Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River)

Mr. Speaker, during question period the Prime Minister said that Reformers have said to the unemployed, and I quote: "Do nothing. Let them starve". That is not true. I am asking the Prime Minister-

The hon. member and all of us from time to time have used the points of order for debate. I think we are probably getting into a little bit of debate.

Miss Grey

Mr. Speaker, you have often said in this House yourself about imputing motives. As far as I am concerned that is imputing motives.

Order. We have dealt with the point order. I believe it is a point of debate and I trust that most hon. members will agree.

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval)

Mr. Speaker, could the Government House leader please tell us what is on the agenda for the next few days?

Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada)

Mr. Speaker, first of all, after I present the statement of business for the

coming week, I intend to ask the unanimous consent of the House to enable a special debate to take place this evening on the situation in Bosnia.

In that connection, I want to thank the Reform Party House leader for making a suggestion about having such a debate and suggesting a theme to be taken into account in the motion on which the debate will be based. It was a force of coincidence his request came at a time when we were giving thought to the same matter. I want to thank the Reform Party House leader for his constructive point in this regard.

This afternoon we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-6 regarding oil and gas. On Friday, Bill C-4 respecting the NAFTA side deals will be considered at the report and third reading stages. On Monday, the House will have before it second reading of Bill C-16 regarding certain land claims.

The business on Tuesday shall be Bill C-22 respecting Pearson airport which is at the second reading stage. After completing this bill we will call second reading of Bill C-21 regarding railway lands and Bill C-12 to update the Canada Business Corporations Act. This business will likely take us into Wednesday.

There are two bills the Minister of the Environment will be introducing on Monday that the House may wish to deal with next week as well. Finally, Thursday, April 28 shall be an opposition day.

As I said just before my statement, there have been consultations and I believe there will be consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, at 6 p.m. this day, the House shall consider a motion by the Minister of Foreign Affairs as follows:

That this House, taking note of the tragic events which have taken place in and around Gorazde, and NATO's agreement in February to a UN request for the use of air support to protect a safe area around Sarajevo, consider the request contained in the UN Secretary-General's April 18 letter to the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to extend arrangements similar to those in place to protect Sarajevo to the five other UN safe areas in Bosnia.

That, during debate on the said motion, the first four members to speak shall speak for not more than 15 minutes and any subsequent members shall speak for not more than 10 minutes; and

That, when no members rise to speak, but in any case not later than 10 p.m. the Speaker shall adjourn the House.

I would appreciate it, Mr. Speaker, if you would ask if there is consent for the motion I have read. If so, I would be prepared to put the motion and seek the unanimous consent of the House that this motion be adopted so that a debate on this matter of great interest and concern to members will begin at six o'clock this evening.

Is there consent for this motion to be put?

Agreed.

Is there agreement that the motion be debated tonight at six o'clock under the terms prescribed in the motion?

Agreed.

So ordered.

(Motion agreed to.)

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources)

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

Agreed.

Ms. McLellan

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, hon. members, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak before this House today during third reading of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, and the National Energy Board Act.

The main purpose of Bill C-6 is to give the National Energy Board the authority to regulate frontier oil and gas activity. It will not however affect offshore Newfoundland and Nova Scotia where petroleum management is shared under federal-provincial accords. Bill C-6 will ensure that the frontier regulatory process is more transparent as decisions will be taken by an experienced independent organization.

Essentially the National Energy Board's main responsibilities will be: protection of worker safety; maximizing resource conservation by ensuring good oil field practices; and protection of the environment.

I am very sensitive to concerns regarding protection of the fragile environment of the north and other frontier areas. Consistent with efforts to better integrate environmental considerations in policy decisions, a review of the proposed legislative changes was conducted co-operatively by Natural Resources Canada and the National Energy Board. It concluded there

would be no adverse environmental impacts as a result of the proposed amendments.

The government is also committed to real and meaningful consultations with all key stakeholders and views this as a critical feature of the legislative process. Wide-ranging consultations with interested parties have been held at all stages of the development of this proposed legislation. These included both provincial and territorial governments, native groups, industry, and environmental organizations.

Let me turn to some of the issues that were raised during second reading and committee consideration of Bill C-6.

Concern was expressed by some members of this House regarding the impact Bill C-6 may have on provincial jurisdiction over frontier resources.

This bill will have no impact on jurisdiction over offshore regions of Quebec and other frontier areas. It merely transfers to the National Energy Board regulatory powers which already belong to the federal government, and it does not affect any offshore frontier areas.

Further, there is nothing in the bill which would prejudice the outcome of any discussions with the territorial governments on the delegation of onshore responsibilities, or impact on discussions with other coastal provinces regarding future shared management arrangements.

Some members also felt that in the exceptional circumstances of a future appeal the National Energy Board would somehow not be expert or independent enough to give industry a fair hearing. NEB decisions are not currently subject to outside review except by the courts and then only on questions of law or jurisdiction.

The oil and gas committee appeal process is being abolished under this legislation because the integrity of the NEB process, and therefore its independence and effectiveness, depends heavily on maintaining this principle.

