1981-10-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I too have a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 which should receive the unanimous support of this House. Whereas on a relative basis the people of Poland during World War II suffered as great a loss of both life and property as any other nation in that catastrophic conflict, and whereas following
World War II, as before, many persons of Polish ancestral background settled in and became distinguished Canadian citizens, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That the government introduce forthwith measures which would admit to this country Polish immigrants in such numbers so as to alleviate the hardships that presently exist within the Polish refugee camps in Austria, and in the meantime work to ensure an adequate supply of food and essential medical services to those still living in the Austrian refugee camps.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give its unanimous consent to this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my motion also arises out of the fact that today is International Food Day. I hope my motion will meet with the same success as that of the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) earlier. In light of the fact that current trends will see about a billion people suffering from hunger and malnutrition by the year 2000, and that in 1980 Canadian development assistance was reduced to .42 per cent of our gross national product, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That the Government of Canada honour its commitment to meet the official United Nations target for development assistance of .7 per cent of our GNP.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, farmers under the Farm Credit Corporation are faced with unreasonably high interest rate increases and a very limited amount of

October 16, 1981
working capital in the fund. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie):
That this House call on the government and the minister responsible to reconsider their attack against the farm economy and arrive at a reasonable interest rate that will be workable for the expansion of the farm economy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of some urgency under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Today, to mark the official transformation of the Post Office into a Crown corporation, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will be getting the symbolic last and first letters. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That, in the letter to the Prime Minister, the following note be enclosed:
Dear Pierre:
Just a note, to let you know The 30-cent stamp will be quite a blow To Canadians from coast to coast When each day they go to post Letters to their kith and kin With news from home contained therein A home they'll lose to interest rates While we continue to blame the fates;
So take a stand, oh, mighty "me",
And reduce for stamps the price to be For if you don't, my travelling chum.
Next time you'll be booted in the Place where you sit and contemplate the Universe unfolding as you think it should.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HOUSING
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. There currently exists a mortgage crisis in Canada that is sucking citizens deeper and deeper into the watery grave of foreclosure and debt. The government is stealing the equity of home owners by virtue of
its current policy, or rather lack of policy on housing and mortgage rates.
As a case in point, a husband and wife, both teachers, with a combined salary of $42,000, put down $30,000 on an average Vancouver home of $150,000. By stretching, they paid 35 per cent of their income to meet monthly mortgage payments of $1,300. One year later their payments leaped to $2,100 per month, which effectively gouged 63 per cent of their income. They cannot sell, even at the loss of their $30,000-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That preamble is really a bit long. It is not exactly in the form a Standing Order 43 should be presented. I would ask the hon. member to move his motion.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Even if they could sell, the vacancy rate in Vancouver is .1 per cent. These people are in dire straits. I therefore move-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Please let us know what you are moving.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis):
That the government make mortgage interest a tax deduction or a tax credit, and that limits be placed on mortgage interest increases upon renewal.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, in the light of the announcement by the Minister of Finance that 106 jobs in the philatelic mail order section of the Post Office will be moved to Antigonish in his riding, and in the light of the announcement to a managers' meeting in Montreal last week confirming that the citizenship records division of the Secretary of State's department will be relocated in Sydney, Nova Scotia, and in the light of the promises of other Liberal Members of Parliament to put jobs in their ridings, by decentralizing the Civil Service, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House demands that the Liberal government put a stop to the wasteful, demoralizing, and cost ineffective program of balkanizing Canada's civil service.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
October 16, 1981


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the fact gas prices in Frobisher Bay are 33 per cent higher than in Ottawa, and home heating oil is 60 per cent higher, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Supply and Services take immediate steps to extricate the government from its current 15-year contract with Shell Oil to provide fuel to Frobisher Bay, and to have the government, through Petro-Canada, assume full responsibility for the provision of gas and home heating fuel in the far north.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[DOT] * *


VIA RAIL
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, since the federal cabinet has again broken its trust with the Canadian people by abolishing some 20 per cent of the VIA Rail passenger system, without reference to Parliament or any recourse to public hearings, and given that the Minister of Transport has confirmed his incompetence by stating falsely that "Railways are one of the least energy-efficient, energy-economic methods of transportation", I therefore move, pursuant to Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell):
That the cabinet orders enacted on August 6, 1981 under Subsection 64(1) of the National Transportation Act be immediately suspended so that all VIA Rail services shall be continued beyond November 15, 1981, and also that no new service cuts be contemplated until a thorough appraisal can be made of the important role of VIA Rail in meeting the transportation needs of Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[DOT] * *


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, whereas statements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) over the past 18 months reveal the
Oral Questions
fact that the government had identified the suffering of those pensioners who live on incomes below the currently accepted poverty line, and because the government has taken no action to relieve the suffering of those people who comprise more than half of all Canadian pensioners, mostly women, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright):
That this House instructs the Minister of Finance to stop trying to solve the problem of inflation on the backs of pensioners and include in his budget substantial relief for those elderly people currently living on incomes below the poverty line.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The CPI figures this morning indicate that gasoline and heating oil prices have risen an incredible 46 per cent to 55 per cent during the past 12 months. The minister knows that this represents a huge tax increase to the federal government. Also the minister said in the House that he will not fight his battles on the backs of the poor. In his 18 months of office why has the minister done nothing or taken no action to help people who just cannot cope with energy price increases of that magnitude?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I have just two comments to make about the question.


Mr. Nielsen:: How about an answer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The first one is that the hon. member has been among those who have advocated more rapid energy price increases than we have provided for in the agreement with the province of Alberta.


Mr. Clark:: That is a falsehood.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I draw to the attention of the hon. Leader of the Opposition the comments made by the member who has just answered the question at the recent Conservative national meeting, in which he spoke quite forcefully about the necessity of substantial energy price increases. I happen to agree with him on that point. There are price increases involved that have been indicated from the very beginning. What we have done in

October 16, 1981
Oral Questions
an energy price agreement with the province of Alberta is to bring about a settlement which has placed less of a burden on the consumers of Canada than he would have permitted as a member of the former Government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADDITIONAL COSTS TO FARMERS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker,
I can play with figures the same way as the minister can play with figures. The point is that the prices for energy have risen 46 per cent to 55 per cent. That has been taken up largely by taxes for the federal government. My question was: why has the minister done nothing to return that to those people who just cannot cope with those price increases?
My supplementary question concerns farmers. The farmers have been hit not only by high energy prices which affect their fuel costs, as well as costs of their fertilizer made from natural gas, but also by interest rates. Obviously this will mean higher food prices to all Canadians.
Why, in his 18 months in office, has the minister failed to address this issue, an issue which will cause countless Canadians to stretch their food budgets tighter and tighter and make it much more difficult to live in the country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member is now asserting that the Government of Canada should totally cushion the impact of energy price increases. I gather that that is not his position. It is essential, in the interests of the operation of the economy that, as much as possible, energy price increases be absorbed. I want to tell him that very shortly after we formed the government, we increased substantially payments to those most in need in Canada, as we said we would. It was an increase in the Guaranteed Income Supplement which was much more generous than any proposal ever contemplated by the former government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We constantly remind hon. members of the opposition of this fact, that the GIS increase was undertaken, and that it is fully indexed against inflation. That, in our view, covered the group which most needed our attention. I agree with the hon. member that, if our financial circumstances warranted it, it would be desirable to try to protect more and more groups, but we did say that we would help those who needed help most, and we provided that help.


Erik Nielsen: You also said you would keep fuel prices down.


INCOME TAX
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the minister has just been presented with a windfall over the next five years of over $50 billion. Surely the minister can find room for some of that money to be addressed to these very specific problems and still take into account the importance of reducing the federal budget deficit.
The minister knows that this $50 billion in taxes is about the most regressive form of tax that could be levied on the Canadian people. Another very regressive form of taxation would be the removal of indexation on the personal tax deductions. Would the minister today, if he is not willing to make any effort to help those people hurt by the energy price increase, state in this House that he will not remove indexation from the personal tax deductions?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, in a sense I am confronted with the same dilemma that every Minister of Finance faces before a budget, that is, to be asked to disclose by denial, the contents of a budget.


Mr. Jarvis:: You have done it before.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have no comment to make on the hon. member's question except to say that I would not recommend that the Conservative Party spend funds this year to advertise against indexation, as they did before the last budget.


FORESTRY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and it deals with the depressing state of the British Columbia forest industry. In August of this year the unemployment rate in the forest industry was 11.8 per cent. One month later it had jumped to nearly 18 per cent, not including lay-offs. What is happening in British Columbia is that, on a daily basis now, hundreds if IWA workers are being laid off across the province. Many people with as much as 35 years of seniority are being laid off because of market conditions. This is having a devastating effect on communities across the province. Entire communities are falling on their faces.
It seems to me that the time has come for this minister to say what he is going to do, not only to assist that industry but to help the people of British Columbia who, for the first time ever, have fallen down because of the high interest rate policy of this government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What is the question?


Mrs. Mitchell:: They don't care about British Columbia.
October 16, 1981


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I would be glad to answer the question, but I did not hear a question in the statement made by-


Charles Joseph Clark: You have not answered one in two years.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Whether it is called Thatcher economics or Reaganomics or MacEachenomics, high interest rates have devastated the B.C. forest industry.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What are you going to do about it? What is the minister going to do about that industry and the people who are being so adversely affected? That is the question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is a statement.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is a question.


Charles Joseph Clark: It only affects western Canada. He doesn't care.


Erik Nielsen: He is going to move the stamp collection.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF INDONESIA
Madam Speaker:: I should like to draw attention to the presence in our gallery of Professor Mochtar Kusamaatmadja, who is the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance and it arises from his replies to my colleague, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre. The three issues on the minds of Canadians are interest rates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: While the modest drop in the bank rate this week is welcome, it still means that most small businesses are paying at least one per cent over prime, or 21 per cent, to stay in business. Our party feels that interest rates will have to drop sharply before Canadians feel the economy is under control.
Does the minister find the current levels of interest rates and inflation to be acceptable, since he is apparently prepared to do nothing about them?
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, I certainly do not find them to be acceptable. I have frequently expressed my views on that subject. It is my objective to do everything possible, within the capacity of the budget, to help reduce interest rates. I have found no easy way of reducing interest rates in an inflationary environment.


Mr. Crosbie:: Speak to Herb Gray. He had all the answers.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre spoke about the inflation rate which was announced today. It is still a high inflation rate. It is not possible, in my view, to make a substantial reduction in interest rates until we succeed in bringing down the inflation rate in this country and in other countries of the world. I share the hon. member's concern about interest rates, and will seek her assistance in doing everything possible to bring down the inflation rate in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADVICE GIVEN BY ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the Minister of Finance. I think I speak for the members of our party when I say that, while his views are welcome, action speaks louder than words.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: This week the Economic Council of Canada said that the government's high interest rate policies can reduce inflation only at heavy cost to the economy. Therefore, I ask why is the minister continuing to defy the advice of the official economic advisers to the Government of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member has in mind with respect to advice received from the advisers, to the government. I think it is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance to accept or reject advice, depending on its suitability at the time it is given. However, on this point, I am not aware of rejecting anyone who has come forward with advice that makes sense and which would reduce interest rates.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. I want to ask him whether he is aware of any circumstances whereby the RCMP or their agents pay, or expedite the payment of money to accused persons or their families, in trust or otherwise, for the purpose of obtaining evidence relevant to the offence with



October 16, 1981
Oral Questions
which an accused is charged. In this connection, I refer specifically to the Olson multiple murder charges in British Columbia. I would ask the hon. minister if he would clarify this situation, and also ascertain whether there has been any attempt to suppress the media concerning these reports which, of course, may or may not be true.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I am fully aware of the circumstances to which the hon. member is referring, but in view of the fact that the matter is presently before courts I think it would be inappropriate for me to say anything at all about it which might affect the process in any way.


EFFECT ON PAROLE SYSTEM
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker,
I can respect the feelings of my colleague in this matter, but the implications of this matter, if true, are tremendous under our present parole correctional system, because this kind of payment could lead to a situation where an accused could conceivably be released after a fairly short period of time, and he or his family could profit by the payments made in order to expedite his conviction.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Since there was no question asked in the supplementary, I will return to the question and simply note that, so far as I am aware, no efforts have been made-certainly none by the Solicitor General or anyone in my ministry-to suppress or influence the press in any way on this subject.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my questions have to do with a growing nightmare for many tens of thousands of Canadian home owners who have urea formaldehyde foam insulation, and who are victims of one arm of government not knowing what the other arm is doing. We now have at least two different cabinet ministers saying two different things, and the others are running for cover.
I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board if he authorized his then parliamentary secretary, now the Minister of State without portofolio, to say, on September 18:
The Treasury Board has accepted the principle of evaluating damages, and compensating victims.
How does this square with the statement made in Vancouver last weekend by another cabinet colleague, the government Leader in the Senate, who said:
No consideration has been given by the government to assisting UFFI victims.
Which statement is correct? What is the government's position in getting people out of the mess that you got them into?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, my former parliamentary secretary, who is now Minister of State, is not in the House. I think the hon. member neglected to mention that a subsequent statement was made, as I recall, clarifying those remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: What is the position?


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, perhaps the President of the Treasury Board will consult with his new cabinet colleague and find out what he did say, and get him to clarify his remarks. It still remains the biggest, most gigantic goof-up by this government or any other government I can remember. The statement made yesterday by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to the effect that testing is being done and results will be revealed, offers no consolation whatever to the many hundreds of thousands of angry and worried people out there who do not know whether to take the insulation out or not.


TESTS CONDUCTED BY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker,
I will put my supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has her department determined what is a safe level of formaldehyde gas in the home? Since her own expert advisory committee on UFFI has reservations about single readings of formaldehyde measurements and is not prepared to recommend any level of formaldehyde exposure as safe, have her officials told the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that the tests being conducted at this time may, at best, be suspect, if not meaningless.

Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): No, Madam Speaker, I have never said such a thing nor did the senior officials of my department. I would simply wish to clear up a few points and say that within the government's working mechanism concerned with that most unfortunate issue, namely the committee chaired by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, my senior officials worked on the basis of the report drafted by experts on urea formaldehyde foam and indicated that as a result of several readings- and we have given the specifications-a certain level of toxic vapours would be considered, keeping in mind the limited scope of the scientific knowledge of Canadians on this subject, as being a danger index and that is what we are telling the people.
October 16, 1981


EFFECT OF UREA FORMALDEHYDE ON HOUSE SALES IN WINNIPEG
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the minister in charge of housing. This week the Winnipeg Real Estate Board has taken the unprecedented action of delisting houses that have urea formaldehyde insulation in them from their list of houses for sale. In fact they have gone even further. They are also delisting homes which had urea formaldehyde insulation in them but have had that insulation removed.
In view of the devastating effect this will have on home owners, not only will home owners be faced with a loss in terms of having to remove the insulation but they will now have difficulty even listing homes for sale in the Winnipeg area, what responsibility does the minister feel he has, in view of the fact that the insulation was approved by him and accepted through the CHIP program? What advice does the minister have for people who are now trying to sell their homes, and cannot?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, the use of UFFI was one of the approved substances-


Miss MacDonald:: By you.


Paul James Cosgrove: -as the hon. member has indicated, on the list by CMHC under the CHIP program, for which there was a subsidy provided by the taxpayers themselves.
The question of responsibility flowing from that role-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Is yours.


Paul James Cosgrove: -the question of the government's response in all of these circumstances, as has been indicated by my colleague previously, is under the chairmanship of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The government is presently carrying out the testing and it is also looking at the area of responsibility. When that committee, under the chairmanship of that minister, reports, the answer will be available.


GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. There were reports last night in the press and again this morning concerning an announcement that is alleged to have been made by the Minister of Finance that the government will be moving, to his riding, the philatelic mail order section of the Post Office. There has also been an announcement that it is the intention of the government to move the citizenship records division of the Department of the Secretary of State to Sydney, Nova Scotia.
Oral Questions
I want to ask the minister whether or not that is true. If it is true, why is it being done in view of the fact that this program which the former Liberal government entered into, was perhaps the most cost ineffective one a Liberal government has ever entered into in its checkered history?


John Carnell Crosbie: Checkered is right.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, it is well known that there were a number of cancellations made by the previous Tory government, all of which, as I recall, were moves which happened to fall in Liberal ridings, such as the philatelic service in Anti-gonish, Nova Scotia.


Erik Nielsen: Which ones didn't?


Donald James Johnston: The decentralization policy is one that was adopted by this government many years ago, and one which, I understand, has general approval as being a very sound policy in terms of helping develop certain regions of the country where there is additional employment and where there are cost benefits to be realized, and where sensitivity and service to the public are maintained.
This government has never backed off the policy, per se, of decentralization, in keeping with the criteria I have just mentioned. In due course I suspect that ministers will be making announcements from time to time of specific decentralization projects. For example, I recall my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue last year announced the move to Jonquieres of the taxation data centre.


JUSTIFICATION FOR PROGRAM
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the minister is quite right. There were 19 projects cancelled or deferred by the Clark government for very good reasons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: All in Liberal ridings.


Walter David Baker: The cost was astronomical. It was $200 million in 1979 dollars. If the government required restraint at that time, this wasteful government requires even more restraint today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Is there any possible way that such a wasteful, demoralizing, cost ineffective and patronage-ridden program can be justified in terms of restraint? Has the minister considered what his responsibilities are as President of the Treasury Board, who is supposed to be the guardian of the public purse rather than the guy who lets it all run out?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I neglected to congratulate the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton on his elevation to critic of

Oral Questions
Treasury Board policy. I would like to welcome him to that post.
I am surprised the hon. member would regard this as an exercise in patronage. When I look at completion of projects, I see at Surrey, B.C., a data centre. I see in Winnipeg, Manitoba-


Walter David Baker: It is waste.


Donald James Johnston: I see in Fredericton, New Brunswick, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and so on over a period of years, very successful decentralization projects. I am sure people in those areas would take great issue with the post facto declaration of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton.


Walter David Baker: 
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Last year when there was a major increase in the cost of living, on a certain day the Prime Minister gave the condescending advice to Canadians that they should change their priorities. With the figures that came out today, with the single exception of food prices which went down for seasonal reasons, we have had a record increase in the cost of home ownership, a record increase in the cost of transportation, and a record increase in energy prices. Since these costs affect all Canadians, what advice does the Prime Minister give today?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am sure that any advice I would give would be described by the hon. member as condescending, and I wonder why he is asking me for advice.


