George S. Rideout

[Canada Oil And Gas Operations Act, March 11th, 1994]

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.

[Petitions, March 11th, 1994]

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".

[Co-Operatives Energy And Lower Churchill Development Corporations, March 11th, 1994]

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.

[Canada Oil And Gas Operations Act, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, hon. members, I am pleased to speak before this House today during the debate on the second reading of Bill C-6, to amend the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and the National Energy Board Act.

The purpose of this bill is to give the National Energy Board the authority to regulate oil and gas activity in those frontier areas where there are no federal-provincial management agreements.

Specifically the National Energy Board will assume the technical regulatory functions associated with oil and gas drilling and production operations. This involves ensuring that the work is carried out in a way that maximizes resource conservation by ensuring good oilfield practices, protects worker safety and protects our fragile northern and coastal environments.

There are many good reasons behind the transfer of authority to the National Energy Board under this proposed legislation. Since its creation in 1981 the Canadian Oil and Gas Lands Administration, or COGLA, administered and regulated activities on frontier lands on behalf of ministers.

Canada's frontier lands, which encompass land north of 60 and the offshore, fall under federal jurisdictions. The Minister of National Resources shares the responsibility for administering these lands with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

While COGLA served the government well, its role has changed and contracted over the years. Following the conclusion of the agreements with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland regulation of the east coast offshore was delegated to joint offshore boards. Further, it was anticipated that the federal role would continue to diminish with the signing of agreements which would transfer onshore oil and gas responsibilities to the territorial governments.

As a result COGLA was disbanded in 1991. COGLA's technical regulatory responsibilities and many of its staff were assigned to the National Energy Board in Calgary at that time. However, three years later decision making authority still rests with ministers in Ottawa who must approve even minor regulatory decisions. This is a time consuming, complicated and

ineffective process. It is time to act decisively to give the NEB the authority to make decisions to do its job.

Through this bill the Government of Canada proposes to consolidate frontier oil and gas regulation. This will streamline and simplify the approval process and operational responsibilities as well. These changes represent a small but important step.

We believe that it is crucial that in an increasingly competitive world we must provide Canadians and foreign investors with a clear regulatory framework in which to operate. The federal government must demonstrate a commitment to establish a regulatory environment that minimizes the burden on those who will ultimately create the opportunities and jobs to which this government is firmly committed.

[Translation]

These changes are reflective of another important Government of Canada priority-to ensure that government services are delivered in a cost effective manner. We recognize that reducing the deficit and restraining government expenditure is a priority for all Canadians.

In times of fiscal austerity such as these governments must make every effort to look for ways to give the taxpayers of this country the best value for their money. One way to do so is to ensure that the size and the structure of our institutions reflect the level of work required of them.

This bill represents another step in the ongoing process of effectively downsizing and reorganizing government responsibilities.

In addition to savings for taxpayers, this bill should result in cost savings for energy. Through streamlining operations we will save industry time and we recognize that for industry time is money. Just as important, however, we are maintaining the quality and integrity of the regulatory process of Canada's oil and gas sectors.

I see that it is eleven o'clock. With the Chair's permission I will stop here and perhaps the House can proceed with members' statements and question period.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my neighbour. One of the things that makes his riding so great is that it happens to be next to mine. It is a pleasure to hear him extol the virtues of southern New Brunswick and the contribution that is made by that part of our country to Canada.

In listening to what the member for Fundy-Royal had to say about how good this budget is, and we on this side recognize the benefits of a balanced approach to getting the economy working, I am sure that because of the shortness of time he wanted to take some time to talk about the tremendous infrastructure program and the importance that it is going to have to all of the municipalities in his riding.

They offer the opportunity for smaller communities to be able to do that minor work but for important work like the sewer programs, water programs, recycling programs and those types of things and I am sure that had he had more time he would want to talk about that.

I want to give him an opportunity to extol the virtues of both the benefits of putting Canadians back to work that the infrastructure program offers and also the benefits to the many smaller communities in his riding that will be able to have the

types of programs that are essential to small communities for their economic development and growth.

Therefore I ask the member whether he is supportive of the position that this government has taken with respect to the infrastructure program.

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the comments of the member opposite. The debate has taken a strange turn. Hopefully as it continues some of my colleagues opposite will see the wisdom of the bridge, get on line and support the project. I gather that one of the benefits of being a Reformer is they can have free votes. Hopefully we will see a few of them come across and support us on this very worthwhile project.

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite has raised one of the unique things about Canada and that is that we can have differences. Obviously the folks on Vancouver Island like having the ferry service. Obviously the people of Prince Edward Island would rather have a bridge.

