1977-05-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise to move a motion of vital importance to parliament and to Canada. In view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Pelletier) admitted last night before the Standing Committee on Agriculture that he is not knowledgeable about agriculture and attempted to ask questions of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in that committee, and in view of the fact that the responsibility of parliamentary secretaries is to answer questions in the absence of their respective ministers, for which they receive additional remuneration, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That parliamentary secretaries not be paid the extra stipend for that position when they are not capable of performing their assigned duties, that of replying to reasonable questions pertaining to the ministers to which they are attached; and that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture be denied the salary paid to him as such until such time as he at least has read the Farmer's Almanac.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


REQUEST FOR DECISION ON CHICKEN MARKETING BOARD-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43 as well. Imports of broilers have increased to levels 50 times what they were five years ago. The over-all loss in gross economic activity in Canada resulting from the importation of broilers in 1976 alone is estimated by the Agricultural Economics Research Council to be over $101 million. Given the attempt by large food giants to undercut a national chicken marketing board by raising imports to this level, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House urge the government to make a decision on a national board immediately since the longer the delay the more difficult it will be to operate that board in an effective manner.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to deal with a matter which is of urgent and pressing necessity to the people of the town of Churchill. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has as its mandate extending national television and radio service to all areas of Canada. It has designed a $150 million program, known as the accelerated coverage plan, and northern Manitoba has been a beneficiary of this program. English language FM and AM radio and television repeater stations have been installed, and pursuant to obligations imposed on the CBC by the Broadcasting Act to extend national services in both languages, French radio and television now serves the north; the CBC now, contrary to its mandate, will terminate the CBC English language radio station in Churchill, Manitoba, after 25 years of service, and since there is no other radio service to the area, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman):
That the CBC, as a federal Crown corporation, be instructed to continue the present service of CHFC Radio to this community.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION OF NORTHWEST QUEBEC FROM PRICE INCREASE ON GASOLINE-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous

May 13, 1977
Oil Exploration
consent of the House to discuss a question of pressing necessity.
Since the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) has stated that the price of gas and heating oil would increase by 14 cents a gallon within two years and since northwest Quebec is now paying almost 10 cents more for gas than the rest of the country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to take the necessary steps to exempt northwest Quebec from the forthcoming price increases on gas till the prices paid in that area are comparable to those paid in the remainder of Quebec.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ABORTION
[Stage Direction]
ALLEGATION STATEMENTS IN "SEX EDUCATION: A TEACHER'S GUIDE" IN CONFLICT WITH CRIMINAL CODE PROVISIONS- MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that booklet Number 4 of the series entitled "Sex Education: A Teacher's Guide", printed and distributed under the authority of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is in direct conflict with the provisions for therapeutic abortions in the Criminal Code, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman):
That this House direct the Minister of Justice to review booklet Number 4 of the series "Sex Education: A Teacher's Guide", to ascertain whether or not statements contained therein are in harmony with the Criminal Code and that he report back to this House with his findings within 60 days.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSED SPONSORSHIP OF INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE INTO RISKS OF OIL EXPLORATION IN ARCTIC-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Canada is the first Arctic nation to commence drilling offshore in the Arctic waters; in view of the serious risk not only to our northern waters, but also to Arctic waters shared by our neighbours, the

United States, Denmark, Norway and the Soviet Union, as pointed out in the Berger Report; in view of the possibility that an accumulation of oil in the Arctic could affect the northern climate by the albedo effect and all cause irreversible damage to the polar environment; and in view of the fact that there is no international agreement on Arctic development, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth):
That Canada sponsor an international conference of Arctic nations to commence joint research into the risks and consequences of oil and gas exploration and transportation activities in the Arctic Ocean.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 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:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question to the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns a speech made by Mr. Gordon Robertson, secretary to the Cabinet, on federal-provincial relations when he spoke of the division of Quebec in the event that northern Quebecers voting in a future referendum do not vote to separate. I say that this can only be taken to mean that the government is prepared to at least partially comply with the results of a separation referendum. Would the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether that speech represents government policy and if not, what authority did this senior public servant have?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I was aware personally that Mr. Robertson intended to make this speech. His views are his views. They are his views on a personal, individual basis, they are not necessarily government policy and were not intended to be an expression of government policy.


CONTINGENCY PLANS IF QUEBEC SEPARATES
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that in his speech the head of the federal-provincial relations secretariat of the cabinet was speaking not on a matter of government policy. In fact, so far as the government is concerned, he has been denounced by the Acting Prime Minister for what he said. The speech also took the form of a blueprint for discussing the separation process, for discussing
May 13, 1977

technicalities, at least in the context of the death of our country, such as the ownership of the Canadian National Railways in Quebec, the St. Lawrence Seaway and the division of the national debt. Will the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether this speech represented contingency plans for separation being made by the government and whether there are any plans of this nature being formulated by the government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would immediately want to correct any impression I may have created that I had denounced Mr. Robertson's speech. I tried to make it clear that Mr. Robertson was speaking as an individual Canadian and I think his speech was an impressive contribution to the debate on national unity.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: And it was not government policy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The speech could be read with profit by all. That is the context in which we ought to regard the speech and we should not conclude from it that these are government plans or that it is an indirect way of indicating government policy. Mr. Robertson is one of the most knowledgeable and experienced men in this field, and it is excellent that he should have spoken out and given us his views on this question at this particular time.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister did not answer the question I asked, namely, whether the government is preparing contingency plans for separation, which is the issue we are considering, and whether in his speech Mr. Robertson indicated that those plans are either in existence or being formulated by the government. Sir, the speech also discussed the notion that the federal government might be willing to ensure that those people living in regions where a majority voted against separation could remain inside the union. Will the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether this policy will apply to other parts of Quebec, such as the Gaspe or Montreal, or what is the government's policy in that respect, if it has any policy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, first, there are no contingency plans. That ought to be made perfectly clear, and in so saying 1 am answering the question the hon. member asked. The answer is, no.


Walter David Baker: What about the answer to my second question?


POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING THIRD ORGANIZATION CONCERNED WITH UNITY
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister? We now have two bureaucracies dealing with national unity, and a short time ago the Prime Minister promised a third which seems to be a vehicle for recycling Jean-Luc Pepin. In view of the obvious confusion which surrounds the roles of the various unity agencies being set up by the govern-
Oral Questions
ment, will the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether there are now any definite plans to establish the third unity organization to which the Prime Minister referred?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not clear what the hon. member means by a "third unity organization". It is unknown to me. I would say, in reply to the hon. member, that I hope at an early date to arrange a debate in the House of Commons on the question of national unity, and 1 believe that would be a good occasion to explore all the options the hon. member has in mind.


Mr. Paproski:: Can we expect that debate before 1978?


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I understand, from the Acting Prime Minister's answer, that the government will set up no further national unity organizations. May I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development? Mr. Robertson, in the speech referred to by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, also raised the question of the rights of native people in northern Quebec. Last week the minister said he would be examining Bill 1 of the province of Quebec with a view to ascertaining its impact on native rights in general and the James Bay Agreement, Bill C-9, in particular. Is he now prepared to tell this House what is the legal opinion or whether he intends to take any steps to further test the constitutionality of this legislation?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received the legal opinion on Bill 1, but I have had discussions with the chief in charge of the Quebec Indian Association. He has confirmed to me his opposition to Bill 1. That is Chief Andrew Delisle. I received from Chief Billy Diamond his exact words on this question in which he states that he cannot accept any legislation in Quebec which would be contrary to his rights under the Indian Act or the James Bay settlement. I intend to support him on that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Will the minister undertake to the House to have that legal opinion brought forward before the statute of limitation expires? Also, will he tell us precisely when he expects to be able to report to the House in so far as the legal opinion is concerned and whether the government is going to take any action to test the constitutionality of Bill 1 by reference to the courts rather than giving us reports as to whom he has spoken outside of the legal side of things.

May 13, 1977
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to make the legal opinion known as soon as I receive it. The lawyers are doing work. As the hon. member knows, they must do it thoroughly and carefully.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: These non-lawyers do not understand. My hon. friend will understand. In any event, the work will be done well in advance of the passage of the bill. As well, I promised the Indians in Quebec that we would not proclaim the bill until this matter is settled.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-REASON FOR FAILURE TO REQUEST UNITED STATES TO POSTPONE DEADLINE FOR DECISION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, as a non-lawyer I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are not only a non-lawyer, you are a non-nothing.


Mr. Baldwin:: You are not even a good client.


John Edward Broadbent: According to a press report, the United States Ambassador to Canada, Mr. Thomas Enders, indicated in a very clear way that the United States is not under undue pressure to reach a decision on a northern gas pipeline. Since this assertion by the United States ambassador confirms what I said earlier in the week in this House, will the Acting Prime Minister explain why the government of Canada has not requested a postponement of the September 1 date at which time the Prime Minister of Canada informed President Carter that he would give our country's recommendation on a pipeline decision.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Prime Minister has indicated several times the desire of the government to reach a decision as quickly as possible, hopefully, which is the word he used in London, by September 1. If that time frame is not achievable, it would then of course be an option to consider whether the President ought to be requested to extend this period. I find it difficult to understand why the hon. member is constantly raising this question of more time. He does not seem to need very much time because he made up his mind on the Berger report in three days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We will dedl with the brilliance of that answer in about a half hour's time. Since the Prime Minister, both in his statements inside the House and outside the House in Europe, has always indicated that the pressure was coming from the United States for a September 1 deadline decision, since the United States Ambassador as recently as yesterday
[Mr. Hnatyshyn.)
apparently said there is no such pressure and since the energy adviser to the President of the United States, Mr. Schlesinger, indicated there is no such pressure, why is the government of Canada maintaining that we must make a September 1 deadline decision when, as the Acting Prime Minister should know, there are so many unresolved issues, particularly on the Alcan possibility, which will not be settled by September 1.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think the hon. member misunderstands the source of the pressure. The pressure arises from the United States law which obliges the President to meet a certain time frame.


John Edward Broadbent: Check again!


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: You check again!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What the Prime Minister is saying is that we ought to make up our minds and not be overtaken by events elsewhere over which we have no control.


John Edward Broadbent: That is not only nonsense, it is palpable nonsense.


Crawford Douglas: Look who's talking about nonsense!


John Edward Broadbent: It will not do the minister any good to smile. Is he aware that the President of the United States is able to extend the deadline by 90 days, and, if he is, will he explain why the Canadian government, through its ambassador or through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has not requested that use be made of such an option? I believe the United States expects a little initiative to be shown on our part.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport dealing once more with the passenger service in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area. In the last few weeks, the timetable has been changed in our area; the CN realized it was an impossible schedule and finally came back to the former one, which is satisfactory to us. However, we had requested an inquiry into passenger service and a few weeks ago I received a reply. I had addressed my letter to the CN St. Lawrence region and a Mr. Yvon H. Matte answered my request by saying Mr. Emery Leblanc was the one involved in this matter. I then wrote to Mr. Leblanc who told me that the matter did not come under his jurisdiction and he sent me to Mr. Adrien Levasseur who said that this was not his problem but rather that of the Canadian Transport Commission.
I would like the minister to enlighten me a little and try to find the responsible person in this matter.
May I 3, 1977


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will see whether I can help the hon. member.


REASON FOR USE OF OLD COACHES ON SAGUENAY-LAC-SAINT-JEAN ROUTE
Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is trying to do his best, 1 shall ask him a small service: I do not know if it is meant to play a trick on people in my constituency, but an old passenger car has just been put in service, directly from the museum, a coach which dates back to 1900, with wooden benches and heated with a huge oil furnace. That is making fun of people! I thought it was to save energy! 1 urge the minister to examine the matter and at the same time try to communicate with Mr. Robert-we also call him "Roberts" and "Robert"-he is responsible for that, and to put an end to that joke, because that is making fun of people!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question to direct to the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday the hon. gentleman put out a very uninformative press release concerning the early retirement of Vice-Admiral Boyle, the senior naval officer in the Canadian Forces. Will he enlighten the House as to the reasons for this early retirement, bearing in mind that last year the Admiral received the Order of Military Merit in the grade of Commander for conspicuous merit and exceptional service to Canada?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1
think the press release was explicit. It reflects the normal rotation of commanders which has taken place throughout the armed forces with the appointment of the new CDS. Admiral Boyle has served with distinction and vigour. 1 had hoped he would serve even longer but he has chosen to take early retirement. It is a decision I regret, but I know the country and the Navy in particular are grateful for his distinguished services.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister deny that Admiral Boyle was asked to resign some few weeks ago but refused to do so? Or is the minister telling the House that action culminating in the early retirement of the senior naval officer in our forces was carried to an irreversible stage without his knowledge?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I can absolutely deny the allegation of the hon. member. Quite the reverse was the case; he
Oral Questions
was asked to remain and, as a matter of fact, at that time indicated that he would.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister may use whatever euphemisms he wishes to attempt to conceal the fact that Admiral Boyle was fired by the route of being made an offer that he could not possibly accept.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Is it not true that after he declined to resign he was offered a position which would have removed him from any participation in naval affairs for the rest of his service?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is still suggesting that the admiral was asked to resign. He was not asked to resign. Admiral Boyle is acting completely on his own volition, and indeed the other work that I had hoped he would take would be of considerable importance to the future of the armed forces of this country.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES UNTIL LYSYK COMMISSION REPORTS
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. There is a report today from U.S. government sources that the government of Canada will have to start formal negotiations with the United States on a pipeline across Canada by mid-August, if not several weeks sooner, if we hope to have any say in the United States government's decision, and that the extra time is needed for the President to meet his deadline of September 1. Will the government state unconditionally that there will be no such negotiations until the Lysyk commission has reported? It is supposed to report by August 1. Will the minister state that there will be no negotiations with the United States until after that report is received?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of a report to that effect. It is not the intention of the government of Canada to open negotiations with the United States within the time frame suggested. It is obvious that there will be discussions between the two countries from time to time on these questions, but the matter of negotiations is not in the cards within the time frame suggested.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-POSSIBILITY OF DEBATE PRIOR TO DECISION ON CONSTRUCTION
John Carnell Crosbie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Acting Prime Minister will agree, I am sure, that the deadline set in the United States is one set by legislation, and that legislation can always be changed if

May 13, 1977
Oral Questions
need be. Would the Acting Prime Minister confirm whether or not this timetable is the main reason the government refuses to allow the House to debate this issue before the government makes a decision, or is it possible that the government will permit the House to debate this whole issue when all the reports are in and before a decision is made?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member an assurance that the government will give the House an opportunity to debate the matter before a decision is reached. As the hon. member may have noticed, 1 have put a motion on the order paper which is intended to provide for such debate as the occasion warrants it. It will be my intention to call that motion at a suitable time. For example, if further discussion is required on the Berger report, I could call it at a later point in the session if necessary, say following the NEB report. So the House will have an opportunity to debate the question on a number of occasions prior to any decision being taken by the government. I can give the hon. member that assurance without any conditions.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
[Stage Direction]
POSSIBILITY OF CANCELLATION OF MOVING INCOME TAX DIVISION TO JONQUlfiRE
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, since he is responsible for the federal services decentralization program.
A year ago, the minister announced that a tax data centre would be built in Jonquiere, even though the Quebec government introduced its Bill number 1, which may affect the teaching language of the children of federal civil servants who will come to Quebec, and in spite of the statement made yesterday by the Quebec premier, who said he was fed up with federal ministers who act as terrorists. Does the minister see himself as one of those ministers and does he intend to change his decision regarding the building of that tax data centre in Jonquiere?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should be angry now because Mr. Levesque has called me names. I think I will tell mommy. I feel it is absolutely ridiculous. Nevertheless, I do not intend to change the decision we have made. However, some other decentralizations will be proposed and I have told the Quebec government that if they cannot give the Anglophone civil servants who would have to settle in Quebec the guarantee that their children could attend English schools, we will not be able to decentralize in this province.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Levesque referred yesterday to the decentralization in Charlottetown, and again this morning I have contacted Premier Campbell of Prince Edward Island who told me that if Francophones were to be transferred to Charlottetown, French schools would be available for them. So I would like Mr. Levesque to show the same
[Mr. Crosbic.J
generosity vis-a-vis the Anglophone civil servants who could have to settle in Quebec as Mr. Campbell is showing vis-a-vis the Francophones who could be transferred to Charlottetown.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the Conference Board survey published today which shows that consumers are growing increasingly uncertain about the national economy and their belief that inflation will worsen in the next few months, and in view of the fact that the real economic growth declined in the final three months of 1976 and that unemployment rose to more than 8 per cent, is the government now giving consideration to new programs to reduce this disastrously high level of unemployment?
Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, in general terms the answer was given yesterday to questions about possible changes in economic management policy. I have not seen the Conference Board report and I will certainly take a look at it.