An hon. Member:: Kissy, kissy.


An hon. Member:: Take a trip.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, here we go again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[DOT] (U40)


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Those who answer the questions I think could help the situation by simply concentrating on the questions rather than on the hecklers. I guess that does encourage the hecklers. I would ask the Prime Minister, and others, if they would just concentrate on answering the questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I could not understand what you were saying because the howling mob over there was making so much noise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I realize I have the sympathy of the members opposite. I want to tell them now that I am not going to raise my voice in order to be heard over a howling mob, which is a fascist tactic in the first place. Nothing obliges me in this House to shout, and I do not plan to do it. They can interpret it the way they want. I will give answers if people are interested in listening to the answers, but otherwise I wont't.
# * *


BANKS AND BANKING
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, for two days in a row the Prime Minister has used some heckling on this side of the House as an excuse to avoid answering serious questions. When is he going to assume the responsibilities of his office? I would like to ask him a question quite specifically concerning one area of major increase, and I refer to the cost of home ownership which went up some 13.9 per cent, a record increase, as indicated in the figures announced today.
Simultaneously it came out today that the banks, whose profits are at record levels, have announced what only can be described as a sleazy scheme to perpetuate unacceptably high mortgage rates and increased debt loads for home owners. Will the Prime Minister assure the people of Canada that the government will not accept this proposed scheme on the one hand and, secondly, will the government assume its responsibility by directing the banks to put up mortgage money that ordinary families in this country can afford?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would point out that the hon. member had absolute silence when he asked his question, and I expect that kind of silence when I give the answer. It is very simple. He talks about a "sleazy scheme". I do not know what the scheme is, Madam Speaker. I have never heard of it.


REQUEST THAT ACTION BE TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO BANKS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it is a little disturbing that the man who sits just to his right, symbolically and literally, has his officials in active discussion, according to news reports, with the banks in developing this sleazy scheme. I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is aware of the scheme the banks and other financial institutions have said they have agreed to and, if so, will he assure the House that the government will not accept it? Secondly, quite apart from that, will he take concrete action to make mortgage money available via the banks whose profits are at unacceptable levels, so ordinary families can retain their homes?
October 16, 1981


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks about a scheme that has been proposed by the banks. I noticed there was a press report saying that the banks had proposed a scheme that would produce mortgage rates of 16 per cent. The hon. member has added "banks and other financial institutions". To my knowledge there has been no scheme proposed by the banks and other financial institutions.
I mentioned yesterday that a week ago today the Bank of Nova Scotia and the Bank of Montreal released a proposed plan by which mortgage rates would be made available for renewers, and that plan would cost the Treasury on an annual basis about $500 million. If that is the plan the hon. member has in mind, it certainly has not been accepted by the government because, as I understand it, it would not be directed specifically to those most in need of assistance and might have spill-over effects that would help, to a great extent, the high income earners of the country.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister is no doubt aware of the extreme hardships facing Poland today and the mounting concern which Canadians with Polish relatives are feeling in their efforts to assist family members. Does the minister have any plans to respond to this increasingly serious situation for the Polish people, over and above the measures already announced for those Poles in the camps in Austria?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, during the last year we increased the level of nationals from eastern Europe from 2,000 to 4,000. This summer, in fact, we took an additional thousand and sent a special team to our offices in Vienna to process them. That team has just returned. We are meeting with them to discuss what additional measures might be taken, and I can tell the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park that this weekend, and on Monday, I will be meeting with members of the Polish Congress and community in Canada to discuss the additional measures we are presently looking at, to make sure we have full consultation with that community before we go ahead. I will be pleased to report to the member and the House on those measures as soon as those discussions are completed.
Oral Questions VIA RAIL


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RECONSIDER DECISION ON FUTURE OF PASSENGER SERVICES
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Each day more and more Canadians become horrified and angered at the prospect of losing their rail service, a service that is needed and used; for example, the Atlantic which carries 200 to 250 passengers in winter months and 400 to 500 in the summer months, the Super Continental which carries an average of 350 passengers daily, the Toronto-Havelock service, which carries 200 to 300 passengers daily, and the Toronto-Barrie service which carries 425 to 500 passengers daily.
Since the minister's decision is obviously based upon inaccurate or outdated information, Canadians and members of this House of Commons are wondering why the minister is proceeding in such a roughshod manner, ignoring the wishes of the people who are directly affected, ignoring the rights of Parliament and the CTC. I would ask the minister if he would not now reconsider his decision and at least defer the implementation of that decision until all the facts can be made known, either through the avenue of the CTC or by a proper reference to the Standing Committee on Transport?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, again today the hon. member asks me the same three questions in one sentence that he asked me two days ago. I have already given my answer to them. I am quite eager and willing to go to the committee of which he is a member, and explain the government's decisions, give the statistics, and elaborate on the policy we have adopted.
He should not give the whole series of numbers of railway travellers in the country. This is all well known. Last year VIA sold 7 million tickets and the amount of subsidies paid to VIA was $490 million. If one can divide, it is quite clear that every time VIA sells a ticket it costs the Department of Transport $70 in taxpayers' money.
The policy we have adopted is a rational one. It is based on the adoption of the concept of intercity transportation, the maintenance of one transcontinental, the maintenance of service to communities which would otherwise be isolated, and the transfer of commuter services to the provinces, where they belong in the first place.
I am quite eager and willing, and I anticipate with pleasure the delight of explaining all that to the committee. But there is no possibility of changing our position, which was a mature one, well thought out by the committee and the cabinet. It went to the economic committee of cabinet three or four times. It went to cabinet three or four times. We are not about to change that decision, which was a difficult one to make and was made in very great seriousness.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister knows that the figures which he cites are

October 16, 1981
Oral Questions
as readily challengeable as his statement that you revitalize a rail passenger system by abandoning it. I challenge that statement in the same way. Since the announcement by the minister there have been obvious alternatives advanced, even by his own department and by VIA Rail, by which those heavily travelled routes could be retained while at the same time effecting some cost savings in the over-all VIA budget.
Would the minister not now consider producing those documents and studies, and refer those documents to the standing committee so they could be adequately considered and individual Canadians directly and indirectly affected will have the opportunity to come before that committee and respond? That will necessitate a deferral. Would the minister consider doing that, in light of the obvious alternatives which may produce a desired saving while at the same time saving some of the heavily travelled routes?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, what the committee will do is subject to the will of the committee. I understand its very able chairman is discussing that now with members from the different parties. We will leave it to him to develop a consensus on the subject.
I am aware that the member, who was my predecessor in the Department of Transport, was also concerned about the rising subsidies being paid to VIA. I understand he paid a lot of attention to it. The only conclusion I can reach from what he says now is that at the last moment he would have chickened out of making a decision.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: My question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In July a federally appointed task force studying the possibility of establishing an aerospace training centre institute recommended that it be established in Winnipeg. These recommendations were to be passed on to the President of the Treasury Board. Could the minister inform me whether he has made a decision and, if so, when will the funds be allocated so construction can be started in Winnipeg?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to answer that question because the report was prepared under my direction. We are presently examining a report-


Charles Joseph Clark: In what capacity?


Lloyd Axworthy: As the minister of employment looking at the whole area of supply of skilled labour in the aerospace industry. We are looking at a number of recommendations made by that industrial group. It has just put forward a number of proposals about how we can genuinely increase the
supply of skilled workers for this very critical industry across Canada. We are looking at and discussing that report with those directly concerned, and we will be making recommendations to cabinet shortly. At that time I am sure the hon. member will be well informed of that decision.


REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT TO WINNIPEG SITE
A. Daniel McKenzie: There seems to be considerable pressure from the Quebec caucus and from the minister of energy that they want this institute located in Quebec. Will the minister inform us whether the institute will be definitely built in Winnipeg? Will he be able to fight off these Quebec forces? Let us stop writing off the west.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Cheap!


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I want to point out to the hon. member that it is not our style or approach to pit one region against the other.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: I also want to say in this case-


An hon. Member:: Stop smiling, Lloyd.


Lloyd Axworthy: -because the question of supplying skilled workers for the aerospace industry is one of national concern affecting all regions of the country, I am sure we will find proposals which will satisfy the needs of every region of Canada and not select one against the other.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Yesterday, following my questions to the Prime Minister, I carefully read Hansard, as well as going over the tapes. I feel my question was not answered at all. I want to ask the Prime Minister, in his position as head of our country going to Cancun for the meeting on North-South issues, and because El Salvador is a typical example of an underdeveloped country suffering great oppression, what is Canada's policy on El Salvador at this time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, there are two problems I believe the hon. member has in mind. One is the economic North-South problem. The other is the political problem of the civil war in that country.
I would be in agreement with the conclusion of the hon. member and the hon. members of the committee who dis-
October 16, 1981

cussed the North-South problem that there would be less tension in the world if there were more justice in the rapport between the poor and rich countries. If there were more justice, there would be less disturbance in those countries. As far as the North-South tack on the problem of El Salvador is concerned, I think I would be in harmony with the hon. member's thinking, in that regard.
In regard to the political problem, particularly civil and military disturbances, I cannot agree with the position that the hon. member suggested yesterday was that of a great number of countries in supporting the Portillo-Mitterrand statement. I think it is an exaggeration to say their position has been supported by many countries. A few Latin American countries, including Cuba and Nicaragua have supported it, but I am informed that Panama has not, nor has Norway, contrary to what the hon. member has said. Our position has been stated in the House by the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


An hon. Member:: Both with Conservative governments.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member has great knowledge on the subject-I agree with the minister behind me, Norway is not a Conservative government. Nor is Panama.


An hon. Member:: You had better check.


An hon. Member:: They have not taken office yet.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We know that the government in El Salvador has called for elections at the municipal and regional level. They are organizing those elections to be as free an expression of the peoples' will as possible. They realize the danger of strife from one side or another.
They are planning to make those elections available to the people through the television and radio media. They are honestly trying to get an opinion of the people on what the government of that country should be.
They have asked the OAS to send representatives. I think it is incumbent on both sides to make an effort to have these elections-at least in the municipal and regional levels-held in a fair and just manner. If they can, that is the proper way to set up a government, not establishing a co-junta which would not have the people's authority. If there can be a fair test of the people's will, I believe that is the course that should be followed and encouraged.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STEPS TO IMPLEMENT CANADIAN POLICY
Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, I believe the chance of having elections at any level in El Salvador has passed as a possibility. Indications are that violence has cleaned out all the opposition or they are now in exile. Would the Prime Minister tell us what Canada would be ready to do in fulfilling the policy he believes is still possible?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the government of El Salvador has suggested there might be international observers apart from those of the OAS whom they have invited. That would open the door to other international observers. Maybe Canada, maybe members of this House would volunteer to be observers in that process. If so-


Mr. Paproski:: I will go.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member from Edmonton says he would like to go.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I will go with you, Pierre, as long as you go first.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure he would be a good target for those who don't like-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary West.


Mr. Hawkes:: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I just noticed the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition seeking the floor. I would ask the hon. member to defer to his leader.


THE BUDGET
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a simple two-part question for the Minister of Finance. First, does the minister know the date of the budget? If he does know the date of the budget, will he have the courtesy to tell the House of Commons that date today?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I will be glad to give the date to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. It had been my plan, as stated by the Prime Minister, to bring in the budget in the month of October. As the right hon. member knows, since that time the Prime Minister has suggested that there be a meeting of federal provincial premiers in that week. Because of that event and the probable necessity of taking action in the House, I have now decided to make it clear to hon. members that I have set the budget date for November 3.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO AID ELDERLY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we are pleased to at last have that date, although there are many people in the country who believe that acting

October 16, 1981
Oral Questions
on the economy is a priority more urgent than dealing precipitately with the Constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question now has to do with the contents of that budget. The Minister of Finance has spoken about the increase in the GIS. He will know that, according to both the Canadian Council on Social Development and Statistics Canada, even with that increase, some 1.5 million elderly Canadians are today living below the poverty line. He will also know that his energy policy has resulted in an increase in home heating fuels for these and other Canadians of 55 per cent. He will know that we proposed aid to those people, both through reduced increases in heating oil costs and an energy tax credit. He has refused to help those low-income Canadians.
Will the minister tell us now whether his budget will provide specific help for the 1.5 million elderly Canadians living below the poverty line, people who have been severely hurt by the deliberate policies of his government, or does he intend to ignore these people and leave them literally out in the cold this winter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, when the right hon. gentleman allowed his minister of finance to bring in a budget, he established a price schedule of energy increases which were higher than those that are now in place as a result of agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: When he permitted his minister of finance to bring in that price schedule, he also permitted him to bring in a budget that made absolutely no provision by way of increase in the guaranteed income supplement. We brought in that measure, which is significantly better for that group of people than the energy tax credit for which they would have had to wait a year and a half.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: A very brief supplementary for the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


PLIGHT OF PEOPLE WITH LOW INCOMES
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister's statements today have the same truth as his statements about energy before the last election. I am not particularly interested in an exchange of arguments about figures with the Minister of Finance. I am interested in the plight of 1.5 million elderly Canadians living below the poverty line faced this year with a 55 per cent increase in the price of home heating fuel. The Progressive Conservative budget provided help to those Canadians. The Liberals refuse to help them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I would rather hope that there might not be that howling from the howling mob across the way.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What's the matter? Can't you take the heat?


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister asks if I can take the heat. The problem is that a million and a half low-income Canadians cannot take the cold this winter. They will not be able to. The Prime Minister might find the plight of elderly Canadians amusing. We on this side of the House do not find it amusing. We want the government to help them.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows it is past the time at which we should be getting to Routine Proceedings. I allowed the question, but it will have to be brief.


Charles Joseph Clark: I should not have responded to the hecklers, Madam Speaker. I apologize for that. Will the Minister of Finance include in his budget some help to those low-income Canadians who have been so deeply imperilled by the price increases introduced directly by this government, or does he intend to continue to ignore low-income Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I cannot understand why the Leader of the Opposition wants to erase from the record his period as Prime Minister when he proposed to this House energy price increases greater than those that are now in place because of an agreement reached between the government of Alberta and the federal government.
When this government was trying to get a better deal, trying to get the lowest possible increase in energy prices, the hon. member for St. John's West was telling the Premier of Alberta, "Hang in there, Peter". I did not hear the Leader of the Opposition asking him to lay off, or asking the Premier of Alberta to take a more moderate view. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition said nothing. He had no energy policy in that period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Thursday, October 15, 1981, and find that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
October 16, 1981



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
miss Macdonald-burden of high mortgage renewal
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I ask leave to present a petition from 768 residents of the city of Kingston, Kingston Township and Pittsburg Township, protesting the unbearable burden that high mortgage renewal rates are placing on home owners.
They fear the loss of their homes and ask that the government immediately introduce measures to relieve oppressed home owners and, at the same time, return unemployed building trades people to productive work. I feel that the views expressed in this petition have the endorsement of Canadians from coast to coast.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have more petitions to present today from individual Canadians who are bearing the burden of the deliberate high interest rate policy of the Government of Canada. Some of these petitions today come from the constituency of the minister responsible for housing. I would beg leave of the House to lay upon the Table the signatures of some 199 residents of the city of Scarborough.
In addition, I would like to add to the list of 3,478 names from Saint John, New Brunswick submitted earlier this week, a petition signed by an additional 2,311 residents of the city of Saint John seeking some redress from the deliberate high interest rate policy of the Liberal government.


MR. COSGROVE-REQUEST FOR COPIES OF PETITIONS
Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, yesterday after the presenting of petitions I had someone approach your office with a request that apparently has not been made before, that copies of these petitions that are made available and obviously directed toward an area of jurisdiction that I entertain be made available to me so that I can respond individually to them.


Erik Nielsen: You can get them any time you want. They are on the Table.


Madam Speaker:: That can and will be done.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Order Paper Questions
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,996, 2,285, 2,685, 2,721 and 2,749.


Mr. Cossitt: Will the Department of National Defence adopt a policy of making available at the end of each calendar month, a list of all aircraft used by cabinet ministers including the name of the ministers, the dates used and the points of origin and termination and any stops in between and (a) if so, on what date will it be adopted (b) if not, for what reasons?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: As stated in response to question No. 169, by Mr. Cossitt, which was tabled and printed in Hansard on October 7, 1980, page 3,419 and 3,420, travel on DND aircraft by cabinet ministers and Members of Parliament is controlled by the Minister of National Defence. The list of executive aircraft used by cabinet ministers, as approved by the Minister of National Defence in accordance with the guidelines outlined in question No. 169, will be available on a monthly basis effective October, 1981 (on request).


Mr. Lewis: Was Mr. Alan Martin, a Liberal candidate in the 1980 election, employed by the government from February 18, 1980 to date and, if so (a) what was his annual salary and what were his duties (b) for how many working days was he employed (c) was an expense allowance paid to him and, if so, in what amount?


David P. Smith: In so far as the office of the Auditor General is concerned:
(a)	For the period June 5, 1980 to September 30, 1980, Mr. Alan Martin was employed on contract at the rate of $450 per day, as a member of an Audit Advisory Committee;
(b)	4.6 days;
(c)	No.
In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned: Mr. Alan Martin was engaged by contract on July 21, 1980.
(a)	No annual salary was involved. Payment for services was at the rate of $350 per diem. His duties were as follows:
"To prepare a report including recommendations for management improvement in the office of the minister, based on an analysis of the office organization, methods and procedures and personnel employment and requirements, with due regard for effectiveness, efficiency and economy."
(b)	The equivalent of seven working days.
(c)	Travel expenses were paid in the amount of $322.15.

October 16, 1981
Order Paper Questions
In so far as the National Capital Commission is concerned: Mr. Alan Martin has not been employed by the commission. However, he was appointed a member of the National Capital Commission for a term of three years, effective March 13, 1981. As a member he receives no salary or emolument but he is entitled to be paid reasonable travelling and other expenses incurred by him in the performance of his duties. (National Capital Act. 1958, C. 37, S7).
In so far as the office of the Comptroller General of Canada: Mr. Alan Martin was employed under a personal services contract in September, 1980, and paid a fee of $1,225 plus travel expenses of $265.70 for a total of $1,490.70. His duties were as follows:
"to review parliamentary documents and provide advice to the minister on their appropriateness".
In so far as the other departments and agencies are concerned: No.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Since March 1, 1980, what was the total deficit of the Post Office Department?
2.	For the same period, how many complaints of lost or delayed mail were received by the Postmaster General?


