1986-10-14

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-223, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act (primacy of the Act).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have this opportunity to introduce this legislation once again. I have done so a number of times before, but this time I am very optimistic, because the Government has made a commitment to review the Act. As the House is aware, the purpose of this Bill is to affirm the primacy of bilingualism, as defined in Section 2 of the Official Languages Act, over any other Acts and regulations of Parliament and the Government of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-5, An Act to regulate interests in petroleum in relation to frontier lands, to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and to repeal the Canada Oil and Gas Act, as reported (with amendments) from a Legislative Committee.
Mr. Speaker:: There are 19 report stage motions on today's Notice Paper in amendment to Bill C-5, an Act to regulate the interests in petroleum in relation to frontier lands, to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and to repeal the Canada Oil and Gas Act.
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 1 will also apply to Motion No. 2. Motions Nos. 3, 4, 14 and 15, all deal with the land claims of aboriginal peoples and therefore will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
Motion No. 3A, in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), seeks to introduce a new concept, namely, that pending negotiations on aboriginal claims would be a reason to prohibit the commencement of or continuing of any work or activity by an interest owner. This was not contemplated by the Bill as read a second time. It is beyond the scope of the Bill. I refer the Hon. Member to Citation 773(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. I must therefore rule the motion out of order.
Motions Nos. 5, 5A and 5B seek to introduce into the Bill a new requirement. Before a licence or before any work or activity on any frontier lands could commence, a benefits plan would have to be concluded with the affected aboriginal groups in accordance with their land claims agreement. Again, this would introduce a new concept which was not contemplated by the Bill as read a second time. For the same reason as with Motion No. 3A I must also rule Motions Nos. 5, 5A and 5B out of order.
Motions Nos. 6 and 7 will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 6 will be applied to Motion No. 7.
Motion No. 7A will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 8 seeks to set aside moneys paid in royalties for aboriginal peoples in settlement or part settlement of outstanding land claims. This is a new concept which offends the Royal

October 14, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
Recommendation in that it relaxes the conditions set out therein. As noted in Citation 773(7) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, an amendment is out of order " ... if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendation." Therefore, I must rule this motion out of order.
Motions Nos. 9, 10 and 11 will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 12 and 13 will be debated and voted on separately.
As I said, Motions Nos. 14 and 15 have been grouped with Motions Nos. 3 and 4.
The Chair will now proceed to propose Motions Nos. 1 and 2-


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is the first time I have risen in the Elouse, with the exception of another occasion when I rose to make a statement, when you were in the Chair. May I offer my congratulations to you, Sir. We share a common border, 49th Street in Vancouver. I am the MP for one side and Your Elonour is the MP for the other. I wish to extend to you my congratulations.
I accept your ruling, of course, Mr. Speaker. EEowever, I wonder if you had a chance to refer to Section 35 of the Constitution Act which states in part:
35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of
Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
(2)	In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit
and Metis peoples of Canada.
(3)	For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights
that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.
The amendments proposed to the Bill were an attempt to give native people whose land claims are guaranteed in the Constitution and who are now in negotiation with the federal Government a say in the matter. They are now seeing their land being given away from underneath their feet. They are giving away interest in these lands to oil companies. That is what the legislation before us does.
I wonder if Your Honour has had a chance to look at that proposition. What we were trying to do by introducing these amendments was to give native people some say with respect to their lands, something to which they are entitled under the Constitution.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has raised a matter of great concern in our country. I know that all Hon. Members in the House realize that there is a very interesting potential debate on the matter raised by the Hon. Member. Without commenting at all on how that debate should be conducted or concluded, I must remind Hon. Members, and especially the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), that the Chair must rule on points of order with respect to the Bill in question. I am sure the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway wishes that the Bill in its original form took into account some of the matters he has brought to the
attention of the House this morning and which he will bring to our attention later this morning. However, the Chair is in the position of having to look at the wording and the substance of the Bill as it is. Under those circumstances I felt compelled to rule as I have ruled.
I know that the Hon. Member will have a chance to express his concerns with respect to the amendments he will be debating. I ask all Hon. Members to consider the reason behind the ruling which the Chair has given.
As Hon. Members know, it is not the function of the Chair to put the Constitution Act into legislation which appears before the Chamber.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to clarify one point with you. It has been the practice of the Speaker in the past to present notes on rulings to us prior to the reading of the ruling. This was done so that if any Member wanted to debate a question he could do so. This would allow the Speaker to take into account the points debated by Hon. Members.
If I read you clearly this morning, Your Honour is now telling us that once you have ruled, as you have done this morning, no further debate can be entertained. I would ask the Chair to be more flexible in this regard in terms of future Bills. For example, if there are debatable points with respect to future Bills which are put at report stage then I ask the Chair that we be allowed to put these points to you before you rule as to the acceptability, or not, of the so-called motions.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention. I advise the House that motions in amendment were being received during the last sitting day and the first opportunity the Chair has had to consider the proposed ruling which has been made was this morning. At approximately 10.30 this morning I instructed the Clerk to circulate the notes of my ruling to Hon. Members. I regret that if for some reason or other the Hon. Member did not receive a copy of my notes. He should have received a copy of them. I will ensure that this does not happen again.
It has been the practice of the Speaker to make rulings such as the one I have made. If there is some particular point about which the Hon. Member feels strongly, and if he asks that he or some other Member be granted leave to raise some points with respect to it in terms of something the Chair may have overlooked, then arrangements can be made to hear such arguments later on today. Unless there is some very serious reason to raise such arguments, I ask Hon. Members to cooperate this morning.
I want to make it very clear that the point raised by the Hon. Member is a good one. I hope that in most cases the Chair will be able to give notice in more time than was possible today. If the Hon. Member did not receive a copy of the notes, then I ask that he speak with the Table Officers to find out what went wrong and ensure that it does not happen again.
October 14, 1986


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a separate point of order. I have had a chance to read your ruling very quickly and look through the sections of it. I think the groupings are set out quite fairly. The first section of your ruling states that Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate and that a vote on Motion No. 1 will also apply to Motion No. 2. I think there is a problem there. I ask that Your Honour perhaps reserve on this area or give us leave to raise our concerns later as the debate progresses with respect to the first motion. I think you might find, Mr. Speaker, that they should not be grouped together for a vote.
The Government might be prepared to accept Motion No. 1, and I will make my reasons for that clear during debate. In any case, Motion No. 1 is a far less drastic amendment than Motion No. 2. Motion No. 1 simply adds words like "for greater certainty" and brings it into line with the wording in the Sechelt Act which we passed not too long ago. Motion No. 2 is quite drastic in the sense that it excludes all lands that are the subject of land claims negotiations. That goes quite a long way.
1 am rising now to identify that point. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could listen to my remarks.


Mr. McDermid:: I am listening with great intensity.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention and I have listened very carefully to it. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to comment at this time if he so chooses.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I gather that the Hon. Member was up on a point of order. I have no objection to splitting that vote if that is what he desires. We are here to cooperate with the Opposition and to get this Bill through. If he would like to split the vote on Motions Nos. 1 and 2, that is entirely up to him. I can tell him now that we will oppose both his amendments.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with my exact point. We are now debating whether or not Motions Nos. 1 and 2 should be grouped for debate. We are debating certain things which 1 believe we should have debated before you ruled, Mr. Speaker. In other words, we should have had copies of this beforehand, but we just got them when you walked in here.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention. Perhaps we can return to this in a few minutes. I would ask that Hon. Members consult together. Of course, if there is consent to split the vote, the Chair is the servant of the House.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-5, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 4 to 8 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
"3. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act abrogates or derogates from any aboriginal title, right, claim or interest that pertains to the, or any of the, aboriginal people of Canada."
Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-5, be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 8 at page 4 the following:
"(2) All lands subject to unsettled aborignal claims, which have been accepted for negotiation by the federal government, are excluded from the application of this Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to make my position clear on the last point I raised. It seems to me that your ruling is fair, Mr. Speaker, except for that constitutional point that I raised. On a quick reading of the ruling, it seems to me that the groupings are all right. I agree that Motions Nos. 1 and 2 should be grouped together for debate, as we are doing now. However, I think there probably should be separate votes on them. Perhaps at some point when listening to the debate you could make that decision, Mr. Speaker.
Regarding Motion No. 1, let me explain how this process works; You know how it works, Mr. Speaker, but it is good to summarize it.
We are on report stage of a Bill that will in fact set up a new regime for licensing oil companies to explore in the Canada Lands. The Canada Lands are the lands on the frontier and are lands over which the Canadian Government and not the provinces has power. These lands are located in the northern territories of Canada and include the Beaufort Sea where there is lots of oil and gas, and the high Arctic where there has been exploration for gas. Perhaps in my lifetime-if not, in the lifetime of other Canadians-we will be able to use that gas. Of course, the Bill also covers the offshore, both off the coast of British Columbia and the coasts of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.
The Government has decided that the provinces should have control over the offshore, and is bringing in a separate Bill which we will discuss later that will deal with that issue. Therefore, this Bill deals with oil and gas licences for the offshore and the northern frontiers.
People ask if this is really important. The energy committee found out that between 1980 and 1987, the Government will have spent $7.2 billion or $7.3 billion on Petroleum Incentive Program grants for the oil companies. That is one of the reasons the Government has a big deficit. It has given $7.3 billion to oil companies to explore the frontiers; that was part of the National Energy Program. Therefore, this matter is very important. The Government will be ending these grants but it will bring in tax incentives to get companies exploring in the future. Canadians should, therefore, pay particular attention to this. Even though this is an energy Bill and deals with exploration in the frontiers, it in fact affects things like social programs and whether or not we can afford to have daycare in Canada.
People say that it does not matter right now because nothing is happening anyway. The price of oil is $15 per barrel, and until it gets back up to $30 per barrel nothing will happen. In

October 14, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
the 1990s, the price of oil will rise again. That is what all the experts seem to be telling us. This then becomes very important for the future.
This Bill is very important for the future of Canada because Canada is a northern country. Canada has the greatest resources known to mankind. Canada has all these resources and at some point we will develop them on the frontiers. We have already spent over $7 billion in only seven years dealing with these resources.
We have another problem. Who lives in the North? People think it is simply a vast, barren land. The great poet, Frank Scott, called it a land waiting for things to happen. In fact, people do live there. Those people are called the Inuit. We used to call them the Eskimo people. The Inuvialuit people of the Arctic as well as Indians, Dene and Metis people live in the western Arctic. The North is their homeland. For us it is a frontier but for them it is a homeland. This is what these amendments are all about and this is the whole point the Government has missed.
The Government sees the North as a frontier that we can control completely and has excluded the native people who live there. How would you feel, Mr. Speaker, if your backyard were being carved up, mineral rights were being given to oil companies to drill and explore, all for the national interest, but they did not give you any say over what was going to happen at all? That is the way we ought to look at this. This is the backyard, the homeland, of the native people of Canada and the Government is bringing in this Bill which completely ignores the native people.
[DOT] (M30)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was sent a letter dated October 10, 1986-and I have a copy of it-signed by Donat Milortuk, President of the Nunavut Land Claims organization. It refers to the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut, which represents more than 17,000 Inuit of Nunavut, the central and eastern Arctic of Canada. In part the letter refers to Bill C-5 and says:
This Bill prejudices our land claim negotiations.
The country agreed to a new Constitution in 1982. Section 35 of the Constitution, the supreme document of the country, indicated that the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada were recognized and affirmed. "Aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit, and Metis people. For greater certainty, subsection (1) treaty rights include rights which now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.
I should like to summarize what we did with this Act. It is like a cake. At the foundation of the cake was the native people or the aboriginal people of Canada. Then we built on to the cake to include the English-speaking and French-speaking people, and then we added multiculturalism and the new people. That is an over-simplification, but it is a good overview
of Canada. Each part of the cake is important, particularly its base, the native people.
The letter continues as follows:
-we protest in the strongest possible terms the enactment of any federal statute which facilitates the alienation of our land and resources from under our feet.
The alienation of their land refers to giving away their land, giving an interest to oil companies. That is what the Bill is about-giving drilling interest drilling permits, development permits, and so on to oil companies. The letter referred to the alienation of their land and resources from under their feet. There is an inconsistency here. The Canadian Government recognized in the Constitution of Canada the rights of native people. There are ongoing negotiations to try to settle land claims. Why do we want to settle those land claims? It is for many reasons, but one reason, from my own southern Canadian point of view, is that it is a unique way to get native people, who have been left behind in many ways in the development of the country, involved in the development of their own resources and their own lands. Perhaps this is the last chance we have in Canada.
I often think, when we stand in the House and elsewhere in the country and criticize South Africa, that we should look at the way we treat our native people. We must find a way to change that. One way-and it seems to me that it is the best way-would be to deal with the native people on the basis of settling land claims negotiations.
I had the honour of being an employee of the Berger Commission on the Mackenzie valley pipeline as counsel for the Commission, along with Ian Scott, my friend who is now the Attorney General of Ontario. We had a chance to travel for three years in the Arctic. This provided us with an opportunity to see these lands and to see these people. We heard from them firsthand. They told us what it meant to have control over their future and their lands. They stated this far more eloquently than we in the House of Commons could ever say it.
I know I must address the two motions specifically, so let me return to them. I provided this information as a background so that the House would understand from where we are coming with the amendments. In Motion No. 1 we used the simple phrase "for greater certainty". The Government will say that it recognizes that nothing in the Act takes away from their land claims. In the first amendment we are asking: Why not add "for greater certainty"? Referring again to the same letter, it continues:
We insist that the Bill be amended to provide that lands subject to land claim negotiations be withdrawn from disposition. This could be accomplished by amending Section 3-
The letter continues:
We believe the words "for greater certainty" must be included in Section 3(1), if this clause is to achieve its intended purpose. This Act cannot abrogate or derogate from our aboriginal rights as protected by Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. However, given the possible uncertainties surrounding the interpretation of Section 35 it seems prudent to keep a non-derogation clause which is enacted for the purpose of certainty. This wording would also be consistent with the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act-
October 14, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I should advise the Hon. Member and other Hon. Members that under the rules each Member is limited to 10 minutes of debate. I do not want the Hon. Member to be unable to make his point in respect of the second amendment, and I advise him that there is a minute remaining.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to conclude my remarks in a minute. I might ask the House for an extra minute to put my two points.
1 was referring to the letter wherein it indicated that that wording was consistent with the Sechelt Indian Band SelfGovernment Act. It continues:
-and Section 117(2) of this Bill which deals with the constitutionally entrenched rights of the Inuvialuit. If you are not willing to withdraw all lands subject to aboriginal title from disposition under this Bill we urge, that at a bare minimum, you make provision for withdrawal on a case by case basis.
All we are asking in the first amendment is to bring it in line with the Sechelt formula. There may be a clash between the legislation and the Constitution, and we want to make clear that the Constitution is primary. Oil companies want certainty. Why not the native people? I do not think anyone objected to this particular amendment in the committee hearings; the oil companies did not object to it. I think the Government can accept the first amendment.
The second amendment goes a little further because it comes at the problem from a different angle in fact.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired. He indicated that he might ask for consent to continue for a very brief period of time to finish his remarks. Is there such consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thank you. I have made my point on the first amendment. I think the Government can expect it. It is consistent with another Act, and it does not go that far.
I admit, however, that the second amendment goes further. In part it reads:
All lands subject to unsettled aboriginal claims, which have been accepted for negotiation by the federal Government, are excluded from the application of this Act.
In fact it indicates that if they are negotiating with the aboriginal peoples, they cannot turn around and alienate or give away part of their land from under their feet. It is not good enough for the Government to say that it is just giving an oil company a drilling permit, because that is dealing with the land in a very important way.
I draw the Government's attention to that point. I hope it has a copy of the letter which was written on October 10 and sent to the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada. Those are my points on the first two motions.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak in support of the amendments
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Something very relevant or very important is at stake here, that is, the attitude of the Government of Canada toward our native people.
It has been stated that we have the right to interfere with or intervene in the land claims question and, as the native people themselves have indicated, to take it out from under their feet. It is important that everyone in Canada support the discussions of the land claims question. Everyone should be interested in resolving the question. We cannot arbitrarily state the position of these lands until we know exactly for what the lands will be used.
How can we say that these lands will be removed from the negotiations and given away for other purposes? How are we going to expect the native peoples to believe the Government of Canada is negotiating this question in good faith?
The very Bill we have before us this morning is at the present time an exercise in futility. The policies of the Government have completely stripped any relevancy in today's world away from this Bill. With Bill C-5 having been completely nullified by the policies of the Government I do not think that we should go one step further and act so arbitrarily concerning our native people.
The recent decisions in Beaufort, in the north, where the major oil companies have stopped exploration and activity, mean that the fragile economy of the Northwest Territories and, to some extent, the Yukon as well, will be severely jeopardized and may essentially collapse in the northern part of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
We have, particularly with respect to the younger generation, encouraged the native people to become involved in the oil and gas industry, in the exploration and in what we stated emphatically would be development following on the heels very quickly of exploration. But we have snatched away the incentives for the companies and the companies in direct retaliation have closed down.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am enjoying the comments of my friend, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), but I do not believe he is talking about the amendments to the Bill. His speech sounds more like a third reading speech. Could he discuss the issue at hand?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, what I am saying is directly linked to the condition of the native peoples and the economy in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. What we are doing is adding to this downturn in the economy by relegating the native people to an uncertain position concerning their own lands. This is not something that most Canadians would want done. We have received letters, testimony and a lot of arguments from the native groups, as my friend, the Hon. Member

October 14, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
for Vancouver Kingsway has stated. We have recently received copies of correspondence recently dated October 10 from the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut complaining about exactly what I have been saying, namely, the uncertainty that the Bill will cause in the land claims question and the losses that could be incurred by the native peoples.
I would ask that the amendments put forward by the Elon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway be supported, so that we can at least give the native people the assurance they are looking for concerning Clause 3, their land and the land claims question in the northern part of the country.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has made something of a career both before he became a Member of Parliament and since that time telling the people of the Northwest Territories what is good for them. My career is dependent upon being told by them what is good for them. I do not represent a riding in the south where I could have all these airy-fairy ideas of what goes on in northern Canada. I am directly responsible to the people who elect me. Therefore, I have to present to this House their point of view which, of course, also coincides with that of my own.
The intent of the amendment we have before us would be to preclude all oil and gas activity in the entire Yukon territory, in nearly all of the Northwest Territories and probably in considerable parts of the offshore. When I go to towns and villages in my constituency I am told by people who live there that what they want to see is not less oil and gas activity but more. They want the opportunities that go with the oil and gas business. They want the business opportunities. They want the opportunities to work in the oil patch and make good money because you do make good money in the oil patch, Mr. Speaker. You make a lot more money working on a drill rig than what you do choking rabbits for a living, for instance. People want the opportunity to become involved in the oil and gas business, to become oil men and oil women in their own right. This is what they are telling me and this is what I am telling the House of Commons.
I am completely in opposition to the proposed amendment. I do not want to see the oil and gas industry die in the northern parts of Canada. To the contrary, I and my constituents want to see it thrive and prosper. That is why I am supporting the Bill presented by the Government of Canada.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the presentations of my friends, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) and the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan). We spent a considerable amount of time on this Bill, as you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, in committee in the spring. We had excellent representations from many groups on the Bill including our native peoples. I do not feel the way the Hon. Member does that the aboriginal peoples are not protected in this Bill.
First, I think it would be proper to explain that this Bill is framework legislation to deal with frontier exploration, exploration on what is known as Canadian Lands, whether they be north of 60, offshore British Columbia, Newfoundland or Nova Scotia-no matter what. Stemming from this legislation would be specific Acts covering the Atlantic Accord: our agreement with Newfoundland and the offshore exploration; the now agreed Nova Scotia Accord which will also have its own life and legislation introduced in this House sometime in the not too distant future, hopefully; very possibly a Northern Accord which would cover lands north of 60 and a British Columbia Accord possibly some day to deal with exploration off that coast as well.
This Bill was amended by the Government, I might add, to assure that our aboriginal peoples were protected. 1 will refer to Clause 3 which reads:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada-
It specifically says:
-under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The amendment introduced by my hon. friend gives this Bill a life of its own. I do not think it is intended to do that, being framework legislation. The aboriginal people get their title from The Constitution. That is their protection. The aboriginal peoples have said that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What is the matter with greater certainty then?