The proposed amendments reflect our view that in the few instances this appeal function may be exercised it will be competently and objectively performed by the NEB.

The National Energy Board already has diverse regulatory responsibilities. These include the licensing of the export of oil, gas and electricity; the issuance of certificates for international pipelines; and the setting of just and reasonable tolls. The National Energy Board is well placed to take on the authority to regulate frontier oil and gas as proposed in the amendments.

I am fully confident that for all its responsibilities the board will continue its mandate to regulate in the Canadian public interest fairly and effectively, taking into consideration the views of all interested parties.

In conclusion, what the government of Canada wants to do with this bill is to give clear and specific operating rules to the industry.

Without these amendments the NEB will not be able to operate effectively and industry will continue to be faced with a time consuming approval process.

The National Energy Board was given additional staff and responsibilities for frontier oil and gas in 1991. Bill C-6 would finally give the board the legal authority to do its job.

Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies)

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-6. However, since this legislation will now give the National Energy Board the official power to hear appeals and to give advice to ministers, we truly hope that the National Energy Board will hear our own appeal today and make sure that it does indeed give advice to government ministers, because they badly need it.

In recent years, the federal government has agreed to provide financial support to major energy projects, or energy megaprojects, as they are called. Together, these agreements represent an initial commitment of over $3 billion. I must point out here, for the benefit of those who are listening to us, that one billion is a thousand millions. In the case of Hibernia, we are talking of 2,700 million dollars.

These projects require considerable public funds which the government, of course, gets from already overtaxed Canadians. As we know, the middle class is already on its knees because it is overtaxed. In fact, the Auditor General of Canada himself said that taxpayers have the right to expect public expenditures to be managed with caution.

Yet, what do we see? Again, the Auditor General had this to say: "We examined the energy megaprojects assisted and funded by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Our observations on the Hibernia, Lloydminster Bi-Provincial Upgrader and Regina NewGrade Upgrader projects point to some fundamental weaknesses."

Let me mention five weaknesses noted by the Auditor General. First, the lack of a comprehensive set of clear and measurable objectives. Second, an inadequate co-ordination of benefit monitoring. Third, deficiencies in monitoring environmental

assessment recommendations and commitments. Fourth, continuing gaps in effectiveness measurement. That brings me to the fifth and final point, although we could have listed many others, but we will stop at five. The fifth point is limited and poor reporting to Parliament and the public in Part III of the Main Estimates.

The Auditor General adds:

Another key problem we noted in the Hibernia and Bi-Provincial Upgrader agreements was the lack of a connection between performance and payment. Federal payments are based on project expenditures, and not on construction milestones or achievement of certain intended economic benefits that have been specifically identified with these projects. Even if the Department determined through its monitoring efforts that certain intended benefits were not being achieved, it would have no legal basis to stop payments to the projects.

Then, the Auditor General stresses that:

Without a direct connection between performance and payment, the payment is in the nature of a grant.

We are talking about billions of dollars that were given to companies involved in the Hibernia project and which are in fact grants. In other words, the Auditor General is telling us that the thousands of millions of dollars, all taxpayers' money, which were invested in these projects, supposedly to create jobs and create all kinds of industrial benefits, are meaningless since the government has no legal basis to guarantee the intended benefits.

Of course, following this statement by the Auditor General, the department took the following commitment:

The Department is devoting additional resources to the monitoring function, particularly with respect to industrial and employment benefits.

Jobs, jobs, jobs. This government was elected on the promise to create jobs. Therefore the least we should expect is that the taxpayers' hard-earned money which is invested in big projects helps create jobs at home. But such is not the case. In spite of all the promises made by the department I just mentioned, an Act to repeal the requirements concerning Canadian participation was enacted only a few months ago.

According to a document coming directly from the Minister of Natural Resources, this is what this bill does essentially:

The highlights of this bill are the elimination of the minimum 50 per cent Canadian participation as a condition to grant a licence for oil and gas production in frontier areas; the elimination of the need to obtain the minister's approval to transfer, in whole or in part, ownership rights under a licence contract to produce oil and gas in frontier areas; and the repeal of the present regulation under which certain individuals may hold production licences and of related requirements regarding the place of residence.

In short, not only is the federal government unable to legally guarantee definite spin-offs for the billions of dollars of taxpayers' money it invests in such ventures, it deliberately lifts the minimum requirements imposed on companies to which it gives money so that they can create jobs in Canada.

We recognize that, in the last few months, some improvements have been made regarding the management of this project, but they have not been as far-reaching as we would have liked. An in-depth assessment of the project should have taken place before work began, not after.

Where is all this leading us? The government goes and takes billions of dollars from already overtaxed Canadians and Quebecers. It gives money to big companies over which, as the Auditor General said, it has hardly any control. It allows them to create jobs elsewhere. Jobs, jobs, jobs for Korea, not for us. In the meantime, we can be sure that, no matter what we do, our horrendous $500 billion debt will grow to $600 billion in three years, if everything goes well, because otherwise it could be a lot worse. The truth is, as things stand today, we are on the verge on bankruptcy.