I would say to the member that if at some point the people on Vancouver Island decide that they want to have a bridge they should approach their provincial government for one.

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on this particular issue again. While the issue itself is a very tight one in the sense of dealing with constitutional change, it is interesting to listen to some of the arguments about what a major issue of constitutional change this is.

It is simply substituting one method of linking Prince Edward Island to Canada with another. While the wording that was initially done was probably too restrictive we now have an opportunity to correct that situation and yet we hear arguments that this is a major constitutional change which is going to shake the fabric of the nation. I must look at that with some chagrin and state that this is not a fundamental constitutional argument.

This is simply whether we are going to change the method of linking part of Canada's inhabitants with the rest of Canada's inhabitants. The term fixed link in my view is probably a bit of a misnomer as well. It conjures up causeways and tunnels and linkages. This is a bridge, mind you a big bridge, but just a bridge and it is going to join Prince Edward Island with the rest of Canada.

We have used ferry service before and now we are going to use a bridge. I do not know why we are all uptight about the method of linking Canadians with Canadians.

If we are going to argue some of the issues we have to be fair. I heard one of the members opposite talk about how the subsidy which is going to support the fixed link is going to be double the cost of the present subsidy.

What you have to factor into those numbers is a capital allocation that must go in with those numbers and therefore when we actually compare subsidies of the fixed link and the ferry service they are equal

We also have to face the reality that if we do not have the bridge we are going to need new ferries and there is a very large expenditure of moneys necessary to bring those ferries up to acceptable service over the next 35 years.

We are not comparing doing nothing with doing this particular bridge project.

I think we also have to look at the situation and its impact on Atlantic Canada. The short term impact is great economic activity, spending large sums of money. We are going to see 70 per cent of the procurement come from Atlantic Canada which is going to be beneficial to the people who right now have one of the largest levels of unemployment in the country.

We are going to see 2,675 construction related jobs created in Atlantic Canada and that is going to be beneficial. Upwards of 90 per cent of all labour will come from people who live or will live in Atlantic Canada.

This is not just a five-year project and then it disappears. There are tremendous spin-off benefits which are going to assist in the tourism industry. Projections indicate that upwards of a 25 per cent increase will be achieved in the tourism industry.

We will also see tremendous savings and I am sure that the Reform Party would like to support savings. We have heard members of the government side talk about the delays, transportation costs. Any industry that is tied in to transportation as part of the cost of doing business is going to be happy with this project. I believe the estimate is something like $10 million annually that will be saved by people who are tied in to the transportation side of this problem.

In addition, this project is going to create some very high tech jobs. We build one of these projects and we actually have a spin-off of high tech jobs both in the engineering side of things and in the labouring side where people learn how to work on a construction facility such as this one.

In that sense, we are going to have a double benefit, the short term benefit of the actual construction and the long term benefit in tourism. There will be savings in the area of transportation and also the development of new technology and an educated work force that will be able to export that knowledge and ability around the world.

I say to those doomsayers who say that it is not time to go ahead and that we should rethink our position on this project, we have been rethinking this thing for upwards of 35 to 40 years. It is time for some action. This is a project that Atlantic Canada made. It is going to benefit Atlantic Canada. I see the members opposite shaking their heads. They are more concerned with their region rather than helping Atlantic Canada to pull itself up by its own boot straps.

I say to the hon. members, get on board, support this project and make Atlantic Canada one of the stronger participants in this Confederation. Do not try to keep us down on the farm or locked up on the island. This is a minor constitutional change. It needs your support not your negative talk.

[Moncton Depot, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the closure of the depot in my riding.

I want to thank the Minister of National Defence for giving the group from Moncton a chance to make their pitch to keep the depot.

Moncton has been hard hit with the closure of the CNR shops, the base and the loss of thousands of jobs. Therefore it is important that we maintain the depot in Moncton.

I believe the group got its points across. There is economic value in having the depot maintained in Moncton with its strategic location between Halifax and Gagetown.

I am sure the minister will take cognizance of all the information that was given to him, particularly the hard working labour force, the bilingual labour force and the efficient labour force that exists at that depot.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak about this legislation and interesting to listen to the comments of others.

We in New Brunswick would like to be a have province. As we continue working toward improving our economy and improving our lot, we feel we ultimately will be a have province and will be able to contribute to those provinces which are less fortunate. Right now we have the problem where our resource base and our economy do not generate as much wealth as we would like. Therefore this legislation and the program that is contemplated by the changes recommended by the Minister of Finance are vitally important to New Brunswickers.