John Horton McDermid: The amendment as introduced by the Hon. Member does not really do that. We think the government amendment which was accepted by the committee and is now being introduced as part of the report stage with which we are now dealing is perfectly well drafted. It protects the rights of the aboriginal peoples of this country by specifically referring to our Constitution Act, 1982. I think that is very important.
I do not believe that the second amendment introduced by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway does any favours for the aboriginal peoples. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys talked about the dire straits of the economy of the north. If this second amendment is accepted it would stop all exploration in the north until the land claims are settled. I honestly do not believe that this is what our aboriginal peoples want.
The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) said it far more eloquently than I can because he represents people from that area and talks to them frequently. He is their Member of Parliament and he expressed it very well when he said that they want jobs and activity in the north. They do not want that activity in the north to stop for the land claims process.
October 14, 1986

It will become apparent as we debate other clauses that the interests of the aboriginal people in the north are very well protected in this Bill.
The Hon. Member mentioned the Sechelt agreement that was signed and passed by the Government. That was a land claim agreement in which all the clauses were negotiated, which is the whole purpose of the land claims process. Some of these land claims set certain precedents and obviously they will be used in negotiations. However, I do not believe that this legislation should dictate to the parties of the land claims what they should or can negotiate.
We believe that the aboriginal peoples are very well protected by this Bill and we will not support either of these amendments introduced by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendments put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). While Bill C-5 will have a major impact on the aboriginal peoples of the north, it does not give them adequate protection. I was interested in listening to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. I recall when he was the Indian Affairs critic for his Party when it was in opposition. He said that the aboriginal peoples have nothing to fear from a Conservative Government.


John Horton McDermid: That is right.


James Douglas Manly: I do not think that is quite the case because this legislation is absolutely inadequate.
The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) said he did not want to listen to a lot of airy-fairy arguments, that he wanted to listen to people who are there. Let me refer to some of the testimony presented to the committee, I will read from the Parliamentary Library's summary of that testimony. The Dene Metis said:
The Bill should include a general provision calling for equitable and authoritative participation of aboriginal groups in resource management institutions.
It goes on to say:
In order to facilitate discussions respecting a "northern accord", the Bill should specifically recognize the rights of the Dene/Metis separate from the rights of the NWT.
The Tungavik Federation of Nunavut said:
Clause 3 is inadequate when disposition of land and resource use rights under Bill C-92-
The present Bill C-5:
-and earlier legislation is coupled with the federal position at the claims table that the rights of third parties must be protected. Clause 3 should be amended and all lands subject to the TFN comprehensive claim should be withdrawn from disposition under the Bill.
They go on to state:
Clause 3 should make it clear that the constitutional rights of the Inuit and other aboriginal peoples are not affected by Bill C-92.
That is the present Bill C-5.
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
The Canadian Petroleum Association pointed out that the:
CPA has no position on native land claims other than the belief that they should be resolved to promote certainty as to who owns the land. Operators need to know under what jurisdiction and rules the lands are held and whom to deal with.
There was a great deal of struggle to get any recognition of aboriginal claims in the Constitution. That struggle was without the help of the Conservative Party which was then in opposition. Finally, there was a minimal recognition of the rights of aboriginal peoples in our Constitution, but that struggle is not yet over because aboriginal peoples are still trying, through constitutional conferences, to define what those rights are. They are still working through the land claims process to establish what their rights are in specific areas of Canada that are under claim.
While this struggle to define their rights under law continues, the fact is that their rights are being undermined by the process of development and exploitation of their resources. We can see this taking place in a number of ways. In British Columbia, for example, we can see it very obviously in the way that certain traditional areas of aboriginal peoples are being logged. These areas include Lyell Island, Meares Island to Stein River. We can see it in the threat in British Columbia to aboriginal offshore rights when there is the prospect of offshore drilling.
We certainly see it in the Northwest Territories and Yukon where the Government is proceeding to hand over huge areas to the oil companies while the aboriginal peoples are not really being protected. Perhaps, as the Hon. Member for Western Arctic says, there is a valuable trade-off, but he will certainly admit that exploration and development will impact very severely upon their traditional economies and their traditional lifestyles.
While there may be a worth-while trade-off, certainly the people who are most involved in that should have the major say as to whether or not that trade-off will take place. They should also have a say in the terms and conditions that will be involved in any trade-off that involves a major shift from their traditional economy and traditional lifestyle to one that is based on exploration and development of other resources. That is the purpose of these two amendments. They seek to protect their right to be involved in that kind of decision-making.
I urge Hon. Members opposite to reconsider the position taken by the Parliamentary Secretary. I believe these amendments should be supported. The first general amendment is more specific than the clause in the Bill. It recognizes any aboriginal title, right, claim or interest that pertains to any aboriginal people of Canada. I believe we need that type of specific commitment. The second amendment is even more specific in that it withdraws from the application of the Act those areas that are under claim. I think this will encourage a speedy resolution of claims which is a goal that I believe all Canadians say they support. I think we should do everything we can as a House of Commons to encourage that, and I urge
318

October 14, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
Members to support these motions introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on Bill C-5 and the two amendments introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), I want to address my remarks particularly to the Parliamentary Secretary. He will know that according to Clause 3 of the Bill nothing in the Bill shall be construed as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. As a Member of Parliament from British Columbia, I am concerned about the term "existing treaty rights" because most of the Indian bands living in British Columbia do not live under any treaty right, since the treaties that we have come to recognize in other parts of Canada simply do not exist in the Province of British Columbia, with the exception of some areas in the Peace River country.
There is a serious concern in British Columbia in that, while we have no existing treaty rights in the sense of agreements signed by the aboriginal people of Canada and others, this clause of the Bill says that nothing shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing treaty rights. The critical point is that there are no recognized and understood treaty rights in British Columbia. That is part of the problem that native people face in that part of Canada, and this will offer them little security. I do hope someone from the government benches will rise in response to my point that this will cause particular concern to people in the western part of Canada.
One thing which the motions moved by my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway attempt to do is to bring some certainty to the matter of land claims in the frontier areas. Whether one is the representative of an oil company or of an aboriginal community, certainty is absolutely critical in order to plan for the future. If you are going to lay out short-term and longterm goals for your company or your community or your people, it is imperative that there be some recognition of the ownership of those lands. That is what makes the whole matter of land claims a top priority for so many people, particularly those concerned with activities in Canada's frontier. My colleague has attempted to bring that certainty to the Bill by requesting in Motion No. 2 that all lands subject to unsettled aboriginal claims, which have been accepted for negotiation by the federal Government, be excluded from the application of this Act.
To me this is the acid test of whether or not the Government is serious about land claims settlement. If it is, if it plans to resolve this matter, then this motion should cause no problem at all. However, if the real intent is to prolong the process of land claims settlement, if the Government is not committed to a rapid resolution of this question, then of course I can see why the Government would have serious concern about the implications of Motion No. 2.
I represent a part of British Columbia where a number of Indian bands have land claims before the Government. I recognize that the provincial Government, as it is presently constituted, has indicated time and time again that it has no interest in negotiating Indian land claims settlement. In fact, it does not even recognize that there is such a thing as aboriginal claims, at least as reflected by a number of members of the provincial Cabinet. It is therefore not surprising that Indian bands in those parts of Canada affected, particularly in central British Columbia, really believe the Government is not serious about the settlement of these claims.
In conclusion, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary or one of his colleagues to respond to my concern that in British Columbia there are no treaties-


John Horton McDermid: This Bill does not apply to British Columbia.


James Douglas Manly: Sure it does.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The implications of this Bill, according to the words of the Hon. Member at the outset-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure that the Hon. Member will put his comments through the Chair, and the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary will respond in the same way.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point. 1 will conclude by simply saying that at the outset of our presentation today, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that what we are doing today has implications for Canada's offshore, and of course many of the claims involve offshore development. This is a major concern of ours. Just to be consistent, if the Parliamentary Secretary is saying that this is indicative of how the Government plans to deal with this issue, we feel it is critical that we all understand there are parts of Canada where aboriginal rights and treaty rights have not yet been clearly defined.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I have considered the comments of Hon. Members and I think there is a disposition in the House which would, under the circumstances, move me to have separate votes on these two motions.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
October 14, 1986


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay?


An Hon. Member:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingway (Mr. Waddell). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay?


An Hon. Member:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen'.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
For the information of Hon. Members, Motions Nos. 3, 4, 14 and 15 will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-5, be amended in Clause 10 by adding immediately after line 45 at page 5 the following:
"(3) In every resource use permit or licence issued by the Minister
in areas subject to an unsettled aboriginal claim or right, there shall be inserted a condition or caveat that the area in question is subject to an aboriginal claim and may ultimately be owned by the aboriginal people in fee simple, including the sub-surface."
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-5, be amended in clause 14 by adding immediately after line 35 at page 7 the following:
"(3) In the formulation of bid criteria, the Minister shall be obliged to consult with representatives of affected aboriginal groups and local communities."
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-5, be amended in clause 117
(a) by striking out line 22 at page 65 and substituting the following therefor: "117(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), for".
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
(b) by adding immediately after line 33 at page 65 the following:
"(3) Prior to the settlement of aboriginal claims in affected areas, the Crown share shall be retained North of 6016 in any interest granted or entered into."
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-5, be amended in Clause 121 by striking out lines 27 to 31 at page 69 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) The Minister shall require that any benefits plan submitted pursuant to
subsection (2) include provisions to ensure that aboriginal people and
disadvantaged individuals or groups have priority access to training and
employment."
He said: Mr. Speaker, briefly what I am trying to do in these amendments is to give the native people some say in what is going to happen once these licences are issued. The Government apparently does not agree with me. I say to the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) that I accept that he listens to his constituents, but we have had evidence from groups purporting to represent native people in the North who are taking different positions. I would invite him to support the positions taken by those groups before our committee.
Motion No. 3 says that once the Minister has issued a permit to drill, explore and so on, "there shall be inserted a condition or caveat"-a caveat is a lawyer's term, it is a big warning. A red light goes on when you see a caveat-"that the area in question is subject to an aboriginal claim and may ultimately be owned by the aboriginal people in fee simple, including the sub-surface."
That is the nub of the matter, Mr. Speaker. We have been saying that you cannot negotiate with the native people on the one hand and then give their rights away on the other by giving the oil companies these permits. We are suggesting that the Government at least be up front about this. When the Government is giving permits or leases to oil companies it should be explicit about what could happen. A court could very well rule later that the lands which were given to the oil companies under this section of the Act were not the property of the Government of Canada to give. The Government of Canada could be liable for a lot of money if it gave away something it did not have the right to give away.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the position of the Canadian Petroleum Association. That is the voice of big oil. It told the committee that it has no position on native land claims other than the belief that they should be resolved to promote certainty as to who owns the land. It said that operators need to know under what jurisdiction and rules the lands are held and with whom to deal. This is perfectly reasonable. This is one of the few occasions on which I agree with the Canadian Petroleum Association.


John Horton McDermid: The voice of big oil. You had better be careful.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My friend says that I had better be careful. I will lose my reputation. Through this amendment we are


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the four amendments which were proposed by the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Motion No. 3 reads in part as follows:
-there shall be inserted a condition or caveat that the area in question is subject to an aboriginal claim and may ultimately be owned by the aboriginal people in fee simple, including the sub-surface.
This relates to the motions which were debated earlier. This could be very important in clarifying the situation. There has been no format or procedure set forth which would indicate what the situation will be when reserves which are earmarked for development run into lands which have been designated for aboriginal claims. It would be beneficial to put forward a position of the Government.
It is quite reasonable that the Government agree with Motion No. 4 which reads:
In the formulation of bid criteria, the Minister shall be obliged to consult with representatives of affected aboriginal groups and local communities.
The Member for Vancouver-Kingsway stated correctly that the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said that Indian groups and communities would be consulted. If they are going to be consulted, what is wrong with including that in the legislation? It is not unreasonable to expect that the people directly affected by this Act should be consulted. I think that is only common decency. If we are going to act in the best interests of the people involved, why would they not consult with them?
Motion No. 14 reads in part as follows:
Prior to the settlement of aboriginal claims in affected areas the Crown share shall be retained North of 60'/3 in any interest granted or entered into.
I know what the Hon. Member is attempting to achieve but the situation as it now stands is equally bad in all parts of Canada where frontier development was taking place. That not only relates to the Beaufort but to the offshore and the East Coast as well. What has happened with all this exploration and no development is that these communities, these areas of our country which incurred a great deal of expense in anticipation and hope that these deposits of oil and gas would mean financial success and security to at least some capacity have now been disappointed and are left without any kind of compensation.
I think the problem is that the Government has taken away an equity provision from all the areas in the frontier. It has
October 14, 1986

stated there is going to be a certain revenue sharing formula but there cannot be any revenue sharing if the Government is not determined in its position to have development take place. Until there is development there will not be any development sharing and the equity position is not there. All we have is the hope that some day something is going to happen. If the Government is to stay in power, which it will not, there would not be anything happening, certainly not until well after the turn of the century.
Motion No. 15 reads:
The Minister shall require that any benefits plan submitted pursuant to subsection (2) include provisions to ensure that aboriginal people and disadvantaged individuals or groups have priority access to training and employment.
I think it is safe to say that in the high Arctic this now applies to everyone because, as I mentioned earlier, the fragile economy which was there has been severely disrupted. We are going to have a great many native people unemployed, as well as other people. I think we will see quite a few people leaving the area, which in itself will have a detrimental effect on the economy. Those who stay will be severely handicapped, particularly the young who we as a Government encouraged away from the traditional lifestyles of hunting, fishing and other occupations. We encouraged them to get involved in the oil and gas industry. We have now left them without any hope to further their employment in the area in which they made such a promising start.
I think this amendment is not only fair, it has been requested by the Inuvik region. In a report to the Executive Council on the impacts of the oil industry slowdown on the local economy were suggested measures to improve the economic climate in the near term. It is suggested that further training take place very quickly because we have to do something with these people. It is fine to go in with economic promises and then pull out when the economic climate is not as great as it once was, but we have to look at the human element. We have affected people's lives; we have affected the economy and the lifestyle in this area, and we cannot as a Government and as Members of Parliament simply walk away and say: "Too bad the world price of oil and gas is not what it once was. Tough luck. Maybe this will come together later on". In the meantime we have shattered the dreams of these people, and in many cases we have broken up a great many families in the affected regions. I think the Government has to do something to deal with this question.


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat amazing that the Hon. Member for Cape Breton- the Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) would support Motion No. 15 which, to me, flies right against the Charter of Rights that his Party, and he as a Member, were so strongly pushing to entrench into Canadian history.
This is a section which takes a group of people and says they are special, but not geographically. If he said the northern people were special, including everyone, as we are contemplating doing with the Newfoundland Accord, I could understand it, but when one just takes a group of people, it flies in the face
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
of the Charter. I do not understand it. It is against the Charter. Yet the Hon. Member, who is a supporter of the Charter, says he likes this motion.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to comment on these four motions. I am particularly inspired by the comments of the Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon). I had feared the Conservative majority might well be opposed to these resolutions, and the comments made by the Hon. Member tend to confirm that.
Let me say immediately, since that comment will be still ringing in the minds of those of us in the Chamber and others watching in other places, that the argument the Hon. Member has made misses one vital point. The fact that we target various groups in Canadian society as a means of dealing with their social inequities and the disparities they have experienced in times past, is in no way in contradiction of the Charter. What the Hon. Member's comment underscores is that the Government is opposed to these several resolutions, at least, that is what I fear.
1 want to say something about each of them briefly. Since my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver -Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), has made good arguments for each of them, I would like to underscore them in a more general sense and deal specifically with the points of each one. I want to do that by recognizing that the Government has served up to us in the last weeks celebrations of individualism, the importance of initiative being exercised by people wherever they may be. Surely, these resolutions are designed to ensure that just that kind of local initiative will be recognized and protected by Government. Surely, what is necessary is to ensure that the Government of Canada does not once more allow outsiders to come in, in the form of one or other of the petroleum companies, to do what they will on northern or offshore lands without any regard for the aboriginal rights which have not yet been settled.
Surely, this would be one more expression of the kind of imperialism we have seen too much of in Canadian history. It is one more assertion by the Canadian Government on behalf of swash bucklers, whether individuals or corporations, who will do what they will without any regard to local rights.
We must write into the Bill an assurance that their activities are subject to legal action. They may well find their discoveries under challenge. They will have to share, or they may find themselves actually losing these rights and losing the lands on which they have carried out exploration because they may turn out to belong, as the motion says, in fee simple, to the aboriginal peoples. Surely, a Government which has regard for the rights of aboriginal peoples, which wants to ensure they have something in the way of resources to develop their local initiative, would want to include this motion in the Bill as a protection for them.
The second motion provides for the development of a benefit plan. Surely, this is only to ensure that those companies which

