Debates of March 11th, 1994

Points Of Order

[The Speaker]

Sometimes I think we should move the chair a little bit closer so I can hear.

Official Languages

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 48 of the Official Languages Act and Standing Order 32(2) I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the fifth annual report of the President of the Treasury Board concerning official languages in federal institutions covering the fiscal year 1992-93.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this report is deemed referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.

Co-Operatives Energy And Lower Churchill Development Corporations

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the 1992 annual reports of the Co-operatives Energy Corporation and the Lower Churchill Development Corporation Ltd.

Government's Response To Petitions

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 35(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions.

Official Languages

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with section 48 of the Official Languages Act, I am pleased as President of the Treasury Board to table, in both official languages, the annual report on Official Languages in Federal Institutions.

This report covers fiscal year 1992-93. It reports on the progress of the official languages program in federal institutions. I am particularly proud to table this report because institutional bilingualism has come a long way since 1969 when the first Official Languages Act was adopted.

This year, more precisely on September 7, we will celebrate the 25th anniversary of the coming into effect of the first Official Languages Act.

The 1969 legislation made English and French the official languages of Canada for all purposes of Parliament and the Government of Canada so that they would have equality of status in all the institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada.

A new Official Languages Act replaced the 1969 legislation on September 15, 1988. It reflects the significant changes that have taken place in the status and use of the two official languages since that first legislation.

The 1988 act further specifies the constitutionally entrenched rights and linguistic principles initially set out in the Constitution Act, 1867 and then in the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In line with the 1982 charter the 1988 act provides the framework and the provisions required to translate constitutional language guarantees and principles into day to day realities.

The annual report on official languages describes the activities carried out and progress achieved by federal institutions in 1992-93 in implementing the act.

It reflects their significant accomplishments in meeting the three main objectives and commitments of the program.

These are as follows. Within certain limits Canadians can deal with federal institutions in the official language of their choice. In designated bilingual regions employees of these institutions can work in the official language of their choice. English speaking and French speaking Canadians have equal opportunities to obtain employment and advancement in federal institutions.

The government clearly expressed its conviction and commitment to official languages in the recent speech from the throne.

Our cultural heritage and our official languages are at the very core of our Canadian identity and are sources of social and economic enrichment.

In making sure that federal institutions live up to their obligations under the Official Languages Act the government will continue to transform this conviction and commitment into reality in its day to day operations and in its contracts with Canadians right across the country.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the annual report Official Languages in Federal Institutions shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is still a long way to go to reach true fairness for the French speaking citizens of this country.

The act could have been a development tool for francophone and Acadian communities in Canada by ensuring access to the public service in French. Unfortunately, the way the government views and implements its mission, it is making only Quebec bilingual. Is it the government's aim to destroy the stronghold of the French speaking community in North America?

Let us look more closely at some figures.

In Quebec, where the English speaking population is 10 per cent, the federal public service has 52.7 per cent bilingual positions, that is 15,945 out of a total of 30,234 positions. If the same principle were applied to Canada as a whole, the number of bilingual positions should be 30,666 instead of 7,465. Therefore, there is a glaring and shameful deficit of 23,000 French or bilingual positions for francophones.

For my colleagues' benefit, let us take a look at the data province by province. Reform Party members who think that bilingualism costs too much should be happy to see that so little is done in that regard. The Northwest Territories should have 122 positions instead of 39; Yukon, 38 instead of 7; British Columbia, 1,600 instead of 394; Alberta, 1,564 instead of 395; Saskatchewan, 672 instead of 175; Manitoba, 2,238 instead of 565; Ontario, excluding the National Capital, 9,136 instead of 2,762; Nova Scotia, 2,755 instead of 750; Newfoundland, 132 instead of 63; and New Brunswick, 12,339 instead of 2,680.

In conclusion, in this year of the 25th anniversary of the Official Languages Act, the government has chosen to move the clock back 40 years by transferring the operations of the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean to Kingston, where Premier Bob Rae used too narrow an interpretation in determining that the number of French-speaking people in that community did not warrant it being declared a bilingual district.

