1986-05-20

Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present the First Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and I am pleased to report Bill C-93, an Act relating to the establishment of self-government for the Sechelt Indian Band, as amended.


PETITION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by several hundred residents of my constituency of Burnaby, particularly senior citizens, who call upon Parliament to direct the CRTC to deny to telephone companies such as B.C. Telephone Company the right to implement a system of local measured service whereby there would be a charge for each call, and point out that such a system of charging would impose a very severe hardship on thousands of Canadians, particularly senior citizens and the handicapped.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 29 FOREST FIRES IN ATLANTIC CANADA
Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of a motion of an application under Standing Order 29 from the Hon. Member for Fundy- Royal (Mr. Corbett).


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, consistent with Standing Order 29,1 have today informed you that it was my intention to raise a matter in the House requesting an emergency debate on a situation that I consider to be extremely serious. The debate I seek centres on the disastrous situation
that has developede in Atlantic Canada during the past week as a result of many major forest fires. The fires have been particularly devastating in New Brunswick and Newfoundland, provinces heavily dependent on the woods industry for the employment of their people and the maintenance of their economies.
The forestry sector is the largest employer in the nation. One out of every 10 employed persons in Canada is employed by that sector. It is our biggest foreign exchange earner and one of the largest purchasers of manufactured goods in Canada.
With the devastation of Atlantic Candian forests, the potential disastrous ramifications to the nation are enormous. We cannot as legislators allow the seriousness of the situation to go unaddressed. We have a moral responsibility to respond immediately, and for that reason, Your Honour, I respectfully request an adjournment of the House for an emergency debate on this important issue.


Mr. Speaker:: I have examined the letter the Hon. Member sent and I may say his application was exemplary. I am persuaded that the conditions and terms of Standing Order 29 have in fact been met. Does the Hon. Member have leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 29 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Leave having been granted, debate is set down for eight o'clock.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ron Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last, I asked a question of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) concerning pensions in the Public Service. I have had a question on the Order Paper for close to a year now dealing specifically with that matter. Given that the Minister told me he will give me an answer by the end of May, and that those

May 20, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
figures for which I asked a year ago are very important for understanding this subject, I wonder if I could ask the Government to get an answer for my written question before the end of this week or next.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 9, consideration of the motion of Miss Carney that Bill C-92, 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 read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it is going to be a pleasure for me to speak for a few minutes on the new proposed Canada Petroleum Resources Act. This is something in which of course all Canadians have a great interest, but for those of us who hail from the areas where this Act will govern the disposition of oil and gas rights it is of double interest.
This Bill, Sir, is one of the final nails in the coffin of the late and not particularly lamented National Energy Program. If we compare Bill C-92 with the Canada Oil and Gas Act, which is to be no more after the passage of this Bill, we can perceive the difference in philosophy between the Liberals, who were responsible for the National Energy Program, and the Conservatives, whose philosophy is to be enshrined in the new Canadian Petroleum Resources Act.
On the one hand we have extreme Government supervision of the industry, for example, a great deal of government control over the day-to-day activities of the people who drill for and produce oil and gas in northern and eastern Canada. Under the Canada Oil and Gas Act the deals were negotiated. When someone has to go to Government to make a special deal, it always leaves room for abuse. It is much better if the rules of the game are known beforehand and if we have an open competitive system such as that contemplated under Bill C-92. Under the Bill it is to be left largely to market forces to determine such things as the amount of drilling to be done, the amount of production which will take place, and the prices at which crude oil and gas can be sold. All things which can be left to the open market will be left to that open market.
In my opinion it is time the dispositions on what is now known as Canada oil and gas lands be made available. Under
the present circumstance of lowered oil and gas prices, there might not be quite the same level of interest in acquiring oil and gas lands as there would have been some time ago, but land should be opened up. There has not been any land made available for years and years, except some special cases wherein Petro-Canada was concerned.
One corollary which arose because the previous Government refused to make land available was that Canadian companies had to go cap in hand to the multinational companies that had previously tied up all this land to negotiated farm-ins at great expense. That is not the way it should have been; it worked to the detriment of Canadian companies and to the advantage of largely foreign-owned multinational corporations. That was the result of the Liberal policy of refusing to make oil and gas lands available.
One of the best things the Bills does is to remove the back-in, the infamous 25 per cent back-in. It was one of the worst aspects of the national energy policy. It put us on par with banana republics, that type of approach to life. It was grossly unfair. I am pleased to say that it will no longer exist once the Parliament of Canada has passed Bill C-92.
Now I should like to look at some of the specific measures contained in the Bill. One of the first things which hits someone reading the Bill is that there seems to be some discrepancy between the English and French versions. The French version is much shorter than the English one, which is not usually the case. Certain paragraphs on the English side are not on the French side. For example, in the English version there is Clause 37(l)(a), (b), and (c), whereas there is only a Clause 37(1) in the French version. When this matter gets to committee we will have to look at it closely so that both the English and French versions of the Bill read in the same manner. Otherwise I can foresee us getting into difficulty in the courts in years to come.
The Bill changes the name of Canada Lands, something which I did not really like that much, to the term frontier lands. I have certain reservations about that term as well. Undoubtedly the Bill regulates dispositions on the frontier lands. There is no doubt the Sverdrup Basin is a frontier area, as are the Beaufort Sea and the eastern offshore. Anyone who lives in Watson Lake, Yukon, or Hay River, Northwest Territories, might take exception to being told that they are on the frontier; that is not quite the case.
The lands in question can be divided into two parts. There are those over which there is no doubt that Canada has continuing jurisdiction, and there are those lands which are more correctly territorial lands, those lands in Yukon and Northwest Territories which are presently held in trust by Canada for eventual provinces to be established in those areas. Although it may not make a difference to this Bill, it ought to borne in mind by the Government of Canada and by the Parliament of Canada that at some point in time those lands will be transferred to new provinces and that in the meantime there is a trust relationship. We, as the Parliament of Canada,
May 20, 1986

are legislating over lands which we are holding in trust, so we have to be very careful about it.
The Bill does not contemplate a resource revenue sharing agreement between the territories and the federal Government. It does not preclude it, but it is something to which I wanted to allude. I believe it was on May 25, 1985 that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) said in Inuvik that the Government of Canada would negotiate a resource revenue sharing agreement with the territories, along the lines of those which exist with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. I urge her to continue in the negotiations so that that resource revenue sharing agreement can be brought into being at the earliest opportunity.
This is not a revolutionary Bill. In a way, it is evolutionary in that a lot of what is in it is something to which Canadians in the oil and gas patch have become accustomed. It follows on the oil and gas regulations made under the Territorial Lands Act and, to a certain extent, on the concepts involved in the Canada Oil and Gas Act when we come down to administrative-type things.
Purists-and among those I would include myself-wonder what has happened to the venerable institution of the oil and gas lease. In this Bill, as under the Canada Oil and Gas Act, the highest form of ownership which someone can have is a licence to produce. In most provinces we have oil and gas leases which give title to the resources contained in the ground. However, under this Bill we are stuck with the highest form of ownership, being the right to produce that oil and gas. I should like to see some explanation given why we cannot go back to the idea of having oil and gas leases.
The exploration licence is another aspect that has been carried over and something to which we have become accustomed. These licences will last for a period of some 9 years unless a significant discovery is made and some new regulations come into play. The licences will be issued on a bid basis. I am pleased to see that we are going into the posting system which has been quite successfully used in Alberta. This is part of the open market philosophy in which people who want oil and gas rights will have to bid openly on them and not make these special little deals with Government, as was the case under the old system. People will bid, presumably, on a basis of cash or commitment. All the terms and conditions should, and under this Act, I presume will be made known beforehand. For instance, if there is a requirement regarding local participation or a requirement regarding Canadian business opportunities, those things will be spelled out in advance, and we will not have one company running to COGLA trying to make some special deal that no-one else knows about.
[DOT] (U20)
I would presume, and hope this is the case, that the various licensed areas can be different depending upon the location. If you are exploring for oil and gas in the Sverdrup Basin where it is unlikely you will have significant production for sometime to come, where the drilling of wells is very expensive, you
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
might need a different regulator in your regime, a disposition of maybe larger areas of land than would be the case say in the Cameron Hills just north of the Alberta border. The disposition ought to be of the same order of magnitude of those just to the south in northern Alberta. There is a difference between the non-frontier areas and the frontier areas proper where you are exploring in virgin territory in an area that is very expensive.
The Bill contemplates the making of drilling orders by the Minister. I would urge that only careful use be made of this provision. I would not want to see the case where a company has oil and gas lands, the seismic work et cetera looks pretty good, but for some reason, and the reason could very well be the one we find ourselves in today, namely, the company has no money because the price of oil and gas is so low, the company loses that land because it could not comply with a drilling order made by the Minister. This power should be used only very sparingly.
I am pleased to see there is no foreign ownership provisions in the granting of exploration licences. I think it is quite proper there should be at the production stage, but at the exploratory stage where there is no production I think it is better to have the maximum amount of money and the maximum amount of expertise brought to bear in Finding new reserves for Canada. When we get to the production licences, which I note will be for a 25 year term and extended automatically when actual production is taking place, there is a requirement for 50 per cent Canadian ownership.
As I said before, I feel this to be right and proper. I would go even further than that. I would venture to suggest that we do not need all the exceptions to this that are in the Bill. If we just spell out exactly what we mean by 50 per cent Canadian requirement and make it a condition of getting a production licence, I think that would suffice. Maybe you would want to give a little discretionary authority to the Minister, but if you spell out all kinds of exceptions in the Bill they will become the rule rather than the exception and people are likely to take all kinds of advantage.
With respect to development orders contemplated under the Bill, I want to say the same thing that I did about drilling orders, but to make the case even stronger. If we look at the experience in Saskatchewan with the potash industry where the Government used its authority to tell people: "You develop a potash mine or you lose the right to that ground", we will note that everybody put new mines into being in an era when you could not sell all the resulting potash. That did not make economic sense. The idea of development orders is something you need in the Bill, but the provision should be used extremely sparingly, otherwise we could have an improper allocation of resources and flood our own markets. We have to be very careful about that provision.
The provisions with respect to subsurface storage leases, what is contemplated here I would imagine is the underground storage of crude oil, natural gas or maybe even petroleum products. If you read that provision in the Bill, the clause

May 20, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
dealing with subsurface storage leases, it could mean dealing with the subsurface storage of butter, cabbages or anything else. I think a little bit of rewording is necessary.
With respect to royalties, let me put the good point first. I am pleased to see that a proper appeal procedure is to be put in place so that if someone has an objection against a royalty payment that they are obliged to make, they can appeal. There are a few points that are probably not to good, Sir. The amount and method of calculation for royalties has been left entirely to regulations. We had an explanation by the Parliamentary Secretary when he introduced the Bill saying what the royalties were to be. Generally speaking, the amount and method is pretty good, 30 per cent of net cash flow. I just wish these things had not been left entirely to regulations. There should be something in the Bill so that you could determine in an act of Parliament what is the maximum royalty to be paid. It is most important to know this when you are making a decision whether to invest or not to invest in the exploration for oil and gas.
I had many more things to say, Mr. Speaker, but I guess my time is getting nigh. I will put some of my notes aside for a further occasion. I think the Bill is a vast improvement on the Canada Oil and Gas Act. It will, however, require very careful study in committee. I imagine that many amendments will come forward as a result of committee study. I am pleased to support a Bill that will work to the best benefit of petroleum explorers, producers, consumers and Canadians in general.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to note in the comments of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) when that he mentioned the back-in provision and the insistence, I suppose would be the word, of Canada to remain involved in the development or ownership of these oil lands. He compared that to an attitude of banana republics. He implied that only very backward nations followed such practice. The British have used a system of common lands all through their history, with a few minor exceptions. There was an enclosure movement at a time when some of the new capitalist class and the lords were getting very strong. They actually took over the common lands and enclosed them for a period of time, a move which was not remembered very fondly by most people.
Does the Member see that period of time as being the ultimate in the development of a country? Is he in fact advocating that Canada no longer treat parklands and our northern areas as part of the right of all Canadians? Does he feel that the use of oil from these lands should not at least partly accrue to Canadians as has been the British approach of keeping some lands for common use? Is he proposing to return to a form of enclosure?


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I did not anticipate getting into a debate on the enclosure movement which occurred in England and other European countries as early as the 14th
century, continuing until the 18th century. It is significant to note that the enclosure movement in Europe did not coincide with the great increase in capitalism of which my friend does not approve. It began much earlier than that and had much to do with the development of the wool trade, if I understand my English history correctly.
In any event, whether or not that is the case, I cannot see any analogy between what happened in the 15th century in England and what is happening under this Bill. It is made very clear that the people of Canada own the oil and gas lands. The most that will ever be given to anyone is a licence to produce. They will not even be given a lease. What do national parks have to do with this issue? This Bill has absolutely nothing to do with Banff National Park or any other national park. This Bill has to do with the disposition of oil and gas lands in areas which are not national parks. If the Hon. Member had taken the trouble to read the National Parks Act he would know that it is not possible to get any kind of oil and gas rights in a national park. I do not know what the Hon. Member is talking about.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make certain that the Hon. Member put his own philosophy very clearly before us as it applies to national parks. From his remarks it sounded as though he was proposing to back away from the system of keeping Canadian content in those lands.
The Member went on to discuss the posting and bidding system in this Bill. He mentioned that the terms would be known before the drilling began. Does this mean that the public and interested bystanders would know the precise terms arrived at, or is there still some protection of so-called commercial confidentiality? Will other bidders become aware of why their bids lost out? Will that kind of information be made available?


Dave Nickerson: That is the whole idea behind it, Mr. Speaker. Under the Liberal administration there was secrecy. One person said he would do one thing and another person said he would do another. Other people did not know what they were doing. Some bureaucrats then decided that one deal was better than another. Perhaps the Minister stuck his nose into it too. They considered which bidder was the best Party supporter and which would help out in the next election. That was the old system under the Liberals. We now have clear skies. Everyone will know what are the terms and conditions before the bids are made. It will be a free and open process. That is what it is all about. I am very pleased that the Hon. Member raised this point because it has allowed me to stress that very important difference in philosophy between the Conservatives on this side of the House and the socialists who hide under a shroud of secrecy on the other side.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, would the Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) confirm that the Government is proposing quite a different process than that currently being followed in the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion?
May 20, 1986


Dave Nickerson: I was going to say that I hope so, Sir. I must say that I am not thoroughly familiar with the way in which the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion transacts its business. I know that it has come under some degree of criticism. When I was in my riding the other week a number of people complained to me about the way in which grants had been given. Business people were concerned that, after having paid taxes, this Department of the Government gave a large grant to their competitor on the other side of the street.
As a personal opinion, I have some reservations about some of the things which that particular Department does. I think it would be much worse if it had not been headed by such an Hon. Minister of the Crown who did his best to try to alleviate some of the worst shortcomings of a system of grants and subsidies which has grown up over the years.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to say a few words this morning on Bill C-92, a Bill to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act which will be known as the Canadian Petroleum Resources Act when it is passed by Parliament. This is a very appropriate time to be dealing with this because never in the history of the energy industry have we faced such a tremendous downturn as we have in the last three or four months. Even government Members talk about it as the most difficult time in the history of the Canadian energy industry. This Bill implements a number of the policies of the present Government which have already had a tremendously negative impact on the country.
In the 1984 election campaign the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) promised in Prince Albert and Halifax that 100,000 to 300,000 new jobs would be created. Recent information and analysis provided by the Canadian petroleum industry shows a dramatic drop, not only in investment, but in jobs. StatsCanada estimates that during March and April nearly 10,000 jobs were lost in Alberta, nearly all due to the downturn in the energy industry. There are projections that the level of unemployment in Alberta may go as high as 16 per cent by August of this year, with even higher estimates for the cities of Edmonton and Calgary which are especially dependant on this industry.
In the first weeks of May there were 39 rigs drilling in the western sedentary basin out of a total of 480 in western Canada. It is estimated that only one or two rigs will be operating on the east coast offshore, and there will be a decided downturn as well in the Beaufort. The most recent estimate of the Canadian Petroleum Association is that there will be only $6 billion of investment by the industry in 1986. That is down from a $10.5 billion expenditure in 1985, and a forecast expenditure for 1986 of $11.2 billion. Of the $6 billion, half was spent in the first quarter. That means there will only be about $3 billion to be spent over the last three quarters.
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
Obviously we have an energy policy which is not equipped to cope with the current downturn in the price of oil. In both the Western Accord and the Altantic Accord there is a very small paragraph saying that if there should be a precipitous drop in the price of crude oil, it would be subject to negotiation and discussion with the industry and the provincial Governments. So far we have not seen negotiations or discussions which will have a beneficial impact. Clearly the industry is gearing down and the economic and social carnage throughout western Canada is evident.
We do not have to look just to Alberta. We can look to communities throughout Ontario and Quebec. In my own constituency Algoma Steel is shutting down its tube-making facilities. A staff of about 800, members of the United Steelworkers' Union, have been or will be laid off very shortly. There is a new $370 million tube mill coming onstream late this year and the prospects for employment there are very negative. According to the front page of the Sault Star of Tuesday, May 16, the Algoma Ore Division of Algoma Steel has to reduce its production or develop a plan for an orderly shutdown. Communities like Wawa are facing the possibility of a complete shutdown. Carrying ore from Wawa to Sault Ste. Marie represents a majority of the tonnage carried by the Algoma Central Railway. If it loses that business, the viability of the entire operation will be in doubt.
Even government Members are complaining, saying that the Government has to take action. The Tories, when they were in Opposition, demanded that the PRGT be eliminated. They saw it as a source of additional revenue for the industry to be used in exploration and development. Yet the Government, which spoke so fervently against the tax, is maintaining it at the rate of 10 per cent in 1986, 8 per cent in 1987, and 6 per cent in 1988. At the same time, the oil industry is calling on Alberta and the other producing provinces to reduce their royalties from 30 per cent or 40 per cent to something in the order of 20 per cent or 25 per cent. So far no action has been taken.
Let us look at some projects which were onstream just a year ago and which have now been knocked off the rails. The Lloydminster upgrader was an excellent project, very labour intensive. It would provide a great deal of employment and a secure oil supply in the future. Yet the Government has backed away from the commitments made by the previous Government for some $50 million upfront and $750 million in loan guarantees. That project seems to be on the back burner. There is a very limited amount of activity in the Beaufort. Exploration and development in Hibernia is tied up in fiscal negotiations between the Newfoundland Government and the federal Government. Everything was supposed to have been solved with the wave of a hand and a quick handshake, but it is not very clear now whether Hibernia is going to go forward. The Venture and Sable Island projects certainly seem to be on hold and there is not likely to be any action there this year. Canadian-owned companies like Husky Bow Valley were promised PIP grants on some eight or ten wells but those PIP

May 20, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
grants have been ground down to one or two. Certainly the legislation before us today is not adequate to deal with these kinds of problems caused by the international price of oil today.
During the election campaign the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) talked about energy self-sufficiency. Yet the CPA assessment indicates that statistical selfsufficiency could be lost as early as 1990, and a very significant supply gap would develop by 1995. This would make Canada dependent on imported oil for some 30 per cent of its requirements.
The low level of exploration spawned by the Western Accord and the Atlantic Accord will have a very negative effect on our exports. For example, if we compare the amount of oil and gas exports in 1986 with 1985, we see a 25 per cent reduction in the first quarter. In 1985 oil and gas sales to the U.S. were $1,497 billion. In the first quarter of 1986, they were $1,863 billion. It is projected that over-all our exports of natural gas and crude oil will decline from $9.8 billion in 1985 to $6 billion in 1986.
The present level of oil and gas exploration, development and exports will have a very significant impact on exports from our country, and thus our balance of trade, which has been one of our strongest points in the whole free trade debate. We have been able to look with pride at our oil and gas exports, along with automotive exports, softwood lumber exports and many other commodities as generating $20 billion worth of surplus exports. Whereas we see in oil and gas alone the projections are that we will lose about $3 billion this year.
The promise of the Minister of Energy on self-sufficiency certainly does not seem to be carried out. It does not look like we are going to be self-sufficient with the current level of exploration and development which is taking place under this Government. Certainly the Minister and the Prime Minister in the Prince Albert declaration talked about increased Canadian participation. Although this legislation before the House does provide for 50 per cent Canadian ownership at the developmental stage for oil and gas, it really takes away from the small Canadian companies.
All you have to do is attend the energy committee and hear the Independent Petroleum Association members talking about how they are not going to be able to fulfil their share of the current exploration and development phase; without the Petroleum Incentive Program they are not going to be able to keep their share. Even the big ones like Husky Bow Valley said that they were not going to be able to complete their share. The PIP grants were being taken away so rapidly that in their case, where they had hoped to carry out the completion of seven or eight or ten wells, they are only going to have adequate funding for one or two, and they consider that a breach of trust.
The new program of providing a 25 per cent exploration tax credit, only 40 per cent of which is refundable, is not adequate to keep the Canadian players in the field. Not only will it not be adequate in the future, but even for the current cycle of exploration and development it is most inadequate.
We will see the Canadian share being developed by Imperial, Texaco and Shell, the other multinationals, so that the Canadian participation will be very limited. It is hard to believe that the Canadian companies will find their share with the current system of financial assistance.
The final point in the Prime Minister's declaration at Prince Albert and in Halifax during the election campaign was fairness to producers and consumers. Clearly we have outlined the unfairness of the current system for small Canadian companies to paly an adequate part in exploration, whether it is off the east coast or in other areas of the country.
If we look at the pricing of gasoline and diesel, comparing it between Canada and the United States, we see a differential of anywhere from 10 to 15 cents a litre for gasoline. Clearly there seems to be a system going on in which we have the worst of both worlds. We have a low crude oil price which put the steel workers in Algoma Steel out of their jobs, whereas the retailers are charging-the big multinationals, including Petro-Canada-very high prices for gasoline. We end up with very high retail prices. Many pumps are selling at 40, 46 cents a litre. In many parts of northern Ontario it is even higher than that.
I do not think the Government's energy policy and this Bill which is before us today are really adequate to deal with the current energy situation in the world and current oil prices, because we see thousands of people being laid off in the energy industry right across the country, not only Alberta but in communities like Sault Ste. Marie, at a time when the Government promised hundreds of thousands of jobs in the energy industry, and that the energy industry would be an engine of growth. In fact, it is one of the most beleaguered industries in Canada today. Certainly this legislation and this policy do nothing to help it.


Mr. McDerntid:: I listened to the Hon. Member's speech with some interest. I was not entirely enraptured with it. I noticed he was quoting statistics from last year when the energy industry in Canada had a record year, and comparing last year with this year. I wonder if he might admit to the House and to the public that in fact falling world oil prices, over which Canada has absolutely no control might have had something to do with the problems being experienced with the energy industry today, rather than in fact, as he would like the people to believe, the energy policy? The energy policy last year generated a record year in energy in Canada. Since that time we have seen the fall in world oil prices. Would he not admit that that has had the major impact on the energy situation as we see it today in Canada?


Maurice Brydon Foster: The falling oil prices have had a very adverse effect on the energy interest, and that was the point I was
May 20, 1986

trying to make, that the energy policy of the Government is not adequate. In the Western Accord, if you read through it, you will see one little paragraph about an inch long saying that in the event of catastrophic low energy prices, crude oil prices or, conversely, very high energy prices, the Government would take action, it would consult with the producing provinces, with the consumers and so on. That small paragraph obviously is not adequate to deal with the situation, because instead of having hundreds of thousands of new jobs being created, as was promised just a year ago, we see at least 100,000 jobs being lost in the energy sector.
I think the notional figure is that for every $1 billion worth of investment in the energy industry lost, you lose about 30,000 jobs in the Canadian economy. As I quoted the figures from the Canadian Petroleum Association in their most recent survey, it appears that the loss of investment will be in the order of $3 billion this year. The problem is that $3 billion in lost investment will occur during the last nine months. Therefore, we should expect that at least 100,000 jobs will be lost either directly or indirectly in the Canadian economy because of the inadequacy of the Western Accord.
When we examine the Atlantic Accord we see the loss of the Petroleum Incentives Program. During our consideration of the previous Bill, every company in the IPAC asked the committee for a system to extend the PIP grants for a certain period until they could at least complete their current exploration and development phase. So far, there has been no response by the Government and I do not see anything in this Bill except the 25 per cent exploration tax credit. Therefore, companies like Husky and Bow Valley, which had a commitment from the Government for the exploration of eight to ten wells, are being limited to one or two wells.
The suggestion of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary fails on two counts. The Bill does not provide those incentives to continue exploration and development off the east coast. Second, the Western Accord is not adequate to deal with the current low oil prices. I do not understand how he believes that the Western Accord can adequately deal with this situation as thousands of workers are being laid off from steel mills in communities like Sault Ste. Marie and other parts of the country.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member failed to mention in his brief remarks that the reason money is not being expended now is that there is a lack of income as a result of the price of a barrel of oil. Billions and billions of dollars in investment funds left the country under the National Energy Program and went to countries that were more hospitable in regard to exploration. That is not what is happening now. Money is not being transferred to other areas for exploration; the companies do not have the money because of the decrease in cash flow as a result of the price of a barrel of oil. The Hon. Member should be fair in his remarks.
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
I have yet to hear what the Liberal's energy policy would be.
I want the Hon. Member to give me the specific details of their energy policy and tell me what the Liberals would do today, if they were in power, to correct the situation in the energy industry. Will he explain to the Canadian people how the National Energy Program, which drove billions of investment dollars out of the country, would do any better under the circumstances of world pricing that we are experiencing today? It is interesting to note that prices are now back up to over $17 a barrel U.S. Obviously, the market is very volatile and the prices are fluctuating. Will the Hon. Member answer those two questions?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary talks about billions of dollars leaving the country. He promised that there would be billions of dollars coming into the country, but I have not seen that happen. Clearly that money is not going to Atlantic Canada or we would be seeing more than one or two wells being drilled there. Nor is it going to western Canada because exploration and development has been cut back to only $3 billion for the last three-quarters of this year. Many people in the petroleum industry say that this will cost thousands of jobs at a time when the Government promised hundreds of thousands of jobs.


John Horton McDermid: Answer the question.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The Government's policy was that by going to the world market price up to 200,000 jobs would be created. Under the National Energy Program the Government was in a position to adjust the price and the incentive programs to ensure that there was continuation of exploration and development. Even during the recession between 1982 and part of 1984 the oil and gas industry was more active in Canada than in the United States. That continued through 1985 with the Petroleum Incentive Program.
The present Government promised to get rid of the PGRT but, for some reason, in 1986 it is reluctant to do so even though the industry is demanding it. The proof is in the pudding.
The question we ask is why is there such an inadequate clause in the Western Accord to deal with the problem of precipitous drops in crude oil prices to the level of $10 or $11 a barrel or, conversely, an increase in world price to $40 or $50 a barrel? The Hon. Member knows that we end up with legislation that seems inadequate, and the Bill before us today will be inadequate to meet most of the criteria in the Prince Albert announcement. There will not be enough incentive for exploration off the east coast and certainly not for Canadian participation in drilling and exploration.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to add my thoughts to the debate on Bill C-92, 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.

May 20, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
One of the characteristics of the energy debate which began even before the last election campaign, and one of the characteristics of statements that have been made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) in regard to Bill C-92 and its erstwhile predecessor with the previous admin-stration, is the attractiveness of the rhetoric that the Government has been able to marshal in its support for the measures that it is proposing in this Bill. Some of the rhetoric is literally on the acceptability level of God, motherhood and apple pie.
The Government has been talking of simplification. Of course, no one would oppose that, except upon realizing what is entailed in that simplification process.
We have heard the energy industry described as an engine of growth, as indeed it has been for many areas of Canada. I do not doubt that the energy industry has the potential again to be an engine of growth in those areas but we must also remind ourselves of the difficulties that fluctuations in energy prices have caused in other parts of the country. We should remind ourselves that this engine of growth cannot be created without assistance from the Government and cannot spring from the ground, fully armed, at the Government's behest with the passage of this legislation. Nor is it something that could or indeed should be insulated from the world market. It will not happen automatically by the Government's legislative or, as we see in this Bill much more clearly, regulatory fiscal fiat.
We heard, after all, as part of the campaign of rhetoric the so-called putative practice of "drilling for grants" condemned. Indeed, with the generosity of the previous fiscal regime, a suspicion might legitimately have been held that companies were "drilling for grants" rather than for energy finds, were it not for the fact that those of us who spent a substantial portion of our lives in the private sector know very well that whether or not there are tax incentives applied, a company will always choose the most attractive form of action, the more attractive field to drill, if it is faced with a number of potential opportunities.
Another part of the rhetoric which was included in the Prince Albert declaration was the elimination of confiscation. Of course, the very idea of confiscation in a free and democratic society is something which is abhorrent. But the whole rhetorical campaign about the elimination of confiscation entirely begged the question and, indeed, ignored the evidence of what Canadians were contributing by way of tax incentives, subsidies and the whole range of breaks, bonuses and inducements in the National Energy Program to the development of Canada's oil and gas industry, particularly on the frontier. In reality there was no confiscation proposed but, as I will attempt to demonstate later in my speech, simply a measure which provided some return to the Canadian taxpayers for the very substantial investments we all have been making in the development of Canada's frontier lands.
We were told that the Government would guarantee Canadian participation. My colleague, the previous speaker,
exposed some of the fallacies regarding that particular piece of rhetoric and I will attempt to uncover more. We were told, and this must surely be a phrase which is imbedded in the instant memory of the Government word processors, presumably available at the pressing of one key, that the changes would ensure effective regulation and administration. That again begs some very profound and fundamental questions as to what should be regulated and what should be administered. We were told that this legislation would protect the public interest. That is again something which is right up there with apple pie in terms of rhetorical content. We were also told that, in an echo of the drilling for grants and not for oil, that the policy would reward success and not effort. I am glad to see that the Bill before us does increase the claimability of earned tax credits, because that is something I believe will reward small Canadian companies which are active in this area, but this is really just a pale whimper of the rhetoric of rewarding success and not effort.
Something I must say about Bill C-92 is that we are glad to see that hindsight and experience have tempered some of the measures the Government might otherwise have been tempted to take. We are glad to see we do not have a Bill which is predicated on the assumption of continued strong rising prices on the international oil market. I am also glad to say we have a Bill which seems to come fairly close to being "assumption-neutral" in those terms. It is a Bill, in fact, which will provide for a regime which will at least function whether the prices go up or down.
There are some pretty significant points of criticism about this Bill, some which I would like to go into at some length. One of these criticisms relates to the idea of a single bidding criterion to replace the existing process of negotiation between companies and the Government, which can be used to foster local employment, contracting, the training of workers of aboriginal origin, the pace of development and a wide range of other considerations.
One of the great fallacies we continue to commit in the framing of industrial policy instruments, such as Bill C-92, is that such developments occur in a vacuum, whereas manifestly they do not. They occur as part of over-all economic development and as part of over-all social development. There is one thing we should never allow ourselves to forget in this Chamber and in our public pronouncements elswhere, and that is that the whole purpose of an economy is to serve society. The whole purpose of any part of our industrial, commercial trade or, indeed, administrative economy, is to serve and develop society. Something I see in the reverting to a single bidding criterion is the potential danger of ignoring or overruling, or the simple discarding of the very legitimate concerns of people in the affected areas, many of whom are the descendents of the original inhabitants of Canada, the danger of glossing over the concerns they very legitimately hold and the disruption of their traditional economic and social patterns.
I would like to quote from a few documents with respect to those matters, because one thing I notice, and something

May 20, 1986
others have commented on in this legislation, is that we see a very strong representation from the energy side, so to speak, to the sponsors of this legislation, and very little evidence of consideration, safeguarding and policy analysis by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which should have a very strong say in the framing of such legislation and which is mandated by treaty and trust responsibility to look after the legitimate concerns and interests of Canada's aboriginal people.
I would like to quote from a brief submitted to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) by the Dene-Metis Negotiations Secretariat. These are concerns which were echoed at the Standing Committee hearing of which I was a part three weeks ago, I believe, in Yellowknife. Under the heading of "Opening Up New Lands", the Secretariat says:
Neither the Bill nor the policy statement of last fall gives any assurance that the current "land freeze" in the Mackenzie Valley will remain in place until a final aboriginal rights settlement is in place, or until a co-ordinated process involving the Dene-Metis and the affected communities approves the opening up of new land.
Here is its submission:
We ask that you follow up on our correspondence with you on this issue by making it clear that there will be no exploration licences on new lands prior to a final claims settlement without the direct and explicit approval of both the Dene-Metis and the communities directly affected.
That is a provision which is very evidently absent from this legislation. Yet it is a provision which relates to the very articles of the foundation, if you like, of the country and society in which we have the good fortune to live.
One of the ways in which Canada has traditionally operated, at least ostensibly, and overtly, is that we would not arbitrarily extinguish the rights of native people, whether it be their territorial rights, land tenure, or the right of their own form of government. Yet we see in Bill C-92 the potential at least- and I do not wish to accuse the Government of bad faith-for the overruling of legitimate native interest in the process of the bidding criterion. That is something which gives us cause for concern.
Essentially the only protection for native people which is offered in the text of the Act is a statement that their rights would not be abbrogated. That I think is frankly inadequate, because it begs the question of what are the rights and interests in the land and the land claims themselves. To put that in legislation without some documentation, some specificity as to what those rights are is, in my opinion, not taking adequate care of those rights and opening up the possibility in the future of the abrogation of them.
Another criticism we have is that there is really very little provision in the Bill for the pacing of development to accord with Canada's best interests. We do not know if we are setting the country up for a feast or a famine when it comes to oil development. We really do not know what the effects will be on the Canadian economy, whether there will be a stampede to
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
the frontier or another capital strike of the nature of the one that occurred after the introduction of the National Energy Program and led to very little drilling in the frontier. By moving away from a system of orderly development, something that could have been negotiated according to the Government's priorities, policies and goals, will simply be at the mercy of commercial decisions which, in almost every case, will be taken entirely outside of Canada and beyond the bounds of Canada's ability to express the national interest and the Government's ability to influence the decisions that are being made.
Returning to the Crown share, I would like to echo the theme developed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), who discussed the back-in provision of 25 per cent which gave the federal Government the right to acquire the interest in commercially viable petroleum funds in recognition of the very substantial burdens imposed on the Canadian taxpayer in the development of these frontier lands. It is all very well for the Government to refer to the 25 per cent back-in provision as being confiscatory, but there are two facts which the Government cannot influence. One is the success by comparison of the Norwegian oil industry. The Norwegian oil industry is one which, far from having a 25 per cent back-in provision for the state-owned company, Statoil, has a 50 per cent, and in some cases a 70 per cent back-in provision. Yet the Norwegain oil industry has flourished. Norway has gone from being a country which produced no oil 20 years ago to a substantial producer of oil and gas, indeed one with surpluses available for export.
Perhaps I could note one thing by distilling the evidence given by representatives of Statoil who were invited to the hearings on Bill C-28 of the previous Parliament at the initiative of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway. They were starting from zero. Essentially, as did Britain in the North Sea oil and gas, they started out without any experience, without a great deal of expertise in oil production, with no regulations and with no history of the production of liquid or gaseous fuel hydrocarbons. The Norwegians went ahead and introduced this legislation which gave them the right to a 50 per cent share through Statoil. I suppose our Government would call that double confiscation since it thinks of a 25 per cent back-in as being single confiscation. Yet the Norwegians built a successful oil industry.
Of course, the other thing that the Government cannot change is the fact that Canadian taxpayers have invested very heavily in this industry in the past. Surely we as taxpayers have the right to some return on that investment. Surely the Crown share is an effective way of getting that return.
I suppose others have already pointed this out, but I think it bears stating again that the Government is being inconsistent in this. In the Prince Albert declaration of 1984, the Conservatives had the following to say:
We will set aside this retroactive "back-in", which is expropriation without compensation and has done so much to damage our relationship with international and Canadian investors. Instead, we will introduce a "Canadian share" which will encourage Canadian private and public ownership of oil and gas production on discoveries made after October 28, 1981.

May 20, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
In the speech by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources she said that there will be no Crown share in the legislation. We are left with the idea that somehow the private sector will provide an equivalent return to the economy as the Crown share unless, of course, it is the Government's intention not to provide an equivalent return to the Canadian taxpayers. That is a theme on which I would like to hear the Government expound and justify.
Regarding the interests of Canada's aboriginal habitants, Clause 3 states that nothing in the Act abrogates or derogates from aboriginal title, right or claim that pertained to the aboriginal peoples of Canada prior to the coming into force of this Act. As I have said before, apart from that clause, there is really nothing in the Bill that provides protection for Canada's aboriginal peoples.
As has been pointed out at some length by the previous speaker, there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that the costs which can be saved by the fall in world oil prices will be passed along to the Canadian consumer. We have seen a drop in the price of gasoline at the pump but it has not been of the magnitude of the drop in the world price. It is a particularly sore point in my riding that we have not seen any drop in the price of heating oil; rather, there has been an increase. We have not seen a drop in the price of aviation fuels; rather, there has been an increase. In committee last week, the Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. Murta) said that he really did not see doing anything about that.
As well, there is no commitment to the continuation of gas distribution incentives. Instead, we are being told by this legislation to trust the companies. I submit that the previous experience and recent history of the companies indicates that they serve interests which are largely based outside Canada, and they have an eye toward profits. Indeed, they are determined, because of the present fall in prices, to recoup what they see as being the reduced profits which, in their opinion, they have suffered over the last while.
I do not think Bill C-92 adequately addresses the energy situation in Canada today. I do not think it adequately addresses the needs of Canadian consumers or of Canadian taxpayers. It remains to be seen, of course, if it will provide the benefits in the frontier lands that it says will be possible.