POSSIBILITY GOVERNOR OF BANK OF CANADA EXPRESSING GOVERNMENT POLICY IN HALIFAX SPEECH
David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Bouey, expressing government policy when he said in a speech in Halifax recently that putting more money into the economy and increasing government expenditures to restore strong economic growth and high employment would only compound Canada's difficulties rather than resolve them?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Governor of the Bank of Canada speaks for himself and he certainly has the status to do that.


DROUGHT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. On May 4 I brought up the question of drought conditions, particularly in the Palliser triangle. While there have been some rains since, they have done no more in the Palliser triangle area than postpone the seriousness of drought. I ask the minister whether or not any preliminary investigations have taken place and arrangements made as to the course to be followed if serious drought follows in the days ahead?
May 13, 1977


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure the right hon. member for Prince Albert is aware of our announcement last Friday in the House. There have been interdepartmental discussions. I also had some discussions with three of the provincial ministers of agriculture from the western provinces when they were here on Wednesday. We have arranged a meeting for next week in Regina. We have appointed a federal co-ordinator in Regina who is one of our top advisers in western Canada to work with the provinces to co-ordinate efforts and actions and to put them into force. We will be meeting the provincial ministers no later than next Friday, possibly sooner if we can arrange that kind of meeting. Our officials are having another meeting here on Monday to put forward the final type of system that is needed. As the right hon. gentleman knows, that committee consists of members of the cabinet from western Canada who will be meeting with officials, plus the minister in charge of DREE and the President of the Treasury Board.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister that 1 deeply appreciate what he has just announced. There has been some mention made by him about ministers from western Canada. I wonder whether the lion and the lamb are going out to Saskatchewan to look into the drought situation. The hon. Minister without Portfolio and the Minister of Transport are supposed to be in Saskatchewan today in the Pelly constituency where there is a by-election. Are they going out there to look at the drought or the political drought of the Liberal Party?


ROYAL COMMISSION ON CORPORATE CONCENTRATION
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government has made a decision as to who is to replace, if anyone, Mr. Robert Bryce as chairman of the Royal Commission on the Concentration of Economic Power?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No,
Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken on that point. 1 should say, in order to avoid a misunderstanding, that it is not the intention of the government to add a further person to the royal commission. That option has been explored, as 1 understand it, with the two remaining commissioners. Because of their desire to complete the report by September of this year, it was decided not to appoint a new person to the commission because if that happened it would obviously delay further the making of the report.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Do I take it from his
Oral Questions
answer that he is now giving an unequivocal undertaking to the House of Commons, which he was not able to do a week or so ago, that a report will be issued from the Royal Commission on the Concentration of Economic Power?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the two remaining commissioners to produce a report, and as I understand it, to make it available in September, if possible. That is certainly the wish of the government. The report will obviously be made public although we all realize the regrettable resignation of the chairman has altered, to some extent, the balanced composition that had hitherto existed within the commission.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary will be short. Just to be absolutely certain, this report will come out under the auspices of the royal commission and will not come out as a special report of the Economic Council of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is right, Mr. Speaker. That was an option that had been considered at one point. It was abandoned, and the intention is it will come out under the auspices of the remaining commissioners.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the President of the Treasury Board which arises out of the fifth report of the advisory group on executive compensation in the Public Service. May 1 ask the President of the Treasury Board if he intends to adopt any of the recommendations that have been advanced in this report, and if so, is he in a position to outline those recommendations which he is considering at the present time?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we are examining that report with great interest. We are giving it consideration. When a decision is arrived at, it will be made known.


USE OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TO SET EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, since the committee placed great emphasis on the performance assessments and the need of establishing principles of accountability which can be applied to clear and, if possible, quantifiable terms in respect of activities and responsibilities of executive personnel, could I ask the minister if he is undertaking any new initiatives in that particular area with respect to performance measurement standards?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the comment on the performance measurement standards referred to in the report of the committee on executive compensation was critical of perhaps the over-enthusiasm

May 13, 1977
Oral Questions
which has been applied to some of the assessments throughout the senior executive group. Certainly, we are conscious of this and are inclined to agree it has been a bit extravagant. We have taken steps to alert all the people involved in such assessments. Their standards must be more rigorously applied and indeed we would expect to see a more credible group of assessments of those people.
On the second point concerning the accountability of senior executives of the Public Service, as the hon. member knows, we are examining that area very carefully. Indeed, it will be a very fundamental part of the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability which is undertaking that analysis now.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister on a matter in which I am sure he is most interested. It concerns the ninth United Nations Sugar Conference rapidly coming to conclusion in Geneva. In view of reports that hopes for an agreement at this conference are fading, despite the fact the Secretary General of UNCTAD (Gamini Corea) sees an earlier agreement on sugar stabilization as a major test of the sincerity of the support expressed for a common fund by Canada and the other six industrialized nations at the recent London summit, will the minister indicate why Canada is insisting that all sugar stocks be paid for solely by producing nations-a position which runs contrary to what we agreed under the Tin Commodity Agreement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 will have to check into that particular situation and provide the information later to the hon. member.


UNITED NATIONS SUGAR CONFERENCE-COMPOSITION OF CANADIAN DELEGATION
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is checking into that aspect of the negotiations, I wonder whether he would also provide to the House some indication as to the composition of the delegation. In view of the implications for the Canadian consumers, could he indicate whether there is a full representation, not only from the major sugar companies, but from consumer groups as well as direct agricultural interests which surely must be important to a balanced delegation on this subject?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will also do that.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, during the oral question period on the eve of the last sitting day before Christmas, I asked the Minister of Transport whether he had made up his mind about building an airport in St. Leonard, in northwest New Brunswick, and the minister replied that I had done enough already and that no further action on my part was needed. In spite of that, I have been fairly active, Mr. Speaker, and I now want to ask the Minister of Transport whether the cabinet has made its final decision in connection with the construction of airport facilities in the Atlantic provinces, including St. Leonard, and what are the odds on the construction work starting before the first snow?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the matter is progressing favourably although the final and detailed decisions have not been taken into consideration completely. I expect, however, to have more news for the hon. member within the next three weeks.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister which is related to the very searching and intelligent question asked by the learned and hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. It deals with some statements made by Mr. Gordon Robertson to a parliamentary committee dealing with secrecy in government. Some of us in that committee have laboured under the impression the government was secretive because they wanted to hide mistakes, bad judgment and improper instructions given by deputy ministers to their ministers. Mr. Gordon Robertson said, however, that the purpose of secrecy in government was to permit public servants to be open-handed and anonymous. He was supported in that by the hon. member for Eglinton. Has the government now rejected that position, and will public servants now be allowed to be more open and free in the comments they make?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that has always been the position of the government.
May 13, 1977


AGRICULTURE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. On May 2, 1977 at Montebello the Minister of Agriculture, in his speech to the National Dairy Council of Canada, said:
. .. the Minister of Agriculture ... in some ways is the last one to be consulted on food policy . .
I would like to ask the minister whether he has any input at all into the food policy that has been drafted by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and if he does not, what is he going to do about it?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, you heard what the hon. member said. He said, "in some ways". Those ways are so insignificant that perhaps 1 should not have mentioned them.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if the minister can explain his remarks further on in his speech when he goes on to say that when the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs drafted a policy on marketing boards, and I quote, "we simply weren't consulted although ..." I wonder if the minister could explain that statement and explain what he is doing to make sure he will be consulted on a food policy. If he is not, does he mean what he says, that he will resign?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we certainly do have full consultation on food strategy such as we are talking about. There may be the odd thing which comes out on which we are not fully consulted. 1 do not hesitate to make a comment on it. I do appreciate the hon. member's reference to my talk to that distinguished group of people, the dairy processors from all across Canada, who commended the government and the Minister of Agriculture for what they are doing for the dairy industry.


USE OF SOLAR ENERGY IN DESIGNING PUBLIC BUILDINGS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. A draft financial report of the Department of Supply and Services indicates that on present trends only 5,000 solar houses will be built in the next decade, which is far below the estimated potential of 750,000 during the same period, because there has been no clear, unequivocal commitment by the government to encourage solar installations through low interest mortgages, loans and grants. In view of the Carter administration's widespread implementation of solar energy in its public buildings program, has the government made any
Oral Questions
plans for a single public office building in the future using solar energy?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, 1 mentioned, in answer to a question earlier this week, that there were two specific projects underway with respect to retrofit in the Ottawa area. I am not at liberty at the moment to indicate which they are, but 1 hope to be able to make an announcement shortly. They would not be set up with the idea of providing full solar energy for heating, but a substantial portion of the heat would be provided from this source.


LAW REFORM COMMISSION
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and it concerns the make-up of the Law Reform Commission. When does the minister anticipate that members with a common law legal training background will be appointed to the commission which now consists entirely of those with a civil law background in legal training?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: 1 hope very shortly, Mr. Speaker.


DROUGHT
Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister without Portfolio. I wonder if the minister would confirm to the House that he has been commissioned by the Prime Minister to study the long-term effects of the drought and to correlate that with the findings of the Berger commission. Perhaps I can ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If it is true that the Minister without Portfolio is no longer allowed to talk about these things in public, I will direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


An hon. Member:: Resign.


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister without Portfolio):: I thank the hon. member for his question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I want to assure him and the House through you, Mr. Speaker, that no constraints are placed upon me-


An hon. Member:: Obviously.

May 13, 1977
Oral Questions


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -and I will always make utterances when I think 1 can help Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Last night in Churchill, Manitoba, CBC officials held a town meeting with the residents of Churchill and informed them that the radio station CHFC, after 25 years of service, would be discontinued. I wish to ask the minister if this is part of the CBC's accelerated coverage program-now that they have brought in French FM and French TV to northern Manitoba-to phase out an English radio station?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I shall undertake to bring the representation of the hon. member to the CBC and reply forthwith, giving him a full explanation of the factors which led the CBC to make the initial announcement to his constituents last night.


CUSTOMS
Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a decision made by customs officials to refuse entry into Canada of printed pornographic material, can the minister say whether or not there are regulations under which pornographic films can be denied entry to Canada by customs officials similar to those applied to pornographic printed material?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, when the officers of my department ban such a film, they are acting under a tariff item under the Tariff Act.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can he say whether there have been any discussions with the government leaders in the Senate to ask them to take a sober second look at the ratification of the James Bay Agreement in light of the recent developments in Quebec and

in light of the recent statements by Chief Delisle who is now concerned about the safeguards that have been built into the agreement by the federal government protecting the interests of the native people signatory to the agreement?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the Senate to give any sober second look to Bill C-9. As a matter of fact, I asked the leader of the Senate to pass the bill quickly, and so have the Indians. I do not think the hon. member interprets Chief Delisle correctly. I saw Chief Delisle this morning and he never expressed those views to me.


CONFLICT BETWEEN QUEBEC LANGUAGE CHARTER AND JAMES BAY AGREEMENT-TEST OF CONSTITUTIONALITY OF QUEBEC BILL
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, Chief Delisle made of course a number of public statements. He is concerned about the recent legislative proposals in the province of Quebec and he is concerned at the prospect-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a supplementary question?


Frank Oberle: Can the minister tell the House whether he will cause an investigation to be carried out of the validity and the legality of the agreement and of the bill which will offend the agreement, a bill which is proposed in the Quebec legislature at this time?


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member is correct. Chief Delisle is concerned about Bill I and its effects with respect to the Indian people in Quebec. As I said in answer to an earlier question, I have requested a legal opinion on that bill and its relationship to the James Bay settlement. As soon as I get the legal opinion, I will make it known to the House.


AIRPORTS
[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR IMPROVEMENT OF FACILITIES AT ILES-DE-LA-MADELEINE AND GASPfi-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Following the recent meeting of Department of Jransport officials with	public	representatives	for the Iles-de-la-Madeleine and Gaspe areas, to iron out the last minute details concerning the	necessary and urgent	improvements-considered as a priority by the minister himself-to the Iles-de-la-Madeleine and Gaspe airports, could the minister advise the House whether he will soon make an announcement concerning the calls for tenders for the work which has been delayed too long already and which should start before the first snow, to use the expression conned by my colleague the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria a while ago?
May 13, 1977


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am very conscious of the concern of the hon. member from the Gaspe area about this matter. I understand 1 am to receive a report as a result of those meetings as early as next week, and following that I should be able to take the necessary action to secure the improvements which have been sought for so long.

[ Translation]


GASOLINE AND FUEL OIL-POSSIBILITY OF EXEMPTING NORTHWEST QUEBEC FROM PRICE INCREASES
Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Bearing in mind the recent statements of the minister to the effect that the price of gas and heating oil will be going up by 14 cents over the next two years, and the fact that people in northwest Quebec are now paying 10 cents a gallon more than in the rest of the province of Quebec, can the minister tell the House whether he is willing to consider the possibility of exempting areas such as northwest Quebec from the coming price increases to have parity between that part of the province and the rest of it?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of exempting any one part of the country or any one part of a province. There is a differential in retail prices for gasoline in the province of Quebec. There are differentials in virtually all provinces, I suppose. These differentials are partly caused by additional transportation costs, but the largest part of the differential is caused by market forces, and if there is concern on the part of the hon. member about marketing arrangements within his province, then I think he should speak to the provincial authorities about that.


