1971-03-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution. This is a brief report, being one paragraph long, and its subject has some bearing on what we are to discuss this afternoon. I wonder, therefore, whether hon. members would give unanimous consent to having it read so that at least those members who speak this afternoon will be aware of it.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member is asking for the report to be read. That is all right. However, if he is asking for unanimous consent for acceptance of and concurrence in the report, that will not be given. I am not quite sure what he is asking for.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not making myself clearer. I am only asking that the report be read. I have no intention of moving concurrence in the report until Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, this is an unusual procedure. Normally when a report is read it is, as suggested by the hon. member for Peace River, for the purpose of having a motion proposed later, but the House can do many other things by unanimous consent. Is it agreed that the report be read on the understanding that a motion will not be put later?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Whereupon the report was read by the Second Clerk Assistant, as follows:
The Special Committee on Environmental Pollution has the honour to present its second report.
Your Committee recommends that it be authorized to travel to Victoria and Vancouver, from the 28th March to the 2nd of April 1971, for the purpose of hearing witnesses on the proposed oil tanker route in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Gulf of Georgia, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
Respectfully submitted,
David Anderson, Chairman.



HEALTH, WELFARE AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Forget (for chairman of the committee).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Shortly before the House rose last night, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated in eight short sentences the possibility of a takeover of Home Oil. He properly made the statement after the close of the stock market. I wonder whether the minister intends to make a full statement on motions on the government's intervention with regard to Home Oil, particularly since his remarks last night lacked any detail and created ambiguity even for brokerage houses across the country? The decision appears to have been made on an ad hoc basis. There is uncertainty as to any guidelines. I wonder whether the minister would make a statement at this time. If not, we will have to ask for these facts in the question period and there will be many supplementaries.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member knows, during the question period he might ask whether there is unanimity to return to motions for the purpose of allowing the minister to make a statement. The hon. member has done this before. I do not see anything basically wrong with it. If the minister wishes, he can indicate whether he would like to make a further statement in addition to the one made in the House last evening. If not, we will proceed with the item of motions.


Mr. Greene:: Mr. Speaker, if I have permission to speak at this time, I wish to indicate it is not my intention to make a statement on motions. The statement last night was made as soon as it could be made, bearing in mind the sensitivity of the negotiations and the fact that we had to wait until the stock markets had closed. I do not think I can usefully make any broader statement at this time. Negotiations are taking place. Needless to say, they are very sensitive.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has indicated that he will not make a statement. Perhaps it would be better if he did not reply to the question in such a way that it might be construed as a statement. I appreciate that there may be difficulty in the sense that this matter

March 12, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
is of very great interest to hon. members and there will be many supplementaries. I will take this into consideration during the question period.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make a motion under Standing Order 43. A few days ago the housing committee of the Canadian Council on Social Development issued a booklet setting forth a commentary on the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation $200 million innovative program for housing. Their findings are important and relevant if we are to improve this aspect of housing in Canada. On Tuesday of this week I asked the minister in charge of housing to refer the report to the appropriate committee of the House. He replied that we would probably find some ingenious way to do so. Therefore, under Standing Order 43 I move:
That the report by the Canadian Council on Social Development on where the $200 million went be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Broadview under the terms of Standing Order 43. The motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. The Chair must inquire whether there is unanimity to put the motion to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Gerald William Baldwin: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in connection with the caught-short statement he made last night in the House. Would he indicate the criteria which motivated the government's action in intervening in the case of Home Oil in contrast to earlier cases also involving foreign take-overs in which the government did not intervene? Can we also be told whether these same criteria will apply in future instances despite any recommendation which may be brought in by the Minister of National Revenue in his report on foreign ownership?


John James Greene: We are, of course, awaiting the report of the Minister of National Revenue and government policy which will flow from it. At the present time there are no specific criteria concerning these matters; each case must be judged on its merits. Certainly one of the very important factors in this instance was, I think, the extremely good debate which took place in the House the other day and the very clear impression given by all members who spoke that the people of Canada, as represented by the members of this House, were very anxious that this company should be maintained as Canadian. I believe this House does represent, on these great national issues, the will of the people of Canada very clearly, and during the debate in question I think that will was made manifest very forcibly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That was quite a statement. Maybe my question will clarify it. Bearing in mind the fact that the government has intervened and declared its intention to purchase a controlling interest in Cygnus, thereby controlling Home Oil, may I ask whether the thousands of shareholders have been assured by the government that they will not be penalized as a result of this ad hoc decision? Further, would the minister tell us what price the government intends to pay for the shares, and how many shares it is purchasing?


John James Greene: As to the details of the purchase, I do not think I would be serving the public interest by discussing them until the negotiations are completed one way or the other. With respect to the interest of the shareholders, I cannot believe that the purchase of Mr. Brown's holdings by the government of Canada or one of its agencies would be more detrimental to other shareholders than to have them purchased by a United States company.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not think this question will prejudice anyone, Mr. Speaker. Is there at this stage a formal agreement or statement of intention on the part of the government to purchase Mr. Brown's controlling interest?


John James Greene: I do not believe it would be advantageous, as I have said, to do our negotiating in public. Because of the great concern shown by the House with regard to this issue I did indicate as soon as I could the fact that the game had changed to the extent that the government was now negotiating. I thought I owed this courtesy to the House in view of the great interest displayed in the subject by hon. members. However, I do not think it would be useful to carry on the negotiations more publicly at this time.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether the government

March 12, 1971

will be naming directors of Cygnus Corporation and, in turn, of Home Oil and, if so, by what method will this be done?


John James Greene: Again, I do not wish to go into details but I can assure the hon. member that in the event the people of Canada are involved as a result of the purchase of Mr. Brown's shares, their interest will be protected in whatever ways are adequate and proper since the people of Canada would then be the shareholders.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the minister who is not one to use words loosely. In answer to the hon. member for Calgary North he said, as I recall it: "I am not in a position to reveal the terms of purchase". Has any option agreement been entered into? In answering that question the minister would in no way reveal the terms of the agreement or anything like it. Surely some arrangement in the nature of an option or an intent to purchase must have been entered into; otherwise the minister would not have made the announcement he made last night.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I made my announcement last night not because anything at that time had been realized, not because any firm agreement had been reached, but because I had attempted to keep the House abreast of the situation from time to time to the best of my ability. I had indicated to the House that we were attempting to get private Canadian buyers to purchase. As soon as the situation changed in that private Canadian buyers satisfactory to the vendor could not be found, I felt I owed it to the House immediately to inform hon. members of that change. I also thought it fair to other potential Canadian buyers who were considering the situation to let them know that the government itself was now negotiating.


John George Diefenbaker: My question was simply this. Admirable as was the purpose and objective of the minister in taking Parliament into his confidence, is there or is there not an option? Otherwise the announcement that was made is simply nonsense.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at the time, the announcement was made purely because negotiations were taking place. If it is nonsense to take the House into our confidence at the earliest possible moment when the information I had previously given hon. members had changed, then nonsense it be; but the announcement was made last night because negotiations were being commenced.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the comment of the minister a couple of minutes ago that the government of Canada or an agency of the government of Canada may be making the purchase, could the minister indicate, if he is in a position to do so, which will be the likely course of action? Is the minister in a position to indicate which government agencies may be involved in any purchase that may be agreed upon?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, until there is something concrete and specific to disclose to the House I do not think I would be helping the successful realization of the negotiations by discussing the possibilities that are involved. But I can assure the House that our record on this issue is established by the fact that we did make a statement on motions to the House last night. As soon as I am able to give further information to the House without in any way impeding the negotiations, I shall undertake to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Abitibi wish to put a supplementary question?


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Since the minister has not found any Canadian investors, either because of a lack of confidence in the profitability of Home Oil, or because of a shortage of funds, does the Canadian government intend to take steps to cope with this matter which puts the country in an awkward position?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain it was lack of money that made it impossible for Canadians to purchase; there may have been many other reasons.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The white paper on taxation.


John James Greene: I cannot assess why no Canadian buyer was ready, willing and able to meet the desires of the vendor. All I can say is that to date there has been no meeting of minds between the vendor and Canadian purchasers, and I cannot envisage any Social Credit solution that might enable the solving of this problem.



GOVERNMENT AND ASHLAND OIL PROPOSALS RESPECTING HOME OIL-POSITION OF SHAREHOLDERS

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he can assure the House that the proposal made by the government to Home Oil is as favourable to Mr. Brown and the other shareholders, who are scattered widely throughout Canada, as the offer made by the Ashland Oil Company?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that there is no expropriation facet to this offer of the government. This is not compulsory buying and we are attempting to discover a position through negotiation that is satisfactory to the vendor, Mr. Brown.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is important, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister should be able to reassure the shareholders of this company that they are not going to be in a less favourable position or suffer a loss because of this action on the part of the government. Can he assure these people that they will be in no worse position than they would have been had the sale to the Ashland Oil Company gone through?

March 12, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, this certainly will be the purpose of the government. Every attempt will be made, and I feel confident that we will be successful, to meet the position the hon. member has supported.



NEGOTIATIONS BY GOVERNMENT TO ACQUIRE CONTROLLING INTEREST IN HOME OIL

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance stated on January 31, and since that date in the House, that the Canada Development Corporation will not be used as a buyer of last resort, will the minister advise the House what mechanism the government has in mind for taking over the shares of the Home Oil Company and assure us that it will not be adverse to the shareholders?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think a member of the New Democratic Party asked the same question earlier. As I indicated then, I do not think I can give the details of the mechanism at the present time. As soon as there is anything firm, binding and valid which I can disclose without breaching the confidence of negotiations, I will do so.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that present Canadian tax law puts potential Canadian buyers at a considerable disadvantage compared with United States buyers of a company such as Home Oil, is it the intention of the minister to recommend to the government that tax changes be made in order that Canadians may have the same opportunity to take over companies that the Americans have?


John James Greene: I feel sure that when the current agenda of the House is cleared the tax reform measures can be brought before the House, and that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, will bring tax measures before the House that will be in every way in the best interests of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member on a further supplementary, but perhaps hon. members will very soon feel that we should move to another subject. I will also recognize the hon. member for Calgary North and a few others, but we should try to limit questions on this subject as soon as possible.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister see to it that the government brings forward tax changes that will give Canadians an equal chance to take over companies such as Home Oil when the legislation is introduced in the forthcoming budget?


Righi Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. member is suggesting
[Mr. Harkness.l
that Canadian companies should be encouraged to invest in foreign oil holdings-


George Harris Hees: No, not Canadian companies, and you know that perfectly well.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member should know that this is the effect of the United States legislation which he is suggesting we imitate.


George Harris Hees: I am asking the Prime Minister whether he will put Canadian companies on the same basis as United States companies in regard to takeovers of Canadian companies.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence perhaps the Prime Minister or the parliamentary secretary to the minister might answer. This is a repetition of a question I asked on February 24. Has the minister received any reply to his letter of February 17 to William Rogers, the United States Secretary of State, offering to co-operate with the United States in a study of tanker route problems on the west coast of North America?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that this is not a supplementary question. We may be getting away from the subjects we are trying to exhaust at the moment. I will recognize the hon. member later in any event. Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rising to ask a supplementary question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a supplementary question. In view of the fact it will be the Canadian taxpayers' money that will be used to purchase shares of this company, will the Canadian government give an undertaking that its main aim will be to protect the position of Canadian people?


John James Greene: That is certainly our main aim, and also to maintain this company in accordance with what was the very clear will of the House during the debate that it continue as a Canadian company.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow through on the question. Since it is to be the taxpayers' money which will be used to purchase the controlling interest, and since there are shareholders in both Canada and the United States, in view of the statement, which is very wishy-washy, what protection will Canadian taxpayers have if there should be a dumping of shares both in the United States and Canada which drove down the market for the stock?


John James Greene: I would think that is a hypothetical question.


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that at this point we are reaching the area of debate and argument. The hon. member for Broadview.
March 12, 1971



URBAN AFFAIRS


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister send the mayor of Toronto and his officials and Metro officials back to Toronto emptyhanded after his discussions with them yesterday? If so, does he think it is fair that Toronto taxpayers should bear the major burden of the high unemployment and welfare costs in the ciiy which were caused in large part by the antiinflationary measures of the federal government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not send them back emptyhanded since we said we would consider every one of their requests and give an answer very shortly. On the second part of the question, of course that would not be fair, but that is not the case since the federal government is the government responsible for unemployment insurance and with respect to welfare the federal government pays 50 per cent of the shot under CAP.


John Gilbert: In view of the difficulty we will have in implementing the unemployment insurance changes prior to May 15, would the Prime Minister consider extending the seasonal benefits cut-off date beyond May 15 so that this burden will not fall on the taxpayers because of people being transferred to the welfare rolls?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is precisely one of the submissions made yesterday in the brief presented by the Metro representatives to which I answered that we would give a reply very shortly.



TORONTO-REMOVAL OF DEADLINE FROM SPECIAL LOAN

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the joker of the March 31, 1972, deadline been removed from the special emergency loan of $17 million to the province of Ontario as a result of the meeting yesterday of the Minister of Finance and Chairman Campbell of Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, how has it been removed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. My understanding of that meeting between the minister and Chairman Campbell is that this problem was discussed and that the minister suggested that perhaps some ways might be found to use the loan fund in a way which might be acceptable to Metro, but that was just a suggestion discussed and to my knowledge there has been no agreement yet as to the way in which that arrangement might be arrived at.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I take it there will be no need whatsoever for any legislative change and that the program will proceed without any hindrance in respect of the extension of the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is right, Mr. Speaker. So far as the loan measures are concerned, there has been no indication by the minister that there would have to be any changes made in the announcement he made in the House last December.



INCREASE IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS UNDER CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN TO MEET WELFARE COSTS

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the representations made yesterday by the representatives of Metropolitan Toronto about their difficulties, is the government giving consideration to increasing the amount of money made available to the municipalities under the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan to meet the emergency problem of very high welfare costs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the hon. member asked if there was any consideration given to an unfreezing of the percentage. If that is the question, the answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice being absent, I shall direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Is there anything in the Public Order Act that would enable those who are responsible for law and order to put a stop to the type of revolutionary propaganda such as that delivered yesterday by Jacques Larue-Langlois before students of the University of Ottawa and Carleton University?



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the important statement made before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates by the President of the Treasury Board on bilingualism in the Public Service, particularly at the senior executive level, has the minister any reassuring statement to make that in implementing this policy discrimination such as is alleged in the affidavit evidence of one Jules Demicher, a senior executive officer, involving the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, will not occur?

March 12, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate for me, or, indeed, for any member of the House, to comment on this particular matter which is now under investigation.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Before this policy was enunciated, and levels of bilingualism were defined for years ahead, was there any prior consultation with the official bilingual commission to ensure there would not be discrimination against either French-speaking or English-speaking Canadians in the Public Service?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what body the hon. gentleman has in mind when he talks of the official bilingual commission, but I can assure him that the plans we have will pay particular attention to guarding against any discrimination.



ALLEGED LANGUAGE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST JULES DEMICHER-RESPONSIBILITY FOR INQUIRY

Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who did give me a reply yesterday, on a matter involving his department. I will quote his statement:
-the press reported yesterday that I had unduly intervened to increase the number of French-speaking Canadians in my department. This allegation is now being considered by the Department of Labour and the investigation will follow the normal course of procedure taken by that department.
Is the Department of Labour's investigation of the statement made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to be carried out at the request of the minister himself or of an official of his department?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker it is being carried out at the instigation of Mr. Demicher.



GOVERNMENT POLICY RESPECTING BILINGUALISM

['Mr. Speaker, it is to be expected that consultations will start as soon as a date has been agreed upon by both parties. With regard to the level of the consultations, I am not in a position to report to the House on this today.']
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the questions addressed earlier to the President of the Treasury Board. The minister said that the government has plans that will deny discrimination. Will he tell us what those plans are because Public Service people all over Canada are deeply concerned? Now that the plans apparently are formulated I ask the minister this question, not to be answered by a parliamentary secretary.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon. gentleman to attend the meetings of the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee where this subject is being extensively explored.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that type of answer does not brush off anything and emphasizes the fact that the government does not want to let the Public Service of Canada know what ill-treatment they are getting at the hands of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In view of the previous answer of the President of the Treasury Board, is it correct to assure that there was no discussion at all of this policy with the official language commissioner, a servant of this House, before it was announced?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker. Such an assumption is entirely incorrect.



Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the suave and sage Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs in respect of the announcement concerning the opening of a diplomatic mission in Algeria and the interesting comments thereon by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Africa. Can the Acting Minister advise if other new missions are to be opened in the near future and if the minister's statement is to be regarded as an indication that these will be confined to Francophone countries?


Mr. Andre Ouellel (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already informed the House, on March 1, that as far as he was concerned, he hoped that embassies would soon be opened in Barbados and Zambia, but that he would have to reach an agreement, in the course of the following months, with the Treasury Board.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question in respect of the opening of our new mission in Algeria. Did the government, before opening this mission, receive assurance from the government of Algeria that there would not be any further training of terrorists in Algeria, with them then being shipped to Canada to carry on their activities in Quebec?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, that claim is groundless, and I cannot accept the remarks of the hon. member.

