1981-01-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[English}

Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the government has only recently introduced the small business development bond legislation, which now has an amended termination date of April 1, 1981, and there is very little time left for the vitally important small business sector in Canada to take advantage of any benefit under the bonds, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House urge the government to extend the expiry date of the small business development bond to December 31, 1981.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Recent reports indicate a serious threat to the health of Canadians, as evidenced by the marked increase among Canadians of tropical and other exotic diseases such as the tenfold increase in malaria during the past five years. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That (he Flouse encourage the Minister of National Health and Welfare to direct special attention to the problem of tropical and exotic diseases in Canada, including the concept of an institute of tropical medicine.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. If anyone doubts that we are in an economic crisis, they should look north where inflation is rampant. As of January 5, 1981, in Gjoa Haven, Northwest Territories, eggs cost $4.30 a dozen, bread cost $2.65 a loaf and two kilograms of powdered milk cost $8.50. Considering that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is perhaps more sympathetic to problems of isolation since his experience in Lech, letching for avocados, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That this government take immediate steps to ensure that northerners are able to obtain nutritionally valuable food at Canadian prices.


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the serious financial burdens which municipalities in the maritime provinces are experiencing as a result of an unusually severe winter, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That this House instruct the minister responsible for housing to re-establish the community services contribution program or implement a new program to assist citizens in the region to cope with this crippling situation.


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam
Speaker, I should like to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the shattering and insulting statement made by the Ontario deputy attorney-general, H. Allan Leal, to the effect that there is not a single Francophone lawyer capable of handling a civil case in French; in view of the fact that, in Toronto yesterday, the Ontario minister of intergovernmental affairs, Mr. Thomas Wells, also put forward the same stupid and absurd argument to explain his objection to the province of Ontario also being bound by section 133 of the constitution just as Manitoba, and Quebec are, and New Brunswick will soon be; in view of the statement made by the president of the association des juristes de langue fran^aise de l'Ontario, lawyer Robert Paris, and I quote:
-It's pretty insulting to be told that one is useless and incompetent overnight-
In view of the fact that hundreds of competent Francophone lawyers are being refused by the province the tools that are essential to their work in French-


Mr. Nielsen:: Enough!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -and this, for lack of an appropriate act, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Gourd):
That this House regrets and deplores the fact that the Ontario government should invoke such irrational arguments in support of its opposition to institutional bilingualism in the Ontario legislature and Ontario courts, as provided for in Section 133.


Madam Speaker:: That motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MEDIA ADVERTISING
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, which I know members on all sides of the House will support. Yesterday, January 14, on page 50 of The Toronto Sun, there was an advertisement for the Hotel Brampton presented by the
Centrefold Model & Entertainment Agency, which says in part "Hotel Brampton Presents The Girls from Parliament Hill". Madam Speaker, this advertisement is an embarrassment to Parliament Hill. In my opinion it constitutes false advertising and it is a direct insult to the integrity of the women who work on Parliament Hill. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Speaker of the House of Commons undertake an investigation into this matter and, if it is found that the advertising is not accurate, that appropriate action be taken by the Speaker and a public apology be given to the women who work on Parliament Hill by the Hotel Brampton and the Centrefold Model & Entertainment Agency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan), who is responsible for fitness and amateur sport, recently withdrew funding from various native recreation and cultural programs without supplying any alternatives for these programs, and whereas these programs employ native people and the disruption of these programs has the potential of intensifying social problems within Canada's native communities, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That this government take immediate action to maintain existing programs and their personnel and accept native fitness and amateur sport in the same priority and on the same basis that all other Canadians enjoy.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I have a beef about the shortage of railway cars to ship livestock, so under the provisions of Standing Order 43, it is urgent and pressing. In view of the fact that the railways are drastically reducing the supply of livestock freight cars, even though they
January 15, 1981

earn nine times as much hauling cattle as hauling grain, and since the CPR can afford $400 million to buy a can-opener company in the United States but refuses to buy cattle cars, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That the Minister of Transport stop the railways from giving farmers a bum steer and that the minister use section 262 of the Railway Act to require the railways to increase the supply of livestock cars in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter that is, and continues to be, urgent and pressing. Since most members just celebrated Christmas with family and friends, we ought to remember the plight of those citizens of the United States of America held hostage in Iran and the suffering caused by this travesty of international diplomacy. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That this House record our sympathy and concern for the Americans held hostage in Iran and express our solemn hope that their period of imprisonment will end so those innocent victims of international discord will be returned to their homeland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of energy and it deals with his national energy policy. In spite of the evidence, which is
Oral Questions
mounting daily, that the minister's energy policy is a disaster for Canada, the minister stated in the House yesterday and also last Monday that he has no intention of changing that policy. In contrast, prior to Christmas the minister and the Prime Minister said at least a dozen times in this House that they were willing to negotiate with the provinces, the industry or both.
Given the now documented proof that his policy is causing the departure of dozens and dozens of rigs and millions, if not billions, of dollars, the loss of jobs on a large scale and jeopardizing of the nation's security in oil, can the minister tell the House why he has taken this new, rigid position? Is it a matter of pride, or is he not aware of just what damage his policy is causing?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, 1 would remind the hon. member that on the contrary the object of the policy we have announced is to maintain the growth rate of inflation at an acceptable level and prevent it from rising to such high levels as those which now plague a great many industrialized countries. In addition our policy is aimed at preserving tens of thousands of jobs which would vanish because of unduly rapid increases in oil prices. That is substantiated again if we look at what is going on in a great many other advanced countries. Indeed the government and I have indicated quite clearly that we were prepared to negotiate in good faith with industry spokesmen and particularly with the Alberta government. I must point out to the hon. member that the government has already amended some of the budget proposals, especially as regards exploration wells, and that certain measures will be deferred until next year, in 1982. Besides, we have already made it clear that we were quite willing to meet with Alberta government representatives at the ministerial level or at the official level. The government in Edmonton has until now refused to meet at the ministerial level but again I say that we are available. I must point out that the government is firmly committed to reach the objectives we set for ourselves in the energy program but I must say that we did show flexibility in the implementation of that program.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, obviously the minister is not aware of the damage his policy is causing. His policy is not only wrong conceptionally, but it is wrong in detail. For example, is the minister of energy aware that the Canadian ownership regulations, based on the policy stated in "The National Energy Program", result in virtually every Canadian company, perhaps even Petro-Canada, being categorized as non-Canadian? Is the minister also aware that a policy change is required to amend this ridiculous situation? Therefore, if the minister sticks to his statement that "we will continue the present policy for 1981", which statement he made on Monday

January 15, 1981
Oral Questions
in this House, there will be no companies in a position to utilize this proposed Canadian incentive program because there will be no companies in Canada which are categorized as Canadian under the Canadian ownership regulations which his officials have put forward.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I suggest that what is most ridiculous is probably the very statement of the hon. member for Calgary Centre who claims that even Petro-Canada would not qualify as a Canadian company. In fact lots of Canadian companies meet the criteria set forth in the project aimed at governing the Canadianization of enterprises. I appreciate that my hon. colleague and his party are looking askance at Canadianizing business enterprises, that his party would rather go along with the multinationals. That is their privilege. But I must say that we have made public a working document which we labelled in English-the Leader of the Opposition is once again showing concern over his future, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Clark:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: The document the hon. member is holding is called a discussion paper. Having issued a discussion paper we gave industry and all interested parties until February 9 to air their views so that we and the people concerned may review the criteria to be established. We have made that document public for discussion purposes. We have set February 9 as the deadline to submit comments and we have taken that approach because indeed we were interested in hearing comments and making the necessary adjustments.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the minister talk to Mr. Renouf, the official involved, because he could find that a policy change is necessary in order to make this working paper work. Currently all Canadian companies are "foreign" according to the regulations based on the policies he drafted. This is another example of the incompetence of that document and its details. Is the minister aware from information received from his officials or the industry that the 8 per cent petroleum and gas revenue tax, which is nondeductible from income in Canada, is deductible for U.S. incorporated companies operating in Canada? This means that a Canadian who wants to drill in Canada is better off to incorporate a company in the United States and have that company drill in Canada rather than do it directly. Is the minister aware of that absurd situation?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, about the first part of the hon. member's question, I remind him that the document he refers to was published under the authority of Mr. Renouf himself. Mr. Renouf having issued that document, he is the one who will gather all comments and see to it that the
changes that might be necessary are made, and the final decision will rest with the government. As to the second point raised by the hon. member, he voices concern every day over the number of drilling rigs which leave Canada, so I am surprised he should now worry about those which might come up from the United States. I would say to him that thanks to the energy program and the budget which was tabled as well as the grants to be made-


Harvie Andre: Based on your policies.


Marc Lalonde: -the grants to be made as a result of the budget, Canadian companies will find themselves in an extremely favourable position as compared with the multinationals for which my hon. colleague enjoys carrying the torch.


EFFECTS OF PROGRAM ON INDUSTRY IN SASKATCHEWAN
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, has the minister no idea that a Canadian rig produces Canadian jobs, not just in the west but in Stratford, Kitchener, Toronto and the province of Quebec?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: That is the difference. Why do we not have Canadian rigs drilling in Canada instead of encouraging U.S. rigs that do not produce one job to come to Canada?
Let me ask the minister now about Saskatchewan. Is he aware that as a result of his energy policy in Saskatchewan-


Charles Joseph Clark: He does not care about Saskatchewan or Alberta or British Columbia or Manitoba.


Erik Nielsen: He doesn't know where it is.


William Herbert Jarvis: -that many oil wells have become uneconomical overnight? I do not mean wells that were highly profitable, but those that were at least sufficiently marginal to keep operating? As a result of the oil policy, not just a few but hundreds are in a shut-in or a potentially shut-in position. The result, Madam Speaker, is loss of jobs, loss of productivity and more dependence on foreigners. Is the minister aware of this situation and, if so, what discussions are under way or are planned with his Saskatchewan counterpart to alleviate this very tragic situation?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member that in spite of his statement the media have carried out a survey of companies, particularly in Ontario, that were supposedly going to lose many, many jobs because of the so-called statements that were issued by some individuals in the oil industry. In effect, the Toronto Star-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
January IS, 1981


Marc Lalonde: -has not been able to find any-


Harvie Andre: Nor has Pravda!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Beatty:: That is the "Trudeau Star".


Marc Lalonde: The Toronto Star has not been able to find a single spokesman for any company in Ontario that has said it lost any jobs. The hon. member knows that, according to Oilweek magazine, on January 6 there were exactly the same number of rigs operating as a year ago, roughly at the same time. In effect, even in Alberta, according to those figures, not a single job would have been lost compared to the same period in 1980.
In regard to the second point raised by the hon. member, I would remind him that the province of Saskatchewan has the highest rate of royalty of any province in Canada. This also has an impact on the netback that goes to the industry. I have had discussions with my colleague in Saskatchewan in the past and 1 intend to meet my colleague in Saskatchewan some time next week as well.


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, I hope that the minister and his department will start hiring Toronto Star reporters, since The Globe and Mail reporters obviously have not helped him very much in terms of his assessment.
In addition to the National Energy Program and its impact upon the oil industry in Saskatchewan, there are two other factors which depress the industry there. One is the government's export tax which is now pricing Saskatchewan heavy crude out of the marketplace in the United States. The minister knows how delicate and fragile that market is.


Charles Joseph Clark: He doesn't know.


William Herbert Jarvis: Second, our purchases of Mexican heavy crude at twice the price we pay Saskatchewan are displacing that heavy oil and the markets for it. The question is simply this: what does the minister propose to do about that?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 am very happy the hon. member is raising this specific question. It will show him again that it is dangerous to rely on an erroneous and outdated opinion.
An. hon. Member: That is the Toronto Star.


Marc Lalonde: It is dangerous to be manipulated by some foreign companies that have strong positions vis-a-vis the purchase of heavy oil from Saskatchewan. In effect, there will be no reduction in the production of heavy oil in Saskatchewan even after the announcement by the National Energy Board of an increase in the export price, because we have found other clients in the United States and the eastern refineries in
Oral Questions
Quebec are going to take more Saskatchewan heavy crude than they ever did in the past.


Mr. Kempling:: Name the refinery.


DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the Government of Canada seconded the UN resolution declaring 1981 to be the International Year of the Disabled, will the minister tell the House, and more importantly tell 700,000 disabled Canadians, why they have allocated only $1 million to projects for the handicapped this year, which represents a financial contribution of something less than $1.50 per disabled Canadian?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I take the question of the hon. member more as a representation in favour of the handicapped. We all support and share the responsibility for the handicapped including provinces, municipalities and other institutions in the country.
The government has put aside the $1 million which the hon. member has referred to for projects which communities or groups will present to the organizing committee in Canada. The provinces are also putting aside a similar budget. It is not identical because it will depend on the order of magnitude and what possibilities present themselves in each province. That does not preclude our departments of health and welfare across the country, or other departments in the various provinces, from having ongoing projects.
Very soon the federal government will announce projects for each department. We are expecting a report from the committee on which the hon. member sits; it has not been made public yet, although we expected it at the beginning of the year.


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. I think the disabled community in Canada is looking to the federal government to give leadership to the provinces; it should not be following the provinces.
Because the province of Ontario is spending $12 million in commemoration of the International Year of the Disabled and British Columbia is spending $3 million, for example, will the minister not agree that the federal contribution is an embarrassment and a betrayal of the disabled and that the amount should be immediately increased to show that our concern for the plight of the disabled is real and not just plain tokenism?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, of course we would all love to have more money available. I do not want to dwell on the political aspect in the question asked by the hon. member, but he knows that the provinces now have a much bigger share of the tax revenues and resources of Canada than the federal

January 15, 1981
Oral Questions
government. His reasoning is totally upside down. As far as 1 am concerned, the provinces should be contributing much more in their budgets than they are for this program.


IMPRISONMENT OF THE MENTALLY ILL-CALL FOR AMENDMENT OF CRIMINAL CODE
Neil Young: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary will be directed to the Minister of Justice since the Minister of National Health and Welfare does not seem to be taking this matter seriously.
Will the Minister of Justice undertake to present immediately a government bill to this House which will amend the Criminal Code to abolish the use of lieutenant governor warrants that permit mentally ill Canadians to be locked up for years on minor criminal charges? Will the government at least undertake to do that much for the disabled community?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, we have received recommendations on that subject from Mr. Fair-weather, the Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission. We are studying the possibility of proposing amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act and, if necessary, to the Criminal Code, but we do not feel we are prepared to do so in the next few days. We are now reviewing the problem and we hope to reach a conclusion within the coming months.


BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question today is directed to the Minister of Finance. The minister will know that as a result of the auction today, the Bank of Canada rate is still within a whisker of 17 per cent, having gone down the magnificent amount of three-one hundredths of 1 per cent. The minister has organized his Bank of Canada rate on the basis of one-quarter per cent over the treasury bill rate. The minister auctioned off $1,310 billion of treasury bills. His 182 bills sold at 15.3 per cent. His one-year bills sold out at 14.4 per cent.
Why will the minister not direct the Bank of Canada to determine its rate on the basis of its average sale of treasury bills-for example, on a sale of treasury bills at 15.4 per cent-to give a Bank of Canada rate of 15.65 per cent, instead of insisting on using the highest rate to determine the Bank of Canada rate and, therefore, forcing the base rate of interest in this country to be higher than it should be?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I disagree with the
conclusion reached by the hon. member. It seems to me that the auction today reflected current market conditions. That is the purpose of the auction and that is what establishes the bank rate. I am pleased, as I think the hon. member is pleased, that even though he describes the change as a whisker, it is a whisker in the right direction.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The minister will remember that when the governor was before the provincial minister of finance prior to Christmas, he said that the rate was higher than we would like to see, but we do not have any choices open to us. The minister knows we have choices open to us. We have a choice of directing the prime rate of interest of the Bank of Canada. We have a right to control who gets money in terms of the minister's powers. Bearing in mind that the bank prime rate determines what the prime rate is for every single borrower, every small business in this country, and even large businesses, every consumer and every householder is going broke at these rates.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What does the minister propose to do?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member states there are a number of choices open to the government to influence interest rates in a downward direction. Whatever choice he sees that would be beneficial, any alternative to the present policy in my view would result in higher inflation and probably higher interest rates in the medium term. I do not know of any alternative that would be better for the Canadian economy. Let me put it another way. Any alternative that I have heard is bound to be worse than the course being followed by the governor of the Bank of Canada at the present time.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. The president of the CBC was reported in this morning's Globe and Mail to have said to the CRTC at yesterday's hearings that he is convinced Parliament would be prepared to put up the $30 million required for the elitist CBC-2 service if it is approved by the CRTC. May I ask the minister what commitment has been given to the CBC in support of CBC-2? May I ask whether in fact he is prepared at this time to endorse this elitist proposal being made by the CBC?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: To begin with. Madam Speaker, I do not agree with the hon. member's premise. When we are talking about television, the greatest challenge which faces television in this country is to get a greater number of Canadian signals on Canadian satellites and have more Canadian signals available to the Canadian public in general. At the moment, in
January 15, 1981

English-speaking Canada 78 per cent of the TV programs watched by Canadians are of American origin and 83 per cent of the programs watched by Canadian children in Englishspeaking Canada are of American origin.


Erik Nielsen: Answer the question.


Francis Fox: Perhaps the hon. member might be interested in some of the background. He might even be interested in some of the facts.


Charles Joseph Clark: Don't abuse the rules.


Francis Fox: If the Leader of Opposition is not happy with my answer, perhaps he can write me a letter.
The major challenge facing people in the communications industry, in government and in the broadcasting sector is getting a higher number of high quality Canadian programs produced. One of the ways is the method suggested by the president of the CBC-by having CBC-2. As far as the CBC is concerned, Madam Speaker-


Charles Joseph Clark: Order.


Erik Nielsen: Answer the question.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, in all of that time the minister studiously avoided answering my question, which was whether or not the Minister of Communications has committed the government-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. There is so much shouting going on around the minister, perhaps he cannot hear me.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member can start his question again.


Henry Perrin Beatty: My question to the minister, which he did not answer, was whether or not the Minister of Communications had endorsed the elitist proposal by the CBC which, according to CBC's own statistics, would require every Canadian to pay $30 million for a service that would be available to only 17 per cent of Canadians. Has he endorsed that proposal? If he is concerned about the CBC discharging its mandate, does he not believe the CBC has a responsibility to provide at least the regular basic service to all Canadians before asking for a CBC-2 network?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, as far as the government is concerned it would be improper at this stage for us to endorse the proposal as it is now because the matter-


Charles Joseph Clark: Have you acted improperly?


Francis Fox: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would be interested in the answer. Obviously if a licence is issued, the matter could be appealed to the governor in council, and at
Oral Questions
that stage we would have to take a decision as to whether to maintain or not. As far as this government is concerned, we are vitally interested in seeing a higher number of Canadian quality programs being produced in this country and being made available to Canadians from coast to coast.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: No answer.


EMPLOYMENT
Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the fact that Nova Scotia lost approximately 400 nurses in 1980 and 350 in 1979 to other parts of Canada and average salaries in Nova Scotia are the second lowest in Canada, even lower than in New Brunswick where the nurses are threatening to strike, will the minister tell the House if he has signed the order for bringing 100 nurses to the province on the request of the government of Nova Scotia? If he has not signed it, will he reconsider and look into the question whether he is being asked to help keep salaries down for nurses in Nova Scotia?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the question really relates to a much broader problem. Indeed, there is a shortage of nurses right across Canada and the situation is particularly acute in eastern Canada. We are facing at the present time a dilemma between the tremendous movement of nurses to the United States and to the western part of this country, leaving extreme shortages in hospitals in eastern Canada because of the cutbacks in training which took place three or four years ago.
The application in Nova Scotia has not been signed. We are concerned that we have not proceeded with the kind of program to ensure that we will be able to supply enough nurses in the years ahead. We have signed an agreement with the province of New Brunswick, with the registered nurses and the hospital association of New Brunswick. I would be very anxious to sign a similar agreement with Nova Scotia so we can come to the cause of the problem and develop not only an application to ensure their immediate supply of nurses, but also ensure a future supply without the kind of cycle of shortages we run into at the present time.


NORTH-SOUTH RELATIONS PROPOSALS IN TASK FORCE REPORT
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and it is on
6224

January 15, 1981
Oral Questions
the subject of North-South relations. The North-South question is basically a question of life and death for some 800 million people. It is particularly concerned with the world economic situation. I and many other Canadians are upset by the antics and the general misfortunes the Prime Minister is having on his trip.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House now whether he has read the task force report which has been presented to Parliament? Has he been in discussions with other world leaders in the western bloc about some movement or action which can be taken in relation to international institutions? Has he seriously discussed with them a new gearing ratio in the World Bank? Has he discussed special drawing rights for the Third World?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I must say that I share the hon. member's interest and concern with respect to the whole question of North-South relations. I assure the hon. member that I have followed the work of the parliamentary task force. I read the report. I took it with me during the Chritsmas break and found it to be a very useful contribution to the current discussions on that subject.
The hon. member's specific points with respect to special drawing rights and a gearing ratio in the World Bank are currently under discussion, and at recent meetings of the World Bank before Christmas and of the IMF both these items were discussed. 1 have no doubt but that certain changes can be made in the operations of the international financial institutions to improve the situation for developing countries, but I believe that changes in those institutions, though important, are not the only way by which we can contribute at the present time to the improvement of the very serious situation which prevails in developing countries.


REQUEST FOR DEBATE FOLLOWING FOREIGN TOUR OF PRIME MINISTER
Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the government House leader. After the Prime Minister's first tour he gave no report to this House. I ask the government House leader to plan now to have the Prime Minister give a statement on motions when he comes back so that this House and the people of Canada can hear about what he actually has done in the Middle East, Africa and South America and be given a chance to have dialogue, discussions and debate on the subject.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to convey the suggestion of the hon. member to the right hon. Prime Minister. May I however draw his attention to the fact that between now and March 26 there will be six days allotted to the official opposition parties. They could very well set one of those days aside to discuss the trip of the right hon. Prime Minister to foreign countries. 1 am sure the Prime Minister will be pleased to join
the debate, or arrange to have certain hon. members come up with the necessary information to enlighten the hon. member on those aspects which apparently interest him more than others.