Mrs. Sparrow:: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry), said that taxpayers supported and paid for the exploration and development in the frontier. Back in about 1980, the previous Government introduced the National Energy Program which included a petroleum-gas revenue tax. That tax started out at 16 per cent and was a front-end revenue tax. The moneys collected from that came from western producers and supported PIP grants. The PIP grants were 80 cents on the dollar in the frontier and 35 cents on the dollar in provincial land, depending upon Canadian ownership.
My colleague stated that the taxpayers of Canada paid for the exploration in the frontier. Perhaps he could comment on
the PGRT, a tax paid for by the western producers. That is how the money to explore in the North was found.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) is not suggesting that the total revenue reaped by the PGRT was equivalent to the incentives, direct subsidies and grants that were paid out for frontier exploration. I do not have the figures with me, but perhaps the Hon. Member does and would like to put them forward.
I would certainly challenge the Hon. Member by saying that the revenues collected through the PGRT did not come close to paying the cost to the Canadian taxpayer of the investment in frontier exploration.
I should like to remind the Hon. Member for Calgary South that we in the New Democratic Party, after all, opposed the PIP grants because we thought they were in fact too generous. I should also like to remind her that the previously available superdepletion allowances were in some cases giving back to the companies more than they were actually spending. In other words, they were receiving a tax break on their drilling investment which came to more than 100 per cent. At the time of debate on Bill C-48, we estimated that the combination of PIP grants and other tax breaks would mean that taxpayers would be putting up 93 cents for every dollar spent by a Canadian company and 72 cents for every dollar spent by a foreign company on Canada Lands.
Setting aside for the moment the superdepletion allowance, which is a fiscal measure of a different order that had the same effect of making frontier drilling very profitable for companies, I would defy the Hon. Member to say that a 93 per cent participation in the cost of exploration was anything other than a very substantial investment by Canadian taxpayers.
A couple of other points should be made. One is the enormous investment by Canadian taxpayers in picking up some of the costs incurred by other parties, particularly native people, and the costs of supporting and in many cases expanding communities which acted as jumping off points for that type of exploration.
Failing the presentation of further information by the Hon. Member for Calgary South, I would have to say that her hypothesis that the western oil industry funded frontier exploration through the Exchequer is entirely unproven.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) spoke very sympathetically about the view advanced by certain land claimants that no further dispositions on oil and gas lands be made until such time as outstanding land claims had been resolved. I did not quite understand whether he was saying that it was the policy of the New Democratic Party to accept that and, in so doing, to give the right of veto to a group of private citizens, as important as they are, over such dispositions on oil and gas
May 20, 1986

lands. Could he clarify that point and say whether or not his Party, were it to be in office, would grant that power of veto?


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) for that very friendly question. I always enjoy discussing what our Party will do when we are in power.
I say to him very frankly that the native people of Canada are far more than private citizens. They have the commitment of the New Democratic Party to their claim to a share in oil and gas development and, more important, to their claim to a say in how that development will be carried out. However, I believe that we have a non-expressed or implicit commitment in the Constitution. We also have the commitment of the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on this point.
Perhaps I should reiterate that it was not suggested by the native people that they should have an absolute veto on development, but that no development on any lands subject to land claims, be they comprehensive or specific, should go forward without consultation and without the approval of the native people affected. Of course, none of these developments should ever go forward without proper provision for the participation of native people, and the employment and other economic benefits which would result.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest the Hon. Member's concern about the single bidding process. I wonder whether he thoroughly read the Bill. Although there will be a single bidding process, the terms and conditions of that bidding will be clearly enunciated. For example, there could be a work project, there could be core, or the concerns could be those of the native peoples of Canada. The concerns will all be spelled out in the bid process and pre-published so that everyone in the country will know exactly what are the terms and conditions of the bid. It was done in secret before. There was wheeling and dealing behind closed doors. The Minister might have had a favourite or might have cut out the other guy because he or she did not like him. Now it will be up front. The terms and conditions will be laid out. They will be bidding on one item, on the lands as laid out, and on all the conditions which go with the issuance of an exploration licence. Does the Hon. Member not see the advantage of that to our native peoples?


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, of course I am very glad to have the commitment of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that such provisions as employment for native people and participation in the benefits will become part of the single bidding process.


John Horton McDermid: Could become.


John Edmund Parry: I heard that they would become part of the process. I hear the Hon. Member saying "could". I must accept his correction of what he actually said. However, we are very glad to have it on the record whether it be "will" or "could".
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
In raising the point I wanted to make very clear that we in the New Democratic Party, if Bill C-92 goes through unchanged, would be looking very closely at those bids to ensure that employment and other benefits are provided for native people and that they will be consulted in the preparation of single bid documents.


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) and by my friend who spoke on the Bill, that is, the drilling in Ottawa for frontier moneys, for getting money from the Government, I draw the attention of the Hon. Member for Calgary South to my speech in the debate as reported at page 13143 of Hansard, in which I referred to former Energy Minister Marc Lalonde who spoke to the Energy Committee on January 20, 1981. He said at that time that some $4.5 billion to $5 billion had been spent to date on frontier exploration. He meant from about 1960 to about 1981. That was the period before the National Energy Program and under the old Canada oil and gas lands regulations. Mr. Lalonde felt that it was fair to say that some three-quarters of that, or some $3 billion, had been footed by Canadian taxpayers. He went on to say that more than 90 per cent of every exploration dollar had been covered by Canadian taxpayers. Some $3 billion was spent from 1960 to 1981, and we learned in committee that $7.3 billion was spent in PIP grants from 1981 to 1986. That is a total of about $10.3 billion which Canadian taxpayers have put in to subsidize the oil industry which feels it has been treated so badly in frontier development and exploration.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Government ran the country for 16 long years, and it led Canadians into a pit of debt so deep that a quarter of federal revenues must go to service our national debt. Canadians are fed up with wasting productive revenue on debt interest.
By the end of the decade, the measures announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his recent Budget will stop the national debt growing faster than the national economy. In just over 20 months we have begun to reverse 16 years of Liberal damage. We promised to reduce the deficit, and we have. We said we would create jobs, and we are. In 20 months more than 580,000 new jobs have been created and 82 per cent of these are full-time jobs. The official number of unemployed has fallen by about 17 per cent from September, 1984. But that is not the entire picture, Mr. Speaker. Tens of thousands of Canadians who had exhausted their unemployment benefits and therefore no longer counted among the officially unemployed are also finding jobs. Canadians are finding jobs because the economy has improved. The economic upturn is a direct result of the policies and programs this Government has introduced.
The frontier policy statement made on October 30, 1985 ended the five year nightmare thrust upon our economy, particularly upon our energy sector, by the Liberals' National

May 20, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
Energy Program. In opposition we said there was a better way to achieve the goals of the NEP, but our views and the views of Canadian workers and business leaders were not taken into account by the previous Government.
We faced an uncaring Liberal Government that talked of fairness but then confiscated property. We were dealing with a Government that promised opportunities, then took steps that cut off investment in Canada's energy sector, sending tens of thousands to the ranks of the unemployed. The Liberals talked about security of supply, then through overly generous PIP grants they promoted drilling for taxpayers dollars and not for oil. To make that situation worse, Mr. Speaker, they imposed punitive taxes that discouraged commercial production.
At their first opportunity, Canadians rejected the Liberal claim of fairness, opportunity and security of supply. Canadians have lived with the NEP's inflexibility for nearly five years and many have suffered from this destructive policy. The Progressive Conservative message of fairness and market responsiveness was heard. It was understood by Canadians in every region. They demanded a change and gave the Progressive Conservative Party the mandate to reverse the economic decline, to put Canadians back to work and to re-unite the country after it had been torn apart by federal-provincial disputes.
As consumers, we felt the National Energy Program cut into our personal revenues as gasoline prices increased. In Ottawa, for example, prices for regular leaded gasoline rose from 29.3 cents a litre in December, 1980, to 51.5 cents a litre in October, 1985. That is a 75 per cent increase.
Crude oil prices are now entirely set by the market, and consumers today are benefiting as price decreases work their way through the system. The past Government did not want prices to fall because it was amassing a national debt. It looked upon the oil and gas industry as its cash cow, but even a 75 per cent increase in gasoline prices could not sustain the massive debt the Liberals created.
Under Conservative deregulation, crude oil price decreases that from time to time occur in the market-place are allowed to work their way through the oil production, transportation and refining systems and to consumers at the gas pumps. Deregulation of crude oil prices is only one feature of our energy policy which has been radically transformed in just over one year by the Atlantic Accord signed in February, 1985, by the Western Accord signed in March, 1985, by the Agreement on Natural Gas Prices and Markets and by Canada's Energy Frontiers: A Strategy for Jobs and Investment.
The Canadian Petroleum Resources Bill is an example of the spirit of consultation and co-operation that are integral parts of our energy policy. The Government understands the important role the north and offshore regions can play in Canada's economic and energy future. We saw the potential for development of our frontier resouces, but we also saw the need for new policies; policies that encourage development
rather than smother initiative, policies that replace taxpayers subsidies with private sector investment, policies that pursue the national interest rather than nationalization, policies that respect the rights of others rather than confiscating their property, and policies that are based on the principles of cooperation and shared management among governments.
The Canada Petroleum Resources Bill meets these high standards. It is market responsive, internationally competitive, free of excessive Government intervention and sensitive to regional interests. This approach to energy policy reflected in all the measures we have taken is needed more today than ever before.
As Members know, the industry faces a severe challenge in the form of falling oil prices. Cash flow is dropping, exploration and development plans are being re-assessed and, yes, some jobs are at stake. But this Government is seriously concerned about the situation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced a tax relief program on April 30 targeted at small producers in order to help maintain their cash flow and short-term exploration activity. The changes to the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax, or the PGRT, included an increase in the small producers tax credit from its current level of $500,000 to $2 million. A zero PGRT rate for the Sycrude and Suncor Oil Sands projects for the rest of 1986. These measures added $175 million to the significant tax relief announced in the Western Accord last year. They are consistent with royalty relief measures provided by the Government of Alberta.
This Government will continue to assess the impact of prices on the industry in close consultation with the producing provinces and with the industry itself. The Government has freed the industry from excessive taxation and regulation. Measures such as this Bill and the Western Accord have left the industry better able to do what it does best, respond to the challanges and opportunities of the market-place.
The Canada Petroleum Resources Bill responds to frontier challenge. It recognizes that exploration and production in Canada's far north or offshore carry a higher cost and a greater risk than in the conventional areas. This Bill will replace the existing Canada Oil and Gas Act with a simplified and fair set of rules designed to encourage development of our frontier resources. The Canada Petroleum Resources Bill provides the legislative framework for the Atlantic Accord and for agreements that may be reached between the federal Government and other coastal provinces and territorial governments. The Bill establishes a fair set of ground rules for exploration, development and production of our oil and gas resources on the frontier lands and offshore. Under this Bill the Government of Canada will introduce a simple, competitive bidding system for exploration rights to prospective lands based on a single criterion, one in which the best bid wins. This will ensure the maximum return to Canadians as resource owners. It will ensure fair treatment of companies bidding for exploration rights.
May 20, 1986

The Government does not confiscate property retroactively. Thus, the Canada Petroleum Resources Bill does not have a Crown share. However, this Bill does provide for 50 per cent Canadian ownership in frontier production projects. The Bill will require a company applying for development approval with respect to a pre-1982 discovery to submit a plan showing how it will attain a 50 per cent Canadian ownership rate by the time the production licence is issued. Unlike the previous legislation, the provisions in Bill C-92 are non-retroactive and non-confiscatory and emphasize private sector solutions. The Canada Petroleum Resource Bill respects the rights of companies regardless of their nationality.
This Bill does not give preferential treatment to Petro-Canada. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) has instructed Petro-Canada to operate as a private sector company and to deliver the best possible return to its shareholders, the people of Canada.
The proposed legislation provides for the fiscal measures outlined in the frontier policy statement. These changes will limit the royalty burden during the early stages of production, but will ensure an equitable sharing of revenue between Government and industry after the investment has been recovered. A 25 per cent investment royalty credit will be applicable to eligible costs of up to $5 million for new exploration wells. The credit will be applied against royalties otherwise payable within the region. This royalty credit will provide conventional onshore frontier exploration with reasonable fiscal incentives. A 25 per cent exploration tax credit will be introduced in separate legislation. It is part of a broader energy strategy that allows the industry to respond to the marketplace. It was the approach Canadians wanted. It is why they elected a Progressive Conservative Government.
It has been a pleasure for me to speak in support of Bill C-92 and I look forward to seeing it go to a legislative committee as quickly as possible.


Mr. Caldwell:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member from Calgary a very brief question. Her expertise in the oil business is, of course, known across the country. What price does she believe oil would have to reach in order to really stimulate exploration?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I would have to discuss conventional exploration versus frontier exploration. With regard to conventional, which would take place in the producing provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan, and to some extent B.C., as well as north of the 60th, the figure I have been given is about $18 to $20 U.S. a barrel. As my hon. colleague knows, yesterday the posted price was $17.30 to $17.40 U.S. per barrel. It is, therefore, gradually, escalating upward. It is, of course, far more costly to explore and develop in the frontier regions. In order to be economically feasible to produce in the frontier the price must reach $23 to $25 U.S. a barrel.
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
We must realize that in order to achieve a viable oil and gas industry and security of supply, all Canadian consumers will have to participate. The Government is communicating and consulting constantly with the Governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta with regard to conventional lands. The Government is looking carefully at the Beaufort because it has tremendous possibilities.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Member from Calgary a couple of questions about the approach taken by this Bill with regard to petroleum incentives for the east coast offshore. Does she agree with the proposal contained in this Bill that we go to a 25 per cent exploration tax credit in such a rapid way? The Member talked about the Bill not being confiscatory with regard to Canada Lands and the percentage of federal Government ownership and so on.
In view of the tremendous investments which have been made by companies like Husky Bow Valley which has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in exploration and development equipment, does the Member feel the Government has treated them fairly by cutting off the Petroleum Incentive Program grants? This Canadian-owned company made massive investments on the basis that it would be treated fairly by the Government. Now the Government is cutting off those Petroleum Incentive Program grants. It had an agreement to drill eight or ten wells and is suddenly only going to be able to drill one or two.
The Hon. Member heard the concerns of these companies before the Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, which she chairs in a very distinguished way. It is great to get to the development stage and, fortunately, the Bill does not take away 50 per cent Canadian ownership at that stage. However, does she really think it is in the best interests of the country to take away the assistance which was committed to these Canadian-owned companies, especially in view of the massive investments which they have already made with a view to the completion of many wells rather than only one or two which will be the result?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned 10 wells which were "typical" with regard to Bow Valley and the East Coast. That is not the right number. My colleague will also remember that at committee stage when we were discussing the grandfathering of the typical well, which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources handled so well, companies were allowed to maintain grandfathering on four wells off the east coast under the energy agreements. We must realize that all wells must be based on geology and economics rather than dollars and cents. We must have the economics and geology to explore.
It is very interesting to note that prior to the National Energy Program and prior to the implementation of the Petroleum Incentive Program there was far more activity off Hibernia. The discoveries were made long before PIP grants were in place. We put the onus back on the resource companies

May 20, 1986
to go to work and base their exploration on geology and economics. That is the way it should be done.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At one o'clock p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the U.S. softwood lumber industry has applied for countervailing duties against Canadian lumber exported to the U.S. It has asked the International Trade Commission and the Department of Commerce to impose a 27 per cent duty on Canadian exports of softwood lumber. If this action were successful it would cost Canadian producers some $1 billion in duties and decimate the industry, costing tens of thousands of jobs. Canadian lumber producers are not improperly subsidized by low stumpage fees, as has been alleged in the application.
At the same time an omnibus Trade Bill is working its way through the U.S. Congress. It would further define items subject to countervailing duties and would be harmful to Canadian exports of lumber.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) boasts about his good relationship with President Reagan and how all he has to do to get action in the U.S. is to make a quick telephone call. Now is the time for him to show how much influence he has with President Reagan. Thousands of jobs and billions of dollars-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.
* *
*


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, concerned citizens around the world have been worried about the effect of the Chernobyl accident on their health. However, there has been an abuse of the disaster by some for cold war purposes. Perhaps our own Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), who has been so openly critical of the Soviet Government for withholding information on the Chernobyl accident, should apply the
same criteria to the fallout from the April 10 nuclear bomb test in Nevada, code-named Mighty Oak. Not only was there no official statement by Canada opposing the irresponsible American test, there has yet to be an official statement of concern about the effects of radiation from the Nevada test on Canadians.
This nuclear malfunction has been shrouded in intense secrecy for over a month. Canadian scientists such as Dr. Rosalie Bertell have raised concern that the high levels of radiation in B.C. may be from Nevada as well as Chernobyl. Carl Schumaker, a radiation expert from Alberta, shares this concern, as does Ian Thorsen, manager of the Subatomic Research facility at UBC. Nuclear radiation is dangerous, whether from an American or Soviet accident, and secrecy should be condemned equally and publicly.
* *
*


HISTORIC EVENTS
Mr. Pierre H. Cadieux (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of this House to the 200th anniversary of the founding of the Molson brewery. John Molson, who immigrated to Montreal from England in 1782, began the family business in that city four years later, in 1786. Since that time the Molsons have been business and civic leaders in Montreal, Quebec, and Canada. This evening Her Excellency the Governor General, the Right Hon. Jeanne Sauve, will honour this remarkable family and their tremendous contribution to our nation.

I therefore invite all my colleagues in the House to join me in extending congratulations to the Molson family on this 200th anniversary.
* *
*


GUELPH PLATERS WIN HOCKEY MEMORIAL CUP
Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, many Members of this House know Guelph because of its famous university. Others know the city and the countryside around it as the agricultural centre of Canada. Some acknowledge our leadership in diversified industry. Still others recognize one of the beauty spots of our nation. Guelph is all of that, and more. It is now the home of the Memorial Cup. Only a ruling by you prevents me from congratulating the Guelph Platers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 20, 1986


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, Teleglobe Canada recently tabled its annual report announcing a 1985 after-tax profit of 15.4 per cent. This is another wellfounded reason why the Government should reconsider its decision to divest. In its zeal to privatize the Government is dismantling a leading edge, high-tech communication service built by the Canadian taxpayer through proficient labour and management. Teleglobe's remittance to the federal Government will jump to $80 million this year. Its revenue increased to $678 million in 1985 and operating expenses dropped 1 per cent.
This side of the House will continue to pressure the Government for assurances that, if this unwise sale is to take place, Teleglobe Canada will remain totally Canadian owned, there will be no lessening of service or increased cost to consumers, the company will remain Montreal based, and the present employees' benefit package is guaranteed. Selling our only international communications network for a one shot charge against the federal deficit is shortsighted and poor management of our very precious public funds.


ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, with total revenues close to a billion dollars a year the Royal Canadian Mint is big business and contributes substantially to Canada's economy. Some 5 million ounces of gold are being refined annually, making the Canadian mint the third largest refinery in the world after the Soviet Union and South Africa.
Sales of the Maple Leaf bullion coin, 1.88 million ounces in 1985, are most successful, as are sales of numismatic coins and circulating coins for foreign countries.
The Mint has geared up for the production of the proposed $1 Canadian circulating coin.
It is significant to note, Sir, that this year Canada will host the International Mint Directors Conference. This is the first time that this important event will be held outside Europe.


DISASTERS
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, on Friday a flood destroyed the Cree Village of Winisk killing two
people and leaving only seven buildings standing in a community that once counted 60.
This foreseeable tragedy in a village which is flooded more often in the spring than not, would not have occurred if the community's long planned relocation had been carried out already.
While we should be thankful for all the lives that were saved we should also be ashamed that this tragedy happened, since the best emergency planning cannot secure inherently unsafe situations. I therefore call upon the Government to act to help the Winisk band to build its new community this year.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, Ethiopia has the worst record on human rights in the world. That is the claim of a study of 120 countries published by The Economist. Ethiopia scored only 13 per cent, far behind the Soviet Union and even South Africa.
Ethiopia, for example, has over 10,000 political prisoners, some like Haile Selassie's family who have been held for over 10 years without even a charge. I am reliably informed that Berhanu Dinka, the Ethiopian Ambassador to the United States and Canada, recently made the mistake of going home and is now being held in detention.
With this kind of political tyranny and human rights record surely it behooves Canada to help. We have influence in Ethiopia. We have moved to help their hungry. Surely we could move to help their oppressed. Linking development to human rights would be a good start.


IMPORTANCE OF AMERICAN MARKET TO CANADA
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, for a number of months, the leaders of the Opposition parties and their Members have been doing everything in their power to try and scare Canadians. They brandish the spectre of unemployment before our workers, whenever we talk about increasing trade with the United States.
Mr. Speaker, the facts tell us otherwise. The United States is Canada's first trading partner and vice versa. Canadian-U.S. trade exceeded $110 billion in 1984, making it the most important bilateral trading relationship in the world.

May 20, 1986
Canada does about 75 per cent of its trade with the United States. The United States have more commercial exchanges with Ontario than with Japan, their second trading partner.
Unlike what the Opposition likes to think, the U.S. market is a source of employment for Canadian men and women, and we intend to keep those jobs in Canada and in Abitibi.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, regrettably Canada's Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) had to cry from the rooftops that he and Jim Bradley disagreed on the U.S. cleanup plan for the Niagara River. What was wrong in adopting the stronger standards proposed by Ontario? Why did Canada's Environment Minister have to reveal to the Americans, on the eve of negotiations in Washington, that he was in favour of a weaker plan than the one his Ontario colleague proposes?
If details of negotiations are not public knowledge with free trade then why should it be so with the environment?
Incompetence as a negotiator is not all. The Minister's decision to accept the weaker proposal advanced by EPA, despite the urging of the NGOs and his Ontario colleague, reveals that he has no idea of what the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is all about. The U.S. has a responsibility to Canada because of the agreement which entitles Canada to a cleanup in the Niagara as a matter of international agreement, not as an act of kindness.


DISASTERS
Robert Alfred Corbett: This past weekend thousands of people throughout New Brunswick and the Atlantic region reacted to a series of very serious and risky situations in the most heroic and admirable way. They acted to save homes, property, and perhaps even lives.
Throughout New Brunswick and the Atlantic provinces over the holiday weekend, literally thousands of volunteer firefighters made tremendous and tireless efforts to cut the progress of many raging fires and to bring flames that seemed unextinguishable under control. Today a major portion of the damage is behind us, although the situation remains critical. This success is due in large part to volunteer efforts. Without
the brave and selfless efforts of these men, it is certain there would have been much greater loss of homes and real property.
I saw many of these men at work with their hoses, axes, and heavy machines. Long after they were exhausted by the physical demands, and when lesser men would have quit, they struggled to contain the fires and the smoke.
I have now come to realize first hand how reliant a community facing fire fears is on those who act on its behalf. In many areas the only thing standing between a community and disaster was and continues to be the tremendous efforts of firefighters.
I think many of us in this Chamber would be humbled by the noble actions of the volunteer fire-fighters in New Brunswick and the Atlantic region.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, last week Bishop Remi De Roo and a number of other representatives of churches who were meeting at a conference in Calgary took note of the very large increase in the number of people in Calgary who are now depending on food banks. They took note of the fact that this is happening in all parts of Canada and expressed a belief that it is morally wrong that people should have to depend on charity for food. They called on the federal and provincial Governments to re-evaluate the delivery of welfare to Canadians.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Government, employment in Quebec went down and unemployment went up. However, as a result of the favourable economic conditions we have created in Quebec, 127,000 jobs have been created. A drop of almost 4 per cent in interest rates since September 1984 has encouraged small business. Since the beginning of 1986, more than a third of small business owners have decided to increase their investments, something unheard of under the previous Liberal Governement.
Mr. Speaker, that is why permanent jobs are now becoming available for more Canadian men and women. This contrasts favourably with the unsuccessful Canada Works programs developed by the former Government. As we promised in 1984,
May 20, 1986

every Thursday evening more and more Canadian men and women are receiving pay cheques.



Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, ever since the Progessive Conservative Government took office here in Ottawa, the Ontario economy has been on the move.
Since September, 1984, some 305,000 jobs have been created in the Province of Ontario. The Ontario unemployment rate has fallen from 9.5 per cent to 6.8 per cent, and total unemployment has fallen by 114,000.
The value of building permits issued in 1985 was up 33.8 per cent, or $2.1 billion, compared with 1984. Building permits in the first two months of this year were up 60 per cent over the same period in 1985, and 76 per cent over 1984.
Retail sales increased by 9 per cent in the past year and 15 per cent since the September, 1984, election.
Capital expenditures are up by over 14 per cent, housing starts by 35 per cent. Bankruptcies are down 15 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


Alan Redway: Things may not be perfect yet but Ontario is sure looking good.


HOUSING
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, a recent study revealed the desperate shortage of affordable housing in Metro Toronto where tens of thousands of people are estimated to be living in substandard and often overcrowded dwellings.
Ninety-five thousand rental householders in Metro Toronto are struggling to meet their payments; 20,000 people are waiting for subsidized housing; and 175,000 income-earning rental householders are paying 25 per cent or more of their income on rent and utilities. Yet, between 1981 and 1985, almost 9,000 rental units have been lost in Toronto and turned into single family homes for the more affluent.
Hardest hit by this crisis are the elderly, single parent families, low wage earners, students, and the disabled. That such conditions could exist in Canada today is indeed frightful. Even more alarming is the Government's silence, despite the plight of those who need reasonable and affordable shelter
Oral Questions
now. It is this part of Canada that the Conservative Party continues to ignore. Its members do so at their peril and at the peril of our socio-economic order, for the crisis has also contributed to sharp increases in family breakdowns, domestic violence, psychiatric problems, teenage prostitution, and increasing line-ups at food banks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: wish to direct a question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The President of the United States, in order to facilitate a favourable vote in the United States Senate to allow free trade negotiatons to go forward, wrote to Senator Packwood of Oregon. He said in relation to the Canada softwood lumber problem:
I intend to press for an expedited resolution to this problem independent of the comprehensive negotiations. If this cannot be achieved through bilateral negotiations then I will take such action as may be necessary to resolve this problem consistent with U.S. law.
Has the Prime Minister telephoned the President of the United States with respect to the agreement the President made with Senator Packwood and other Senators and informed him that that is not an acceptable position for him to take in view of our comprehensive negotiations with that country?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not telephoned the President, but he is aware of my view, the view of the Secretary of State, and that of the Government in this regard. We look forward to the negotiations as an instrument which will resolve many outstanding difficulties. There will be ongoing irritants which will have to be resolved and we are working on those as well.


THREAT OF COUNTERVAIL
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it appears to us that the Government of Canada has put its interests in getting the approval of the Senate Finance Committee before the interests of the Canadian softwood lumber industry. Why has the Prime Minister sacrificed a $3 billion industry and opened us up to an attempt by the American industry, impliedly supported by the President of the United States, to countervail, under United States law?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize to the House that the
13408

May 20, 1986
Oral Questions
Government will take every possible action it can to fight this countervail case. I want the House to understand that the very reason we need the Canada-U.S. agreement is to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future. I cannot understand why the Opposition is not prepared to support us in this endeavour.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will put the vital question to the Minister for International Trade. Why did the Government of Canada in order to facilitate its larger discussions, obviously sacrifice, with the consent and acquiescence of the President of the United States in order to get Senate approval, the largest export industry we have other than agriculture, and hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, there is not the slightest shred of evidence to support an allegation of that nature.


John Napier Turner: The letter. The letter of the President.


James Francis Kelleher: If the Right Hon. Leader has any facts to give me to support that allegation, I would certainly be pleased to receive them.


John Napier Turner: I will send you a copy of the letter.


James Francis Kelleher: In the meantime I want him to know that this was an initiative taken by the U.S. industry, not by the administration, and we are going to support our industry in every conceivable way. We will exercise every right we have under the GATT to see that our interests are protected in this matter.


APARTHEID
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has stated he is outraged by the raids by South Africa on neighbouring states. He has given vent to that outrage by temporarily recalling our Canadian ambassador. Why does the Prime Minister not do what he committed himself to do before the United Nations last October, and immediately sever diplomatic relations with South Africa?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I issued on behalf of the Government, and I believe the people of Canada, the strongest possible condemnation of the raids by South Africa upon
neighbouring countries which happen to be our partners in the Commonwealth. We are consulting now with a number of other Commonwealth countries to determine what would be the most effective way for Canada, the Commonwealth, and for all concerned with ending apartheid, to continue to act together to stop that practice in South Africa.
I have made it clear, as has the Prime Minister, that while Canada would not choose as a preference to disrupt our economic and diplomatic relations with South Africa, if we can find no other way to have our influence count against apartheid, then we will take that step. We believe that there are intermediary steps to be considered first in consultation with our ambassador and our friends in the Commonwealth and elsewhere, and we are doing that.


REQUEST FOR SEVERANCE OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, why do the Secretary of State and the Government not take the lead as is Canada's tradition in these matters? We know what has happened. The Secretary of State has condemned it in strong terms but words are not the same as action. Surely the time has come for Canada to terminate diplomatic relations with that regime.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, Canada has consistently, at least since the election of this Government, taken the lead among nations in opposing apartheid in South Africa. One of the things we did was play an instrumental, important role in establishing the Eminent Persons Group of the Commonwealth. That Eminent Persons Group was making some progress in South Africa. We can only assume that the action taken was designed to sabotage the work of the Commonwealth.
In so far as we are concerned, I will be meeting later this week with Archbishop Scott, our representative on the Eminent Persons Group. We want to examine the issue to see if there is any possible future role to be played by the Eminent Persons Group. I would not want to leap to some hasty decision here in the House of Commons today that might cut off the possibility of the Commonwealth working effectively to bring an end to apartheid.


BAN ON INVESTMENT REQUESTED
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, the abolition of diplomatic relations with South Africa might simply lead to a continuation of massive levels of trade as it did, for example, in the case of Canada's relations with Taiwan. Given the obvious insult, to put it mildly, to the Eminent Persons Committee present in South Africa at the time of these horrible raids, will the Government undertake now to change its voluntary controls over Canadian investment in South Africa and to issue instructions to Canadian companies that there should be no more investment in South Africa as long as this abominable practice of apartheid is maintained?
May 20, 1986


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are of course considering all actions that are available to Canada. We are considering ways in which we can make our position known, but we are also considering ways in which our actions in concert with others might bring an end to apartheid.
It may well be that, in time, we will have to adopt the step to which the Hon. Member has referred. I have already said that and I have said that consistently, but I think that the Hon. Member would agree that it would be in the interests of all who are opposed to that absolutely offensive regime and all who are offended by the attacks authorized by the Government of South Africa to find some way, working with India, Australia, and our other friends in the Commonwealth and elsewhere, to be able together to accomplish more than one nation acting alone might accomplish.


REQUEST FOR BAN ON IMPORTATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE FROM SOUTH AFRICA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. More specifically, would the Minister agree to stop imports of agricultural products from South Africa?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we are prepared to consider all available options. For the time being we believe it would be better to take joint action with our Commonwealth friends. We feel that joint action by the Commonwealth and other countries would probably have a stronger impact than unilateral action by a single government, but we are prepared to consider all options available to Canada.


REQUEST FOR COMMONWEALTH ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the Secretary of State. Collective action by the Commonwealth would be the preferable route to take. I also strongly believe that Canada should show leadership in this matter. I understand from what the Minister himself has said before that he would be sympathetic to that view. Given these points, will the Minister consider taking two specific proposals to our Commonwealth friends?
First, we should all agree to ban the importation of agricultural produce from South Africa. Second, we should all agree now to stop further private sector investment in South Africa. Those are two concrete proposals upon which the Commonwealth acting in unison could act, to bring that Government to its senses.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, under the very skillful leadership of the Prime Minister at Nassau, the Government of Canada was
Oral Questions
instrumental in achieving common action by the Commonwealth in the form of the establishment of the Eminent Persons Group. Obviously we will continue to try to find any other action which might be capable of bringing the Commonwealth together.
I am meeting later this afternoon with the High Commissioners of the Commonwealth countries represented in the Eminent Persons Group. The Hon. Roy McMurtry, our High Commissioner in London, will be attending a meeting meeting tomorrow as a member of the Commonwealth Continuing Committee on Southern Africa. Archbishop Ted Scott, our member of the Eminent Persons Group, will be in Canada on Thursday and Friday. I would hope it would be possible for him to meet with the Hon. Member and with the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, or their designates, as he will be meeting with me, to bring us up to date directly on the view of the Eminent Persons Group. We intend to continue to do everything we can. We intend to continue to exert Canadian leadership.


LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES-THREAT OF COUNTERVAIL
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. In response to a question from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition he said that the comprehensive negotiations were designed to solve the problems of disputes over lumber. Would he confirm that he or Simon Reisman approached the American Government and its representatives and asked for a freeze on all countervail actions while negotiations to deal with those matters were ongoing, and that the Americans rejected that approach?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, at no time have I ever asked the American Government to entertain a freeze on countervail actions. The Hon. Member must understand that any such approach by us would involve a similar request by them of us. I point out, for example, that at this particular time corn producers are filing a petition for countervail against American corn coming into this country. I know the Hon. Member is not suggesting that we deprive our citizens of their rights of protection under our law. The agreement is designed to prevent this in the future. This is why I think the Liberal Party, with respect, should be supporting this initiative.


Lloyd Axworthy: We are asking questions about the rights of 300,000 workers in the Canadian softwood lumber industry who are not being protected effectively by the Government.

May 20, 1986
13410_____________________________
Oral Questions REQUEST THAT NEGOTIATIONS BE HALTED


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, considering the fact that the Americans will not discuss this as part of the comprehensive negotiations, will the Minister instruct Mr. Reisman, when he meets with the American negotiator tomorrow, to say that Canada will not go forward with the comprehensive negotiations until such time as the countervail action is either rejected or withdrawn?


James Francis Kelleher: No, Mr. Speaker.


APARTHEID
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkervilte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The world recognizes that South Africa is an outlaw regime just as is Libya, and that special measures should be applied. Will the Government consider extending its actions in response to the illegal occupation of Namibia? In particular, will it consider abrogating the contract for the processing of uranium from South Africa in Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what is at issue here is abrogation of a contract. That is a very serious matter into which the Government decided not to enter when we announced the series of measures approved by the House, including approval by a spokesman of the New Democratic Party, in September of last year. We have indicated that from the date of my policy statement in the House in September, no further permission would be granted for that kind of activity. We have dealt with all activities of that kind from the point of the announcement; we did not deal retroactively.


REQUEST THAT CONTRACT BE TERMINATED
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs not agree that we do not have ordinary circumstances or an ordinary regime? It is not a regime noted for keeping its word. Isn't it about time that we asserted our position in connection with other actions we might take by terminating this contract, which is to terminate in 1988, in 1986, and serve notice that we not only disapprove of apartheid but the illegal occupation of Namibia, which is part and parcel of that regime's actions against its neighbors and its own people?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member was not seriously suggesting that, because South Africa breaches one code of democratic conduct, we should breach another. I am
sure that was not his serious suggestion, although that is the implication of his question.
In so far as Canadian leadership is concerned, Canada demonstrated leadership last summer in the actions we announced, demonstrated leadership through the Commonwealth in the establishment of the Eminent Persons Group, and had the benefit of there being a clear and general consensus in this House and in this country that we had to act together effectively against apartheid. I believe that consensus still exists. I intend to try as long as it will prove effective to work with our Commonwealth friends. If that proves no longer effective, then Canada will, as we said we would, take actions on our own.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS NEGOTIATION OF ADHERENCE OF QUEBEC TO CONSTITUTION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Prime Minister that during his absence, the Quebec Minister of Inter-governmental Affairs, Mr. Gil Remillard, tried to revive the question of Quebec's adhering to the 1981 constitutional agreement. Unfortunately, a damper was put on his initiative by what I would call a blunder by the Secretary of State, who said that the federal Government was not in a hurry, and secondly, did not feel obliged to deal with the constitutional question before the end of its first term.
I would therefore like to ask the Prime Minister whether this reflects the federal Government's position, and whether Quebecers will have to wait until after the next federal election before the problem of Quebec's approval of the constitutional agreement is settled?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Quebecers have suffered a great deal as a result of the unilateral action taken by the previous Liberal Government. The Secretary of State said that caution was necessary. He said that caution was of the essence to prevent another debacle like the one brought down on us by the Liberal Government.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Prime Minister for this very clear answer. I am sure all Quebecers now know what to expect.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR UNDERTAKING NEGOTIATIONS
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has confidence in the Secretary of State and whether he thinks Quebecers will trust him to negotiate the constitutional question after
May 20, 1986

what he said last week, when he insulted them by saying they didn't understand economic matters.