March 12, 1971


Mr. Rod Thomson (Bailleford-Kindersley):: My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the possible building of a pipeline through Canada's Arctic, has the minister done any checking with his opposite number in the Soviet Union to see how such pipelines are built there?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we are informed that pipe-lines are being built in the USSR, but I do not think the Soviet Union has made much progress in the realization of these projects. However, we have quite regular exchanges with this country at the scientific level and during my coming trip to that country, at a date which has not been set yet, I hope to have the opportunity of visiting them, if possible.
1English]


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: In
light of what the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich said two days ago, that there should be a moratorium on statements made by ministers until the government makes up its mind on the subject, does the government intend to follow this advice?


David Anderson: I rise at a very appropriate time, Mr. Speaker. I would like to repeat my question to the parliamentary secretary-


An hon. Member:: About the moratorium?


David Anderson: -to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him whether he has received a reply from the U.S. Secretary of State, Mr. Rogers, to the letter of the Secretary of State for External Affairs of February 17 which offered to co-operate with the U.S. in a study of tanker problems on the west coasts of Canada and the United States?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already announced to the House that the American authorities had agreed to his request, and I can say today that consultations should begin soon in Washington.


David Anderson: I wonder whether he would give more details on the timing of the beginning of these talks and
Inquiries of the Ministry
on their duration. Perhaps he can tell us also at what level they will occur.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it is to be expected that consultations will start as soon as a date has been agreed upon by both parties. With regard to the level of the consultations, I am not in a position to report to the House on this today.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion but in view of his absence I should like to put it to the Prime Minister. It is important because it concerns employment in Montreal.
Canadian Pittsburgh Industries Limited of Saint-Laurent intends to move its operations to Ontario, thanks to a federal grant, which move will lead to 200 lay offs. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to intervene immediately to prevent the transfer of that industry to Ontario, since it will affect employment severely in Montreal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall take note of the question and discuss the matter with the minister.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
In view of the importance of the situation, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he intends to make a statement on Monday in order to prevent such a move?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of making a statement, but the minister will doubtless be in a position to answer questions if the hon. member is in a position to put them at that time.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: My question is for the
Prime Minister. It relates to the remarks of the Minister of Justice last night in Toronto. In view of the continuing concern of the Minister of Justice for those who have not fully appreciated the extent of the threat last fall or the response of the government to the threat of apprehended

March 12, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
insurrection, what steps is the government taking to clear up the possible misunderstanding that the Minister of Justice believes still exists in the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Possible misunderstanding of what, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni):: Possible misunderstanding both as to the nature of the threat of last October and the nature of the government's response.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is no misunderstanding on this side of the House, nor indeed in the country, I believe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to take notice of the question and consult the Minister of Justice about it. I would like to ask as a supplementary question whether, in view of the minister's remarks about the possible need for increased powers of search and detention and arrest, these matters have been discussed with various Attorneys General across Canada, and whether the government is now in fact preparing legislation of this nature to bring in before he end of April.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The government indicated that before the end of April the Parliament of Canada will be seized with this very matter, and it is our intention at that stage to hear the opinions of the opposition and indeed of any other authorities in Canada who want to participate in the elaboration of such a legislative measure.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that we are running short of time. He will have noticed that members behind him, in front of him and to his sides are anxious to ask questions. If there are only a few minutes left and he wants to ask three questions, someone will suffer. I will allow him a further supplementary question and then go on, with my apologies, to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Since this is a matter of major importance and three months have passed since the passing of the temporary measures act, when will the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice be prepared to put forth federal government proposals so that there can be a thoughtful discussion by the Canadian people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have always undertaken to the House that it would be done before April 30. We have never said that it would necessarily be before that time. It will be done as soon as it is possible, and I am sure that the House will be very anxious to proceed with the discussion at that point.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: I have a question I wanted to direct to the Minister of Justice, but in his absence possibly the Minister of Transport will be allowed to take notice of it or perhaps to reply. Having in mind the very agreeable recent drop in the number of motor vehicle fatalities, about 15 per cent to 18 per cent, or 850 lives saved in one year since the advent of the breathalyzer legislation, is it the intention of the government to maintain and strengthen this law despite the occasional misguided attacks made upon it in courts?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: We
have every intention of maintaining and strengthening the law and coupling with it other safety measures, as I have indicated to the hon. member on previous occasions.



POLLUTION


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Kent):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry who is in charge of the environment. With the installation of an air pollution index system in Windsor soon, the possibility exists of Canadian industry being forced to shut down when pollution reaches too high a level. What steps can be taken by us to stop the 90 per cent of the pollution caused there by United States plants, and will we be able to instigate legal proceedings against them in the same way that they have instigated legal proceedings against Canadian firms in Canada?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minisier of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, problems of this kind are bound to arise if our standards of air quality are higher than those of the United States. I have, however, had communications from the U.S. authorities proposing high standards which are also uniform throughout North America rather than our standards being different from those of that country.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compion):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister about the trip of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to Nigeria, the Congo and other African countries.
March 12, 1971

As the Secretary of State for External Affairs is handing out during his trip interest-free loans for the construction of railroads, highways and bridges, does the Canadian government intend to implement the same measures to help Canadian municipalities and provincial governments?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that the question of the hon. member is rather in the form of either an argument or a suggestion to the government. He must suppose that it will be considered.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
While on his trip to Indonesia, he stated that he had learned much on Canadian aid to developing countries. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to make a statement shortly about the change of policy that he announced in Indonesia at that time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not really announce a change of policy, but an improvement of the policy we have been following, namely, that it is the intention of the government to assist developing countries.
I could also suggest to the hon. member that interest-free loans represent only a very small fraction of the federal budget, whereas we give each year, in the form of grants or equalization payments, hundreds of millions of dollars to the provinces and indirectly to municipalities which are dependent on them, without interest.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I shall allow the hon. member to direct a supplementary question but I suggest once more that we should presently limit the number of supplementary questions.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As these are small amounts, would the Prime Minister be ready to allow a loan similar to the one granted to India, that is $211 million, interest-free, for the development-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Huron.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that considerable furnishings in the non-public funds category have lately been removed from Canadian
Inquiries of the Ministry
Forces Base, Clinton, after the minister promised a delegation from the county that this would not happen until the new occupiers of the base had had a chance to purchase these furnishings, would the minister take immediate action to stop the removal of these furnishings until the future disposition of this base is known?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I gave no such promise nor could I make such a promise. Non-public funds are not government property and of course it is a matter for decision by that particular group. We have, however, recommended to the CANEX people that they delay action in this regard until a decision can be taken.



EXTENSION OF ARRANGEMENT COVERING CANADIAN FORCES IN CYPRUS-ROTATION OF TROOPS

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I wonder whether the minister could indicate whether an extension of the existing arrangement covering our Canadian troops in Cyprus is presently the subject of negotiation and, if not, is rotation being contemplated?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. As the hon. member knows, the mandate is renewed by the Security Council every six months. The present mandate was renewed at the commencement of this year and will expire in June, 1971. Negotiations with respect to this renewal would fall within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Rotation is planned and the battalion of PPCLI based at Calgary will relieve the battalion of PPCLI from Esquimalt next month.



BAY OF FUNDY TIDES-DISCUSSIONS WITH NOVA SCOTIA PREMIER

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has he been having discussions with the Premier of Nova Scotia and have they discussed the harnessing of the Bay of Fundy tides and the programming board's report? If so, would the Prime Minister report to the House anything that has transpired and any decision that might be made regarding re-examination of the programming board's report?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall be having some meetings with the new Premier of Nova Scotia following a series of meetings I have been having in private with the premiers of other provinces on a more or less continuing basis. The long established practice at these meetings is that they are

March 12, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
private. In order to ensure a better spirit of co-operation between the two levels of government and a better knowledge of the situation of the respective governments, it has not been customary to disclose the details of such private meetings.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I do not really care whether the meetings are private or not, but would the Prime Minister discuss with the Premier of Nova Scotia the programming board report on the harnessing of the Bay of Fundy tides in the hope that we can have a re-examination made to the benefit of the whole Atlantic area and the whole of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the talks are private, Mr. Speaker, obviously it is not logical to assume that I will say what we are talking about.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easl Richmond):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he could not initiate such discussions with the Premier of Nova Scotia on the basis that what is good for Nova Scotia is good for Canada and it is time that principle was adopted again?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that we will make an effort to examine all questions in the time available to us which are of interest to the people of Nova Scotia and the people of Canada.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Can the minister tell the House whether there has been any settlement of the dockyard workers' strike in Halifax up to this time?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that a few minutes ago the negotiations were still in progress.


John Leroy Skoberg: In view of the statement of the President of the Treasury Board to the effect that he supports regional differences in wage rates, can he say whether he subscribes to the widening of these regional wage rates as is suggested between the workers of Esquimalt and Halifax?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as I stated to the committee yesterday, regional wage rates are a fact of life in both the public and private sectors. Their widening or narrowing is not something over which the government has direct control. We have a large and increasingly effective program to reduce these regional disparities and we are having some degree of success in this.



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries if he can report to the House whether French ships have been fishing within our 12-mile limit off the coast of Newfoundland?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, no French ships have been fishing within the 12-mile limit off the southern coast of Newfoundland, namely between Cape Ray and La Poile.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the minister whether he has had discussions with the French authorities with respect to the proclamation of the 12-mile limit?


John (Jack) Davis: I have not personally, Mr. Speaker, but the Department of External Affairs has been in contact with the French government. France is the only country which has protested our approach to the over-all process of phasing vessels out of exclusive Canadian fishing zones. Our regional fisheries officer in St. John's is also in daily contact with the French consul there, so we are in communication. We have had a protest from the French government about the over-all-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who went behind the curtain just a minute ago so in his absence perhaps I could direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the negotiations under way between the government and Mr. R. A. Brown concerning Cygnus Corporation and the Home Oil Company, can the Prime Minister indicate whether negotiations are still open between Ashland Oil and R. A. Brown or have these negotiations for the purchase of Cygnus shares been suspended? I see that the Minister for Energy, Mines and Resources has returned to his seat.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for being out for a moment but I think I caught the gist of the hon. member's question. I am not familiar with the present state of negotiations of other companies but we have done nothing to prevent any negotiations at this time. We have made very clear to the Ashland Company the government's determination and the will of this House, as has been demonstrated. In fact the president of the Ash-

March 12, 1971

land Company was in the gallery on the night of the debate and I think he caught very clearly the message-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AIR CANADA


Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport in his capacity as minister responsible for reporting to Parliament on the activities of Air Canada. Has the minister seen the report in this morning's Globe and Mail observing that while passenger levels are declining on Air Canada flights, fares are at the same time being raised? Could he please find out for the House from the president of Air Canada how the company reconciles these contradictory events?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would not permit me enough time to go into the mechanics of the airline business but I should like to tell the hon. member-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The service is terrible.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Perhaps I can take supplementary questions afterwards. The president and the chairman of the board of Air Canada will appear before the parliamentary committee on Transportation and Communications in a couple of weeks and I am sure they will be glad to explain this in detail.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Before I call orders of the day, I understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has a point of order. I understand, also, that the Postmaster General wishes to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to reply to a question asked previously. We will begin with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to the length of speeches in today's debate. Standing Order 58(13) provides 30 minutes for the mover of the motion and 30 minutes for the principal government spokesman to reply. We are content that our lead-off speaker have 20 minutes, and my hon. friends to my left agree so far as their first speaker is concerned. We suggest that all other speeches be limited to 15 minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Postmaster General leave of the House to reply to a question asked previously?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POST OFFICE


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer rather briefly two very serious questions which have been put to me this week.

In answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, I must say that the embargo on all classes of mail for the United Kingdom is now repealed and any Canadians who want to play post office with the British can now do so.



REFUSAL TO PERMIT USE OF WORDS &quot;THE HOUSE OF RAPE AND HONEY&quot; AS CANCELLATION STAMP

Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I understand today why I was lost the other day when my hon. right hon. friend, the member for Prince Albert, asked me a question about the land of rape and honey.

The right hon. member has changed in Hansard a word which completely alters the meaning of his question: he had the phrase "cancellation on stamps" substituted to the word "surcharge".
Mr. Speaker, in answering this question, I must say that due to the limited size of the cancelling stamp and due to the requirement that a bilingual message be used, we are in no position to grant this request, even after removing the seed from rapeseed.
We would be glad to accept any suggestion for a shorter message.

Even I do not know what interpretation other countries which do not know what rape is will give to this slogan, because not everybody knows what rape means.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the minister and ask him this: if the phrase had not included "rape" but had been restricted to "honey" would it have been acceptable to the Post Office Department?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly look at that suggestion.

March 12, 1971
Trans-Alaska Pipeline



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Gerald William Baldwin: That this House opposes the Trans-Alaska pipeline and tanker project because of the ecological dangers posed by this project to the people, towns, and cities of British Columbia and the national resources of Canada's western seas and coasts and that this House therefore urges the Government to immediately institute an independent economical and ecological feasibility study of alternative routes.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it has not been without some thought that this motion has been brought forward in order to provide hon. members of the House with an opportunity to express their views on this most important issue. We do not say that the importance of the issue transcends other considerations. It involves, to some extent, the question of the internal operations of another country. There are times, Mr. Speaker, when the representatives of the people must speak out loudly and clearly. We have been trying to force this government, which is or should be the natural guardian of the safety of our land and the organization responsible for securing the resources of the people in any part of this land, to act. The government has failed dismally to do anything other than bring forward pious proposals such as the one brought forward by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) when he said, "Yes, this is a serious problem; I invite all Canadians to write to the American government." More than that is involved. The people of Canada have a right to hear their government express its views. The government has refused to act. We shall see what the people of the country will think of what is said in the House today, because this House can and I hope will take a very positive position in supporting the motion.
We contemplated moving the motion as a non-confidence motion, because a great many members, some of whom are on the other side, have been very free with their comments. In our opinion, they would probably have considered very carefully how they would vote. We decided on the present form of the motion for the very simple reason that there ought to be no inhibitions in this debate. I hope that every hon. member in the House will support this motion.
This government has been undecided and has vacillated a good deal. When they come to the edge of the water, they shiver and tremble and are afraid to enter. Usually, at that point there is a flurry of contradictory statements by ministers. Some ministers have not harboured an unuttered thought in the House or outside on this issue; other ministers have never made a thoughtful utterance.
This has placed two, three or four ministers in a difficult and perplexing position, and it is partly for that reason we have brought forward the motion.
The motion begins in this way, "That this House opposes the Trans-Alaska pipeline and tanker project because of the ecological dangers posed," and so on. Let me say that so far as I am concerned, the question of the pipeline across Alaska lies exclusively and peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the United States government and the state of Alaska. There can be no doubt of that. We may have our views, and we have every right to say what dangers may be inherent in the construction of the pipeline, but the ultimate decision rests exclusively with the United States authorities.
At first blush we might say that the same objections apply to the further means of transporting oil from the Port of Valdez down to the Washington area, where the oil will be processed and refined. It is abundantly clear, I think, in view of the collisions between giant tankers which have caused immeasurable damage to the ecology, to the beaches and to the economies all over the world, that we face a particularly serious problem in this regard. Those matters have been mentioned from time to time in this House. No one will deny that the route to be utilized by these tankers, from Valdez down to the port in the state of Washington, is across dangerous waters. The final passage over the high seas, just before the ships come to port, will be particularly dangerous. The people of Canada in general, and the people on the west coast in particular, have a vested interest in the matter and a right to demand that their opposition to this means of transportation shall be expressed formally and categorically. If it is not expressed by the government, it certainly ought to be expressed by the members of this House.
The issue has been befogged by contradictory ministerial statements. Actually, a member on the government side from British Columbia said on television the other day that there should be a moratorium on ministerial statements. That is a good idea and ought to have been put into effect some time ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: These contradictory statements have not helped. It is not as if this were some new problem. For several months hon. members have been dealing with the matter in the form of questions, trying to get this slippery and devious government to answer, without any measure of success. There is a very distinguished member of the other place, the former premier of my province of Alberta. Aside from some of the defects he may have, he is one of the most knowledgeable persons in this country with regard to natural gas, oil and petroleum and the means of transporting them. On March 9, a few days ago, Senator Manning made a speech dealing with these issues. I wish to put on record some of the remarks made by this distinguished ornament of the other place with regard to this issue. At that time he was dealing with the bill before the Senate to amend the shipping act and establish a maritime pollu-