THE CONSTITUTION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice, who will have read news reports quoting a British cabinet minister as saying that Canadian envoys in London were informed last year that Ottawa's inclusion of a bill of rights was unexpected and could delay the process in Westminster. Will the Minister of Justice tell the Canadian House of Commons whether Canadian representatives in London last fall were advised that inclusion of a bill or charter of rights could delay action by Westminster?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I am not aware that there was such a problem. Prime Minister Thatcher said to the Prime Minister of Canada that when the Parliament of Canada passes a resolution, the parliament of Great Britain would act according to the British tradition in the matter as it has done since 1867, and that would be to agree to the requests of the Parliament of Canada as represented by a vote of the House of Commons and the Senate.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice is a little confused. My question and the press quote had to do with the meeting of envoys of Canada, the minister's colleagues, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of the Environment, with British officials in September. It was to that that reference was made.
Perhaps since one of the envoys is in the House, he could answer the question whether there was an indication or warning given at that time, or any indication given to Canadian envoys at that time, that the inclusion of a charter of rights was a surprise and unexpected, and that it could delay the process and the speed with which Westminster could respond to a joint address. This matter had been discussed among the prime ministers in June. Could the Minister of the Environment in his capacity as envoy on constitutional matters inform the House?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I do not think there was anything which could in any way be construed as a warning. Of course, in the general discussion there was an indication that a bill of rights was a matter of great general interest and therefore might prompt some discussion in the normal debate which would take place in the British house of commons.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.
January 15, 1981


John (Moody) Roberts: 1 think that is an answer to the right hon. gentleman's question. There was nothing which could in any way be accurately described as a warning.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, 1 rather regret, as I am sure the House and the country regret, that we were not told the whole truth as to the nature of the conversations last autumn which had to do with the legislative timetable of Great Britain.
However, let me ask the Minister of Justice, who spoke earlier of June, about that meeting on June 25 between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of Great Britain. At that time did the Prime Minister of Canada specifically advise the Prime Minister of Great Britain that the joint address from the Parliament of Canada would include references to a charter or bill of rights? Was there specific advice by the Prime Minister of Canada to the Prime Minister of Great Britain with respect to the inclusion of a charter or bill of rights at that June meeting?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, obviously I was not present, but I know the legal situation and the traditional situation in this matter. Since 1867 never has the British parliament ever overruled a resolution of the Parliament of Canada. It has always accepted resolutions of the Parliament of Canada. It has always accepted resolutions coming from the House of Commons and the Senate, and what is in the resolution of the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada is a matter for the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada, not Great Britain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BANKRUPTCIES
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. When my colleague, the hon. member for Burlington, requested an investigation or inquiry into the circumstances under which Astra Trust Company was incorporated and, more particularly, why it is now in the process of liquidation, the Minister of State for Finance responded rather casually to the effect that there was no need to worry because the guaranteed deposit insurance would cover most of the claimants. When will the Government of Canada take some action to cause to be increased the amount of this guaranteed insurance coverage so that it will be comparable with today's dollar and the amount of coverage which would be in place in the United States of America?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, may 1 say that as a result of representations made by many members in the House 1 have asked the Superintendent of the Department of Insurance to weigh the
Oral Questions
possibility of having the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation review the current $20,000 ceiling. That study is under way and it is known that we will soon have new legislation covering loan and trust companies, and I think that before the legislation is introduced the study will be completed and the government will be able to make a decision in light of expert advice received from the Superintendent of Insurance. Superintendent.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Finance and Minister of State for Finance well know, their files are probably thick with requests for this increased insurance coverage and promises that studies will be made. Today's dollar value compared with when this $20,000 limit was put in place is approximately 47 cents. Since it was put in place we have adopted programs such as the registered home ownership savings plan as well as retirement savings plans. Is it not about time that the government made a decision on an increase?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I did explain to the hon. member that the coverage now provided by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation is under review. Still I agree with some of the arguments of the hon. member. However, 1 would like to tell him that actuarial studies are required to determine whether the rate should be changed, according to what criteria and by how much. This cannot be done by flipping a coin in arbitrary style, it must be based on the contributions of companies and on the costs which may be incurred when companies will be faced with operational difficulties. But the hon. member and all his colleagues in the House as well as all Canadians may rest assured that the ceiling guaranteed by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation is under serious review and that the government will take the necessary decisions.


WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and it has to do with the fact that the World Health Organization executive is meeting this week and next to decide what to recommend to the thirty-fourth assembly in May. Until now, Canada has been taking the position of opposing a strict code which would deal with the promotion by the multinationals of an infant formula in the Third World. My question for the minister is whether Canada will be continuing to take this position at the meeting of the executive of the organization, or is the department considering a change from their support of mere recommendations to the support of regulations which would prohibit the multinationals from

January 15, 1981
Oral Questions
taking advantage of Third World countries and Third World mothers in this way?


Monique Bégin: If I may, Madam Speaker, I would like to check with the office of Dr. Maureen Law, my assistant deputy minister, who is a member of the World Health Organization executive, to which Canada has belonged since May, what are the latest developments in this regard, because the session has been going on for several days already and I would not want to mislead the House.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Lately we have had a lot of travelling hot air on the subject of the North-South dialogue, a sort of Canadian chinook coming down from the Alps.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He is no schnook!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I said chinook, not schnook. My question for the minister is this. Are there under way in her department efforts to integrate the positions which her department has taken at these various international assemblies, with the insight of the North-South dialogue, which is to say that resolving the North-South dialogue is definitely not integrating Third World countries into the global profit strategies of multinational corporations such as Nestle?


Monique Bégin: The team of the Department of National Health and Welfare of this government does not suffer from a split personality, and I can assure every hon. member that the fight against poverty which we are carrying on in Canada is exactly what we undertake to do when we sit at meetings of international institutions such as the World Health Organization.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications, who is responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Following recent statements by a senior CBC reporter concerning the administrative incompetence at the French network of the CBC and in view of the conflict which has been going on for the last several months in the news service of this network, can the hon. minister tell this House whether he will ask the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture to check on the situation that this statement suggests since this
recent statement coincides with comments made previously by another reporter who has now handed in his resignation to the CBC?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the hon. member, who is the chairman of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, has asked whether 1 am willing to ask the committee to inquire into this matter. All I can say, Madam Speaker, is that the committee and its chairman are the absolute masters of their own procedures and that, if they want to question the officers of the CBC when the estimates of the corporation are submitted to that committee in the near future, they will have every opportunity at that time to call On these people who, I am convinced, only want to improve the quality of management within the corporation.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport on the involvement of CNR in marine transportation. At a time when the government is acting to Canadianize the energy industry, allegedly to create jobs and opportunities for Canadians, will the minister explain why his government authorized a $50 million investment by the CNR in the CAST shipping group, which is controlled from outside of Canada, when the funds will be used to build six container ships in Yugoslavia and South Korea, thereby creating jobs and opportunities not for Canadians but for Yugoslavs and Koreans?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, it is generally recognized that the company CAST has made and is making important contributions to port development in Canada. From the point of view of CNR, this investment is considered to be a good one so far as financial returns are concerned, and that is why the government has approved it.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, if the investment is a good one, as the minister says, will he kindly explain why, when there is no projected tremendous increase in traffic in the north Atlantic transport zones, CAST and the CNR are doubling their facilities in Montreal and doubling the number of ships available for the North American routes, and what is the justification for this action?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I do not understand the question too well because there is such a development in traffic in the container area. This is one area to which CAST has made an important contribution, and CN is part of that organization.
January 15, 1981


HOUSING
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of housing. Can he tell this House what he predicts will be the number of housing starts in Canada in the year 1981?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: The
information, Madam Speaker, which I brought to the attention of the hon. member yesterday was available to all members. It is the report of the Conference Board in Canada which sets that figure at 181,000. Personally I am inclined to believe that that figure is low, and at this time I am asking for advice from CMHC. I do not have that answer as yet.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: In view of the fact that CMHC estimates their requirements in 1981 to be in the neighbourhood of 264,000, what new policies does he have to close the gap?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the figure to which the hon. member refers was prepared some months earlier. I do not believe that it is a current projection. In any event, as I have indicated in answers before, we are waiting to see what results, for example, the MURB provision in the budget announced earlier will produce. This is a figure which could introduce, for example, 10,000 to 15,000 units. As 1 said, when I have the information, which is current information based, for example, on the fluctuation of interest rates which impact the market, I will be happy to advise the hon. member.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, my question as well is for the minister responsible for housing. In 1979 the Community Services Contribution Program provided in excess of $150 million to assist 867 communities across Canada with various projects involving the construction of numerous utilities which otherwise might not have been available to them. In 1980 the dollar commitment was some $250 million. The government has cancelled the program. My question to the minister is whether he can tell the House what he proposes to replace this program with, and how much assistance can the municipalities expect dollarwise during the ensuing year?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, as I have indicated in an announcement to all members of the House, the program was not cancelled. In fact, the agreement which expired at the end of last year was not renewed. Notwithstanding that, the government indicated that it will continue to make payments under that agreement which expired last year until approximately March of 1982. There will be a further distribution of some $400 million to provinces
Business of the House
and municipalities to assist them in fulfilling the traditional roles which they have had through the years.
We indicated as well that we did it in order to free room for new initiatives. I have indicated in the House before that one of those initiatives, for example, is the consideration of shelter allowance. This could possibly be a very expensive program, depending upon the extent of its introduction. This is one of the things we are considering as a replacement. I admit that it is not directed entirely to municipalities. The ministry and the corporation feel that our responsibility should be in more direct response to housing needs, not the needs of municipalities but the housing needs of Canadians.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, let me remind the minister that these funds have been utilized by municipalities for matters related to housing, such as sewerage projects and things of that nature which are extremely vital. My supplementary question is directed to the same minister. In view of the fact that the program has been announced as being cut off and municipalities are experiencing difficulties in the Atlantic region, the maritime provinces, will the minister consider an emergency program at this time of financial assistance to help those communities get through a very difficult and unusually harsh winter?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member missed the import of my last answer to him. The non-renewal of the programs will have no impact on municipalities until 1982. The funding of the moneys will continue until 1982, so I am afraid the talk of emergency programs to municipalities in his region has no bearing on the action of the government.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, may 1 direct the usual Thursday question to the government House leader and ask him what will be the business of the House for tomorrow and next week? It is my understanding that there might be a disposition to set aside Thursday as an allotted day. As far as he can, it would be helpful if he indicated the business well into next week.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, today we will complete second reading of Bill C-48. Tomorrow we will begin the study of Bill C-54 to amend the Income Tax Act and to give the government the authority to borrow $14 billion, and since the very nature of that bill implies that the study in committee be done in Committee of the Whole rather than in a committee of the House we intend, unless due notice is given, of course, to leave that bill before the House for the next few days. So next week Bill C-54, which 1 have just mentioned, will take all our

January 15, 1981
Business of the House
time, except for Thursday which will be allotted to the official opposition.


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, may 1 put a question to the government House leader regarding the House business for next week? As the government House leader must know, it used to be a tradition, when a prime minister or a secretary of state for external affairs came back to Canada from trips to other countries, that automatically a statement was made in the House. In recent times that tradition seems to have been dropped, yet I wonder if the government does not realize the importance of the North-South dialogue. Will the government House leader impress upon the Prime Minister very seriously the point suggested by the hon. member for Saskatoon East that some day next week there might be a formal statement by the Prime Minister on his North-South discussions so that there can then be responses from this side of the House?
I realize there is the usual comment that we have opposition days, but surely this is a matter of concern to the government and the whole country, and it ought to be worth a statement by the Prime Minister and responses to that statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague understands very well that under the provisions of Standing Order 15(3) the Prime Minister does not have to make such a statement. On the other hand, he will understand that the Prime Minister has always been happy in the past and will be happy to answer questions on the subject almost every day during oral question period.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Yvon Pinard: Moreover, 1 am sure the Prime Minister will be happy to participate, directly or indirectly, in any debate on one of the allotted days as the hon. member just mentioned which are available to the opposition parties. I think this would be much more useful for the country than spreading some kind of panic regarding the economy when there is no reason to spread such panic, as his party did in the last few days.
I suggest that the hon. member should use question period and maybe one or two of the allotted days available to the opposition. If he undertakes to do that, I will be very happy to suggest to the Prime Minister that he consider seriously the possibility of making the statement about which the member talked. But we will take into consideration the time taken during question period on this subject, and if it has not been covered sufficiently during question period, perhaps then the Prime Minister will be happy to make a statement.
My hon. colleague just recognized that it is not an obligation, but on the other hand he will also agree the opposition will have many opportunities to ask questions of the Prime Minister on this subject. I am sure the Prime Minister will be very pleased to provide the opposition with all the answers he is willing to give them.


An hon. Member:: Yes, the ones he is willing to give.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, we both understand the rules of the House and the obligations and privileges of the Prime Minister, but surely this subject is of such great importance that it ought not to be one on which the government waits for questions to which to respond. Surely it is a question on which the government should take the lead.
The government House leader has already promised that he will speak to the Prime Minister about this matter, but I hope he will put his weight as House leader behind the proposition that the Prime Minister ought to take the initiative of making a statement on motions so that, on the government's initiative, we can have a discussion of this important issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on the same question. It is really generated most recently by the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre concerning the practices of the House. We have seen a quite regular and a much more frequent recourse to the use of closure by the government than had been the custom in the past. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated, apparently we now have a deliberate departure from the practice of prime ministerial statements on major trips undertaken while Parliament is sitting, at public expense, and presumably in the interest of public policy. In the past those have been the cause for statements on motions, of report by a prime minister on his return.
There was a rather soft undertaking to discuss the matter but a very hard indication that it was the view of the government House leader that he would prefer to have the traditions of this place changed, to have the only responsibility by the Prime Minister evidenced through questions, through the response to questions or through an allotted opposition day.
On at least two occasions earlier today matters were dealt with which obviously would have been better dealt with through statements on motions. The Secretary of State and Minister of Communications, in failing to answer a question by my colleague, gave a long statement of government broadcasting policy which should have been made on a statement on motions. The Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment, in his capacity as government envoy on the constitutional matters, indicated today that there had not been the full and complete reporting to the House of Commons which the House of Commons had the right to expect as a result of the consultations in Great Britain in the autumn concerning the legislative timetable of Westminster and the matters before this House.
I apologize for the long preamble to my question, but we are seeing a number of reforms and changes in parliamentary procedure by the government acting unilaterally. The government House leader will recall that the government I had the honour to lead brought in a comprehensive program of parliamentary reform.
Does the government intend simply to change the practices of Parliament by unilateral action, or is it preparing a comprehensive program of parliamentary reform which will be
January 15, 1981

brought before the House so that we can consider deliberately how we want to change this Chamber, taking account of some of the excellent suggestions made the other day during the closure motion debate by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, taking account of the proposals put forward by my colleague and seatmate when he occupied the position of government House leader, and taking account of the very serious concerns about the adequency of parliamentary procedure felt by private members on all sides of the House? Will we have a full and comprehensive public, detailed proposal, or will we simply have the House traditions changed bit by bit unilaterally by the government?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, of course 1 do not expect the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to think that 1 agree with his introductory remarks because they are highly politicized and do not reflect reality at all. But still the essence of his question is serious. That is why I will go along and answer because it has to do with parliamentary reform. But when he talks about breaking with tradition, Madam Speaker, it should be recalled that it was not the government which sent hon. members performing gymnastics before the Speaker of the House on the eve of a vote last fall when we were compelled and forced by the opposition to put an end to the debate which had been far too long.
Nor was it the government which today put a question to a minister, a question altogether foreign to his ministerial responsibilities. The Minister of the Environment replied out of courtesy, because we on this side of the House are very polite and quite prepared to overlook the procedural mistakes often made by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. So I want to set things in their proper perspective and suggest that the traditions of this House are being changed not so much by members on this side of the House as by hon. members opposite, in the two cases I have just mentioned.
As to the application of Standing Order 15(3) concerning ministerial statements the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that we are not compelled to make any and that we make some now and again when hon. members have no opportunity to put questions to ministers on certain subjects, say a new policy for example, or if during oral question period it was impossible to question a minister or the Prime Minister on a given topic.
In this instance, the Prime Minister will be in the House next week. There will be a daily oral question period as usual and of course hon. members will be able to put questions to the Prime Minister who will have an opportunity to reply. If it becomes obvious that his answers are not satisfactory or that the Prime Minister does not have enough time to give all the answers required to enlighten the House and the Parliament of Canada about his trip to foreign countries, then I am convinced that he will indeed consider the advisability of following
Business of the House
the Standing Orders of the House to give more details to hon. members, either under the provisions of Standing Order 15(3) or in a statement, or again by offering his contribution during an allotted day when the opposition would have selected his trip as subject for debate. As I said earlier, the opposition will have at least six days to raise that subject if it so wishes. As to the substance of the question on parliamentary reform, of course it is important to think about it. Some traditions must be respected, others must disappear. I have said again and again that any change that might be made here will have been the object of discussions among members on both sides of the House. As far as I know, that process has been under way since I first came to this House in 1974, because our Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization has studied this question and tabled three reports on which no action was taken. And then we have the report introduced by the Progressive Conservative Party when they were in office and which features challenging ideas and other proposals that could stand revamping.
Other aspects of parliamentary reform deserve consideration since they flow from the recommendations of the Lambert report or of reports now on the order paper and issued by the Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments. They must all be reviewed as a whole. Once we have all the elements I think we will be in a position, within reasonable time, to come up with suggestions and arrange to have them discussed by all parliamentarians.
But it is obvious that parliamentary reform has become necessary and urgent if this institution is to reflect reality. What does "reflect reality" mean? Very simply, enabling Parliament to adopt enough legislation to meet current needs-


Charles Joseph Clark: -adopt enough legislation?


Yvon Pinard: -adopt enough legislation to meet current needs.
1 am answering the question seriously. I hope the right hon. gentleman will deign to listen because this is not a light subject.
To this day and for reasons which may be humanitarian but which we should not have to endure, the opposition has not been altogether co-operative in the adoption of legislation since Parliament resumed last fall. Unfortunate though it may be, it is the truth. Of course, we deal with consequential issues but it is also essential for the government to shoulder its responsibilities.
It was in that spirit, Madam Speaker, that earlier this week we were forced to serve notice that we would limit the debate, not impose closure as the Leader of the Opposition so liberally claims, but limit the debate. Why were we forced to limit the debate? Because the opposition parties did not want to hear anything about a reasonable length of time. Contrary to the

January 15, 1981
Business of the House
statement of the Leader of the Opposition, we could not possibly decide unilaterally to limit the debate without first consulting the opposition parties and offer them an opportunity to explain to us what they think is a reasonable length of time. We asked them if they wanted to sit down with us and tell us what would be reasonable as additional time to debate Bill C-48 on second reading. They said no, so we did not have any choice.
Parliamentary reform is necessary. Why? Precisely because we had constitutional problems in 1980 and now in 1981 we must come to grips with energetic and economic issues. Madam Speaker, we now have on the order paper 40-odd items about which the government must take action to answer the expectations of the people. And all of a sudden the opposition parties decide to filibuster, so we are expected to let them take over and manage the business of Parliament while we stand idly by. If we were to agree to play that game we would simply be giving up on the responsibilities which the majority of Canadians entrusted to us in the last election.
One thing I want to make clear to the Leader of the Opposition is that we do want to co-operate with members across the floor. We are prepared to discuss with them. We are prepared to sit down and talk over a reasonable schedule to implement a legislative program which will command respect for Parliament from all Canadians, so that we can show to the people that we have here men and women who can govern the country in an orderly and rational manner while respecting the full rights of the opposition to voice exhaustive but certainly not dilatory criticism. If in my capacity as government House leader I were to let the opposition have a field day with dilatory tactics I would be falling far short of assuming the responsibilities given to us by the Canadian people.
I suggest I would not be doing the opposition a service, I would be doing my share to destroy this institution. 1 am convinced that that is not the intent of the Leader of the Opposition but I remind him that the best way to prove that indeed he seeks what is best for this institution is to be more co-operative and refrain from filibustering. We on this side are quite willing to sit down and negotiate and to that end we are prepared to set aside every other political consideration. All we want is to respect the obligations of a modern government facing a modern opposition, but in an orderly manner.
When we realize that for partisan motives the opposition will not co-operate, then we are forced to use the Standing Orders of the House and, in this instance since my colleague refers directly to the events of this week, to resort to Standing Order 75C. In conclusion. Madam Speaker, I cannot refrain from recalling publicly that Standing Order 75C is a rule of the House and that it has nothing to do with unilateral action on the part of the government. Standing Order 75C cannot be applied and, as government House leader, I have no authority to limit the debate without first offering to the opposition
parties an opportunity to negotiate with us over what is a reasonable length of time.
That is an obligation which is spelled out in the Standing Orders and I went along with it but members opposite refused to negotiate a reasonable delay concerning the length of second reading of Bill C-48. Given such obvious and systematic obstruction we were forced to assume our responsibilities. We are hoping, Madam Speaker, that in future the opposition will not force us to act that way again.
Again I express publicly our will to co-operate with hon. members opposite and grant reasonable time for debate but it has become imperative, as the Leader of the Opposition wishes to change the Standing Orders, to launch parliamentary reform so that Parliament will be modern and efficient and reflect reality. Right now we are not doing anything more than attempting to do just that and to respect fully the obligations entrusted to us by the Canadian public and the people of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please, 1 am wondering if I, as well, might not have to set a limit on an extended debate on a simple question, which required an answer of course, but it seems to me since I have already heard the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition I should now recognize another member on that side. It is not reasonable to listen to two speeches on the same question. We have now been on the same question for twenty minutes already.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I know you are running a clock with respect to the time limits, the time taken by members of the opposition and the government. I trust you will continue that practice and draw our attention to it, as you did the other day. I was quite surprised by the response of the government House leader because it did not draw anywhere near to my question, which is quite simple. I would like to know whether the government is now preparing any proposal for parliamentary reform which this House might consider.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, since there has been no preamble this time I will refrain as well. The answer is yes.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I had not intended to intervene, but the minister in his contribution made mention of the fourth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments which I tabled in the House in July. Each day Madam Speaker has been asking whether or not I would like to call the motion for concurrence in this unanimous report which was placed on the order paper on July 17. In view of the fact that the minister has indicated an interest in this report and that, to date, he would be opposed to calling the motion for concurrence until after the task force on regulatory reform has made its report, and in view of the fact
January 15, 1981

that the task force has now made that report, is the minister prepared to have the House debate concurrence in this unanimous report I presented on behalf of the statutory instruments committee?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 also mentioned that we were waiting for the report of the Economic Council of Canada on the same subject, which will be in February, if not earlier. In any event, even if that report were to be completed within the next week, it is not our intention to use the time of the House now to deal with those reports because we must deal with other bills involving matters of the budget, energy, and the constitution.
What I am saying is that these reports refer to the regulations which are linked very closely to parliamentary reform. In our view it is very important that these reports be considered at the same time as parliamentary reform. We would prefer to have these reports sent in due time to those who will be looking into parliamentary reform. I am willing to discuss this possibility with the hon. member within the next couple of days, but it is certainly not our intention to use the time of the House before Easter to deal with those reports.