The Treasury Board and this government therefore do not give us much to rejoice over, and this anniversary, on September 7 next, should rather be considered as a day of mourning, with the Canadian flag at half-mast.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. President of the Treasury Board for this opportunity to respond to his interesting report.

Let me first underline that our party is not against bilingualism. We are not. In fact, we encourage it on a personal basis. What we are against is the waste of resources brought about by the application of the Official Languages Act and its divisiveness to Canada as a country.

Although no doubt well intentioned, the continued blind application of the act, to use the words of the President of the Treasury Board, "in making sure that federal institutions live up

to their obligations under the act" is the very thing that is causing resentment across the land.

The minister proudly states that English speaking and French speaking Canadians have equal opportunities to obtain employment and advancement in federal institutions. However, within the last two weeks we heard the Minister of National Defence say with pride that officers of the Canadian forces aspiring to the rank of lieutenant colonel or above will have to be bilingual. This same restriction is being applied at the non-commissioned officer level.

In a country where more than 60 per cent of francophones speak no English and over 80 per cent of anglophones speak no French, a person should be able to pursue a career solely in either official language with the expectation that if he or she does everything correctly, there is a reasonable chance for success in that career. Application of the Official Languages Act takes away this hope from the majority in both language groups. It fosters resentment and division in Canada.

We would be among the first to applaud the opportunity for francophones to pursue a career in the French language.

We are appalled by the fact that the number of jobs available to unilingual francophones has dropped 26 per cent since 1974 thanks to the government's ridiculous pursuit of the bilingual post designation.

We are equally upset that unilingual anglophones are suffering the same form of discrimination.

Let me repeat again that we are not opposed to bilingualism. We agree that both languages are necessary in government institutions, such as this Parliament, and the courts of justice. On the other hand, we are opposed to the antagonism and the waste of resources caused by the Official Languages Act over the past 25 years.

I want to conclude by saying I am deeply distressed also by the inaction of the chief parliamentary body overseeing the Official Languages Act. I am a member of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages which has yet to meet this session. My research indicates this committee has met only nine times in the past two years and has not issued a single recommendation to this House. It saddens me to think that such a vital part of the fabric of Canadian society appears to be sorely neglected by us, Canada's elected representatives.

Committees Of The House

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

In accordance with its order of reference of Tuesday, March 8, 1994 the committee has considered Bill C-14, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1994, and has agreed to report it without amendment.

A copy of the minutes and proceedings and evidence relating to this bill, issue number 18 which includes this report, is hereby tabled, all of which is respectfully submitted.

I would like to again thank the hard working members of our committee from all parties.

Petitions

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table a petition signed by a number of Canadians asking this House to preserve article 241 in the Criminal Code which forbids euthanasia and assisted suicide.

This petition was circulated by Mrs. Theresa Ducharme of Winnipeg and her organization called People in Equal Participation.

I want to outline for the House how difficult it was for Mrs. Ducharme to secure names for her petition. She is a victim of polio, she is on an artificial respirator, she is epileptic, diabetic and confined to a wheelchair. She knows how precious life is and told me that is why she wanted to circulate this petition.

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Moncton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition dealing with killer cards. One section of the petition states: "We abhor crimes of violence against persons and we believe that killer trading cards offer nothing positive for children or adults to admire or emulate but rather contribute to violence".

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to present a petition from my constituents in Austin, Manitoba.

The signatories of this petition are concerned about the reduction of postal personnel in their community and about the normal services which rural ridings are entitled to.

They would like the government to take notice of this when it deals with that issue.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of summer residents of my constituency of Simcoe Centre, I would like to present this petition which calls on Parliament to take a fresh look at Canada's current policy on official languages and to hold a national referendum on the question.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Wellington—Grey—Dufferin—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to rise in the House to present this petition of 501 names, duly certified by the clerk of petitions, on behalf of the undersigned residents of Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe and the surrounding area, in particular Collingwood and area.