Mr. Malepart:: Is that the Prime Minister's opinion as well?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Listen to the constitutional expert from Montreal-Sainte-Marie! The Secretary of State-
* *
*


LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister knows, President Reagan is personally supporting the U.S. countervail action against Canadian softwood and this action is designed to bring a countervail of 27 per cent against Canadian softwood. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge today that 300 Canadian communities rely solely on softwood trade as their economic base? Will he put his money where his mouth is on the issue of free trade and guarantee some financial support to the freely traded commodity of softwood?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would again like to advise the Hon. Member that the President of the United States is not in any way supporting this particular countervail action. He has told us quite clearly that the Canada-U.S. trade initiative was without pre-conditions and that it was a clean launch.
Action has been started by American industry under American law. Industry has the right to bring that action, as Canadian industry does under Canadian law. I can assure the Hon. Member and every other Member in this House that the Canadian Government will do everything to support our industry in its fight against this harassment by the countervail action.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LEGAL ACTION-REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister for International Trade. On May 8 the President of the United States made it clear that he is supporting unilateral trade action against free trade in softwood lumber. Will the Minister put some money where his mouth is? Will he financially support the legal side of the Canadian argument to keep free trade in softwood lumber free?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can only reiterate that we are prepared to assist the industry in every way we can. I can tell the Hon. Member that we are having a meeting with the provinces on Thursday
Oral Questions
in Ottawa to discuss ways to defend against this action successfully, as we did in 1983.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works concerning the awarding of contracts by his department and his announcement on the weekend that there would be an investigation to find out why 86.5 per cent of service contracts awarded in Quebec during his Government's first year were given out without public calls for tender.
My question to the Minister is as follows: Could he inform the House who will conduct this investigation and what form it will take? And finally, will the results be tabled in the House?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that I believe this House is aware, and that he ought to know, that the philosophy or the system in current use is the very system that was set up by the previous Government.
Second, I think this junior Member ought to know that the Minister responsible has no authority over contracts worth $30,000 or less, because that authority has been delegated to the regions.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, and considering the reports about which I have serious doubts, today I asked my Deputy Minister to give me a full report on contracts allowed since September 4, 1984, and I will be glad to table this report in the House before the end of this session.


MINISTER'S STAFF ASSIGNMENT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Deputy Minister of Public Works stated in committee on February 28, 1985:
-there is a member of the Minister's staff assigned to our Montreal region-
Can the Minister tell this House why he has a political assistant inside the regional offices contrary to what the preceding Government did? Why is there political interference in the process, if not to dole out patronage? What is the reason for it?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell for giving me this opportunity to inform the House that, since I realized all Members of this House were

May 20, 1986
Oral Questions
having to cope with lack of information and often inadequate services, I have decided to post a departmental representative in Montreal who will be able to provide more and better information and services for all Members.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of National Defence. On Friday the Minister of National Defence was asked what the Government was willing to do to compensate those people whose homes and buildings were destroyed as a result of the actions of the Canadian Forces Base at Gagetown. Is the Associate Minister ready to give an answer?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Command Fire Marshall from the army is on site and is investigating the accident. A board of inquiry has been set up. The Base Commander is meeting today, and probably has met already, with the families concerned. I have issued instructions that the matter be looked into with due haste and that as soon as possible, within days, whatever actions are appropriate be taken so that no one is left financially penalized as a result of any due process.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for that answer. Does the Government have a policy in place in the event of destruction of civilian property as a result of military action?


Harvie Andre: Yes, indeed it does, Mr. Speaker. The board of inquiry procedure is the process in place. When there is obvious responsibility on the part of the Armed Forces, compensation is made. That will be the case in this circumstance as quickly as possible.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR FOREST FIRE
Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Associate Minister of National Defence. I would like to pursue this matter further. Would he assure the residents of that area that the military has recognized its responsibility for creating the fires along the highway from Gagetown to Upper Gagetown, and that they will not be kept waiting to know the results of the compensation program and rehabilitation program in the area for which the Government must take responsibility?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, that, of course, is the purpose of the Fire Marshall being there and for the inquiry. I can assure you that I have issued instructions that, under no circumstances, is this process to take an undue amount of time and that, if there is direct responsibility by the Armed Forces, compensation should be quick and generous.


OBJECT OF NEGOTIATIONS-SOCIAL PROGRAMS- NEGOTIATOR'S MANDATE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. On the weekend, Simon Reisman, Canada's free trade negotiator, stated that social programs might become negotiable if they had a substantial impact on trade between the two countries.
Could the Prime Minister inform the House under what conditions social programs would become partly or fully negotiable? And second, who would decide whether that was the case: the Canadian negotiator, Mr. Reisman, the Prime Minister or the House of Commons?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, Ambassador Reisman never made that kind of announcement.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is forgiven if he didn't have time to read the papers and listen to the news on the weekend.


OBJECT OF NEGOTIATIONS-SOCIAL PROGRAMS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Could the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that Mr. Reisman will never have a mandate to negotiate either part or all of our social programs, even if the Americans think they may have a substantial impact on trade between our two countries? Is the Prime Minister prepared to make a commitment to that effect?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there is no need for us to repeat a position that is well-known.
Canada's social programs are not at stake in negotiations that are exclusively concerned with matters of international trade.
May 20, 1986


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week I asked him about the Handford nuclear reactor, which is similar to the ones in Chernobyl, which is located in the State of Washington south of British Columbia. He kindly replied by letter today that his Government was awaiting a U.S. safety study on the reactor.
Given the lessons we learned from Chernobyl, why does the Government not go further and suggest to the Americans that this reactor be phased out in the interest of the safety of Canadians?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we thought we would await the evidence.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He said that with regard to Chernobyl, too.


FUTURE OF INDUSTRY-PROMISE OF INQUIRY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Given the concerns with regard to Chernobyl, safety standards, and the economics of the nuclear industry, what is the Government's present position on its election promise to hold a full federal inquiry into the future of the nuclear industry in Canada?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, this was the subject of a full debate in the House last week. I can only repeat the answer I gave the Hon. Member at that time, which was that we are participating in the international review of the Chernobyl incident. There is no point in calling for any sort of investigation into the nuclear industry until such time as that review is completed.


John Edward Broadbent: That was your campaign promise.


Pat Carney: I should also point out to the Hon. Member that the kind of nuclear reactor that caused the problem at Chernobyl could not be licensed and could not be built in Canada. Our nuclear reactors are of a different design and we are satisfied that they are within the safety category.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: I am sorry the NDP is not interested in the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order! Order, please!
Oral Questions


TOURISM
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Tourism. Since the media are saying that more and more American and European tourists are changing their travel destinations this summer, I would like to ask the Minister what his department has done to assess the situation, and what specific measures have been taken to persuade these tourists to visit this beautiful country of ours?


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I will indicate to the House that we are probably facing the best tourist year that we have had in more than a decade.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Burnett Murta: The number of American tourists coming to Canada was up by 16 per cent in the first three months of 1986.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank the Libyans.


Jack Burnett Murta: My officials are looking into possible new marketing initiatives in the United States. We expect to make an announcement in a very short period of time. More tourists in this country mean more jobs for Canadians, and that is what we are all about.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DISASTERS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As the Minister knows, the Cree Indian community of Winisk on the shore of Hudson Bay in northern Ontario has suffered a disastrous flood.
Can the Minister give the House an up to the minute report on the situation there, including whether there has been loss of life, the condition of survivors, and the over-all state of the community at this time?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for the opportunity to indicate to him and to the House that on behalf of the Government I sent condolences to the community on the incredible tragedy which befell it over the weekend. We have determined one loss of life and one confirmed still missing. One hundred and twenty people were

May 20, 1986
Oral Questions
airlifted to another community in northern Ontario where they are receiving some shelter and food.
The immediate course of action for us is to ensure that immediate arrangements are made for their safety and wellbeing. For that we have the co-operation of the Government of the Province of Ontario. Our second course of action is to move as fast as we can with respect to the relocation of the community.


RELOCATION OF COMMUNITY
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister is aware that Chief George Hunter is bitter and angry that it has taken so long to relocate his community to higher and safer ground. Can the Minister assure the House now that construction at the new site will begin this summer and that it will be completed before the winter?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, there is no question about the anguish, bitterness, and frustration felt. That community has been looking for relocation for over 20 years. I met with Chief George Hunter last Wednesday to discuss that and other matters. I will be in touch with him again after Question Period. I have met and talked with our own officials. There has been consultation with the appropriate Department in the Ontario Government. We need the full co-operation of the Government of the Province of Ontario, which the responsible Minister has indicated is forthcoming. I think the two Governments can move to get rid of all the obstacles which appeared to be there before. I want to give the Member and this House the assurance that whatever can be done with energy and vigour between these two Governments will be done.


SHIPYARDS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I just spoke with management at Marine Industries Limited who confirmed that two months ago the Government asked Mr. Peter Paul Saunders of Versatile Vickers to draw up a plan for the rationalization of Quebec shipyards, and that Marine Industries Limited was not informed in any way, despite the fact that the possible phaseout of MIL is one of the key points of the plan. How can the Minister and the Government justify the fact that the phaseout of MIL was discussed without getting in touch or consulting with the company in question?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Acting Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how the Member can honestly say that there is a proposal to close MIL. There are discussions ongoing within the industry to rationalize the shipbuilding industry. I am sure he knows there has been a decline in the shipbuilding industry, not only in Canada but throughout the world. What the former Minister was attempting to do was to solidify the future of the shipbuilding industry in Canada over the long term so it would provide a secure long-term future and secure jobs for those in it.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister then explain why the Government has undertaken this process of rationalization, given it to the leader of one of the two shipyards in Quebec, and told him, as he puts it, that the possibility of Marine Industries closing its marine facility is one of the key issues to be discussed. How can you justify having one shipyard owner talk about the closure of another one, with no consultation at all with Marine Industries?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member did his homework he would find there were discussions going on within the totality of the industry. He should check that out. Even Mr. Paul Martin, the owner of CSL, has been in discussion with other members of the industry. There is ongoing discussion between the various components of the shipbuilding industry, and the Hon. Member should welcome this initiative. At least we are trying to address the problem and cure it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE OF DIOXIN IN VEGETABLES, FRUIT, AND MILK
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. A report this weekend indicated that excessive amounts of cancer-causing dioxin have been found in vegetables, fruit, and milk. Can the Minister confirm the truth of these findings, and will he advise the House what action the Government intends to take concerning the situation?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to a meeting which took place last May 19 regarding the possibility of dioxins finding their way into the food chain. The Health Protection Branch has an ongoing program monitoring the
May 20, 1986

food supply for a variety of chemical substances, including dioxins. So far the study has been primarily on foods which have a very high fat content. In speaking to the Branch today, we indicated that we will step up even further that study of dioxins in the food chain. I can also inform him that our studies to date do not show a danger, but that is not to say we do not have to keep monitoring. If other steps have to be taken, we will take them.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy has come up with a novel way to guarantee good publicity for herself and the Government. Her Department now says it will buy advertising in a newspaper only if the newspaper prints at least six pre-written articles which reflect, favourably of course, upon the Minister, her Department, and the Government. Is she trying to circumvent that unappreciative Press Gallery up there and set up a Pravda-style propaganda service paid for by the capitalists?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I hope they are willing to listen to an answer. If it were true, of course it would be deplorable. In fact it is not true. The Hon. Member is talking about an advertising supplement we put out annually with such hot propaganda items as "A Guide to Insulation Materials"-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: -"High Efficiency Oil Heat", and "What About Electrical Heating Options?" This year, when we decided to stop giving money away, we decided to give information on conservation and alternative energy which is important to Canadians, particularly at a time when energy security could be a problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S POSITION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, one of the articles which was entitled "Alternative Fuel" has now been changed by the Minister to read "Energy Minister Shows Alternative Fuel Leadership". What alternative fuel, apart from hot air, is she promoting? Does she not believe that the community-based newspapers frown upon having to carry a political message in order to get advertising dollars? Do you not think they will all label it as blarney from Carney?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to give this House some of the political propaganda contained in this year's supplement. It includes "The 10 Commandments for Fuel Efficient Driving", "Alternative Transportation Technologies on Display at Expo", "Canada on the Brink of Battery Breakthrough".


Some Hon. Members:: More!


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Minister has answered the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Another supplementary, George.


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Why is she changing Canada's policy of sheltering refugees from their persecutors to one of giving landed status to persecutors such as Edwin Miguel Gonzalez of Nicaragua, who admits that, as a spy for Somoza, he contributed to the disappearances of 50 fellow students? Why does the Minister select agents of a brutal dictatorship to be landed in Canada?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the new refugee determination process will be announced tomorrow by the Minister of State for Immigration. I trust it will have the support of the Hon. Member, indeed of all Members of the House. In the Gonzalez case, when it was reviewed by the Immigration Appeal Board, he was determined to be a refugee under the terms of the United Nations Convention.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the question still is: why should he be landed? Given that refugees from the death squads of El Salvador and Guatemala are meeting police informers from their countries on the streets of Canada, is our Government establishing in Canada part of an international network of right-wing spies and terrorists?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: No, Mr. Speaker, we are not. However, I know the imagination of the Hon. Member will lead him to make any kind of scurrilous accusation.

May 20, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF DIFFICULTY EXPERIENCED BY CERTAIN WOMEN'S ORGANIZATIONS IN OBTAINING SUBSIDY CHEQUES
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Since the Conservative Government came to power, certain women's groups have had trouble obtaining subsidy cheques issued by the Secretary of State, because Conservative Members supposedly have veto rights over cheques given to women's groups in their respective ridings. Could the Minister inform the House why he tolerates this practice of patronage vis-d-vis women's groups and say whether he is prepared to put an end to this practice immediately?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker ... I suppose the question is important enough for you to want to hear the answer.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to inform the Hon. Member that I have had no complaints from women's organizations that funds they were supposed to get were delayed for the kind of reasons she mentioned, and if anything of the kind did happen, I would like to know about it, but once again, I think that everything has been proceeding quite normally, and that these groups have received the money they were supposed to receive.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre), for a brief supplementary.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF DOSSIER OF FEMMES COLLABORA TRICES DU QUEBEC
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may inform the Minister or ask him whether he intends to investigate the case of Femmes collaboratrices de Quebec, where there was some interference last year by the Hon. Member for Laprairie and this year by the Hon. Member for Chambly, with the Minister's knowledge.


Benoît Bouchard: The
last part is frivolous, Mr. Speaker. I am now looking at the dossier-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am now looking at the dossier of the Femmes collaboratrices and we should, as we usually do... but I think it is clear that we are perhaps being a bit more careful than you were at the time, because our methods are not the same, obviously.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Carney that Bill C-92, 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 read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House adjourned at one o'clock there were four minutes remaining in the question and comment period with regard to the speech of the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow). There being no questions or comments, debate.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, in participating in the debate on Bill C-92 I want to say to the House that the particular difficulty I have with this Bill is similar to the difficulties, which I now see in retrospect, with what they sometimes call the wisdom of hindsight, I had with the preceding legislation, namely, the Canada Oil and Gas Act, which was promulgated in March, 1982, and which this Bill seeks to amend. In other words, the problem I see with this Bill in the one particular aspect I am going to address, was also the problem that existed in the previous Bill, which we are now amending.
Both of these measures, one passed by a Liberal Government, and this one seeking to be passed by a Conservative Government, fail, in my view, to comprehend what is involved in the unresolved settlement of aboriginal claims north of 60. That is the problem I see with the Bill, and it is on that subject alone I wish to direct my remarks.
Gurston Dacks of the University of Alberta has stated, and I agree fully with him, the following:
The Government of Canada has historically viewed the north as a colony, and the basic thrust of its northern policy has been that the north must serve the strategic and economic needs of southern Canada.
Professor Dacks has described the native claims settlement process north of 60 as being glacial-an interesting description. He goes on to tell us what he means. He writes the following:
-it advances very slowly and, like the glaciers, will leave a profound social, economic and political mark on the north for generations to come. Until these claims are settled, the non-renewable resource industries of the north, most notably the oil and gas industry, will face native opposition to their proposed projects.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Mines who spoke first on this Bill, the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz), said during the course of his speech that "as a Government we are deeply concerned with the fair and equitable treatment of Canadians from all regions and from all
May 20, 1986

walks of life". I have no reason at all to doubt the sincerity of the Hon. Member when he spoke those words. He does believe them. He is an honourable man, principled and upright in every respect. I have to point out to the House that nowhere in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary in introducing Bill C-92 did he give even passing lip service to the concerns of northern native peoples, the Indian or the Dene, the Inuit and the Metis.
He said in his speech that there is concern for all Canadians in all regions, and yet he neglected any reference to these important people north of 60. They have to be mentioned whenever we talk about gas and oil development, whenever we talk about development of the non-renewable resources north of 60.
This legislation, Bill C-92, proceeds almost as if these people did not exist. Of course, as I started out by saying, the previous Bill this one will replace did exactly the same thing. In that regard, and in my own defence, I only want to point out that the Liberal Government's Canada Oil and Gas Act was promulgated in March of 1982. The Special Committee on Indian Self-Government did not report to Parliament until November of 1983. During the period of time that Members of Parliament for all political parties were working on that report of the Special Committee a great deal was learned by those Members. There was a good deal of sensitization to the reality of the rights and claims of aboriginal peoples in Canada.
I came to believe that, following the tabling of that report, those Members of Parliament, and I believe a growing number of other Members of Parliament, will never again have exactly the same perspective on public policy issues that in any way at all touch upon the rights and the prerogatives of native people.
It was for this reason that I was surprised that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of State for Mines, who gave the opening speech in this debate, did not put something into his speech with respect to aboriginal peoples and their rights. I say that because we were privileged to have him serve on various occasions on that Special Committee, and his contribution was in no way small.
Talking about that report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government, making it apropos to C-92, let me just quote one small section. On page 111 it says the following:
The resolution of land and rights disputes in the territories is an opportunity and obligation for the present generation to be generous and honest and to ensure that the indigenous people of the north are the primary beneficiaries of development there, with a fair share of resources now and in the future.
That is from the special committee's report.
I return now to the speech by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary who pointed out to the House that the Canadian Petroleum Resources Act, which will replace the Canada Oil and Gas Act, will have a simplified and fair set of rules designed to encourage exploration success in Canada's frontier regions. He said these rights will guide Governments and the petroleum industry to the exploration and development of
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
Canada's frontier and offshore resources. Then the Parliamentary Secretary told the House that the competitive bidding system will ensure maximum return. That is what he said, maximum return to Canadians as resource owners.
With great respect, I must remind the Parliamentary Secretary, and also the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney), that the question of ownership of resources north of 60 is an unsettled matter. It is part of and central to the settlement of aboriginal claims.
In his speech, the Parliamentry Secretary told us that Bill C-92 respects the rights of companies, regardless of their nationality. However, nowhere did he say that it respects the rights of aboriginal peoples, those who claim right and title to those lands north of 60 that have never been surrendered. There is no document available anywhere in the archives that shows that an act of surrender took place. Aboriginal rights in that part of Canada have never been extinguished. If we now take the enlightened approach that is available to us, we will no longer hear about the extinguishment of the rights of aboriginal people since we recognize that their rights have now been enshrined in the Constitution of Canada.
However, when I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, it just seemed to confirm for me the assertion of Professor Dacks who said that from the federal point of view:
The North must serve the strategic and the economic needs of southern Canada. Northern megaprojects create southern jobs, investment opportunities, markets for Canadian manufacturers, much-needed tax and royalty revenues-
To quote the Parliamentary Secretary, this Bill is designed "to enhance the profitability of companies operating in the high cost and high risk frontier regions". I take strong exception to the Parliamentary Secretary's view that Bill C-92 introduces a balanced framework for the development of Canada's frontier lands. He pointed out in his speech that it is fair to provincial and territorial Governments and to all Canadians as resource owners. He said that the Bill is not only market responsive, it is internationally competitive and sensitive to commercial concerns of companies operating in the high risk frontier regions of the country. This may or may not be true. Those are very difficult and complex questions, most of which I will have to leave to our able energy critic, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan). The Parliamentary Secretary and the Government for whom he spoke failed to comprehend the central issue of aboriginal rights in relation to Bill C-92. In my opinion, this casts very serious doubts on the validity of the legislation we are debating today.
Let me move away from the Parliamentary Secretary's speech and turn to the Bill itself, and the Minister's statement and accompanying documents of October 30 last year, to discover whether what the Parliamentary Secretary neglected to say is mentioned anywhere at all. It is mentioned, but only parenthetically. It is in no way central to the principle of this Bill. Clause 3 states:

May 20, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
Nothing in this Act abrogates or derogates from any aboriginal title, right or claim that pertained to aboriginal peoples of Canada prior to the coming into force of this Act.
If we were to interpret Clause 3 of the Bill in the broadest possible sense, in an all encompassing historical, constitutional and legal way, most of Bill C-92 would be null and void. The Government is legislating for oil and gas companies to develop these non-renewable resources on aboriginal lands where claims have not yet been settled. We call these lands frontier lands or Canada Lands, simply because it serves our own purpose.
Of course, we are told in the accompanying document entitled Canada's Energy Frontiers: A Framework for Investment and Jobs that Clause 3 is to be interpreted only in a very narrow way to cover one agreement that we now have in the Northwest Territories, the Committee for Original People's Entitlement, or so-called COPE agreement. That document says:
An agreement with the Committee for Original People's Entitlement (COPE) has already been concluded and enshrined in legislation. Nothing in this policy statement or proposed legislation will alter that provision of that agreement and its implementing legislation.
We are pleased with that and did not expect otherwise. Clause 3 is in Bill C-92 for no other reason than that it is a very narrow recognition clause.
To be fair to the Minister, there is some other reference and recognition of aboriginal rights in the statement to which I just referred. Let me draw those to the attention of the House. The document says:
The North is different from other frontier regions in fundamental ways. The prospective oil and gas areas are not just offshore. They are also on land, close to northern communities and within the traditional hunting and trapping areas of people with unresolved aboriginal claims.
One can see that we are making progress but only a little at a time. The document goes on to say:
Because of the complexity and far-reaching consequences of unresolved aboriginal claims, aboriginal groups must have the opportunity to participate in-discussions to ensure their rights and interests are protected.
The document which accompanied the announcement of the new frontier energy policy indicated that the frontier energy policy has been discussed with northern native groups. That statement caught my attention immediately, and when the Parliamentary Secretary spoke I waited for some information about the conclusions of those discussions. However, there was no mention of it at all.
Quite apart from other relevant issues related to energy policy, such as Canadianization, security of supply and fairness, Bill C-92 gives me grave concern because it makes no provision for the active participation of aboriginal peoples in the decision making process related to the development of nonrenewable resources north of 60. It really ignores, almost completely, the impact of aboriginal rights now recognized within the Constitution of Canada. I believe that Bill C-92 underlines the fact that these constitutional rights that aboriginal peoples now possess are no more than paper rights at the moment. The Constitution is a beautiful and impressive
document which talks about aboriginal rights. But I want to know when we will yank those rights off the paper and put them into the real world in which people live. We have not even begun to do that.
A very distinguished Canadian lawyer who has worked effectively in the field of native claims made this observation:
The issues are such that they can only really be resolved to the satisfaction of all through a negotiated fair settlement which requires a political and legislative approach and solution.
That statement, I believe, draws all of us in the House into the process.
There have been positive results throughout this process. The Minister of Indian Affairs asked for a task force to review the comprehensive claims policy since the old one was out of date, inadequate and unacceptable. Although it is not yet the policy of the Government, there is a report known as the Coolican report which is very important to legislation such as Bill C-92 and the process in which we are all involved in some way. The report states:
Aboriginal groups should be entitled to negotiate decision-making participation in the management and use of land and resources within their traditional areas. The decision-making structures in which they participate should have responsibilities that go beyond a merely advisory role.
It is vital that aboriginal groups be able to negotiate decision-making powers and to explore with governments the most appropriate means of sharing responsibility.
I would like to refer to the resource revenue sharing recommendation in the Coolican report. It states:
Economic participation by aboriginals in resource development could take a variety of forms. ... such participation may result from aboriginal ownership of subsurface resources in certain areas. Even where aboriginals do not own the resources, however, there are other mechanisms that could facilitate their participation in the economic benefits of resource development. Such mechanisms could include a share of royalties derived through the Crown, and a share of other revenue sources such as licence, bidding, and annual fees.
None of that is in Bill C-92.
I will conclude by saying that the Minister, in introducing this new frontier energy policy, espoused for the House a principle I like very much and that is the principle of shared management. However, what the Minister meant by "shared management" was the Government of Canada, the oil and gas industry, the provinces and the territorial Governments. I have to remind her and the Parliamentary Secretary who introduced Bill C-92, that north of 60, sharing means involving another important group, perhaps the most important people who live there, namely, the aboriginal people. Their rights and their claims are paramount. If any of us are in any doubt about that, the Constitution of Canada makes it abundantly clear.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to engage in debate on Bill C-92, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. It is a very important piece of legislation designed to meet a number of objectives. It is important that we appreciate what the
May 20, 1986

consequences may be for Canada, particularly in the circumstances of great change in the energy industry we are experiencing in 1986. It is also important for us to look critically at this Bill, because this is the larger part of the Conservative program to destroy the national energy policy of the early 1980s and to redesign the rules and structure for the petroleum industry in Canada which the Conservatives regard, of course, as having been so destroyed by the NEP. This is a program which is designed to re-establish the kinds of principles the Government says should prevail in the petroleum industry.
The petroleum industry is of enormous importance to us in Canada. There are a number of objectives to be achieved and we want to be sure that Bill C-92 will in fact provide for those various necessities. I think it is particularly opportune to be debating the Bill now in the middle of May, 1986, because circumstances in the petroleum industry have changed so greatly that we can already assess the validity of these decisions and the viability of the structure the Government is establishing. We have a means of questioning the advisability of this particular approach to the petroleum industry. The fact that we can do so in debate on second reading is very useful. It allows us to examine these matters quite early in the history of this Bill. If the Government were to come to the conclusion that the energy regime which it has put forward is unwise, here is the opportunity to go back to the drawing board and come up with better rules.
In expanding on this subject I would like to recognize clearly and explicitly the needs that face Canada at the beginning of this decade, and to consider the ways in which the Liberal regime was designed to deal with these necessities and whether this replacement for the Liberal program will do the job successfully.
We must remind ourselves that the National Energy Program was put forward in highly unusual circumstances which were novel at the beginning of the 1980s, although certain achievements by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries had intensified the abnormal situation which had prevailed since the early 1970s. We must appreciate the success of OPEC in driving up the price of crude oil, and with it natural gas, and the success of OPEC in forcing consumers around the globe to pay far more for petroleum.
We must also appreciate the consequences in at least a couple of directions. The first one was obvious, and that was the unprecedented transfer of wealth from the consumers to the producers. It opened possibilities for economic development in countries which had only dreamed of such possibilities before. It has had enormous consequences with consumers trying to maintain themselves by borrowing money and ending up as the debtors of world banking institutions in a way which threatens the economic stability of the entire western world.
Another consequence of the great increase in petroleum prices was to open new possibilities for exploration as well as to open the potential, at least, for alternatives to displace petroleum as a fuel in those instances where that could be
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
done. I have in mind the possibility that these high prices would lead to exploration in the areas where exploration needed to be carried out, given the declining reserves and the fall off in exploration in the older areas, and I am thinking of Canada and the United States in particular, the continental reserves. To compensate for those declining reserves through the 1970s was one of the challenges we faced. The Governments worried about and grappled with the need to ensure that we would have security of supply in the future.
What is surely significant is that the regime which prevailed until the beginning of this decade, in which tax incentives were the main encouragement to exploration, had not had much success. Even when petroleum prices rose, as they did quite substantially in the 1970s-although relatively speaking they skyrocketed at the very end of the decade-there had not been very much success in the offshore areas or the so-called "Canada Lands" north of 60. That limited success is reason for asking ourselves whether a return to the regime of that era will be successful in our time. It is reason for asking at the outset whether security of supply, which is quite fundamental to our industrial economies and to the transportation systems on which we as consumers depend, will be provided for.
The Government did not see security of supply as the only objective on which the National Energy Program was based, and I recognize that as well. There were other objectives. One was to ensure an increasing ownership of petroleum and also to ensure that the people of Canada could, through tax schemes, share in some of the windfall gains which producers were trying to achieve, not because their costs of production were high but because they had succeeded through Cartel organizations in driving the price of petroleum so high. It is in considering these various objectives that the National Energy Program becomes such a complex matter with which to deal. On the one hand, trying to achieve security of supply led the Government to advance subsidies and grants in the amount of millions of dollars toward exploration in the areas where there had not been much accomplished before 1980. On the other hand, it appeared clear to the Government in those days that there were possibilities for compensating these expenditures by means of a tax regime through the petroleum and gas revenue tax that brought in large amounts of money, the kind of windfall gains the OPEC organization made possible even for countries that were not in any way members of the OPEC organization.
The combination of the PGRT with Petroleum Incentives Program and other provisions designed to achieve 50 per cent Canadian ownership along with the recognition that the people of Canada were in one way or another paying most of the costs of this exploration and the provision of 25 per cent of discoveries going to the Crown made up the provisions of the National Energy Program which Conservative Members in opposition found so objectionable. Why they found them so objectionable is a consideration on which it is worth spending a moment.

May 20, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
Conservative supporters in the petroleum industry, particularly those from the large multinational corporations controlled outside of Canada, found receptive ears in Conservative circles. They found ready listeners to the argument that this kind of energy regime was completely unfair. One need only read the statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) when she presented this scheme to appreciate the kind of moral fervour the Minister built up over what the multinationals saw as the unfairness of this particular system.
These corporate spokesmen persuaded the Conservative Party to destroy most of the National Energy Program while leading Conservative Members to think that thanks to prevailing high petroleum prices, exploration would go on with encouragement from tax incentives to the extent they were needed. The oil companies would be allowed to take most of the windfall gains, even if it took a few years to move to that regime, and then Conservative Members would hope quite devoutly that these oil companies would do the exploration required to ensure security of supply.
That is the reason the events of 1986 posed such a great challenge to the Government's legislation. It is the reason for the crisis that OPEC itself now faces as petroleum prices fall to levels lower than most people had believed or lower than, at certain moments at least, most consumers had hoped. It is there that one sees a crisis for the energy program of the Conservative Government and right there where Bill C-92 comes immediately into question. It is worth reading some of the statements made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on Wednesday, October 30, when she proudly presented to the House of Commons the agenda for the destruction of the National Energy Program. At that time, she said the following:
Mr. Speaker, the reaction to these initiatives has been very encouraging.
Oil exploration in western Canada is now higher than at any time in our history!
Overall oil and gas investment intentions are up by about two billion dollars; more than a 25 per cent increase over last year.
This investment is providing energy security and economic benefits-jobs- right across Canada.
As well, deregulated oil markets are creating opportunities for both producers and consumers.
It does not take very much knowledge of the present circumstances to know that oil exploration in western Canada is not higher than at any time in our history. The oil and gas investment intentions of about $2 billion have shrunk considerably in the present circumstances. The investment that was providing energy security, economic benefits and jobs right across Canada is very close to lying in shambles. The Accords so proudly put forward by the Government as being its own political and moral solution to the situation created by the National Energy Program are not being realized.
Oil companies which had great hopes of profiting from the windfall gains that OPEC had made possible in the past are now laying people off, cutting back on drilling plans and
returning to the circumstances of the 1960s and the 1970s. They are putting in fundamental question the possibilities of oil self-sufficiency for the people of Canada. There lies the fundamental weakness of this scheme.
Conservative Members thought that they could return to the days before 1980. Their friends in the oil companies were happy about that because it was going to give them a larger share of the very large pie which OPEC created while the Government gave up its share. Now, thanks to what has happened in the international petroleum industry, the whole scheme is in question.
If we were to have Bill C-92 before us in the House and in committee for several months longer, we would have more time to consider carefully the system with which the Government has come up and to discover exactly how far it will fall short as a basis for maintaining oil security, quite aside from concerns about Canadian ownership and other concerns of the petroleum industry. It seems to me that that is the largest difficulty that faces the Government. By its mistakes, that difficulty can be imposed on the Canadian people.
There are questions to be raised, and if I am raising spectres, I hope on behalf of the Canadian people that they are not justified. However, these days there is no assurance that this particular triumph of ideology in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources will not leave us begging, freezing or standing still in the future. Then Canadians will look back on the Government they elected in 1984 and will curse it for what it did to Canadian people.
Let me deal with several other important aspects of the Bill. I have already explored the dependence on market forces which is central to the Government's action. I would say it is profoundly hypocritical to talk about depending on market forces when the first reality of the market is the triumph of an international cartel that has been rigging prices at incredible levels. At least intellectually, we now have the satisfaction of looking at market forces and deciding if dependence on them is such a bright idea. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is listening to this with care because he will be there along with others answering for the Government when Canadians find themselves in the cold.
Dependence on market forces then is doubtful. Among the provisions of the Bill is one for competitive bidding based on a single criterion. The Parliamentary Secretary suggested this morning that it could be possible for various items to be written in, and that there could be a recognition of the needs of aboriginal peoples north of 60 with title not yet extinguished in so many areas and with concerns about their own benefit from petroleum. The provision is there, but many of us do not trust the Government when it comes to such things. Given its surrender to petroleum companies on the fundamentals of the regime, we do not trust that the Government will do anything better there. However, I suppose that for the Government to say at the outset that it will be a single criterion, or that it might be written up so that various things are provided, is perhaps not much weaker than leaving the matter less clear
May 20, 1986

and saying that a variety of provisos or criteria will have to be confronted by the bids. All of this from one Government is neither here nor there.
I should like to refer to the matter of the sharing of the people of Canada in successful exploration. Before the National Energy Program was brought in Canadian people paid some 90 cents out of every dollar of exploration costs. This was made more explicit through the Petroleum Incentives Program which paid the money up front so that people could see the totals. The decision to move away from that kind of system to one which hides grants in tax expenditures is surely objectionable at a time when the entire tax scheme comes under more and more question. As a result of this we also lose the possibility of the people of Canada sharing by the Crown share, the 25 per cent share proviso which was part of the National Energy Program. This opened possibilities north of 60 for aboriginal peoples to take a fractional share of that in government programs and so on and so forth.
There are other weaknesses in Bill C-92, weaknesses which I think are quite fundamental as other Hon. Members have stated them. However, in my mind they do not bulk as large for the people of Canada as do fundamental questions about security of supply in this regime which I have explored primarily in my speech this afternoon.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was all over the map. He did not come right out and say-and I would like him to come out and say it-that the reason drilling and exploration were down at the present was because of the energy policies of the Government. He knows that this is not true; he knows that it is because of the low world price of energy today. He also knows that Canadian energy is very expensive. The only solution the NDP has suggested is the establishment of a floor price; in other words, to have Canadian consumers pay more for gasoline than the price at which we export the product and to allow imports to come in at a lower price. I do not think Canadian consumers would appreciate paying more for their resources than the price of those being exported. The next thing in the line would be to say that we should cut off exports. Then what would we do with 600,000 barrels per day of heavy oil which are being used in the United States for its road upgrading program? I am sure westerners would really love to hear the Hon. Member advocate that we should not export any of our oil and gas to the United States at market price but at the price Canadians are paying, at which point no one would buy.
The NDP arguments have flaws all over the place. If the Hon. Member had been honest in his speech, he would have pointed out that the low price of world energy today has a lot to do with the downturn in the industry.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary making these arguments. They allow one to come to grips with the hypocrisy of
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
the Government's program and to deal with its weaknesses. Whatever criticisms he may have of my arguments, Canadians are not particularly interested in my arguments this afternoon. However, they have a crucial concern about the Government's program and whether it will work. I did not think it was necessary to say that the situation at present is so bad because of the low price of petroleum, although I said it. It has been the failure of the cartel arrangement which has cast us into this new situation.
The Government was sure that it could allow its friends in the oil companies to make billions of dollars thanks to OPEC. The Government withdrew from that area and left it to the companies. As I said before, it assumed all along that prices would remain up there somewhere and that exploration would continue. It was a matter of talking market while the industry wanted to profit from the most massive global intervention into the market that anyone has ever seen.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to concede that OPEC created this artificial situation with enormous economic rents to be captured. Oil companies wanted to have it all and not to allow the Government to share in it. Now that OPEC falls into difficulty, prices come down, oil rigs are left parked, and lawyers are laid off in Calgary, as one of the ultimate measures of how tragic is the situation in western Canada, the Government, perhaps to its credit, will stick rigidly to principle. It will go on talking market while we get closer to market forces prevailing. We in the New Democratic Party do not worship market forces. We think society deserves the guidance of the best minds in Government, and we do not only depend upon the market. We are looking at what might be done in the way of maintaining the industry and ensuring security of supply for the future. Rather than shooting at me on that, the Parliamentary Secretary might pay serious attention to how his government program will provide that.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I should like to get a clear indication from the Hon. Member of what is their policy. I have not heard what the NDP would do. He talks about market forces not working. Consumers in Canada are benefiting very well today from the market-place. The market-place is working. In 1985 we had more exploration than we ever had. There was more activity in the energy field than before as a result of the policies of the Government. Prices were steady. Throughout 1985 the price per barrel of oil was steady. There was no great increase or decrease throughout 1985 until the end. I say to the Hon. Member that a year and a half ago lower prices were predicted by all of us, including the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) who stated before the Western Accord was signed that oil prices were on their way down.
The NDP likes to throw around the red herring that the Conservatives are the friends of the oil companies. I should like to ask the Hon. Member why Canadian companies asked us to get off their backs and out of their hair. Why did they ask for the cancellation of the National Energy Program? He thinks that only five or six oil companies asked for it. I can tell

May 20, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
him that that is not true at all. The Canadian industry-and our oil industry is now almost 50 per cent Canadian-asked the Government to get out. It was not only the big oil companies about which the Hon. Member likes to talk, the oil companies which the NDP likes to paint as the big bad bogymen in the whole scenario.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have several points to make. It would be useful to have these letters tabled in the House so that we might all see the extent to which companies other than the Seven Sisters, or whatever their number is these days given the changes in the oil industry, were actually desirous of that sort of change. A reason for all of those who had great ambitions was to take advantage of the situation which continued to prevail in 1985, whatever thought there might be that prices would drop a little. No one really thought they were going to drop in this disastrous way, disastrous for producers and consumers in the long run given that there would be nothing quite so happy as burning all the petroleum we had in cars and in other ways at 25 cents a gallon. We could all be overjoyed at something like that. I am grateful that the Parliamentary Secretary frowns because he realizes his argument is a stupid one to put forward.
The difficulty we face is to find out what kind of a price and what kind of a regime we need to maintain exploration and to ensure that something resembling security of supply is a reality without oil companies being able to run away with us and our wallets, allowing consumers to maintain some sort of a reasonable standard of living. Those are the concerns. How to do that is not an easy matter. I depend on our critic for energy to lead in these areas rather than spelling things out myself. I can assure the Member that we are not adverse to considering regulated prices.