March 12, 1971

tion claims fund. We had already dealt with that in this House. He said:
On the other hand, perhaps the greatest single pollution threat to Canadian coastal waters will not arise at all from oil being imported into or exported from Canada, but from the offshore movement of oil between Alaska and the western parts of the United States.
He went on to say this should not have come as any surprise to the government because the last official representation which he made to the government of Canada when he was premier of Alberta had to do with this very matter. At page 651 of the Senate Hansard, he is reported as saying:
My representations to the federal Government were twofold. I urged, first of all, that immediate steps be taken, in advance of Alaskan oil coming into the world market picture, to ascertain as accurately as possible the impact that this new source of American oil supply could have on our economy, and especially on the petroleum industry in this country. Secondly, the view of the Government of Alberta at that time, was that it would be very much in Canada's interests to make representations to the United States to endeavour to interest them in moving that oil, as and when it did develop, by a pipeline through Canada to the main market areas of the Chicago region, rather than by the proposed pipeline across Alaska and by tanker down the Pacific coast to Seattle, and then back by pipeline to the Chicago area.
The government should have listened to this firm and definite caveat filed by this man two or three years ago. The advice was worth following. He knew what he was talking about. The then premier of Alberta laid down in plain terms the dangers and suggested alternatives.
The government has not done anything; it has failed to act. We will be faced with a crisis before we realize it. This government will not act. We in the Opposition are compelled to bring the matter forward in order to engage the attention of the public and secure the support of views which have been expressed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: The United States has a very deep and vested interest in the Alaskan oil fields and the transportation of that oil to the centre of the continent. In rounded figures it is estimated that total U.S. consumption to date lies around 90 billion barrels, with existing conventional reserves pegged somewhere around 40 to 45 billion barrels, exclusive of Alaska oil. The present U.S. daily consumption lies somewhere near 12 to 13 million barrels. Furthermore, according to the U.S. interior department, over-all consumption of electricity rose 9.2 per cent in 1970 with petroleum supplying 43 per cent of all energy used. At a predicted increase of 4 per cent oil consumption per year, it becomes apparent that the U.S. needs Prudhoe Bay oil for its immediately foreseeable energy demands.
This is a fact we cannot change. We are a friendly neighbour, so we must contemplate their needs and requirements. They have secondary effects upon his country and our people. The government will not listen when we plainly and honestly say to them that there are inherent dangers in the proposed route, that there are alternatives
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
and that they should examine these alternatives. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) has indicated that certain studies may or will be made. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) is not quite as specific. I am inclined to accept at face value the views of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. However, he is only one member of the government.
We have had experience with this slippery and devious government. We do not believe them when they tell us what they are going to do. We had faith in them two and one half years ago, but that faith is gone.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I did not.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am inclined to give credence to a newly elected government with a mandate. However, I simply cannot accept the fact that the government will do these things. The minister is doing what he can, but how long will he be in that position? There is the absolute necessity of firmly and irrevocably indicating what steps will betaken and how long it will take.
What are the alternatives? First, if any country has a vested interest, there should be some form of international discussion followed by a treaty and an arrangement. This country has petroleum and natural gas reserves on the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic coasts. Canada is a middle sized nation. Until the past year, it had a lot friends in the world. It is to our advantage to take the initiative to bring together the countries of the world which need to be involved in working out a long range plan for international control of pollution, particularly the oil pollution which is threatened by the proposal envisaged in the TAPS system of transporting Alaskan oil to the south. One of the ministers who will speak in this debate should make a categorical statement and give an undertaking that the government will, if it has not already done so, initiate this step. A firm commitment with regard to the type of international convention which I suggest is absolutely essential.
Apart from that, what are some of the problems which we face? First, there are the dangers which are to be found in the actual proposal for the TAPS line. A report was made by the United States Army Corps of Engineers which warns that they might prohibit construction of port facilities at Valdez. This is a statement by a responsible organization charged by a statute of the United States with certain responsibilities. If this proposal is considered dangerous by the United States army corps, it must be considered even more so by the people of British Columbia.
A study of future tanker traffic in Puget Sound by the Honeywell Corporation of Minneapolis has predicted two to four tanker collisions in this area in the next ten years. Furthermore, two experts who testified at the recent Anchorage-Washington meetings pointed out that one collision by a supertanker would turn that area of the west coast into a dead sea. Canada is concerned about possible serious oil pollution along the Pacific coast if the

March 12, 1971
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
tanker system is to be used. In addition, of course, there is the risk of damage to the ecology; we are sympathetic to the position taken by the conservationists who have voiced these fears at Anchorage but this, of course, is something which directly affects the people of the United States, particularly Alaska. In this connection there is also, of course, the knowledge that earthquakes are frequent in the area to be traversed by the proposed pipeline, but this question, too, lies within the jurisdiction of the American people.
Taking all these things into account, together with the growing knowledge which is becoming available to the people of the world as to what is happening to our environment, how could this Parliament possibly fail to express in the strongest terms its objection to the use of tankers to bring down oil from the north along the line which has been projected? I realize there will be other speakers in this debate and I do not intend to take up the full time allotted to me. But there are alternatives which have been considered.
There is the alternative of transportation through the Arctic sea, as illustrated by the experience of the Manhattan last year. I, myself, together with others in opposition parties, had occasion to express our objection to this being done in the absence of greater safeguards than were possible at that time. It would appear now, from the statement issued by the Humble Oil Company, that this project has been shelved. It was in connection with this voyage, however, that the government saw fit to bring before Parliament and have passed a bill dealing with the control of waters in the Arctic. That bill dealt with the control of Arctic waters within 100 miles of the edge of the Arctic archipelago. Although I had some doubts as to the possible legality of this legislation, although I doubted whether it was entirely necessary, I nevertheless, together with my hon. friends, gave the bill support. If the government can do this in the Arctic, Mr. Speaker, what inhibits it from making the strongest official representations with regard to the west coast, assuming, as I am assuming, that it would be doing so with the unanimous support of this House?
I need hardly point out that opinion in the United States is divided on this issue. The very fact that the program has been postponed for some time indicates that this is the case. It may well be that the United States government is just playing for time. In both nations there may be an election in 1972; it may even be that both governments concerned are trying to brush this issue under the carpet until the elections are over. I hope not, because if there is anything far too important to admit of playing politics it is pollution and, in particular, pollution caused by oil tanker collisions.
Then, there is the alternative of the Mackenzie route. This represents a difficult problem for Canadians, particularly those in the region which would be affected. We might be accused of opposing one solution in order to
secure an economic benefit from the other. But this is beside the point. There are people in this country, and I count myself among them, who would be completely opposed to the construction of a pipeline through any part of northern Canada until it had been shown clearly that such a pipeline could be built with a minimum of damage. It is unfortunate that this was not done a long time ago when the then premier of Alberta, Premier Manning, requested it. He stated, in language which could not be plainer: here is the problem, here are possible solutions; do something about it. Now, the government is in a position where it is called upon to act precipitously and, possibly, without the degree of care which is necessary. The Mackenzie route does provide a reasonable alternative provided a careful study is made beforehand and great care taken to avoid harmful effects. Other members of my party will be going into this in more detail.
I conclude on the following note: I do not think there is anything in the terms of this motion which should inhibit any member of the House giving it his undivided support. I wish it could be the subject of a vote in order that the government would be armed with an unanimous expression of support from this House of its determination to press forward with objection to the maritime part of the TAPS route. As it is, I hope the voice expressed here will be so strong and certain that the government will be obliged to act. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said this morning that the government had been greatly moved by the debate in this House on the question of Home Oil. I do not know whether or not he was speaking with his tongue in his cheek or not, but I will give him credit for meaning what he said. In the past, it has not seemed to me that the government has been particularly responsive to the mood of Parliament. If the government is prepared to take action on the basis of the views expressed here, then I hope the House speaks with such a loud, clear voice today that those sitting on the treasury benches will act in the way in which they are called upon to act by the terms of the motion before us.


Mr. Thomas S. Barneii (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Official Opposition has put this motion down for discussion today. The general subject has received a certain amount of attention in recent weeks. Attempts have been made under Standing Order 43 to bring about a discussion of the subject mentioned in the first part of the motion. The first such attempt was made in a motion of my own by which this House would have put its stamp of approval on the opinion expressed unanimously in the British Columbia legislature against the idea of a massive movement of oil by large tankers down the Pacific coast of Canada.
The motion which the Conservatives have placed before us is capable of a natural division into two parts. I should like to comment on each of those parts. Part one exposes what I might call the ecological dangers of a Trans-Alaska pipeline and tanker route which would involve shipping large quantities of oil close to the west

March 12, 1971

coast of Canada. As hon. members know, this motion will not be brought to a conclusion by way of a formal expression of opinion by the House. I must say at once that I believe the position of the Official Opposition, let alone that of the government, would have been much more credible had they supported the amendment which I proposed not long ago to Bill C-2, to amend the Canada Shipping Act. This amendment would have asserted Canadian control over navigation to a distance of 100 miles from both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Canada. In the circumstances, I feel the Official Opposition has declined to take a firm position. Had they, and had the House as a whole, seen fit to adopt the amendment to which I have referred, the voice of Canada could have been much more definitely expressed to the world at large, including our neighbour to the south and to the north, since we are talking about Alaska.
As the question is put in this motion, we are still going to be left somewhat up in the air by the time the debate is over. It seems to me that in view of the fact we took a clear position in respect of the 100 mile jurisdiction proposal last year in the Arctic, while at the same time leaving unprovided for the similar ecological dangers posed to our Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, in some respects we have locked ourselves in, in the discussions that are now current concerning the movement of oil from the north slope of Alaska to the continental United States. I should like the House to recall that my colleague the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) attempted last year to include the provision of a 100 mile pollution control zone off our Atlantic and Pacific coasts, at the same time that we were indicating our strong support for the government's position on the Arctic.
So, first of all, my chief regret must be that by its initiative in the Arctic last year the government, and I suppose Parliament as a whole since we supported it, may very well have precipitated the situation which we are discussing with great concern today, namely the massive movement of oil along the Pacific coast of Canada. This must be my first comment on the motion, and in all fairness I must include, in my criticism of the way in which we are boxed in today, the official opposition as well as with the government. When it came to the crunch, both the government and the official opposition refused to take a firm and clear Canadian position on the need to protect the ecology along our Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
The second part of the motion suggests that this House should urge the government to immediately institute an independent economical and ecological feasibility study of all alternative routes. This raises many broad issues, as the hon. member for Peace River indicated. In the course of the discussions which took place last year a number of alternative routes were considered and examined, in a rather cursory fashion of course, including the transportation of oil across the Arctic by oil tanker. One of the committees heard quite extensive evidence as to the possibility of transporting oil under the Arctic ice pack by large submarine tankers. Incidentally, during
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
discussion of the Territorial Lands Act Amendments there was a good deal of discussion of the question of pipelines and their relationship to the ecology of the Canadian Arctic and, in particular, to that of the Mackenzie valley.
We now find ourselves in the position, because of the developments that have taken place in Alaska and the initiatives that have been taken in the United States, of being in danger of being stampeded into a quick decision, on the question of alternative routes, one which would be ecologically damaging and might not be in the long range interests of the Canadian economy.
The question I should like to ask in relation to the second part of this motion is this. For what purpose does the official opposition suggest that a study of alternate routes should be made? I listened carefully to the speech made by the hon. member for Peace River in introducing this motion, but I failed to detect any clear statement as to what should be the basic and underlying purpose of this study. Is this study to be undertaken for the convenience of the United States? Is its basic purpose to be to find for the United States some system of moving oil from Alaska to the southern part of their continental possessions without regard, except in a minor way, for the ecological consequences of an interior route through Canada? These are questions that have not been answered by spokesmen for the official opposition; nor indeed have they been answered in any way, shape or form to date by ministers of the government who have spoken in various ways and at various times, both inside and outside the House, on this particular subject.
About the only thing that we have had has been the picture of a couple of our ministers scurrying off to Texas to have some discussions with those people whom not too many years ago the then leader of the Conservative party described as "Texas buccaneers". Is this the place where the decision as to the future routing of oil from Alaska to the continental United States is going to be made, down in Texas with a few oil magnates? This is the impression that has been left in this House by the only definitive actions taken by the government to date, apart from the very nebulous comment made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) that he hopes to have some kind of discussions with the Secretary of State of that country. These are the kinds of questions that we in this House should be asking ourselves in discussing a motion that suggests that a study concerning the economic and ecological feasibility of alternative routes be undertaken.
The question why we should undertake this study is one that I examined in my own mind as soon as I was acquainted with the contents of the motion that has been moved today. I propose to move an amendment to the motion which I hope will serve to focus attention on why a study should be undertaken on some real and basic issues as far as Canada and its future are concerned. I hope that when the spokesmen for the government reply they will relate their comments, in part at least, to the proposal I want to make. So that the House may clearly understand what I have in mind, I should like to move at

March 12, 1971
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
this point, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"with a view to developing under public ownership a transport system for oil and gas which will best serve the long-term interests of the Canadian economy".
If we are to undertake a study immediately, urgently and in depth, and in a way which will take into account all of the ramifications of this question for the purpose enunciated in this amendment, then let me say at once I am in full support of the proposal made by the official opposition. But I must say I am not too confident that the official opposition will agree with this particular approach as the basic reason for this proposal. I happened to come across an article in the Ottawa Citizen for March 10, 1971, written by Mr. Dave McIntosh. In this article he suggested that there may be another great pipeline debate shaping-up, with additional ingredients. I hope he does not mean that we are going to have the kind of parliamentary shambles associated with that earlier debate. I should like to suggest that the issues coming to the fore in relation to the transportation of petroleum products are even more basic and fundamental to the future of Canada as a country than the issues which were involved in that infamous pipeline debate. Mr. McIntosh says:
It was the NDP, then the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), that began the big 1956 pipeline fight.
As I recall that debate, I cannot help but compare it in my own mind with the situation that prevails now. The focus of that debate as far as we were concerned was how the pipeline should be built. There is no question in my mind that there was anything but basic agreement on both sides of this House, certainly between CCF members and the minister who proposed this pipeline bill, that the destiny of Canada as a nation should be strengthened and made viable. I have always given the late C. D. Howe full credit for his efforts in this regard. We had little objection to his enunciated intention in respect of the construction of an all-Canadian pipeline. This was something we understood and supported. I have always been prepared to give him full credit in this regard because I think he was right.
I sometimes wonder what the reaction of the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe would be today if he were sitting in the gallery listening to the lily-livered, wishy-washy statements of policy we receive these days from members on the government benches? I am sure the late C. D. Howe would hoot in scorn and cry with derision at the concept of the future development of Canada as espoused by our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). Not that I am suggesting that the statements made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development do not express
his genuine concern about the ecology of the Canadian north. In this regard, I give him full credit. But what assurance have we received that the effect of the total package of government policy will not be a sell-out, again to use a phrase current in 1956, to the "Texas buccaneers"? This is the nub of the question we have to consider when we are expressing our concern about current dangers to all parts of Canada. Does it matter if we preserve our ecology if we do not preserve a viable economy for the benefit of a future generation? To me this is the basic and underlying issue of this debate.
It is apparent that there is an entirely new dimension to this question of the future transportation of petroleum products and the effect on Canadian interests. The ecological dangers have become more and more apparent to all of us. This new dimension has in part become apparent because of the fact that we are considering the exploitation of our resources in areas where the ecology is very different from that which existed in those areas involved in the earlier pipeline debate. This new element of danger is increased by the fact that what is now being done is so much different in degree as to become different in kind as far as its impact on the ecology of this country, the continent and, indeed, the world, is concerned.
We have had discussions which indicate that this is true not only in this area of our economic activity, but also in other areas because of the tremendously increased power to change the whole face of the world, which has become evident since 1956. In the discussions about the trans-Canada gas pipeline a great number of exclamation marks were placed behind the words that we were going to be building a pipeline larger than had ever been built before. It was to be 36 inches in diameter.
As I understand it, and I refer for a moment to the report which appeared in the New York Times of May 3, 1970, the proposed pipeline across Alaska would be four feet in diameter and close to 800 miles long, carrying a deluge of oil through otherwise frigid terrain at a temperature of 150 degrees Fahrenheit, or more. It is suggested in this report:
Secretary Hickel has referred to an above-ground line as a "Chinese Wall". If the pipe were on stilts two feet high and covered with six-inch insulation, it would stand seven feet above the landscape.
These are some of the factors we have to think about when we start talking about an alternative pipeline through Canada. In relation to the concern expressed by the people in British Columbia, we must think not only of where this pipeline will commence but where it will end. I have here a draft statement on environmental matters prepared under the auspices of the Department of the Interior of the United States. This is a preliminary study. I should like to quote briefly from it:
A pipeline route through Canada serving the U.S. Pacific Coast would eliminate the hazards of marine operations only if it is assumed that oil reaching Puget Sound by such a pipeline would continue southward to California by way of a pipeline yet to be proposed. It should he noted, however, that economics heavily favour the movement of oil by ship from Puget Sound to destinations in California. If the decision is made in