The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to amend the laws of Canada to prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of killers cards in law and to advise the producers of killer cards that their product, if destined for Canada, will be seized and destroyed.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here whereby the petitioners ask the government to deal with pensioners' pensions in an extremely sensitive and fair way. They want to ensure that today's pension plans respond to their actual needs.

They realize that for several years now they have not received the amount necessary to have the quality of life they are entitled to.

They also want to make sure that whatever future plans are changed, if they are to be changed, they take into consideration the unique situation of our citizens.

Finally, they wish us all to recognize that the country that we have today and many of the benefits that we enjoy are as a result of their contributions to this society.

We must not forget them.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my privilege to rise in the House to present a petition, duly certified by the clerk of petitions, on behalf of many concerned constituents of Nanaimo-Cowichan and the surrounding area.

The petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum binding on Parliament to accept or reject two official languages. Given Canada's current financial restraints the petitioners feel the existing official languages law is very expensive and is actually more divisive than cohesive.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Shall all questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b), because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 11 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Oil And Gas Operations Act

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, before our interruption for question period we were discussing Bill C-6 which deals with the transfer to the National Energy Board of the administration and regulation of activities on frontier lands which were previously administered by the Canadian Oil and Gas Lands Administration or COGLA.

Industry needs to have certain and clear sets of rules by which to operate. It needs to be confident that regulation will be carried out in a professional and highly competent manner. We believe these qualities are now exemplified in the National Energy Board.

For more than 30 years the National Energy Board has been an effective regulatory agency. The board's experience in reviewing proposals for complex energy projects has provided it with extensive expertise in environmental, socio economic and technical areas. With the addition of highly qualified and dedicated

staff from the former COGLA, the board is well placed to take on the authority to regulate frontier oil and gas.

We should also emphasize that this reorganization does not mean that the government places less importance on our frontier responsibilities.

In recent years companies have shifted their attention to other regions and adopted a go slow attitude in the Canadian frontiers. This was done primarily as a result of the poor economics of developing these high cost resources in an environment of lower oil prices.

In these circumstances it is all too easy to neglect our frontiers or to conclude that they are too costly to ever attract serious and continuing exploration activity. That, however, is not our intention.

Canada's frontiers north of 60 and off shore hold more than two-thirds of Canada's remaining conventional oil and natural gas resources. Whatever the short-term outlook these areas will be a significant and growing part of our energy future. Consequently, effective regulation of Frontier Oil and Gas exploration is a priority and because it is important the federal government will retain a meaningful role in the frontiers.

The crown is, after all, the resource owner and has an obligation to ensure that this resource is managed in the best manner possible for the benefit of the Canadian people.

The amendment proposed to Bill C-6 do not transfer the full range of ministerial responsibility to the National Energy Board. In keeping with good regulatory practice the government will retain the responsibility to establish the overall policy framework for frontier petroleum development. The crown also maintains the power to grant the legal permission or exclusive rights to companies which in some cases involve some discretion.

It would not be appropriate to transfer these powers to a regulatory body.

Specifically the federal government will retain authority to publicly tender rights to explore, issue exploration production and development licences, approve benefit plans, and set and collect royalties.

We are serious about our responsibilities to the Canadian public with respect to frontier oil and gas development. Key COGLA staff have been retained in both the Departments of Natural Resources and Indian Affairs and Northern Development to help us look after these responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, at this juncture we would like to bring to your attention some other elements of the bill before you. Although unrelated to the regulation of petroleum activities on frontier lands two areas of legislative amendment relate to the existing operation of the National Energy Board and were identified as requiring urgent attention.

Bill C-6 grants certain NEB staff inspection and enforcement powers related to pipelines. By providing mechanisms for speedier decision-making these amendments will help ensure the safety of the public and the protection of property and the environment.

Bill C-6 also provides the NEB with the flexibility to ease the regulatory burden for small pipeline companies.