John Horton McDermid: At what level?


Abram Ernest Epp: That is a nice question, at what level? The Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) this morning was talking about $18 to $20 U.S. as the basic level at which the industry could operate. I do not know when we are going to see $18 to $20 U.S. again.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: What do you mean? It was $17 U.S. today.


Abram Ernest Epp: If we do not reach that level, what are we going to see? The schizophrenia in comments is lovely. Last year it was Government policy that lead to all this exploration. This year when levels fall off it is world economic forces. Politicians have a tendency to believe that good news is thanks to them and bad news is thanks to others, preferably international forces beyond the control of the Canadian people. That is the situation we are in these days, Mr. Speaker. It is no easy matter to resolve. I will leave whatever I have said about hypocrisy and other things this afternoon. We have a limited understanding about market
forces when the cartel is triumphant, but at least there is some consistency now in continuing to talk market forces while the petroleum industry gets somewhere closer to market realities in terms of 1986.


John Horton McDermid: You have no idea what realities are.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was talking to the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) who had the good fortune to spend last weekend down south. He was telling me that the price of a gallon of gas in the U.S. is considerably lower on a proportionate basis than it is in Canada. That raises the question as to what the great market policies of the Government have produced when Canadians are paying hundreds of millions of dollars more for gasoline today than consumers in the U.S. are paying on an equivalent basis.
I have in front of me a survey of investment spending produced by the Canadian Petroleum Association. Market price is just one aspect. Another thing we could look at when we study the over-all policy of the Government is investment spending by the industry. In a recent survey, the Canadian Petroleum Association estimated upstream capital and exploration expenditures for 1986 to be 43 per cent lower than in 1985.
In 1985, the actual expenditures by the industry were $10.5 billion and the intentions for expenditure in 1986 were originally forecast to be $11.2 billion. It seems that the revised intentions forecast of expenditures is only $6 billion.
Since upstream spending was a significant portion of total business investment in 1985, the downturn will significantly impact not only on western Canada but on the economies of Ontario and Quebec.
If one wants to look at employment, public announcements to date indicate personnel reductions in operating companies of over 4,000 employees. Reductions in spending will severely impact in the drilling, service and oil field goods manufacturing which will cause additional widespread lay-offs. Statistics Canada estimates a loss of 10,000 jobs during March and April in Alberta alone. This loss was essentially related to the downturn in the oil and gas sector. Unemployment in Alberta rose to a seasonally adjusted rate of 9.7 per cent in April. The Calgary rate, I understand, was 10.9 per cent and Edmonton's was 12.5 per cent. Where are the benefits that have been produced by the Government's energy policies in Alberta?
Only 39 rigs were drilling in western Canada at the beginning of May, 23 in Alberta. There has been no recovery despite the lifting of road bans, and this low level is moving now into its fifth week, the longest sustained slump at such a low level in the past 13 years. Drilling completions for 1986 are currently estimated at less than 7,000 compared with nearly 13,000 last year.
Crown land sales, regarded as the bellwether indicator of industry health, have dropped significantly in total bonuses and prices per hectare. To the end of April Alberta land sale
May 20, 1986

receipts were down an astonishing 52 per cent to $113 million compared to $236 million in the comparable 1985 period.
What about productive capacity? Lower oil prices and the resulting decline in upstream investment, especially the reduction in exploration, will have serious consequences for Canada's future crude oil production. A recent assessment of the productive capacity by the Canadian Petroleum Association indicates that productive capacity of light crude oil would decline approximately 30 per cent to 700,000 barrels a day by 1990, and 58 per cent to 420,000 barrels a day by 1995. Lower oil prices will also affect synthetic crude projects, bitumen production and conventional heavy oil output. Any additions to productive capacity or replacement of diminished output due to natural reservoir decline is currently expected to come only from bitumen products that are already in the construction or pre-production phase. Over-all, the assessment indicates that statistical self-sufficiency could be lost by as early as 1990 and a significant supply gap would develop by 1995, which could make Canada dependent upon imported oil for some 30 per cent of requirements.
With regard to the Canadian balance of payments, I am not telling anyone anything they do not know by saying that the export of oil and gas has made a significant contribution to Canada's balance of payments, its positive merchandise trade balance over the years. The price drop which we are suffering from at the present time will significantly affect that position. Indeed, the effects are already showing up. In 1985, exports of crude oil and natural gas were valued at $9.8 billion. The changes between the exports in the first quarter of 1986 and those in the first quarter of 1985 are astonishing.


John Horton McDermid: In volume or price?


David Berger: In price, Mr. Speaker. In the area of crude oil there was a drop of 28.2 per cent in the first quarter of 1986. There was a drop of 22.6 per cent in natural gas for a total drop of 25.4 per cent.


John Horton McDermid: Tell us about the volume.


David Berger: The Parliamentary Secretary says: "Tell us about the volume". It is, of course, the reliance on market forces and the willingness of the Government to accept the market price and all that comes with it that produces this effect on our economy. If the current price situation and marketing difficulties prevail, the 1986 exports are likely to drop below $6 billion. This, of course, is the situation of lower oil prices and how it will affect the petroleum industry in Canada. The outlook is not very encouraging.
I would also like to comment on the renewable energy industry in the country. One of the first initiatives of the new Government when it took office was to eliminate totally the energy division at the National Research Council. All research in energy in areas of wind, solar energy and biomass were cancelled. Canada had reached the point where it was
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
developing world-class technology. We were starting to export to the counties of Africa and many other world markets. One of the first things that the Government did was to cancel all research into renewable energies, which left the industry in the position of exporting a product with the possibility of no future development.
If one looks at this in the short term on the basis of the low energy prices from the end of 1984 until today, one could find it difficult to justify expenditures on renewable energy which may be much more costly in the short term. Is this the way to go about securing Canada's energy self-sufficiency for the future? Surely the Government should be preoccupied with the situation which may prevail five or ten years from now when energy prices may again be at the level which pertained at the end of the 1970s and in the early 1980s. Surely we should be concerned about the energy self-sufficiency of the country when the hydrocarbons which we are presently consuming will be exhausted.
The energy policies of the Government seem to demonstrate a concern for the short-term and neglect the long-term perspective which is essential in considering the general impact of Canada's responsibilities in the world.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) because he has a great grasp of the scientific aspects of the renewable energy industry.


Mr. Crosbie:: Be serious, Doctor.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I heard the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary earlier this afternoon. He was acting as if the Government really knew what it was doing. One need only consider the fact that there are 36 out of 480 rigs in the western sedimentary basin which are operating. When I heard the Parliamentary Secretary speaking I was reminded of an article which I read in The Toronto Star on April 1. The headline reads: "Tories in quandry over oil price crash". The article says:
Each week, rigs are coming back in from the fields and not going back out. The banks are becoming wary about making loans. Producers are cancelling their drilling contracts. Whole floors of office towers in Calgary are emptying out.
That would lead one to believe that the Government does not really know what it is doing. I would be interested in the comments of the Hon. Member for Laurier as to whether or not he thinks the Government knows what it is doing. The article continues:
It is not that the members aren't hearing the cries of anguish from their constituents. "Calgary is in a disastrous state", says Bobbie Sparrow, one of the city's four MPs. "I'm on the phone every day with geologists and engineers in their 40s and 50s, with kids at university and mortgages and bank loans, who have lost their jobs."
The problem is that the Alberta Tory caucus can't make up its mind what Ottawa should do. "It's happened so rapidly that we've hardly had time to think," says caucus chairman Jack Shields. He and his colleagues have organized a three-day brainstorming session in Edmonton this week to hear what oil executives, insurance spokesmen, drillers, geophysicists and provincial officials have to suggest.

May 20, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
I have not heard what the Government is going to do as a result of that caucus meeting a month or so ago. There certainly has been no indication of what it is going to do because the drilling rigs, with the exception of perhaps three dozen, are not going back out. I would be interested to hear whether the Hon. Member for Laurier has discerned whether the Government has chosen a direction in which to move since that time. Clearly there has been nothing decipherable from Members on this side of the House. Although this Bill provides for an exploration tax credit of 25 per cent in the offshore, it does not reinstate a cash incentive for exploration and development as was asked for by IPAC before the Committee on Natural Resources and Public Works a few months ago, at which time we heard strong representations. I would be interested to hear the Hon. Member's thoughts on this.


David Berger: I thank the Hon. Member for his comments. When he was giving another vivid description of the sorry situation in Alberta, Calgary in particular, it brought to my mind a comment circulating some months ago that after the first year and a half in office the two strongest men in the Conservative Cabinet were considered to be the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) and the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall).


John Horton McDermid: Strongest what?


David Berger: The two strongest men.


John Horton McDermid: Persons.


David Berger: Which tells you a lot about the quality of the other members of Cabinet. Of course, the great claim to fame of the Minister of State for Finance was shutting down two banks in western Canada. What did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources do? She did not really go through some terrific negotiations in the course of implementing the Tory energy policy. All she did was to say we are going to undo what was done before and give the oil companies a couple of billion dollars. My figures are not exactly-


Maurice Brydon Foster: It is $2.4 billion.


David Berger: I thank the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). That required no great skills. All it required was for someone to go out and say, "We are giving you what you have asked for, for many years". The situation has now changed drastically and there is a remarkable lack of original thinking on the part of the Government and its Members. That was reflected by the Hon. Member for Algoma when he quoted the Alberta caucus chairman as saying, "We have hardly had time to think". What does he mean by that? What do Members from Alberta spend their time doing?


John Horton McDermid: You would not understand.


David Berger: The oil industry is the backbone of Alberta and these Members have hardly had time to focus their attention
on it or come up with a few original ideas. That is really astonishing. It is this lack of foresight and imagination which was reflected in the provincial election in Alberta. The people said they have had all their eggs in one basket for too long and it is necessary to have a voice in opposition. It is necessary to achieve a little bit of original thinking in the legislature.


John Horton McDermid: They stayed away from the Liberals.


David Berger: We will see the same results in the election in Saskatchewan shortly-


John Horton McDermid: They will stay away from the Liberals, too.
[ Translation]


David Berger: ... and in other elections in this country in the months and years to come.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) talking about the Conservative Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) having a three-day brainstorming session on what to do about oil pricing. The thought boggles the mind.


John Carnell Crosbie: You have to have a mind first; that is the problem.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is exactly the problem, my friend. You have to have a brain in order to storm it. Would the Minister like to come over and give the speech? I know he would like to do so.


John Carnell Crosbie: I approve of everything so far.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They probably spent three days deciding which restaurant to go to in Fort McMurray. That was the extent of their brainstorming if you look at the results.
According to the Government there have been tremendous complaints by unknown Canadians about the 25 per cent back-in which the Government gave to the Government oil company so it could have a quarter of the action in the development phase of offshore exploration. As I said earlier, the Government gave some $10 billion in grants and tax incentives to the industry between 1960 and 1987. The Conservatives are removing that share after all sorts of complaints.
The Hon. Member represents a riding from downtown Montreal. He knows that city very well. I am from Vancouver.
I have not received one complaint in my office from any of my constituents, ordinary Canadians, who somehow wanted our Government to stop taking 25 per cent from the American oil companies. Was the Hon. Member getting any complaints, or did they just come from the Reagan White House and the large American oil companies which were upset about our taking 25 per cent of the action involving our own resources, the exploration for which we have subsidized for 20 years? Did he get any complaints in his Montreal office from his constituents that would force him to advocate bringing in a Bill like this?
May 20, 1986


David Berger: I thank the Hon. Member for his question. Of course I should say that neither I nor probably most of my constituents have the expertise or interest in the oil industry that he and some other Members have. The answer to his question is no. Of course, the concern of consumers is with the high price of gasoline. When they see the price of a barrel of oil dropping and they are still paying the same amount at the pump, it is a matter of some concern.
When the Hon. Member talks about the back-in, I think one factor which is often ignored in discussing the economics of the oil industry are the forecasts of the price of oil in the early 1980s at the time the National Energy Program was introduced. We were shown forecasts which, had they come true, would have allowed companies like Imperial Oil to buy up the whole Canadian economy with the profits they made from oil and gas. It was necessary to introduce a certain amount of balance into the system. I believe other countries have similar provisions incorporating a figure even higher than the 25 per cent in Canada. Therefore I do not think what we did in Canada was unusual compared to world standards.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to speak on Tory energy policy because it is pretty clear that the tooth fairy has landed. This is a wish list for the corporate board rooms of the big oil companies. My colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway and I sat for months with some of the same Tories here today and fought against Bill C-48 and all the Mack truck loopholes it contained. Now we find the Government side, now that it is Conservative, suddenly quiet because many of the wishes provided by the big corporations at that time we now find in Bill C-92. It calls for us to go through it with a little bit of care. I will highlight a few of the more glaring Mack truck sections, because I would not want to bore anyone who has to watch this debate or read this in the near future.
There are an awful lot of Canadians who do not know what lands are really affected. It is all of the Yukon, all of the Northwest Territories, all of the offshore up 200 miles, and all of the Arctic Archipelagos; all of those waters.
On that point I find it interesting, coming as I do from the North and travelling frequently, particularly in the Yukon, to have listened over the years to Yukon Erik and to the present sitting Tory Members in the Northwest Territories who, during the last election, were out there campaigning, and campaigning hard, saying that it is about time the Yukon got provincial status and provincial powers. They said that it is about time the Western Arctic got real powers and that they are going to fight for that in Ottawa. The Hon. Member for the Eastern Arctic said, "It is time for Nunavut. I am going to change the name to Nunavut and we are going to have real powers for the Inuit and the people who live north of sixty".
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
This certainly lays to rest the promises of those three Members coming to Ottawa to come into this Parliament and to fight for what most, if not all, northerners want, which is some sovereignty in their own area.
I can remember Tory Members in the last House talking about assisting to set up a heritage fund in relation to gas and oil and energy for the Yukon, for the Western Arctic and the Eastern Arctic to help with the Northwest Territories so they could get their own university, their own services and have their own sources of revenue. There is not even a whisper of any of that in here.
As a matter of fact, as a northerner you have to listen to this to get the drift of where this new administration is going. They define frontier lands in the following manner:
"Frontier lands" means lands that belong to Her Majesty in right of Canada, or in respect of which Her Majesty in right of Canada has the right to dispose of or exploit the natural resources and that are situated in (a) the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories or Sable Island, or-
And this is where British Columbians who are listening should be interested to learn about the land grab about which the Tories stood up in this House five years ago. It was described as the greatest land grab of the century, the land grab off the B.C. coast, around the Queen Charlottes, the Dixon Entrance and the Hecate Strait, down in Queen Charlotte Sound, west coast Vancouver Island. They decried it and said it was terrible. On the East Coast it was already under way off Newfoundland, P.E.I., New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, that is all in here. This is pounding those last few nails that the oil companies wanted to see pounded in to make sure they could get whatever they wanted.
We have to look at some of the Mack truck sections of this Bill to see what is in this tooth fairy energy Bill, Bill C-92, that these great fighters for Canadian rights and northern sovereignty bring to us. My colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway raised Clause 3 on aboriginal rights, which says the following:
Nothing in this Act abrogates or derogates from any aboriginal title, right or claim that pertained to the aboriginal peoples of Canada prior to the coming into force of this Act.
We went through the constitutional debate. We have the now Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) on the record as saying that it is likely that there is aboriginal title in British Columbia. We are in the process of negotiating the settlement of outstanding aboriginal claims in the Yukon, in the Western and in the Eastern Arctic. Nothing is happening in British Columbia, and in terms of the offshore, this Bill tries to extinguish some of those outstanding and, as yet, unnegotiated and unresolved legitimate claims to aboriginal title, particularly in terms of the offshore.
What became of this open Government that was going to negotiate, sit down with the Government of Yukon, the Government of the Northwest Territories, the aboriginal peoples north of sixty, and particularly in British Columbia, to talk about a heritage fund, to talk about participation, to talk about the process of farming in to these various developments, both onshore and offshore? There is not a peep. There have

May 20, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
been no discussions, no negotiations, and certainly nowhere in this legislation do we find anything that remotely resembles any kind of an architecture that would allow for the proper easy flow-in of those rights as they are negotiated in tandem with the introduction of this kind of legislation.
Aboriginal people in Canada should know full well that this is a shot across their bow. There is a test here by the Mulroney administration to see whether or not aboriginal peoples will sit down and quietly accept this kind of an approach by Conservatives from British Columbia, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, which is completely contrary to what they have spoken about in terms of the election.
Let us take a look at these Mack truck loopholes that I have alluded to, because I look forward very much to hearing Conservative Members, particularly from B. C. and the North, explaining what these kinds of loopholes really mean. Let me refer to page 12. This is where the Government sets up a nice little regime that looks as if it were going to provide a regulatory regime that protects the public interests. It is Clause 26, subclauses (3), (4) and (5). I want to refer to subclause (4) where it says the following:
The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing areas in respect of which the Minister may make an order pursuant to subsection (5).
We have to read subclause (5), and it says the following:
The Minister may, subject to such terms and conditions as the Minister deems appropriate, extend the term of an exploration licence in relation to any frontier lands within a prescribed area that has been renegotiated under subsection (3).
We have had to read subclause (4) to get to subclause (5). Now we have to read subclause (5) to get back to Subclause (3). Subclause (3) says the following:
Subject to subsection (5) and Section 27, the term of an exploration licence entered into or in respect of which negotiations have been completed before December 20, 1985 may be renegotiated once only for a further term not exceeding four years and thereafter the term thereof shall not be renegotiated, extended or renewed.
If you go through Subclauses (3), (4) and (5), what you find out when you read subclause (5) is that it is all politics. The tooth fairy has landed once again. Any large corporation that wants an extension of any kind can simply get it. This is what I described as setting up a regime and then designing a loophole. That is just the kind of thing the big oil companies like to have.
Let us go on to what is called the lapsing of interests in Clauses 42 and 43. This is called subsurface storage licences, which anyone who has read any evidence of the Beaufort panel or the recent B.C. offshore panel knows that this Government, and certainly the Government of British Columbia, constantly attempt to downgrade, denigrate, and do whatever else they can to destroy the very important environmental concerns that are brought forward. Let us have a look at how you get a licence for subsurface storage. Clause 43 says the following:
The Minister may, subject to any terms and conditions he considers appropriate, issue a licence for the purpose of subsurface storage of petroleum or any other substance approved by the Minister in frontier lands at depths greater than twenty metres.
It sounds innocuous enough, does it not? One of the great concerns about lifting the moratorium off the B.C. coast, and as has been demonstrated in offshore drilling elsewhere in the world, is that there is an enormous amount of waste product every day. Your average size offshore semi-submersible or jack-up rig has about 10,000 barrels a day of drilling mud and fluid, much of which is extremely contaminating to the environment and can in fact in very short order kill off not only the vital plankton and the small plants near the surface of the ocean, but also affect salmon, perhaps in British Columbia, the whale populations, marine birds and so on in the North. These are crucial questions.
Here we have a Mack truck loophole to allow companies that find that there is a particularly suitable area either onshore or offshore. It is not limited, so they can simply pump their refuse down so long as it is 20 metres or more underground or underwater. This is very interesting. I have worked on oil rigs in the Northwest Territories and northern Alberta. I know what can happen when drilling companies do not have very specific written regulatory regimes under which to work. Their purpose is to make money, and if there is nothing prohibiting them from dumping all of their detritus into the ocean, an estuary of a river or on the land, that is exactly what they will do. No one should accuse them of wrongdoing because they have not been given prescribed conditions under which they can operate. Once again, the tooth fairy has landed with another mac truck loophole.
During all the years I have been in the House, and long before I was elected, the Conservatives always argued against Governor in Council regulations. Yet Bill C-75, introduced by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), has no regulations. We will only see those regulations after Parliament has passed that legislation. We are seeing the same red tape that the Tories campaigned about at each election, saying: "Vote for us and we will cut the red tape. Don't worry, we will do it for you". However, since September 4, 1984, as much if not more red tape has been created than I and I am sure most Canadians have ever seen.


An Hon. Member:: It's blue.


James Ross Fulton: That is right. As my colleague points out, blue ribbon is the new fantasy of the day, certainly as it pertains to Bill C-92.
Let us examine Clause 100 dealing with regulations. It states:
The Governor in Council may make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Part and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations
(a) prescribing the powers, duties and functions of the Registrar and Deputy Registrar for the purposes of this Part and the time when, and manner and circumstances in which, they are to be exercised, and providing for the designation by the Minister of any person or class of persons to exercise such powers and perform such duties and functions as may be specified in the regulations;
May 20, 1986

That long paragraph of nonsense comes from a Government that promised faithfully to get away from the gobbledegook, in terms of the Income Tax Act, new laws and how Parliament would be run, and would bring in regulations along with the Bills. Once again, however, there are no regulations in the Bill. They will be produced by bureaucrats, ferreting away in their dark corners, typing Governor in Council regulations so that the Cabinet can decide exactly what they will mean.
I am sure that British Columbians assume that they will be directly involved in the panels and boards that will be set up, particularly those concerning environmental matters. I am sure that the Indian, Inuit and Dene people north of sixty, as well as Yukoners and those who live in the Northwest Territories believe they will be involved in these panels and boards. I am sure that Canadians from Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec believe that the new Conservative Government will involve them in these issues.
However, let us look at Clauses 75 to 83 with regard to membership on the environmental studies management board. That membership is restricted to employees in the Public Service of Canada. The same bureaucrats who will be making the regulations that do not appear in Bill C-92 for our consideration will sit on the board to interpret what other studies should be funded or considered. The tooth fairy has truly landed for the oil companies. Not only do they get everything they want in Bill C-92 because the Government discarded everything they did not like in Bill C-48, but everything that the Government and the oil companies are afraid to tell the Canadian public will be produced in regulations later on. The same bureaucrats, under the same government administration and listening to the same corporate boardrooms will make the decision as to what happens. The Conservatives who campaigned on open Government are closing the doors even faster than their Liberal pals ever did on Bill C-48 and other legislation. It is enough to make one want to throw up. I suppose it is still parliamentary to use the word "crap" to describe this and, as a westerner, that is the message I will deliver far and wide.
Anyone who wants to be thoroughly nauseated should read Bill C-92. It is so full of regulatory loopholes that it would make one dizzy.
Let me move on to look at what happened with the Beaufort panel. Northerners were encouraged to participate in this hearing. They came from communities far and wide to express their concerns about the environment, land use, employment and their involvement in businesses associated with the oil patch. They were interested in getting a heritage fund and participating as provincial members in Canada's Confederation. The Conservatives, in the same fashion as the Socreds or the Liberals, set up these panels and invited people to become involved. These ordinary citizens, whether they were local dry-cleaners or trappers, used all their energy, working on their own time, to appear before the panel and make their views known. However, after all of that energy, has been expanded,
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
as happens every time, the report is published and then sealed away in a secret area in Ottawa where these kinds of studies are tabled and kept in perpetuity.
Many northerners hoped that at least some parts of the evidence brought before the Beaufort panel would ultimately find its way into legislation. However, with three Tories representing the North, there was not a peep, a word or a ray of light relating to the Yukon becoming a province, the Northwest Territories being divided into two provinces or there being sovereignty for northerners, particularly the Inuit, and Indian and Dene people.
Let us examine what happened in British Columbia. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) just tabled a report on the West Coast offshore. All Members know that Petro-Canada promptly withdrew from those hearings when it realized that the amount of accurate scientific information it had on drilling in areas such as the offshore of the West Coast was totally inadequate. However, Chevron continued to participate in the hearings and dilly-dallied along.
The information contained in Chevron's environmental assessment was preposterous. One piece of evidence that was tendered to the offshore panel comes to mind when I see the kind of jurisdictional grab that the Minister is interested in taking in this legislation. The evidence that was tendered originally to the offshore panel indicated that drilling would be safe in the Hecate Strait because it was protected from the open Pacific by the Queen Charlotte Islands. Obviously, someone took their pudgy finger and pointed at the map and saw that there were some islands and only 70 miles of water, which would make the Hecate Strait the same as a lake.
The fact is that drilling has taken place in the Hecate Strait and waves close to 100 feet high were breaking over the deck of the boat that was trying to drill at Cape St. James. There was a 20 foot chop on top of the waves that were breaking over the top of the boat. Members opposite cannot believe that but they probably believe the evidence of the oil companies that the Hecate Strait is flat, calm.
This legislation is unacceptable. The same Tories who used to accuse the Liberals of taking a grab from the public of Canada are doing the same thing, along with their friends south of the border and the oil companies in Canada.
The Conservatives said that the 25 per cent back-in was a preposterous rip-off. They should consider how almost every other state in the world protects the public interest and not always the interest of the oil companies. We should protect the public interest to make sure that all Canadians, young and old, whether from the East, the West, or the North, get a fair rate of return from an energy source that we all own.
The Conservatives seem to forget that we all own the gas and oil. Whether it is on land or offshore it belongs to all of us and we deserve a fair rate of return from it. This Bill strays very far from that, and I condemn most strongly its inability to

May 20, 1986
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
understand the importance of environmental concerns. The board will be composed of bureaucrats, all appointed from the Public Service, with perhaps a few members from the provinces. There will be no opportunity for native people to be involved, nor for environmental groups. There will be no opportunities for the fishermen of Prince Rupert. There will be no opportunity for any of those groups which have a lifelong abiding interest in what happens to the environment. If the fish go, they have no livelihood. If the kelp or the shellfish go, they have no livelihood. Entire communities can vanish, and all of the effort put into the panel hearings in British Columbia and in the Beaufort in the North has come to nil. Bill C-92 is a disaster for the average Canadian. It is a Mac truck tooth fairy dream.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) for the usual way in which he lays it out as it is.


James Ross Fulton: Objective and scientific.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Objective and scientific as well. There was one small inaccuracy and that is when the Hon. Member referred to me as having raised the matter of native rights. I believe it was the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry). Apropos of that, since the Hon. Member did deal in his speech with aboriginal rights and with environmental matters in some depth-which I have not heard too many other Hon. Members do-I want to ask him about Clause 3, which states:
Nothing in this Act abrogates or derogates from any aboriginal title, right or claim that pertained to the aboriginal peoples of Canada prior to the coming into force of this Act.
The Hon. Member might think this is a phoney question or I am trying to pull something on him, but if I was going to ask a question, it would be, who is worse as far as aboriginal people are concerned, the federal Conservative Government or Premier Bill Bennett of British Columbia? It is like choosing between being hanged and being drawn and quartered. At least Bill Bennett spells it out that he is against aboriginal rights, refuses to live up to the Constitution of Canada and will not deal fairly with native people. But it is beyond me why the Conservative Government has thrown in Clause 3. Either we are prepared to recognize aboriginal people's rights and are prepared to deal with them or we are not. This clause is like a Bill to expropriate a house. We are told that nothing in the Bill is going to affect our quiet enjoyment of the House, and then the rest of the Bill goes on to say that the House is going to be flattened and all our property is going to be taken away from us.
Could the Hon. Member who represents the Nishga's, the initiators of aboriginal rights, explain to the House and to the public why it is that this is not satisfactory? What do the aboriginal people want when they want their rights respected in a Bill which deals with resources and so much of the territory, especially in the North, to which they lay claim?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for the question because it really is one of the keys to what is wrong with this legislation because of what is said in Clause 3. It basically maintains the status quo. There have been no serious negotiations with aboriginal people regarding resources in British Columbia or, to a great extent, north of 60. All Clause 3 says is that that is going to continue. One has to look at what has been going on since September 4, 1984, to get an idea of why aborigal peoples are becoming so rapidly disillusioned with the new Government. One must look at the Buffalo Jump, the 1980s Cabinet document which came to light just a year ago, which indicated the desire of the Government to move down the same road which was stopped by the famed Calder case before the Supreme Court of Canada in 1972. What happened there was that the then Liberal Government was proceeding down the road known then, and still known through the White Paper, as the "assimilation model", that was to try to get Indian, Inuit and Dene people from across Canada to move into urban centres and away from their traditional homelands where they had historically lived, not just for centuries but for thousands of years. One must put together the pieces such as the Buffalo Jump of the 1980s, the Nielsen Task Force report on funding to Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the debate going on, at least in the mind of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), on the question of extinguishment.
Rather than proceeding as is recommended in the Coolican report, the Minister and the Cabinet seem to be seized with the inability to understand why we cannot simply extinguish aboriginal title and rights. It is something that would take far longer in terms of time than I have available to explain everything which has gone on in terms of the Calder case and the initiatives taken by groups such as the Nishga for more than a century. They have travelled here to this Parliament and to Great Britain and have met with every panel and every forum. They have taken advantage of every legal opportunity, but they are still stonewalled.
Bill C-92 is a challenge to the living title of aboriginal people, particularly from where I come, and I am referring to the Haidas, their claim to title and their sea claims around the Queen Charlotte islands, which is jeopardized by this kind of legislation, which is neither constitutionally nor legally sound for the reasons outlined in this House the debate on the Constitution, and the inclusion therein of the existence and affirmation of aboriginal rights which flow from the title. In terms of the coast and the A-B line debate, there is something very fuzzy in the Bill which I am sure the U.S. State Department is examining now that it has appointed Mr. Derwinski to look at the 141st Meridian in the Beaufort where it leaves lands end between Alaska and Yukon and goes north, the A-B line at the southern extremity of the Alaska Panhandle.
This Bill is very fuzzy. It claims jurisdiction to the Continental Shelf but does not delineate under what precise legal principles we are going to extend our boundary from Cape Muzon to the 200-mile limit nor in terms of the Strait of Juan
May 20, 1986

de Fuca boundary, the 141st Meridian, the eastern perimeters of the Arctic Archipelago and our offshore on the East Coast. This is a Bill which is fraught with difficulties and, as my colleague has said, it shows a lack of understanding of the issues which aboriginal people want to see dealt with in fairness. They want to have negotiations on the sharing of resources because access, control and ownership of resources is what gives us sovereignty, and that is what the aboriginal people are asking for.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have just a short question. I know the Hon. Member is interested in the job side of the whole energy legislation. The Government when elected was determined to create some 100,000 to 300,000 jobs in the energy field, so we were really shocked on March 21 to read in The Globe and Mail that Imperial Oil was set to slash 1,800 jobs because of oil prices and chemical glut cited. I was especially concerned because it was just about this time that Algoma Steel started laying off some 300 or 400 workers at its tube division at Sault Ste. Marie, which is really dependent on the oil industry because the tubes it produces are used in oil and gas exploration and drilling.
There were some comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary, that the worst was over, that oil prices had rallied from $11 to about $17 over the weekend. Yet in The Globe and Mail today, exactly two months after those first indications of lay-offs by Imperial Oil, there is a report that Occidental Petroleum in Los Angeles is cutting 2,000 employees from its payroll in order to reduce its 1986 spending budget. The same article in this morning's Globe and Mail business page indicates that Exxon Corporation of New York, the largest oil company in the United States, shocked Wall Street recently when it offered a voluntary resignation program to 40,000 of its employees, about 27 per cent of its world-wide staff or 59 per cent of its domestic staff.
I would be interested in hearing the comments of the Hon. Member from British Columbia. I know that oil and gas exploration is important there and in the North as well. The Western Accord and the frontier legislation brought in by the Government is really not adequate to deal with the kind of oil price drop which we have seen. One short paragraph about violent fluctuations in oil prices just does not seem to be adequate, and certainly those articles about Imperial Oil and Exxon indicate that there are a lot more people in this industry to be laid off. Certainly that will be harmful not only in B.C. but in the North as well because of the lack of government policy.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for the question. I want to make it clear from the outset that what is happening in the oil patch cannot be placed entirely on the back of the new Government. At the same time, the Parliamentary Secretary cannot pop up every time someone speaks to say that the new drilling opportunities that occurred last year were all due to the new Government's
Canada Petroleum Resources Act
policies. He cannot have it both ways. If he is going to take credit, he has to carry some blame.
I think the point made by the Hon. Member who just asked the question is something at which the Government ought to take a close look. Lay-offs in big companies in the oil and gas industry and the chemical industry are tough. In those cases, hundreds and thousands are laid off. However, when a small Canadian producer in northeastern British Columbia, Alberta or Saskatchewan lays off half a dozen employees, the whole company is gone. Then those interests are very quickly picked up by the big players who still have the internal ability to create capital and pick up those operations.
Rather than addressing the serious problems facing all of the companies in the industry, and particularly the Canadian ones, the Government is dreaming and spinning its wheels. It is bringing in tooth-fairy legislation designed for the boardrooms when it should be doing something not only to help consumers but to help small Canadian drillers and operators in the oil patch.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-92. First of all, I must say that, once again, the little guy is going to be the loser.
Mr. Speaker, if we look carefully at Bill C-92, we could say this is a typically Tory piece of legislation, because here again, big business-the big oil companies-is going to reap the benefits.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to regulate interests in petroleum in relation to frontier lands, and "frontier lands" mean lands that belong to Her Majesty in right of Canada, or in respect of which Her Majesty in right of Canada has the right to dispose of or exploit the natural resources and that are situated in the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories or Sable Island, or any other off-shore areas.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk to you about a trip I made a week ago, when I spent a week or so in Canada's North, and I am referring to the Arctic. I must say that this trip made me discover this vast country and its people, and I was very impressed to see the kind of facilities that exist in the North. However, what really struck me during my trip is that in every community there was this almost exclusive dependence on oil for electric power and for heating purposes. In those communities, the people have yet to benefit from the drop in world oil prices, for the simple reason that their oil is shipped in bulk at least one season in advance, and there have been no shipments yet for this year.
Well, they are certainly in for a surprise, because even if they hear about falling oil prices and the fact that there has been a substantial drop, they will soon realize that they will not be able to take advantage of these lower prices. They will certainly have a few questions to ask the Government, such as why they can't benefit from this drop in the price of energy.

May 20, 1986
Western Canada Drought
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that they need this energy daily and they have to pay for the energy they use.
In the course of our hearings, we met many residents of those vast territories who had some very interesting stories to tell. At one hearing in one particular town, where a Minister of the Government of the Northwest Territories testified-the purpose of our hearings was to examine deregulation of transportation in Canada's North-one question led to another and the subject of energy came up. At this point, a Government Member who was indulging in a bit of partisanship, which I think we can tolerate from time to time, Mr. Speaker-in fact, I do this myself occasionally-this Member asked the Minister whether the National Energy Program had in any way contributed to the development of the Northwest Territories. The Member, who was expecting a negative reply, was of course astonished when the Minister answered that if it had not been for the NEP, our northern regions would certainly not have experienced all the development that has taken place since the program came into effect. This, of course, led the Member who asked the question in the first place to change the subject-


Don Boudria: And talk about the weather.


