1977-08-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion is prompted by the fact that the public service minister of the province of Quebec has confirmed that 22,000 Quebec public servants hold two permanent public service jobs and collect two salaries during a time of high unemployment. Furthermore, since the federal government has announced that Quebec will get more than $84 million from the Canada Works program for make work projects, 1 should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That this House direct the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to proportionately reduce the $84 million Canada Works grant to Quebec and UIC payments to Quebec until 22,000 Quebeckers are taken off the unemployment rolls by eliminating dual jobs in the Quebec civil service, and if this is not done to withhold the Canada Works grant from Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of public and private forecasts, including most recently the Wall Street Journal, indicating continuing high levels of unemployment throughout Canada, in view of the general uncertainty in the Canadian economy and considering the fact that the government has promised a statement on job creation in the first week of August and nothing has been forthcoming, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House agrees to sit beyond Friday, August 5, in order to enable the government to bring in legislation to deal with the serious problems of the Canadian economy, and in particular the alarming and worsening problem of unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTION GOVERNMENT LET QUEBEC CONTROL ITS OWN FUNDS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of pressing necessity.
Considering the economic situation now prevailing in the western world and especially in North America; considering that such a situation affects mostly the American dollar and as a consequence the Canadian dollar; considering the dangerous fluctuation of the Canadian dollar related to the American dollar; and considering that the government headed by the Prime Minister is attempting to hide this situation under the pretext that all these problems are due to the new political situation created by the elections of November 15, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the government stop fighting in every possible way the Quebec political emancipation that, instead, it concern itself with solving the problems of our deficient economic system which generates the worse ills, namely including unemployment, through a feasibility study to let the provinces control their credit, thus guaranteeing each one's progress.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMBINES
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion is prompted by the apparently illegal activities of a uranium cartel which operated
7990

August 4, 1977
Small Business
between 1972 and 1975. In view of the fact that the Canadian government took an active part in fostering this cartel, and bearing in mind that as the uranium cartel functioned cartel prices become world prices, which in turn became the Canadian domestic price, all of which is carefully recorded as it was screened with the cartel secretary in Paris, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield):
That this House order an inquiry immediately into such cartel, with particular reference as to whether the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act have been violated.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation for debate of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity with regard to the contractual and working relationship of the RCMP vis-a-vis provinces to which the force is under contract, specifically Nova Scotia. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):
That the Solicitor General, in view of differences between the RCMP and the Nova Scotia department of the attorney general as set out in correspondence this spring regarding certain matters of criminal procedure and investigations of persons in the Berwick area of Nova Scotia which touched on the police force of that town among other things, enquire to make certain that proper and usual standards of law enforcement of the force are not being restricted.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the brief presented to the Minister of State (Small Business) by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which criticized the government for failing to address itself to the many problems faced by small business, such as access to capital, cash flow, tax policies,

government purchasing policies, government regulations and reporting requirements, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That this House instructs the Minister of State for Small Business to end the patchwork quilt of government programs by introducing a comprehensive small business policy which will truly meet the needs of small businessmen in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the promise of the Minister of Justice to investigate the May 9 advertisement in the Ottawa Journal for legal abortions on demand, and in view of the fact that these abortions take place in Montreal at a cost of $250 on a same day no questions asked basis and are in obvious and direct contravention to the Criminal Code, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That this House directs the Minister of Justice to make a statement on motions today outlining what actions have been taken in conjunction with the Ontario and Quebec ministers of justice and clearly indicate what charges have been laid.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister in connection with this very considerable uranium cartel of a dubious nature, and probably tainted with illegality, in which the government apparently played some part, as referred to by my hon. friend earlier. Will the Prime Minister explain to this House the reasons the
August 4, 1977

government had to accommodate the parties by indicating in advance that "an opinion will be rendered by the Minister of Justice which will prevent any action from being taken under Canada law against participants in the agreement, at least as long as the present government is in power", which is a quote from a memorandum from Gulf legal counsel under date April 12, 1972.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the position of the government is one of not permitting United States law to have extraterritorial jurisdiction in Canada. 1 suspect the hon. member for Peace River will support the government on that, as long as he is in the opposition.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Prime Minister is afraid to answer the question directly.


Mr. Alexander:: When he is in trouble, as usual.


Gerald William Baldwin: If the government is satisfied that there was no illegality and that there is nothing to hide, despite the fact that it is trying desperately both in the courts in England and in Toronto to prevent any information being given, can the Prime Minister explain why the government promulgated Order in Council 76-644 which effectively bars possession and use of all documents relating to the cartel from 1972 to 1975 inclusive, as an horrendous attempt to hide evidence. I might make myself liable under it by bringing from my office in the Confederation Building to this Chamber a copy of the memo I have just read.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 really wonder whether the hon. member listened to the substantive answers which were given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and other ministers in this House some time ago. If he is just being farcical about the subject, then I can understand his question. If he will recall the substantive issue itself this "cartel" was deliberately encouraged by the government in order to protect Canadian industry and industries of other countries which were being inhibited by restrictive practices in the United States. We find it objectionable that United States law should inquire into this practice which we consider legitimate, as if their law should be forced upon Canadians and we in Canada should be forced to submit to that law. This point was made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It was made by the Minister of Finance in this very House, I believe in the presence of the Attorney General of the United States. If the hon. member objects to the Canadian government taking measures to protect our industry from foreign interference, he should say so and not disguise it in the form of a question that is spurious.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: I am not talking about extraterritorial law. 1 am talking about this House of Commons and an order in council which this government passed prohibiting members of
Ora! Questions
this House, members of the gallery and members of the public from having in their possession any documents relating to this conspiracy. If the government has nothing to hide, why did it pass this order in council and why will it not let the documents in question become public so that we can all make our judgment?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the issue is really whether we want to let Canadian residents be subjected to United States law-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Fraser:: The issue is whether Canada is prepared to break other countries' laws.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -when that law tells them they shall make certain documents public. In that sense, we are telling Canadians that they do not have to divulge everything that Uncle Sam says they should. In that sense they are obliged to hide facts from foreign application of a foreign law.


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-EFFECT ON DOMESTIC USERS- POSSIBILITY DOMESTIC CONTRACTS EXAMINED BY CARTEL
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Prime Minister. As it has now been revealed in documents, in minutes and in sworn testimony relating to the uranium cartel group, known as the Club of Five, that Canadian consumers have been injured while international companies may gain billions in windfall gains, and as on several occasions the cabinet approved of these cartel activities and even facilitated them, which appear to have contravened the Canadian Combines Investigation Act, will the Prime Minister indicate if at any time, as head of cabinet, he inquired as to what effect cartel activities would have on domestic users in Canada and, if so, what did he learn?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this subject was acted on by the government in the normal way.


An hon. Member:: It sure was.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot recall, in answer to the precise question, which particular decisions went before the cabinet. I do say that the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the then Minister of Justice were acting within their authority and acted in the way they did to protect Canadian interests.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As a search of the Club of Five organization's records maintained in Paris, supposedly secret, confirm that Canadian domestic contracts involving Ontario Hydro, for example, were scrutinized and policed by the group, will the Prime Minister indicate if he was informed of this fact, bearing in mind such information was certainly available to his
80020-41 Zi

August 4, 1977
Oral Questions
then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and to at least one member of his staff?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In answer to that particular question, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, I did not know that particular fact. I fail to see how that would have changed the decision at the time.


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-POSSIBILITY PRIME MINISTER INQUIRED AS TO LEGALITY OF SCHEME
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Bearing in mind Club of Five records indicate that many participants feared their activities would lead to charges under the Combines Investigation Act, and in fact the then director of investigation and research of the Combines Branch, Mr. Henry, was said to have warned that the proposed activity was illegal, would the Prime Minister indicate if he inquired as to the legality of the scheme and, if so, what was he informed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall whether I asked any specific question about the legality of the scheme or otherwise. This was a plan put forward once again to protect Canadian producers, and 1 presume consumers, against restrictive measures by the U.S. uranium industry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Not the consumers.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As such it went forward with the government's approval. I would ask the hon. member, if he is concerned with specific aspects of this, to let me inquire into them or else to address his questions to the ministers who were then responsible for these portfolios.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: 1 am tempted to say that only the Conservatives could make the Prime Minister look like a nationalist.
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. Considering that recently the minister said that, unless the private business sector did something soon about creating more jobs, the government would have to move in with special job creation measures, and since he also added that the cabinet would have to reach a decision on this matter by the end of July and that an announcement would be made about such new efforts by the government in the first week of August, since none of these three conditions have materialized, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance why he has changed his mind and why the government has done nothing in the past week about the new job creating measures that the Minister of Finance said were essential?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: I would remind the hon. gentleman that my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, set out late last month a proposed expenditure of a quarter of a billion dollars for additional direct job creation measures in this coming winter. We have been keeping under close surveillance the report on the first and second quarter performance within the Canadian economy, and that close surveillance will be continuing as the year goes on.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister well knows that the announcement he has just referred to by one of his colleagues was a decision that was made prior to his own statement that some additional measures might be required. Is he now saying that the announcement that was made by one of his colleagues will be sufficient to head off what every independent and public group has forescast as increasing unemployment for the coming fall?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would remind the hon. gentleman again that the announcement incorporated the expenditure of a quarter of a billion dollars, which of course, is a very substantial expenditure for the coming year.


EFFECT OF UNEMPLOYMENT ON NATIONAL UNITY-REASON FOR FAILURE TO ADOPT CORRECTIVE MEASURES
John Edward Broadbent: I would remind the minister that what he has just said does not at all deny the point that I have made. He admitted just a few weeks ago that all these measures were insufficient; now he is implying that the measures that were in existence then and that remain unchanged are sufficient.
My last question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to ask him whether, considering that he himself has said that the private sector has not been creating the kinds of jobs that the budget was supposed to establish, and considering that the President of the Treasury Board is quoted as having said that it is "getting pretty hard on the nerves" to wait for action by the private sector in terms of job creation and that this is contributing to national disunity-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Allen Fraser: You are in the House, not on television.


John Edward Broadbent: -I would like to ask the Prime Minister, if he agrees with these observations and if he agrees that national disunity results in part from higher levels of unemployment, why the government persists in doing nothing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 can answer that question fairly only by putting it in the context of the larger problem of economic development in Canada, which I am sure the leader of the NDP would welcome. In that sense it fits into the discussion we had with management and labour on Friday of last week and with some other labour groups this week to try to impress upon them that the Canadian economy must be made to perform better and
August 4, 1977

that that depends not only on government action-1 mean all governments, federal, provincial and municipal-but that it also relies very heavily on the private sector, of which the groups we met last week were very representative.
In this sense I support the views of the Minister of Finance and the quotes from the President of the Treasury Board that there is a great onus on government to do what it can to correct the high unemployment situation, but much of our corrective measures will depend on the co-operation we can have from all sectors of the Canadian economy to make sure that we have an economy which is competitive with our principal competitors, principally the United States.


John Edward Broadbent: What is the government going to do?


HOUSING
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister? Considering that a few weeks ago the government announced that a special insulation program designed to urge those who own a house built before 1921 to save energy, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether all provinces agreed to follow this program and, if not, which provinces have agreed so far?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to take notice of the question but the hon. member will realize that I did not communicate myself with the provinces but the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did so before announcing his program, and he is also the one who will be able to report on the reception given to this program by the various provinces.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Could the minister tell the House whether the provinces were consulted before the announcement of the program? If so, did they all agree? If not, which provinces did not and did they say why?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was considerable consultation between the federal government and the provinces. This matter was raised at the federal-provincial energy ministers' meeting on May 11 of this year. Subsequent to that and subsequent to discussions between myself and my cabinet colleagues and a cabinet decision, I then discussed the principles of the home insulation program with each of the energy ministers, or their premiers, of all the provinces across the country before announcing the government's decision. On each occasion I got a very favourable response from each energy minister or premier to whom I was talking. Indeed, in the case
Oral Questions
of Quebec there was a discussion between myself and the energy minister, and the minister made it quite clear to me that he accepted and agreed with the principles which the federal government proposed to impose in the home insulation program.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, considering the importance of this question and the somewhat controversial radio news like I heard this morning, did the province of Quebec categorically refuse or does it agree on principle, and if it does agree on principle can the minister tell us that we can hope it will do so in practice?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, that is a question we are trying to clarify right now with the Quebec government. There has been an exchange of telexes and letters between myself and the energy minister, and I hope to be able to define and clarify the areas of concern of the government of Quebec very shortly.


COMBINES
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In light of matters which were raised today by my colleagues from Peace River and York-Simcoe relating to a matter which could well have involved the participation of ministers and officials of the government of Canada in an action which at the time, and in view of the then director of combines and investigation of this government, was illegal, will the Prime Minister tell the House whether it is the position of the government that there are circumstances in which ministers of the Crown or the government itself have the right to take actions which break the law of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, no, that is not a right to which we, on this side, subscribe.


John Allen Fraser: Then, why did you do it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, 1 cannot quarrel with what Mr. Henry, the then director of combines and investigation said, but 1 know that the order in council we passed was under a law passed by this parliament setting up Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and that we had a legal opinion from the Department of Justice of Canada to the effect that we were not infringing on the combines act.


Mr. Hees:: When did you become a supporter of cartels?

August 4, 1977
Oral Questions


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO ACTIVITIES OF CABINET MINISTERS OR GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there is a difference between subscription and practice on the government side. Since it now appears on the basis of available evidence that there was what amounts to a uranium sales conspiracy which included ministers of the Crown and the Canadian government, a conspiracy to sell uranium in a way which violated Canadian domestic laws, not foreign laws, which may well have transgressed international codes and perhaps artificially inflated the domestic prices of power and uranium in Canada, I wonder if the Prime Minister, instead of covering up this matter by order in council or any other means, would undertake to have a complete review and a full report made to the House of Commons with regard to any actions by any cabinet minister or representatives of the government of Canada which might have been or were in clear conflict with the law of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the question was properly asked in light of my previous answer, in which I indicated clearly that we received information from the Department of Justice to the effect that we were not in contravention of the competition act, that we were not in conflict with the restrictive trade practices legislation of Canada and that we were perfectly within our rights to pass that order in council which, I repeat, was made pursuant to an act of this parliament setting up atomic energy controls.


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-SUGGESTED REPEAL OF ORDER IN COUNCIL PROHIBITING POSSESSION OF DOCUMENTS
Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister had at least two legal opinions which were in conflict. The then director of the combines investigation branch told the Prime Minister and his colleagues that what they were doing was in conflict with the law of Canada. For some reason, perhaps relating to the fear of litigation on this matter or of the matter becoming public, they have promulgated a most extraordinary order in council which in effect makes it illegal for me as Leader of the Opposition, any member of this House, any member of the gallery, or any member of the public of Canada to carry, discuss or have in his possession any of a wide range of documents which are public in other countries and would normally be public here. I ask the Prime Minister, if he is not prepared to carry out an investigation of this matter will he at least repeal the regulation in this most offensive order in council, this latest attempt by the government of Canada to keep information from the people of Canada? Will he at least give us the undertaking that he will today, by order in council, repeal this document and then institute immediately an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act into all aspects of the uranium cartel's operation?
[Mr. Hees.l


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is false, at least in part, in that the Leader of the Opposition said we had conflicting legal opinions. I must remind him that the Crown in Canada is advised by the legal officers of the Crown and that we had legal advice from the Department of Justice-


An hon. Member:: To cover up.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -which is empowered by parliament to advise the Crown and does so by tradition. We had advice that we were acting legally. Any allegations about cover up or of the desire to controvert the law are spurious accusations.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Nonsense!


John Allen Fraser: Was the order in council spurious? Why do you need something like that in a free country?


Mr. Paproski:: They only do things like that in Russia.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is dealing with the matter of whether the government acted legally or not. We acted within the law, as we were advised the law read. That is point number one.
Obviously, the object of the order in council is not to prevent the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for Peace River-


An hon. Member:: What?


Walter David Baker: Read it.


An hon. Member:: Listen.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -to carry around documents in their pockets. The object of the legislation, to repeat my earlier answers, is to prevent foreign law from obliging Canadian residents or Canadian citizens, including the Leader of the Opposition, to submit to that foreign law.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is not what it says.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If there is any way in which that objective can be reached by improving the order in council, by not infringing on the rights of the opposition to carry documents in their pockets when they walk from their offices to the House of Commons, I undertake to look at the order in council, to see if it can be improved.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the opposition laughs, but this is what the Leader of the Opposition wants me to do.


John Allen Fraser: It is enough to make us cry.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You can cry, of course, and you will be following your natural habit.


John Allen Fraser: 1 cry for my country.
August 4, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by the Leader of the Opposition to examine a statutory instrument, to see if it can be improved. I have answered that 1 would, Mr. Speaker. What else does the opposition want?


John Allen Fraser: The truth.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder, after that performance, if I may ask if the Prime Minister has read this order in council which makes it illegal for any person to release any note, document or material or disclose or communicate the contents thereof to any person, government, Crown corporation, agent or other organization, unless required to do so under a law of Canada, or unless he does so with the consent of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the man in charge of the department which was then involved in an activity which may well have been illegal. Surely, the Prime Minister does not need any more evidence than that 1 have read into the record to prove to him that we have here a restriction upon free speech, upon free inquiry, upon the ability of the House of Commons to do its job and upon the ability of the courts of the land to do their job, and that this most illiberal attempt to limit debate and hide information should be withdrawn and stopped immediately.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition read part of an order in council and the words I heard were "release any note or document." 1 have not read the order in council.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not have it before me.


Mr. Epp:: But you signed it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously-I listened to what the Leader of the Opposition said-it depends on what the note or document relates to. I hope the Leader of the Opposition is not claiming that he can carry and release any document relating to anything without being liable to some kind of restriction by the law.


George Harris Hees: This performance would make the Russians blush.


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON ACTIONS OF COMBINES DIRECTOR
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs also relates to the uranium cartel. In response to my question of June 17, the minister replied, as reported on page 6785 of Hansard, that:
... the director has been following the situation closely for evidence of violation of the act.
Has the minister anything further to report on what the director of the combines and investigation has been doing,
Oral Questions
given that the previous director had said it was very likely that the action taken on the part of the conspirators was illegal under Canadian law?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, given the questioning which arose a few minutes ago, and in response to the hon. member's last point, may I say that i consulted the deputy director a few minutes ago who advised me the matter is still under consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why don't you blush, Abbott? Resign.


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER REVIEWED EVIDENCE AND WILL LAY CHARGES
James McPhail Gillies: A question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the minister tell us whether or not he has reviewed personally any of the evidence which has been produced in the U.S. courts, and which has now been produced in Toronto in connection with this conspiracy and allegations that Canadian law has been broken and that some of the participants were the hon. gentleman's colleagues in the present Cabinet?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: 1 have reviewed the press reports and material but I was not a member of the government at the time and I can add nothing to the answers which the Prime Minister has given, answers which I believe adequately deal with the scurrilous remarks made by the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


James McPhail Gillies: It is a very interesting question whether this government believes that any means can be used to justify certain ends. However, it has long been a proposition among the people of this country that even governments must obey the law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: I did not ask the minister whether he had read any press reports. 1 asked him whether he had read any of the depositions taken in this case, evidence which to most people indicates there was a conspiracy and that Canadian law was broken. More specifically, will the minister lay charges under Section 8 of the act and require that the Director of the Combines Investigation Branch take this matter under consideration so that it may be properly investigated?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: As the hon. member is aware, my powers under Section 8 of the Combines Investigation Act are as he outlines. But at the time I answered a question earlier in the summer I did so quite accurately-that in the light of the proceedings taking place in the United States the Director of the Combines Branch was studying the question and would be reporting to me. Until that study has been completed and until he has reported I do not intend to take any further action.

August 4, 1977
Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE


PAYMENT OF BILINGUAL BONUS
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of articles appearing in today's Ottawa press, can the hon. gentleman tell us when an announcement will be made concerning payment of bilingual bonuses to public servants?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Consultations are under way with the official languages committee of the National Joint Council and we are hopeful a consensus will be reached on certain proposals placed before that body covering this whole area, one of which also includes significant and related provisions for changes in the implementation of the Official Languages Act in the Public Service. I hope such a consensus may be available within a month. Until then we are not in a position to make any formal announcement.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs-I am sorry 1 did not give him notice. Is the government aware of the use by the United States CIA, a U.S. government agency, of Canadians and the Canadian Institute at McGill to experiment in brainwashing or sensory deprivation? Is the minister aware that persons who are subjected to this treatment lose the senses of sound, sight, smell and in some cases touch and time also, and that the experience has serious effects upon their personalities?


An hon. Member:: Like the Liberals!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The only evidence I have about changes in people's personality relates to this House and is usually the result of actions taken by the other side. But as to the question, which is a serious one, may I say I have not had an opportunity to find out anything beyond the account I have read in the newspaper. But I will undertake to inquire further.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask the minister whether, if these accounts, which certainly appear to be authentic, prove to be authentic, he will consider making a protest to the United States government with regard to what appears to have been an intrusion into the affairs of Canadians?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will consider that possibility.


COMBINES
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs relating to the subject of the cartel. On June 17, the minister told the House that this cartel "was designed to exclude price fixing in the Canadian market". The quotation is from Hansard. It is now evident from a quarterly report of the Paris-based cartel secretariat dated July 4, 1974, that seven tonnes of uranium were sold to Ontario Hydro at the fixed cartel price-Ontario Hydro records will confirm this sale. Further documentation shows clearly that Ontario Hydro, hence, the Ontario consumer, was forced to pay the cartel price on a continuing basis. Will the minister tell us why he chose to mislead the House in his statement of June 17?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: When I answered that question I stated correctly that the design of the cartel was as I described it. I was not attempting to deceive the House in any way. The information which the hon. member has provided to the House and which has been discussed today is new to me, so my answer at that time was accurate given the information I had.


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-REQUEST FOR INQUIRY
Arthur Ronald Huntington: In view of the fact the former director of investigation and research advised the government in 1972 that what they subsequently did would be illegal, does the minister not feel he has a duty to move the matter from being one of investigation to one of inquiry into this illegal arrangement and behaviour, particularly in the light of the tremendous amount of work the finance committee of this House has just completed with regard to the proposed revisions to the Combines Investigation Act?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I think it only proper that I should refer the hon. member to the answers given by the Prime Minister today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Members who are catcalling have not, I suggest, been as interested in the Competition Act as is the hon. member who asked the question. I am trying to explain in as factual a way as possible that the question he raised about a possible illegality as described by one officer can be contrasted with the opinion of another. Therefore I referred the hon. member to the statement of the right hon. gentleman today in which he gave his version, one which I submit is the correct appraisal of the situation upon which the government acted.
August 4, 1977______________________ _	_ COMMONS


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF LETTER TO GULF TO PARTICIPATE IN SCHEME
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In a letter dated November 8, 1976 and addressed to Mr. Janisch the president of Gulf Minerals, the minister admitted, and I quote, that "Gulf participated in the arrangement only at the specific written request of the government of Canada." Will the minister table this "specific written request" in the House and will he tell us whether that document was one of several which Gulf was allowed to draft on departmental stationery for signature by officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources or by the minister?


Alastair William Gillespie: I shall be prepared to take a look at the correspondence to which the hon. member is referring, but I think it is clear from answers ministers have given in the House that the government did invite Gulf Minerals of Canada to participate in the producers' arrangements.


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-RETURN OF DOCUMENTS FROM PARTICIPATING COMPANIES
John Carnell Crosbie: On June 17, the minister told the House there was "no secrecy with respect to the producers' group arrangement at all". Since all the documents in our possession concerning this cartel were marked secret or "specially confidential" after an order in council was passed on September 21, 1976, as was mentioned here today, and since the minister wrote Gulf Minerals on November 8, 1976 demanding the return of all documents relating to the cartel, is he still telling us there was no secrecy? Was the minister successful in getting all the documents back from Gulf so that his coverup could continue and did he write to other cartel members asking them to send back documents so that the coverup could continue?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, apparently the hon. member does not distinguish between Gulf Minerals of Canada Limited, the Canadian corporation, and Gulf Minerals of the U.S.


John Allen Fraser: What difference does it make?


Alastair William Gillespie: What is the difference, the hon. member says.
I say there is a great difference. That is part of the whole issue here, the extraterritorial application of United States law to Canada; the ability of a U.S. parent to compel its Canadian subsidiary to provide confidential Government of Canada documents. That is the issue here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The minister is very touchy about this question, Mr. Speaker, but there is possibly criminal liability
DEBATES	7997
Oral Questions
involved. My question was whether he wrote others, apart from Gulf Minerals of Canada Limited, requesting the return of documents, such as Rio Tinto-Zinc and the others involved, did they return the documents, and has Gulf returned all the documents? That is my question to the minister.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, 1 will check the record. I know that all the participants in Canada were contacted. They were asked for certain undertakings with respect to the documents.
I believe that a large number of those documents have been returned. Others may have been subject to some kind of in-trust arrangement so that those documents could not be relayed to foreign corporations, foreign governments or to agencies of foreign governments, or to foreign courts.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Since he just said, in reply to a question from the hon. member for Ottawa West, that the Civil Service Act will have to be amended before granting the bilingualism bonus and since the House cannot look into that matter before the end of 1977, could the President of the Treasury Board tell the House whether or not he would consider granting immediately a minimum amount to all those who fill designated bilingual positions and adjust thoses amounts once administrative details have been established?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think there is some misunderstanding here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Where are you, Francis?


Robert Knight Andras: At no time has there been an indication that amendments will be required to the Public Service Staff Relations Act or to the Public Service Employment Act specifically relating to the payment of compensation for bilingualism. That is not the case; therefore, the premise of the question is unfortunately incorrectly based.


COMBINES
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a follow up question to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that the Prime Minister has said that the government has received a legal opinion from the Crown
80020 42

August 4, 1977
Oral Questions
officers of the Department of Justice, and in light of the fact that that legal opinion certainly seems to contradict either the assistant director or the director of the combines investigation branch, was that opinion given to the cabinet in writing, and if it was in writing, since I am sure the Prime Minister would want to maintain his credibility in respect to this very serious matter, would he be prepared to table that opinion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire as to the form in which the opinion was given. 1 have just been told by the Minister of Justice that it was in the form of correspondence, presumably between his department and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The hon. member knows that it is the constant practice of the House not to table legal opinions given by the Department of Justice-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and so far as that practice is an established one, I do not propose to break it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member to whom the Prime Minister refers, being myself, is not aware of such practice. That is only a procedure which is a complete cover-up; we do not know whether those are the facts or not. I am asking the Prime Minister, the head of the government, in light of the fact-


Some hon. Members:: Louder.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, I will be loud. It is time that the Canadian people got loud about something as bad as this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the fact that this is such a serious matter, I wonder whether the Prime Minister, even if he does believe the procedure to be as he set it out, would waive that procedure and consent to table the document in the House of Commons, so that even his credibility can look good today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think that if the hon. member reflects on the question, Mr. Speaker, he will understand why this practice has been established.


John Allen Fraser: We understand it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps the hon. member from Vancouver does not understand it.


John Allen Fraser: You are making it very clear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the hon. member from Vancouver is a lawyer.


John Allen Fraser: That is right, I am.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He knows what redress exists within Canada for people who think that an order in council or an action taken by the government is illegal.


John Allen Fraser: I can also read an opinion, and that is what you are afraid to give me.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The courts are there, Mr. Speaker, to settle this matter. If the opposition-


John Allen Fraser: You can relieve yourself of your self-imposed restrictions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member does not have to agree with me, but I have stated that we have an opinion from the Department of Justice.


John Allen Fraser: Then let us see it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not the practice to table such an opinion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't give us that.


John Allen Fraser: You cannot expect me to take that seriously.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, let me try a different tack; 1 might be more successful.


John Allen Fraser: Try the truth.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The government has made it a policy-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Now, here come the histrionics.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If any person in this country, including a member of the opposition, thinks that we have acted illegally, redress is available in the courts.


Miss MacDonald:: What is wrong with this court?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have adopted and applied a policy which was meant to defend the Canadian producer and the Canadian consumer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Anything that the government does can be attacked by the opposition as being illegal. In some cases we ask the law officers of the Crown to advise us whether such an interpretation of the law is correct or not. It is the government's privilege to ask for the advice of its lawyers. It is the job of the Minister of Justice to advise the government whether it is acting legally or not. The opposition does not have to agree with the government. It does not have to believe the Department of Justice. It is up to them-


George Harris Hees: A new John Barrymore has been born. You have missed your calling, Pierre.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River on a question of privilege.
August 4, 1977


PRIVILEGE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I gave the Chair notice, as the rules require, regarding a question of privilege relating to the matter we have been discussing. It is a very important matter because it affects the rights and privileges of every member of this House in discharging his or her duty with respect to the obtaining of information to be used in connection with proceedings in this House or its committees.
At the moment there is no doubt that we are inhibited and prevented from discharging our responsibilities because of the order in council which has been referred to. As the Prime Minister seems to be unaware of the contents of the order in council, which are very brief, I should like to read it so the Prime Minister can consider the heinous nature of the document he has laid his hand to. It is dated September 23, 1976, which was four days after a former official of Eldorado appeared in court in Toronto and released a great deal of information after being questioned in respect of this particular issue. The order in council referred to uranium information security regulations, and reads as follows:
No person who has in his possession or under his control any note, document or other written or printed material in any way related to conversations, discussions or meetings that took place between January 1, 1972 and December 31, 1975, involving that person or any other person or any government, Crown corporation, agency or other organization in respect of the production, import, export, transportation, refining, possession, ownership, use or sale of uranium or its derivatives or compounds, shall
(a)	release any such note, document or material, or disclose or communicate the contents thereof to any person, government. Crown corporation, agency or other organization unless
(i)	he is required to do so by or under a law of Canada, or
(ii)	he does so with the consent of the Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources; or
(b)	fail to guard against or take reasonable care to prevent the unauthorized release of any such note, document or material or the disclosure or communication of the contents thereof.
For hundreds of years this House, following the practice of the United Kingdom House of Commons at Westminster, has had the right, under the bill of rights, to see that there is no interference with freedom of speech and debate or proceedings in parliament which ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament. I ask members to contrast that order in council with what should be the uninhibited right of members of this House to discharge their obligations to the people of Canada by bringing into this House documents and material which tend to indicate or touch on the probable liability of the government, members of the government or officials of the government, in connection with any conspiracy, crime or impropriety. Under the terms of the order in council it may well be that we are free to discuss it in the House. But how do we get it here? Under that order in council, as it stands, I am prohibited from finding and obtaining that information in a documentary form and bringing it to this House. I can use it once I get here-but how can I get it
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
here legally? I am prohibited from showing it to members of the public or the media. Under those conditions, how is it possible for me or other members of this House to properly discharge our obligations? There should be no doubt about what took place here, despite what has been said. An extract from what we managed to obtain indicates that on April 28, 1972, a memo was passed from one Gulf official to legal counsel which reads as follows:
Mr. Zagnoli-a Gulf official-remains of the definite opinion that failure on Gulf's part to submit to coercive pressure being applied by the Canadian government respecting Gulfs participation would almost certainly result in severe adverse economic consequences for Gulf, including a material deterioration of Gulfs relations with the Canadian government.
Effectively Gulf is being compelled to participate by the Canadian government.
There is a second memo, dated April 10, 1972, from Mr. R. K. Allen, a Gulf official, which reads as follows:
Mr. Austin advised that a formal declaration would be sought from the cabinet-with the Minister of Justice present-that the arrangement is in the interest of Canada. He further stated that an opinion would be obtained from the Minister of Justice as to the legality of the arrangement in so far as the two Crown companies are concerned.
Because of this particular regulation there is a complete prohibition on the part of any member of the public from taking proceedings in any court in Canada. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) made an attempt in consultation with his solicitors who said that in their opinion under no circumstances would it be possible for any proceedings to be launched with regard to a potential infraction of the restrictive trade practices legislation. As a lawyer and counsel of some experience, after looking at a lot of the material, in my judgment there is a prima facie case of breach of that statute. That being the case, the only court left is the highest court in this land-this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I understand the government is sensitive about this issue. Not so many months ago the now Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) was very put out because of a decision by the supreme court of the province of Quebec dealing with the issue of the restrictive trade practices legislation. I understand why he said what he did. 1 may not agree with him, but it is his right to say what he did. The government is very sensitive and very solicitous about the competition act and the restrictive trade practices legislation. Attempts were made in Washington and in Toronto, and an attempt is now being made in London-at which the Canadian government is represented-to try to obtain some of the facts in connection with this issue. This government has said "no" and has enacted this order in council.
For that reason there is an obligation on this House to make certain that we pass a motion giving us the right to deal not only with this matter in the House but to obtain the documents for the purpose of so doing. For that purpose, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House declare that the order in council SOR 76-644 is not binding on members of the House with regard to proceedings in the House or any committee thereof and that for the purpose of such proceedings, despite the
80020-42(4

August 4, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
provisions of such order in council, all documents or copies may be obtained, produced and used in connection with any inquiry into questions of privilege or into the legality and propriety of the actions of the government, ministers and others in the establishment of a uranium cartel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government would welcome a debate on this subject. It would welcome it today, if hon. members are more interested in that than in the pipeline question. It would welcome that when the House reconvenes: it would welcome that debate at any time.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: On Monday.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The government's purpose in adopting this order in council under Canadian law, after having received advice that the law was correctly interpreted by the government, was to prevent Canadian uranium producers from going under at the same time as the uranium producers in several other countries would have gone under, when the United States government and its economy adopted measures restricting the entry of uranium into their country.
It must be kept in mind that 70 per cent of the world markets for uranium were in the United States. When in the late sixties and early seventies the Americans adopted this policy, it meant for Canadian producers, miners in Elliot Lake and other parts of Canada, that they would have to close down; they could no longer be kept in the production of uranium. A few years later pressure was upon Canada and every other country to supply uranium. We should keep in mind the consequences of inaction by the government at that time had it not decided to act before other countries and the producer group decided to act in order to protect the uranium industry.
This is our policy. It is in order to carry out this policy that we made the announcement and took this action. I repeat, Mr. Speaker-and Your Honour will have to decide whether the time to debate it is now or at some other time-that we want the policy to be understood by Canadians. We are not, like the opposition, putting up a front in order to serve the interests of Westinghouse in the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The precise and exact effect of the motion put by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) would be to do exactly what Westinghouse wants to be done in order to get out from under this Canadian policy. If that is the purpose the opposition wants to serve, that is their right. We will debate this policy when you, Mr. Speaker, so decide. But on this question of privilege, we say there is none. We looked earlier, in answer to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Clark), to see if there was some way in which the order in council could be improved to have any better effect in terms of the right of the opposition to know. We want them to know what is

our policy. We want them to debate it, because we know that the Canadian people will support us on this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question put to you, Mr. Speaker, is the following: In order to debate this policy, do the opposition have to get secret facts of this group of producers, the effect of which will be to serve Westinghouse, U.S.A.? That is the question put to you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They say that just because you are a member of the opposition, you are entitled so stand up here and claim the right to freedom of speech and freedom of knowledge and, because of that claim, able to go into documents which are privileged under the law.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We say that is not the interpretation of freedom of speech. If they want to attack the law, they can attack the law. If they want to attack the policy, they can attack the policy. They do not have to serve Westinghouse in order to attain that end.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for me to walk around the House in order to make my point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My contribution will be brief in response to the histrionic attempt by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to avoid the question of privilege raised by my colleague the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). If I might deal for a moment with the extraneous matters which the Prime Minister raised, we would, of course, welcome a debate on all aspects of this question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now, today.


Charles Joseph Clark: I know that the Prime Minister has been anxious to avoid debate on the pipeline decision for a long time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: We have business on the agenda of this House of Commons right now, business that should have been debated well before this time. The parliament of Canada should have been allowed to become involved in this question long before it did. We would be prepared to have the matter debated in the fall, or next week, on the provision that the debate would be a full and extensive one that would let us know all aspects of all the transactions and all the illegalities that may be involved in this question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

August 4, 1977


Charles Joseph Clark: The second extraneous matter that the Prime Minister raised had to do with his contention that the actions of his government were designed to support the Canadian uranium industry and were the only means at their disposal. The question we ask is: Why was it necessary for the Government of Canada to take action which the director of the combines investigation branch told them would be a breach of the law of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Why did they accomplish that by illegal means when they had available to them such legal means as the mining control act, the establishment of a marketing board along the model of several boards now in place, or an international commodity agreement? There were legal ways to do this. They chose an illegal way to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: This was the point on which my colleague from Peace River raised this question of privilege and asked for a reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Finally, we have this odious order in council clearly designed to inhibit public debate on this question. It is designed to cover up actions which might well have been illegally entered into by members of the government, representatives of the government or members of the public acting on directions of the Government of Canada.
We believe-and it is for you, sir, to decide-that on its face this order in council very signally limits the capacity of the parliament of Canada to do its job of finding out what kind of activities, legal or otherwise, the Government of Canada is involved in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister, if 1 heard him correctly, said that there are some limitations to freedom of speech. That was the clear implication. He agrees.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Justice Holmes said that.


Charles Joseph Clark: This reminds one profoundly of the rationale that led them to try to reinstitute Information Canada so they could find some other means to control access to information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We know too well the views and practices of this Prime Minister and this government with regard to restricting the speech of parliament, the press and others. That is precisely why we are so worried about the order in council on which reputable legal counsel in this country, upon reading the order in council, felt precluded from giving a legal opinion to a member of parliament as to actions that might be taken in this House or the courts of this land.
My colleague from Peace River asked for a reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that we can see whether the privileges of the House of Commons have
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
been limited by this odious order in council, and so we can ensure that the parliament of Canada has the opportunity to ask questions and get information which the public of Canada has a right to have in the public domain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a few words to this discussion at my colleague's request. Basically, I believe it is necessary that this regulation be lifted in order that there can be a full examination of the facts of this situation. We have made available to ourselves various documents that are referred to in the regulation which my colleague has already mentioned, and in fact two legal firms have refused to give me a legal opinion on what is the consequence of the documentation and the effect of what has transpired under this arrangement, in that they feel that even to review the documentation would be in violation of the regulation to which my colleague the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), has referred.
It is important that this regulation be withdrawn in order that the documentation can be properly analysed by those who may wish to look at it, bearing in mind that it tells some very incriminating things concerning many Canadians about cartel actions. We have had a reference here, for example, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the fact that he received an opinion from the Department of Justice that the regulation was apparently in order. The important matter is that throughout the various documents that we have there are repeated references to various opinions being sought or to be obtained from the Department of Justice concerning these transactions. It is important that we have the letter tabled so that we can identify exactly what letter the Prime Minister is referring to when he states that the Department of Justice officials said that the proposal was all right.
In that connection, I would point out that in the minutes of the meeting of the Canadian uranium producers held in Ottawa on April 10, 1972, marked "Confidential," on every page-


An hon. Member:: The lights are going out.	.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: More histrionics, Pierre.