October 14, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
come in do not carry out their activities, their exploration, their drilling and development work, without any regard for the people who live in the area. This is what we so very often find in our times. We have corporate interests at work and the individuals and the communities affected so profoundly by what the corporations do have very little in the way of legal resources to protect themselves against the corporations. If Members of the Government really support the principles which they so easily espouse on political platforms, in Speeches from the Throne, in debate here in the House of Commons and in after-dinner speeches, then surely they would want to include this measure in the Bill to ensure that benefit plans become part of the development. This would ensure that the communities would receive benefits and that local initiatives would be recognized and rewarded in the development.
With respect to Motions Nos. 14 and 15, surely we must have further attempts to ensure that communities, aboriginal peoples, and for that matter disadvantaged individuals or groups in other parts of Canada, will have a basis in the legislation to ensure that they will have benefits. To talk about local initiatives and to say that we must look to the people in the regions to save themselves because Ottawa does not have the resources and then refuse to include in the legislation a provision to give these people the resources and the legal rights which they need and which the Government should be providing, surely indicates the completely empty rhetoric of the Conservative Government. It is fine to talk about individualism. However, when Members say yea to these resolutions and then vote them down later when we stand in our places to indicate whether we are for or against, then surely the Canadian people will measure the rhetoric of the Government. It is at these times that the people of Canada must decide that these Conservatives do not actually believe in individualism and regional development, but that they want to give it all away to the oil companies.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I wish to reply to some of the claims made by members of the New Democratic Party. First, I cannot object to their theme with respect to opportunities for aboriginal peoples and so on in terms of their participation in land claims. However, I must point out that the Bill before us is an energy Bill. It is not a Bill dealing with aboriginal peoples. I would also like to point out that it is framework legislation. It is legislation which covers all Canada Lands for exploration.
To put into law the requirements which the NDP would have us put into law prejudges what is taking place in terms of the land claim negotiations. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) stood in his place and made wild and exaggerated claims that the Conservative Party of Canada is not interested in aboriginal peoples. That is utter nonsense and he knows it. The Hon. Member did not participate in any of the hearings with respect to this Bill when it was before the
Legislative Committee. He did not attend one meeting of the committee. He showed no interest whatsoever. All of a sudden he stands in his place today and talks about these measures. If the Hon. Members wants to talk about action then let him talk about the Sechelt agreement signed by the Government and passed into legislation. That agreement shows our interest in aboriginal peoples.
The Government is interested in aboriginal peoples. It has maintained its contact with them in a meaningful way and it will continue to do so. What Members opposite are asking us to do is prejudge what will happen with respect to the land claims. If the Hon. Member were to take the time-and I am sure he has not-to read the Sechelt agreement and what is included in it, or read the COPE agreement, then perhaps he would have some idea of what this is all about. However, with the greatest of respect to the Hon. Member, he is all wet when he claims that the Progressive Conservative Party is not interested in aboriginal peoples. That is utter nonsense.
I wish to thank Hon. Members today for remembering that I was the spokesman for Indian Affairs and Northern Development when my Party was in opposition. I said at that time, and I stand by it today, that the aboriginal peoples of Canada have nothing to fear from a Progressive Conservative Government. The proof is in the action that we have taken to date and which we will continue to take.
My friend, the Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon), made a very important point. He pointed out that this is framework legislation and that the Constitution will not allow us to single out individual people in framework-type legislation. Hon. Members talked about the Atlantic Accord. The Atlantic Accord is a specific Accord for a specific area. There is a preference clause in the Accord with respect to the peoples of Newfoundland, whether they be aboriginal peoples or not.
What is proposed by Members opposite is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is nothing in the legislation before us-and I want to make this very clear-to prevent the very items that the Hon. Member is trying to introduce today from being introduced in land claim settlements.
Because of the size of our country there are different situations which arise in different areas. That is a given. I think even the Hon. Member opposite will agree with that statement. So to put these specific requirements into framework legislation, which is energy legislation, is something we oppose for the reasons I have stated.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the comments made by the Hon. Member who just resumed his seat. He cast some aspersions on the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) when he said that if he was interested he would have attended the committee hearings. In order to be fair to all Members we must recognize that under the reform of Parliament the committees of the House are smaller. It is not possible for all Members who are
October 14, 1986

interested, regardless of their Party, to be at all committee meetings. In this particular case the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) attended the committee meetings. He represented our caucus. He brings forward today those concerns which we are debating at this particular time in the House. The amendments we are debating are amendments which have been put forward by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I am pleased to see the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon getting up to express his concerns.
With respect to the substance of what the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) just said, I think it is important that we specifically recognize within this legislation the rights and concerns of native people. Last week in the House during Question Period much of our time was used in discussing information that was made public with regard to what is happening in the Manitoba region of the Department of Indian Affairs. It has come to the attention of the public that things are not all well within Indian Affairs, especially in the Manitoba region. There is a real question out there whether or not the Department has been acting in the best interests of the native people. It is because of this very concern and because of what we heard last week that the proposed amendments are felt necessary. Native people do not feel that their best interests are always represented by governments, regardless of political stripe. Quite often those people who have a special trust relationship with native people, that is, Government, Ministers and government departments, have other concerns. One of those concerns could be to have quick energy development. That is something which will take place when there is successful exploration. Companies involved will want to act quickly. One area in which they can move quickly, if they can get the Government to move in its decision-making process, is with regard to native concerns. In other words native people may be formally consulted but the actual consultations are mere lip-service as opposed to dealing with the legitimate concerns.
The series of amendments put forward by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway are necessary. I think native people throughout Canada would be concerned if the Government refused to allow these amendments to be incorporated into the legislation. Again, I point to the incidents of last week. I point to the audit carried out with regard to the Department of Indian Affairs in Manitoba. I think there is a legitimate concern. The best way those concerns can be met is if amendments are passed in the House of Commons. Indeed, that is what the House should be doing with regard to government legislation.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I will not take more than a couple of minutes of your time. I wanted to make some comments with respect to that which was said by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan). He is quite right in pointing out the dependence
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
on industrial activity that has occurred in the North. It does not take long for people to become dependent on changes.
Those who live in areas that are dependent on the resource industries get used to the boom and bust situation. It sometimes worries me that whatever a Government tries to do, it ends up making the peaks higher and the troughs lower. This certainly was the case with PIP grants. There was going to be a lot of activity any way on account of high oil prices. We put on top of that the PIP grant system which made that peak even higher than it would otherwise have been; consequently the trough is now a little deeper.
The Hon. Member talked about a presentation that had been made by the Regional Department of the Territorial Government on the situation in the delta. That was a very good report. I had the opportunity to read it and to speak with the people who drafted it. They made some very good recommendations. The federal Government has also started to act in that regard. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has appointed a special committee with a rather high-faluting title, the Action Force on Arctic Initiatives. I sometimes wish it had not been so named. Perhaps it gives people the idea that we are going to be able to do a little more than we will actually be able to do.
This committee comprised of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) as the Chairman, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) and the two Members of Parliament for the Northwest Territories has already embarked on some of those things to which the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys has referred.
We are making some moves with respect to training. The facilities of CFS Inuvik, the military base that had to be closed down on account of obsolescence, have been made available for a training college. We are beginning to work on the training aspects of it.
I will not belabour all the other things that are happening. The Hon. Member can rest assured that his remarks have not fallen upon completely stony ground.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.

Canada Petroleum Resources Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 3 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 14 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 15 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
October 14, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 would just like to bring to the attention of Hon. Members that Motions Nos. 6 and 7 will be grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 6 will be applied to Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-5, be amended in Clause 50 by striking out lines 25 to 29 at page 24 and substituting the following therefor:
"Resources for the purposes of this section shall purchase the share in accordance with subsection (2) at a price equal to the amount referred to in paragraph 49(3)(a)."
That Bill C-5, be amended in Clause 50 by striking out lines 30 to 34 at page 24 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) Where the agent of Her Majesty referred to in subsection (1) acts to purchase the share, it shall do so within 60 days after the closing date for the submission of tenders specified in the invitation to tender."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I might add that it is a pleasure to see you in the chair as the Deputy Speaker continuing your good work.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Hon. Members are giving me a rough time. I am not being paternalistic or anything, Mr. Speaker. 1 always look to you for guidance.
These motions deal with a more complicated area of the Bill. Clause 50(1) reads:
Where a share offered for sale by public tender pursuant to subsection 49(1)-
Clause 49(1) indicates that the Government can offer a share for tender in order to bring it up to the Canadian-ownership rate that is required under a complicated procedure in this Bill. Clause 50(1) goes on:
Where a share offered for sale by public tender pursuant to subsection 49(1) is not purchased at the sale, a company or other body corporate that is an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada and is designated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for the purposes of this section has the option to purchase the share in accordance with subsection (2) at a price equal to the amount referred to in paragraph 49(3)(a).


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 6.
Motion No. 7.
Motion No. 15 negatived.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

October 14, 1986

My amendment indicates that for the purposes of this subclause, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) shall-not have an option but shall-purchase the share in accordance with subclause 2 at a price equal to the amount referred to in Paragraph 49(3)(a). It makes it obligatory for the agent of the Government, probably Petro-Canada as the government oil company, to bring the Canadian ownership up to 50 per cent if the public sector does not do it. This removes discretionary power from the Minister.
You accept, Mr. Speaker, that we do not trust the Tories on this. They pretend that they are for Canadian ownership and for Canadian companies, but we know where their real loyalty lies. We know that they cannot get down south of the border with their pals quick enough. We also know that they are prepared to sell out Canadian resources to international interests at the drop of a hat. This is why we want to make it obligatory, make it a requirement that they "shall", with no options. Of course the options will only be in effect for a couple of years, until the next election, at which point we will not have to worry about the Conservatives selling out our resources to international oil companies. We know that the Conservatives are in bed with the international oil companies. It is obvious from every energy Bill they have brought down. They dismantled the entire energy program, part of which at least tried-and I give the Liberals credit for it-to Canadianize one of the most important industries in Canada. They made some mistakes, but they tried. This Government cannot fall over itself fast enough to help its American friends in fact gobble up our resources. I think of the name of the movie "Back to the Future". They want to get back there to the good old days so that they can give away more resources to foreigners. After the next election when there is an NDP minority or majority Government, we will come back to the House and clean this up. By offering this amendment I thought I would make it somewhat easier for the Government. It is something the Government could accept.
I wonder what the Government uses Petro-Canada for. I cannot figure out any method in its madness. It has made Petro-Canada buy a lot of gas stations. Petro-Canada has expanded its number of gas stations under the Conservatives; that is a fact.


John Horton McDermid: We didn't make them do it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I hear the Parliamentary Secretary. Surely he is not telling me that that decision was taken without the approval of the Government. Petro-Canada has gone out and bought more gas stations, but what is its role as Conservatives see it? I suppose if oil prices were high they would simply give it away to their dollar a year men, the people in Brascan and the Bronfman family. They want to privatize all Canadian assets and give them at cheap prices to these people who have insider knowledge or were friends with Sine Stevens. That is the way they are operating in terms of privatization.
Canada Petroleum Resources Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would hope the Hon. Member would take note that Hon. Members should be referred to by their constituencies and not by their names in this Chamber.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Hon. Member from York North or whatever the company is called. What is it?


Some Hon. Members:: York Centre.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: York Centre is the name of the company.


John Horton McDermid: Take yourself out of the gutter, Ian.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Look who is talking about gutters. The way they are dealing with the Canadian assets is a shame. They are privatizing them for their friends in corporate business in Toronto. It is shameful.
My point was, will they do the same for Petro-Canada? Well, not now because oil prices are too low, but when they go up they might change their minds.
In part, Motion No. 7 reads:
Where the agent of Her Majesty referred to in subsection (1) acts to purchase the share, it shall do so within 60 days after the closing date for the submission of tenders specified in the invitation to tender.
This amendment tidies things up. In other words, the Crown oil company or the Crown corporation must buy the shares within 60 days.
To summarize, the purpose of these two amendments is to stop the Government from privatizing any of these shares and from taking up the slack, if it is not taken up by Canadian companies.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the motions which I have the honour of seconding. The debate, through the interjections of the Parliamentary Secretary, focused very nicely upon another aspect of the matter. Minutes ago we were concerned about ensuring the rights of aboriginal people and local communities. Now we are concerned that our publicly owned oil company will be encouraged by legislation to take a part in ensuring the Canadianization of energy exploitation. That strikes me as being a rather important thing to do at a time when press reports suggest that the operations of Petro-Canada are being carried out without any clear mandate from the Government.
When my good friend indicates some wonderment over the acquisition of service stations by Petro-Canada in the last while, one can of course recognize that to be in the oil business substantially increases the cash flow of Petro-Canada. We must ensure that the cash flow is used for Canadian petroleum development, and in particular to ensure that the benefits from the development will be available to Canadians. Surely they are very important results.

October 14, 1986
I support enthusiastically the two motions of my colleague. I trust there will be a change of feeling or attitude on the part of the Government, and that it will support these motions.


John Horton McDermid: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker, but I think the last few comments should not go unchallenged.
There is nothing in the Bill which prevents Petro-Canada from taking any kind of interest in any one of the exploration agreements, production agreements, or whatever. There is nothing to prevent Petro-Canada from participating. Second, the Bill has a 50 per cent Canadian ownership requirement.
NDP Members define Canadian ownership and ask who as a Canadian should own it. They say that it should not be a large Canadian company, that it should be a small Canadian company or that it should be an individual on the street. By the way, the individual on the street may own a few shares in the Canadian company which may own it. They keep changing the definition of "ownership" in their own minds and confusing the public. Once a company has more than 100 employees, the NDP considers the company to be a big bad brute. NDP Members indicate that they cannot participate, that they are a big company and therefore nasty and should not be involved in the oil industry or in some other industry. That is nonsense, and the Hon. Member knows it. Canadians are not gullible. They do not buy that kind of stuff.
1 will reiterate. Under this Bill Petro-Canada has every opportunity to participate in the exploration and production ends of things. There is nothing to prevent Petro-Canada from participating whatsoever, and there is a 50 per cent Canadian ownership requirement in the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the motion lost, which means that Motion No. 7 is also lost.
Motions Nos. 6 and 7 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, last August a Bill was passed by the Federal Parliament of India granting to the territory of Mizoram full state status. For 25 years the people of Mizoram had been fighting a constitutional battle for their rightful place in the Indian Federation. They have been successful.
For 25 years the people of the Northwest Territories have been fighting their constitutional battle for their rightful place in the Canadian Federation. Despite considerable gains, they have not yet been completely successful.
We must never forget that there are, even today, north of 60, Canadians who are denied full democratic rights. They do not yet enjoy provincial status. The sooner the Parliament of Canada follows the lead of the Parliament of India in this matter, the better it will be.

[ Translation]



SAINT-MAURICE RIDING NEW MEMBER'S PRIORITIES

Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to thank the Government for the opportunities I had during this campaign to make a contribution and receive the support of others, and point out that my priorities will, of course, be the unemployment situation in my riding and the youth problem and training for young people, and I will do everything I can to do something about our social security programs which are also a major problem in my riding.



IMMIGRATION


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in 1983 as a result of raising past injustices against Chinese
October 14, 1986

Canadians in Parliament, I received 1,100 copies of Chinese head tax receipts, 436 from elderly survivors who paid this tax. The Chinese head tax, followed by the Exclusion Act, applied only to Chinese immigrants. This was racist, discriminatory legislation which remains a disgraceful blot on Canada's history and reputation.
Chinese laborers worked to repay the $500 head tax over many years; the Government meanwhile netted $20 million in profits. Liberals acknowledged this injustice but refused to act. The Conservatives have not fulfilled their election promises to the Chinese Canadian National Council.
I call on all Members of Parliament to acknowledge past injustices against our fellow Chinese Canadians in an all-Party resolution which advocates remedial action. This issue concerns justice, not money. It is fundamental to a multicultural Canada.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, on the weekend, we saw in The Globe and Mail how some members of the Forget Commission were violently opposed to the recommendations that are to be made to the Government in the weeks and months to come.
Mr. Speaker, I think Hon. Members will agree that paying people $ 1,000 a day to find out whether other people who are getting $160 a week are not getting too much is totally unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of this House to help pressure the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to call Commissioner Forget and tell him that recommendations like these are unacceptable and to draft some better ones.



IMMIGRATION


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, ever since the first settlers came to Canada over 300 years ago, the family unit has formed a building block of our culture and society. Nothing is more essential to the well-being of a nation than strong family ties. Our immigration policy reflects this conviction by making family reunification the cornerstone of
Canadian immigration law. Bringing to Canada those who already have family roots in our country provides a stable environment for the immigrant and a positive boost for the community.
Unfortunately, current family class immigration has become fraught with delays, confusion, and complexity. I therefore urge the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) to adopt the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration and streamline the family class process. This will not only ensure that mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers are more quickly reunited, but it will also help us offer a home to those immigrants who already have a family stake in our country. Let us continue to put families first in our immigration policy.



THE ELDERLY


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Abitibi are proud of the new senior citizens' home in Barraute. Since 1964, proposals have been made for this project to the Government of Canada, but the proposals were always turned down, particularly when the riding was held by Liberal Member Rene Gingras. Thanks to our efforts since 1984 and those of the Barraute committee, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Val-d'Or, the DDE in Noranda with a key project, and the municipalities of Barraute, Barraute Piedmont and the outlying areas, the project was finally realized.
The project is a fine example of what people and the Conservative Government can accomplish when they work together to solve problems of common concern, in this case the lack of decent housing for senior citizens who need financial assistance.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government of Canada, I wish those who will make this project their home a pleasant and worry-free future.

[DOT] (U05)



FINANCE


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the need in Canada for a tax system that is fair, just, and equitable, I wish to present today our second great untaxed corporation award. Today's winner is Union Gas which has
328__________________________
been granted, by successive Liberal and Conservative Governments, the legal right to pay no corporate income tax on profits that in the two years 1980 and 1981 totalled S52.7 million.
Had the tax system been fair and equitable, and had Union Gas been required to pay even a 25 per cent tax rate on its profits in 1980-81, revenue accruing to the federal Government would have amounted to $13.2 million. Had Union Gas been required to pay taxes on its profits, average Canadian taxpayers may have had less personal income and sales tax to pay in 1986. Today's great untaxed corporation award winner is a reminder from New Democrat Members of Parliament to the Conservative Government of the pressing need for serious and comprehensive tax reform.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise on behalf of almost 1,000 employees at Miracle Mart, some of whom are located in the city of Hamilton, who have been laid off. As a result of the Government's regressive decision last year, they are unable to collect any unemployment insurance because they are receiving severance pay.
You will recall that we have raised this issue a number of times in the House and we were told: "Wait for the Forget Commission". After hearing press reports on the weekend, I am afraid that we do not want to wait for the Forget Commission because there will be many other Canadians who will be left out in the cold, as have these hundreds of Canadians.
In the case of Hamilton, the average number of years of service of these women and men at Miracle Mart was 19 years. They will leave their jobs without being able to collect a penny of unemployment insurance. We believe that is absolutely wrong and we will continue to fight it in the House and in the constituencies.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, despite historically low grain and oil prices, resulting from unfair foreign competition, the Saskatchewan economy is showing remarkable resilience.
Retail sales are up 6 per cent, housing starts are up 13 per cent, and building permits are up by 43 per cent. The prime interest rate, at 9.75 per cent, is the lowest in eight and one-half years. Five-year mortgage rates are down by three and one-quarter points since September, 1984.
October 14, 1986
In fact the Government of Saskatchewan has guaranteed home mortgages at 9.5 per cent for the next ten years. Inflation is under 4 per cent, the most stable price environment since 1971. Fourteen thousand new jobs have been created over the past two years. The unemployment rate, at 7.5 per cent, is down a full point over the past two years.
Now the new Saskatchewan Home Improvement Plan is generating jobs at a rate of 154 each day. The Conference Board of Canada forecasts a 6 per cent increase in personal income this year. It is proof positive that the Saskatchewan economy is being well managed.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, it seems the federal Liberals from Quebec keep changing their minds. In the summer of 1985, Quebec Liberals were telling the world they would never challenge the universality of social programs in Canada. The same Liberals, with the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) and his leader foremost in the fray, accused my Government of hypocrisy because it was trying to improve the administration of our social programs.
Mr. Speaker, on the weekend, the Quebec Liberal Party's future, its young Liberals, passed a resolution aimed at putting an end to the principle of universality of social programs. Those same young Liberals who support their leader forget that last summer he said in the House of Commons that the Liberals would never discuss changes to the administration of social programs in Canada. But who are we to believe in the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker? The youth wing, which has always been the party's pride and joy, or the Liberal Caucus in Ottawa? In any case, Canadians will have to wait a long time before the Liberals make it clear to everyone what exactly their social policy is.



NOBEL PEACE PRIZE


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege this afternoon to join my colleagues in applauding the selection of Elie Wiesel as the recipient of the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize. Born in Romania in 1928, Wiesel witnessed and experienced the full horror of the Nazi holocaust in

October 14, 1986

eastern Europe. Deported at the age of 16 to the concentration camps, he was the only member of his entire family to survive. Over the past 40 years he has used his memories of the holocaust as the basis for a series of publications that both mourn the suffering and tragedy, and exalt the joys of Jewish life and teaching. His works now enjoy world-wide acclaim and popularity.
Outspoken, passionate and committed, a symbol of hope and perseverance, Elie Wiesel has used books, poems, essays and lectures to convert his memories into a crusade against apathy toward suffering, and into defiance against the oblivion of millions of individuals. His vivid and personal accounts of the atrocities of the holocaust and his tireless struggle to ensure that the deaths of six million Jews are never forgotten are crucial to our shared hope that similar barbarism against the rights and dignity of man will never be repeated.
In recognition of this noble struggle, Elie Wiesel is a deserving recipient of this year's highest award for peace.