Mr. Rose:: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind this House that how this whole debate began, and then wandered into closure, statutory instruments and all over the lot, was with a simple question on upcoming House business and whether or not the Prime Minister would be prepared to make a statement in the House on motions on his trip. 1 am aware that the Prime Minister has no obligation and that there is no rule requiring him to make such a statement.
We know that the government House leader cannot commit the Prime Minister at this point. All we want from the government House leader is an indication that he will ask or that he will somehow urge the Prime Minister with regard to this matter.
One of the most enlightening and interesting experiences for myself as a new member when I came to this House some years ago was statements on motions made by ministers. It was participatory democracy for the critics of the various areas, and it was extremely helpful. As observed by the Leader of the Opposition, that practice has greatly declined. Instead, we get ministers making what used to be statements on motions regarding policy and new departures and new procedures outside the House, or outside Room 130-S. 1 would urge the Prime Minister and other ministers to return at least partially to the practice of making statements on motions on important issues.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 thought I answered that question to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The reason why we were discussing parliamentary reform is because I was asked a question about parliamentary reform by the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition, and that is why I elaborated on the subject. But in so far as the question of statements by ministers is concerned, I believe 1 gave a full answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If the
Business of the House
hon. member is pleased with the practice as it was in the past, that is fine with me, and I will speak to the Prime Minister when he returns. I just told his colleague that I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he consider making a statement, but 1 cannot at this stage confirm that he will do so, especially if question period is used for the same purpose.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is with respect to the business of the House, and it concerns a bill which was tabled some time ago and about which I have inquired on a number of occasions. The government has indicated that this bill is one of its priorities. 1 refer to the legislation with respect to access to information.
Before the Christmas recess the President of the Privy Council indicated that this bill would be tabled early in the new year, and that it was a high priority bill. In the course of his statements this afternoon on the upcoming business of the House over the next few months, the President of the Privy Council made no reference to this legislation. I would like to hear from him when we will see some action on this bill. When will the government call this bill for second reading and permit us to get into the kind of clause by clause study that is sorely needed, so that the secrecy which is so pervasive in this government will come to an end? Madam Speaker, what kind of priority does this bill have, and can we get an assurance from the President of the Privy Council that it will be called very, very soon?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the bill has in fact been tabled. The hon. member probably meant debated when he made the comment "tabled at the beginning of the new year". We consider the bill to be of high priority and we attach a great deal of importance to the access to information legislation, but because of our legislative program we cannot afford at this time to allot more than one day of debate to the second reading stage of that bill before we send it to committee.


Miss MacDonald:: That is terrible.


Yvon Pinard: Once in committee, it could be discussed at length. The Tory party mentioned here in the House that it could not give us the guarantee that one day would be enough for purposes of second reading. On the contrary, their party spokesman indicated that they had many speakers on the bill. Under those circumstances I am not in a position to allow more than one day, but I am willing to discuss with the House leaders at future meetings the allocation of time for that bill. Surely, if less time had been used to discuss Bill C-48, we would have been able to send that bill to committee.
Nevertheless, like many other bills on the order paper, it is a bill of high importance. As I was saying earlier, it is necessary for us to come to some agreement on the limitations of time for some of the debates. I am willing to discuss the matter with the representatives of the opposition and I will include this bill in my discussions with the opposition.
6232

January 15, 1981
Privilege-Miss MacDonald


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, if the President of the Privy Council's excuse for delaying the tabling of this bill for second reading is that the official opposition has said that it will take more than one day, why is he not prepared to bring the bill forward for second reading and, at the conclusion of debate on that particular day, the public could judge for itself the attitude of both the official opposition and my party with respect to the bill? If the debate on second reading continues, then it is up to the government to determine when the bill will return to the House. Would the President of the Privy Council consider that possibility?


Yvon Pinard: If the hon. member's party is willing to give up one of its allotted days for that purpose, I would be glad to do so.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
MISS MacDONALD-STATEMENTS MADE BY MR. AXWORTHY
Madam Speaker:: I would like to rule now on the question of privilege which was raised on Tuesday by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). I listened very closely to all the arguments and the interventions made by the minister and by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) during the debate. At the end of the debate I indicated that, on the face of it, I did not see a question of privilege, but I reserved my judgment so that I could look with ease at all the arguments which were brought forward. I have found no reasons which would make me change my mind.
I do not feel that there is a question of privilege. It certainly indicates that there was a very serious difference of opinion and it certainly was a very serious subject that was brought up. The seriousness of the subject alone, however, does not bring it within the purview of privileges, which would allow me to give it priority in debate.
1 should like to add something with regard to my interrupting the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam. I must say that the meaning of some of her colourful language at some points escaped me. I did not quite know what she meant when she was alluding to a mole and I was a bit nervous, not wanting to get up at every moment. It appeared that she was getting very close to saying something that was unparliamentary. I am sure that I interrupted her flight of oratory and I am sorry for that, but those were my reasons.
I feel we have taken the subject as far as we can under the heading of a question of privilege.
MISS MacDONALD-REPLY MADE BY MR. AXWORTHY


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I rise on another question of privilege. Naturally I
accept your ruling on the previous one, but there is another question which I wish to raise on this subject and which I can do at this moment for the first time. It occurred during the minister's response to my remarks and I therefore was not able to raise it while the matter was being looked into by the Chair. This is the first opportunity that I have had to raise it.


Yvon Pinard: What about notice?


Madam Speaker:: Would the hon. member resume her seat, please? As I understand, she is now raising a question of privilege which arose from deliberations having taken place yesterday or the day before yesterday. That makes it even more difficult. I stand to be corrected, but if the matter arose from deliberations on that day, then the member should have risen immediately after the question period. If the hon. member has another question of privilege flowing from the discussions which took place, then she could give me notice of it and bring it up on another day.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Thank you.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding comments made in this House yesterday by the hon. member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Bloomfield) which were attributed to me by United Press International and which went out over the national networks. The error arose from the press using the "blues" which had not been corrected. My name was listed as the person who asked the question of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). Although the Hansard that was distributed today is correct, I would respectfully urge that extreme caution be used to ensure that unedited copies of the "blues" are not used as the basis for news stories.


Madam Speaker:: The point of the hon. member is well taken. I think the "blues" are used and I suppose there was a mistake in the transcription. I will investigate to see what measures we can take to avoid this kind of mistake in the future.
January 15, 1981



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,493, 1,568, 1,602, 1,648, 1,713, 1,762, 1,779 and 1,784.
1 suggest, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In each city where a CBC radio or television station is located according to the latest audience listening statistics possessed by CBC, what is the average daily percentage of the total listening audience for each such station?
2.	What are the percentages of the average daily listening audience of all other stations, including their call letters, serving the same area whose percentage is higher than the CBC outlets?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. According to the latest comprehensive bureau of broadcast measurement reports (averaged over a typical fall week 1979), shares of audience obtained by CBC-owned and affiliated stations in those urban centres where CBC-owned stations are located are as follows:
Television		Per cent
St. John's	-CBNT-E	36Corner Brook	-CBYT-E	40Charlottetown	-CBCT-E	33-CHSJ-TV-E-A	4Sydney-Glace Bay	-CBIT-E	22Halifax	-CBHT-E	24Moncton	-CBAFT-F	2Matane-Sept-lles	-CBGAT-F	45-CJBRT-F	3-CHAU-TV-F-A	1Rimouski	-CJBRT-F	40-CBGAT-F	1Quebec City	-CBVT-F	36-CKTM-TV-F-A	1-CKMI-TV-E-A	4Montreal	-CBFT-F	22-CKTM-TV-F-A	1-CBMT-E	7Ottawa-Hull	-CBOT-E	15-CBOFT-F	9-CHRO-TV-E-A	3-CKWS-TV-E-A	1Toronto	-CBLT-E	14-CBLFT-F	/-CK VR-TV-E-A	2-CHEX-TV-E-A	1Windsor	-CBET-E	15-CBEFT-F	/Winnipeg	-CBWT-E	21-CBWFT-F	/Regina-Moose Jaw	-CBKT-E	21-CBKFT-F	/Saskatoon	-CBKST-E	22Calgary	-CBRT-E	18
Order Paper Questions
Edmonton	-CBXT-E	18
	-CBXFT-F	1
Vancouver	-CBUT-E	15
	-CBUFT-F	/
Radio		
St. John's	-CBN-E	17
	-CBN-FM-E	2
Gander-Grand Falls	-CBT-E	11
	-CBG-E	3
Corner Brook	-CBY-E	16Happy Valley	-CFGB-E	26-CBN-E	1-CBY-E	1Charlottetown	-CBC-FM-E	10Sydney-Glace Bay	-CBI-E	8-CBI-FM-E	/Halifax	-CBFI-E	12-CBH-FM-E	2Moncton	-CBA-E	10-CBAF-F	2Saint John	-CBD-E	14-CBZ-FM-E	1Fredericton	-CBZ-E	14-CBZ-FM-E	2Matane-Sept-lles	-CBGA-F	16-CJBR-F	1Rimouski	-CJBR-F	21-CJBR-FM-F	4Chicoutimi-Jonquiere	-CBJ-F	13-CBJ-FM-F	2Quebec City	-CBV-F	12-CBV-FM-F	2Montreal	-CBM-E	2-CBM-FM-E	1-CBF-F	5-CBF-FM-F	1Ottawa-Hull	-CBO-E	9-CBO-FM-E	3-CBOF-F	1-CBOF-FM-F	1Toronto	-CBL-E	6-CBL-FM-E	2-CJBC-F	/Sudbury	-CBCS-FM-E	6-CBON-FM-F	1Windsor	-CBE-E	8-CBE-FM-E	/-CBEF-F	/Thunder Bay	-CBQ-E	13Winnipeg	-CBW-E	6-CBW-FM-E	2-CKSB-F	/Regina	-CBK-E	8-CBK-FM-E	1-CBKF-FM-F	/Saskatoon	-CBK-E	13-CBK-FM-E	1Calgary	-CBR-E	8Key: E-English F-French A-Affiliates	-CBR-FM-E	1
-less than .5 per cent
Note: CBC-owned television and radio stations operate in very competitive broadcasting environments. In the past decade the introduction of many new television choices, by cable TV and new local stations being licensed, has made Canada the most fragmented TV marketplace in the world. The CBC has also changed in this period, offering more Canadian programming than ever before, and thereby seeking to provide more distinctive TV programming than is found on other channels, at times to reach the mass audience and at others a more selective audience. In radio, a similar process has been going on for

January 15, 1981
Order Paper Questions
some years. TV and FM radio have dramatically changed the radio medium and audiences have become extremely fragmented. Today a station usually attempts to reach only a segment of the total population by programming a particular format. CBC AM radio, in English and French, attempts to provide the highest quality news and information programming, while CBC FM radio offers classical music and arts-scicnce commentary, and these specialized services compete for audiences with a host of other radio station formats in most Canadian cities.
2. Since the requested information is provided by a syndicated ratings firm, the bureau of broadcast measurement, statistics required on non-CBC-network stations should be requested from the stations themselves.


Mr. Lewis: 1.	For the year (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980 to date, under the Official Languages Minority Groups Program, how many grants has the Centre d'acli-vites franQaises of Penetanguishene received and, in each case (i) on what date (ii) in what amounts (iii) for what purpose?
2.	Of the $45,000 grant announced by the Secretary of State on September 25, 1980, what amount was allowed for (a) social activities (b) cultural activities (c) administrative costs (d) program costs (e) salaries?
3.	What were the social and cultural activities being carried on at the centre and what was the enrollment in each?


Peter A. Stollery: 1. (i)	(ii)
September 1, 1978 $40,000
September 18, 1979 $40,000
February 14, 1980 $17,100 August 20, 1980	$45,000
(iii)
The furtherance of French culture in the Penetanguishene region; the development of the centre as a meeting place for Francophones.
To encourage participation by young people in the activities; to continue the development of the centre, specifically in the cultural area.
To make the public aware of, and interest them in, centre activities; to train young people as specialists in the activities.
To make the minority community aware of the French language and culture; to pay for the costs of administration and social and cultural activities.
2. (a)(b)(c)	Programs:	cultural	$13,600
activities and social activities:
shows:	$10,900
workshops: $ 2,500
(c)(e) Administrative costs	$18,000
(salaries and office expenses)
Total	$45,000
3.	Social and cultural activities organized by the Centre
Number of persons involved
Shows by singers and plays	1,157
Organized trip (Sudbury)	50
Youth club	20
Film club	5
Photography workshop	17
Silk-screen printing workshop	15
Theatre workshop	11
French conversation workshop	7
General art workshop	24
Culinary art workshop	5
Weaving workshop	3
Activities planned	
Winter carnival	
Traditional get-togethers	
Youth dances


Mrs. Mitchell: 1.	Was the captain of the seized Greek Ship Possidonia charged for violating the Immigration Act under sections 53(2)(3) and part 6 95(m) when he refused to take back on board the three seamen whom he brought to Canada and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Was the government notified, by wire, of the irregularity on September 5, 1980, by T. McGrath, president of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers, local 400 and was action taken to investigate the situation and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Did senior immigration officials take the side of the foreign ship owners in the dispute without undertaking an immediate investigation and, if so, for what
reason?
4.	Were certain pertinent immigration documents left unsigned and, if so, for what reason?
5.	Was the interpreter used in the hearing clearly on the side of the Greek ship owners and, if so, for what reason was the interpreter used?
6.	Will the Minister for Employment and Immigration take action before the ship Possidonia leaves Canadian waters and will he instruct his officials to lay charges against the captain if the investigation now under way shows this to be necessary?
7.	Will the minister take steps to prevent this kind of situation happening in the future?


Lloyd Axworthy: 1. Consideration was not given to prosecution under paragraph 95(m) because there was no evidence that the master had taken any action that might be construed as an offence described in that paragraph. In addition, there was compliance by the master of the ship with the provisions of regulation 53(2) and (3). Penalties, therefore, could not be applied.
2.	Yes. An investigation was carried out by immigration officials.
3.	No.
4.	Yes, due to administrative oversight.
5.	No.
6.	No. There was no evidence of any violations on the part of the master or the transportation company.
7.	No. The "situation" resulted from a pay dispute between the crewmen and their employer and, as such, was a civil matter-outside the commission's jurisdiction.
January 15, 1981


Mr. Herbert: Has the Department of Employment and Immigration funded in the past five years, as a direct assistance to the forestry industry, summer student employment programs?


Lloyd Axworthy: The Canada Employment and Immigration Department has funded student summer employment projects over the past five years, related to the forestry industry, but not as a direct assistance to the industry. There have been some 1,829 projects related to forestry funded over this period of time at a cost to the federal government of $18.27 million, which have created over 10,000 jobs. Projects were approved as follows:
Young Canada Works program
Cycle	Projects	Jobs	Work Weeks	Contribution ($)1977	31	199	1,802	294,0651978	510	2,829	28,671	4,416,0891979	626	3,398	33,852	5,498,002Total	1,167	6,426	64,325	10,208,156Summer Youth Employment program	Cycle	Projects	Jobs	Work Weeks	Contribution ($)1980	662	3,821	47,970	8,062,119Grand Total	1,829	10,247	112,295	18,270,275


Mr. Stewart: How many landed immigrants (a) had as a mother tongue (i) English (ii) French (b) were proficient in both English and French?


Lloyd Axworthy: 1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	Total(a)(1)	113,746	84,636	68,707	50,040	49,215	366,344(ii)	9,138	10,115	7,091	4,904	5,592	36,840(b)	5,513	6,033	4,345	2,920	4,068	22,879


Mr. Stevens: For the current Fiscal year, what are the estimated expenditures of the Department of the Secretary of State for (a) advertising (b) free or subsidized publications (c) other information conveyed to the public?


Peter A. Stollery: (a) $679,669, (b) $717,600, (c) $600,000.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Stevens: For the current fiscal year, what are the estimated expenditures of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for (a) advertising (b) free or subsidized publications (c) other information conveyed to the public?


Marc Lalonde: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows: (a) media advertising-$126,100, (b) free or subsidized publications-$273,600, (c) other information-$143,900.


Mr. Stevens: For the current fiscal year, what are the estimated expenditures of Eldorado Nuclear Limited for (a) advertising (b) free or subsidized publications (c) other information conveyed to the public?


Marc Lalonde: Eldorado Nuclear Limited reports as follows: (a) media advertising-$10,000, (b) free or subsidized publications-$10,000, (c) other information-nil.


Mr. Cossitt:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to certain questions which remain unanswered and which would take hardly any research whatsoever. 1 therefore find it difficult to see that there could be any reason for delay.
I refer first of all to question No. 136 which was placed on the order paper last April. It concerns the rental of a DC-9 aircraft by the Liberal Party of Canada which has not paid its bill to Air Canada for the use of that aircraft. It asks if Air Canada has received payment and, if so, when and how much did they receive. It seems pretty straightforward, but it is almost a year since that question was placed on the order paper.
I refer also to question No. 115 which inquires in a broader sense, in regard to the election campaign of February 18, 1980, what political parties rented aircraft from Air Canada, what they paid, if the bills were paid, etc. It is a very simple question, yet it has gone unanswered since the beginning of the session last April.
1 find it hard to accept that these questions remain unanswered after hearing the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) say a few minutes ago that he believed in responsibility toward the Canadian people and that that is why he wanted progress on the items on the order paper. If he does, why does he or his parliamentary secretary not answer these questions a little faster? He also said that he was willing to set aside all political concerns in regard to major items on the order paper. I think he should be prepared to set aside political concerns in regard to questions placed on the order paper by the elected representatives of the people. We have a right to know, as the people of Canada have, what the answers to these questions are.
May I conclude by referring to another series of questions, without going into detail. Question No. 29 concerning Michael Pitfield and the Taschereau papers on national security; ques-

January 15, 1981
Order Paper Questions
tions Nos. 672 to 675 inclusive concerning Michael Pitfield, and question No. 678 concerning Michael Pitfield are all on the subject of the money he received and apparently did not return, other than a small portion, during his brief absence from his office in the Langevin Block. Question No. 724, which is very simple, asks if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) on June 2, 1979, stated, "Pitfield and those guys killed me on that".
I do not know what Michael Pitfield is, in the sense that he runs this country or is some mighty person behind the scenes, Madam Speaker. 1 sometimes begin to wonder if Michael Pitfield is Edgar Bergen and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is Charlie McCarthy.
I think it is about time that Michael Pitfield became accountable to Parliament and accountable to the committees of Parliament before which he has refused to appear, and the Prime Minister has refused to summon him. These questions on the order paper concern the mysterious Mr. Pitfield, holed up in the Langevin Block, who is the senior public servant of this land. He should be told that he must not hold up questions put by members of this House that are legitimate, and that the information should be given. Is this country being run by Michael Pitfield or by the elected representatives and the Prime Minister of Canada?


Erik Nielsen: Michael Pitfield.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, perhaps I should answer a couple of the comments made by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt). The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did appear before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, before the end of last year. Unfortunately, Mr. Pitfield was abroad at the time making arrangements for the summit conference which will be held in Ottawa this year, and therefore could not attend on that day.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Who sent him out of town?


David Michael Collenette: That was a long-standing commitment. 1 should also like to draw the attention of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville, who has a particular interest in the activities of the Clerk of the Privy Council, to the fact that he himself was not at the meeting that day, and had some of his colleagues ask questions. I thought the Prime Minister's answers dealing with Mr. Pitfield and severance pay were quite adequate, as did some of his colleagues who did not pursue that line of questioning with the Prime Minister.
I have to take issue with the comments of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville. If he reads some of the answers we have made available to the House, especially to questions he has posed, he will see that we have answered them irrespective of their political nature. Some of the questions put on the order paper by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville are highly political in nature, but that does not concern the government in answering them. In answering we try to get answers to all questions whether they are highly motivated by political concerns or not. I shall do my best to get answers to the questions that he enumerated a few moments ago.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning a statement just made. The parliamentary secretary said that when the miscellaneous estimates committee met-and I will quote his words as I remember them, subject to being a little bit out-I was absent from that committee meeting when the Prime Minister appeared-and "I had some of my colleagues ask questions". I would like to assure the House that 1 did not arrange to have anyone ask any questions on my behalf. As a matter of fact, I certainly would have been there to ask my own questions but that happened to be the day for my annual checkup at the Kingston General Hospital for a heart condition. 1 have no hesitation in saying that is why I was not here. I think even that is a little more important than listening to the garbage from the Prime Minister of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: As the parliamentary secretary asked that all of the other questions be allowed to stand, shall they stand ?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, January 13, 1981, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to resume debate in opposition to Bill C-48. I am also pleased to see that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is here so that he can hear some of the environmental concerns which have been expressed to me by people around the country in relation to Bill C-48, even though we are not being given much time to debate it.
When I began speaking on Tuesday night, 1, along with many other members of this House, eastern, western and northern maritime Canadians, were under the illusion that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) had their portfolios of public interest entrenched in Bill C-48.
It is abundantly clear that the Minister of the Environment may not long uphold his parliamentary and Crown responsibility to keep the environmental moratorium in place on the west coast. I think that became quite clear as a result of questions I raised yesterday during question period both with him and with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Much worse though, he and the Minister of Fisheries and
January 15, 1981

Oceans have failed totally to incorporate the sound policies put forward to them by their own respective departments.
1 shall quote briefly from a study done by the Department of Fisheries and the Department of the Environment called "A Study of Environmental Concerns-Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling and Production." 1 am sure the minister of energy is aware of this but.he went to great lengths to keep some of the concerns raised for those two ministers out of Bill C-48.
Some of the concerns found on page iv of this document are:
Toxic compounds are used in drilling fluids without justification.
Effluent controls are developed and applied unevenly in offshore areas.
Impact assessments of effluent discharges are inadequate.
Operators sometimes do not deal realistically with the spill containment and clean-up problems likely to be encountered.
Field testing of containment and clean-up equipment and procedures is often inadequate.
Oil spill liability and compensation provisions are inadequate.
I will deal with that specifically later on. I know the minister of energy is touting the absolute liability section as being the main way of dealing with this issue, and 1 have some interesting comments to make about that.
The concerns listed continue:
Most offshore drilling and production accidents, including spills, are caused by human error, yet efforts to respond to the situation are unorganized both in Canada and United States.
Safety and anti-pollution equipment is being used without standards; those that exist are written in excessively general terms.
1 might comment about this latter one. 1 have seen the Neels program. 1 notice that some areas supposedly in possession of large quantities of oil-spill equipment list it right down to having two or three pairs of gum boots, and having toilet paper on hand.
The concerns listed in this study continue:
Standards for old equipment are lacking. Data on failed equipment are lacking. Detailed logistical and environmental information on relief well drilling capabilities are often not provided by operators.
Logistical provisions which could reduce the relief well drilling time are often not made. Environmental impact assessment information is often collected with little or no clear idea of how it can or will be used to influence those who make the decisions regarding offshore oil and gas drilling and production operations.
1 would remind the Minister of Energy that he has specifically written the bill entirely into his own hands and, in an occasional situation, to his cabinet.
The next concern:
People having environmental concerns or expertise (including the public-at-large) are not given effective access to the policy and decision-making processes of regulatory authorities.
1 am sure the minister is well aware that the regulatory authority is himself basically in cabinet. The concerns continue with:
The lead time for conducting environmental assessments is too short. Many proponents provide only a superficial, unevaluated review of the impact literature; they do not seek to profit from the environmental mistakes already made by coastal zone developers around the world.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that there is absolutely nothing in the bill to deal with very serious blowouts such as the Ixtoc blowout in the Gulf of Mexico last year.
The concerns continue:
Proponents draw inappropriate analogies between the proposed project and ones that have already been carried out and fail to uncover gaps in the literature. Acreage releases are not planned over the long term to provide a focus for environmental assessment work.
Information on sensitive areas is either not presented in impact assessments or is left unlinked to key decisions relating to offshore oil and gas activities. Development plans for production rigs do not make provisions for outside review. The environmental assessment requirements in the draft Canada Oil and Gas Production Regulations do not indicate how assessment results are to be linked with the key decision milestones involved in offshore production.
There is no reference to the federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process in the draft production regulations.
I would draw that one particularly to the minister's attention. It is of concern to environmentalists around this country. The minister pointedly made sure that that reference was not in Bill C-48.
The concerns continue:
There is no requirement that proponents provide alternative pipeline routes to shore in their development plans or that these alternatives be considered by the public and by others having environmental concerns.
Problems encountered in the United States and the North Sea during the development and production phases of offshore operations have not been adequately addressed in this country.
Those concerns are just in the first couple of pages of this report.
In my view the Minister of Energy has gutted the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans of their responsibilities. If they have any intention of having credibility on maritime issues in Canada, they had better attend committee meetings, at least, beginning next week, and assure that amendments are made and passed to deal with those items I have listed and with those that no doubt will be raised by witnesses in the coming days. At this point 1 will certainly put the Minister of Energy on notice that our party intends to pursue the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) acting as Deputy Prime Minister, that we will be allowed to call as many witnesses as we please on Bill C-48. We certainly intend to do that.
Surely it is the role of the opposition to map out weaknesses. However, there is a public responsibility that has not to date been upheld by these two particular ministers of the Crown. They have at their fingertips intelligent, scientific expertise that has been muzzled in the interests of partisan industrial expediency.
What is offered and clear for all Canadians to see is a blueprint for environmental disaster, the destruction, perhaps by insignificant increment, but ultimately the biological disruption of Canada's marine environment-as a direct result of failing to legislate, not to regulate, not to force British Columbians, maritimers, and northern Canadians to come and beg the Minister of Energy for the proper environmental studies, and that the proper studies be legislated and a sound regime for offshore oil and gas be put in place in Bill C-48.

