, there is no question about that, but the unfortunate thing is that they are looking for government grants. Businesses are looking for government grants. The government will have to provide grants in order to make it possible for people in this country to survive. Who will handle the grants? Who will tell the people who get grants what to do? I think there should be a major change. Perhaps there will be a tax revolt. It is clear that we in the official opposition will not get support from hon. members on my left, but perhaps we will be able to do something. It is unlikely that we can precipitate an election before its time, but there is a groundswell across the country. There is a gradual indication of discontent. Small business people are the first to make it known, along with insurance people and people who are feeling negative effects now. They understand the consequences of some of the measures in the budget.
I think Canadians want the self-respect and the dignity they should be able to earn. They want the tools to be able to function within a free enterprise economy. This government continues on its present course at its own peril. The Liberal caucus continues to support its Minister of Finance at its peril. I hope this situation can change soon. I am not completely in despair, and I am glad to have had this opportunity to express my concerns.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair recognizes the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bockstael).
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had the corner of your eye, but I would like to point out that this bill is being discussed under closure. Recognition of the parliamentary secretary indicates that there will be three full speeches from the government side on this, the last day for discussion of this bill, and we in the official opposition will have the opportunity to hear only one full speech and the remainder of a speech which began on a previous day. I wonder if Your Honor might reverse the recognition order, or perhaps government members will agree to split the remaining time so that we might at least have an opportunity to be heard on this last day under closure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member does not have a point of order in the sense that he requests that the Chair change the usual rule. The Chair looks to left and right alternately, and there is no way around that. Hon. members to my right have a right which cannot be disposed of by the Chair. If the hon. member wants to try to make arrangements with the party to my right either to reduce the time- for speeches or to alternate in some different way, the Chair would of course recognize such an arrangement. That might take a couple of minutes, and I suggest I begin by recognizing, as I should, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Why did you vote for closure if you wanted to speak?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: -I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on Bill C-48.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Why did you vote for closure then?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: I shall review with hon. members the reasons for the government's conviction that this legislation and the management regime it establishes are essential to vigorous and responsible oil and gas development on the Canada lands.
Let us turn for a moment to the main elements of the new regime set out in Bill C-48. With respect to land management under Bill C-48, there will be stiffer work requirements through negotiated exploration agreements that include firm drilling commitments. The new management regime will provide a greater degree of control over the timing, direction, rate and level of exploration and development. This will be achieved through earlier release of proprietary information and prior approval of transfers and assignment of rights and drilling orders. The Bill also provides for ministerial authority to order production to commence and be delivered to Canadian markets in quantities and at prices specified in the order.
In terms of employment Bill C-48 will require, through negotiated exploration agreements, that companies submit detailed manpower plans which must include advance specification of labor requirements and sourcing, recruiting procedures, training programs and local hiring programs. Companies will need to establish and maintain close contact with the

December 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Canada Employment and Immigration Commission in the development and implementation of the plan. Thus we intend to ensure that Canadian workers have an opportunity to contribute their skills to developing oil and gas in the Canada lands. We will also require that the companies submit a procurement plan to ensure that Canadian manufacturers, consultants, contractors and service companies are given a full and fair opportunity to participate on a competitive basis in the supply of goods and services.
In the National Energy Program we were emphatic that decisions on energy development in the north would respond to the concerns of the native people. Despite this commitment, some native groups have expressed concern about Bill C-48, in part because they fear that development fostered by the new regime could prejudice their interest in land claims negotiations. The natives are asking us to prove our good intention.


Benno Friesen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Beauchesne at page 101, rule 309, reads as follows:
It is a rule in both Houses of Parliament that a member must address the House orally, and not read from a written, previously prepared speech.
I do not mind if the hon. member has copious notes. We know he can read. We would like to hear an extemporaneous speech from him rather than a parliamentary secretary's or bureaucrat's speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: This particular occupant of the Chair has had occasion to deal with this point of order before. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) is perfectly correct; members are encouraged to avoid reading speeches verbatim. The difficulty that the Chair faces, whether it be myself or some other occupant, is that if the House wishes to instruct the Chair that this rule is to be followed, the Chair will instantly and with great pleasure do so; but it will apply equally to all members of the House at all times.
I would recommend that the hon. member give some thought to whether indeed that is the rule he would like applied to members on all sides. If that is the case, I am sure the Chair will be notified of that. Aside from being astounded and delighted, the Chair would be pleased to put that into effect immediately. I suggest that some consideration be given in caucus to that matter before the hon. member asks me to make a decision. If the hon. member wants the rules applied, I will apply them.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I rise on the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is simply reading what somebody else wrote. That is completely contrary to this rule. I ask him to close his notes and give his speech. He can not do it. He is reading word for word. Somebody else wrote that speech and he knows it. Also, they vote for closure and then try to waste our time. Why did you vote for closure, you bunch of hypocrites?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The point is entirely irrelevant. If the hon. member wants to read the collected works of Shakespeare word for word-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Shakespeare didn't write that trash!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The point would still remain that the issue is not the author of what an hon. member may refer to but rather whether or not he is reading a speech. I can add no more to what I have already said to the earlier member who rose on the same point of order.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can take seriously your statement that you are reserving judgment and that we can have a judgment on this later. Since you quoted the eminent Mr. Shakespeare, he said that brevity is the soul of wisdom.