In conclusion, the restructuring proposed in Bill C-6 makes sense from all possible vantage points. In particular, at a time in which Canadians are looking carefully for the ways and means to restore common sense to our public institutions, it is an important and timely proposal.

Just as importantly the quality and integrity of the regulatory process will be maintained. After all the frontiers are part of Canada's energy future.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very consistent and almost complete statement of the purpose of Bill C-6.

The bill before us today should have received the assent of this House a long time ago. With the authority to regulate provided by this bill, transfers already made to the National Energy Board by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern development are formalized.

Bill C-6 also formalizes the expanded powers of the NEB on pipelines under its jurisdiction, namely international and interprovincial pipelines.

The bill also provides for minor amendments to related legislation. On the surface, it does not seem to contain any original idea of this Liberal government. As these powers apply to frontier oil and gas activity, several provinces where there are no federal/provincial shared management agreements will be affected by this transfer of authority and increased level of responsibility.

For example, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, which are Crown lands and public lands, will be directly affected by Bill C-6. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia and Ontario will be affected in so far as the regulating of pipelines is concerned. Since Newfoundland and Nova Scotia will be administering their offshore resources jointly with the federal government, they will not be affected by the transfer of authority provided for in this bill.

In addition, the coming into force of the Northern Accord and the signing of a joint administration agreement with the Northwest Territories will, in the medium term, result in the loss of NEB authority over these lands. The NEB would maintain its

authority to regulate oil and gas activities only in the case of offshore resources in the Pacific and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Quebec, meanwhile, has been only marginally affected by the changes to the National Energy Board's mandate since 1991. However, should resources be discovered offshore in the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, then the question of resource ownership would inevitably arise, just as it arose when resources were discovered offshore from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.

Clearly, Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois would set some conditions in terms of the legal and constitutional options of having Quebec's and the provinces' ownership of any potential resources recognized.

In a number of cases involving gas and oil distribution in Canada, Quebec has repeatedly voiced its opposition to various federal policies, notably in recent cases where legislation, regulations and constitutional interpretation appeared to blatantly infringe on Quebec's jurisdiction and economic interests.

I will briefly share with you two of those issues, so as to clearly express some Quebec positions which, I believe, federal authorities did not take into consideration thus far. We are not talking here about pouring out a long litany of unfounded complaints. The Bloc Quebecois was elected in Ottawa both to promote Quebec sovereignty and, in the meantime, to defend Quebecers' interests within the present federal system.

I am well aware that my colleagues from Western Canada are very sensitive to issues concerning natural resources ownership. I must tell them that I share the same sensitivity. I would just like to say that no one will challenge the representatives of western Canada or of Quebec for putting forward what they perceive as their constituents' interests.

First, the federal government is partly responsible for the decline of the refining industry in Quebec. Until the early 1980s, Quebec exported refined petroleum products. During that decade, Quebec lost more than half of its refining capacity and as a result was forced to import part of its consumption.

The economic costs of this change in the petroleum industry were enormous, especially for Montreal, which had been a centre for refining petroleum products in North America since the 1940s. Quebec lost its leadership to the benefit of Ontario. The Borden commission of 1961 is responsible for this decline since it decided to give western oil producers a captive market in Canada. It was also decided that the pipelines taking oil from the West to the East would stop in Ontario-this was called the Borden line. With the coming of the Borden line and the requirement for Quebec refiners to buy western oil which was carried by pipeline only as far as Ontario, Quebec definitely lost its geographical advantage as a refiner for central Canada, to the benefit of Ontario.

The federal government has never repaired the damage done by its energy policy. Quebec lost thousands of jobs. Head offices, businesses and research and development that could have put Quebec at the forefront of the industry were lost.

I would also like to raise another very current issue and that is the ruling made last week by the Supreme Court of Canada regarding exploitation of electricity. That decision led us to believe that other conflicts might occur in the future. The court empowers the National Energy Board to subject the granting of hydro-electricity export licenses to an environmental assessment. This decision is a setback for Quebec which always wanted to assert its jurisdiction regarding environmental matters.