January 1 5, 1981
Canada OH and Gas Act
I have here The National Energy Program for 1980. 1 am sure many members of this House and Canadians in general have taken the time now to read it. The minister is continually touting it as a great move in terms of Canadianization. I refer all members of this House to page 45 of that document. We find that the purpose of the bill is to:
Ensure active development of oil and gas rights.
At page 47 of "The National Energy Program" we find:
-vigorous and sustained exploration and development efforts should be expected. This has not always been the case-
Further down in the same paragraph we find:
This is no longer appropriate,-*
It continues:
A main feature of the new system, therefore, will be stiffer work requirements,-
In the same paragraph we find:
Other means will include drilling orders, production orders,-
From page 48 we find a little section which I am sure the minister is sending out to environmentalists and those people concerned with the fishing industry around Canada. I quote:
Among the changes will be more rigorous requirements for environmental protection, particularly as regards responsibilities of operators and their absolute liability in case of pollution-causing accidents.
That sounds great. However, it falls apart pretty quickly. It is clear for all to see that the cumulative escape clauses which the energy minister put in this bill make absolute liability unlikely at best. If a billion dollar blowout were to occur off Newfoundland, Melville Island, or off the Queen Charlotte Islands, I can tell Canadians that under this bill as it stands, their recovery for lost fisheries, damaged beaches and so on is not even remotely guaranteed.
What is to stop every drilling rig from becoming individually incorporated? I am sure the minister is abundantly aware of the corporate loopholes which are available to avoid the absolute liability clause and to reduce and fractionally take it down to the point where a billion dollar blowout would in fact be carried on the backs of Canadians and the Canadian environment, and hardly on the backs of those responsible for the spill.
Looking at clause 62(1) of this bill, I note that the Crown is specifically indemnified from almost everything. In fact, I would go further and say the Crown is indemnified from everything, regardless of how or where it occurs.
I point out to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of the Environment, who is in his place, that there are plenty of Mack truck loopholes in this bill. I trust the two of them will see eye to eye long enough to put at least the basic regime for environmental protection into this bill.
There are abundant rumours already that the absolute liability clause will not only, as I already pointed out, get into the fractionalized state but will turn out to be no more than sleight of hand when this bill returns from committee stage. This was one of the very few potential incentives to good
post-exploratory stewardship of the environment. However, the following is revealing.
I pointed out a moment ago a quotation that 1 am sure the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Energy could send to those people concerned about the environment. Here is one they can send out to the energy industry, just one page further on. I quote:
The new legislation for the Canada lands makes oil and gas rights available for development and hence is not directly concerned with pollution prevention per se.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot send a little out here and a little out there. I would encourage Canadians to read this bill because it is the greatest jurisdictional grab of the century anywhere in the world. This is an area three times the size of the ten provinces combined. That once again says it all.
The dangers to the Arctic environment were laid out well by my colleague, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar). This includes areas such as Lancaster Sound where only a tiny fraction of the required scientific work has been done to understand the complex and fragile biological systems of that area. Yet every day there are announcements of nuclear powered icebreakers, LNG tankers three times the size of football fields moving through an area that I remind both ministers is so incredibly fragile that the tiniest mistake could disrupt the biological system and we would end up with little or almost no life in that area which is so crucial.
Where in this lengthy Bill C-48 is the requirement for scientific environmental study and evaluation by independent scientists? It is simply not there. Where is the clause to provide for mandatory public hearings? Gone. The interests of the Inuit, the maritimers, northerners and citizens of British Columbia are not given one paragraph or even one line in this document that I would describe as being greedy.
The people of Canada can take little solace from this document that their interests have been upheld or that the biology and environment of Canada will be protected as they can and must be. Canadians are environmentally conscious, and are sick and tired of corporate Liberal party apologists. This bill is a recipe for get bucks quick, regardless of the costs to the environment and future generations.
I would stress to the two ministers sitting here, avidly reading, that they speak to some of the senior scientists who are well aware of the costs which can be saved by having proper, long-term, broad based environmental studies done. If you disrupt the salmon fishery, you may cost the economy billions more dollars than simply rushing headlong into a rash program trying to grab gas and oil to buoy up a sagging Canadian economy.
The minister touts the 25 per cent Crown share as the outstanding benefit to all Canadians, but under a little pressure in this House on December 11 he admitted to the nymphomaniacs from the oil industry boardrooms to my right that the 25 per cent Crown share is nothing but a hollow promise. He said, as reported at page 5669 of Hansard, that the 25 per cent federal cash incentive grant would be made
January 15, 1981

available to all explorers to offset the 25 per cent Crown share. Here you have it, and there it goes.
What consolation is there in this bill for maritimers for protection of the environment? I can tell everyone in maritime Canada, including maritime British Columbia and the maritime Arctic, that there is absolutely nothing. There is no ownership or protection, just the big Liberal corporate hand ripping off some profit.
What of the offshore in British Columbia, in particular relating to a question which was put to the Minister of the Environment yesterday? He said he knows of no reasons at this point why he should not continue supporting the environmental moratorium. 1 understand that outside of the House he indicated that perhaps the lifting of the moratorium in relation to gas and oil drilling would not affect the tanker traffic.
1 have done enough investigation into this situation to know that there is only one moratorium that was put in place. I have a letter from the Minister of Energy dated September 24, 1980, where he lays out quite clearly that the environmental moratorium was put in place in 1972 during Canada-U.S. negotiations to deal with the risks and liabilities of oil tanker traffic carrying Prudhoe Bay oil down to the continental United States. The moment it was brought in to deal with tanker traffic in Canada-U.S. negotiations, at the very same time it shut down gas and oil exploration. I am sure both ministers know that. 1 am glad to know that the Minister of the Environment at least will stand up for that environmental moratorium to stay in place until there is some reason for it to be lifted. I am sure the House will have the opportunity to debate those reasons when they come forward.
What of the offshore in British Columbia, an area of crucial importance for the production of food, not only salmon, halibut, cod, herring, shellfish and so on, but an area just awakening to the vast potential of marine farming and aquaculture, something we will need not only in Canada but to feed the hungry millions of the world, as pointed out yesterday by my colleague from Saskatoon East during question period?
I challenge any Liberal in this House or any Liberal who will come to this House, and 1 am confident that not one will rise to accept the challenge to put on the record what broad based environmental studies have been done or will be done, studies that deal with the impact of oil drilling or exploration on Pacific salmon and groundfish, studies on the impact of oil and gas blowouts on the estuaries of such massive rivers as the Nass or Skeena, studies on the impact of spills on kelp beds, algae, beaches and so on.
The Minister of the Environment attended the National Survival Institute in Toronto quite recently and listened, as I did, to the chairman of the United Nations environment program where he pointed out the damage being done by toxic and other forms of pollution to the oceans. It is one of the greatest concerns we could possibly have. It is in that final area that we may find the solution to the problem of food for the world and also the production of oxygen to keep us all alive. This sudden, rushed plan is like building a skyscraper
Canada Oil and Gas Act
without ever having an architect or engineer draw up plans or test the ground for stability.
Bill C-48 is the trademark of a group of greedy, careless, quick buck artists prepared to take the profits and run, but not prepared to evaluate the true costs or to involve the public anywhere in monitoring, evaluating or determining the fate of the environment which provides their livelihood and the livelihood of every creature on this planet.
Unbelievable though it may seem, planning can in fact save money, as 1 pointed out to the Minister of Energy. It may take a little more time, but it is extremely important in the strategy of this country. Since the Minister of the Environment is here,
I might point out that it is peculiar that north of 60 in this country the federal government only sees fit to have eight professional biologists doing all of the work related to an area much larger than most countries in this world and far more fragile than the majority of this planet. I would certainly urge the minister to increase dramatically the number of biologists in the north.
The rights of fishermen not only in British Columbia but also in the maritimes, and of Inuit fishermen, are eroded in this bill. The rights of coastal residents and native people are beaten back. Every Canadian can wave goodbye to another area of democratic rights if Bill C-48 is passed in its present form.
Let us take a look at who really benefits from Bill C-48 in British Columbia. First and foremost is Chevron. As 1 think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources knows well, it is in the final stages of having Sea Consult prepare its initial environmental impact. The minister and his officials have indicated to me that shortly after that the environmental moratorium will be lifted so that Chevron can get on with its drilling when the new regime of Bill C-48 is in place. I am sure the Minister of the Environment will get in touch with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and make sure that there are public hearings and publicly funded interveners so that there can be'coast-wide environmental studies before that moratorium is lifted.
Let us take a look at what interests Chevron has in British Columbian waters, its present permit acreage is close to three million acres plus another million it has just farmed in from Shell. Lochiel Explorations, more commonly known as Mobil Oil, has 243,000 acres. Ranger Oil, which is again Mobil Oil trying to hide its name a little bit in terms of absolute liability, as I pointed out to the minister, has 197,000 acres. Union Oil has 112,000 acres. Shell Canada Resources has 50 per cent of 12 million acres, and Shell Explorer Limited has 50 per cent. The operator of Shell Explorer Limited is Shell Canada Resources. Here we find a little corporate trickery which very quickly undoes the absolute liability clause which the minister is touting to environmentalists as being the way of obtaining good stewardship of the environment from oil and gas companies.

January 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Let us take a look briefly at the letters 1 have received from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. 1 think they are well worth having on the record. The one I have in my hand is dated December 18. I received it from the minister.
With the passage of the forthcoming new Canada oil and gas act implementing a new regime for Canada Lands, as described in the new National Energy Program which was tabled in the House on October 28, the confidential period for geological and geophysical data will be reduced to five years, or when the lands on which the work was carried out revert to the Crown, whichever is the earlier. In other words, when the act is passed, all results of industry oil and gas exploration acquired to date off the west coast can then be available for examination.
The bottom paragraph states the following:
As you are no doubt aware, there has been no exploration for oil and gas off the west coast since 1972 (a survey in 1974 was experimental only)-
Perhaps the minister at some point in this debate will take the time to rise and tell us how, with an environmental moratorium in place, that 1974 activity took place, and since in fact it did take place I wonder if he would explain to us how much confidence we can put in the regulations under Bill C-48 when he has all the power to regulate in his own hands so that he can change them any time he wants. If there is a gas or oil blowout somewhere in the Hecate Strait, or somewhere off Melville Island, or somewhere off Hibernia, he has the power to decide whether that is a good spill or a bad spill, or whether someone pays or does not pay. 1 really question, and I think most Canadians question these days, whether this Parliament should be passing bills which do not have very strong environmental clauses within them under which the government and industry must jointly pursue a proper public involvement, proper hearings and proper studies in order that we know the true costs of what some of these proposals are.
The minister also said the following:
Initial steps are now being taken to clear the area for renewed exploratory activity, including drilling, following the undertaking of appropriate environmental studies. Although the results of the 1967-69 drilling campaign by Shell were largely negative, subsequent geological and geophysical studies indicate that the west coast area may have a significant potential for hydrocarbons, particularly gas-
At this point in time I think the minister knows as well as I do-I am sure both ministers know-that touting gas, as Chevron is touting gas, is not really the potential they are interested in finding out about out there. The Geological Survey of Canada in its results released last fall made it quite clear that it expects a one in three chance of 300 million barrels of crude off the B.C. coast and a one in ten chance of perhaps as much as four billion barrels. It estimates again a possibility of as much 90 trillion cubic feet of gas. However, the point has to do with oil, and I think it is somewhat hypocritical, to say the least, of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to be touting gas or for Chevron to be touting gas when in fact the main economic ventures out there will be for oil. Most people around the world are very aware of the damage because of the Ixtoc experience, the North Sea experience and experiences around the world of damage which comes from oil spills either from tankers or from blowouts. This matter requires extensive environmental study and examination so that at least those most sensitive areas can be
protected, if it is decided by the public that it is in the public interest to have those drilling programs.
In concluding, let me say that this bill is one of the hollowest promises of Canadianization ever put together in Canadian history. There is nothing to protect the environment either in terms of scientific study to reduce or eliminate dangers of exploration and drilling, or in terms of study and technical preparation to deal with blowouts and spills. This brings me back to another letter from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. 1 hope my quoting from his letters does not stop him from writing to me.


Marc Lalonde: I am just signing a letter to you now.


James Ross Fulton: Good. If the minister will send it over right now,
1 will read it into the record.


Marc Lalonde: I would be afraid of being misquoted.


James Ross Fulton: We will see whether the minister can speak about the environment. The letter I have in my hand is dated September 24, and reads in part as follows:
There is as you suggest, a moratorium respecting offshore exploration activity on the Pacific coast. This moratorium was established during the period of Canada-U.S. negotiations respecting the risks of and liability for, any environmental damage that might result from tanker traffic carrying Prudhoe Bay oil south along the west coast.
1 encourage both ministers to read and re-read that section so that when they come into discussions of whether or not to lift that environmental moratorium they remember this day, and that it was put in place for that reason and to stop both tanker traffic and gas and oil exploration.
Let us look briefly at the Ixtoc blowout in the Gulf of Mexico just a year ago. Well in excess of $1 billion has been spent so far simply to deal with the blowout. That is in terms of drilling recovery wells and for the actual capping of the blowout area. There are yet hundreds of millions of dollars more to be spent to deal with the damage and the cleanup. In addition there wili be unknown future costs because of the relatively limited environmental studies done beforehand so that some sort of measurement or mark point could be found whereby it could be determined what biological systems were seriously endangered by the gas and oil in the water.
The U.S. coast guard made a very important statement, of which I know both ministers are aware, that all of the technical knowledge of the United States at the time of the spill would not have filled a thimble because of the lack of environmental data there was to deal with it. Let not any member of this House forget that fossil fuels have an absolute finite limit to them. Someday soon they will all be gone. We must very soon take the alternative energy path which was laid out so well by my colleague, the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose).
This bill contains the seeds of the philosophy of burning down one's own home to find that last lost dime. That is something 1 would state in this House that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is clearly pursuing by not listening to the comments so well put by his colleague to his
January 15, 1981

immediate right and by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
I encourage the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to go to the library, get a copy and at least read the first part of it with respect to how to deal in a real way with the environmental concerns surrounding offshore oil and gas drilling production.
I am certain there is gas. The Geological Survey of Canada is seen around the world as a very credible organization in terms of looking at various geological formations and deciding whether there is likely to be gas or oil, and I think in relation to the Mist finds off Oregon, the finds in Cooke Inlet in the Gulf of Alaska and the very substantial recent leases given to Chevron and other companies in Alaskan waters that we should be very careful with how we deal with this issue. We should be very careful because it is almost inevitable-as a matter of fact, many scientists say it is absolutely unavoidable-that there will be a spill somewhere on the west, east or north coast of Canada in the very near future. We have very limited resources in terms of oil spill cleanup equipment.
1 am sure the Minister of the Environment recalls a letter he sent to me recently indicating that there is inadequate oil spill cleanup equipment on the coast of British Columbia now to deal simply with a tanker spill. There we are only talking about, at most, a few hundred thousand barrels. When we are talking about a blowout like the Ixtoc or the North Sea blowout, we are talking about millions of barrels and we are talking about very sour crude, as we know. It mixes in different conditions. There are some very worth-while studies for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to look through.
As 1 pointed out earlier, the 25 per cent Canadian provision is simply taken away by grants. The 50 per cent Canadian ownership is a joke, as was pointed out by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). As every industry boardroom knows, profits and technology will still flow out of Canada at an alarming rate, and in ten years Canadians will simply have less to say about a much diminished resource. Canadians know that oil and gas belong to every one of us, and wrapping up in different paper corporate and political rip-off, as it is in Bill C-48, may impress the Liberal backbenchers but certainly does not impress anyone in this party.
The fake screams of the oil industry, which are constantly echoed by the boardroom nymphomaniacs to my right, along with the hysteria which we frequently witness from members such as the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), do not fool many Canadians. The oil companies still have the say. This bill makes them squeak only because they have to pay a little more, not very much, and all of their screaming is just smart business because, if somebody is going to tax you a little more, you scream. If you are moving a few rigs down to make better money in the States, you scream, and you try to get a political party to get a point across so that you can get back to the status quo where you have the biggest rip-off in the world,
Canada OH and Gas Act
whereas now they are paying a little bit less but it is still in the same category.
As the critic for this party, I believe that it is in Canada's interest, certainly in terms of the environment, for the minister to rewrite the absolute liability clause, which I think has already fallen apart in the way it is written because it leaves all kinds of options which allow corporations to get around it. Having the amount drop to a specific figure, 1 think, is something the industry is, no doubt, trying to get the minister to do, and 1 certainly hope he does not do it. If he does, this bill will rate an absolute zero.
I should like to say, in summing up, Mr. Speaker, that having read this bill very carefully-I am sure the two ministers present in the House who have direct responsibility in relation to this bill know this-I find there is absolutely nothing here for the environment in terms of having broad based scientific research done beforehand so that we know in what areas they cannot drill. For example, Chevron has indicated to me that they plan to start drilling in Queen Charlotte Sound very near my home, and I know that winds there frequently exceed 100 miles an hour. I have been out there when there have been 50 foot swells and 20 foot chop. If the minister is going to try to impress on me that that is a safe area in which to drill, 1 think he should speak to some of the scientists who have been to the North Sea and know that the Queen Charlotte Sound area is considerably more dangerous.
I encourage the Minister of the Environment and his officials to come to the committee to propose the amendments which they have already taken the time to put in print at public cost, and to make sure that there is some relevant regime of environmental protection contained in this bill so that six months from now, six years from now, and perhaps 60 years from now, we will not have to say that Bill C-48 was the biggest environmental disaster that ever occurred in Canada.
[ Translation]


Mr. Pierre Deniger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that 1 rise once again in this House in order to take part in a debate on a widely discussed bill which, fortunately, has the support of most Canadians. Last October 28, Mr. Speaker, the government tabled its budget and submitted its energy policy the aims of which cannot be reiterated often enough. First, security of supply, and ultimately energy self-sufficiency for Canada; second, the opportunity for all Canadians to be involved in the energy industries, especially the oil and natural gas sector; and, third, fairness in pricing and revenue-sharing between government and industry.
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, energy self-sufficiency for Canada, which is our aim for 1990, combined with a reasonable pricing policy, may only be achieved through considerable government intervention. We must not forget either, Mr. Speaker, that here in Canada multinational corporations operate in privileged conditions compared to what they have to cope with in other countries, and by other countries, Mr. Speaker, I mean

