Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment and perhaps ask a question.

Hon. members may not be aware but this may be the last major speech the hon. member for Skeena is making in the House, if we do not do too much work between now and the next election.

I did not want the opportunity to go by without making a comment about a young man I knew 22 years ago who worked for me on a project in Yukon at Yukon Revenue. He showed at that time the same type of energy, enthusiasm and I might say wild disregard for the

Government Orders

environment the hon. member now shows for truth and be found in terms of particularly the movement of ice accuracy when he speaks to us in such a bombastic way. and the impact on the marine environment.

I wonder if the member would mind relating to us how that young man traversed the course I believe he has from one who had I thought a total disregard for the environment to one who now is respected quite widely regarding the concern he has for the environment, despite perhaps the exaggeration which he brings to the role as critic.

Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the hon. member's comments, particularly her rather inadequate response to the minister's comments about her filibustering. It is perhaps useful that she dealt with the more technical aspects of the bill as I would also like to do in the few minutes that are left.

The exemptions in Motion No. 12, of which Motion No. 14 is consequential, put forward by the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap, would have the government delete the power of exemption from the bill.

In deleting the power of exemption we would be taking away from the CRTC an important means of reducing regulatory burden. That is a goal which everyone, and certainly everyone on this side of the House with the apparent exception of the hon. member and his party, would agree.

On the issue of publication of proposed orders, the hon. member's proposed Motion No. 13 would amend clause 10 by requiring the minister when issuing an order under this bill to advise the affected provinces prior to the publication of the order. While this is certainly laudable it is redundant since it is already required under clause 13 of the bill.

On the issue of variation, rescission and referral back, the hon. member would have the government delete from clause 12 the powers of variation and rescission in his Motion No. 16. As the minister painstakingly outlined in his opening testimony before the subcommittee studying this bill, variation and rescission have been sparingly used by the government in the past and always in a responsible manner. These powers are based on the premise that decisions of fundamental public policy should be made not by regulators but by the government.

For the foregoing reasons Motion No. 16 should be rejected as should related Motions Nos. 17, 18 and 20 which also relate to clause 12.

Motion No. 17 is especially dangerous. By requiring the minister to publish a notice in the Canada Gazette when the Governor in Council is considering making an order, it would have the effect of publishing advance notice of proposed cabinet decisions. Since this would unduly interfere in the cabinet process this motion is completely unacceptable.

Motion No. 18, and Motion No. 20 which is consequential, should be rejected since they would remove the Governor in Council's power to vary, rescind or refer back again a CRTC decision that is the result of a previous refer back. This may be necessary in cases where the CRTC has not complied with government policy subsequent to a refer back.

On the important matter of provincial consultations, on Motion No. 21 the hon. member seeks to unduly constrain the Governor in Council by specifying a time frame in which the minister must consult with his provincial counterparts on proposed orders. I would remind him that clause 13 as written does not prevent the specifying of a time limit for consultations. Indeed the concept of a specified time period is implicit in this clause as it has been drafted. An appropriate time period may be very short or very long depending on the subject matter of any particular order. Since it would not be appropriate to specify any particular time limit this motion should also be rejected.

Finally with respect to technical standards, just as in the case of Motion No. 13 referred to earlier, this motion is redundant in that there already is provision for full public consultation before technical standards are established. Reference to the required public consultations may be found in clause 15(3).

In conclusion I would say that all motions in the fourth group should be rejected.

Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources.

This report recommends that the government engage a private sector auditor to audit past oil and gas production from the Indian lands. It also recommends that the Auditor General do a value for money audit of the federal government's management of this aspect and that the federal government quickly adopt the amendments to the oil and gas regulations already negotiated with the First Nations.

Finally, it recommends that the federal government and the First Nations negotiate an early resolution of the issue of transferring control over oil and gas resources and/or revenues and that those negotiations be based on the principle that with control goes responsibility.

As this is probably the last report of the standing committee in this session I would particularly like to thank the members who have participated for their excellent work and the support that they have given to the committee.

Also I would like to thank the clerk, Mr. Stephen Knowles, and the researchers who have helped so much in the preparation of this and other reports.

Mr. Johnson:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, I believe I heard a portable telephone ringing in the House a few moments ago. I did not see a member actually answer the phone.

Mr. Johnson:

Yes, as my colleague says, we could end up with lobbyists calling in to tell members how they should speak. I think it is entirely inappropriate and I would appreciate it if the Speaker would clarify that it is inappropriate to have such devices in the House.