REASON PRICE OF GASOLINE IS HIGHER IN ROUYN THAN KIRKLAND LAKE
Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us why we, in Rouyn, are paying 15 cents or even 20 cents more a gallon than in Kirkland Lake, some 15 miles away, when he claims that the higher prices in northwest Quebec depend on transportation costs?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had listened to all of my answer, he would know that I placed the major emphasis on market forces and competition.
Privilege-Mr. Bechard CANADA PENSION PLAN


ALLEGED USE OF TWO DIFFERENT INDICES AS BASIS FOR PENSION INCREASES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the envelopes in which the recent Canada Pension Plan cheques were mailed there were enclosures, one of which stated that the cost of living during the year had risen by 8.2 per cent, and that that was the reason for the enclosed cheque. The other one stated that the consumer price index over the past 12 months has increased 8.6 per cent. I am tempted to ask from which branch within Statistics Canada the minister gets his information, but I will ask why he uses two different indices to pro rate the increase on the pension cheques and why there is therefore a different amount which the pensioners get under that system.
[ Translation]
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member gave himself the trouble of checking the text of the act passed by Parliament some three or four years ago to index pensions under the Canada Pension Plan, he would see that the period for indexing purposes does not correspond to the calendar year but, if I remember well, runs from October to October. That is why the results for the 12-month period do not correspond to those of the calendar year.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer my question. Why does he use the CPI on one and the cost of living on the other?


Mr. Lalonde:: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see the difference the hon. member makes. There is only one index used to calculate the rate of adjustment of the Canada Pension Plan and that is the consumer price index.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine on a question of privilege.


QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege on a matter which affects my rights as member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine, those of the people of the Magdalen Islands and all the sovereignty of the Canadian territories. On May 11, 1977, in answer to a question on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), as reported in Hansard, on page 5518, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) tabled for publication in appendix two geographical

May 13, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Bechard
maps of Canada which appear on pages 5519 and 5520 of the official report of this day.
Mr. Speaker, these maps, which are supposed to illustrate the Canadian coast guard regions and districts and the Canadian air transportation administration regions are incomplete and inaccurate. As a matter of fact, there is an important part of my constituency, the Magdalen Islands, missing on both maps, which gives the impression that this important part of the Gulf of St. Lawrence is not or is no longer part of Canada. In view of this gap, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help thinking that it is not surprising that the approval of the Magdalen Islands airport facilities should take so long. The Magdalen Islands are not even shown on the maps of the Department of Transport.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask the government to abandon this practice of publishing incomplete maps which do not reflect the Canadian reality and furthermore, which could give a false image of our country and inconvenience its people.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to my attention, and I will look into it.


Mr. Muir:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of order. I have served in this chamber under Mr. Speaker Michener, Mr. Speaker Lambert, Mr. Speaker Macnaughton, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, and Your Honour. It seems that I have great difficulty being seen by Your Honour. I do not know whether I have grown smaller, or what it is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the hon. member proceeds, he should be aware that I extended the question period five minutes today to try, if possible, to recognize all hon. members who were seeking to be recognized. The last three members of the official opposition I wanted to recognize, if possible, were the hon. member, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, and the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Duff-erin-Waterloo. The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Duffer-in-Waterloo was recognized yesterday. The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys was recognized the day before, and the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock had not been recognized for several days. Therefore, between the three of them I gave those last three minutes to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock.
Had there been another couple of minutes-I extended the question period five minutes, in any event-I would have recognized the hon. member, and had there been even more time I would have tried to recognize everybody today by recognizing also the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Duff-erin-Waterloo. Once the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock took the clock to five minutes past twelve, I thought there was very little more I could do.


Robert Muir: If Your Honour had been good enough to hear me out before making a decision, Your Honour would have heard what I was going to say. It is quite true that I was recognized the other day. I tried to ask a supplementary

question, but I was refused. Several others following me asked not one supplementary but perhaps two. If Your Honour will check the record, Your Honour will find that at no time in this House have I ever abused the rules, nor have I been reprimanded by a Speaker of this House. All I want is my fair share, and for Your Honour's information, I do not feel I am getting my fair share. We all got here the same way. 1 was sent by my people. There are matters I have to raise, and I hope in future that Your Honour will give me more recognition.
I do not want any more privileges than anyone else, just equal rights. I had to raise this question previously, and if Your Honour would check Hansard, Your Honour would learn how many times I have been recognized since the session started and, indeed, prior to that. I hope Your Honour will give some consideration to this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will also realize that on a regional basis today the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants and the hon. member for South Shore, both from the eastern region, were recognized. I have always tried to balance off in any one question period the various regions of the country. Considering the number of hon. members from that region who are in the House today, and the number of hon. members from all regions who are in the House today, that seemed to be a fair balance under the circumstances. If the hon. member could advise me which one of his colleagues ought to have been excluded so that I could have recognized him in addition to other hon. members from his region, 1 would be very pleased to have that advice.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Muir: I am not in the chair. It is your job to decide, not mine.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Miss Nicholson.
[Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Cafik.
May 13, 1977
[Stage Direction]
[Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, under Standing Order 41(2), copies of correspondence with the Atlantic premiers concerning a proposed amendment to Bill C-33 to be put forward in committee.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD TABLING OF REFERENCES TO ADMINISTRATOR
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies of five references from the Anti-Inflation Board to the administrator, pursuant to section 17(2) of the Anti-Inflation Act.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-MOTION FOR DEBATE
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motion.
May 11, 1977-The President of the Privy Council:
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.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section (2) of Standing Order 21, this Notice of Motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the ninth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Order Paper Questions TRANSPORTATION


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to seek the unanimous consent of the House, which I believe is forthcoming, to move a reference to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. My motion is as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to travel to St. John's, Newfoundland, Saint John, New Brunswick, and Halifax between May 29 and June 4, 1977, for the purpose of examining transportation facilities and studying transportation problems in the Atlantic provinces, and that the necessary supporting staff do accompany the committee.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to consent to this motion. We are in agreement with it.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Agreed.


Armand Caouette: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion proposed by the President of the Privy Council. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville) moved:: That the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, presented on May 11, 1977 be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[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: 216 to 281 inclusive, and 590.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the Chief Statistician 2(CST) level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?

May 13, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Robert Knight Andras: 
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the Statistician 5(STA) level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified*0 MASTA 5 positions by Department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
				Number of
				incumbents whose
			Number of	annual salary is
			classified	greater than
Group	Level	Department	positions (1,2)	$27,500<3)MASTA	5	DSS	6	NEB	3	MOT	1	POD	4	STC	37	
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the AO-EPS-3 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified*0 AOEPS 3 positions by Department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
May 13, 1977


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the LA-2 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 
[Stage Direction]
Group
	Number of	Number of incumbents whose annual salary is
	classified	greater than
Department	positions*''7-8)	$27,500*7,8)LA	2	JUS389	160
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the LA-3 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified LA 3 positions by Department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Order Paper Questions
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Number of incumbents whose
Group	Level	Department	Number of classified positions*M)	annual salary is greater than $27,500*4>LA	3	CTC	1	1NEB JUS RTC	1 38 1	1 35 1
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the PE-5 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified0* PE 5 positions by Department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Number of incumbents whose Number of annual salary is classified	greater than
Group	Level Department positions*1,2)	$27,500*3)

AGR	9
CCA	3
COM	2
CTC	1
DND	8
DOE	10
DPW	7
DSS	12
DVA	6
EMR	4
NEB	1
EXT	6
IAN	7
INC	2
ITC	5
JUS	1
LAB	2
MID	7
MOT	19
NCC	1
NHW	5
PCO	1
PEN	6
POD	13
PSC	77
RCM	1
REE	3
STC	7
TAX	10
TBD	30
UAH	1
U1C	10
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.

May 13, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the PE-6 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified*0 PE 6 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group

	Number of	Number of incumbents whose annual salary is
	classified	greater than
Department	positions *1,2*	$27,500(3)
AGR	2	
ARC	1	
CAE	4	
CCA	1	
COM	1	
CTC	1	1
DND	9	
DOE	5	
DPW	5	
DSS	16	3
DVA	6	
EMR	1	
IAN	7	
IDA	1	
INC	1	
ITC	1	
MID	5	
MOT	10	
NCC	1	
NHW	3	
PCO	1	
PEN	2	
POD	7	1
PSC	43	
REE	1	
SEC	2	
SOL	2	
STC	1	
TAX	1	1TBD	41	6U1C	2	
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
				Number of
				incumbents whose
			Number of	annual salary is
			classified	greater than
Group	Level	Department	positions{,,2)	$27,500<3)PE	7	AGR	2	2DND	2	1DOE	1	2DPW	2DSS	3	1FIN	1IDA	1	2INC	1	1JUS	1	1LAB	1	1MOT	3	3NHW	1	2NMC	1	NPB	1PEN	1	POD	2	3PSC	17	13RTC	1	1SEC	1	2STC	1	TAX	4	3TBD	15	9UAH	1
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the Senior Statistician (SRS) level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified*0 MARS 1 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the PE-7 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified** 1* PE 7 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group MA SRS, Level 1, Department DSS, Number of Classified Position*1-2* 1, Number of incumbents whose annual salary is greater than $27,500*3) 1.
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1. On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the Chief Statistician 1 (CST) level?

May 13, 1977

2. By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified0* MACST 1 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in
1(a) whose annual salary was		greater than $27,500 follows.	
(b) No reliable data	is available for April 30, 1970.		
			Number of
			incumbents whose
		Number of	annual salary is
		classified	greater than
Group Level	Department	positions*1,2)	$27,500*3>MACST 1	DSS	3	NEB	1	1STC	16	
note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the PG-6 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified0* PG 6 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Order Paper Questions
ment as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group, UT(6); Level, 3; Department; Number of Classified Positions0-2*, Nil; Number of Incumbents Whose Annual Salary is Greater than $27,500(3), Nil.
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the VT-4 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified0* UT 4(6) positions by department as of December 31, 1975 follows. No reliable data is available for April 30, 1975. (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group, UT; Level, 4; Department, DND; Number of Classified Positions0-2*, 52; Number of Incumbents Whose Annual Salary is Greater than $27,500(3), 47.
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.
			Number of
			classified
Group	Level	Department	positions*1,2)PG	6	AGR	1DND	6DOE	1DSS	109IAN	1PEN	1POD	1
Number of incumbents whose annual salary is greater than $27,500<3>
47
Note: See also Statements day.
1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the VT-3 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?

Question No. 229-Mr. Orlikow:
1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the VT-5 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified0* UT 5 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group, UT(6*; Level, 5; Department, DND; Number of Classified Positions0-2*; Number of Incumbents Whose Annual Salary is Greater than $27,500<3), 1.


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified0* UT 3 positions by depart-
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.
5614

May 13, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the VT-6 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annua] salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified'0 UT 6 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group, UT'6); Level, 6; Department, DND; Number of Classified Positions'1'21; Number of Incumbents Whose Annual Salary is Greater than $27,500(3), 1.
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the VT-7 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified'0 UT 7 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group, UT'6); Level, 7; Department, DND; Number of Classified Positions'1'* 1 2 * **; Number of Incumbents Whose Annual Salary is Greater than $27,500(3), 1.
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the VS-5 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified10 VS 5 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in
1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows,
(b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.

Group	Level	Department	Number of classified positions (1,2^	Number of incumbents whose annual salary is greater than $27,500(3)VS	5	AGR	15	10NHW	9	5
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the VS-6 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified10 VS 6 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group	Level	Department	Number of classified positions 0,2>	Number of incumbents whose annual salary is greater than $27,500<3)VS	6	AGR	2	2NHW	1	1
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the CH-5 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified10 CH 5 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Number of
. incumbents whose Number of	annual salary is
classified	greater than
Group	Level Department positions(I,2)	$27,500*3)CH	5	CAE


[Stage Direction]
3
2
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.
May 13, 1977
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the CH-6 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the AR-5 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified*'* AR 5 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in
1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Order Paper Questions
2. By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified'" AR 6 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group

	Number of	Number of incumbents whose annual salary is
	classified	greater than
Department	positions O-2)	$27,500<3>DND	1	1DPW	21	12DVA	1	IAN	6	2MOT	3	4NCC	8	3NHW	2	1
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the AR-7 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified"* AR 7 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
				Number of
				incumbents whose
			Number of	annual salary is
			classified	greater than
Group	Level	Department	positions (,-2)	$27,500<3>AR	5	DND	3	DOE	1	DPW	39	IAN	15	IDA	1	MOT	14	NCC	4	PEN	2	REE	1	
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: May 13, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified<l) AR 8 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 is attached, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
				Number of incumbents whose
			Number of	annual salary is
			classified	greater than
Group	Level	Department	positions ^*2)	$27,500<3>AR	8	DND DPW NCC NHW UAH	1 1 1 3	1 1 2
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the AV-5 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified01 AU 5(5) positions by department as of December 31, 1975 follows. No reliable data is available for April 30, 1975. (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
				Number of incumbents whose
			Number of	annual salary is
			classified	greater than
Group	Level	Department	positions (1,2)	$27,500(3)AU	5	CAE	15	15DSS	10	8NEB	2	1TAX	86	71
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the AV-6 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified0* AU 6(5) positions by department as of December 31, 1975 follows. No reliable data is
[Mr. Orlikow.)
available for April 30, 1975. (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Number of incumbents whose Number of	annual salary is
classified	greater than
Group	Level Department positions(1>2)	$27,500(3)AU	6	CAE	1DSS	11	6TAX	26	18
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the AV-7 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the HR-5 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified0* HR 5 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group, HR; Level, 5; Department, ARC; Number of classified positions <u), 1; Number of incumbents whose annual salary is greater than $27,500(3).
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No, 216 answered this day.

May 13, 1977


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the LS-6 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified*0 LS 6 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group	Level	Department	Number of classified positions (l,2)	Number of incumbents whose annual salary is greater than $27,500(3>LS	6	AGR	1	DOE NL1	1 5	1
Note: See also Statements I and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the PS-5 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified (l) PS 5 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
	Number of	Number of incumbents whose annual salary is
	classified	greater than
Department	positions 0.2)	$27,500<3>
PEN	1	
PSC	1	1
Note: See also Statements I and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1. On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the AC-2 level?
Order Paper Questions
2. By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the AC-3 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified*1' AC 3 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group	Level	Department	Number of classified positions (1>2)	Number of incumbents whose annual salary is greater than $27,500(3)AC	3	INS UIC	5	5 2Note: day.	See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question	No. 216 answered this


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the ES-5 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified*0 ES 5 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.

May 13, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Group


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the TR-4 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified0' TR 4 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group, TR; Level, 4; Department, SEC; Number of classified positions0'2', 70; Number of incumbents whose annual salary is greater than $27,500* 1 2 (3)-
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the TR-5 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the TR-6 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?
Hon, Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):
1. (a) The number of classified0' TR 6 positions by Department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group	Level	Department	Number of classified positions (1,2*	Number of incumbents whose annual salary is greater than $27,500<3)TR	6	DOE SEC	1 4	1
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.

Question No. 252-Mr. Orlikow:
1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the CS-5 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified0' CS 5 positions by Department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group

Level
	Number of	Number of incumbents whose annual salary is
	classified	greater than
Department	positions (1,2*	$27,500<3>AGR	2	2CAE	2	1COM	2	DND	3	DOE	1	1DPW	2	1DSS	16	9EMR	3	1IAN	1	1
May 13, 1977

Group

Number of classified
Department	positions
ITC	1
LAB	1
MID	1
MOT	2
NHW	2
PSC	1
REE	1
STC	4
TAX	6
TBD	1
UIC	1
Order Paper Questions
Number of	REE	4	incumbents whose	RTC	1	annual salary is	SEC	7	1greater than	SOL	2	$27,500<31	TAX	7	1TBD	65	71	UIC	9	
1	NOTE: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this
2	day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1	1. On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions
2	existed in each department at the AS-8 level?
3	2. By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970
1	whose annual salary was more than $27,500?
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.