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: 1. Since March 1, 1980, to June 30, 1981, Canada Post's total deficit was approximately $685 million.
2. For the same period as above, the Postmaster General received 5,661 complaints of lost or delayed mail.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	For each year since 1975, by province or territory, how many persons were permitted to await trial on bail on charges of (a) murder (b) rape and how many (i) did not subsequently report for trial at the appointed time and place and what was the offence with which they were charged (ii) are currently still at large?
2.	How many such persons (a) were ultimately convicted of the crime with which they had been charged (b) are currently awaiting trial?
3.	How many such persons were charged with committing a second offence while on bail and, of these, how many (a) were subsequently convicted of the second offence (b) are still awaiting trial for the second offence?
4.	How many persons charged with (a) murder (b) rape are currently out on bail awaiting trial and what is the distribution by province or territory?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: No information on which to base answers to this series of questions has ever been gathered on a national basis. The administration of criminal justice is, constitutionally, a matter for the provincial authorities. No consistent reliable or comparable data has been published which would aid in the answers to these questions.
However, it is hoped that programs now being developed by the new Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, a section of
Statistics Canada, will eventually permit such information to be collected on a national basis.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	During the calendar years 1968 to 1980, by country, how many individuals were declared persona non grata and expelled from the embassies of the U.S.S.R. and the Soviet satellites?
2.	In each case (a) what was his/her name (b) did he/she have a connection with the KGB or the relevant national intelligence service and, if so, what was the connection?
3.	Was a connection established between the diplomatic appointees to Canada and local Canadian organizations such as the FLQ or the Communist Party of Canada and, if so (a) what was the connection (b) which individuals were involved and with which organizations?
4.	Were any of the individuals declared persona non grata elsewhere, before coming to Canada, and, if so, how many and what was the name in each case?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Twenty.
V.S. Didenko	U.S.S.R.	1968J. Hegidus	Hungary	1970V.M. Vasiligen	U.S.S.R.	1976I.P. Vartanian	U.S.S.R.	1978N.M. Talanov	U.S.S.R.	1978A.A. Mikhalin	U.S.S.R.	1978V.A. Borishpolets	U.S.S.R.	1978V.L. Suvorov	U.S.S.R.	1978V.I. Oshkaderov	U.S.S.R.	1978Y.K. Koblov	U.S.S.R.	1978G.V. Ivaskavitch	U.S.S.R.	1978O.D. Reztsov	U.S.S.R.	1978V.A. Reztsov	U.S.S.R.	1978P.R. Lillenvrm	U.S.S.R.	1978V.D. Veher	U.S.S.R.	1978A.V. Krysin	U.S.S.R.	1978I.A. Bardeev	U.S.S.R.	1980E.I. Aleksajan	U.S.S.R.	1980V.I. Sokolov	U.S.S.R.	1980V.F. Trofimov	U.S.S.R.	1980
(b) It is not the practice to reveal what is known about specific intelligence service affiliation of foreign officials.
3.	In no instance was the basis for declaring these officials persona non grata related to a connection with the FLQ or the Communist Party of Canada.
4.	As far as the government can determine, none of the above individuals had previously been declared persona non grata elsewhere.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
October 16, 1981



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 15, consideration of Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada Lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, and Motions Nos. 4 (Mr. Fulton), 34 (Mr. Ittinuar), 51 (Mr. Fulton), 52 (Mr. Ittinuar), 53 (Mr. Ittinuar), 55 (Mr. Lalonde), 56 (Mr. Fulton) and 57 (Mr. Fulton).
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order with regard to the groupings. I do apologize for raising another one, but I want to ask the indulgence of the House to alter the grouping slightly. You will note in the decision of the Chair regarding the grouping of Motions Nos. 4, 34, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, and 57 that the voting procedure to be followed was that the question on Motion No. 51 would be put to the House and the vote on this motion would dispose of Motion No. 4.
Having had an opportunity to look over both of those motions, I want to suggest it would be inappropriate to dispose of Motion No. 4 with a vote on Motion No. 51, given that Motion No. 4 deals simply with the clause of the bill dealing with definitions, while the clause referred to in Motion No. 51 relates to the provision dealing directly with oil and gas spills. Thus the two are not necessarily related one to the other. The definitions clause would stand on its own merit, even if Motion No. 51 were to be rejected.
I should like to ask that we divide Motions Nos. 51 and 4 into two separate votes.


Erik Nielsen: I should like to have the attention of the Chair because I have a suggestion to make that concerns the Chair. I had no prior knowledge that the hon. member was going to raise this point of order. Since it requires a careful reading of the motions that he speaks about, and since there is no urgency in making an order on the matter today, I suggest the Chair hear final argument, if any, on Monday, since we will be on the same item of business on Monday, and suspend any action at this time.


Ian Deans: I have no objection to that suggestion.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Agreed.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, having spoken on this subject so many times before in the House of Commons, my first response to an invitation to speak about environmental legislation might simply have been to file my many speeches contained in Hansard and the minutes from the environment committee meetings that I have made over the past seven years.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
During that time the government has continued to fail to add real substance to all environmental legislation. As far back as January 31, 1978, the then member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine said, of my private member's attempts to place environmental legislation before this House of Commons: "First, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Fraser Valley West because, as I have just said, he is a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and is greatly concerned with the environment. It could be perhaps said, as all members of this committee are aware, he certainly shows great obstinacy about this problem."
That is why I am standing again today, Mr. Speaker. I should like to continue that obstinacy and my fight for the environmental ethic that is right, that is known to be right, if not by this generation of legislators, certainly the next generation of legislators that will replace us here.
So often the government has brought forward legislation on the environment that is sound in principle, sound in intent; but when you start to look at it, it is full of qualifications, discretion and loopholes; so full, in fact, that the intent is totally negated in the final version of the legislation. This bill is certainly no exception. Having spoken out strongly and in a supportive manner on the environment, the environment has still been given a back seat to the expediency of the energy crisis.
The point is important because of the flexibility the government has established. The response by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is that we need to have good faith-that the government will act and that the government needs discretion. It needs a lot of "may". There are a lot of "ifs"; if this happens, something else will happen. The "mays", the "ifs", the "discretion", are subjective. This subjectiveness is relative and changeable according to the basic intent of the individual minister that holds that portfolio, of the government and of the broad will of the population meeting any immediate crisis as it sees it at that time. Therefore, we need to look at the government's intent.
As I look at the government's intent over the past seven frustrating years, I find that intent is very questionable. While it might initially sound good, the practice has not lived up to any of the billing that has, in fact, been brought forward in the placement of legislation before the House of Commons. For example, one of the main factors we see in this legislation is that the Department of the Environment is not the "need" agency again.
What does this allow for? The Department of the Environment, when the environment is being endangered, is the front line of protest. The Department of the Environment listens sympathetically. It indicates it will press the government; but, of course, it makes the usual qualification that all it can do is press the government because it has no authority.
I am not just imagining these things, Mr. Speaker. These are statements that have been made by ministers. These excuses have already been used time and time again when we are faced with an environmental crisis or threat of any kind.

October 16, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
For example, in 1976 we were talking about Beaufort Sea drilling. We had legislation before us at that time that provided that the minister of the environment "may"-again at his discretion-do certain things. Which minister was the legislation talking about? It was not talking about the then minister of the environment. Even the Minister of the Environment has "mays" and "ifs"; but in this case they are talking about the minister of energy.
In response to that drilling in the Beaufort Sea, the minister of the environment said on March 19, 1976, in the forestry committee, in reply to a question by myself:
Of course, we do not have the authority to oppose in the sense that we can block the decision.
They can only advise. Those are the words of the minister. Under the bill before us the Minister of the Environment will also be able to say, "I do not have the authority". He does not have the authority because this bill did not give the authority to the correct minister, the Minister of the Environment.
Then he was asked, "Who has the authority?" He went on to say:
The permit is issued by Northern Affairs, not by us.
Thus, they are not responsible, and that is the end of the issue. Where do we go from there? We go back to the vested interest instead of in fact a person who has the specific vested interest of the environment and the capacity to act.
The next thing the government tends to do to ensure that one cannot pin down who is really responsible is that it divides the jurisdiction between two, three or four departments. Then each department in turn passes the buck to the next department, and then one gets going in this big circle. I have been through the circle. Anyone who has tried to do anything in the environment has been through the circle. By the time one gets through that circle, one is so tired and worn out, because there has been so much verbiage, that one does not know where to go, so one gives up. The process itself, the sand-in-the-gears process or the passing-the-buck process, in fact destroys the whole capacity of environmental people who are genuinely concerned. It destroys their whole thrust and, in effect, the vested interest rides over in its traditional manner through its access to government. This is again an example of split authority.
When I first came here I complained about these things, but I had no personal experience to show that they were true. Now I have sat through the proceedings of the committee and of the House of Commons. I see what is happening now. It is another piece of legislation where exactly the same thing will happen.
I asked the then minister of the environment, Mr. Mar-chand, whether he thought he should have the authority. I have referred to. Well, he wanted to say, "I think it would be a good idea", but he stopped right there, caught himself and realized that he was not supposed to say that. He went on to say:
You know what kind of jurisdiction we have in Environment, and as the federal government. This jurisdiction is not only split between departments, it is split too between federal and provincial governments.
After we get through three federal departments, down through that cycle, then the next cycle to which we are referred is back to the provincial. Then after that we will be referred back to the municipal. I have been through that cycle too. We sat in White Rock and saw desperate local politicians watching an identified oil slick floating toward the shoreline. I might say that it was a beautiful shoreline. I was a member of the provincial legislature at that time. I was frustrated. I got on the telephone and called the provincial authorities. They said, "No, the oil slick is way out there. It is out in federal jurisdiction; there is nothing we can do." Then it floated to shore. As the tide went out, it was left on the shore and they said, "It is now on the shore; that is municipal jurisdiction". Of course, the municipality had no equipment to fight it. Then what happened? The oil sat there on the shore and in the end the municipality cleaned it up with a bunch of environmental volunteers. The government passed this buck from department to department.
The legislation before us maintains that trend. While it sounds good, it will ensure that there is very little effective result for the people who will be damaged or may be hurt by the actions of the government in co-operation with vested interests. By the way, I respect those vested interests. I respect the need for development. I want the need for development. I do not want to see environmental legislation ever become sand-in-the gears. The government shows an intention, but in fact it is a sand-in-the-gears process.
We need to clarify and make more expedient all environmental law. This bill had potential. When we started with this bill and its expression of intent, it had potential. Again, as expected, that potential has been limited to such an extent as to make it relatively ineffectual. There is another example. We can go from 1976 to 1979. One would think things would have improved three years later. In response to my question, as reported on page 3 of the March 19, 1976, committee meeting, Mr. Marchand said, "I do not have the authority." Actually in that case I think the minister did not want the authority or the responsibility because to be minister of the environment is not an easy job. It is a job where one must make decisions or should have to make decisions. One should be forced by legislation to be able to make decisions and to make decisions stick in the best interests of the environment and of the nation as a whole as it relates to its productivity. We see a shifting of responsibility. I talked about that oil spill and the minister replied on March 20, 1979:
-in the case of this particular oil spill, the Coast Guard and the Ministry of Transport are the lead agencies.
Again it is, "Not me, not me". As we travel on through piece of legislation after piece of legislation, indeed it is unfortunate that these things continue to happen.
I have many specific concerns about this bill. My concerns relate mostly to the fact that this bill should have provided an opportunity to the House of Commons. It should have been
October 16, 1981

one of our last opportunities to entrench environmental principles, values and ethics into the legislation. The reality of the government has shifted. The expediency has shifted slightly toward energy expediency as opposed to environmental reality. But this was a chance. We might not get another chance for a long time. I have been sitting here for a long time awaiting environmental legislation so that we could discuss the issues again and reinforce the issues. At a time when environment is slipping, it needs more emphasis, not less, in the longer term interests of our nation.
This specifically was an opportunity to include some form of automatic or compulsory before the fact environmental impact assessment rather than a specific environmental impact assessment law. We now have some review procedures which are very fuzzy and woolly on the "may" flexibility attitude. This would have been an opportunity to include some "shalls" and an automatic provision for environmental impact assessment.
Now we tend to wait for an accident to occur. The oil arrives on the shore or appears underneath the ocean from a broken pipeline or whatever. The damage is done. Then they say, "We must make an assessment of the damage." They are willing to assess the damage, but they are not really willing to put an assessment on the potential of damage to prevent it before it happens. The whole thrust of legislation starts from the crisis backwards, instead of anticipating and preparing for what might occur through an initial environmental impact assessment. I am not saying that this assessment needs to be long or complicated, but we need that initial assessment. It needs to be a "shall be" assessed, not a "may be" assessed, as this legislation and all other environmental legislation before the House of Commons in fact indicates.
I might make one minor exception. The current minister put some teeth into the Fisheries Act. He tried to remove an awful lot, but he put some in. It is too bad that the government did not have the same initiative and incentive to do so in this piece of legislation.
I am concerned about access to public information-not just access but about freedom of information and public access as well as the publication of that information. It is one thing to table a document in this House and make it public, but it is another to have that document available to the public. As usual, that opportunity is missed in this piece of legislation; it should be there.
This legislation could have firmly established the Department of the Environment as a lead agency of government. I want to come back to the question of what the intent of the government is. Does it intend that the environment should be a major factor in this bill? The intent that the government demonstrates is that the Department of the Environment will not be the lead agency. I think this is the beginning of the end of a phasing out of the Department of the Environment. It will become less and less important. Since the time that Madam Speaker was minister of the environment, virtually nothing has happened. This is the first real response in any form of
Canada Oil and Gas Act
legislation and that is unfortunate, as I see it as a downgrading.
We are almost back to the point of wondering whether the Department of the Environment is necessary at all. When confederation was conceived and the division of authority and responsibility was listed, the environment was not included. At that time people did not think about it but in the 1960s and 1970s it was determined that the environment was important, as it is today and will be tomorrow, and they realized that an ongoing emphasis should be placed on it. Where is that enthusiasm now? At least it established a very professional bureaucracy. We have a competent, complicated bureaucracy in place now and there are competent support groups in the community that bring forward very informed and enlightened information on the environment. The structure is there but the power has not been handed over. The government has not handed over the power because it does not have the intent or the will to establish the department as a lead agency of government. I am concerned about that, Mr. Speaker.
I am also concerned about the control of the environmental studies revolving fund. How is it possible that something with that name could come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources? If that is not obviously an environmental matter, I do not know what is. Why was it not placed under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Environment? That question has not been answered.
I am concerned that the liability provision is too limited and access to benefits is too difficult and improbable. The limitation period is too short. We seem to have the idea that once a problem occurs, we handle it and that is the end of it, when actually environmental problems are often of a long-term nature. That liability should be covered in the legislation and it is not. The period mentioned is too short.
I have mentioned the lack of clarity in regard to jurisdiction and authority and I should like to emphasize it again. We must decide who is responsible and give them full responsibility. If the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is to have input, that is fine; if the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is to have input, that is fine too; but the authority should be given to the environmental agency, the lead agency. This would make for speed and it would clearly help industry and environmentalists to know where the buck stops. They would know that their objective could be reached or rejected, instead of going around in circles.
I am also concerned about the potential irrelevance and the waste of time and money in the allocation of what may turn out to be senseless programs. I am not sure that the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development can establish the priorities for spending the limited funds available for compensation or for studies. The bureaucracy with the expertise is within the Department of the Environment, not those other two departments. The control should be placed with it so that we can be sure the money will not be wasted on patronage projects. Even worse, in my opinion, is that if the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources allocates the money, it will go

Canada Oil and Gas Act
to buy apologists for what that department wants to do to the Department of the Environment. It will pit environmentalist against environmentalist and leave no money, no authority, no ability with the Department of the Environment to prepare its case. Instead, the other side will be funded. Again, the vested interests receive the advantage and the case for the environment is unheard.
I see that my time is drawing to a close, Mr. Speaker, so I shall conclude.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I was going to signal to the hon. member that his time has expired, but nevertheless he could continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I will quickly conclude.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Take your time.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: It is good to see that a Conservative conservationist is in favour of that ethic, too. It is not the preserve of any one party or any individual in this House.
The environmental ethic grew out of political expediency. The government is now trying to kill the momentum of earlier initiatives on the environment to meet the new political expediency that it now perceives as the energy crisis. The government is wrong, philosophically and morally, in its attempt to have its cake and eat it too.
Although members of the environment community are young, they will not be defeated in this case. Young as they are, they are also intelligent and articulate and will not be deceived by this double standard or the confusions that I have mentioned. While some in this community have been bought as apologists for the vested interest of government and big business, the younger generation has environmental ethics implanted deeply in its value system. It is unfortunate that they and Canada will have to wait for their generation to replace ours in order to accomplish the potential and the protection of our environment in a legislative format in this great country of ours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity this afternoon to speak to this particular grouping of motions. It is a very important grouping and refers to the very sensitive environment of northern Canada and offshore areas as well as to the people of northern Canada.
When Bill C-48 was introduced some months ago, I listened to the minister articulate at that time the general thrust of the bill and it sounded nothing short of excellent. It was an effort to begin a process of Canadianization of the petro-chemical industry, starting with oil and gas. There was a sensitivity toward a northern environment and the offshore environment as well as a sensitivity toward people from northern Canada.
Members of this party felt very good about the bill. Then, of course, it went to committee and we had an opportunity to examine it clause by clause and very quickly changed our minds. Upon analysis, the bill showed a real contempt for the people north of 60, an insensitivity to the cultures that exist north of 60 and a complete disregard for and insensitivity toward our fragile northern and offshore ecology.
This does not come as a particular surprise. I guess one has to say that one is a bit ashamed to have some optimism in the early stages of this discussion to think that, in fact, the Liberal Party had changed its tack and was now going to become a party of sensitivity toward the environment and to the people of Canada, especially to the people of northern Canada. As of late, we have seen something in British Columbia which I think demonstrates this even further. That is the decision of the British Columbia government to proceed with burning Hat Creek coal, extremely low grade coal, in an effort to generate electrical power for British Columbia and for export.
At the same time, we understand that concerns about acid rain are increasing, and that there has to be a concern, like never before, regarding the effluent limits, the quality of our effluent entering the atmosphere, in an effort to combat the hazards of acid rain. However, when I inquired of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) how he felt about the Hat Creek proposal, which is a proposal to burn vast amounts of extremely low grade coal with extremely high ash content and with an extremely high content of sulphur and nitrous oxides, his response was, "We have regulations in place now; everything is fine, thank you". That was contrary to the report that the parliamentary task force came out with just a few days ago, indicating that, indeed, things are not all right and that very strict and courageous legislation is required, and required immediately. I, for one, am not optimistic that those difficult and hard decisions will be made, because it would require a government which has a commitment to the environment and a commitment to making difficult decisions; and neither of those commitments adequately describes the Liberal Party of Canada.
I think that the thin edge of the wedge began to show in the committee when the recommendation was that the committee travel throughout northern Canada in an effort to allow northern Canadians to have input into this particular discussion. Now who in their right mind would say that taking discussion of this particular bill, Bill C-48, throughout the part of Canada which will be directly involved would be a bad thing to do, would be too expensive and would be unnecessary? The government decided that. The members of the government on that committee decided that, no, they did not want to seek public input. They did not want to go to the northern parts of Canada and allow people to have an adequate say in this particular piece of legislation.
While I notice that hon. members across the aisle are nodding that that is not the case, sitting through those committee sessions it became very clear that public input of any
October 16, 1981