March 12, 1971

favor of trans-shipment by water, then any potential hazards of marine terminal operations are merely shifted from Prince William Sound to Puget Sound.
I think one or two of my colleagues may have further observations to make during this debate on this and other related matters.
I noted an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning concerning an interview with Secretary Morton. The report indicates that the Canadian alternative is one into which certain oil companies should be looking. He also suggests that there is very little difference in the ecological dangers involved. A pipeline route to Puget Sound and transportation of oil by tankers from there to California would create the same ecological dangers which would be created by the transportation of oil by tankers from a port in Alaska to Puget Sound. I introduce this point in the debate, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley is not necessarily any quick and easy solution to the problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I regret to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), which reads as follows:
That this House opposes the Trans-Alaska pipeline and tanker project because of the ecological dangers posed by this project to the people, towns, and cities of British Columbia and the national resources of Canada's western seas and coasts and that this House therefore urges the Government to immediately institute an independent economical and ecological feasibility study of alternative routes.
Mr. Speaker, I believe a degree of inconsistency is to be found in the motion. It calls upon the House to oppose the Trans-Alaska pipeline as well as the movement of oil by tanker down Canada's western coast. I really cannot see what other means there is.
Even though a thorough study of the possible consequences of the two alternative routes might be worthwhile, I believe that a pipeline is the best solution. However, before the pipeline is built, approval should be secured from the province or provinces through which it would run and special measures taken to prevent a break that could disturb the ecological balance of the area involved.
I suggest that the government require the builders of the pipeline to hire Canadian workers and use Canadian funds to finance the project.
I do not share the opinion of the hon. member for Peace River who opposes the two solutions already referred to. I am sure that the development of the Alaskan oil industry will very much help our own in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that there are in the Yukon large quantities of unexploited oil, since it is very difficult for companies to make their operations profitable, due to the great difficulty in moving the oil to
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
consumers in large centres. If a pipeline goes through the Yukon, it will be much easier for companies to move the oil to refineries located farther south.
I wish to make a suggestion to the government in connection with that problem. In my opinion, it should study the possibility of having oil refineries built in Canada. If the government authorities were to decide to subsidize adequately those industries, the Americans would probably be interested in having their oil processed in Canada.
I would have many more suggestions to make but I prefer to wait until we know more about this project and how much it will cost.
We, in the Ralliement creditiste, are therefore partly in favour of the motion of the member for Peace River at least as far as the necessary study is concerned and we ask the government to consider seriously the viability of a Trans-Alaska pipeline.
We agree with the NDP on the possibility for Canada to own a pipeline and to set up a corporation which would be the owner since it would facilitate the transportation of our oil to the centres which need it or to the processing plants which would be located where labour is available and the costs lower.
I also suggest that if we owned a pipeline we could propose to the United States to use it against payment of a fee which would ensure the pipeline's viability.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


@Acting Speaker: It being one o'clock, I now leave the Chair and the House will resume at two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we have the opportunity today to have a debate on the very important topic of the construction of pipelines in the north. I think that every one of us agrees that it is very important that we find ways and means of building pipelines in the Canadian north because this will help Canada generally, and in particular it will assist the development of our north. Being minister in charge of northern development, I think it is appropriate for me to express our views on that.
I will not deal with the problems of the Alaska pipeline running from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, or the tanker route. I think that some of my colleagues will have the

March 12, 1971
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
privilege of speaking on this. But the last part of the motion presented by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) requests that we institute immediately an independent economical and ecological feasibility study of alternative routes. I want to point out to the hon. member and to the House that when he spoke this morning he said we had done nothing about it. I want to put on the record what we have done.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What have you done?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In 1968, immediately after the oil discovery in Prudhoe Bay we started work.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Give us more information.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, but may I point out that it would have been very easy for a member of parliament who was doing his job to find this out for himself because I made many speeches on this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John James Greene: They would sooner play politics.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we started to talk about pipelines right after that, and at the beginning of 1969 the Canadian government established a special task force of officials on northern oil development with the duty of looking into the possibility of a pipeline route running through Canadian territory as well as the possibility of tanker routes in the Canadian Arctic. We were quite concerned about all the problems, and our concern was translated into action. We passed legislation to prevent pollution by tankers. Last winter we passed legislation to make sure that if tankers operate in Canadian Arctic waters the environment will be protected. Members of the NDP spoke about that this morning. Even the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) spoke about it. So, Mr. Speaker, I think we have shown our preoccupation with the problem of pollution in the north.
In August last year the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) and I issued some guidelines with respect to the construction and development of pipelines in the north. Those guidelines were issued after the task force had recommended that some limitation be placed on the construction of pipelines in the north to make sure that the ecology would be looked after, and to ensure that the native people would benefit from any pipeline construction. Our Canadian native peoples must have a priority with respect to permanent jobs because we believe we must protect their interests. We also stipulated that if there are to be pipelines they must be common carriers so that Canadian interests may use them, even if they are not built by Canadians. In addition, we stipulated that there must be Canadian participation if Canadians themselves want to participate in the development of pipelines.
A lot of people have talked about research, and I have said that we have not yet concluded the research that we have undertaken. In my speech in Dallas, I said that we think eventually there will be pipelines in the north. I
am glad to see that all parties in this House agree that this will be so. The hon. member for Peace River spoke about this prospect, as did the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). I am very happy that the House is behind the government's policies as enunciated by my colleague and I, on the necessity for pipelines in the north.
In Canada, we have done some research. The United States first started by shipping pipe to Alaska, but here in Canada we started by undertaking research. Last year, after we amended the Territorial Lands Act, we established a new program, the ALUR program, which stands for Arctic Land Use Research program. Under it we have hired all sorts of interested people to do research on the protection of the ecology and the effects of pipelines on the permafrost.
Participating in this program are some university people, some Indian people, some Eskimos, and representatives of the oil industry. Right now they are gathering all sorts of useful facts. The Wildlife Service which used to be a part of my responsibility, has also taken part in this work. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis), who now has responsibility for that service, has told me it will continue this work. I am very happy that we will have the benefit of the expertise available in the Wildlife Service, and of the fisheries' research officials who are already studying the effects of northern development on fish in the rivers, and on wildlife in general.
What is important to convey to the House is that the north can benefit immensely from these developments. There will be an investment of some $5 billion if two pipelines are constructed. Of course, there will be problems, but modern technology should be able to solve them. We must make sure that no great amount of pollution is created in the north. I devoted five pages of my speech in Dallas to this topic. Prevention of pollution is one of the conditions we will lay down if application is made to build a pipeline. We must make sure that the northern ecology is protected, and that if pipelines are constructed they will result in minimum damage to the ecology.
We said all these things months ago, Mr. Speaker, and now because we are stressing the Canadian interest some people say we are contradicting ourselves. That is not the case at all. We have a policy which we have spoken about for many months. We have decided we will develop the north and not repeat in the north the errors we have made in the south. This is a commitment we have laid down, not only in speeches but in legislation. As evidence that we are carrying out this commitment, I cite three pieces of legislation passed last year, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Northern Inland Waters Act, and the amendment to the Territorial Lands Act. While the opposition were sleeping on the topic, we passed those three pieces of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We passed those three pieces of legislation which indicated our concern about northern development, and our concern about protection of the ecology.

March 12, 1971


John James Greene: And nobody told the Tories!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Now, after two years, they are waking up. I am glad to see that at last they are waking up, and are supporting our policy that we need pipelines in Canada, but not at any price. That is the point I stress- not at any price. I have said, and I repeat, that in developing the north we will not repeat the errors we have made in the south.
On many occasions I have said that one of the first preoccupations of the government is that development in the north must benefit the native peoples in the north.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We must do this because we have disturbed their traditional way of life. Many of them are no longer primarily trappers and hunters. Under our programs many of them are getting the necessary education to enable them to participate in the development of the north. They must have certain priorities with respect to jobs, and I may add that industry is collaborating with us.
Those who say we have not done the research must be blind. There have been numerous newspaper articles printed within the past two years outlining the research we have undertaken. There has been the construction of an experimental pipeline at Iriuvik, where the oil industry is working in collaboration with the government to discover the effect of a hot oil pipeline on the permafrost. The Opposition do not seem to realize that this experiment has been conducted for some two years. I am a bit surprised at that.
Right now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform members of the Opposition, if they have not read the newspapers and have not followed the actions of the government, that at Fort Good Hope an experimental gas pipeline is being constructed to discover the effect of a gas pipeline on the permafrost.
All these things have been done by the industry in collaboration with the government. We do not need confrontation. What we are seeking is balanced development in the north. Mr. Speaker, I am not a doctrinaire person. The NDP members say the pipeline should be built only by Canadians. I have no objection to that if we can find the money here in Canada, but I am not a Social Creditor and I know we don't print money. If we are to spend $5 billion on the construction of a pipeline, we must first discover what the effect will be on other sectors of our economy. Perhaps that is a bit complicated for some. I say that this is a great day for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and for me, because everyone who has spoken in the debate so far seems to have said that we are moving in the right direction. Even the New Democratic Party has supported our idea. I am glad the hon. member for Comox-Alberni said that we were going in the right direction.
Of course, we have not solved all the problems. We need to know more about the ecology and about building
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
pipelines on the permafrost. In my judgment, however, it was advisable to let Canadians and Americans know "that the north is there." Pipelines will be built. If the Americans do not build a pipeline from Alaska I will not be too upset, because I know that we will find enough oil in the future in Canada to justify an oil pipeline. Perhaps it will take two or three years more, but there will be an oil pipeline.
So far as gas is concerned the Americans will have to use the Canadian route if they want a gas pipeline. There is no other way. You cannot ship gas, you must put it through a pipeline. Of course you can liquify it, but that is a very expensive operation. I therefore think that economic factors will force the interests at Prudhoe Bay to use the Canadian route. Since they will build a gas pipeline, perhaps factors of economy will prompt them to build an oil pipeline at the same time. We are not pushing the Americans; we are just putting before them the important fact that the north of Canada is opening and that great amounts of resources are there to be discovered. There is five times more sedimentary rock in the Canadian north than in Alaska. The resources are there; perhaps it will take a few years before we find them. As an example, Panarctic drilled eight wells and made two discoveries of immense proportions. They are major discoveries, perhaps unequalled by any others in the world. I do not think that we could discover gas or oil at the same rate elsewhere, not even in the Middle East. All this indicates a great potential for Canada. We must make sure that these resources go to market, and pipelines are the safest way.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister. I do so to advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister may only continue if he has the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, you know these resources are there for the benefit of all Canadians. Last year we passed the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, because we were afraid that technology which could be applied in the Arctic Ocean was not sufficiently advanced to assure safety. That was not an easy decision for us, because we know that there is oil and gas on the Arctic islands. We know, also, that the relevant technology is not far enough advanced for us to be certain of safety. We could not be sure at the time that those tankers would go safely through our Arctic waters. It was for this reason we made that decision. This route is not open and no outline has been given of the conditions under which shipping could take place. The pipelines, however, as compared to tankers, are a different ball game. We know a lot about the technology. Even so, we know that we shall need to devote a great deal more time and research to certain aspects of pipeline building.

March 12, 1971
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
I have talked to the House about some programs we have carried out. I do not yet know when all the research will be completed: I hope it will be finished as soon as possible, but we are not being rushed. We will take all the time we need, because we want to make sure that our pipelines are safe and that our wildlife and tundra in the north do not suffer.
Although I may be preoccupied with the ecology and wildlife, there is one factor that surely cannot escape the attention of members of Parliament. If we build these pipelines in the north, they will benefit the northerners. I am always talking about them. A few months ago when I showed a bit too much sensitivity for the well-being of the tundra in the Mackenzie delta, the Eskimos and Indians of Inuvik protested because they were in danger of losing their jobs with the oil companies. We have to keep all these factors in mind and, of course, make our value judgments. We are trying to do the best that we can.


An hon. Member:: It is not good enough.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In the Northwest Territories, the Indians of Fort Good Hope are very happy, because they are working on the experimental pipeline and related activities. These developments in the north will benefit the northerners. We must make plans and make sure that the development in the north helps the people in the north and the people of Canada everywhere.
A few years ago we wanted development at any cost. Today, we have to take other factors into account. We cannot stop development. If we build pipelines in the north, the economic activity will be good for the area; and when there is a good level of economic activity in Canada, all the people of Canada benefit. You know, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the House will recognize that we have accomplished some things in the last three years. I am glad that hon. members realize we must face a challenge. We have been facing it for three years and have done a lot of work on solving it. I hope everyone will appreciate that this House is unanimous today on the question that pipelines have to be built in the north. These pipelines will benefit the Canadian economy and, I hope, especially the native peoples of the north. The pipelines will increase the opportunities for our native peoples. I thank hon. members for allowing me this extension of time to finish my speech.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, this debate has been most refreshing. If the motion has done nothing else than elicit some explanation from the minister, it has served a good purpose. I think that we are dealing with a very important subject which must be considered carefully if Canada is to stay one nation for generations to come. The economic decisions that we make now, and the decisions we make about pipelines, will decide not only whether we shall stay together as one nation, but whether we shall remain independent.
For the last two years we have interrogated this government on this subject. We have wanted to know the facts. On what has the government based its studies? May I refer to two speeches that two ministers of this
government have made. One of those, made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) is a very "heavy" speech that was delivered at Denver; the other was made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) at Dallas, Texas. I wish I had time to read the speeches, because one minister took one position and the other took another position.
We have asked about this matter in the question period, because something seemed to be amiss. There has been confusion in the government ranks and ministers have contradicted one another. I, personally, along with other members of my party, have asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources what kind of study he has been making. Do you know what his answer has been, Mr. Speaker? He has said, "We are leaving this to free enterprise." I have examined dozens of answers in Hansard which indicate this position. That has been confirmed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). It is at least refreshing to note that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has listened to the opposition and got on the right wave length. As I say, the other minister said, "We are leaving this to free enterprise." I am a free enterpriser. Nevertheless, in any field in which the parties have interests to accommodate, whether those are the export of crude petroleum to Canada or other interests, those parties will be apt to say what suits them. In this case we are asking people who produce oil on the Prairies, in Alaska and elsewhere, to undertake an independent study which will tell us whether a certain proposed action of theirs will benefit the ecology or the economy of any part of Canada. You are asking people who have a high degree of interest in the answer to undertake a study. I am not criticizing what they might say, because anybody in their position would do the same.
What we are asking for is very simple. We are asking for an independent study to be made by a task force which will look into the ecological and the economic factors and determine what is good for Canada. The minister has said that the government has done a great deal. He told us what the government has done during the last three years. In the meantime, the sections of pipe have been piled up in Alaska. The Americans do not play ducks and drakes. They do not take pipe up there merely because they want to employ their people or keep their ships busy. They have taken pipe up there because they have decided what to do. They did not stockpile all that pipe for nothing.
In the meantime there has been a big finding of crude petroleum on the northern slopes of Alaska. The Americans now see that they can pipe that crude petroleum from the northern slopes of Alaska to Valdez and take it by tanker down the coast of Canada to Seattle or other ports. The minister says, "There is nothing to this; we might come to some decision this fall or next spring". The United States is not going to wait for the vacillation of this government or the contradiction of one minister. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Develop-

March 12, 1971

ment said to the Americans in Dallas that we need their money. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources practically threatened the Americans when speaking in Denver. He said we might even jam their television and radio stations. He said we want to preserve everything for Canadians, even our culture. Never has the cabinet been so divided. I see the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) laughing. He knows I am correct. The success of this government is to be on all sides of all problems at all times so that no matter how attacked, they are always correct. That is really what they are doing.
The next question is why is there urgency? Why is the United States acting now? It is not just for the purpose of immediately developing the industry in Alaska. The facts are these. The outcome of the mid-east oil showdown resulted in quick price boosts which made cheap oil vanish from Europe and Japan. Oil is no longer a cheap commodity. Consumers in Canada and the United States are going to have to pay higher prices for their gasoline. That hard fact is sinking in around the world now that these old, rich countries in the mid-east have won unprecedented price increases. Twenty-three of the world's giant oil firms knuckled down under the pressure of the six countries around the Persian Gulf to increase the price of crude petroleum. The same happened in Venezuela. What happened? The 200 million consumers to the south of us will not pay just any price for gasoline and the byproducts of crude petroleum because of economic developments, so they started to stockpile. They do not have time for our procrastination. They have consumers and therefore have to move.
I hoped that one of the two ministers who spoke today would have stated that negotiations are going on with the United States. The minister did not state that, as a result of discussions, the United States have now decided not to use that pipe. They are going to use the pipe and the tanker. Even with the limited knowledge I have, I would like to see a forum set up like the Borden commission so that we would know how to handle the ecology of the north and everyone would be informed. I agree with the minister that a pipeline through the Mackenzie valley is the answer. The oil line may have to go above the permafrost and the gasoline line underneath. Neither I nor the minister are here to solve these technical problems. These must be solved by experts.
The United States is not going to wait. They have moved the pipe into Alaska. They have billions of barrels of oil in their state of Alaska and intend to move it by tanker to the other 48 states. This is what they are saying to the Canadian government. I hope the government will say that they have made a deal with the United States whereby they have agreed to share the cost of building a pipeline down the Mackenzie valley because of the danger to the ecology and the western coastline. I would be reassured if I heard a statement like that. In fact, I would not even bother speaking today if I could be assured the government made that kind of deal with the United States.
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
I have read the United States world news reports and watched American television programs. They still get into eastern Canada, even though they are jammed out of the west because we must live differently from the people in the east. The feeling is growing that the United States is on the move. They are going to supply gasoline to their consumers at a price that the Americans can afford to pay. That is what this is about. This is not a game, it is an economic problem. I say that we need a study. The problem is that it is two years too late. Tanker oil pollution near Canada's western shoreline, in conjunction with the announced increase price of gasoline, are two of the foremost problems facing Canadians. We cannot divorce oil pollution from unemployment or the economic growth of this nation.
A pipeline could carry crude petroleum from Alaska and Canada's northern Arctic or gas from the Christian Islands, about which the minister spoke. The government talks about 100,000 jobs for Canadians. At a time when we have great unemployment, if we had a plan for a pipeline now this program could be negotiated with the United States. As a result, many Canadians could be put to work. We could negotiate with the United States to use Canadian steel, pipe and workers. This is what was done in connection with the Trans-Canada pipeline. If it had not been for the debate, this would not have happened. The pipe was made in Canada.
What will this do to the central industrial areas in Ontario and Quebec as well as western Canada? The government could work out a plan with the United States to protect the ecology and the economics of this country. All the government has promised has been to continue unemployment and pay the unemployed $100 a week. This keeps taxes at such a high level that it is impossible to even get Canadians interested in purchasing Home Oil. That is wrong. One subject cannot be isolated from the other.
With the increase in the cost of crude petroleum and natural gas throughout the world, the United States intends to get supplies of these resources out if at all possible. That is what is happening. There are two routes, one of which is the route to Valdez and then by tanker. There are now 500,000 ton tankers being built. One spill is all we need. Are the ministers strong enough to tell the United States that they cannot bring tankers down our shoreline to United States ports? I would like to hear a statement like that. I would like to see how we could stop this development if the United States decides to undertake it. It would be very interesting.
In the countries with a high gross national product, the United States, Japan and Germany, they realize they have to pay more for their crude petroleum. A London correspondent wrote and I quote:
The era of cheap oil has ended in the West and cannot be expected to reappear in the foreseeable future.
Has the government told the Canadian consumers in the big cities such as Montreal and Toronto that they are going to be paying more for their gasoline? That is what is going to happen in the very near future. I continue to quote:
4222