Question No. 253-Mr. Orlikow:
1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the AS-7 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified10 AS 8 positions by Department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified10 AS 7 positions by Department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group
Level Department
Number of classified positions*''2)
Number of incumbents whose annual salary is greater than $27,500<3>
AGR	3
ARC	2
CAE	7
CCA	1
CLR	1
COM	7
CTC	2
DND	13
DOE	18
DPW	41
DSS	22
DVA	3
EMR	4
NEB	1
EXT	2
FIN	2
FIR	1
GGS	
IAB	1
IAN	8
INS	1
ITC	1
JUS	2
MID	15
MOT	28
MST	34
NHW	8
NMC	1
PCO	3
PEN	1
POD	18
PSC	6

6
3
2
4
8
6

Group

Department	Number of classified positions*1'2)
AGR	2
ARC	1
AUD	1
CAE	1
COL COM	2
CTC	1
DND	13
DOE	8
DPW	35
DSS	24
EMR	1
NEB	1
EXT	4
FIN	1
GGS	1
IAN	2
INC	2
ITC	2
JUS	2
LAB	2
MID	5
MOT	10
MST	1
NCC	1
NHW	2
NMC	1
PEN	13
POD	1
PSC	5
REE RTC	3
SEC SOL	2
STC	1
TAX	2
TBD	48
UAH	1
UIC	1
Number of incumbents whose annual salary is greater than $27,500*3>
1
1
1
5
8
1
5 1 1
1
1
4
6 1 1 1 1
6 4 1
1
22
1
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.

May 13, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the CO-2 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified10 CO 2 positions by Department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than 327,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group

Level
	Number of	Number of incumbents whose annual salary is
	classified	greater than
Department	positions 0,0	$27,500<3>
AGR	12	
CCA	80	
DND	1	
DSS	3	
FIR	22	
IAN	61	
INS	42	
1TC	535	
REE	114	
RTC	16	
	Number of	Number of incumbents whose annual salary is
	classified	greater than
Department	positions (,,2)	$27,500<3>
INS	12	
ITC	207	
PSC	1	
REE	130	
RTC	6	
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the CO-4 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified'0 CO 4 positions by Department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the CO-3 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified'0 CO 3 positions by Department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
				Number of
				incumbents whose
			Number of	annual salary is
			classified	greater than
Group	Level	Department	positions 'l-2*	$27,500<3>CO	4	CCA	17	10COM	2	2DND	1	1DOE	1DPW	1DSS	1	1FIR	9	IAN	3	2INS	3	3ITC	136	104REE	57	46RTC	3	1
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.
Group	Level
	Number of	Number of incumbents whose annual salary is
	classified	greater than
Department	positions '1<2^	$27,500<3>
AGR	6	
CCA	7	1
COM	7	
DND	1	
DSS	2	
FIR	25	
IAN	22


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the SI-7 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified'0 SI 7 positions by Department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.

May 13, 1977

2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1 (a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group	Level	DepartmentSI	7	ARC COM FIR IAN MOT NHW RTC STCNumber of incumbents whose Number of annual salary is classified	greater thanpositions(l>2)	$27,500(3)
2
1
1
10
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: Order Paper Questions
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in
1(a) whose annual salary was	greater than $27,500 follows.	
(b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970. Number of incumbents whose		
	Number of	annual salary is
	classified	greater than
Group Level Department	positions fi*2^	$27,500<3>WP 7 DVA	1	1IAN	11	7NHW	1	3NPB	6	1PEN	6	2SOL	1	1
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.

Question No. 261-Mr. Orlikow:
1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the FI-6 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?
1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the WP-6 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified(,) WP 6 positions by Department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
				Number of
				incumbents whose
			Number of	annual salary is
			classified	greater than
Group	Level	Department	positions fi*2)	$27,500<3>WP	6	DVA	5	IAN	7	NHW	1	NPB	5	PEN	3	
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the WP-7 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified10 WP 7 positions by Department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified*0 FI 6 positions by Department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group
Level Department
Number of classified positions (,,2)
Number of incumbents whose annual salary is greater than $27,500(3)
AGR	I	
CAE	1	
CCA	1	
CPC		1
CTC	2	1DND	10	2DOE	3	1DPW	3	2DSS	33	15DVA	3	2EMR	1EXT	1	1IAN	1	1IDA	1INC	1	ITC	3	1MID	1	MOT	15	9NCC	1NHW	3NMC	1	POD	5	3REE	2	RTC	1	1SEC	2	SOL	1	STC	1	TBD	19	3UIC	2	1
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.
5622

May 13, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the FI-7 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified0' FI 7 positions by Department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
				Number of
				incumbents whose
			Number of	annual salary is
			classified	greater than
Group	Level	Department	positions *1,2*	$27,500*3*FI	7	AGR	1	1CAE	1	CCA	1COM	1	1CTC	2DND	3	2DOE	2	1DPW	1	1DSS	8	7EMR	1	1FIN	1	1IAN	3	5IDA	1	1ITC	2	4MID	1	MOT	5	3NHW	4POD	3	2RCM	1	1SEC	1	TAX	1	1TBD	25	15UIC	1
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the FS-2 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) No position information is available for the FS Group, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of FS 2 employees whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
[Mr. Andras.)
Group, FS; Level, 2; Department, EXT; Number of classified positions0-2', Nil; Number of Incumbents whose annual salary is greater than $27,500<3), 1.
Note; See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the FS-3 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the FS-4 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than 527,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) No position information is available for the FS Group, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of FS 4 employees whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970. The FS Group position information was not recorded on the Official Languages Information Sub-system on April 30, 1975.
Group
			Number of incumbents whose
		Number of	annual salary is
		classified	greater than
Level	Department	positions*1,2*	$27,500*3*FS	4	EXT
1TC
16
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.

May 13, 1977


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the FS-5 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) No position information is available for the FS Group, (b) No reliable date is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of FS 5 employees whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970. The FS Group position information was not recorded on the Official Languages Information Sub-system on April 30, 1975.
Group, FS; Level, 5; Department, EXT; Number of classified positions0,2*, Number of Incumbents whose annual salary is Greater than $27,500(3), 43.
Note: See also Statements, 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the FS-6 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the IS-6 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified0* IS 6 positions by Department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in
1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Order Paper Questions
	Number of	Number of incumbents whose annual salary is
	classified	greater than
Department	positions (1,2)	$27,500<3>
AGR	1	
CAE	1	
CCA	1	
COM	1	
DOE	1	
EMR	2	
EXT	1	
IAN	2	
IDA	1	
INC	8	
ITC	1	
JUS	1	
LAB	1	
MID	4	
MOT	2	
MST	1	
NHW	3	
NMC	2	
PEN	1	
POD	1	
PSC	1	
REE	2	
SOL	1	
STC	2	
TAX	1	
TBD	1	
UAH	2	
UIC	1	
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the IS-7 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified01 IS 7 positions by Department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group

Number of
	Number of	incumbents whose annual salary is
	classified	greater than
Department	positions (1'2)	$27,500(3)
A JR		2
CCA	1	2DOE	1	1OSS	1	JXT	2FIN	1	1IAN	1	3IDA	1	2INC	3ITC	1	2LAB	1	MID	2MOT	2NHW	1
80016-16^2

May 13, 1977
Group
Order Paper Questions
Level Department
Number of classified positions (l,2)
Number of incumbents whose annual salary is greater than $27,500<3)
REE	1
SEC	1
SOL	1
STC	1

TBD	1

1
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the GT-7 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified"1 GT 7 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
				Number of
				incumbents whose
			Number of	annual salary is
			classified	greater than
Group	Level	Department	positions (1,2*	$27,500"'GT	7	DND	1	DPW	2	DSS	1	EMR	1	EXT	1	IAN	8	INC	8	MID	1	MOT	8	NHW	1	NMC	12	SEC	1	Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No.	216 answered this
day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the GT-8 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified"' GT 8 positions by Department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group	Level Department
GT	8	DND


[Stage Direction]
Number of incumbents whose Number of	annual salary is
classified	greater than
positions C'2'	527,500"'
2
3
8
NOTE: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the Tl-8 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified"' TI 8 positions by Department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
				Number of
				incumbents whose
			Number of	annual salary is
			classified	greater than
Group	Level	Department	positions (1*2)	$27,500"'TI	8	CTC	1	DND	3	MOT	10	
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the AG-6 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified"' AG 6 positions by Depart-
May 13, 1977

meat as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group, AG; Level, 6; Department, AGR; Number of Classified Positions0,2*, 8; Number of Incumbents Whose Annual Salary is Greater than $27,500<3), 6. * 1 2
Order Paper Questions
Number of incumbents whose Number of	annual salary is
classified	greater than
Group	Level Department positions(U)	$27,500(3)ES	2	UAH	20UIC	22
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1. On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the ES-2 level?

Question No. 275-Mr. Orlikow:
1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the ES-3 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?
2. By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified"* ES 2 positions by Department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified"* ES 3 positions by Department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1 (a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows.
Group

Level
:r of incumbents occupying the positions in		(b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.		
salary was greater than $27,500 follows, is available for April 30, 1970. Number of incumbents whose Number of annual salary is	Group Level Department	Number of classified positions (1,2*	Number of incumbents whose annual salary is greater than $27,500<3>Department	classified greater than positions <'-2>
$27,500<3)	ES 3 AGR	60	16AGR	97	CAE CCA	1 11	6CAE	2	COM	15	3CCA	27	CTC	20 1	4COM	31	DND	1CTC	48	DOE	58	20DOE	107	DPW	4	DPW	11	DSS	4	1DSS	10	EMR	29	7EMR	90	NEB	15	1NEB	27	EXT	2	EXT	3	FIN	25	7FIN	141	FIR	6	FIR	8	IAN	17	5 1IAN	38	IDA	INC	4	ITC	20	9ITC	38	LAB	9	5JUS	1	MID	27	16LAB	30	MOT	28	6MID	76	MST	3	MOT	46	NHW	67	20NCC	3	PCO	4	2NHW	88	POD	3	1NPB	1	REE	39	14PEN	2	RTC	2	2POD	11	SEC	7	2PSC	2	SOL	4	RCM	1	STC	171	65REE	35	TAR	5	3RTC	5	TAX	3	SEC	14	TBD	1	6SOL	8	UAH	15	7STC	368	UIC	3	TAR TAX	1 2	Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this	TBD	33	day.	
May 13, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the ES-4 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified'0 ES 4 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group

			Number of
			incumbents whose
		Number of	annual salary is
		classified	greater than
Level	Department	positions 0'2>	$27,500<3>4	AGR	22	14CCA	12	7COM	5	1CTC	8	9DOE	22	16DSS	1	EMR	21	14NEB	6	8FIN	48	35FIR	3	IAN	9	6IDA	2INC	1	1ITC	13	14LAB	5	4MID	18	14MOT	8	7MST	1	NHW	20	15PCO	5	5POD	1PSC	1REE	16	12SEC	4	2SOL	2	1STC	65	57TAR	3	2TBD	24	6UAH	21	9UIC	2	1
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group	Level Department
SX	01	AGR


[Stage Direction]
SX	01	PEN
[Stage Direction]
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 a'
Number of	Number of incumbents whose annual salary is
classified	greater than
positions "[DOT]4)	$27,500<4>
9 I	9 1
13	1 17
20	16 i
1 2	1 2
19	16
12	8
34	15
36	27
22	21
42	36
8	7
5	5
4	4
4	3
3	4 i
1 33	i 35
16	19
4	5
46	39 1
1 5	1 8
32	25
45	52
13	10
5	7
36	28
2 1 13	1 11
6	5
24	20
13	9
12	14
3	3
14	15
5	4
9	12
16	13
45	39
12	12
19	17
to Question No. 216 answered this
day.
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the SX-1 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified'0 SX 1 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the SX-2 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1 (a) The number of classified'0 SX 2 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.


:
May 13, 1977

2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the SX-3 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified01 SX 3 positions by depart-
Order Paper Questions
ment as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the SX-4 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified0' SX 4 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.

May 13, 1977
Order Paper Questions
	Number of	Number of incumbents whose annual salary is
	classified	greater than
Department	positions (l,2)	$27,500<3>AUD	1	1DOE	1	1EXT	1	FIN	3	3MOT	3	3PCO	2	2REE	1	1TBD	2	1
Note: See also Statements I and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the Al-7 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) The number of classified11* A1 7 positions by department as of March 31, 1975 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
2. (a) The number of incumbents occupying the positions in 1(a) whose annual salary was greater than $27,500 follows, (b) No reliable data is available for April 30, 1970.
Group, AI; Level, 7; Department, MOT; Number of classified positions0 2*, 65; Number of incumbents whose annual salary is greater than $27,500<3).
Note: See also Statements 1 and 2 attached to Question No. 216 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the AC-4 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr, Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby) moved:: That this House urges the government to accept the principal recommendation of the Berger report that no pipeline be built in the Mackenzie Valley for at least ten years.


Mr. Speaker:: I would note that, by agreement, not later than 3.45 o'clock p.m., every question necessary to dispose of these proceedings shall be put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order 58(9)(a).


John Edward Broadbent: It is rare in politics that a nation is given the opportunity to make an historic decision that can be both practical and decent, that can be at once just and prudent. We in Canada are now on the threshold of such a decision. On Monday, when Mr. Justice Berger handed down his historic report, Canadians were given more than an unprecedented and comprehensive assessment of a proposal for a major project. We were given a unique opportunity to change the way in which we treat our last frontier. We were advised by Mr. Justice Berger that the native people of Canada at long last deserve more than verbal respect. We were told they deserve the chance to develop in the north a pattern of growth of their own making, to have a crucial say in the shaping of their own future.
We were also advised by Mr. Justice Berger that some values and some areas of unique wilderness in our magnificent country must be preserved for all time. All of us have heard these things before, but Mr. Justice Berger has asked us as a people to listen and to listen with care. And he asks us to remember the past before we jump mindlessly into the future. The Inuit, the Dene, the Metis and our grandchildren throughout Canada are watching us today in this important debate.
Powerful interests, however, are already at work to undermine Mr. Justice Berger's plea to the Canadian people. We are told that his sentiments are all very well, but if we do not get the gas now from the north, mothers and children in Toronto, Halifax, Vancouver, all the cities of the south, will freeze in the dark. We are told that putting off the pipeline decision delivers a generation of northern natives to the welfare lines and beer halls. This is the new propaganda which must be countered in Canada, and countered immediately.
May 13, 1977

The New Democratic Party has put forward this motion today because we believe it is essential that the Canadian people hear from the House of Commons clear support at this stage in the debate for the principles of decency and practicality that are embodied in Mr. Justice Berger's report. We hope to hear support from the government side, in particular from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) whose prime responsibility is our native peoples in the north. But we also want careful clarification of the position of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), who said critically on Monday, "No one asked Mr. Berger to recommend against a pipeline". In addition to the government, we also hope to have confirmed the support of the Progressive Conservative party. We were pleased to hear their leader say the following before the television cameras on Monday afternoon:
I think it's very clear that the Gas Arctic proposal is not going to be a viable one. I think it would be very hard to contest Mr. Berger's evidence indicating that we should not proceed directly with the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. I think the 10 year delay appears, on the basis of evidence we now have, to be a sensible one.
I said at the outset that our decision about the Mackenzie Valley can be not only decent but practical. This must be emphasized. Those people who are now telling Canadians that we have to sacrifice decency because we need the energy are posing a false choice. We are not dealing here with a choice between respect for the people and environment of the north and an energy crisis. It just is not so. Approving Mr. Justice Berger's recommendation for a ten-year delay in building a Mackenzie Valley pipeline will do more than allow native land claims to be settled and implemented on a just basis. It will not affect the gas needs of Canadians, wherever they may live in the southern part of Canada. The truth is, we will not need frontier gas in Canada until the mid-1990s.