An hon. Member:: You won't get rid of us that way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In this document, under the heading "Discussion of legal aspects of producers' arrangement", Mr. Austin opened up the discussion by pointing out that the Combines Investigation Act is very vague, etc. But then he was asked by Gulf a question concerning the opinion that was to be obtained from the Minister of Justice as to the legality of the arrange-

August 4, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
ment under the Combines Investigation Act. Mr. Austin said they had received the negative opinion from the then director of the combines investigation branch.
The reason I referred to this kind of statement in this document is that the information in these documents cannot be freely dealt with at present as a result of the regulation to which my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River, has referred. In short, I hope that Your Honour will see fit to meet the request of the hon. member for Peace River.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take a lot of time, but I think it is important to put some important facts on the record dealing with this question. The opposition seems to have left the impression in the minds of those of us here that they would have been quite prepared to see the U.S. take action to close off 70 per cent of the world market.


An hon. Member:: That has nothing to do with it.


An hon. Member:: We want to see things done legally.


Alastair William Gillespie: They would seem to imply that the Canadian government should have taken no action to protect Canadian interests. They would have been quite prepared to see Australia, France, and South Africa take action.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In the contributions made originally by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I extended considerable leniency in allowing hon. members to get off the procedural point and into the substance of the matter. I would not want to encourage that to continue. The fact is that we have a procedural question based on privilege as to whether or not a certain order in council, in its terms, in fact restricts the ability of a member of parliament to operate. Whether or not the action of the government in setting up a certain organization was illegal is not the matter before us, and whether it was advisable from any point of view is not the matter that is before us. What is before us is whether or not this order in council so inhibits the ability of members of the House to function that it offends their privileges. That is the only matter before us now.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Just stick to what Mr. Speaker said, Alastair.


Alastair William Gillespie: -I think it is important to set the particular context of my remarks that follow on this particular point. There is one other important point which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) mentioned and which I think the House should recognize: that is, that during this period of time, the late 1960s and the early 1970s, when the price of uranium-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Stick to the point.


Alastair William Gillespie: It is very relevant to the question of the confidentiality of these documents, and I would ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, so that I might make the point.


An hon. Member:: The first one you would have made.


Alastair William Gillespie: There was considerable competition to sell reactors at that time, as members may know, and Westing-house was using uranium as a come-on. They were entering into long-term contracts at fixed prices.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Stick to the point.


Alastair William Gillespie: It is very relevant.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, I would have to know how the merits of the case are relevant to the procedural question before letting the minister go on.


Alastair William Gillespie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you will give me one or two moments to indicate why I believe it is relevant. Westinghouse entered into a large number of longterm contracts on fixed prices.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: We know that.


Alastair William Gillespie: I don't think you or some of your associates know.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: We all know it.


Alastair William Gillespie: I have the floor, Mr. Speaker. The important point was the world price of uranium soared after the oil price increase, and so Westinghouse repudiated its long-term contracts.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Alastair William Gillespie: The result of that is that their customers are now suing Westinghouse in the United States, and Westinghouse is faced with suits of well over $1 billion. Westinghouse, as part of its defence, is seeking to use Canadian government confidential documents-documents which were entered into by the Canadian government and members of the producing group, the producers' club on an international basis-an intergovernmental arrangement of which the Canadian government was a part. The Westinghouse Corporation, as part of their defence, is trying to obtain these confidential documents. They are trying to use the United States law, the extra-territorial reach of the U.S. law, to gain access to these documents, and that is why it was necessary to draft the particular order in council which was passed last September in broad terms to prevent the movement of these relevant documents to U.S. jurisdiction.
August 4, 1977


Charles Joseph Clark: What are you hiding from parliament?
Report of Dean Lysyk



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['Agreed.']
Alastair William Gillespie: That is why that particular order in council had to be drafted that way. If it had been done in any other way there would have been a loophole and a number of those documents could have gone back and not served the Canadian national interest.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River has raised a point by way of a question of privilege of which he gave notice to the Chair, and it is, of course, a very serious matter. I think the Chair should have some time to consider the question, although it is obviously a very timely matter. I must confess that my initial impression is that the terms of the motion are such that the order in council should not be binding on members of the House in the discharge of their duties or upon committees of the House or the House itself in carrying out its work.
It seems to me that this motion reflects the basic nature of the question; that is, that while there may be a potential danger in the application of the order in council to the work of members of parliament, in order to give the motion priority over all other items of business before us there would have to have been in fact an actual restriction and prohibition or interference with the ability of hon. members to carry out their work.



Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to table, under Standing Order 41(2), copies in both official languages of correspondence between myself and the president of the Canadian Airline Pilots Association concerning a statement enclosed by him in connection with the interim report of the commission on bilingual air traffic services.


TABLING OF DISCUSSION PAPER ON ACCIDENTS
[Stage Direction]
' Hon. Otto. E. Lang (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to table, under Standing Order 41(2), in both official languages, a discussion paper concerning the Canadian transportation accident investigation commission.
Mr. Speaker:: Before continuing further with routine proceedings and calling further tabling of documents, I know that all hon. members would want to join with me briefly in recognizing the return to the House of the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) after a lengthy illness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


ENVIRONMENT
[Stage Direction]
What seems to have been discussed here this afternoon is the proposition that the order in council potentially restricts the right of hon. members to have access to documents, the right of parliamentary committees to have access to information or the right of the House or its members to have access to information or documents in order to discharge their duties. Potentially, of course, the question is hypothetical. If in fact we were dealing with a situation where members or committees or the House had been refused access to documents or information on the basis of this order in council, to me that would be a different matter. However, that is an initial impression of the Chair, one upon which I would like to reflect. 1 would like to examine the precedents and examine again the arguments which have been put forward.
For the moment I will reserve until just after questions tomorrow to see whether the regular business for that day ought to be set aside to debate this question as a matter of privilege and with all the attendant priority questions of privilege have.

Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I would like to table in both official languages a copy of the interim report of the Environmental Assessment Panel on the Alaska Highway Pipeline project.


TABLING OF REPORT OF DEAN LYSYK
Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table in both official languages, copies of the report of the Alaska highway pipeline inquiry under the chairmanship of Dean Kenneth Lysyk. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lysyk is sitting in your gallery for the pipeline debate this afternoon. He is joined in your gallery by Mr. Pearson, the Commissioner for the Yukon Territory. In addition, members from the legislative councils of

August 4, 1977
Order Paper Questions
the Yukon Territory and of the Northwest Territories are here today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TABLING OF SYNOPSIS OF MR. JUSTICE BERGER S REPORT
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table, in both official languages, copies of the synopsis of volume II of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry under Mr. Justice Tom Berger.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the item of business to be dealt with later, I suggest that the House agree that the duration of the speeches of each beginning speaker for each party not exceed 40 minutes, and that the remaining speeches be limited to 20 minutes. Further, I suggest that we agree to dispense with private members' hour today and tomorrow, to provide for additional time.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition would be agreeable to that if it were made a House order.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is the result of our consultations. We agree.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, we fully agree with that and if we could always solve problems in such a way, things would go much better in Canada.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 116, 191, 678, 688, 804, 859, 914, 1,142, 1,323, 1,372, 1,407, 1,474, 1,564, 1,687, 1,706, 1,805, 1,912,	1,916,	2,147, 2,187,	2,223,	2,253,	2,254,	2,278,2,279, 2,283,	2,285,	2,300, 2,303,	2,317,	2,319,	2,336,	2,386,2,387, 2,390,	2,420,	2,421, 2,430,	2,440,	2,443,	2,458,	2,459,2,463, 2,543,	2,544,	2,624 to 2,635 inch,	2,639,	2,640,	2,649,2,720, 2,721,	2,722,	2,742, 2,743,	2,765,	2,768,	2,777,	2,796,2,797, 2,799,	2,802,	2,803, 2,81 1,	2,816,	2,817,	2,818,	2,823,2,829, 2,830,	2,836,	2,846, 2,852,	2,859,	2,866,	2,877,	2,879,
2,882, 2,883, 2,888, 2,892, 2,902, 2,906, 2,913, 2,920 and 2,928.
[Mr. Allmand.1


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were any records at the head office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, 222 Nepean Street, Ottawa, including records of the Finance Division, destroyed, designated for destruction, moved from the location in which they were, or in any way tampered with, since the date the Honourable Member for Leeds first placed questions on the Order Paper concerning the UIC during the First Session of the 30th Parliament and, if so, in each case (a) what is the nature of such records (b) what was the date and the reason of the occurrence (c) what is the name of the highest ranking officer ordering such action (d) what actual disposition or move took place?
2.	Were any records which would be required to answer questions presently on the Order Paper from the Honourable Member for Leeds involved and, if so, which questions?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1.	Records of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, like those of other agencies and departments, are regularly thinned on a continuing basis according to file category and age. This action is carried out routinely in accordance with the General Records and Disposal Schedules of the government of Canada and no authorization for it is required. During the time frame in question no records of the Finance Division were destroyed, (a) The nature of the records involved fall under the categories of (i) accounts payable (ii) financial services and (iii) records of a routine housekeeping nature, (b) and (c) See 1 above, (d) (i) Accounts payable records have been designated for storage in Archives (ii) financial services records have been designated for destruction (iii) records of a routine housekeeping nature have been destroyed.
2.	No.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is there an Unemployment Insurance Commission document entitled: "Accounting-Control Systems Taxi Control. Procedures-Head Office" bearing the designation "Section 45 and subject 3" and, if so, does it state under the heading "Ordering of Coupons" as follows: "Coupons are ordered from Blue Line Taxi Company by phone and our account number is given"?
2.	Are all orders by the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Ottawa exclusively placed with Blue Line Taxi and, if so (a) for what reason (b) on what date was such a decision made and by whom (c) what are the reasons that other taxi companies are not used?
3.	What is the total amount of public funds spent for taxis utilized by all persons connected with or employed by the Head Office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, 222 Nepean Street, Ottawa (a) during the past four years for which figures are available (b) this year to the end of the closest month to which the answer to this question is given?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) Yes.
2.	Under a billing system-Yes (a) convenience; easy source of information for retrieval purposes; control; audit trail; elimination of petty cash usage, (b) Further to a circular issued by Treasury Board outlining the new services being offered by Blue Line Taxi Company, the commission decided to avail itself of the new charge account system on December 5, 1972. (c) No similar billing system.
August 4, 1977

3.	(a)	1972-Not available, 1973-529,290, 1974-
$31,624, 1975-533,626, (b) Year-to-date October, 1976- $31,245.
LES TERRASSES DE LA CHAUDlfiRE BUILDING, HULL, QUEBEC


Mr. McKinley: 1.	Which government departments are to be located in the new Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere Building in Hull, Quebec?
2.	What is the rent per square foot for office space in the Building?
3.	Is the Building covered by a "lease to purchase" contract and, if so (a) what is the cost to the government each year for the lease (b) in what year does the lease expire and the purchase option become available (c) what will be the final purchase price of the Building when the lease does expire?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: 1, There major tenants have been identified and approved by Treasury Board. They are: (1) Indian and Northern Affairs Department; (2) Secretary of State; (3) Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission.
2.	$8.86 per gross rentable square foot annually on basis of 111k financing, net lease basis.
3.	Yes. (a) $14,578,243 annually, subject to final measurement by DPW when complete and subject to variation as in 2 above, (b) At the expiration of a 35-year term-year 2013. (c) $54,000,000 for the entire complex.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government considering (a) giving more autonomy to the regions (b) upgrading the farm broadcasting information service in regard to the programming of CBC?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: The CBC is
autonomous with respect to its programming decisions, however the Corporation has reported as follows: (a) A considerable amount of radio and television programming is already produced by the CBC's regional centres for local, regional and network broadcast. Expansion in this direction will continue as resources allow, within the context of the CBC's responsibilities under the Broadcasting Act. (b) The status of farm broadcasting information service in the programming of the CBC and that of other broadcasters was examined by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts in December, 1976. The brief submitted in that connection by the CBC to that committee contains extensive information on CBC programming dealing with agriculture and the importance attached to it by the CBC. The brief is appended to the minutes of the December 21, 1976 meetings of the committee.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 48 which said that records are not available prior to the fiscal year 1973-74 concerning whether or not the present Minister of Transport used government aircraft to pick up personal friends in Saskatoon and Regina to fly them to Ottawa, what are all reasons that
Order Paper Questions
such records are not available and (a) where are such records (b) if such records were destroyed, what is the exact date they were destroyed (c) on whose authority were they destroyed (d) is it customary that records of DOT that are less than three years old become not available or are destroyed after such a short period of time and, if so (i) what are all reasons (ii) specifically, is one of the reasons that the records would be embarrassing to the government?


Otto Emil Lang: (a) Flight report records are destroyed as per the Public Archives approved DOT records disposal schedule, (b) Obsolete flight report records are destroyed on or about the end of April of each year, (c) The flight report disposal schedule was established by the Deputy Minister of Transport and approved by Public Archives as mentioned in (a), (d) Housekeeping or administrative type records are disposed of in accordance with the General Records Disposal Schedule of Canada. Material dealing with the operations of the department are scheduled for disposal in consultation with the user and approved by the Dominion Archivist. Material may have a life span of three months to 50 plus years depending on the administrative value, the legal value, the fiscal value and informational data value. The retention period for flight reports is two years under Public Archives Authority 74/018 dated September 12, 1974. (i) See part (d). (ii) No. The reasons are to dispose of the obsolete and useless records and to identify and preserve the important and valuable records.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many square feet of office space is presently occupied by the Canadian Pension Commission, the Pension Review Board, the War Veterans Allowance Board and the Bureau of Pension Advocates as well as veterans services, treatment services and administration services of the Department of Veterans Affairs?
2.	Is any of the space rented and, if so, what are the terms of the lease and its termination date?


J. Judd Buchanan: 1. Office space presently occupied by: Canadian Pension Commission- 4,835 sq. ft. Pension Review Board-nil. War Veterans Allowance Board-1,280 sq. ft. Bureau of Pension Advocates- 26,670 sq. ft. Department of Veterans Affairs-628,144 sq. ft.
2. Yes, as follows:
Location	Square Feet	Annual Rental	Termination DateGulf Building Halifax, Nova Scotia	2,170	$ 19,587.50	June 30, 1979230 Charlotte Street Sydney, Nova Scotia	2,200	$ 14,850.00	March 31, 1980City Hall Building Saint John, New Brunswick	10,179	$ 64,636.65	February 28, 1978 Option exercisedHilyard Place Saint John, New Brunswick	11,196	$ 89,468.75	March 31, 1981Terminal Plaza Moncton, New Brunswick	609	$ 4,306.00	December 31, 1978Wadena, Saskatchewan	164	$ 900.00	January 31,1978Swift Current, Saskatchewan	319	$ 1,934.00	June 30, 1978 Option exercised
August 4, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Location	Square Feet	Annual Rental	Termination DateRegina, Saskatchewan	900	$ 4,725.00	July 31, 1977Stonewall, Manitoba	195	$ 1,020.00	month-to-month32626 South Frazer Way, Abbotsford, British Columbia	192	$ 1,248.00	March 31, 1979Pebb Building 2197 Riverside Dr. Ottawa, Ontario	26,726	$128,290.00	October 31, 1979Billings Bridge Plaza 2271 Riverside Dr. Ottawa, Ontario	24,000	$ 86,400.00	November 30, 1977 Option exercisedTrebla Building 473 Albert Street Ottawa, Ontario	128,659	$577,678.92	October 31, 19792 Quebec Street Guelph, Ontario	420	$ 2,835.00	January 31,1979Kingston, Ontario	468	$ 2,340.00	November 30, 197753 Armstrong New Liskeard, Ontario	507	$ 3,448.00	August 31, 1978480 University Avenue Toronto, Ontario	38,238	$208,779.48	July 31, 1977University Hospital Edmonton, Alberta	10,748	$ 14,300.00	indefinite lease


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is a complete history of employment, contracts, etc., which Mr. Mark Starowicz has held with CBC, at any time, including the names of programmes, the capacity in which he has been associated with them and the amount of remuneration received for various services performed?
2.	(a) What is Mr. Starowicz's present status with CBC (b) is it planned to extend his duties or allot further responsibilities to him and, if so, what is a full description of such duties?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1 and 2. (b) It has
not been customary to require the CBC to provide such information as the employment histories, salaries and career prospects of individual staff members. (The background of this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975).
2. (a) Executive Producer, Radio.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): With respect to the plans for relocation and decentralization, what are the government's intentions for the Rideau Centre on Rideau Street and the Woodroffe Development Project in Nepean?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: (a) With respect to the Rideau Centre project, the National Capital Commission and the Department of Public Works are involved with municipal bodies, local merchants and citizens in the development of a land use plan for the federal lands and adjoining properties in the Rideau Centre area. The effect on this plan of relocation and decentralization is currently being assessed, (b) With respect to the Woodroffe Development Project, this is primarily a housing demonstration project and plans for relocation and decentralization will have little or no effect on this project.

MISS ELIZABETH MacGILLIVRAY


Mr. Epp: 1.	Was Miss Elizabeth MacGillivray, an employee of Mr. and Mrs. Otto E. Lang, Rockcliffe, Ontario (a) a landed immigrant (b) a visitor (c) granted a work permit, in Canada in 1975 and 1976 and, if so, was there any representation made on her behalf to the Canadian immigration authorities and, if so (i) by whom (ii) on what date (iii) in what form?
2.	For the years 1970 to date, were any (a) immigration visas (b) ministerial permits (c) work permits issued to applicants whose intended occupations were in the field of domestic service (nannies, wet nurses, domestics, domestic servants, maids, kitchen help and such) and whose intended destination was the National Capital Region and, if so (i) how many (ii) in each case, were representations made on behalf of the applicants and, if so, what was the name and address of the person making such representation and/or what was the name and address of the resident in the National Capital Region on whose behalf such representation was made (iii) what was the country of last permanent residence of these applicants?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1.	(a) No. (b) No. (c) Yes. No representation has been made on her behalf to the Canadian Immigration Authorities.
2.	(a) 757. (b) None, (c) (i) 1970 to 1973 none. Work permits were not introduced until 1973. 1973 to 1976, 1,826. (ii) The Department of Manpower and Immigration regards as confidential the names and content of all representations made to the minister or the department, (iii) England 219; Scotland 34; Denmark 8; Wales 7; Finland 11; France 38; Austria 3; Czechoslovakia 6; West Germany 31; Irish Republic 9; Italy 5; The Netherlands 9; Norway 3; Poland 18; Portugal 16; Spain 15; Switzerland 31; Sweden 2; Rhodesia 1; Morocco 4; Sri Lanka 19; Hong Kong 13; India 24; Ethiopia 6; Mauritania 2; Nigeria 7; Senegal 6; Japan 5; Pakistan 4; Malaysia 3; Singapore 2; Australia 6; New Zealand 2; Ghana 8; Turkey 1; Formosa 2; Lebanon 5; Indonesia 1; Philippines 3; Thailand 4; Channel Islands 1; Malta 1; Egypt 1; South Africa 1; Cameroon 2; South Vietnam 1; United States 13; Mexico 12; Costa Rica 4; Argentina 1; El Salvador 1; Guatemala 4; St. Pierre and Miquelon 3; Bermuda 3; Jamaica 697; Honduras 1; Trinidad & Tobago 110; Barbados 43; Antigua 15; Dominica 6; Bahamas 2; St. Lucia 51; Grenada 15; St. Vincent 10; Guadeloupe 3; Dominican Republic 5; Haiti 104; Guyana 75; Brazil 7; Columbia 9; Peru 14; Venezuela 3; Chile 3; Peru 9; Mauritius 1; Martinique 1; West Indies 1.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is the duration of a claim for regular unemployment insurance benefits decreased by the apportionment of severance and vacation pay as part of the qualifying period?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce a change in the regulations so that an individual would not be subject to such a decrease in the claim period and, if so (a) on what date (b) could such a change be made retroactive?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1.	As a general rule, under the unemployment insurance program, all monies received by a claimant at the time that he is separated from employment, are treated as earnings and have the effect of either delaying the start of a benefit period, or are deducted from benefits otherwise payable. In particular,
August 4, 1977

both severance pay and vacation pay are considered earnings for unemployment insurance benefit purposes.
2.	The government will be making regulatory amendments to effect the disconstinuance of the treatment of severance pay as earnings. It is not intended, however, to make similar changes to the treatment of vacation pay which will continue to be treated as earnings and deducted from benefits, (a) The regulatory amendments to discontinue the treatment of severance pay as earnings will be made as soon as administratively possible, and is expected to be effective in the near future, (b) There is no legislative authority that would allow such an amendment to be made retroactive. The intent, however, is to discontinue the allocation of severance pay on all existing and new claims after the effective date of the regulatory amendment.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	Is (a) DREE (b) the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce aware that the October, 1976 APEC report Industrial Incentives Programs in the Atlantic Region states, with regard to existing programs, that "activity under research and product development has been abysmal", that "it is obvious that the region failed to take advantage of research and industrial design assistance", and that "given the region's emphasis on trade, its lack of participation in programs to encourage market expansion is of concern" and, if so, do the Departments agree with such statements?
2.	Do the Departments accept that a sizeable advancement of the Atlantic Region's economy will require major initiatives in product research, development and marketing?
3.	What measures do the Departments propose to ensure more adequate participation by the Atlantic Region in the type of programs cited by APEC?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned: 1. DREE is aware of the report and believes that increased research and product development in the Atlantic region would be desirable.
2.	Further advances in the economy of the Atlantic region will call for progress on a number of fronts. Viable initiatives in product research, development and marketing would certainly be helpful.
3.	Although DREE does not normally have direct responsibility for the operation of programs of this type, it is prepared to complement and supplement the efforts of the responsible departments with regionally-oriented activities under its General Development Agreements (GDAs) with the various provincial governments. A specific example in this regard is the DREE agreement with Newfoundland providing for the establishment of a Newfoundland Oceans Research and Development Corporation which seek to stimulate the development of marine technology within the province and to foster the establishment of marine ice-related industries based on the technology. DREE's activities under the Regional Development Incentives Act and through industrial development initiatives under the GDAs are also serving to help strengthen the industrial base of the region, thus creating a better climate for new product design and development.
Order Paper Questions
In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. Yes, the department is aware of the statement. The department actively promotes its programs in all provinces, but these programs require an application by individual companies. The use in each province depends on the rate of response of individual companies.
2.	Industry, Trade and Commerce continues to actively promote its programs in the Atlantic region recognizing the importance of both innovation and market development in the Atlantic area.
3.	The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has adapted a number of measures which should ensure more adequate participation by the Atlantic region. Such measures have included a further decentralization of the administration of its programs and the consolidation of a number of the development and incentive programs into the Enterprise Development Program to make them more accessible to smaller and medium-size businesses which play an important role in the Atlantic region.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Is financial assistance available to poultry farmers in New Brunswick and
(a)	if so, in what manner (b) if not, is any being planned?
2.	Have applications for Financial assistance been made by poultry farmers in New Brunswick since January 1, 1975 and, if so, how many and what is their status?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Farm Credit Corporation advises: 1. Yes. (a) Loans are available under the Farm Credit Act which is administered by the Farm Credit Corporation, (b) Not applicable.
2. Yes. Twenty enquiries were made to Farm Credit Corporation, of which six resulted in loan applications. All six were approved for a total of $455,000. It is expected that a further one of the enquirers will make an application after April 1, 1977. The remainder were either general enquiries for information, did not wish to proceed at this time, or did not meet the qualifications for a loan under the Farm Credit Act.


Mr. Marshall: Which officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs have agreed to move to the Province of Prince Edward Island in the impending decentralization of the Department (a) Head Office (i) Deputy Minister (ii) Assistant Deputy Minister (Treatment) (b) Administration (i) Departmental Adviser, Official Languages (ii) Departmental Financial Management Adviser (iii) Department Personnel Management Adviser (iv) Director, Administrative Services (v) Director, Management Advisory Services (vi) Director, Public Relations (c) Treatment Services (i) Director (ii) Deputy Director (iii) Consultant to the ADM(T) (iv) Director, Administration (v) Director, Entitlement and Benefits (vi) Departmental Dental Services Adviser (vii) Director, Financial Services (viii) Acting Chief Financial Services (ix) Personnel Management Adviser (x) Chief, Purchasing and Supply (xi) Director, Facilities, Planning and Construction (xii) Chief, Treatment Statistics (xiii) Organization Development Officer (d) Veterans Land Administration (i) Director General (ii) Director of Finance and Administration

August 4, 1977
Order Paper Questions
(iii) Director, Property and Securities (iv) Director, Farm Services (e) Veterans Services (i) Director General (ii) Director, Program Operations (iii) Senior Consultant (Temporary SAPP) (iv) Director, Finance and Administration Services (v) Personnel Management Adviser (vi) Chief, WVA/CWA Operations (vii) Program Adviser, Organization Effectiveness (viii) Manager, Payment Services (ix) A/Chief, Veterans Insurance (x) Chief, Veterans Services (xi) Chief, Planning and Analysis (0 Pension Review Board (i) Chairman (ii) Legal Adviser (iii) Executive Secretary and Registrar (iv) the three members of the Board (g) Canadian Pension Commission (i) Chairman (ii) Deputy Chairman (iii) Director of Operations (iv) the twenty-two Commissioners (v) Secretary to the Commission (vi) Chief Medical Adviser (vii) Chief, Ancillary Benefits Branch (viii) Financial Management Adviser (ix) Deputy Chief Medical Adviser (x) Personnel Management Adviser (xi) Commission Counsel (h) War Veterans Allowance Board (i) Chairman (ii) Deputy Chairman (iii) the five Board members (iv) Medical Adviser (v) Executive Director Operations (vi) Chief, Finance and Administration (vii) Chief, Operations Review (viii) Chief, Research and Statistics (ix) Executive Secretary and Registrar (i) Bureau of Pension Advocates (i) Chief Pensions Advocat (ii) Deputy Chief Pensions Advocate (iii) Senior Area Advocate (iv) the three Area Advocates (v) Director Financial and Administrative Services (vi) Chief Reviewer and Registrar?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: In so far as the officials identified are concerned, this question cannot be answered at this time as there has been no canvass of veterans affairs personnel to identify the staff who will choose to relocate or choose not to relocate. It is expected that this canvass will be made during 1977 as a first step in relocation manpower planning.
In so far as the position titles are concerned, all positions will be relocated except the deputy minister and a small core group, and the positions in the Veterans Land Administration program, which will remain in the National Capital Region.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What is the estimated number of Department of Veterans Affairs employees expected to be stationed in Charlottetown, PEI when a portion of the Department is transferred?
2.	How many will be (a) French speaking (b) English speaking (c) transferred from Ottawa and on what proposed date (d) recruited from among citizens of Prince Edward Island?
3.	Is the government making any provisions to provide French language instruction in Prince Edward Island for applicants for positions in the Department subsequent to the move and, if so, what are they?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1.	While there can be no precise determination of the department's future manpower requirements, it is estimated that there will be approximately 700 Veterans Affairs employees in Charlottetown in 1981 following relocation.
2.	This information will not be available until all present employees have indicated their preference with regard to relocation.
3.	Consistent with the provisions of the Official Languages policy, French language training will be provided as required for successful applicants. Provision for such training in Prince Edward Island or at other language training facilities in the Atlantic region would depend upon the number of employees requiring training.


Mr. Caron: 1.	For each constituency, what are the names of milk producers who are subsidized by the government and, in each case, what was their production in (a) 1974-75 (b) 1975-76?
2.	What market quota (a) was allocated to each on April 1, 1976 (b) has been allocated to each since October 19, 1976?


Eugene Whelan: 1. The
Canadian Dairy Commission maintains the information required to answer this part of the question in confidence. The release of this information could infringe upon the right of privacy of the producer as it could form the basis of determining income or establishing a mailing list of all milk producers. However, the total production by province is as follows:
Million hundredweights of milk
	1974-75	1975-76
Prince Edward Island	1.37	1.53Nova Scotia	.84	1.06New Brunswick	.68	.68Quebec	47.13	55.61Ontario	29.83	36.13Manitoba	4.13	4.37Saskatchewan	2.29	2.44Alberta	6.51	7.44British Columbia	2.74	3.54Canada	95.52	112.80
2. The allocation of market quotas to producers is the responsibility of the provincial milk marketing boards and the information is not available to the commission.


Mr. Mazankowski: Was the Treasury Board's policy decision to change accounting practices for the 1975-76 fiscal year, as referred to in the reply of the Secretary of State to Question No. 1,059, carried forward to the 1976-77 fiscal year and (a) if so, what is the reason for the substantial drop in the Purchased Repair and Upkeep estimated for the Department in the 1976-77 Main Estimates from the 1975-76 levels (b) if not, what is the reason for the substantial increase in the Purchased Repair and Upkeep estimated for the Department in the 1976-77 Main Estimates over the 1974-75 level before the accounting policy changed?


John (Moody) Roberts: Treasury Board has issued two policy directives to this department relating to accounting practices during the period in question. The first policy directive was in 1975; this directive authorized DPW to recover its costs for certain tenant services to this department; these included the costs of fitting-up new, leased accommodation needed for the expansion of the translation bureau in the Quebec region. In accordance with the procedures provided by DPW and the definition of the Tenant Services portion of Purchased Repair and Upkeep which were affected under this directive, the Department of the Secretary of State estimated $1.7 million as a cost payable to DPW for Tenant Services. That same directive was not carried over into 1976-77; a new directive was issued in early 1976 which revised the definition of Tenant Services. On the basis of these revised guidelines, DPW was directed once again to absorb the fitting-up cost of new, leased accommodation and the Department of the Secre-
August 4, 1977

tary of State estimated that $296,000 would be payable to DPW for Tenant Services, (a) It is this revision which accounts for the sizeable decrease from the 1975-76 figures, (b) The reason for the increase in the Tenant Services portion of Purchased Repair and Upkeep in the 1976-77 Main Estimates over the 1974-75 level is that T.B. guidelines, as per the second policy directive, require that the Department include these costs in its departmental estimates whereas in 1974-75 these costs were included in DPW estimates. It is to be noted, however, that the figure is lower than for 1975-76 since Treasury Board revised the original definition of the cost of Tenant Services. In summary, the figures for the three years in question are as follows: 1974-75 (Tenant Services portion of Purchased Repair and Upkeep absorbed by DPW) $3,000. 1975-76 T.B. issued 1st directive $1,700,000. 1976-77 T.B. issued 2nd directive (but definition of Tenant Services redefined) $296,000.


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	Is Mr. Daniel Coates employed by the government or any of its agencies and, if so (a) in what capacity (b) what is his salary range?
2.	For each year (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976, how many times was Mr. Coates reimbursed for travel expenses by the government or any of its agencies and, in
Order Paper Questions
each case (i) what was the amount (ii) what was the origin, destination and purpose of each related trip (iii) under whose prior authorization was each trip undertaken (iv) under whose authorization was each payment for travel expenses made?
3.	For each year (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976, how many times were payments by the government or any of its agencies for charges on credit cards taken out by departments or agencies in the name of Mr. Coates and, in each case (i) what was the amount (ii) for what specific purposes were the charges made (iii) under whose prior authorization were these charges incurred (iv) under whose authorization was each payment of these credit card expenses made?
4.	Has the government or any of its agencies ever paid for the moving expenses of Daniel Coates and, if so, in each case (a) what was the amount (b) to whom (c) what was the origin and destination of the objects moved?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned-1. Mr. D. Coates is (a) Special Advisor to the Chairman; (b) $31,500 to $41,500.
2.	(a) See list below, (b) See list below, (c) Nil.
3.	(a) 9. (i) $945.00. (ii) Air transportation costs. See 2(a)(ii). (iii) See 2 (a) (iii). (iv) See 2(a)(iv). (b) 2 (i) $295.00-$284.00. (ii) See 2(b)(ii). Parts 3 and 4. (iii) See 2(b)(iii). Parts 3 and 4. (iv) See 2(b)(iv). Parts 3 and 4. (c) Nil.
4.	No.
2(a)-1974
(i)
Reimbursed Travel Expenses	(ii) Origin	Destination	Purpose	(iv) (iii) Payment of Travel Authority Expenses1. S 19.75	Ottawa	Toronto	Meeting with U.I.C. Officials	No listing for D. Coates was found in Public2. $ 22.00	Ottawa	Vancouver	Meeting with U.I.C. Officials	Archives records based on 1974. However D. J. Steele and G. Cousineau were the only officers authorizing and approving these trips.3.	$ 79.15 4.	$ 44.50	Ottawa Ottawa	Montreal Management Conference Cambridge, Mass.	Attendance as Research Fellow at John F.	5. $ 5.95	Ottawa	Vancouver	Kennedy School of Government Graduate School of Education Harvard University Taxi charge omitted from earlier claim	6.$ 16.38	Ottawa	Montreal	Meetings with U.I.C. Officials	7. $ 8.25	Ottawa	Belleville	Meetings with U.I.C. Officials	8. $ 93.25	Ottawa	Vancouver	Meetings with U.I.C. Officials	9. $ 59.00	Ottawa	Montreal	Meetings with U.I.C. Officials	2(b)-1975	1. $ 73.80	Ottawa	Quebec City	Manager's Conference	D. J. Steele D. J. Steele2. $171.45	Ottawa	Toronto	Budget Meeting	D. J. Steele D. J. Steele3. $ 21.48	Ottawa	Winnipeg	Regional Comptroller's Conference	D. J. Steele D. J. Steele4.$ 19.00	Ottawa	Winnipeg	National Managers Conference	G. Cousineau G. Cousineau


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	In the years immediately following World War II, for each year of their existence, what was the complete statistical breakdown of (a) the farm worker
(b)	the track worker (c) other similar programmes?
2.	For each year of duration and in each category, what (a) were the numbers participating (b) was the destination in Canada and the length of time stayed at the original destination?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1.	(a), (b) and (c) Statistics in the form requested are not
available. The annual statistical reports do contain statistics on immigrants whose intended employment is agriculture but no specific reference is shown regarding "farm workers", "track workers" programmes or other similar programmes. Information concerning the movement of farm workers from the Netherlands to Canada can be located in the annual reports of the Department of Mines and Resources and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for the years immediately following World War II.
2.	(a) and (b) Not applicable.

August 4, 1977
Order Paper Questions
LANGUAGE TRAINING CENTRE FOR ARMED FORCES Question, No. 2,147-Mr. Brisco:
1.	What is the present status of the new French and English language Training Centre for the Armed Forces?
2.	Were the projected costs for the Centre set at $88,000,000 and, if so, have the projected costs increased, or do they remain the same?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1.
The megastructure for the Canadian Forces language training and recruit school is now approximately 17 per cent complete and it is anticipated it will be completed in the 1979/80 fiscal year. When completed this facility will house approximately 1600 language students and 760 recruits during peak periods. In addition there will be 513 both military and civilian permanent teaching and training staff plus 170 administrative support personnel.
2. The estimated costs for the project were $87,861,000 but, are now estimated to be $96,600,000.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the amounts by department, agency or commission, that the Department of Public Works sets down as accommodation costs to be carried in the 1977-78 Estimates?
2.	In each case, what is the (a) total square footage utilized (b) percentage change in the (i) area utilized in the past year (ii) amount carried?


J. Judd Buchanan: 1. The
estimates of the Department of Public Works are not prepared by building up the cost of accommodation by occupancy. Accordingly, the accommodation costs carried in the 1977-78 Main Estimates for the Department of Public Works cannot be detailed by department, agency and commission.
2. (a) and (b) (i) departmental records identify only the amount of space allocated to a client at a point of time. We do not have information as to what use they would make of space, i.e., utilization, (b) (ii) As indicated in the reply to part 1 this information is not available.


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past five years, how much has been carried in the Estimates of the Department of Public Works for (a) the Post Office construction programme (b) other Post Office accommodation costs?


J. Judd Buchanan: (a) For
the years 1972-73 through 1976-77 the actual costs incurred and funded from the DPW accommodation (capital) program specifically for the Post Office Department are as follows: 1972-73,	$9,947,792;	1973-74,	$17,955,383;	1974-75,
$29,852,882; 1975-76, $53,892,263; 1976-77, $74,508,996. Total: $186,157,316. (b) The Department of Public Works does not prepare estimates for its operating programs by forecasting expenditures for each department or agency which will use its space, nor does it maintain a record of historical costs incurred on a departmental/agency basis. Accordingly no figures can be provided for the costs to operate the accommodation utilized by the Post Office.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	Following the transfer of the Unemployment Insurance Commission office in fles-de-la-Madeleine from the Maritime Region to the Quebec Region, was there a one week delay in the payment of benefits and, if so, what was the cost of (a) overtime (b) private messenger services (c) air mail (d) others?
2.	Are these special measures still in effect today and (a) if not, on what date were they stopped (b) if so, are the beneficiaries still entitled to forward their 31-01 forms on Thursdays?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. Yes. (a) The Commission cannot isolate the cost of overtime. (b) $16.50 per day. (c) Nil. (d) Nil.
2. These special measures are still in effect today, but the beneficiaries are not required to forward their 31-01 forms on Thursdays.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	(a) Before (b) since Mr. Jean-Marie Allard's arrival in Montreal in an acting capacity, then as Director of Public Relations for the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Quebec, what was the value of the contracts signed with Studio 2 plus 2 for the (i) Quebec Regional Office (ii) National Office and how many are uncompleted?
2.	For each contract, were tenders called and, if so, who were the bidders?
3.	Since the denunciation by the Social Credit Party of the Olympic-oriented Posters, was the Director of Information Services, Mr. Jean Labossiere demoted and (a) if so, was it because of the denunciation (b) if not, for what reason was he not demoted?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1.	(a) Nil. (b) (i) $66,070.12; (ii) $13,500. All of these contracts have been completed.
2.	Tenders were not called as all contracts were for an amount of less than $15,000 (Treasury Board guidelines).
3.	(a) Yes, he has been demoted, but the demotion was not related to the denunciation, (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the government cease operating a book store at 640 St. Catherine Street West, Montreal, Quebec and, if so (a) on what date (b) is the premises now vacant and still rented by the government (c) what are the terms of the lease including the (i) expiry date (ii) monthly rental (iii) annual rental (iv) details of any escalation clauses contained in the lease, if any (v) name and address of the landlord, etc.?
2.	If the premises remain vacant until the expiry of the lease, what will be the total amount of money paid by the government?