EXPO 86 PRIDE IN JOB WELL DONE

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, last night the curtain came down on Expo 86. After two previous world fairs had flopped in the U.S., and in spite of many dire predictions, the Vancouver world's fair, Expo 86, proved to be a fantastic success. It put an enormously favourable spotlight on British Columbia and Canada. More than that, it generated tremendous enthusiasm and overwhelming crowds. It was by far the most popular world's fair ever held. To top it all off, it even made money. Today, as we pause and look back, Canadians everywhere say: "Well done, British Columbians, our hats are off to you."
* *
*



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a plea for the release of Danylo Shumuk, unjustly imprisoned for many years in the Soviet Union. Mr. Shumuk has been subjected to hard physical labour, an inadequate diet, and the threatening atmosphere of a Soviet labour camp. He suffers simply because he was convicted of having written a manuscript of his memoirs. Now his health is deteriorating rapidly. He suffers from stomach ulcers, a heart condition, and circulatory problems. His paralyzed right arm is also a concern, especially since he may soon not be able to write. Correspondence with relatives in Canada is nearly all he has left.
In 1981 there was unanimous consent of this House to a proposal to urge the Soviet Union to release Mr. Shumuk. Let us once again make a concerted effort to reunite Mr. Shumuk with his relatives here in Canada. If he is not freed, he will not receive the health care he needs and could die far away from friends and family. We must make another appeal to the Soviets to avert a human tragedy.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the Government will soon get the Forget Commission report on unemployment insurance.
According to the articles published in The Globe and Mail, the report recommandations spell catastrophy for Atlantic Canada. The Globe and Mail indicates that the report will recommend the abolition of the unemployment insurance program for fishermen, along with several other measures under which workers in the poorer regions of the country will be hardest hit.
Seasonal workers, who most need this program, would be directly affected, not to mention the fact that most of them would get reduced benefits.
If this Government believes it has a role to play in the elimination of regional disparities, it must indicate forthwith that such recommendations will not be considered and will simply be rejected.
*
* *



EXPO 86 TRIBUTE TO ALL PARTICIPANTS

Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the closing day of a very successful world's fair, Expo 86 in Vancouver. Over 22 million people from around the world visited the now famous site between May and October. The federal Government and the British Columbia Government combined their efforts to host Expo 86. The provinces and territories and countries from around the world, coupled with many Canadian corporations, shared in the experience. Success was the result of people from every province of Canada, all the States of America and countries around the world, coming to enjoy Man in Motion.
Expo 86 truly became a people place. Two individuals who deserve special recognition are Canada's official host, Patrick

October 14, 1986
Oral Questions
Reid, the Commissioner General, and a B.C. businessman named Jimmy Pattison, Expo 86 Chairman and President. For one summer Expo 86 transformed Vancouver, which is celebrating its one hundredth anniversary, into a cosmopolitan crossroads. To the thousands of volunteers, sponsors, and participants we say a hearty thank you for your hard work and hospitality. A job well done!



PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY OF DAIL EIREANN PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in our gallery of members of the Public Accounts Committee of the Dail, Ireland, led by their Chairman, Mr. Denis Foley.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Paul Warnke, the chief U.S. negotiator of the 1977 SALT talks, was on The Journal last night commenting on the summit in Iceland. He said:
I think that the only chance of progress is if there is somebody who has both the wisdom and the guts to stand up and say to the President of the United States: "You're giving away a chance for genuine progress toward nuclear stability and you are pursuing pie in the sky".
Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he agrees with that statement? Does he have the wisdom and the guts to send that message to the President on behalf of the people of Canada?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the comments made by Mr. Warnke who operated in this area on behalf of another administration. I would be inclined to endorse the view expressed by Lord Carrington when he said that we agree that possibilities for significant progress had emerged in a number of areas. He underlined the importance of following these up energetically in the appropriate negotiating fora.
In the morning after an important meeting such as that I think that one must quite properly look at the matter constructively and see if there is a possibility of building bridges in the future. I think that possibility exists, and Canada will do all it
can to be helpful in that process as the parties return to Geneva.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER SHARES VIEWS OF SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister.
Mr. Warnke is not the only person to point out, in his comments and elsewhere, that the gap between Messrs. Gorbachev and Reagan still exists and has even widened as a result of the failure of the preliminary Summit.
I would like to know where the Prime Minister finds the basis for his optimism and whether he agrees with the comments made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs this morning.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentions a gap that has widened and a failed meeting at the Summit. I am inclined to recognize that a serious problem exists, but also that there is the potential for future progress. Meeting under ideal conditions, both parties discussed a very complex and delicate problem, leaving in place mechanisms for sustained and continuing negotiations in the future. I have every reason to expect that the Geneva talks will proceed in an effective and productive fashion, and that ultimately, Mr. Gorbachev will go to the United States, as agreed, to conclude the talks.


STRATEGIC DEFENCE INITIATIVE-DISARMAMENT POLICY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, we in the Opposition consider the Star Wars Program favoured by the President of the United States to be entirely incompatible with a disarmament policy.
Does the Minister agree with us now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I have said before, on behalf of the Government, that although this Canadian Government will not agree to take part in the government-to-government development of this policy and in the research involved, I think, as NATO Secretary General Lord Carrington mentioned, that in the circumstances and considering the activities being deployed by the other side, it was a prudent gesture on the part of the United States and the Alliance to undertake research in this field.
We share that view.


UNITED STATES POSITION ON STRATEGIC DEFENCE INITIATIVE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a question for the Prime Minister. The historic progress which he and the Secretary of State for
October 14, 1986

External Affairs talk about includes a statement which says we must build upon the consensus that was reached. But we know the stumbling block to any further progress is the willingness to negotiate the Star Wars or SDI Program. In Canada's strong support for the continuation of negotiations, will the Prime Minister be communicating directly with our allies in the United States and urging them to reconsider their position and put the Star Wars SDI Program back on the agenda for Geneva so we can eliminate that stumbling block and reach an historic agreement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think one can look at the events of the weekend with some optimism or some degree of pessimism. For our part, I think that is positive. I think there is reason to be modestly hopeful. I think the elements are in place for an ongoing civilized dialogue at Geneva and, hopefully, which will result in Mr. Gorbachev's coming to the United States as agreed upon. There are stumbling blocks on both sides. That is what negotiations are all about, sitting down with open minds knowing the objections on both sides and trying to effect an honourable compromise.
The important thing which came out of the meetings, I believe, was the indications of the parameters of understanding. They are there, and hopefully people of goodwill will achieve them.


REQUEST JOINT PARLIAMENTARY RESOLUTION BE DRAFTED
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, no one would disagree with the Prime Minister's comments or hopes, but what we are asking about is the specific initiative the Canadian Government, indeed, the Canadian Parliament, could take on behalf of all concerned Canadians. Would the Prime Minister be prepared to join with the opposition Parties in drafting a joint parliamentary resolution which would urge continuation of negotiations but also urge that the question of SDI or Star Wars be put on the agenda and that both superpowers attempt to negotiate an agreement which will limit the testing of that program in space?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why we would pass a resolution putting the question on the agenda when it clearly is on the agenda and it was on the agenda all weekend.


Mr. Kaplan:: What about Gorbachev?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member wonders about Mr. Gorbachev. Mr. Gorbachev, I think, made his point well known, as did President Reagan. The fact that agreement was not reached at this first meeting does not mean that agreements will not be reached in the future. I think we ought to look at this constructively and see the atmosphere in which events transpired, the hope for the future, and resolve to encourage President Reagan and Secretary Gorbachev to go to Geneva with a view to resolving these differences.
Oral Questions
I do not look at it in the spirit of pessimism. I think there is modest reason to be hopeful about the future and Canada's every commitment will be to be helpful in that area.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. He will recall that frequently throughout the Speech from the Throne the Government committed itself to the notion of fairness. I have figures which will appear in the soon-to-be released Forget Report which indicate that this commission plans to take $620 million out of Atlantic Canada, $930 million out of Quebec, and $430 million out of British Columbia. These are three regions of Canada which are already the worst affected by high levels of unemployment. Is this the Government's idea of fairness? And if not, will the Prime Minister give us assurances that this recommendation, coming from the Forget Commission, will not be accepted by the Government of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 must tell my hon. friend that he apparently has access to information that I as Prime Minister have not received. I can tell my hon. friend that our only involvement was mentioned at the time of the Budget Speech on May 23 by the Minister of Finance when he said in this regard:
I am also announcing that the government will soon launch a major review of the unemployment insurance program. Our objective is to improve and simplify the unemployment insurance system to make it fairer and to ensure that it promotes flexible adjustment in the labour market. I want to emphasize that we are not undertaking this review with an objective of reducing federal contributions to the unemployed.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it may be the case that I have figures that the Prime Minister does not have; but when he looks at the report he will find those figures.


LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since it was the Prime Minister's Government that appointed this commission and since it is his Government to which the commission will make its recommendations, will the Prime Minister make it clear that when it comes to these three areas the worst hit by unemployment his Government will not administer a further smack in the face, which is what it amounts to, to the poorest regions by taking hundreds of millions of dollars out? Will he assure us that the $3 billion recommended for cuts across Canada will not be acted upon by the Government?

October 14, 1986
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on a report that I have not seen. I can only tell my hon. friend that our position is the one set out by the Minister of Finance when he said that he wanted to emphasize that we are not undertaking this review with an objective of reducing federal contributions to the unemployed. We have appointed an impartial group of people to analyse the problem. I will wait for their report and make determinations when we have received it.
[ Translation]


FORGET COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for this work.
The Forget Commission is also recommending that severance pay and pensions be included in calculating unemployment insurance.
Will the Minister state clearly that the Government cannot accept this recommendation?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party has a bad habit of taking part of a report as it appears in the press, treating it as though it had been received by the Government and asking questions about it.
The Forget Report will be tabled between now and November 30. At that time, all Members in and outside the House will have a chance to comment, and we will subsequently formulate our position. That is all. There is no Forget Report dated October 14, 1986.


PAYMENT OF BENEFITS IN ATLANTIC REGION
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. During a visit to St. John's, Newfoundland, with his Cabinet the Prime Minister acknowledged that the economy of Atlantic Canada is seriously ill. According to comments made by three members of the Forget Commission yesterday and today, they want to cure the problem by killing the patient. Some $727 million in UIC payments-three-quarters of $1 billion-will be cut from the region if the recommendations of the Forget Commission are accepted by the Government. Will the Prime Minister give his assurance today that the Government will not keep his recent financial commitments by cutting $3 billion in UIC payments from the Atlantic region?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will understand, as I indicated to the Leader of the NDP, that I cannot, nor would he want me to, comment on a report that is unavailable to Members of the House and which I have not seen.
In regard to Atlantic Canada, I did indeed express the view in St. John's, and the regret of all Members of the House, that previous government policies over the past 15 years had failed dramatically to bring equality of opportunity to the people of Atlantic Canada. I am going down to Charlottetown on Thursday to put in place with the Premiers a new mechanism that we hope will bring about a greater degree of equality of opportunity for people in Atlantic Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, ask the Prime Minister a civil question, you get a petty, partisan answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REGIONAL DISPARITY
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister this question. What area of the world will the "Minister for Regional Economic Third World Comparisons", the Hon. Member for St. John's West, ask the people of Atlantic Canada to look to if three-quarters-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order. The Hon. Member knows full well that he should put the question to a Minister and name the Minister. Would the Hon. Member put his question again, please?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, let me put the question to the Prime Minister. To what region of Canada will the Government recommend that Atlantic Canadians look when the Prime Minister will not stand today to say he will not allow $3 billion to be cut from UIC in that region? Does the Prime Minister plan to build a prison in every port of call in Atlantic Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know how offended my hon. friend is by partisan references so I want to be very, very careful in that regard. I expressed what I am sure is the concern of all Members of the House of Commons when I indicated that our concern is that the relative prosperity that we are in the process of achieving is not fairly shared across Canada. That is a concern of Government and a concern of all Members of the House. We are working toward achieving a greater degree of equality.
I know my hon. friend will be pleased to learn, for example, that, when we came to office, the unemployment rate in Newfoundland was at 23.8 per cent and it has been reduced by 3.2 per cent already. While that is unacceptable, it indicates some degree of progress.
October 14, 1986


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister and relates to the meeting held in Reykjavik on the weekend. How does the Government intend to support the ABM Treaty now that President Reagan has made clear his intention to test and deploy ABM systems outside the laboratory within 10 years?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to try to anticipate what may or may not happen in the next 10 years but our treaty is clear and the position of the Government of Canada with regard to ABM is clear. We have conveyed that to all Parties. There has been no change in our position.


POSITION OF UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, it is now clear from the weekend conference that the United States intends to violate the ABM Treaty. Exactly a year ago, Secretary of State Shultz stated at the North Atlantic Assembly meeting in San Francisco that the United States would adhere to a strict or restrictive interpretation of ABM. Would the Prime Minister not agree now that George Shultz lied to us a year ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the Hon. Member would like to rephrase his question.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I will put it in the way we would say it in our own Chamber. Would the Prime Minister not agree that the Secretary of State for the United States misled the North Atlantic Assembly so that we would pass a pro-SDl resolution at that very important meeting of parliamentarians of NATO countries?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that George Shultz needs me to defend his honour. It is well known and well accepted both here and around the world.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It is one thing to correct abuses in the unemployment insurance program but it is another thing to gut a program completely which has served unemployed Canadians well for many, many years. Would the Prime Minister make a commitment today that he will implement no cuts recommended by the Forget Commission until the Standing Committee of the House has had an opportunity to examine fully any report put forward by
Oral Questions
the Forget Commission and is able to put forward alternative proposals to support the unemployed in their time of need?
Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, how many times do I have to repeat to the Hon. Member that there are no cutbacks in the Forget Report because there is no Forget Report? We are going to wait until November 30, and then we will talk about the Forget Report.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of consternation out there now. No matter what the Forget Commission says, can the Government not make a commitment today that that report will be sent to the Standing Committee of the House for a complete examination by all Parties in the House before any cuts are implemented? Can the Minister make that commitment today?
Benoît Bouchard: A year ago, this Government set up a bona fide commission that would report to the Government, and whether the Hon. Member likes it or not, we are going to wait for the Commission's recommendations before taking any kind of action.


BENEFITS PAID TO FISHERMEN
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration. Fishermen and their families from coast to coast know that the concept of annualization, if applied to them, will force them onto the welfare rolls and will push their communities into a deepening cycle of poverty. Could the Minister reassure these people that there will not be cuts to the unemployment insurance program, cuts that will either decrease their eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits or decrease the benefits they will receive?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, earlier, the Prime Minister referred to the statement in the Budget. Do I have to repeat it once more?

He said that he wants to emphasize that we are not undertaking this review with an objective of reducing federal contributions to the unemployed. I think that is very clear.


CALCULATION OF PENSIONS AS INCOME
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will get a more positive answer to this

October 14, 1986
Oral Questions
question. Close to 60,000 pensioners who are not yet ready to retire are already suffering because of present regulations that deduct their pension income or severance pay from unemployment insurance payments. Will the Minister rescind those unjust regulations both retroactively and permanently?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member what is more positive for the unemployed than for us to say that they will be fully supported by the Government? What could be more positive than to tell these people that we will be supportive of the unemployed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION FROM UNITED KINGDOM
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to draw Hon. Members' attention to the presence in the gallery today of a parliamentary delegation from the United Kingdom led by Mr. Anthony Nelson, Member of Parliament. The delegates are visiting Canada as guests of the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CRIMINAL CODE
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Last spring the Minister's predecessor indicated in the House that he was presently reviewing gun control legislation particularly as it refers to handguns. Could the Minister advise the House if he is now prepared to introduce amendments to the Criminal Code and, if so, when those amendments will be introduced?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, indeed there is a review taking place pursuant to commitments made by my predecessor. The principles of that review will be the enhancement of public protection as well as the removal of the burden of some requirements with respect to legitimate gun owners. I hope to have the recommendations in my hand very shortly and that undoubtedly will lead to legislation.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Now, no more hiding their heads in the sand! Two members of the Forget Commission revealed part of the Commission's recommendations. Now, this is what I want to ask the Minister: Quite honestly, can the Minister get on the telephone, call the Commission members and tell them that recommendations of this kind are unacceptable to Canadians? They are being paid $1,000 a day: let them make recommendations that are fair to Canadians. Are you or are you not able to tell them so?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I can speak in the same tone of voice as the Hon. Member, but I shall refrain. I think he ought to know that when a Government gives a commission a mandate, the least it can do is let the commission submit its report. And one thing is certain: this side of the House, has a perfectly unanimous position on this question, which is more than can be said for the other side, considering what we saw on the weekend in Montreal with the young Liberals.


FUTURE OF EARLY RETIREES
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, earlier, the Minister was asking what more he could do to ensure... There are 34,000 people in Canada, 34,000 early retirees whose unemployment insurance benefits have been unfairly cut off. Can the Minister rise in the House and tell these people: You are going to be entitled to your benefits, and it will be retroactive? Can you do that or do you have to wait for the other guys?


Benoît Bouchard: Once again, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my hon. friend, we are going to make certain decisions with respect to the pensioners you referred to. We said we were going to do that within ... and so far, there is no reason why I should do so before the Forget Report is tabled. In any case, this is all part of the same process we have been telling you about for the past year.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The people


*
October 14, 1986

of Saskatchewan, particularly farmers, continue to be very confused about the Government's so-called $1 billion farm aid program. Is the Minister prepared to announce whether any decisions have been made concerning the form of assistance and its allocation? If he is not prepared to do so today, when will he be prepared to make some announcements?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there is only one reason the people of western Canada and indeed the grain farmers of Canada are somewhat confused, that is, the continuing effort on the other side of the House to distort and to add confusion. There is no question about that at all.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: We indicated in the House-the Prime Minister and I have responded to questions-that the Government is determined to put $1 billion into the hands of Canadian farmers.


Mr. Keeper:: When?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that answer will not satisfy Saskatchewan farmers. They want some answers now because they need those answers now.


ANNOUNCEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO SASKATCHEWAN PREMIER
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Premier of Saskatchewan announced to the people of that province that some $450 million would be going to Saskatchewan farmers. The next day Deputy Ministers from Ontario, Manitoba, and Alberta denied it. Could the Minister tell us today whether the Premier is confusing the voters and farmers of Saskatchewan, or is it that he or anyone else, including the Government, does not know what the $1 billion farm aid program is all about?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday we met with the Deputy Ministers. This Thursday we will meet with farm leaders. At that time we will have the benefit of the advice and suggestions of the Deputy Ministers and indeed of farm leaders. I indicated last week that if it takes a week or two weeks for us to make it fair and equitable, that if we have to take a little longer to do it right, we are going to take that time.


SITUATION OF FARMERS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture as well. He talked about confusion. Obviously the confusion is between the Premier of Saskatchewan and the Minister of Agriculture across the way. On Friday the Premier of Saskatchewan announced clearly that a $457 million cash deficiency payment would be provided. At the same time the Minister's office here was saying that no decision had been reached-
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the Hon. Member put his question, please?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Who are the farmers supposed to believe-a desperate Premier in Saskatchewan who is trying to get reelected, or a Minister of Agriculture who is trying to provide a deficiency payment with no money?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I had some difficulty following the logic and the reasoning in the Hon. Member's question. The fact is that farmers with whom I spoke across the country are not confused. They recognize that the Government was with them from the day it was sworn in. We have been with them consistently each and every day, with some 317 initiatives delivering well over $5.6 billion. Indeed, over and above that, there will be a new program of $1 billion-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Is it the Government's plan to negotiate cynically through the Saskatchewan election by leading people to believe that there will be a cash deficiency payment and, after the election is over, to announce that it is only a loan guarantee, loans which have to be repaid by farmers who are already over their heads in debt? Is that the plan of the Minister?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can say to the Hon. Member is: Just watch us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: Just watch us.