Mr. Woolliams:: Who said that?


John Edward Broadbent: The self-interested predictions that we are in imminent danger of running out of gas are flatly wrong, and flatly contradicted by the evidence. They simply ignore the most recent assessments of our gas supply and deliverability.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Who made the assessments?


John Edward Broadbent: Canadians must note, Mr. Speaker, that these ominous predictions of gloom come primarily from the same sources, the oil and gas industry, which told us in 1970 we had enough gas in Canada to last us 392 years; therefore, they said at that time, we can expect and desire to export more gas. When lucrative exports were cut off one year later the industry argued, for some strange reason, that we would run out of gas by 1978 and that we therefore needed the Mackenzie Valley pipeline to bring down what they called huge amounts of natural gas from the Mackenzie delta.


An hon. Member:: They are a bunch of liars.


John Edward Broadbent: Every year the decision to build a pipeline has been put off. Similarly, the date on which we are supposed
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
to run out of natural gas has been pushed back by the industry. What is the truth? The truth is that last year, in one year alone, more natural gas was found in southern Alberta than is contained in all the natural gas proven reserves in the whole of the Mackenzie delta. That is the truth; that is the reality. We should heed it, and not the propaganda of the oil industry.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You can be certain they did not find gas in Saskatchewan.


Mr. Benjamin:: Not at all. There were a couple of finds.


John Edward Broadbent: How many Canadians know this basic truth, Mr. Speaker? I repeat, at current rates of consumption, and on the basis of known supplies in the south, Canadians have enough natural gas to take us into the 1990s. Again I ask, how many Canadians know that there are now three proposals for renewed gas exports while at the same time Arctic Gas supporters are shouting that we are running short of gas supplies. Once again, the erroneous arguments of the oil and gas industry are merely self-serving. They are mere propaganda, designed to serve their own interests.
A serious conservation program, which should be considered apart from the real leeway in time that we have, could bring more energy at cheaper prices than would be available from projects which have been proposed in the frontier regions. For instance, a national home-insulation program would save more energy every year than we can produce from current Mackenzie Delta reserves, and it would cost less than one-third per energy unit. And, unlike natural gas, insulation never runs out. A decision now to build the Mackenzie Valley pipeline would be, in part, a decision to ignore serious conservation measures. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) said three months ago:
The cost of gaining an extra barrel of oil by saving it is a fraction of the cost of finding and producing that same barrel. Conservation measures are the surest, quickest and most efficient way of making an ongoing investment that will reduce Canada's dependence on imported oil.
What are we, as a country, doing in terms of taking serious conservation steps? We have no national home-insulation program, which the New Democratic Party advocated as early as September last year. We have weak automobile mileage requirements. I say this as one who represents an automobile constituency, whose people would support and defend conservation measures for the automotive industry. We lack even mandatory labelling of appliance efficiency targets. We have no targets at all in this field. We are left merely with the true symbol of the Liberal party of Canada: public relations gestures, and nothing more.
Even if we were to use Delta gas now, the cost would be astronomical. As the minister himself said in an internal memorandum dated March 7 of this year, Delta gas would cost double what it is now and all other prices would be raised to match it. To bring in Delta gas now, he said, would be a decision which would arouse a good deal of resistance in the east. Some understatement! Some concern!
What the minister said does not even take into account what would happen to the price of gas after the inevitable cost

May 13, 1977
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
overruns of the pipeline are added to the final figures. Recent major projects in the north, such as the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline, or the James Bay project, have suffered from cost increases ranging between 100 per cent and 1,000 per cent over original predictions; yet Arctic Gas has estimated an overrun of only 25 per cent. A cost overrun likelihood has recently been documented by studies undertaken in both the United States and Canada. The evidence concerning overrun is overwhelming. The final result is that Canadians would end up holding the bag. The only way the Arctic Gas project could be built is with financial guarantees from the government of Canada. Arctic Gas has admitted this at hearings before our National Energy Board. The moral of the Arctic Gas proposal is clear: the Americans would get the gas and Canadians would get the cost. Some justice!
An additional economic argument must be considered by all Canadians. On top of paying for the completion of a pipeline Canadians do not need, the economy would suffer severe dislocation. In three years, if it is decided to proceed with the Arctic Gas proposal, a company would be created in Canada with more equity than the largest Canadian bank has.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


John Edward Broadbent: That course would have profound consequences for the future of our country. Raising the $900 million Canadian equity would represent 25 per cent of all the new stocks issued in Canada for three years and bleed our ability to finance plant expansion, new businesses, housing and hospitals, to name only a few sectors which would suffer all over this country. Our exchange rate could be knocked out of whack and the economy would go through a slump in the north and elsewhere once the construction phase of the project had ended. These are serious economic arguments, negative economic arguments about which almost no one in the country is talking and which the NDP wants to emphasize. I say, let us not hear, to quote a gem of instant, propagandistic wisdom, that "we may have to sacrifice all that noble sentimentality of Berger's report because we need the gas." The truth is we do not need the gas until the mid 1990s. If we did get the gas from the Mackenzie Delta now, it would be too expensive. Building a pipeline to provide a conduit for United States' gas to United States' markets, according to the Arctic Gas proposals, would totally distort other Canadian investment priorities to meet other Canadian human and regional needs.
What about the economic impact of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline on the north itself? Mr. Justice Berger's report deals specifically with the myth, and it is a myth, that the pipeline is essential to the economic well-being of the northern part of our great country. His conclusions after two years of study and after more years of carefully sifting the economic evidence are as follows. I want to quote at length because the report of Mr. Justice Berger has been erroneously dismissed as consisting of moral platitudes. What does he say about the hard-headed economic evidence? He says the following:

It is an illusion to believe that the pipeline will solve the economic problems of the north. Its whole purpose is to deliver northern gas to the homes and industries in the south. Indeed, rather than solving the north's economic problems, it may accentuate them ... The fact is that large scale projects based on non-renewable resources have rarely provided permanent employment for any significant number of native people. There is abundant reason to doubt that a pipeline would provide meaningful and ongoing employment to many native people...
Construction of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline could produce a serious distortion of the small business sector of the Northwest Territories. This would raise problems for the orderly development of regional economic and commercial activity in the long run.
The point is simple enough: the extension of the industrial system creates unemployment as well as employment... We must cease to regard large-scale industrial development as a panacea for the economic ill of the north.
There are many economists who are experts in regional development throughout Canada and, indeed throughout the world who would agree overwhelmingly with Mr. Justice Berger's hard-headed economic conclusions about the north. Added to this, Mr. Justice Berger documents, and this is very serious, the social costs that would occur as the result of hastily going ahead with the pipeline at this time. What does he say would occur? What does he say would be the result for the native people of Canada whom we have treated so badly through most of our history? He says the following would occur in increasing degree: alcoholism, family breakdown, crime and welfare dependence.
Can that evidence be ignored? I think not. These are human facts. They are not bleeding-heart laments from some wellmeaning do-gooder. They are based on the actual experience of building the Trans-Alaska pipeline and the DEW line. They are based on the overwhelming evidence of nurses and doctors who have lived among the native people of the north for many years. In short, they are rooted in the experience of the native people's eloquent and sad testimony to their own history.
It is important to note that Mr. Justice Berger does not ask that we turn back the clock of history, another erroneous, ill-informed and stupid criticism of the report. Mr. Justice Berger is not burying his head in the sand of history. He is simply saying to Canadians, "Let's take care". He is saying that a little time is required, only ten years, ten years out of the hundreds that the native people have lived there, so that they themselves can have a hand in shaping their own development in the resource development that will come, so that they may develop their own institutions and make them relevant to events that will change their lives.
The native people of Canada, no less than the rest of us who live elsewhere, are not planning for a no-change society. They know that change will come, that history marches on. What they are asking for through Mr. Justice Berger's report is a crucial part in the decision-making that is going to affect their lives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We in the south demand no less for ourselves. Why should we expect less for the native people of our north? I want to make this point as clear and unambivalent as I can. To ignore Canada's native people now would be a moral
May 13, 1977

crime. We would have committed this crime without the slightest practical justification. It is essential that we affirm now our commitment to justice and practicality for all the people of Canada by supporting Mr. Justice Berger's recommendation that no pipeline be built in the MacKenzie Valley for ten years so that the land claims may not only be settled in principle but implemented in detail.
Mr. Justice Berger's report has meant for many that the spotlight is now on the Alcan proposal to bring Alaskan gas through Canada to the United States along the Alaskan Highway. I want to say something about that proposal. The view of the New Democratic Party is now, as it has been for more than a year since we stated this position in a brief to Mr. Justice Berger, that the most desirable of all the pipeline proposals put forward for northern gas development is unquestionably the Alcan proposal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Is it at this point totally acceptable? I want to not only ask the question, but answer it. Clearly, more work and some changes are required. In our view, it has received insufficient study. If full assessment shows that the Alcan pipeline can be built with acceptable levels of social and environmental impact, and assuming that the native land claims are settled before construction, with one major change we as a party would favour precisely this kind of pipeline. The major change required is financing. Since this pipeline would be used to ship United States gas to United States markets, surely it is reasonable to require that such a pipeline will be financed by the Americans themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I have not the slightest doubt that our friends in the United States would share that view. If they want to get their gas from the northern part of the country to the south, as they do-and it is understandable, desirable and acceptable to us-the vast majority of Americans would consider it entirely reasonable that that project be financed by the Americans themselves and not put as a financial burden upon Canadians.
I urge the government to respect the process of public inquiry, a process democratized by Mr. Justice Berger, and to extend the deadlines now set for the two inquiries into the Alcan route by a further three months. Mr. Justice Berger's hearings were successful precisely because the communities affected were given sufficient notice to discuss the issues that concerned them before giving evidence. In the Yukon they have been given six weeks' notice and they will have only 36 days of hearings before the decision in principle is scheduled to be made. Only another three months would be sufficient to do a proper job. If the government sticks to its September 1 deadline, the inquiries will merely blink at the questions before them and then write reports. A serious mistake could be made in rushing when we do not need to. In the process, the government will have given notice that it has started to ignore Mr. Justice Berger, because one of the most important aspects
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
of his inquiry was its respect for proper on-the-spot hearings, hearings affecting people directly affected by the decisions that are made.
Another important aspect of the government's "mulish" adherence to a deadline of September 1 is that parliament would be excluded from the decision. I listened with amazement to the answers given in the House today on this issue by the Acting Prime Minister. He referred to the motion which appears on today's order paper. What does it say? The motion put down by the government House leader dealing with the need for parliamentary decision-making on this question reads as follows:
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.
What does this verbiage amount to? Does it amount to giving parliament the right to make a decision? Does it say that the elected representatives of the people of Canada, including those in the north, will have a role to play in the decision-making? It does not. It is a collection of platitudes. It asserts, in effect, that it is the government, the cabinet, which will make the decision after it has looked at the reports. And when will it make a decision? It will make it during the summer months when it knows full well that parliament will be in recess.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Don't count on it.


John Edward Broadbent: It is a sham motion, and the hon. gentleman knows it. The government's position is that the United States needs to be given an answer before September 1, because legislation in that country places President Carter in the position of having to make a decision by then. However, as the government knows, the real deadline is not September 1 but December 1. The minister is well aware that President Carter can get a 90-day extension beyond September 1 if he wishes. But he has not even requested it. The fact is that the United States will not suffer if there is a three-month delay. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) noted in the memorandum to which I referred earlier, U.S. energy chief Schlesinger advised that the gas in Prudhoe Bay would be helpful but not really significant in terms of their over-all gas consumption.
Today, in the question period, I pointed out to the Acting Prime Minister that the United States Ambassador to Canada, Mr. Thomas Enders, had stated there was no urgent need for either Canada or the United States to make an early decision. So the government has no excuse for blaming the United States on the grounds that there is a deadline which this country has to meet. The reality is that the government of Canada does not wish to postpone a decision beyond September 1 because it knows that if it did so it would have to face parliament and the prospect of a debate.

May 13, 1977
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
With regard to the Alcan proposal, I call upon the government, on behalf of the NDP, to respect the Berger precedent for adequate discussion. The Yukon hearings must be given slightly more time. The Americans must agree to finance the project, since it will carry their gas, and parliament, not just the government, must discuss the final decision, one of the most important in our social and economic history. However, apart from the Alcan proposal-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I was ready to allow the hon. member a minute or two, but he has gone beyond his time and he can only continue by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: I thank hon. members for their consideration. I am about to wind up. I call upon the House today simply to express its respect for, and support, of Mr. Justice Berger's principal recommendation that there should be no pipeline in the Mackenzie Valley for at least ten years. The evidence before Mr. Justice Berger was substantial and persuasive. His arguments, on practical and moral grounds, are irrefutable. When he began his hearings, Mr. Justice Berger said that the way in which we decide to treat the north when making this decision will tell the world what sort of people we are. This statement has often been quoted. The time has come for us to show the world what sort of people we are. I hope we are equal to the test. And the place to start that test is right here and now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I was particularly pleased to hear the reference of the leader of the New Democratic Party to the importance of there being a debate in the House of Commons before a decision is taken. But 1 cannot forgo passing a comment on the irony of the situation. The NDP wants parliament to debate the matter before taking a decision. But the NDP is quite prepared to take a decision itself before there has been any public debate.
Nevertheless, within the next few months the House must take a very important decision regarding energy and the attitude we should take toward northern development and native claims. I emphasize that it is the House of Commons which must take that decision, not just the government, and that we must do so on the basis of all the available evidence. This means that a simple debate, a simple exchange of views in the House, is not enough. There would have to be an opportunity for a committee of the House to consider all that is involved, and then, on behalf of the people of Canada, to make recommendations which will reflect and determine the general national interest of the country on these questions.
Mr. Justice Berger has submitted an extensive and excellent study. He has carried out his terms of reference in an extraordinarily effective way. The methods he used in his inquiry are a model of participation and democracy, and he deserves the gratitude of the country-not simply for his work but also for
(Mr. Broadbent.]
the standard he has set. He makes a recommendation for delay in the construction of a pipeline, a recommendation which the evidence before him supported. It would be hard to contest his evidence-although, naturally, some of it will be contested- but the fundamental fact for parliament and the people of Canada to understand is that there is other evidence yet to come, evidence into other parts of this question which deserves to be considered as seriously as the Berger report.
As I said on Monday, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to consider the evidence from the National Energy Board, whose report on pipeline applications is expected this summer. Then there is evidence from the study by Dean Lysyk into the Alcan route. There is evidence from various studies prepared for governments, or agents of governments, and not yet made available to this House of Commons. There is evidence, indeed, concerning the accuracy of some of the conclusions of the Berger inquiry-or filling in information that Mr. Justice Berger felt was beyond the terms of reference of his inquiry- in the way that future design proposals from pipeline companies were beyond what Mr. Justice Berger described as "my responsibility... to assess the project proposals as they now stand".
I was pleased, Mr. Speaker, not only that the leader of the New Democratic Party quoted me in his opening remarks, but that he quoted me correctly as saying that, on the basis of the evidence we now have, the Berger recommendation for a delay would seem to be a sensible proposal. That is the statement which I made, and I am pleased to have that statement correctly quoted by the hon. member. I also said at that time that we may well receive new information regarding Canadian reserves, regarding Canadian requirements, regarding some new techniques for dealing with some of the problems that Mr. Justice Berger raised which could change the time-frame that he proposed. Certainly, we in the House of Commons should not prejudge this important question in the way this motion requests, when only part of the evidence is in. Indeed, that is the fundamental fault with the motion now before us. This motion wants the parliament of Canada to take a binding decision before all the evidence is in. The reason for that is that the NDP is not really interested in the evidence. Not only are they prepared, with this motion, to prejudge the evidence of the National Energy Board, and any other evidence that may come available, but three months ago they were prepared to prejudge the Berger report. On February 23 the hon. member of parliament for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) introduced an amendment expressing the opinion "that the proposed construction of a Mackenzie Valley pipeline is not in the best interest of the Canadian people". That was well before Berger-


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It was ahead of your time.