J. Judd Buchanan: 1. Yes; (a) November 5, 1976; (b) The premises have been occupied since May 18, 1977 by the Department of the Secretary of State for the organizational activities related to Canada week. Further, the Department of Public Works has a firm commit-
August 4, 1977

merit from the Post Office Department, Philatelic Services to occupy these premises commencing August 15, 1977. (c)(i) September 30, 1981; (ii) $13,958.85 basic monthly rent; (iii) $167,506.24 basic annual rent; (iv) There are three escalation clauses contained in lease: (a) Tax escalation clause with a "base year" defined as the tax year, 1972-73 and the "proportionate share" being 5.14 per cent, (b) Operating costs escalation clause with a "base year" defined as February 1, 1973 to January 31, 1974 and the "proportionate share" being 5.14 per cent, (c) Cost of living escalation clause "of the cost of living index, as determined by Statistics Canada should show any increase on October 1, 1972, and any subsequent anniversary date during the term of this lease, above the cost of living index as at October 1, 1971, the rent will be increased in a proportionate amount and will become due and payable as increased rent." (v) Oxford Development Group Limited, Shell Tower Building, 1255 University Street, Suite 111, Montreal, Quebec. H3B 3A8.
2.	Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer by the Minister of Transport to Question No. 785, part 3(f), was a memo issued on July 20, 1976 and signed by H. R. Finley, Director, Aviation Safety Bureau, Department of Transport and, if so, did this
memo state in part that "....disciplinary or punitive action against the
involved controller would not be propitious at this time" and if the matter had nothing to do with the language question in the air, what is the full meaning and intent of the words quoted?
2.	How does the Minister of Transport reconcile his negative answer with the statement contained in the memo signed by Mr. Finley?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Yes. An inter-branch memorandum was prepared and signed by H. R. Finley, Director, Aviation Safety Bureau, Department of Transport on July 20, 1976 addressed to the Director, Air Traffic Services, Department of Transport. The memorandum did state in part that: " . .. disciplinary or punitive action against the involved controller would not be propitious at this time". As reported in the answer to question No. 785, part 3(e): "the controller involved was severely reprimanded on July 9, 1976, and warned that a further occurrence would not be tolerated". In recognition that the errant controller had already been severely admonished by the unit chief the memorandum in part acknowledged that the action taken was considered, by senior management, as appropriate and sufficient under the circumstances.
2.	The answer to this question is contained in (1) above.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	Is the Unemployment Insurance Commission and Department of Manpower and Immigration merger advocated in Bill C-27, now before the House, taking place and, if so, on what date will it be completed?
2.	Has the temporary staffing policy during the merger of UIC and the Department been applied since March 15, 1977, before the third reading of the Bill and, if so, for what reason?
Order Paper Questions


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1.	(a) No. However, the personnel groups in the national headquarters of the commission and the department are being consolidated in order to facilitate the preparation of the plans to integrate the two organizations, (b) Not applicable.
2.	(a) Yes. (b) The staffing policy adopted by the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of Manpower and Immigration on March 15, 1977, establishes a common staffing policy for the commission and department. It will help to ensure an orderly transition to the integrated organization provided for in Bill C-27.


Mr. Fortin: Under the H-PEVAIC programme and in compliance with code D-15, have any persons drawing unemployment insurance lost their right to benefits, in accordance with clause 55(6) of the Unemployment Insurance Act and, if so, by region, how many and on what date?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Insofar as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned, yes.
Region	1976 October	1976 November	1976 DecemberAtlantic	287	323	314Quebec	3,190	1,870	2,962Ontario	2,137	2,133	1,980Prairie	740	635	527Pacific	618	656	750Total	6,972	5,617	6,533Atlantic	1977 January 278	1977 February 376	1977 March 193Quebec	2,092	2,986	-not available at this timeOntario	3,093	5,860	-not available at this timePrairie	981	893	927Pacific	627	827	880Total	7,071	10,942


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	How many students entered Department of Manpower and Immigration college preparatory programmes in the Ontario College of Applied Arts and Technology each year 1972 to date?
2.	What was the average fee paid?
3.	What was the average award to the students?
4.	How many left before completing the programme?
5.	How many found employment after graduation in the field for which they were trained?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Virtually all full-time training in Ontario is done through the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology. The following data covers all full-time skill training, for Ontario. Trainee and cost figures (Nos. 1-4) are by fiscal year, 1972-73 to 1976-77; trainee follow-up data (No. 5) is by calendar year, 1972 to 1975. (1) The number of trainees who started training

August 4, 1977
Order Paper Questions
for each year is as follows: 1972-73: 16,864; 1973-74: 17,203;
1974-	75: 17,316; 1975-76: 20,337; 1976-77: 18,337 (Preliminary, as at March 31, 1977).
(2)	The average Purchase Costs per Trainee were: 1972-73: $1,338 (Based on Estimated Purchase Costs); 1973-74: $1,194 (Based on Estimated Purchase Costs); 1974-75: $1,522 (Based on Estimated Purchase Costs); 1975-76: $1,477; 1976-77: $1,651 (Preliminary, as at March 31, 1977).
(3)	The average Allowances paid per Trainee were: 1972-73: $1,220; 1973-74: $1,186; 1974-75: $1,216; 1975-76: $1,344; 1976-77: $1,550 (Preliminary, as at March 31, 1977).
(4)	The number of Trainees who Discontinued training each year was: 1972-73: 4,997; 1973-74: 5,102; 1974-75: 5,475;
1975-	76: 6,301; 1976-77: 5,198 (Preliminary, as at March 31, 1977).
(5)	This information is not directly available, since graduates are not required to seek subsequent employment through a Canada Manpower Centre. The information available is from a continuing 100 per cent survey of skill course graduates which shows:
Percentage of Skill Graduates Employed
	Before Training	After Training
1972	12.7	72.41973	14.1	73.01974	14.4	71.31975	12.7	65.51976	N/A	N/A
The same survey shows that 74.8 per cent of those employed in 1975 are employed in a two-digit CCDO occupation which corresponds with the two-digit CCDO occupation assigned to their skill course. This is not a reliable indicator of whether persons are employed in the field for which they are trained because, for instance, a person trained in agricultural technology (agricultural occupation) may utilize his or her training as a sales representative for a feed company (sales occupation).


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	What have been the total amounts paid to date since January 1, 1977, to (a) newspapers (b) radio stations (c) television stations serving the constituencies of Hamilton-Wentworth, Hamilton West, Hamilton East, Hamilton-Mountain, Halton-Wentworth and Halton to promote the (i) Canada Works Programme (ii) Young Canada Works Programme and, in each case, what are the names and addresses of the involved media?
2.	What has been the total amount allocated under the (a) Canada Works Programme (b) Young Canada Works Programme to the constituency of (i) Hamilton-Wentworth (ii) Hamilton West (iii) Hamilton East (iv) Hamilton- Mountain (v) Halton-Wentworth (vi) Halton?
3.	In each case, on what basis was this distribution of funds made?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. (a) (i) $5,487.00; (ii) $5,487.00; (b) Nil; (c) Nil. The following newspapers were used for both the Canada Works and the Young Canada Works programmes' advertising.

Acton Free Press, P.O. Box 120, Acton, Ontario; Burlington Gazette, 490 Brant Street, Burlington, Ontario; Caledonia Grand River Sachem, P.O. Box 160, Caledonia, Ontario; Grimsby Independent, P.O. Box 310, Grimsby, Ontario; Oakville Journal Record, 284 Lakeshore Blvd., E., Oakville, Ontario; Calvinist & Contact, 99 Niagara Street, St. Catharines, Ontario; Pioneer, 201 Paradise Road N., Hamilton, Ontario; Hamilton Spectator, 44 Frid Street, Hamilton, Ontario; Kanadski Srbobran, 335 Britania Avenue, Hamilton, Ontario.
2.	(a) (i) $100,000; (ii) $296,000; (iii) $364,000; (iv) $100,000; (v) $100,000; (vi) $50,000; (b) (i) $59,000; (ii) $239,000; (iii) $140,000; (iv) $57,000; (v) $44,000; (vi) $44,000.
3.	1977/78 Canada Works program-Phase I: The 1977/78 Canada Works program-Phase I funds were distributed to the above constituencies as follows: Initial Allocation: (1) Estimates of labour force, labour surplus and a labour surplus rate were derived for each constituency for the period December, 1975 to November, 1976. (2) Based on these data $50,000 was allocated to those constituencies with a labour surplus rate below 5 per cent; therefore, Halton received $50,000. (3) A basic allocation of $100,000 was distributed to those constituencies with a labour surplus rate of 5 per cent to 7 per cent; therefore, Hamilton-Wentworth, Hamilton-Mountain and Halton-Wentworth each received $100,000. (4) Constituencies with a labour surplus rate over 7 per cent received a basic allocation of $100,000 and a per capita allocation based on their labour surplus in excess of 7 per cent of their labour force. All such constituencies received $187.33 for each person estimated in the excess labour surplus group. Thus, Hamilton West received a basic allocation of $100,000 and a per capita allocation of $83,000 on the basis of an excess labour surplus of 442. Hamilton East was granted a basic allocation of $100,000 and a per capita allocation of $112,000 on the basis of an excess labour suplus of 600. Supplementary Allocation: The supplementary funds were distributed in direct proportion to the per capita segment of the initial allocations. Thus, basic allocations were excluded from consideration in allocating the supplementary funds. On this basis, Hamilton-Wentworth, Hamilton-Mountain, Halton-Wentworth and Halton received no supplementary funds. The relevant data for the constituencies of Hamilton-Wentworth, Hamilton West, Hamilton East, Hamilton Mountain, Halton-Wentworth and Halton are:
1977/78 Canada Works Program-Phase I
Constituency	Labour Surplus Rate	Labour Force	Labour Surplus	Excess Labour SurplusHamilton-Wentworth	6.00 per cent	(Average December 1975-November 1976) 49,398 2,964	Hamilton West	8.03 per cent	42,921	3,447	442Hamilton East	8.65 per cent	36,444	3,151	600Hamilton-Mountain	5.40 per cent	53,802	2,907	-Halton-Wentworth	5.06 per cent	65,888	3,331	-Halton	4.88 per cent	53,064	2,588	-
1977 Young Canada Works Program: The 1977 Young Canada Works funds were distributed to the above constituen-
August 4, 1977

cies as follows: Initial Allocation: (1) Estimates of labour force, labour surplus and labour surplus rates were derived for each constituency for the period May, 1976 to August 1976, for the 15-24 age group. (2) A basic allocation of $25,000 was made to those constituencies with a labour surplus rate of 10 per cent or less; therefore, Halton-Wentworth and Halton each received $25,000. (3) Constituencies with a labour surplus rate over 10 per cent received the basic allocation of $25,000 and a per capita allocation based on their labour surplus in excess of 10 per cent of their labour force. All such constituencies received $171.47 for each person estimated in the excess labour surplus group. Thus, (i) Hamilton-Wentworth was granted a basic allocation of $25,000 and a per capita allocation of $34,000 on the basis of an excess labour surplus of 198; (ii) Elamilton West was granted a basic allocation of $25,000 and a per capita allocation of $ 110,000 on the basis of an excess labour surplus of 643; (iii) Hamilton East was granted a basic allocation of $25,000 and a per capita allocation of $115,000 on the basis of an excess labour surplus of 668; and (iv) Hamilton-Mountain was granted a basic allocation of $25,000 and a per capita allocation of $7,000 based on an excess labour surplus of 42. Supplementary Allocations: The supplementary funds were distributed in direct proportion to the total funds distributed to a constituency in the initial allocation. The relevant data for the constituencies of Hamilton-Wentworth, Hamilton West, Hamilton East, Hamilton-Mountain, Halton-Wentworth and Halton are:
1977 Young Canada Works Program
Labour Surplus	Labour	Labour	Excess LabourConstituency	Rate	Force Surplus Surplus (Average May, 1976-August 1976)	Hamilton-Wentworth	11.41 per cent	14,049	1,603	198Hamilton West	15.27 per cent	12,207	1,864	643Hamilton East	16.45 per cent	10,365	1,705	668Hamilton-Mountain	10.28 per cent	15,302	1,572	42Halton-Wentworth Halton	9.65 per cent 8.76 per cent	18,303 14,752	1,766 1,292


Mr. Coates: 1.	Did Air Canada enter into a leasing agreement with the Government of Cuba, or its agent, for the leasing of commercial aircraft and, if so, on what date?
2.	Is the agreement still in effect and, if so, are aircraft owned by Air Canada presently part of the Cuban air operations and, if so, how many and what types?
3.	What is the term of the lease and is it renewable on the present date of termination?
4.	Were any Air Canada employees involved in the Air Canada agreement with Cuba and, if so (a) how many (b) what are their names (c) what are their positions with Air Canada (d) what are their respective responsibilities in Cuba (e) how many such employees are presently in Cuba?
5.	Were any of the aircraft leased lost in accidents and, if so (a) on what date (b) what type of aircraft (c) were any Canadian lives lost (d) was Air Canada compensated for the losses and, if so (i) on what date (ii) in what amount?
6.	(a) For what reason was the leasing arrangement made (b) at whose request was it made (c) was the government consulted and did it give its consent and, if so, on what date (d) were any Cuban aircraft released from the Cuban commercial air operation and, if so (i) what type (ii) how many?
Order Paper Questions


Otto Emil Lang: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Yes. December 8, 1975.
2.	Yes. One Air Canada DC-8-43 is leased to Cubana Airlines.
3.	Two years. There is no renewable option under the lease agreement.
4.	Yes. (a) One. (b) L. K. Rutledge, (c) Director, Flight Equipment Contracts, (d) None, (e) None.
5.	Yes. Two aircraft, (a) March 16, 1976; October 6, 1976.
(b)	DC-8-43, (c) No. (d) Yes. (i) For the first aircraft, May 20, 1976. For the second aircraft, the airline is awaiting payment presently, (ii) In each case, $1,000,000.
6.	(a) Commercial considerations, (b) Cubana Airlines, (c) Yes. February 8, 1976. (d) No. (i) and (ii) Not applicable.


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	In the years 1972 to 1976, what was the total cost of the Occupational Training of Adults (OTA) Programme and how was such cost divided between (a) instructor's salaries (b) rental or leasing of teaching facilities and materials
(c)	training allowances (d) transportation allowances (e) administrative (f) other costs?
2.	In each year 1972 to 1976, how many persons in (a) Canada (b) the Atlantic Provinces (c) Quebec (d) Ontario (e) the Western Provinces (f) Yukon (g) NWT (h) the Constituency of Hamilton-Wentworth (i) registered (ii) completed courses provided under the OTA Programme?
3.	Of those completing the Programme, how many found course-related employment through the Department of Manpower and Immigration's job placement services?
4.	Are those who complete the Programme given priority over others by Manpower for employment opportunities?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Under the Adult Occupational Training Act, there are two programs: the Canada Manpower Training Program (CMTP) and the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program (CMITP). Data on CMTP and CMITP costs and trainees (parts 1. and 2. of the question) is available only by fiscal year. Data on follow-up of trainees (part 3.) is available, by calendar year 1972 to 1975, for CMTP only.
1. The total cost of CMTP and CMITP for the years 1972-73 to 1975-76 was $1,654,118,331. The cost was divided as follows: (a) and (b) $902,117,203 (a. and b. split not available), (c) $601,664,202 (CMTP only-no allowances in CMITP); (d) $13,717,223 (Trainee Travel and Commuting Allowances), (e) $42,215,260 (Provincial Administration)*, (f) $94,404,443 (Other). * 2 3
*In some provinces provincial administration costs are included in the purchase price of the training.
2.	See list below.
3.	This information is not directly available, since graduates are not required to seek subsequent employment through a Canada Manpower Centre. The information available is from

August 4, 1977
Order Paper Questions
a continuing 100 per cent survey of skill course graduates which shows:
Percentage of Skill Graduates Employed
	Before Training	After Training
1972	38.0	76.01973	37.4	76.51974	40.4	75.91975	31.0	69.11976	N/A	N/A
The same survey shows that 76.3 per cent of those employed in 1975 are employed in a two-digit CCDO occupation which corresponds with the two-digit CCDO occupation assigned to their skill course. This is not a reliable indicator of whether persons are employed in the field for which they are trained because, for instance, a person trained in agricultural technology (agricultural occupation) may utilize his or her training as a sales representative for a feed company (sales occupation).
4.	No.
Canada Manpower Training Program and Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program Trainees Started, Contracted and Completed
1972-73 TO 197*1-76
Hamilton-
CMTP Trainees Started	Canada	Atlantic Provinces	Quebec	Ontario	Western Provinces	Yukon	Northwest Territories	Wentworth Constituency1972-73	260,945	31,274	129,270	46,548	52,925	454	474	2,7221973-74	267,684	31.273	129,333	45,986	59,791	771	530	2,6641974-75	233,181	29,148	99,548	46,199	57,406	442	438	2,4721975-76	213,216	31,928	73,569	53,098	53,507	421	693	2,868Completed	1972-73	229,160	26,153	116,829	37,904	47,612	363	299	2,2481973-74	220,601	21,513	116,819	31,643	49,782	521	323	1,8411974-75	201,808	23,629	90,131	36,000	51,428	301	319	1,9711975-76 CMITP Trainees	190,448	26,552	68,776	45,136	49,230	309	445	2,307Contracted	1972-73	103,283	14,390	31,699	30,481	26,190*	111	412	1,4741973-74	63,955	21,540	14,213	17,500	10,309	190	203	3461974-75	71,965	10,355	20,559	23,402	16,432	978	239	8271975-76 Completed2	63,890	13,134	15,825	18,576	15,336	644	375	5211975-76	38,856	9,215	8,546	10,774	9,792	270	259	N/A
1 Includes Training-in-lndustry for the Yukon.
2 Only available for 1975-76.


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, how many federal employees were charged with policy-making, or interpretation of policies, regulating highway, air and rail safety?


Otto Emil Lang: Transport Canada advises as follows: Highway Safety: (a) None, as the Highway Safety Branch was not established until after 1968. (b) Six. Air Safety: (a) 324; (b) 419. With respect to the transportation of dangerous goods for all modes of transport, the answers are: (a) 2; (b) 5. The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: Railway Transport Committee: (a) As of December 31, 1968; seven commissioners (including chairman) and four others; (b) As of December 31, 1976; nine commissioners (including chairman) and nine others.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	At the employer-union meeting which was held on December 8, 1976 and in which six UIC managers in Quebec participated with Mr. Pierre Gadbois, Director, heading their group, and five regional union officers led by Mr. Robert Goyette, Regional President, did the five managers accompanying Mr. Gadbois admit that they had not read the document entitled Cadre des rencontres patronales-syndicates submitted by the union on May 26, 1976, and did they refuse to have it inserted in the minutes of the meeting?
2.	Was the only item on the agenda of the meeting the document mentioned in Part 1?
3.	Did Mr. Gadbois in regard to invitations for consultation extended by the union on May 26, August 30, October 17, 1976, consider the document submitted by the union as an obstacle to the meetings?
4.	On December 8, 1976, upon reading the document, did Mr. Gadbois indicate he agreed almost completely with the union paper, except for a matter of little importance?
August 4, 1977

5.	Did Mr. Michel Fortin, Chief of the UIC Labour Relations in Quebec, admit to Mr. Robert Goyette, the Quebec President of the Union, that the management refused to study the paper because they thought the union was demanding co-management?
6.	Was Mr. Goyette dismissed under these circumstances, even though it was not in keeping with the reasons put forward by management?
7.	Since December 8, 1976, has the union invited management to employer-union meetings on particular dates and, has management refused to take part in such meetings?
8.	Is the prevailing atmosphere in employer-union relationships in the UIC in Quebec favourable to changes such as the merger proposed in Bill C-27 now before the House and, if so, what are the future intentions of the government?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Mr. Gadbois indicated he agreed with most of the principles and general objectives in the paper, but expressed serious reservations regarding important details of implementation.
5.	No.
6.	No.
7.	Yes, twice. Management agreed to these meetings but, since the dates suggested were not convenient, proposed alternate dates.
8.	Yes, to ensure good communication with all employees and with union authorities by all available means.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	On October 8, 1976, was a letter by Mr. Michel Fortin, Regional Director of Staff Relations of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Quebec, addressed to the Quebec president of the union of employees of the UIC (ESENA-PSAC-QFL), apologizing for the fact that he had been escorted by security guards when, having been suspended for his union activities by the Department, he was on his way to defend grievances at 1441 St-Urbain Street in Montreal?
2.	On February 23, 1977 or thereabouts, although Mr. Goyette had been dismissed, but was still President of the Union under the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the constitution of the PSAC, was he again escorted by security guards acting on orders given by Mr. Fortin, on his way to the same place to defend grievances?
3.	On September 29, 1976, at the time of Mr. Goyette's suspension for union activities, did Mr. Claude Rouleau, a Staff Relations agent, acting under orders of Mr. Fortin, try to convince local agents and members of the union who had submitted grievances to take their case out of Mr. Goyette's hands?
4.	In spite of the letter of apology sent by Mr. Fortin on October 8, 1976, did Mr. Rouleau try again to convince agents and members of the union to take their case out of Mr. Goyette's hands, with such insistence that the Quebec local of the union complained of intimidation and harrassment, particularly during a press conference with the QFL?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. Yes; however, the president of the UIC employees' union had not been suspended for union activities, but for other reasons.
2.	Yes.
3.	No. It should, however, he pointed out that Mr. Goyette was not suspended "for union activities".
4.	Not applicable.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Fortin: 1.	Since March 1976, at UIC, Quebec area, has section B5, indicating job designation date in most of TBCT 360-15 (REV. 1.76) 7540-21-870-7234 forms commonly referred to as OALO and used to describe the linguistic situation of a job in the Public Service been filled and, if not, does the UIC infringe the Official Languages Act which states that the designation date of a job has to be known when the job is identified as bilingual?
2.	Does this practice allow the Commission to delay the designation of jobs whose unilingual incumbent should receive language training, to have more bilingual jobs than the authorities intend to designate and to reject illegally any dispute with respect to bilingualism allowance and, if so, who is responsible for this situation?
3.	Since the appointment of an Official Languages Officer at the Unemployment Insurance Commission, Quebec area (a) who filled the job on (i) an interim basis (ii) a permanent basis (b) in each case, for what period, indicating the interim period or other and the permanent period (c) was anyone appointed to that job without competition (d) what became of each ex-employee?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. Yes.
2.	No.
3.	(a) (i) Mr. Hugues Desmarais, Mr. Guy Lemay, Mr. Jacques Therrien; (ii) Mr. Jacques Migneault, Mr. Hugues Desmarais, Mr. Jacques Therrien. (b) Mr. Jacques Migneault from August 13, 1973 to February 23, 1975, permanent. Mr. Hugues Desmarais from February 24, 1975 to February 25, 1976, interim from February 26, 1976 to May 16, 1976, permanent. Mr. Guy Lemay from May 17, 1976 to August 15, 1976 interim. Mr. Jacques Therrien from August 16, 1976 to March 23, 1977, interim, from March 24, 1977 to the present, permanent, (c) No, except for the periods of interim appointment or remuneration, (d) Mr. Jacques Migneault is now acting manager, Rouyn. Mr. Hugues Desmarais is now PM-4, integration branch. Mr. Guy Lemay has returned to his original duties at the Official Languages Branch (AS-2).


Mr. Marshall: 1.	What additional staff was hired and what was the cost to operate the Student Summer Employment Programme (a) Peace and Security (b) Canadian Penitentiary Service (c) National Parole Service (d) National Parole Board (e) Secretariat (f) RCMP under the Department of the Solicitor General?
2.	Are any other programmes available for students under the Department?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: 1. No additional staff was hired to operate the Student Summer Programmes in the Ministry of the Solicitor General, (a) Peace and Security is not a component of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and therefore there was no specific project under this name as such. However, because Peace and Security has been an important subject of legislation, the Student Summer Employment and Activities Program within the Ministry of the Solicitor General had been designed in relation with this legislation. Therefore all projects had to be related in some way to Peace and Security as a Ministry priority, (b) $18,540.00; (c) $199,193.24; (d) $21,723.00; (e) $102,759.36; (f) $183,245.55.

August 4, 1977
Order Paper Questions
2.	In 1976, there was no other programme available for students under the Department. However, in 1977, there is another programme called Summer Job Corps which is available for all unemployed young persons.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	What additional staff was hired and what was the cost to operate the Student Summer Employment Programme (a) Young Canada Works (b) Summer Job Corps (c) Job Exploration (d) Manpower Centres for Students under the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
2.	Are any other programmes available for students under the Department?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1.	(a) Seventy-seven additional staff were hired for the Young Canada Works programmes, the operating costs of which are $3,650,000.* (b) Three additional staff were hired for the Summer Job Corps programmes, the operating costs of which are $415,000. (c) This programme is co-sponsored by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Projects are administered by local chambers and no additional manpower staff is hired. The programme has a budget of $1.4 million, (d) This programme will hire 1,100 students and recent university graduates for a maximum of eight months to staff the network of Canada Manpower Centres for Students. The programme budget for 1977-78 is $4.8 million.
2.	Yes. The Native Intern Program and Native Data Gathering Project will hire a total of 100 native youth in New Brunswick, Alberta and Ontario. * 1 2
* Nota: It should be noted that in several provinces new hirings took place for the purpose of delivering all Job Creation Branch programmes, but not specifically for the administration of the Young Canada Works programme.
Also available is the Canada Manpower Mobility Program which enables students 18 years of age or older to travel to accept temporary jobs which cannot be filled locally and which have been registered with the CMC by the employer. The financial assistance is in the form of a grant to cover the student's return travel costs from his area of residence to the area of the job and also a living allowance of $20 a day for two days. In addition, in cases where students require assistance beyond the scope of the CMC for Students or where no student centre is available, the services provided through the regular manpower system are available to students.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is Mr. Frank Leblanc manager of the Ottawa District Office of UIC and, if not (a) on what date did he leave the position (b) on what date was he notified that he would no longer be manager (c) for what reason (d) is he presently on UIC's payroll and what has he been doing since ceasing to be manager?
2.	Will Mr. Leblanc be appointed to another position in UIC or in any other government service and, if so, to what position and on what date?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1.	No. (a) April 20, 1977; (b) March 24, 1977. (c) For career development purposes and in the light of his more than two years of dedicated service in the Ottawa District Office Mr. Leblanc has been assigned the duties of Chief, Special Benefit, Ottawa Head Office, at the same classification and level, (d) Yes. On leave.
2.	Yes. See 1 (c).


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did CBC programme "The Fifth Estate" recently carry the results of an examination of news items carried by CBC English and French networks and, if so, did the examination show that (a) 21% of the English network news items were from Quebec and 46% from the rest of the country (b) 63% of the French network news items were from Quebec and only 15% from the rest of Canada?
2.	What are the reasons justifying the low percentage of news items from the rest of Canada used on CBC French network?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Yes. The results of such an examination were carried on the programme "Fifth Estate" of April 27, 1977. (a) The examination showed that CTV and CBC English television network both carried 21 per cent of Quebec-related news during the three week survey period in January and February 1977. CBC carried slightly more Canadian news than CTV, with the two English networks averaging 46 per cent. TV A, the privately-owned French television network, and the CBC French television network carried on average 63 per cent Quebec-related news and 15 per cent news from the nine other provinces and Ottawa combined.
2. In the period analyzed by the Fifth Estate, the French network carried less news from other provinces than the English network. However, it carried twice as much as the other French-language media, namely 15 per cent compared to 6 per cent. The English network serves a diversified society which reaches right across Canada and which generates events likely to be of interest primarily to that society. The French network serves a more compact society, of which 85 per cent is concentrated in Quebec, and it too generates events which are peculiar to itself and are likely to be of more interest to its people. The preponderance of news from other provinces in the English-language media, including the English network, is due simply to the greater interest of the English-speaking public in such news. Similarly the preponderance of Quebec news in the French-speaking media, including the French network, explains the greater interest which the French-speaking public has in Quebec affairs. It is undeniable that the importance of Quebec events, even more than in the past, commands a larger place in the news in the media: the impact of an independence-oriented government in power, the policies, legislation and initiatives of this government produce a steady flow of news both in Quebec, throughout Canada and abroad and it must be treated accordingly. The time and space occupied by these Quebec events have increased at the expense of all other news of lower priority. Furthermore, this situation of an audience
August 4, 1977

comprising 85 per cent Quebeckers, at grips with this major political crisis which it is experiencing so intensely, subjects the CBC and the French-language media to an environment and conditioning which make a major difference in how they treat Quebec news and news from other provinces. Finally, as Quebec is involving all Canada in the most serious and profound political crisis since Confederation, it is natural also that the English-language media should give much more attention and time to Quebec events, especially since November 15. It should also be stressed that it is much easier to gather Quebec news for the English network than for the French network to cover the other provinces. English network reporters seldom encounter a language barrier when dealing with Quebec newsmakers, who are nearly all bilingual, whereas the French network reporters are constantly coping with the language limitations of the newsmakers in English Canada who very often are unilingual. Consequently, it is necessary to take into account the constraints and limitations experienced by the French network in producing its news in English Canada.


Mr. Cossitt: Have prosecutions for defrauding the Unemployment Insurance Commission been taken completely out of the hands of local police forces and placed entirely under control of the RCMP and (a) if so (i) on what date was such a decision made and by whom (ii) for what reason (b) if not, is it the government's intentions to do so?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of the Solicitor General as follows: (a) No, (b) No.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	Is the Unemployment Insurance Commission, Quebec Region using, or has it ever used, the document entitled "Report of job opportunities" and, if so, for what purpose?
2.	Does UIC use only four figures of the Occupational Code and is the reference data in the report based on seven figures and, if so, is the report fraudulent?
3.	Does UIC run the risk of excluding a model (Occupational Code 5199-126) from eligibility to benefits because there is need for automobile assessors (O.C. 5199-118) and that UIC uses only O.C. 5199, whereas the data from the Canada Manpower Centre or any other agency includes the Code's seven figures?
4.	Was this issue raised by the five hooded persons who denounced certain UIC fraudulent practices in Quebec and, if so, what did the Department do to correct the situation?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. Yes, in the Montreal area only. It is one of the factors used permitting the agent to assemble information from which he can judge the availability of a claimant.
2. Yes, the agent uses the four digit code as a starting point for the collection of facts for a decision on benefit entitlement
Order Paper Questions
but in all cases any further research is based on the seven digit code obtained from the Department of Manpower.
3.	See 2.
4.	Unknown.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	Did M. L. Bombardier employees, on Wednesday, April 25, 1977, occupy the UIC office located at 1441 St. Urban Avenue, Montreal, Quebec, in order to find out the decision made regarding their claim for benefits and, if so (a) was a request for disqualification submitted before they were notified by UIC officer, Mr. Jean-Guy Cote, that a decision had not yet been rendered (b) on what date was the decision made?
2.	Does UIC management in Quebec make a habit of hiding the truth and, if so, does this behaviour have a negative effect on the unemployed?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. Yes, but on Wednesday, April 27, 1977. (a) No. (b) Thursday, April 28, 1977.
2. See Beauchesne's Rules and Forms of the House of Commons 171(a), (h), (i) and (q).


Mr. Caccia: For the most recent three years for which statistics are available, what is the amount of money paid each year to fee charging employment agencies by the Public Service Commission of Canada to fill full-time and part-time vacancies with government departments and Crown agencies?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: The Public Service Commission has paid no money to employment agencies in each of the last three years in order to fill vacant positions in departments and crown agencies. The Public Service Commission is responsible for the appointment of public servants in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act. It does not have the authority to enter into contracts with employment agencies on behalf of government departments. However, departments may contract with such agencies in accordance with the Government Contract Regulations. There is some concern that some departments have used the temporary employment agencies to by-pass normal recruitment procedures. As a result, the Treasury Board in consultation with the Public Service Commission has been preparing policy guidelines concerning departmental use of private personnel agencies which will improve the situation. It is anticipated that these guidelines will be issued in the near future.


Mr. Fortin: Was a grievance filed by 167 employees of the UIC regional office in Montreal in December 1976, to protest against the lack of ventilation and humidity and, if so (a) during the hours which preceded the tests conducted by

August 4, 1977
Order Paper Questions
the Departments of Public Works and National Health and Welfare on December 21, 1976, did the administration order a manual ventilating system "to recreate a normal situation" (b) did the complainants win their case and, if not, for what reason?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Yes. (a) No. At the request of the administration, the Department of Public Works operated the air conditioning system manually as soon as the automatic system failed, (b) No, because scientific analyses of the quality of the air, of the temperature and of the humidity, conducted on December 21 and January 5 and 6, clearly established that there were no problems in any of the locations tested.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	Does the manual used for training claim control officers at the Quebec regional office of the UIC specify on page 45, that it is better not to inform the claimant that any statement he makes might be used against him, in spite of the intimation of the court that enquiry officers must give a statutory notification to the individuals they are going to question and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Does the manual also state on page 46, that the claimant has to declare that he has read the unemployment insurance booklet which accompanies the claim form in order to bring it to the attention of the court if the accused pleads his ignorance of the law and, if so (a) does the UIC suggest that the booklet is complete enough to enable a person who has read it to know all the provisions of the Act (b) in view of the complex nature of the Act and of the fact that the claimant could be intimidated by the presence of the enquiry officer while being asked whether he has read the booklet, could the use by UIC of the answer to that question be considered malicious and even fraudulent?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. Yes. Investigations are designed to determine whether claimants are fulfilling their obligations under the Act and further serve to protect the integrity of the UI Account. Since the Agents objective is not to prepare material for prosecution purposes, the Commission feels that informing the claimant that his statement could be used in evidence against him, would detract from the effectiveness of this type of interview.
2. Yes. (a) The booklet in question was replaced nearly three years ago by two others entitled: (i) Your Rights and Obligations, (ii) How to Complete Your Claimant's Report Booklet (i) states: "The Unemployment Insurance Commission has prepared a series of pamphlets with one object in mind to inform and help you. However, it is possible that this pamphlet does not contain all the information you need. We therefore invite you to visit the nearest Unemployment Insurance Commission office. The staff will be happy to answer all your questions." (b) No. This question may be asked by a Benefit Control or Insurance Officer for the sole purpose of making sure that the claimant is in full knowledge of his rights and obligations.


Mr. Cossitt: 1. Were certain fees paid to Anthony Kemp Architects in connection with 10-12-18 York Street, Ottawa, which were not authorized in advance by Treasury Board and, if so (a) what was the amount involved and was it in excess of $175,000 (b) what were the dates and the amounts of payments made (c)
[Mr. Fortin.)
what are the names and job designations of the National Capital Commission officials who failed to gain such approval?
2.	Was Treasury Board approval subsequently obtained and, if so, on what date?
3.	At any time, did Anthony Kemp Architects bill the National Capital Commission not only for services performed but for other services, work, etc. that were not performed and was it necessary to take steps to recover the excess amounts paid and, if so (a) what were the names and job designations of any officials taking such action (b) on what date was such action taken and what are all the pertinent details?
4.	(a) What was the total sum paid to date in connection with 12-16-18 York Street (b) what is the projected sum to be paid to Anthony Kemp Architects?


André Ouellet: 1. Certain fees were paid prior to receipt of Treasury Board authority to Anthony Kemp Architects in connection with 10, 12 and 18 York Street: (a) (i) $162,014.93-Contract for construction supervision and inspection, (ii) $163,967.38- Interior designs, (b) (i) March 21, 1975 to March 3, 1977, details attached (Table "A"), (ii) March 21, 1975 to March 3, 1977, details attached (Table "B"). (c) According to the provisions of the National Capital Act, the Chairman is the Chief executive officer and there is a General Manager appointed by Order-in-Council. These two officials are the responsible executives for the affairs of the Commission.
2.	Yes, March 31, 1977.
3.	Yes (a) Chief of the Internal Audit Section of the National Capital Commission took appropriate steps, (b) September 9, 1976. Monthly progress billings from Anthony Kemp had cumulated in excess of actual work performed and no further payments were made until the work had been caught up.
4.	In connection with 10, 12 and 18 York Street: (a) $4,155,455. (b) $745,000. (Architect's fees, supervisory fees and fees paid by Kemp for other consulting services and all expenses relating thereto).
(b) (i) Contract for Construction Supervision and		
Date	Inspection	Total
21-3-75		$6,796.90
02-5-75		8,296.11
16-5-75		9,548.60
20-6-75		7,784.91
01-8-75		7,945.07
22-8-75		7,770.01
17-10-75		7,648.97
31-10-75		12,033.31
12-12-75		1,487.99
09-1-76		7,860.52
06-2-76		7,704.33
09-4-76		7,310.33
09-4-76		9,624.51
30-4-76		12,333.59
11-6-76		7,617.79
27-8-76		7,909.02
27-8-76		4,145.97
27-8-76		4,145.33
01-11-76		4,451.53
01-11-76		4,262.89
17-12-76		4,329.14
03-2-77		232.13
03-2-77		18.00
03-2-77		3,552.50
04-3-77		3,500.00
04-3-77		3,705.48
Total		$162,014.93
August 4, 1977

(b) (ii) Contract for Interior Designs
Date	Total
06-02-76	$6,253.40
27-02-76	17,258.13
31-03-76	20,974.97
09-04-76	3,238.10
09-04-76	2,954.15
30-04-76	4,889.43
11-06-76	9,029.06
11-06-76	23,644.89
11-06-76	17,154.09
27-08-76	28,445.34
27-08-76	12,440.00
27-08-76	2,031.00
01-11-76	746.00
03-02-77	9,396.83
03-02-77	2,876.60
04-03-77	2,635.39
Total	$163,967.38
10-12-18 YORK STREET, OTTAWA-BY YORK DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the details of any connection on the part of Senelco Limited with the building at 10-12-18 York Street, Ottawa?
2.	To the knowledge of the National Capital Commission, is or was Senelco Limited owned and operated by the same Mr. Warren Beamish associated with By York Development Limited?


André Ouellet: 1.	Senelco Limited made the successful proposal as to the use, design and development of the premises at 10, 12 and 18 York Street and a condition of their proposal was that a new company, By York Developments Ltd., would be formed to participate in the project.
2.	Mr. Warren Beamish, to the knowledge of the National Capital Commission, was an officer of Senelco Limited.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Chief Architect, Mr. A. J. Capling, of the National Capital Commission travel to Great Britain on government funds to purchase antiques for the building at 10-12-18 York Street, Ottawa and, if so, what is a list of all the items purchased, the amounts paid for each and the total amount of public funds spent?
2.	Was Mr. Capling accompanied by a representative of Anthony Kemp Architects of Toronto and, if so, for what purpose?
3.	What was the total sum spent by the National Capital Commission on behalf of Messrs. Kemp and Capling for travel, including accommodations, meals and what were the dates they were abroad?
4.	How much (a) has been spent to date (b) is projected for all furnishings, antiques, etc., to be placed in 10-12-18 York Street, Ottawa, by the National Capital Commission?


André Ouellet: August 4, 1977
Order Paper Questions
mantle, $175.00; Suspended Light Fixture, $3,500.00. Total- $6,625.00.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was a contract awarded by the National Capital Commission to Fuller Construction in the amount of $2,820,000 for certain work at 10-12-18 York Street, Ottawa and, if so (a) on what date was the contract awarded (b) on what date was such expenditure authorized by either Treasury Board or by Order in Council and, if authorized by the latter, what is the number and date?
2.	Were payments made to Fuller Construction in excess of the amount of the original contract and, if so (a) how much additional monies were paid (b) on what dates (c) what are the details of work such payments covered (d) was the payment approved by Treasury Board or by Order in Council in advance and (i) if so, what are the details (ii) if not, for what reason?