Fernand Robichaud: No, he started talking about a mosquito control program, because it seems that if they could find an effective mosquito control program for the North, a lot more people would go up and visit them, and it would be very good for tourism.
Speaking of tourism, this afternoon the Minister rose in the House and said that Canada was going to have a tremendous tourist season. Bravo! And bravo for the industry, because it has been waiting for this kind of season for a long time.
However, I must say that if we do have a tremendous season, it will certainly not be thanks to the policies of this Government.
Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that my time is almost up. I shall be delighted to get back to this debate later on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS FOR PAPERS   AGRICULTURE SUGGESTED TABLING OF REPORT ON DROUGHT IN WESTERN CANADA
Don Boudria: That an humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the report presented to the Prime Minister pertaining to the drought in Western Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, last year we know that a very serious drought affected part of our country. Of course its effects were particularly harmful to farmers of Saskatchewan and parts of Alberta. We also know that those farmers were asking for aid from the Government.
I should like to draw to the attention of the House an article which appeared in the December 24, 1985 edition of the Leader-Post entitled "1985 was a killer year for farmers". In part it read:
To say that 1985 was a poor year for most Saskatchewan farmers would be an understatement.
It was the year when the farm economy plunged from the drought induced doldrums of 1984 into depression.
Not only was there another drought in the south, but almost biblical numbers of grasshoppers, weak grain and livestock markets and wet, cold weather at harvest compounded the problem.
Production of everything from wheat to honey was below normal.
Because of the very grave conditions described in that newspaper article, and presumably because of representations made by some Hon. Members of the House, we were led to believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) appointed the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) to prepare a report. We were told that the report would deal with the issue, but we are not quite sure because most Members of the House have never seen it.
My motion reads as follows:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the report presented to the Prime Minister pertaining to the drought in Western Canada.
Of course 1 was speaking of the report prepared by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia. We do not know what the Hon. Member recommended in his report, but we know that the Government offerred assistance in the order of somewhere between $5 and $11 per acre for the people of western Canada. We also know that many people had asked for assistance in the order of $40 to $50 per acre.
All Hon. Members on both sides of the House, such as the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) and others, want to know just what the Hon. Member for Assiniboia recommended to the Prime Minister. I presented my motion asking for Her Excellency to cause this report to be tabled so that we could all share in its contents and find out whether the Prime Minister lived up to the requests of the Hon. Member. We do not know whether the Prime Minister lived up to them. I see a nod on the part of a Conservative Member across the way, indicating that the Prime Minister did exactly what was asked. I hope that this is not the case, because what was provided was insufficient. If the Hon. Member is saying that the Hon. Member for Assiniboia got exactly what he was looking for, I do not think the people of his riding would like it very much. Perhaps we should wait for the Hon. Member to speak in this debate. Perhaps he will seize this occasion and read to us the entire text of the report in the 10 minutes allotted to him. We
May 20, 1986

do not even know whether the report contains one sheet of paper or 45 volumes like the Nielsen Task Force report. We do not know what it looks like. All farmers in western Canada, particularly those in Assiniboia, want to know whether the Hon. Member did his job.


Some Hon. Members:: They know he did.


Mr. Gormley:: What a joke! How many Grits are there in Assiniboia?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative surfer on this side is asking how many Grits there are in Assiniboia.


John Kenneth Gormley: You don't even know where Assiniboia is.


Don Boudria: What the Hon. Member is telling us is that a Member of the House has no right to ask questions of the Government. The Tory attitude is that members of the Opposition do not have the right to question the Government. It is typical Tory attitude once again displayed before you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you are insulted by that kind of nonsense. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you hope, as I do, that he will apologize to the House later for being so partisan. I was only asking for a very distinguished Hon. Member of the House to table his report so that we can all view it. Is that abnormal?


Mr. Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure that if the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), a self-proclaimed drought expert from the edge of Ottawa, really wants to find out, he will sit down and give the Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister (Mr. Gustafson) a chance to tell his story.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, obviously that is not a point of order. It is another abuse of time by a Conservative Member.
It is our duty as opposition Members to ask questions on behalf of Canadians. I do not apologize for representing a riding which has a little more rain than some of the ridings in western Canada. I am very proud of the riding which I represent in the Parliament of our country.
I should also like to refer to an article which appeared in the August 16, 1985 edition of the Star-Phoenix entitled "Tory Drought Aid a Sleazy Operation".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: Those are not my words. In case anyone here thinks I may be partisan, if there is such a person, let me read something far more objective by a very distinguished reporter. It indicated that the Saskatchewan Government announced a drought assistance plan on August 9, promising livestock producers in severe drought areas $60 per head for beef, dairy cattle and horses, and $12 for sheep and goats. It also indicated that in moderate areas the payments would be $30 and $6. As the press release indicated, the Saskatchewan Government
Western Canada Drought
committed $60 per head. Further on the article indicated that the Hon. Member for Assiniboia was appointed by the Prime Minister to head the drought task force with a mandate to determine how best to assist farmers. That is why we are here today; we are here to determine how those farmers should have been assisted or what is the best way of assisting them today.


John Horton McDermid: We did.


Don Boudria: I hear a Conservative Member across the way from the agricultural riding of Brampton saying: "We did".


John Horton McDermid: Brampton-Georgetown has some of the most productive farms in Canada.


Don Boudria: How do we know that they did? We want to find out what was in the report. We want to determine whether in fact the Hon. Member for Assiniboia provided a report which fulfilled the needs of the farmers of his community. Deep down inside we think he did just that, and the Prime Minister did not listen to him. That is what I contend. If it is otherwise, let us see the report.
I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to speak on this very important issue.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, indeed it is a pleasure to be given an opportunity to speak and give an account of the actions of the Government with regard to the drought of the past summer. At the outset I want to say that it became evident that for the third year in some areas a drought was inevitable. Immediately upon learning that, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) if he would go to western Canada and look at the situation. The Hon. Minister of Agriculture visited different parts of the serious drought areas both in Saskatchewan and in Manitoba. He observed the dilemma of the drought. He proceeded to take some action. He asked if I would chair the task force on drought, and from that task force we made recommendations to the Government.
I want to say at the offset that no Government and no Prime Minister in the history of the country since the days of John Diefenbaker have taken more interest in agriculture and in the problems farmers face, particularly when it comes to drought, than the Prime Minister and the Government do today and daily.


Maurice Brydon Foster: You don't believe this.


Leonard J. Gustafson: The Prime Minister asked us to report to him, which we did. He has been very sensitive.


Don Boudria: Do you phone him in the morning before breakfast?


Leonard J. Gustafson: The Prime Minister met recently with some 25 farm groups across Canada in Vancouver. I heard farm group after farm group commend the Prime Minister on the
May 20, 1986

Western Canada Drought
actions that he has taken and which the Minister of Agriculture has taken on behalf of agriculture.
What is the situation in the drought area? I have a letter in my office that I would like to show to the Hon. Member who just spoke. It is from one of the most severely stricken drought areas in southern Saskatchewan. The letter commended me personally and the Government for taking the action that was taken.
Let us take a look at the crop insurance and what a farmer would receive in the most severely stricken drought area in southern Saskatchewan or Alberta. Say a farmer was insured for $20 an acre. He received close to $80 an acre for every acre in the drought area that he had seeded. You will say: "Well, the Government had nothing to do with that". Let me tell Hon. Members that the Government contributed $570 million to crop insurance, $350 million attributed to drought and, in addition to that, $150 million that was recommended. The Member is leaving the House. The $150 million was recommended by the task force and paid by the Government.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the Hon. Member is well aware of your very distinguished ruling in the past when you have ruled on many occasions that it is out of order to refer to the presence or absence of any Hon. Member. As we know, all Hon. Member are present in the House as we are speaking now.


John Horton McDermid: It is your motion. Stay in the House and listen.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have not heard anyone mention the presence or the absence of a Member. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Gustafson) has the floor.


Leonard J. Gustafson: The Minister of Agriculture immediately responded.


Don Boudria: Is he present in the House? Tell us.


Leonard J. Gustafson: We had a recommendation that went forward and brought $48 million of relief to the cattle producer, the sheep producer and to the livestock producer across western Canada.


John Horton McDermid: He is leaving the House again.


Leonard J. Gustafson: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the recommendations made and the actions fulfilled by the Government, that this Government takes no lessons from the past administration. It was the Leader of the Party to which the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) belongs who told the farmers across Canada, not just the farmers of western Canada, to sell their own grain. Our Prime Minister told Canadian farmers that we will sell their products to the world.
What happened just a few days ago, Mr. Speaker? The Prime Minister of Canada at the Tokyo Summit gave top
priority, number one priority, to the pressing needs of agriculture across the nation.


Don Boudria: It wasn't even on the agenda.


Leonard J. Gustafson: The Prime Minister called a meeting of First Ministers in Saskatchewan. He called a meeting of First Ministers in Halifax. What was top priority? It was agriculture, Mr. Speaker. We have seen a Government that has acted. I could read the list.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Table the report.


Leonard J. Gustafson: To the western producers approximately $550 million was allocated in crop insurance; $350 million attributable to drought; $48 million in assistance to western livestock producers; and $552 million was granted under the Western Grain Stabilization Act for the 1984-85 crop year.


Mr. Della  Noce@: Give us more.


Leonard J. Gustafson: You may say the former administration brought in that Bill. Let me tell you that this Government had not been elected for many weeks when it brought forward an amendment which allowed for an interim payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. Farmers are appreciative of the Government's direction.
I spoke recently to a meeting of farmers in Weyburn, Saskatchewan. It was made up of the Farmer's Union, the Farmer's Survival Association and of people facing problems. We recognize that there are problems. I am not telling you today, Mr. Speaker, that all is roses in the farm community. We know that. We have done a lot as a Government and there is much more to do and this Government will do it.
On this side of the House we have a broad representation of agriculture. I do not know the numbers. We could have 75 Members representing agricultural ridings. I want to say that the agricultural meetings both in this House and in committee, as was the case under the program for drought, are the best attended. Both the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister have listened to recommendations. The farmers' interests are voiced here in this House, and the actions are here to prove it.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to interrupt this debate between two Montreal Members across the floor.

Excuse me, the hon. Member is not from Montreal, he is from New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker. But in any case-

I want to say that the most important point about the debate this afternoon is to call upon the Government to make public a report done by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson). That is the only question. The Member for Assiniboia has failed to answer the question why his report was not made public by his great and esteemed leader. The Member from
May 20, 1986

Assiniboia is a gregarious, happy-go-lucky, good Member of Parliament who understands and knows farming very well.


Maurice Brydon Foster: On division.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am sure his report was a lot better than what the farmers of western Canada received in drought assistance. I see him nodding his head in the affirmative.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to clarify that I was nodding very affirmatively that the task force recommendations were followed. The Government did respond affirmatively to the recommendations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to tell the Hon. Member that that is not a point of order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, on another supplementary point of order, maybe he could tell us why the task force report was not tabled. What is the Government trying to hide? I have been here a while, Mr. Speaker, and I have seen great Members of Parliament like Ged Baldwin, Walter Baker and others campaign for years for freedom of information in the House. They talked about how secretive those terrible Liberals were. The Hon. Member remembers that. He was voting Liberal in those days. My friend from St. Catharines agrees that they campaigned hard for openness, freedom of information, and for access for the public to what goes on in the Government. In fact, when Joe Clark was Prime Minister of the country he tried to change some of that. He brought in a Bill for more freedom of information. Yet, with the new Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) from Baie Comeau in office it is more of the old Liberal Trudeau-style of government.


Don Boudria: Whoa, whoa, whoa.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Somebody says: "Whoa, whoa, whoa". I ask you, what is the difference? They are probably even worse. At least the Liberals did not promise freedom of information and more openness in government. The Conservative Party promised that. I am sure that Ged Baldwin, a very distinguished member of the Conservative Party, as he watches this place now, must be upset to see that his Party will not even make public a report made by the very distinguished Member for Assiniboia. The people of the country have a right to know. They have spent thousands and thousands of dollars helping the Member for Assiniboia prepare that report. I think they have a right to know what is in it. If they do not have the right to know what is in that report, why did the Party across the way campaign so hard for openness and freedom of information? It is no wonder, when the Government breaks promise after promise, that it is falling faster in the polls than any Government in this country has fallen since the Gallup poll first started many years ago.
Western Canada Drought


Mr. Towers:: You went down four points yourself in the last poll. Don't talk about polls.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The last poll issued on the weekend showed that the New Democratic Party is at 24 per cent, which is up 5 per cent from the last election campaign. The Conservative Party is at 38 per cent, which is down 12 from the last election campaign. I do not mind that kind of mathematics. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party is going up as well.


Maurice Brydon Foster: What do you mean by "unfortunately"?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: One reason for this shift away from the Government is that it is breaking its promises. When you stand for something in opposition you should make sure to bring it in once you are in government. I am really surprised that an Hon. Member like the Member for Assiniboia, who is a progressive red Tory, a positive Tory, would stand for the Prime Minister of the country not making his report public when he stood for freedom of information in opposition. I am really surprised. I know that he must be embarrassed by this kind of secrecy by the boy from Baie Comeau who seems to be so afraid of making things public. It is time for members of the Conservative Party from Saskatchewan to get up on their hind legs and show some leadership and courage-


John Kenneth Gormley: We have been for years.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -and insist that this report be made public. My friend, the Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley), is an outspoken man. Perhaps he will get up in a few minutes and insist that this report be made public. His constituents have the right to know what is in that report. His constituents have a right to know whether or not the Prime Minister followed the advice of the Member for Assiniboia. Perhaps I am defending the Member for Assiniboia a little too much, but I think that he, too, after doing the work, has the right to have his report made public. That is all we are asking for in the House today. That is not too radical.
I understand that the Member for Assiniboia made a number of recommendations in his report which were not listened to, but I do not know that. I do know that about $150 million was or is being made available to farmers through drought assistance. About one-half of that, approximately $70 million, is in the Province of Saskatchewan. In the fall there was an initial payment of $39.8 million. A second payment of $29.9 million is now being made.
In my province approximately 40 per cent of the wheatgrowing area is designated as being able to benefit from this special drought assistance. There is an argument that that is not enough, that the Government was too severe. A lot of farmers that had problems with drought are not receiving payments, and other farmers who had drought assistance are receiving payments. My understanding is that the average payout per acre is $6.88. If that is not correct, perhaps the Member for Assiniboia can put some facts on the record. The average pay-out per farmer is approximately $3,800.

May 20, 1986
Western Canada Drought
Another interesting point about this most recent issue in terms of the drought in the grain belt in Saskatchewan and Alberta is that this money is now being sent directly to the farmers. Last summer the money for a livestock payment was sent to the Saskatchewan Government. The Government of Saskatchewan did not give credit to the federal Government or the federal Parliament. This time around I see that the federal Government is a little wiser. It does not trust Grant Devine and is making the pay-out directly to the farmers of Saskatchewan.
I would like to make one or two more points before my time runs out. Tomorrow there will be an article in the Leader Post written by a journalist named John Miner.


Mr. Della  Noce@: How do you know that?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have very good sources. He is the agricultural reporter for the Regina Leader Post, a very, very good reporter. John Miner has tried, through the access to information laws of the country, to get a copy of the report of the Member for Assiniboia. He has tried to get other documents relating to drought relief in Saskatchewan and Alberta. He has been denied a copy of that report under the access to information laws of the country.
Tory times are secretive times, Mr. Speaker. Tory times are tough times. The agricultural reporter for the Regina Leader Post, the biggest daily in rural Canada, is being denied access to this report which affects the livelihoods of all kinds of people.
Some 12,000 farmers have appealed that they were not fairly treated by the federal Government with regard to drought assistance. Twelve thousand farmers have said that they were denied coverage because they are not in the drought area and that they did not receive a large enough pay-out for the losses they suffered due to drought. It is almost unheard of for 12,000 farmers to appeal. Yet the Government across the way denies the farmers of Canada the information in the report of the Member for Assiniboia. It denies the farmers of Canada their basic and fundamental democratic right- freedom to information. They have paid for that report. They have spent their hard-earned tax money which the Government took from their pockets, and now the Government is not even letting them see a copy of the report.
To top it off, so far this afternoon Conservative Members have not risen in this House to say why they have denied that right to the farmers of western Canada. Why do they not listen to farmers? Why do they not give the farmers access to their own report? Why do they not in government stand for what they stood for in opposition? We need freedom of information in this House. The public has the right to know. They paid the bill and they have a right to have a copy of that report. This strikes me as being very, very strange. Perhaps there are recommendations in that report which the Prime Minister turned down and now the Government is embarrassed to release it publicly.
There are all kinds of things we could talk about, Mr. Speaker, but the basic principle of the debate today is freedom of information and access to information. The Conservative Party promised this. Walter Baker, Ged Baldwin, and the Member who is now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) campaigned on this, but the new boys who took over are continuing in the old Liberal tradition of secrecy. Everything is in a tiny, isolated place in the Prime Minister's office and no one else has the right to know. That is not good enough. It is about time that Conservative Members in the House rebelled, followed their convictions, and insisted that this report be made public.


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on the motion of the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). The Member made some very interesting points in his earlier remarks. The dialogue of the long-time Member for York-ton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) will shed some interesting light on the way in which the people of Saskatchewan view their Government and the way in which the Government views the people of Saskatchewan.
I would like to begin with the intent of this motion. Obviously it is politically motivated in the crassest sense.


Don Boudria: There is no room for politics in the Parliament of Canada.


John Kenneth Gormley: I use the words "politically motivated" because it is really twofold. First, it is inspired by mischief. If this Member really believes that what the Government has done for my home province of Saskatchewan and all of western Canada was insufficient, perhaps he would be brave enough and man enough to stand and say, first, that he believes it is insufficient, and second, with clearly articulated ideas, why he believes it is insufficient. Instead, he tries to summon forth certain papers on a technical motion. Obviously we see this for the crass political mischief it is.
The Hon. Member goes back many years in provincial politics. He is one of those Members who is called Dave Peterson's revenge. He fled the Ontario provincial scene for federal politics just in time. In any event, as a long-time MPP he knows that when a Prime Minister and his Cabinet ask for information and charge a senior Member of Parliament with the responsibility of obtaining that information, he obviously wants to be able to act on the information and get the job done for Saskatchewan farmers, indeed all farmers across Canada. When the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell asks "Did he live up to the report of his task force?" The answer is that obviously he did. The Hon. Member overlooks the political process by saying that this is somehow a secret.
I come from Saskatchewan, as does the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville. However, the person speaking on behalf of Saskatchewan farmers for the Liberals comes from the outskirts of Ottawa. He represents the same Party that during
May 20, 1986

the 1984 election made all sorts of campaign promises regarding agriculture. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and others went into the flood of areas of Saskatchewan, which are much closer to my home, and made all sorts of promises unbelievably stretching credibility. If you look at the number of votes given to the Liberal candidate in that area, you will know just how we in Saskatchewan regard the Liberal Party and how credible anything his Party says about agriculture in Saskatchewan really is.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville talked about the number of farmers who feel aggrieved. Obviously there will be people who say their areas should have been covered. Their area should have had more consideration. Obviously the Member is well aware, and equally obviously he would not point it out because he is a Member of the NDP, that the Minister announced the establishment of a review board with a mandate to hear from producers in areas in which feel they should be included. I thought his figures were interesting. He mentioned 12,000 farmers. I am not sure that this is an accurate figure I thought it was interesting because for years I saw 70,000 Saskatchewan farmers concerned about every single act of omission on the part of a Liberal federal Government. We would not have had farmers with these kinds of problems if we had had a Government in Ottawa that cared or even knew the faintest thing about Saskatchewan agriculture.
I do not want to get overly political, Mr. Speaker. You know it is not my nature to be political in this Chamber.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Kenneth Gormley: I just want it on the record that when I hear a Liberal talking about Saskatchewan farmers I really must express my outrage. The Liberal Government in Ottawa for all these years did precious little, arguably nothing, to help the Saskatchewan farmer.
In appointing his Parliamentary Secretary as the individual responsible for formulating a response to the drought, I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) showed remarkable insight. He showed it in his faith in the system and in having a Member of Parliament head the task force. He also showed his insight by appointing a Member who knows what it is like firsthand. I think the Prime Minister showed a refreshingly clear and different way of addressing the problem.


Mr. Rossi:: Ask him why he does not table the report.


John Kenneth Gormley: That Member has given us a three-phase approach to the drought problem. The first phase, which was quickly acted upon, dealt with livestock drought assistance. This program earmarked some $48 million-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House is whether or not this report should be made public. Should the Member who is speaking now not be talking to the motion, which is whether or not this document should be made public?
Western Canada Drought


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member will speak to the motion.


John Kenneth Gormley: Hearing a New Democrat invoke the rule of relevance stretches credibility again. I am talking about drought assistance, and particularly why the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell,	the great Saskatchewan
agronomist, desires these documents. If he looks at the result of the recommendations to the Prime Minister he will see that the prairie farmer, the Saskatchewan farmer in particular, is being dealt with in a compassionate, understanding and realistic way. We had the Livestock Drought Assistance Program involving $48 million. This was the first program addressed in the recommendation of the task force to the Prime Minister. Phase 2 involved $150 million under the Crop Disaster Assistance Program. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell did not say that today, May 20, 1986, the final portion of that $150 million is going to be paid out to farmers, amounting to some $64 million. I did not hear that from the Hon. Member.
The third phase involved a long-term method of dealing effectively with drought and, for that matter, all other natural disasters. Just two weeks ago the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, along with the federal Government, made the announcement that there would be a means to deal in the long term with natural disasters such as drought in the farm economy. When this report was made to the Prime Minister we had to take into account what the Province of Saskatchewan was doing. That was a hard act to follow. The Province of Saskatchewan allowed a $125 per head cash advance of livestock. It had a $60 a head grant for livestock producers in severe drought areas. It had a $25 per cultivated acre loan for all Saskatchewan farmers. There was a gas tax rebate when the province, as everyone knows, with a Conservative Government, eliminated the gas tax. Grant Devine is a farmer. Unlike any other Premier in Canada, I think he has a sensitivity to farmers and this was a difficult act to follow. However, the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) advised the Prime Minister on three recommendations which the Prime Minister followed, and these are accommodating the concerns of Saskatchewan farmers.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has put before the House an excellent motion calling on the Government to table the report of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia which he prepared for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) I have had an opportunity to visit that province and others in the West and people there really want to see the report. They want to see it because there were, as the Hon. Member mentioned, reports in the papers, such as The Star-Phoenix of August 16, 1985, which said, "Tory Drought Aid a Sleazy Operation". I knew that could not apply to the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson). I have known him for years and I know that he was one of the 19 people who supported the Prime Minister in the leadership race. I knew that had nothing to do with his being appointed Parliamentary

May 20, 1986
Western Canada Drought
Secretary. I knew it was his qualities of leadership that counted. That is why I was very upset when I read this article by Nancy Russell in the Star-Phoenix. It said the following:
(PC-MP Assiniboia) was appointed by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to head the drought task force, with a mandate of determining how best to assist farmers.
While it has been obvious from his lack of answers in the last few days that Gustafson has little clout in Ottawa, it was clear the federal Government planned to do something for farmers.
Then it goes on to say the following:
Agriculture Minister-put on quite a show Wednesday. The media went wild reporting on this $30 per head, $48 million lifesaver, of which Saskatchewan will receive $ 16 million. Wise took credit for saving farmers from extinction while his provincial counterpart welcomed the news.
Wise and Ottawa haven't done a thing to improve upon what farmers have already been guaranteed by the province, while Hepworth and Saskatchewan have done half of what they said they would do. The $30 per head from Ottawa is going into the province's pocket, while the $60 per head from Saskatchewan is now only $30.
I think it is because of that, sort of a double shuffle, that the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell wanted to give the Hon. Member for Assiniboia a chance to vindicate himself and to lay this on the table as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister of Canada.
A lot of people say very disparaging things about the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen). They call him things like Velcro Lips. Can you imagine the Hon. Member for Assiniboia being called Velcro Lips or Velcro Products? They do not want to use terms like that against him.
I would really hope that the Hon. Member would table this document, because that is what is before the House today. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has outlined how the Member, when he was in the opposition, was a stalwart advocate of freedom of information, lay it all on the table. When the Prime Minister, as the Leader of the Opposition, spoke in Kingston, he said that he would have an open Government. Documents of this nature would be laid on the table automatically. The Member for Assiniboia cheered because he was supporting him in the leadership, and that was the kind of leader he wanted to go forward with. He knew that if he supported him and nominated him at the leadership convention, he would be chosen Parliamentary Secretary, and sure enough, he was. There was some discussion as to why he was chosen.
Every reputable farm organization, certainly the Saskatchewan pool and all of the big organizations, were recommending something like $45 or $50 an acre. We all knew on this side that the Hon. Member for Assiniboia would never make a recommendation as low as $5 or $10 per acre.
The Government was not going to be paying out all of its money that it is required to pay under the Western Transportation Act, the $658 million, so we thought that since they
were not paying out all of that money under the Transportation Act they would probably come clean and make a larger amount available.
The Government was not going to make applications available until January, and they were only going to pay out $95 million in the first three or four months of 1986, and they were not going to pay the rest of it until the next fiscal year. We knew he would never recommend anything as low as $5 or $11 an acre.
At the time of this drought, the worst in western Canada certainly in a generation, the farmers of western Canada were facing the wrath of that boiling hot sun day after day in their fields and their crops were withering up. Families in Saskatchewan were applying for social assistance from their welfare agencies.
The Government was imposing a 2-cents-a-litre harvest tax for every litre of gasoline or diesel fuel that they bought. The Hon. Member knew that the Government was welching on a promise with regard to fuel tax, and so obviously he would have recommended more than that.
I certainly hope the Hon. Member, later on today, will come clean and announce that. I know he is very embarrassed. I am not sure that he attended the economic summit in Washington on March 18 and 19. Normally, I believe, he travels with the Prime Minister on events like that. I know he had nothing to do with the printing of this document, the background papers, because in that document there is nary a mention of the United States farm Bill, a farm Bill that will reduce the net farm income of western farmers by at least 30 per cent right across the board. All farmers in the country will see their farm incomes drop by an average of 20 per cent, and nary a word is there in this document mentioning the United States Farm Bill, which is going to have a great impact.
This document outlines all of the problems which Canada and the United States have, such as softwood lumber, fish countervail, steel, Section 21, asbestos, shingles and shakes, electric razors, castings, forklift arms, and all of those things- there is nary a word.
The Prime Minister went to Washington to deal with the difficult problems facing Canada and the United States, and nary a word is there about the United States farm Bill, which is having a devastating impact.
Before he went to Japan the Prime Minister discovered that there was a farm problem. He made a great flourish here in Ottawa, flew over the Prairies, waved as he went by, but did not leave much money, and landed in Vancouver to open Expo before going on to the summit.
Finally he made the announcement that stopped the larceny which he started last September of 2.5 cents a litre on gasoline. He picked up another half a cent in January in sales tax. He stopped that larceny, and we are thankful for that. We wish he would make that retroactive so that while the farmers are suffering the worst drought in history-the Hon. Member for
May 20, 1986

Assiniboia was preparing this report-he would not actually be able to say that in the future he did not impose that 2.5 cents per litre.
The rest of the announcement was for the consumers to pay for, if the Government decides to do that, only increasing the range, and the feed freight rate freezing, of course, was strictly a charade, a rejuggling of the figures of the volume of grain to be shipped. The question about the price range is something the Government still has to decide about in the future.
The Parliamentary Secretary has told us about how the Government has not welched on paying crop insurance. They have not welched on the western grain stabilization payments, and we are pleased about that. Those are programs for which the farmers pay a premium and surely they are entitled to a benefit if they have a loss, and the Government has done that.
Just to keep the reputation of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia in-tact, I think it is essential that he come forward to prove to the farmers of his constituency that he is not Velcro Lips, he is a person who wants to put everything on the table. I hope he will table this report before six o'clock this afternoon.


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, first I would point out that if there was applause on the Government side it did not come from Government Members. Simply to complete what my colleague from Algoma (Mr. Foster) has just said-and I am proud to take part in the debate this evening-I would say that as usual the Hon. Member for Algoma displayed his selective memory. He talked about cut-backs and taxes on gas, but he forgot the billions of dollars his own Party cost our agricultural producers for years on end with their interest rates ranging between 18 and 20 per cent. Ours have been outstanding achievements under current economic conditions. I think my colleague should refresh his memory.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Algoma and the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) are again asking for the tabling of the report, but I have no idea how they developed such a habit. Probably during the twenty dark years they made us live through, when they got used to produce reports on just about anything. What really matters to Canadian agricultural producers, Mr. Speaker? Not reports, but facts, data, results. And results we have produced, millions of dollars, very quickly.
My colleague from Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) was given specific responsibilities and looked after the matter with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Decisions were made immediately: $150 million. Payments for the remaining $64 million were announced today. Decisions have been made very rapidly. Reports are not important. What matters is results.
Since it is an Ontario Member who raised this issue, it must be some kind of an obligation because the Liberal Party has never been a truly national Party, and they are not about to
Western Canada Drought
improve their performance either. The Progressive Conservative Party which now forms the Government is indeed a truly national Party. This is precisely what makes us different from our colleagues because this Government is taking positions which farmers and Canadians generally can accept as being fair and reasonable.
Naturally, our Liberal friends cannot understand because theirs is a regional party. They have Members in a couple of provinces and a few others here and there in Canada in regions like that of my Hon. friend for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), but of course, in the case of the New Democratic Party, its members can promise anything. They may have gone up in the polls, but they always promise what everyone wants. It is easy for them because they know that they will never form a Government. There is no danger of that.
Mr. Speaker, of course, I sympathize with the Opposition; I also sympathize with my friend for Algoma. It is not easy to be agriculture critic for the Official Opposition. Is is very difficult in view of what we have done for agriculture in the last 18 months. I would not want to change places with him. It is very difficult for him to rise today and try to find fault with the policy of this Government on agriculture. It is a very difficult thing to do. The same goes for his assistant from Glengarry- Prescott-Russell, who cannot find much to say either.
We just have to look at the figures, at the hundreds of millions of dollars allocated following the drought in Western Canada, we have only to think about the 40,000 farm producers in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan who benefited directly from the action taken, we have only to think about the $700 billion in crop insurance payments made to over 80,000 farm producers. This money was spent for Canadian agriculture. It adds up to nearly $4 billion in 18 months. That is action.
What they would like, what they have been used to, what they have shown us for 20 years, is more reports. Let us write reports and shelve them. Let us appoint others to write more. Let us ask our friends to write some reports. Then, let us take these reports and shelve them. That is all we want. That is the only important thing. Positive results are not important. But all that has changed. For our part, we want positive results, that is fewer reports and more money spent directly for the producers and put directly into the economy. That is the policy of our Government, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, if we look at the results, we find that there has been consultation between the Federal Government and the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. That is practical action and that is important.
I would still have a lot to say, Mr. Speaker, but I shall leave the floor to my colleague-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, we have two or three minutes left. Is the Hon. Member willing to answer a question?

May 20, 1986
Western Canada Drought


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I gather that the Hon. Member is asking for unanimous consent?

The Hon. Member requests the unanimous consent of the House to put a question to the Member. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No. Very well. The Hon. Member for Bellechasse (Mr. Blais) may continue his speech.


An Hon. Member:: The Hon. Member may continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could the Hon. Member for Bellechasse continue his speech?


Pierre Blais: Yes, Mr. Speaker, of course, but I was waiting for my hon. friend from Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) to sit down. After all, he has 18 years' experience in the House, and I am very inexperienced at this sort of thing-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Blais: If it's a point of order, I will wait-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, this is a point of order.
Do we have the unanimous consent of the House to ask a question?


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Unanimous consent has not been given, and we shall therefore resume debate with the Hon. Member for Bellechasse (Mr. Blais).


An Hon. Member:: Only two minutes left-


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, for the sake of courtesy, I mentioned before that... Probably my hon. friend from Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) was not listening ... I had a lot to say but had some other colleagues who were anxious to add a few comments. I think my hon. friend from Swift Current- Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) will take over now, Mr. Speaker.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague who was kind enough to cede me the remaining bit of time. I am somewhat disappointed that so little time remains because I represent a riding-Swift Current-Maple Creek in the southwestern corner of Saskatchewan-that I believe has suffered more than
any other in the past several years owing to drought, grasshoppers, high winds and so on. It is a riding with some 55,000 residents, most of whom either farm or certainly owe their living directly to agriculture. Consequently, the topic before us is of extreme importance.
I listened with some dismay earlier to my hon. friend, the Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), the opposition agriculture critic, with whom I have had the opportunity to travel across the country recently on the domestic wheat price committee. That is another agricultural initiative put forward by the Government which impacts very heavily on grain farmers in this country.


Don Boudria: Not true. It is an initiative by the Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson). Don't let the Tory Government take credit for that.


Geoff Wilson: I think the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) is complimenting the Government on that initiative, and I certainly thank him for it.
We are talking about a report, but I will suggest that action speaks louder than words. What we have put forward as a Government is action upon action upon action.
I ask the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) what he considers to be so secretive about the Western Grain Stabilization Plan and the contribution that the Government has made to assist western agriculture to the tune of some $580 million recently and of over $500 million last year. Is that a secret?
Let us talk about the contributions to federal-provincial crop insurance programs. According to Saskatchewan Wheat Pool figures, something in excess of $300 million each year is put into that program by the federal Government. There is the drought relief programs announced last year, with $48 million toward livestock relief. There is $150 million toward crop disaster relief. I suggest that this is a direct result of the outstanding efforts of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m., at which time the House will proceed to the question of the forest fire situation in Atlantic Canada.
At 6.02 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
May 20, 1986

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Leave has been granted to the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) to move the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 29 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the forest fire situation in Atlantic Canada.


Robert Alfred Corbett: That this House do now adjourn.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to raise in the House, under Standing Order 29, the provision which allows for an emergency debate, a situation of very critical importance to the Atlantic regions of Canada. The matter I am raising is in reference to the tremendous blazes which have enveloped Atlantic Canada, particularly the provinces of New Brunswick and Newfoundland, over the past Five or six days. As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 29, the subject matter of an emergency debate must be within the administrative competence of the Government and, in my considered opinion, it is within the administrative competence of the Government to deal with the issue directly forthwith, and if not that, to at least consider the matter with due haste.
The subject matter of the debate centres on the disastrous situation which has developed in Atlantic Canada during the past week as a result of major forest fires. The fires have been particularly devastating in New Brunswick and in Newfoundland, provinces which are extremely dependent upon the forest industry for their well being, the employment of their people and the maintenance of their economy. Because of my direct knowledge of the situation in New Brunswick, I ask that you give me your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, if I tend to deal with the situation in New Brunswick in greater detail than the situations in other parts of the region. This does not diminish the importance of the forest industry to all of Atlantic Canada.
To date it is estimated that some 130,000 acres of prime woodland have been burned over and destroyed in New Brunswick alone. This is prime woodland and, although all fires at this moment, to the best of our knowledge, are under control, there are still a number of fires which continue to rage. I would like to take you back a little in history, Mr. Speaker, and inform you that the last great fire New Brunswick experienced was in 1944 at which time approximately
170,000	acres burned. In 1934, ten years previous to that, a major fire destroyed something in the vicinity of 184,000 acres. As a result of those fires, great economic difficulties were imposed on the economy of New Brunswick. Although both of those fires created economic difficulty which had an effect nationally, they did happen in times when the region was
economically much less dependent on the national economy than it is today.
I think it is important that I put the matter in perspective. The annual harvest in New Brunswick is approximately
170,000	acres. It is now likely that more than 170,000 acres will be destroyed in the fires which have already consumed a substantial portion of prime forest land in the province. This will drastically affect the economy of the province. The fires which have been burning in the rest of Atlantic Canada, particularly those fires in Newfoundland-Newfoundland as we are aware, depends to a subtantial degree upon the forest industry for its economy-as well as the fires in Prince Edward Island and to a lesser degree in Nova Scotia, will have a direct impact not only on Atlantic Canada but on the entire country as a whole. The forest industry is one of the country's most significant economic bases.
I think it is important at this time to point out that the Government has created a new Ministry of State for Forestry, recognizing the contribution of the forest industry to this nation's economy. I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that it is the largest employer of people in the country. One out of every seven jobs in the Province of New Brunswick, for instance, is directly attributable to the forest industry. One out of every 10 jobs in the nation as a whole is attributed to the forest industry. Our national export of forest products earned more in foreign exchange earnings than oil, minerals, fish and agricultural exports combined. This is a tremendously valuable asset. It is a renewable resource which has signficant impact on all regions of the country, particularly on Atlantic Canada.
The creation of the new Ministry of State for Forestry by the present Government has been a breath of fresh air to an area which is strongly dependent on the forest sector economically and has provided Atlantic Canadians with a new hope of recognition for this particular sector. Atlantic Canadians feel that the establishment of the new Department of Forestry will provide them with a renewed status in Confederation. The tragedy of the situation is that this is now very seriously threatened.
The impact of the forestry sector in this nation is felt in every Canadian home. I want to re-emphasize that the forest industry is our greatest foreign exchange earner and is one of the largest purchasers of manufactured goods in Canada. I can assure Hon. Members that with the current very critical situation economically in Atlantic Canada, and with the plight of the unemployed youth in that region, this tragedy is something which is going to be widely felt in the area.
The hope of a new attitude on the part of the people of the area toward this most valued industry is the hope of thousands of young people in Atlantic Canada. I think it is necessary to point out that there are few job-creation programs that are as valuable or as cost efficient as those that hire young people to plant and manage this nation's forests.