March 12, 1971
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
Industry experts here are convinced that the precarious balance between producing and consuming nations has tilted sharply in favour of the producers. From Geneva, this assessment came after talks with some of Europe's top business economists:
Throughout most of the post-war period, especially in the 1960s, Europe has benefited from rapidly expanding imports of low-cost oil from the mid-east and from North Africa. Petroleum surpluses and sharp competition among international oil companies have tended to hold prices low.
Now the picture is sharply changed. European consumption has risen faster than was foreseen. Western Europe now meets well over 50 per cent of its energy requirements from oil and covers more than 85 per cent of its total oil consumption by imports from the mid-east and North Africa.
World oil consumption could double again in the 70s according to estimates prepared by the Royal Dutch/Shell Group. And there is little hope that Europe can reduce its dependence on Arab oil in the next five or ten years.
Bear in mind, too, that these forecasts are based upon relatively stable conditions. All we need is a blow-up in the middle east and we are in trouble. Bearing in mind the obligations and commitments of the United States as the world's leading power, may I ask whether Canada has negotiated with the United States to cover a situation in which the United States was involved in the kind of conflict I have envisaged, and Canada remained neutral? Would oil continue to flow through the pipeline? Are we prepared to guarantee that it would continue to flow under such circumstances? I have no doubt that American business people will ask us these questions.
The minister admits we do not have enough money in Canada to finance these pipeline projects. I agree, and I am glad to hear him say this. I am glad there is one minister in the cabinet who tells the truth. The truth is, we have no choice but to tell the Americans and other foreigners that we need their capital. It is up to us to set guidelines, and that is another story, too. The fact is that the government moves from crisis to crisis, as it did in the case of Home Oil. Today there is no trading in Home Oil shares on the stockmarket as a result of the decision which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has taken. If there is to be an independent study, say so and produce the facts. I would point out that the National Energy Board in whose hands, we gather, the whole industry is to be left, is not properly equipped to handle such situations. Witnesses are called to appear before the Board as if it were engaged in a judicial process. Afterward, decisions are made. If an independent body were set up, working for the national interest, I would think the board itself would make the proper decision when the evidence came before it. But everything has to be worked out in consultation with the United States.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I do so to inform him that his time has expired.


John James Greene: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this extremely important debate today. Certainly, in economic terms, the issue is probably the most important one we shall face for many years. When one considers that the seaway, which we look upon as probably the
greatest Canadian accomplishment in the field of construction during our history, cost some $500 million, excluding the power generation aspects, and when we consider that the two pipelines would cost some $5 billion to construct, the equivalent of ten seaways, we realize that this issue in economic terms alone is an extremely important one for the future of our country.
A debate at this time might be early in the game but it is certainly warranted. Hon. members in the opposition have shown concern about the need for a feasibility study. It might be as well to put on record what has been done to date. The timing of this debate is important when we consider the fact that in Prudhoe Bay there is some $50 billion worth of oil plus a potential of some $250 billion of oil and the Americans have made it manifestly clear that they intend to move this oil. Yesterday, Secretary of the Interior Morton, as quoted in the Globe and Mail, when asked whether it had been decided that the oil should go to market, replied: "That is correct. It would be negligent to seal up those resources." So the picture is clear. The oil is there in Alaska. It will be moved by the Americans and there are only two possible ways of doing so, either down the Pacific coast in tankers or by a cross-Canada line in the construction of which Canada would be a land bridge over which the oil would pass, some of it to the Canadian marketplace but the vast majority of it, certainly, to the United States marketplace. The oil will certainly be moved, one way or another, and the question which arises is: which is better for Canada?
We have taken a position, strongly stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) reinforced by myself and by many of my cabinet colleagues, that we are greatly concerned as to the safety of huge oil movements by tankers buffeted by Arctic ice on their way to the west coast close to the shoreline of British Columbia. We have expressed great concern about this proposal. On the other hand there is a possible route through the Mackenzie Valley. As the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) stated, we do not have all the answers to questions vis-a-vis this route but I think it well to place on record some of the information which we do have.
The situation has changed to a considerable degree. The Prudhoe Bay find took place in June of 1968-that will be three years ago this coming summer. Until fairly recently there appeared to be a decision on the part of the companies concerned that the oil should be shipped through Valdez and then down the coast. Evidence of this was many million dollars worth of pipeline piled on the tundra. Those of us concerned about the possibility of a Mackenzie route for this oil thought it could be the second line. Recently, though, events have taken place in the United States, outside our immediate jurisdiction. Hearings have been held, a pronouncement has been made by the Secretary of the Interior and a report has been issued by the defence authorities in Washington. There is now great doubt as to whether the Valdez line will, in fact, be the first line, and there is a possibility that the Mackenzie line could be the first and possibly only line built.
[Mr. Woolliams.l
March 12, 1971

Again, Secretary of the Interior Morton, referring to the possibility of a Mackenzie valley line, said yesterday: "At the present time it would be appropriate for oil companies to talk to the Canadian government about a Canadian route". This, of course, the Canadian government is perfectly prepared to do. As the Secretary of the Interior said yesterday, obviously the Canadian route is an alternative. So that there is a very real possibility that the Mackenzie valley route will be the first line.
What the Canadian government is immediately responsible for is to determine whether or no such a route is preferable to Valdez and thence down the coast by ship. If it is preferable, then we must make our decision, and attempt, if we can, to ensure that that will be the line that is going to carry these northern resources.
Quite properly, I think both the country and hon. members opposite are entitled to ask what has been done. As is to be expected in an adversary forum such as this, hon. members opposite allege that nothing has been done. Quite often under our way of life governments, like all human institutions, do not move as fast, as effectively and are not as far seeing as we would like them to be. But if there is one area, one subject matter, with regard to which the government and those officials who are responsible to the people of Canada, have been looking a long way ahead, and in which we have moved forcibly, effectively and taken action in time, it is the possibilities for Canada of this Mackenzie valley land bridge for northern resources.
I should like to put on the record what has taken place in this regard, and this should assure hon. members opposite as well as the country that on this particular issue the interests of Canada have been well met indeed by the Canadian government.
First of all in regard to the offshore question, assuming the Valdez line were chosen, let me point out that the government has already taken definitive action to prevent oil damage in coastal regions, particularly on the west coast. We are, for example, in the process of adopting high safety standards for coastal shipping in our waters through the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. In addition, we have moved to prevent any further drilling for oil and gas in the Straits of Georgia region, recognizing the unique recreational attractions of this area. I am convinced that residents of the Pacific northwest and the United States have no less concern for the protection of their coastal environment than their northern neighbours in Canada.
What have we done in regard to, to use the words of the motion, the ecological feasibility of an alternative route, the Mackenzie valley line? As I have said, the Prudhoe Bay oil discovery was disclosed in June of 1968. As early as within one month from the time of that declaration the chairman of the National Energy Board met with the presidents of the oil companies who owned that oil-Arco, Humble and BP-and pointed out to them that the Mackenzie valley line had advantages as an alternative and should be considered by them. Those corporate citizens determined, as was their right, that the
23966-55J
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
quickest way to get oil to the markets would be via an all-American route.
In January 1969 it was announced that the Valdez line would be built. Shortly after that the pipe was ordered, and shortly thereafter was piled on site. But apparently that decision was arrived at without pervasive ecological and economic surveys being conducted. Indeed, there was not time to conduct them between June of 1968 and January 1969 when the announcement was made. Now, perhaps, the chickens are coming home to roost as a result of that fast decision. Environmental authorities in the United States, defence authorities, as I said, and the executive of the United States themselves, have voiced great concern about that line, as we have, vis-a-vis the potential danger of an offshore marine disaster.
What did we in Canada do? Even though it did not appear that the first line was going to be through the Mackenzie valley, it certainly appeared that the first gas line would be through the Mackenzie valley for there is no way of getting gas out of Prudhoe Bay except through Canada. There is, apparently, no known technology for the liquification of gas in those cold northern climes at the present time, so that the choice for the company would be to reinject the gas or transport it over Canada. So it did appear that there was a good chance of constructing a gas line across Canada, and that at that time there was the potential for a second oil line across Canada.
I do not blame hon. members opposite for having forgotten the action we took. Equally I am sure that they are not deliberately misstating the facts or attempting to take partisan advantage in this debate. However, it may be that by placing the facts on the record, most of which have already been put there, we can clear up any doubts that they may have as to the very responsible and really dynamic action that has been taken by the government from the start on this matter.
r irst of all there was the meeting between the chairman of the NEB and the companies. Then on December 20 1968 the then Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin), in answer to a question from the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney), announced to the House, as reported at page 4221 of Hansard-I am sure hon. members are familiar with these words-as follows. He was asked:
Can the minister conftrm recent press reports that a task velopment? " 15 t0 ^ created to stu<*y northern oil de-
The minister answered:
Yes, I can confirm that. Mr. Speaker. The core of the task force consists of the deputy minister of energy, mines and resources, the chairman of the National Energy Board and the deputy minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development This is a governmental task force and its purpose will be to bring together all information on the existing oil situation in the north, on transportation routes that might be used, and to co-ordinate all available information, from all federal agencies and departments, and then report and make proposals to the government.
So as early as December 1968, long before anyone was even concerned about a pipeline through the Mackenzie valley, the government had seen, had understood and had

March 12, 1971
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
acted and the task force was created. What has the task force done? I think that would be a very proper question to ask, one I am sure members are interested in, as is the country at large. First of all, to the task force has been added since the Department of Transport and now the new department of the environment.
The task force immediately established four sub-committees. The first sub-committee was a marine feasibility sub-committee. Its function was largely directed toward the progress of the Manhattan voyage. Members of that sub-committee not only travelled with the Manhattan and made economical, ecological and environmental reports, but I think they had a comprehensive overview, both before and after, of the Manhattan voyage.
The second sub-committee was the pipe line engineering and construction sub-committee. This committee was chaired by the National Energy Board; the first sub-committee was chaired, I believe, by the Department of Transport.
This second sub-committee has been making engineering feasibility studies of pipeline economics, the cost of such a line, the cost of a gas line, and then the cost of such a line compared with the TAPS line, including comparative tariff costs. As a result of such comparison I was able to give, for instance, not too many days ago, a comparison showing that we believe that a barrel of Prudhoe Bay oil could be delivered in Chicago 30 cents cheaper via a Canadian route than via the Valdez marine route.
The third Committee on Environmental Matters was chaired by an official of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. That committee has been sufficiently successful in its researches that it has now reached the position, after more than two years, of drafting guidelines pertaining to ecological matters of pipeline construction and operation in the north.
The fourth committee of the task force is the committee on marketing. It was chaired by an official of the National Energy Board. As my colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has stated, this research has been co-ordinated with the work done by the task force, along with the information provided by various government departments. All this effort and structure has been at work since discoveries at Prudhoe Bay. This information has been continuously provided to government departments and others in respect of investigations carried out by these various organizations. We may be inclined to look upon the economic, environmental and ecological problems as being something particularly referrable to ourselves, or to Canada in general terms. We should never lose sight of the fact that the most important consideration is, surely, the well-being, the desire and the decisions of the northern people themselves; the people who live in this area. What do they want? That is the paramount question.
Of course, any pipeline will change the nature of life in the area. It will not be exactly the same north as it was
before. That is probably always the question in a free society, to resolve conflicting-in this case conflicting interests between the economic well-being of Canada and the people of the north in particular, and the very rational and proper environmental interest, that economic wellbeing will not, as my friend the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs (Mr. Chretien) has said, be at the price of the depreciation of the environment and the quality of life, as the price whereby we have accomplished economic progress in the southern part of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, what about other departments? What has the National Energy Board been doing? We have had the task force and its four subcommittees. At the same time the National Energy Board has made computer studies on the effects of hot oil pipelines upon permal degradation. Degradation used in those terms has not a moral connotation. It means melting, Mr. Speaker, I am informed, of permafrost. Secondly, investigations into special properties of steel in extremely cold temperatures have been made by the board during this period. Thirdly, engineers of the board have attended at every research site and at every symposium on arctic research, including those in Alaska. Fourthly, they have been doing very comprehensive research, which I think one of my hon. friends in the New Democratic Party was concerned about, as to what the Russians have done in the area of the pipeline construction in the north. They, of course, as all of us know are many years ahead of other countries, certainly in northern settlement.
One of the scientists at the National Energy Board is completely fluent in Russian and he has been at work translating and interpreting all known Russian works on northern pipeline construction. At the same time, the officials of both my department and of the National Energy Board have been recently in Russia and have had considerable discussions with their Russian counterparts in regard to northern pipeline construction.
What about my own department as well as the NEB? What have they been doing in this period of two and a half years? Have they been asleep? Is this sudden concern an ad hoc decision? No! The mines branch has been doing research as to how steels acts in extreme rates of temperature and pressure from minus 80 degrees to 160 degrees and above. The geological survey of Canada has done extensive programming in the north concerned with terrain examination to determine routes which would present the least difficulty from a geological and terrain viewpoint and which includes permafrost conditions. I might say that the Geological Survey of Canada has had some 20 years of experience in permafrost research. They were well prepared to do this kind of work long before it became necessary by reason of the Prudhoe discoveries. I might point out that all this work by the board and by my department has been co-ordinated with the northern affairs studies of ALURA, to which my hon. colleague, the minister, referred.
The combined programs of my department, the board, and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, is supported by programs of university research specifically dedicated to this proposition of pipeline building in the north.

March 12, 1971

At the University of New Brunswick, with its permafrost group, at the University of Alberta, environmental studies, at the University of Saskatchewan Arctic studies, at the University of Laval permafrost studies, and even at the University of British Columbia we have had comparative studies which have been commissioned by the government to go hand in glove with those being done by the government. A total of over $1 million has been distributed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with regard to these particular studies. The surveys and mapping branch of my department has given special emphasis and high priority to special mapping being done in the area of the Mackenzie Valley in order to assure that the proper routes are chosen.
The Arctic Research Centre at Inuvik, again under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has been active in research. The polar continental shelf program under my department at Tuktoyaktuk has coordinated the many land programs that have taken place in regards to the research.
Again, the mines branch has conducted a study in its fuels division on the behaviour of oil under severe low temperature conditions.
So much for what has been done specifically. I can in this short time allotted to me only refer generally to programs. But surely to any fair-minded observer of the situation, this clear decision, this emphasis on research and development, this programming of departments was to assure that we would know and learn as much as possible, so that when the time came to make a decision on the pipeline issue we would be prepared in this matter.
At the same time, what about the private sector? What have they been doing? Have they been asleep? This is a mixed economy, I suppose, as between government and the private sector in our country today. What have the private sector been up to? I would point out that these private sector studies to which I am going to refer have at all times been attended, at the invitation of the private sector, by officers of my department, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the National Energy Board, who have worked on-site on these private studies in order that we might have the benefit in government of everything being done by the private sector as well.
My friend referred to the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Research Limited at Inuvik. Here the resource of 15 of Canadian and world oil companies have been put to work, including all of the science and research engineering and know-how that they possess, in order to study the effects of pipeline construction in that cold climate.
I have had the privilege of attending at Inuvik there is a 48-inch line which is moving hot oil over the permafrost-two different studies; one above ground on piles and the other on gravel, BERM, with thermometers every few feet at various depths to determine how that oil might be carried safely without melting the permafrost. That is the key, as you know. I believe this is their second winter of complete study. Certainly when I was
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
there last summer they were very encouraged that they were very close to being able to assure the country, or the National Energy Board who together will be the arbiters, as my hon. friend stated, of the safe conduct of oil under these conditions.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will also have to be satisfied. Certainly this study has proven a great deal. These 15 companies, in conjunction with government scientists, have gone a long way and are very close to establishing the safe construction of a pipeline. Secondly, I might also point out that this private study has involved aerial surveys of the possible routes, soil analyses, ecological studies and construction and operation and maintenance studies of pipelines.
The second major private group is the northwest project study group at Norman Wells at the Sans Sioux Rapids. This is the first winter of study for them. That group is composed of six private companies. Again, all the government scientists have attended there and are invited there on a continuing basis. They too, have the back-up of all the science, engineering and ecological people within those companies on these very important major studies. Their low-temperature research in respect of gas pipelines is being done as well as photography re routes, checking of terrain, soil studies and ecological investigation. Alberta Gas Trunk is also continuing studies. This is all the scientific and research back-up which preceded the government's overt policy announced last August-long before there was any outcry in the House or any public concern in Canada about the construction of a pipeline, because then it did not appear that a pipeline was imminent. I am not critical of the House or the country for not having been aroused last August, or before, because it did appear that the first line was going to Valdez. But this was done well ahead of time, last August, because we wished to avoid some of the mistakes, possibly, of 1956-where there may not have been enough study or enough government direction before the event-and because we wanted to demonstrate very clearly that we had not done what occurred in Alaska, namely, make the decision to build before the research had been carried out. As a result of all this work and all these studies we were able to announce these guidelines which really form the foundation of the government's policy in respect of northern pipeline construction. These are not final and definitive, as was stated at the time.
We are not sure where the $5 billion is to come from. That is a decision which must be made. If it cannot be raised in Canada-Canadians and the Canadian Parliament no doubt will have a voice in it, and a choice-do we permit outside capital, non-Canadian capital to build this pipeline? Will it be good for Canada if we do? We have said a maximum of Canadian content, both financial and otherwise. The NDP, although they did not argue it very fully in their motion today, envisaged that the public of Canada will build this pipeline under public auspices. Would this be good use of $5 billion worth of public funds, with diminishing priorities in other areas? Maybe

March 12, 1971
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
the NDP are starting to print money too. We have not made a final decision. The guidelines are not final.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The minister's time has expired. Is there unanimous consent that the minister continue?