André Ouellet: 1.	Concerning 10, 12 and 18 York Street a contract was awarded as follows: (a) February 11, 1975 (b) February 6, 1975-T.B. Minute 733572
2.	Yes. (a) S 308,210 (b) Progress payments-February 6, 1975, September 7, 1976 (c) A more detailed description of the changes and additions and breakdown of the added cost are as follows: (1) Steam and water connections $28,428; (2) Changes to fire protection system necessary to meet Dominion Fire Commissioner's requirements $11,027; (3) Architectural and structural changes to meet on-site needs $55,014; (4) Changes in basement and ground floor to meet tenant's requirements $16,551; (5) Additions to mechanical and electrical equipment and design changes to meet newly defined tenant's requirements in kitchen and restaurant areas $111,957; (6) Additions to mechanical and electrical systems and the inclusion of a catwalk in the theatre $85,233; (d) No (i) N/A (ii) It was extra work the need for which became apparent as work progressed. Treasury Board authority received January 12, 1976-TB-741018.


Mr. Cossitt: To the knowledge of the National Capital Commission, have representatives of the Auditor General been investigating or examining any aspects of the accounts in connection with 10-12-18 York Street, Ottawa and, if so, on what dates and for what reasons?


André Ouellet: No. But office of Auditor General was informed by National Capital Commission in January 1977 of its actions in connection with the development at 10, 12 and 18 York Street.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	To the knowledge of the National Capital Commission, what association does Mr. Frank Galway of King, Ontario, have with By York Development Limited, Mr. Warren Beamish, Mr. David MacDonald, Senelco Limited, the National Capital Commission and the building at 10-12-18 York Street?
2.	On what date and for what reason did such association begin?


André Ouellet: 1. Mr. Frank Galway of King, Ontario introduced himself to the officials of the Commission on April 27, 1977 as being recently authorized to vote all the shares of By York Developments Limited. His association with the persons of corporations mentioned in the Question is not known to the officials of the Commission nor is he associated in any way with the Commission or Commission property at 10, 12 and 18 York Street.
2. Not known.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is or was it projected that 10-12-18 York Street, Ottawa, owned by the National Capital Commission would be occupied as a theatre and restaurant?
2.	What is the total cost to date and the projected cost to the taxpayers for the building and renovations and is the figure in excess of $5,000,000?
3.	Is the interior of the building finished and, if not (a) on what date will tenders be called to complete it (b) what is the estimated cost of completing the interior?


André Ouellet: 1. Concerning premises at 10, 12 and 18 York Street: Yes, and this use is planned to be self-financing over a period of time.
2.	Cost to date-$4,155,455. Projected cost-$5,700,000.
3.	No. (a) It is anticipated that tenders will be called within three months, (b) $1,000,000.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is Mr. Warren Beamish, Mr. David MacDonald or By York Development Limited suing the government in connection with a matter involving the property at 10-12-18 York Street, Ottawa and, if so, on what date was a writ issued and what is the exact name or names of those bringing the action?
2.	Does the suit allege approximately $4,500,000 in damages and, if not, what is the exact amount?
3.	In what ways do the claimants allege that they were damaged?


André Ouellet: 1. Concerning 10, 12 and 18 York Street, Yes; Writ issued in the Supreme Court of Ontario-February 1, 1977. Plaintiff named-By York Developments Limited. NCC's defence and counter-claim of $1,919,000 was filed March 24, 1977.
2.	$4,310,000.
3.	$85,000-Damages for alleged wrongful termination of alleged management agreement. $4,150,000-Damages for alleged wrongful breach and repudiation of alleged agreement. $75,000-punitive and exemplary damages. Total: $4,310,000.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the funds paid by the National Capital Commission to date or projected to be paid to By York Development Limited in connection with the property at 10-12-18 York Street, Ottawa?
2.	On what dates were payments made and what was the amount and purpose of each?
3.	What is a complete description of the nature of any agreement or lease that existed at any time between the National Capital Commission and Mr. Warren Beamish, Mr. David MacDonald, By York Development Limited or Senelco Limited?
4.	Was the lease broken by the National Capital Commission and, if so, on what date and for what reasons?


André Ouellet: 1. In connection with 10, 12 and 18 York Street, $225,318.93.
2.	Details attached, statement "(C)".
3.	The question deals with matters raised in the litigation and is sub-judice.
4.	The question deals with matters raised in the litigation and is sub-judice.
[Mr. Ouellet-J
August 4, 1977


[Stage Direction]
Purpose Operational	Operational	
Dale	planning Expenses	Planning Fees	Amount15-11-74 Oct/74	4000.00	$4000.0015-11-74 Nov	4000.00	4000.0013-12-74 Dec	4000.00	4000.0020-12-74 #1	2305.47	2305.4717-01-75 #2	2171.70	2171.7024-01-75 Jan/75	4000.00	4000.0021-02-75 Feb	4000.00	4000.0021-02-75 #3	3365.07	3365.0721-03-75 Mar	4000.00	4000.0011-04-75 #4	2134.66	2134.6625-04-75 #5	3672.17	3672.1730-05-75 #6	835.38	835.3823-06-75 Apr	4000.00	4000.0023-06-75 May	4000.00	4000.0023-06-75 June	4000.00	4000.0018-07-75 July	4000.00	4000.0022-08-75 Aug	4000.00	4000.0029-08-75 #7	1318.78	1318.7829-08-75 #8	2803.75	2803.7529-08-75 #9	868.80	868.8019-09-75 Sept	4000.00	4000.0003-10-75 #10	7372.24	7372.2417-10-75 Oct	4000.00	4000.0007-11-75 #11	1176.26	1176.2621-11-75 Nov	4000.00	4000.0019-12-75 Dec	4000.00	4000.0016-01-76 #12	2805.09	2805.0916-01-76 #13	2153.97	2153.9716-01-76 Jan/76	4000.00	4000.0013-02-76 #14	3257.01	3257.0113-02-76 #15	2950.27	2950.2713-02-76 Feb	4000.00	4000.0012-03-76 Mar	4000.00	4000.0031-03-76 #16	7339.76	7339.7630-04-76 #17	4342.57	4342.5722-06-76 #18	7454.24	7454.2414-05-76 Apr	4000.00	4000.0022-06-76 #19	5807.88	5807.8828-05-76 May	4000.00	4000.0022-06-76 June	4000.00	4000.0013-09-76 July	4000.00	4000.0013-09-76 Aug	4000.00	4000.0019-08-76 #20	17432.75	17432.7519-08-76 #21	9098.30	9098.3018-11-76 Sept	4000.00	4000.0018-11-76 #22	14753.39	14753.3918-11-76 #23	23899.42	23899.42Total	SI 29318.93	$96000.00	$225318.93
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	To the knowledge of the National Capital Commission, did a shipment of wine arrive from France for use at 10-12-18 York Street, Ottawa and, if so (a) was it addressed to By York Development Limited, Mr. David MacDonald, Mr. Warren Beamish or Senelco Limited?
2.	Were any of the above parties able to pay the account involved on delivery and, if not (a) was it referred to the National Capital Commission (b) what was the amount of the account?
3.	Did the Commission take any action in the matter?
4.	Was the wine in any way addressed to the Commission?
5.	Did the Commission have to put up funds, specifically $50,000, to pay for the shipment and, if not, what action did the Commission take?


André Ouellet: 1. Yes. For use at 10, 12 and 18 York Street, (a) By York Developments Limited.
Order Paper Questions
2.	None of those parties mentioned paid the amount invoiced, (a) Yes; (b) $49,137.46.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.
5.	The commission paid $49,137.46 and accepted delivery from the supplier. A requirement of a tender in answer to a public invitation for proposals re the future operation of 10, 12 and 18 York Street will be that the successful tenderer acquire these wines at the actual cost incurred for them by the National Capital Commission.


Mr. Cossitt: Were antique suits of Armour purchased in England by the National Capital Commission for 10-12-18 York Street, Ottawa and, if so (a) how many (b) at what cost (c) by whom (d) on what date?


André Ouellet: For 10, 12 and 18 York Street, no. (a) N/A; (b) N/A; (c) N/A; (d) N/A.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were the original submissions to the National Capital Commission for 10-12-18 York Street, Ottawa, by By York Development Limited or any of its associates in any way compiled by Anthony Kemp Architects and, if so, has Anthony Kemp Architects worked for both the National Capital Commission as landlord and By York Development Limited or any of its associates as projected tenants?
2.	Has the NCC, at any time, had to pay fees to Anthony Kemp Architects which should have been paid by By York Development Limited or its associates and, if so, what were the amounts and dates involved?
3.	Is the NCC aware of any unpaid fees to Anthony Kemp Architects by By York Development Limited or any of its associates and, if so, what are the amounts involved?


André Ouellet: 1. The name Anthony L. Kemp appeared as the architect responsible on the submission made by Senelco Ltd. to the National Capital Commission re 10-12-18 York Street. Anthony L. Kemp was retained to do work as an architect on the development at 10-12-18 York Street by the National Capital Commission, the owner of the premises. Except as in sentence one hereof the officials of the National Capital Commission have no knowledge whether Anthony L. Kemp architect was ever engaged by By York Developments Limited or any associate thereof.
2.	No.
3.	No.


Mr. Cossitt: Did a non-government employee, Mr. David MacDonald travel to England with all expenses paid by the taxpayer for the purpose of purchasing antiques to be used by his firm in the event that it was successful in obtaining a lease at 10-12-18 York Street, Ottawa owned by the NCC and, if so (a) what was the entire cost of the trip, including transportation, accommodation, meals, etc. (b) what are the reasons justifying expenditure by the NCC of public funds to aid the business ventures of a private individual?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: In connection with 10, 12 and 18 York Street, yes. (a) $1,413; (b) Mr. David MacDonald travelled to England on instructions of the National Capital Commission, with expenses paid,
8022

August 4, 1977
Order Paper Questions
for the purpose of assisting in the acquisition of artifacts for the use in the interior design of the property at 10, 12 and 18 York Street.


Mr. Cossitt: Did Mr. Anthony Kemp, an architect from the City of Toronto make three trips to England at taxpayers' expense for the purpose of purchasing antiques for use at 10-12-18 York Street, Ottawa and, if so, what was the total expense involved, including transportation, accommodation, meals, etc?


André Ouellet: In connection with 10, 12 and 18 York Street, yes; Trip No. 1-$1,017.90; Trip No. 2-$1,338.32. (N.B.-Included in part 3 of reply to question No. 2626, answered this day). Trip No. 3-$1,597.86.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): For the fiscal year (a) 1975-76 (b) 1976-77 what was the total furniture production for (i) Canada (ii) each province?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports the following: Statistics are not collected on furniture production. However, the attached chart provides data on the value of shipments by manufacturers. Since most companies operate on a calendar year, the data is provided on this basis rather than on the fiscal year basis as requested.
Value of Shipments of the Furniture and Fixtures Industries 1975 and 1976
1975'	19761 2 3 4
-thousands of dollars-
Newfoundland	966	3Prince Edward Island	4	4Nova Scotia	9,300	8,459New Brunswick	12,007	13,291Quebec	494,569	511,325Ontario	676,180	756,782Manitoba	56,896	58,073Saskatchewan	2,541	3Alberta	50,073	45,407British Columbia	60,921	59,061Yukon and North West Territories	4	4Canada	1,363,703	1,453,6911	Source: Annual Census of Manufactures2	Estimated; Source: Inventories, Shipments and Orders in the Manufacturing
Industries (Catalogue No. 31-001)
3	Estimate not available
4	Confidential
10-12-18 YORK STREET, OTTAWA-BY YORK DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED


Mr. Cossitt: 1. Has the National Capital Commission made some sort of settlement or is it in the process in any way of dealing with By York Developments and/or Mr. 
David Macdonald, and/or Mr. Warren Beamish, and/or Senelco Limited, and/or Mr. Frank Galway, over the government owned property at 10-12-18 York Street, Ottawa, in regard to a Writ for alleged damages of about $4.5 million issued against the government on the part of By York Developments?
2. To the knowledge of the NCC has or will the Writ be withdrawn and, if so
(a)	approximately on what date (b) what are all details of any settlement, agreement, payments etc., that have been made or will be made or have been assured to any of the parties concerned (c) what are the names of all parties involved in any such arrangements?


André Ouellet: I. Concerning 10, 12 and 18 York Street, No.
2. The officials of the NCC have no knowledge that a Writ issued on 1st February, 1977 is being or will be withdrawn.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	To the knowledge of the National Capital Commission, on what occasions in the past few months has Mr. Frank Galway of King, Ontario, visited Ottawa and did he have any discussions with NCC personnel and, if so (a) on what dates and what are the details of the subject matters dealt with (b) what are the names and job designations of all NCC or other government employees who met or talked with Mr. Galway or communicated with him in any way at any time?
2.	Did any NCC personnel encourage, condone, or in any way suggest etc., that Mr. Galway obtain controlling interests in By York Developments and, if so, what assurances if any were given Mr. Galway that the NCC would then be prepared to carry on the original intention to lease the property at 12-16-18 York Street, Ottawa, to By York Developments or its successors?


André Ouellet: 1. (a) To the knowledge of the officials of the National Capital Commission, Mr. Frank Galway of King, Ontario visited Ottawa on April 27th, May 17th and May 26th, 1977 and, at his request, met with officials of the National Capital Commission on these dates. The subject matter dealt with was enquiries by Mr. Galway concerning National Capital Commission requirements and the possibility of By York Developments Limited reopening negotiation with the National Capital Commission with respect to Commission property located at 10, 12 and 18 York Street, (b) The General Manager of the National Capital Commission, the Acting Director of Property of the National Capital Commission, the Legal Adviser to the National Capital Commission, the Project Engineer for 10, 12 and 18 York Street.
2. No.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	To the knowledge of the National Capital Commission at the present time where is the approximately $50,000 worth of wine reportedly paid for from public funds for 10-12-18 York Street, Ottawa, on behalf of By York Developments Limited, stored?
2.	Is there any indication as yet that the government will recover this expenditure and, if so, what are all details of such possible recovery?


André Ouellet: 1. The wine intended for use at 10, 12 and 18 York Street is on National Capital Commission property in safe storage.
2. A requirement of a tender in answer to a public invitation for proposals re the future operation of 10, 12 and 18 York Street will be that the successful tenderer acquire these wines at the actual cost incurred for them by the National Capital Commission.
August 4, 1977


Mr. O'Sullivan: To date, how many applications for the (a) Canada Works Programme (b) Young Canada Works Programme, have been received from the Constituency of
Order Paper Questions
(i) Hamilton-Wentworth (ii) Hamilton West (iii) Hamilton East (iv) Hamilton Mountain (v) Halton-Wentworth (vi) Halton and. in each case, what number and percentage of the applications have been successful?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: (i)Hamilton- Wentworth	Appli- cations received 9	(a) Canada Works Appli- cations approved 2(ii) Hamilton West	30	7(iii) Hamilton East	13	4(iv) Hamilton Mountain	20	2(v) Halton-Wentworth	8	2(vi) Halton	8	3
(b) Young Canada Works
Percent-	Appli-	Appli-	Percentage	cations	cations	ageapproved	received	approved	approved22	5	4	8023	30	16	5330	9	6	6610	19	6	3125	16	6	3737	11	6	54
Note: To June 3, 1977.


Mr. Robinson: What is the salary of the (a) Executive (b) Director (c) Chairman (d) Vice-Chairman (e) board members of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: (a) N/A. (b) N/A. (c) The president and general manager of the corporation acts as chairman of the Board. The president and general manager does not receive a salary in her capacity as chairman; she does however receive a salary as president and general manager, and is classified at a level SX-1. ($27,500 to $36,500) (d) The corporation does not have a vice-chairman of the board. We do have a vice-president of the corporation; he does not however receive a salary for this responsibility, (e) The board consists of seven members. Five who do not receive any salary, and two non-governmental representatives who receive an indemnity. The student representative receives $75.00 per meeting, and the industry representative receives $150.00 per meeting.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does any internal fraud squad or anything of a similar nature, exist within the Unemployment Insurance Commission, particularly in the Toronto area and. if so (a) what are the details of the work it performs (b) on what date was it established?
2.	Is the government aware of any serious morale problem existing within the UIC in the Toronto area and, if so, what are the details in this regard?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1.	No.
2.	No.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Did CBC construct a French language transmitter at/or near Belleville, Ontario and, if so (a) is the station channel 14 (UHF) (b) what is the broadcasting power of channel 14 (c) on what dates did construction commence and finish on the project (d) what was the approximate cost of construction (e)
on what date did broadcasting commence (0 what is the estimated radius that the broadcast signal will carry (g) is it possible for the signal of the transmitter to interfere with the broadcasting clarity of channel 29 Buffalo (UHF) and, if not, for what reason is that broadcasting signal interfered with?
2.	Does CBC possess data, or has it or anyone acting on its behalf furnished surveyed figures showing (a) what the English/French population ratio is in the Belleville channel 14 broadcasting area (b) what percentage of the population, whose mother tongue is French, speak (i) French (ii) English as their daily language?
3.	What are the reasons justifying the establishment of a French television station at the expense of the taxpayer in a predominently English speaking area?
4.	Will the government discontinue other such projects in view of its announcement in the Throne Speech that certain bilingual costs be reduced?
5.	Will channel 14, Belleville cease transmitting and, if so, on what date?
6.	What is the mailing address of channel 14, Belleville?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1 am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Yes, at Read Village near Belleville, (a) No-channel 15 UHF. (b) 10 kw from the transmitter, (c) Commenced approximately June 1976, completed approximately March 1977. (d) $800,000. (e) May 1, 1977. (f) The Grade "B" contour extends to a 28-mile radius, (g) CBC is not aware of any mechanism that would cause interference with channel 29 and has heard of no complaints regarding interference caused by the CBC station.
2.	Yes. (a) Mother tongue: English 152,600, French 2,600 (1971 Census), (b) According to language data in the 1971 census, approximately 40 per cent of the people whose mother tongue is French use French "most frequently in the home". Census figures are not readily available slowing the language used by the remainder or for "daily language" use, but it can be presumed that the majority of the remainder speak English "most frequently in the home".
3.	The 1968 Broadcasting Act states that "all Canadians are entitled to broadcasting service in English and French as public funds become available", and requires that the national broadcasting service "be extended to all parts of Canada as public funds become available".
4.	To be answered elsewhere.
5.	No.
80020-43*/2

August 4, 1977
Order Paper Questions
6.	CBC-TV Transmitter Site, P.O. Box 100, Cobourg, Ontario.
Insofar as the Secretary of State is concerned: 4. No.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	What are the services which the Audit Services Bureau, Department of Supply and Services, provides to other departments and agencies?
2.	Does the Annual Report of the Department of Supply and Services state that 10,000 audits were performed by the Bureau during the 1975-76 fiscal year on 40 departments and agencies and, if so, were the audits performed at the request of the department or as requested by the Auditor General and, if not, for what reason were they performed?
3.	What was the total cost for the 10,000 audits?
4.	How many auditors in the private sector were contracted to perform the 10,000 audits?
5.	How many persons are employed in the Bureau?
6.	What were the customer clients requesting the services of the Bureau and what was the fee-for-services charged in (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1.	The Audit Services Bureau provides, on request, auditing and related services to federal government departments and agencies.
2.	Yes. This service is optional and is carried out upon request from federal departments and agencies.
3.	$14,499,609.
4.	125 auditors (30.5 staff years.
5.	632 at May 31, 1977.
6.	See list below.
Fee for services charged client departments. (Note: Prior to FY 1975/76 the bureau was on a partial recovery basis.)
Client Departments	1974/75	1975/76Agriculture	$ 30,000	$ 221,000Anti-Inflation	-	13,709Atomic Energy	-	6,000Canadian Dairy Commission	80,000	90,000C.I.D.A.	1,070	306,102Canadian Livestock Feed Board	-	20,000C.R.T.C.	24,093	22,799Communication	40,064	255,000Consumer and Corporate Affairs	224,370	160,420E.M.R.	143,120	60,226Environment	69,027	599,865External Affairs	-	2,400Finance	35,822	23,684Indian and Northern Affairs	3,500	756,960Industry, Trade and Commerce	184,231	509,877Information Canada	-	23,310Insurance	-	1,573Justice	-	15,000Labour	-	49,900Manpower and Immigration	712,733	4,153,866National Defence	84,000	132,095National Harbours Board	64,216	83,183National Health and Welfare	64,073	1,411,861National Research Council	-	10,212National Museums	24,525	55,451Northwest Territories	35,000	59,757Public Service Commission	1,050	8,346Public Works	1,844	201,444Client Departments	1974/75	1975/76Regional Economic Expansion	564,304	1,681,042Science and Technology	-	4,712Secretary of State	5,000	284,577Solicitor General	45,000	16,258Statistics Canada	23,271	18,000Services Canada	204,022	214,031Supply Canada	2,014,000	2,036,096Transport	14,968	49,206Treasury Board	-	7,000Unemployment Insurance Commission	909,497	868,185Urban Affairs	-	11,500Veterans Affairs	-	16,200Yukon	-	29,924Miscellaneous	32,636 $5,635,436	8,838 $14,499,609


Mr. Symes: What was the total amount spent in Sault Ste. Marie from October 1972 to date by the Department of Agriculture?


Eugene Whelan: 


Mr. Symes: What was the total amount spent in Sault Ste. Marie from October 1972 to date by the Department of Communications?


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: October 1972 to date, $562,163.


Mr. Symes: What was the total amount spent in Sault Ste. Marie from October 1972 to date by the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs?


André Ouellet: Nil.


Mr. Symes: What was the total amount spent in Sault Ste. Marie from October 1972 to date by the Department of Finance?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Since October, 1972, the Department of Finance has made payments amounting to $1,173,401.71 to Sault Ste. Marie under the Municipal Grants Program.


Mr. Symes: What was the total amount spent in Sault Ste. Marie from October 1972 to date by the Department of Veterans Affairs?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: In so far as the Department of Veterans Affairs is concerned: $504,228.15.

August 4, 1977


Mr. Symes: What was the total amount spent in Sault Ste. Marie from October 1972 to date by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Alastair William Gillespie: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: $8,625.


Mr. Symes: What was the total amount spent in Sault Ste. Marie from October 1972 to date by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: For the period 1 Oct. 72 to 30 June 77
Fiscal Year	Amount
1972/73	$41,425
1973/74	$173,378
1974/75	$129,466
1975/76	$409,346
1976/77	$144,740
1977/78	$11,028


Mr. Symes: What was the total amount spent in Sault Ste. Marie from October 1972 to date by the Ministry of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Student-athletes from Sault Ste. Marie received the following grants-in-aid during the period from October 1972 to the present: 1975-76-$1,200, 1976-77-$1,400. However, it should be noted that the majority of the contributions from the Fitness and Amateur Sport Branch go to national sport governing bodies for such projects as leadership, training, various competitions, athlete training programs etc. Thus, while it is impossible to identify recipients from a particular locale, undoubtedly there were athletes, coaches and other participants from Sault Ste. Marie who benefited from this support.


Mr. Symes: What was the total amount spent in Sault Ste. Marie from October 1972 to date by the Department of Public Works?


J. Judd Buchanan: The total amount spent in Sault Ste. Marie from October 1, 1972 until June 30, 1977 is $4,065,025 from Department of Public Works' appropriations. This department has also spent $9,156,418 on behalf of other government departments.
Order Paper Questions EXPENDITURES-SAULT STE. MARIE


Mr. Symes: What was the total amount spent in Sault Ste. Marie from October 1972 to date by the Department of Justice?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: If it is intended by this question to include the fees paid to legal agents of the Minister of Justice in Sault Ste. Marie, please consult the replies given to the following questions: Question 62, tabled May 6, 1974. Question 2,232, tabled July 18, 1975. Question 979, tabled April 27, 1977. Information regarding other types of expenditures made in Sault Ste. Marie is not readily available.


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Are the people of Woodstock, New Brunswick, able to receive CBC English Language radio and, if not, are plans underway to remedy this deficiency?
2.	What is the effective receiving range of the Fredericton CBC station CBZ?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	The community of Woodstock receives basic CBC English-language radio service via CJCJ, an affiliated station. It carries approximately 26 hours a week of CBC programming. The CBC's Radio Affiliates Replacement Plan has been initiated to provide complete CBC service to a number of locations now receiving partial service through affiliates. Woodstock is one of the locations listed in the plan. The present schedule calls for the installation of a CBC English-language radio transmitter there within the next five years.
2.	Coverage assessment is based on daytime reception, which in the case of CBZ is as follows: north 29 miles, east 51 miles, south 29 miles, west 27 miles.


Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	In (a) 1976 (b) April to June 1977, did Arbo Service Inc. personnel travel from Fabreville, Quebec to Ottawa to perform services on House of Commons grounds and, if so, in each case (i) on how many occasions (ii) at what cost (iii) providing what services?
2.	Could the services have been provided by local firms and, if so, at what cost?


André Ouellet: 1. (a) No. Arbo Service Inc. did not perform services on House of Commons grounds in 1976. (b) Yes. Arbo Service Inc. provided arborist services on House of Commons grounds (i) on two occasions between April and June, 1977; (ii) at a cost of $3,079.00; (iii) to provide tree trimming and tree takedown services.
2. In response to public tender call a master contract, based on firm unit prices, was awarded to the lowest qualified bidder Arbo Service Inc. for the period from April 1, 1977 to March 31, 1978. This firm has an Ottawa office at 196 Bronson

August 4, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Avenue. The work performed on the House of Commons grounds was part of this master contract. Local firms did bid on this work.
Development and the allocation of funds, by province under (a) the Northern Programme (b) Parks Canada (c) Park Awareness (d) the High School Programme?


Mr. Marshall: With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,424, what is the breakdown of Ml\ B- Keitf1 Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister the number of students hired by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern	of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):
Northern
Parks Canada
Parks
High School Program (Indian
(a)	Program
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
New Brunswick Nova Scotia Prince Edward Island Newfoundland
Yukon	70
Northwest Territories	42
(b)	Summer Recruitment (c) Awareness
33	-
7	12
14	-
12	7
42	18
30	5
5	-
11	-
4	-
6	-
(d) Affairs Program)	Total
598	631
176	195
410	424
418	437
264	324
228	263
132	137
99	110
4 6
4	74
Dollars
Northern (a) Program
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
New Brunswick Nova Scotia Prince Edward Island Newfoundland
Yukon	49,644
Northwest Territories	30,300
Parks Canada	Parks
(b) Summer Recruitment (c) Awareness
76,878	-
16,100	38,952
27,235	-
23,405	9,021
30,852	42,420
68,560	8,985
8,575	-
18,865	-
6,834	-
10,290	-
High School Program (Indian
(d) Affairs Program)	Total
159,971	236,849
120.024	175,076
122,553	149,788
147.024	179,450
172,891	246,163
111,698	189,243
46,569	55,144
14,631	33,496
6,834 10,290
7,000	56,644
-	30,300


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Has the Department of National Health and Welfare subsidized the Lac St. Jean International Crossing (Swimming) Competition and, if so, in what amount annually since the creation of the contest?


Marc Lalonde: No.


Mr. Robinson: What is the salary of the (a) Executive (b) Director (c) Chairman (d) Vice-Chairman (e) board members of the Agricultural Stabilization Board?


Eugene Whelan: The chairman, vice-chairman and member of the Agricultural Stabilization Board do not receive a salary or other remuneration from the Agricultural Stabilization Board. These offices are held in addition to their normal appointments as associate deputy minister, assistant deputy minister (Economics Branch) and director general (Operations Directorate, Research Branch) respectively with Agriculture Canada.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, has the United States, Great Britain, Holland, France, Portugal and Australia obtained Sample Solar Water Heating Units from the Van Leer Springs factory in South Africa?
2.	Will the government consider the advisability of obtaining a sample heating unit for Canada as one way to reduce the energy crisis?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned, the answer is as follows: 1. Unknown.
2.	There are no plans for testing solar water heating units appropriate in much hotter climates than Canada's, as they tend not to fulfill the requirements of northern temperate to arctic climate.


Mrs. Pigott: 1.	What are the names and dates of service of the last five (a) Chairmen (b) General Managers of the National Capital Commission?
2.	On what date is the present General Manager, Mr. Charron, scheduled to leave his position?

August 4, 1977


André Ouellet: 1.	(a) Pierre Juneau, November, 1976 to date; Edgar Gallant, September, 1973 to June, 1976; Douglas H. Fullerton, September, 1969 to June, 1973; Alfred J. Frost, January, 1968 to August, 1969; S. F. Clark, October, 1961 to December, 1967. (b) Jean Charron, March, 1975 to July, 1977; Alex Morin, February, 1971 to March, 1975; Eric W. Thrift, October, 1960 to February, 1971; Allen K. Hay, 1954 to September, 1960. (No record of a general manager being appointed prior to 1954)
2.	Mr. Charron, General Manager, will leave his position on July 14, 1977.
Order Paper Questions NEW BANK OF CANADA BUILDING


Mr. Stevens: 1.	Is the total cost of the new Bank of Canada building $57.3 million plus $5.3 million for the cost of architectural, consultant and inspection fees and $4.2 million for the cost of fitting up the building, i.e., the cost and installation of office furniture and special purpose facilities?
2.	Based on the number of usable square feet in the new building, what is the total cost per square foot of the project?
3.	Who received and will receive the estimated $5.3 million for architectural, consultant fees and the cost of insurance and, in each case, in what amount?
4.	What is the breakdown of the $4.2 million estimated for the purchase and installation of office furniture and special purpose facilities?
5.	What is the cost for furnishing (a) the Governor's office (b) each Deputy Governor's office (c) the general foyer of the complex?


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the National Research Council obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the National Research Council in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. The
costs quoted in the question include not only those for the new building but also those for the renovation and integration into the complex of the original Head Office building. See answer to


Mr. Herbert.: 2. The cost per square foot reflects the renovation and integration of the original Bank Building into the new complex above and below grade, and the exceptional security requirements of the construction below grade. Based on a total construction cost of $57.3 million, the price per gross square foot of the project is $69. A net to gross ratio of 84 per cent is achieved in the design.


James Hugh Faulkner: In so far as the National Research Council			3.		
is concerned, the answer is as follows:				Amount	Individuals or Firms Paid
				Paid	
1. (a) Part-Time:	1975	1976	Architectural	$3,202,833	Marani, Rounthwaite and Dick/A. Erickson(i) British Columbia	4	6	and Associated	(ii) Alberta	none	none	Consulting	(iii) Saskatchewan	1	1	Services	C.D. Carruthers & Wallace Consultants(iv) Manitoba	1 124	1 10.5	Limited(v) Ontario	Ardec/Brais, Frigon, Hanley, Brett, Minty &(vi) Quebec	none	none	Rinfret(vii) New Brunswick	none	none	R.M.B. Technical Services Limited(viii) Nova Scotia	3	2	Garden, McMillan, Architects and Consultants(ix) Prince Edward Island	none	none	Van der Meulen and Associates Ltd.(x) Newfoundland	1	1	Fairhall and Moffatt LimitedTotal	134	116	Construction Control Limited(b)	Full-time: None
2. No, paid from regular operating funds appropriated by Parliament for the National Research Council.
(a) Average hourly
(c) Total amount
	rate paid to Employment			paid
		agencies		
1975	1976	1975	1976(i) British Columbia	5.08	8.92	19,035.	20,112.(iii) Saskatchewan	6.6	5.45	13,331.	200.(iv) Manitoba	5.20	6.30	858.	700.(v) Ontario	5.50	5.94	186,174.	171,664.(viii) Nova Scotia	5.00	3.70	8,886.	5,289.(x) Newfoundland	4.58	4.75	1,300.	500.(ii), (vi), (vii), (ix)-none	Total: 229,584.	198,466.
On Site
Inspection
Services
Structural
Engineering 165,471
Mechanical
Engineering
Electrical
Engineering
17,992
95,191
(b) Not known, contract is with employment agency.
J.R. Bain Associates Limited Hough, Stansbury and Associates Ltd. Bernard and Associates Inc.
W. B. MacIntyre, P. Eng.
Kenstruction Services Limited J.J. Lunz, Roofing Consultant and Inspection Service
C.D. Carruthers and Wallace Consultants Ltd. McRostie, Genest, Middlemiss R.M.B. Technical Services Limited J.D. Paterson and Associates Ltd.
Ardec/Brais, Frigon, Hanley, Brett, Minty and Rinfret
Ardec/Brais, Frigon, Hanley, Brett, Minty and Rinfret
Ferguson, Brosz and Associates Ltd.
William Lam Associates Inc.

August 4, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Amount	Individuals or Firms Paid
Paid
Insurance	336,188	Lukis, Stewart, Price, Forbes & Co. Ltd.,
and Legal
Gowling and Henderson, Barristers and Solicitors
Other-	16,325	Pedrette, Associates Ltd.
Scheduling,
Quantity
Survey,
etc-	The Shawinigan Engineering Co. Ltd.
T. Philip, P. Eng.


[Stage Direction]
Allowance for future payments $1,466,000.
4.
Estimated in $ Thousands
Desks, chairs, storage walls, divider panels and accessories.	2,530
Millwork and furnishings for library, trading rooms and other special purpose areas.	592
Window blinds	204
Interior office planting	85
Other	22
Contingency	300
3,733
Architectural and consulting fees	464
4,197
5.	(a) and The offices of the Governor and Deputy Governors are, and will continue to be, furnished with furniture that has been in use in the Bank for some years, (c) $3,800.
Mr. Brisco: 1.	By province, how many community cooperative television societies are broadcasting or re-broadcasting U.S. television signals by (a) cable (off air) (b) re-broadcasting transmitter (on air)?
2.	How many have been or will be notified this year that their licences to re-broadcast U.S. television signals will not be renewed by (a) cable (off air) (b) re-broadcasting transmitter (on air)?
3.	What communities are affected and what is the name of each such society?
Mir. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications): The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has submitted the following: 1. Atlantic Provinces: (a) None; (b) None. Quebec Province: (a) One cable system which carries a U.S. station St-Zacharie; licensee-Antenne TV St-Zacharie; (b) None. Ontario Province: (a) None; (b) None. Prairie Provinces: (a) three-Regina Cablevision Co-operative, Regina, Saskatchewan; Mankota Television Co-operative Association Limited, Mankota, Saskatchewan; The Battlefords Community Cablevision Co-operative, Battleford and North Battleford, Saskatchewan; (b) None. Pacific and Northern Region: Following is a list of community cooperative television societies

which are broadcasting or rebroadcasting U.S. television signals:
Licensee
Campbell River TV Association Genelle TV Co-operative Society
*Grand Forks Cable Television Co-operative Association
Riondel Community Cable Video Society
South Slocan Television Co-operative Association
Texada Community Television Association *Authorized (not implemented)
(b)Four
The New Denver-Silverton Co-operative Television Society
Mount Sentinel TV Society Co-operative
Arrow Lakes TV Society
Location Campbell River, B.C.
Genelle & Lower China Creek, B.C.
Grand Forks, B.C.
Riondel, B.C.
South Slocan, B.C.
Vananda, B.C.
CALLSIGN AND LOCATION CHSL-TV-1 New Denver, B.C.
CHMS-TV-1 Crescent Valley,
CHMS-TV-2 Passmore, B.C. CJNP-TV-2 Nakusp, B.C.
2.	(a) None, (b) The four rebroadcasting stations located in the Pacific and Northern Region were notified on May25, 1977 that their licences would not be renewed after September 30, 1977.
3.	See answers to Question 1 (a) and (b).


Mr. Robinson: What is the salary of the (a) Executive (b) Director (c) Chairman (d) Vice-Chairman (e) board members of the Bureau of Pension Advocates?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable, (c) Chief Pensions Advocate, $27,500-536,500; (d) Deputy Chief Pensions Advocate, $25,400-542,100; (e) Not applicable.


Mr. Robinson: What is the salary of the (a) Executive (b) Director (c) Chairman (d) Vice-Chairman (e) board members of the Atomic Energy Control Board?


Alastair William Gillespie: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: (a) Executive President $37,500-547,500; Directors $32,483-$35,600. (b) Not applicable, (c) Not applicable, (d) Not applicable, (e) Board members of AECB are not paid a salary.


Mr. Robinson: What is the salary of the (a) Executive (b) Director (c) Chairman (d) Vice-Chairman (e) board members of the Canadian Dairy Commission?

August 4, 1977


Eugene Whelan: Salary Range: (a) and (b) N/A; (c) Chairman, $31,500-541,500; (d) Vice-Chairman, $27,500-536,500;	(e) Board Member,


Mr. Robinson: What is the salary of the (a) Executive (b) Director (c) Chairman (d) Vice-Chairman (e) board members of the Canadian Grain Commission?


Eugene Whelan: Salary Range: (a) and (b) N/A; (c) Chairman, $33,300-546,300; (d) Vice-Chairman, $29,000-$40,800;	(e) Board Member,


Mr. Robinson: What is the salary of the (a) Executive (b) Director (c) Chairman (d) Vice-Chairman (e) board members of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board?


Eugene Whelan: Salary Range: (a) and (b) N/A; (c) Chairman, $33,300-$46,300; (d) Vice-chairman (Part-time), Per diem of $175.00; (e) Board members (Part-time), Per diem of $125.00.


Mr. Brisco: What is the best estimate of the amount spent by the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs in the Constituency of Kootenay West from (a) 1968 to 1974 (b) 1974 to date?


Harvie Andre: Nil.


Mr. Brisco: What is the best estimate of the amount spent by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the Constituency of Kootenay West from (a) 1968 to 1974 (b) 1974 to date?


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (a) 1967-68 to 1973-74 $879,000; (b) 1974-75 to date $982,000.


Mr. Epp: 1.	Is the government setting up Francophone Districts throughout Canada and, if so (a) under what authority (b) how many and in what locations?
2.	What factors or criteria are used to determine if an area of the country qualifies or is eligible to be designated as Francophone?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.
Order Paper Questions


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if questions No. 1,572 and 1,919 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately. Once again, the reason for answering in this way is the rather bulky nature of the answer in each case.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: What was the government's total expenditure on all forms of advertising for the year (a) 1959 (b) 1968 (c) 1971 (d) 1975 and what was the breakdown by department?
Return tabled.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	In the Department of Manpower and Immigration, Immigration Division, how is the organizational chart set up for (a) headquarters (b) regional offices
(c)	overseas offices (d) local offices and, in each case, what is the (i) name (ii) title (iii) job description (iv) management level (v) qualification (vi) salary (vii) location (viii) position in the chain of command of each incumbent?
2.	In each branch of the Department relating to immigration management at all levels, including information services, how is the organizational chart set up for (a) headquarters (b) regional offices (c) overseas offices (d) local offices and, in each case, what is the (i) name (ii) qualification (iii) job description (iv) title (v) management level (vi) salary (vii) location (viii) position in the chain of command of each incumbent?
Return tabled.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, would you please call starred questions Nos. 1,493, 1,731, 2,718 and 2,875.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the government purchased the Gulfstream 2 Executive Jet and, if so (a) how many (b) what was the purchase price (c) for what purpose (d) who uses such a jet?
2.	What is the cost per hour of operating the Jet?