May 20, 1986
Canada is an exporting nation. With the renewed commitment to an enhanced trade agreement with our neighbours to the south, this has become even more predominant and important. Atlantic Canadians look forward with enthusiasm to the opportunities that enhanced trade would provide us as a natural north-south trading partner. Our geographic proximity to the New England states with its vast market of 48 million people was and continues to be of tremendously exciting potential. Obviously our natural forest products upon which we are so dependent would play a major role in that trade.
In the over-all context, it was not a tremendous amount of acreage that was affected. It probably amounts to something like less than 4 per cent of the acreage in New Brunswick and significantly less than that throughout the Atlantic provinces. Nevertheless, we must recognize that any imbalance in the delicate economic situation that exists in Atlantic Canada and the individual Atlantic provinces will have a devastating affect on the lives of the people. After all, we as a Government are concerned about the welfare and livelihoods of the people we represent.
I would suggest that those of us who have not had an opportunity to visit those areas cannot begin to imagine the devastation that exists. I had the opportunity to visit there. I live in proximity to one of the major fires in the Camp Gagetown area, something about which I will speak in a few moments. It really shocks the soul, to say the least, to drive through an area that the week before was a beautiful, green area with marvellous foilage, and see it turned into something reminiscent of Dante's Inferno. It is so very shocking to see.
In the few brief moments I have, I would like to show how integral the forest industry in Atlantic Canada can be to the economy of the nation as a whole. As I have stated, and it is important that we recognize the significance of this to Atlantic Canadians, Canada's forest industry across the nation from the Pacific to the Atlantic is a multimillion-dollar concern. It is the single largest industry in New Brunswick and is obviously essential to the economies of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Quebec, northern Ontario and the northern parts of the prairie provinces.
The forestry sector is the single largest employer in Canada. It employs 450,000 employees directly and indirectly with annual wages and salaries that total in excess of some S10 billion. It is our biggest foreign exchange earner. A serious setback such as the one we have experienced in Atlantic Canada will be very difficult for us as a nation and a Government to address. It provides unimagined setbacks to our economic renewal. The dollar value of this setback is, at this particular stage, very difficult to calculate, but the one thing of which we are sure is that the economic impact will be significant.
The New Brunswick forest industry accounts for some
16,000	jobs directly and another 20,000 jobs indirectly. As I have mentioned, that is equal to one in seven jobs in the Province of New Brunswick. The industry is worth in excess of $1 billion to the province.
I feel that the losses we have incurred should be brought into perspective with reference to the recognition of how long it takes a forest to grow. I mentioned two major forest fires which occurred previously. One of the tragedies of this situation is that the forests that were devastated in 1934 and 1944 were just about to come into production. Part of those lands have again been burned.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the very substantial efforts of the thousands of people and the volunteer fire departments across Atlantic Canada which have assisted in extinguishing these blazes. They have risked their lives this past weekend. In New Brunswick alone, hundreds of people reacted to this very serious and risky situation without thought to their own personal safety in order to save homes, property and, no doubt, even lives.
As I mentioned before, I have been there. I have seen it; I was in the middle of it. I was in a community where an evacuation order had been put in place. In the Gagetown area from where I come, it has been recognized by the military that that particular fire started as a result of live shelling. This afternoon I called upon the Government to accept its responsibility and ensure that the residents of that area, some of whom lost homes or hundreds of acres of woodland, are adequately and fairly compensated.
I appreciated the response of the Associate Minister of Defence (Mr. Andre), although I was somewhat concerned by his remarks to the effect that: "if the Government accepts responsibility for that". There has been a statement by Department of National Defence personnel indicating that indeed the military was responsible for starting those fires. Plow this will be addressed over the coming days and weeks remains to be seen. However, I hope that the Government will act with compassion and respond positively to the concerns of these people due to the utter devastation they are personally experiencing.
Again, I reiterate that this situation is a very difficult thing for us to imagine. If it were not for the volunteer fire departments, 18 of which came from my constituency and surrounding areas, which responded to that fire in the Gagetown region, it is difficult to imagine the sort of destruction and havoc that would have been wreaked upon the area. When I drove through the area I saw an A-frame house in the middle of the woods, obviously placed there because of the solitude and tranquility of its location, and this house was not touched or scorched by the fire. However, all around it charred trees stood en masse. There are several examples of that sort of thing. It was only due to the heroic efforts of volunteer fire departments that that real property was saved. Unfortunately, that has changed an entire way of life.
I am sure that tonight some people are sitting in their homes amid charred exteriors thinking that they probably would have been a whole lot better off if their homes had gone up in flames to begin with. It is a fact of life, however, that people are prepared to accept what happened. They now expect that
:
May 20, 1986

the Government will respond in a fair way. I am certain that is the kind of response these people will receive.
The economy of the Atlantic region is delicate at best. A catastrophe of this proportion drastically affects our economic wellbeing. I call upon the federal Government and upon provincial Governments to initiate joint action to put forth programs which help Atlantic Canadians adjust to the very difficult situation they have now experienced and are still experiencing in some parts of Atlantic Canada.
The Government should address the fact that Atlantic Canadians are now faced with additional economic difficulties which they do not need in an area of the country where unemployment is unacceptable at best. I assure the Government that we in Atlantic Canada are not looking for handouts. However, we require policies which will help sustain the Atlantic forestry sector and subsequently the national forestry sector while we have an opportunity to recover from the difficult situation in which we find ourselves. Without Governments at all levels addressing this issue, we will not be able to deal with it on our own accord.
I appreciate the opportunity to bring this matter before the House, and I look forward to the comments of my colleagues from Atlantic Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to take part in this important emergency debate on the forest fires that have ravaged the Atlantic provinces.
First of all, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) for asking the House to consider his motion to have an emergency debate on the situation in the Atlantic provinces.
I fully support his motion, and I hope that the other Members from New Brunswick and the Atlantic region, and all the Members of this House, will give their support as well.
Mr. Speaker, we obviously have here a very urgent situation that has required and still requires constant co-operation among the various groups involved, to keep the situation from getting worse. Even if the fires have now lost their intensity and the situation seems to be under control, nevertheless, the situation that prevailed during the past week can still be labelled as disastrous.
Mr. Speaker, it is a disaster. In the province of New Brunswick alone, 140,000 acres were destroyed by over 65 forest fires. One hundred and forty thousand acres is 25 times as many fires we had last year. One hundred and forty thousand acres represents almost a year's harvest, the harvest of an entire year. So we can say we have lost the equivalent of all the wood that can be cut in a year, which represents millions and millions of dollars for the economy of the province
of New Brunswick, and of course thousands of jobs. I am sure that the fires that raged in Newfoundland were similar in their impact to those in New Brunswick.
Mr. Speaker, this debate is of primary importance for the province of New Brunswick, because the forestry industry is one of the most important, if not the most important industry in that part of the country.
I would like to give a few statistics, as did my hon. friend from Fundy-Royal, to show how important this sector is to us. First of all, 33 out of 67 industrial communities depend on the forestry sector. New Brunswick has the highest percentage of land in forest production of any Canadian province. In fact, the province has 6 million hectares of forest, which represents 58 per cent of the province's total land area. Forty-nine per cent of that are Crown-owned lands, including 2 per cent belonging to the federal Government. Eighteen per cent of forest lands belong to major companies, while private individuals own 33 per cent of the lands, which is quite a lot by any standards. With so much forest lands, Mr. Speaker, you can appreciate that this sector is vital to New Brunswick.
From an economic viewpoint, the total output of the forest industry is 515 million cubic metres: 55 per cent softwood and 35 per cent hardwood. There is no denying that the forest industry ranks first in New Brunswick.
The over-all production gross value is over $1 billion, which is close to 25 per cent of goods produced in the Province of New Brunswick.
In terms of exports, the forest sector accounts for 39 per cent of the province's total export trade. These enlightening statistics give a clearer picture of the devastating impact of these many fires which have damaged a significant part of this natural wealth which is so essential to the economy of my province, an economy that is faltering at times, like that of the three other Atlantic provinces.
As you would know, Mr. Speaker, regional development is not a new problem in Atlantic Canada. Our economy depends heavily on Government assistance. This year, unfortunately, we have had a streak of bad luck, as if we could afford it.
Our unemployment rate is still 15 per cent, and no progress has been made in that respect over the past year. Youth unemployment is even higher than the 15 per cent adult population unemployment. According to the latest figures, about 30 per cent are unemployed. It is totally unacceptable. It is not only forests which have been lost in New Brunswick because of the many forest fires, but also jobs and houses. Families have also been dispersed.
Since the forest industry is so important in New Brunswick, many jobs are directly or indirectly related to it. We can just look at the figures. Forestry alone represents 16,000 jobs. Another 20,000 jobs are indirectly related to this industry. In other words, in New Brunswick, one out of every seven jobs is related to the forest industry. That means that one out of every

May 20, 1986
seven people works in the forest. That is a lot. This industry represents $250 million in wages each year.
This loss, especially in wooded acres, represents the loss of hundreds of jobs, and this is certainly no laughing matter if we look to the future. In view of an unemployment rate much higher than the national average, a rate which is the second highest in Canada, the future looks far from promising. I must admit that there is nothing that would tend to contradict this outlook.
Recently, the federal Government reduced its allocations to employment strategy programs. No funds were allocated for this fiscal year. The funds are frozen even though hundreds of projects have been submitted. People want to work. These are good people who only want to work.
Many of them and many communities are just waiting for their projects to be accepted to create these jobs, but the Government does nothing. Why is the Government waiting? For the unemployment rate to go even higher? It is already unacceptable.
In view of the recent disaster in New Brunswick, I explicite-ly ask this Government to act as soon as possible, and I ask the Members Opposite to put pressure on the Government in this regard. Incentives must be provided immediately. The employment problem in New Brunswick ... I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I have a bad flu coming on; it has nothing to do with the forest fires. I was saying that the employment problem in New Brunswick requires immediate action and the recent disaster makes us realize that we have to create jobs because an unemployment rate or 15 per cent is much too high and these people have to be put back to work.
Also, the consequences of this disaster were not limited only to its impact on the economy, for there was also an impact on several affected families. As a matter of fact, several houses, buildings, barns and private wood lots were burnt to the ground. Mr. Speaker, we must ask ourselves if the Government should not come to the aid of these families. We could compare fire with other natural disasters such as floods and storms for which the Government has often provided assistance. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask the question: Will the Government in this case provide some assistance? I sincerely believe that it should do so and surely my honourable colleagues from New Brunswick believe so too. The federal Government should indeed discuss forthwith this matter with the provinces to determine an action plan, for the situation is most urgent.
On the other hand, the Government appears to be responsible for the action of the military at CFB Gagetown who started one of the biggest fires in the province. Now, I think that the military authorities have admitted and accepted the responsibility for this fire which burnt the facilities on the base and several homes to the ground. This afternoon, we were told in the House that there would be an investigation to determine
who was responsible. I sincerely wish that this investigation will take place as soon as possible and I suggest it would be fair for the Government to offer right away some support to these families, because they are homeless, their homes having been burnt down. I believe therefore that we have a responsibility and that we should consider helping them.
But this fire in Gagetown was only one among 60 others. Near my riding, a fire started in the Kouchibouguac National Park, an area which attracts visitors by the hundreds of thousands every year. Fortunately, this fire was brought under control before it had time to cause too much damage. Yesterday, I flew over that region and I could appreciate the good work the volunteers have done fighting the forest fires. The situation in the New Brunswick forests was explosive. I could see from high up in the air where the fire had burnt and, in several places, where it had jumped 100 metres and even more.
I mention this to underline that the people fighting the fires were risking their lives. Most of them were volunteers. I should like here to pay tribute to these people for their work, dedication and willingness to leave their homes and try to save the New Brunswick forests at their own risk.
I should like also to thank the other provinces which have come to our assistance, as well as the State of Maine. I can assure you that the people in Atlantic Canada will not forget this assistance, this gesture made in friendship.
Since several of these fires were caused by human errors, probably neglect, should we not better educate the public? During a week-end broadcast, I heard people say that they did not really mind the forest being destroyed, since it belongs to big corporations. I suggest we should take this opportunity to tell people that the forests belong to us. It is part of our heritage. We should preserve them. Above all, we should use them to create jobs.
I mentioned a while ago that our unemployment rate is very high. That is true. That is unacceptable. Why not take this opportunity to establish new reforestation programs? We hear people say: The forest does not provide as many jobs as it is believed because the whole cutting process is made with machines. Well, we could decide that the whole reforestation should be handmade and not machine-made. That is what people want. They want jobs. They want to contribute to the economy. They are not satisfied with staying home and collecting unemployment insurance or welfare benefits. They want to work. Perhaps we could draw a lesson from this situation, a disaster just the same. Perhaps people could benefit from it.
I urge therefore the Government to set up reforestation programs to make it possible for people to work and try and save the wood which has not been destroyed, because I believe that some of the wood can still be saved.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that the time has come for the Government to act. Empty promises are not enough. That simply will not do. It must act, find a
May 20, 1986

way to recreate what we have lost while providing jobs for people living in Atlantic Canada.
Also, I am happy that this debate took place and that I could contribute to it together with my colleagues from New Brunswick and the other Atlantic regions, no matter their political affiliation. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if we can achieve something here tonight, make the Government face up to its responsibilities and react promptly to this situation, we will have done a lot. If I think we can do something here tonight, I tell myself that we will be ready to launch another debate of great importance to New Brunswick, a debate on the Moncton CN shops which provide work for 1,200 residents of the southeastern region. I feel confident that my New Brunswick colleagues will then rise again to defend the interests of our province.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, this is a time for action and the Government has several options. With sound planning and especially financial assistance, one is justified in believing that everything is not lost by any means. What is needed is political will, the kind of political will which so far has not been particularly obvious, almost missing in fact.
If the interest of the Atlantic provinces is a priority of this Government, Mr. Speaker, now is the time to prove it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre).


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The precedent of this House is that on any type of debate each of the three Parties is allowed one speaker at the very beginning. After that you may recognize the Members as you prefer. However, there has not yet been one speaker from the New Democratic Party. The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) was definitely on his feet seeking recognition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no order of precedence for speakers in this House, as the Hon. Member knows. It is entirely within the discretion of the Chair which tries to balance the list of speakers according to the issue and the numbers present in the House from each political Party. It is the intention of the Chair to recognize the Associate Minister of National Defence and then the Hon. Member for Skeena.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the very serious and, in many ways, tragic events of the last few days in Atlantic Canada, particularly in New Brunswick and Newfoundland, are of grave concern to the Government and members of this Party. It is significant that, given his unbelievably heavy schedule, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) alone amongst the Party Leaders, has viewed this as serious enough to be in the House this evening to participate in this debate.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. One thing I am aware of that pursuant to the rules of this House, regardless of your previous ruling, it is inappropriate for Members of this House, Ministers or otherwise, to comment on the absence or otherwise of Members of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Member, of course, is correct. The Associate Minister of National Defence has the floor on debate.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is right. I hope he will remind himself and members of his caucus of that during Question Period when he frequently has reason to make those kinds of observations. I think it is significant to note the presence of the Prime Minister and his concern about this very important natural tragedy which has occurred in Atlantic Canada.
With the exception of federal lands such as the Northwest Territories, forest fire control is a provincial responsibility. However, our experience over the past decade has taught us that forest fires are a national problem. Furthermore, the Government has recognized that the need for a sustained wood supply and improved forest management are matters of national concern.
We and the provincial governments, as well as the forest industry, are spending large sums on forest management. Over the next several years through joint federal-provincial Forest Resource Development Agreements we will spend about $1.1 billion on forest management across Canada. This is a major investment and if we are to realize our present and future forest production goals we must significantly reduce our forest fire losses.
Accordingly, the federal Government has provided substantial assistance for provincial forestry programs such as the Forest Resource Development Agreements, the purchase of water bombers, and support for the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre which is headquartered in Winnipeg to share information and resources to better fight forest fires. The provinces contribute two-thirds of the agency's cost and the federal Government contributes the remaining third. During fire emergencies in one province the agency arranges fire fighting aid from other provinces. During last week's Gage-town fire in southern New Brunswick, for example, two CL 215 water bombers from Quebec were involved in the aerial assault on the fire.
Incidentally, there is also a formal agreement between Canada and the United States which allows individual provincial and federal agencies to deal directly with American federal agencies as the need arises without going through complicated channels of approval every time. That led to the State of Maine providing water bomber assistance to New Brunswick. The Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre coordinates these across-the-border exchanges of resources.
We are also strengthening our aerial fire-fighting capability through a co-operative program with the provinces which will

May 20, 1986
provide 29 CL 215s by 1988, 12 for the provinces and 17 for the federal Government. Four of the federal water bombers will be based in the Northwest Territories and the remaining 13 federal planes will be leased to appropriate provinces for a nominal sum. All provinces have agreed to share their water bombers during forest fire operations, a sharing that the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre will co-ordinate under the Mutual Aid Resources Sharing Agreement.
During the past two weeks we have witnessed a real tragedy. Dry, hot weather has resulted in an extremely high incidence of forest fires in the two provinces mentioned. Not only have we witnessed the destruction of thousands of acres of forest, but also of homes and personal properties. As well, lives and towns have been threatened by the ravages of fire. We are indeed fortunate that there has been no loss of life, even though I know the sorrow that is being felt by those who have witnessed the destruction of their properties.
Canadian Forces Base Gagetown had to contend with two major fires in its training area last Thursday. The most serious one managed to jump the fire breaks at the training area and threatened the village of Upper Gagetown. One thousand people were evacuated from the village. Finally, through the combined efforts of some 400 military personnel, many local civilians and provincial water bombers the fires were brought under control on Saturday allowing the residents to return to their homes.
Another major forest fire in the Tracadie area burned out of control for several days destroying some 60,000 acres of forest. To help in bringing this fire under control military assistance was sought. A 200-man force from the 2nd RCR, Gagetown, was dispatched last Friday. Over the weekend that portion of the fire which was threatening populated areas was brought under control. At CFB Chatham Base fire fighters assisted local fire fighters to contain a fire threatening the village of Douglastown and at CFB Moncton a small fire near the Town of Dieppe threatened the supply depot at the base. The base commander mobilized his base defence force until such time as the fire was brought under control.
In Newfoundland last Friday, when a fire threatened the towns of Grand Falls and Windsor, residents most threatened had to be evacuated. At the request of the RCMP local militia assisted in traffic control and security of vacated homes and buildings. As well, a 50-man force from the Grand Falls company of the 2nd Royal Newfoundland Regiment was deployed and assisted police until Sunday when the fire was brought under control. I am proud of the efforts of our Armed Forces personnel in helping in this way.
There has been much discussion about the cause of the fires at CFB Gagetown, two of which were serious, the most serious of which leaped a fire break and threatened the town of Upper Gagetown. Upon hearing this I immediately ordered an inquiry. The fire marshall had already left mobile command headquarters St. Hubert for Gagetown to personally investigate the cause of the fire. I have given orders that a board of inquiry be set up immediately and that it proceed with
dispatch to deal with the causes of the fire as quickly as possible so that any compensation due any of those who suffered personal losses as a result of a fire can be dealt with expeditiously and, as I indicated earlier today, with generosity.
I suppose it is with some embarrassment that I have to admit we have some experience in this sort of thing. There have been times when actions taken by the military while on mobilization have caused personal property damage. We have a procedure in place involving boards of inquiry. I am especially interested that this board of inquiry not take a lot of time or be involved in unnecessary legal wrangling. The money spent should go to the benefit, if appropriate, of the people who have suffered damages and not be used up by legal fees through endless weeks and months of wrangling.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: I am assured that that will not happen and I commit to the House that I will keep the situation under active observation. I do not want to prejudice the inquiry with respect to what it might find other than to indicate that I have instructed the military not to find legalistic ways to avoid their responsibility. On the other hand, they have to conduct a fair and proper inquiry. I am not asking for patience. If the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) or my colleague, the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett), because of their proximity to the situation, have information which would be useful to me in pursuing the objective we all share, I invite them to contact me. I think we have similar interests in this regard.
The only other comment I would like to make at this time is with reference to the existence of a disaster financial assistance arrangement between the federal and provincial Governments, and I bring this to the attention of the House. It is administered by Emergency Planning Canada which, although a separate agency, does report to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) and for which I am responsible. This arrangement has been in place for some 15 years and is there to provide assistance when dealing with damage to property or individuals as a result of natural disasters. There is a costsharing formula. The first dollar of costs, on a per capita basis, are the responsibility of the provinces. In other words, for New Brunswick, the first $750,000 in costs would be the responsibility of the provincial Government. The next $2, or $1.5 million in total, is shared 50/50. The next $2 above that, or $1.5 million in total, is 75 per cent federal and 25 per cent provincial. Anything above that is 90 per cent federal and 10 per cent provincial.
There is a reasonable and fairly generous, indeed unlimited in total, plan in place for financial assistance in case of a natural disaster. The initiative rests with the provincial Government. They must make a request for such assistance. There is a provision for an interim payment until the final amount is determined and all requests are submitted as a
May 20, 1986

consolidated claim and then subject to audit by the Department of Supply and Services. The provincial Government is well aware of that arrangement. The Minister responsible, Mr. Jackson, will be examining his alternatives in that regard, I am sure. I simply want to point out that we have used this arrangement on a number of occasions, most recently for a flood in the Northwest Territories within the last month. It is there and available to help.
Natural disasters are just that, disasters. We wish they did not happen. We are grateful that in this instance there was no loss of life. We are sorry about the loss of property. I hope and believe that we have taken all necessary action to ensure that the damaging effects of the loss of property are ameliorated to the best of our ability. I think this Government's commitment to forest industries is demonstrated by the existence of the Ministry of State for Forestry and the very generous forest management funds which will be spent in the next few years, as well as our ongoing commitments to forest fire-fighting equipment. This is an important part of the forest management program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the issue of the fires burning over the past week in eastern Canada is most serious, and I am pleased that we have an opportunity for an emergency debate on it. There has been an enormous loss of our national forests, provincial forests, and in many cases private woodlots. The fires have primarily been in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Newfoundland has had the worst fires in 25 years. Some 17 major fires have burned over 81,000 hectares of forest land. That is in excess of 300 square miles, which is larger than some countries.
The worst fires on record in Newfoundland were in 1961 when 4 per cent of the province was razed. Some 400,000 hectares were lost and 8,600 people had to be evacuated as their homes were endangered by the fires. The worst fires have been near Great Gull Lake and Westport on the northeast coast of Newfoundland. Water bombers have been sent from as far away as Saskatchewan to assist in putting out some of these very large fires. This past Saturday some 1,000 or more people were evacuated from their homes in Grand Falls and near Windsor in Newfoundland, and also at Gander and near Baie Verte.
At the same time, in New Brunswick, over 1,000 people were evacuated from the nearly 100 forest fires burning in the region. In New Brunswick the fires have claimed close to a full year's harvest, and 25 times as much forest land has burned this past week as was lost in the whole of last year, some 40,000 hectares, or over 150 square miles. As one Member who spoke previously pointed out, many more tens of thousands of hectares of brush and scrub land have also been lost. There have been about 50 fires in New Brunswick, 11 of which were out of control at one point or another over the weekend in the areas of Newcastle, particularly near Tracadie, which was
levelled by fire in 1935. Many of the trees burned near Tracadie had reached the stage of maturity and were about to be harvested.
Great efforts have been made by forest industry workers, government workers, volunteers and the Salvation Army. There have been many heroes, yet unsung, who put their lives on the line to protect homes and property and in an effort to put out some of these large fires. Ontario sent a Canadair 215 water bomber to New Brunswick. Other planes, 35 in total, have been there fighting the fire, including some from Quebec and, as the Associate Minister of Defence (Mr. Andre) pointed out, through our agreement with the U.S., from the State of Maine.
One of the questions which remains unaddressed by the Government so far is what is going to happen to private woodlot owners. This is clearly and primarily a provincial responsibility and we can only hope there will be an early joint statement from the federal and provincial Governments, particularly regarding reforestation of some of those private lots and Crown lands which have been so severely damaged.
One thing I find peculiar is that the companies have been making statements, today and yesterday, indicating they can continue their harvesting simply by altering their cutting plans. This is not possible for many of the small private woodlot owners and I certainly understand that. Although my grandfather moved west around the turn of the century from New Brunswick, for the century and a half before he moved his family operated, and continue to operate a furniture factory that required the operation of a number of woodlots to provide the hardwood. I know how deeply the loss of private woodlots can affect individuals.
The Minister indicated there are plans under way to compensate those affected as a result of the Gagetown accident and that he has initiated an investigation and board of inquiry to look into it. It is clear that the fires were due to shelling, apparently from a misfired missile. We have to look at the evidence given by Captain John McComber, who is reported to have known the fire danger was listed as very high, and that during target practice last Tuesday, they continued to use high explosive live ammunition, for the reason he gave publicly, so that the shells being fired some 10 to 15 kilometres away could be viewed through binoculars.
Under further questioning, it is interesting to note that Captain McComber pointed out that during conditions which are listed as extreme, the target practice is halted and they use white phosphorus ammunition only, which has no incendiary capacity, as did the highly explosive ammunition that was used on Tuesday, which caused an extremely damaging fire in the Gagetown area.
In that fire, 1,000 people had to be evacuated from their homes in and around Upper Gagetown and Burton. On Friday the Moncton airport had to be closed for about an hour. There

May 20, 1986
had been millions of dollars of damage in that immediate area to the forest, to say nothing of the wildlife, the dozens of homes, barns and cottages that were lost.
In Nova Scotia over the weekend, and in the last few days of last week, there were 36 fires, six of which got out of control. The largest was in Guysborough County near Waverly. In Prince Edward Island, there had been some small fires which are now under control. The largest fire was near Antigonish.
I come from an area of the country where fires are a severe problem. As you move west from the Maritimes and Ontario, since April 1 there have been 350 small forest fires, fortunately all of which have been put out without a great deal of damage. It raises some questions this House should be addressing itself to during an emergency debate as to what we should be doing as a country. I will come to that in a moment.
The majority of the fires have been caused by human carelessness, most of them started as brush fires, people burning off grass or brush land, and garbage fires. That raises one of the issues we should be addressing, which is in terms of public education on fire safety itself. I am sure television and radio stations throughout the country would be eager to accept quality, small, to-the-point ads produced by the Canadian Forestry Service or Environment Canada, or by the provinces, that could be put on the air prior to the forest fire season, advising people of the dangers of small brush fires, garbage fires, chimney fires, and so on, and what the effects can be.
It is only in a country so large geographically as ours that we could possibly stand to lose the hundreds of thousands of hectares we lose every year, hundreds of millions of dollars in good standing forests that are lost. In my area and in some areas of Ontario, these fires are simply left to burn themselves out. No serious attempts are made to put them out simply because we have a lot of rural forests we do not yet have under any form of logging or harvesting.
In looking at these kinds of emergency situations, we have to look at some examples of the tragedy which occurs. Ken Banks near Upper Gagetown is an example of how the tragedy only strikes home when you look at what has happened to someone such as him. Mr. Banks, 58 years of age, was employed as a carpenter and a part-time farmer. He lost his century-old family home and all of his farm outbuildings to the fire that started near Gagetown. In Catamaran Provincial Park, 15 cottages were razed. Local wildlife officers flying over could see the moose being burned in the fire, to say nothing of the tens of thousands of birds and small animals that would have perished in these extremely hot and fast moving fires.
On the issue of Gagetown and the military accident, the Associate Minister of National Defence has promised a full investigation on compensation. It raises an issue that requires something further. For someone to have been in charge of that base and to have allowed that kind of high explosive artillery shelling to have been going on when the fire risk was very high raises some very real concerns in my mind about what kind of
safety precautions have been discussed at that base, and perhaps at other bases.
I have touched briefly on the issue of better public education, and I will come back to that in a moment. I want to spend a moment talking about the need for more water and chemical-carrying aircraft. Something this House should look at, both during this debate and in committee, is the need to have a centralized co-ordinated force.
During the last Parliament, there was an opportunity for provinces to enter into a joint financing project between the federal and provincial Governments to provide water bombers that were made here in Canada. I know some provinces participated. My own Province of British Columbia did not fully take advantage of the program as I think it should have. In many, many cases the huge fires that occur in my constituency, which is 750 miles one way and 400 miles across the other, with very few roads going into areas where there are often fires, fighting by helicopter and aircraft is really the only way to adequately fight the fires.
We need to co-ordinate, perhaps through the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forestry Service, a team with state-of-the-art equipment that can link properly into satellite technology, which is now available, infrared photography from high up in the atmosphere indicating where fires are moving, the intensity of the fire, where the nose of the fire is so you can get down and attack it properly with chemicals and water, where you cannot get at it with heavy equipment or ground crews. We need to look at that much more seriously than we have in the past. If we do not learn from these terrible tragedies, they will continue to repeat themselves time after time. We should not forget that a fire as recently as 1961 in the Province of Newfoundland consumed 4 per cent of the land base of that province in huge fires that managed to get out of control.
I call on the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) and the Associate Minister of National Defence to take time to draft some kind of optional plan where they can look at the resources available presently in terms of Transport Canada, from people to helicopters, to the Department of National Defence, to various aircraft through the provinces, privately and so on, and come up with a co-ordinated approach.
They do trade equipment. As we have learned in this situation, equipment from Ontario, Saskatchewan, Quebec and Maine, has moved into these areas to assist. Looking over the longer term at the hundreds of millions of dollars in lost forest lands, the enormous amount of wildlife that is damaged and lost, the enormous property loss, I think it is the responsibility of the Government to take a close look at that kind of an approach and bring forward a national plan that is an investment in protecting the country, rather than dealing with it as we have to this point.
A point I have raised many times in this House is the need for a full federal ministry of forests. It was a promise during the last federal election. There is a hard-working Minister
May 20, 1986

holding the portfolio, the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) from New Brunswick, but he simply does not have the support to do the job. He does not have a full Deputy Minister. He is forced to work out of Agriculture Canada in a dark room in the basement. He has very few staff and almost no budget. It is really only a ministry in name.
Although the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) attended this debate earlier, it is the kind of thing he should be actively considering, which is making a Minister for Forestry responsible for this industry to all of Canada, a full Minister, as he promised during his campaign. This is the largest industry in Canada. It employs 300,000 Canadians directly and 600,000 indirectly. The losses we have sustained in these recent fires are only part of the over-all losses that affect us every year right from the West to the East.
One of the other matters that was not touched on by the two Government speakers this evening is the necessity for some special reforestation efforts. I was hoping, in having forced an emergency debate, there would have been somewhat more thought and examination put into what should really be done, rather than perhaps using this evening as a public relations exercise, as we learned with the previous speaker. We should look at reforestation, how to deal more effectively with the issue of chemical and water bombers, how to more effectively make use of the Department of National Defence and our Canadian Forest Service. One would hope these kinds of issues would have been the subject of the Government side in terms of making those proposals.
To give an example, the amount of money proposed by the Minister of State for Forestry to advertise that there is a federal Minister of Forests, $4 million between now and this fall, is enough money to plant 9.5 million seedlings, something which clearly is now required in the Provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.
It is that kind of announcement that I and, I know, viewers from the Maritimes would have hoped would be coming, rather than this type of public relations exercise in which the Government indicates there will be a board of inquiry and there will be compensation. Maritimers are told that the first $750,000 will come from their province, the next $1.5 million will be split 50/50, the next $1.5 million will be split 75/25 and 90 per cent of the balance will be paid by the federal Government.
That does not address the serious concerns of people like Ken Banks, who lost a century-old family home and all of his farm buildings. He was preparing for retirement and he fully expected, as did many Maritimers, to know how the federal Government will respond. They want to know if funds will be put forward for reforestation.
What about those who have lost their homes and have no insurance? Will they have to go through the courts to determine who will cover the cost of lost and damaged equipment?
It was my hope that these questions would have been more thoughtfully examined by the Government because it has literally hundreds of thousands of public servants at its beck and call to assist it in preparing information for a debate such as the one taking place this evening. I am sure that those who have lost their cottages or homes have many questions they want answered.
In conclusion, I want to deal with the issue of wildlife. One of the Departments that was most savagely sliced and hacked in the Budgets of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) last year was the Canadian Wildlife Service. The fact that an incident such as this, that kills and maims enormous amounts of wildlife and displaces wildlife to other areas that are not their traditional habitat, raises the concern of Canadians from coast to coast about what kind of specialized efforts can be made by the Canadian Wildlife Service. That service no longer has the only wildlife pathologist it had because that person was dismissed last fall.
What are the terms of reference of the Canadian Wildlife Service? There are many people, such as bird-watchers, who are interested in the environment and would have liked to hear the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) address this issue.
I am pleased to have had an opportunity to express some views in this debate, but I must say that I am somewhat saddened that government Members, including the Minister who spoke, chose this as an opportunity for a public relations exercise so that the headlines in the Maritime newspapers might read: "Emergency debate forced: Prime Minister was present". I suggest it would have been more appropriate to have taken some time to find real answers for people like Ken Banks who lost everything he owned.


Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join my hon. colleagues in the House in deploring the substantial losses caused by forest fires in my province.
I was listening earlier to my hon. colleague from Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud), when he said that we had no political priorities. I think the presence here this evening of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and five members of his Cabinet shows that our party has a political priority and that the forests in the Atlantic provinces are very important, and at this point I wonder where the two Opposition party leaders are.
However, I would also like to comment on the action taken by the federal Government, with the provinces, to help develop and protect our forests.
The federal Government has spared no efforts to provide assistance to the province of New Brunswick throughout this very difficult period. I need hardly recall the primary importance of the forestry industry to the economic well-being of the entire Atlantic region. In New Brunswick, the industry is responsible for 23 per cent of the province's total production of raw materials and for two-thirds of its exports. Furthermore,

had to land in Ottawa due to bad weather. I would now like to thank the province of Quebec for its great help in this economic disaster.
When all provinces take an active part in this co-operative program, Canada will have at its disposal a fleet of water bombers which will effectively fight any fire, anywhere and whatever its extent. Canada is at the forefront of that kind of control and many countries are interested in such a program. For example, Chili has borrowed our water bombers to control fires in large forested areas in the Galapagos Islands.
The Canadian Forestry Service, through the technological transfer centre set up in Maniwaki administered by the Societe de conservation de I'Outaouais has now other important tools to be used in fire control. As a result of computerized research, we will soon be in a position not only to deal effectively with fires but also to anticipate them so that firefighters be on the site at the outset.
The federal Government is ready to take its responsibilities following those natural disasters and will never hesitate to support the provinces and protect our forests against the elements.
Mr. Speaker, I should also point out that men and women have given their time and their assistance to fight those fires and we were terribly lucky in New Brunswick because there was no casualty. It is true that some material things are irreplaceable, but it is much more important to avoid all loss of life. Therefore I should like to thank all those who have helped New Brunswick in one way or another. I would even say that the Tory Government of Canada is taking all necessary steps to make sure that the economy of the various areas remains intact.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues on all sides of the House to participate this evening in this emergency debate. May I begin my remarks by complimenting the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) in writing to the Speaker to request this emergency debate this evening. It is not only appropriate but gives Hon. Members, particularly those Hon. Members from the forest-producing regions, an opportunity to rise and speak about the disastrous consequences of the forest fires which have raged over the last several weeks in Atlantic Canada and to remind Members of Parliament of the importance of that industry to our respective regions. I also compliment the Speaker on his wisdom in understanding the importance of the forestry sector to our regions and granting this debate tonight.
In my own Province of Newfoundland over the last week, some 80,000 hectares of forest land have been burned and destroyed. Some 300 square miles of forest land are lost to the pulp and paper producing industries of our province and ultimately are lost to those people who depend upon that
resource for employment. There have been equally disastrous consequences in the Province of New Brunswick where approximately 40,000 square hectares of forest land have been lost.
I want to say I am pleased that the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre) during his remarks a few moments ago indicated he would move quickly to ascertain whether or not the Department of National Defence is responsible for the fire in the Gagetown area because of the use of live ammunition during the course of practice at a time when no live ammunition or fire practice should be carried on because of forest fire conditions. I am pleased to see he has responded to the representations made by Hon. Members of the House from New Brunswick. The Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal and the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) have been vocal in insisting that one cannot assign the case of the Gagetown fire to an act of God or a natural disaster. Certainly it was exacerbated by the weather and by conditions. Nevertheless, the fire started because of a decision to proceed with target practice in what were already untenable conditions in the forest fire season in New Brunswick.
It is regrettable that sometimes it takes a disaster for Members of Parliament and, indeed, Canadians, to pull together, but that is what has happened over the last period in Atlantic Canada and that is what is happening tonight in this Chamber. Forest firefighters from the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec have dedicated their experience, knowledge and resources to combating the natural disaster in Atlantic Canada. That has also occurred in New Brunswick where Quebec waterbombers have been battling blazes in that province. It has occurred in Newfoundland as well where the Province of Quebec has provided men and equipment to fight its forest fires. I believe that speaks to the nature of this country. Despite our diversity and differences we can, when challenged, work and pull together for the betterment of all.
I want to take a moment to pay tribute to all of those firefighters, the professional fully paid fire-fighters, the pilots and crews of the Canso waterbombers and the people at the Department of Forestry in New Brunswick and Newfoundland. More importantly, I want to pay tribute to those volunteers who for no other reason than a sense of community and provincial pride, and sense of wanting to protect and preserve the resource so important to the affected provinces, took a tank up over their shoulders and went out into the bush to work at trying to bring those blazes under control.
In my own province, communities were perilled by the danger of fire. Citizens were faced with the threat of losing their homes. But they kept their heads and worked as a tightly controlled unit through endless days with very little sleep. Some of the fire-fighters took only three or four hours sleep over several days and nights in order to battle those blazes.