Charles Joseph Clark: It was ahead of the evidence. That determination to prejudge the evidence indicates that the major motive for most of the NDP-and I would exclude here probably the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth)-is not hard
May 13, 1977

evidence and it is certainly not the high ground of decency, which the leader of the NDP sought to pre-empt; it is, instead, their old, blind bias against business and against the United States of America.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: What worries us is that there appears to be an equal bias, on the other side of the question, among ministers of the government. The only minister who has expressed a view on the Berger report said categorically, to quote him, that he was "not in any way in agreement with Berger". The government was given the opportunity to dissociate itself from that view on Wednesday, and expressly refused that opportunity, so we can only assume that the minister spoke for the government when he said he was "not in any way in agreement with Berger". As my colleague points out, not only did they not dissociate themselves from the statement of the minister; as soon as he made the statement they rewarded him with two minutes as Acting Prime Minister of the country.


Mr. MacFarlane:: That is closer than you will ever get, Joe.


Mr. Nowlan:: They are all actors over there.


Charles Joseph Clark: Without dwelling too long on Acting Prime Ministers, the important point to make here is that the position of the Prime Minister himself is not clear, except that he seems to be bound to the September 1 deadline. He has been threatening Canadians-and I use that word advisedly-that unless we decide by September 1, the United States will decide for us choosing the El Paso route. Two parts of this argument are curious. The first is the insistence upon September 1, when it is well known that the government of the United States has at least three months, back to December 1, to make a decision under its own existing legislation. Since the Prime Minister insists so much upon September 1, the question must arise as to whether there was some secret arrangement between himself and President Carter by which the Prime Minister of Canada gave away three months of time which might normally be available for this country to consider a question of utmost importance to our future.
The second curiosity is that the Prime Minister seems to be giving away, in advance, any capacity, on behalf of Canada, to argue for a delay in the United States timing, if-and 1 emphasize "if'-the evidence made available to parliament indicates that the Canadian national interest would not be served by American deadlines. We will want to know why the Prime Minister has deliberately chosen this approach which could limit our negotiating power on this question.
Of fundamental importance here is that Canada takes the right decisions on the related questions of an energy corridor, northern development, and the treatment and future of our northern people. The best way to guarantee that the decision will be right is to have it taken in public, in the parliament of Canada. For that reason, this party has consistently sought to have all the evidence brought before a special committee of the House of Commons, a committee to which should be referred
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
the Berger report, the National Energy Board report, the Lysyk report on the Alcan route, the Fenco consultant study of the possibility of the cost overruns, and all other information which relates to these decisions.
The government has now been pushed toward a public debate but cavalierly dismisses, as the Acting Prime Minister did the other day, a reference to committee as being simply another inquiry into an inquiry. That misses two points. The first is that each of the previous inquiries, whether the Berger inquiry, the NEB, the Lysyk study, or any other, was into a limited subject, and there is no agency now established to pull together all of the recommendations of all the separate inquiries and consider them together. 1 should specify that there is no public agency for this purpose. The government has the option, as always, of pulling this work together in secret and making its decision in secret. This is the style of this government. That is no doubt about their intention now, and that is the proposition which we in this party simply will not accept.
It is the job of parliament to make these decisions. Parliament, and only parliament, can make national decisions. Mr. Justice Berger, the National Energy Board, Dean Lysyk, even the Prime Minister himself, do not represent the people of Canada in our system. Parliament is not just another level of study. It is not one more inquiry. It is the only legitimate place for the mapping of the course that we must take in the north, and the only effective way that parliament can gather the information which we need and to have the right to call witnesses and debate the issue in some kind of committee format. Among other advantages, a parliamentary inquiry will provide a responsible public forum-a court of appeal, if you will-to those major groups who disagree seriously with the reports of Mr. Justice Berger, Dean Lysyk, or the National Energy Board. For example, Canadian Arctic Gas, having spent $140 million in preparing its proposals, should have some public forum in which it can take issue with some of the conclusions of the Berger inquiry. Serious parties who disagree with recommendations Dean Lysyk might make, or with recommendations or calculations that might come from the National Energy Board, also require some public forum to which they can present their evidence so that Canadians will be in possession of all the facts when we take the decision which we must take.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: There are a number of important questions which flow from the Berger report. One of them has to do with the design changes which might change the feasibility of some of the projects referred to by Mr. Justice Berger. Another talks about the technical uncertainties documented by Mr. Justice Berger relating to frost heave and the possibility of new methods being developed which can deal with that serious problem.
Mr. Justice Berger stressed the potential of scheduling and work delays forcing some construction to take place over the summer months. We need to know whether that is likely to be

May 13, 1977
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
the case. Mr. Justice Berger said that the environmental threat of an interior Yukon route was not as compelling as the threat from a coastal route. There is some potential threat to the caribou wintering grounds. The people of Canada need to know, before they make a decision, how serious that threat is.
There has been an indication that there may not be an adequate opportunity for native employment on large-scale development projects. A committee of this House has the responsibility to inquire into means by which we can ensure, if large-scale projects go forward, that there will be opportunities for the native people of the north to work not just on simple projects but to make use of the opportunities to develop their own skills. That is an area which must be investigated by a committee of the House of Commons. That flows from a question raised by the Berger inquiry.
Mr. Justice Berger has indicated it is going to take some time to resolve questions relating to native titles. He suggests ten years, but there is no guarantee that it would take ten years. We need to have the opportunity to hear other evidence and other views as to other time-frames that might apply. Mr. Justice Berger suggests that an economy in the north can be based upon small business, and the orderly development of gas and oil resources could be in partnership with small business. That is a theory which has to be examined in some detail. It is essential to examine that theory if we are to have all the evidence we should have.
Those are some of the questions which flow from the report of Mr. Justice Berger. They are questions which need to be answered before a decision can be taken. Those questions can only be answered by a special committee of the House of Commons of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: There are innumerable other questions which arise outside the report of Mr. Justice Berger. One relates to the viability and the feasibility of a railway. Another relates to the extent of our gas reserves and the possibility of new frontier discoveries in the Delta or the Arctic Islands. We need to have some solid information about the effects on exploration in the Beaufort Sea, in the Delta and in the High Arctic. If there is no pipeline, we need to know the effect of that on the economy of Canada generally.
We need to know the effect of proceeding with a pipeline or not proceeding with a pipeline. We need to have a clear understanding of the environmental, the social and the economic impacts of an Alcan route. As a committee of the parliament of Canada, we need to give our advice, to gather our evidence and to make our views known on the broad question of what constitutes the Canadian national interest in a question of this kind.
Mr. Speaker, this is a time when we face highly important questions. The report of Mr. Justice Berger, as well as the particular recommendations it brought down, was a clear indictment of the failure of this government to develop an effective policy for northern Canada or to operate within the
(Mr. Clark.)
context of a comprehensive national energy policy. There is no policy in either of those areas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That is a matter which the parliament of Canada must study and consider in detail, with the power to call witnesses, with the power to gather evidence and with the power to make recommendations and not simply talk. We have ahead of us some highly important decisions. As the parliament of Canada, we have an obligation to gather evidence with care and to consider it with the utmost care. We have the obligation to do that work in public. This is not a time to close doors, as the motion by the New Democratic Party proposes. This is a time, instead, to open doors and to allow full examination of all the evidence in the public eye of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: For that reason, in the interests of ensuring we have the broadest possible opportunity to gather all the evidence, to open all the doors and to make in public the best possible decisions for the future of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That all the words after the word "government" be struck out of this motion and the following substituted therefor:
"to appoint a special committee of the House to consider the recommendations of the Berger report and all other reports, studies and recommendations relevant to the building of a northern pipeline, and the method of settlement of native land claims and urges that no commitment in principle be made to build a northern pipeline without parliamentary approval".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The subject matter of today's debate is too important for us to spend any time on the procedural argument, but I suggest that Your Honour should seriously consider whether this amendment is in order. An amendment to the kind of motion that is down for today is certainly provided for, but it has to be relevant and it must not introduce a totally new proposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Nonsense. How does it do that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If my hon. friends wanted to do this, they should have done it on Tuesday.
Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment substitutes for what we put down a totally different proposition, the kind for which notice would have to be given. Without taking the time to read the citations, I suggest to Your Honour that as an amendment it is clearly out of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We mentioned Berger.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) seems to feel it is all right for the NDP to move amendments to opposition day
May 13, 1977

motions, but when we move amendments to opposition day motions suddenly it is a little different.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the other thing is this: if it is your intention to make a ruling with respect to the matter, I respectfully suggest that matter ought to be argued in full by the person who objects to the amendment. I suggest there should be a corresponding argument from those of us who support the amendment and that this matter not be allowed to be raised in this way.
As to one other point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, he says we could have done it on Tuesday. Mr. Speaker, this matter is so important that the one way we could ensure there will be a vote on it and that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and his colleagues will stand up for parliamentary democracy was to do it the way we did it today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: The hon. member cannot have it two ways. I am in the Chair's hands as to whether or not an argument is to be made now. If an argument is to be made now, then I think the hon. member should put his objections first and I will then make the argument.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the feeling of the hon. member, but he knows that the Chair does not have to pass judgment on the merit of the motion or of the amendment. The purpose of a procedural debate on the acceptability of the amendment would definitely and strictly be to debate the question of relevancy which has been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. That point had occurred to me even before the hon. member raised it in the House. There is difficulty with the amendment. There might be some precedents in this House so far as special debates are concerned, such as the Speech from the Throne or on motions to give second reading to a bill. But we are dealing right now with a very limited motion which urges the House to come to a decision on a recommendation of the Berger report. At first glance the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition seems to bring in a new subject, or subjects.


John Edward Broadbent: That is a total red herring.


An hon. Member:: You mean a blue herring.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I want to understand the right of an hon. member to make a procedural argument to enlighten the Chair, but I find it is also the responsibility of the Chair to be fair to other hon. members who wish to participate in the debate on the subject matter of the motion and not to lose the time of the debate on a procedural argument.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: So, with the agreement of hon. members, I will reserve my decision and at this time and I would welcome arguments by one member from each party. Otherwise, hon. members cannot prevent the Chair from making the ruling immediately. I want to be fair and I invite arguments from hon. members, but this day has been set aside for the opposition. The opposition has decided to give the right to one opposition party to present a motion. As hon. members know, a procedural debate could take up hours, and I think this would deprive hon. members who want to participate in the debate from doing so. So I could either allow procedural arguments to be made immediately, if the House so agrees, or we could hear them later in light of the fact that some hon. members are out of the House for lunch. I hope, however, that the arguments put forward are limited, and I leave that to the judgment of hon. members.


John Edward Broadbent: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given the importance of this debate, I would like to suggest, through you, to other members of the House that if there is to be further procedural discussion we would be happy with the ruling as soon as you want to make it, sir, and not contribute further to the discussion. If there is to be any further discussion, I suggest that we postpone it to the end of today's debate.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt the motive of the leader of the New Democratic Party behind his suggestion, but I would say that we have to give some order to the proceedings of the House because it goes right to the root of the matter of the relevancy of speeches of members of parliament. I think it is most unfair and improper for a suggestion to be made-that is the essence of the suggestion made by the NDP, and I do not suggest that the motive is improper, but it would amount to the same thing in terms of the House-that members be put in the position of making a speech which might turn out to be irrelevant on a motion which may be ruled out of order.
So I should call Your Honour's attention to the fact that there is no lunch hour today and I certainly have no objection-nor, I am sure, does the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre have any objection since he has amended so many of our motions-if there were an arrangement to ensure sufficient time, at the end of the day perhaps, to replace the time that was taken up in arguing the procedural matter. I think it is extremely important to the whole business of opposition days. The whole business of amending opposition day motions has not been commenced by our party; it has been commenced by the very group which now complains.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Goodale: You get as good as you give.


Walter David Baker: I do think that even if that is the case, no one should be allowed to rise in the House and say he thinks the matter is irrelevant, and then sit down having advanced no argument at all. Then a person who is defending the motion is put in the position of presenting a point which has not yet been propounded except in the most general way.

May 13, 1977
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
This would reduce our procedures to a ridiculous state. I say that we should argue the point in the usual way. None of us will be very long in his arguments, but the arguments are extremely important, not just to the question but also the rules and procedures of the House of Commons. We should not do it in any other way than the one 1 suggest, with the greatest respect to the Chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: One of the points the hon. member just raised was the right of the official opposition to amend a motion. That right has not been taken away from them. Even if the amendment is out of order, this does not mean that his party is precluded from presenting another amendment. In this case I am ready, as I said, to listen to the arguments in the procedural debate,' and I welcome them. I was just cautioning hon. members and making them aware of the fact that the longer the procedural debate lasts, the less time hon. members will have to debate the subject matter of the motion before us or even to debate the proposed amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is still my determination to keep this as brief as I possibly can. In my first submission, although my friend, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) may not have heard it, I said clearly that there is no objection to an amendment being put down to an opposition day motion. It is perfectly in order to do so. We have often done it.