Mr. Rod Blaker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: August 4, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Class II ILS systems installed at various airports; (3) as an in-flight base for the development of new inspection and calibration procedures; (4) spot-checking of aids to air navigation following reported detunings exceeding established tolerances and resulting from the replacement of certain defective parts; d) MOT personnel are responsible for the abovedescribed tasks.
2. The operating cost for that aircraft varies between $600 and $670 per hour. Since it is used for calibration, the Gulfstream 2 has been granted an exemption under the provisions of Section 6, Part XVII, Schedule 3 of the Excise Tax Act.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Is it the intention of the government to proceed with the issue of green cloth uniforms to the Sea and Air Cadets rather than the traditional uniforms?
2.	What is a description of the new uniforms to be issued?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to permit cadets to wear their traditional uniforms or are they to be withdrawn from use?
4.	Were the changes decided upon after consultation with, and agreement of, the two national cadet movements?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes.
2.	The uniforms are made of the same material as the Canadian forces uniforms. The basic uniform consists of a green bush style jacket, trousers, black boots, and a green beret. A green T-shirt is worn under the jacket in summer, and a green turtle neck sweater in winter. A green 100 per cent wool gabardine top coat is also part of the basic uniform. Distinctive corps and squadron headdress and accoutrements are now under consideration, by league officials.
3.	Cadet corps and squadrons may retain the old, single service uniforms to wear on ceremonial occasions. Stocks of these uniforms, however, will not be replenished by DND. 4
4.	The new green uniform was procured only after its adoption was agreed to by the presidents of the Navy, Army Cadet and Air Cadet Leagues of Canada at the ninth meeting
(Mr. Goodale.)
of the National Cadet Advisory Group held on 6 December, 1974.


Mr. Fairweather: To the knowledge of the government, did a recent United Nations study by geologists and economists conclude that the world's supply of oil and gas is unlikely to be depleted within a century?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal is as follows: The study referred to appears to be the recently-released report of the UNITAR Conference on future world supply of oil and gas, held last July in Laxenburg, Austria. This conference concluded that additional oil and gas resources would probably be available at least until their use is replaced by renewable energy sources, even if this transition period should last a hundred years or more. This conclusion is considerably more optimistic than other assessments of world hydrocarbon resources. Most of the "new" oil which the conference is purported to have revealed had been known to exist, but most of this oil is locked in our own Athabasca and Venezuela's Orinoco oil sands and heavy oil deposits and the oil shales of the western U.S., and in the still unrecoverable portions of known conventional oil fields. There are also huge but presently inaccessible gas resources in tight rock formations, high pressure zones and other sources unexploitable today due to high cost or lack of technology. The report also suggests that major hydrocarbon resources may lie offshore beneath the continental slopes and deep ocean floor, more in fact than beneath the continental shelves where oil and gas are currently being produced. This concept is purely speculative with no direct evidence available to support it, since only a handful of wells has been drilled on the continental slopes or the deep ocean floor to date and these have discovered no indications of commercial oil and gas deposits. As technology advances and conventional oil fields become depleted, some of these sources of oil and gas will be tapped, just as Canada is presently starting to tap its own oil sands deposits. However, the cost of recovering much of these resources such as those below the deep ocean floor will likely be prohibitive, even with escalating international prices for oil, so much so that other cheaper and nuclear will replace oil and gas for many of their present uses.
August 4, 1977

PERSONAL STAFF OF HON. MEMBER FOR CROWFOOT [Text]


Mr. Coates: 1.	Since the honourable Member for Crowfoot was appointed a Minister without Portfolio, how many persons have been appointed to his personal staff?
2.	In each case (a) what is his/her name (b) what are his/her qualifications
(c)	on what date was he/she appointed and at what salary?
3.	In each case, in what locations will the staff appointed by the honourable Member for Crowfoot be employed and in what province?
4. In the case of those persons not employed in Ottawa, will there be any special travel arrangements that will allow them to commute between the location in question and, if so, what are such arrangements?
5.	Are there any persons, other than those indicated who are involved in the activities of the honourable Member for Crowfoot in a direct way and, if so (a) what are their (i) names (ii) qualifications (iii) responsibilities (b) how are such persons remunerated whether by contract or salary (c) what are the amounts associated with such work from a dollar point of view with regard to both income and expenses?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is as follows: 1. 4.
2.
(a)
Mr. Peter Thomson Mr. D. H. Kuntz Mrs. L. Bergh Mrs. P. Egan
(C)	Salary
1.6.77	Up to $30,000 p.a.
27.6.77	Up to $22,900 p.a.
21.4.77	Up to $22,900 p.a.
21.4.77	Up to $17,900 p.a.
(b) Overall suitability of each individual's professional, academic and personal qualifications in relation to the job requirement.
3.	With the exception of Mr. Kuntz, all are employed in Ottawa. Mr. Kuntz is employed in Alberta, working out of Camrose.
4.	Treasury Board Travel Directive applies to Mr. Kuntz. Camrose is his headquarters and when away from his headquarters on duty approved by the Minister, travel expenses may be claimed.
5.	Staff assigned by House of Commons-information should be requested from House of Commons officials. [DOT]
Order Paper Questions
sufficient staff to provide the answer to my question? I again draw the question to the parliamentary secretary's attention and ask him to provide an answer soon.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, 1, too, rise on a point of order. A few moments ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale) said the government was answering 102 questions today. On the surface, that sounds an impressive number, but if one looks beneath the surface one will see that we are in almost the same situation as we were when the House ended its sitting just over a week ago.
I recall raising at least five times the fact that the first 26 questions on the order paper are in my name. They have been on the order paper since October 12. Some were on the order paper in a previous session of parliament, and some of them have remained on the order paper for one year and a half. They have to do with such matters as the CBC international service and what appears to be the interference by the Department of External Affairs in programming to eastern Europe. It has been suggested that the CBC was told what it could or could not say in reflecting the Canadian way of life to communist countries. There are questions concerning cabinet ministers who make frequent use of government aircraft for private and pleasure purposes. These questions remain unanswered. I recall the parliamentary secretary's assuring the House, unless I misunderstood, that the questions would be answered by the time the House adjourns. The adjournment is coming tomorrow.
He may claim now that he meant the questions would be answered by the time the session ends. I point out that the session could continue another year, which he knows. Must we wait another year for answers to questions which should have been answered 11 months ago? When will this foolishness end? Though he claimed the government is answering 102 questions today, can he say when my questions will be answered? If he cannot say, perhaps the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) can say when a question which concerns him will be answered. On the program "Cross-country Check-up" last year a caller called the radio station to ask the Minister of Transport why five women, private people and not employees of the government of Canada, used a Jetstar to fly into Saskatoon, shortly after the minister had flown in on another Jetstar. The minister assured the listener that he would look into it and supply a public answer immediately.


Mr. Beatty:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Among the question which the parliamentary secretary said would be answered today there is not one question in my name. I placed some of my questions on the order paper over one year ago. 1 refer particularly to question No. 632 relating to a trip taken by the then secretary of state in July, 1976, some 13 months ago. I have drawn this question to the parliamentary secretary's attention several times. I cannot understand why the government needs 13 months to answer a question. The secretary of state is now a different person. Why is there not
I, in turn, put the question on the order paper. No immediate answer has been forthcoming. Apparently nobody knows the answer. I think that either the parliamentary secretary or the Minister of Transport, who is mainly responsible for delaying the answers relating to the use of aircraft under his jurisdiction, should tell the House why in the name of the devil they are hiding the truth from the Canadian people. There are smiles on the faces of certain ministers who shrug this off as a joke. The Canadian people do not think it a joke when information is withheld from parliament.
80020 -44'/2

August 4, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will determine what has happened to the answer relating to the refuelling of the aircraft in Saskatoon. 1 thought it would have been answered by now. I think the hon. member should recollect the matter more correctly. If my memory serves me right, the caller asked about an aircraft refuelling in Saskatoon in which there were five pretty girls. I have determined that it was an aircraft carrying, among others, the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport on a trip to the west. I will obtain further details for the hon. member.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) that he can expect answers shortly to many questions to which he referred a few moments ago. I hope many will be answered tomorrow. I confirm the intention, which I have repeated several times, to bring forward answers to questions standing on the order paper at this time, before the end of the session. I cannot give that assurance with respect to questions which may appear after this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That this House recognizes the social, economic, environmental and energy issues surrounding the question of northern gas pipelines and, believing that the resolution of these issues must reflect the national interest, approves the position of the government that all relevant reports must be considered before deciding on a pipeline and its route.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks I should like to set out the circumstances surrounding the debate in which we shall engage for the next two days. You will recall that we were urged a number of times, particularly by members of the official opposition, to provide for a debate on the northern pipeline issue before the government reaches a decision. Notably, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) on April last, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in May last, and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) in May last, all joined together in asking that the House of Commons and its members be given the opportunity to express its views on these complicated questions before a decision is taken by the government.
Therefore, it will be no surprise to hon. members that it is not my intention in this statement to make any announcement
[Mr. Cossitt.J
with respect to a decision but, rather, to indicate some of the issues which have to be considered and some of the problems which are involved in dealing with this important matter. Inasmuch as the government is in the process of considering these problems, the contributions made by hon. members to this debate will be very valuable indeed.
Mr. Speaker, when I participated in the debate on the northern pipeline question in this House on May 13, I pointed out that it raised important issues that had to be considered carefully not only by members of parliament, but also by the Canadian people as a whole. Today I would like to try to provide an overview of the long train of events leading up to the point of decision that we now face and to outline the important considerations-tangible and intangible-that have to be weighed in the balance in reaching a judgment as to which of the various alternative courses of action open to us will best serve the national interest.
As all of us are well aware, Mr. Speaker, the pace of development of the north has accelerated substantially over the past two decades and more, fostered by the expansion of rail, road, air and communication links, the considerable enlargement in available government services, and the rapid growth of a number of territorial communities. Through the early and mid-1960s, the pace of exploration for oil and gas in both Alaska and the Canadian north began to gather momentum. It began to accelerate still faster with the discovery of petroleum at Prudhoe Bay in 1968 and at Atkinson Point in the Mackenzie Delta in 1970.
While most of us have welcomed the quickening pace of northern development, we have also become increasingly conscious of the need to ensure at the same time that such development is in harmony with nature and with the people who live there. In 1970, for example, the federal government issued initial guidelines providing for the protection of native rights, the expansion of native employment opportunities, and safeguarding of the environment and ecology of the north in the event of future construction of oil or gas pipelines. Substantially more detailed provisions were established in the expanded guidelines that were subsequently issued in 1972. In the same year the government also issued a statement on northern development in the seventies which elaborated this concern that industrial growth should be in accord with the people and the environment of the territories.
In the following year, 1973, the federal government announced its readiness to enter into negotiation with the Indian and Inuit people of the north to provide a settlement of claims for the loss of interests that had not been extinguished by treaty or superseded by law. During the course of these ongoing negotiations, the federal government has recognized that a settlement cannot be confined only to material benefits, but also must recognize the aspiration of native people for a much enhanced role in the making of decisions involving their communal life.
In March, 1974, Canadian Arctic Gas filed its long expected application for a pipeline across the Yukon North Slope and the Mackenzie Delta and up the Mackenzie Valley to trans-
August 4, 1977

port both Canadian and U.S. natural gas to markets in southern Canada and the lower 48 states. In that same month, the federal government appointed Mr. Justice Thomas Berger to undertake an inquiry into the social, economic and environmental impact on the north of this project-and of the subsequently proposed Maple Leaf line-which was unprecedented in its depth and breadth.
As the House is aware, late in the proceedings the Foothills group sponsoring the all-Canadian, Maple Leaf line from the Mackenzie Delta submitted an alternative proposal for a line that would carry gas from Prudhoe Bay to Fairbanks, from which it would run southeastward along the route of the Alaska Highway through the southern Yukon Territory, across the northeast corner of British Columbia and southward in Alberta to branch lines transporting the gas to western and midwestern U.S. states.
When it became apparent that this proposal was being given serious consideration by Canadian and U.S. regulatory authorities and, further, that it offered the possibility of an interconnection for Delta gas through a line running southwest along the Dempster Highway, the government quickly established a three-member board under the chairmanship of Kenneth Lysyk, Dean of Law at the University of British Columbia, to launch a preliminary inquiry into the socioeconomic impact of such a project. At the same time, my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, (Mr. LeBlanc), also launched a preliminary inquiry under his department's environmental assessment and review process. As the government has emphasized, in the event that a decision were made to endorse a project along the lines of that proposed by Foothills (Yukon), further socioeconomic and environmental studies would be undertaken to determine how best to minimize any potentially adverse impacts identified by the preliminary inquiries.
Now I should like to say a word about the recommendations which have come forward from these various inquiries. Members of the House have now received copies of the first volume of Mr. Justice Berger's eloquent report, which concluded that no pipeline should be built across the Yukon North Slope or the Mackenzie Delta because of unacceptable environmental risks that it would create, and that no pipeline should be built along the Mackenzie Valley for ten years in order to provide time for the settlement of native claims and implementation of measures to provide native people with a greater measure of self-determination. The summary of the forthcoming second volume of his report, which was released late last week, outlines Mr. Justice Berger's proposals for minimizing the adverse social, economic and environmental impact if a decision should be reached in favour of building a line along the route proposed by Canadian Arctic Gas.
The House will recall that the report of the National Energy Board ruled the so-called Maple Leaf line out of contention, as did the applicant, on the grounds that insufficient reserves in the Mackenzie Delta made it uneconomic and unfinanceable. The board concluded that both Canadian Arctic Gas and the Foothills (Yukon) project, with provision for a connecting line
Northern Gas Pipeline
to feed Delta gas into the express system at Dawson, could transport Canadian and U.S. supplies to southern markets economically and at reasonably similar costs.
The board considered that both projects could contribute significant industrial benefits to the Canadian economy and create an equally significant increase in employment opportunities during the construction phase. In the case of Canadian Arctic Gas, for example, the board estimated that over a five-year period 25,000 man-years of employment would be created directly and 220,000 created indirectly as a result of that project. Like Mr. Justice Berger, the NEB reached a judgment that the environmental impact of the proposed line along the Yukon North Slope would be intolerably severe. The Board concluded that the environmental impact of the Foothills (Yukon) line would be acceptable because for the most part it would follow established corridors. It also concluded that that route was preferable from a socioeconomic point of view because fewer native people would be affected, because those in the Yukon Territory were more accustomed to industrial development, and because negotiations on native claims were more advanced than some of those in the Northwest Territories.
It is clear that in reaching its conclusion in favour of the Foothills (Yukon) system, the National Energy Board gave substantial weight to the proposed conditions to preserve Canada's option to have Delta gas connected with the express line in order to provide for its economic transport to southern markets as and when required to supplement declining reserves from conventional areas in the west.
The environmental assessment panel established under the chairmanship of Dr. Harry Hill last week expressed the view that a southern Yukon pipeline route was environmentally preferable to a Mackenzie Valley line. At the same time it emphasized that considerably more study was required in order to devise measures to minimize the environmental impact of such a line, and considered that further information was required to assess the impact of a line along the Dempster Highway to provide access to Delta gas.
The report of the Alaska Highway pipeline inquiry under the chairmanship of Dean Lysyk, which was made public last Tuesday, provides a further valuable insight into many critical factors that all of us must take into account. That inquiry recommended that a start on construction of any pipeline through the southern Yukon be deferred until August 1, 1981, to provide time for the settlement and implementation of native claims.
Regardless of what decision was eventually reached regarding the routing and timing of a pipeline, the report proposed that the federal government make an interim advance payment of $50 million in respect of such a settlement to a special trust account, with the accumulating interest from August 1 of this year being allocated to serve the various interests of native people in the Yukon. In addition, the report expressed the view that no conclusion could be reached about the social and

August 4, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
economic feasibility of a connecting line to Delta reserves along the Dempster Highway on the strength of existing information.
While the National Energy Board proposed that the project company building a pipeline through the southern Yukon be required to provide a payment of up to $200 million to help cover identifiable economic and social costs, the Lysyk inquiry contended that such costs should largely be met through tax revenues. It contended that any company building a line along this general route be required to pay a minimum of $200 million into a Yukon heritage fund in order to compensate Yukon residents for adverse impacts which could not be readily calculated on a dollar and cents basis.
May I say a word now about Canadian-U.S. options. Both Canada and the United States are now faced with the difficult task of weighing all the advantages and disadvantages, all the costs and benefits that are involved in each of the various alternative courses in order to reach a judgment as to which will best serve the public interest of each country. The United States, which experienced a critical shortage of gas during a prolonged period of severe cold weather last winter, faces a choice of joining with Canada in the construction of an overland pipeline that would transport gas from Prudhoe Bay in Alaska to the lower 48 states, of opting for an all-American system involving an Alaskan pipeline and liquefied natural gas transport ships, or whether to forgo any delivery system now and instead devote its resources to development of other energy alternatives.
In Canada, we are faced with a decision essentially involving three basic choices: of approving a system generally in line with that proposed by Canadian Arctic Gas; of approving a system along the lines of that proposed by Foothills (Yukon), with or without provision for a connection for Canadian Delta gas, or of deferring construction of any pipeline for the foreseeable future and either awaiting bigger finds of Delta-Beaufort Sea gas to justify a Maple Leaf route, or concentrating our resources instead on the development of other sources of energy supply.
Perhaps the best starting point for consideration of the factors that we in Canada must weigh in the balance is the need for natural gas as it relates to the national energy strategy. My colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), will be participating in the debate later, but in order to maintain a proper balance of the various factors involved in a decision of this kind I think it is appropriate that I should refer in the over-all context to the question of energy demand and supply.
One of the central goals of that strategy is to ensure that by 1985 and thereafter Canada's dependence on imported foreign oil does not exceed one-third of total domestic consumption. The magnitude of the challenge we face in meeting that goal was clearly underlined by the National Energy Board in its recent report on Canadian oil supply and requirements. Failing the adoption of decisive policies and programs to reverse the trend, the board estimated that Canada might be forced to rely on foreign oil imports to supply anywhere from 52 per cent to
[Mr. MacEachen.l
62 per cent of its oil requirements by 1985, and perhaps even more in the next decade. Such heavy dependence on foreign oil supplies would expose this country to a number of risks which I am sure my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, would like to deal with later.
There are two basic thrusts to the policies we have been developing to restrain the extent of our dependence on foreign petroleum supplies. One is that of greatly intensifying conservation in our consumption of energy. The other is that of substantially increasing the supply of many alternative sources of new energy capacity that are open to us.
The existing reserves of natural gas found to date in the Mackenzie Delta are estimated by the National Energy Board to amount to 5.3 trillion cubic feet, which is a relatively small volume when measured against the high expectations for discoveries that most of us had earlier in the 1970s. Nevertheless, it is the board's view that this could provide one of the cheapest alternative sources of new energy at present available, one that its calculations suggest could supply some 10 per cent of domestic gas consumption for a period of several years. That is almost double the U.S. demand that could be met from present reserves in Prudhoe Bay.
The National Energy Board estimated that Canada could have a requirement for natural gas from the Arctic to meet the prospective domestic demand and existing export contracts as early as 1981 if Alberta strictly enforced its formula for reserving supplies to meet its own requirements or as late as 1985. In the event that it were decided to terminate exports by the end of this year, the board estimated the supply of gas from conventional sources would be sufficient to meet Canadian demand until around 1989. But apart from the effect of such a policy on our relations with the United States, the board also concluded that the adoption of this course could lead to a sharp decline in exploration and discovery of new reserves.
In reaching these conclusions, however, the board also underlined the fact that it was, in its words, "bedevilled by the inability to accurately predict demand and supply .. ." On the supply side, uncertainty is created by the present difficulty of determining to what extent the development of the existing surplus of natural gas from conventional areas is a temporary phenomenon and to what extent it may reflect accelerated development of new reserves in response to substantially higher wellhead prices. On the demand side, there is uncertainty about how the balance may be struck between increased conservation of gas consumption and the development of new markets for gas to provide a substitute for oil or other energy forms. As a consequence, we are faced with deciding not only whether we should build a northern pipeline, but also with considering when Arctic gas might be required to meet Canadian needs.
The tapping of Canadian gas from the western Arctic, of course, is only one of several alternative sources of new energy that we might draw on in the future. Exploration for conven-
August 4, 1977

tional sources of petroleum in the conventional areas of western Canada has, as 1 indicated earlier, been growing rapidly and yielding significant new discoveries. Extensive discussions have been under way for some time with the producing provinces about steps that might be taken to accelerate development of the tar sands and heavy oil deposits, both of which Canada possesses in abundance. Our nuclear power capacity is being steadily expanded, along with the development of new hydroelectric facilities. Exploration for oil and gas is being actively pursued in the eastern Arctic and the deep offshore area of the Beaufort Sea. Extensive research is being conducted into the feasibility of various forms of renewable energy such as that from the sun, wind and tides.
As I suggested previously, one of the important elements that we have to weigh is whether investment of scarce resources in a northern pipeline to open up access to Delta gas, or in the development of some of these other alternative energy sources I have just mentioned, would yield the best return to this country. It may well be that when all the factors are considered, the conclusion that emerges is that our interests will be better served by following the latter course. Before reaching that conclusion, however, one of the factors which we would obviously have to weigh is the possible effect of such a decision in sharply curtailing future exploration in the western Arctic in the absence of any other measures to sustain it.
We are also reminded by the many reports that have been submitted to us that economic considerations are not the only ones that we must assess in reaching a judgment on the issue before us. We must also be deeply concerned about the impact of a pipeline on the northern people, particularly native people, and on the fragile northern land and the wildlife that it supports. In the case of the environment and the ecology, our concerns must be to forgo routes which would have a harshly adverse impact that could not be overcome by any reasonable means, and of reducing the adverse impact of other routes to the greatest possible extent.
It is a fact that if a pipeline is built, some degree of environmental disruption is inevitable. For this, there is a cost that has to be paid, now or in the future. But the cost can be quite high or relatively low, depending on a number of factors. In the next few days of debate I believe those factors must be taken into account. The only basis for sound environmental protection is sound environmental information. Though we know a great deal about many of the problems associated with the construction of northern pipelines, we will have to know a great deal more. If we know enough, if we take environmental factors into account during decision-making, and if we relate those factors to final design and mitigative measures, we can reduce environmental costs to acceptable limits.
I should point out that the El Paso proposal is not without environmental risk to Canada. While the direct environmental effect on this country of a gas pipeline across Alaska would be relatively small, the same cannot be said of the necessary port installations on Prince William Sound and in southern California. These installations do pose certain threats to fisheries resources that may be of more than local importance.
Northern Gas Pipeline
The tankers carrying liquefied gas are not a serious threat in themselves. The possibility exists, however, that increased traffic along the coast increases the possibility of collision with coastal oil tankers travelling to and from Valdez in Alaska. The results of such a collision could be devastating to coastal and marine life. Major concerns with the El Paso proposal, therefore, result not from the pipeline itself but from the necessary ancillary facilities and concurrent transportation methods.
In the case of the natives of the north, our concern must be twofold: to minimize the adverse impact of any pipeline and to maximize the benefits that it can provide. Mr. Justice Berger pointed this out in the first volume of his report, "Native society is not static". The report of the National Energy Board made a similar point: "The north at this time may be said to be a land in transition". Also, the board asserted the following:
The move of natives away from the traditional ways of life, living in small groups and relying almost entirely on hunting and fishing, is a recognized fact. Many native northerners now live in communities where schools and social services are available. Hunting and trapping still take place, but more on a seasonal basis. Little wage employment has been created and many of the people receive welfare payments.
The short-term dislocations and disruptions which could be faced by members of some native communities, and some of the potentially adverse impacts that could be felt over the longer term, must also be weighed against the long-term benefits that a pipeline could provide directly and indirectly in the form of job training, new job opportunities, opportunities for the development of native enterprises, possibilities of access to natural gas fuel to northern homes at significantly lower cost than that of other available fuels. While the pipeline operation itself would not provide substantial employment opportunities, many northerners are convinced that it would serve as a catalyst in promoting other resource and hydro developments. These, in turn, would provide jobs for the growing number of young people in the territories who will be looking for employment on a full-time or part-time basis in the years that lie immediately ahead.
At the same time, however, it is also important that the construction of a pipeline should not prejudice the settlement of native claims, nor unduly impede the implementation of the new social framework established as part of such settlements under which native people will acquire an increased opportunity to shape their own development in future.
It is very important to remind the House that even if the government should reach a decision to enter into talks with the United States on the possibility of a pipeline generally following one or the other of the two major overland routes, that would by no means resolve the issue. As I pointed out earlier in my remarks, the United States must also determine which alternative best serves its own interests. In the event that it reached the tentative conclusion that the alternative which might best serve its interest coincided with our own, there would undoubtedly be a good many important questions to be resolved to the satisfaction of both countries before any final agreement could be reached between the two governments.

August 4, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline


John Allen Fraser: Right on, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Any final decision about proceeding with construction of a pipeline would also depend on reaching satisfactory terms and conditions with the companies involved in both countries and in satisfactory arrangements being made to ensure financing of the project. Consequently, it would be a serious mistake to assume that a decision on our part-


John Allen Fraser: Could ever possibly be made.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -to enter into discussions with the United States would lead automatically to a foregone conclusion, namely, a decision to authorize an overland pipeline. If we assume that all the hurdles I have just mentioned could be overcome, and if a decision were made by the government to approve an overland pipeline, it would be the intention of the government, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said at his press conference last week, to implement such a proposal by legislation.
By following this course, parliament would be assured of the right to provide or withhold its sanction for an undertaking of such vast dimensions and major implications for our country. While it is, of course, not possible to anticipate in advance the form such legislation might take, it is conceivable that it might provide for the route to be followed, establish terms governing the granting of a right-of-way, impose terms for the protection of the environment, for minimizing adverse social and economic impacts and maximizing the benefits for the people of the north, and spell out the major terms and conditions agreed on with the United States and the participating company or companies.
I can assure the House that it would be our intention that such legislation would provide for the establishment of a single agency to co-ordinate and supervise the exercise of authority in all matters pertaining to a northern pipeline that are under the responsibility of federal authorities. This agency would be expected to co-operate closely with the provincial governments, territorial governments as well as with the National Energy Board, which possesses a great deal of experience and expertise in regulating the physical aspects of pipeline construction. In our view, a single agency of this kind would be essential to minimize duplication and confusion and to ensure that the intentions of parliament were fulfilled expeditiously and efficiently.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, let me observe that undoubtedly there will be those who will argue that we lack sufficient information even now to make a decision in principle on the question. In an imperfect world, there is no such thing as perfect knowledge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There are some critical elements that must be weighed in the balance involving developments in the future that we cannot possibly foresee with certainty-elements such

as national and international energy supply, demand and costs. Because of the long lead time required to develop the new energy resources that will be urgently required in the years ahead, we are faced with the necessity of making decisions now based on the best evidence currently available. To defer a decision would itself be an important decision because it would have the effect of foreclosing some of the options still open to us. Hon. gentlemen have not been entirely enthusiastic about my concluding comments on this issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 can well understand their somewhat uneasy reception of these cold facts. Now they can take the floor and tell the government how, exactly, it ought to put all these considerations together into an integrated package.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 should begin by saying, on behalf of all members, that it has been a long time since the House of Commons has heard a speech like that. We are a little puzzled as to why the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) made the lead speech on this matter. Frankly, what concerns us most is that perhaps he has been given the north in exchange for CIDA. A procedural expert near the exit which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is seeking from the debate suggested that the President of the Privy Council spoke because the motion was in his name. I simply say that we on this side of the House would have been delighted to have given unanimous consent if someone else had wanted to lead off.
We are discussing, and will be deciding, this question in an atmosphere that can best be called an Alice in Wonderland atmosphere. In effect, as the minister stated, three routes are at issue. One is a route from Prudhoe Bay, down the Mackenzie, which was recommended by Canadian Arctic Gas and studied by the Berger inquiry and the National Energy Board. Second, along the Alaska Highway, which was recommended by the Foothills group and studied by Dean Lysyk and the National Energy Board. Third, the Dempster connection to the Delta, proposed as possible by the National Energy Board but studied by nobody.
Mr. Justice Berger, having studied the Mackenzie Valley route, prefers the Alcan route, which he has not studied. The NEB, having studied Berger, recommends access to the Dempster route, which it has not studied. The Lysyk group, the third inquiry in a venture conceived, originally, to achieve Canadian access to the Canadian reserves, recommends a route which gives Americans access to American reserves, with the possibility of connection to Canadian reserves, assuming the viability of the Dempster connection, which nobody has studied.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In each case, to a more or less degree, the inquirers recommend routes they have not studied. The fault in this bizarre situation does not rest with the various inquiries,
August 4, 1977

each of which has worked effectively and well within difficult constraints of time and information, nor with the various applicants, Arctic Gas and the Foothills group which spent immense amounts of money, time, imagination and care in making their cases. The result, instead, rests with the government of Canada, which runs the north like a colony and has known for at least a decade that the society and economy of that region were bound to be profoundly affected by a pipeline possibility. Yet despite that warning, despite Ottawa's absolute jurisdiction, we have to make this decision without a northern energy policy, without a national energy policy, without a northern development policy, and without any clear or consistent approach to native rights or the northern ecology.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Sadly, this kind of incompetence is not confined to the north. There is no more alarming evidence of that than the continuing erosion in the position of our dollar in world currency markets. The fall in the Canadian dollar, and let us not kid ourselves that this is simply a technical adjustment, is not the result of any single event in any single part of the country. As has been stated so explicitly by the Wall Street Journal, among others, it is the price of years of economic mismanagement by this incompetent government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That kind of incompetence creates problems well beyond the north. These problems will become much more severe if the Government of Canada continues to fail to develop an effective integrated energy policy for Canada. When the energy crisis broke in 1973, reaction was swift virtually everywhere but in Canada. In the United Kingdom, for example, development of North Sea oil and gas reserves was speeded up by the world price increases. The result is that North Sea oil and gas are already coming onstream. By 1980 the United Kingdom will be self-sufficient in energy and may, in fact, even be an exporter. But not Canada.
The changed price situation of the crisis gave Canada the opportunity to become self-sufficient in energy. That opportunity has not been entirely lost. But it sets the context for the decision on a northern pipeline. That decision must contribute to the goal of making Canada self-sufficient in energy by the 1990s-not self-reliant, which is the minister's phrase, because the word "self-reliant" is simply a euphemism for using not foreign exchange to buy resources, but self-sufficient, bringing our domestic demand and our domestic supply into harmony. That is a realizeable goal, and it is necessary.
A failure to strive for self-sufficiency could be very costly to Canada. The National Energy Board estimated, in February of this year, that Canada will be a net importer of more than half a million barrels of oil per day in 1985, and a million in 1990, if the present inadequate supply and demand policy remain in place. The dollar cost of that level of importation is roughly calculable. It is more than $10 billion a year added to
Northern Gas Pipeline
Canada's balance of payments deficit by 1990-assuming only moderate inflation and moderate price increases for energy. That is an added level of deficit that could be sustained by some economy, but not by Canada's.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Canada's economy is dominated by the resource and service sectors, and burdened by a very heavy public sector. We have traditionally paid for our international deficits with resources. Our manufacturing sector-traditionally weak, and getting weaker under the policies of this government- cannot carry the burden. Japan, with its world-scale factories and disciplined labour force, can perhaps pay for its oil with television sets and toasters, Canada cannot.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The consequences of the looming oil deficit are chilling. The Canadian dollar could fall to 70 American cents by 1985. High cost imported goods will add enormously to domestic inflation. Unemployment could rise to 15 per cent nationally, and it could stay there for decades. But that is not the worst. At least one major international report now concludes that there will be a world energy shortfall coinciding with Canada's new position as a major importer, and there is the real possibility that the OPEC cartel will curtail production and impose, for its own reasons, a type of world rationing system.
The inevitable result would be domestic rationing of oil as early as 1985. That is eight short years away. The social and political costs of such rationing are literally incalculable. Our industries would have to shut down for periods. Unemployment would rise even above the 15 per cent figure. Our cities, dependent as they are on a high degree of personal mobility, would be disrupted as people crowd into the urban core. That is a prescription for chaos. That kind of situation can be averted by action today against the crisis of tomorrow. It can be avoided by a vigorous effort to make up lost time and to work toward energy self-sufficiency by 1990. Reaching that goal requires federal effort on both the supply and demand fronts. First, there must be a far more effective program of energy conservation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The introduction of the two-price system for oil, and the phased move to the world price, are necessary on grounds of equity, on grounds of allowing Canadians to adjust gradually to the new price structure. But we must face the fact that it has discouraged the efficient use of scarce energy resources. This is all the more reason why Canada should have had in place long ago a serious program of energy conservation. The new national home insulation program-first proposed by this party-is one delinquent step in the right direction. But it has been four years in coming and it will be another four years before it has meaningful impact.

August 4, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
The government's official target for the annual increase in energy consumption is Vh per cent per year. That is no target at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The government's own officials, who have by and large left the service of the government, in delivering a justified and effective criticism of the minister say that growth can be held to 2 per cent without economic disruption. That should be a firm commitment of the federal government of Canada. Serious consideration should be given to a program of tax rebates for energy-efficient automobiles. The government should have produced, as it promised it would more than two years ago, appliance efficiency labelling. It should establish minimum standards for appliance efficiency. It should encourage corporations, through tax deductions or rebates, to conduct internal energy audits-to determine where industrial savings can be made. We need a far better performance on conservation than we have been receiving from this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The second step to energy self-sufficiency demands what amounts to a crash program to develop the tar sands and heavy oil deposits of western Canada, and also to develop clear guidelines and incentives to encourage exploration and development in the north. The third step must be a determined effort to substitute other energy sources for oil. Over the long term, of course, the emphasis has to be on renewable forms of energy such as solar power and tidal power. Canada's efforts in this regard are paltry compared with the research and development work done in other countries. We need, also, to give far more priority to research into coal gasification, and other alternatives. For the nearer term, we must look very seriously to the substitution of natural gas for oil. Our natural gas supply now exceeds Canada's immediate requirements, and expansion of those resources could very well be vital to the goal of energy self-sufficiency in Canada.
We are faced now, and the government perhaps next week, with making a decision regarding the pipeline. Canada could make a route decision with much more certainty if the government had been doing its job in the north over the last decade. The settlement of land claims has been delayed this long because, as late as 1973, the Prime Minister of Canada refused to admit that our native people have legitimate claims.


An hon. Member:: That's right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hill report is a testimony to how very little advance research into environmental conditions has been done by this government in the north. Indeed, our present knowledge of northern ecology owes more to the pipeline and petroleum companies than it does to this government. The only consistent northern development policy of this government has been to run the north badly from Ottawa. Stark testimony to

the total absence of any co-ordinated northern policy can be seen in the uncompleted Dempster Highway, the federal furniture rotting in the rain at Norman Wells, the refusal to bring any certainty to guide resource exploration and development, and the absolute irresponsibility of federal officials in the Northwest Territories in encouraging small communities and small business to expand in anticipation of a Mackenzie Valley line that will not be built.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is in that context of incomplete data, and the absence of energy, northern or native policy-all due to a dereliction of duty by the government of Canada-that we now must choose a route. We have the benefit of extensive reports by public commissions and private groups and companies. On the basis of available information, this party would be prepared to support a route along the Alcan corridor-provided certain firm conditions are met. Before coming to those conditions, I want to remind the House that Canada has two basic interests in pipeline policy. Our primary interest, our primary goal, is to deliver Canadian resources to Canadian markets. Our secondary goal is to help our neighbour and ally, the United States, deliver their resources to their markets.
At the moment, the Alcan proposal serves only that secondary goal. It moves American reserves but it does not move Canadian reserves. The National Energy Board has recommended a route which would bring Alcan within 480 miles of the Delta, and it is imperative that the government of Canada and the Alcan proponents begin immediately environmental and other studies to tell us whether a Dempster connection is feasible. At the same time, the government and the proponents should review and report upon any other feasible route connecting Canadian reserves to Canadian markets. In concert with those route studies, the Canadian government, which has done everything it could to discourage exploration in northern Canada, should immediately introduce clear, firm regulations and effective incentives to stimulate the search for new Canadian reserves.
Let me come to the secondary-although, of course, important-Canadian goal, of helping the United States. The government of the United States may decide to ask for a route across Canadian territory to serve American needs. Naturally, we should respond positively; but naturally, too, we should put a price upon access to our territory, as they, in reverse circumstances, would put a price. It should be a reasonable price, taking account of the disruption the route will cause Canada and taking account of the fair return we should require for granting a right of way. Our negotiators should, of course, impose conditions. They should also explore the possibility of other arrangements softer than conditions which might be of advantage to Canada, whether those involve access from the Yukon across the Panhandle or concessions on trade or on other fronts.
August 4, 1977

Work should proceed as quickly as possible. The government must make a serious effort to settle outstanding land claims within 12 months. The minister says it is possible. We intend to hold him to the undertaking that it is possible. We think most serious consideration should be given to the Lysyk proposal for a substantial $50 million advance payment to allow native communities in the Yukon to prepare for the impact of the pipeline. We support the recommendation for a Yukon heritage fund of at least $200 million, paid by Foothills to the Yukon on the condition that it be managed by the elected members of the Yukon legislative assembly. However, we do not think that agreement should be contingent on a prior settlement of land claims.
There is one important associated matter related to timing. As hon. members know, we now have a so-called "bubble" in our gas supply position in Canada. We have a temporary surplus, most of it in the hands of small, independent producers in Alberta. In our view, the federal government should begin immediate consultation with the government of Alberta with an eye to the possibility of issuing temporary export permits for the sale of a significant part of this surplus gas to the United States. If the federal and Alberta governments feel that these volumes could well be needed in the longer term to meet domestic demand, any offer of short-term export to the United States could be conditional on a swap arrangement which would assure us at least an option on equivalent volumes of U.S. gas once the pipeline is operating. That kind of arrangement could earn Canada valuable export dollars now- as much as $500 million a year-as well as provide revenues for independent producers who might well find it difficult to hold gas in these volumes in reserve for any period of time. Naturally, such an agreement could also help the United States bridge its needs through the period necessary to prepare for northern pipeline construction.
Concerning the Alcan route specifically, certain firm conditions must attach. First, planning should go ahead on the basis of provision for the eventual addition of Canadian northern gas to the system. That is, it should permit a spur to the Mackenzie Delta and Beaufort Sea fields. The basic pipeline itself must be planned with sufficient capacity to handle the addition of Canadian supplies. Only if this is the case will the pipeline make sense from a purely Canadian perspective. Only if this is the case will the pipeline contribute to the achievement of energy self-sufficiency by 1990.
Second, the Government of Canada should insist that no Canadian government guarantees be attached to the basic pipeline project. As the basic project now stands, and until a decision on a northern spur is taken, it will serve only American needs. American guarantees should, therefore, be sufficient. Canada should not be expected to underwrite what will be at first, and perhaps forever, a purely American project. Third, Canadians-and especially northern Canadians and others along the route-should extract the maximum possible benefit from the construction itself, so the construction should be planned for the maximum possible Canadian content in materials.
Northern Gas Pipeline
This pipeline should not be regarded just as a public works project. We must recognize the Canadian business needs business because of the conduct of this government. Because of the economic failure of this government, Canadian manufacturing is now operating at only 80 per cent of capacity, creating massive unemployment. There is a job-creation capacity in this pipeline. In the community of Edson, which happens to be in my own constituency and which is along the route, this project could provide 20 to 40 permanent new jobs, and the effect would be the same at other points along the route.
Fourth, the same principle of maximum benefit should apply to equity participation and to pipeline hiring practices. The pipeline crosses Canadian territory, but it also crosses northern Canadian territory. Northern Canadians must extract from it the maximum benefit. For that reason, northerners should have preference in all hiring connected with northern pipeline construction. For the same reason, northern communities should have, where it is feasible, access to gas energy supplies for their own needs from the pipeline.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Do you want my pen to take notes, Allan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If your leader would say something, it would help.