real substance would not be sought; indeed, the committee members voted in that way, through a stacked vote, to ensure that northern peoples would not have opportunity to dialogue on this important piece of legislation.
It begs the question: Why is the government afraid of public input on Bill C-48? I suspect that in the hearts of government members, they know that what they are attempting to do with Bill C-48 is inappropriate as we enter the 1980s. When I say "inappropriate as we enter the 1980s", I refer to a sensitivity which is growing across the country, particularly with young people. There is a growing understanding of our complex ecological environment, and understanding of the intricate and comprehensive ecological webs that make Canada possible, and a growing understanding of the fragile and unique environment north of 60. Here is a part of Canada which still bears the imprints of groups of people who lived in that environment decades ago. Machinery which was brought into the area 40 or 50 years ago still leaves its imprint across those tundra wastes. Ask the native people of northern Canada what has happened to the caribou herds, to the movements of the sealing populations, and to the whale hunt. One could go on and on but the response will always be the same. They are changing, and changing not for the improvement of life north of 60, but changing for the betterment of life south of 60.
The intent of Bill C-48 is to accelerate exploration for oil and gas in the lands that we call Canada lands, including the Yukon, Northwest Territories and offshore. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) says that it is a step to Canadianize the oil and gas industry. What we are saying in these particular amendments we are debating at the moment is that, regardless whether these are foreign companies operating in the sensitive environmental areas or whether they are Canadian owned and controlled companies, the problems are still the same.
This bill lacks sensitivity to that very crucial and critical environment, both in human and in natural terms. We are going to be seeing the decimation of a culture that we have come to describe as the Inuit culture. We are going to see the disappearance of the Metis culture of northern Canada, and we are certainly going to see the ecological balances of northern Canada upset dramatically if Bill C-48 proceeds as it is presently proposed.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), who spoke previously, indicated that real environmental impact assessments are not called for in this legislation. In any textbook, in any symposium, or in any discussion around a sensitive environment, the bottom line that one would always expect is the need for a sophisticated system of environmental impact statements; but Bill C-48 virtually totally ignores that. It is after the fact, which again portrays and demonstrates very clearly this government's lack of interest in preserving that fragile ecological balance in northern Canada and offshore.
Exploration, at what cost? I become very frightened when I look at bills such as Bill C-48 and see all of the powers that are vested in ministers' discretion. I become very concerned when I see the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Fisheries
Canada Oil and Gas Act
and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) being given the power to make decisions on the state of affairs on the Canada lands. This is no reflection necessarily on the existing ministers. They are all fine and very capable individuals. They are not here, of course. However, what about future ministers? What about people who will be filling those positions in years to come? Do we have confidence in those people? We do not even know who they are; yet Bill C-48 is asking us to have open-ended confidence in the Liberal government, in the Liberal cabinet, in their ability to make decent, sensible, sensitive decisions regarding, primarily, the lands north of 60.


An hon. Member:: Good guys.


Nelson Andrew Riis: One might be very reluctant to give them that vote of confidence today, let alone an open-ended vote of confidence for the future; yet this is what Bill C-48 is requesting of us.
I want to identify two or three areas in which I think the government's insensitivity toward the environment in this legislation is very clearly demonstrated. In the northern parts of Canada, in excess of 150 different sites are now internationally recognized as being critical, historic, preservable, ecological areas. The recommendation is that they should be preserved intact so that for generations to come people will be able to benefit from the knowledge, understanding and appreciation of those particular areas. There is no formal protective status in Bill C-48 for these 150 special world sites. I am sure I speak for everyone in this House when I say that we are concerned about the wildlife of northern Canada. We recognize that we are viewed the world over as having special concerns about our wildlife in the north.
While we have taken some small steps over the last number of years to preserve the wildlife of Canada, only six federal wildlife biologists are given the responsibility for that vast expanse of northern space. How on earth could six wildlife biologists even begin to patrol and manage that particular area adequately? They would have difficulty doing that on Prince Edward Island, let alone on Canada lands north of 60.
What about the claims of the native people in the lands north of 60? Surely before Bill C-48 proceeds any further, this is a sensitivity that we can no longer ignore. Here are peoples whose lives, let alone cultures, are in serious jeopardy. Here are people who live in one of the most fragile environments in the world, into which we are now rushing pell mell to explore for oil and gas, who have no say in the proceedings, no say about what happens to their own land and whose land claims issues are totally ignored. Good grief, how could any group of people in a House of Commons responsible for that major and crucial part of Canada be so insensitive?
I must say that I am very proud that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) have brought forward amendments which recognize the importance of our northern environment and the need to protect the delicate ecology of this area, amendments that also

October 16, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
reflect a sensitivity toward those who have chosen to dwell in the northern parts of Canada.
As my colleague from Skeena has just indicated to me, where are the Tory amedments in these areas? We have heard so many speeches from them expressing their concern about the people in northern Canada and their concern for the environment. The rhetoric sounds great. Their concerns sound as though they are legitimate. But action is what counts, Mr. Speaker. Where are those amendments that demonstrate the Tories' legitimate and real concerns for the northern ecology and northern peoples? They are absent from this discussion, and I think it important that that be pointed out.
I am concerned that in this piece of legislation we ignored some ministers whose voices should be heard. What about the voice of the Minister of the Environment? He will be literally absent from this process and discussion on bill C-48.


Mr. Rose:: He is speechless.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What about the voice of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?


Mark Willson Rose: He has sunk.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Again, without representation crucial offshore areas will no longer be playing a realistic role in these discussions.
What about the voice of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


An hon. Member:: He is on the reservation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What role will these ministers play as Bill C-48 unfolds? I think we have to admit that these people will be playing virtually no role, that the sole voice and force of Bill C-48, as it unfolds, will be the minister responsible for energy in Canada. If that is not a vested interest, I do not know what is. Here is a man who has been given all kinds of opportunities to make decisions, quite apart from Bill C-48, concerning the northern peoples and northern environment and, at the same time, he has been given the responsibility for exploring for oil and gas in that region. That is real Liberal hocus-pocus in action.
One could go on and on regarding the shortcomings of just this small part of Bill C-48. It is a travesty. It is certainly a reflection of Canada's southern residents as being insensitive to and unappreciative of what the northern parts of Canada have to offer.
However, I shall cease commenting further on this collection of amendments in order that we can get on with Bill C-48. We do not want to be accused of holding up the bill because the next set of motions deals with what it means to Canadian business and Canadian entrepreneurs. What does this bill do to ensure that what efforts go on in northern Canada benefit Canadian business and Canadian manufacturers? Implicit perhaps in my question is that it will do very little.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be limited to the next three or four minutes. I listened to the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis) with a great deal of interest. I must say that one particular portion of his speech intrigued me when he said that his party looked very carefully at this bill, that they were very warmed up to it. But I suggest to the hon. member and his party that they have made a very grave error. We have had five major energy bills since 1972, when I came to this House. This is the sixth one. The New Democratic Party supported the other five bills. They made amendments and used their bargaining power to do so. I think the New Democratic Party has made a gross error in not voting for this bill at second reading. However, I think that error can still be rectified. As far as I am concerned, to have the NDP opposed to all of this Canadianization does not make sense to me.


Mr. Fulton:: Just read the bill.


Paul Edmund McRae: My constituency is in northern Ontario. Ontario is a large province, but my area, which is relatively small, has been negotiating with our pulp and paper companies. After a period of 50 or 60 years, we have now reached the point where we are running out of trees in our area. This is because the province of Ontario has been manipulating. The smaller the jurisdiction, the easier it is to manipulate.
I would have been much happier if those resources had been in the hands of the federal government, particularly at this stage when the federal government is really concerned about global corporations, multinational oil companies and the effect they are having on our country.
Regarding the offshore resources of the north, or Newfoundland, if control of these resources is in the hands of a province, the territories or the Dene people, they can be easily manipulated. I have talked to the Dene people and I have talked to people in Newfoundland about these things, and they have said they are not easily manipulated. But the history of the native people in this country has shown that they have been constantly manipulated. It is easier to manipulate a small jurisdiction.
I support the government in this area. The most fair and sensible thing to do to maintain these resources intact is to have a sharing arrangement like the one offered to the province of Newfoundland and the one apparently offered to the province of Nova Scotia concerning their offshore resources. Therefore, these resources will not be manipulated as easily as they could be in smaller jurisdictions.
The history concerning the manipulation of resources is the same all over-in Australia, in the United States and so on. Wherever resources were in the hands of a small area, they were manipulated. I suggest that we go for a sharing arrangement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
October 16, 1981



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.
["It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock in the afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 5.02 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Monday, October 19, 1981']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: When the House rose at one o'clock, I believe the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atiko-kan (Mr. McRae) had completed his remarks. The Chair will now recognize the hon. member for Edmonton East.


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, as always I am very pleased to rise in my place and speak in this House during what will surely be an historic session. We are dealing today with the report stage of Bill C-48. I want to say, first of all, that I attended literally all of the committee hearings on this bill and have made a number of recommendations, as did other members of the Progressive Conservative Party, recommendations which are all on record. We spent some eight months on this bill in committee and heard from representatives from industry, from the banking society, from environmental groups, from the native people, from territorial governments and other organizations.
Effectively the government has told us that all the amendments which are to be made to this bill have been made in committee. At the report stage when speaking in this House we are speaking more for the record, indeed, waxing long and loud on a topic that is dear to most of our hearts; that is, environmental management in Canada.
I am not going to speak so much about the detail of the amendments before us as I am going to speak on the over-all umbrella of environmental management and environmental awareness in Canada. The federal government is today moving in a somewhat different direction on environmental management in Canada, and I think it is a direction that has to be examined carefully by Canadians and the Canadian government.
The decade of the 1970s saw a great awareness of environmental issues. In particular, the first half of the 1970s was an era or a time in Canadian history when environmental concerns, awareness and action was pervasive across the land, literally starting with the formation of the first department of the environment in the province of Alberta, formed by the Social Credit government in Alberta in the spring of 1971. Since that time literally every government in Canada at the provincial and national levels has formed a department of the environment.
In addition, the Canadian Council on Resources, whose first chairman was the hon. Mr. Levesque, changed its name. Environmental aspects were incorporated into that council, which became the Canadian Council on Resources and Environment Ministers. The environment took on a very prominent role in the considerations and discussions of ministers across this nation. A new realization of the relationship between development and preservation and development and Environmental management of those resources evolved in the 1970s.
At the beginning of the 1980s we are now embarking on a new direction. We are now saying we must develop at all costs. Particularly in one area of resource management, the energy
Canada Oil and Gas Act
industry, we are now saying that the need to sustain energy at present society consumption levels must take preference over environmental management, environment concerns and environmental direction. That is why I say this whole area of movement into a new era of environmental awareness and action must be examined carefully.
I remember so well the 1972 Stockholm conference on the human environment as I was a Canadian delegate. Well I remember a resolution by the United States delegation which said unequivocally that a nation must be responsible for its pollutants as they migrate across international boundaries. I remember how we all supported that resolution of the United States of America. I am not overly excited with some of the congressional statements of today, that perhaps the migration of pollutants across international boundaries is not so important any more and must take a back seat to other considerations. This is rationalization in the 1980s regarding the maintenance of a way of life that was developed in an inefficient way.
It is this attitude that I see also creeping in in Canada, not only at the federal level but, indeed, at the provincial level. Now that we have gone through that decade of environmental awareness, we must find a different direction, and to a large degree we are moving forth step in step with the United States, not only in monetary and economic policies but in environmental policies.
Recently this government signed an energy agreement with Alberta. Three precedents were established within that agreement as far as I am concerned. It was a reasonable national agreement and a reasonable agreement for the province of Alberta. What were those three precedents? The first is an indication of a new era of federal-provincial relations which says that to conclude an agreement the federal government will negotiate in a serious manner with one province and then impose that agreement, one by one, on each of the other provinces in Canada.
I believe the federal government has questioned the value of first ministers' conferences. During the tenure of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in this House, his government has had more first ministers' conferences than any other government in history. I believe the government has decided that first minister's conferences accomplish very little and a new system must be found, and that is to reach an agreement with a province without meeting all of the first ministers and then imposing that agreement on the other provincial governments. This is exactly what is happening with the energy agreement.
I believe the government feels that by placing ten Premiers around the table in front of television cameras, Canadians see these ten Premiers and the Prime Minister sitting together as equals and the stature of the Prime Minister is thus depreciated in the context of confederation. I believe we are seeing a new era in federal-provincial relations, evidenced by the agreement between Alberta and the federal government.

October 16, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
The second and equally important precedent is that provinces can now cut flowing resources and interrupt them with impunity. I repeat, provinces can now cut flowing resources with impunity to accomplish their own objective. It does not matter whether they are resources owned by the provinces or developed and owned by the private sector. Alberta did it with oil. What province will be next? Will Newfoundland cut its electrical production by 10 per cent, 20 per cent or 30 per cent to restructure their agreement with the province of Quebec? The precedent is there. Alberta indicated that if there was an emergency in Canada with regard to the supply of oil they would restore production, therefore negating the use of the emergency powers. I found it very hard for the federal government to act against Alberta cutting this resource when Section 57 in the constitutional resolution said unequivocally that the provinces were the sole governments that could legislate in the area of conservation, production and distribution of their resources.
The third precedent I see is that there is not one clause in the agreement with Alberta about environmental concerns, no allocation of a single dollar, either federally or provincially, for environmental management as a result of the development and exploitation of energy resources in Canada. This five year agreement envisions a massive tertiary recovery process which has tremendous environmental consequences. It envisions heavy oil plants which could result in enormous environmental consequences. It envisions additional oil sands plants and exploration and development of new sour gas finds in Canada.
I received a phone call recently from people in Pincher Creek who suffered from sour gas and hydrogen sulphide pollution for years, unknown elements, indicating to me that there is a new direction in relationship to the control of sour gas in southern Alberta. Hydrogen sulphide, sulphur dioxide and acid rain emanating from this type of development is increasing in southern Alberta.
I want to come back to Bill C-48. There is a new environmental direction prevalent throughout this bill. If I were to paraphrase a metaphor effectively depicting the role of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) in this bill, I would perhaps say that he is going to be as effective as a toad among an army of ground hogs all intent on drilling holes in the ground. The Minister of the Environment will not be very effective in relation to Bill C-48.


Walter David Baker: That is right.


William J. Yurko: There are two environmental aspects to this bill. First, the environmental regulatory function is entirely under the thumb of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) through the resource management branch of Energy, Mines and Resources. Second, there is the study, investigative, and research function. To perform this function you need money. Within this bill there is a structure for two funds. One fund is under the direction and administration of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The second fund is under the administration of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro). Somehow
the Minister of the Environment has to direct the flow of this money under the direction of the other two ministers. The Department of the Environment provides input into massive development of oil and gas on Canada lands through an interdepartmental forum known as the resource management environmental committee. This committee is the main interdepartmental forum through which formal communication can take place on environmental issues relating to offshore oil and gas activities. It provides a co-ordinated approach to environmental assessment and research programs for offshore operations under the administration of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Let me enlighten the House as to who is represented on this committee. The first representative is the resource management branch of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The second representative is the office of environmental affairs in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The third is the fisheries management branch within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The fourth representative is the ocean science and survey section under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The fifth is the atmospheric environmental service under the Department of the Environment. The sixth is the environmental conservation service under the Department of the Environment, and the seventh is the environmental protection service under the Department of the Environment. Three representatives on this committee are from the Department of the Environment, two from Energy, Mines and Resources and two from Fisheries and Oceans.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is not even represented on this committee. I find that strange. More important, it is not the Department of the Environment and its minister, not even the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and its minister, which have over-all control and funding of investigations as a result of this committee, but rather the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and its minister. This is not even in the control and regulatory function, who is totally within EM&R. It is in the study function, investigative function and research function.
One would think if foremost in the minds of these civil servants were environmental matters or fisheries that that committee would be under the auspices of the Department of the Environment or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, not the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Obviously that is subordinate to the new philosophy of development at any cost.
I know the internal jockeying, persuasiveness and arm-twisting that goes on in such committees. As the former minister of the environment in Alberta, I have done a lot of public hearings and conducted studies. I know how often the minister must act as the adjudicator, take the initiative and push the committee in a certain direction which is relevant to the requirements of the day. It will be the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who will be controlling the direction of
October 16, 1981

this study committee. The least we can do is transfer the responsibility of this committee to where it belongs.
Where is the Minister of the Environment in all of this? What is his role in Bill C-48? One can almost say he is the water boy for the energy football team which is being quarterbacked by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and coached by the Prime Minister. A great football team, a great football game! The projected energy reserves on land in Canada are six billion barrels of oil and 85 trillion cubic feet of gas, which is equivalent to 20 billion barrels of oil. On the west coast offshore, we have mainly gas reserves of supposedly seven trillion cubic feet which is equivalent to two billion barrels of oil.
In total offshore resources we have approximately 15 to 20 billion barrels of oil and 250 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, equivalent to some 60 billion barrels. Apart from the heavy oil in the oil sands, one just has to look at these figures to see the tremendous amount of development activity that will occur in Canada in offshore the next 25 to 50 years.
This is a big ball game. The equivalent of 60 billion barrels of energy puts us in the big league. Because the game is so vast, the Minister of the Environment and the national government had better play a more significant role in the whole area of development than that identified in Bill C-48.


Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: I might indicate that, after some discussion with the Chair, one member from the New Democratic Party would like to get away this afternoon. Since 1 see no member to my right, perhaps members might convenience the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle). If it is agreeable, I will recognize him now and then proceed to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro).