An hon. Member:: You'd better believe it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has been done quite a few times. I point out that our amendments have not taken away what was there; they have added something to it. What is wrong with this amendment is that it introduces a totally new proposition which is not relevant to the motion. The motion asks for a decision on the question of supporting Mr. Justice Berger's recommendation that there be no pipeline in the Mackenzie Valley for at least ten years. The amendment strikes all of that and replaces it with something else. That something else may be good, bad or indifferent, but it is a totally different proposition which can be presented to this House only on notice.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton seems to be trying to make me give one of my long speeches, and I could do it but I have no intention of doing so. However, I have made the case, as I see it, that the amendment is a totally different proposition which can only be made on proper notice and is not in order as an amendment to the motion before the House today.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of precedents with which you should be aware, and I am going to present them so you can have an opportunity to study them. The rulings are dated March 16, 1971; November 3, 1971; June 1, 1972; June 4, 1973; and May 14, 1975. Out of those rulings certain guidelines have come forward. First, it is not proper to amend opposition motions to

provide for an entirely new debate. This would be supported by Beauchesne, section 203(3), which reads this way:
An amendment setting forth a proposition which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved.
That is the first proposition. The second is that one of the standards of judgment would be the relevance of the original notice for the motion to the proposed amendment. If people would not be prepared for debate on the amendment by being prepared for the original motion, then the amendment obviously brings in a totally new debate. This does not do that, in my respectful submission. Third, it is not relevant to reject an amendment simply because it makes it easy or difficult to support the original question. The fact that the mover of the motion cannot support the amendment does not make the latter irrelevant, in my respectful submission.
Those are the rulings. These three points are a matter of judgment for Your Honour, and I suggest that the amendment we have brought forward is neither irrelevant nor does it raise an entirely new question. It brings in a modification of the proposal-I have to concede that-and it is most unlikely that the NDP, certainly in view of its position of some months ago, could vote for that amendment. I can see that. But the question was, and remains, if and when a pipeline should be built along the Mackenzie Valley. That is the question. That is the issue in the motion put by the leader of the New Democratic Party, and that is the subject matter of the motion put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).
The NDP feels that only the Berger commission is relevant, and the NDP is ready to confirm its original viewpoint. We want to examine all the reports before deciding. That is the purpose of our amendment. Our amendment is not an expanded negative, nor is it irrelevant to the motion. It interposes a necessary stage before the decision is made, but the focus of the decision remains exactly the same.


Ralph Goodale: You are not serious.


Walter David Baker: That is the situation. Let us think about it for a second. Anyone arguing the wisdom of endorsing Berger now without further consideration must, of necessity, address himself to the substance of the amendment, the need or lack of need for a study of other reports or recommendations. It is not my object to cause anyone-and I do not think there is any need-to change his or her speech in this debate, and I therefore feel that the amendment does not change the question we are dealing with when it proposes a relevant modification. That is the issue.
This matter is not merely one of procedure; it is a matter of ethics, and I think this is important to the operation of this House. Opposition days are divided among the opposition parties in strict proportion to numerical strength in this House, except on that basis the official opposition gets a day less than it ought to. Hon. members who have anticipated in this point of order may have noticed that the official opposition has not amended another party's motion for two years. We came to the conclusion that it is not right to give another party the choice of accepting an irrelevant amendment or wasting its
May 13, 1977

valuable time in argument. That is the decision we made some time ago. Hon. members may also have noticed that the NDP has amended almost every motion the official opposition has put forward this year.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: By adding to them.


Walter David Baker: We have not challenged any of them, even though some of them were wildly irrelevant. I am going to use those as precedents for the purpose of this argument. After complaints from my colleagues I spoke to the NDP House leader, the virtuous member for Winnipeg North Centre, and told him quite frankly that we thought his actions were unethical.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: He may not have liked it, but that is what we told him. He smiled that smile which has all the warmth of a gleam from a silver coffin and kept on moving amendments. Today when we do that, he begins to howl. 1 am not going to give the House all the examples of the amendments moved by the hon. member, but I will cite two examples which the Chair found to be acceptable, since they did not interpose. They intervened, which suggests to me that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has one standard for himself and another standard for everyone else in this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: The first example was the motion of February 10 of this year. We move the following motion:
That this House denounces the government's failure to generate jobs in Canada, particularly in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, and urges immediate and resolute action, including the early presentation of a budget.
The leader of the NDP, seconded by his House leader, moved a five-paragraph amendment. I am going to read the amendment because Your Honour will have to contrast it against the delightful simplicity of our motion as well as the subject matters which were introduced and which were held to be quite proper by the Chair at that time. The following was the amendment moved on February 10:
That the motion be amended by adding at the end thereof the following words: "This House also urges that the government
(1)	immediately decrease personal income taxes for those in the lower and middle incomes to stimulate purchasing power and take up the current slack in the economy,
(2)	immediately reactivate all federal capital works projects and encourage the provinces and municipalities to follow suit, and at the same time, lift any restraint on shared funding of such projects,
(3) immediately expand-in consultations with the provinces-the capital budgets for low income and co-operative housing and land assembly,
(4)	immediately launch an assisted repair and renovation program of homes owned by pensioners, the disabled and low-income families, and
(5)	immediately launch a program-in co-operation with the provinces-of insulating or improving the level of insulation in all residential buildings-a program which would provide not only jobs but would also conserve energy."
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
In other words, our opposition day which related to eastern Canadian unemployment was, by that amendment, not objected to by the Chair, turned into a standard NDP day in which they would tell us how they would collect billions less, spend billions more and at the same time combat inflation. That is the end of it. If that amendment, which the NDP House leader must have believed to be in order or he would not have advanced it, was in order and we use it as a guide in this matter, then I have no fears whatsoever for the amendment we have advanced today.
I will add, Mr. Speaker, that we could have used up the whole day in arguing procedural motions, but we did not. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the motion of February 23 in the course of the debate. We moved:
That this House regrets the failure of the government to develop and apply policies in the fields of the oil and gas non-renewable energy resources that are fair or just or adequate for the people or the provinces of Canada today or for the future.
That was a nice, straightforward motion. An amendment was put by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) to add these words:
-and this House expresses its opinion that the proposed construction of a Mackenzie Valley pipeline is not in the best interests of the Canadian people.
If anything, that departed from the matters that were held in our motion of that day. If that amendment was acceptable-and it was acceptable to the Chair in this House on that day-then our amendment must be perfectly in order. However, in light of the second amendment, Mr. Speaker should consider whether today's motion falls foul of the rule. This is the judgment the Chair will have to make having seen the NDP amendment of February 23. The Chair has to decide whether the NDP motion today falls foul of the rule against putting the same motion in the same session. That is exactly what they have done, and Your Honour might want to make some judgment on it. The House should wonder whether it is worth listening to people who declared over two months ago that their minds were made up before the evidence was in.


Ralph Goodale: That is what Joe Clark did on Monday.


Walter David Baker: My respectful submission to the Chair is that our amendment is a relevant modification of the main motion. It is certainly more relevant than the two concoctions of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) which I have just recited. The choice it offers is important to many hon. members. If Your Honour feels that some way could be devised to deal quickly with the relevancy of such amendments, I would be delighted; or if hon. members of the NDP would accept that no amendments should be moved to opposition day motions, we could avoid diversions such as the ones we are now involved with because of the objection of the greatest sinner in this House in terms of moving amendments.
Failing such agreement, we have as much right as hon. gentlemen to my left to move amendments. My respectful submission is that on the authorities and the precedents that

May 13, 1977
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
have been advanced by the persons who object today, this amendment falls well within the rules of order. It is my respectful submission that it ought to be allowed as one of the questions to be put to this House today for decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. As there does not seem to be any other participant in this procedural debate that 1 have invited, I would like to thank the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) for trying as hard as he has to enlighten the Chair. I will certainly take his remarks into consideration. Before I reserve my decision, however, I want to say that the latter part of his intervention is not exact, in the sense that the Chair or the House does not prevent him or any other member from moving amendments to motions that are before the House. Any member can do that. The fact that an amendment is not relevant does not mean that the Chair is taking away the right of a member to move an amendment. If an amendment is refused on its procedural acceptability, it is only because it does not correspond to the rules of the House or precedents. The rules of the House are the standard by which we operate and the only standard by which this House can progress. I will reserve my decision until a later time, and at this time I call upon the hon. President of the Privy Council.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: would like to join hon. members in expressing the appreciation of the government for volume I of Mr. Justice Berger's report. I know of no report submitted to the government which has been more thoroughly prepared and more clearly presented. Mr. Justice Berger has raised basic philosophical questions about the structure and values of Canadian society and the choices to be made in terms of meeting the interests of the Canadian north.
As has been mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, these issues must be addressed not only by the Canadian parliament but by the Canadian people as a whole. These are difficult issues. We all face the difficult problem of reconciling and balancing the needs of the native people both in terms of their traditional way of life and new employment opportunities for those that wish to become involved in Canadian industrial society, as well as our environmental heritage, our energy requirements and more general Canadian economic interests which might be served by so substantial a national enterprise as the construction of the pipeline.
I should like to remind hon. members that we face a timeframe in reaching a decision, but are under no obligation to approve a particular pipeline route or, indeed, any pipeline. Let me explain why. The United States needs Prudhoe Bay gas. We are all aware of the problems faced by the United States economy last winter because of gas shortages. We were able to help out to some degree, but that certainly is no permanent solution. We have our own requirements for gas not at present committed to the export market.
[Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).1
The President of the United States faces a legislative requirement to recommend a pipeline route by September 1, though he does have the power to postpone a decision for 90 days. I would not wish, however, to emphasize the legislative aspect as much as the underlying energy requirement. I think that all members in this House can understand why the United States Congress and administration wish prompt access to the significant quantities of energy available in Prudhoe Bay gas. If the only route for delivering this gas were across Canadian territory, this might present major political difficulties for Canada and, indeed, as some hon. members have suggested, it might appear that we were being pressured or blackmailed. Fortunately, this is not the case.
In their recent recommendations to the President, members of the Federal Power Commission considered a land route across Canada as a preferable means of delivering gas to the lower 48 states, but they were unanimous in their view that the El Paso alternative was a viable and acceptable alternative. As you know, this would involve movement of gas across Alaska, its liquefaction and subsequent shipment by tanker along the Pacific coast to a port in California.
There are possible advantages for Canada in one or the other overland route, and there are also costs and disadvantages. These must be, and are, assessed. It is for this reason that the government has commissioned studies over and above the normal consideration by the National Energy Board. Mr. Justice Berger has looked at the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline with regard to social, environmental and economic concerns. We look forward to the second volume of his report which will deal with terms and conditions which might be imposed at such time as a pipeline along the Mackenzie Valley might be constructed, to moderate its socioeconomic and environmental impact.
The government has also commissioned Dean Lysyk to undertake a socioeconomic inquiry on a pipeline route, known as the Alcan route, which would parallel the existing highway system in the southern Yukon, either along the main route of the Alaska Highway or via Dawson, as well as a possible spur to the Mackenzie Delta along the Dempster Highway. A separate environmental assessment panel has been established for this route by the Department of the Environment. The National Energy Board, for its part, has before it applications for the Canadian Arctic Gas route across the northern Yukon and down the Mackenzie Valley, the Foothills Maple Leaf route designed to carry Canadian gas only down the Mackenzie Valley, and the proposed Alaska Highway, Alcan route. The government understands that the board's report will be submitted in July.
Hon. members will recall, particularly those who were in the House when the National Energy Board Act was brought before the House by the then minister of industry, trade and commerce, Mr. Gordon Churchill, as I recall, of the government led by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that under the act the government can turn down
May 13, 1977

recommendations put forward by the National Energy Board but it cannot substitute recommendations of its own. In other words, we have a double veto with respect to pipeline construction. No pipeline can be built unless there is an affirmative decision both by the National Energy Board and the government on the basis of the board's recommendation. I would go further and say that in this context there is a triple veto, that of the National Energy Board, the government and parliament.


An hon. Member:: Coming from you, that is revolutionary.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I emphasize this point in order to underline that as matters now stand, a decision to have no pipeline is still an option for Canada. The assumption underlying the discussion is that this is not an alternative in principle. I say it is still an alternative. A decision to have no pipeline is still an option for this country. The El Paso alternative means that this need not impede United States access to Prudhoe Bay gas. As hon. members are no doubt aware, construction of an overland route across Canada has advantages for Canada in terms of earlier and more economic access to northern gas and in terms of economic activity generated in Canada by such a project. It would be foolish, therefore, for Canada not to study all factors in play within the time-frame available, that is, before the United States must decide on the El Paso route or an overland route.


Charles Joseph Clark: When is that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is why I welcome the Leader of the Opposition joining the government today, somewhat belatedly, in suggesting that all relevant reports must be taken into account-


Charles Joseph Clark: By a committee or parliament.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -before a decision is taken. I was under the impression, probably it was wrong, that the press had reported him on Tuesday as already having endorsed the main recommendations of the Berger report.


Ralph Goodale: He did.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not debate whether that change in opinion has occurred. It is important that the Leader of the Opposition has said today that no decision on this important question ought to be taken until all the evidence is in.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Right on.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is an extremely sound position which I have been arguing on behalf of the government ever since the Berger report has been produced. Of course, the NDP is obscurantist in the extreme. They seem to be able to make up their minds without hearing any evidence at all. They have, again, put on the order paper a motion which is totally premature and, to some extent, unfair to Mr. Justice Berger. I say that because even if this motion is turned down an inference could be drawn that in some way the House of
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
Commons is unsympathetic to the valuable work Mr. Justice Berger has done. I believe it is somewhat unfair to ask the House of Commons in a clear-cut decision to reject or accept a particular recommendation made by Mr. Justice Berger-


Charles Joseph Clark: You had better accept our amendment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -the validity of which can only be considered in terms of other relevant evidence which must be brought forward at a later date. Therefore, as a move to advance the national interest, the motion moved today by the New Democratic Party cannot be taken seriously for reasons already stated and to be stated in the course of the debate. In our view, Mr. Speaker, it would be most unwise to reach a decision until all the available information is in hand.