Already in 1990 the National Energy Board had imposed two conditions before granting Hydro Quebec an electricity export license for the States of New York and Vermont. These two conditions provided that these exports should not contravene federal environmental standards and that the energy-producing facilities would have to be subject to the federal environmental assessment and review process.

Quebec's Energy Minister, Lise Bacon, who was far from being a nasty separatist, declared at that time that this federal intrusion into provincial jurisdiction was completely intolerable. In 1992, another Quebec Liberal minister, Pierre Paradis, who was then Minister of the Environment and who is not a nasty separatist, said in a letter addressed to his federal counterpart that the bill he was about to introduce contained elements which were a perfect example of totalitarianism and domination by the federal government and that it continued to embitter relations between Quebec and Ottawa.

Quebec has already successfully appealed that decision in the Federal Court of Appeal. Following this victory for our province, in turn, the James Bay Cree appealed the NEB's decision to grant a hydro facility operating licence in their region.

The recent Supreme Court decision will have an impact on the development of Quebec's hydroelectric resources and will make the costs of any new project higher.

Moreover, the Supreme Court decision imposes a public review to limit the development of hydroelectricity, power lines and production facilities. Before a provincial development project can be undertaken, it would be very surprising if the NEB did not require the equivalent for gas or oil exports, thereby limiting the environmental impact to pipelines, and overlooking anything having to do with the greenhouse effect, air pollution, depletion of resources and other environmental considerations.

I conclude by saying that the Bloc Quebecois is not necessarily opposed to this bill. However, since the NEB will only have jurisdiction over small parts of the Canadian territory, once all the joint management agreements are signed, the parliamentary

committee will have to review this legislation with a long-term perspective in mind.

We must not only straighten out an existing situation; eventually we will have to have a modern approach regarding all issues related to the management of offshore natural resources. We have to take reality into account and propose alternative structural changes which will give each province responsibility for its own future interests.

Needless to say, if necessary, we will make sure each province gets jurisdiction over offshore resources. You can count on us to do that.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address 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.

In the interest of reducing the duplication of comments and overlap of debaters I will speak on behalf of the Reform Party which in principle supports Bill C-6 in the spirit has been put forward by the Department of Natural Resources and the National Energy Board.

As the member of Parliament for Calgary Centre, I need only look out the window of my constituency office to see the importance of the oil and gas industry to the people, the city and the province of Alberta.

When the government, especially a Liberal government, begins to change legislation that regulates this industry, people and companies alike get nervous and express their concerns, especially when it involves giving power to a federal board where it may overlap in the future with an area of provincial jurisdiction.

Having consulted with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and the National Energy Board our party is confident that Bill C-6 deals primarily with the centralization and the consolidation of technical and regulatory functions to the National Energy Board from the ministerial level of the department of natural resources and in some cases the judicial system.

According to the National Energy Board, this process of streamlining will save the government $5 million. This is a positive step but remains just the tip of the iceberg when one considers the overall amount of government waste that has existed over the years.

When I spoke in this House on Bill C-2, I encouraged the Department of National Revenue to initiate line by line, item by item reviews of the department to find out exactly where money is being spent.

Today, while discussing Bill C-6, I want to ask the Department of Natural Resources to do the same. These results should be made public in their entirety in the form of an annual report which could then be distributed to all parties for review.

My party wants the federal government and all its departments to be fiscally responsible and exercise restraint wherever possible. We believe strongly in the streamlining of government operations like those in Bill C-6 and encourage the federal government to do more of the same.

Less government bureaucracy in the oil and gas industry means quicker decisions so that more time can be spent by businesses exploring for new resources and/or building new pipelines.

Freeing up the marketplace from government intervention creates opportunities, incentives and real jobs, long term meaningful jobs. It generates real revenue and sends a message to investors and to all Canadians that this country wants a future based on prosperity and not on high unemployment and high debt.