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: That is quite satisfactory to me, Mr. Speaker. There may be others who also have to get away. I give my concurrence.


Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: We will proceed accordingly.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I feel happy and privileged to speak to Bill C-48 in the area that concerns the environmental sections, Motions Nos. 4, 34, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56 and 57, under discussion at this time.
Bill C-48 will without a doubt have a great influence on the future not only of our country but of the whole planet. It will make a very significant mark upon the environment of a great part of this planet. When one faces a problem of this magnitude with effects that could go down not just through our generation but through many generations that will follow, 1 and many others believe with me that we are facing a serious moral issue of a magnitude that we have very little experience in handling. Basically we are dealing with a moral issue that does not just affect me and those around me at this moment; it will affect the lives of literally millions of people who are yet unborn, yet unthought of, in various ways.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
First, when we begin to deal with something that is finite, that has a limit-and the kinds of energies we are looking at now are something that will be used up or taken away-that is one big question. The other moral question is: In finding or taking away this source of finite quality, what is the morality in the sense of breaking down the environmental structure of the planet? That is the question we face.
When we were young, morality was something that could be handled quite easily. If as a little kid I broke the neighbour's window, my family would send me over to say I was sorry and we would have to make some kind of restitution. Morality was simple, we could handle it. However, what happens when you break a structure that will have an influence for 20, 30, 40 or how many centuries are left on the planet? That is basically what this kind of bill is doing.
In the recent past, and I am talking of the past 100 years, our forefathers-my father, my grandfather and so on-felt there was no great problem in using up all the resources they could see. Many times I spoke to my father, now dead, asking why his generation felt it was perfectly morally legitimate to take over pieces of land from Winnipeg to the Rocky Mountains and use the resources in one generation without leaving any kind of reserve for the future, using them up many times in such a way that they literally destroyed the environment within two decades.
If people can remember the thirties in Saskatchewan, and some in this House certainly can, then they would remember the way the prairie was dug up, broken down, blown away and destroyed, never to be returned to the kind of land it was. We are again dealing with a situation of that kind. What is the morality of now doing that to the planet? I in no way claim I have the right answer to a question of that kind, but I do know, in looking at other situations and seeing other places, that the model of development in the field of energy at this time is one that has already broken down great sections of the planet.
A couple of days ago I was in Chicago and south of Chicago, down toward Notre Dame, Indiana. When you drive from Chicago to Notre Dame you go through the steel area of Gary and so on. Right there, as a cold, hard fact, we have a kind of an abomination, a desolation where the industrial model that was developed in the last 100 years has literally destroyed and broken down part of the planet. The air is gone; the water is gone; the land is gone. The people there live in a rusting, broken desert. That space on the planet 100 years ago was a fruitful, green garden. We are asking those kinds of questions.
What I would like to do in my speech today, Mr. Speaker, is to introduce into Hansard what I would call a scriptural phrase-a group of "voices crying in the wilderness". In this discussion I should like to introduce the thoughts of some people whom I consider in the present day, in the moral situation created by this bill, to be voices crying in the wilderness. I refer to church groups.

October 16, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
When Bill C-48 was announced and its effects were beginning to be known, on March 18 of this year two Anglican and three Roman Catholic bishops issued a statement in relation to the morality of this bill. They were the Right Rev. Jack Sperry, Anglican Bishop of the Arctic; the Right Rev. R. Ferris, Anglican Bishop of the Yukon; the Most Rev. Hubert O'Connor, Roman Catholic Bishop of the Yukon; the Most Rev. Paul Piche, Roman Catholic Bishop of Mackenzie-Fort Smith; and the Most Rev. Omer Robidoux, Roman Catholic Bishop of Churchill-Hudson's Bay. Their statement is as follows:
As leaders of the northern churches, we appreciate the work of the northern political leaders during their two-day conference at Yellowknife, March 18 and 19, 1981, and we support their firm opposition to Bill C-48.
Bill C-48 denies the aboriginal rights of the native people, as well as the present mandate of the northern institution of government. It is a negation of the present and future rights of all the residents of the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory.
We therefore join the Yukon and Northwest Territories government, Committee for Original People's Entitlement, Dene nation, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, Council of Yukon Indians, and Northwest Territories Metis Association in urging the Government of Canada to completely withdraw Bill C-48.
Furthermore, we call on the Government of Canada to effectively involve northern native and political leaders in the drafting of any new oil and gas legislation so as to ensure that the people of the north will truly benefit from the future development of resources.
This statement was issued by the five northern bishops on March 18 and 19,1981.
On March 25, 1981, the Most Rev. Remi J. De Roo, Chairman of the Episcopal Commission for Social Affairs of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote a personal letter and a telex to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in which the same concerns were brought forth in regard to this present bill. He wrote as follows;
In effect, this proposed legislation would further entrench the people of the north in a situation of colonialism in Canada. It not only threatens to violate the aboriginal rights of the native peoples but it also threatens to deny all the peoples of the north some of the basic democratic rights and freedoms which we have come to know and expect in other regions of Canada.
The telex also indicated the great fear of danger to the environment in this bill's proposals.
On June 9, 1981, as all hon. members are aware, the Canadian Conference of Bishops wrote a personal letter to each member of the House of Commons. They outlined their basic fears and lack of true preparation and consultation in relation to the same bill. Every Member of Parliament received that letter.
On June 12, 1981, the Most Rev. Joseph MacNeil, Archbishop of Edmonton, who is the president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, prepared a statement on why the bishops' conference opposed Bill C-48 on two grounds: first, the environmental impact; second, on the question of the involvement of the native and local peoples, or their noninvolvement, I should say, in the preparation of the bill.
On June 17, 1981, the Minister for Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) replied to the letter of Bishop Remi De Roo that was sent to all members of the
House of Commons. They indicated that the bishops did not know what they were talking about. I think it would be possible for the bishops to say the ministers might not know what they were talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Joseph Ogle: The letter reads as follows:
From the specific comments you make on the bill, we believe that you have been seriously misinformed as to its content and implications.
It is an opinion, I agree. Then they went on to say:
As Canadian citizens we are saddened that, before you took a stand, no effort was made to reach us in order to give us an opportunity to at least expose our point of view and go with you through the proposed legislation. We respectfully submit that, had you done so, you might have reached very different conclusions as to the intent and the nature of the legislation. In fact, you might very well have become convinced, as we are, that Bill C-48 represents a major improvement over the previous situation for all Canadians, including the aboriginal peoples whose interests the government as well as yourself have very much at heart.
Following that reply, a meeting was arranged between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and a representative of the Canadian Bishops Conference, Bishop Sherlock of London. The bishops again set forth the reason why the churches had this grave concern about the moral issues that were involved in the bill and which were not being properly handled.
Bishop Sherlock, in a report following that meeting, said that the meeting was amicable but that he did not think anyone was convinced. I suspect that was exactly the situation.
Following that, on October 14, the day upon which the House resumed, Bishop Remi J. De Roo sent a final letter asking the Government of Canada to rethink the comments in its former letter in respect of Bill C-48. He pointed out the reasons why Canadian bishops feel that we are dealing with a serious moral question.
That is the state of the question and how Canadian churches have attempted to influence what is going on. However, I feel that they are literally voices crying in the wilderness. The difficulty at this time is for us to grasp the seriousness of the total problem which Bill C-48 envisages. It is simply just that; it is difficult.
How do people, myself and yourselves, make a serious moral judgment about a matter which is so huge? I would say that we should make it carefully. We should look at the serious lack of judgment in relation to the environment, to native rights and so forth, in the development of the west, from where I come. In that instance they were not considered. What was the final effect? What happened there? What happened to the rights of native peoples? What happened to the land, the soil, the water and so forth? We have a bit of history to call upon.
No one can predict exactly what will happen in the future. All I can say is that my recent experiences in Canada, North America and other countries indicate that the planet is breaking down at a rate which I am sure no one 20 years ago would have ever expected. The pollution of the oceans, the pollution

of the air, the destruction of land and the disappearance of trees could not have been foreseen just a few years ago. When I was in high school I do not think I ever heard the word pollution. Now it is a word that little children know about. This is something which has happened in our life time. It has been a sort of movement without knowledge into the environment. Pollution and the changing of natural connections or, as someone said a little earlier, national networks of the environment are far bigger problems to face than even atomic bombs. We know the effect of atomic bombs, but we do not know the effect of these encroachments into the environment.
I am happy for this opportunity to present a few words and thoughts. I hope they will have some influence upon the final decision in regard to this bill.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, the amendments we are considering this afternoon are concerned with environmental hazard. They are attempting to define a spill, to report a spill, the liability of the person responsible for a spill, the setting up of a compensation fund for recompensing injured parties, the responsibility for long-range damaging effects of spills and inquiries into spills. These are all centred around the notion of environmental hazard. We are discussing a physical contaminant and the threat it poses to the plant and animal ecology of a vast region and to the society of that region.
The hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) related some of the effects of the proposals before us on society. All these matters relate to amendments in this area. Most of them are amendments to amendments to another bill.
In this connection and as an aside, I should like to complain about the absence in the bill as presented to us of the sections of the original act which we are intending to amend in that absence. Hon. members are required to reach for the relevant volumes of the Revised Statutes of Canada in order to see how the original text read. Having done so, they are required to determine whether in fact it is being changed in a desirable way and to speculate on why the changes are being made and whether they are acceptable. I hope the draftsmen who prepare bills in the future will bear this in mind and be of assistance to us in readopting a long-established practice, which is perhaps even a convention of the House, that the old and new legislation should be printed on opposing pages for easy cross-reference by those of us in the House who are dealing with these measures.
I should now like to return to the proposed amendments, the spills and the responsibility therefor. They are all related to the environment. The spills under consideration and the associated liability would be taking place in the so-called Canada lands, or in offshore waters which are carefully defined. Although I admit spills can occur on land and cause damage, my concerns here are only with marine disasters.
Clause 76 refers to exploration and drilling for, and the production, conservation, processing and transportation of, oil and gas in the Canada lands. My concern is basically with the
Canada Oil and Gas Act
maritime disasters which can occur. I will confine my remarks to this maritime aspect of the Canada lands.
My concern in this connection is paramount because the area in which these disasters could occur is not only great but vast. I cannot help wondering whether the ministers concerned have any real appreciation of how great and vast the newly-defined maritime area is. Of course, this is defined in Clause 2 of the bill which was being discussed on Wednesday. Also it is defined, in so far as the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act is concerned, in Clause 76 in almost the same terms. To the extent that those terms may differ from those in Clause 2, I think we may have cause to wonder as to the reason for those differences; but I will just leave that aside for the moment.
What really concerns me Mr. Speaker, is whether the minister, members of this House and the Canadian public have any clear notion of the extent of jurisdiction being assumed for environmental protection purposes in offshore waters by this bill in the glib phrase "Canada lands" or, perhaps more properly, "Canada lands and Canada seas". Over what sort of area does the bill extend Canada's jurisdiction for environmental concerns? That is my first question.
My second question is whether Canada is in any position to assume that extended responsibility. I speak about extended jurisdiction over water only, or over water, ice and archipelago. I think we can all envisage the land mass north of 60, but perhaps the seaward extension, according to this definition, is much greater than any of us realize.
We are talking of the 200-mile limit and then to the edge of the continental shelf, whichever is greater. First of all-and I think this needs to be underlined-the 200-mile limit would extend Canada's jurisdiction for environmental protection over an extra 1,300,000 square miles, on the east coast, the west coast and in the Arctic. In that I include the archipelago in the Arctic. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, 1,300,000 square miles. This is slightly greater than the land surface of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan combined. Are we ready for that responsibility, at sea and from the air, in terms of clean-up? When the jurisdiction of the Canadian government was extended to the 200-mile limit by order in council for fisheries purposes, I asked whether we were prepared to assume that responsibility.
If we go out to the continental margin, we add another 285,000 square miles to that 1,300,000 square miles, most of which goes beyond the 200-mile limit found off the east coast-Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and the mouth of the St. Lawrence. Therefore, we are required to add another Alberta to the Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan surface area that we have to bear in mind is the new jurisdiction over which Canada will assume its responsibility in environmental terms.
What does that mean in relation to the present known land and lake surface of Canada as we can more or less grasp it in our minds? It is almost 40 per cent more than the land mass

October 16, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
that we can see from the edge of the Arctic coastline down to the sixtieth parallel and on down to the forty-ninth parallel. That is a tremendous area of jurisdiction.
I wonder if hon. members are aware that what is involved in this extension of jurisdiction is, in reality, an extension for economic purposes to the limits permitted under the Law of the Sea Convention to create, in effect, Canada's exclusive economic zone, or the EEZ, foreseen in that convention.
By sheer coincidence, the definitions in Clauses 2 and 76 of the bill use the wording that appears in Article 76 of the Law of the Sea Convention. What seems to be happening now happened once before. Canada is proceeding unilaterally to assume jurisdiction over an exclusive economic zone of 200 miles, as well as over an additional area to the edge of the continental margin, if that is farther offshore.
We seem to be proceeding unilaterally, as we did in the case of fisheries in assuming jurisdiction over the 200-mile fishing zone. That action, which was effected by order in council, was preceded by a number of bilateral treaties securing recognition-buying recognition, if you will-from countries which had historic rights in that area. This time the claim is being made by legislative action and there is no evidence that the government has concluded any bilateral agreements with neighbours or others, or that counter-claims against our pretensions will not arise in future.
I am not taking serious issue with the government on these grounds for behaving in this way, but I think we should be aware of what is going on. I suspect that one reason for this action is the fear that the Law of the Sea Convention may be in jeopardy because of the attitude of the United States and its explicit objections to the Law of the Sea Convention which were revealed in Geneva during the summer.
Is this, then, I ask myself, a pre-emptive strike on staking claims out to sea? I think it might be. Be that as it may, I have to ask myself whether Canada is in a position, with its maritime surveillance forces-surface and air-and its cleanup forces, to tend this extra real estate which is 40 per cent more than we now "own" and which we seem only indifferently able to regulate for environmental purposes as it is. Are we biting off more than we can chew, let alone digest? That is one of the questions which inevitably strikes me when 1 consider the extent of the claims in this bill.
My suspicions about this legislation were aroused following the intervention of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) on Wednesday last when he claimed that the matter was not one of ownership but of how proceeds resulting from the exploitation of the resources found in that land and sea area are to be shared. There is no evidence in this bill of sharing.
I would believe him if he would agree to an amendment which would permit the introduction, particularly in the offshore areas-not the land and lake areas-of some notion of the Queen in right of the provinces as well as the Queen in right of Canada, if only as an and/or proposition, so that the Queen in right of the provinces would know that there could be
an element of sharing in the resources that are available. As matters now stand, it is only the Queen in right of Canada who will have a role in the proceeds of Canada lands and federal jurisdiction in the exploitation of offshore resources.
Canada lands and federal jurisdiction are readily understandable in terms of terra firma. Surely we can all understand that. We are talking now of north of 60. When it comes to the offshore areas, that meaning is fraught with federal-provincial conflict unless some acknowledgement is made in the matter of the claims which the Queen in right of the provinces might have.
A simple acknowledgement of this would do much to dampen current fears of a sea grab, if I may use an expression parallel to the land grab notion with which we are all familiar. Therefore, I have misgivings about the text before us on two grounds: one, I fear that Canada is in no real position to assume the full measure of the environmental commitments it is proposing to assume in this bill; two, I fear that by ignoring the Queen in right of the provinces, the claims, in fact, are a federal claim to ownership for all time without impediment or fetter, thereby storing up for Canada further grounds for federal-provincial conflict, which we just do not need these days.
There is another aspect which worries me. Others before me, and the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko), in particular, spoke about the questionable or light role-or probably the absence of it-that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) would have to play as minister under the terms of Bill C-48. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) are the only ministers mentioned who would have any powers. Yet the legislation acknowledges the environmental impact of oil and gas development. Why is the Department of the Environment excluded?
One other department has been excluded, and I draw this to the attention of the minister sitting in the House. The Department of Transport is excluded from playing any role under this bill. Yet his department, under its jurisdiction, has in existence a maritime pollution claims fund, which is a vehicle which could easily be adapted to this particular bill for claims for damage in environmental terms under this bill. Why has his department been completely set aside? Therefore, I add a third concern. I mentioned the one about the federal-provincial conflict. I have also mentioned the absence of the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin).


Jean-Luc Pepin: From the bill, not from the House.


Donald W. Munro: I do feel that this bill has shortcomings. It ought to go back to the drawing board and be brought forward with a more mature package of proposals for the consideration of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 16, 1981


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that this had been announced previously. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), whom I saw sneaking out behind the curtains a few minutes ago, was going to speak on this issue this afternoon.


An hon. Member:: Monday.


Dave Nickerson: On Monday, I look forward to hearing him then. We have heard lots and lots, ad nauseam, from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) on this issue; but we have heard very little from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who presumably is to be charged with the administration of Bill C-48, once it becomes law, over an area of about 1.3 million square miles of land and water. I hope that when he speaks in this House, he will defend the viewpoints put forward by the people of the north. I have not heard him do that to date, but maybe he will turn over a new leaf. He is fully aware of the viewpoints of the people of the north. They have been made abundantly clear to him on many occasions. I hope that he will speak, as he maintains he does, on behalf of his constituency in the north. However, I doubt that that will happen. Everything that this disappointing minister has said to date has indicated that he is nothing more than a tool of the Ottawa bureaucracy. They are the people he will defend when he speaks in this House, not the people of the north.
The issue of Bill C-48 is one which has received wide attention throughout the north. I spent the last three months back in my constituency, and I also had occasion to visit the Nunatsiaq and the Yukon constituencies. I can assure Your Honour that practically no one in Canada's northland will go along with what Bill C-48 has to say. Regardless of all the differences of opinion among various people in the north, some wanting to do one thing and some wanting to do another, when it comes to Bill C-48, they are all united in opposition to the Liberal government.
I have been advised today that the petition signed by a substantial percentage of the electors of the Northwest Territories is on its way down to Ottawa; it was mailed this morning. Hopefully, in about three weeks' time, I will be able to put that petition before this House.


An hon. Member:: Optimist.