May 20, 1986
I want to pay tribute to the 700 residents of the small community of Brown's Arm, about 40 kilometres from Grand Falls, who kept their heads and worked with the fire-fighters for three days battling the blaze that threatened to destroy their community; to the people of the community of Porterville, faced with evacuation of their community as well; to the people of the twin towns of Grand Falls and Windsor who were faced with the same kind of conditions; and to the fire boss in that particular region, Clarence Fudge, who, with only a number of hours' sleep over several days, managed to keep coordinated and together his team to launch an effective battle against the blaze that was threatening homes and property in that part of the province.
I said a moment ago that sometimes it takes a natural disaster for us to learn to pull together and to set aside our differences, whether partisan and in the House or provincially. Maybe that spirit of unity and of shared values is what we should reflect upon tonight, not just in paying tribute to those brave people who fought the disastrous blazes in New Brunswick and Newfoundland, but in reflecting upon capturing and keeping that spirit and asking ourselves what we can do as Members of Parliament to make better the tremendous losses that have been suffered.
In the case of Gagetown, if the military is responsible, the Minister has told us that the military will pay and pay quickly. We welcome that, but not all fires were caused by the military. Many of them were acts of God or perhaps acts of carelessness. Nevertheless, there is no one to point a finger at.
What can we do for Newfoundland where 300 square miles of a resource that is essential to the operation of three pulp mills has been lost? I suggest and only suggest-I demand nothing- that the Government consider in a non-partisan way the following suggestion. In Newfoundland, New Brunswick and perhaps British Columbia as well, notwithstanding the recovery generally seen across the country, the unemployment rate remains high. The Province of the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal, my province and the Province of British Columbia have not shared in the recovery touted across the land.
I suggest that the Government look seriously, given these losses, at a program of massive forestry investment, a program that would save many Canadians who Find their way on federally sponsored job-creation programs that last for a short period of time and are sometimes of questionable value, though many of them are excellent. Let us use that money and manpower and reinvest it in our future.
Given the tremendous losses in provinces where these resources are vital, let the Government come forward with a plan that will have two effects. On the one hand, it will alleviate the high, crushing level of unemployment and on the other it will invest, just as farmers invest in their crops every spring, in a resource that will give us a yield four, five or six generations from now. For every 10 cents that is put into a tree
today, down the road that 10 cents will yield a return of tens and tens of dollars.
Given these massive losses, this is indeed the time for the Government to consider this kind of program. The prototype of this program has already been worked out. I mentioned earlier that water bombers from Quebec came to the aid of New Brunswick and Newfoundland, but the prototype of the program about which I am speaking has been developed in British Columbia.
The mayors of Vancouver Island put together a proposal saying to the Government: "We need employment on Vancouver Island. Our unemployment rate is high. All we ask the Governments for are the tools. We are not going to try to develop a silicon valley on Vancouver Island, we are not going to try to develop a manufacturing industry where one currently does not exist, we are not going to try to turn Vancouver Island into a suburb of Toronto, we are only going to enhance our natural resource, the forest. We want to put people to work and we want to give them the dignity of a job but we want an investment in our future at the same time". That is the kind of innovative thinking that should be occurring now. It should involve not only the participation of the Government of Canada but the active participation, financially and otherwise, of the Governments of the affected provinces.
If the forested land, much of it prime timberland, is not replaced, it cannot be harvested later. That means, as sure as we sit in this House, that jobs in the future will be lost because the trees simply will not be there to be cut. These are not hypothetical trees. These trees have to be replaced.
The only way New Brunswick and Newfoundland can continue with their current levels of production is by overcutting 10 or 15 years from now. The only way they can overcut is by dramatically increasing silvaculture programs so that downstream there will be an even greater amount of timber to be harvested than would have otherwise been the case.
This proposal I ask the Government to consider is not one that will simply create short-term jobs, though it will do that. It is not one that will simply invest in our future, though it will do that. It is one which is necessary to maintain Canada's place in the world pulp and paper markets.
We talk about unemployment so much in this place that we lose our ability to see the human face of unemployment. We tend to think about 9 per cent, 12 per cent and 14 per cent unemployment rates, 29 per cent in my riding and only 16 in another riding. We read the unemployment numbers as if they were pieces of paper off the stock exchange telling us which way the stocks went, up or down. We forget the human face.
This weekend I was in a little community in my riding called Lark Harbour. I met a gentleman in Lark Harbour who has maintained his family in that small fishing village for most of the last 20 years by going away for six months of the year and working. This man had always been proud of himself because, despite the fact that he lived in a place of high unemployment, he did whatever he had to do and went wherever he had to go
May 20, 1986

to have the dignity of a pay cheque, to know that the sweat of his brow went into earning that pay cheque so that he could maintain his family. That was important to him. Sure there was a social agency that would have looked after him had he stayed at home, but he always travelled and he usually went out West. He told me that this was the first year that he had travelled and come up empty handed. He could not find a job. It was not good enough for him that he could go home and have someone look after him. What was involved for that gentleman was the dignity of a job and the self-esteem and sense of worth that comes with work.
Once in a while, all of us need to be reminded of what we mean when we talk about the unemployed. Even though I live in a district which has unemployment that is much too high, and even though it is probably a terrible admission for an Hon. Member who comes from an area with high unemployment, as I left that community and drove away, I had a new sense of urgency, which had been personalized by an individual, about the ugly side of unemployment and how shattering it is.
I urge the Government and all Hon. Members to try to find the seeds for something good within the disaster we have just experienced and are still experiencing. At the present time seven fires are out of control in my province. I ask them to respond to that disaster by more than just words, as all of us have expressed, admiring the heroics of the people who fought the fires. They should ask for more than support, help, and empathy for those people who lost property. Property has been lost in Newfoundland as well. They should look upon this as an opportunity to put the gentleman in Lark Harbour back to work. He wants to work. He wants the dignity of a job. He wants to know that he is investing in his province. I urge them to put him back to work and to build upon our forestry resource.
Those are my comments. I hope Hon. Members of the House can take that idea and run with it. I hope it can be our contribution of gray matter as Members, as humble as it might be, to a solution to unemployment in a hard-pressed region which dedicates some resources as an investment in the future. I hope tonight will be the beginning of a regional approach by Members of Parliament, irrespective of party colour, so that we will do in the final analysis what we were sent here to do, that is, represent the interest of our constituents and make a contribution to Canada at the same time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Morrissey Johnson (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my first duty, as I rise to speak this evening, is to thank the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) for seeking this opportunity to debate the devastating forest fires which have ravaged the Atlantic provinces for the past several days. Also, I should like to congratulate all Hon. Members who have spoken previously in this debate. I especially congratulate the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Ports'. 0. 29
St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). In fact, he very eloquently described the situation as it pertains to Newfoundland. As a result, he somewhat lessened the time that I will take this evening to speak a little about what has occurred in terms of the forest fires in Newfoundland.
Most generally when we speak of industries in Newfoundland, everyone automatically thinks of the fishing industry. The fact is that the forest industry is equally as vital to our provincial economy as is the fishery. In 1984, the forestry processing sector accounted for about 25 per cent of all manufacturing employment and income in Newfoundland. I suppose we have about the same amount of gross national provincial product from the fishery and slightly more from mining, so we see how important the forestry industry is to Newfoundland.
Over the past several days Newfoundland, like the other Atlantic provinces, has been severely hit by numerous fires. I believe at the present time there are somewhere in the vicinity of 13 fires still burning in Newfoundland, seven of which are out of control. This evening I checked with the Hon. Leonard Simms, Minister of Forest Resources and Lands for Newfoundland, and was appraised of the situation to date. At this time it is difficult for anyone to ascertain exactly how much merchandisable forest has been destroyed. Many of the fires have burned over bog lands, and it is almost impossible to ascertain how many trees have been destroyed.
I wish I were able to be as happy this evening as I was slightly more than a month ago when I was in Newfoundland and had an opportunity to witness the signing of a forestry agreement between the federal and provincial Governments. At that time I was enthusiastic about this year's reforestation program in which approximately $12 million will be put into forestry activities. I am sure there was no one present then who anticipated the big losses which have now occurred as a result of the forest fires. This year forest fires are approximately three weeks or more ahead of what they would be in normal weather conditions in Newfoundland. This is mainly because we had a low winter snowfall and windy spring weather with record-breaking temperatures. The land or the forest floor has dried out earlier than usual.
As the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe stated, up to this point in time approximately 1,300 square kilometres has been burned over. Not only has there been damage to trees and so on, but there has been also been some personal property damage. I believe two homes were destroyed around the Grand Falls area. Also in that same vicinity I believe 31 summer cabins, a warehouse and an unoccupied residence were destroyed. As well, two provincial parks have been damaged.
There was a time just last week, on Saturday, when fire caused damaged to transmission lines in the Bay D'Espoir area, resulting in power outages all over the eastern part of Newfoundland. Several communities had to be evacuated, and of course some were put on evacuation alert. As I said earlier,

May 20, 1986
the total cost of protection efforts to this point in time cannot be ascertained, but I assume that they will be very high.
As well as congratulating the people who have spoken in the debate, it would be remiss of me if I did not refer to the personnel who fought the fires, including provincial service fire fighting ground personnel and the hundreds of volunteers who gave of their time and risked their lives to try to suppress the fires against high winds and extremely warm conditions.
To set some people a little at ease, let me say that cool temperatures and scattered showers overnight have eased somewhat the fire situation in Newfoundland. I am sure all of us are encouraged by present weather conditions, but are somewhat concerned about an approaching high pressure system which will influence Newfoundland weather later this week. We hope that with the wet spell we are now experiencing in Newfoundland that those who are fighting the fires will be able to put them out, that the ground will remain moist so we will not have a recurrence of what has happened in the past few days.
I want to reiterate what other Members have already said. This is a special case. The provinces will need, and I am sure they will be seeking, federal assistance. To give you an idea, Mr. Speaker, for the past few years the Department of Forestry, Resources and Lands, has budgeted $1.5 million each year for forest fires. In 1985-86, $2.5 million was spent and there were only three large fires with which to contend. That is nothing compared to what has happened this year. We did not have nearly as many fires during the whole of last year as we have had to date this year. You can see how this will affect the provincial budget.
Approximately 20,000 people derive a portion of their income from the forestry sector in Newfoundland. I would think those who are familiar with the Newfoundland employment scene would agree with me when I say that approximately 50,000 Newfoundlanders depend on the forestry sector, either as wage earners or dependants.
You can see how serious a situation it is when large amounts of money that would be put into new seedlings and so on will now have to go into efforts to fight forest fires. No one wants to lay the blame on anyone until all of the fires have been investigated. As the previous speaker said, some of them started through natural causes and perhaps some might have been prevented if a little more care had been taken by those utilizing the beauties of our forests. Regardless of the cause, these fires have occurred and the damages have to be taken care of in the best way we can. Considerable amounts of money will be needed for proper reforestation in the countryside that has been burned.
I can only appeal to the federal Government, as have previous speakers, to try to alleviate some of the financial burden which the provinces in Atlantic Canada are experiencing because of damages to our forests as a result of fires.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is with some pleasure I have the opportunity to speak in this debate, not that the topic itself is pleasurable but the opportunity to speak in Parliament on any topic of importance is a pleasure for Members of this House.
I suspect that anyone who might be watching or listening to this debate rather than watching or listening to the hockey game will probably wonder why Parliament is talking about something over which Parliament has little ability to control or why we would be having an emergency debate on forest fires in Atlantic Canada when we have not had emergency debates on other matters. That is not a criticism of the Speaker's ruling, but it is somewhat ironic that we are in a situation when nature is dealing with the forest fires by heavy rain which is now falling in most of the region.
I would like to add my words of condolence to those affected by the forest fires. As someone who comes from a riding in northern Manitoba, two-thirds of the Province of Manitoba, the region I represent, has had many forest fires over the years. I know the hardship those fires create for people through loss of business, homes and, in some cases, loss of loved ones. My personal condolences go to those affected negatively by the forest fires.
In my introduction I said that we are debating something over which Parliament or Government does not really have any control. Forest fires for the most part are started by nature. It will require nature and people in Atlantic Canada to put out these fires. That is self-evident. However, there are things that can be done. We would like to see the Government and Parliament act. We should make sure that we have trained volunteers in place and that there is a quick exchange of equipment from one province to another, from one region to another, when there is a forest fire. Sometimes this has occurred, but on occasion there have been road-blocks, and I hope they can be eliminated.
It is very important that we have a full Ministry of Forestry. Previous speakers have alluded to the need for a Ministry of Forestry, which has been an election promise in the past. It is a promise that should be kept.
Let me point out to Members that we have a Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and a Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon), so we do have full ministries for other important sectors for our economy. It is ironic that forestry, which is so important to many regions, has only a Minister of State responsible for it. That is not to degrade the Minister, but by the structure of the Cabinet and the position which the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) holds, he does not have the staff, the resources or the political clout to do the types of things that can be done by other Ministers with full Departments and support. It is obvious to anyone in this House that the Minister of Agriculture, because he has a full Department with a Deputy Minister, associates and assistants as well as full-time resource people, is able to do more for his sector than someone who, through no fault of his own is just strictly a Minister of State responsible.
May 20, 1986

Other Members have stated earlier that forestry is a major industry for many Canadians. It is a major industry in my riding, and I am sure it is a major industry for most of the people who are still in the House tonight. It is time that we came to grips not only with forest fires in Atlantic Canada, which is more specifically the topic tonight, but with the whole cycle in the forestry industry. We have yet to develop an adequate reforestation program. We will not have an adequate reforestation program until we say that a tree cut down must be replaced by a new seedling, that a tree lost through natural occurrences should be replaced by some mechanism, whether through nature or some program.
A couple of weeks ago members of the NDP caucus remarked that it was National Forest Week. We talked about the fact that other countries have reforestation programs which are much superior to ours. We talked about the fact that there is an industrial strategy for the forest industry in other countries, which is not the case here. Due to the fact that we do not have a reforestation program and the fact that we do not have an adequate industrial strategy for the forest sector, forest fires, wherever they occur, create a further burden for the people of the region. Already we cannot guarantee that we will have the trees to provide the lumber, pulp and paper that we need for our industries. We have known for years that we have not come to grips with this very serious problem.
Other Members who spoke during the first two hours of this debate indicated the number of acres that were burned in the last three or four days. You have heard estimates of how many jobs that will cost in those regions. Some of those jobs would have been lost anyway, but some of them would have been saved if there was an adequate reforestation program in the country. Some of that loss could not be controlled, but some of it could be. That is an issue which should properly be before this Parliament.
Other Members who spoke earlier talked about laying the blame. They mentioned that some of the fires were created by nature, that some were created by carelessness, and that some, or at least one, may have been caused by the activities of the Forces base at Gagetown. As the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre) indicated, we do not want to prejudge that situation. However, military officials are on record as indicating that they probably did cause the fire in that region.
For the most part, we cannot prevent fires caused by nature. Over the years the country has tried to deal with the problem of fires caused by carelessness. There have been advertising programs from time to time. We have had programs in the schools. As a teacher I can remember asking my students to draw posters illustrating what we can do to prevent forest fires. For the most part Canadians, because they love their woods and natural resources and because they are concerned about what they do to both nature and humanity, are fairly careful. There will always be exceptions. There will always be those
who smoke when they should not and are careless about where they put their butts and matches. There will always be those who will start a grass fire in their backyard and the fire will get away from them. Those things should not happen, but they will happen from time to time.
Once again, we do not want to prejudge the case of the Gagetown incident. However, I can speak from my own experience having spent a summer at Shilo, Manitoba. We did not take tank gun practice when the weather was dry. We knew that that was not an appropriate time to be engaged in that type of practice and we engaged in other activities at that time.
I wish the Associate Minister of Defence were still in the House. I would like to ask him to look into whether or not the Forces at Gagetown were responsible for the fire in that region and the loss of houses and other buildings there. I would also like to ask him to ensure that there are standards in place which the military across the country will follow closely to ensure that their actions do not create adverse conditions such as forest fires.
It is not my intention to speak at any length in this debate. We have indicated, through our spokesperson, the Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), that we are very concerned about the forest industry and the individuals who have been affected by the fires in Atlantic Canada. It is more than a matter of concern. In addition to that, we would like the Government to come up with a concrete plan for what it is going to do with the forest industry. I spoke earlier about the need for a full Minister. I think it is essential to ensure that there is a Department with the political, economic, and research clout to ensure that we can develop and maintain our forest industry.
The forest industry is one of the major employers in my riding. There are people employed in the woods, in the sawmills, and in the pulp and paper mills. It is a major industry in my area and in other areas. The present Government has been no better than the previous Government with regard to coming to grips with this industry. We know that the industry is in danger. One very serious concern which the House has to deal with is the free trade talks and various actions which are being taken in the United States by various Congressmen and American industry representatives at the present time. There is also a concern that our own nation is not developing the wherewithal to ensure that we have a strong forest industry in the future. That issue must be addressed.
If nothing else, this emergency debate on forest fires in Atlantic Canada has given us the opportunity to think again about how important our forestry industry is in the country and how necessary it is to have an insurance policy against the fires and also against the other uses which we make of our forests. In other words, we must have a future to continue the industry which is so important to many of us.


Mr. Pat Binns (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate this evening which was promoted by the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett). The forest

May 20, 1986
industry is a major component in the economy of New Brunswick. I congratulate the Hon. Member for having brought this debate forward in this forum at this time since it gives the House an opportunity to consider fully the ramifications of what is happening in the Atlantic provinces at the moment.
Most people probably would not think of my province of Prince Edward Island as being a forestry province. However, approximately 48 per cent of the Island's land area, some
700,000	acres, is in fact covered by woodland. That is significant because, not only is roughly half the land area covered by woodland but almost all of that woodland is owned by individuals. That is a quite different situation from that in most regions in Canada where most of the woodland is owned by the Crown. Very little is owned by the private sector.
The history of the development of Prince Edward Island is one of small farms being carved out across the Island of anywhere from 50 to 100 acres. Generally speaking, half of the area of those farms has remained in woodland. The back half of each farm is in fact a significant woodlot which is part of the economic viability of a particular farm unit. The woodlot has always been a very important part of the farm in Prince Edward Island. The annual harvest on the Island is approximately 333,000 cubic metres of wood. We have excellent tree growth simply because of the climate. We have very fertile soil and an excellent environment for growing trees to produce lumber. Our growth rate of tree fibre is among the highest in Canada. I suppose British Columbia is ahead of us, but by silvacultural practices of thinning and cleaning and so on we have seen very significant stand development.
The forest sector on the Island currently employs about 400 people in logging, sawmilling and forest management. It will come as a surprise to many that we have 50 sawmills in operation presently. They are generally family-owned and concentrate on custom production. The woodland is of course very important to sustaining that industry which is in production at present. Sawmills produce 16 million board feet annually. Of the annual forest harvest on the Island, 20 per cent is exported to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as pulpwood. Fuel wood is another large part of the annual harvest and many Islanders burn fuel wood to heat their homes in winter. In fact, there have been major conversions to fuel wood by industry over the last few years, so I would not be surprised if somewhere in the vicinity of 70 per cent or 80 per cent of heating requirements are now met by woodlots on the Island. A survey in 1983 indicated there was an annual consumption of 264,000 cubic metres of fuel wood. That is just a little bit of background to indicate to the House how significant the forest industry is in Prince Edward Island.
At the present time our province is something like a matchbox and at any time another fire can start. We have had over 50 fires this year to date and some 333 hectares have been burned. There have been four major fires which burned 200
hectares, roughly 50 hectares each, of mainly woodland. To date we have been somewhat fortunate that there has been no loss of life but we have lost some buildings, relatively few because many were saved. We have lost four cottages and some barns with a total value of approximately $ 150,000. This is the first time we have had any structural loss from woodland fires since 1978. It was only yesterday that there was a major fire in my constituency. A dairy farmer was tending to his cows in his barn and it just happened that the local fire chief in the St. Peter's area was passing by the farm and noticed smoke in the woodland behind the farm. He stopped to see where the owner was and they quickly went out to see what was happening. By the time they got to this fire it was no longer a small bit of smoke, it was exploding into a fairly major fire. Four fire departments, including the department of forestry, responded relatively quickly and they were able to contain the fire to about 100 acres of woodland. Of course, that woodland was lost in a relatively short period of time. If it had not been for the tremendous effort made by the local fire departments, provincial forestry department and concerned citizens, certainly my constituent and his family stood to lose their whole farm. As I pointed out, because the woodlots in our province run parallel to each other, next door to each other in fact, with farms very close together, the possibility existed that the whole community would have been cleaned out. It was of course very much appreciated by that family and its neighbours that the fire was contained. Therefore I think I have to join with others this evening who have already commended the valiant efforts of volunteer firemen and fire departments and those communities in general who have responded to this crisis. I know that something in the order of six or seven hundred people have been actively involved in fighting those 50 fires on the Island which have developed over the last week or so.
There has been some suggestion here this evening that woodlots and forests are under provincial jurisdiction. While I would be the first to agree that this is the case, I have mentioned that many of our woodlots are privately-owned. I think the federal Government, along with the provincial Governments and municipalities, have some responsibility to ensure that the needs of people who have suffered major losses are met. There are things we can do. For instance, I think Governments can help those private woodlot owners with things like stand replanting, and perhaps programs to help clean up the burnt-out areas. I would think that our federal-provincial forestry programs, perhaps under the job creation category with the sponsorship of the Department of Employment and Immigration, can offer some assistance to woodlot owners who have suffered losses.
I could go into more detail on other fires but I know some of my friends have been amazed that they or their neighbours have not lost their homes and other buildings because of these fires. Recently a friend of mine was trying to get home from Charlottetown only to discover that the road was blocked by fire equipment while fire-fighters and some of his neighbours were trying to put the fire out. He took a back road to get to his farm. By the time he got there, all he could see was smoke.
May 20, 1986

He could not see his barn, his buildings or anything else. As he drove up the lane trying to get closer to see what was going on, he saw huge flames jumping up over the top of the barn. However, by some miracle the wind shifted at the last moment and the fire retreated instead of engulfing his farm property.
You can imagine the concern and fear that he or any other person would have felt in the circumstances, only to find that his farm was suddenly saved. Fortunately we have had many instances of that kind of thing rather than total losses. However, I point out again that we have lost something like
1,000	hectares of woodland in Prince Edward Island already. We are urging people to be very cautious in the next number of days until we get some rain to help ensure that the current crisis passes.
On Friday morning I was still in Ottawa before returning to my constituency and I was watching Canada AM on television.
I was rather intrigued, if not a little bit disappointed, by a map depicting the Atlantic region used by the television network which carried Canada AM. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland were in full evidence. All the waters making up the Gulf of St. Lawrence, along with Anticosti Island, were vividly displayed. Unfortunately, Prince Edward Island was missing. I quickly got in touch with the broadcaster, reminded him that Prince Edward Island was still there and that we had some fires as well. I am sure they are moving to correct that particular art work. I did not plan to bring that into the debate this evening but I think that it is important to show that no tragedy of this kind can be more significant to one area of the country than to another.
In Prince Edward Island we have had over 50 fires already, we have lost a thousand acres and have had four cottages and some farm buildings burned. Fortunately we have not lost any houses.
I want to recognize those who are making a contribution to prevent fires, our provincial fire chief, our provincial Department of Forestry, our firemen, our fire departments, volunteer fire-fighters, community groups, organizations, individuals, anyone who has helped in this very serious situation.
I feel that the Government has some obligation here and I want to bring some attention to the situation in our province. We will be looking for the full co-operation of all levels of Government, federal, provincial and municipal, along with individual woodlot owners to see that everyone fulfils their obligations.
In closing I would like to congratulate the Member for Fundy Royal for having brought this matter before the House under emergency debate provisions.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join other private Members in this debate on the fires which have been devastating various parts of Atlantic Canada, particularly New Brunswick and
Newfoundland, but which have not left areas of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island unscathed.
The loss which has been suffered in the way of forest destruction is a significant one, and it is one which will be a loss to private owners and to large companies. It is a loss to the societies of each of these provinces. It means lost opportunities for employment, greater challenges for reforestation and for the maintenance of the forest industries of Atlantic Canada. Being a Member from northwestern Ontario, Thunder Bay- Nipigon, an area in which forestry is also very important, I would like to use my opportunity this evening to say something about the importance of dealing with the needs of the forest industry in which fighting the ravages of fire is one of the important challenges that faces Governments in their responsibilities for Crown lands.
I would also like to use the occasion to recognize other problems that face us. I might say, on the matter of fires themselves, that I remember very well in the spring of 1980 when we in northwestern Ontario had similarly hot, dry weather, unseasonal weather in the late days of May. Fire devastated various areas, particularly that very large fire in the Kenora area which destroyed such large stands of timber at the time. Those experiences of fire in our part of Canada certainly sensitize one to what has been experienced lately by the people of the four Atlantic provinces. I share with them the satisfaction that no lives were lost while, of course, feeling the loss of property, in addition to forests. I am happy that rain has come to various areas and provided assistance to the firefighters.
In dealing with these challenges we need more than just speeches by private Members. We have not heard from any of the Ministers from the Atlantic provinces. I expect that the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) is otherwise occupied and regrets the fact that he has not been able to be here and address this issue. The Minister of State for Forestry is himself from New Brunswick and must have felt very keenly the ravages of fire in these last days, having had responsibility for natural resources in the provincial Government, and realizing what the significance of this loss would be.
My friend from Skeena has suggested this evening that Government should take a leadership role in ensuring that there are adequate resources to fight fires, ensuring that we have the aircraft and the supplies needed, certainly in chemical firefighting, aside from the use of water bombers, helicopters and so on.
It is suggested that there should be a leadership role taken by the Canadian Government in ensuring that equipment is available to be moved across the country as the challenge of the forest fire arrives. Fires do not usually sweep every part of Canada at the same time, but there are other times when the threat of forest fire is a decidedly regional matter when the very great danger that occurs calls for the resources of other provinces. There is some co-ordination and movement of equipment as the communications media have been pointing out to us. Equipment has been moved from as far away as the

May 20, 1986
Province of Saskatchewan to Atlantic Canada to ensure equipment would be available.
Surely here is an opportunity for the Government to do more than just join in a debate on this. It is an opportunity for private Members, particularly from Atlantic Canada, to express their concerns about these problems and to do something in the way of taking action that will ensure when the problem arises again that Canada will be better equipped to deal with it.
The reality is that fires will occur, and unseasonably dry and hot weather makes the danger all the greater. The vast majority of forest fires have natural causes, and they will occur. They will occur in areas far removed from human habitation. Given that kind of challenge what we need is equipment.
In northern Ontario, of course, as in the Province of Quebec, we can go back to the 1920s to discover that the history of Canadian civil aviation finds a significant place for the use of aircraft in both scouting for fires and in fighting them. That underscores the argument my friend from Skeena, our spokesman for forestry, was making in saying that the Government should play a leading role.
I think too of the terrible fires that ravaged British Columbia forests last summer which became worse because the provincial Government, in a short-sighted move to save money, cut back on expenditures and disposed of firefighting equipment. People found themselves in the interior of the province, in the East Kootenay region without the equipment that was required to fight fires as they spread.
It is imperative that even in the midst of our attempts to reduce the deficit, to try to get control on government spending, as the Conservative Members here would surely say, it is imperative to realize that we have to have equipment at hand. We must remain in battle-ready condition so that we can deal with the challenge of forest fires when they occur.
While private Members have made good speeches tonight, Ministers have not addressed these matters and come to grips with the problem. I challenge the Government to ensure that in its pursuit of deficit reduction it does not sacrifice the future of the forests by not taking a leadership role.
Members have already indicated this evening that there is a need to maintain forests and develop forestry in Canada. Of course, this calls for a full-fledged Ministry and I, along with others, can only regret intensely that the Government has failed to estalish such a Ministry. While there is a Minister of State for Forests, there is no full-fledged Ministry of Forests and I think it is incomprehensible that the Government has chosen this route.
It seems ironic that the Diefenbaker Government recognized the importance of forestry by creating a full-fledged Ministry. As years passed, the Liberals cut back on that Ministry until it eventually disappeared and offices were established within the
Department of the Environment as it was and is presently within the Department of Agriculture.
This is an important industry. The federal Government has a significant number of employees in this sector along with a substantial responsibility for it. One need only look at the activities of the Canadian Forestry Service at its various stations across the country to realize that the federal Government is involved in various areas of forestry, including research and support for regeneration activities in northwestern Ontario and other parts of Canada. The federal Government is concerned about these matters and recognizes this as an important industry.
The export of forest products is one of the most important industries in Canada and is surely no less important than agriculture for which there is a full-fledged Minister and another Minister of State responsible for the Wheat Board. Surely forestry is no less important than the fishery which has a full-fledged Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. This country requires a full-fledged Department of Forests with the authority it has in Government to ensure that this classic industry of renewable resources can provide employment for thousands of people across the country. This is an industry which can maintain medium and small communities all across the country. Surely it is of enough importance to have a full-fledged Ministry.
We were pleased that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was here for about an hour and graced this debate with his presence. We would have liked to see him when we were debating the attack on Libya but he declined to attend. While we were pleased that he was here tonight, we need his decisions rather than an hour's presence with private Members from his Atlantic caucus who are making speeches that will look good in their home constituencies. We need action from the Government far more than just an indication from the Associate Minister of Defence (Mr. Andre) that an inquiry will investigate the extent to which the Armed Forces were responsible for one of the fires in New Brunswick. We need far more from the Government than an indication of what the Government can provide through agreements in response to the larger disaster.
The lack of involvement in this debate by Ministers from Atlantic Canada is surely a part of the failure of the Government to deal with forestry as it should.
I share with all my colleagues a concern about what has occurred in Atlantic Canada in these last days. I share their relief that there was no loss of life and I share the regret that property losses have occurred. I share in rejoicing in the cooperation of the weather late on the weekend which has made it possible for the threat to be better dealt with. I respond as a Canadian and a human being to the adversities that face other human beings.
However, as a Member of Parliament with a constituency which is one of the large Schedule 3 constituencies in which forests have enormous importance, I am dissatisfied and angry
May 20, 1986

when I see the Government patronizing in debate and doing nothing more than allowing a debate to take place. I have constituents who are concerned about the ongoing situation in the forest sector and the extent to which the forest industry can prosper and continue through the next 30 to 40 years. We agonize over the lack of regeneration activities in years past. In light of these facts, I expect far more from the Government than we have had tonight or up to this point. I trust that the Prime Minister is thinking about these things and considering the advisability of establishing a full-fledged Ministry of Forests as in the days of John Diefenbaker, which could meet the enormous challenges that face us in ths primary industry.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to lay these matters out before the House and my constituents.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin my participation in this emergency debate on the forest fires by underlining a statement by the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre), that forest fires are a national problem. I think that should be the focus and purpose of this debate. We can use the situation that has evolved in Atlantic Canada to point out to all Canadians that forest fires are a national problem and it is appropriate to debate that matter in this national forum.
My socialist friend from the New Democratic Party made reference to the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. I should hark back to his words that when one is on the trail of big game one should not be influenced by rabbit tracks. For a Party that has a monopoly on patronizing attitudes, let me condemn the Member for patronizing those from Atlantic Canada who would bring forth to this national forum a matter of grave and great importance to their communities across Atlantic Canada and one which affects the whole nation. For him to suggest that a number of Members here are not able to project that great interest and to ensure that their projection of that interest will achieve some national attention is an insult of which only a socialist from the New Democratic Party is capable.
Having disposed of those who follow rabbit tracks when there is a national interest, a national goal and a national subject to be pursued, let me begin by giving full credit to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett), who took the personal initiative to bring this matter to this national forum.
Last Thursday, on returning to my constituency of Halifax West, I had the opportunity, as I do on a weekly basis, to fly over the Province of New Brunswick. As I was travelling at some 30,000 feet, I saw below, from the jet on which I was travelling, what appeared to be a plume of smoke and a fire which, from that distance, did not appear to be of great concern. However, as we travelled across the Province of New Brunswick there appeared to be several plumes of smoke with apparent fires. When I arrived home at Halifax I received the news that a catastrophe was taking place in the Province of New Brunswick and that almost one year's production of
timber lands was being destroyed. I am sure that my colleague from Fundy-Royal reacted in the same manner as any of us hopefully would in that situation and asked what could be done about the matter. What my colleague did at the first opportunity was to bring the matter of the situation in New Brunswick and across Atlantic Canada to national attention through this political forum which allows us to consider the devastation which has been wreaked in Atlantic Canada in the light of the whole problem of forest fires and, hopefully, to seek new ideas and solutions to remedy what has been our failures in the past.
I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal for giving the opportunity to Members of Parliament to involve themselves in this debate in the hope it will accomplish some good.
My second point is to examine not only in the national context, but in the world context, the importance of the forest industry to Canada and particularly to the Atlantic regions. I had occasion to read an article in the Winnipeg Free Press which focused attention on the world problem in relation to the preservation of the forest resource. It pointed to a survey by the World Bank which resulted in a determination that at current rates of exploitation, the world forest cover will be reduced by 50 per cent by the year 2000. The Science Council of Canada has done a survey to indicate the dire situation which exists in Canada with respect to the preservation and enhancement of our forest industry. So we do not have any doubts in our minds that the forest industry involves a resource we have to protect with immediate and important action not only in Canada but throughout the world.
In Canadian terms, the forest industry is one of our most important industries. It accounts nationally for over $13 billion in exports. It employs approximately 300,000 persons and involves the employment of another 600,000 persons. One out of 10 Canadians is affected in terms of employment by the national forest industry. It is interesting to note that the same statistic is reflected in the Province of Nova Scotia where
12,000	Nova Scotians are directly employed in the forest industry and another 18,000 are involved in occupations affected by the forest industry. Again, almost one out of 10 employed Nova Scotians has an interest in terms of employment in the forest industry. So we do not have to underline the importance of the industry to the Atlantic regions, to Canada and, indeed, to the world.
I would like to examine very briefly, because other Hon. Members have touched on this subject, the steps being taken to advance the interests of the forest industry nationally in Nova Scotia and the other Atlantic provinces. One of the first steps taken by the Government of Canada was to establish a separate Ministry of Forestry. I have heard Hon. Members comment that this is not a sufficient step, that there ought to be a separate Department to deal with the forest industry. But as one astronaut said: "One small step at a time". The Government under the Right Hon. Prime Minister took this step to establish a separate Ministry for Canada's forest

May 20, 1986
industry, and I believe there is no person in this House of Commons, or elsewhere, better able to judge the need to progress from there than the current Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew). The important thing is that the first step has been taken. There have been a number of other initiatives in terms of program funding and federal-provincial programs which I am sure will be processed and enlarged upon in the future.
There is always a grave and great connection between our forests and the environment. I think that one of the important aspects of the Canadian forest industry is to protect the environment. The Third World countries which have been required to use forest products for heating and other purposes have virtually destroyed that resource and have created a great deal of environmental damage in terms of soil erosion and so on. We want to avoid that kind of problem in Canada. The point is that we proceed with all due haste but have particular concern about the environment and the effects of rapid expansion of forest production on the environment. I think all of this has to be taken in balance and I believe that is exactly what the Government is doing. It has proceeded in the right direction and I think we can look forward to continued progress.
The Province of Nova Scotia has taken a special interest in the forest industry as well, and I want to give public credit to the Hon. Kenneth Streatch, Minister of Lands and Forests, who just recently published a new policy for Nova Scotia in relation to forestry. Part and parcel of that new policy is to double the forest production in Nova Scotia over the ensuing years and decades. I think this is a achievable goal which will result in relatively dramatic increases in employment and economic opportunity for Nova Scotians. The new policy which has been advanced by the Hon. Kenneth Streatch contains general principles which involve scheduling of harvesting, allocation of stands, increased market activity and, most important, a continuing and vigorous sylvaculture program to replace the forest as it is being put into production and productive uses. So we have at both levels of Government, national and provincial, activities focused on forest development. I think we can look forward to an increase in employment and economic products as a result of these efforts by Governments at both levels. I know that what is taking place in Nova Scotia is reflected in the other Atlantic provinces, particularly in New Brunswick and Newfoundland.
Let me return to what I have said is the subject of this debate, namely, the national problem of forest fires. We have already indicated the importance of the forest industrty to Canada. We know that attention has been given to the forest industry by the Government of Canada and by the provincial Governments. Let me review very briefly some aspects of this national problem of forest fires in the context of Atlantic Canada. I do not think it is necessary to outline again the devastation which has been wreaked in the Province of New Brunswick by the proliferation of forest fires. I understand the loss is equivalent to one year's production, and that is very
substantial when one considers the effect on the economy of the Province of New Brunswick where over 21,000 New Brunswickers are employed directly by the forest industry and many others are affected by it. In the Province of Nova Scotia the actual loss through forest fires has been limited to 200 acres at this point in time. However, as we know from the New Brunswick experience, as soon as we have dry weather in the spring, the risk of forest fires immediately arises. In fact, last week in the Province of Nova Scotia, the Minister of Lands and Forests had to declare a red alert. Fortunately for the forest industry and unfortunately for vacationing Nova Scotians, there was a subtantial rain storm over the next few days and the alert was withdrawn. But there is always a risk of a forest fire hanging over the heads of all people in the forested parts of Canada.
When one reviews the national media coverage of the situation which existed in New Brunswick, one can see immediately the work done by the volunteers. Those volunteers are not only members of the volunteer fire departments from the communities across Atlantic Canada but are persons who allow themselves to be recruited for the specific purpose of fighting the fire. While I give great credit to those who are involved in volunteer fire departments not only in relation to forest fires but in relation to the community activities in which they are normally involved, I want to underline the credit I wish to give to those Canadians without the experience and training of a volunteer fire department member who become involved in fighting a forest fire. Their inexperience can sometimes lead to risk taking that could result in serious injury and even loss of life. The heroes of the day are those who volunteered, the good Samaritans who came to the aid of those in need.
One also immediately sees the need for very substantial equipment both on the ground and in the air. Water bombers look almost puny compared to the massive fires that are burning on the ground. One can readily understand the need for more and better water bombing equipment. When one sees an ordinary fire hose being used to fight a blaze 18 miles in width, one realizes again the need for very substantial equipment.
I am pleased to note that the Associate Minister of National Defence has indicated the federal Government's involvement in equipping those who were involved in fire-fighting. The Minister referred to the work of the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre. I think this kind of interprovincial and federal-provincial co-operation is the only sensible way to deal with the equipment problem on the ground and in the air.
I would like to deal very specifically with the human element of forest fires. I think a great deal has been said about the concern for the forest industry and the concern for the economic aspects of forest fires in terms of loss of property, income and economic opportunity. However, the important element is the very specific human agony and loss that is
May 20, 1986

involved in forest fires. In that respect, I want to refer to two specific cases that arose from the experience in the Province of New Brunswick.
One might say that I have a good news case and a bad news case, Mr. Speaker. After all, our real concern is the human element. We can talk about equipment and about the economy, but our concern in this Chamber and indeed in the Parliament of Canada must be for the humans involved in these situations.
Nancy Thompson said that she left her home because she could not stand to watch as the fire approached. She returned later to find out that her home had been preserved through the efforts of the St. George Fire Department. This is very typical of the sort of thing we saw depicted in the media and elsewhere regarding the efforts made by those volunteers.
I would like to place on record at least one case of a home being saved by the specific efforts of the St. George Fire Department from Charlotte County, New Brunswick. I would like to point out that effort as being only typical of the kind of efforts that were made. However, I think it is worth-while to be specific about these efforts lest we get caught up in a sea of rhetoric and forget that there are real people helping real people in these situations. That is one situation in which the help resulted in the saving of a family home.
On the other side of the coin, let me refer to the case of Ken Banks who is described as a 50-year-old carpenter and parttime farmer. He lost everything he owned as fire raced through his neighbourhood near Burton last week. Mr. Banks's home was located in Upper Gagetown, which was at the heart of the most serious of the fires, and he lost everything. When Mr. Banks says he lost everything, he means everything. He was wiped out completely. He lost his home, and the woodlot from which he intended to get his winter firewood and earn money for the future was lost totally.
This brings me to the most difficult part of this debate, and that is, liability and responsibility for the forest fires. Mr. Ken Banks lived in the area in which the fire might be attributed to the actions of the military base at Camp Gagetown. I would not rise in the House of Commons to suggest that anyone at Camp Gagetown had done anything of a negligent nature, but the fact is that the Toronto Globe and Mail and other newspapers and media sources in Canada have made that allegation. It has not been denied and appears to have been confirmed that the fire was started as a result of activity at Camp Gagetown.
We in the House of Commons and the Government of Canada represent all the people of Canada. We do not have to defend or attack any particular interest. We can be fair judges of the situation, and all indications are that there may be a responsibility for this fire. If that is the case, I urge the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) and the Government of Canada to acknowledge very quickly that responsibility and to take very expeditious action to remedy the harm that has been done. I am sure there is not one Canadian who would
want to reject the idea of responsibility to an individual like Mr. Ken Banks who lost his home if there is any basis for liability on the part of the national Government.
This does not mean a condemnation of the Canadian Forces or anyone in the Forces. It is simply recognition of a fact of life. Harm has been done. If it can be compensated by the Government of Canada representing all the people of Canada, let us take that course of action. Let us take it quickly and let us mitigate the losses.
What we learned from these experiences is to look to the future with the resolve to correct the difficulties of the past and to make the forests of Canada safer places for the benefit of all Canadians. If in the course of that process we have to recognize that some wrongful act has taken place in the past, let us do that. Our future is in the forests but our future is also in the people and they are the ones who require the protection as well as the forests.