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 am prepared to put up with a great deal from the President of the Privy Council, but after his speech I am not prepared to accept a suggestion from him that 1 should say something.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: As a final condition of approval, we insist upon the creation of a single authority or independent regulatory agency. It should be new, and it should last only for the life of the project and not become another perpetual agency in the long list of perpetual and often unnecessary agencies maintained by this government. It should have-and this is of fundamental importance-clear authority over all the other agencies and departments whose conflicts now complicate life in the north. This agency must have a mandate to oversee and regulate technical and social problems connected with the pipeline. It should have attached to it a planning body designated by the elected governments of the Yukon and of the provinces through which the pipeline passes to deal specifically with the social and economic impact of the pipeline on the north.


Alastair William Gillespie: Senior to the NEB?


Charles Joseph Clark: The legislation to establish this authority should be presented to parliament at the earliest possible opportunity, no later than next fall. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) asks if it should be senior to the National Energy Board. He knows that the National Energy Board is responsible for making decisions on pipeline approvals and matters of that kind. This agency, as recommended by, 1 believe, all the commissioners of inquiry, should deal with

August 4, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
getting the project done. We think that is needed. As the minister would know from his flights at a high level over the territory, one of the very serious problems relating to the development of the north now is that there is a plethora of federal government agencies, all going in different directions, all competing with each other and all getting in the way of people who want to build the north, whoever they are and whatever their goals. We have to end that kind of duplication and have one agency which can legitimately claim to be representative of the elected opinion of the people of the territory and of the provinces through which the pipeline will run. The legislation to establish this authority should be presented to parliament at the earliest possible opportunity, certainly no later than next fall.
In addition, there is another role for parliament. It is one thing to express opinions, as parliament is doing today, but the House of Commons also has an obligation to oversee the development of a project which can have a profound effect upon our future. The decision on a route will be made in cabinet, in secret. The conditions will be discussed in negotiations, in secret. Before and after passage of any legislation parliament will be a spectator, powerless to influence a major Canadian development. That is the style of operation of this government, and it is one of the reasons our country is so badly prepared for the decision we must take on a pipeline. This question is far too important to leave out parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Therefore, sir, we believe and trust that any member opposite who has any respect for parliamentary traditions will support our proposal, that the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works should have a continuing right to monitor the pipeline question. It should be consulted regularly on the progress and nature of negotiations with the United States, on the progress of construction, on the degree to which conditions are being honoured, and on other questions. Sir, as is clear, this is more than a debate about a pipeline. It is, instead, a debate about the future shape of our country. Canada today is the sick man of the international economy. By almost every measure imaginable, this country is failing to live up to its promise and potential. By almost any measure imaginable this country is in the worst economic shape of any of the major powers.
What is at stake today in Canada is whether this country enters the twenty-first century as a hopeless economic invalid, or whether it starts now to recover its lost momentum. This decision can contribute to Canada's economic renewal, provided it is taken within the kind of comprehensive strategy of energy self-sufficiency I have outlined. Or it can be just one more bleak milestone along the route we have travelled the last ten years, the route of national decline and international dependency. The alternatives are clear. The choice can begin with a choice of a pipeline route. We have indicated today the position which we, in this party would take, not simply in relation to the pipeline but also in relation to the context of
(Mr. Clark.]
national development and development of a national energy policy within which a pipeline decision must be made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) rising. Is he rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Alastair William Gillespie: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Would the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) permit a question?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 should be delighted to answer the minister's question.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I understood the Leader of Opposition's position, his party would support the Alcan route, subject to certain conditions. Has he ruled out categorically the possibility of the CAGPL route?


Charles Joseph Clark: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker?


Alastair William Gillespie: Has the Leader of the Opposition categorically rejected the option of the CAGPL route?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated in the House clearly to everybody, including the minister, that on the basis of available information we think preference should be given to the Alcan route. We say that on the basis of information available to the House of Commons. We do not rule out anything categorically the details of which we do not know and which the minister may know.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ English ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Veterans Affairs-Number of widows not receiving pensions and low level of disability pension-Government action; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)- Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Ministerial responsibility for operation of security services-Knowledge of minister of allegedly illegal activities; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-The Canadian Economy- Measures to stop exodus of capital to United States-Reason real estate developers will not invest in Canada.
August 4, 1977



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen:
That this House recognizes the social, economic, environmental and energy issues surrounding the question of northern gas pipelines and, believing that the resolution of these issues must reflect the national interest, approves the position of the government that all relevant reports must be considered before deciding on a pipeline and its route.
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in a minute I shall set out our reasons for making an unequivocal commitment in principle to the Alcan route if a pipeline is to be built in northern Canada. Before doing so I shall express a personal lament for the sad state to which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has fallen. We all know the President of the Privy Council to be an intelligent man. He is an eloquent man, and from time to time has shown himself to be a man of passion. 1 think particularly of some notable debates on the rules and the use of Gaelic. I am seriously concerned about the sad state to which the government has let the President of the Privy Council fall. Not only is he reduced to uttering texts prepared by mere bureaucrats; he is reduced to uttering texts prepared apparently by a committee of bureaucrats, by an interdepartmental committee the zenith of whose intellectual accomplishment was enshrined in that complicated sentence I attempted to copy down which is to this effect; there are no perfect answers in an imperfect world.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You missed it.


John Edward Broadbent: I misquoted. Obviously, the sentence was more complex than I suggested. Having studied for months, indeed years, Canada's energy position, and having given particular attention to pipelines in the north, the government's performance was remarkable. What did the minister do? The high point of the minister's speech came when he asked the opposition parties for their suggestions.


William Warren Allmand: Isn't that why you wanted this debate? Be honest.


John Edward Broadbent: Speaking as an old professor, 1 must take the minister to task for his knowledge of history. I was fascinated when, at the beginning of his remarks the President of the Privy Council told us he was going to tell us something of the history of the pipeline decision. My ears perked up. I thought, "My God, we are going to hear a Liberal minister tell the truth". Alas, Mr. Speaker, I should have known better. We heard a careful selection of the facts presented by the President of the Privy Council.
Before I deal with the circumstances of this particular energy decision, or of the decision we are to make in Canada which will have an important bearing on our future, 1 want to speak on the history of this decision. The facts 1 shall put on
Northern Gas Pipeline
record are somewhat different from those the minister mentioned. I do not do so because of some interest in intellectual or political history. I do so because the facts will document that the Liberal Party of Canada, right up to this afternoon, has no coherent policy, that the Liberal Party of Canada, step by step as far back as 1968, made a commitment, without thinking clearly of the broader ramifications, to the Arctic Gas proposal. Now, because of a series of historic events over which the government had no control, it has stumbled willy-nilly on the right decision not announced this afternoon, namely, the decision to adopt the Alcan route if a pipeline is to built.


William Warren Allmand: What a joke!


John Edward Broadbent: 1 say this is important because we on this side of the House, and 1 am sure 1 speak for all the opposition parties, are tired of energy decisions made on an ad hoc basis one after another in the total absence of a national energy policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: As early as 1968 the federal government made very clear that it supported in principle a Mackenzie Valley pipeline. In that year the federal government established an interdepartmental committee which had one purpose only, which was to investigate the possibility of bringing Prudhoe Bay oil through the Mackenzie Valley. It sent the then chairman of the National Energy Board, that so-called independent body to which the government refers from time to time, to the United States to see whether the Americans might be interested in such a proposition. The only consultation in which the government engaged outside its own bureaucratic ranks in 1968 was with the oil industry. No native people were consulted. No northerners were consulted, whether native or non-native. It is certain that no one interested in environmental aspects was consulted.
Two years later, in 1970, the government published its northern pipeline guidelines to which the minister referred in his opening remarks. What he did not say was that those guidelines gave the green light to industry to prepare a Mackenzie Valley pipeline proposal. The Leader of the Opposition has already referred, correctly, to the kind of encouragement which was offered the small businessmen in the north in anticipation of the building of a pipeline right up the Mackenzie Valley. There is no doubt that this paper, which the minister mentioned but from which he did not choose to quote, represented approval in principle for the construction of a Mackenzie Valley pipeline.
At that time, close co-operation between government and industry was under way in an attempt to head-off all criticism which might crop up in connection with such a proposal, and various government departments, including the Department of Indian Affairs and the Crown corporation, Northern Transportation Limited, maintained that internal assessments of environmental and social damage could be trusted; that the minister could rely on internal studies and internal information

August 4, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
exclusively when making decisions on this matter. Native land claims were not even mentioned in the document to which the minister referred. The minister did not mention it, but the title of that document was "Canada's North, 1970-1980". I repeat, there was no question of establishing any independent inquiry outside the federal bureaucracy.
Most important for the future of a national energy policy in Canada, this approach, so solemnly established by the Liberal government, was directly in line with the continental energy policy which the administration was then following. The Mackenzie Valley pipeline would supply additional frontier oil and gas from Canada which would be sold to the United States for needed export dollars. Government departments were instructed to increase preparations for the building of a pipeline. Only the NDP at that time opposed such a course of action, this selling out of our energy resources in northern Canada, this total failure to consult the native people, this total lack of concern for environmental considerations.
Then we come to 1972 and the general election of that year. In 1972, out of the blue it was announced that the government intended to build a Mackenzie Highway, the purpose of which was asserted to be the opening up of the Mackenzie Valley and the provision of support for the construction of a pipeline. It soon became evident that once again environmental research had been conducted into this proposal either internally or through external sources and that no native communities affected by such a proposal had been consulted; they had been excluded from any consideration by the government in relation to such a proposal. Moreover, the government steadfastly refused to accept that the building of a pipeline would prejudice native land claims. Rather, the administration maintained its continentalist policy of selling off Canadian energy resources to the United States. This was in the context of the 1972 election campaign. The government was already locking itself into an Arctic Gas type of proposal.
However, the election results were not exactly what the government desired. A minority government was formed and the opposition of the NDP to the whole drift of the Liberals totally thoughtless, totally aimless energy policy brought the cabinet temporarily to its senses. Seeing it could not proceed with its Mackenzie Valley project involving the selling out of Canadian energy, the ignoring of native rights and disregard for the environment while still surviving as a government, it appointed the royal commission headed by Mr. Justice Berger. It is no coincidence, I emphasize, that there was a minority government at that time, with the NDP as the crucial variable.
The subsequent history is well known. Because of Mr. Justice Berger's accomplishments, the right of public participation in the work of royal commissions has been solidly established, native peoples in the Mackenzie Valley will have time in which to get their claims settled and an opportunity to shape their economic future. The Arctic Gas proposal was dead-or at least I thought so until a few minutes ago when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) got to his feet. Last but not least, during the course of Mr. Justice Berger's inquiry, the Alcan proposal was born. I should
[Mr. Broadbent.l
add that without the important precedent set by Mr. Justice Berger it is almost certain that the National Energy Board would not have brought in the recommendation that it did, nor would inquiries have been launched into the impact of an Alcan pipeline on affected communities.
The point I wish to make is this: in addressing ourselves to the Alcan proposal-and I am still assuming that even this government will not make a decision in favour of the Mackenzie route in face of the overwhelming evidence-we must recognize what has been done already for the country by Mr. Justice Berger's inquiry and keep its important implications in mind. We must remember that the issue in building a pipeline is much broader than that of the materials and labour involved, important as such considerations are. What is at stake is the entire question of the way in which we choose to treat our northland and those who live in it. We have learned that the future of the north depends to a large extent on what happens during the next decade. That became very clear to anyone reading Justice Berger's report. We need time to allow the indigenous native peoples to prepare themselves for entry into the wage economy; there can be no doubt about that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In saying that, you distress me.


John Edward Broadbent: Perhaps the minister will re-enter the debate and actually say something next time. I would welcome that. The point I want to make is that in saying this we are not turning back the clock or recommending that that be done. We are saying that as a nation we must take a longer historical perspective and that to wreak irretrievable social, economic and environmental damage in any part of our north simply for short-run purposes would be a decision for which future Canadians would condemn us.
All of this, I stress, must be kept in mind in assessing the Alcan proposal. All of this, I stress, came out of the Berger proposal. During that inquiry it became clear for the first time, as I have said, that a route via the Alaska Highway could have considerably reduced social and environmental consequences compared with a pipeline up the Mackenzie Valley to the Delta. Accordingly, Justice Berger heard much environmental evidence on precisely this route. Following these hearings with care, the New Democratic Party soon supported in principle the idea of this route as being essential for future study. My colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leg-gatt), submitted a brief on behalf of our party to the Berger inquiry over a year ago making precisely this point.
Subsequently, Mr. Speaker, the Alcan proposal itself was officially made by the financial groups who were interested in it. This was followed by the Lysyk inquiry and Dr. Hill's study. They have now verified that such a pipeline can be built with an acceptable degree of negative social impact. However, the important question we now face is whether the pipeline will be built within that acceptable degree of negative impact. For this reason, we must not be pushed or rushed into any hasty construction; and for this reason, also, the crucial recommen-
August 4, 1977

dations of the Hill and Lysyk inquiries must be accepted and implemented as soon as possible by this government.
I want to make some very specific suggestions with reference to this acceptance in principle. First, we recommend that a delay of at least four years be accepted-and I underline "at least four years". In practice, this means a delay of only about a year beyond the time schedule proposed by the Alcan people themselves, a delay which will likely be taken up with unexpected preconstruction activities anyway, according to the most recent and systematic reports which have been submitted to President Carter in the United States. It is important that we take this time to ensure fair treatment for the Yukon Indians and that we should keep in mind that the delay might in fact slightly exceed the four-year limitation. That is why we want to underline, in face of what the government might decide to do, the need for a minimum four-year period.
In terms of the very legitimate interests and concerns of our American neighbours, it is clear from other reports submitted to President Carter that the United States has at least until the late 1980s before Alaskan gas is needed in that country. This gives our American friends additional time to wait for us to do the right thing in Canada in terms of our energy needs, our environmental requirements and the rights of our native people.
The second matter that I want to stress is the need for over-all control of the project. It is clear that additional research must be conducted into the detailed social and environmental consequences of the project, so that appropriate mitigative and preventive measures can be taken. Without this control, the report tells us that the degree of adverse impact on the people of the Yukon would probably be unacceptable. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the government, in the event that it approves, as we hope it will, an Alcan pipeline, to ensure proper control of this project is exercised, beginning immediately, through such a controlling body.
The third question concerns compensation. The National Energy Board recommended the payment of up to $200 million by the company to compensate for social damage suffered by Yukoners. Dean Lysyk has amended this proposal slightly into a definite $200 million for the creation of a Yukon heritage fund. This seems a sensible proposal to us, as it is clear that some form of general compensation is entirely due. Evidence before the Lysyk inquiry concerning the building of the Alaskan oil pipeline, which would have similar impact to the building of the Alcan gas pipeline, showed that during construction of the oil pipeline nearly half the population of wage earners suffered a loss in real income. That, Mr. Speaker, to the people who live in that part of Canada is a supremely important fact.
In learning from this experience, Mr. Speaker, we must also see to it that steps are taken to ensure that the residents of the Yukon-and I stress, also, the residents of northern British Columbia, an area through which a great part of the pipeline will pass-are not subjected to astronomical increases in inflation. I think in particular of food, housing and utility costs, and I will say something specific about that in an amendment.
Northern Gas Pipeline
The fourth area of concern that I want to stress is that an advance payment of $50 million be given to the Yukon Indians at once so that they may start immediately to establish the new institutions they plan following their land claims settlement. We think this is a good proposal and that it is in the interests of all parties in the north and in the south that it be acted upon immediately.
A few words about the employment consequences of the Alcan route. There will be some important advantages to Canada in building this pipeline, in terms of job-creation. With proper control, the Canadian economy will receive some stimulus in supplying steel. I think immediately of families in Welland, Sault Ste. Marie and Regina which are dependent upon the steel industry, particularly the steel pipeline industry. They will get tangible benefits from this decision. Northerners, of course, will have increased employment opportunities. That, too, goes without saying. What I am saying, on behalf of my colleagues, is that through federal government action we must ensure that the probability of increased jobs in the steel towns of the south and increased employment for northerners on the spot become not just a probability but a certainty.
Another advantage of the Alcan proposal is that although it is clearly premature to say that a link with the Mackenzie Delta via the Dempster Highway would be acceptable on the basis of the known evidence, the Alcan proposal does at least offer the potential for such a link in the future when we might require it. Most of all, Mr. Speaker, the Alcan proposal gives the people of Canada time-time to develop a more comprehensive energy policy, and time to consider a balanced and long-term approach to northern development. It has been the absence of a coherent national energy policy that has led to the demands of many for frontier gas at once, in the fear that we were imminently running out of supplies. That has been particularly felt throughout southern Canada. It has been the absence of a coherent strategy for future northern development that has led many people in the north, not just in Inuvik but other communities, to seek pipeline construction as their only salvation. Both of these hastily drawn conclusions are wrong.
The point is, as the Hill and the Lysyk reports make clear, their principal recommendations do not lock us in if we accept them in terms of other possibilities. They give us time to plan, not only for the north but time to plan for a comprehensive policy which is totally lacking at the national level at this time.
I listened with agreement in almost every detail to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) in terms of his proposals about the need for a national energy policy and his criticism of the total absence of one coming from the present cabinet. We need a policy which will seriously deal with energy conservation. The approach of the federal government to this is laughable. The minister knows that a report on the leading industrial countries which was published in the last year shows that Canada and the United States have the worst record in terms of energy conservation policies.

August 4, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
It is a shame that such a policy exists and should be passed off as being credible in the real world. A national policy of some depth would give emphasis to developing alternative energy resources. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) has spoken a number of times on what should constitute such an approach. Such a policy should ensure a fair distribution of the consumer burden on higher energy costs, which is totally absent at this point in the national policy. A comprehensive policy should ensure that increased corporate returns, which are now going out in the hundreds of millions of dollars, be directed to the development of additional domestic oil and gas resources for Canadians as a condition for their being maintained. It is a scandal that hundreds of millions of Canadian dollars should be going out to multinational oil companies with no requirement that those funds be reinvested for development in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: With specific reference to the Alcan proposal, which I have indicated we support in principle, I should like to move, 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:
"and after considering the evidence and reports of the relevant inquiries, this House approves the granting of a certificate for a pipeline through the southern Yukon as recommended in principle by the National Energy Board and the Lysyk and Hill inquiries, with particular reference to the following conditions:
(1)	That an Alcan pipeline authority be established immediately comprised of representatives of the native communities, labour, small business, consumers and conservationists from the affected pipeline corridor and from the federal, provincial and territorial governments, and that this authority be empowered to manage the regional impact of pipeline construction especially with respect to employment practices, and food, housing and utility prices as well as assuming the other responsibilities recommended by the above inquiries;
(2)	That a "Canada first" priority be enforced in hiring, contracting and supplying the pipeline with particular preference to local residents of the Yukon, British Columbia and Alberta in the vicinity of the pipeline route;
(3)	That no pipeline construction precede a fair settlement of the affected native land claims; and
(4)	That no pipeline construction commence before August 1981, and that the interval be used to inquire further into the local impact of pipeline construction, to determine final route selection, and to control project planning;
and furthermore that exports of Canadian natural gas licensed for delivery to the United States after 1985 be considered as credits to be redeemed from the United States on an equivalent BTU basis."
The amendment concerning gas exports after 1985 would save Canadians roughly 4.1 trillion cubic feet of gas, but would cut off that amount from the United States markets which need it. It would merely require that it be repaid at some future date, at a time when the Americans have an adequate supply to do so, an adequate supply established by the pipeline itself. If we are concerned about Canadian interests in the pipeline, surely this should be a paramount consideration. It is consistent with our already established policy of phasing out oil exports. It gives the United States considerable notice and, most importantly, it will add considerably to

Canadian energy supplies after 1985 and hence to the flexibility we need for meeting our future energy needs. This action should be undertaken by this government whether or not we approve a northern pipeline.
In accepting this course of action which we have proposed this afternoon, we believe Canadians will have an opportunity to rethink our policies on northern development and establish an over-all national energy policy. It will be a chance to step back. It will be an opportunity for some breathing time. We in the New Democratic Party are proud to have been an integral part of this process. The onus is now clearly with the government to seize this opportunity to do future good for the country and, in particular, for the future well-being of the north and its people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. There has been an amendment moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). The hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen).


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you propose to put the amendment or whether you propose to declare it out of order immediately, as I believe it should be. If you have any intention of putting the motion, I should like to argue against its regularity so that we would have an opportunity to prevent-


An hon. Member:: It has some substance.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -this amendment from defacing the order paper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. That is about what the Chair was going to say. Since this is a long and complicated amendment, perhaps the hon. member would permit me to take it under consideration as to its procedural acceptability and without prejudice to the debate. We can hear arguments later on this amendment.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take part in the debate because I believe this is a basic issue which must be analysed so that a realistic decision can be taken in the interest of the nation that we represent in this House. We know that Mr. Justice Berger has suggested that the Canadian government place a ten year moratorium on the construction of any pipeline in the Mackenzie area. However, since the recommendation made in the Berger report, major changes have been brought to the Foothills pipeline project. Whether these changes were postponed voluntarily or not, it remains that the National Energy Board believes that this moratorium is not necessary for the Alcan route since it has agreed to it.
This ten year moratorium would enable the natives of the Northwest Territories to establish more freely their claims and to negotiate without any pressure, as was the case for the Inuit
August 4, 1977

of James Bay. This would also enable Canada to improve its natural gas transportation technology and eventually find other more ecologically safe answers, both for transportation and for our real needs and energy requirements. The National Energy Board has also made an investigation in this regard and its conclusion was approximately the same as that of the Berger study. The National Energy Board also believes a pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley would be disastrous from all aspects. I am in total agreement with this point. The National Energy Board was, however, given its agreement to the Alcan proposal. The Alaska Highway Pipelines distribution system will receive natural gas from Prudhoe Bay in Alaska and will deliver it to the United States.
This proposal was made to meet the most urgent needs while allowing for a better transportation policy for northern Canada supplies to be developed. Therefore, the Alcan route is the most adequate in the present situation and 1 can only support it, even though I have a few reservations. While all industrialized countries are beginning to show concern about the accumulated deterioration of their natural environment, we ourselves continue to exhaust our resources for short term economic reasons and we continue to shatter the harmony between man and his environment.
Mr. Justice Berger showed clearly in his report to what extent the natural balance in the northwest is precarious. I understand that footprints and tire imprints can take up to ten years before disappearing. What will the prints made by 7,000 men, 50,000 vehicles, and so on leave us? Already, in certain areas of the Arctic, the Inuit are catching oil-covered seals, not to mention the animals that will no longer be proper for human consumption, the threatened species, and the risks of irreversible pollution which are more than possible; they are obvious. I think that Mr. Justice Berger's proposal to set up a sanctuary for some species is a necessity if we want to preserve them as well as their habitats. In addition to all the anticipated ecological deteriorations, another matter of concern arose in the minds of the people of the Yukon. Recently, a pump station of the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline exploded. It is only one accident among so many others that the government must anticipate. So steps will have to be taken to prevent this kind of accident from occurring, and in view of the possibility that always exists we will have to come up with top safety systems. One only has to remember how many times this kind of accident happened either at sea or on land. On land leaks and explosions are more harmful, and recuperation is difficult on land. In a few years we will probably start thinking about dressing the wounds that we will have opened in those yet virgin habitats.
It is certainly necessary to develop a minimum of our natural resources but does our export of natural gas to the United States justify that rush for gas dollars? All those who studied the Berger report agree on one point: the construction of pipelines in the north could have alarming effects on the environment and the animal species, man included. In the balance of Canada's future improvement, is the environmental loss worth the economic gain? Because this is indeed an
Northern Gas Pipeline
economic need. The government's commitments to export natural gas represents about 40 per cent of our total annual production. Our consumption of natural gas represents about 80 per cent of our total energy consumption, and it was proven to every conscious mind that our need for natural gas can easily be reduced, and it is quite inevitable that in a relatively near future we will have to make room for renewable energy.
Natural gas is used mainly for heating and several qualified scientists say that in this area of consumption several types of renewable energy can be used. If one looks at the statistics of government grants for energy research and development one readily realizes that for this government renewable energy is not an urgent imperative. In 1976-77, less than 4 per cent of the amount allotted for energy research and development went to renewable resources. The government suffers from tunnel vision when looking at the future and that is why no figure is put on the commercial nature of natural gas.
The current energy crisis will come to an end only when governments realize that renewable energy is the solution we shall finally have to accept. If the reason for this technological dealy is economic in nature, this is only one more evidence of the incompetence of our political magnates. The most important factor in any project which is in the common good, as the building of this pipeline is supposed to be, is the human factor itself. Well, the human aspect in the regions which will be affected by the building of a pipeline will be subjected to heavy pressure due to the fact that a large portion of the population there is made up of Indians. As a matter of fact, it will not be possible to extract one single cubic centimeter of natural gas within Indian territories without damaging an environment which is, in most cases, their only source of income. Moreover, it is also their only reason to live.
Once more this would mean taking control over significant parts of their lands. And whatever the aspect of future negotiations, the result will probably be as usual that the government will assume resource development rights, and the native people will lose access to certain lands in consideration of the settlement of their claims to land they were already owning in any case, monetary compensation. As long as the native people will live on resource-rich lands, they will be up against the big capitalistic machine, and even if there are democratic negotiations, they will end up socialized, with compensatory goods that are foreign to their natural culture.
One point made by corporations competing for the relevant pipeline was that of benefits to native people. There is reference to 4,000 direct and indirect jobs. There is reference to reduced unemployment and minimized welfare reliance. There is also reference to the jobs native people ask for. In fact some do, but others do not. I suggest no one here can state in conscience whether they want those jobs or not, or even whether those jobs will be created. Mr. Justice Berger had this to say in his report:
There is abundant reason to doubt that a pipeline would provide meaningful and ongoing employment to many native people. The pipeline contractors and unions have made it plain that native northerners are not qualified to hold down skilled positions in pipeline construction, and that they will be employed largely in unskilled and semi-skilled jobs. Once the pipeline is built, only about 250

August 4, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
people will be needed to operate it. Most of these jobs are of a technical nature and will have to be filled by qualified personnel from the south.
As I said, suggested benefits to native people are short-term benefits. This in no way resolves that particular problem, nor the language and race problems that are bound to crop up. Seven different dialects are currently spoken in these lands. And I would call on those who know what happened in the early 70's on the Quebec north shore and Labrador to remember the discrimination against native employment. Natives were tied to menial tasks, without any access to better working conditions to which every Canadian is entitled.
Experience has shown me that most native people looking for paid work wanted to earn enough money to buy the tools which they need to continue to lead their own way of living. The Inuit more particularly are proud people who want to assert their independence and self-determination. They have clearly shown it on several occasions, especially at James Bay. 1 do not think that menial work is conducive to the independence of an ethnic group. In addition, if the native people want better paid and more qualified jobs, they will have to learn to speak our language and get some education. This could eventually mean their assimilation by new needs rather than the improvement of their human and social condition. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, 1 want to insist on the fact that the construction of a pipeline in northern Canada could jeopardize a unique habitat in Canada and our native people. For those reasons, I wish to state my systematic objection to the Arctic Gas pipeline route.
One must chose the lesser of two evils, and as the Foothills Pipe Lines project will allow us to arrive at a better Canadian gas transportation policy for the future, I support it, conditional upon the following, however: That the government see to it that the Americans do not reap all the benefits of the undertaking by letting us shoulder all ecological damages; that the government negotiate with our natives with every consideration they are entitled to as original owners of the territories concerned; that it allow them to assert themselves without imposing upon them a way of life to which they were not born and, as our needs for natural gas are very relative, without imposing any temporal constraints upon them as has been the case with the James Bay Inuit with regard to negotiations; that the government see to it, without any further delay, that all forms of energy capable of replacing more wisely and progressively the consumption of natural gas be considered with a view to meeting social and conservation requirements before political and economic needs; that the government give more importance than it does now to the long term factor so that the energy and ecology situation does not find itself again in a bind in the future; and finally, that the government put off the construction of pipelines in virgin areas of the northwest until such time as all means have been developed to protect the environment, and negotiations with our native people have led to equitable conclusions.
[Mr. Laprise.l


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, for some years now this government, members of this House, and people across Canada have been concerned with the question of pipelines through Canada's north to bring gas to southern markets. Prompted by the tremendous pressure for additional gas in the United States now and the possibility of future increased Canadian demand, the investigation of and discussion on northern pipelines have been extensive and sometimes exhaustive. But now is the time for a decision.
Members of this House have before them the results of the Berger inquiry into the Mackenzie Valley pipeline proposal, the National Energy Board report on the whole northern pipeline issue, the report of the environmental assessment panel on the Alaska highway proposal, Dr. Hill's report, and finally, the Lysyk report on the potential socio-economic impact of the Alaska highway pipeline. In the course of all these inquiries and studies the people of Canada were consulted extensively, and this is particularly true of those living in areas most likely to be affected by any pipeline.
I can honestly say that few issues in Canadian history have received as much attention and debate. This is a reflection of the importance which Canadians place on this issue, and it is also a reflection of the lengths to which the government has gone in order to ensure that, when the time comes for decisions, those decisions can be made rationally and based upon the best available information.
The inquiries that have taken place during the past three years have added a great deal to our previous knowledge of the north, its people, and the impact of possible pipelines along several proposed routes. Let us consider the facts. I believe everyone in this Chamber recognizes that northern Canada is a unique part of this country and that part of that uniqueness stems from its fragile and in many ways very special environment. For many years federal departments, including the Department of Fisheries and the Environment, have conducted major comprehensive programs of investigation and research centred on special northern characteristics, the effects of its vigorous climate, its special soil conditions, its unique wildlife, and how these relate to the culture, lifestyle and aspirations of those native to the north.
All of these examinations, both regular programs and special inquiries, had one objective in common-better protection of the north and better management of its natural resources. But to protect and to manage properly, we must have a basic understanding of such diverse subjects as geology, vegetation, lakes, rivers and streams, wildlife, fish and sea mammals. Gaining this understanding has not been easy-northern areas are vast and funds are not unlimited. Still, we have accomplished and learned a great deal. Canadian knowledge of our northern frontier is as good or better than that of any other nation with large northern areas.
August 4, 1977

In our search for basic knowledge we discovered that the north held significant mineral and petroleum resources. By the 1960's significant petroleum resources had been identified in the Arctic coastal waters and Arctic islands. This was an interesting discovery but one that did not assume major importance until the western nations realized that they had a problem of energy supply. It was then, in the late 1960's, that interest in the development of northern petroleum resources began to surface.
In December, 1968, the government set up a task force on northern oil development and from this arose the special environmental social program-a program designed to uncover the possible impact of a northern pipeline.
The specific aim of that program was to gain the knowledge necessary for the protection of the northern environment and the social and cultural life of those native to the north. Even then it was realized that there had to be a balance between development and the protection of the human and physical environment of the north.
The geographic scope of the program was very broad, covering the entire Mackenzie Valley region north of the 60th parallel, the sensitive northern Yukon slope to the Alaska border and southward in Yukon to include the Old Crow flats.
Without belabouring the point, I want to say that the knowledge we have gained from this program-contained in 270 separate research reports-has been invaluable both to the government and to all of the inquiries that have looked into the question of northern pipelines. The program also led to the tabling in this House on June 28, 1972, of the Expanded Guidelines for Northern Pipelines. The guidelines served to spell out the kinds of information required when a pipeline company applies for a land use permit under the Territorial Lands Act, administered by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand).
Other mechanisms have also been set up to ensure proper development in the north. The environmental assessment and review process, established by cabinet in 1973, requires a detailed and comprehensive assessment of the potential environmental impact of any project involving federal lands or federal money or sponsored by a federal department. The Environmental Assessment Panel, established to examine the possible impact of the proposed Alaska highway pipeline, submitted an interim report to my minister only a day or so ago.
Another important feature of our efforts to minimize social and environmental disruption in the north is the support of this government for the corridor concept. What this means is that we try to minimize or lessen the impact of development by channelling it into one corridor. To fail to do so would simply mean random development with widespread impact in many areas. I do not think we can afford that. It is imperative, I think, that when we consider pipeline routes, we also consider associated developments. These other facilities must, of course, be examined on their own merits as well. As one of the
Northern Gas Pipeline
witnesses before the recent hearings of the Environmental Assessment Panel in Whitehorse put it, we, as a country and as a people, cannot afford wholesale environmental destruction by insignificant increments.
In its support of this concept the government has initiated a number of other programs which have been accelerated to meet the challenge of constantly changing contexts. We are looking at the possible impacts of a pipeline on the high Arctic. Efforts have been made to accelerate the gathering of baseline data in southern Yukon, and we have joined with industry in research on the Beaufort Sea. The end product of all these ventures, whether strictly federal or carried out in co-operation with industry, will be increased understanding of what is acceptable development in Canada's north and where in the north that development should take place.
To this point I have spoken about the environmental and social criteria which the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) believes must be applied in making a decision on northern pipelines. There are, of course, many other factors to be considered which I am sure will surface, or have already done so, during this debate.
However, I do want to emphasize that the government has been preparing for this decision for some time. The Department of Fisheries and the Environment, both alone and in co-operation with others, has been studying the potential impact of northern pipelines for several years now, and more knowledge is being gathered every day.
I would like to turn now to the individual proposals for northern pipelines and mention some of the potential environmental effects of each.
The government is required to make two decisions very shortly. First, it must decide whether or not to permit the construction of a gas pipeline in the western Arctic. Second, if a pipeline is allowed, the government must decide through which corridor it should pass.
Essentially there are two proposals before the government. The first is a proposal by Canada Arctic Gas Pipeline Limited to construct a buried gas pipeline through northern Yukon and down the Mackenzie Valley carrying both Alaskan and Canadian gas.
Second, there is a proposal by Foothills Pipe Lines (Yukon) Limited to construct a buried gas line along the Alaska highway in the southern Yukon passing through B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan, where it would join existing pipeline facilities. The latter pipeline is intended to carry only Alaskan gas, although Canadian gas could be transported by constructing a lateral line following the Dempster Highway, if such a link were found to be environmentally and socially acceptable.
Another proposal, the Foothills Mapleleaf Line down the Mackenzie Valley, has been withdrawn at the request of the company.
Finally, we must remember the El Paso proposal to carry gas across Alaska and then by tanker to southern markets. While this proposal is obviously not the subject of an applica-

August 4, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
tion to the Government of Canada, it may have a bearing on our decision.
All of the Canadian proposals have been the subjects of one or more public inquiries as well as extensive scientific evaluations. The National Energy Board has reported on the three major Canadian proposals. The Berger inquiry has published the first volume of its examination of the Arctic Gas and Foothills Mapleleaf proposals. The Environmental Assessment Panel has completed its report on the Alaska Highway proposal, as has the Lysyk inquiry. I do not intend to pass judgment on the findings of these inquiries today, but these investigations, combined with a great deal of research by the government, have identified the primary environmental concerns associated with each proposal.
Let me deal first with the potential effects of the El Paso proposal. While the direct environmental effect on Canada of a gas pipeline across Alaska would be relatively small, the same cannot be said of the necessary port installation on Prince William Sound. That installation would pose certain threats to fisheries resources which may be of more than local importance.
The tankers carrying chilled gas are not a serious threat in themselves. The possibility exists, however, that increased traffic along the coast increases the possibility of collision with coastal oil tankers travelling to and from Valdez. The results of such a collision could be devastating to coastal and marine life in Canada. Major concerns about the El Paso proposal, therefore, result not from the pipeline itself but from the necessary ancillary facilities and concurrent transportation methods.
The Arctic Gas and Foothills proposals have much more direct environmental impacts on Canada's north. A pipeline along the northern Yukon coast, across the Mackenzie Delta and down the Mackenzie Valley has a very high potential for environmental disruption.
The Delta and northern Yukon are vital breeding areas for many species of animals, birds and sea mammals. There are no alternative breeding grounds which could support these populations to the same degree. Populations of birds that range all across North America, whales that roam much of the Arctic and north Pacific, as well as one of the last surviving large herds of caribou could be permanently reduced.
In addition, heavy construction work necessary for the building of any pipeline could disrupt the biological productivity of the Delta, coastal plain and inshore waters. Such a disruption would have a severely negative effect on the wildlife on the entire continent and on the oceans, even in areas far from the pipeline itself.
Further down the proposed Arctic Gas line, in the Mackenzie Valley itself, environmental problems tend to be more of a geotechnical or engineering nature. Finding stable ground- stable enough to ensure pipeline integrity-is just such a problem. The problem is particularly acute in areas of discontinuous permafrost where either chilling the gas or warming it could cause frost heave or excessive settling of the pipe. There

are also problems associated with ancillary structures such as excessive noise from compressor stations, the construction of access roads and others. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before we continue with the debate 1 should indicate that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), the decision on which had been reserved by the Chair, raises some special concerns from the procedural point of view. The amendment would, it seems to me, change substantially the motion now before the House. I believe strong representations were made that, when this matter was to be brought on for debate, no position would be put forward in the motion and that any decision would be consequential upon the discussions which would take place during these two days. The amendment put forward by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby does exactly that: it takes the general nature of the motion before the House and transforms it into a course of action which, to me, is a substantial deviation from the intent of the motion.
Further, the amendment introduces propositions which seem to me entirely independent of the basic motion, and therefore on procedural grounds 1 think the amendment is in great difficulty. However, 1 would want to listen in the normal way to arguments in support of the amendment on procedural grounds, and to arguments against it. Then I will examine the matter and make a ruling.
In other circumstances I would insist on this being done at this moment. However, we are now embarked in a limited debate on a matter of wide interest and importance and it would be unfair to hon. members to take time from that limited allotment to argue these procedural points. I am concerned in case I might set a precedent by leaving a procedural question of this importance and significance outstanding during two days; I think it ought not to be taken as a precedent for future reference because of the extraordinary nature of this particular discussion.
If there is any indication that this matter may come to a vote today or tomorrow, the matter will have to be settled before any vote can take place.
Third, I am concerned about what might happen if any other amendment were to be put forward. Any member putting forward another amendment would be prejudiced by the fact that there is this amendment in the hands of the Chair, and this amendment, as I said before, seems to be in great procedural difficulty, subject of course to any arguments which may be presented.
August 4, 1977

In an effort to do justice to all these important considerations, I am prepared to defer consideration on procedural grounds of this amendment for two days, provided that we do not face the difficulties I just mentioned, that is to say, provided we are not confronted with another amendment; for if we are confronted with another amendment, which we would have to turn to one side because we have one amendment in our hands already, or if we are confronted with the possibility of a vote, obviously, this procedural matter will have to be settled. But as long as neither of those events takes place 1 would be prepared to defer argument and decision on the procedural aspects of the motion for two days, and beyond the two days, in order to maximize the opportunity for members of the House to participate in this important discussion.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, when 1 left off at six o'clock I was outlining some of the difficulties to be reckoned with in pipeline operations such as discontinuous permafrost, the provision of suitable access roads, and so on. However, on a comparative level, the potential environmental problems likely to be encountered on the Alaska or Klondike highways are generally less severe than those on the Mackenzie Valley line. Both of these possible alternatives use existing corridors. The areas through which these routes pass are less critical to the survival of major migratory species, and the region is less biologically productive at the peak breeding season.
Certainly there are difficulties associated with the Alaska Highway route, especially in the first 150 miles. Here there are specific areas containing unique and endangered species. There is a higher risk of major or minor earthquakes here than along the Klondike diversion proposed by the National Energy Board. There is also the hazard of discontinuous permafrost and ice rich soils in this portion of the proposed line. It appears, however, that most of these obstacles can be minimized through effective engineering or by changing the route so as to avoid specific problem areas.
A number of other challenges present themselves. There could be local damage to forests and other plant life. Revegetation in the Yukon is a very slow process. The aesthetic value of the land might be harmed, particularly in the northern section of the Alaska Highway. The access provided by right of ways and compressor station service roads might open areas to larger numbers of people and this could be a definite threat to wildlife and fisheries resources. And in the case of the possible Dempster lateral, both the highway and the pipeline would cross the migratory path of the Porcupine caribou herd. This latter aspect is of special concern to the Department of Fisheries and the Environment.
On the whole, however, the potential environmental problems on the Alaska Highway or Klondike routes do seem more predictable than those likely to be encountered on the Mackenzie Valley route, and because they are more predictable,
Northern Gas Pipeline
environmental protection measures can be more easily and more effectively devised.
The possibility still exists, however, that Canada may need the resources offered by the Mackenzie Delta and Beaufort Sea. The exploitation of those resources will, in itself, bring significant environmental problems. The Department of Fisheries and the Environment has anticipated this and has begun a technology development program to help us deal with potential problems associated with on-shore collection and processing and off-shore exploitation operations. The program is being carried out over a five-year period.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, a great deal of evidence has been collected in the last few years in anticipation of the construction of northern pipelines.