Dave Nickerson: Four weeks? Five weeks? Numerous telegrams, wires, telexes and letters have been sent to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). So far, they appear to have had very little effect. I have in my hand one which was sent on the 15th, just yesterday, to the three gentlemen whom I have mentioned before. This is a telex, which is in complete opposition to Bill C-48, signed by the government of the Yukon, the Council of Yukon Indians, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, the Cope Organization, the Dene Nation and the Metis Association of the Northwest Territories, I do not think that I could subscribe to everything in this particular telex, but there is a challenge at
Canada Oil and Gas Act
the bottom. This is something to which I would certainly be prepared to subscribe. I would hope that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will take up this challenge. This telex states;
We know Mr. Lalonde has defended the National Energy Program and Bill C-48 to the public in Ontario and Alberta. We challenge him to come to the north, to present his defence of this legislation to the northern people who will be most affected by its passage before the bill is law.
I hope that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will have the decency to take up that challenge.
As I have said before in this House, in my opinion Bill C-48 is the greatest land grab, the greatest grab of resources by a Liberal government in the whole history of Canada. We have debated Bill C-48, a copy of which I have here, since Christmas of last year, if I remember rightly. Some changes have been made, mainly of a technical nature. I guess the bill has been improved somewhat. However, if one looked through it now, one would find that it is very much of a cut and paste job. I hope that the government will take this bill back and maybe redraft it. Even if it will not make any changes in the underlying philosophy, it should at least tidy up the drafting and come back with a bill which has not been chopped up and switched around with small additions here and there, but one which makes sense right from the start. In my opinion, it will be pretty difficult for the courts to interpret some of what we have heard.
It is said that maybe some minor improvements have been made in the technicalities of the bill; but the concepts contained in Bill C-48 remain identical to those of the bill when it was first presented. The concept remains that Ottawa should have complete control over all the so-called Canada lands whether, in fact, they really belong to the provinces or to the territories. The industry should be highly regulated. There should be a good deal of ministerial discretion. You do not know what the rules and regulations are in advance, but you have to come to Ottawa and you make your own deal with the minister. What is ministerial discretion? The minister can tell you how you can look for oil, how you can drill for it, to whom you can sell it and how you can transport it, along with everything else, but we do not know the rules in advance. It is a highly regulated and controlled industry. It is one in which there will be practically no room for the little guys, especially the northerners, the people without much capital. They would like to get into the oil and gas business. They would like to get into the land plays, but because of the regulated nature of the industry, the way it is seen from Ottawa, the little guys, the northerners, will be kicked right out of the northern oil patch.
But worst of all for the north and for the northerners, Liberal policy comes through quite clear in this bill, namely, that the resources of the north will in perpetuity, for ever and ever, belong to the federal government in Ottawa. This is something to which we cannot subscribe. In no way would the gentlemen over there want another Alberta on their hands or another Saskatchewan. They cannot see the possibility of provincial status in the north ever being attained.
11888

October 16, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
On this side of the House where we recognize and have to recognize the legality of the fact that at the present time the lands of the territories are held by Her Majesty in right of Canada, we acknowledge that the nature of that ownership is one of trust. The land and resources of the north are held in trust by the Government of Canada for the people of the north. At some point in time they will be rightfully turned over to the people of those areas.
It was said before that the views of northerners have been made quite clear to the government. But has the government listened, Mr. Speaker? Has the government listened to what has been going on for the past six months or the last year? Maybe the government has had a twinge of conscience.


Erik Nielsen: No way.


Dave Nickerson: The government has not actually done anything about it.
Perhaps I might digress for a moment or two, Mr. Speaker. You gave that privilege to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. With respect to Motion No. 2 there is a preamble which hon. members on the other side want to put in front of the bill. I do not like preambles to legislation. 1 think the law books should contain law and not motherhood statements in front of a particular statute. Anyway, if that is what hon. members on the other side want to do, let us examine what they want to say. Before the law they want a whereas clause. Part of the whereas clause will read "Recognizing that in particular the inhabitants of areas directly affected by energy activities would play a growing role in that development."
That is all the government has done. All the arguments, all the letters and all the great speeches that have been made in this House-that is as far as the government can go. I would submit they are no more than empty platitudes. What we need is something real. I have been playing with words and I have come up with something that we might put in place of the above whereas clause. It is something with some teeth in it and something that means something. Instead of the government's preamble, we suggest the following or something like it:
And whereas it is acknowledged that Her Majesty in right of Canada presently holds the lands and resources of the Northwest Territories and Yukon in trust for the inhabitants thereof and hereby agrees to enter into agreements with the governments of the respective territories to share the public revenues derived from the production of hydrocarbons therefrom.
In our clause you have the acknowledgement that the lands and the resources of the north should be held not in perpetuity by the Ottawa government, but held in trust and should be managed as well as any good trustee would manage those resources for the people who live there. They should be managed as well as are the land and resources in the southern provinces of Canada.
In addition, what that would do would be to open up the question of revenue sharing. Many submissions were made on this subject to the committee when it looked into this matter. I think in general members on all sides of this House-not the government members, the frontbenchers, or government departments, but the backbenchers on that side and the members on this side-believe that agreements should be entered into whereby the very large amounts of public revenue to be generated as a result of Bill C-48 should be shared with northerners and used to help the people who live in those areas through the provision of public services. As a matter of right, people should have access to some of that revenue.
Within the bill we have before us, we see that only lip service has been paid to the wishes and the requirements of northerners. What is being said is, "We are not going to give you any real control over these matters, but we will come to you and ask you for your advice. We will set up a little advisory board here and a little advisory committee there and you can have your say, you can collect $25 or $100 a day honorarium and we will listen to you." But we know what happens. There are thousands of these committees already all over the north. Some bureaucrat from Terasse de la Chaudiere arrives, listens to the people, writes notes and minutes and takes them back to Ottawa. Nobody sees what happens to them. I suppose a report is written and it is submitted to the lowest level of bureaucracy in Hull. Then this report has to go step by step by step up to the assistant deputy minister and, the deputy minister, but at any one of these stages, that report can be filed or put into the wastepaper basket. It never sees the light of day. That is the nature of consultation which this government has always practised with the people of the north. Very often this government does not even do that because decisions have already been made in advance. They send someone up north to try and justify the decisions that have already been taken.
We have seen this with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Department of the Environment and everything else. We do not need people to come up north and say "Yes, we will listen to your views, take them back to Ottawa, put them in the mill and see what comes out the other end." What is needed is delegation of authority to the people who live there.
Let us take the environment as a case in point. Presumably we are supposed to be talking about an environmental amendment. People do not want to be consulted about the seals, the seagulls, the rabbits and everything else in the north and then have someone return to Ottawa and make up rules and recommendations, hopefully taking their advice into account. What they want is the authority to make their own rules. We are not talking about the offshore areas because presumably the federal government has some constitutional right to be in that area. But the federal government does not have to have it in the land areas of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. If the area were a province, that responsibility would lie with the province. In fact under the Northwest Territories Act and under the Yukon Act, that responsibility has in a way been given, but then it has been taken back by the federal government. Right now in the Northwest Territories there is an act of the local legislature, called the Environmental Protection Ordinance. But it is not in force because, as I said before, the government there has no money and no source of revenue. The government
October 16, 1981

there cannot afford to hire inspectors or to carry out the necessary studies. Because these areas are funded through the Government of Canada and do not have access to their own discretionary income through taxation of natural resources, there is nothing they can do about it. The federal government comes in with its bulldozer, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and takes that away from the people, asks for their advice and then does nothing with it. The federal government does precisely what it wanted to do in the first place.
We must recognize that with the very few people who live in the north with so large a requirement for public expenditure, personal taxation through income tax and sales tax will never really raise the required amount of money. The only way we are going to raise the money needed for the provision of those public services is through taxation on resources, particularly oil and gas.
What we want is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to let go and to allow the people of the Territories to control what goes on there through their own institutions. We want them to let loose some of the purse strings, allowing the people there access to sufficient moneys to carry out properly those functions they should be carrying out.
I understand that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. I have a great deal more to say on this subject and, hopefully, during the next week or so we will have an opportunity to debate Bill C-48 again. The things I have referred to are by far the most important issues about which northerners are concerned, particularly when we talk about the exploitation of hydrocarbons in the north.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I too want to speak on this bill because it demonstrates and illustrates some vitally important principles about which many people in this country are increasingly becoming concerned. The bill in the first place exemplifies probably the biggest land grab in the history of the world. It is a grab from those who need it the most and who will need it in the future, with no thought to the future development of this great nation.
It has been said that where there is no vision, people perish. This bill demonstrates that this government is showing no vision and is, probably blinding its eyes to the future. This government is grabbing a tremendous amount of land in the north, thereby barring the people there from ever having a source of income with which to establish a province, or from having the ability to operate economically as a unit.
I think what is sad about Bill C-48 is that it demonstrates that this government of the whole country is denying one part of the country the chance of ever reaching its great potential. This government is anxious to get its hands on money, so anxious that nothing else matters.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Another thing that bothers me about this bill is that it does not reflect the thinking of the people of this nation. Representations have come forth by the score suggesting changes to certain parts of this bill, but this government is not prepared to listen.
The amendments we are discussing this afternoon introduced by members of the NDP in my view represent the thinking of a very large proportion of the people of this country. However, there is not even a minister of the Crown who is concerned with this bill present in the House and listening to these arguments. When democracy began, the whole idea was that one person would represent the wishes of a number of other people and bring the thoughts of those people to the assembly. This is a useless exercise in this place; ministers are not even in the House to hear the arguments.
I was in the Alberta legislature for many years and I do not remember a bill concerning a department ever being discussed when the minister was not in his seat listening, taking notes and giving cognizance to the arguments put forward by members, on whichever side of the House they sat. That is democracy.


An hon. Member:: They are doing other things.


Gordon Edward Taylor: An hon. member says they are doing other things. The most important thing a minister has to do is to sit in this House. That is what they are elected to do. They should sit here and listen to the arguments of the people and bring forward legislation which reflects the thinking of the people. This government is getting so far away from democracy, it is no wonder the people are calling the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a dictator and the government dictatorial. It is the government's own fault because of the way these ministers are acting and carrying on. When the truth hurts, they start to yowl-howl, I mean. The people are gradually getting fed up with the anti-democratic procedures of this government. This bill illustrates to no end exactly what I am talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: If you want to speak, I do not mind sitting down, but do not yell and howl and say nothing. I would like to hear hon. members defend the things the government is doing. All the new parliamentary secretary is saying is "yes, yes, oui, oui, Mr. Prime Minister", in order to get a promotion. That is the type of thing that is going on on that side of the House. Hon. members there are more concerned about promotions than they are about representing the wishes of the people, and we can see that every day. If the cap fits, put it on.
Instead of this bill representing the thinking of the people, it represents the thinking of a handful of bureaucrats. They are the ones who have the minister's ears. The ministers think that if they listen to the bureaucrats and then bring forward legislation, we should all say "yes, yes", even if it is contrary to the thinking of the people who sent us here. I am not prepared to do that. I see democracy going down the drain in this House led by this government, and I am not going to allow the government to drive me out of my own country. I am prepared

October 16, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
to stay and fight for democracy and the wishes of the people who sent me here, whether the Liberals like it or not. That does not bother me one bit. The government is obsessed with power. It has to have power. Members of this government want to be dictators. They want to order things, but they do not think about reflecting the thinking of the people. We have seen examples of this all around us.
The majority of the people do not want unilateral patriation of the Constitution with a charter, but that does not matter. The government not only disregards what the people want, it spends taxpayers' money to tell the people why they should do what the government wants. That is anti-democratic, not democracy at all. They do not object for one minute to spending money telling the people why they should be doing this and that. Did hon. members ever hear about democracy? They are supposed to take direction from the people, not tell the people what they want. That is totalitarianism.
I want to show how that is being carried out by this bill, and I want to look at some of the actual clauses. I suggest to those who think that what we are saying is not right that they should talk to some of the people in the north who are experiencing these things. The environment is very important. The important elements of the environment are clean air, clean water and, probably, reclamation of the land. I do not see any of that exemplified in this bill. This involves a jumble of confused responsibilities, and the minister responsible for the environment is left entirely out in the cold. He is not even going to have a say. The responsibilities are given to other ministers. I wonder why the Prime Minister appointed a minister for the environment. Clean air, clean water and the reclamation of the land is the basis upon which the environment has to be controlled.
I was happy when the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) a few years ago as a minister in the Alberta government introduced a clear water and clear air bill. This government would do well to follow his example.
Let us deal with one or two of the specific motions in this particular bill. I refer first to Motion 4. It astounds me, after having spent more than 40 years in the legislature and a couple of years in the House of Commons, to see a bill which does not define one of the most important elements involved, and that is spill. They know it is spill.


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Gordon Edward Taylor: But they do not say what it is. It could mean a dozen things.


An hon. Member:: It could mean cariboo blood.


Gordon Edward Taylor: They went part way in section 80. They defined it to mean certain things in only one or two clauses. They said a spill means a discharge, emission or escape of oil or gas other than one that is authorized by the minister.


Erik Nielsen: Tell that to a dead cariboo.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It certainly means an escape of oil or gas, but nowhere can it be found what a spill actually means, whether it is somebody spitting on the ground, a spoonful of oil falling from a pipe, or a small gas leak in a pipeline.
What is it? They have the answers, sure. Their all-knowledgeable minister of energy knows everything. Sure, he knows when it is a spill and when it is not a spill. In other words, bureaucrats will tell him and he will jump because this government is controlled by bureaucrats, not by the people who elected it. They refuse to define spill in this section.
A spill means more than just oil. When you talk about 100 litres of oil or 10 litres of oil, that is one thing, but the government should say what it considers a spill. It also means the escape of poisonous air. Clean air is important also. It can kill animals and make humans sick.
The definition put in the amendment by the hon. members at least defines it. The members on the other side will not support this because the minister says, "No. I know what a spill is. Don't you dare put in anything." I will wager not one member on that side will vote for this amendment. If they do, I will be glad to buy them a dinner.
Spill means an amount of 100 litres or more of oil and any other substance deemed foreign to the environment. That is what a definition is. It is not the best definition but it is a good one. The minister of energy must have had it given to him by members of this House but he will not accept it. Even if he knew what a spill is and is performing his function perfectly, which he has yet to prove, he is not going to be there very long. The shorter the better, as far as I am concerned.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Some day the members on that side, when they are sitting over here, will wish they had put in a definition. When we are the government, we will define what a spill is. This government is so secretive, they do not want anybody to know what a spill is.
I will move on to amendment No. 51, at page 62 of the bill. It would not hurt hon. members to turn to page 62 and see what they are voting for, instead of voting the way they are told.
The bill says that in Section 19(1) to 19(4),
-"spill" means a discharge, emission or escape of oil or gas other than one that is authorized pursuant to subsection (4)-
Now, that is strange. They define it and then say it is only applicable to these four sections. Let us read subsection (4):
The Governor in Council-
The cabinet.
-may make regulations authorizing the discharge-
Did you hear that? The government can discharge poisonous air. It goes on to read:
-may make regulations authorizing the discharge, emission or escape of oil or gas of such types, in such quantities, at such locations, under such conditions and by such persons as are specified in the regulations, but Her Majesty in right of Canada has no liability whatever to any person arising out of such authorization.
October 16, 1981

Did you ever hear of such legislation? It is astounding. They can decide to poison a part of this country and there is no liability.


An hon. Member:: They have been poisoning Ottawa for years.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It is a wonder we are able to live with the amount of bad air issued around this House.
This is more serious. This could destroy the animals of the north. It could destroy the people of the north if we have a man fanatical enough to use this section. This is totalitarian legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Laugh if you like. Read the section; do not accept what the minister told you. Read it yourself. You can all read.


An hon. Member:: Are you sure?


An hon. Member:: I doubt it.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Read it. It says:
The Governor in Council may make regulations authorizing the discharge, emission or escape of oil or gas of such types, in such quantities, at such locations, under such conditions and by such persons as are specified in the regulations, but Her Majesty-
The cabinet, the ministers responsible who are not even here today.
-in right of Canada has no liability whatever to any person arising out of such authorization.
I would like to go back to the first section. It reads:
"spill" means a discharge, emission or escape of oil or gas other than one that is authorized-
It is a spill. If an oil company does it, it is a spill. We protect people from gas leakage from railway cars. The hon. member from Mississauga was very anxious that we should have control over gas in tank cars. What about controlling it in the north? Northerners are human beings too. They have just as much right to live in clean air and on good land as we. They are Canadians the same as we are. An hon. member the other day said the bill should be withdrawn. It should be withdrawn. If members opposite were doing the job their constituents want them to do, they would not be supporting this.


An hon. Member:: We are.


Gordon Edward Taylor: The hon. member says they are. It is strange that when 60 per cent of the people of Quebec do not want a charter, they should vote for it. They should talk to the people. They spend the people's money to tell them what they should do. They have the gall to say they reflect the thinking of the people. They do not.
This bill is a danger to the country and to the people and should not be passed. The amendment that is proposed will, if passed, do some good, but not very much. I see, Mr. Speaker,
Canada Oil and Gas Act
that you are indicating I have only one minute left. I am sorry because I could go on for hours. I will make one other point.
The other day the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) talked about the minister giving documents to certain Liberals but not to everyone. This bill will authorize that type of conduct. Under 19.5 and 19.6, the minister may supply copies of the report in such manner and in such terms as he considers proper. If he considers only the Liberal members, he can, at public expense, give information to one party and not another. Is that democracy? Those opposite have their priorities and terms all mixed up. That is a totalitarian government, not a democracy. It is time members opposite started to think for themselves rather than doing only what the minister tells them. The minister should stop doing what the bureaucrats tell him and start reflecting the thinking of the people of this country. Then we could have the greatest country in the world.