We can also be sure that unemployment rates will remain exactly the same and that young people will have no jobs. The only solution this government could find was to cut unemployment benefits and old age pensions; such was its choice.

Of course, the unemployed, the people of modest means, those without voice or clout, would not accept this situation if they were not, first of all, made to feel guilty, to feel that they are the real problem in Canada.

The statements by the Prime Minister, last night on television and this morning in the newspapers, show that this policy is actively pursued.

I would like to quote today's Le Droit which carries a headline that reads: Loafers cost $500 billion: their attitude must be broken'', which I hasten to say were perhaps not the words used by the Prime Minister. He said, according to the article:Canadians have to break that mentality, because the country is $500 billion in the hole. We cannot keep people sitting at home drinking beer''.

I object to what the Prime Minister said today. I consider that a frightful statement. I remind the Prime Minister that the former Hyundai employees who lost their jobs are not beer-drinking loafers. They are out looking for work.

The fishers of Gaspé who can no longer go out and fish are not beer-drinking loafers, they are looking for work. The former employees of the CNR, the CPR or MIL Davie in Lauzon, that

cannot get government contracts to build ferries, are not sitting at home drinking beer and watching TV. They are looking for work.

Young people, among whom unemployment is sky high, who come out of school with two university degrees and go bankrupt even before they start their productive life are not beer drinkers and television addicts, they are looking for work.

I urge the prime minister to come and visit my riding of Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies on Monday morning and meet the people who come to me, hoping I can find them some work. I do not know what he would tell them, but if he were to tell them that they are beer-drinking loafers, I am sure they would have something to say to him.

It is known that Quebec provides almost 25 per cent of federal tax revenues in Canada and that, in most Canadian job creating reinvestments, benefits that Quebec is getting are not equal to the revenues that it provides, whether it is in research and development, in federal acquisitions, in army spending or in funds for agriculture and megaprojects.

In the case of Hibernia, although Quebecers will pay approximately $800 million in federal taxes for that project, over and above the grants that will have to be given for each barrel of oil coming out of Hibernia if the international price is not high enough, the future of the MIL shipyards in Lauzon remains bleak and lay-offs are predicted for 1994.

Although Lauzon's shipyards are in fact the only one to have built drilling platforms in Canada, including 13 for Texas in the early 1980's, the federal government has stuffed the province of Newfoundland with contracts awarded without any bidding: the building of concrete bases, the building of the five super-modules. The other contracts were awarded to foreign firms, after the federal government had abolished the 25 per cent tariff on the importation of oil platforms that had been in place since 1983. And that is one of the fundamental reasons why things are going badly in this country, because billion of dollars are invested in the creation of jobs somewhere else, and the unemployed of this country, that have been created by the government, are being called beer drinkers and lazy bums who just watch television.

There was also the building of a large-capacity shipyard in Bull's Arm, which was paid for with a regional development fund of $300 million. They agreed to go ahead with the modernization of the Marystown shipyard and a vast manpower training program for Newfoundland.

Therefore, if the Bloc Quebecois approves the passage of Bill C-6 at third reading, it becomes the duty of all members of this House to make sure that megaprojects like Hibernia really generate the spin-off benefits promised both by this government and its predecessor, because taxpayers of Quebec and Canada are entitled to expect such benefits.

As for the outrageous statements of Canada's Prime Minister, he may be sure that Quebecers will remember them during the next provincial election and the referendum which will surely be held in the months to come.

Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)

Madam Speaker, I will be the only speaker for the Reform Party on this matter and I shall be brief.

Bill C-6 is mostly housekeeping. As we stated earlier in the House, we will endorse its basic thrust which is to transfer regulatory authority over frontier oil and gas development from the political arena to an independent body, the National Energy Board. We believe that this action is also endorsed by most of the industry stakeholders.

This bill does have one glaring weakness which we were unable to remedy in committee. It gives the National Energy Board unlimited power to determine what is or is not a significant discovery or a commercial discovery and to make unilateral decisions affecting certain technical operations.

Aggrieved parties will be able to appeal a board decision only to the board itself so that a single quasi-judicial body becomes in effect judge, jury and executioner. Questions of law of course could be further appealed to the courts by any party willing to accept the cost and long delay of such actions. But questions of fact, technical decisions, could not be challenged.

Industry representatives have indicated to us that the National Energy Board as presently constituted functions well, has knowledgeable personnel and has a good track record.

Our concern is that we are looking at the board in a snapshot in time. We do not know what it will be like 10 or 15 years from now. Bill C-6 nevertheless gives it an extraordinary amount of power with no checks or balances.

Laws are like contracts. They should be written to deal with worst case scenarios, not under the assumption that all concerned parties will be forever noble, rational and fair.

In committee we attempted to rectify this problem with amendments to allow final appeals of board decisions to a second independent body, the oil and gas committee as defined in the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act. Having failed to win this safeguard in committee, the Reform Party will not vexatiously continue to pursue a cause which is already lost.

Most of the bill and its intent are acceptable to us. We therefore support it, albeit somewhat grudgingly.

Is the House ready for the question?

Question.