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five minutes.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I will try to wind up very quickly. I thank my hon. friends for their courtesy. These guidelines indicate the general tenor of the policy-a single corridor, not pipelines all over the north; a maximum Canadian content without being dogmatic, because we do not know exactly what proportion of the financing can be done in Canada. We do know-some members have voiced concern in this regard-that every pipeline construction company in Canada will be working full steam and every bit of pipe we can produce in Canada will be used in that line, and maybe every bit of pipe that can be produced all over the world will be used in the construction of that line. There will be a maximum right to the indigenous people to participate and have a voice which will be protected by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Most important of all will be the right of entry to Canadian resources into this pipeline. It is not good enough that this be merely a bridge to transport United States resources to United States markets and that we have the boom that would go with construction, but no downstream benefit.
The most important thing is that the presently locked-in northern resources of oil and gas would have transportation to the marketplaces available to them. I think probably the key to growth and development in this great country of ours has always been transportation. It has often been said-maybe this is not too popular in the west at this time-that without the CPR there would have been no Canada. Without a transportation method for our northern resources, they will remain locked in and not be resources at all but merely something in the ground that would be a hope for the future. Possibly they might never be found in sufficiently great quantities or in close enough proximity to warrant the billions of dollars represented by the cost of a pipeline. So the most important guideline, under the conditions referred to, is that Canadian resources must have a right of entry into that method of transportation.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not take much more time of the House. The House has been most generous with me. The studies have continued since last August. They have not stopped. At the political level, when we saw there might be a possibility for the oil line to be the first we did approach our United States colleagues and voice our concern about the ecology of the west coast in respect of the marine route. We asked that this alternative Canadian route be considered. Remember, the law of this land is not that I, or the government, can tell anybody they can build a pipeline. The law quite properly is that a quasijudicial body, the National Energy Board, will determine whether or not a pipeline can or should be built and
whether it is in the public interest of Canada. But that decision must be ratified or denied by the government.
Therefore, I think we can assure the United States oil companies and the United States government, to the best of our ability and with the knowledge we have and the certainty we have achieved-and it is not complete yet in respect of the ecological factors-that there will be no unnecessary roadblocks at the Canadian end and Canadian governmental side. The key, as a United States official put it to me, is time. If this line is in the interest of Canada, if it is preferable-once you premise that Prudhoe Bay oil is going to moved by one route or another-in economic and social terms as well as environmental terms for it to be the Mackenzie Valley line, then the key is time. Can it be built more quickly? Will it get through the barriers, if you like, the slow-up processes of regulatory authority; and will the oil be delivered to market more quickly if it is to go via a Canadian route than if an effort is made to satisfy the various regulatory and environmental agencies and bull it through the Valdez marine route?
Therefore it is incumbent upon us, I believe, to expedite our procedures to the best of our ability, without rushing into something that is so important to Canada's future. I believe we have moved as quickly and as responsibly as possible. I believe we have been foresighted in this issue. I think we are in a position to move with considerable expedition if it appears that the entrepreneurs, the oil companies, and the government of the United States are interested in having the Mackenzie Valley line as the primary line and if it appears in the Canadian interest that this is where we want the oil to flow rather than down the coast of British Columbia.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, it is a thrill for me to follow the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) in this debate and to see that there are five ministers in the House. One minister left a minute ago. It is better than the question period.


David Anderson: Look at your side. You do not have six members.


Louis-Roland Comeau: The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) stated that the opposition had been asleep. Let me point out that the opposition got the ministers out of the woodwork today and made them participate in the debate. But you need many ministers for each Tory member!


Mr. Reid:: You may believe it, but no one else does.


Louis-Roland Comeau: That is the problem; it is not the problem stated by some ministers. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources gave us a lecture on some of the things he has done. He said in his emphatic way that back in 1968 reports on this subject had been prepared. The trouble is that we have to act now and that we do not have the reports on studies that were supposed to have been started back in 1968. This is the problem we are faced with

March 12, 1971

now. A decision has to be made, and we must make representations on the basis of that decision. We have to bargain on it and on the results of the surveys that are supposed to have been made 2J years ago and which, I presume, are still continuing.
The TAPS system will no doubt have profound and far-reaching economic, social and ecological effects. I do not want to deal with the economic and social effects but I want to deal with the ecological effects since this is the area that concerns me. I am not a westerner, and only the ecological effects concern me. Let us face the fact that the U.S. government wants and needs oil. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who moved the motion, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) and others have quoted statistics regarding the economics of this route. It is for us either to accept the proposed TAPS route or to find an alternate route in view of the ecological effects of a possible oil spill on the west coast.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources referred to the Canada Shipping Act. The minister knows better than that; he knows that the Canada Shipping Act has no effect on the proposed new tanker route. An hon. member from the NDP stated this morning that if we had accepted their amendment, the problem would be solved. He also knows better than that. He knows that international agreements are needed and that only through international agreements can these problems be solved. You cannot simply say that we will have a 100-mile limit and that this is the way it will be. The minister knows very well that the 12-mile limit does not apply in this case. I am sure he did not want to mislead the House but was only trying to pretend that the government is doing something.
The ecological problem is not restricted to the west coast because shortly we will be faced with similar problems on the east coast. There will soon be an oil discovery on the east coast. This is being predicted by everyone. The point, therefore, is that consultations with the United States are absolutely necessary. I will not speak about alternatives, discuss what routes we should be taking or what the government should do. I only have one secretary at my disposal and I have not carried out the necessary studies to decide what is the best route.
What concerns me is that we have to protect our Canadian environment. Canada must speak strongly in this regard. Canadians have spoken, and so have I and many Members of Parliament. One hon. member has gone to the hearings, other members have sent letters to the U.S. Department of the Interior which is studying this matter, and Canadian organizations such as the Wildlife Federation have spoken out. But the government has not spoken out in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Louis-Roland Comeau: It is true that the government has carried out studies, but we have not been able to find out the definite position of the government. As recorded at page 2848 of Hansard of January 28 this year, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said he did not consider the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
matter urgent enough to make representations to the U.S. government on the Valdez pipeline. He said:
Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should be asked to take a position on a pipeline through United States territory. Just to clarify the point, I did not say we had made representations. I said there bad been consultations between ministers and secretaries.
When asked to put forward the Canadian position on the tanker route through Canadian coastal waters, he merely said:
We consider this to be a serious problem and we are examining the matter now.
On February 9 of this year the minister rejected the idea that the Canadian government should make an official submission at the hearings opening in Washington the next week on the pipeline and tanker route. He merely said:
We will be approaching the U.S. authorities at an appropriate time to seek their assessment of the risks of oil spills in the Pacific Northwest.
Incidentally, the main reason given by the minister for not officially appearing at the U.S. hearings was diplomatic protocol. Yet only one week later he urged residents of the northwestern United States, and Canadians, to speak out against the proposed shipping of oil down the coast from Alaska. In his article on this appeal, a Globe and Mail reporter commented as follows:
The unusual nature of the Sharp appeal was heightened by the fact that Ottawa has not yet made any formal representation to Washington on the plan-*
The appeal, made before television cameras in the parliament buildings was an unusual departure for Mr. Sharp. Normally, he adheres strictly to the rules of diplomatic protocol in his public statements.
Thus we see that no definite stand has been taken by the Canadian government in this regard. The Canadian government sent a letter to the United States Department of the Interior asking for consultations on this matter. We have not even had a reply. This morning during the question period the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) whether a reply had been received and whether consultations would begin. We were told that no reply had been received and that there were no consultations; that consultations would be started at some time, but he did not know when. This is the type of answer we have been receiving from the government. This is the way we have been bargaining.
I submit that this is not enough. Even the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, this afternoon-in order to put forward the U.S. position on this whole matter-quoted an article from today's Globe and Mail. He does not even have an official document from the U.S. government stating the position of the United States; he had to quote an article from the Globe and Mail in order to tell the House what the Americans are proposing.
I asked whether representations had been made from the ecological point of view, because that is what inter-

March 12, 1971
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
ests me. The minister answered that no such representations had been made. I asked that a motion be made, and that is why we have a debate today. I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he would accept a motion from Parliament stating our objections to the TAPS oil tanker route and the concern of Canadians in this respect. I will read my question as it appears at page 3914 of Hansard of March 3:
I have a question tor the Acting Prime Minister. Since he is also responsible for external affairs, it will have a double effect. In light of the enormous ecological implications of the TAPS oil tanker route, will the government consider presenting a motion in Parliament to enable the whole Parliament of Canada to express Canada's insistence of full bilateral discussions and the frank recognition of Canada's interest in an ecologically satisfactory transport system?
The government did not want to accept a motion or to draft one in this regard, and so today we have a debate. I know this debate will be profitable because it allows the expression of points of view by many hon. members. But even after the speeches of the two ministers who have taken part in the debate-and I do not anticipate that any more ministers will speak-we still have not been told the Canadian government's position on this aspect of the matter. As I said a minute ago, today we find that consultations have not even begun in this area and no notice has been given of when talks will begin. As has been pointed out by some hon. members, pipe is already in Alaska ready to be placed in position-but we have not started consultations. This demonstrates the lack of interest displayed by the Canadian government.
I can see why the government has not started consultations. It is because the government has not yet decided what it wants. Last year the government made a big showing of its stand against pollution, as mentioned by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). He stated that Parliament had passed many pieces of legislation dealing with pollution. This is true. He also stated that ecological studies had been undertaken. This is also true. But we have not yet been able to find the answers to the problem-and it is an urgent problem at this point.
A couple of weeks ago when the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) was Acting Prime Minister, in reply to a question he said that government departments are studying the threat to the ecology which could be presented by a pipeline running through Canada. But we still do not know the position of the government. We still do not have the results of all the studies that have been carried out.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development spoke this afternoon about the studies made by his department. I do not know how long the minister has been in charge of his department, but he should certainly look after the North, and if he really does look after its interests, he should at least state the department's position on this matter. He did not do so. He talked about what his department had done, but not about what he, as

Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and protector of the North, wanted done. He simply talked about a few small things his department and the government have done. He did not reveal the attitude of his department, which is really involved in this problem.

He has stated it is very easy for a member to get information on the position of the government. He has stated that guidelines have been issued. These things are true, Mr. Speaker; guidelines have been issued-but we still have not been told the Canadian government's position on this whole topic. Therefore I ask: Is it the policy of the government to oppose the TAPS oil tanker route as being ecologically too dangerous, and has the government expressed this opposition in a formal way to the Americans?
We do not know what the government has proposed to the Americans. This afternoon the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources told us some of the things his department has done, but he did not state the government's position. We do not know how much bargaining the government has done on this whole subject. If it is the type of bargaining it has undertaken in other matters, then I would imagine it has been very scanty.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources referred to an article in this morning's Globe and Mail. I quote the first paragraph of it:
Putting all oil and gas pipelines from the north of the continent in a single corridor through Canada would have "much less environmental impact" than if pipelines are built both through Alaska and Canada, U.S. Interior Secretary Rogers Morton said yesterday.
That report comes from Washington; it does not come from Canada. The U.S. Secretary of the Interior thinks it would be appropriate for oil companies to talk to the Canadian government about a Canadian route-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but his time expired about a minute ago.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to take part in a debate on this topic. I only wish, however, that the wording of the resolution were a little more precise and had been thought out a little better. One might say it is a pious resolution, one which is careless in its wording and in some respects naive. I say this because on the one hand it is asking government to take a position opposing one form of transport and at the same time it is suggesting- statements made since the debate began have supported this view-that we should encourage another type. The point I wish to make is the same point I have been making for some months now. Indeed, it is now a year since I first spoke on the west coast tanker route problem, and my point was then and is now that the information on both routes is quite inadequate for proper decision-making.
First let me deal with the western route, that is, Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, and Valdez to the lower 48 states. A certain part of this route has been studied,
March 12, 1971

namely, the pipeline portion, the portion from Prudhoe to Valdez. The Department of the Interior of the United States has produced a draft ecological impact statement on the pipeline. I am holding this statement in my hand; it runs to some 250 pages. Also, the department has published an internal paper which was leaked to the press, which runs to some 40 pages and is a critique of that report. In addition, there have been hearings held in Washington and Alaska on the draft statement. In other words, there has been a fairly thorough study of the Alaska pipeline route. I have no wish to go into the question of whether it has been adequate or not. I tend to think it could have been done better but, after all, that is a decision for the American government.
Where I think the western route-the Prudhoe Bay to Puget Sound route-has not been properly studied is the tanker portion of the route between Valdez, a port in southern Alaska, and Puget Sound; in other words, between Alaska and the lower 48 states. This has not been studied. This fact is perfectly clear from the report which I held up a moment ago, the American draft ecological impact statement. There are one or two paragraphs in it which deal with pollution at terminals, but nothing which deals with the ecological hazards of the route itself and the damage that might occur from spills in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Puget Sound area. All I suggest to hon. members on this point is that there is a very real risk in this area and there is need for considerable study of this risk.
I have no wish to deal at great length with the reasons I think there is a prima facie case of danger in this area. I refer hon. members to a book by Major Nicholson, entitled "Vancouver Island's West Coast". I also refer them to another book entitled "Breakers Ahead", by R. Bruce Scott who has studied the southern portion of Vancouver Island's coast. I would just like to give one quotation from Mr. Scott's book. He lists 55 wrecks on a portion of coast less than 55 miles long and says:
As can be seen from this record, most of the wrecks were due to human error, and despite the development of modern lifesaving techniques and aids to navigation (especially radar, which permits the navigator to see in fog and darkness), ships continue to be wrecked on the "graveyard".
The "graveyard", Sir, is the portion of the coast from Port San Juan to Cape Beale. It is known to mariners as the graveyard of the Pacific and it is for this reason that Mr. Scott refers to it as the graveyard in his book. Next I wish to quote from the British Columbia "Pilot". Pilot books, I might explain for hon. members who are not from the Maritimes or British Columbia, are the reference works which captains of vessels keep on board their ships for use when approaching unfamiliar waters. I have used them myself when navigating on my own small yacht and I know how valuable they are, particularly when entering an area not well known to the mariner. The British Columbia "Pilot", the standard reference book on the subject, under the heading "Navigation" says this about the Strait of Juan de Fuca:
Navigation is simple, in clear weather; the aids to navigation are numerous and the chart is a good guide. In thick weather,
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
however, owing to the irregularity of the currents and tidal streams, every precaution must be taken. The strait is liable to all those vicissitudes of weather common in these latitudes-
I would ask hon. members to pay particular attention to these words:
-and in few parts of the world is the caution and vigilance of the navigator more called into action than when entering it from the Pacific Ocean.
I think I can state that there is definitely danger at the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. I quickly add this is only one problem in that body of water. There are many miles of water between the entrance and the refinery at Cherry Point, near Bellingham, now under construction. Some of these waters are very narrow, particularly Rosario Strait, Haro Strait and Boundary Pass, one or the other of which must be used by large vessels entering the Strait of Georgia from the Strait of Juan de Fuca. We know, of course, of a tragic accident in Active Pass, a much smaller body of water entirely within Canadian waters and to the north and west of the two channels I have named, where a ferry and a Russian freighter collided with the loss of three lives last year. We know that the week before that accident, the flag ship of the Alaska ferry fleet piled itself up on the rocks and, in the words of Time magazine, "tried to put itself ashore, amid the trees". That was only a week before the ferry and freighter collision.
The area is not an easy one for navigation. I think there is good reason for the closest possible study of this area prior to any decision on the tanker route. That is the point I wish to make at this time. This is a dangerous area. It is in need of study. That study has not been done by the Americans and has not yet been done in Canada, although I welcome the comment made by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) who referred to the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) that this will soon be done. The importance of this is recognized by the Americans as well as by ourselves. I sincerely welcome the initiative taken by the United States Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Morton, who promised one month ago at the Washington hearings, which I attended, that he would carry out a study. He said that his department would carry out studies on the sea route. The next day the Secretary of State for External Affairs wrote to the United States government and offered Canadian co-operation. We heard earlier today that there has been an exchange of letters and that co-operation between the two countries is proceeding very well. In this regard I only say, Mr. Speaker, that the position of our Secretary of State for External Affairs in this entire affair has been exemplary. He refused to be panicked by statements of opposition members in making diplomatic protests at a time when they could do no good. He played his cards well.