Some Hon. Members:: We are!


John Wise: I invite the Hon. Member to check the record. When we make commitments, we deliver on those commitments, and we are going to deliver on this one.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that he does not care about poverty and will leave it to the private sector to create jobs. Does the Minister of Finance agree with

October 14, 1986
Oral Questions
this philosophy, since in British Columbia average family incomes went down from $30,000 to $26,000 over five years and family poverty increased by 85 per cent under this kind of philosophy? Does he advocate private sector jobs at $3.65 per hour minimum wages as a means of alleviating poverty?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the Hon. Member that Statistics Canada has recently released some figures indicating that, for the first time since 1980, there was a decline in the number of Canadians living in households with incomes below the low income threshold, and that the number of Canadians living in low income households fell by 298,000. It is still too high, but it is good progress. It is the first time since 1980 that it was reversed.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Those statistics must have been taken from Toronto, because in British Columbia Statistics Canada indicates that incomes went down from $30,000 to $26,000 over-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member to put her question.


REQUEST FOR COMMUNITY JOB-CREATION PROGRAMS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As an anti-poverty measure, will the Minister introduce aggressive community job-creation programs in low income communities-child care, women's programs, and programs for our youth and the elderly-to extend services and help promote self-help?
[ Translation)


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, our jobs strategy includes a whole series of initiatives, including one which will become increasingly important in coming weeks, namely the community development program. We shall be announcing in the near future a number of communities which will benefit under this program, especially in British Columbia, but also in other provinces. This will enable us to act directly with these communities to alleviate the unemployment problem in these regions.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who is also a distinguished Member from Alberta. As the Minister knows, ever since last February the Minister of Indian Affairs has had in his hands the report of the Hon. E. Davie Fulton on the
aboriginal claim of the Lubicon Lake Indian people. Could the Minister explain to the House why the Government is offering the Lubicon people less than one half the quantity of land which the Hon. E. Davie Fulton said was a reasonable basis for a just settlement for these people in northern Alberta?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows that this is a very complex issue. The Minister is seized with the issue at the present time. I should simply like to inform him that he will probably be in the House tomorrow. I ask him to defer his question until the Minister is here in that he is much more fully briefed on the matter than I am.


FULTON COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that it is a complex question, but he knows that this is becoming a matter of considerable international embarrassment to Canada. Will he assure the House that the Government will move quickly to make a fair and just settlement with the Lubicon people and that the recommendations of no less a person than the Hon. E. Davie Fulton will be taken into full and complete consideration?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, without totally accepting the premise of the question, I would simply say to the Hon. Member that I will take that as a representation, inform the Hon. Minister, and hope that he will respond fully, to the satisfaction of the Hon. Member, when he returns to the House.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for Canada Post.
Since September 30, 1986, the customers of the Launay rural route in Abitibi must collect their mail at the Launay-Station post office, several miles from their home. The Canada Post Corporation has said that this decision is due to its will to provide profitable postal services.
Mr. Speaker, my question is this: Has the Canada Post Corporation considered the hardships such a decision will cause to the senior citizens and the handicapped of this outlying region as they will have to travel several miles during the long Abitibi winter?
October 14, 1986


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to remind the Hon. Member that the Canada Post Corporation must manage its funds as efficiently as possible and that it must constantly review its delivery services to achieve a balance between the services provided at best cost. This means that certain corporate decisions such as the one mentioned by the Hon. Member have to be made.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Both the Prime Minister and Minister have just assured us that the Government had no intention of reducing federal contributions to the unemployed when the Forget Commission was set up.
Is the Government maintaining this intention towards the unemployed, and does this mean that the Government will not impose any cutbacks in unemployment insurance benefits for people suffering from unemployment in this country?


Benoît Bouchard: Its premise being entirely wrong, Mr. Speaker, how could I answer this question adequately.
The Prime Minister has stated and I have repeated later on that the statement by the Minister of Finance would take into account the whole of the unemployed. This seems to me to be quite clear. That obviously includes those you have referred to.
But, again, we are referring to the statement made by the Minister of Finance.


INQUIRY WHETHER MAJOR CUTBACKS WILL BE MADE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that the Forget Report is recommending a S930 million cutback in unemployment insurance benefits for the province of Quebec alone?
Is the Minister telling us now that the Government may compensate through a number of jobs creating schemes, while effectively making major cutbacks in unemployment insurance benefits, as proposed by the Forget Commission?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Hon. Member to wait until the Forget Commission has tabled its report.
Oral Questions


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the deplorable report which was presented to him from his Toronto Conservative caucus. In reviewing the funding for multicultural organizations, the report recommends that:
There should be nothing arbitrary about funding cuts or increases: Liberal funding patterns should be disposed of, and a politically intelligent PC pattern take their place.
This is an insult to the very integrity as well as the allegation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member no doubt has views as to what it is, but the Hon. Member's obligation is to put a question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, quite simply would the Prime Minister explain what a politically intelligent PC pattern of funding means? Which groups will be cut off financially because they fail to advance the cause of the Conservative Party of Canada?


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer the question. With respect to politically intelligent policies, I would ask the Hon. Member to wait until I come forward with them.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Edward Crombie: Second, concerning the other part of the Member's question, that is an insult to the people he chooses to defend.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has regrettably failed to rise in his place.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. Members know that Ministers have a discretion, including the Prime Minister, whether to answer a question or whether another Minister will do so. Will the Hon. Member put his question?


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Rather than taking it as a joke, will he do the courageous and logical thing-


Mr. Blaikie:: Cut him off.


Sergio Marchi: -to dissociate himself and reject publicly this sleazy report so that Canadians can be assured that the policies of multiculturalism and, indeed, immigration are

October 14, 1986
Oral Questions
above the political manoeuvres of the Conservative Party of Canada?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, the responsibility for recommending policies affecting multicultur-alism are mine. I can assure the Hon. Member that I will carry out those responsibilities as I have always done.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Hon. Member ought not to use this forum for the kind of slander he just offered.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Science and Technology concerning the National Research Council funds to be used to finance Canadian participation in research for the United States SDI project. Can the Minister confirm that the study done by the Canadian Institute of Advanced Studies which recommended participation in the project assumed that new research money would be spent and not money taken from existing NRC programs?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's premise is wrong. The Government is not actively involved with any aspect of the SDI project in the United States.
The Canadian space program is a civilian program which included the participation of 13 European countries, Japan and the United States.


USE OF COUNCIL'S FUNDS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister confirm that the NRC funds for space research will not be used by NRC personnel but will simply be passed on to large aerospace companies, such as Spar Aerospace, that will get the contracts and the employment? How, without this money, can the Minister say there will be no job cuts at the NRC?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the space program sees an increasing role for the National Research Council. The NRC presently does about 38 per cent of space related activities, namely, the Space Science Program, the Astronauts Program and the Space User Development Program. The Government envisages the role of the NRC to increase significantly over the years of the announcement that we made in May of a more comprehensive space program.


AGRICULTURE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. He will know that the grain producers are pleased with the billion dollar promise-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Question.


Geoff Wilson: -but want to have some hand in the system of delivery. Is the Minister prepared to listen not only to the provinces involved but also to the farm community in determining a pay-out which is fair and equitable to all concerned?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's continuing interest in the problems of Canadian farmers. As he will know by discussions that he, I and others have had, and also from responses to questions in the House, we are actively consulting with the provinces. We will be consulting specifically with farm leaders. We are receiving advice throughout the whole farm community, from all regions of the country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Science and Technology. The budget of the National Research Council has been cut since November, 1984, by $130 million or close to 30 per cent. Will the Minister advise the House which programs the NRC has been forced to slash at its board meeting today as a result of the latest decisions of the Government, to comply with its most recent cuts?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the information which the Hon. Member wishes to introduce in debate here is again not based on fact. There has not been a 30 per cent reduction in NRC funding. It is true that the executive board of the NRC is meeting today and will make an announcement as to the rationalization program that is going on within the NRC consistent with the priority the Government has announced in the Throne Speech.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is new, rationalization.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said it is not based on fact. I invite him to take a look at the Government's own estimates. Why has the Government asked
October 14, 1986

the National Research Council to take on new activities while imposing new cuts and giving no new moneys for the additional activities? Which programs will be cut as a result of this decision? Which universities and which businesses are being left high and dry by the actions of the Government?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is correct that the NRC will be assigned new responsibilities in connection with the space program, that will result in an increase in the NRC's budget of $226 million over a five-year period and $800 million over a 15-year period.


CUSTOMS TARIFF
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that my question will be answered by the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Finance. Now that the report of the Canadian Book Publishers' Council documenting the very negative effect of the book tariff is available, is the Prime Minister prepared to announce that the tariff will be removed?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member would also want to mention the commitment of the Government to the Canadian book publishing industry which can be shown by the fact that earlier this year some $ 13 million was committed to the book publishing industry. Over a five-year period that would total some $65 million. That is a major increase.
The Hon. Member will also know that the book tariff was imposed in June of this year by the Minister of Finance and the Government in retaliation for certain unwarranted actions that were taken by the United States. Those measures will be considered in due course by the Minister of Finance.


WELCOME TO NEW PAGES
Mr. Speaker:: I know that Hon. Members would want me to note that we are into the Second Session of this Parliament. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the presence of the Pages who have been appointed to assist us in the months to come.
I think all Members would agree that our Page program has been a great success and that the young people appointed have consistently shown themselves to be worthy representatives of our Canadian youth of whom we have reason to be proud.
Privilege-Mr. Marchi

I am convinced that our new recruits will benefit as much as their predecessors from their stay with us and I hope that this experience will be for them a source of satisfaction and enrichment. I am sure all Hon. Members will want to joint with me to wish them every success.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POINT OF ORDER
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing Order 103 reads as follows:
A Minister of the Crown shall lay upon the Table a certified copy of an Order in Council, stating that a certain individual has been appointed to a certain nonjudicial post, not later than five sitting days after the Order in Council is published in the Canada Gazette.
On September 20 the Government published in the Canada Gazette the appointments of one Norman Spector to Federal-Provincial Relations and one Bruce Howe to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. To my knowledge the Government has not yet tabled those appointments as it is required to do under Standing Order 103, which are then referred to a committee.
I want to point this out to the House in order to give the Government a chance to remedy its way.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter and report back to the Hon. Member.


PRIVILEGE
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege that originated from my question in the House earlier this afternoon. The response from the Hon. Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Crombie) was that: "He", referring to myself: "should ought not to use this forum for the kind of slander he has just offered".
Beauchesne, at page 105, states:
Since 1958, it has been ruled unparliamentary to use the following expressions:
It goes on to note at page 110 that the word "slanderous" and slanderous accusations were deemed unparliamentary by the then Speaker on August 8, 1960, at page 7777 of Hansard.
Therefore, I ask the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, through you, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw that allegation because

October 14, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
it is unfitting that he should label me for repeating a direct quote which originates from a leaked document from his colleagues. It certainly does not start this session of Parliament with the civility about which his leader has preached.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I clearly meant to use the word in a non-legal way. 1 was not aware that it was unparliamentary. Now that it has been brought to my attention, I have much respect for this institution and therefore withdraw the word.
Some Hon. Mlembers: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-5, an Act to regulate interests in petroleum in relation to frontier lands, to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and to repeal the Canada Oil and Gas Act, as reported (with amendments) from a Legislative Committee.
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Motion No. 7A:
That Bill C-5, be amended by deleting Clause 53.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we in this Party recommend that Clause 53 be removed altogether because it is completely contrary to what the Government says it is trying to do with respect to the Canadianization of the oil and gas industry in this country.
It says that Clauses 45 through 52 do not apply in respect of any production licence that may be issued in relation to a commercial discovery area to which the drilling of the first well that indicated the discovery commenced before March 5, 1982. The fact is that most of the oil and gas finds in the frontier were actually a result of drilling that commenced prior to March 5, 1982. This means that for any drilling that took place before March 5, 1982 and from which oil and gas has been discovered as a result of that drilling, the Government and the country is not obliged to require 50 per cent Canadian participation in the production. At the same time, the Government has been bragging that it increased the Canadianization of the oil and gas industry from 42 per cent to 47 per cent in the first year that it was in office.
Now we are seeing exactly what the Government is doing. It has used the purchase of Gulf Canada by Olympia and York, and the sale of Gulf Canada's downstream assets to Petro-Canada in central and western Canada as a smokescreen for its real intention, which is to make it clear that it does not care who owns the oil and gas reserves in this country. The Government wants to turn the clock as far back as the 1960s
and 1950s when the oil patch was dominated by foreign ownership. That is why we want Clause 53 deleted from the Bill. We believe that it is our duty to future Canadians to ensure that our resources stay in Canadian hands.
Clause 53 gives the Government an escape hatch because, while it appears to be protecting Canadian ownership, Clause 53 denounces those clauses which protect Canadians. The Government is saying that it simply wants to get these reserves off its hands. It does not matter whether the owner is Canadian.
Clause 53 is a clandestine attempt to imply that the Government is interested in Canadianization, saying that 50 per cent of all production must be through Canadian ownership. Yet at the end of the clause on Canadianization it says that it does not apply to any commercial discovery area on which the drilling of the first well that indicated the discovery commenced before March 5, 1982.
Let us look at that. What does it mean? From information gained from core samples and the determination of the terrain under the ocean you can determine whether there are reserves of oil and gas. That is why oil companies drill in certain areas as opposed to others. The core samples indicate whether there is oil and gas in a given area. You do not have to actually strike large pockets of oil and gas to get that indication. You can have the indication in many ways.
We are opening up a tremendous loophole so the oil and gas companies can back away from putting 50 per cent of the ownership of the discovery in Canadian hands. Even if this Government is dedicated to Canadianization, which I am convinced it is not, there is going to be a battle from the time of the initial discovery until the resource is exhausted because the companies concerned are not going to release the portion of the discovery that the Government would like us to believe they are going to have to release to Canadianization. The Government is not interested in Canadianization because this clause removes any thrust towards Canadianization that the Act may have.
Not only do we not have ownership of our oil and gas reserves, we are once again discouraging Canadian companies from participating in their own energy industry. We are telling Canadian companies that they are small, they do not have the big bucks and they cannot participate. We want the major companies to do it because it is not as complicated. We just let them go ahead, take whatever they want, they can leave the country with as much profit as they want, without Canadian participation and without federal government regulation to make sure that the Canadian public benefits from its own oil and gas industry.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member with a great deal of interest. Obviously the Liberals have changed their energy policy yet again. Even
October 14, 1986

their infamous National Energy Program did not grandfather the resource to before March, 1982. Yet now the Liberals are calling for retroactivity in the energy industry. I thought they learned their lesson. They alienated the west and the energy industry by retroactivity, and now my friend from Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) has instituted a new Liberal energy policy. I want that marked down in the books today. There is a new Liberal energy policy. They want retroactivity to go beyond 1982. We are opposed to that.
I should not go any further than that, but I might point out to the Hon. Member that before 1982 all oil companies under the Canada Oil and Gas Land regulations were subject to Canadian ownership regulations. Who brought those in? They have been in existence since 1960 and were brought in by the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker. The Conservative Government of that time was talking about Canadian ownership. That Government brought in those regulations and they are still in effect for pre-1982 discoveries. Even the Liberal Government respected that when it brought in the NEP. That was one of the few things it did respect in the energy sector. I am surprised, and I am sure those people out west will be very, very surprised, to see the Liberals talking not only about back-ins and confiscation, but now wanting to go back before 1982 and do some more confiscating. Well, we say nay to such nonsense.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned John George Diefenbaker. The poor man would be spinning in his grave if he knew what the Conservatives have done to Canadianization. He was a great spokesman for Canada and Canadianization. He had to make some difficult decisions in order to stand up for Canada. Yet look at the modern Conservative Party. They just folded the National Energy Program and in this Bill they are getting rid of the back-in provisions. They are in fact caving in to pressure from Uncle Sam. I am surprised that the statute of John George Diefenbaker in front of this building is not spinning while 1 say this. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is on shaky ground when he evokes the memory of the former Hon. Member for Prince Albert.
He was also on shaky ground earlier when he said to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) that this Act does not apply to British Columbia. I did not quite understand that because frontier lands are defined as land belonging to Her Majesty in right of Canada, and refers to Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and those submarine areas not within a province and adjacent to the coast of Canada.


John Horton McDermid: Not within a province.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Is that the policy of the Government, that British Columbia gets everything out there?


John Horton McDermid: Not within a province.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I would like to get that on the record. Does that mean-
Canada Petroleum Resources Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member addressing the Chair? If he wishes an answer, I wish he would go through the Chair; he might then get an answer.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am going through the Chair. I hope at some point later in the debate the Hon. Member will clarify his remarks. I find that to be an absolutely extraordinary statement.
In any case, I want to support my friend from Cape Breton-The Sydneys on this particular provision.


John Horton McDermid: Read it again.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I want to re-emphasize the fact that this is not an energy policy. This is a regime for future drilling if it ever comes about. Not only that, it is a regime to once again sell out. It is like turning the clock back to an old regime in which we gave Canadian resources to foreigners. I call it back to the future. We allowed ourselves to be exploited in the worst possible sense of the term. In my view we did not even deserve to be thought of as much of a country because we did not have the guts to control and develop our own resources. In his remarks my friend from Cape Breton was hinting at this line of argument as well. I will have more to say on other amendments.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I also listened carefully to the interventions of the Parliamentary Secretary on Clause 53 in Part V of the Bill with regard to Canadian ownership. In his intervention he did not take into account that four years have gone by since 1982 and that the situation which has emerged warrants the intervention of my colleague requesting that Clause 53, which is virtually the main pillar of Part V, be struck out.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Nonsense.


Mr. Caccia:: The Parliamentary Secretary says "nonsense". The fact that we want to ensure 50 per cent ownership of Canadian oil and gas can be described more charitably than as "nonsense". This is of public and national interest. In the light of what developed in the last four years I would like to draw to his attention the fact that this clause has merit, regardless of what was debated in 1982. We now have a different set of circumstances and are, more than ever, anxious to establish Canadian ownership of our oil and gas resources.
Without Clause 53, Part V loses its muscle and thrust. This is the engine of the entire Canadian ownership theme. My colleague's motion requests that Clause 53 be deleted in order to give some muscle and impact to the section of the Bill entitled Canadian Ownership.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary can look to the past to find some strength for his counterargument. Today the Government of Canada must develop its policy for 1986. Our major concern and preoccupation must be to ensure the largest

October 14, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
possible degree of Canadian ownership of our oil and gas resources in the north. The effect of not removing Clause 53 will be to virtually emasculate Part V of the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 7A standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Therefore, we will go on. Motions Nos. 9, 10, and 11 will be grouped for debate and voted upon separately.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-5, be amended in Clause 76 by striking out lines 3 to 20 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor:
"76.(1) There shall be established in the accounts of Canada an account under the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment, to be known as the Environmental Studies Research Fund."
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-5, be amended in Clause 78 by striking out lines 39 to 43 at page 36 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) Members of the Board are to be selected for appointment by the Minister of the Environment from the public service of Canada or of any province or from among persons nominated by interest owners or the aboriginal people or local people resident in or abutting frontier lands."
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-5, be amended by deleting Clause 82.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome my colleague, the new Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin). The former Member for Saint-
Maurice was at a time Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and perhaps some day he himself will be too.
Mr. Speaker, I also look forward to seeing new NDP Members for Quebec after the next election.

I knew that would wake them up, Mr. Speaker. That woke them up.