Mr. Nielsen:: Not by the government.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: If the hon. member were here this afternoon when I delivered the first part of my speech he would not have said what he has just said. I share the minister's pleasure that the Department of Fisheries and the Environment has been able to help the various inquiries and the public by supplying as much information as possible.
At the same time, I, like other members of the House, am aware that there is a wide diversity of opinion on the need for a northern pipeline, the route it should take, how it can best be controlled and how subsequent or consequent development can be handled. That was the reason the government commissioned the several enquiries, and that is why we are here today.
The building of a pipeline involves not only the environment but important economic issues as well. Let me assure you, on behalf of my minister, that the Department of Fisheries and the Environment does strive for a sense of perspective and reasonable pragmatism in environmental issues. It is a fact that if a pipeline is built, some degree of environmental disruption is inevitable. For this there is a cost that has to be paid-now or in the future. But the cost can be quite high or relatively low depending on a number of factors. I believe those factors must be taken into account in moving toward a decision.
The only basis for sound environmental protection is sound environmental information. Though we know a great deal about many of the problems associated with the construction of northern pipelines, we will have to know a great deal more. If we know enough, if we take environmental factors into account during the decision-making, and if we relate those factors to final design and mitigative measures, we can reduce environmental costs to acceptable limits.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate as probably the only impartial member of the House of Commons with respect to the subject matter we are discussing. No one could be less concerned than 1 about regional interests when discussing the routes of the proposed pipeline-I speak on the assumption that a decision will be taken to construct the pipeline.

August 4, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
Before dealing with the remarks of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) I think it is worth while putting on the record an assurance 1 was very glad to see in the light of the assertion made by the leader of my party. 1 refer to a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on July 28 at a press conference with respect to the ultimate method of disposing of the pipeline question, and I read from page 12 of the transcript of the press conference on that date. As part of his answer the Prime Minister said:
The only thing I think I can safely say is that because of the multiplicity of these reports and because of the variety of concerns which have to do not only with energy and its transportation but with the financial implications, its job creation implications, with the rights of the native peoples in the North, and with the environment-they have to deal obviously with the problem of foreign affairs in relation to the United States-because of this complexity it is inevitable that if we do build a pipeline, it will have to be by legislation. In other words, we will have to come to parliament with a law saying that A, we are building the pipeline and, B, this is the route, and, C, this is what we will do with respect to financing and, D, there are the measures we are taking for the environment and E, this is the kind of contract we are making with the United States. I am just making the point that it would be a very complex series of decisions which I think would be best debated by parliament and therefore would be placed in the form of legislation, if we decide to build a pipeline.
That is the first definitive and positive statement which has appeared with respect to this subject matter finding its ultimate form by way of legislation before this House. So once a decision is made-and it is anticipated one will be made next week, possibly next Monday-we look forward to the honouring of that commitment by the Prime Minister to see that there is a debate here before a pipeline is built.
Having sat here as long as I have, I was disappointed to see the Prime Minister leave the Chamber before the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) had completed his comments and before the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the spokesman for the Social Credit Party had delivered theirs. It was a hollow comment on the assurance given to us by the President of the Privy Council that the views of parliamentarians in this, to my mind, rather useless and meaningless debate, will be taken into account. The hon. gentleman said they would be given careful consideration, but 1 know the Prime Minister does not waste his time reading the comments of the leader of the NDP or of the spokesman for the Social Credit Party. However, his attitude serves to draw attention to the flaccid place this Chamber has become under the present government. Oh, there is nothing personal intended as far as the leader of the NDP is concerned. His speech was one of the more coherent I have heard him make in all the years I have been here.


John Edward Broadbent: Good to have you back!


Erik Nielsen: The President of the Privy Council spoke about the measures successive governments have taken to encourage northern development. I can only recall the days when such imaginative leadership was shown by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the then minister of northern affairs, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). They envisioned opening up the north to the development of its resources and embarked upon
(Mr. Nielsen.]
an imaginative program of building roads, bridges and other means of communication. I recall the words of the next prime minister of that day charging us with spending money like drunken sailors. He charged us with building roads from igloo to igloo in the north. The government of that day made a fair number of yards in southern Canada with that kind of accusation, yet one of the roads, indeed the specific road criticized by the Liberal prime minister of that day as being from igloo to igloo, was the self same Dempster highway that we are discussing in this debate today.
This was a road which was commenced in 1958, 80 miles of which were constructed by 1963 when the government changed. Immediately construction of the road ceased. It was the philosophy of the government of that day that there were oil reserves in the north which would benefit Canadians. That was the philosophy behind the commencement of the construction of that particular road. We were charged with wasting money, so construction of that road was halted in 1963. After the discovery of oil in Prudhoe Bay the government belatedly recommenced construction of the road and now, all of a sudden, it has become one of the most important links in the route to the Arctic which, I am certain, will eventually tap Canadian reserves of gas and oil in the Arctic.
We are speaking not only of gas in the Delta but of oil in the Yukon, oil in the Yukon, oil in the Eagle plain and in the Peel plateau. I do not know whether the President of the Privy Council has any idea where these places are; I doubt very much whether he has ever been to the north. I would invite him to the north, as I would invite the hon. gentleman who is now his colleague who is seated beside him. Let him come to the Yukon and have a look. I know the hon. gentleman has been to Inuvik. Now being a member of the cabinet he is obviously expressing the view of the government when he says that there must be a pipeline. That was the statement he made. Whether he meant that there should be a pipeline along the Mackenzie to attract the political allegiance of the citizens of Inuvik is something else again.
1 would invite the President of the Privy Council to come and wander with me through my constituency at something less than 4,000 feet above the Dempster highway, as his colleague to his left did when he made the observation, "I can't see anything wrong with this route for a pipeline".


Alastair William Gillespie: You are exaggerating again.


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps it was 3,500 feet, I do not know. In any event, it was too high to get an on the ground look at what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. Fleming) was talking about, of which he knows nothing when he speaks of permafrost, the flora and fauna and the ecological problems of the Yukon.


Alastair William Gillespie: The "Flora" is all on your side of the House.


Erik Nielsen: As a Yukoner and as a northerner I appreciate the good intentions of you southerners, but you do not know
August 4, 1977

the north because you do not come to the north. The first prime minister in Canada's history who visited above the 60th parallel was the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, and he did not stop at Whitehorse as Prime Minister Trudeau did, and who has yet to come back. We are all waiting for the second coming, Mr. Speaker.
When the right hon. member for Prince Albert was prime minister he travelled the Yukon. He went to Dawson City, to Mayo, to Haines Junction. So did the Leader of the Opposition and so did his predecessor. They did not stop in the urban community of Whitehorse; they listened and found out about things. 1 am afraid that this government is sadly lacking in its knowledge of the north because it simply does not go up there.
I was really intrigued by the "knowledgeable expressions"- question mark-of the President of the Privy Council when he joined in the debate. The only reason 1 can attribute to his leading off the debate rather than the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), who is the minister responsible here, is that he wants to wind up the debate. I hope that the juggling of time will allow that, though he might find himself in a pinch, as is often the case in the House. As my colleague comments, he can always do another flyover.
The only comment I can make about the minister's interjection in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, when he asked whether the Leader of the Opposition had dismissed the CAGPL proposal, is that it was either a very facetious question or a very inane question. The minister shakes his head: it was not facetious so it must have been inane. I cannot understand how the minister can ask whether the CAGPL proposal has been dismissed by the Leader of the Opposition unless the government is still considering it; and I cannot credit that conclusion because it would mean that the government is considering an application made by an applicant which had already withdrawn the application it had made. Again the minister shakes his head. We must all be misinformed; 1 thought it was common knowledge that Arctic Gas had withdrawn its application.


Alastair William Gillespie: You must come down here more often.


Erik Nielsen: The minister says I must come down here more often, Mr. Speaker, but if he was plagued in his constituency with the administrative tribunals with which I am plagued in my constituency as a result of federal intervention in our affairs in the Yukon, then he would never be here. For the last three months 1 have at least been where the action is-where Mr. Lysyk has been holding his inquiry-and I have not seen any other members of parliament appearing around that inquiry in the Yukon.


Alastair William Gillespie: I never saw you there either.


Erik Nielsen: The reason the minister did not see me there is that he was busy speaking to the Chamber of Commerce.


Alastair William Gillespie: And to Mr. Lysyk.
Northern Gas Pipeline


Erik Nielsen: However, Mr. Speaker, I reserve my kindest remarks for the leader of the NDP.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Erik.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. leader's remark may be a little premature. He spoke extremely patronizingly. He said some good things. Although it was one of the most coherent speeches I have heard him make in a long time, it was patronizing. He spoke about how "we" were going to treat the people of the north. He spoke about what "we" had to do in order to ensure the proper treatment of the people of the north. He spoke as though we in this parliament should be looking forward constantly to the future in how we should be treating the north, when for the last 20 years we have been fighting to do that treating and thinking ourselves.
Nowhere in the hon. member's amendment do I see any reference to self-government for the people of the Yukon territory. Nowhere in his amendment do I see any reference to full participation among our elected representatives. Indeed his amendment would create another top heavy bureaucracy which would staff this so-called single agency that is to be set up to regulate and control construction of a pipeline. He should read the brief of the government of the Yukon territory as presented primarily by its elected representatives. He should read it carefully. If he does he will find that Mr. Lysyk and his inquiry adopted substantially all of the recommendations in that brief, one of the foremost of which was that the people of the Yukon should make the paramount decisions in this connection.


John Edward Broadbent: Have you read my amendment?


Erik Nielsen: I have studied it, but in his sanctimonious way the hon. member did not deal directly with that problem. Neither has he nor his party yet dealt with the problem of self-government in the Yukon.
At this stage I could do no better than to quote something to arouse the memories of some of the hon. members here who might remember their history. I am referring to Lord Durham's Report wherein he said:
The colonistsand we in the Yukon are still colonistsmay not always know what laws are best for them or which of their countrymen are the fittest for conducting their affairs; but at least they have a greater interest in coming to a right judgment on these points and will take greater pains to do so than those whose welfare is very remotely and slightly affected by the good or bad legislation of these portions of the Empire.
That is what is being done here, and that is what the Leader of the New Democratic Party is attempting to do in his own self-effacing fashion when he stated that we know better here what decisions to impose on the people of the Yukon.
One of the conditions which is attached to building any pipeline through the Yukon is that all of these factors, which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has referred to, the parliamentary secretary who has just resumed

August 4, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
his seat and the Leader of the New Democratic Party have also referred to, are essential, and should be decided by the people of the Yukon Territory through their duly elected legislative assembly.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) has always advanced two arguments. The hon. members from the province of Quebec should understand what I am speaking about when we call for maitres chez-nous. He has said that you cannot have autonomy "until you have the people and the money to pay for it. As long as we in the federal treasury are paying, then we are going to call the tune." The Yukon produced some $221 million last year in mineral revenue. This pipeline construction will dismiss that argument entirely. The money argument goes by the board, if ever it was an argument. Thus you are left with the argument of people.
Since when has the establishment of democratic institutions depended upon a target level of people for its functions? The problems which confront the people of the Yukon in the construction of a pipeline can be best solved by themselves. I hear various well-intentioned criticisms by southerners. There are those who advocate no pipeline at all. There are those who advocate a delay in the pipeline, which is simply asking for the delay of a future crisis in the supply of fuels to southern Canada. These are simply not in line.
There was an article by someone I have never quoted in the House of Commons. This person has some knowledge of the north and used to be with the Department of Northern Affairs. The article was written in 1966 by R. A. J. Phillips, who is now with Heritage Canada. The article was entitled "The Story of the Yukon and Northwest Territories" and reads in part as follows:
The Yukon will not look like parts of southern Canada where towns and cities are joined by farms, and highways are dotted with villages. Between the northern towns, the Yukon will remain unchanged, its plains, its rivers, its mountains as majestic as when the land was born. And its rocks and gravels will, as in the past, quicken the hearts and hopes of men.
That is going to be true when the pipeline is built, as it is now. Anyone who has travelled the old dredging grounds of the Klondike goldfields will realize how quickly things will revegetate, contrary to what the parliamentary secretary just said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have two questions to decide tonight and tomorrow: first, do we need a gas pipeline now; and second, what route should we adopt?
Reviews of our production, consumption and demand for all kinds of energy show our Canadian oil demand to be 2,670 million barrels yearly. Our daily production is 1,780,000 barrels and our imports are 890,000 barrels. We export 918,000 barrels. We produce 2,520 million cubic feet of gas annually. We use 1,000,348,000 ourselves and we export 946 million cubic feet. We also produce 273 billion kilowatts of electricity

in total annually, which is 26.6 per cent of our total energy production. So far only 1.4 per cent is nuclear. Coal, coke and natural gas in turn supply 26.1 per cent of our energy supply.
The export of oil to the United States has been reduced by one half since 1975. The natural gas export to the United States has also been reduced markedly. Both of these are on contracts which we must respect, and we are able to exchange other forms of energy in return for our exports. This mainly consists of coal for our Ontario Hydro. We are now importing oil for energy use, particularly for the Canadian regions east of the Ottawa valley line, from the OPEC countries. It used to be one million barrels daily and is now approximately 300,000 to 400,000 barrels a day.
Canada is doing research and demonstration projects on renewable resources such as on winds, sun, tides, and the biomass. It is conceded that these are most unlikely to become practical total substitutes for our fossil fuels but certainly are adjunctive. When petroleum, gas and coal run out, our energy will have to come in the main from hydro, nuclear installations, and the biomass.
Nuclear power will need fast development, particularly in Ontario, because in this province we are losing the self-sufficiency we once enjoyed in energy. Dr. Rasmussen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology stated that nuclear power is the safest, cheapest and cleanest form of energy production. Even now breeder reactors for atomic fusion are being built in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Russia. The most recent is the super Phoenix in France. It was the scene of an incited anti-nuclear mob recently, which I.deplore. None of these will be able to rival Canada's CANDU reactor because of their complexity and the need to find new metallic transducers or mediators to replace the light water. Our CANDU heavy water reactor can be adapted to the new Canadian concept of a breeder reactor. It will adopt the thorium cycle. This will make our present uranium resources stretch out 50 times further. It will also permit the use of the very poor grades of uranium, which are so plentiful in the earth's crust. This will make civilization many hundreds of years down the energy road.
From all accounts of economists, geologists, as well as oil and gas companies and government information sources, we will run into an acute energy scarcity around the year 1980. This will continue until the year 1986, at least. That is why we are striving so hard to become self-sufficient in Canadian-produced energy. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) has frequently stated, there is no guarantee that Middle East oil will be available until we become self-sufficient. A sudden political upset there could mean that Canada might run into worse shortages than the U.S.A. experienced last winter. For this reason alone we cannot vacillate any longer on the pipeline question.
In fact, as stated in the "Energy Strategy for Canada" our future depends on the synchronization of all our energy modalities. Development of all our gas fields with vigorous
August 4, 1977

exploration for new deposits are imperative. Then Delta and Arctic gas and oil will be set to flow after Alberta oil and gas are exhausted. The tarsands, though expensive, will also be brought into great production. It behooves us to invest heavily in these future energy industries, both privately and publicly.
We may eventually, not only need new pipelines from the Delta and Arctic islands but we may, of necessity, look forward to ice-breaking cargo ships for transportation to carry liquefied Arctic island gas to the St. Lawrence Gulf.
New technologies for lowering the costs of tarsands oil, as well as for Alberta and Saskatchewan coal, are being produced even now. This, we hope, taken all together, will avert any catastrophe which any sudden Middle East boycott could produce. Along with all this necessarily simultaneous development, new oil and gas policies are to be phased in as they become economic or desirable. All that is in the "Energy Strategy for Canada". I wish hon. members would read it.
The government has laid on a very impressive conservation policy for energy. This includes home insulation stimulation throughout the country, the eventual mandatory conversion of private automobiles to low consumption types, and the possible strict rationing of gasoline in the future. There will have to be a planned diversion of fossil fuel energy for public use on railroads and highways, as well as airways and for the manufacture of plastics.
Part of our overview of the construction of pipelines will necessarily include the needs of the U.S. Her oil and gas fields in the lower 48 states are pretty depleted, although she is getting new supplies from the Gulf of Mexico and to some extent from her offshore Atlantic areas. Prudhoe Bay in Alaska has added 10 per cent to her inventory with both its gas and oil. One of her big hopes is that she can get supplies for her carry-over period from Mexico, which country may soon enter an enlarged exporting phase.
Prudhoe Bay oil has already begun to flow to Valdez and transportation to the upper western U.S. refineries will soon begin. This carries some danger to our Canadian coastal waters from pollution. It also presents the U.S. with the need to build more pipelines across its wide range of mountains to the mid-western states. It became obvious to them that a gas pipeline which requires gas-liquefaction after arriving at Valdez from the north slope and special new ships to transport it to the U.S. mainland, followed by more pipelines to the midwest, was anything but economical.
Both Canada and the U.S. know that Prudhoe Bay is a much cheaper and more efficient route by going down to Fairbanks, diverting to Dawson and Whitehorse in the Yukon, and finally running across upper B.C. and Alberta. The originally well researched plan of the Canadian Arctic Gas consortium along the Alaska-Yukon corridor to the Mackenzie Delta and then down the Mackenzie River would have been slightly easier but has certain ecological and socio-economic disadvantages.
We can argue for the CAGPL that it was a consortium made up of U.S. and Canadian companies, that it had consid-
Northern Gas Pipeline
erable experience from its background companies, and that it seemed to have a good prospect of raising plenty of money. However, against the CAGPL submission, as seen by the NEB and by the report of Justice Berger, there are several black marks.
The consortium was fairly strong in their insistence for a government guarantee. We Canadians feel that a trans-Canada pipeline of this sort should be built privately by Canadians and, as it were, rented to the U.S. Justice Berger was very vocal in castigating the CAGPL plan. He ruled out the pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula along the Alaska-Yukon corridor because of the possibility of extinguishing the caribou herds, the migratory birds, the furbearing animals, and even the whales in the Beaufort Sea which calve on this nearby Arctic shore. He felt very strongly that the opinions of the Inuit, Indian and Metis peoples could not be circumvented. He stated that there would be a socioeconomic black-out perpetrated and, just as important, he asked for a ten year moratorium and for the land claims to be settled.
I cannot agree that we should have a moratorium on any northern line for ten years because we will need the gas from that area in not more than five or ten years. So if that is the case, we will have to build some pipeline with this in view and start very shortly as the construction time is five to six years from planning. I was not convinced after an Arctic tour that the corridor plan would be very harmful ecologically.
A few separate points should be examined. Can we take on the $5 billion to $10 billion dollar investment in a pipeline and still find enough capital to allow further industrial development in Canada such as mining, nuclear reactor building, tidal power, transportation improvement, and the heavy cost of our system of social security?
Looking at it one way, there is no doubt the injection of this amount of money into Canada would be a stimulant to recovery in our economy. It would provide employment for many tradesmen, as well as labourers, and enhance the development of technology in many lines. There would be an impressive spin-off in many other lines of manufacturing and industry generally. It would bring temporary prosperity to the native population, with some hope for local industry in the future.
Dr. Peters, vice-president of the Toronto Dominion Bank, has given a good overview of this economic situation and shows that with ordinary growth in the next 13 years, we will double or triple our GNP and have plenty of capital left over for the other uses even after completing the pipeline. This does not preclude offshore borrowing, privately and publicly. In fact he is reassuring when he says that the amount of offshore borrowing would not appreciate in the next 13 years and we would generate enough capital from our own savings to promote all these expenditures in that period.
Furthermore, there are the completion dates to think of. The CAGPL, if started late this year, could be finished in 1981, that is, before we actually think our production scarcity will begin. The new ALCAN route could be completed by 19831984. This also gives Canada the option to begin the Dempster
8054

August 4, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
highway addition, bringing gas from the Mackenzie Delta down from the Yukon to join the ALCAN line. This could be set to finish between 1984-1988. If it seemed necessary at that time, and if further deposits were found in the Mackenzie Delta, the Beaufort Sea and the Arctic islands, either a Mackenzie Valley pipeline or an Arctic island transmission system, or both, could be implemented. We must not be tied in into a state of no manoeuvrability. I think that should be noted.


An hon. Member:: Allan MacEachen must have written the speech.


Samuel Victor Railton: I wrote it myself, old boy.
The recent delay of four years for the ALCAN route, as suggested in the Lysyk report, takes no notice of our precarious dependence on the Middle East. Neither does it give us credit for the ingenuity and the responsibility we possess in our desire to look after our native peoples.
The alternatives might consist of a pipeline from the Arctic islands to the south, on the east or west coast of Hudson Bay- or even the previously mentioned plan of cargo ships. From the standpoint of the Canadian people, the vast majority of whom live below the Arctic Circle, it is important to demonstrate that we do have an energy strategy for Canada. This plan not only provides us with energy for the foreseeable future but also takes care of our northern citizens in a sensitive and generous manner.
Part of our public relations should be to educate people to know that severe scarcity in energy will occur in the next five years. It could suddenly become an emergency if an oil embargo by the OPEC countries is applied. Canadian people should have full information on the need for conservation, as mentioned previously, and they must be given full information on the advantages of the ALCAN route over that of the CAGPL for all the reasons presented in this debate.
In my opinion the selection of this latter route has been forced on us by necessity. Although we are not in full agreement with the Berger report, we believe it was an extremely important exercise because it pointed out our responsibilities as regards the environment and all our northern citizens.
With care, good planning and decisive action we can obtain our much needed pipeline and still live up to our contractual obligations to our neighbours in the U.S.A., and to our own northern Canadians. We have many great issues facing us in this country at the present time. They all need a solution. The building of a pipeline is just as necessary in keeping Canada together as is our handling of the Quebec problem. In fact it is rather like a re-enactment of the early Canadian dream, the trans-continental railway of Sir. John A. Macdonald, which gave us "Dominion from Sea to Sea".


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Batten down the hatches, fellows.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is with some regret that I have to say that the speech of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) with which he opened this debate today was not made by the minister as he was known in his heyday. It had all the force and strength of the roar of a ruptured duck.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Now we all know that the President of the Privy Council was shot on the wing last fall, shot right out of external affairs into presiding over this House. We all sympathize with him in his predicament, because none of us here would want to preside over this House if we could avoid it. But he has been plucked like a partridge and plunked into this parliament, and we can only extend to him our condolences. Certainly he did not tell the House, he did not even intimate, what was in the thoughts of the government after all these years of studying the pipeline question. We certainly could not get a clue from the inscrutable minister today.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had an even better solution-he did not stay in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I have never seen the Prime Minister or anyone else suffer as much as he did as he sat under the elbow of the President of the Privy Council and listened to him today. As soon as the President of the Privy Council finished speaking, he got up from this seat as if he were rushing to the outhouse and left the Chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: We are having this debate so the government can listen to our opinions and be guided and choose from among them, but the Prime Minister is certainly not bothering with our opinions. Nevertheless, we will put them on the record.
There is some talk about Prudhoe Bay. I say we will never get Trudeau at bay in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was a delight, as always.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The leader of the rump party, the NDP, of whom I always think as flash Broadbent because of his quick decisions-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -was at it again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member refer to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) by his title, not by his name.
August 4, 1977


John Carnell Crosbie: I accept your stricture, Mr. Speaker, and I will call him the flash member from Oshawa. Is it a bird, is it a plane? No, it is the member from Oshawa making a quick decision based on hot air. This inspired me to verse, if you do not mind verse, Mr. Speaker. This is a verse I dedicate to the CBC:
The leader of the rump of the NDP Is also the hero of the CBC.
They admire his dash and his quick decisions Though the NDP, like God, haven't got the divisions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: One thing we can say about the CBC is that they are always fair, they are for the underdog, and that is why they are for the leader of the rump party. It may be that if you are the leader of the rump you do not have to consult the rump because when you look at a rump, you just say, "hi, rump". You do not have much discussion or debate with a rump. But in the Progressive Conservative party we have a caucus of 95 members, and since it is a democratic party our leader does not make decisions without consulting us. There are 94 of us-the other chap got booed in Edmonton yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: We have been travelling over here, with the thought of all the seats the Liberals will get in Alberta in the next election.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. 1 suggest the hon. member get back to the subject under discussion.


John Carnell Crosbie: After all these years of Liberal governments, the only gas ever transported out of our frontier areas is the gas that came out of the stomachs of the ministers who flew over the Yukon, and that is certainly a very unsatisfactory situation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I want to say, before launching into the serious part of my speech-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: These remarks have not been prepared by a member of the civil service but rather prepared by a man whom I admire tremendously, namely, myself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not ask anyone else to prepare my speeches.
The present very unsatisfactory situation with reference to the pipeline question is the responsibility of the gentlemen opposite, the scattered handful listening to me tonight. The others should be here, they might learn something. Since 1968-69 the hon. gentlemen opposite failed to take the necessary steps to establish the best route for a pipeline from the
Northern Gas Pipeline
frontier areas, with the result that what would be the main objective for Canada, that is, the most economic method of bringing frontier gas to Canadian consumers when needed, is now only a secondary objective which might or might not be accomplished by the route which we have come to support because it is the only alternative left to us. That is the fault of the hon. gentlemen opposite because they should never have left it to private enterprise, to commissions, to studies, to environmental panels and the rest of it, to try to puzzle out the best route. They should never have allowed Arctic Gas to spend $130 million to do that work for them. They should have done some work themselves, or should have had the civil servants do some work on this question long before Canadian Arctic Gas and the others were drawn into this effort by themselves. It illustrates a lack of government policy.
The government says it has a strategy, but that is all it has. The government has nothing which will achieve anything for this country. The reports of the last few months make it clear that the proposal of Arctic Gas for a pipeline from Alaska down through the Mackenzie Delta and the Mackenzie Valley is not possible, even though that might be the most economic way to bring Canadian frontier gas down to Canadian consumers. It is not now or seems barely possible, unless hon. gentlemen opposite have some facts or knowledge we do not have. However, on the knowledge we have, that option is now foreclosed because of the reports of the NEB, Mr. Justice Berger and the rest. What might have been the most economic route for Canadian consumers appears to be foreclosed for the reasons given by Mr. Justice Berger and by the NEB.
The NEB and those who are experts in the field seem to assure us that we are really not going to need frontier gas for our Canadian consumers until the mid 1980's. From all we have been told and from all the assumptions the NEB has made this seems to be a reasonable risk. One assumption the NEB could not put into its report is the assumption that there might be a change of government and that there might be a successful implementation of a policy. That would give us even more assurance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: We have about a four year period to decide what is the best way of getting gas from the Mackenzie Delta, from the Beaufort Sea, from the Arctic islands and from the high Arctic to the south of Canada before we have to make a final decision on a Canadian route. However, we have to make a decision now about a route for transporting American gas from Alaska to the United States. Since the Arctic Gas proposal is not now acceptable, we are left with the Alcan proposal. That is the proposal of Mr. Blair and his associates, who certainly are to be admired for their persistence and hard work for three or four years. These are certainly Canadians of whom we can be proud. They are great Canadian nationalists.
There is one route left, if we are to be a good neighbour to the United States. On the assumption that we want to take
80020 -45 VI

August 4, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
advantage of what we might offer them, there is one route left, and that is the Alcan route, the Alaska Highway route through the Yukon Territory, British Columbia and Alberta to the U.S. We should not even go for that route if it is clearly detrimental to Canada, but all the evidence we have seen shows that it is not.
The benefits for Canada seem to outweigh the costs. Some of the benefits are employment, economic activity and the opening of the Yukon. This might be the boost the Canadian economy needs because of the state it is left in by the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite for the last four or five years. This pipeline will require the manufacture of pipe and other activities. It will help the foreign exchange situation. There may be tax revenue, and there is a possibility that this route may provide a chance for us to bring Delta gas through the Dempster Highway link. In our opinion all these things would make it worth while for the government to go ahead with a decision to proceed with the Alcan route as approved by the NEB.
This would be taking two gambles, but they seem to be safe on the face of it. The Dempster Highway link from the Delta will be feasible in an economic sense as well as feasible in an environmental sense. The Dempster Highway would be a great benefit as a result of this project. The rest of the benefits would only be benefits for the next four or five years. Second, our need for frontier gas from the Delta or the Beaufort Sea will not come until the last half of the 1980's. We can get by without frontier gas until then.
Our position-certainly my feeling-is that the government should advise the United States that it is ready to go ahead under the conditions our leader outlined today. I do not see why these conditions should have to be negotiated. We should offer the Americans this route subject to these reasonable conditions, and the Americans can either accept them or use their alternative, which is to liquefy natural gas from Alaska and bring it by ship to California or wherever.
I do not like what I see and hear. I have in my hand an article from today's newspaper. The headline is "Ottawa Appears to be Jittery on Yukon Pipeline Commitment". The article refers to an attack of last minute jitters in the Canadian government. We saw that here this afternoon at the end of the question period. The ministry was pretty jittery. The government is jittery also because of the frosty reception it encountered last week in Washington when Mr. Basil Robinson and his team of negotiators went down there. The Americans did not fall over them and say, "Thank God you will be giving us the Alcan route". The Americans said they would not accept a number of things. They said they would not accept the $200 million socio-economic surcharge that the National Energy Board has recommended and that Mr. Lysyk has recommended.
It it recommended that that surcharge be added to the cost of the pipeline. The American Secretary of State, Mr. Vance, wrote a letter to the congressional committee advising that committee that a new pipeline treaty would prevent Canada from adding such an amount for socio-economic costs to the
[Mr. Crosbie.l
cost of the pipeline, which would have to be paid by the consumers of the gas. The United States has already said it would not accept any condition like that. The United States Senate has said that. The Americans are objecting, and apparently they are not going to pay the extra cost for any route deviation to Dawson City in the Yukon. They say they may not agree to an all-events tariff which would be necessary unless there are going to be government guarantees in connection with this pipeline. So our government is getting jitters. 1 say our government should forget the jitters.
If, because of our good neighbourliness, we are prepared to give to the United States a route across Canada for a gas pipeline subject to conditions which are reasonable to Canadians, Yukoners and people who would live along the route, and if the United States is not prepared to accept those reasonable conditions, then let us forget it. We are not suppliants to the United States; they are the suppliants, so let us not forget that. If the government goes for the route we are suggesting, I do not think it should act as if Canada has to surrender these reasonable conditions mentioned by our leader and others in this debate.
As our leader said, there should be no financial guarantees from the Government of Canada in connection with this pipeline. If it comes to building our own pipeline-the Dempster Highway pipeline or another pipeline to bring gas to Canadian consumers-it might be necessary for the Canadian government to have some financial involvement. If it does, it should have the equity of that project, or the project should be carried out through a Crown corporation. No guarantees should be given to private corporations or non-government corporations to build pipelines. Never should we agree to that, and we should give no financial assistance to bring American gas to American consumers. I am sure that the present government would not be so foolish as to do that.


John Allen Fraser: Don't be too sure, John.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: We gave it to Argentina.


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not have time to go into the details of other conditions there might be, but if there are any swaps arranged, let us remember the price of those swaps. If we sell Canadian gas now or next year to the United States on a swap basis to get theirs back in eight or ten years' time, the gas we get back should be at the same price. We should pay the same price they pay when they buy our gas. Let us not forget that as a very important point to be remembered in any swap deals.
The government would be well advised to change its federal-provincial tactics and to get a little cosier with the government of Alberta once it makes its decision. If this project goes ahead, it cannot go ahead successfully without the co-operation of the government of Alberta, which has been treated in a pretty shabby manner by the government opposite, and it is not being treated any better now. To date there has been no change. Alberta has to be consulted on the financing of Alberta's gas contracts. There should be co-operative arrangements.
August 4, 1977

The people of the Yukon have to be consulted, and British Columbia has to be consulted. But the government is not used to consulting anyone. It is used to telling people what they are going to do and what they should do. Time and again we have seen the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) carry on their Kung-Fu federalist tactics. They say, "Accept our programs, or we will give you our foot right in the mouth". That is what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said when it came to his home insultation program, but he is going to get a foot somewhere else before the year is out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Lysyk Report suggests a four-year delay, but that is not any grave impediment. It is only a year longer than might be necessary in any event. We say that if native claims and the rest of these matters are cleared up earlier than that, which any efficient government ought to be able to do, it would not take four years as Mr. Lysyk suggests. Of course he was dealing with the present government, knew its record, and based his four years on that.
All standing committees of this House, including the committee on national resources, should be treated as though they are meaningful. None I have been on to date has been meaningful. It would be nice if the government, when it makes its decision, does as the Leader of the Opposition suggests, sits down with the natural resources committee, to outline why it made the decision. It should meet with it every three or four months, to bring it and the House up to date on what is happening, how the negotiations with the U.S.A. are going, and what conditions they are or are not agreeing to. It would be no good passing orders in council of the sort mentioned in the House earlier this afternoon. They are not going to stop us looking at documents; we will get our mitts on them, anyway. Take us into your confidence, we say to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, knowing that there is not a chance in the world he ever will. But we say it anyway. If the record of the last nine months is any guide, we do not have a hope in Hades of having our pleas in this House answered.
Once you get the television cameras into the House we shall see the Prime Minister sitting in his seat, smiling through these debates. He will be all smiles when his seat mate, the President of the Privy Council, speaks. When the people see our leader speaking so well that the Prime Minister has to skulk and flee from this House in shame, they will draw the right conclusion.
We want additional exploration in the Delta and the Beaufort Sea, and it is up to the government to see that it happens. It is up to the government to provide the incentive. If all else fails, let the government use its great paragon of petroleum virtue, Petro-Canada, to make sure that explanation continues.
It is as well for me to sit down before you jump up, Mr. Speaker, and interrupt my train of thought. Let me end by saying we have told the government the course it should
Northern Gas Pipeline
follow. If the government has any sense it will follow our advice. If it has not much sense, the government will be even more doomed to defeat than it is today.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why don't you speak, instead of asking questions?


John Allen Fraser: When are you going to speak?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has one minute left. Will he accept a question from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will give the minister as full and informed an answer as he gives me.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who is the energy critic of the Conservative party made an important contribution. I wonder if he can elaborate on something he said. I took him to say-if I am wrong perhaps he can correct me-that his party would gamble to the late 1980's before it is necessary to connect up any northern gas to the south. If he did not say that I ask him to clarify that position.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I should like the Prime Minister to gamble on an election this fall. Answering the minister's question, I said that we must recognize that two gambles are involved in implementing the recommendations of the National Energy Board, of Mr. Lysyk or of my party. One is that gas supplies will be adequate until the mid-1980's. The second is if building the Dempster line will be possible. When I speak of gambles I mean that we have to take two chances any such decision involves, and it would be fair to take them on the evidence now available.


Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the two day debate in which members of this House are now engaged concerns issues relating to a multi-billion dollar project, the largest single project to be undertaken in North American history by the private sector.
The question before us is in two parts. First and foremost there is the question of whether or not Canada wants a substantial piece of the action. Second, what are the minimum conditions under which we are prepared to throw in our lot with the project, if it is our determined objective to participate? I say minimum conditions advisedly, because we must bear in mind that this entire project has really come about as a result of substantial natural gas discoveries in the Prudhoe Bay area of the state of Alaska, and the desperate need in the heart of the United States to find a means to transport this newfound resource to the mainland. Without this crucial factor, the substantial proven reserves estimated at some 28 trillion cubic feet in Alaska, coupled with the urgent need for this gas to fuel the energy starved economy of mainland United States, we should not be here debating the Canadian position on this matter today.