For those who are not aware of exactly what the bill contains, we are talking about equalization and making things fair. Each province has its own complaints. I have listened to members opposite talk about the different things that bother them, that they do not feel they are getting a fair shake. From time to time all provinces have complaints and feel they are hard done by. Most of the rest of the people in the world would like to be as hard done by as we are, with the resources, wealth and opportunities that exist for us.

Over the years the Liberal Party has stood for many things. One thing it has stood for is the principle of equality for all Canadians. This has been under attack by some. It is a difficult situation to maintain but it is a goal and an objective to which we should aspire. The changes this legislation puts forward will go some way to help the situation.

The purpose of equalization is to enable provincial governments to provide their residents with comparable levels of public service at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. It could not be achieved in the country without the principle of equalization.

Right now we face a situation in which approximately seven provinces qualify for equalization payments. I imagine that each one of those seven provinces is hoping it will be out of that situation and will be contributing rather than taking.

It is important to realize that in this legislation not only is some additional money going to the provinces. The legislation is also going to make changes which are also being made to help the natural resource based provinces of Atlantic Canada and in the west. What happens is a tax back because of the resource based economies. In part I a change is contemplated that will alter the formulas that are being applied so that it will not be a detriment to those provinces that have large natural resource contributions to their GNP. I imagine the members from Alberta and British Columbia are very pleased with this legislation and what it will do to assist them. Obviously Saskatchewan and Manitoba will see great benefits.

As well we have to look at what we are trying to equalize. We are not talking about frivolous things. We are talking about basic public services that are rendered to all Canadians. With that in mind this legislation goes a long way toward correcting some of the anomalies that have developed.

In 1991 the former Conservative government cut $100 million in support to the province of New Brunswick just by changing the formula. The government in New Brunswick had already prepared a balanced budget and all of a sudden with a change in the formula and support the federal government was going to provide, the province of New Brunswick lost $110 million in equalization payments. For a province like New Brunswick it blew the whole budget process out of whack. As Premier McKenna said at the time New Brunswick was being penalized for being better off: "The better off we are the worse we do".

The net effect of that was to take a province which probably has one of the most dynamic economies in the country right now and to penalize it when we should be trying to assist it. This legislation and the changes that are contemplated here will go in some measure toward getting a certainty back into the system. It will change the ceilings on the formulas so that they are applied more equally and better to all of the provinces in the country. It will allow provinces like New Brunswick to expand their economy, make things happen, but at the same time not penalize them when they are successful.

It reminds me of the situation with UI, which is another program that this government is finally going to deal with. It seems that any person who is on UI and tries to better themselves or tries to take advantage of educational retraining programs is automatically penalized as far as their UI program is concerned.

They stand to lose their UI support while they are trying to retrain themselves.

We see in that circumstance an anomaly which is applicable here. A province which starts to pull itself up by the bootstraps, starts to make its economy function better, is being penalized so that it is going to lose rather than gain. Those are the types of things we have to change and this program goes a long way toward that.

I am not sure whether people understand exactly how the program works, but the payments are determined by a formula. You probably have the formula committed to memory, Mr. Speaker. It does calculate each province's capacity to raise revenue, compares the fiscal capacity to a standard level, and then raises less wealthy provinces to that standard level. The payments are calculated on a per capita basis.

What we see is that after equalization transfers the fiscal capacity of the seven less wealthy provinces in Canada will be about 93 per cent of the national average, compared with 85 per cent before equalization.

That is an obvious benefit to those provinces. It will allow them to continue to maintain the basic services that each province offers. It will help curtail the trickle down effect of what the federal government does as it relates to municipalities, and that too should have some benefit.

What was happening, and we saw it in all provinces, particularly in mine, was that the provinces were taking some of the cuts that were hitting them from the federal government and passing those down to the municipalities. We all know that municipalities have the least amount of resources available to them to raise taxes and to provide services to their citizens. In that sense we should see some benefit by arresting this process of trickle down cuts.

In conclusion, I want to thank the Chair for the opportunity to address this particular issue. We are going to see $8 billion spent. We are going to see it equally spent on the basis of per capita and on the basis of the formula throughout the country.

Over the long term we are going to see a huge expenditure of money. I think the total when the program is over is quite substantial, I believe up to about $900 million in additional expenditure, with $160-odd million in the ensuing year. All of that is again going to assist governments in maintaining a basic level of service. It is also going to see money being put back into the economy. Hopefully we will see us start to move forward rather than stay in the recession mired economy that has existed for the total period of time that the Tories were in power.

I realize my time is over and I thank the Chair for the opportunity.