The Liberal government must continue to cut red tape and encourage the spending of equity capital from the private sector and not debt capital by the government as is the current situation.

For too long governments have relied on the spending of debt capital versus equity capital in the funding of megaprojects that have wasted billions of taxpayers dollars, Hibernia and the Lloydminster upgrader, for example.

My party supports a free market system, one in which supply and demand regulate the industry, not political agendas. Government should facilitate and not hinder the production and efficient delivery of exports.

We support the fact that Bill C-6 will also provide the National Energy Board with the authority to ease the regulatory burden for small pipeline companies that do not have the resources for drawn out hearings and application processes. It enables them to participate in the process without being hung up in months and months of delays and waiting for hearings.

Small businesses like these play a large role in job creation and need to be free to compete in the marketplace.

These significant changes cannot, however, come at the expense of the environment. Bill C-6 takes some positive steps concerning industry safety and environmental conservation. For example, by increasing the power for National Energy Board inspectors to make immediate decisions in the field on safety and environmental violations, potential disasters can be avoided.

Decisions in the past had to be made by the full board which caused delays and proved to be an inefficient way to ensure companies meet high safety standards.

The NEB plays a large role in the oil and gas industry and is held in high regard. We commend and encourage it to continue its high standards of work.

The consolidation achieved through this act eliminates the need for courts and politicians to be involved in the daily operations of frontier activity. The new power given to the NEB should subsequently encourage continuity, consistency and expediency within the department.

Having said that, there are still certain members of the oil and gas community that have expressed concern with the fact that Bill C-6 will eliminate the oil and gas committee which was an independent appeal board.

With no impartial appeal process the National Energy Board could in effect become judge, jury and sole executioner for companies that may disagree with the decision that it hands down. Therefore, the precedent setting decisions that are made will subsequently be extremely important for politicians to monitor, ensuring there are no destructive precedents set.

I would like to conclude by reminding the House that previous Liberal governments played a significant role in crippling the oil and gas industry in Alberta with their national energy policy. We do not wish to see this happen again.

We encourage this new Liberal government to be different and continue to improve the regulatory environment in Canada, discourage red tape and the size of bureaucracy and promote free and open competition in the private sector and leave the industry alone. With respect to discriminatory grants or subsidies, it does not need them, nor does it want them, with new environmental taxes like a carbon tax and wasteful job creation programs.

That is my submission on Bill C-6.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-6 before the House today is in fact a piece of legislation the previous government did not have time to pass and which died several times on the Order Paper.

Essentially, this bill only gives legal basis to the role currently played by the National Energy Board ever since its merger with the Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration in 1991.

As my colleague from Matapédia-Matane said earlier, the Bloc Quebecois approves the principle of the bill and will vote for it at the second reading stage. However, to put things into perspective, I would like to mention that the terms of reference of the NEB was, as recently as last week, challenged before the Supreme Court of Canada.

My colleague from Matapédia-Matane also reviewed the new constitutional realities concerning the need to conduct environmental impact assessments on any hydro projects undertaken for foreign markets. We are anxiously waiting for the decision the National Energy Board will should make, following the ruling of the Supreme Court, as to the need to extend such assessments to gas and oil exportation projects.

Of course, if Quebec becomes sovereign, we should be free of this control over our interests. In the meantime, we think it is crucial to promote and defend the interests of Quebec within the current federal system. Defending Quebec's interests does not prevent us in any way from also defending and promoting the interests of Canadians and the rest of Canada, provided, of course, that theirs are fully compatible with ours and are in no way against Quebec's interests.

Yesterday, my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata brilliantly demonstrated this when she defended the cultural interests of English Canada against excessive control by American publishing multinationals. The Leader of the Official Opposition himself does not fail opportunity to stand up for common interests of Canada and Quebec in his speeches which attract considerable attention, including his stand on the presence of Canadian UN troops in Bosnia.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who took the advice of the Bloc Quebecois and yesterday extended for another six months the mandate of our UN troops in Bosnia.