January 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
those in which they are still allowed to enter. We all remember, for instance, that just before Christmas Prime Minister Thatcher of Great Britain decided to impose a heavy surtax on all multinationals drilling for oil in the North Sea. But it is south of the border, in the U.S.A., that companies are definitely getting a good deal. The United States policy of deregulating the energy industry is a political scheme which, according to U.S. politicians, corresponds to their specific needs, which are not necessarily the needs of Canadians. To compare our energy policy and wish that it were identical with the American policy is, to my mind, like comparing apples and oranges.
However, Mr. Speaker, this deregulating policy in the United States is certainly very interesting for energy contractors and this is precisely one of the reasons a move to the south is attractive on the very short term. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, that self-sufficiency we want to attain by 1990 would mean nothing if we went from a dependency on the OPEC members to a dependency on multinationals whose boards of directors and shareholders have absolutely no roots in Canada. This is why it is imperative that we should intervene immediately within this industry, in spite of the upheaval that this implies. I am convinced that the Canadian people support an increased participation by government agencies and public corporations in the energy industries, but 1 am also convinced that if there is a shortage one day, the federal government would also be blamed. 1 believe that the Canada oil and gas bill will bring some relief to Canadians because we will have greater independence and security of supply.
Bill C-48, whose second reading was moved on December 11, shows that, as a responsible government, we want to find solutions to the problems of future generations of Canadians since it will allow all Canadian citizens, wherever they live, to share in the wealth of their country. To provide a better understanding of this bill, I would like to point out immediately that it does not affect the territory of the provinces, but only Canada lands. The territory included in the Canada lands is defined as follows in section 2 of the bill:
-lands that belong to Her Majesty in right of Canada, or in respect of which Her Majesty in right of Canada has the right to dispose of or exploit the natural resources, situated in
(a)	the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories, or
(b)	those submarine areas adjacent to the coast of Canada and extending throughout the natural prolongation of the land territory of Canada to the outer edge of the continental margin or to a distance of two hundred nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of Canada is measured, whichever is the greater;
Mr. Speaker, as the previous speaker noted, we are speaking about a very vast territory which includes an offshore area of 2.5 million square miles and 1.5 million square miles of land on the continent, which is more than twice the territory of our ten provinces. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) said so eloquently, and I quote:
The potential of this vast frontier region is comparable to its size.
Mr. Speaker, all these Canadian territories and the oil fields, which will no doubt be found there, can only enrich
Canada. Mr. Speaker, with this bill, the Canadian people will certainly come out on the winning side.
It is with pride that 1 take part in this most important debate. The new legislation before the House represents one of the most important steps announced in "The National Energy Program" to increase the level of Canadian ownership and control of the petroleum industry to 50 per cent by 1990 on Canada lands. In effect, this legislation represents an affirmation of the government's view that these resources on Canada lands, including offshore resources, belong to all the people of Canada.
I have always tried-and my record speaks for itself-to emphasize that Canadian federalism is and must be based upon the concept of sharing. One of the most important ways to make that concept a reality is to ensure, as this legislation ensures, that all Canadians working through their federal government have the opportunity to participate in the oil and gas industry and thereby share in the benefits of its growth and development. We would be deluding ourselves if we thought for one instant that such sharing would be actualized and such an equilibrium obtained in the absence of direct intervention by our national government.
It is precisely this fact which underlies the 50 per cent ownership requirement with respect to the granting of all new production licences for oil and gas in the Canada lands. Also it is this fact which underlies the 25 per cent interest provision about which I should like to comment in further detail.
By way of review, and so as to refresh the minds of my colleagues opposite, this new Canada oil and gas bill provides that the Crown may carry a 25 per cent share in acreage where production had not started prior to January 1, 1976, in respect of all Canada lands in the offshore and in the territories.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Deniger: I have heard members opposite try to qualify what we are doing. I will get to that, but first 1 want to give a message to my colleagues from the west. This package goes beyond this particular aspect; basically it goes to the concept of a country itself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Deniger: As the House will recall, carried interest, which does not involve any sharing of past or present exploration costs, can be transferred by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to Petro-Canada or to any other designated Crown corporation which must convert the carried interest to a working interest where costs would have to be shared. This conversion must take place no later than the point in time at which a production system is approved for the relevant lands. Normally this would be in the form of a working interest at a point in time prior to the expenditure of some 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the total costs involved from the exploration to the production stages. If the minister chooses not to transfer the
January 15, 1981

Crown share to a Crown corporation before the specified time, then this share will be made available by public tender as a working interest to Canadians, or to Canadian companies with a 75 per cent or more Canadian ownership rating.
This bill is very complex, very detailed, and very global.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Deniger: I cannot imagine how one can talk intelligently about this bill and not basically refer to the bill as such; it is simply stupid. 1 have read the bill and I am quoting from it so that members opposite will not put in doubt any of the words 1 am saying, or any of the objectives of the bill. Our objectives are quite clear. We want the industries on the Canada lands to belong to Canadians, not to the multinationals. The multinationals in this country are privileged compared to the way they are treated in other countries.
Similarly if the relevant Crown corporation chooses not to convert the share to a working interest before the specified point in time, the share would return to the Crown and be made available by public tender to Canadians or Canadian companies having a COR of 75 per cent or more.
Much has been said of this 25 per cent interest provision on our new energy program. Indeed, one of the more esteemed members on the opposite side called it "confiscation". Members opposite, as well as certain oil interests, cry that we are expropriating lands which will scare investors away from new development projects. I have received letters, as have many of my colleagues, indicating that we have now changed the rules after the game was played. I disagree with members opposite and I disagree with the multinationals; I do not accept those arguments on the basis of several facts.
First, let us make no pretentions about the poor reception granted our National Energy Program by the private sector. This reaction is understandable, given the fact that the National Energy Program and its various provisions are perhaps against the immediate interests of the multinationals. Of course it is to be expected that oil companies will object to relinquishing a share of their oil interests to the Crown. However, as I have emphasized in all my speeches, our programs and policies must go beyond serving the specific interests of any one sector or region of our economy. For this reason we have attempted to initiate legislation which is fair to the industry, to the federal government, and to all the various provinces and regions of our country.
More specifically, we do not accept the arguments propounded by industry spokesmen and by my colleagues opposite to the effect that any aspect of our National Energy Program-more specifically the legislation concerning the Canada lands-is unfair to the oil industry or is detrimental to its future stability. Central to this position is the assumption that the petroleum industry will lack the needed cash for exploration and development of new sources of supply. Nothing could be further from the truth. In addition to the new pricing schedule increase in producer netbacks per barrel of conventional oil and the provision of a direct cash flow to the industry as a whole, the generous new system of exploration incentives,
Canada Oil and Gas Act
whereby companies will be able to obtain up to 80 per cent of their exploration costs dependent upon their COR, provides ample initiative to the private sector to invest in high risk oil exploration and development ventures. Surely no oil company or investor will lose any capital or the profits it might yield in the face of such extensive government subsidies.
It is true that the 25 per cent share provision in oil projects on the Canada lands being retroactive represents a change in prior policy that may alter the conditions under which some oil exploration projects were begun. But, is this really such an unusual move? Is it not so, each and every time a government announces new restrictions or controls deemed necessary to protect and enhance its national interest, that the conditions or rules upon which investors originally committed their capital will be modified as a matter of course?
As for the corresponding argument that the Crown is unfairly snatching something away from these investors, some such critics seem to have conveniently forgotten that the Crown, on behalf of Canadian citizens, in effect is taking possession of what it has already paid for. That is to say, in the absence of the complex system of tax incentive provisions, oil depletion allowances and so on which were in effect in the past, such exploration might not have begun at all, for, through those tax provisions, the federal treasury and all Canadian taxpayers have paid for approximately 90 per cent of oil exploration and development projects undertaken by the private sector in federal lands. Is it now so unusual for the Crown, as an investor like any other, to demand its due, namely, a reasonable share of the profits?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Deniger: I have heard the arguments of members opposite, but I simply cannot agree with them. I understand the feelings of uneasiness and annoyance in the west, especially with the recent budget position on energy. These have not abated to any significant extent. All of the historic injustices which westerners have complained of for decades are being dusted off and discussed again. One frequently hears comments of western pride of economic achievement, coupled with statements of irritation over the perception that the tangible results of this achievement will be diverted to support central Canada, that is, Ontario and Quebec. This is an area of the country which has, from the western perspective, consistently been the economic winner at the expense of the west.
The quid pro quo for increased taxation in the west is not in evidence. The national government profile is low in western Canada and it is difficult for people to accept a lower level of regional participation in economic well-being without a greater sense of return from Ottawa.
I believe that the talk of separation by a vocal minority reflects the feeling of being dealt with unfairly, frustration over an absence of representation, a lack of knowledge about the contribution and the presence of the national government

January 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
in the west, and a basic reluctance to assume the national obligations of regional economic success.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Because they know too much about what you are doing.


Pierre Deniger: Faced with the attitudes described above, and I am sure the hon. member opposite will be interested in my solution, it will be difficult for the federal government to obtain an objective hearing for its goals. The population will be more likely to follow the lead of provincial governments which are, in an electoral sense, more representative, and possibly more responsive-again also in a politically pragmatic context-to regional concerns.
I believe that if western Canadians were aware of more of the ways in which national government activity positively influences their lives, there would be considerably lower levels of irritation with this energy policy. It is also important to convey the fact that there are some important activities which only a national government can handle. In the west, it is important to reinforce the reasons for a national government, where the provincial governments are proclaiming the positions they would take if only they had the authority. I ask members opposite to convey this message. I believe this bill is a good example of an appropriate way to start.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, this new oil and gas bill before us today replaces all the current ad hoc legislation now in effect, with one clear, concise policy. This policy affirms the 25 per cent minimum federal incentive grants, in the case of future exploration, available to all explorers on Canada lands. These grants, to repeat, can amount to as much as 80 per cent in the case of Canadian companies with a COR of 75 per cent or more. In effect, this legislation is, in the case of past exploration, an all-encompassing version of, and replacement for, the PetroCan back-in provision. This change reflects the federal government's continuing contribution to frontier exploration through such tax incentives as the super-depletion allowance.
Finally, and most important, this legislation concerning the Crown share concept affirms our convictions concerning the Canadian public's right to ownership of all federal resources on Canada lands. It affirms our conviction that it is the people of Canada, from east coast to west coast, who must be heir to the benefits accrued from our dynamic, ever-growing oil and gas industry.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend all members opposite, before making comments out loud which I find quite rude and offensive, to take the time to read the bill to talk to the people who were involved in the drafting of this policy. As members of Parliament, I recommend they look beyond their very local and regional approach, since this country will only grow, be one and united, when members from all parties in this House of Commons can see Canada as a whole, instead of biting off their noses to spite their faces, as they say in English.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member if, by any chance, he could share with us the name of the author of that speech on a very complex subject since it concerns an industry of which the hon. member has absolutely no knowledge. It was obviously prepared by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for publication this afternoon.


Pierre Deniger: Mr. Speaker, I am really very pleased that this question is being put to me because this is not my first speech, as you know, Mr. Speaker, and as the members opposite are aware. But some bills, as the hon. member knows, are obviously very complex. When I discuss with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) a subject with which I am thoroughly familiar, I can say to the hon. member opposite that I do not then need any notes to make my speech. I am well aware that according to the British tradition in the House of Commons, the use of written notes is forbidden in the House. The hon. member may rest assured that when circumstances allow I never use notes. However, in dealing with as complex a bill as this one-a look at Bill C-48 proves that it is a jumble of all past laws on energy, of complex tables, graphs, facts and figures-I must say to the hon. member, through you, of course, Mr. Speaker, that it is absolutely impossible to address the House responsibly without checking the accuracy of every word that is being said with the text held in one's hand.
As for respecting the traditions of British legislators, I fully agree with the hon. member opposite. Of course, it would be better by far if we were all, as the hon. member is, I am sure, able to make speeches on any topic whatsoever without holding a sheet of paper in front of us. Unfortunately, I have not been sitting here in this House as long as he has. I can assure him, however, that I would certainly rather be sure of what I am saying, by having the text before my eyes, and have confidence in what 1 am saying. As for the author of this speech, 1 want to assure him, once again, as well as all hon. members opposite, that not a single line of it was written by anyone other than my staff and myself. Not a single word. In closing, may I say that my speeches at least are neither written, suggested nor prompted by the multinationals which the hon. members opposite take such pride in representing.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the only thing that amazed me in the answer which was given to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) was the pride which the hon. member took in his speech, which he read completely. To my mind the contents of it were so contrary to the bill that he should have been ashamed to admit that he wrote it.
He did say one or two interesting things about the energy package. 1 wish to refer to one of them. He says the energy package goes much further. Yes, that is right, those are his words-the energy package goes much further. I think this is one of the first bills which is preparing for the ultimate kill in
January 15, 1981

this country. It will go much further. I also think it is one of the first steps in the grabbing of the resources back from the provinces, indirectly, if not directly. So the hon. member is right, it is only the first step. That is what we are afraid of-it will go much further. To me it indicates not sharing the wealth of the people of Canada but, rather, a greedy grabbing of the resources of this country.
Some day we will have provinces where we now have territories. If this government is in power when that happens, these resources will not be returned to those provinces. It took 25 years for the province of Alberta to get its resources back. It will take 75 years before the provinces of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon will ever get their resources back, if this government is around.
This bill represents the greatest power grab in the history of Canada. There are two words which predominate when considering this measure-totalitarian and stupid. It is so red that even the socialists oppose it, and properly so. This legislation goes far beyond what any democratic government should present to the people of Canada. I would like to deal with some of its clauses to see what the Liberal members who support this legislation think of them. We only need to look at the results to see what this total package is doing to Canada. These results have been outlined by a number of members, newspapers, and people all across the country.
The evidence of what is happening as a result of the legislation should give the minister and the government some indication of the impracticality of the energy package or policy of the government. Syncrude is cutting back. Texaco is leaving Fort McMurray. Suncor is in jeopardy. The AlCanadian Oil Sands project has stopped. The Union at Hibernia cannot go into production. Husky Oil is cutting back in Lloydminsterand the Cold Lake project has cut down. Every major oil project in the province of Alberta is either in trouble, has shut down, or has left entirely. Is this government trying to destroy the country?
The government merely needs to look at the evidence. Surely there could not be such havoc in any industry of this country if the government were introducing good policies. The people of this country are mature. They are willing to risk their money if there is a reasonable chance of a reasonable return. But people will not take any risks when the government introduces policies which forewarn them that the government may greedily grab their endeavours. The government calls it Canadianization, but it is really nationalization. It wants to nationalize such operations as the tar sands in Alberta or anything that is being well done.
The people of Alberta know, and the people of Canada are becoming aware of the government's intent. All they need to do is look at the totalitarian principles which are being put into effect. For example, there is the government's unilateral action on the constitution. It does not seem to care about the beginnings of this country. It was the provinces which decided that they would come together and form a federal government. But
Canada OH and Gas Act
this federal government presumes that it can tell the provinces what to do.
The federal government should realize that this country was formed through co-operation. This co-operation has continued over the years. There was not the divisiveness between the French and the English and the east and the west that there is now. This divisiveness is due to the policies of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his government, and it is disturbing the people of Canada. This energy policy is merely one more example of the dictatorial attitude and the desire of the government to control everything.
Let us take a look at some of the clauses in this legislation. If there is to be competition in any responsible democracy the people must have a reasonable chance of a reasonable return. The fact that this is not happening is disturbing many of the smaller companies. The multinationals are not bothered by the situation because they can withstand the four years which this government will hold power, but the small companies are being driven out. The government has decreed that it will fix oil prices at the wellhead at less than half the value for a certain number of years. The proposed increases will not even cover the costs of inflation. These increases are being fixed by the government and not the marketplace.
Alberta does not have an industrial base and relies on non-renewable resources. If we do not use the money from those non-renewable resources properly, we will not have anything and we will be back in the same position we faced during the depression when hunger was rampant all across Canada. Surely the government can understand that we are trying to make Canada stronger, that if Alberta is stronger Canada will be stronger, and that this country is as strong as its weakest province.
The government has taken one province and said that it will weaken it, take over its resources and whatever it wants, or it will destroy it. This policy is destroying the oil industry. This policy will destroy not only Alberta but the entire country. The oil price at the wellhead will be fixed by the government, not negotiated or determined by the marketplace. The practice in this country is that prices are determined by the marketplace and competition. The result of competition is the price the consumer receives, but in this case the price will be fixed by the government. The great big granddaddy government knows best.
The government has also decided that the domestic price of natural gas will be fixed at even a lower level than the price of oil. It has imposed an export tax on natural gas which will have the effect of removing the chance for the industry to improve our balance of trade and to create jobs. The government has said that it will be the Americans who pay, but really the export tax will be paid by Canadians. But the point I am arguing is that the prices are being fixed by the supposedly free enterprise government. Its actions are really that of a totalitarian government.
Not only has the government imposed an export tax on natural gas, but it has also imposed a domestic wellhead tax. It is no wonder that millions of Canadian dollars are leaving this

January 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
country. No businessman will invest his money in this kind of situation. Even if they made good in spite of the taxes, they face the possibility of the nationalization of their investments. The government is destroying the very fabric which built the economy of this country, under the guise of Canadianization, but it is really nationalization.
When hon. members and newspapers from coast to coast outline the adverse effects of the government's policy, the minister does not believe what they say. The minister said today that not one single person in Ontario has lost a job. I recently spoke in the town north of North Bay, and a lady there informed me that her son had lost his job. That is one single person. Even in that statement the minister is wrong. People are coming back to Ontario because they have lost their jobs in Alberta. How can the minister stand up in the House and say that not one single person in Ontario has lost his job because of the government's energy policy? It is complete nonsense.
The minister also said that not one single person in Alberta has lost a job. Does he think that the people of Canada are so stupid that they would quit their jobs in the middle of winter and walk away from a chance to earn good money? 1 suppose all is yellow to the jaundiced eye. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has made up his mind that he will not look at the facts because they will disturb his conclusions. So he says that not one single person in this country has lost a job. How ridiculous can a minister of the Crown be? This legislation is the forerunner of a package which will go much further, and that frightens us very much.
If the federal government would examine how this industry developed, maybe it would learn something and be able to put in place a policy to do the same thing for Canada.
The development in the province of Alberta did not come about easily. It is not by some lucky chance that the industry there is supplying oil and gas to vast regions of the country. A definite policy was set up that would encourage investment. Many years ago, before there was even one oil well, Alberta pleaded with eastern Canada, with the Canadian government and the Bank of Canada, to help in the development of the resources there, but no help was forthcoming. Then it sought help in England and in France, but none was forthcoming from them either. After that it applied to the United States, which was interested. Their people came up and dug thousands of dry holes, spending millions of dollars, before Leduc came in. They believed that there was oil and knew there was a reasonable chance of getting their money back, in time.
At that time there was a climate which invited people to invest their money, and they did. The provincial government did not invest, but it set up a fair policy whereby companies that made discoveries would get a share and the balance would be sold to other companies at the highest price. Before spending money investors knew what the policy was. As a result, today we have an industry, today we have oil and gas, and today we have the Heritage Fund. This did not come about by
chance, Mr. Speaker, but is the result of free enterprise policies. The industry knew what the policy was going to be and it did not fear nationalization.
The province of Saskatchewan was slower to act than Alberta but eventually, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) said a few days ago, the former premier, the hon. Tommy Douglas, finally offered the companies a fair share if they would come in. They did, and that started the industry in Saskatchewan. All the industry wants is a fair share. It is not asking to avoid taxes altogether.
1 was amazed to hear the Prime Minister say the other day that the rigs leaving Alberta were doing so because of taxes. That is not why they are leaving, Mr. Speaker; they are afraid of nationalization. They must have enough to live on. If the government is going to grab greedily more than its fair share, the companies will just go somewhere else in order to get a fair deal.
The minister can smile and laugh at this. Let him smile and laugh when he goes into the homes of the people who have lost their jobs, the people of Fort McMurray, where the whole kit and caboodle is going to pot because of the energy policies of the government. The minister tries to pretend that he is negotiating, but he knows in his heart that he is not. The Government of Canada made only one offer to the government of Alberta, and that was the first one. One complete offer is all this government made.


Marc Lalonde: Five.


Gordon Edward Taylor: The other offers were made piece by piece, and the hon. minister knows that.


Marc Lalonde: How many were there from Alberta?


Gordon Edward Taylor: The minister did that deliberately, and he knew what he was doing. He knew that Alberta would not accept that first offer, with the conditions it contained. It was a complete offer, but after that there was no other complete offer and the minister knows that. It was all done piece by piece.
If I were to going to sell my property and offered to sell my house today and then, after I received my price for the house, I said I would sell the land as well without saying what 1 would charge for the land, I would not have many takers, but that is what the Canadian government is doing. No one would enter into an agreement like that, Mr. Speaker, because it is ridiculous. Yet that is what the Canadian government has, in effect, been saying to the Alberta government. Time and time again in this House the government has said that it is offering to negotiate and that Alberta refuses. That is nonsense, Mr. Speaker; it is a fabrication; it is not true.


Marc Lalonde: Read what Merv Leitch says.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Alberta is prepared to negotiate as soon as the Canadian government is willing to meet it. But the Canadian government is not willing to negotiate, Mr. Speaker. It has offered the world price for the oil in the Fort McMurray area
January 15, 1981

but has not said anything about the conventional oil. It must think the people of Alberta are stupid, but they certainly are not. They built the industry with the sweat of their brow and with hard work, so they will not give it up easily. They want a complete deal, Mr. Speaker.
Premier Lougheed made a complete and fair offer to the Prime Minister, an offer that was good for all of Canada. He did not ask for world price as some Liberals would have the people of Ontario believe. The offer was for 75 per cent of the North American price, not the world price, but the federal government wants to keep the price down to less than half the world price which would destroy this country's chances of building an industry.
As a result, Mr. Speaker, oil rigs are leaving the country and companies are cutting down on their investment. Every major project in Alberta has halted or is in trouble because of this energy policy. What must we do to persuade the minister that his energy policy is destroying the country, for that is what it is doing?
I wish there was a handful of people on the other side of this House who would look at the facts. If they went to Alberta they would see the oil rigs heading south and the 150 that are standing idle today. Someone told me that the Prime Minister said that only three or four oil rigs went across the border. People at a meeting 1 attended the other day laughed about that, Mr. Speaker, and wanted to know who is advising him. More than 40 or, I believe, 50 oil rigs have crossed the border already.
Why does the government want to mislead the people of Canada? Not everyone can go to Alberta to see what is happening, but I think members of the Liberal party should go. We have heard some talk about twinning, but where are those twins today? Why do they not go to Alberta to see what is happening so that they would know the facts?


An hon. Member:: There has been an abortion!


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is the only time that I would believe in abortion. I do not believe in the twinning policy, but perhaps it would have a good effect if they could go out there and look at the facts and, then tell the minister about them. He will not believe anything he reads in the newspapers and he does not believe members of this House. All is yellow to the jaundiced eye! He has made up his mind that no one is losing jobs, not one single person. He will be eating those words for many days to come.
I see it is five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers), and public bills.
Mormon Church


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills) moved: that Bill S-16, respecting the President of the Lethbridge Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-16 was given third reading by the Senate on December 11, 1980. The purpose of this bill is to grant a new charter to a religious corporation that is responsible for the management and control of the property, affairs and interests in Canada of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly referred to as the Mormon Church.
1 should explain to you at the outset the meaning of the word "stake". A stake is a territorial division of the Mormon Church. As such, it is roughly the equivalent of what would be a diocese in other churches. Within a stake there are generally about ten congregational units known as wards, each of which is headed by a bishop. A ward is roughly the equivalent of a parish as generally understood in other churches.
In 1927, by private act of the Parliament of Canada, namely, chapter 112 of the Statutes of Canada, 1926-27, the President of the Lethbridge Stake was incorporated as a corporation sole. A corporation sole is a corporation consisting of one person only, together with his sucessors in office, who are incorporated by law in order to give them the legal capacities and benefits of a corporation, which they do not enjoy as natural persons. One particular advantage is that of perpetuity.
One of the principal purposes of the corporation sole that is the subject of this bill is to manage and control the property, affairs and interests in Canada of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The corporation, in addition to managing the affairs of the Church in the Lethbridge area, acts in effect as a holding company for the property and assets of the various missions and stakes of the Church in Canada.
Hon. members may know that the first Mormons in Canada were pioneers who emigrated from Utah in 1887. These pioneers were agricultural settlers and settled in southwestern Alberta. In fact, they have a temple in Cardston, Alberta. The Mormons were responsible for the irrigation of southern Alberta and they began the first sugar beet factory there. The major contribution of irrigation is to food production in Canada.
Since its enactment in 1927, the original act or incorporation of the President of the Lethbridge Stake has never been amended. It contains, for instance, certain limitations on the holding of property that are now archaic and that can only be corrected by Parliament.