Louis-Roland Comeau: And he has not been panicked by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson)!
4230

March 12, 1971
Trans-Alaska Pipeline


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member is interested in the details of this matter or not. It is very serious for British Columbia.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Don't get so upset.


An hon. Member:: Facts upset the hon. member.


David Anderson: The statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs were, in my opinion, excellent because he did not, so to speak, waste his ammunition before the enemy was in sight. He waited until such time as Mr. Morton made a statement that he wished to have such a study undertaken and then immediately volunteered our co-operation. This was accepted and now there is the possibility of a binational study of this matter. I might say, however, that as a result of concern expressed in this House our Special Committee on Environmental Pollution decided, prior to the statement we heard today from Mr. Sharp's parliamentary secretary, to go to the coast and hear evidence from various people and experts on this question.
In other words, what the committee of this House wishes to do is to obtain evidence which, unfortunately, some of us in the west think we have but which we may not be right about. In other words, while I feel, as I have stated, that there is a prima facie case in this area and that I know a fair amount about this subject, I think it is most important for this House to accept the proposal of the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution and allow it to carry out its own study and to give an opportunity for all interested parties to be heard on the issue. We need more evidence; more facts.
The second aspect of this motion deals with the proposed pipeline which is to run from Alaska, up the Mackenzie Valley into southern Canada and down to the southern 48 states. I was delighted to hear it confirmed that a great deal of study has been done in this area. I believe that the people carrying out this job are doing a good job. I have confidence in them and in their ability to do the job. What I am not confident about is whether the organization of this material, from an ecological point of view, is adequate. I trust that we shall get further information from government spokesmen on this point.
In particular, I should like to know exactly what will be the composition of this committee which is to examine the ecological problems of the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline. How, in other words, is this study to be carried out? We do not have that information now. Although statements have been made about what is being done, we have not heard enough on how it is being co-ordinated. As I say, I trust that further information will be forthcoming from the government on this point. The government should make a clear response so that we may understand clearly how this information is to be evaluated. We know that information is being obtained. How, may I repeat, is it to be evaluated? Who will do the evaluation? Will there be public hearings? We want to know what will be the role of the Department of the Environment which, after all, will be taking over the wildlife services from the Department of Northern Development and Indian Affairs; and, as well, the responsibilities regarding water, of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is important for us to have this information.
In this context may I commend to hon. members the American National Environmental Protection Act of 1969, one of the major pieces of President Nixon's legislation. If we had such legislation in Canada it would enable us to surmount some of the difficulties concerning responsibility which we face. That act makes it clear that certain government departments, in conjunction with the people interested, must carry out such studies as the one I have in my hand, which I referred to earlier, entitled "Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline". The department is required to hold hearings on such draft statements, and interested parties may appear and comment. I did this myself in Washington last month. After that the decision is ultimately made on the basis of what has emerged from the public hearings as well as on the basis of information which the department of government and, of course, the companies concerned, produced.
I feel that the American act could well serve as a model for similar legislation in Canada which would straighten out the responsibilities of various departments in this field. It would not solve all our problems, because problems in this area arise constantly. We must be constantly aware of them and all departments must pay attention to them. Such legislation at least would make clear what procedures must be followed in the ecological evaluation of matters such as the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline route.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Is he not aware that in connection with the Territorial Lands Act, concerning the land in the north, we have the right to conduct similar public meetings?


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the minister is quite right in mentioning that amendment. What I should like to have, Sir-and I am speaking generally at the moment- is an act which could be applied, no matter where a proposed development occurs, be it in Quebec, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories or the Yukon. It should spell out standard procedures to be followed when ecological studies are being undertaken. For example- and it is a small one-if such an act and such procedures had been in existence before the seaway was built it might have warned us of the lamprey problem. That is the type of thing we ought to attend to. Certainly, the situation at present is far from that because, although we have excellent people who are concerned and who are doing good work, there is not an adequate standard procedure in these cases which can be followed. That procedure could well be based on the American National Environmental Protection Act. I urge hon. members to consider this.
It is clear, then, that we have on the one hand two routes to consider. One of these is from Prudhoe Bay to Puget Sound, half of which has been examined. We are not sure that it has been examined properly, and the Americans are uncertain about it The other half, the sea

March 12, 1971

portion, has not been examined at all. As well, we have the Canadian route with respect to which, as the minister said, we have not completed the required studies. We do not know what the impact on the ecology on that route would be. We are discussing two routes. Half of one route has been properly examined from the ecological point of view; there is doubt about that. It is obvious at this point that we are faced with an area where knowledge is inadequate. We must wait until knowledge is better before we proceed. We cannot make decisions now. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) make a commitment to wait.
When we are discussing transporting oil from Alaska to the southern 48 states, it is important that we do not become too involved with the red herring of ownership of this pipeline, such as the NDP has done. The minister referred to this. If a pipeline between Alaska and the lower 48 is to carry American oil-and let us remember we do not have oil of our own to carry-there is no reason why we should deprive growth areas of investment of Canadian dollars putting into the pipeline to carry American oil between two portions of the United States of America.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member who is making such an interesting speech. We have tried to limit speeches to 15 minutes in order that as many members as possible will have an opportunity to participate.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), and to commend the official opposition for having made their opposition day one in which this very pressing problem can be discussed. Some interesting speeches have been made by government members. However, I am left with the general impression that these members, particularly the minister, really had the intention of pouring oil on troubled waters, whereas at least in this portion of the House our party is diametrically opposed: we want to pour cold water on troubled oil. What confronts many thousands of people in British Columbia is the potential oil spillage, ruinous to our maritime life, beaches and the welfare of our people. I ask hon. members to consider these effects which illustrate a threat.
The plan of a section of the United States oil industry is to bring oil from Alaska down our British Columbia coast-line to a refinery already rising a scant 11 or 12 miles south of the lower mainland of British Columbia. Half of the population of British Columbia lives in the lower mainland. This tanker fleet will travel through zones and straits especially dangerous to the vast floating bathtubs that they are. They are so vast that before they can slow down to change course, it is reported that they cover three miles. These tankers will be four or five times the size of the Arrow whose oil loused up the Maritimes coast and cost millions of dollars to clean up.
23966-56a
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
I have a special concern in this matter. My constituency of Surrey-White Rock is just across the international border from the Cherry Point area in the state of Washington, where the refinery which will receive the oil from these tankers is being built. I wish to quote from the White Rock Sun with regard to the refinery, the situation facing British Columbia waters and the waters of Washington state. Many Americans are as much against this project as we are. I quote as follows:
The $150 million Atlantic Richfield oil refinery at Cherry Point bristles with industrial spires. Huge trucks continually stream back and forth through the guarded gate. Outside the compound some 300 cars in the parking lot are mute evidence of the numbers of workers within.
It is later than some hon. members realize, Mr. Speaker. We should not overlook the additional potential threat which will exist in the northern Pacific waters if the oil is brought down by the land-bridge plan instead of by oil tankers along our coast to the Puget Sound area. Possibly part of the crude will be reshipped out of that zone through the waters to the south. If that happens, we will still have a potential oil water spillage threat, although admittedly reduced.
Bearing in mind the confined waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the passageways through the Gulf of Georgia and the San Juan Islands and the heavy shipping traffic already using these waters-the increased tanker traffic to handle the hundreds of thousands of barrels a day-will surely result in a collision and an oil spill. An oil spill from a tanker carrying 300,000 tons, if it is washed on shore, will create a blanket of oil one inch thick, 30 feet wide and 3,000 miles long. Those who know estimate that if this oil shuttle-service of huge tankers is established, we can count upon two to four oil spillages every 10 years. In other words, we can count upon our marine life, beaches and way of life along the coast of British Columbia, Vancouver Island and the gulf almost being desecrated.
Hon. members are familiar with the findings of Dr. Patrick McTaggart-Cowan who directed the $3 million clean-up required off Nova Scotia after the comparatively minor wreck of the Arrow. I say "comparatively minor" because what is proposed with regard to the giant oil tankers that will travel down the Pacific coast will be four or five times the size of the Arrow. Dr. McTaggart-Cowan said:
Seven per cent of the world's ships are involved in collisions every year-Incidents involving oil tankers average one per week. Some 300 million gallons of crude are leaked into the seas every year from such incidents.
The people of British Columbia are not easily united; in fact, they are very easily divided. However, the threat of the oil tanker shuttle-service off our shores has united the people as one. They have rallied as one against it. The ecologists, ordinary citizens, city councils, the British Columbia legislature, unions, churches, the old and the young all have one concern and one determination: they will do everything they can to see that no oil is shipped along our coast and that we are spared the inevitable desecration and ruination of our shores.
March 12, 1971

Trans-Alaska Pipeline
I remind hon. members that we should not overlook one additional danger in this area. We must keep in mind the pending underground massive nuclear blast by the United States which is scheduled to take place this tall in the northern Pacific. It will take place in a very prone earthquake zone not far from the shores of Alaska where it is planned to build a pipeline from the oil fields to the port for transshipment by tanker. In my view, this is an additional threat to the people on the west coast of Canada and the United States. It is evident that the matter of carrying oil, whether by sea or the alternative route by land through the Prairie corridor, is too important to be left to an industry, municipality, province or state. Indeed, oil and oil pollution, particularly with regard to the movement of vast quantities by water, is a global matter. We need international agreements as well as a clearcut, well-defined Canadian oil policy.
We must stop the threat to British Columbia, research the proposed pipeline corridor through the Prairies and bring under public direction and, in my view, under full public ownership this growing section of the oil industry. But the thought foremost in my mind, speaking as a British Columbian, is to do all we can to stop this plan to move the oil by water along the B.C. coast. It is the duty of the opposition to keep an eye on the government to see that it follows a course which puts people before the profits of industry.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, this whole question of the oil and gas reserves in the Arctic areas, both in Canada and Alaska, and the means by which they can be delivered to the market naturally divides itself into two main lines of consideration. One concerns the ecological dangers which the transportation of oil and gas involves, and the other relates to economic considerations-the cost, the effect on the people of the north and the ultimate benefits to people living on this continent.
In considering these questions there is no place for what might be called narrow nationalism. The only way in which the oil and gas reserves of the Arctic slope can be utilized to the advantage of Canada, the United States and the world as a whole is through close co-operation between Canada and the United States and agreement as to the best and most economic means of getting oil from these far-northern areas to places where they will be urgently needed in the years ahead.
Neither is there a place for what might be called highly-charged emotionalism in connection with ecological damage. The taking out of any natural resource inevitably causes a measure of ecological damage. This act needs to be realized. Some of the people who are completely sold on the idea of preserving the ecology would, it seems to me, prevent the exploitation of any of our natural resources if they had their way. We should avoid this attitude.
One thing which is certain in connection with the large amounts of oil known to exist in the Prudhoe Bay area, and the large amounts which will undoubtedly be found
in the Canadian Arctic, is that they will be brought to market. The Americans will transport the oil from Prudhoe Bay for use in the United States and, to a lesser extent, in Canada. We must look at this question, then, from the point of view of deciding how the transfer of this oil and gas can best be done in a way which will cause the least possible damage and result in the greatest economic benefits for the United States and Canada.
It has been pointed out by government speakers and others that if the oil is transported by tanker from Alaska to the Seattle area a large oil spill is inevitable in the course of time. The whole picture of the transfer of oil by tanker shows that accidents occur with predictable regularity. No doubt widespread ecological damage will result to the Pacific coast of Canada and the north. In these circumstances, the only alternative is to take out the oil by pipeline through the Mackenzie valley. Perhaps the Canadian government has been slow in putting pressure upon the United States government to recognize that this is indeed the situation and to arrive at a scheme for bringing the oil through the Mackenzie River valley to the ultimate advantage of both countries.
As the minister has pointed out, the estimated cost of delivering oil to the large United States markets centred on Chicago would be appreciably less if the oil were brought out by pipeline, through the Mackenzie route, than if it were moved by sea. In considering this question I think a clear distinction should be made between oil pipelines and gas pipelines. There is urgent need for supplies of gas at the present time, and within five or ten years the need will probably be desperate. There is no question that a gas pipeline will be built.
The ecological damage likely to result from building a gas pipeline will not be very great; it will consist chiefly of the damage done to areas of permafrost directly involved in the construction and maintenance of the line. An oil pipeline is another matter. Unless a satisfactory means of constructing an oil pipeline over permafrost can be found, a certain number of breakages in the line will probably occur and spills of oil will have to be reckoned with. On the other hand, the damage done would certainly be much less than would be the case in the event of a tanker spill off the Pacific coast.
I do not believe most people realize that the Mackenzie River Valley route does not present nearly as many difficulties with regard to permafrost as does any other overland route, particularly the route from Alaska to Valdez. The tree line in the valley extends very much further north than it does in areas to the east and west. As a matter of fact, I think the permafrost extends only 70 or 80 miles south of Aklavik. From there on one is really out of the heavy permafrost area. The difficulties of building either a gas pipeline or an oil pipeline through the Mackenzie route are therefore very much less than would be involved in the case of any other route.
I agree with previous speakers who have described this subject as one of the most important to come before the House for discussion. But I do not believe we should mix basic considerations with the question of the way in which the pipelines are to be financed. For this reason I

March 12, 1971

deplore the NDP amendment, which, is an expression of Socialist ideology. I do not believe this is a matter in which ideology should be a dominant or determining factor. To the extent that it is, it will merely complicate the issue and make a proper decision on basic questions more difficult to achieve.
I think there is little question that the pipelines will be built by Canadian-incorporated companies who will probably get as much financial support from Canadian citizens as possible, securing the rest of the funds required from sources outside the country. It seems to me that that is the reasonable way to handle the building of the pipelines or their financing. The question of raising taxes or taking money from the Canadian taxpayers to finance transportation of what will be primarily United States-owned oil and gas does not seem to me a very reasonable or sound proposition. I hope the government will take a much more definite stand than they have hitherto in urging upon the United Slates government the necessity for making a co-operative effort to bring the oil and gas resources of the north down to market, and will drop the more or less stand-offish attitude the government has taken so far.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: March 12, 1971
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
may very well be built first, and I hope it is; but ultimately there will be a TAPS line.
In my submission, the Canadian government had done a very good job in making representations on behalf of the petroleum industry of Canada and Canadian interests in the United States. When the United States government imposed quotas on the importation of petroleum to the United States, the Canadian government kept its cool. It did not succumb to the blandishments of those who suggested that Canada should impose counter quotas, as if to say, "Let's show them". We allowed the political pressure on the United States government in that situation to come from where political pressure counts, and that is irom the United States.
That is why I am very firmly of the opinion that in this particular case the government, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) in his appeals to the United States public to be conscious of the ecological dangers posed by a trans-Alaska route and the shipping of oil down the west coast, are following precisely the course of action that will lead to results. We know from this morning's Globe and Mail that the United States Secretary of the Interior has already indicated his desire that the Mackenzie Valley route be explored. I suggest that in view of this sign of the effectiveness of our policies and the effectiveness of the pressures put on the United States government from their own constituents, it will not be too long before results will be achieved.
In conclusion, I can only say that we are talking here about United States oil, about United States markets and the problem of getting that oil out of the ground and into the market. It is really a United States problem, one that is within their sovereignty. The United States government will have to respond to real pressure from within the United States. All the pressure brought to bear by the Canadian government can achieve only one result, and that is the weakening of the bargaining position of the Canadian government. If the U.S. government feels that the Canadian government, as a result of public pressure, has its hands bound in some way, then the Americans, good businessmen that they are, will take advantage of that fact. Let us keep the ball in the United States' court, and let us at the same time express our willingness to deal fairly with them, bearing in mind continental, Canadian and the United States interests.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, I agree with the motion of the official opposition blaming the government for its attitude with regard to the construction of a pipeline for the transport of oil from Alaska to the United States.
I would like to make two brief observations, the first of an ecological nature, the other of an economic nature.
Obviously, the first is the most important. Oil production increases by 4 per cent annually, while its transport by sea increases by approximately 60 per cent. At the present time, the production and transport of oil presents particularly great dangers of pollution in the waters of
the Arctic, where polar conditions slow down considerably the degradation of oil.
We have seen the destruction that resulted from the wreck of the Arrow in Chedabucto Bay which happened in the temperate zone.
In 1954, 1962 and 1969, Canada was one of the countries signatories to an international convention on sea pollution. The United States have not yet agreed to sign the document.
International maritime law seems to evolve very slowly and does not sanction any measure regarding sea pollution although the maritime pollution treaty Canada signed allows the contracting parties to impose fines to ships causing pollution within 100 miles of shore. The fine can be levied only against ships of countries that have signed the international agreement, and not being one of them the United States are exempt.
Since international maritime law is very slow to change, I would like to quote what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, in spite of the objections raised by the United States about the Canadian legislation extending to 100 miles the control area in the Arctic waters, in order to prevent pollution. The Prime Minister stated the following:
Canada will not submit that legislation to the Hague court as long as international law has not caught up with technological developments.
Indeed, more than 40 countries have approved that treaty and the Canadian government's attitude has been one of indifference with regard to its southern neighbour when it should have urged it to sign that agreement.
To place the problem in another context, I would say that the United States have already suggested the construction through Alaska of a pipeline to be known as the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System or TAPS. The oil products would then be carried from Alaska to the United States by tankers, which, obviously, would present a serious threat of pollution along the coastline of British Columbia. This threat becomes that more obvious when one considers that the United States have, on several occasions, refused to recognize the Canadian rights of maritime control up to the limits claimed by the Canadian government.
There is a second problem regarding which the Canadian government has shown apathy. Faced by this threat, the Canadian government claimed that it could do nothing more than to suggest the construction of a pipeline through the Canadian North and Northwest, down the Mackenzie Valley.
For too long, Canadian development has been dictated by the profit motive. This is no longer a question of profit or investment, but one of quality of life and means of survival. The environment of central Canada has been spoiled badly enough, through the lethargy of the government, without doing the same thing now in the North.
Until today, the problem was dealt with in such a way as to oppose the interests of the West coast of Canada to those of the North, and the decision was made to give