Mrs. Lise Bourgauit (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker,
I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity this evening to take part in the emergency debate on the tragic situation confronting Canadian men and women in the Maritimes. I say tragic, because it takes at least 30 years for a forest to recover from the disastrous effects of a forest fire. This evening, speaking on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Argenteuil-Papineau and on behalf of all Quebecers, I would like to express my feelings of sympathy to our fellow citizens in the Maritime provinces in these hours of anxiety and tell them that we share their concern.
I also wish to congratulate my hon. friend from Fundy- Royal (Mr. Corbett) for moving the motion for this debate. I think this is an example of what can be done under our new parliamentary reform, which gives the Speaker a chance to allow emergency debates for a limited period of time. I think it is the best way to deal with a topic as important as the one we are considering today.
Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the Maniwaki Forest Fire Research Centre, announced by the Progressive Conservative Government in November 1985, has not yet opened its doors, because the new technology would help communities and firefighters to cope with this kind of problem. I believe our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has on several occasions mentioned how important our forests are to him, and he was the first person to endorse this project which at the end of May 1986 is now nearing completion.

The staffing for the centre is well advanced. A chief and three computer programmers were hired on March 1, 1986, and these people are now undergoing intensive training at the Centre de la Societe de Conservation de I'Outaouais and at the CFS Petawawa National Forestry Institute. A search is also under way for an electronic engineer to deal with lightning detection systems, weather radar and radio communications. It is expected that this position will be filled this month.

May 20, 1986
The technology centre will be fully operational by June 1, 1986. The centre's efforts will be directed primarily at implementing, within all components of the Quebec forest fire control organization, other conservation societies and the provincial fire co-ordination centre computerized fire management techniques developed by the Petawawa National Forestry Institute. In time, the centre may also serve the needs of other fire management agencies across the country and perhaps, eventually, internationally as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the centre and the technology it will provide would have been very useful to the people of the Maritimes.
Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned about wildlife. Imagine the distress of wild animals and the irreparable destruction these fires will cause among wildlife in the Maritimes.
Mr. Speaker, I will never forget that when I was a child, there was a forest fire in my community, and things evolved the same as they did in the Maritimes. People got together and developed a very strong sense of community in the face of this disaster, and by working together they managed to control the forest fire, and that is the kind of thing we are still seeing today.
What is unfortunate is that it is impossible to erase this image unless you remove completely what was there before, because a forest fire remains in the minds of people for decades.
Mr. Speaker, my father taught me the importance of the forest when I was very young. I come from a modest family and my father was a farmer. Like all good Quebec farmers, my father worked as a logger during the winter and this was a major source of income for our family. In fact, it helped to pay for our education and little treats. When we were very young, my father taught us the importance of taking care of our forest because it is a national resource which is not inexhaustible.
Mr. Speaker, this stayed in my mind, and during the electoral campaign, even though it can be dangerous to make election promises, I made one in my own constituency, because as you know, the lands in Mirabel were expropriated and these included unique forest where both softwoods and hardwoods were well represented in an area called the Meandre de la Riviere du Nord. I said that the forest was important for me and for the people of my constituency who depend on it. Our forests are not that well-known even though they represent a major source of income, but they are slowly dying.
If we look around we can see that reforestation is badly neglected. Now is the time to take action if we want to have lumber to sell in the future. In 1986 I think we can see for ourselves that there has been a collective laissez-faire approach, perhaps without our predecessors realizing how important this sector was.
I must say that the Quebec Wood Producers Federation- which you know very well, Mr. Speaker-is made up of aggressive and very articulate people under the aegis of the
Agricultural Producers' Union. They represent private woodlot owners who have decided to get involved and carry out their own applied research. They want to find ways to solve their problems. I had told them we would help, and that is precisely what we did.
In my riding last Friday, Mr. Speaker, I announced a $60,000 contribution under the farm land development plan set up by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) and our Government. I managed to get $60,000 under this development plan by pointing out that farm development includes forests because all agricultural producers own lands where they fell trees. To me it was important that farm land development benefits private woodlot owners as well.
So they decided to prepare a small leaflet: Private forest research, action for our survival. And they will provide us within the next few months with a proposal for the area surrounding the meanders of the Riviere du Nord indicating the type of hardwood there is and what can be done for research. They will determine for instance whether softwood, a fir tree or a birch would grow faster in this and that environment, surrounded by fir trees or pine trees. What conditions make our softwood or our hardwood grow faster?
I am very glad, during tonight's emergency debate, to emphasize just how important our forests are.
I hope therefore that this tragedy which the Maritime provinces are living through today can be used as an example to other Canadian areas in demonstrate for instance to the Western provinces that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and also that they need to take preventive measures to avoid such disasters. As a colleague of mine was saying a while ago, there is no point in casting a stone at the responsible party, now that we must face the facts and find a solution. It is all very nice to say: If only we had avoided doing this or that... From now on, we should avoid all "ifs" and have a well established policy to prevent other similar tragedies, because we need to preserve our forests which are part of our national heritage.
We have solutions, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian people... We have the required technology, science and will. We need to put together proposals, and I am convinced that we will find ways to help substantially our Maritime taxpayers and fellow citizens. I think also that the federal Government has a responsibility when such tragedies occur because I am not sure that insurance companies would cover such Acts of God, including the losses incurred by a farmer such as those mentioned by the Hon. Member who spoke before me.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope this debate will not only give rise to pious wishes or the expression of views on such a tragedy, but will also ensure that together, collectively, we find solutions to help people in the Maritimes. Looking at what Canadians could do for hungry people in Africa, I feel that
May 20, 1986

very close to home, we will together find ways to help our fellow Canadians in the Maritimes.
I would be remiss if I did not refer once more, Mr. Speaker, to the volunteers, people in the area who spared nothing to control that fire. Fortunately, the Lord was there, and He told them: The rain must not fall on Quebec only! So he sent some rain in the Maritimes too, which was a tremendous help in bringing the fire under control.
I would therefore like to commend all the men and women who united in a common effort to tackle that problem, and those who helped firefighters, voluntary firefighters. I am certain they were first on the spot. Fire departments. Those are people whose work often is forgotten, and we seldom have an opportunity to mention their involvement in the community. Now we have an opportunity to do so, especially volunteer fire departments who are not paid for that kind of work, who do it on their own. I would like to take my hat off to them, as we say in Quebec!
I am therefore convinced that my Government, the Progressive Conservative Government, will find a way, in consultation with the provinces and our communities, to relieve the burden on taxpayers in the Maritimes as a result of this tragedy.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to express my views in this debate.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, before making a few comments about the subject of forest fires in Newfoundland, I want to give credit to the Hon. Member who moved the motion and those Hon. Members who have spoken thus far on it. However, I caution people as far as fixing blame is concerned for any forest fire. In terms of the forest fire alleged to have been started by the Armed Forces in CFB Gagetown, I was thinking about the charge made by certain people. It is important that the people affected by any forest fire are compensated.
It is important that the people are compensated. If it means that the Armed Forces are to be blamed for a forest fire in order to get somebody compensated, then fine. I have no argument about that. It is very difficult for the Armed Forces personnel who are using shells that contain phosphorus. It is a constant problem for Armed Forces bases on any firing range. The Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party pointed out that they would make sure the Armed Forces would not fire the shells on fine days. They fire shells in the winter-time and in the summer-time, but that is not important. Wherever you have a firing range, you always have the danger of a fire. You are never certain you are going to prevent a fire from starting.
It is a common fact that if a firing range is used in the winter-time and some of the powder from the shell is smothered under the snow, come the spring a fire will start in that area. The danger is always there. It is very difficult if you have
been fighting a forest fire to be sure that the fire is out. You can dump tons of water on a particular hot spot and find two or three days later that the flame will re-ignite.
I caution Members and the media about fixing blame for a forest fire. It is important that people be compensated for a loss of property or for the loss of forests in an area. The only formula to deal with that in the federal Government is what is commonly referred to as a natural disaster formula.
If there is a natural disaster in a province, the provincial Government puts up $1 per head of population first. Then the federal Government moves in with about a fifty-fifty split. The federal Government pays for 50 per cent of the additional dollar, and on it goes. It then pays 75 per cent of an additional dollar and then 90 per cent of an additional dollar until it reaches the point where the federal Government pays most of the cost. That is why provincial administrations have been hesitant about applying for money under the natural disaster formula unless the disaster is truly massive. In other words, it covers much more dollars than there is per head of population.
This natural disaster formula is administered by the federal Department of Finance. It is triggered by a request from the provincial Government. The federal Government, to my knowledge, has never turned down any such request by a provincial Government.
Having said that, and having said that it is very important that those who lost property be compensated if at all possible, let me also mention that perhaps more should be done in the co-ordination of water bombers and the establishment of new water bomber fleets throughout the country. As well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Armed Forces should examine the possibility of making more use of Armed Forces personnel in fighting forest fires, as they did years ago. Twenty and 30 years ago, as I recall, one of the regiments called the Van Doos would participate frequently in Fighting forest fires throughout Canada. The natural disaster formula should be instituted in this case in Newfoundland, in New Brunswick and in Prince Edward Island. As well, thought should be given to greater presence of the Department of National Defence.
I want to make brief reference to the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), who is about to speak in this Chamber in the debate. The Member from Carleton- Charlotte, I believe, will address the Chamber in a few moments and will talk about the cause of forest fires throughout Atlantic Canada. The Member for Carleton-Charlotte is perhaps, and I do not think I am stretching it very much, the most knowledgeable person on the government side in the area of forests and forest management.


Dave Nickerson: Even further than that.


George Baker: I would say he is perhaps the most knowledgeable person. His knowledge surpasses that of the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) by a long shot. I say that because I have listened to him over the years in the standing committee. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Speaker. I do not agree

May 20, 1986
with everything he says. In fact, I am not going to agree with what he is about to say in this Chamber. I have listened to him for 13 years and he will put forward a very serious argument that because the Governments of Canada have so restricted the use of insecticides, it has caused a destruction of our forests. Basically that is what the hon. gentleman is about to say. His contribution will perhaps be one of the more important contributions to the debate this evening.
I want to point out to the Member that there is one thing wrong with the argument that he is about to present. What if the Government of Canada had followed through and allowed the amount of insecticide required to kill the spruce budworm, the balsam woolly aphid or the hemlock looper and the one here in Ontario, the gypsy moth? I have no argument against the Ontario Government using Bacillus theringensus, or BT for short. However, I have a serious argument with the Government of New Brunswick and the Government of Newfoundland using the types of chemicals they have been using. The argument is this, and the Hon. Member will say, that because the Government has been so restrictive, forest insects have eaten the forests, causing the trees to dry, causing a natural phenomena to be present whereby forest fires are very easy to start.
If you want to start a small camp-fire, you break off a piece of dry wood, that is certainly not alive. That is what causes, or certainly encourages, forest fires. I will agree with the hon. gentleman if he says that we have been so lax in forest management that we have dead trees lying around throughout the forests in Canada. In the forests in Newfoundland, you do not have to chop down trees to get enough wood for your stove. You can just pick it up along the side of the road or anywhere in the forest.
Over the years the hon. gentleman has put forward a very solid argument with which I disagree. He says that even with our present technology, forest fires will continue to be a threat which will, indeed, continue to get worse. In New Brunswick, in 1957 and 1958 they used DDT without much control. They then used fenithrothion and Matricil. We progressed up the line until the Canadian Forestry Service discovered BT in the Quebec region. Until that was used, I cannot see where there was any great effect in getting rid of the spruce budworm or any other forest insects. They are still there.
The Government of Canada and the provincial governments say they were only trying to control the population. Still, the forests were dying, the trees were drying up, and forest fires were starting very, very quickly. I am not talking about a shell from Armed Forces Base Gagetown. I am talking about a potential shell right around the forests in New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Quebec, and the northern part of Ontario where the infestation of forest insects is a very serious problem.
I have told you approximately what the hon. gentleman is about to say, Mr. Speaker. I believe that he will put forward a very strong argument on a very sensible subject which is well
founded in fact, but I strongly disagree with his logic, and I believe that there are other solutions.
The Government of Canada has been lax throughout the years in that it did not pay enough attention to Finding a solution to chemical insecticides. The Member for Carleton- Charlotte will have to agree that we do not permit anyone to spray large forest lands with an amount of chemical insecticide sufficient to kill the forest insects. They were never killed and they will not be killed in Newfoundland this year through the use of fenithrothion. They will not be killed in New Brunswick by using whatever they are about to use. I look forward to hearing the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte put forward his argument, which will perhaps be one of the better arguments put forward here this evening.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that is the price you pay for associating with people whom you might otherwise call friends. I do consider the Member for Gander-Twillingae (Mr. Baker) to be a constructive Member of this House most of the time. I have enjoyed his remarks and his predictions are, in part, correct. I will address them from the beginning.
At no time has the Government of Canada ever devoted the necessary research to the preservation of the forest structures of Canada. That is because we assumed that we had enough wood that we could waste it, burn it, and pillage it in our silvaculture practices. Our supply problem was never recognized in New Brunswick until some time in the last 15 years. We have known that our cut has exceeded the growth in the forests of New Brunswick. Even though we have established a level of allowable cuts, we have still exceeded the growth of our forests in the province. We must put that against a background in which we never even approached the production of the forests of New Brunswick as long as the budworm did not exist in a serious way, although it has always existed. As long as that forest was effectively sprayed, we still had growth exceeding the cut. It was effectively sprayed in the 1950s.
I am not saying that we should go back to DDT. I am saying that when all the scientists in Canada get together and give a convincing argument that BT will never mutate and never attack anything except spruce budworm, I will be much more prone to the use of BT than I am now.
I happen to have a sick grandson in the hospital at the moment. He has an infection which has developed an immunity to the drug which was being used. He has been seriously ill. The only way that that could happen is because of a mutation of the virus present in his little system today. There must have been an element of mutation, an adjustment to the environment in which it has thrived, namely the human body, so that it resists whatever drug was used to fight it. There is ample proof that those little critters which infect the health of birds, animals or insects do indeed have a mutative capability to develop an opportunity to survive in the presence of pesticides. It has happened in agriculture so many times that one could make an endless list. When the scientists of Canada promise
May 20, 1986

me that there will be no mutation in BT, I will give it my wholehearted support. However, they must explain why other organisms do, in effect, develop resistance to the drugs which mankind has made for control.
There are biodegradable pesticides on the market which would be effective. When they become biodegradable, the residual effect and impact of them is negligible if at all important in the environment in which they exist and in which they will be sprayed. The trick is to learn how little we can use to control the population, how little carrier or solvent we need to distribute the insecticide, and how often we have to spray for it to be effective. These are the things which the Government of Canada, the pesticide corporations, the pulp corporations and the provinces have never intensively attacked.
For instance, not long ago I read in one of the Ontario papers that 57 million acres of forest in the Province of Ontario is infected with budworm to one degree or another. That is probably more forest land than all of Atlantic Canada can claim. That is a multibillion dollar capability for economic benefit of the country which is threatened if it is not addressed in some way. We are farming the forests of this land and if we are to maintain the economic viability of the industry, we have to address it as a farming operation from here on in. This is particularly true in New Brunswick which, for somewhere between 10 and 15 years, has been cutting more than natural growth has regenerated. We are looking at losing a billion-dollar industry in that province, or at least a significant part of it, if we do not have policies which are going to guard the value of that forest land and keep it growing.
We may attack the spraying program of the 1950s but it killed at least 95 per cent of the bugs. When that was done the forest needed spraying only every three to five years. We do not know what percentage of the bugs is being killed by existing sprays, and this is carelessness on the part of Government, regardless of who is the Prime Minister of the day. We do not know the degree of control we are getting because we are not monitoring as effectively as we did in the 1950s. This is not acceptable.
My plea is that we now address the issue of how we can protect the environment in every way. Flora and fauna have been mentioned in the debate tonight. What flora and fauna is there in those burned-over acres in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland? There are a lot of dead bodies, a lot of burned-up blossoms and no birds. We have to find a balance between the ecology and the economy. We have to get to a position where we respect the flora, the fauna and the economy. I am convinced that this can, should, indeed must be done. The corporations, the provinces and the Government of Canada must join forces.
This tragedy is not over tonight even where the fires are out. The tragedy continues in a province which is deficient in wood production and has now lost a full year's production. We are one year closer to the critical point where unemployment starts
to occur. Do we know what trees should be planted in these burned-over areas? Do we know how much of the soil has been destroyed? How can the soil be restored? Are we going to plant a tree in soil which will grow a 10-inch pine stump in 75 years? I have seen one of those stumps in an area of New Brunswick which had been burned over after the budworm infestation of the early 1930s. Fire swept through New Brunswick at that time, too. There was a 75-year old pine about that big when it should have been much bigger. The soil would not produce effectively the pine species on that burned-over land.
The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) is not very far away from where I stand on this. He gave my speech for me. He mentioned Matricile, a biodegradable pesticide. It is effective and has little if any residue. Some of the others he named are not acceptable to me or the ecology groups who are so adamantly against spraying. I do not know about the rest of Canada, but there has been roughly $3 billion in gross product loss in Atlantic Canada. These fires have been fed in part at least by the kindling left behind by the budworm. They created an inferno which was virtually unstoppable. The wood was absolutely dry and ready to burn. Another reason is that the ground was not covered by the foliage which ordinarily grows there. The soil dried out far earlier than it otherwise would have. Now this fire has destroyed the soil as well and I do not know how long it will take to replace that growth.
In conclusion, I want to congratulate my friend and colleague from Fundy-Royal for moving the motion and the Speaker for accepting it. I think it is a very critical moment. Perhaps it is a disaster only in Atlantic Canada at the moment, but it can be a disaster in any province in Canada. It is a situation which demands an outright attack on the silvaculture policies of this land and the preservation of the forest for future generations. We cannot continue the silvaculture practices that were in use when we had wood running out of our ears, wood far in excess of our needs. That situation no longer exists in Atlantic Canada. We are getting close to a shortage in other provinces in Canada. We have to look at how many water bombers we need, what research we need, what kind of forest protection and silvaculture practices we need. We have not done this in the past and I am very disappointed that we have not attacked it up to this point in time.
It has not been a political discussion this evening and I commend those who have discussed the matter in this debate for their constructive ideas. Those who have suffered losses have my sympathy. Not all of them are in Gagetown and they have little if any hope of compensation. They have my sympathy. To those fire departments which worked so hard in New Brunswick, whether it is Saint John, Gagetown, St. George or wherever, it made no difference. They worked on behalf of their fellow man to the very best of their ability and, in many instances, at the risk of their lives. To all those I offer my sincerest congratulations.


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member

May 20, 1986
for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) for moving this motion, as well as Members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada for their fine comments on the importance of our forestry sector. It is a $30 billion industry in Canada and accounts for more than $500 million of the gross provincial product of Nova Scotia. Forests cover three-quarters of the Province of Nova Scotia, and 92 per cent of that is considered productive. That is nearly 3.8 million hectares of usable forests. For every thousand cords of wood harvested and processed in Nova Scotia, we get approximately five direct jobs and up to 10 more are created elsewhere in our economy. Obviously, to get the maximum return from the development of our forests, we must manage them properly.
Our Government has made a concrete commitment to Canadian forestry and its improved management. We have named a Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) to ensure that the industry has a voice at the cabinet table. We now have in place across Canada more than $1 billion in federal-provincial agreements for forest management activities. In the case of Nova Scotia, more than $18 million has been spent to date for forest improvement under the current Canada-Nova Scotia forest resource development agreement. In Cape Breton this represents $2.5 million in forest management activity. That is a wise investment in an important resource. Recently we announced that $10 million under a special Nova Scotia-Canada agreement would be directed to the Cape Breton forests alone.
One of the vehicles we have been using in Nova Scotia to improve management of our forests is the group venture vehicle. It began in 1975 with a group of interested citizens who formed a limited company to prepare and implement forest management plans on the company's shareholders' properties. In 1978, eight group ventures were operating, and today 16 such group ventures are operating covering more than 60,000 hectares and involving 900 members.
This year these groups received $1.7 million in forest improvement assistance from the Canadian Forestry Service. These groups are funded under the FRDA group venture program. Each will receive approximately $200,000 in federal support and another $100,000 in provincial funding by 1987. It is hoped that each of these groups will provide about ten to 13 permanent jobs.
These programs are different in that they bring together private woodlot owners and give to them the responsibility to manage their lands to ensure that the maximum economic and social benefits accrue to their communities.
In my riding, in particular, we have a large pulp and paper producer who is really an important part of our economy. This industry employs 800 to 900 people directly, both on the plant site and in the forests. This company has been a leader in forest management techniques imported from Sweden, such as silvaculture techniques. This company has been a leader in dealing with badly infected hectares resulting from spruce
budworm, which devastated the Highlands area of Cape Breton and eastern Nova Scotia over the last decade.
It is the success this company has shown which has permitted the federal Government to work with the province to put in place many more initiatives that will result in a far healthier resource, and one from which we can get long-term benefits.
I know there are many other Members from Atlantic Canada who wish to comment on our forestry industry, and for that reason I will close now and emphasize the importance of the Government responding to the compensation needs of the land owners and people affected by the recent disastrous fires in Atlantic Canada.


Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I also welcome this opportunity to say a few words at this late hour in the emergency debate. It is something that has affected all of Atlantic Canada. The hockey game is over, it is a quarter to one in Atlantic Canada, and most of the people are asleep. It is the sleep of peace, Mr. Speaker, because in the last few days very few of them enjoyed it. My riding of Northumberland-Miramichi is the largest geographical riding in the country and the forest fires threatened literally the length and breadth of the riding.
I had the opportunity yesterday of being airborne in a helicopter and had a chance to see, firsthand, the damage and the devastation that a forest fire can cause, not just in one location, but in many up and down the river, the homes that were destroyed, the fishing camps, the lodges and the cottages. People had to evacuate communities like Newcastle, Douglas-town and Northumberland-Miramichi. There were people who did not want to leave their homes and the mayors literally had to go out and force them out in order to protect their lives. We are grateful, of course, that there was no loss of life. When people did get back and looked at their property, the lucky ones saw that, indeed, the fire on many occasions encircled them, and others came back to see nothing but ash.
One would be remiss if one did not speak of the co-operation that took place during this crisis, the co-operation between people in Lands and Forests, Natural Resources and the Department of National Defence. I would have to mention names like Hayward Sturgen, who was responsible for coordinating the over-all firefighting effort. I was airborne with Bill Stewart, Department of Natural Resources who, for the last 72 hours or so, was able to subsist on four hours of sleep at night. I flew along with him as he surveyed from the air the continual flare-ups. He co-ordinated the over-all attack, landing here and there to help direct the fire-fighting effort on the ground. Without the co-operation of the base commander, Canadian Forces Base Chatham, without the use of his equipment, the foam trucks, many, many homes would have been lost. Some of the areas affected by the fire were Newcastle, 13,000 plus acres that had been burning out of control; Kirkwood in the Barnaby River area, 1900 acres; Trout Brook, over 80,000 acres; Quarry Ville, 500 acres; Barryville, 5 acres; Burnt Church, 150 acres; Otter Brook, A. Daigle, Escuminac,
May 20, 1986

Eel River, Kouchbouquac Park, Carrigan, and the list goes on and on.
There was devastation, the loss of future income that was affected by this, not just the private woodlot owners, and, indeed, that is a serious consideration, but also the angling, the camps, the outriggers, the Tabusintac River where so many camps were lost, and these people depend on that kind of livelihood at this time of year for the sports fishermen who come to that particular area. It is very, very difficult to assess in dollars what the total impact and loss will be to them individually and collectively. A lot of the fowl and wildlife was also affected.
I know the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) would like to be here to participate in this debate. I know how close he is to the forestry, not only through the entire country, the province, but in my particular riding. He is in Scandinavia on important business.
The warm response received by the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre) from all Members of the House will be noted when he said, in conjunction with the statement about the fire at Gagetown, that after the findings of the board of inquiry compensation for those affected would be dealt with expeditiously and with generosity. In that regard I would hope that in the Government's generosity the same consideration and assistance will be forthcoming to those in the rest of the province. The Government has concern and compassion for the people.
In closing, I would like to say that it was heartening to see not only the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), but six or seven other Ministers in the House. Much has been said about the lack of attention from time to time that the Government has shown Atlantic Canada, and I think in the time of crisis we know who is in support and behind Atlantic Canada, it is the Government of Canada.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to express my appreciation to the Member for Fundy Royal (Mr. Corbett) for bringing on this emergency debate on the fire situation in the Maritimes. I heard one critic earlier on say that this was an intrusion into Hockey Night in Canada, but I am sure those of us here tonight are quite prepared to speak on a matter of this importance.
Last summer in British Columbia, certainly in Kootenay West, we saw the same type of forest holocaust that is currently affecting the Maritimes. Certainly because of the size of the province, the nature of the terrain and the size of the timber, the fires were greater in their magnitude and their fury. However, a forest fire is still a forest Fire and the absence of underbrush, the terrain, the weather and a host of variables can either make it strong or weak.
The fires in British Columbia last summer were uniformly strong. In that context, I want to express my appreciation for the advancement in the reporting system of fires and fire
strikes that have been put in place in British Columbia and other areas of Canada. I want to speak specifically about the sophistication in British Columbia because I recall last summer, at the height of the conflagrations, being at a mill office in Slocan when a thunderstorm rolled in. Within minutes, there was a telephone call indicating that there was a strike at one location, a strike at a second location and a third strike at another location. The sophistication was such that up to 100 lightning strikes could be indicated in given areas as well as which ones generated a fire. It is that kind of sophistication, which can indicate precisely where those strikes occur, that is needed at least to help fight a fire.
The ultimate task falls upon the technology of men, women and their muscle in combination with the experience of foresters and the sophistication of the equipment.
I had ample opportunity to talk to those who were on the fire lines. As well, as a young man I experienced it myself. I spent three useful, worth-while, healthy and sometimes hazardous summers fighting fires in British Columbia. It is an experience I will not forget and one that I am pleased to have had because it taught me a great deal of respect for both my colleagues who were fighting the fires and for the hazards associated with fighting forest fires.
There is really nothing quite like a forest fire. Fire-fighters are sometimes engulfed in smoke. They have to put up with the intense heat and the very hot sun, the dirt and dust as well as a terrific thirst. Perspiration runs down their eyes, and I swear that one's tongue hangs out a yard. Fighting forest fires requires a system of supply to keep these men in reasonable comfort under the circumstances. They need spare clothing and fire-fighting equipment. Such an operation involves a massive investment in order to make fire-fighting equipment available. The marshalling of men in camps must be made very quickly, with foremen doing a first-class job in setting up tent towns, bringing in cooks and food and arranging a supply line. All the while, they never know what kind of fire it will be, where it will take place and whether it will be on such a steep slope that it will simply have to burn.
During that period last summer, in the heat and intensity of those fires, I talked to those men who were covered in dirt, charcoal, sweat and burns. Their first dedication was to the job. It is important to note that some of these men were taken from the mines, the forests and other jobs in order to fight the fires. They did not complain because they knew a job had to be done. However, some of these men had seasonable employment which, in many cases, paid UI benefits. They were put on a job which is described in the Province of British Columbia as a disaster response with no UI benefits. There were also volunteers on that fire line who were receiving UI benefits and others who had no UI benefits.
I expressed the view that these men and women should be covered by unemployment insurance benefits because they were doing honest work in a dedicated fashion. It was suggested that such a step would only encourage arson. There was

May 20, 1986
only one proven case of arson in all the fires that swept through British Columbia last summer.
After my discussions with these fire-fighters, I approached the Department of Revenue and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) in the middle of the summer. I also expressed my concern to my caucus colleagues from British Columbia, which they accepted and supported. The Government's response was quick-I would venture to say in the space of two weeks-and it was to amend the regulations under the Unemployment Insurance Act so that forest fire-fighters who were brought on to the fire lines by the provincial departments of forestry would be covered under the UIC.
The only problem is that this is a co-operative venture and that some of the provinces-British Columbia in this case- have not accepted that proposal. I cannot for the life of me understand why it has not accepted this proposal because it is the Government of Canada that is paying the bill through the taxpayers of Canada. Perhaps the provincial Government is concerned that including all of these additional people in its Department of Forestry will inflate the numbers in its books and will be challenged in the provincial legislature for having more man-years than it planned. However, what opposition Member would challenge the Government on that basis when it is clear that the reason for these increased man-years is the need to provide UI benefits for those fire-fighters who are put on the workforce of that particular Department?
In conclusion, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal for bringing about this debate. It has given me an opportunity to put on the record of the House of Commons the dedication of the men and women who fought those fires last summer, the response of my colleagues to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, and to indicate the outstanding speed with which the matter was addressed by the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Mackay) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Finally, it is time for the provinces, along with the Government, to begin a co-operative venture so that each province will have the same provision for UI benefits.


Mr. Fennell:: Mr. Speaker, I believe the House would give unanimous consent to permit the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) to talk for up to 10 minutes and to extend the time from 12 o'clock to 12.10 a.m.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to not see the clock-
[ Translation]
-to allow the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) to continue his speech for ten minutes?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to thank the chief Government Whip for letting me join all my colleagues in speaking here this evening. I think it is appropriate that all Members be given a chance to take part in the debate, irrespective of the region they come from, because after all, this country draws its strength from the solidarity of the provinces.
When everybody is happy as they are now in Vancouver because of Expo, all Canadians rejoice. When tragedy strikes as is the case now in the Maritimes, in Atlantic Canada, the whole country suffers. That is what our Confederation is all about. That is what makes us proud to be Canadians.
I want to thank my friend the Hon. Member for Fundy- Royal (Mr. Corbett) who raised this issue, and Mr. Speaker who agreed that it was an urgent matter to be debated this evening. For having spoken to you, Mr. Speaker, I know that as the Member for Vercheres you too would have liked to join in the debate and add a few comments to what has been said tonight, but your important responsibilities prevented you from doing so since you must listen without getting involved.
In my opinion, this is one of those rare occasions when I can speak for the Chair and all my colleagues, as they may have spoken for us at times, for nobody can remain insensitive to this kind of tragedy. And I would like to remind Quebecers-

I would also like to remind Canadians in other provinces that this is the time for solidarity. It is not the time for partisan politics. It is a time when we can show that a tragedy taking place in one part of Canada affects us as much as if it were taking place in our province, in which case it would be a tragedy in which the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) would feel he must participate and give his time and effort in order to make his own province understand that there is a solidarity we have to exercise with each other.
I listened to most of the speeches tonight and, because of the hour, I do not believe I can add very much except to say that we must be prepared at all times with all of our know how, technology and manpower to assist when a tragedy of this kind takes place in Canada.
With respect to world tragedy, I was saying recently that we should have a prepared team to assist in the kinds of tragedy which take place in the world and especially the kinds of tragedy which take place in Canada. Forestry is one of our greatest riches. That was said well in the letter sent by the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal to the Speaker, and it has been said tonight by all Hon. Members who spoke in the debate.
We in this great vast land have been blessed by God with much and we should be ready to help any individual province. We must not hesitate. We must immediately get on the phone and say: "Mr. Premier, is there anything we can do? We are ready right now". Our Armed Forces should do the same, not only because it happened to be an army base which was involved. Our Armed Forces in Canada would be delighted to be on the alert for this kind of tragedy. They could be ready
May 20, 1986

and waiting for the signal by the Minister, the Associate Minister, or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) at the request of a province.
I will not abuse the privilege given to me to speak after the hour, but as a Canadian living in Quebec, I have to say at least a few words to let the House know that my province deeply regrets this tragedy and is ready to join with the rest of Canada to help. After all, it is not the maritimes which is attacked. It is all of Canada. In the name of Canadian solidarity, we have to be ready to make the necessary sacrifices if need be in order to help these people in the Atlantic region. Many of them lost almost everything they owned. Many of them lost what is best in life, a job. Losing everything on their land is losing everything they own.
I want to again thank my colleagues who made it possible to have this debate tonight, and I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for
your patience in listening to all of us so late. As Chairman of the Members' Services, I would like to thank the very able staff who stayed with us so late, and I see that everyone still has a smile. They are saying: "Yes, we do not mind staying because we are showing Canadians that at times we can put aside the division of our political Parties". Tonight it was a Canadian show of solidarity for people who suffer in this country, and I really wanted to be part of it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour being midnight, pursuant to Standing Order 29(13), I declare the motion carried.
This House stands adjourned until later this day at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 12.08 a.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, May 21, 1986