January 15, 1981
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation
The purpose of this bill, therefore, is to repeal the original act of incorporation and replace it with a more modern, up-to-date charter. The bill contains a provision stating that, for all purposes, the new corporation, created by this bill, is deemed to be a continuation of the corporation created by Parliament in 1927.
Since this is a private bill it will be necessary for a committee to examine the allegations of facts set out in the preamble. I would propose, therefore, if second reading is granted, to ask that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, which is the committee of the Elouse which normally examines private bills.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, as is normally the custom, we are pleased to see this bill go to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.

[Stage Direction]
Motions nos. 1, 4, 5, 22 and 28 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The Elouse resumed from Thursday, December 18, 1980, consideration of the motion of Mr. Siddon:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the government, its departments and agencies and the governments of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Territorial Council of the Northwest Territories, since January I, 1978, relating to the review and restructuring of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
Mr. Michel Veillette (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to proceed with the statement I was making before Christmas, when I was interrupted by the clock. I was quoting among other things part of a working paper tabled at the First Ministers' Conference on the Economy held from the 27th to the 29th of November in Halifax and I was quoting the following statistics on fisheries:
The main species taken throughout the country are: whitefish (6,803.8 metric tons), pickerel (3,855.6 metric tons), great northern pike (2,721.7 metric tons), cisco (1,769 metric tons) . . . Locally, some species such as carp (Saskatchewan and Ontario), arctic char (Northwest Territories), sunfish, smelt, pike, lake perch and eel (Ontario) make up a substantial part of the catches.
The author of the paper then deals with the fishing gear, the accessibility of some lakes, transportation problems, parasites peculiar to some species and the impact of some contaminants, such as mercury, which have led to highly controversial restrictions and have resulted in lower catches of some species.
in addition to stock management, all matters dealing with the protection of the habitat, with processing, transportation and preservation, on which the quality of the product depends, and all marketing related activities have a direct influence on the income and standard of living of freshwater commercial fishermen. Incidentally, at this point I want to mention that according to the 1978 report, in 1972 most freshwater fishermen earned $3,700 and the average annual income was $5,900 whereas the national average in the fishing industry was $6,900 annually. The fact was stressed that, in central Canada, fishing was mainly a part time occupation and in the higher income brackets, only half was derived from fishing.
O)
For all those reasons, in 1965 the federal government asked Mr. George Mclvor by order in council to look into the matter and report on the situation of freshwater fishermen in the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, as well as in the Northwest Territories, with special emphasis on product marketing. The resulting report, the Mclvor commission report, led to the setting up, on February 27, 1969, of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
The corporation, created by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act of 1969, was established for the purpose of marketing and trading fish, fish products and fish byproducts in and out of Canada, to ensure the most rational marketing at every level of the industry, and the best and most stable prices possible for the fishermen's catches.
Initial costs in setting up the corporation were subsidized, but it is now financially self-sufficient and does not receive any financial assistance from Parliament. The corporation is financed through bank loans guaranteed by the Minister of Finance or even direct loans. It consists of a board of directors composed of a chairman, a president, one director for each of the participating provinces and four other directors each of whom is to be appointed by the governor in council for a term not exceeding five years. The corporation is accountable to Parliament through the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. By its very nature and because of its terms of reference the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is an easy target for complaints.
Let us be fair. The corporation does not have but one customer, it has 3,500 of them in the sense that, in a position of monopoly, it serves some 3,500 fishermen spread out over a vast area consisting of four provinces and the Northwest Territories and which are as many partners whose interests are quite strongly differentiated. The corporation must buy all fish caught in fresh water by commercial fishermen, a task
January 15, 1981

which it accomplishes directly or indirectly through designated agents.
The corporation sets an initial price to be paid to the fishermen. It sees to it that the fish is processed, packed and sold either on the domestic market or abroad, mostly in the United States which buys 90 per cent of our catches. It later pays a refund to fishermen as a final payment. Assuming everything proceeds in a normal way, it would be a miracle if all those involved in such complex dealings, on their own admission, were to be totally satisfied.
Therefore it was no surprise, on December 4, 1979, following a meeting between the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his counterparts of the provinces and territories involved, to learn that they had looked into the role played by the corporation and wanted it defined for the future, and that a federal-provincial committee of officials was given the task of preparing an in-depth analysis of the processing and marketing activities of the corporation, as well as its administrative, financial and operational structures. The interested partners were to be informed of the results of such a study at a meeting to be held in Winnipeg before the end of April last.
The April, 1980, meeting was never held. On the one hand, the study was pursued and, on the other hand, there was an election and the former government, which had commissioned the study, experienced certain problems. The study was finally completed and the report, we are informed, was recently tabled. What more can we ask? That we undertake a further study over the head of the committee which was set up for the very purpose? Personally, I do not see the need for it and I am sure hon. members agree with me on that point. The press release of December 4, 1979, which was over a year ago, stated, and I quote:
In the meantime, the cabinet ministers unanimously recommended that the corporation pursue its activities as usual until the findings of the Winnipeg meeting are known.
But the Winnipeg meeting, for reasons that we already know, never took place. Since then, the report was tabled and it is there for all to read. Therefore, unless there are new issues of which we are not aware, 1 do not see why we should force hon. members to consider correspondence between interested parties relating to a matter which, to all intents and purposes, concerns only one department and the corporation it is responsible for.
Mr. Speaker, all that has been said until now leads me to think that some undoubtedly well-meaning people wanted and still want to broaden the social role of the corporation. To be quite frank, it appears some would want to turn it into a social development agency. I shall reserve judgment on that proposal and on the purposes of those who hold that view. 1 think that the issue before the House today does not go that far; it concerns essentially the current role of the corporation which is that of a sales and marketing agency. The correspondence asked for does not concern us in any way. That is why, Mr. Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation
Speaker. I do not think we should grant this request for papers and 1 ask my colleagues to vote against it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Under the provisions of Standing Order 48(2) which governs the debate on the motion now before the House, the time for the debate has now expired, with the exception that the Standing Order provides for the right of the minister to intervene for five minutes and the mover of the motion to intervene for five minutes, after which the Chair will put the question.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans);: Mr. Speaker, when the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was first formed in 1969 at the request of the provinces involved, the objectives of the new body were quite clear and straightforward; first, to market fish in an orderly manner; second, to promote international markets and increase interprovincial and export trade in fish; and, third and most important, to increase returns to the fishermen in that one and a half million square mile territory. That was a formidable task and, 1 might say, it was generally achieved.
The first objective was met. The corporation has been able to market fish in an orderly manner by investing in capital assets such as fish packing stations and filleting, scaling, grading and freezing equipment so that the fish can be held until the best market is found for it.
On the second objective, international markets have been created. In the early years, some 80 per cent of the fish was sold in the United States. That percentage is now 61 per cent with some 23 per cent going to the European markets and 16 per cent to the Canadian market.
The third objective, and this is the most important, is the returns to fishermen. Before the corporation was formed, the freshwater fishermen were pretty well at the mercy of the buyers. They could not speak as one voice as they do now, and were compelled to accept what the companies were willing to offer them for their hard work. Frankly, it was pretty meagre at times. That situation has changed.
Before Christmas the corporation sent out the largest payments in its 11-year history to the fishermen under its jurisdiction, final payments for the year 1980 that total $5.7 million shared among 3,500 fishermen from the prairie provinces, northwestern Ontario and the Northwest Territories. Those payments are a far cry from the small and unpredictable amounts they received for their fish prior to the establishment of the corporation.
These latest payments are only part of what has been received by the freshwater fishermen this year. If we compare the figures, we find that the figure for 1975-76 was $10 million. In 1976-77 it was $14 million. In 1977-78 it was $15.3 million. In 1978-79 it was $17.2 million. Then there was a phenomenal rise, to $25.5 million in 1979-80.

January 15, 1981
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation
1 think those are impressive figures. They mean that the corporation is doing its job and is ensuring fishermen steady incomes.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has asked why the report was not tabled sooner. 1 can tell him that it required a longer time to prepare than had first been expected. I may also say that there are no fundamental changes recommended and no requests from the provincial ministers for a meeting with them, and I remind this House that this is an area of the fisheries which is under the management of provincial governments. Certainly if a request were made for a meeting, 1 would be happy to accept.
Now that the corporation is successfully carrying out its mandate, there are members of the opposition who say there are many faults with its operations. How can they come to such a conclusion in the face of such a success story and still claim that it is not a good operation? Frankly, I simply ask them to look at the evidence.
It has already been pointed out that the report of the review committee of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation has now been tabled in this House. The general conclusion of this review committee, composed of provincial and territorial government representatives as well as representatives of the fishermen themselves, is that the fishermen are better off with the existence of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation than without it. The report contains several recommendations to improve the operation of the corporation, and I am informed that some of these recommendations are already being implemented.
i tried to get the hon. member to narrow the request he made for the production of papers. He did not accept my suggestion, and I regret that because the reality is that other than the normal confidential documents which are exchanged between governments-and I would have been ready to approach the provincial governments if a more precise list of documents requested had been submitted to me-I am fully in favour of full information being given to this House or to the general public. The fact remains, however, that because of the broad definition and because of the back dating of the documents which were requested by the hon. member to such an extent, 1 find myself in the position of having to ask the House to reject the motion of the hon. member.


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, in presenting this motion to the House early in the present session my objective was to request of the minister a sharing with this House of a variety of concerns of which he is well aware, which have been made known to his ministry since the beginning of 1978. In fact the request for production of papers was to go back only as far as January 1, 1978, so I am rather surprised that the minister should suggest that we wanted to go back a great distance in time.
The purpose of the motion was to help bring before this House the sentiments which were expressed, and indeed are still being expressed, by some of the provincial governments
and the territorial councils-most especially the territorial councils in recent weeks-pointing out a number of faults and anomalies which have crept into the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation which have led it to become something quite different from what was initially envisaged.
The FFMC is no longer a marketing board as originally envisaged. It is a vertically integrated monopoly. It is not democratic socialism, which involves private and public sector competition. It is much more pervasive than that in the manner in which it has destroyed community industries and particularly the community lakeside fishing industries of northern Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories. It has virtually destroyed Co-operative Fisheries Limited, a socialist co-operative in Saskatchewan which operated successfully for many years. It has bankrupted many buyers and processors of fish over the past decade.
Fishermen no longer have a yardstick of comparison in order to know whether the corporation and its chairman, who goes flitting around the world securing buys and deals-and the chairman should not be doing that at all-are getting an adequate price for fishermen. There is a history of sleight of hand in the management and the announcements of the economic state of the corporation. There is the question of payments to fishermen which have been adjusted by docking the transportation charges first in order to create the illusion that the payments to fishermen were 60 per cent of the gross return on fish when in fact they were only 50 per cent. There is the question of $10 million worth of loans. Who knows how much additional deficit has been incurred to allow those higher payments to fishermen this year, of which the minister and his chairman are so proud?
Has anything improved? I have here a copy of the Hay River newspaper dated December 3, 1980, which says "Fishermen pay for FFMC loss". At this very moment this winter the fishermen of the Northwest Territories are being docked an additional eight cents a pound from their final payment, an additional eight cents which the territorial government feels it has no obligation to pay, yet the chairman of the corporation is going around the western provinces bragging about the fact that the final payments are much increased this year and that all the fishermen are doing better.
What about the native fishermen of the Northwest Territories and of the western Arctic? My hon. colleague to my right knows full well the implications of this corporation, some of the questions of mismanagement and the impact these have upon the people he represents.
There was a number of positive recommendations in the report filed by the committee of officials. The next stage would have been to reconvene a meeting of first ministers and to act on those recommendations to which the minister has referred.
I will read one final sentence from the general conclusion of the report, as follows:
However, several modifications to the present marketing system appear to have merit in that they could generate new revenue to the industry without decreasing fishermen's incomes, or, in some cases, by increasing fishermen's incomes.
January 15, 1981

That suggests a recommendation for action, and 1 can only ask at this stage what action the minister plans to take next. I urge him to meet with the first ministers.
With that said, I hereby move that the question be put.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it.
There not being five members who have stood in their places, I declare the motion lost.
Unless there is an indication by some hon. members that the House-


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I am probably going to say just what you were going to say. In view of the hour and the fact that we are not voting, I suggest we call it six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us make it unanimous.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being unanimously six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 5.29 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: When the debate was interrupted at five o'clock p.m., the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) had the floor.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with Bill C-48 I should now like to refer to some of the clauses to show that the allegation made at the beginning of my remarks that this is a gigantic grab for power can be confirmed in the clauses of the bill.
One clause in the bill states that the bill would permit the minister or his nominee to enter into exploration agreements without prior public notice where he does not consider it to be in the public interest to give such notice. A bill which provides such power to a minister is a dangerous bill. Under this bill ministers are given power to enter into exploration agreements without even giving prior public notice. That is not the democratic way of carrying on business and it is not the way in which business has been carried out for many years in Canada. The public is notified before the minister enters into agreements with anyone, and in the case of contracts everyone is given an equal chance. That is the way it should be.
Again the bill states that while the Crown share of 25 per cent interest does not require the Crown corporation holding the share to pay its proportional share of the exploration and development costs, the Crown corporation will have a full 25 per cent vote in all decisions of the operating committee. Why should Petro-Canada have special privileges? Surely it can stand on its own feet. In a democratic society, particularly a free enterprise society, a Crown corporation should compete with the other companies and not have a monopoly, because a government monopoly is no better than any other kind of monopoly. It is just as dangerous and it does the very same thing. So we are going to give special consideration to this Crown corporation. This discourages private industry and thus drives money out of the country. In a free competitive society people go where they have an equal chance to bid.
In clause 44 it is stated that the minister can declare that a significant discovery has been made and can then order the drilling of additional wells wherever he wants by any party under whose lands the discovery may extend. Surely if a company has spent several million dollars, and that is not unusual, and then makes a discovery, the minister can simply ask up to a maximum of three others to drill. Why is there not a proper plan so that when someone makes a discovery, they will know what to expect? The industries came into Alberta to search for oil because they knew they would get a fair deal. They knew what they would have and what they would not if they made a discovery. Those matters should all be laid down before the people invest their money. It is a logical and sensible way to do it. When people came to Alberta to invest their money, they knew the result might be a dry hole, but if they made a discovery, as was the case in Leduc, Redwater and Mildred Lake, they knew a certain portion of it would be available for others to bid on so that anyone, including them, would have a chance to bid and the highest bidder would get the particular land. They knew what was what.

January 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
One of the reasons for the Heritage Fund existing in the province of Alberta is that Alberta has been fair with industry. Because the industry knew that the government would be fair, they were willing to bid thousands and sometimes millions of dollars for some of the areas which had been proven to have oil or gas. Surely that is a sensible way to do it, rather than simply telling them in the act that if they make a significant discovery the minister can create a Crown corporation to take the rest of it or give it to other people. The minister may do it without bidding or purchasing the rights.
Why does the government want such power? Why is it not done above the table or out in the open so that industry knows what is going on? The minister can declare that a commercial discovery has been made and order the drilling of additional wells at the time and place of his choosing without limit on the number of such wells. A typical offshore well could cost $25 million to $50 million. Will the minister order the drilling of additional wells? Will the minister tell a company to drill one or two more wells at a cost of another $50 million? Why is it not done by open bid or giving companies an opportunity to bid? The money will come into the public treasury that way. In fact, millions of dollars came into the Alberta treasury from companies prepared to take a risk because of the chance to make a profit. They were willing to do the work and make a profit. They have done that, and there is nothing wrong with profit.
What are the penalties under the act if a company indicates it cannot drill? Well, let me outline the penalties for non-compliance with the act. It can be fined up to $1 million or imprisoned up to five years for each day on which the offence is committed. Why are those penalties included for someone who does not or cannot obey the direction of the minister?
Surely there should be some freedom of choice in the country. We are not living in Moscow, Russia. We are not under a communist regime. Why have they included this type of communistic legislation? That is what it is; that is what it is. When the minister orders a company to drill and it refuses to drill, it can be fined $1 million or be subjected to imprisonment up to five years. What kind of a country are they developing?
Under clause 59 any corporate officer who acquiesces to the offence is liable. Without going into any more clauses of the bill, I want to ask why any minister should have such power. Why do the backbenchers, particularly on the government side of the House, want the minister to have such power? Why are these things not done above the table by open bid so that everyone will know what is going on? The money would come into the treasury; the highest bidder could go out under government legislation.
I have only one or two other matters I should like to raise because I would like to leave some time for other members. This is a fight with one section of the industry, the multinationals. I have no particular love for the large companies, but they have done a job in this country. They came in and risked their money. Do hon. members opposite know the number of
dry holes? 1 hear hon. members opposite laughing; I would like to see them invest some of their money when there is only a slight chance of finding oil or gas. The large companies risked millions of dollars. They spent millions of dollars before they even found anything. In fact, there are hundreds of dry holes. It is okay to sit back and laugh now that they have spent their money and have proven up wells, and then like some communistic government say, "We will take it over now that they have been found." That is not the kind of country Canadians want.
We should not forget that hundreds of good Canadians are working for these multinational companies. The multinationals can stand anything the government can do; they have the money to withstand anything. But, what about the small Canadian companies? I know the minister received a letter from a small Canadian company because I have a copy of it in my possession. As a matter of fact he received several letters which he did not read when he gave his speech; he read the other ones. Small Canadian companies are being forced to cut back; they just cannot keep up. The minister said there is not one unemployed person. He does not read his mail because that one letter indicated that 19 people were let go. There will be more let go if the government continues its ridiculous and nonsensical policy.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have shown a lot of patience with the misleading statements of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) including statements attributed to myself. He said that I stated in the House there was not one unemployed person in Alberta. 1 never said that. I said that the same number of rigs were operating on January 6, 1981, as there were on January 6, 1980, or the reverse. I indicated that there were 482 rigs and therefore the same number of people were employed on those rigs as last year. That is what I said, and I hope he respects the record.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It is not a point of order. The minister said- and the record will prove it-that not a single person lost his job. I do not know why he wants to change his mind now. He did not tell the whole truth when he said that because hundreds of persons have lost their jobs.


Marc Lalonde: Name them.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It is this policy which is putting people out of work, it is killing the industry, it is not doing the country any good. The minister should withdraw his policy and implement one that is above the table and out in the open, rather than the under-the-table one contained in this act. This bill is not appropriate for a democracy. It might be acceptable in Moscow but it is not the kind of legislation we need in Canada.
I should like to continue with the points I was mentioning before I was so rudely interrupted. We need a climate which will encourage investment. Hon. members opposite can laugh; perhaps it is very funny but it is not funny for those people who are losing their jobs.


Marc Lalonde: You are funny.
January 15, 1981


Gordon Edward Taylor: It is not funny for the people of Alberta whose industry is being killed and all the things they have worked for are being thrown aside. The hon. minister is not losing anything over it. He is not even losing any sleep; he laughs about it. I do not think it is funny at all and my constituents who have lost their jobs and are losing their investment money do not think it is funny.
If the government of the day had done something similar to this when his father was in business, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would not be a millionaire today. His father had a chance to develop his business, and now the government wants to take that chance away from other Canadians. People only want the chance to go out and work and invest their money. If they lose their money, that is fine, but they want a reasonable chance to make a gain, and they should have that chance. The government should not deny Canadians that chance. The government talks about Canadianization but it means nationalization; that is its whole theme.
The other point I should like to mention, is that we should encourage investment. We must encourage investment. Not only that, we need some equity capital in this country. It is all right to continue borrowing but there comes a time when you must have some input capital. It is the foundation of the investment program in this country. If we have no equity capital we will not go very far.
What we need in this country is a climate in which the people can have confidence in their government, where they can invest in equity capital, where they can get out and work, develop this country and be able to make a profit. There is nothing wrong with making a profit. If we could get this bill withdrawn, bring in a bill which will show industry the government is above the table and that they will have a chance if they invest their money, then you would find Canadian dollars being retained in this country. We would find jobs starting up and we could get this country back on its feet again.
1 hope the government will reconsider and throw out many parts of this energy policy. They call it a policy, I call it a totalitarian concept.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my contribution this evening will be short, since some 26 speakers have already spoken on this bill. This bill saw the light of day over a month ago and its predecessor. Bill C-20, saw the light of day about three years ago. Therefore, it seems to me it is time for this proposal to proceed to committee as quickly as possible.
What this bill does has been described by many already. I will limit myself and describe five areas in a very brief manner. The first one has to do with the fact that under this proposal the Crown will have an interest position of at least 25 per cent in all Canada lands, including all existing and future grants to be made.
The second thrust of this bill is that it will provide for a minimum acceptable level of Canadian ownership in frontier Canada oil and gas resources to be 50 per cent, with a
Canada Oil and Gas Act
provision in case of deficiency to be reserved by the Crown. That is in the name of the Canadian public.
The next major direction of this bill has to do with the fact that a Crown corporation will have the right to demand from relevant operators geological, well or other proprietary information.
The fourth area has to do with the revolving fund provisions for regional environmental studies by assessing holders of rights in proportion to their acreage holdings. I will return to this measure in light of the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).
The fifth area I would like to describe, which the preceding speaker made reference to at great length, is that there are many provisions in this bill for ministerial discretion. I support this. One area of ministerial discretion has to do with the authority given to the minister to prohibit the proposed transfer or assignment of interests on grounds of public interest, therefore, in the name of Canadians.
The question which comes to mind after having looked at the major points contained in this bill is: Where will this legislation apply? It will apply to all the so-called Canada lands, which to me is a new term, and a very interesting one. It includes all the lands in the territories and the offshore, which together total an area of almost 2Vi million square miles in the offshore and about a million and a half square miles in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. 1 find those figures staggering. They total an area of almost twice as large as that of the ten provinces combined. This vast area will represent Canada's best prospects for large new reserves of conventional petroleum.
Let us look for a moment at what Bill C-48 really represents. 1 do not think we should look at it in isolation. 1 submit to you it represents another step on the road initiated many years ago when Parliament approved the National Energy Board Act, when Parliament established the Panarctic, approved the Petro-Canada Act, I believe in 1975 when it approved the Petroleum Administration Act and the Petroleum Corporations Monitoring Act. What we see here is a series of desirable steps stretched over a number of years to develop a situation whereby, in Canada, the public sector will be put into a position to compete and co-operate with the private sector. That will be a good balance when established in the long run. We cannot yet say we have achieved this balance. To those in this debate who have said this bill provides for confiscation, we say that about $3 billion of the taxpayers money, in the form of deferred tax write-offs, have already been made available to the private sector in the oil and gas industry.
In addition, what this bill will do once enacted is give Canadians, by means of the 25 per cent public share I mentioned earlier, something which was very well expressed by the parliamentary secretary to the minister in the debate on December 17. I quote his remarks from page 5868 of Hansard-. "the 25 per cent Crown share is in fact a long overdue catchup for the Canadian people." 1 could not think of a more fitting and effective description of what this 25 per cent public share really means. I am surprised to see why members