March 12, 1971

preference to the latter. In so doing, we are guilty of a third mistake, since in giving preference to the interests of one region of Canada rather than to those of the country as a whole, the national interest is being ignored. I shall come back to this later.
And that is not all. It is not only a question of maintaining a balance between different interests, as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) would have us believe. We must go further and not be afraid to impose our Canadian viewpoint. We must not resort to force for this purpose, but we must get our feet out of the same boot, and quickly.
If, as it was suggested by the federal government, we offer the United States an alternative to TAPS, it is absolutely necessary that this system and the route should be better. The Mackenzie route is certainly not so, at the moment. No sufficient study has been made up to this day of the permafrost problems and of the risk of the pipeline system heating the ground and thus damaging the pipeline.
In addition, unfortunately, polar conditions would offer many a problem, should oil be spilled.
I agree with the motion of the Progressive-Conservative party to the effect that no development should be undertaken without the problem being scrutinized, which has not been done. We must not always yield to our southern neighbour, even though we are mindful of our own interests. We must solve the problem before taking any action and make store that our interest will really be protected, because in the North, we might be able to prevent rather than cure. That is why I feel this debate is extremely important.
Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude my remarks here to comply with your wishes that I limit my speech to ten minutes, in order to give my colleagues the opportunity to take part in this debate.
I suggest that under the Canadian Constitution of 1867 the Canadian Parliament has the power to legislate on all coastal and inland fisheries. It can not only make all laws involving marine and aquatic life, but even reassume, as and when it deems advisable, powers in this field which may have been delegated to one or other of the provinces.
Marine and aquatic life includes plants as well as animals. Any kind of aquatic life comes within the jurisdiction of the federal government whose powers in this field are unrestricted.
Mr. Speaker, the present government, vested with such powers, is placed in a critical position by the requirements and the needs of the United States and is now inclined to compromise with that country, but an examination of statements made by the various ministers of the Crown on this matter and a consideration of the underhand positions of the government will tell us that three points are being ignored which I want to bring to your attention.
In the first place, for us Canadians living in 1971, ecology is the art of survival and in this respect nothing,
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
not a single study even, has yet been undertaken. Here, I have a copy of a speech made by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) before the Capilano Liberal Workshop Acadian Gardens in North Vancouver last February 12. In this speech the minister was confessing to the fact that no studies had been undertaken, that everything still had to be done in this field and that could not proceed any further for the time being until we became more knowledgeable on ecology.
The minister himself said that for him and his government ecology was a new science and a word they could not even spell.
The second thing the government will have to do will be to guarantee our economic interests. Instead of conducting thorough economic studies to defend Canadian interests, ministers merely make startling and contradictory statements, which is not likely to reassure Canadians.
I was a member myself of task force on oil last year with a group of American parliamentarians, and we had absolutely no document to defend the interests of the Canadian government, unlike the Americans. They came with documents, helped by researchers and experts. They knew where they were going. As for us, we did not know exactly what to say or what to do, since the Canadian government was sending us there for show, without a serious position and without a thorough study.
This is why, if we rely on appearances, we will be forced to conclude-I speak about those who have studied this matter quite seriously-that, after all, there is nothing.
The government does not seem to take a position about the sovereignty of Canada. According to the British North America Act, it is the sole valid power to protect the environment in Canada. But as it constitutes the only power and claims the exclusive use of this power, it will have to suffer the defeat of its policy, if it is not careful, if it is not really Canadian but simply the puppet of the Americans.
For this reason, I support without reservation the motion of the Progressive Conservative party because it allows us to discuss a very important problem, namely, pollution.
Mr. Speaker, if the Canadian government does not make a real and extremely thorough ecological study, if it keeps on with its noisy and conflicting statements- whenever it sends its members on a visit to our southern neighbour-if moreover, it forgets it is the supreme authority in such a field and that the Canadian people are ready to invest large amounts of money for the preservation of their environment, if, for the sake of petty interests it forgets Canadian sovereignty and fails to convince the United States to adhere, along with 40 other signatory countries, to an agreement that has existed for more than 17 years, I seriously wonder what influence the government believes it has now to safeguard Canadian interests in the problem that concerns us at the present time.

March 12, 1971
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
It is still time today, more than ever, to do something because the situation is extremely urgent.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I believe this debate has been most useful and productive. I believe the Canadian public now understand better what this business of a pipeline in the north is all about. Northern people have been aware of the possibilities of pipelines through their country for some time. Naturally, like other people they have questions and concerns and wonder what it will do in respect of their lives, the environment and the area in which they live. The majority of the people whom I try to represent to the best of my ability are the Indian and Eskimo people of the Northwest Territories. These people are aware of what is happening as a result of oil and gas exploration in the Mackenzie Valley and in the high Arctic Islands. They have a number of apprehensions in respect of how their lives will be affected.
At the very outset I believe it might be useful to read into the record a letter sent to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) by the people of Fort Good Hope which is an Indian community in the Arctic circle on the Mackenzie River consisting of 400 or 500 people, most of whom are hunters and trappers. This letter was sent to the minister by the Fort Good Hope Settlement Council, which is composed primarily of Indians and Metis. It is addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and states:
In view of the apparent increasing opposition by the people in the N.W.T. to oil exploration, gas and oil pipeline construction etc., we the Fort Good Hope Settlement Council on behalf of the people here wish to give you our support in this area of northern development.
Our people realize that exploration does, in some ways disturb the environment and cause problems, but we strongly feel that progress must be encouraged and not discouraged, as it seems a minority group are trying to do. The people who say that the N.W.T. natives are united in their attempts to halt the pipeline are wrong. We feel that the pipeline when construction starts, will give us nothing but benefit, and at that, less benefit than these settlements who are right on the proposed route of the pipeline.
If it were not at this time possible for our men to work on experimental pipeline, seismic or drilling crews, there would be no employment at all in our area, our men on these jobs are being well paid and treated very well by their employers. Rey Geophysical and the experimental gas pipeline run by Williams Bros, have been exceptional in hiring from here.
We also feel that if the government and the oil companies when moving into the area first of all have a discussion with the people of that area and explain their purpose for being there, and most important to the people, hire some of them to work on the project. If this is done there should be no opposition to oil work in the north, and certainly not for the Fort Good Hope area. It is when a company move in and start work in the area without us knowing who they are, or what they are doing, and without hiring our men that we have resentment against them, early discussion will save later problems.
Sincerely,
Fort Good Hope Settlement Council
Mr. Speaker, in the few moments I have available to me I want to stress to the government and the oil industry that it is important that the people in the north benefit from the construction of oil and gas pipelines. I think up until this point the government and the companies have been aware of the importance of involving the northern people in this program. As has been outlined by the two ministers today, we have seen the attempts by the government to communicate with the native people in respect of the plans for and effect of oil and gas exploration and oil and gas pipelines. I should like to think that the northern people generally want pipelines, but under proper conditions. They want part of the action. They want to be involved. We want to see these people involved not only in the construction phase but in the operational phase. Already as a result of the test programs conducted by a number of the groups interested in building these lines and operating them, certain programs are under way. I say to these companies and to the government: It is a good start, but it is only a start.
If we look at how much of our land we will use in the construction, we will find that statistics show that less than 40 square miles of the Northwest Territories would be used for the construction of a gas and oil pipeline. However, this line will move through various parts of our country, from permafrost through muskeg, along eskers and into the boreal forest area where pipelining should not present any particular or unusual difficulties. However, the Arctic areas concern us. We have heard again today of the work that has been done in Inuvik by the Mackenzie Valley pipeline group to investigate the effects of pipelines on the tender Arctic ecology.
I am one of those fortunate people in this House who has had an opportunity to observe this pipeline experiment. As I understand it, this experiment is designed to test oil pipelining under all possible conditions. It is in the second winter of its operation and, as the ministers have indicated, hopefully results will be forthcoming on the effect on permafrost before the end of this year.
There is a third area which I think must be considered. Some discussion has taken place today with regard to the route. Regardless of whether we end up with an oil pipeline in the Mackenzie before or after the TAPS line is built, as was so well put by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) I am convinced that there will be a gas pipeline. This gas line will run from Prudhoe Bay, along the Arctic coast, possibly make a detour through the Yukon and the Old Crow Flats and then go up the Mackenzie River.
There is a problem of which I know the government is aware, but I think it has to be brought out-that is with respect to the route of the first part of the line.
There are two alternatives. One is that the pipeline goes down the Arctic coast from Prudhoe, turns the corner at Richardson Mountains over the Mackenzie River and then continues on up the Mackenzie Valley. The second alternative is to avoid the Arctic coast, because of a wildlife reserve which is in Alaska, and cut across the Porcupine Valley into the Old Crow Flats. I would be concerned about this direction because it would

March 12, 1971

423?
have a very great effect on the Old Crow Indian people in the Yukon territory. They are completely self-sufficient today as hunters and trappers. Unless we are absolutely satisfied that this route will have no effect on their future habitat, I think the only alternative is to make an adjustment so far as the Alaska wildlife reserve is concerned.
To a northerner and to a Canadian these pipelines can set the tone of prosperity in Canada in the 1970s. We hear these astronomical figures of $5 billion, $6 billion or $7 billion for the construction. When you take into account the amount of pipe, the use of transportation and the volume of employment during the construction phase, you see what this will do for our Canadian economy. I believe that at this stage the Canadian government holds all the cards that they need to ensure that Canada get a fair deal from whatever develops as the result of the construction of one line or both.
I know that the feeling is that we want to have as much Canadian participation as possible, not only in the financing of the pipeline but in its construction, the use of materials, supplies and the employment of men. So I would like to think that these problems can shortly be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned, to the satisfaction of the people who require the oil and gas, to the satisfaction of the people whose lives will be affected by whatever route is taken and to the satisfaction of the Canadian people generally. We must ensure that Canadians get the full benefit from a development of this magnitude.
In conclusion I want to speak again about our native people in northern Canada and reiterate what I said earlier, that no effort is too great on the part of industry and government working in unison to ensure that our people understand what is happening to them, understand the meaning of these massive machines that will be cutting across their land, understand that this will not necessarily change their way of life and that they can continue in their old ways and still have new and developing functions taking place around them without interfering with their normal ways. We must ensure that when this project moves on there is complete and total involvement in the job so far as our northern people are concerned. The ministers have already indicated their determination to see that this is carried out and I am convinced that we can accept what they have said, because the results are already starting to show.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: There is not much time left, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to speak briefly on this rather important motion which is before the House. Most of all I would like to address myself to the amendment which was moved by our party. The amendment was that we add to the motion the following words:
-with a view to developing under public ownership a transport system for oil and gas which will best serve the long term interest of the Canadian economy.
A number of those who have spoken in the debate have indicated that they feel the type of amendment
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
offered by our group does not seem to fit into this picture very well. I could not disagree more with the government members, the official opposition or those who are opposed to the Canadian pipeline. If it comes from the north and is a common carrier, it should be publicly-owned. We should control this common carrier which will bring the great wealth of northern Canada to this part of the world. What is wrong with that? Here we have a clearcut issue of Canadian ownership and we challenge the government and members of the House on this issue.


John James Greene: Would you raise taxes to pay for it?


Randolph Harding: If we are to have a pipeline bringing not only U.S. gas and oil to Canada and to the U.S. but a common carrier that I hope will be bringing vast amounts of Canadian gas and oil from the north, then this is a stand which we must take-and we must take it this year. The government must be prepared to see that we have the pipeline Canadian-owned and controlled.
We will not drop this issue, Mr. Speaker. If we must have a pipeline down the Mackenzie-and there will be some sacrifice involved so far as our ecology is concerned-it is the people of Canada who should benefit. We must put our reserves into this project. Even if it costs $2 billion or $3 billion to construct, within 20 years that would be paid off in the dividends it would yield to the people of this nation. This is something we cannot afford to overlook at this stage. That is the first point with which I wanted to deal.
I am opposed to a tanker route down the west coast of British Columbia. I realize we cannot stop the Americans from taking oil from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez and shipping it down the coast; and we must not forget that even if the oil were not transported in that manner, oil would sill reach the Cherry Point refinery. That refinery is already being built. The tragedy of it all is that it will be almost as dangerous to ship oil from California to the refinery as to ship oil from Alaska to it. However, the difference is that there would be 50 billion barrels less oil going down the west coast.
I endorse the position taken by several hon. members in the debate, that we have not done enough research on pipeline routes and that the government must be prepared to undertake immediate extensive research on all such routes. We must be assured of the best possible route for Canadian interests. Just a few years ago one of the most important debates that ever took place in this House concerned the Columbia River treaty. What happened in the case of the Columbia? We went to the bargaining table with the Americans thinking we had all kinds of cards in our hands. We thought we obtained a top-notch deal from the Americans. Now, looking at the effect of the treaty on Canada, we see it was one of the biggest "rides" we were taken for in our lifetime. We sold the whole of the water of an important riverway to the Americans for next to nothing.
Now we are going to the bargaining table with the Americans again-and we have even fewer cards in our

March 12, 1971
Trans-Alaska Pipeline
hand and less information than we had with respect to the Columbia River. Whose fault is that? It is the fault of those sitting opposite. For some 15 years we have been pushing economic development in the north, but only within the last two years have we become concerned about the effect of industrial development on the ecology of the north. After 15 years we still do not have land use regulations for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Ministers tell us what the government is doing. Mr. Speaker, who are they trying to bluff? They have kidded the Canadian nation long enough. Let us sit down and face the facts. We do not have enough information on all the problems we will encounter in the north.
Someone mentioned the Old Crow Flats region, where the natives are self-sufficient. If we stop the caribou migration into that area we will create a disaster for the inhabitants. I am told that the average individual in the Old Crow area can use up to 25 caribou per year, and in the rest of the region individuals can use about five caribou per year. Some 150,000 caribou take part in the migration. If pipeline construction halts the movement of caribou, all the people of the region will be adversely affected.
We have not had sufficient time to collect all the necessary information. This is why I urge the government to redouble its research efforts. The departments must be integrated far more than even before. If necessary, we must get information from other nations on the effect of pipelines and roads on migrating animals. If we do not, we may have another ecological disaster such as that being caused in the Mackenzie River delta by the construction of the Peace River dam.
There are many other points I wished to raise, Mr. Speaker, but I think we have had a good debate. We have aired our views. At least this debate has been a start. I trust that in the coming weeks and months hon. members will have other opportunities to discuss in detail some of the plans and projections put forward by the ministers who took part in the debate this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 58 (11) the proceedings on this motion have expired.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the
unanimous consent of the House in order to make an announcement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I was informed a few minutes ago that arrangements are being discussed with regard to a visit to Ottawa within two weeks of the presidents of seven of the Alaskan north slope major producers who are to meet the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) and myself as a point of contact between the government and the industry, as established in the guidelines issued in August, 1970, by the government. We hope that this meeting will be held within two weeks, perhaps on the 22nd of the month.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, before we conclude may I ask the government whip or the House Leader what the order of business will be on Monday?


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, the order will be as stated by the President of the Privy Council on Thursday and recorded at page 4168 of Hansard. I believe the first item will be the packaging and labelling measure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. This House stands adjourned until Monday, March 15, 1971, at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2 (1). The Chair has listened to many hon. members this week expressing strong determination to maintain our political and economic freedoms. I am tempted to suggest that we should enshrine these feelings in a formal pledge to Canada, to be recited at the opening of our daily sittings. I hope all hon. members enjoy their weekend.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 15, 1971