August 4, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
It is my view, Mr. Speaker, that Canada should capitalize on the opportunity before the country and participate in as full and meaningful a way in this gigantic energy project as can be negotiated with our American partners.
The first argument I should like to make in support of my stand relates purely and simply to the obviously positive effect that such a major project will have on the Canadian economy at this time and in the immediate years ahead. Economists in Canada are few and far between today who are not prepared to state almost categorically that this country is running substantially below its potential, economically speaking. In this connection I refer to an article carried in the Toronto Star, dealing with the participation of the director of policy analysis for the C.D. Howe Institute, at the Couchiching conference. Mr. Speaker, a project of this nature will do more, both directly and indirectly, to stimulate new economic activity in Canada than any number of individual stimulants that might be provided by governments at federal, provincial and perhaps municipal levels, of various types and sorts with the same over-all objective. To me this is developing as perhaps the key issue in this debate over whether or not Canada should participate in discussions over the appropriate route for the line in Canada, questions of financial commitments to be made and other negotiations relating to native right problems, etc.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, a decision to participate in this important venture based in the first instance on its potential as a dramatic stimulus to the Canadian economy should help in perhaps defogging some of the other technical yet extremely important aspects that obviously must be resolved before the nature of our participation may be developed. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I see this project as such an important stimulant that one of the key considerations must, in my view, be the determination of appropriate controlling measures to ensure a minimum effect, from the vast spending involved, on the ever present and lingering inflationary concerns. These do not appear to be leaving us, and indeed may receive some stimulation in the wrong direction when the current control program is ended. I say, let matters relating to our sluggish economy be paramount as we hopefully make one decision to proceed and as we enter the complex phase of negotiations with Washington that will ensue, assuming the Americans continue to opt for an overland route, an assumption which I believe will prevail.
The second argument I wish to put forward relates to the opportunity which our willingness to participate in this project would create in terms of our relations with our great and respected neighbour to the south. Canadians are charged at this time with a desire to identify and promote our national spirit wherever and whenever possible. But this particular point in our developing state of maturity requires that from time to time we take a realistic and sensible attitude in our relations with countries which may be substantially more heavily populated and economically powerful than our own. We must never obviously be subservient-


John Allen Fraser: Not obviously!


Alan Gray Martin: We must, however, endeavour to be helpful and understanding whenever possible, particularly in those instances where co-operation may be shown to be in our national interest. I would point out that a large part of Canada's energy development and delivery systems have been put in place over the years with American assistance. Through co-operation by the U.S.A. we are today delivering a major part of central Canada's oil and gas needs through pipeline systems which embody substantial mileage across several U.S. states and which are owned by Canadians, either completely or jointly with U.S. interests.
I believe our negotiating teams should be tough and should be expected to hammer out the best deal possible for Canadians in the course of the detailed arrangements which may ultimately be developed with regard to Canadian participation in this project. However, we must not forget that Washington will possess two clear options in the event the Canadian government chooses to participate. The U.S. authorities can accept such participation or else decide to go it alone by selecting the all-Alaska, all-American route. In the event we wish to join in-and I believe we shall-we must be careful to avoid falling prey unwittingly to the increasingly influential proponents of the all-American proposal by attaching terms and conditions to our participation which might be perceived as making such participation unattractive to American eyes by comparison with a project which does not involve Canada and Canadians.


John Allen Fraser: Would the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) permit a question?


Alan Gray Martin: I would be delighted to do so but I should like to finish what I have to say first, and see whether my time allotment permits.


An hon. Member:: It is all so dull.


Alan Gray Martin: I hope that comment refers to some of the remarks I have heard from the other side.


An hon. Member:: The House is falling asleep.


Alan Gray Martin: That would not be much of a change for some members over there.
The other point I should like to make relates to incentives to future exploration in the north, something which I believe is an important aspect of our considerations.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Incentives like the 25 per cent tax.


Alan Gray Martin: Frankly, I would be most concerned if Canada either opted out or was effectively shut out by virtue of a Washington decision to "go it alone". I hold this view for what, to my mind, is a most important reason-the need for Canada to do everything in its power to ensure far more active exploration and development in the Delta region and in the north in general than has occurred to date. This country needs the untapped or unproven resources of the north, both oil and gas, if we are to ensure a continuation of our economy in the
August 4, 1977

manner to which we have become accustomed. There is much argument as to how soon we shall need further gas. There is no similar argument about the need for frontier oil. Mr. Speaker, there is only one way in which this exploration and development can proceed and that is by heavy investment in the frontier areas, involving massive co-operation on the part of both the private sector and the government.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Like the 25 per cent tax.


Alan Gray Martin: If we fail in our efforts to become part of this current American frontier project which is so close to our own Delta region 1 am concerned about the discouraging effect of that situation upon efforts to bring vast amounts of capital to play in this crucial area of exploration and development.
I have so far, in these brief remarks, avoided two issues-I shall comment briefly on my reasons for giving them a somewhat lesser priority. The first is the question of the Canadian gas supply situation in the immediate future, say within the next several years. I might say that I am aware of the arguments which have been put forward to show how and why a near term shortage may develop; it is not lack of knowledge which prompts me to give this aspect a lesser priority. Rather, it is that I, as an ordinary member of parliament, am confused.


John Allen Fraser: That is apparent.


Alan Gray Martin: I am confused, and, unfortunately, not completely convinced. We are told again and again of the ever-increasing gas bubble developing in Alberta and the ever-increasing difficulty of getting new contracts signed. We are told about new reserves being proven in the traditional areas and of the failure to date to convince eastern oil customers to switch to natural gas. Then there is the vast potential offered by conservation measures. I feel there may be time on our side in this area at present and that the need for a new and concentrated focus on Delta and Arctic potential gas reserves may be less.
In the second place, I have not spoken about the actual route to be taken. I would find it difficult, bearing in mind the substantive recommendations and evidence presented to us recently, to accept that the Arctic Gas proposal is a viable one at this date. Therefore, we are looking at Alcan. Whether or not the Alcan route, if it is approved, should take in the Dawson spur is a consideration which I believe could be left for negotiation with the people concerned south of the border in terms of the ultimate project.


John Allen Fraser: Are you serious?


Alan Gray Martin: If I am correct in believing concrete evidence is lacking of an imminent gas shortge in the years immediately ahead, it seems to me conceivable that there may be time in which to prove up more Delta reserves in sufficient quantity to justify a pipeline which could come down either through what is referred to as the Dawson spur, longer or shorter than we have talked about so far, or through a new Mackenzie Valley line. The point I am making is that participation in the project serves a key need, and if ultimately it means that participation
Northern Gas Pipeline
has to mean participation in a project which, for now, will only be moving U.S. gas from U.S. sources to a U.S. destination, it is still something in which we should be involved.
If I have time I would now be quite happy to entertain the question directed to me earlier.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I appreciate my hon. friend's acceptance of my question. I want to refer to something he said a few minutes ago when he warned this House and presumably his colleagues in the government about being too intransigent with the terms, because there is a possibility that the United States may not accept either of the overland routes.
I want to read to my hon. friend from Scarborough West part of a letter sent several days ago to Senator Stevens of Alaska by the administration. This matter is of very grave importance in that I am referring to the $200 million fund recommended by the National Energy Board in the event that the Alcan project goes ahead, the money to be used to help soften the socio-economic impact in the Yukon. This is an excerpt from the letter sent to Senator Stevens of Alaska by a Mr. Bennet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


John Allen Fraser: Just a minute. We have come a long way at great public expense to debate this matter and, with respect, Mr. Speaker, I think I should ask my colleagues to allow me to put the question in proper form. I am sure my hon. friend would appreciate that. The letter is sent by the office of Secretary Vance and commences:
Secretary Vance has asked me to respond to your letter of July 22 concerning the United States-Canada transit pipeline agreement and the transportation of Alaskan natural gas across Canada.
He goes on:
With regard to the relationship between Article III of the agreement-
That is the Canada-U.S. agreement.
-and the proposed two hundred million charge to Alcan for indirect socio-economic costs, we have taken the position with the Canadians that Article III of the agreement would preclude the imposition on the pipeline of the charge unless such a charge is applicable to similar pipelines in Canada.
My question to my hon. friend who speaks for the government is in the context of the remarks that the hon. member made a few minutes ago to the effect that we must be very flexible and not become intransigent in regard to the terms. In view of the fact that my leader and other speakers, most recently the critic in our caucus on energy matters from the province of Newfoundland, have so eloquently stated that these-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should not open the debate but ask a question.


John Allen Fraser: It is an important question, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask the hon. member whether he is prepared to say on behalf either of himself or on behalf of the government, when he was

August 4, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
referring to being flexible, that he is prepared to give up one dollar of the $200 million recommendation from the government's own regulatory agency, the National Energy Board, in any negotiations with the United States of America?


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, first of all 1 think it should be quite obvious to the hon. member, who has been around here a lot longer than I have, that as a backbencher on this side of the House 1 do not indeed speak for the government. I am a member of parliament and I am participating as a member of parliament in this debate. With regard to his point, I would simply say that in my view the point he has made is one of those technical matters-and I realize technical matters can amount to a great deal of money at times-which I think will have to be resolved at some point in the negotiations in Washington. I certainly had that in mind when I lumped the groups together earlier in my speech.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired and unanimous consent would be required.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, during this debate 1 want to make a few observations about the north and its people. Perhaps this will be a diversion from what we have heard earlier. I should say at the outset that 1 do not recall an issue on which there has been more information over a prolonged period of time than that surrounding the present debate. The divergent views expressed on a multitude of interrelated issues is one manifestation of the complexity and importance of the subject.
In assessing the information, it has been my impression that the participants involved collect information from their own perspective, and the strategy to disseminate that information varies from that of retaining a narrow point of view to retaining a narrow point of view while giving the appearance of a broader perspective of the issues. I do not say this in a critical manner; indeed it is my belief we have been exposed to a new decision making process in dealing with an important and sensitive political issue.
The question must be asked: is there a common denominator, is there a starting point from which we can reconcile the divergent opinions that surround the present debate? 1 suspect the simple answer to that question is no, and yet it seems to me there are convincing arguments to suggest all northerners- and I emphasize all northerners-are telling us they are concerned about individual freedom and equality of opportunity.
The irony of this debate is that the Liberal government would have the House of Commons and the Canadian public believe that by permitting members of parliament to speak for a period of two days the words of wisdom flowing from all concerns of the House will lead to more enlightened decisions. However, what is obvious and what the government has failed

to tell the Canadian people is that many of the issues involved in the debate have been ignored by the Liberal government for years and have been permitted to fester like an untreated chronic ulcer. The illusion created by the government that we are simply debating a pipeline is spurious, and has had the serious and unfortunate effect of diverting attention away from many of the critical political issues which affect the north.
What are some of the issues that have a direct impact on the north, its people and their future, that have been ignored or inadequately handled by the government? The absence of a national energy policy has been discussed earlier today, in particular the long term need for Canada, in concert not only with the western world but with the global community, to rationalize our future energy needs. Despite widely conflicting reports with respect to existing and potential petroleum resources in Canada, it is generally accepted that there is a need for a transition strategy toward a different kind of energy economy. The importance of such a strategy on decisions affecting northern development and Canadian sovereignty over a disproportionate share of the world's territory and resources is obvious.
The absence of a comprehensive policy for the north, the absence of an industrial development strategy and a national policy regarding resource development, has a direct impact on the future of the north and its people. What will be the role of Petro-Canada? The conflicts between the federal and provincial governments, between provincial governments, and the conflicting objectives between various federal ministries and indeed within specific ministries, including the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, have created uncertainty, stagnation, and inaction. The political development of the north and the role of native northerners in that development process is crucial, and I shall make reference to this point later.
Any rational discussion about the future of the north and its people must be predicated on our past and present knowledge of the area and its people. Following several visits to the north and innumerable discussions with a broad cross section of northerners, one is left with definite impressions. Indeed for many reasons which I do not have time to discuss there is a growing awareness of the north in southern Canada, which in itself is healthy, and as one Canadian interested in the future of the north and its people I would like to make a few observations.
1 believe it is fair to say that the north during its three centuries of contact with the white man has been viewed by those in southern Canada as a sparsely populated, hostile environment, with vast natural resources that should serve as a resource base for the rest of Canada and the world.
Although the nature of the resources has changed through the centuries, the basic principle of exploitation of natural resources in the north independent of the economic, social and political development of the area has been and continues to be the policy of this government. Indeed in recent years the state has been involved in numerous projects to the extent that there
August 4, 1977

is no apparent difference in the activities in the public as distinguished from the private sector. The question is not whether these resources should be developed now or in the future, but rather how they should be developed, over what period of time, with what safeguards and for whose benefit?
I am convinced this policy of exploitation is regressive. It is essential that the Canadian north be respected on its own terms, and future policy must be adopted to acknowledge the special characteristics of the north and the culture of its people.
The second point I wish to make is the lack of understanding that prevails regarding the impact our society has had on the economic, social and political development of the Indian, Inuit and Metis in the north. In assessing the impact there is a risk of either accepting de facto the interpretation of the events as perceived by a particular group, or a risk of becoming paralyzed by a number of widely divergent interpretations from several groups based on their perception of events. It is essential to make a distinction between the opinions of the various parties and the necessity to have an understanding of the events which have occurred.
To draw an analogy, it could be compared to three patients visiting a doctor with similar symptoms, where the first patient was convinced he had leukemia, the second cancer, and the third meningitis. The doctor has the choice of treating each patient as they have interpreted the symptoms, or attempt to elicit the facts and draw his own conclusions.
What are the facts? During the past 30 years there has been a remarkable shift in the Canadian economy from a goods producing system to a services producing system. During this period we have seen a growing portion of our economic resources allocated to health care, communications, transportation, education, and social services. This growth in the service sector has been accompanied by changes in financing, in which many of the services formerly financed in the private sector are now the responsibility of the public sector.
There is no question these changes have had a dramatic impact on the traditional way of life in the north. With the continued high birth rate, improved health standards and decreasing mortality rates, we are witnessing the highest population increase on record. Added to this is a marked reduction of previous nomadic activity. The results of these events have been an explosion in the population and the establishment of more permanent settlements.
Not unexpectedly this sequence of events has been accompanied with problems in housing, lack of infrastructure, unemployment, and the numerous social problems one would anticipate in such an environmental setting. In recent years there have been an increasing number of children attending schools in the north, and one cannot escape the inevitable question of asking about their future. Will we be able to provide them with a life style of their choice? Having provided them with the educational equipment to work in a wage economy, will we be able to provide them with the economic opportunities in
Northern Gas Pipeline
their communities? Will conditions be such that their future opportunities are limited, causing a further breakdown in families as children are forced to leave home to seek opportunities elsewhere, most likely in the provinces?
I do not underestimate the difficulties in achieving the proper balance in reconciling the divergent views which exist regarding the future economic, social, and political evolution of the north. However, I am confident if we understand the past, and if there is a commitment to the future, we can achieve the proper balance which will preserve individual freedom and equality of opportunity.
In the brief time remaining I should like to make a few comments regarding the first volume of Mr. Justice Berger's Report and native land claims in the north. Few doubt the eloquent report of Justice Berger has had a significant impact on those preoccupied with the problems of native land claims, economic development and political evolution in the north. Although it is too early to assess the effect the Berger inquiry will have on the future political climate in Canada, it is important to understand the significance of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry.
It seems clear from the proceedings of the Berger inquiry and a review of the testimony collected, either from informal gatherings in small settlements in the north or larger centres with exposure to the news media in the south, that the future of people was the dominant theme. Although I am not in agreement with all of the conclusions of Justice Berger, I am persuaded to conclude he has added an important dimension to the decision-making process of assessing development projects. In contrast to the James Bay hydro power project in northern Quebec, when the people were forgotten prior to the injunction to stop the development, the Berger inquiry recognized the need to establish the effect development would have on the people in the north. Historically economic concerns dominate the decision-making process in assessing development. Justice Berger has provided a source of information expressing other concerns, and this fundamental principle should be recognized as an important component in any technology assessment program applied to future development.
During the debate on second reading of the James Bay legislation I attempted to define some of the difficulties encountered in resolving the important issue of comprehensive land claims in the north. I emphasized the need for flexibility since no one, in my opinion, in our democratically constituted society has the wisdom or foresight to predict how an individual or a people will evolve. On the basis of the existing proposals or stated objectives of the Northwest Territory Indian Brotherhood, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, the Committee for Original Peoples Entitlement, the Metis principally around Great Slaves Lake and the Delta, and the Council for Yukon Indians, the need for flexibility continues to exist.
The flexibility does not imply inaction. Indeed the major components of comprehensive land claims are well known, and yet the government had failed to acknowledge the reality of northern native aboriginal claims and has refused to come to grips with this fundamental issue.
8062

August 4, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
Unfortunately the time constraints imposed by the House prevent me from outlining the details of the various proposals. However, at the risk of generalizing, it should be noted there is a remarkable similarity in the major components of the proposals that have been presented to the government, which I believe the majority of Canadians would accept in principle. I want to conclude my remarks by referring to what I consider to be the major issue in Mr. Justice Berger's report, and perhaps in the entire debate, namely his reasoning for imposing a ten year moratorium on the building of a pipeline. Let me attempt to place the problem in perspective by initially quoting from the first volume where he states at page 174 the following:
Local, regional or territorial political entities may evolve that have a predominantly native electorate, an electorate in which a native majority might be entrenched by a suitable residency clause. Or political instruments may be developed by which the native people can, under an ethnic franchise and within a larger political entity, control matters that are, by tradition and right, theirs to determine. One approach would be geographical, the other functional.
Again, at page 176, he states:
The settlement of native claims must be the point of departure for any political reorganization in the Northwest Territories. That is why the decision on the pipeline is really a decision about the political future of the Northwest Territories.
In a recent submission to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) the Indian Brotherhood of the Northwest Territories proposed the division of the Northwest Territories into three sections on ethnic grounds. Indeed in an earlier proposal to the federal government they stated:
There will therefore be within Confederation, a Dene government with jurisdiction over a geographical area and over subject matters now within the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada or the government of the Northwest Territories.
The issue is quite clear. If one supports the moratorium for the reasons outlined by Justice Berger, one is in effect supporting the principle of separate national development on ethnic grounds, in other words a homeland policy as proposed in South Africa, and perhaps it is not coincidental the title of the first volume is in part referred to as "Northern Homeland".
What are the implications of accepting the Dene proposal for political independence on the basis of race and culture, which appears to be supported in Judge Berger's recommendations?
First is the assumption that the federal government has not, cannot, and will not be trusted to administer an obligation under the B.N.A. Act to protect the interests and rights of the Indian people. This point of view has its proponents in both the north and south, among Indians and non-Indians, for a variety of reasons. Some are prisoners of the past, others are romanticists, and others espouse personal ideologies with questionable credentials regarding their genuine interest in resolving Indian problems.
If a federal government accedes to the request for independence, we are admitting as a nation and more important, as a

people, that we do not have the capacity and flexibility to adapt to existing circumstances, and we are admitting independence is an acceptable alternative to the development and respect which can serve to unite us for the mutual benefit of all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Robert Holmes: Although the constitution does not define in a precise manner how the federal government should discharge its responsibilities, it is quite clear action can and should be taken. We need to assist the Indian people to preserve their identity and permit them to choose a way of life in keeping with their cultural heritage. We need to provide the Indian people with the opportunity to build an economic base to ensure the survival of their culture. With respect to political development, we must recognize the importance of Indian involvement in the decision making process, and it seems to me a broad spectrum of possibilities exists other than independence.
Finally, it is impossible to divorce the issue of independence on racial and cultural grounds in the north from the issue of national unity and the future of Canada.
Special status for the Indian people is an integral part of our constitution which must be preserved and continually altered to allow the Indian people the opportunity to preserve their identity and break the shackles of dependency. I believe this is just and attainable.
However, I have not been persuaded that Justice Berger's reasoning will stand the test of time, and to add tacit approval to the Dene proposal for independence supports a fundamental problem that exists in Canada, namely, the notion that a people must be the absolute masters of all matters affecting them.
An important feature of our federal system is that if there is the will it can respond to changing circumstances. As I indicated earlier, to accept independence as a viable option is to admit as Canadians we do not have the capacity and flexibility to adapt to existing circumstances.
It is my belief that federalism and national unity are a viable option over independence, and to take any course of action which accepts in principle the establishment of political independence based on race and culture is to indicate our loss of faith in federalism and our future as an united country. I am a Canadian and stand for a united Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because I see the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) rising, presumably to put a question. It is important that we on this side make it clear to ministers that while we are prepared to receive some reasonable questions, there are certain ministers from whom we believe we and the people of Canada have a right to hear on this matter.
One of the reasons we were prepared to accept questions from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. August 4, 1977

Gillespie) was that he indicated he would be speaking in this debate. If the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is going to speak in this debate, we will be prepared to answer questions. However, we are not going to let him get away with this debate simply playing the role of a questioner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Are you going to speak or are you not?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) will agree that it is the decision of the member who has the floor as to whether to accept a question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In this particular case the hon. member's time expired over a minute ago. The question can only be asked with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent to allow the minister to ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. I will have to recognize the next speaker.
[ Translation]


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, you will agree that it is difficult for an orator to launch out into as important a debate as that on the construction of a pipeline when there is barely one minute left.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, in accordance with Standing Order 40 a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been made and seconded at this time. Therefore the question is: That this House do now adjourn.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 29, as reported in Hansard at page 7183, I put to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) a question concerning two matters about which I have
Adjournment Debate
questioned him a great many times. My question on June 29 put it this way:
In view of the increasing concern of veterans and their organizations over the number of widows who do not receive pensions, and in view of the increasing concern over the widening gap between the rate of the disability pension and the base to which it was attached a few years ago, as well as the minister's sympathetic statements made several times to the effect that this matter is being reviewed, will he do his best to get the members of the cabinet to agree to bringing in this year the necessary legislation to correct these two situations?
The reply of the minister was in these words:
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has indicated, this is a concern of mine and many people in the House. As far as trying to get it implemented this year, I will do my best.
It could well be that this is the last night in this session in which there will be late shows. I know of no subject to which I would rather devote my last effort in an adjournment debate than this one.
I appeal as strongly as I can to the Minister of Veterans Affairs to do what I asked him to do on June 29, as well as on other occasions, to try and get the cabinet to agree to include in the Speech from the Throne that may well be read by Her Majesty in October at least these two matters respecting Canadian veterans.


Walter David Baker: Not just for study.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is right. We do not want just study, we want action. I realize that every time we discuss the question of pensions for widows of veterans, the minister makes the point that if a veteran's disability pension was only 5 per cent, say, for flat feet, that amount of money would hardly be the main element in the income of that veteran and his wife and that therefore a case for a widow's pension in that situation is not as strong as it might be. I point out to the minister-and he knows it as well as the rest of us do-that the pensions of veterans' widows are not on a graduated basis. Either the widow gets the full widow's pension or she gets nothing at all. The crucial point is that 48 per cent level in the case of the veteran's pension.
The minister knows that several responsible bodies such as the Woods commission, the Hermann commission and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on at least two or if not more occasions, have recommended that there be a graduated scale so that in the case of widows of veterans where the veteran's pension was less than 48 per cent, there could be a pro rata pension. This is one of the matters that is concerning veterans greatly, and as the years roll on, especially now for World War II veterans as they rolled on some time ago for World War I veterans, the numbers of veterans' widows who do not qualify for pension as a matter of right is increasing, and this is an issue of great concern to veterans. It is being expressed by the veterans in literally every veterans' organization.
I do not think I have to argue with the minister the strength of the case. I think he agrees with it just as strongly as the rest of us do. The problem is to get it approved by the cabinet, to
80020-46'/2

August 4, 1977
Adjournment Debate
get it into the Speech from the Throne, and to get it on the list of legislation for the next session. I plead with him as strongly as 1 can to see to it that it is on that list when we come back into session in October of this year.
The other point covered in my question is another of the major issues that are still of concern to veterans. A few years ago we corrected a wrong that had persisted for nearly 50 years, namely, that the war disability pension lost its relationship to the base to which it was established back in the early 1920's. A few years ago we attached it to a base, namely, the average income after taxes of five categories in the public service. But in the four or five years since that base was established, a gap has developed which is now nearly $45 a month or nearly $540 a year. I have the exact figures in front of me. They are a few cents less, but those are roughly the figures. I submit that it is grossly unfair to the veterans, unfair to the government which brought in this proposal, and unfair to the standing committee which recommended it, and I earnestly plead with the minister and express as strongly as I can to him the hope that this too will be in the Speech from the Throne which will open the next session of parliament.
The minister knows, as do all members, that veterans have a particular feeling of attachment to the Crown, and I suspect that the Sovereign, being herself a woman, has a particular interest in women and in widows, and I can think of nothing better to put in the mouth of the Queen when she opens parliament next October than these two matters respecting veterans.
I know the minister agrees that it should be done. I plead with him tonight to give us the assurance that he will do his best to get the agreement of his colleagues in the cabinet on these two important measures affecting the veterans of this country.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in answering the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on this matter, as I have done in the past. In 1972 it was recognized that some better method of determining the basic amount of disability pension had to be found, and a joint study group on the basic rate of pension was established. This study group had representation from veterans' organizations as well as from the Canadian Pension Commission and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The joint study group recommended that the salary, after tax, of a composite group composed of five classes of unskilled public servants be accepted as the basis on which the disability pension should be based. This was done, and in June, 1973, Bill C-202 was enacted. That bill established the basic rate of pension in relation to five named classes of unskilled public servants. This resulted in an over-all increase of pension at that time of some 24 per cent.
In 1974, 1975 and 1976, because the pension rate was tied to the consumer price index, it was slightly more than it would have been if it had been tied only to the five categories of unskilled public servants.

This year, however, after deduction of income tax the spread between the income of the unskilled public servant and the pensioner has reached the point where the pension rate is $44.72 a month behind that of the composite group of unskilled public servants, approximately $536 a year.
I am aware of the spread between the pension paid to the single 100 per cent pensioner and the control group of five named classes of unskilled public servants. The question of an upward adjustment of pension rates is under serious consideration.
Insofar as payment of pro rata pensions to widows of pensioned veterans is concerned, I have very little to add since a statement was last made on this subject. The suggestion has been made that a widow should receive a pro rata pension if her husband had been in receipt of a disability pension assessed at the rate of 47 per cent or less. This is because if his pension had been assessed at the rate of 48 per cent or more, the surviving dependants would be pensionable. What is sometimes forgotten is that in addition a widow will be pensioned if her husband's death was attributable to service or occurred during wartime regardless of the degree of the assessment of the disability.
The hon. member predicted that if people are in receipt of as little as 1 per cent pension I would make this statement, so I might as well make it. There is an opportunity to receive war veterans allowance if a person's income enables him to do so. The entire matter of veterans benefits-and that includes the basic rate of pension and pro rata benefits for widows-is under constant review by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Canadian Pension Commission and the other agencies of my ministry to see what changes can be made to improve the lot of veterans and their dependants. Both subjects are of great importance, and when I have something specific to report to the House, I will be more than pleased to do so.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR OPERATION OF SECURITY SERVICES- KNOWLEDGE OF MINISTER OF ALLEGEDLY ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, on May 24 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether he took the position that the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) or the government should be responsible for the activities of the security services of the RCMP. The Prime Minister said that the principle of ministerial responsibility did apply, but he was less direct in indicating what sort of briefings the Solicitor General got from the force.
Since then interesting things have happened. On June 17 the Solicitor General said there would be no inquiry into the RCMP because the Montreal news agency break-in was, to use the Solicitor General's terminology, exceptional and isolated. Then, early in July, a complete reversal occurred. An inquiry was announced. Obviously, to put it in the most charitable way, between the minister and the RCMP there was an obvious failure to communicate. Who is responsible for this information gap or need "not to know"? 1 cannot believe it is totally the fault of the force.
August 4, 1977

A series of solicitors general have obviously been either too lazy, imperceptive or incompetent to become informed and to live up to their parliamentary obligations and traditions. Perhaps, as Shakespeare said, "When ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise". However, under the terms of reference of this inquiry announced last month there is no thrust, even in part, toward exploring the errors-if not of commission, then of omission-of the government or a series of solicitors general.
No, the RCMP is left literally alone to be checked, and nothing is said to any extent about any responsibility of its political masters. I would have expected this minister to have done better in living up to his responsibilities for the force than this. He has focused the inquiry on the RCMP, leaving the responsibility on the force, rather than assessing the degree of blame which ought to be attached to the Solicitor General and his predecessors.
If I may refer briefly to the British North America Act with reference to the responsibility for security services, there is an interesting, possible conflict between federal and provincial jurisdictions as far as the duties of the RCMP are concerned. As everyone knows, the force at one time was a territorial force known as the North West Mounted Police, with headquarters in Regina, which was then in a territory. Once a province was established, it had to enact its own police act, since every province had and has exclusive jurisdiction under section 92(14) of the BNA Act for its administration of justice. The provinces then enforced not only their own laws but those passed by parliament, for example, the Criminal Code and the War Measures Act.
An examination of section 91 of the act reveals significantly that while subsection (7) provides parliament with control over our militia, military and naval services and defence, there is no provision for the national police force, which is understandable in a way, since the administration of justice by parliament is confined by definition to the territories. Yet, when we turn to the RCMP Act we note an interesting conflict. That act passed by parliament, appoints every member of the force a peace officer in all Canada, and its officers ex officio justices of the peace.
The question which comes to mind is, how is it possible for parliament to pass this legislation, when the appointment of peace officers and justices of the peace is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. I shall develop this theme when time permits. For the present suffice it to say that the Royal Commission on Security in 1969 stated then that there is no exclusive statutory authority for the security role of the RCMP. In other words the RCMP, lacking parliamentary direction but realizing what was required, had to make its ow'n terms of reference, which the royal commission pointed out as well. That is another indication of lack of backing for our national police force by a series of governments and ministers.
As a step in the right direction I suggest we should consider amending the BNA Act and inserting in section 91(7), in addition to the provisions concerning the militia, military and
Adjournment Debate
naval services and defence, a provision concerning national police and security services. Parliament should then regularize the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, after consulting with the provinces, and consider a better legislative foundation for our security services as well.
The minister, using his ministerial responsibility in the full meaning of the term, as I suggested earlier, owes it to the force to make certain that when the RCMP is contracted to a province, its work there shall be in no way unduly restricted. When I see a letter like the one 1 gave the minister today, a letter from an official of the Nova Scotia attorney general's department to a superintendent of the RCMP, instructing that officer to have deleted certain items from a file, items which would appear to be embarrassing to the Crown prosecutor, the same prosecutor whom the official informed the superintendent would be prosecuting the case, I suggest the Solicitor General owes a duty to the force in that respect, as well, to make certain its work is not being hindered. I think Superintendent Christian, the officer involved, is obviously unhappy with that situation, since he wrote three letters in 11 days. I think the minister has some responsibility for checking such a situation which also comes under the broad mantle of ministerial responsibility.
While the force must in the final analysis be responsible to the civil authority and conform as well to certain policies of the provinces to which it is under contract, the force must never be discouraged or brushed aside from certain areas of criminal investigation for reasons that those areas may touch on matters close to government, any government.
The RCMP is a proud, national force, with national standards of law enforcement to maintain. I trust that the Solicitor General, using his ministerial responsibility, will make sure that its mandate to enforce law and order is never impinged upon. I also hope that the government, in particular the Solicitor General, will do as it promised, implement some of the recommendations of Judge Rene Marin. In this way the minister would have better rapport with the force. I should like to see him improve its work conditions and see a more satisfactory and businesslike relationship between this important law enforcement agency and the Parliament of Canada. Until this is done we shall continue to have these unfortunate situations which have precipitated the present RCMP inquiry and which, as I said at the outset, do little credit to the concept of ministerial responsibility, since the force in effect is left holding the bag. All attention is focused on it and none of the responsibility is focused on those ministers who are responsible by definition and law for the force. I trust this matter will be remedied soon.


Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, the principle of accountability is not one which the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) or the government simply acknowledges or endorses. It is a concept which is understood as fundamental to the system of parliamentary democracy in Canada. As practised in our system and by the government, it means acceptance of responsibility for the conduct of government and, of course, for the

August 4, 1977
Adjournment Debate
administrative machinery of the Government in Canada, in the sense it involves an obligation not simply to give direction but also to ensure that those directives given are carried out. But as with any other system of responsibility and obligation, it would be too simplistic to believe that the principle of accountability involves exactly the same thing in each of every aspect of its application. There is, at once, a general understanding of the principle and of its reality in practice.
Thus, in some areas of government endeavour one might anticipate, indeed expect, a rigorous form of this principle. In other, different areas of government operations, one equally expects a less controlled exercise of the principle. For example, the over-all system of government in Canada includes the operations of various Crown corporations. The nature of their activities ranges from that of support to Canadian industry active in the international area to the activity of those Crown corporations involved in domestic operations, such as the Canadian National Railways. These corporations have many features similar to private enterprise organizations, and in some cases they compete evenly in and with the private sector. In order to do so, they must be relatively free of direct ministerial involvement. Yet, at the same time, support given them from taxes collected at large demands ministerial control.
At the other end of the scale of government operations are those areas of endeavour which are of such importance to the national well-being that important ministerial involvement is essential. In the areas of regional disparity, employment, health and welfare, responsible ministers must ensure that the direction they request is indeed met and carried out. In such areas the nature of ministerial responsibility for appropriate public service organizational and individual response is critical. No minister of this government would deny his responsibility and that of departmental employees in such circumstances. There is then no question of the government's sense of and support for this principle. It is a principle which I believe has been met by government action.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-MEASURES TO STOP EXODUS OF CAPITAL TO UNITED STATES-REASON REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS WILL NOT INVEST IN CANADA
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the heading of my adjournment speech tonight is "The Trudeau Government-Architects of the near destruction of Canada".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: At the rate we have been going and on the basis of the information which has come forward in the last couple of weeks we shall soon be able to remove the word "near".
On July 25 I addressed a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) with regard to measures he might take to stop the exodus of capital to the United States and inquiring as to the reason for which real estate developers will
[Mr. Railton.l
not invest in Canada. I got a typical Liberal answer. The minister said, in part, that changes costing something over $700 million had been made in favour of the corporate business sector in the budget of March 31 and the government believed that this, combined with a change in the dividend tax credit for business investment in Canada made for a favourable climate.
That is a meaningless answer and it does absolutely nothing to help the economy. If the present trend of business going to the United States continues, within the next five years Canada will have from two million to 2.5 million unemployed and the government's make-work projects will not be able to match the dollars leaving this country. Over 400,000 students are leaving our schools and universities annually, but only 200,000 new jobs are being created annually. Members can see the direction in which we are headed. It is not a question of whether the government could be returned in the next general election. It is a question of whether we can afford to have it continue in office until this parliament comes to an end.
So that I will not be accused of making strictly a partisan speech tonight I want to quote a financial institution and other financial experts throughout Canada and the United States. Economists for the Royal Bank of Canada and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce have said that, based on their economic indicators, the current slump may continue into next year. So that absolutely nothing will be done for the one million unemployed in this country or about the mass exodus of investment money. A Royal Bank trader blamed it on lack of concern by the federal government. He said that people are waiting for the government to do something. Well, Mr. Speaker, we will be Rip Van Winkles with beards before this government does anything.
The type of answers that we have been receiving from the Prime Minister to the effect that investors will send their money where they will get the best return is an indication of the concern that he has. He tells people that if they cannot get a job in Canada they should go to the United States. The Royal Bank trader also said that the decline could fuel inflation by raising the price of imported goods. A Bank of Commerce economist said that the weakening in their indicator underscores the fragile state of Canada's economic recovery. These are damaging statements, Mr. Speaker.
According to an article in a recent Wall Street Journal issue, the weaker Canadian dollar is a sign that the money markets are telling the Prime Minister that they have even less confidence in his economic management-that should be mismanagement-than in that of the current U.S. administration. The article points out that the Prime Minister's complacency is not shared by many of his fellow Canadians. Canada is not doing so well. Its economy has been tangled up by a government effort to apply compulsory wage and price controls for nearly two years, when we should have had short-term controls as we in the Conservative party proposed. The article goes on to say:
August 4, 1977

While the nation's troubles are frequently attributed to the rise of the Quebec separatists, it would be more accurate to say that the rise of the Quebec separatists is closely related to the country's economic mismanagement.
Individual U.S. states are also opening up offices in the Montreal and Toronto areas and are being funded by the United States economic development administration. For example, the state of Vermont has opened up an office in Montreal to encourage Canadian businesses to move to the United States. The state wanted to be in a position to attract businesses wishing to move from the province of Quebec. They see that there is a lush open market here, and they know that no smart investor or any Canadian business is going to continue to operate in this country.
A number of United States bankers have combined to provide a $500,000 pool so that low interest loans can be offered to firms contemplating relocation to the United States. Furthermore, American towns and cities along the St. Lawrence plan to blitz Ontario with promotional campaigns aimed at luring Canadian industries across the border. Jefferson county and Watertown recently joined forces to open a new $800,000 industrial park which local officials hope to fill with Canadian satellite plants. They already have two, and leads on three others. That is another example of Canadian business and Canadian investors having no faith in Canada or in the present government.
Last year was a banner year for movements to the United States; 44 companies either moved to New York or expanded existing facilities. Twenty-five came from Ontario and 18 from Quebec. They brought in $28.6 million in investment money and created 1,330 new jobs. Canadians are also buying United States realty. For example, there are 17 major complexes being developed with Canadian money throughout the United States.
I would also draw the attention of the House to a most devastating article which I read recently entitled "Drifting along like ship without rudder", which has reference to this government. I want to point out, in closing, that the reason for all these business investors moving out of Canada is the overtaxation and the over-regulation which are confining these businesses to debt, and they can no longer operate in this country.


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a number of concerns about reports of business investment and, in particular, investment in real property flowing out of Canada and into the United States.
Adjournment Debate
It is always difficult to obtain a clear and up to date perspective on investment flows in any particular business sector. However, it is important to note that investors continue to express confidence in the Canadian economy and the ability to obtain a return on investment in Canada. Thus, for example, total capital movements, unadjusted for seasonal variations, produced a net capital inflow of $810 million during the first quarter of 1977, while new issues of Canadian securities raised $1.4 billion.
Of course it is the case that within the total flow of capital there are movements in both directions, which represent the response of investors to market conditions and opportunities. In certain areas such as real estate development, two or three major projects can represent in themselves very large dollar transactions. However, it is important not to draw premature or unwarranted conclusions based on a limited number of cases.
It is true that we have faced in the last two years an uphill battle to restore the competitiveness of the Canadian economy, which is the prerequisite for sustained investment. That battle has been difficult, but with widespread public support and co-operation the inflation of our costs has been brought to more acceptable levels. Wage settlements have, for example, shown a steady deceleration in the first six months of this year. Negotiated settlements are now showing increases in the first year of the contract in the order of 8 per cent. In the manufacturing sector, first year increases in Canada were down to 7 per cent in the first quarter, falling below the United States increase of 7.8 per cent.
As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) indicated in his response on July 25, the budget of March 31 provided additional assistance to equity investment and business finance in Canada, particularly through the increased dividend tax credit, the enriched investment tax credit, and additional measures to assist small business. With the rather cautious case of the current expansion, the full impact of those measures has yet to be felt; but there are encouraging signs of strengthening export markets, particularly in the United States. However, what is important is that we persist in the effort to hold the line on our costs if we wish to ensure the attractiveness of the Canadian economy to investors. That is why the government attaches importance to obtaining agreement with business and labour on wage and price restraint for the period after controls are lifted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

Friday, August 5, 1977