January 15, 1981
Canada OH and Gas Act
opposite, like the member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), cannot see the importance of this measure and what it really represents when put into historical terms. Contrary to what some have said in this debate so far, while this legislation will geographically apply in the north and the offshore, its impact will be felt in the boardrooms of western Canada and eastern Canada. It will be felt in Calgary, yes, but in Toronto, too, by Imperial, Gulf, Texaco, Shell and Suncor. It will be felt in the boardrooms of Montreal as well, at Petrofina and BP. Let us once and for all put to rest this red herring of an east-west confrontation. It is not fair, it is not right, it is not there. It will affect the whole nation in a variety of ways. It certainly is not to be interpreted as one which fires and fuels the tensions that already exist.
What is left here for me is to look at the position taken by the opposition parties. Since this debate started on December 11, inevitably one must have a look at what has been said. Let us start with the position of the Conservative party. On December 11, 1980, the member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) on page 5671 of Hansard is reported as having said:
The broad objectives of this legislation are worthwhile and are certainly acceptable. One might go so far as to say they are motherhood; they are intended to increase production and Canadian ownership, as well as to provide a very stable tax environment.
I wonder how this sounds to the hon. member for Bow River. The hon. member went on to say:
I agree with the minister when he says that it is important to have this legislation. We have been waiting for it for about ten years now.
But this afternoon, as we all heard, the hon. member for Bow River spoke violently in opposition to this bill. We just heard him comparing us to a communist dictatorship. How does he square that with the statement made by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre. The hon. member for Bow River in his outrage-and I do not know whether it was synthetic or spontaneous-in effect has indicated that the Tories are divided among themselves. The only conclusion which we on this side can draw is that it is business as usual as far as the Progressive Conservative Party is concerned. But when the hon. member for Bow River says he is strenuously opposed to this bill because it gives the government the power to set prices, 1 would invite him to tell us which government in the world today does not set prices for oil and gas.
When the hon. member rejects strenuously the notion of government intervention and says it is a very bad practice, he forgets, and I am sure since he comes from Alberta that it is inadvertent, the Alberta industry was saved in the 1960s by virtue of the Borden line, an initiative which was taken by the Government of Canada. If I remember correctly, it was taken by the second former leader of the hon. member's own party. It would be fair to conclude that all of the 100 Tory members of Parliament, minus one, seem violently opposed to this bill. They say it is bad and that it goes too far. I feel comfortable when they say so because I know then that we are on the right track.
Let us look at the NDP for a moment. The NDP says something that is rather curious. They are opposed to the bill and at page 5676 of Hansard we find this general reasoning flowing from the lips of their guru on natural resources, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), who said:
Suddenly the minister proposes a new program of Canadianization. Essentially this is why we oppose the bill.
His reasoning as outlined in his speech seems to flow along three main lines: (1) suspicion of the government; (2) by saying that the legislation does not go far enough; and (3) accusing the government of claiming it is doing something progressive when there is really no change. I could not help but conclude upon reading the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway that his logic is inspired by the rather peculiar principle that no loaf is better than half. That seems to be the inspiration and guiding principle of the NDP in its approach to this bill.
How is it that on the one hand the NDP can say there is nothing in this bill and, on the other hand, the Tories get upset and say that there is too much in it. I am at a loss to understand their attitudes. Are we witnessing here a case of mass psychology where 100 Tories, minus one, think one way and the NDP thinks diametrically opposite? It seems that is a classic case of an urgent need for group therapy for these politicians because there is no other explanation. For one group the legislation is so bad and for the other there is nothing in the legislation, but they both come to the same conclusion, that they will oppose the bill. The NDP oppose the legislation because their logic is that it is better to have no loaf than to have half a loaf.
In conclusion, 1 express my regret over the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Skeena, for whom I have the highest respect. The hon. member who is the NDP saint for the environment spoke this afternoon from an environmental point of view. If I heard him correctly he described the bill as an absolute zero. He went on to challenge any Liberal backbencher in this House to show that this bill makes provision for environmental studies. The bill in fact does make provision for environmental studies. Section 49, from page 27 to page 29, of the bill is devoted to such studies. It spells out in detail how and by whom an environmental studies fund is to be established and administered, including 11 subclauses with one subclause on regulations and one subclause indicating the fund is not to exceed $15 million. Instead of making silly challenges, the NDP critic might take the time to read this bill and do his homework.
We on this side of the House take a position which is between the Conservatives and the NDP. We think this bill is another important step forward in Canada's history. Whenever one goes outside the borders of this country today he learns that there is not a person who does not speak with envy of Canada and describes it as the world envy because of its natural resources. Generations of Canadians in this and the next century will benefit from the implementation of the ideas contained in the bill; of that I am absolutely certain. In the
January 15, 1981

same way we now say it was a good idea to create Panarctic some 15 years ago; in the year 2000 they will say it is a good idea that we pushed ahead with Bill C-48, for the benefit of generations of Canadians, with its principles of public ownership Canadianization, and strong powers in the capital of the nation in the interest of the full community from coast to coast, from east to west and from north to south.
It is too bad the NDP does not have the guts to support the bill, and it is too bad the Tories once again, as at the time of the bill establishing Petro-Canada, have to be dragged so recalcitrancy into the twentieth century.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) takes his seat, would he answer a question?


Mr. Caccia:: Yes.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member expressed concern about our stand on this bill. As he is aware, the bill seeks to obtain legal control in right of Her Majesty the Queen of the resources off the east coast of Canada which go out 200 miles. I am sure he is aware that in 1621 King James I granted the Royal Charter of Nova Scotia to Sir William Alexander. In recognition of the utter dependence of the early colonists on the sea for food and transportation, the King included as part of our territory a band of sea stretching about 120 miles southward from our coast. That band easily covers the area which is known as Sable Island and it covers part of Georges Bank as well as most of the Scotian shelf. I should like to ask the hon. member how this government can legally, in the name of Her Majesty, the Queen, take away from us as Nova Scotians, this territory which was granted to us by the King in the year 1621 ?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any clauses in this bill that deal with that particular question but it seems to me what could be done in the name of the King in 1621 can be done in the year 1981 in the name of the Queen of Canada!


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the first time, and it is certainly the first time in my memory, we have concurrently before Parliament two government measures that are operating under the invocation of closure, under the rule of Standing Order 75c.
I refer, of course, to the government's constitutional package as contained in the joint resolution now before the joint committee of the House and Senate. We know that the parliamentary guillotine will fall on that committee on February 6, even though we have just commenced clause by clause study of the 59 clauses. We started on clause 1 yesterday. We know that under the order the House invoked by closure, that measure has to be reported back to the House and to the Senate on or before February 6.
When that measure was going through the House the point was made repeatedly, especially by those of us who had the opportunity to participate-and indeed, it was made dramati-
Canada Oil and Gas Act
cally by those who were denied the opportunity to participate-that the constitutional package was probably one of the most important bills to come before Parliament. We said that in the context of putting forward arguments on why the time for debate on that important measure should be extended.
It is interesting that Bill C-48, which is now before us, has had closure invoked on it at this stage. We know that the parliamentary guillotine under rule 75c will come down on second reading of this bill in less than an hour.
I heard the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), for whom I have great respect, and I am sorry he is not in the House at the moment but I understand he had to leave, participate in the debate a few moments ago. Some members may ask what is wrong with that. On the face of it there is nothing wrong, except when it is remembered that the hon. member for Davenport also participated in the debate last night which invoked closure on this bill. Indeed, I believe he was the last member to speak on the closure motion, putting forward arguments of why it should be invoked.
It would seem logical and fair to me that if he were to speak in support of a motion to invoke closure, a measure that would limit severely the time left to debate this important measure- a measure, I submit, almost as important as the one now before the committee in terms of its impact on the country- he should not then deprive somebody else of the precious right to speak in the few hours we have left by virtue of the invocation of closure, notwithstanding how important the message the hon. member felt he had to deliver in the debate.
I would say to the hon. member for Davenport that in a parliamentary sense that just is not fair. He is responsible for closure. He has to assume his collective share of responsibility for closure. By speaking tonight he deprived another hon. member who opposed the imposition of closure of the right to speak.
This bill brings a new element into the constitutional debate in terms of the Canada lands. It is that feature of the bill I want to address for a few moments this evening.
It is well to recall that the issue of resource ownership which is now a question seized by the constitutional committee and the debate surrounding the constitution in the country, was raised during the First Ministers' conference, particularly with regard to the offshore dimensions of that resource question. It has been raised in the House in the form of questions. It has been raised because the province of Newfoundland and the province of Nova Scotia have put forward claims to the ownership of the offshore. We have been told by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the House that this is a question for the Supreme Court of Canada to decide. If the federal government claims ownership and if the provinces claim ownership, then I submit it is not unreasonable for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to suggest that this matter should be settled by a third party, namely, the Supreme Court of Canada.
6256

January! 5, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
They also said during the meeting of first ministers that the package on the table, and presumably the package we are dealing with tonight in the constitutional committee, was merely the first phase of the government's constitutional proposals, and that the resource question would be included in the second phase.
Here we have two positions: one taken in the House by the government saying that the question of who has claim to the offshore is to be settled by the court and another position taken at the First Ministers' conference by the same government saying that the question of the offshore and the resource question will come in the second phase of the ongoing constitutional package.
What I find strange is that we now have this bill before us which will get second reading tonight by the use of the government's majority which makes a complete mockery of any suggestion that this matter should be included in the second phase of constitutional discussions or that it should be settled by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The bill assumes that the legal ownership of the Canada lands in the maritime provinces and Newfoundland belongs to the federal jurisdiction of Canada. That seems to me to fly in the face of what we have been told in this House and to fly in the face of the constitutional process that started this summer in which the first ministers were told that it was to be the second phase of the government's constitutional process.
Is the government now saying to the premiers who attended that conference in September that it has taken the offshore question off the list? Is that what it is saying by this bill? Is that the message going to the Atlantic provinces tonight? Or is the federal government telling the House and the Canadian people that there will be no second phase to the constitutional process, that the phase we have now is the final and irrevocable process.
On the one hand the federal government admits that the ownership of the offshore resources is a question for the Supreme Court of Canada, and now the government is asking Parliament to pass an act to give the rights of the offshore to the federal government.
I am not a lawyer, sir, but it would seem to me that given the due process in this country and the separation of the judicial process from the parliamentary process, the government would have waited until this matter was settled by the court. That is what we would expect and that is what the provinces had every right to expect.
Bill C-48 assumes that all the offshore area off the east coast of Canada is Canada lands owned by the Government of Canada for the people of Canada. My friend from South Shore (Mr. Crouse) put forward an argument on behalf of his province. My province has put forward another argument. I suppose this will have to be ultimately decided by the courts, the passage of this bill notwithstanding. But what that does to
the process, I do not know. My province makes the case, and rightly so, and I have made it in this House, that we brought with us into the federation, into the union, our jurisdiction intact over the offshore lands, which is the continental shelf.
The government disputes that, and that is its right. 1 say that dispute should not be on the floor of this House in the form of a bill put through by the invocation of closure with the use of the majority. That should be settled by due process before the Supreme Court of Canada.
It assumes considerable importance for some of us because we are dealing interestingly with what the bill calls Canada lands. That means, of course, land under the sea on the continental shelf. We should take a look at what has happened to Canada land in the past. Prior to the Canada we now know there were lands which were Canada lands. We know, for example, that as a result the face of Canada has changed, not only with the creation of new provinces, but with the expansion by the federal government of the existing boundaries of existing provinces. I might say this has had the effect of placing the Atlantic provinces, by this bill, at an all time disadvantage because the only place we can expand our lands is by the lands which the government is now claiming in this bill.
It is well for us to remember what the Government of Canada did in extending the boundaries and what it meant for Quebec. It meant an addition of 379,000 square miles to the territory of Quebec in 1912, without which the province could not have the tremendous James Bay hydro development and all the vast energy that will mean for the province and people of Quebec.
The province of Ontario had its boundary extended by
237,000	square miles to the north and to the west to what is now the boundary of Manitoba. We have seen the boundary of Saskatchewan and Alberta each given an additional 250,000 square miles which were northern lands-Canada lands- under the jurisdiction of Canada and belonging to all Canadians.
Simple justice would indicate that the only boundaries of our region to be extended are those on the continental shelf. That is a natural extension of our land mass. The continental shelf is recognized by international law as the natural extension of a land mass of a coastal state. That simple justice is being denied to us by this government. We know. There is a good reason for it.
Off our own coast, Hibernia basin has a potential of 1 billion barrels of recoverable oil. It is there in commercial quantities. Unfortunately, I am sorry to say, the development of it is being held up because of this dispute. It is not being helped, I might add, by the passage of this kind of legislation. We know there is natural gas and probably oil reserves off the coast of Nova Scotia. The natural gas is there. Whether or not the oil is there in recoverable quantities has yet to be determined, but it is probably there. We know there is natural gas in commercial quantities off the coast of Labrador, all of which is included in the Canada lands in the bill now before us.
January 15, 1981

Coming from a province with only 53.6 per cent of the earned income of the average Canadian and with unemployment insurance in terms of our economy representing one-twelfth of the personal income in Newfoundland as compared to one-fortieth in the rest of Canada, we are being denied the right by this kind of legislation to be able to stand on our own feet economically as a result of what that tremendous oil resource would mean to us. That does not mean the Government of Newfoundland wants to grab it all and keep it all. The government of Newfoundland has made the case as to why it is so concerned with exercising its claim. First it wants to control the rate of development. That is very important to an old culture like ours. We know what has happened in other jurisdictions. We have a precious fishery resource, not only a social resource in terms of our people and our way of life, but we have a fishery resource on which that social resource depends. We must protect that and hence control the rate of development. The only way we can control the rate of development is if we control the resource. Let no one think that we claim that because we want all of it to ourselves. We are prepared to share with the rest of Canada. The Government of Canada will get its share from its tax powers. The developer will get its share from its royalties and Newfoundland will get its share. From our share we will be able to contribute in terms of the equalization formula to the rest of Canada. Is it wrong or is it fair that we should look for our place in the sun by something which we feel is justifiably and rightfully ours?
1 was proud when we sat on that side, albeit for a short time. We had a policy in place which provided that the province of Newfoundland would own the mineral resources of the continental shelf. The ownership and legislative jurisdiction would be consistent with and subject to the division of legislative competence as between Parliament and the provincial legislatures under the Constitution of Canada; that the Government of Canada would continue to have legislative jurisdiction in certain areas such as environment, shipping, and so on. Those principles would be confirmed by the signing of an agreement which we agreed to enter into between the two governments and by appropriate legislative action and constitutional change. All that stopped with the change in government last year.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the passage of this bill with the government claiming upon itself these Canada lands and so denying the right of the Atlantic provinces to extend in the only way they can is an act of grave injustice to the people of Atlantic Canada and one which hon. members opposite will have to account for when they face the people.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-48, an act to regulate the oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, is an act designed specifically to safeguard the interests of the people of Canada and their energy resources on our Canadian-owned lands, sometimes referred to as Crown land. In simple
Canada OH and Gas Act
terms, these are lands owned by Canada as a nation or Canadians collectively and we all have an interest in the development of those lands and the resources on those lands.
I want to stress that this act does not in any way infringe upon the rights or ownership of mineral rights of the provinces, but in the interpretation of the bill, Canada lands are defined as lands that belong to Her Majesty in the right of Canada or with respect to which Her Majesty in the right of Canada has the right to dispose of or exploit the natural resources. It is for this reason I indicated earlier that we as individual Canadians have a vital interest that must be safeguarded for our future generations. It is intended to ensure Canada's energy resources for the eighties and to upgrade and update existing legislation currently applied to these lands.
In simple terms, its intent is to ensure that the 300 million acres of land currently under lease in these regions is developed, bearing in mind the best interests of Canada and of Canadians and, in particular, ensuring that Canadian-owned companies are involved in the development and accrue the benefits from this development. I believe, however, before we go into the specifics of this legislation, in this debate on second reading, we should recap or compare in a very brief way similar legislation and regulation and returns to other companies in other nations.
Oil companies would lead us to believe that we in Canada are asking too much, but in England there is one state-owned company empowered to purchase 51 per cent of all oil production, and another one with a monopoly on gas production. In Norway, a Norwegian state enterprise established since 1973 is empowered to carry a 50 per cent interest in oil and gas rights in the exploration stage, and that rate can go as high as 80 per cent. Similar stringent state involvement also exists in Indonesia.
Mexico completely nationalized its oil industry many years ago, from the exploration and development stage, through processing, distributing and retail sales.
Venezuela has taken similar measures and, although several multinationals had been extensively involved in the Venezuelan petroleum industry, the industry is now totally nationalized under PetroVen and four subsidiary companies. But these four subsidiaries work very closely with the multinationals such as Exxon.
In the Middle East, in Saudi Arabia there are two state-owned companies, Iranco and PetroMin, and again these companies are working in the interests of the country and in co-operation with the multinationals. This same situation exists throughout the Middle East and it is worthy of note that the multinationals now handle less than 50 per cent of world trade. If the multinationals are willing to work closely with state-owned companies in other countries, under far more rigid controls and rules than we propose, why can they not work with Canadians in Canada?
It is not our intention to nationalize the oil industry. We have only one Petro-Canada at the present time. Some

January 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Canadians and members of this House would lead us to believe that the National Energy Policy is creating undue hardships on the multinationals operating in Canada, but when you compare the stricter controls and lower allowable involvement imposed in other countries, naturally they will complain. A negative reaction was to be expected here in Canada as we Canadianize our industry, through a more direct involvement of Petro-Canada and the involvement of Canadians investing in and securing our energy supplies for the years ahead.
One other interesting aspect of the energy policies of these other countries is the fact that very few of them charge world prices to their own consumers. In other words, they charge world prices for their exported oil and another price for oil and gas used for domestic consumption. Some of the comparisons are as follows: in Mexico gasoline is 20 cents per litre, in Venezuela 4.4 cents per litre, in Saudi Arabia 5.5 cents per litre, England 76.2 cents a litre, Canada 31 cents per litre, the United States 37 cents a litre, in France 90 cents per litre and Italy 100.08 cents per litre. This is all quoted in Canadian dollars.
This act is intended to replace the Territorial Lands Act, and Public Lands Act and includes amendments to the Oil and Crown Production and Conservation Act. But the basic objective is to provide security of supply for Canadians and to provide the vehicle for Canadian participation in energy development and revenue sharing.
At the same time, we intend to pursue the development of frontier oil and gas, while ensuring that Canadians receive a fair return for these oil and gas resources, optimizing the employment of Canadians and the use of Canadian goods and services in frontier gas and oil exploration and development.
Our proposed legislation and the National Energy Policy is the best in the world. It respects the needs of the oil companies and protects the heritage and interests of Canadians.
To those members who would suggest that a 25 per cent share in oil and gas rights for Canadians on Crown land is unjust, I would remind them that as a citizen and landowner who holds title to his land and the mineral rights, I personally would receive a 1216 per cent share of any oil or gas discovered on my lands in Ontario. Why should it be any different for all Canadians, on all Crown land that is owned by Canada and Canadians?
I remind the members of this chamber that it was in my constituency of Lambton-Middlesex where oil was first discovered in North America, at Oil Springs, Ontario. In fact, Imperial Oil Company was first established in the town of Petrolia, later to move to Sarnia and then expand to its current status. Some of those old wells are over 100 years old and are still producing. Further exploration is continuing and seismic work is being done. 1 witnessed a rig that was moved to a new site in Sombre township last Sunday morning. The point I am making is that this region, very small though it may be, in comparison to the vastness of the area that would be under the jurisdiction of this act, this original oil field has been producing for more than 100 years, and exploration work is still going on.
There is continuing interest in the Silerian Reef formation that covers the eastern part of the state of Michigan and southwestern Ontario. New wells are being found at varying levels and pinnacle peaks and salt domes are being sought. One particularly interesting area is the offshore regions in Lake Erie, and, although natural gas was discovered there many years ago, new wells are being discovered in new areas where it was previously thought none had existed.
But like other offshore discoveries of greater magnitude, such as Hibernia or the Beaufort Sea, new technology has enabled the drillers to locate those fields by using shock waves or seismic. On land, small shallow holes are drilled, small explosive charges are placed and listening devices wired in sequence. As these explosive charges are detonated in series, shock waves echo back from rock formation below, indicating depths of domes and basins far below. Similar apparatus is towed behind ships, and by using small compressed air explosions in the water, science has enabled us to identify similar domes and basins below the ocean floor.
When an abnormal formation is discovered, a grid pattern of seismic sounds is applied to identify the extent of those structures below and to determine the best location to drill a well.
In the act before us today, there is a definition included to ensure it is clearly understood that a significant find or discovery is one well, but a commercial discovery is more than one or a series of wells. Provision is included in this act in clause 44 to give the minister authority to make a declaration of that significant discovery in respect to these lands, and any adjacent lands where he has reason to believe the significant discovery may extend.
In clauses 45, 46 and 47 the minister may make declarations of commercial discoveries and order additional wells to be drilled on the relevant Canada lands at such time and places as the minister should indicate. In other words, if a company finds an oil or gas field on Crown lands, this gives the authority to the minister to ensure that Canadians know the size of the discovery and the extent of the region and the potential production.
This legislation relates to the minister. Most acts do relate to ministers, but while they do have authority, it is usual that that authority is delegated to other bodies. In spite of the fact that those other bodies may make decisions, the ultimate responsibility rests with ministers. It is not unusual in legislation to relate authority to those who have responsibility. Even though they may have other bodies under their jurisdiction, ministers still have the responsibility and have to live up to it.
Clause 48 ensures that the power is included in the act to order that production commence at the times and places and in the quantities specified in the order and that sales are made to specified persons and at prices specified in the order. By the same token, power is included to stop or suspend production for periods of time specified in the order. This provides an assurance to us that a large discovery will be brought to the
January 15, 1981