Mr. Norman Kelly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I preface my remarks by saying that the only person whose orders I strictly obey is my wife, so I do not plead guilty to the charge the hon. member directed to members on this side of the House.
In any debate one attempts to use as much factual information as possible in order to arrive at what is, hopefully, the wisest evaluation of the legislation being proposed in the House and before the nation. That is not always the case. Most of us realize that as well as having facts to argue on a particular case, we have to deal with the mythology that for some reason or other, tends to permeate any debate at any level. This debate on Bill C-48 is no exception. In fact, from what I have heard in the House in the last few days and in committee in the last few months there is probably more mythology involved in this debate than in almost any other debate, other than perhaps the debate on the Constitution.
In the short time allotted to me today, I would like to look at some of the myths that have developed and are promoted by their proponents as being the hard truths of the argument. I would like to start with one of the myths that was forcefully and colourfully projected into this debate today by the preceding speaker. That myth is that the central or national government is perpetrating through Bill C-48 one of the greatest or most momentous land grabs in the history of the Canadian people.
The offshore and the north are vested and always have been vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada. I do not think there is anyone in this House who can dispute the accuracy and legitimacy of that statement. It is vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada because all the federal states of this world have vested the rights of the offshore, and, presumably, if they have an Arctic, in the national government in one way or another.
I would defy any member opposite to point out a federation in this world that has done otherwise. Assuming that the federation has an offshore and a north, despite the fact that the waters and domains have historically been vested in the central government, it has not prevented its regional or provin-

October 16, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
cial governments from making a jurisdictional grab of their own.
If you look at Australia or the United States, you find that in both of those federations the provincial or state governments have contested in the courts the legitimacy of the federal government's control of the offshore. Those states and provinces have lost their cases, just as the province of British Columbia lost its case when it brought a similar one to the courts of Canada.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the offshore and the north belong to Her Majesty in the right of Canada. I would be delighted if this government would take that issue to the courts to be decided once and for all. This sort of mythology is dangerous. It leads to divisions in society and the state which members opposite and those who believe in that argument would deplore. I would like this government and this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to take that issue before the courts.


James Ross Fulton: Say that when you are travelling in the north.


Norman Kelly: One does not have to travel to the north or to the offshore to understand that argument. Its veracity does not change with geographical location. If the argument is true in Ottawa, it is as true in the offshore and in the north. That is something we should be aware of.
I would ask the Prime Minister today to take those disputes to the courts in order to have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that those lands belong to Her Majesty in right of Canada. Because they do belong to her, they are legitimately controlled by the Government of Canada. They are controlled by the federal government in the best interests of the people of those areas, but not exclusively in their interests. The benefits that derive from them should be used primarily for the benefit of the Canadian people.
One member opposite said in his speech that this bill is designed for the people who live in the south. By saying that, I assume he thought he was bringing some illumination to this argument, the horror that Bill C-48 should be used on behalf of the Canadian people. It must be used for the benefit of the Canadian people. It would be wrongly used otherwise. I challenge him to repeat that argument.
The hon. "Smith Brother" from Skeena was the one to proclaim that most loudly in the House. I invite him to debate that issue and promote that point of view in the south, anywhere and everywhere, to see the sort of reaction he would get from the Canadian people.
This oil and gas belongs to all Canadians. We cannot say that about the provincial deposits of oil and gas. We learned that in the tragic confrontation with Alberta. We know that the oil and gas of Alberta are vested in Her Majesty in right of that province and are now controlled by the government of that province primarily on behalf of its residents.
This is the one opportunity that the Canadian government has to ensure oil and gas security of the Canadian people with resources on Canada lands. I cannot understand why Canadian politicians want to take the only resource that we can constitutionally and realistically describe as Canadian and give it to the respective provincial or regional jurisdictions. I cannot comprehend the motives of that kind of argument. These are Canadian resources. They must be controlled by the Canadian government on behalf of the Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: You are from Toronto.


Norman Kelly: You are correct, I am from Toronto. You are absolutely right without being relevant. What does it matter if I am from Toronto? I could as easily be from Victoria, Halifax, Quebec or Montreal. They are all Canadian cities populated by Canadian residents. It is our obligation to make sure that those people, no matter where they live, have access to Canadian resources.
There is something drastically wrong with the body politic in Canada when a Canadian politician, speaking in this House on behalf of access by Canadians to Canadian resources, is considered either to have a malicious intent or to misunderstand the nature of confederation or the needs of its people. I cannot comprehend that line of thinking. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, and on behalf of Canadians from coast to coast whose future they are putting into jeopardy, I absolutely reject it. I sincerely hope the sensitive thinking, nationalist members of this chamber would reject it as firmly and decisively as I have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Kelly: The second great myth, perpetrated by a number of members opposite, is that this dastardly, scheming, evil Liberal government-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Kelly: We are horrible. We are guilty of every sin in the book and others that have not been invented yet. This horrible, arrogant, malignant government is taking Bill C-48 and rushing it through this House with breakneck speed and shoving it down everyone's throat, whether they like it or not. That is the second great myth of this debate on Bill C-48.
If recent developments have indicated anything, Mr. Speaker, it is that oil and energy have become the most vital commodity of any state in the world today. There is no question about that. I would defy anyone on the other side to say that is wrong. Oil and gas have become strategic characteristics of our economy. They will remain so in the next 10 or 20 years. There is no doubt about that.
If everyone were to accept that, would they then accept the corollary that if energy is the single most important aspect of our economy today, then this government or any party that forms the government should have as its top priority the energy security of the state? It must provide that energy security as quickly and efficiently as possible. Does that sound realistic to you? Do you quarrel with that? I do not think he
October 16, 1981

Municipal Affairs



[Stage Direction]
does, despite the florid colour of his face and his eagerness to interrupt.
If you were to accept the reality of the two arguments, Mr. Speaker, I think you would have to say it is incumbent upon this government to produce legislation that will provide that energy security as quickly as possible. This bill is designed to do that. There is lots of oil and gas on provincial lands, Mr. Speaker. But we have been taught a lesson: this government does not have direct access to their oil and gas resources.
If we think in terms of the survival of our economy on a national basis, then we cannot depend, as a national government and as a people, on access to provincial resources. This is why we must have access as quickly as possible to the resources that are, indisputably, on Canadian land. Those lands are on the offshore and in the Arctic. How can anyone say, after eight months of deliberation that we are shoving this bill down the opposition's throat? Those people are so far removed from reality of the argument I have just developed, that I think their opposition borders on the criminal. If this government is guilty of any crime, it is not that it is proceeding too fast, it is that it has been proceeding too slow.
An hon. Member:: Right on.


Norman Kelly: If I have any criticism of this administration and of this minister, it is that he has tolerated obstruction, he has consented to abuse. I believe at times we are too democratic, so much so that we believe these anti-democratic arguments and that we neglect the real vital interests of the Canadian people in so doing.


James Ross Fulton: We know what you are like in committee. We have seen you.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Norman Kelly: If I had been the minister, the bill would have gone through committee a lot sooner because I think the interests of the Canadian people are that important.
I am pleased to talk about the environment. The third great myth of this debate is that Bill C-48 has the potential to obliterate the northern environment and the native peoples. This vehicle, especially as far as the latter is concerned, is their salvation, not their destruction. If I had more time this afternoon, I would develop that argument.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely notices of motions, public bills, and private bills.

Motion No. 43 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of increasing the grants made to municipalities in lieu of property taxes for the use of property by Crown corporations and agencies so that these grants equal the sums paid by private organizations.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of presenting what I believe to be a case that should be brought to the attention of the federal government. Sometimes I think that in our democratic system we in the federal field forget that there are two other forms of government which are very important to the wellbeing of Canadian citizens. Sometimes we overlook the responsibility that the federal government has to both the provincial and municipal government, but primarily the municipal government. This is why I have proposed this resolution. I am pleased the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) seconded this motion. I know he is vitally interested in this aspect of responsibility in so far as who pays for what is concerned. I do not propose to take too long in making my discourse this afternoon because I know he wants an opportunity to make a few comments in regard to this resolution.
The resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of increasing the grants made to municipalities in lieu of property taxes for the use of property by Crown corporations and agencies so that these grants equal the sums paid by private organizations.
The phrase "grants in lieu of taxes" is just a fancy way of saying that the federal government does not pay taxes on real property but, instead, makes arbitrary and unrealistic cash grants to municipal governments. Under Section 125 of the British North America Act, the federal government cannot be taxed by any other level of government. However, since 1877 the federal government has made token payments to towns and cities where it owns land and buildings. These token payments are totally unrelated to the actual tax assessment.
We can take the CBC in Red Deer as an example. The CBC owns and operates broadcasting facilities. In 1980, it paid the county of Red Deer the grand sum of $809.38 as a grant in lieu of taxes. Had the CBC been required to pay the actual property taxes based on assessment, its total bill would have been $4,460. In a nutshell, the county of Red Deer lost over $3,600 on the transaction, yet the municipal government is forced to make available all local services at a loss, I might add. Tenants like that, the county of Red Deer does not actually need.
As a result of the federal government position on paying local taxes, the property tax base of some communities is substantially eroded since the property tax is often the major

October 16, 1981
Municipal Affairs
source of revenue for local authorities. This is the point I wanted to make. These people have a right to be heard.
Large cities such as Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Edmonton are caught in a tighter vise. Large federal government property holdings represent a considerable loss of potential holdings and represent a considerable loss of potential revenue. In some areas the federal government further impairs revenue generating capabilities of local authorities by precluding or limiting zoning and development. There is no question in my mind that the federal government places unfair burdens on local governments. Because it does not pay its fair share of taxes, the federal government escapes the responsibility of paying its true share of the costs of police and fire protection, sewage disposal and water. I do not mean to say that the taxpayers of Canada will be loaded with any extra taxes. It just means that there will be a more equitable relationship between the levels of government paying the taxes. Because of the federal government, the municipality may also have to undertake expenditures to provide or upgrade roads, schools, and other such facilities to serve the needs of central government employees and their families.
There is no question that the presence of the federal government provides benefits such as jobs, payrolls and new residential property tax bases. But do these benefits offset the fact that the federal government is not a good corporate citizen? In a city such as Ottawa, the shortfall between grants in lieu of taxes and actual assessment runs into the millions. The same is true for many other of our larger cities where the federal government has large holdings. The adequacy of federal contributions has been challenged by local authorities in every region of Canada, especially in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker knows that delegations have appeared before standing committees of the House trying to present their case to the federal government.
The dissatisfaction is based upon three arguments against existing legislation. First, certain properties are excluded from grant calculations such as parks, museums, monuments, etc. This means lost revenue of almost $8 million to the city of Ottawa.
The non-payment of business taxes on federal commercially-assessed properties is the second argument against the existing legislation. The federal government's reply is that it is not a business, it does not compete, it does not engage in profit-seeking activities and it does not generate a business income. I must question this. The CBC in Red Deer certainly competes with other commercially-licensed private broadcasters. Not only do the private broadcasters have to make a contribution to the subsidy going to the CBC, they also make a contribution in taxes because they are totally taxed on their assessed property. Such is not the case with the CBC.
The third argument concerns the deductions from the main grant of amounts representing municipal-type services provided directly by the federal government. In effect, the federal government opts out of municipal services. Other taxpayers do not have this choice. Would there not be chaos if large
companies with their own security forces had the right to opt out of their share of the municipal police force costs?
The present formula is patently unfair and out of touch with reality. There is no question that the federal government has the ability and the resources to pay its fair share and thus become a better corporate citizen and be more responsible to Canadian taxpayers. And pay it should, so that there is equity for all taxpayers, business and residential, in any given municipality. If the federal government expects services to be provided, in fairness it should compensate the municipality. The payments should be prorated to put the federal government on approximately the same footing as other local taxpayers. If this situation is not corrected, the federal government could, if it chose, provide a grant in lieu of taxes to any municipality for PetroCan service stations or any other of its oil properties. This is what happens with the CBC, a Crown corporation. Therefore it could also happen with PetroCan. I am not saying that it will, but it is possible under the present regulations.
If the government is supplying a service to the people that is not provided by any other body, I am not so worried; that is not creating a problem for me. I am concerned, however, when a government facility is in competition with private industry and does not carry its fair share of the tax burden. This is unfair to the taxpayers of Canada, Mr. Speaker. Now is the best time to correct this anomaly before it gets out of hand.
Thank you for allowing me to present this case at this time. Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: This is a good motion, Mr. Speaker, and one that deserves the full attention of the House. I should like to start by referring to a couple of statements made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove), who is responsible for legislation affecting grants in lieu of taxes to municipalities, with regard to the principle involved in this resolution that the federal government should be required to pay the same taxes that private citizens would be required to pay.
He has said that the federal government is not competing in the marketplace with private enterprise and that it does not want to be considered a business. Is that because it does not do business and does not compete with other private enterprises? I would suggest that is not the real reason. It may be the rationale it uses for not wanting to pay the grant in lieu of taxes but, as the minister said on May 28, 1980, according to a newspaper article, for the federal government to pay business taxes across Canada would cost the government $75 million annually. That is why it does not want to be considered a business, Mr. Speaker, so that it will not have to pay taxes to a local municipality. But who pays, Mr. Speaker? Obviously, the residents of the municipalities have to pay while the federal government gets a free ride.
Unfortunately the minister is not in the House today. He should be, because this private members' motion involves a
October 16, 1981

very important principle which falls square in the middle of his responsibilities. He had promised that a task force would examine this whole area, but an article in the Ottawa Citizen of July 9, 1980 reads in part:
-Cosgrove told the committee the task force would not deal with this question and there was no chance the government would accede to the request anyway, because of fiscal restraint.
The government is really saying, then, that this is not a matter of the merits of the proposal for the federal government to pay grants in lieu of business taxes as a private corporation would, but it is really a matter of fiscal restraint. The government just feels that it cannot afford to pay. Who better can afford to pay, Mr. Speaker, the federal government with its broad revenue base or a local municipality or property owners?
This is not surprising, however, because when the minister introduced Bill C-4, he saw that the principle of the bill was flawed and he promised that a task force would deal with it. But he never delivered on that promise, Mr. Speaker. He promised that a study would be done on this whole matter of grants in lieu of taxes within a year, and that it would come before a parliamentary committee. That has never happened, and it is not surprising because this minister has promised other things which have not come about.
He made noises about municipalities being recognized in the Constitution. Why would he do that? He did it because municipalities are concerned with having adequate revenues, and one way that they hoped to get adequate revenues was through some positive recognition in the Constitution. We all know how far that idea is from reality, but the minister and the government made that promise. This minister promises but does not know how to deliver.
It is important that this subject should get an adequate hearing because it involves fundamental principles of democracy. The federal government should not be able to act in an arbitrary, unregulated fashion in a local community. It should be subject to the same laws, regulations and legislative authority as any other resident. If there is one thing that the Liberal government has demonstrated, however, it is its utter petu-lence, arrogance and lack of appreciation of the democratic process.
People are fed up with being run over by this government. People are fed up with the government's misuse of arbitrary authority.
This private member's motion raises a very important subject which deserves serious consideration. It has obviously raised some concerns on this side of the House, although I have yet to see any evidence of real concern on the other side. The matter is important to the individual taxpayer because it means that as long as the federal government gets a free ride in the communities across the country, the local taxpayer has to pay more in property taxes. We all know how difficult it is to be able to afford a House today, particularly with this government in office and the way it is running the economy in general.
Municipal Affairs
This is a worthy motion and I wish the government would wake up and respond to it.


Mr. Raymond Savard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in a Notice of Motion tabled on April 30, 1980, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) in Alberta suggested that the House consider the possibility of increasing the grants in lieu of taxes paid by Crown corporations to the Canadian taxation authorities so that these grants equal the taxes paid for buildings owned or used by private organizations. First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that the Canadian government now has one of the best and most comprehensive grant programs in the world, and it has worked very well for over 30 years and that our assistance and advice have been requested many times by other countries who wished to improve their own grant programs. There now exists a consultation procedure between Canadian representatives and our American counterparts. The United States wishes to improve their program by learning more about the operation of our grant program.
Not content to sit back and relax, the government has made a deliberate effort within the last few years to improve our own system even more by developing new legislation, methods and approaches, which will enable us to reinforce not only the relationships between the local and central governments but also the fiscal powers of municipalities. The basic plan of the government for improving the grant program consists in developing a system which will deal essentially with the buildings of federal departments and Crown corporations which provide services as though these buildings were taxable. In the case of Crown corporations whose basic role is not to provide services, the plan is similar except that these corporations will be asked in addition to pay subsidies in lieu of the commercial occupancy tax. The amendments to the grant mechanisms of Crown corporations will be regulated on the one hand by the new Municipal Grants Act, and on the other hand, by the draft regulations on grants paid by Crown corporations, the final version of which is now being prepared.
The Municipal Grants Act of 1980, which was passed by the House on July 17, 1980, and promulgated on December 5, 1980, provides in Section 8 that the governor in council may make regulations for carrying out the purposes of the act. Paragraph 8(l)(f) concerns the regulations which will provide for the mechanisms to be used by Crown corporations listed in Schedules III and IV of the act concerning their grant programs in lieu of taxes paid to the various taxation authorities under whose juridiction come the buildings of these corporations. Preparation of the draft regulations on the grants paid by Crown corporations is virtually completed after lenghty consultations and negotiations with the corporations, companies, commissions, boards and orgaizations established to fulfil certain functions for the Canadian government. I expect these regulations to be published shortly in the The Canada