An hon. Member:: Wit.


Benno Friesen: Or wit, which was the contemporary definition of wisdom. When we have this hon. member reading a prepared text, the speech may have a lot of qualities but brevity will not be one of them. We would prefer some wit and wisdom coming in the nature of brevity from this member.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, native people have often indicated that they were concerned about this development. We have already shown them our good faith when we decided to withhold the development of the pipeline for at least two years.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Can you find your place?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: As for protection of the environment, Bill C-48 will reinforce already stringent regulations and practice to ensure that the contribution of the Canada lands to Canada's energy security will not be at the expense of the environment.
Some elements of Bill C-48 relate to the fiscal regime for the Canada land that is intended to provide to all Canadians a share in the financial benefits flowing from the exploitation of their resources. The challenge here is to provide to investors a fair and competitive return on their investment, while at the same time ensuring a fair return to the Canadian people who own the land and who have supported exploration investments so generously through incentives on a scale available to no other industry.
First, as part of the over-all fiscal regime, a 25 per cent share of oil and gas production from the Canada lands will be reserved to the Crown. This share will be exercised through Petro-Canada or some other designated Crown corporation.
Second, to ensure that Canadians receive a fair return for their oil and gas resources, there will be a basic royalty of 10 per cent, with an additional royalty of 40 per cent of the net profits of the field above the 25 per cent rate of return.
December 9, 1981