attention of the Canadian people and that some large company cannot sit on a large discovery and say, "When you increase the price by so much we will start producing" or in other terms, "If you do not do certain things we will cut back by 15 per cent". We want to protect the people of Canada against such actions as this.
The last clause upon which I want to touch is clause 49 and the establishment of a revolving fund to ensure that proper environmental studies are conducted prior to the start of exploration work on the impact on our ecology during the drilling, development and producing stages in these highly sensitive regions of our environment.
I am well aware of the consequences in my own constituency when a dry hole is drilled and not properly plugged. There are hundreds of these in Lambton county. There are old wells from the 1800s which are no longer producing and which have been abandoned but left unplugged. They have since contaminated surrounding water wells because oil has come up to the water level in those wells and spread out through water veins. These unplugged abandoned wells have made it impossible to use modern further recovery techniques in these fields, and I refer to the fact that it is no longer possible to pressurize these rock formations. If we could pressurize these old formations, we could force out tens of thousands of barrels of oil which still exist in these fields. 1 am also aware of the damage this can cause to lands adjacent to a well or an oil field not only because of oil spills but also because of mud pits used in the drilling process and because of pipeline construction.
Just recently a constituent came to me regarding three very large gas transmission lines which cross his farm. Not only was there a tremendous displacement and loss of topsoil during the installation of these lines, but my constituent's whole underground tile drainage system was affected. Mr. Miseck lost a strip of land. If proper procedures and studies had taken place prior to that installation, the result would have been known and the land would have been restored to its productive potential. This was as recent as the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s. This was in the province of Ontario. This type of environmental damage is much different from that found on Crown lands. We must be ever cognizant of the fragility of the ecology of the north, of the marine life in our offshore waters and the impact on our fishing industry, not just next year or the year after but ten or 20 years from now.
1 have a particular interest in this area because of another situation in my own neighbourhood. A well was being drilled last summer and, in spite of all normal precautions and additional expertise flown in from western Canada, as the normal depths were approached a salt dome was penetrated, and the ensuing flow of brine saturated the site and may result in soil damage to land around that rig which may take years to recover.
In spite of modern technology and normal precautions on two of the best farms in Canada, which are less than five miles apart in my own neighbourhood both Mr. Miseck and Mr. Williams have incurred damage which may lower the productivity of the land for years to come. While these two cases do
Canada Oil and Gas Act
not come under the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board or the Department of the Environment, I am pleased that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has the foresight to ensure that this does not happen on Crown lands, or, if it does happen, that absolute liability is assessed against the operators.
Naturally I am interested in ensuring that adequate precautions are taken, and 1 will be watching with interest what happens this spring as drilling resumes in my own area. I understand that five wells have been planned for my area for this coming year. These will be drilled by Canadian drilling companies which have not been discouraged or affected by the national energy policy and which have chosen to remain in Canada as responsible corporate citizens to work toward Canadian self-sufficiency. In fact, some of the preliminary work was a joint effort by a very large multinational company and a very small Canadian company.
If five of the very largest multinational companies can accept the restrictions placed on their operations by some of the nations to which I referred earlier, then 1 can see no reason why they cannot operate here in Canada as we work toward our objectives in the interests of all Canadians. Of course, very large corporations-I refer to Exxon, Shell, British Petroleum, Mobil, Gulf, Texaco and I could go on-would object to any change in direction of Canadian policy or any policy which would lower their profits in any country. As we are all aware, these profits have increased dramatically over the last few years. A policy which would increase Canadian control and ownership of our resources had to be implemented to secure these resources for our future.
It has been ten years since the industry was advised that the regime for the disposition of oil and gas rights in the frontier regions, the offshore and the territories would be extensively revised. This new Canada oil and gas act was originally introduced in the House as Bill C-20 on December 20, 1977. The bill before us tonight for second reading is needed both from the industry's standpoint and from the regulatory standpoint. From the industry's standpoint we must establish certainty as to the tenure of gas and oil rights in the fiscal regime, thus providing for a stable investment climate. The industry will know precisely where it stands. From a Canadian standpoint this legislation is required to lay down more specific rules and guidelines as we move toward our objective of increased Canadian ownership and security of supply.
I indicated earlier that I come from the oldest oil producing region of North America. 1 have grown up in the midst of that industry. I saw the phasing out of the old Canadian Oil Company refinery at Petrolia, Ontario. It built a new facility at Sarnia which was later bought by Shell just 15 or 20 years ago. Then we saw the establishment of the Sun Oil refinery at Sarnia next to the Imperial Oil refinery. This region became known as the "Chemical Valley", and a fleet of tanker trucks collected the oil from the surrounding oil fields and delivered it to these refineries.
Since those earlier pioneer days pollution has been a problem. Tremendous strides have been made to correct this, to

January 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
eliminate the possibility of oil spills, to locate and plug old abandoned wells and to fill in old underground storage pits where crude oil was originally stored while it awaited refining. But this has happened over several decades. Now, as technology has advanced and people have become aware of environmental damage the same risk is not there. This legislation provides the necessary power to conduct environmental studies. As I indicated earlier, we intend to avoid the mistakes made by the early pioneers. We are placing total liability on the shoulders of the operator. In this context the legislation is clear, concise and simple. I endorse and support this legislation. It does not impose the stringent financial burdens on companies as the other oil producing nations to which I referred earlier do. This legislation reflects and fulfils the needs of the people of Canada. It has placed the emphasis on an early assessment of the oil and gas potential of our frontier regions, but this requirement will not be fulfilled at the expense of the fisheries or the environment. It is the intent of the legislation that proper assessments be made of environmental damage potential and then that the recommendations and findings of those assessments are adhered to. This legislation will be of benefit to all Canadians.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, because of the impact of this legislation on my native province of Nova Scotia.
When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) introduced this bill on December 11, 1980, he called it a key element in the successful fulfilment of the government's national energy program. In his words, this bill:
-will establish a new and modernized regime to govern resources development activity in those immense frontier regions of our country known as the Canada lands.
He went on to say:
Our offshore regions cover an area of some 2.5 million square miles. The territories alone comprise another 1.5 million square miles. Together this is what we call the Canada lands, an area which is almost twice the size of the ten provinces combined.
Then the minister, warming up to his subject, claimed:
The promise of this vast frontier region is as enormous as its size. It represents Canada's best prospects for large, new reserves of conventional petroleum. It holds the key to our energy security .. .
Oil and gas rights have already been issued for 350 million acres in the Canada lands. Virtually all the area is considered promising in terms of potential reserves. Bill C-48 will convert these existings rights to the new land management regime thereby establishing it in a meaningful way.
We must ask how is this rich prize to be taken over. The minister left nothing to the imagination as he outlined his government's plans under seven major headings. I think it is only fitting that I repeat them because there is some misunderstanding as to why we are objecting to this legislation. The minister stated:
First, there will be stiffer work requirements through negotiated exploration agreements which include firm drilling commitments. Second, we will reserve to
the Crown a 25 per cent share of oil and gas rights in the Canada lands, to be exercised through Petro-Canada or some other designated Crown corporation.
I guess that means more bureaucracy, Mr. Speaker, and more Crown corporations. The minister went on:
Third, there will be a minimum requirement of 50 per cent Canadian ownership, through the private or public sector, of production from the Canada lands. Fourth, we will ensure optimum employment of Canadians, and the use of Canadian goods and services in oil and gas activities carried out on the Canada lands. Fifth, we will provide ministerial authority to order production to commence and be delivered to Canadian markets in quantities and at prices specified in the order. Sixth, we will be providing a greater degree of control in the timing, direction, rate and level of exploration, development and production by various means. These would include drilling and production orders, earlier release of proprietory information, prior approval of transfers and assigment of rights. Seventh, we will ensure that Canadians receive a fair return for their oil and gas resources through a basic royalty of 10 per cent, with an additional royalty of 40 per cent of the net profits of a field.
This is, of course, a very tall order. The minister also stated:
-the Canada oil and gas act will bring existing oil and gas rights into line with the new regime, but in such a way as to ensure that if these rights are not actively developed they will be relinquished to the Crown. Existing permits, leases and agreements will cither be converted to new leases and agreements within a year-
Only one year, Mr. Speaker.
-or will be surrendered to the Crown. Under the new regime, all exploration rights will lead to one type of production right only, namely, a production licence.
I have listened attentively to many of the speeches that were made, as well as to the minister when he made his initial speech, and I say to you, sir, that this bill makes a mockery of parliamentary democracy. You will note that when I listed the seven major headings as stated by the minister in the House, he kept saying "we will do this", "we will do that", "we will ensure", "we will provide". It is not Parliament, not the private sector that will do this, nor the peoples' representatives but the minister, whose background in the oil industry leaves much to be desired and is far from impressive, who will decide. Is it any wonder that when these proposals became known to the public, the oil, gas and well drilling companies started to leave Canada in droves? Instead of welcoming the minister's national energy plan, the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada, in full page advertisements in several of our daily newspapers right across the land levelled forceful criticism at the minister and the government saying that his proposals will only hurt Canadians by raising fuel prices, by making Canadians more dependent on expensive and insecure foreign oil. They said it will delay essential frontier exploration as well as oil sands plants and heavy oil development, it will cost Canadians more for gasoline and heating oil in the long run, and it will cost thousands of jobs which would be created by the oil industry right across Canada. The independent Canadian companies stated "we are the people your program was supposed to help, but it doesn't help us at all, it has stopped us in our tracks".
This policy, Mr. Speaker, has not only stopped the independent oil companies in their tracks. I say through you, sir, to the minister, that it appears to have stopped development and progress in all of Canada. All you need to do is look
January 15, 1981

at the daily statistics that are being supplied. The minister, however, only laughs off these criticisms saying they are nothing to be concerned about, they are merely the big crocodile tears of the vast oil interests in Canada. I ask the minister, who is in his seat in the House today, whether he shares the opinion of Mr. Rowland Frazee, chairman of the Royal Bank, who stated in Montreal, on January 8, 1981, that the federal government should scrap its national energy program and concentrate on drawing up a new policy rather than worrying about the constitution. In the words of Mr. Frazee: "It seems abundantly clear by now that the national energy program is so seriously flawed as to be a non-starter, which should be withdrawn and reconsidered! Canada's number one energy priority should be self-sufficiency in oil, but 'high noon' confrontations between the federal government and the provinces are blocking progress". These are the words of the chief executive of one of Canada's biggest banks, but I doubt whether his advice and his suggestions will meet with any more acceptance by the minister than do the carefully worded suggestions and recommendations made by members of Parliament from this side of the House. It is somewhat like the words of the mother watching the parade go by, turning to dad and saying, "You know, dear, everyone is out of step but our John." That is the attitude of this minister. Obviously, the moves being made by the minister against foreign investment in his attempts to gain great Canadian ownership of the oil industry can only further damage Canada's reputation abroad and cause wasteful bickering at home. I say to the minister, through you, sir, that if he continues to pursue the policies as outlined in this bill, we will continue to see more projects delayed or go down the drain or, more accurately go down south. We will see the Canadian dollar fall still further. We will see the price which we paid for our imports increasing and our inflation continuing its upward spiral.
The clauses and proposals in this bill will never, 1 submit, help us to settle our domestic problems or our international difficulties. In my opinion, this government's inability to see the tremendous potential of this nation is undoubtedly its greatest weakness. This government, with its preoccupation for the acquisition of still greater power, with its determination to still further socialize Canadian industry and build an even greater bureaucracy is, unfortunately, causing all Canadians to forfeit their opportunity to build on our strengths for the future. That is the crime of this type of legislation. The minister has carefully detailed the powers and the privileges which he considers essential to be retained by the federal government under this bill for control of the Canada lands. Some still ask, "What are these lands?" In fact only a moment ago 1 placed a question, at his consent, before the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for whom 1 have a great deal of respect. In his answer he seemed to state that there was nothing about the ownership of lands to which I referred in the bill. 1 regret that he has not read his own government's "National Energy Program" of 1980, for, if he had, he would see what the minister is talking about when he speaks of Canada lands. They include all of the Yukon, all of the
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Northwest Territories, the Labrador Shelf, the Grand Banks, all of the Scotian shelf which includes Sable Island and the area adjacent to New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. That is what they intend to take, to rape from the rest of Canada through this type of legislation.
As a Nova Scotian I believe it is my duty and responsibility to place on the record the position of those I represent so that the minister and the government can evaluate the different points of view and hopefully through debate and discussion resolve the different problems facing both governments on this matter.
The exploitation of offshore oil and gas could be the most important commercial development of the twentieth century for Nova Scotia. Offshore oil and gas could give Nova Scotians the financial resources to attack deeply-rooted economic problems and strengthen weaker sectors of the economy. In our view it is a real chance for those of us who live in Nova Scotia.
Oil and gas production from our own fields would also provide badly needed independence from our presently insecure supply of increasingly costly oil imports. At present all the oil consumed in my province of Nova Scotia is foreign-pro-duced and large federal payments are needed to maintain a uniform Canadian oil price to consumers. Reducing or eliminating oil imports would improve Canada's balance of payments and stabilize the cost of oil to Canadian consumers.
We realize as well that offshore oil and gas developments could also present problems if they are not properly managed and controlled. Experience in other jurisdictions shows us that large oil and gas developments can be highly disruptive. They can lead to inflation because the funds involved are so large in relation to the rest of the economy. They can disturb living patterns, for example, by causing real estate prices to soar. They can also harm the environment, a fact which has been mentioned earlier in the House and is well-known to all Nova Scotians who sadly remember and will never forget the disastrous Arrow and Kurdistan spills off their shores. Offshore oil and gas developments can overwhelm long-established local industries and small businesses, unless these firms can plan carefully with government guidance and protection to get their share of the action.
As Nova Scotians we believe strongly that the regulators and decision makers must have the closest possible direct links to the communities involved and be responsible solely to the jurisdiction most affected. This is one of the key reasons Nova Scotia insists it would be folly to allow the control and management of the offshore resources of the province to slip away from provincial hands.
Nova Scotia has already passed legislation to ensure that oil and gas activities, on and off the shores of the province, will provide the optimum benefit to Nova Scotians. In four separate acts provision is made by the government of Nova Scotia to determine the extent of employment of Nova Scotian workers and the use of Nova Scotian goods and services in all

January 15, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Ad
phases of exploration, development and production. Provision is made for regulations regarding education and training of Nova Scotians to enable them to participate in the many job opportunities which these developments will generate.
Finally, provision is made for the establishment of compensation funds to reimburse individuals who might suffer loss as a result of exploitation and development as well as pipeline or gas utility activities. 1 hope the House will realize that Nova Scotia has a strong and positive legal claim for ownership and control of its offshore resources. 1 repeat what I stated a moment ago in the form of a question in the House. Our claim goes back as far as 1621 when King James I granted the Royal Charter of Nova Scotia to Sir William Alexander. In recognition of the utter dependence of the early colonists-and of course this applies to the people who settled in my home town of Lunenburg-the water adjacent to our shores was granted to the province since the food the colonists required and the transportation mode was all by sea. In recognition of this dependence the king included as part of our territory a band of sea stretching about 120 miles southward from our coasts. This band easily encompasses Sable Island. That is why if Your Honour lived on Sable Island and an election was called-I am not certain how you would vote-you would be required to vote in a Nova Scotia constituency and your ballot would be counted in the Halifax riding. This band which the king granted to Nova Scotia in 1621 includes Sable Island, a large share of the controversial Georges Bank, as well as most of the Scotian shelf. These boundaries were observed for many years despite numerous conquests and treaty settlements. In fact, Canada's constitution, the British North America Act of 1867, provided that Nova Scotia's limits would be exactly the same after as before Confederation.
I think it only fitting that I remind the House the international boundaries of Canada have remained fairly constant since Confederation, but within Canada there have been many changes. As federal territories in the west and north acquired value, either through settlement or mineral development, they were regularly and without question granted to the appropriate provinces. In fact Nova Scotia, as a result of its pre-confederation division into Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, is perhaps the only province in Canada which has grown smaller over the years.
For many years Ontario has asserted ownership and control over its minerals, as we have just heard from the last speaker, including oil and gas under the waters of the Great Lakes, and for the last two decades it has benefited from natural gas production in Lake Erie. These gas fields stretch southward nearly to the international boundary which exists between Canada and the United States. Nova Scotia sees no reason whatsoever why it should not have similar ownership of the resources which exist on its offshore banks. However, Nova Scotians believe that legal confrontation over the offshore jurisdictional question should only occur as a last resort. Once our views are fully known and understood, we are hopeful that our differences over these problems can be resolved through negotiation with the present federal government.
So there can be no misunderstanding, I wish to spell out the essential rights and powers which Nova Scotia must have to ensure that offshore development will be directed toward the benefit of Nova Scotia as well as Canada. These rights are exactly the same ones which are exerted by the provinces with respect to onshore resources. First, we believe Nova Scotia must have the power to control the pace of the development of its offshore resources in order to balance the possible formidable industrial expansion with the preservation of traditional social values and patterns. This requires that Nova Scotia have exclusive right to issue and set the conditions of all licences, leases and permits of all kinds, which relate to the exploration, development, production, transportation, refining and marketing of petroleum and petroleum products, subject only to the normal jurisdiction of the federal government in extra provincial trade.
Nova Scotia must have the right, sir, to a fair offshore resource royalty, rental and other revenue in order to fund education and training programs, to support administrative and regulatory agencies, to reverse the equalization payments system and to ensure that industrial activity in Nova Scotia is sustained after the offshore resources are depleted. Because of our high unemployment rate, Nova Scotia must have the ability to provide preferences for qualified Nova Scotian workers in the early years of development. This will be coupled with an intensive program of education and training, to bring as many as possible to the high standards required by this industry. Given moderate success offshore, it is expected that the need for these preferences will disappear within a very few years.
We also believe that Nova Scotia must be able to determine the conditions under which goods and services are supplied to industry operations, in order that Nova Scotia can obtain a share of these business activities-something we have sorely lacked for many years. Without some temporary preferences in the early stages of development, Nova Scotians will face extreme difficulty in entering the field against competition from large international firms. These rights and powers, when taken together, may seem to be comparable to ownership- without doubt, they constitute very substantial control of our offshore resources. However, ownership is not a precise term and there are many aspects of control other than those I have mentioned. Some are undeniably federal responsibilities; some are undeniably provincial responsibilities; and, of course, some are controversial, therefore, open to negotiation.
I believe prompt resolution of the controversial responsibilities is necessary in order to prevent delays in petroleum exploration off Nova Scotia's coast. I believe it can be achieved, either through constitutional amendments or within our existing constitutional framework. The Parliament of Canada, with the consent of Nova Scotia, has the authority to confirm by statute that our seaward boundaries are co-extensive with the boundaries of Canada for the purposes of resource exploration and development. The statute may
January 15, 1981

include whatever terms and conditions are agreed to by the federal and provincial governments.
We in Nova Scotia hope our oil and gas potential can be developed; not through a process of confrontation, as appears to be the minister's position as outlined in Bill C-48, but rather through a process of consultation, which is the original manner in which the strength of our provinces was achieved and our nation developed. After all, sir, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Surely this government must eventually realize that legislation, which strengthens the economic position of our individual provinces, cannot help but strengthen the central government-and the nation. Unfortunately, Bill C-48 falls far short of its required goal. Instead of strengthening the provinces it seeks to take away more of their powers and concentrate that power in Ottawa. 1 say to you, sir, in conclusion, that this is a bad bill, an unjust bill. It does nothing to strengthen Canada and confederation. If the provinces are robbed of their resources they have nothing-nothing to work with, nothing on which to build. This is why I am opposed to this bill and why I intend to vote against it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Gloucester.


Mr. Murphy:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is rising on a point of order?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is my concern that if the hon. member for Gloucester wishes to speak he should not have been the last Liberal speaker before the motion on closure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Gloucester.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make two points in the couple of minutes which I have and then I will leave the rest of the time to the hon. member from the NDP.
The first point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is that in this bill we are not dealing with any lands-


Rodney Edward Murphy: You denied us the time, why should you be able to speak?


Herb Breau: -within a province. Clause 2 clearly says that we are dealing, first of all-


Miss Jewett:: One minute!


Mr. Rae:: You do not want anyone else to speak. Do not speak yourself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Gloucester has the floor.


Herb Breau: First of all, in the Northwest Territories-


Rodney Edward Murphy: Let other members speak. You wanted closure, do not speak.


Herb Breau: Secondly, those submarine areas adjacent-
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Bob Rae: 1 want to speak, too.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.
[ Translation]
Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question to dispose of the motion now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay!


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Lalonde) which was agreed to on the following division:
	YEAS	
	Messrs.	
Allmand	Deniger	JohnstonAppolloni	Desmarais	Joyal(Mrs.)	Dingwall	KaplanBachand	Dion	KellyBegin (Miss)	Dionne	Killens (Mrs.)Berger	(Chicoutimi)	LalondeBlaker	Dionne	LamontagneBloomfield	(Northumberland-	LangBockstael	Miramichi)	LanielBossy	Duclos	LapierreBreau	Dupont	LapointeBussieres	Dupras	(Charlevoix)Caccia	Ethier	LeBlancCampbell	Evans	Lefebvre(Miss)	Ferguson	Lonsdale(South West Nova)	Fisher	MacBainCampbell	Fleming	MacEachen(LaSalle)	Foster	MackaseyChretien	Fox	MacLarenCollenette	Frith	MacLellanComtois	Garant	MalepartCorbin	Gauthier	MaltaisCorriveau	Gendron	MarceauCosgrove	Gimaiel	MasseCote (Mrs.)	Gourd	MastersCousineau	Guilbault	McCauleyCyr	Harquail	McRaeDaudlin	Herbert	NicholsonDawson	Hopkins	(Miss)de Corneille	Hudecki	OlivierDemers	Irwin	Ostiguy
6264

January 15, 1981
Oueflet
Pelletier
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Prud'homme
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River)
Andre
Beatty
Blackburn
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bradley
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Cooper Corbett Crouse Darling Deans Dinsdale Ellis
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Roberts	Smith	Mayer	Nickerson	SchellenbergerRobinson	Tardif	Mazankowski	Nielsen	Scott(Etobicoke-Lakeshorc)	Tessier	McCain	Nystrom	(Victoria-HaRompkey	Tobin	McCuish	Oberle	ShieldsRooney	Tousignant	McDermid	Ogle	SiddonRossi	Veillette	McGrath	Parker	SkellySavard	Weatherhead	McKnight	Rae	TaylorSchroder	Whelan	McLean	Reid	ThackerSimmons	Yanakis-109.	Miller	(St. Catharines)	TowersMunro	Robinson	Vankoughnet(Esquimalt-Saanich)	(Burnaby)	WenmanNAYS	Murphy	Roche	WiseMessrs.	Murta	Rose	Young-78.Neil	Sargeant	
Elzinga
Epp
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gamble
Gass
Gurbin
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) Hargrave Hawkes
Hnatyshyn
Howie
Ittinuar
Jewett (Miss)
Kempling
King
Knowles
Kristiansen
Lambert
Lawrence
Lewis
MacDonald
(Miss)
MacKay
Manly


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mladam Speaker: It being after ten o'clock, the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.13 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, January 16, 1981