October 16, 1981
Municipal Affairs
Gazette and I trust that those concerned will have enough time to give their comments before they are promulgated.
It would now be appropriate to go back a few years and explain why it was decided at the time to improve the grant in lieu of taxes programs for Crown corporations before promulgation of the new legislation on Crown corporations and the revised Financial Administration Act. Most federal Crown corporations have paid grants in lieu of property taxes since the implementation in 1950 of the grant program for departmental buildings. Instead of paying grants, some of these corporations have in fact paid their property and commercial occupancy taxes directly. Throughout the years, however, a number of complaints have been made concerning the grant practices of certain corporations; in addition, there has been public concern about the differences among the practices of various agencies.
In an order issued in March 1967, the cabinet stated that all federal Crown corporations would have to pay grants for their buildings on a basis generally not less generous than that provided in the Municipal Grants Act for payments related to departmental buildings. There has never been any strict legal obligation for the Crown corporations to comply with this, and the government has been considering establishing a stricter measure.
Mr. Speaker, the Municipal Grants Act of 1980 and the proposed regulation on grants paid by Crown corporations have provided for the review and the streamlining of the procedures followed by Crown corporations with regard to grants and have aligned these procedures on those followed by departments. Therefore, Schedules III and IV of the 1980 act on grants to municipalities were established to include all known Crown corporations. Corporations listed in Schedule III are in general functionally dependent on the Consolidated Revenue Fund and are subject to the guidelines contained in the regulations respecting grants in lieu of property tax or frontage or land tax and the local improvement or development tax. These guidelines are closely modelled on those included in the legislation governing departmental buildings.
Corporations included in Schedule IV usually operate without having to use funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and they must not only comply with the guidelines governing grants in lieu of property, frontage or land tax, but they must also pay grants in lieu of business occupancy tax. Crown corporations are divided into two separate schedules, with respect to grants, for a very logical reason.
Certain corporations, namely those listed in Schedule III, are not independent of the federal treasury in the sense that they need Financial assistance from the government to operate and they are not commercial concerns. Generally speaking, those agencies are akin to federal departments since they do
not compete on the market and do not sell goods or services at prices which would provide a return on invested capital. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the National Capital Commission, the National Research Council of Canada and the Northern Canada Power Commission are examples of federal agencies falling into that category. Conversely, the corporations listed in Schedule IV are generally independent of the federal treasury; they may on occasion be required to compete with the private sector and they have to try to make profits. Among the federal agencies included in that category we might mention Air Canada, the Bank of Canada, Eldorado Nuclear Limited and Petro-Canada. The grants paid in lieu of real property tax and business occupancy tax by the corporations listed in Schedule IV put those corporations on roughly the same footing as private sector organizations: the grants are the equivalent of the taxable amounts claimed by the taxing authorities.
Mr. Speaker, it would have been extremely difficult in the past to take stock of the agencies which might have been defined as Crown corporations and to decide which ones ought to pay grants in lieu of the business occupancy tax. For several years, however, a Privy Council Office task force has been hard at work on the problems linked with Crown corporations. The end result of that activity was Bill C-27 on Crown corporations, the purpose of which was to ensure the control, the management and the imputability of Crown corporations by defining them, listing them and classifying them in schedules. The bill was introduced in Parliament in 1979 but, for various reasons, it was not passed. I expect it will be reintroduced in the near future so as to include certain amendments to implement the recommendations made since 1979 which take into account the different status of a certain number of corporations created since then.
The government has decided that even if there were a direct link between the schedules listing the Crown corporations in the new Municipal Grants Act and those included in the new Crown Corporations Act, it would be altogether inappropriate to give to the Municipal Grants Act a basic role with respect to the policy concerning Crown corporations. The new Crown Corporations Act will define that policy and whenever it comes into effect it will contain a reference to Schedules III and IV of the Municipal Grants Act, 1980. That reference will be kept up to date as new Crown corporations are set up or as old corporations are phased out or are reclassified. It is important that any new agency be automatically subjected to the guidelines set out in the Municipal Grants Act. Once the schedules to the proposed new legislation on Crown corporations are firmly established, the Municipal Grants Act, 1980, will finally be amended accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with a view to taking into consideration any amendment made to the schedules and establishing an automatic link between the schedules to both acts.
October 16, 1981


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have had the privilege of participating in a debate in this House since we have come back from the summer adjournment. I do so with some enthusiasm with respect to this particular piece of parliamentary business which is before us.
As the House knows, the wording is quite simple and the resolution is quite simple: that in the opinion of the House, the government should consider the advisability of increasing grants made to municipalities in lieu of property taxes, compensating for the use of property by Crown corporations and agencies, so that these grants should be comparable to the taxes paid by private organizations.
If I followed the parliamentary secretary correctly, he said that in the last little while there has been a vast improvement in the legislative framework within which grants in lieu of taxes are now paid. He is quite right. However, I think it would be very foolish of any of us to assume that the bill that was passed, which was piloted in this House by my seatmate, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), when he was minister of finance, is the last word. I know that the minister of finance at that time did not consider it to be the last word, nor should the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Savard), nor should his minister.
He is as aware as I am that there are a number of things which can be done to improve the position at the moment. I think he is aware of its importance. I know the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) is aware, and I am grateful to him for the privilege of seconding this most worth-while motion. I will not go over the ground, but if the parliamentary secretary speaks to his minister from time to time, I hope he will inform him that there is a great deal to be done in the business tax area. I think we are past the point, at least in terms of the operation of the Canadian government, when it can be argued that the government is not in business. In many ways it is in business. Some would regret it. Some would welcome it, depending on one's philosophy. But there are many aspects of government operations that have about them all the indications of business in the commercial world. They compete in many ways with the commercial world. There are almost 500 Crown agencies that have been identified thus far. There may be more. They are in business in many ways, so that process must go on.
To the extent that those businesses in the name of the Crown are located in some of the 2,000 municipalities across the country that benefit from their presence and from this legislation, it is important that we settle and resolve once and for all the position of the local municipalities with respect to business taxes. They are meant to compensate municipalities for services which are rendered to businesses and agencies of all kinds the costs for which are borne on the backs of the local ratepayers, and to the extent there is not an equitable contri-
Municipal Affairs
bution by government at all levels to that local tax base, those taxpayers have to pay a lot more. It is that balance that we ought to be seeking. I commend that to the parliamentary secretary and I ask him to take that message to his minister.
One other matter recently came up right here with respect to the national capital. It occurred in the House of Commons today. I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) about two decentralization programs, one involving the Post Office and the other involving the ministry of the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox). I gave him an opportunity, first, to deny that it was true that those two agencies were being moved, and, second, to deny that the government was not in fact revitalizing, rejuvenating and reviving the process of decentralization which the former president of the Treasury Board in the Clark government had the good sense to cancel, to the extent that it was reasonably possible to do.
All hon. members will recall our decision to cancel or defer the move of 19 of the agencies that were to move, because of the nature of the service they provided and because of the lack of cost benefit in the move. I supported that decision. As hon. members know, in some cases the process was so far advanced that this could not be done. If this is the case, and if the government is planning on doing that, then the government could affect dramatically the tax base of all municipalities within the national capital region. On both sides of the river we have regional governments. Their taxation is based on a proportionate sharing of the cost of the provision of services. If the tax base is eroded in one municipality, perhaps Ottawa or Hull, then to the extent that funds are necessary to carry the municipal services that have been put in place, other taxpayers have to bear that cost.
I want the government to understand, because I do not intend to let this matter drop, that much more is involved than just physically relocating bodies and work; it has a profound effect on local municipalities. It also has a profound effect on families and a whole host of other things that I will debate at another time. But it does relate to the issue that is still outstanding and unresolved between the municipalities within the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton which I know best, and the federal government. It is something which must be dealt with and cleared up.
We are still not at idem with respect to the amount that is appropriately owed under the existing statutes. The business tax matter is not in it at all. The hon. member for Red Deer says that we owe $8 million in arrears in the city of Ottawa, and that affects all the municipalities around on this side of the river.
The mayor of Ottawa, quite properly, has called for a meeting to settle the issue, to engage representatives of all levels of government in settling the issue. Speaking for myself, I am prepared to go to such a meeting if the minister is prepared to invite us.
The other matter on the horizon bearing on municipal services is the whole question of established program financing. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has indicated that he intends to reduce transfers to the provinces for certain

October 16, 1981
Municipal Affairs
programs and post-secondary education, as well as for social programs, parts of which have a municipal base; all of which arise from the provincial base.
I do not have figures to substantiate this, but I would like someone to show that the general principle is wrong. The general principle that I refer to is that there will be a crimping from the provinces to the local municipalities, to the extent that the provinces are denied those funds heretofore available by transfer from the federal government. The services will have to be provided. The cost will have to be borne somewhere. What will happen? They will be borne to a greater and greater degree on the business taxpayers, and the property taxpayers in the municipalities.
I ask the parliamentary secretary to implore the Minister of Finance, his own minister, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) to take a look at the unanimous report of this Parliament which said that it was wrong for there to be any change in the present basis. To do so at this time would cripple the delivery of services in some areas. That was the unanimous report. That was not the opposition speaking. That was not just the New Democratic Party speaking, it was the Liberal government's own backbenchers speaking as a result of a reference given to them to study the matter, with the approval, I suppose, of the government, and those were their conclusions.
The representatives decided that the program which has been initiated will have an effect on provinces, on municipalities and on taxpayers, and thereby it will have also an effect on renters in all communities. This is a proposition which ought to be avoided and ought not to be advanced by this government. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to take that message to his minister.
It is important, I think, that we recognize that at the root of our system of delivery of services to people are the municipalities. Governments have a duty to pay their way to the fullest extent, not to hide behind constitutional niceties that one Crown cannot tax the other; not to use semantics and nomenclature; not to use the word Crown or the concept of the Crown to sneak out of or to get away from obligations which are owed by virtue of service. I hope we are moving in that direction.
The parliamentary secretary has raised the question in terms of the goodness of the program. He said that other countries are looking at us, that we have a good program, I do not doubt that at all. I am proud of it and if we are leaders in that field, then it is a feather in our caps. All of us should be pleased about that. But I must add this caveat, that we have not yet reached the end of the road.
I think we should take a look at a number of government programs, such as, for example, the Canadian Oil Substitution Program, which is of interest to municipalities. I am a supp-porter of that program. I think it is a good idea to get people off using oil if we can, and on to using something else. But many cities in Canada, many municipalities in the country, have programs for the renovation of various schools and public facilities. One of the principal motives behind these programs is the conservation of energy. I am sure if hon. members asked
many municipal leaders, they would say quite frankly that they would like to substitute oil based equipment with gas or electrically based alternatives as far as possible.
I was quite stunned to see a letter from the head of a municipality in the national capital region in fact it was the Mayor of Ottawa-saying that she had made inquiries with the Renewable Energy Secretariat of Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, and with the Ontario minister of industry and found that municipalities or their agencies were not entitled to apply for a grant under that grant program of conversion. The reason being, of course, that it is a tax-incentive program designed for private individuals and corporations.
It seems to me it would be helpful to municipalities-if we are talking about grants generally, and this has been the subject of this debate-if the parliamentary secretary suggested to the minister of energy that they re-examine that program to see whether the tremendous users of energy might not have grants given to them to entice them to change, so they would in fact have some incentive to help the government in its own energy conservation program, a program in which all Canadians should be engaged. I understand that is not the case at the moment. I commend that as one proposition the parliamentary secretary might take to his minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). In terms of municipalities, I think it would be helpful to the government's program of conservation if that proposition could be advanced.
I regard the resolution as important not just to the City of Ottawa, and not just to municipalities within the national capital region, but to the 2,000 of them in the country. There are post offices everywhere and public buildings of all kinds in municipalities. Even if we have the best system thus far, and I am not going to dispute that today, the parliamentary secretary knows, as his speech implied, that there are areas in which it could be improved.
I commend the hon. member for Red Deer for allowing us to debate this matter in order that we could bring to the attention of the ministry and the government the support there would be in this House of Commons on all sides for improvement to the present system. The basis of our democracy is a healthy, strong local government, and the statute with regard to grants in lieu of taxes is important. The contribution of the federal government to the welfare of people living in these municipalities could be made even more significant by some improvement to the system, perfect as it is now.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the notice of motion of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), may I remind him that it has already been suggested that the program providing grants in lieu of property taxes for the use of property by Crown corporations and agencies should apply not only to property taxes but also to business occupancy taxes. First of all, I should like to go back to the origins of the municipal business
October 16, 1981

occupancy tax, and then show why the federal administration feels that only some designated Crown corporations should pay Canadian tax authorities grants in lieu of taxes.
Mr. Speaker, going back to the turn of the century, we find that in fact the only source of revenue available to municipalities for financing local services was property taxes. Even then, it was obvious that unless they could find new sources of revenue, local governments could not afford the expenditures needed to increase and improve their services.
As time went on, Mr. Speaker, the federal government and the provinces made studies and set up commissions entrusted with looking into the matter. Generally, the resulting reports stressed the need for municipal authorities to levy an additional tax on the capital or rental value of buildings occupied by financial or business companies, that is, a special tax levied by the municipality on properties used for business purposes I repeat, for business purposes. That tax is justifiable for the following reason: When someone can reasonably expect to make a gain or profit by carrying out a commercial activity in a municipality and by supplying the risk capital required and the know-how, but when in fact he also benefits from local services, facilities, labour, transportation services as well as the purchasing power of the municipality, it is only fair then that he should pay out an additional amount to municipal coffers just for the privilege of benefiting from a large number of the elements necessary for making a profit.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot dispute the fact that the term "commercial operation" refers to a gainful occupation, a craft, a profession, a function or any other activity performed more or less continuously with a view to making a profit. It is a concise definition drawn from precedents dealing with the assessment of taxation in Canada. It is also a definition which apparently includes some criteria or basic principles. It has been noted that some Crown corporations which are operating without relying on the Treasury, will have to pay a commercial occupancy tax when it comes into effect. In order to justify the payment of such a tax on the federal buildings or Crown corporations listed in Schedule III of the new legislation on municipal subsidies we would have either explicitly or implicitly to equate the services of the federal government with those of a commercial operation. Now such an equation is totally unfounded. These departments and corporations are service-oriented and not profit-oriented, and thus one cannot consider them as carrying out a commercial activity in the conventional sense.
In Canada, Mr. Speaker, the great majority of municipalities and provincial governments do not pay any business occupancy tax on the properties owned by them or managed by corporations, organizations or councils created by them, except for those which are specifically profit-seeking, such as hydroelectric commissions or provincial liquor stores. However, one should note that the province of Quebec has innovated by establishing a program which, since 1980, calls for the pay-
Municipal Affairs
ment to municipalities of grants in lieu of business occupancy taxes and property taxes on almost every property owned by its departments and Crown corporations. Because of the close financial links between the provincial and municipal administrations, the province is able to cancel or to roll back other forms of financial aid. This possibility does not exist quite in the same degree in the case of the federal government.
The business occupancy tax does not apply in several areas of Canada. Also, there are many ways to determine its rate. It may be a fixed percentage of the annual amount of rental revenues or a fixed amount, or else a percentage of the assessment. Since this percentage is different depending on the type of business activity, in some cases a provincial statute makes the payment of the business occupancy tax mandatory. In other cases, provisions stipulate that the tax becomes payable only on the request of the city council. In the latter case, were the Canadian government to decide to pay such taxes on departmental or Crown corporation property, city councils would no doubt tend to take advantage of that option, especially in cases where such holdings make up most of the landed property in the municipality.
There are two other very significant factors for not paying business occupancy taxes on Canadian Crown buildings. First the disparity of amounts that would be distributed across Canada, and second, the cost to the federal treasury in these days of budgetary restraint. Firstly, Mr. Speaker, were grants in lieu of business occupancy taxes to be paid, widely unequal amounts would be distributed across Canada since 80 per cent of the Canadian federal property holdings come under less than 5 per cent of the taxing authorities receiving grants. This being the case, it seemed preferable to extend the scope of the grant program by increasing the categories of buildings, entitled, and therefore the amount of grants paid to a number of municipalities that until now were receiving minimal or no grants.
[DOT]	(1650)
Further, if grants in lieu of business occupancy taxes were to be paid on all federal Crown property, huge amounts of money would be involved. The over-all cost would be extremely difficult to accurately assess, but it might very well total $100 million, that is $85 million for departmental buildings and $15 for Crown corporation buildings listed in Schedule III. In summary, Mr. Speaker, and I conclude on this, it is simply impossible to incur such expenditures.
[DOT]	(1650)


Dave Nickerson: I would like to second the remarks made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) and the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) who argued the points raised in this motion extremely well. This is very important to all members who have federal land holdings in their constituency.

October 16, 1981
Municipal Affairs
I would like to refer specifically to one type of federal property often found in municipalities. That is, land reserved for the Indians. There are two types of land reserved for Indians. One is Indian reserves under the Indian Act. In my constituency there are a number of cases in which the reserves are actually located within municipalities. There is need for improvement of the financial arrangements between the Government of Canada, presumably acting on behalf of the people who live on the reserve, and the municipality called upon to provide services for that reserve. The greatest problem lies in those areas of land designated as land reserved for Indians but not for Indian reserves. This may sound peculiar but that is the wording of the legislation. I know a couple of municipalities which have several acres of designated land reserved for Indians but not for Indian reserves. The Government of Canada pays grants in lieu of taxes to the municipality. However, since those areas of land have not been legally subdivided, although those areas have been built upon and people live there, the government will only pay grants in lieu of taxes as if the land were completely undeveloped. The result is very small revenue accruing to the local municipal governments. For that reason, they have taken the attitude that they are not responsible for the provision of full services to those areas because there is no revenue comirtg into the municipality.
I think this matter should be looked into by the government. It should be rectified in some way.
Having brought this matter to the attention of the House, I am prepared to let the hon. member from the New Democratic Party speak before we vote on this important motion.
[ Translation]


Mr. Rene Gingras (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this debate, although I have only five minutes to speak on such a detailed matter that would require half an hour. I believe that if all government agencies and Crown corporations were to pay grants equal to the amount of taxes paid by private agencies in the various areas of Canada, it would mean these agencies and corporations not only would still have to pay the full amount of grants for their lands and buildings as they now have to, but also grants in lieu of business occupancy taxes. The previous speaker dealt with the business occupancy tax, and indicated the very valid reasons why that tax should not apply. I now intend to show why it is appropriate to exclude from their grant programs building units owned by them, in the same way those units are excluded from departmental grants applicable to property holdings.
The only class of facilities which might be included without giving rise to considerable pressure for the inclusion of other
classes in the grant program would be machinery and equipment. However, the arguments raised against grants for facilities are equally valid for machinery and equipment, including the very erratic way in which the latter are taxed or not taxed in the various areas of Canada when they are owned by the business community of the private sector.
Now, machinery raises administrative problems due to the fact that certain types of equipment are part of buildings. According to the general principle applied, even if a piece of machinery may be within a building and fixed to it, it is not considered to be part of that building, except if it is used in some way in its operation like, for instance, elevators, escalators, boilers, plumbing systems, air conditioning units, sprinklers, etc., which are all considered to be part of the building and are liable for grants in the case of buildings owned by Crown corporations or government departments.
Notwithstanding the different ways in which these matters are dealt with by individual provinces, the various types of buildings are not all taxed when they belong to the private sector. In this context and in view of the difficulties which might stem from the payment of grants on some buildings in some provinces and the non-payment of grants on similar facilities in other provinces, something which might jeopardize the universal nature of the grants program, it was felt that all Crown constructions had to be excluded.
This firm position concerning facilities is based on several other reasons. First of all, if one type of property were included in the grant scheme, there would be strong pressures, for other types to be subjected to the scheme, for it does not seem logical to include some while excluding others. Also, if all facilities were to give rise to grants, Crown corporations would have to agree, for this is provided for under Section 8(1 )(f) of the 1980 legislation. This decision would prove very costly to a number of Crown corporations to the point where they could no longer meet their obligations.
On the other hand, and this has nothing to do strictly speaking with facilities, few people are aware that under the grants program administered by the federal government, grants are paid in respect of some classes of buildings which would not be taxed were they to belong to other organizations. I should mention, by way of conclusion, schools, hospitals, penitentiaries, fire halls, etc.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock in the afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.02 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, October 19, 1981