Third, to provide the opportunity for direct Canadian participation there will be a minimum requirement of 50 per cent Canadian private and public sector ownership of production in the Canada lands.
In terms of price, the new oil reference price will promote a high level of exploration and development activity in the Canada lands. This generous pricing regime was established under the oil pricing and revenue-sharing agreement signed with the province of Alberta last September. By guaranteeing producers of new Canada lands oil world level prices, it recognizes that oil exploration and development on the frontiers are relatively high-cost, high-risk ventures.
In short, as industry has recognized, the new oil reference price makes Canada fully competitive in price terms with oil exploration and development anywhere in the world giving significant stimulus for Canada lands oil development as it does for new tar sands projects and for production from the remaining conventional oil prospects in western Canada.
Second, consider the fiscal incentive in the Canada lands in relation to other countries. After the incentives in the income tax system, even without the depletion allowance that will be in effect until 1985, the effective cost for a foreign-owned company exploring in the Canada lands is 53 cents on the dollar. This is lower than comparative figures for the U.S. offshore which range up to 67 cents on the dollar. This is without taking into account the fact that unlike the United States we have not required an up-front bonus bid. We know of no investment regime in any major producing country that is nearly as attractive.
Put another way, we consciously provide to foreign companies a regime that is more attractive to them than any they enjoy in their home country. As you know, the investment incentive for Canadian-owned companies is even richer, providing the basis for a wealth of prospective deals between major companies now holding most of the prospective land and Canadian companies wishing to participate.
Finally, consider returns to industry under the fiscal regime governing production. Recall for a moment the numbers submitted by Petro-Canada. Using a sample field, Petro-Canada calculated that international investors would earn a rate of return of 24.4 per cent in the United Kingdom, 18.3 per cent in Norway, 21.6 per cent in the United States, not counting the bonus bids, and as much as 27.7 per cent in Canada. Together, the lower cost of investment on the Canada lands, our world level prices for new oil and exciting oil prospects provide the industry with prospective returns that are very attractive by U.S., U.K., Norwegian or any other standard. I know of no company which has taken the trouble to compare the economics in the Canada lands to regimes elsewhere that will debate this point. The numbers are there. They are public knowledge. Any analyst can verify them.
I want to address some of the specific criticisms which have been directed towards the Crown interest provision. Critics of the Crown share have called it an "expropriation" or a "land
Canada Oil and Gas Act
grab". They have been especially critical of the fact that the Crown interest will apply retroactively, as it applies to all lands not currently in production, whether or not exploration and discoveries have already taken place. They also continue to claim a right to substantial compensation. Mr. Speaker, this reaction stems from a basic misunderstanding of the Crown interest and its role established by Bill C-48.
The Crown interest involves retention by the Crown of 25 per cent of all interest in the Canada lands, except those where production has already occurred. The government also is involved directly in the management of the venture, commensurate with the level of its share. In return, the Crown will contribute 25 per cent of all costs involved. To argue that the Crown interest is a carried interest, a "free-ride", is obviously a misportrayal. We are paying for all of our share through the 25 per cent Crown interest incentive payment, by carrying our share of costs at the development stage, the Crown's interest is carried up to the point when a production plan is filed, at which point the Crown must convert its holdings to a working interest.
There are circumstances where the Crown might elect to convert to a working interest before exploration is completed, in which case the other partners would be paid double for the Crown's share of the costs, first through the 25 per cent Crown interest incentive payment, and second through a proportionate contribution by the Crown's working interest agent. In any event, the Crown will always contribute its share of the cost of developing a field for production. This activity usually accounts for 85 per cent or more of the total investment.
It is important to see Crown interest and its application in the proper context. First of all, it represents a means by which all Canadians can share in the benefits of a resource that is and will remain 100 per cent owned by Canadians. Canadians have, through their tax dollars, paid for the majority of the oil and gas exploration work. Moreover, the principle of Crown interest is not a new development; it incorporates elements of Canadian energy policy which have been evolving for the last 20 years.
Since the establishment of the Canada oil and gas land regulations in 1961, the world and the place of energy in it have changed. The Crown interest provision is one of the means, along with royalties, of ensuring that Canadians share in the benefits of the greatly increased value of the energy resources in the Canada lands.
Let us be quite clear on one point. The new regime, whatever its form, inevitably had to result in a greater government share of oil and gas revenues than would have been the case under the existing rules or the rules proposed in 1977. Existing rights were issued prior to the 1979 explosion in world oil prices and most lands now held by the industry even pre-date the emergence of OPEC's radical pricing policies in 1974.
These OPEC actions transformed the world oil market and effected a huge windfall economic gain on existing reserves and oil and gas rights. Canada has, as has every other government faced with this situation-including Norway, the United Kingdom and even the United States-made it clear that this

December 9, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
windfall would not accrue to the industry alone. On the Canada lands, the larger federal revenues from under the 25 per cent Crown interest and the progressive incremental royalty are intended to achieve government revenue objectives and can be equated reasonably to the fiscal measures of the United Kingdom and the United States, which have dramatically increased government revenues from existing reserves of oil and gas.
It is essential to establish this point quite early. There is an obligation upon us, as stewards of this national resource, to establish a mix of measures that give both the industry and the owners of the resource a fair share. On the basis of our comparative analysis of international regimes, we came to the conclusion that the regime had to be substantially toughened up, even over the 1977 rules, if we were to fulfil our responsibilities. Thus, it was not a question of a Crown interest or not; it was a question, with us, of how we would obtain this magnitude of share. Each country has its own approach.
Let me illustrate this with a United States example. In 1979, the United States, having decontrolled oil prices, imposed a tax called the "windfall profits tax". It applied to all production, current and future. It provided for a tax ranging from 30 per cent to 70 per cent on production profits. Quite clearly, to a dramatic extent, this affected the value of the industry's already discovered assets. Yet so far as we can ascertain, no serious attempt was made by companies in the United States to obtain compensation for this measure, which was every bit as retroactive as the Crown interest provision. Indeed, it was much more retroactive, because we are grandfathering existing production in the Canada lands. There are literally dozens of similar examples from around the world and within Canada.
For example, consider Alberta. A former cabinet minister of the Alberta government, the Hon. Bill Yurko, had this to say in the House of Commons on November 3, 1981, as reported at page 12460 of Hansard:
I want to say first that I was involved as a minister of a government for over half a dozen years in changing drastically the energy regime in Alberta. No one has to tell me about retroactive legislation. We changed every lease in Alberta retroactively and changed the royalty structure from a maximum 16% per cent to a much higher royalty.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I rise on a point of order. The hon. member should also say that that was done after meeting the industry in an agricultural public affairs committee and discussing it fairly, not doing it by closure.


Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: Order, please. That is not a point of order, as the hon. member knows.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Indeed, we changed legislation to effectively change the transfer of ownership of oil and gas.
Yet no company, so far as we know, claimed compensation for this retroactive change of rules affecting existing reserves.
Against this background, it is unreasonable to claim that the Crown interest does something more to the industry's assets than other fiscal measures, here and elsewhere, have done time
and again, as governments took steps to ensure that their citizens obtained a fair share of the gains from the increased value of oil and gas production.
It is time we lay to rest the claim that the Crown interest is a measure that is financially unusual or that it calls for compensation. Consider the options we had at our disposal to ensure that Canadians got a fair share of profits from resources that they, not the oil companies, own. We could, for example, have raised the basic royalty, say to levels prevailing in Alberta. This would have raised it, on average, by 25 or 30 percentage points. The Crown's share of Canada lands production then would have been at least 35 to 40 per cent in the form of a royalty. This would have been more onerous on the industry than the Crown interest provision will be. For one thing, we pay our full share of costs in return for the Crown share. Yet I get the impression that had we opted for a royalty solution, the protests from the industry and from other governments would have been less intense.
Particular attention has been focused on the Crown interest in Hibernia, where Petro-Canada already had acquired an interest in the play in 1979 by virtue of the so-called back-in provision. It has been proposed that, because of this back-in, the Crown interest provision of Bill C-48 should not apply to Hibernia. Canadian ownership in that venture reached 35 per cent. Surely it would be inequitable to apply the Crown interest to those permit holders that actively sought private Canadian participation, but not to Hibernia. We can see no special case for the Hibernia partners. Their return will still be higher than they can earn in the other countries to which I have referred.
The new regime for the Canada lands leaves foreign-owned companies with an investment return that is superior to that available in their home countries. Consider for a moment a situation where Petro-Canada is involved in development in, say, Norway. If Norway were, in a reasonable and even-handed fashion, to change the fiscal rules, would anyone plausibly argue that such a move warranted protests on the part of the Canadian government? The case for protest would become even less sustainable if the new regime still left Petro-Canada better off-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) rises on a question of privilege.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I think the filibuster in this House when we were trying to stop another closure measure taught all members on this side of the House that the basic foundation of a question of privilege arises from the fact that the king used to try to keep the commoners out of the House of Commons so that they could not represent the people who elected them.
I wonder if there is a question of privilege in the following set of circumstances, Mr. Speaker. When a motion under
December 9, 1981

Standing Order 75c is moved in this House and when a member votes on that motion, it is essentially a vote to close off debate, to restrict the time that is allowed for debate. Today is a very short day and it has been selected by the government as the last day of debate on a bill which steals 25 per cent of the assets of a number of Canadians. We have been treated to hearing a succession of three Liberal members speak, each of whom has read for a total of 40 minutes each, or whatever time was allowed, while only one member on this side of the House-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the usual procedure has been followed. That is, the Chair listens to an hon. member who seeks to raise a question of privilege. I have listened to the hon. member and if he is seeking to find some issue of privilege in the tradition and rule that the Chair looks to the left and the right alternatively, then I have explained that previously. Closure or no closure, we proceed in accordance with those rules. There is no element of privilege within the hon. member's submission.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think I have answered the hon. member. Does he want to pursue the point further?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Unless the hon. member devotes his remarks very closely to the matter of privilege, I will have to cut him off.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it may be due to my lack of eloquence in explaining my point, but the problem is not whether you look left or right, Mr. Speaker. The point is that there seems to have been a deliberate campaign of reading 40 minute speeches-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. That is not in any way a question of privilege.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Whether the government collects economic rent through a royalty which is taken in kind or through-


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is the wrong page. You started in the wrong place.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: -or through the retention of part of interest, there is very little difference-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. If this man wants to read, at least he should start in the right place. Hon. members opposite voted for freedom of expression in the charter, but they close off, shut the door, and don't let anyone else talk.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I have to point out to the hon. member for Bow River, who says he finds there is some abuse of the rules in the reading of speeches, that no hon. member in this House is on his feet on points of order that are found to be without merit as often as he is.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
It being 5.45 o'clock, pursuant to order made Monday, December 7, 1981, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion 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? All those in favour of the motion 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.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.	
Motion agreed to	and bill read the third time and	

It being 6.16, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.16 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).

Thursday, December 10, 1981