-namely, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse).

Motions Nos. 9, 10, and 11 include some environmental matters. We would not have all these amendments today if the Ministry of Energy, and specifically the Parliamentary Secretary to that Ministry, were more flexible. I believe that the Ministry could have accommodated some of the requests for a better system. This is a terrible system. Clause 76 sets up two funds, one being a research fund and a subaccount under the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It also sets up an account and sub account under the administration of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight).
There is a turf fight in the civil service between the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Energy, Mines and Resources to control things in the north. This is an environmental matter. Why not give it to the Ministry of the Environment? Why do we not exercise some common sense here? This lacks common sense. My amendment would set up one fund.

I hope the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) can listen to what is being said concerning that sentence in the legislation.

My amendment would set up one fund under the administration of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan). When the Minister appoints people he would be required to consider people from the area affected. The Conservative Members on the legislative committee wanted that but the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government would not go for it. That could have been done. It is not a big thing, but it is symbolically important that the Minister will appoint advisers from the south. Again, the north will be colonized and treated in the same way as we used to treat Quebec. The Minister of Energy should consider that.
I will read from the letter from the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut on this matter. It reads as follows:
We are also concerned with the proposed membership of the Environmental Studies Management Board which is given authority to determine environmental and social research priorities. Membership on this board is to be restricted to people from "the public service of Canada or of any province or from among persons nominated by interest owners," or, if the Minister chooses, one member
October 14, 1986

of the public. This does not recognize the contribution aboriginal peoples could make to the Board.
Notice, Mr. Speaker, that company owners and interest owners can get in there but not the aboriginal peoples who only happen to live in the area, at least in the north. The letter continues:
It is particularly insensitive to exclude aboriginal peoples from the board, for hydrocarbon exploration is occurring in their homelands over which they assert aboriginal title. Current administrative arrangements for the Environmental Studies Revolving Fund treat Inuit as the objects of reasearch when instead, we should be involved in determining research needs and priorities, and setting research goals.
The Eskimo or Inuit people are always the object of the research. They are never part of determining research needs and priorities and setting research goals. This can only be done if Inuit are members of the management board.
Can you believe it, Mr. Speaker? How do we explain to the Soviets and Norwegians that our Inuit are just asking to be part of a board which determines studies about their areas and we say, no way? We want it in the Act. I continue quoting:
Consequently we urge that Section 78(3) should be amended to read as follows:
"Members of the Board are to be selected for appointment by the Minister
of the Environment from the Public Service of Canada or any coastal province
or from among persons nominated by interest owners or the aboriginal peoples
of Canada resident in or abutting frontier lands."
Bill C-5 perpetuates a conflict of interest, because the Minister responsible for promoting and regulating northern development is also responsible for research to protect the natural and social environments north of 60. The Environmental Studies Revolving Fund and Management Board should be co-ordinated by the Department of Environment rather than the federal agency most directly involved in regulating industry.
There are conflicts all over the north. I hope that one of the former Ministers of the Environment will rise and speak on this issue. Indian Affairs and Northern Development are sometimes in conflict. It is sometimes an impossible position in which to put a Minister. In this case, it is the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources which is giving out the licenses and, let us face it, it is really concerned with the oil and gas industry. That is its number one producer of energy. That Department is always going to be concerned with that industry.
The simple amendments try to get northerners, easterners and westerners involved in studies. The bureaucrats in Ottawa resist this. They want it to be decided by their people. We say the Department of the Environment-since it has to do with the environment and the other Departments have conflicts- should be involved. In my time in the north I found they want to keep the Department of the Environment out of the north because it is too cozy with DIAND which reluctantly had to share with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. That is reflected in Clause 76. It is a typical Ottawa bureaucratic saw-off; two funds, two sub-accounts. The Department of Indian Affairs and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resoures have carved it up and are determined not to let the Department of the Environment or any local person be
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
involved in determining studies which affect the locals. I know it is difficult because the Bill is so big, but if the back-benchers could actually read it, I think they would agree with our position on it.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my support to these motions. I think the aboriginal peoples, in fact the peoples abutting all of the frontier lands, should have some input with respect to the activity going on on the frontier in oil and gas.
The Government will say that there is input, there are ways of stating their feelings, how they feel that this matter should be going. However, we had testimony from witnesses when considering what was then Bill C-92, which is now Bill C-5, at committee. We were told by the groups who live in the areas where the activity in oil and gas is taking place that they were not consulted, that they expressed their opinions and gave advice only to have it completely ignored. They said they were not really called upon in an advisory capacity and what was done might have been in the interests of the oil and gas indistry, at least in the short term, but it certainly was not in the interests of the people, or the area in which the oil and gas was being examined. This is particularly harmful in the fragile environment of our Canadian north. I think every avenue must be taken to guard the environment and to listen to the people who have lived in these areas for generations. I think the Department of the Environment is the Department which is best able to do that.
To say we do not want another government Department there, that it is only going to muddy the waters, is wrong. We can be told that the Department of the Environment is there in an advisory capacity and in other ways, but that does not satisfy me that the Department is there in the front lines and is inputting as it should. Once an environmental accident occurs, we may never be able to repair the damage, particularly in the Canadian north.
We were dealing with Motion No. 11 which relates to the deletion of Clause 82. I am, as I was before when we were in committee, concerned about what it is really going to do. I am not concerned to the point that I am adamant about deleting the clause but I do feel that if the Government is going to maintain that clause and it is going to remain in the Bill, if the Bill should be passed, then we should have some regulations and further explanations and safeguards as to the administrator of this fund because it is a very important fund. It will be quite significant. I would like to think that the Government is concerned about protecting the interests.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleagues. I suppose there is nowhere more than in the north that we are aware of the need for industry to coexist with its environment. I do not think there is any question about it and we support that. The Environmental Studies Research Fund is a continuing fund. It has been in existence for some time and has worked very well with the Ministry of the


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is something we learned.


John Horton McDermid: They obviously thought that legal expertise was better from the south than it was from the north. The Hon. Member accepted that and probably made his family fortune in doing that work.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of observations in this very interesting debate. First, I would like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary for his thoughtful analysis. He is quite right when he says that there is a new proposed clause in the Bill whereby one member would be appointed to the board at the discretion of each Minister and that one person could be drawn from among the local people, as recommended by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Inevitably, the following question comes to mind. Why restrict the number in such a way? Why not leave it to the Minister to make appointments according to any number that may be suitable according to the skill and talent available at any given time? The idea put forward by the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway and by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) that we should open up the doors to permit the consideration of local people certainly commands a great deal of attention. They also suggest that this approach should not be limited to one person alone.
The other point put forward quite eloquently and touched upon by the Parliamentary Secretary was with respect to the merits of having one fund rather than dividing it along jurisdictional lines, which at times are very fuzzy and difficult to sort out in a logical manner. Whatever touches upon the environment and upon social considerations is so comprehensive that it cannot really be allocated to two specific Departments alone. The idea that the fund be one fund has a great deal of merit. I support the interventions made by both the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys and by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway that this merger be brought about. When one looks at the impact of the oil and gas industry on the north-and as the Parliamentary Secretary reminded us we are talking specifically about the oil and gas industry-one realizes that there are fairly far-reaching environmental as well as social consequences.
While we debate this Bill we can read about the consequences of the withdrawal of the oil and gas industry from places such as Tuktoyaktuk and other locations in the north. When there is such an economic impact affecting a fragile region of the country, its appearance as well as its disappearance bring about some profound and, at times, disastrous consequences. In the present situation the withdrawal of the oil
October 14, 1986

rigs and the multinational companies operating in the north is causing enormous economic hardships. Economies of the north that were not accustomed to this type of injection of funds and sudden increases in incomes all of a sudden find themselves left with very little. Rather than leaving the carrying out of research on the environment and social matters in the north to the discretion of two separate Departments I think greater protection of the people of the north could be achieved if this matter were to be given to one Minister and one Department. In this case 1 must recognize that evidently the Department of the Environment and the Minister of the Environment of the day would have the leading role to play in preventing negative environmental consequences in the first place. At the same time this would avoid social stress and damage in the wake of the withdrawal of this industry as is happening right now. This withdrawal is leaving behind a number of families which are now wondering what their economic future might be in light of the present trend of withdrawal.
Therefore I welcome the inclusion of Part VII. In itself it is basically a good idea. It could be improved upon. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to make representations to his Minister along the lines of those made by my colleagues this afternoon.


Paul Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the comments made by the three opposition spokesmen. However, they seem to be forgetting a couple of points. First and foremost, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development only has impact on part of the frontier lands. It has no impact on offshore Nova Scotia or Newfoundland. I refer to offshore developments on Sable Island and in Hibernia. There should obviously be some distinction between the mandates of the Department of Indian Affairs and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Second, I should point out that the studies go beyond what is normally strictly environmental. They deal with people and the impact of development on those people. That is why it does not belong in the Department of the Environment but with these two Ministers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 9 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour please say yea.
Canada Petroleum Resources Act


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 10 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 11 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 11 (Mr. Waddell) negatived.

October 14, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next motions, Motions Nos. 12 and 13, will be debated and voted on separately.


Paul Gagnon: Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-5, be amended in Clause 85 by striking out lines 24 and 25 at page 43 and substituting the following therefor:
"summary of its".
He said: Mr. Speaker, Clause 85 currently reads that any time an interest is being disposed of, a copy of the arrangement should be sent to the Minister. That means that any time a company wants to farm in land or farm out land, the entire agreement must be sent to Ottawa.
What do we mean by farming in and farming out? Normally, oil companies obtain mineral rights and they lower their risk by taking a smaller percentage in a number of tracts rather than a big percentage in one tract. The chances of finding commerical hydrocarbons, be it oil or gas, are much better if the oil company has an interest in 10 tracts than if it has an interest in just one. Consequently, as part of the normal process, leases are traded, interests are traded and farm ins and farm outs are given. This means that a work commitment is undertaken by one party so it acquires an interest.
As it now stands in the frontier areas, because of the depressed price of oil, there are not many contracts, so this causes no problem. However, let us look at the future. In the first half of 1986, world-wide production of oil has increased by 4.1 per cent or 2.1 million barrels. That is one-third more than Canada produces. Most of this added production came out of OPEC. When OPEC decides that it will raise the price again, we will have to meet our supply problems by going to the frontier lands. We will have to go to the Beaufort, the Hibernia and the Venture. Activity will pick up.
Currently, maybe only one contract per week is negotiated. By the end of the decade, that might be up to one per day. By the mid-1990s, it might be 10 per day. Pretty soon, the way the Bill currently reads, 10 contracts, each in excess of 100 pages, will land on a desk in Ottawa every day and someone will have to look at them and understand them. Pretty soon there will be a big Department trying to understand these complex relationships. Pretty soon there will be a warehouse to store all these things.
What I am proposing is very simple. Let the oil companies send a summary of the contract to Ottawa. We will know what is going on. A one-page summary can indicate that Company A will acquire an interest in Company B's acreage if it does such and such. This means less bureaucracy and less of a storage problem. 1 would point out that in other jurisdictions like Alberta, a summary is not even required, let alone the full contract. That is the thrust of this motion.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Are we debating Motions Nos. 12 and 13 together?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No, separately.


John Horton McDermid: We are debating them separately?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, we are debating them separately. The proposal was that Motions Nos. 12 and 13 be debated and voted on separately.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Government has taken a look at the amendment introduced by my friend, the Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon). He has a very good point. The myriad of agreements that do take place in the energy industry could be mountainous and, no doubt, voluminous. However, having said that, I feel very strongly that there should be a provision in the Bill to permit the Minister, if he has questions about the summary which cannot be answered within it and he requires further information, to obtain the information he requires.
Although not directly accepting the amendment as proposed, the Government would be interested in accepting an amendment to the amendment which would do as I have suggested. It would require industry to send in summaries of agreements but would give the Minister permission to obtain further information if so required. We would be prepared to entertain that amendment to the amendment.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I would like to speak to that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow).


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move the following amendment to the amendment, and I am sure that the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) would second it. It reads:
That the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Calgary North be amended by striking out line 26 at page 43 of Clause 85 of Bill C-5 and substituting the following:
"terms and conditions or, on the request of the Minister, a copy of the
agreement or arrangement".
Therefore Clause 85, starting at line 26 on page 43 would read:
arrangement to the Minister, together with a summary of its terms and
conditions or, on the request of the Minister, a copy of the agreement or
arrangement.
This reverses the onus. Only a summary would be required by an interest holder when a transfer, assignment, or another disposition takes place, unless the Minister physically requested a copy of the agreement or arrangement. I think the Hon. Member for Calgary North would agree that this would reduce the paperwork, and I think it would receive his support.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: At this point I will recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) and look at the amendment to see if it is in order.
October 14, 1986


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to it while you are doing that. It is a perfect example of how the Conservatives approached this Bill. Every point the industries asked for, the industries got; every point the native people asked for, the native people were turned down. Every time environmentalists ask for something, they are turned down. We can look at the record. This is a perfect example. Now there is a bit too much paperwork for the companies. For the native people, it is their land and their lives, and look what the Conservatives do. They are disgusting. They deserve to be tossed out. We will oppose this amendment and vote against it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Since this is an amendment to the Bill, in order to get around all the paperwork, I would appreciate it if the House would allow the Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon) to withdraw the amendment the Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon) and substitute the amendment of the Hon. Member for Calgary South. Is that agreeable?


Paul Gagnon: Agreeable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: So agreed.
Motion No. 12 (Mr. Gagnon) withdrawn.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I will put the amendment by the Hon. Member for Calgary North
first.


Paul Gagnon: That Bill C-5, be amended in Clause 85 by striking out line 26 at page 43 and substituting the following therefor:
"terms and conditions or, on the request of the Minister, a copy of the agreement or arrangement".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Therefore, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the
yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
Canada Petroleum Resources Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 13
That Bill C-5, be amended in Clause 112 by striking out lines 1 to 5 at page 63.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should not have become emotional about the last matter, but it really is striking. I just cannot believe how the Government could be so insensitive to the people who live in the north. It is astounding.
My Motion No. 13 attempts to amend subclause 112(3) at page 63 of the Bill. Presently the subclause reads:
All rights of Petro-Canada to acquire further interests or shares in interests as a result of the operation of Section 33, 120 or 121 of the Canada Oil and Gas Land Regulations are abrogated as of March 5, 1982.
One of the most important points of the Bill is that it abolishes the Crown share, the 25 per cent back-in provision which gave the Government of Canada, the people of Canada, the right to acquire an interest in petroleum finds that proved commercially viable, in recognition of the burden assumed by Canadian taxpayers in the promotion of exploration and development of Canadian frontier resources. This burden remains because the Conservatives are to eliminate PIP grants and bring in a tax credit policy.
In committee we found that from 1980 to 1987 something like $7.1 billion was advanced in terms of PIP grants. I know money was also taxed from the industry, but the fact is that $7.1 billion was advanced for frontier exploration. The former Minister of Energy, the Hon. Marc Lalonde, appeared before a previous energy committee. I should like to paraphrase what he said at the time. He said that another $4 billion or $5 billion was in fact advanced to the energy industry by tax advantages, the famous super depletion allowances, and so on, in the period between 1960 and 1980. We are looking a.t somewhere in the neighbourhood of $10 billion to $12 billion which went to the energy industry to drill in the frontiers of Canada.
Of course the irony is that, just as that policy was proving to be a little successful, in the sense of a good well in the Beaufort Sea, in the offshore of Newfoundland, in the Grand Bank, and in the Venture field in Nova Scotia, the whole thing is now collapsing with the low price of world oil. It was a tremendous investment.
The large multinational oil companies represented by the Canadian Petroleum Association and by the Government of the United States, the two lobby groups representing them, harped, lobbied, threatened, and cajoled the Government to Canada to remove this 25 per cent back-in. The matter went to the highest levels. The President of the United States at the Shamrock Summit in Quebec City pressed the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney). We had the Government of the United States and the Canadian Petroleum Association, especially the Canadian Petroleum Association, writing the

October 14, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
Conservatives' energy policy when the Conservative Party was in opposition. If one looks at the briefs of the Canadian Petroleum Association to the Senate Committee on Energy and, to some extent, to the House of Commons Committee on Energy, that can be seen. Literally, word for word the Conservative policy is taken out of the briefs of the Canadian Petroleum Association in 1983 to the Senate Committee on Energy. These same words reappear in the Conservative Prince Albert declaration. The main point was to get rid of this horrible confiscatory, retroactive back-in provision. This horrible back-in meant that for all this money the Canadian people spent, Petro-Canada, the Canadian Government's oil company, would get 25 per cent of the action. Compare that situation to the situation in Norway where the regime is much stricter. But according to the multinational oil companies this was terrible. They felt it was stealing, despite the fact that we advanced a great part of the money through direct grants or tax advantages to those companies, many of which do not pay any income tax, and despite the fact that the resources belong to Canada, thank you. They belong to the Canadian people not to Shell, Mobil or Exxon. Some day, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people will wake up.
I remember the recent history of Quebec. I see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) in the House. The Quebec people woke up in the early 1960s. They realized they were being exploited by the English and that they had to do something. They had to become maitre chez nous, and take some control over their society. They modernized their society, and as a result there were lots of changes in Quebec. We got some incredible politicians, the Trudeaus, the Lalondes and maybe the Masses. Who knows? We will see. It is ironic I think-

It is ironic that we should have a Minister from Quebec, and that his first energy bill in this House should be a proposal that would grant the big American oil companies everything they are asking for.

I wish I could speak a little better French but it seems to me ironic that we are caving in to the demands of the Americans and the large oil companies. I think that when the history of Canada is written after we are all gone it will show that the National Energy Program was a great thrust in trying to take control of our own resources. This clause is one of the greatest sell-outs and it will go down in history that this little obscure clause in this big Bill states that:
All rights of Petro-Canada to acquire further interests, or shares in interests as a result of the operation of Section 33, 120 or 121 of the Canada Oil and Gas Land Regulations are abrogated as of March 5, 1982.
In other words the back-in is gone, Petro-Canada has been excluded, and the Government has caved in to the interests of the Canadian Petroleum Association and to our great friend but also the great elephant that can sometimes cause us some
trouble, namely, the United States of America. I think this is tragic, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I proposed this amendment.
Mir. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources): Mr. Speaker, that was a typical speech from a socialist. I understand where it has come from and where the mind-set is. I might point out to the Hon. Member that this clause has been around since 1982. It is nothing new. It is just a reaffirmation of the old Bills. For the Hon. Member to try to paint a picture that this is something new, different and marvellous is wrong. It is just a clause that has been in the Bill since 1982 and we are just reaffirming what was there.