But to come back to the issue of oil and gas development, there is a subject which involves the financial interests of all Canadians and Quebecers. I am talking about the Hibernia megaproject, of which our friends in the Reform Party have just spoken.

Left to market forces alone-and I think members of the Reform Party will fully agree on this-the Hibernia project would never have come about. It exists only because two governments, this one and the one before, persisted in investing billions of dollars in this venture whose outcome nobody can predict. Such quandering of public funds should give the shivers to anyone in this House who takes taxpayers' interests to heart.

In fact, what worries me most about the Hibernia adventure is the extremely high financial risk. Just think that Chevron, Mobil and Murphy, the oil companies that are partners in that venture, have so little confidence in it that they demand that the federal government, and ultimately the Canadian taxpayers, bear a huge share of the financial risk.

Notwithstanding the heated debate on the relative cost of each barrel extracted from the Hibernia and Avalon oilfields compared to the international price, one has to admit that it takes an act of faith to believe that the project will ultimately be

profitable. As a professor at Memorial University said so eloquently: "We are down to gut feelings and faith about it".

The profitability of that project, if it is ever profitable, can only be marginal at best. Moreover, the rate of return depends on unpredictable fluctuations in three distinct and very important factors. The first is the quantity of oil that can really be extracted from this field. The second is the final cost of building and operating the gigantic drilling rig. The third, which is both the most unpredictable and the determining factor, is the price of oil in 1997, the year when production is supposed to begin, and during the productive life of the field, which is 15 years.

I could refrain from mentioning the risks of environmental disasters that are never desirable but always possible, but I have to raise the issue of the safety of the platform itself, which will be towed 300 kilometres off the coast of St. John's, right in the middle of what is referred to today as Iceberg Alley, in the area where the Titanic sank in 1912. The risks of disaster are so great that it seems impossible for the promoters of the project to insure the platform for its full value in case a disaster should occur. So it is obviously something important.

It seems to me that Canadian taxpayers should not have to trust the federal government blindly, as it is asking them to do. They should be informed of all the costs and the great risks associated with this project. After all, it is the money of Canadian and Quebec taxpayers that the government is throwing at this project to prevent it from sinking.

The money invested by the federal government on behalf of taxpayers currently exceeds $3 billion in direct grants, loan guarantees, interest payments and direct equity participation in this project. And I would remind all Canadians who are listening to this debate that $1 billion equals $1,000 million. So, $3 billion means that the federal government is asking Canadians to trust it with a $3,000 million investment in a single project, over and above the hundreds of millions it has already invested in activities related to the exploration and development of resources off Canada's east coast.

In one of his recent annual reports, the Auditor General of Canada expressed legitimate concern about Hibernia. He said that it was a high risk venture due to fluctuating prices as well as technological and environmental issues. The Auditor General's analysis is still valid today, and even more so during a period of fiscal restrictions, when we are making deep cuts in unemployment insurance. Billions of dollars, thousands of millions, have been invested in high risk ventures based on faith but, when cutbacks are needed, we do not hesitate to cut benefits to the unemployed. This government seems to think that unemployed people are the problem.

If I brought up the issue of Hibernia today, it is probably because I am wary. The Bloc Quebecois is not in power and has no ambition in that direction; that is quite obvious. We cannot stop this massive investment of public funds in a high risk venture based on faith. However, as the Official Opposition, we will fight to ensure that, should this project go forward, it will generate as much economic activity as possible in Canada and Quebec. It is the least we can do.

We will hound this Liberal government to ensure that subcontracts promised to Canadian and Quebec businesses by the previous government and the Hibernia consortium will be honoured and, if possible, maximized.

As for other megaprojects whose profitability is more than doubtful, the Bloc Quebecois will defend the interests of Canadian and Quebec taxpayers.

In short, the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-6 at second reading. We will look into the legitimate complaints that will eventually be brought to our attention before or during the committee stage of this bill.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Shall I call it 2.30?