Paul Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I listened with utter amazement to my good friend, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), who said that the previous motion came from the oil industry. It was not recommended by the Canadian Petroleum Association. It was not recommended by the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada. The hon. gentleman was present at the committee hearings when those organizations made their presentations.
Let me point out that I moved the motion to deter the growth of bureaucracy. It is obvious from the comments of the Member for Vancouver Kingsway that he likes bureaucracy, that he likes a big, bloated, expensive bureaucracy. The people of Canada do not want that. They do not want to pay for any more follies of the socialists.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Gagnon: To come back to the current situation. If you look at the fiscal year which ended March 31, 1986, the PGRT revenue was $1.5 billion greater than the PIP expenditures. In other words, the oil industry paid $1.5 billion more than it got back in PIP grants. Yet the Member stood up and said "Oh, it is a big giveaway". Maybe he should say it is a big rip-off of the oil industry and the people of western Canada.
Let me quote from Doig's Digest for June 1986. Concerning the PIP program, Mr. Doig said:
In the last five years, finding costs of frontier reserves have increased fourfold-PIP grants account for $6 billion-$240 per Canadian-or 70 per cent of the expenditures. The normal checks and balances fell by the wayside . . . But the pre and post NEP costs are out of line. Two-thirds of the frontier reserves found in this period have been found in the first 15 years while two-thirds of the expenditures have been made in the last five years.
What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It means that the socialists went through all that money. They grabbed it from the western Canadian economy and wasted it. It was an atrocious situation.
What the Member wants to do is to make it retroactive to steal from someone. It is like having a world series game and in the third inning, instead of having nine players, we would have 12. Is that the way to play the game? I say no. That is not fair. This provision has to go and that is what we are doing.
October 14, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 13 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to taking up the deferred divisions at the report stage of the Bill now before the House.
Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


Mr. Speaker:: The first vote will be on Motion No. 1. Mr. Waddell moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-5, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 4 to 8 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"3. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act abrogates or derogates from
any aboriginal title, right, claim or interest that pertains to the, or any of the,
aboriginal people of Canada."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, considering that there are seven more votes to go, I wonder if I would not find support from all Hon. Members to consider the vote on Motion 1 to be the same as for Motions Nos. 2, 4, 9, 10 and 13?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, I was not here for the first vote. I would like to be included on the government side for the votes on those motions.


Mr. Speaker:: The vote is in the negative.
350

October 14, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, I was not here for the first vote. May I be included in the balance of the votes as you deem it to be recorded?


Mr. Speaker:: The vote is in the negative. I will therefore declare that Motions Nos. 2, 4, 9, 10 and 13 will be lost on the same division. Mr. Waddell moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-5, be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 8 at page 4 the following:
"All lands subject to unsettled aboriginal claims, which have been accepted for negotiation by the federal government, are excluded from the application of this Act."
The House divided on Motion No. 2 (Mr. Waddell), which
was negatived on	the following division. {Division No. 5)
 YEAS Members	
Althouse	Gray	McDonaldAxworthy	(Windsor West)	(Broadview-Green-Berger	Grondin	wood)Blackburn	Guilbault	Mitchell(Brant)	(Saint-Jacques)	MurphyBlaikie	Heap	NicholsonBoudria	Henderson	(Trinity)Broadbent	Johnston	NunziataCaccia	(Saint-Henri-	ParryCopps	Westmount)	Pennerde Corneille	Kaplan	PepinDingwall	Keeper	RiisEpp	Killens	Robichaud(Thunder Bay-	Langdon	RossiNipigon)	MacLellan	TardifFoster	Malepart	(Richmond-Wolfe)Gagliano	Manly	TobinGarneau	Marchi	Waddell-45Gauthier	McCurdy
NAYS Members	Andre	Clark	FennellBeatty	(Brandon-Souris)	FerlandBelsher	Clinch	ForrestallBernier	Comeau	FretzBinns	Cooper	GagnonBissonnette	Cossitt	GirardBlackburn	Cote	Greenaway(Jonquiere)	(Lac-Saint-Jean)	GuilbaultBlais	Cote	(Drummond)Blenkarn	(Langelier)	HallidayBouchard	Crofton	HamelinBourgault	Crosbie	HamiltonBradley	(St. John's West)	HardeyBrightwell	Crouse	HarveyBrisco	Darling	HawkesCadieux	Daubney	HicksCaldwell	de Cot ret	HnatyshynCardiff	Della Noce	HockinChampagne	Desjardins	Holtmann(Saint-Hyacinthe-	Dick	HornerBagot)	Domm	HowieChampagne	Duguay	James(Champlain)	Duplessis	JardineCharest	Edwards	JelinekJepson	McKenzie	SchellenbergerJohnson	McKinnon	(Wetaskiwin)(Bonavista-T rinity-	McMillan	ScottConception)	Merrithew	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Joncas	Minaker	ShieldsKempling	Mitges	SiddonKilgour	Moore	SparrowLandry	Mulroney	StewartLayton	Nicholson	TaylorLewis	(Niagara Falls)	TowersMacDonald	Nickerson	Tupper(Kingston and	Oberle	Valcourtthe Islands)	O'Neil	VankoughnetMacDougall	Oostrom	Vezina(Timiskaming)	Paproski	VincentMacKay	Plourde	WeinerMalone	Porter	WhiteMantha	Price	WinegardMarin	Redway	WiseMartin Masse Mayer Mazankowski McCrossan McDermid	Reid Reimer Ricard St-Julien Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni)	Witer-124


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 4		
That Bill C-5, be amended in Clause 14 by adding immediately after line 35 at page 7 the following:		
" (3) In the formulation of bid criteria, the !		Minister shall be obliged to
consult with representatives of affected aboriginal groups and local communities."


Mr. Speaker:: The next vote will be on Motion No. 7A. Mr. Mac Lei lan moved:		
Motion No. 7A		
That Bill C-5, be amended by deleting Clause 53.		
The House divided on Motion No. 7A (Mr. MacLellan),		
which was negatived	on the following division:	
	(Division No. 7)	
	YEAS	
	Members	
Althouse	Epp	JohnstonAxworthy	(Thunder Bay-	(Saint-Henri-Berger	Nipigon)	Westmount)Blackburn	Foster	Kaplan(Brant) Blaikie	Gagliano Garneau	Keeper KillensBoudria	Gauthier	LangdonBroadbcnt	Gray	MacLellanCaccia	(Windsor West)	MalepartCopps	Grondin	Manlyde Corneille	Guilbault	MarchiDingwall	(Saint-Jacques)	McCurdy
Heap
Henderson
	NAYS	
	Members	
Andre	Fennell	McDermidBeatty	Ferland	McKenzieBelsher	For restall	McKinnonBernier	Fretz	McMillanBinns	Gagnon	MerrithewBissonnette	Girard	MinakerBlackburn	Greenaway	Mitges(Jonqui&re)	Guilbault	MooreBlais	(Drummond)	MulroneyBlenkarn	Halliday	NicholsonBouchard	Hamelin	(Niagara Falls)Bourgault	Hamilton	NickersonBradley	Hardey	OberleBrightwell	Harvey	O'NeilBrisco	Hawkes	OostromCadieux	Hicks	PlourdeCaldwell	Hnatyshyn	PorterCardiff	Hockin	PriceChampagne	Holtmann	Redway(Saint-Hyacinthe-	Horner	ReidBagot)	Howie	ReimerChampagne	James	Ricard(Champlain)	Jardine	St-JulienCharest	Jelinek	SchellenbergClark	Jepson	(Nanaimo-Alberni)(Brandon-Souris)	Johnson	SchellenbergerClinch	(Bonavista-T rinity-	(Wetaskiwin)Comeau	Conception)	ScottCooper	Joncas	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Cossitt	Kempling	ShieldsCdte	Kilgour	Siddon(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Landry	SparrowCdte	Layton	Stewart(Langelier)	Lewis	TaylorCrofton	MacDonald	TowersCrosbie	(Kingston and	Tupper(St. John's West)	the Islands)	ValcourtCrouse	MacDougall	VankoughnetDarling	(Timiskaming)	VezinaDaubney	MacKay	Vincentde Cotret	Malone	WeinerDella Noce	Mantha	WhiteDesjardins	Marin	WinegardDick	Martin	WiseDomm	Masse	Witer-123Duguay	Mayer	Duplessis	Mazankowski	Edwards	McCrossan


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-5, be amended in Clause 76 by striking out lines 3 to 20 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor:
"76(1) There shall be established in the accounts of Canada an account under the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment, to be known as the Environmental Studies Research Fund."


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 10			
That Bill C-5, be amended in Clause 78 by striking out lines 39 to 43 at page			;
36 and substituting the following therefor:			
"(3) Members of the Board are to be selected		for appointment by the	eff
Minister of the Environment from the public service of Canada or of any			
province or from	among persons nominated by	interest owners or the	* iff
aboriginal people or	local people resident in or abutting frontier lands."		
The House divided on Motion No. 10 (Mr. Waddell), which			
was negatived on	the following division:		
	(Division No. 9)		
	YEAS		
	Members		
Althouse	Gray	McDonald	Axworthy	(Windsor West)	(Broadview-G reen-	. 1Berger	Grondin	wood)	Blackburn	Guilbault	Mitchell	'(Brant)	(Saint-Jacques)	Murphy	Blaikie	Heap	Nicholson	Boudria	Henderson	(Trinity)	Broadbent	Johnston	Nunziata	Caccia	(Saint-Henri-	Parry	Copps	Westmount)	Penner	.-Vde Corneille	Kaplan	Pepin	Dingwall	Keeper	Riis	Epp	Kiliens	Robichaud	(Thunder Bay-	Langdon	Rossi	Nipigon)	MacLellan	Tardif	Foster	Malepart	(Richmond-Wolfe)	Gagliano	Manly	Tobin	Garneau	Marchi	Waddell-45	Gauthier	McCurdy	NAYS	Members	Andre	Comeau	Girard	Beatty	Cooper	Greenaway	Belsher	Cossitt	Guilbault	Bernier	Cote	(Drummond)	Binns	(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Halliday	Bissonnette	Cote	Hamelin	Blackburn	(Langelier)	Hamilton	(Jonquiere)	Crofton	Hardey	Blais	Crosbie	Harvey	Blenkarn	(St. John's West)	Hawkes	Bouchard	Crouse	Hicks	Bourgault	Darling	Hnatyshyn	Bradley	Daubney	Hockin	Brightwell	de Cotret	Holtmann	Brisco	Della Noce	Horner	Cadieux	Desjardins	Howie	Caldwell	Dick	James	Cardiff	Domm	Jardine	Champagne	Duguay	Jelinek	(Saint-Hyacinthe-	Duplessis	Jepson	Bagot)	Edwards	Johnson	Champagne	Fennell	(Bonavista-Trinity-	(Champlain)	Ferland	Conception)	Charest	Forrestall	Joncas	Clark	Fretz	Kempling	(Brandon-Souris)	Gagnon	Kilgour	,Clinch	t
October 14, 1986

Canada Petroleum Resources Act
Landry	Minaker	Schellenberger	Mitges	Reid	StewartLayton	Mitges	(Wetaskiwin)	Moore	Reimer	TaylorLewis	Moore	Scott	Mulroney	Ricard	TowersMacDonald	Mulroney	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Nicholson	St-Julien	Tupper(Kingston and	Nicholson	Shields	(Niagara Falls)	Schellenberg	Valcourtthe Islands)	(Niagara Falls)	Siddon	Nickerson	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	VankoughnetMacDougall	Nickerson	Sparrow	Oberle	Schellenberger	Vezina(Timiskaming)	Oberle	Stewart	O'Neil	(Wetaskiwin)	VincentMacKay	O'Neil	Taylor	Oostrom	Scott	WeinerMalone	Oostrom	Towers	Plourde	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	WhiteMantha	Pa proski	Tupper	Porter	Shields	WinegardMarin	Plourde	Valcourt	Price	Siddon	WiseMartin	Porter	Vankoughnet	Redway	Sparrow	Witer-123Masse	Price	Vezina	Mayer	Redway	Vincent	NAYS	Mazankowski	Reid	Weiner	McCrossan	Reimer	White	McDermid	Ricard	Winegard	Members	McKenzie	St-Julien	Wise	McKinnon	Schellenberg	Witer-124	McMillan	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Althouse	Grondin	MitchellMerrithew	Axworthy	Guilbault	MurphyBerger	(Saint-Jacques)	NicholsonBlackburn	Heap	(Trinity)(Brant)	Henderson	Nunziata


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.	Blaikie	Johnston	ParryBoudria	(Saint-Henri-	PennerThe next vote is as follows. Mr. Gagnon moved:	Broadbent	Westmount)	PepinCopps	Kaplan	RiisThat Bill C-5, be amended in Clause 85 by striking out line 26 at page 43 and	de Corneille	Keeper	Robichaudsubstituting the following therefor:	Dingwall	Killens	Rossi"terms and conditions or, on the request of the	Minister, a copy of the	Epp (Thunder Bay-	Langdon MacLellan	Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe)agreement or arrangement".	Nipigon)	Malepart	TobinThe House divided on the motion (Mr. Gagnon), which was	Foster Gagliano	Manly Marchi	Waddell-44agreed to on	the following division:	Garneau	McCurdy	Gauthier	McDonald	Gray	(Broadview-Green-	(Division No. 10)	(Windsor West)	wood)	
Andre
Beatty
Belsher
(Champlain)
Charest
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clinch Comeau Cooper Cossitt Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Cote
(Langelier)
++YEAS
Members
Crofton Crosbie (St. John's West)


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 13
That Bill C-5, be amended in Clause 112 by striking out lines 1 to 5 at page
63.
Howie
James
Jardine
The House divided on Motion No. 13 (Mr. Waddell), which
Bernier	Crouse	Jelinek	Binns	Darling	Jepson	Bissonnette	Daubney	Johnson	Blackburn	de Cotret	(Bonavista-T rinity-	{Division No. 11)(Jonquiere)	Della Noce	Conception)	Blais	Desjardins	Joncas	Blenkarn	Dick	Kempling	YEASBouchard	Domm	Kilgour	Bourgault	Duguay	Landry	Bradley	Duplessis	Layton	MembersBrightwell	Edwards	Lewis	Brisco	Fennell	MacDonald	Cadieux	Ferland	(Kingston and	Althouse	GrayCaldwell	Forrestall	the Islands)	Axworthy	(Windsor West)Cardiff	Fretz	MacDougall	Berger	GrondinChampagne	Gagnon	(Timiskaming)	Blackburn	Guilbault(Saint-Hyacinthe-	Girard	MacKay	(Brant)	(Saint-Jacques)Bagot)	Greenaway	Malone	Blaikie	HeapChampagne	Guilbault	Mantha	Boudria	Henderson
(Drummond)
Halliday
Hamelin
Hamilton
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Marin
Martin
Masse
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCrossan
McDermid
McKenzie
McKinnon
McMillan
Merrithew
Minaker
Broadbent
Caccia
Copps
de Corneille
Dingwall
Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Foster
Gagliano
Garneau
Gauthier
Johnston (Saint-Henri- Westmount) Kaplan Keeper Killens Langdon MacLellan Malepart Manly Marchi McCurdy
McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Nicholson
(Trinity)
Nunziata
Parry
Penner
Pepin
Riis
Robichaud
Rossi
Tardif
(Richmond-Wolfe) Tobin
Waddell-45
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
++NAYS

October 14, 1986
Members
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to introduce the third reading of Bill C-5, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.
Andre
Beatty
Belsher
Bernier
Binns
Bissonnelte
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais Blenkarn Bouchard Bourgault Bradley Brightwcll Brisco Cadieux Caldwell Cardiff Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe- Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charcst
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clinch Comeau Cooper Cossitt Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Cdtc
(Langelicr)
Crofton
Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crouse Darling Daubney de Cotret Della Noce Desjardins Dick Domm Duguay Duplessis Edwards Fennell
Ferland
Forrestall
Fretz
Gagnon
Girard
Greenaway
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Halliday
Hamelin
Hamilton
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
James
Jardine
Jelinek
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-T rinity- Conception)
Joncas
Kempling
Kilgour
Landry
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Malone Mantha Marin Martin Masse Mayer
Mazankowski
McCrossan
McDermid
McKenzie
McKinnon
McMillan
Merrithew
Minaker
Mitges
Moore
Mulroney
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Paproski Plourde Porter Price Redway Reid Reimer Ricard St-Julien Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Shields Siddon Sparrow Stewart Taylor Towers Tupper Valcourt Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent Weiner White Winegard Wise
Witer-124


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please. I know all Hon. Members will want to hear the Minister.


Mr. Masse:: The spirit of this legislation marks a clear break with the philosophy of the National Energy Program introduced by the previous Government. Its fair and straightforward regulations covering the exploration and development of petroleum resources in Canada's frontier lands have come to replace a discriminatory and arbitrary system.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order. Would Hon. Members take their seats or vacate the Chamber and carry on discussions elsewhere? The Minister has the floor.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, this legislation will be well received by the industry, the coastal provinces and the territories because it will put into place a system that not only recognizes the rights of owners and promoters where resources are concerned but also frees the development of frontier lands from cumbersome and useless administrative impediments.
For a little over two years, the Canadian Government has been proceeding with broad consultations with the industry and with the territorial and provincial governments. These consultations have brought concrete results. We now have two systems for joint management with the provinces, one involving Newfoundland and the other Nova Scotia. Furthermore, the Western Accord, the signing of the Agreement on Natural Gas Markets and Prices and the abolition of the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax have been a clear indication to the industry that we are counting on its entrepreneurial spirit to explore and develop our oil and gas resources.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived.


Marcel Masse: that Bill C-5, an Act to regulate interests in petroleum in relation to frontier lands, to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and to repeal the Canada Oil and Gas Act, as amended, be concurred in.
It is common knowledge that both the costs and risks involved in the exploration of oil and gas resources in Canada's North and our offshore regions are far greater than in our other regions.
These considerations are reflected in the Bill before the House today, which establishes fair and straightforward regulations to promote the development of petroleum resources in our frontier lands.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Marcel Masse: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.
The Canada Oil and Gas Act will be replaced by a new legislation stressing both the rights and the obligations of Canadians, the real owners of these resources, as well as those of the industry which develops them.
Under the new law, the discretionary power of the Minister will be reduced. For instance, until now he could select who would be granted exploration rights. Henceforth the granting of exploration rights will be subject to a system of calls for
October 14, 1986

competitive bids and only one criterion will apply: the best bid will be accepted.
Mr. Speaker, you will see as well that the Bill provides for the State to play a much less important role in oil and gas projects. We have repealed the back-in provisions which gave the Government the right to expropriate commercial oil reserves.
Petro-Canada will no longer be given preferential treatment. However the new legislation maintains the right of Canadians to become owners of 50 per cent of projects in remote regions.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the development of resources on our frontier lands is a costly and risky project. By changing the structure of the royalty payment system, Bill C-5 encourages the industry to meet this challenge.
With respect to the resources, our royalty system will guarantee a fair distribution of revenues among owners and developers. It will enable the industry to yield decent profits on its frontier land investments before Governments, the owners of the resources, get their share of royalties. The profit-based system, which eliminates the discriminatory practices of past years, has received the general support of the industry. It will contribute to create the incentives required for a renewal of activities.
Now that we have reached third reading of Bill C-5, I would like the House to recognize the significant contribution of the Legislative Committee to this Bill. Its thorough examination has resulted in useful and constructive amendments to the Bill.
One of these amendments provides that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs (Mr. McKnight) will each appoint from the public one member to the Environmental Studies Management Board. The board, which is made up of representatives of the Government and the industry, manages the Environmental Studies Research Fund, the purpose of which is to finance technical research on the sociological and physical environment in frontier areas.
Other amendments extend the rights of property owners to do exploration and development work in areas of significant discoveries, and increase the rights of production permit holders to continue their exploring on producing lands.
The entire process has hinged on consultation. We have been sensitive to the concerns raised by all parties, especially representatives of the native people.
Other representations were made concerning the information which corporations eager to develop resources in frontier lands must provide the Government. In this regard, we have no intention to impose a heavy administrative burden on our entrepreneurs; what we want is for the state to have the information it needs to assume its responsibilities under this legislation.
On behalf of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the Committee for its contribution in the study of this Bill.
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
During the session, the House will also deal with the Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, and we will introduce shortly a Bill dealing with the implementation of the Canada-Nova Scotia Accord which has just been signed. These legislations will make up the next two stages of our policy to ensure the joint administration of our gaz and oil resources in frontier regions together with regional Governments, which have asked, rightfully so, to have their say about oil and gaz activities in their regions.
Mr. Speaker, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act will serve as the corner stone for the development of oil resources in our frontier regions. The proposed legislation deserves the unanimous support of the House.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, this Bill has been on the Order Paper for a considerable period of time. It seems that the Government has not deemed it fair or fit to make changes or do something to stimulate the energy sector offshore in eastern Canada and in the Beaufort Sea area. It is very sad that the Government has sat and watched the price of oil and gas plummet and has stuck with its pathetic effort in Bill C-5 without any regard for what is happening to the industry.
We covered a great deal in report stage. We referred to the situation in the Beaufort Sea. Activity in the energy sector in the northern part of the country has pretty well come to a halt. The unemployment which this will create will be devastating to the high Arctic and to other areas in the Northwest Territories and Yukon. There will be a great deal of unemployment. The fragile economy of the area will be dealt an irreparable blow. The young people who were encouraged by the previous Government and by this Government to partake in the energy sector will now be unemployed, young people who do not have experience in the traditional occupations carried out in the high Arctic.
There has been a tremendous loss of activity in Atlantic Canada. This time last year there were many rigs operating offshore in eastern Canada, whereas there are now only two. These two rigs which are operating off the coast of Newfoundland may be halting their activities very soon.
As far as Nova Scotia is concerned, there is one Mobil Oil rig operating off its coast. We expect an announcement very shortly concerning Mobil's future. I am afraid that it will join the other oil companies and cease operations off the coast of Nova Scotia. It is tragic. Less than a year ago 11 rigs were operating off the coast of Nova Scotia and now there is only one. Thousands of people have lost their jobs. Offshore service industries have ceased to function.
While there is a downturn in the activities of these industries, they have also found that the Government has kicked them from the blind side by reducing incentives from the National Research Council which would allow them to

October 14, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
diversify, to open up markets in other areas, and would provide them with some financial assistance to market their products from the East Coast.
Thanks to the Government's policy, this Bill is really an exercise in futility. Relatively speaking, there is no activity in the offshore. The rigs are being stacked up in Halifax Harbour or taken to other locations. Exploration in the Beaufort has come to a crashing halt.
When the Government cancelled the Petroleum Incentives Program it said that exploration would not suffer and that energy was an engine of economic growth which would create
100,000	to 300,000 jobs. Now the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) says the energy sector is not a job-creation sector. That is for sure, because 40,000 people have already lost their jobs and there is a danger of another 70,000 people throughout the country losing their jobs. It does not have to be like that. Low world oil prices have caused major problems for the industry, but this Government's shortsightedness has wreaked havoc in the energy sector.
The General Manager of Shell Canada, Lome Kingwall, told businessmen in Halifax earlier this month just what was needed to get the offshore going again. He said:
What we need is not just a better price for one day, but a long-term view that gives us confidence we could support a relatively expensive project, which the offshore is.
What did the Government decide to do in response to this? Absolutely nothing. All those rigs are now saying farewell to Nova Scotia and to Newfoundland as they pull out of the Beaufort Sea. The Government says that that is too bad, that the private sector knows what is best and should dictate activities in the offshore and in other frontier areas, and that we should let our energy reserves sit and wait for a better price. Who cares about the energy future? This Government certainly does not.
The country is moving toward an increased reliance upon imported crude oil. Because many smaller Canadian companies are not getting the help they need from the Government during these tough economic times, foreign takeovers, mergers, and bankruptcies are shaping our energy sector and will be shaping it even more so in the future. Once again we will have an energy industry which is mostly owned and controlled by foreigners. This is happening despite the lofty words of the former Minister of Energy last spring when she said:
If we do not conserve our oil and gas resources ... and if we do not find and develop new supplies... we'll end up back where we were in the 1970s. OPEC will dictate price and supply to us.
That is exactly right. However, what is the Government doing about it? It is leaving us open to the fluctuations and manipulations of OPEC once again. It is failing to provide enough incentive to keep exploration activities going in the frontier and the offshore. It is completely abandoning the goal of Canadianization and leaving our smaller Canadian companies in a very vulnerable position-one where Canadians will no longer own or control our resources. Lawrence Murphy, a partner in the planning resource group of Toronto predicts,
since the integrated multinational corporations have stronger balance sheets and are in a better position to wait out the slump in oil prices:
-that the outcome of this situation will be increased concentration of the petroleum industry... in this country-and most likely, a rise in the proportion of the industry that is owned and controlled by non-residents.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we are right back where we were at the beginning. We have turned the clocks back and we are putting ourselves into the same position we were in years and years ago before we realized the importance of our energy sector, not only to the country but to Canadians individually. We are moving back despite what the former Minister of Energy said last spring.
The Government was elected to bring Canada forward not to set us back as it has been doing. It is time the Government looked beyond the end of its nose, or at least beyond the next election and did something to help the energy sector. The problem cannot be ignored any longer. Canadians of today and tomorrow deserve better treatment. The Government will realize this by the time the next election comes around-of course by that time it will be too late for the Government-but let us hope that it is not too late for the energy sector.
The Parliamentary Secretary was very nonplussed and hyperactive this afternoon complaining that the deletion of Clause 53 would put us in a position of dictating to the energy sector, of taking away, of pulling the rug out from under it economically in a participation sense. Canadianization is right now approximately 50 per cent in the offshore and the Beaufort. There is not a great deal of difference. We are concerned in this Party that we do not lose what we already have principally in the offshore and the frontier. We are concerned that this participation that we have not be rolled back in the interests of soothing the large multinational oil companies. There is nothing wrong with multinational oil companies participating in the activity in the frontier, nothing at all. Basically they have been good corporate citizens. They are in the business of making the maximum profit they can. That is not the interests necessarily of furthering exploration and development in the frontier at this time, not without a sign from the Government that something needs to be done not only to create activity economically but to do something to protect and develop our security of supply in Canada.
There is an opportunity now to do something not only to maintain the economic structures on the East Coast of Canada and in the north but to develop an energy program which the Government does not at this time have. It is a case of drift. Every speech the Conservatives make refer back to the Atlantic Accord, the Western Accord and now there is the Canada-Nova Scotia agreement which gave a $200 million slush fund to Nova Scotia. The Province of Nova Scotia is using it any which way it darn well wants. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, it gave $25 million to Nova Scotia resources. It is just a bad joke on the poeple of Nova Scotia. It is certainly not an
October 14, 1986

indication that the federal Government wants the activity in the oil and gas sector to continue and strengthen. This is a very sad commentary at a time of high unemployment and of financial difficulty in many areas of Canada. We are concerned about the deficit and where this country is going economically under this Government. What is happening? We are concerned about the downturn in our natural resources and sales. What are we doing about it? We are sabotaging perhaps the natural resources sector that can be most beneficial not only now but in the future. We will lose very valuable time. We will jettison completely the Government's own stated policy of security of supply. I think that is very unfortunate for the country economically and for Canadians individually.
I regret that the Bill is going through. I oppose it. I oppose the idea, the theory, the lack of consideration and the lack of feeling behind the Bill which the Government has shown or not shown as the case may be. I think it is unfortunate. I think a great deal more could be done at this important time to generate activity on the frontier. We are losing an opportunity both for Canadianization of our industry and development of security of supply that we may not get in a great many years.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on third reading of this Bill. I will try to keep my comments fairly short because I spoke on second reading, and I refer Members to that speech. I tried in that speech to deal with the history and the analysis of the 25 per cent Crown back-in with which this Bill ends. I tried to deal with the back-in from the point of view that it was not confiscatory but based on logic and that the Government was making a mistake getting rid of it. The arguments presented were flawed. The Government has been lobbied by the large oil companies, and it bought their story hook, line and sinker. I want to say a few words-
[ Translation]
-the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), the new Minister, the Quebec Minister. I have already come to realize that he is quite clever and, I think, very honest.

He made a couple of points. I want to deal with them. First, he said that the Bill brought in fair and clear regulations to replace discriminatory and arbitrary ones. Yes and no, Mr. Speaker. The Bill itself within the context of what it is trying to do does try to be fair and clear. I agree with the oil industry in that it is entitled to a fair and clear regime from the Government under which it operates.
In return for my agreeing with that principle, I hope some day that the Government will agree publicly with the principle that I espouse. Never forget that resources belong to the Canadian people. They are our resources and not the resources of the oil companies. They are our resources collectively, generally. That is the point from where we have to start. The Government spent through the National Energy Program over $7 billion in petroleum incentive grants in its new regime. I was here, as were many other Members, when Bill C-48, the
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
Canada Oil and Gas Act, was passed. We had 18 months of debate on that Bill. A mistake was made, and I wish the Conservatives would acknowledge that the NDP did oppose the notion of the PIP grants. We thought the program would be wasteful, and it was incredibly wasteful. You cannot blame companies when loads of money was being dished out. They took it. Second, it shifted the exploration from the western sedimentary basin of Alberta, Saskatchewan and parts of British Columbia to the frontier, to the north, the Beaufort Sea and the offshore. That hurt the western economy.
There was an argument, and I can understand the argument, for some of that because the federal Government is responsible for guaranteeing Canada's energy security. You have to have an energy policy in Canada. It was to find out what was in the frontier. It was also motivated by the fact that former Prime Minister Trudeau considered that he, being the head of the Government of Canada, had power and jurisdiction. Premier Lougheed, the Prime Minister's rival, only had jurisdiction over the Province of Alberta. Mr. Trudeau changed the game so that most of the money went to the frontier that he controlled rather than the areas that Premier Lougheed controlled. I simply want to point out that the New Democratic Party opposed that aspect of the National Energy Program, and it was Premier Lougheed and Prime Minister Trudeau who raised the glass of champagne and made the deal. However, it seems rather ironic that it is all blamed on the New Democratic Party.
The Minister stated that this Bill involved a consultative process with the industry. While that is true, I suggest that there was no full consultative process with the native groups. This was evident in the hearings.
The Minister congratulated members of the legislative committee, including the Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon), who took part vigorously in those hearings. However, I must say that I had to filibuster in the committee in order to have it actually call witnesses and spend some time on the Bill. The Government is not entirely blameless because it wanted to rush the legislation through. It was only as a result of a couple of people, including the chairman of the committee, that we were finally able to hear some witnesses.
If the Government had listened to the native witnesses it would have realized that there is a flaw in the Bill. The Bill attempts to deal with the oil companies and give them permits which will take effect in the 1990s when we will undoubtedly need frontier oil again. At the same time, however, it is forgetting that it is also negotiating with the native people on land claims. In fact, the Government is ignoring land claims as if in wilful blindness.
Earlier today I read into the record a letter that I received from the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut, representing
17,000	Inuit people of central and eastern Arctic. They state in the letter:
This Bill prejudices our land claim negotiations.

October 14, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
They go on to state:
-we protest in the strongest possible terms the enactment of any federal statute which facilitates the alienation of our land and resources from under our feet.
It is nonsense for the Government to say that energy is not significant and is separate from land claims. Energy is very important to the north. Our Constitution provides that the Government negotiate land claims with the native people. However, at the same time, the Government is giving away various interest and rights in the subsoil to the oil companies. I believe that this conflict reflects a flaw in the Bill.
The Minister said that he wants to rely on the entrepreneurial spirit of the companies to develop the resources. We all want to see the entrepreneurial spirit of Canadian business used. However, the Government is playing in a very big league with Exxon, Mobil and Shell, which makes it very difficult for small Canadian companies to move into the frontiers. That is why we need Petro-Canada. It has enough clout to compete with those big companies in the offshore. Even larger Canadian companies like Husky and Bow Valley will find it difficult to move into the frontier without some government incentive. That is why they have closed their exploration operations and nothing is happening on the East Coast.
Indeed, some of the smaller Canadian companies are in danger of being swallowed up by the large foreign companies. The progress we have made toward Canadianization could easily be reversed in the next few years. I believe that the federal Government and some of the spokespeople for the industry have put themselves into an ideological straitjacket. While the New Democrats have often been accused of being ideologues, the federal Government and some in the industry are ideologues in the sense that they believe in a free market in world oil that is primarily controlled by OPEC. When the world price begins to fall through the floor, they are not in favour of a stabilization program. Yet, if the price of oil begins to rise to $50 or $60 a barrel, is it reasonable to believe that the Government of Canada will not put a ceiling on the price of oil? That is what it will do, just like the Liberals did with the National Energy Program. Why are they denying themselves the protection of a floor price, or stabilization price, when the price of oil goes through the floor?
The Government said that it accepted an amendment to the Bill. The amendment was that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) could choose a member of the public to be on an environmental advisory panel, rather than having only civil servants. Big deal!
It is significant to note that an amendment proposed by a Conservative Member from Calgary to make paper work easier for the oil companies was accepted by the Government. We proposed an amendment that would have department environmentalists involved in the north. That amendment was rejected. We proposed an amendment that would give native people a better say and would develop some programs for the advancement and training of native people. That was rejected, in spite of the fact that they live there. It is a clear example of
the priorities of the Government. It is a Government by and for the big oil companies whom they represent. Indeed, the big oil companies wrote the policy of the Government.


Mr. Reimer:: Rubbish!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Look at the words "engine of economic growth; 300,000 jobs". Those words come from the 1983 presentation of the Canadian Petroleum Association. This Bill will also represent a time in our history when the Government chose to cave in to American pressure and get rid of the back-in provisions which would give Petro-Canada 25 per cent of production, even though the Canadian Government, through the taxpayers, has put in over $7.3 billion in grants in the last seven years. We have been pushed around by the Americans, and the Government has caved in. While it is necessary to have a good relationship with the Americans since they are our friends and neighbours, we must stand up and be independent. I suggest that the Conservatives will pay a price in the next election because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is too close to his buddy down south.
In conclusion, let me expand on something said by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), the Liberal energy critic. Canada does not have an energy policy. The Government is adrift, with no energy policy, and is in fact relying on buying offshore oil and letting our industry go.
The Conservatives are forgetting about their old policy that energy was an engine of economic growth which created many jobs. As the Hon. Member pointed out, 40,000 jobs have been lost in Alberta and, after the deregulation of natural gas, there will be up to 70,000 jobs lost.
I am not suggesting that it is possible to wave a magic wand and develop an energy program to put those people back to work, but I suggest that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources should very carefully consider developing a new energy policy that is based upon the notion of maintaining our industry at a level where it can be more easily revved up in the future. I think most Members of the House would agree with the general parameters of such a policy. What will happen is that the price of energy will shoot up again and we will not be in a position to start up again in the Venture field, Hibernia, the Beaufort or the tar sands and we will put our energy security into doubt.
I suggest that the Government bring in a new energy policy. We in the NDP will assist in any way we can. I see the Hon. Member laughing. I would remind him that the Opposition in Alberta is the NDP.


John V. Nunziata: Not by much.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I would think we want to work together on this. We are going to have some disagreements but if the Member thinks about it, we need a new energy policy and we need a way of dealing with the tar sands and the price of oil
October 14, 1986

from the tar sands. We have to find some way of keeping the Beaufort going at a minimal level. We have to talk about a stabilization program in Alberta for the small oil companies so that they are not swallowed up. We could go further and talk about banking some oil and gas.
Technically, the Bill is well written for what it tries to do. However, it is flawed in the sense that it does not deal with the native problem. The Government is trying to put aside that problem in that it is trying to negotiate land claims on the one side and it is giving away all these interests on the other. If there is a court decision or settlement, this could return to haunt the Government. The Bill is also flawed in the sense that it is going to mean the end of private Canadian oil companies in the offshore. We are going to see only the bigger international or American companies there. While they may be straightforward and honest people, their interests are not necessarily the interests of the Canadian public. This Bill unnecessarily cuts the government oil company, Petro-Canada, out of an advantage in the frontier which is really needed. That, too, will return to haunt us and at some point it is going to have to be changed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes left to us I would like to debate on third reading, if I might.
We have been involved with this Bill, originally C-92 and now C-5 in this new session, for some time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. There is a question and comment period. I noticed the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) was rising to ask a question. Does he wish to ask a question? He does. Then I will recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier for a question or comment.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon Member is of course entitled to ask me a question. From our point of view, we would be disposed to wrap up the Bill tonight if that is possible and if it is fair to the Parliamentary Secretary whom I would like to hear speak.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Speaking on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding, following certain consultations, that we would proceed to third reading of this Bill tonight. I was just asking a question because I could see there was time left before six o'clock. If the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary insists on speaking for the next five minutes, I do not see any difficulty so long as he sits down before six o'clock so we can pass the Bill.


John Horton McDermid: I find that interesting coming from my Liberal friend across the way. I was just about to say, when I was so rudely interrupted, that a great deal of work-
Canada Petroleum Resources Act


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a point of order.


John V. Nunziata: Point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) has a question or comment, therefore I must recognize him.


John V. Nunziata: I seek clarification. As I understand it, this is the time to ask questions or make comments on the speech by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Is that correct?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, that is correct. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston has the floor for questions or comments.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in putting my question to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway I would like to apologize to the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) for exercising my right as a Member of Parliament to put the question. If he thinks that this is rudely interrupting, I would like to apologize.
I have had the opportunity over the last number of weeks to travel to different parts of Canada and I have been somewhat concerned about the different prices of gasoline we see in different parts of the country. Over the weekend I was in Halifax and the price of leaded gasoline is around 45 cents or 46 cents a litre. Upon my return to Toronto I found that the price of gasoline-


John Horton McDermid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are debating third reading of a frontier exploration Bill and I have difficulty in understanding how the price of gasoline at the pump has anything to do with Bill C-5.


John V. Nunziata: If the Hon. Member knows his stuff, as I am sure he does, he will know that in order to sell gas at the pump you have to find it somewhere.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is pretty complicated.


John V. Nunziata: It seems to me that this Bill speaks to the finding of gas and oil in Canada. I therefore submit that questions relating to the price of gasoline are essential and relevant to the debate.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway has become an expert in the field of energy prices in Canada second only to my friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton- The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), my Party's critic. I question whether it is fair that a motorist or businessman in Halifax pays 10 cents or 11 cents more per litre of gasoline than his or her equivalent in Toronto. I would like to ask the Hon. Member if this Bill will in any way eliminate the inequities which exist in the price of gasoline in Canada?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, the Bill will not change the inequities. The Hon. Member should understand that the Conservatives deregulated the price of gasoline

October 14, 1986
The Address
in order to have competition, but there is no real competition in the wholesale and retail price of gasoline. Four companies, including Petro-Canada, control the market and have been keeping the price up because they are surviving and making a little money. The poor oil companies in Alberta, the little Canadian oil companies who do not have retail markets like this, are suffering and will be gobbled up by these big fellows who are making all that money in Halifax.
1 am glad the Hon. Member brought this up because, as I said in my speech, this is a country in search of a new energy policy. However, we are simply not getting it. This document addresses itself to what the Hon. Member for Cape Breton- The Sydneys, who is very familiar with this subject, has called a bit of a fantasy. There is nothing happening in the frontier, but this is the kind of Bill we are getting and the Government is ignoring the real problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is as follows: Mr. Masse, seconded by Mr. Mazankowski, moves that Bill C-5, an Act to regulate interests in petroleum in relation to frontier lands, to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and to repeal the Canada Oil and Gas Act, be now read the third time and do pass.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, October 10, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Collins for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening ofthe Session; and of the amendment of Mr. Cassidy (p. 227).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being six o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment. Mr. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre), seconded by Mr. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap) moved:
That the following be added to the address:
"This House regrets that the Government has failed to provide leadership on major issues of social justice affecting average Canadians including the need for action to provide greater protection for battered women, a commitment to legislate pro-rated benefits for part-time workers, the majority of whom are women, a refusal to establish and work towards lower unemployment targets for Canadians, and the failure to pursue a serious tax reform that would
eliminate the unfairness, the complexity and the unaccountability of the present system".
Call in the Members.