Gerald William Baldwin: Then why did Pierre make a promise to President Carter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would not wish, and I am sure most hon. members of the House would not wish, to reject a possible National Energy Board recommendation before it is submitted, any more than I would have wished to have taken a decision on pipelines in the absence of Mr. Justice Berger's recommendations. Today we are being asked to reject in advance a decision which may be submitted by the National Energy Board.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You had better support our amendment, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Prudent decision-making requires a timely choice amongst available options upon the basis of all available information. In the present case there are elements not yet available to the government, and we therefore will not be rushed into a decision until the National Energy Board's recommendations, Mr. Justice Berger's second volume, and Dean Lysyk's report and the environmental assessment on the Alaska route are available. Equally, Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to postpone a decision when the information is before us, since as is so often the case in this world an absence of a decision in itself is some kind of decision.
If we do not want a pipeline across Canada, we are free to turn it down, but I see no advantage in eliminating an overland pipeline option because we are unable to make up our mind or make it up on the basis of incomplete information. That is the basic position of the government. That is why I put on the order paper a motion which was referred to earlier by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent).
I did it for two purposes, basically. One is to provide a continuing opportunity for parliament, by calling this motion, to make its views known as the situation develops. If today our debate is not regarded as sufficient on the Berger report, I am prepared to recall the motion that I have put on the order paper at a later date and have a further debate, as I am prepared to call it later after the National Energy Board report is delivered so that we can have a further opportunity to

May 13, 1977
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
hear the views of parliament. The views of parliament will be clear before any decision is taken.
The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) made a somewhat similar proposal in the House of Commons on Tuesday of this week when he suggested in a motion:
That the government be instructed to initiate a full debate in this House concerning proposals for the construction of a northern pipeline once all of the relevant consultants, boards, commissions and committees have reported on the matters referred to them in connection therewith, and that no final decision be taken in connection with such matters until after full debate so that the views of members of the House as to what action should be taken in the national interest may be known.
I say "Amen" to that. That is the purpose of this motion. It provides a continuing opportunity for parliament to make its views known as additional information is brought forward before a final decision is taken. It also indicates that the government does not intend to take a decision on this matter until all the relevant information is before us. I cannot understand why the New Democratic Party, regardless of the validity of the point which it puts forward, would ask the House of Commons to take a premature decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the main objection to the motion put forward, it is premature and, I believe, unfair to the very valuable and historic report that has been brought forward by Mr. Justice Berger. I have read most of the report. 1 find it extraordinary that a serious political party would ask that we decide on Friday on a report of this enormous significance which was only produced and made available to members of parliament on Monday. On Friday of the same week they ask the government to make a decision on this fundamental matter before it has been considered by the Prime Minister and the cabinet as a whole.
I am sure hon. members, no matter how dutiful they are in terms of their other obligations, have not been able to give to the Berger report the attention it deserves in order to reach a proper decision on a motion of this kind on Friday of the same week. I Find it incredible that we should be asked to do that. For the reasons I have stated, we are not supporting the motion. It is premature. It is a prejudgment that is unsuitable in this case.
I cannot understand why the official opposition did not take proper precautions by taking this day for themselves and putting down their own motion, and not putting the House in the ridiculous position that it is in today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That option was open to the official opposition, because it was apparent to me that once the Berger report was tabled the first moment the NDP had an opportunity to put a motion it would put a motion asking us to accept the main recommendation of the Berger report. The Leader of the Opposition should have stopped them at the pass. He should have prevented them from spearing him in the way they

are doing through this motion. He could have avoided all that self-inflicted damage that is so apparent today.


Charles Joseph Clark: Are you supporting our amendment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I cannot say anything about the amendment that has been moved by the official opposition, because it is not before the House. It exists in some ethereal, procedural oblivion of never-never land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If it is ever put before the House-and I cannot see that it has any possibility of existing, from the procedural objections that have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition-we will take a position on it. However, we are not ready to take a position on this ethereal image that is temporarily dazzling the members of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. G6rard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, for a few minutes I should like to discuss the motion introduced today by the New Democratic Party concerning the inquiry report and the proposal by Mr. Justice Thomas Berger. It is obvious that the matter of building a pipeline in the Mackenzie Valley for the movement of natural gas or oil is of the utmost importance.
And the representative of the New Democratic Party was undoubtedly well inspired today in introducing such a motion. I do not mean that I agree entirely with the motion but I think the subject deserves consideration. However, without prejudging the decision to be made on the official opposition's proposed amendment to the NDP motion, I find it quite unreasonable that this method should be used during those allotted opposition days and that an attempt should be made to use the day of another opposition party to change almost entirely the subject matter to be discussed.
Mr. Speaker, even if the procedure allows it and there are precedents in that respect I think this habit should be discontinued to allow opposition parties to choose themselves the subject matter to be discussed-that is a thing for them to decide. For those reasons I think the amendment proposed by the Progressive Conservative Party, which by the way is quite incomplete, should not be accepted because if I wanted to be smart I could myself move a sub-amendment to their amendment.
I note that Justice Berger's inquiry required at least three years; he took three years to tour a vast spread of land to consult the natives, the white people living there, the companies involved in exploration or development, to determine the advantages and disadvantages of constructing a pipeline. And now, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party is asking us to appoint a committee to look into the inquiry that lasted three years. That committee could take three, five or ten years to look into Justice Berger's inquiry. No deadline is set.
May 13, 1977

I do not intend to support the amendment of the Progressive Conservative Party. Unfortunately, I cannot either support the motion of the New Democratic Party because I think that there must be development in this country. We need energy sources and we must develop those that are in existence and we must try to find others.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, in so doing we will upset someone or something, but had we never done anything in the past, we would still be in the Stone Age. I was not around at that time. Early in the century, when it was decided to build a railroad to develop the area where I now live, that is Abitibi, someone was disturbed. There were native people living there at the time. There were also wild animals around. So, someone was disturbed; still, that area was settled, and today it is one of the most beautiful in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, looking back even further, we realize that if the same objections had been made when our country was discovered, Canada would not be what it is today. That proves then that obstacles should not be put in the way of development. If you inconvenience someone, then you find ways of compensating them. A project is now being built in northern Quebec, in the riding I represent, Abitibi; I am talking about the James Bay hydroelectric project. There again, 1 may not agree completely with the methods used. The native people who lived there were not consulted. The area was invaded, without warning, without concern for the environment. What were the results? To say the least, the Indians and Inuit living there were inconvenienced. We should do the same in northwestern Canada, in the Mackenzie Valley or northern Yukon for those who will be disturbed, those who will be in one way or another deprived of their property, of their land. They should be compensated because they are being moved to other areas where they will be able to live and find a new life.
Mr. Speaker, if there is something to develop, if there truly are resources to develop in those areas, I think we should develop them. I have noted in the report a few sections which seem to indicate resentment against our southern neighbours benefitting from this development. For instance, the report says that a major part of the energy resources that will be developed lies in Prudhoe Bay and that this will mainly serve the American states, which seems to bother some people.
Mr. Speaker, I remember that in the early sixties, when we considered the development of the Columbia River in British Columbia, the objections raised were exactly the same. The development of the Columbia River was supposed to help mostly industrial development of the American west. There seems to be some objection to seeing the United States develop their industry. Mr. Speaker, I find this way of thinking somewhat small-minded and I believe that this development would help Canada itself through the routes and railways which will have to be built. This will allow, first exploration, and later development of any natural gas or oil found along the Mackenzie River. The existence of such resources would not be impossible on our own territory.
Mr. Speaker, I believe we should not interfere with this development. Of course, we must be careful. We must take all
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
necessary precautions to cause as few problems as possible in the area. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian engineers and technicians who have worked independently from the Berger Commission have also made some studies. The National Energy Board is now interested in this subject and will soon submit a report, at least I hope so. I believe that all these people are able to take the necessary action to minimize damages while allowing as much development as possible.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to the motion and as energy critic for the Progressive Conservative party I have to say quite frankly that I have not made up my mind on the issue of the pipeline or on what should be done on behalf of Canada or, indeed, what decision we should come to in the next few months. Unless you are a partisan in favour of one project or the other, or unless you are thinking blindly and come to the conclusion that there should be no more pipeline construction in Canada, no more damage to the environment and no more damage to the ecology, or that we should see no more spread of industrialization, I do not know how you can come to the opposite conclusion either. It is obviously too early for that.
Mr. Speaker, as I say, I have not made up my mind, and our party has not made up its mind yet. We do not intend to make a decision until we have examined the other reports which were referred to by our leader and by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). When we have had a chance to study these reports we will then make our decision.
I will deal with some of the remarks of the President of the Privy Council first. He has come a long, long way since the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) began some weeks ago to insist that this matter be debated in the House of Commons before the government reaches a decision. We are now in the position, Mr. Speaker, of seeing the government today stating for the first time that before it makes a decision on the question of a pipeline it will permit a debate to take place in the House of Commons in which it will listen to the viewpoints expressed. It will then make a decision. This is what the President of the Privy Council has told us today, and this is something entirely new. He has been brought to his senses- and to his knees-by the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: And the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Horner) has been brought to his knees also. Berger lives despite Horner. Despite Horner, Berger is alive. Now, Mr. Speaker, we want one further concession from the President of the Privy Council before he leaves office following the next election. We want a committee of this House to be appointed to consider the Berger Report and then later to consider the Lysyk Report, the NEB Report, and the other reports as they become available. We do not want to spend weeks or months

May 13, 1977
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
visiting the communities in order to hold hearings but we do want members of this House to have a chance to question Mr. Justice Berger on how he arrived at his conclusions. We do want the chance to question the NEB on how they arrived at the conclusions in their report. And we do want to hear from Dean Lysyk on how he arrived at his conclusions. That is why we want a committee. It will give members of the House with interests in energy and in northern and Indian affairs an opportunity to discuss the question before it is debated in the House.
If the President of the Privy Council can twist the Prime Minister's arm that is, if he ever comes back to Canada-and get him to make that concession, then he will have gone a long way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Hon. gentlemen opposite are very touchy. Once one criticizes the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) they get all upset. Perhaps there are going to be more cabinet promotions for those who are the most upset at anyone criticizing the Prime Minister.
The government should support our ethereal amendment if the Speaker finds that it is in order. The President of the Privy Council kindly referred to my motion on Tuesday. I did not know that I had any influence on this government whatever, but it has now been acknowledged that the motion that I moved on Tuesday is now the government's policy. I am delighted to have them steal my ideas.


An hon. Member:: And you did not have to walk across the floor to do it either.


John Carnell Crosbie: No, I did not have to join the cabinet to have that happen. The President of the Privy Council said he thought that the official opposition should have moved a motion to cut the NDP off at the pass. Why should we prevent the NDP from cutting their own throats? The sooner they cut them, the better. They certainly cut them today. Has anyone ever seen a more foolish motion than the motion of the leader of the NDP? His motion was premature, pre-historic, and hysteric. His mind was made up pre-Berger. His mind was made up before a pipeline was ever suggested. His mind was made up on this issue 30 years ago. It does not matter who is going to make a report.
On February 23 the NDP moved a motion. Did they have copies of Mr. Justice Berger's report on February 23, or are they so omniscient that they knew what he was going to propose? Are we to expect that they are supernatural beings? I do not think so, because they have shown that they have feet of clay, and that clay is going to bury them today.
Not only has the NDP come to the conclusion that there should be no pipeline, that it should not go down the Mackenzie Valley, despite the fact that Justice Berger made a positive recommendation that the route was all right but that he wanted there to be time to settle other matters first-not only

have they cast aside the Mackenzie Valley and Delta route, but they have now decided that there should be an Alcan pipeline. What kind of supermen do we have? Before Dean Lysyk even makes his report the leader of the NDP has come to the conclusion that the Alcan route is the route the pipeline should take, from Alaska down through the Yukon, into B.C. and Alberta, and on to the United States. I marvelled when I heard these hon. gentlemen make such a quick decision before the report is even in.
The leader of the NDP said that so long as financial guarantees are not required the Alcan route is the one that should be adopted. He wants three months more for the Lysyk committee to report. Why does he want this time? He has made up his mind that we do not need the Lysyk inquiry. The leader of the NDP has made himself a laughing stock, as anyone who reads today's Hansard and reads the premature conclusions he has come to will concede.
The Leader of the Opposition does not need the National Energy Board. If he ever becomes Prime Minister he will eliminate the National Energy Board.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: If any hon. gentlemen want the floor, they can speak after me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. gentleman for St. John's West was recognized, and if anyone wishes to participate in the debate or interject, they must address their remarks to the Chair, or raise a point of order. But they must first be recognized.


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know whether the hon. member for St. John's West was getting carried away with his own rhetoric, but he suggested that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) would do away with the National Energy Board. I believe he meant to say the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent).


John Carnell Crosbie: I am glad to have that correction, Mr. Speaker. The leader of the NDP would do away with the NEB because he has already found that we have sufficient gas supplies without using frontier gas to last us till the 1990's. What a piece of puffery. We all remember the three monkeys, Mr. Speaker: they see no evil, they hear no evil, and they speak no evil. The leader of the NDP sees no pipeline, he hears no pipeline, and he speaks no pipeline. The poor fellow, we have to pity him. That is the position of the NDP. I hope our ethereal motion will come before the House so we have something we can get our teeth into.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I can see they do not like that, Mr. Speaker. Let them all shout and bawl, but they will not out-shout me.
The position taken by the Leader of the Opposition today was entirely consistent with the position that he took on Monday, the position he took a month ago and five months ago, when he said that Justice Berger's report was excellent,
May 13, 1977

an important step in the process. But he wanted to ensure that there would be an opportunity for parliament to consider, not simply that report, but also have access to all available consultants' reports which had been prepared, and to have a full debate after the NEB had reported on reserves and on the pipeline applications which are now before it. That is exactly what our position is today.
When we are considering the Berger report-a first class document and anyone who reads it will be impressed-we must realize that changes are in store, not just for Indian and native people, but for all Canadians, if we cannot overcome the energy crisis, if we cannot ensure that we can heat and light our homes and factories in the future as we have in the past. Unless we can overcome these problems, life might well change for all Canadians. Canadians are not taking sufficient alarm at what faces them with respect to energy in the future. One reason why they are not thinking sufficiently about it is that the government has no policy in the field of energy. It is a government which, when you ask a question, responds with a timid titter. When you ask this government a question about its energy policy, you get no information. A smile is no substitute for the truth or for an informative answer when questions are asked. There are too many happy titters running through this House.
The government has no energy policy. It has strategies, it has techniques, it has documents, it files reports, but it has no policy. What has it done which is in any way effective in the field of energy conservation? Canada's energy needs on the supply side are not going to be met without a fantastic effort toward conservation in Canada.
In the United States of America their goal is to have no more than a 2 per cent increase in the use of energy per year. Our timid Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) has a goal of Vh per cent per year. A goal of less than 3.5 per cent was announced in May, 1976. I am tired of this government announcing goals. I want to hear it announce a policy and to tell us how it is going to fulfil that policy.
I have here a document put out by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources comparing President Carter's energy conservation proposals with the minister's own mouselike steps. On the one side we have the United States latest energy growth in demand of 2 per cent, and that is quite explicit. On the other side the minister says he has a goal of less than 3.5 per cent, an announcement made in May, 1976. This is typical Canadian bureaucratic obfuscation. He says a further analysis suggests that a 2 per cent growth rate may be feasible. Did you ever hear anything so foolish?
Because the United States has set a target of 2 per cent, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources now says 2 per cent may be feasible here. What steps is the minister going to take to achieve that target? Is he going to do it by having energy conservation programs in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and discriminating against the other eight provinces of Canada? He is slithering around now because he knows he is in trouble in oil and gas price changes by saying he may extend it to the other eight provinces of Canada. If there is an
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
election this fall, he will have it done before the fall. If it is not this year, then he will have it done before next year. It is not going to help him because the people of Canada are going to remember his great energy conservation policy applied only in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. That is not what we want.
We want a true energy conservation policy with some muscle behind it. We want the minister to get together with the ten provinces of Canada. If the provinces are not doing their share-and most of them are not-we want the minister to persuade them that together they have got to start an emergency program of conservation and more efficient use of energy. The answer is not on the supply side only. We are never going to be self-sufficient in supply. It is going to be too expensive.
The hon. minister opposite has no hydro policy either. His hydro policy is lacking. There are hydro sources throughout northern Canada that can be developed. There are certainly many thousands of megawatts. The minister is doing nothing about that. He is letting them lie fallow. There is no assistance program for those sources, many of which lie in less wealthy provinces which cannot develop them with their own financial resources. The minister is doing nothing there. He has no hydro policy. It is time he got his water aroused and got a hydro policy.
What is the minister doing on the tar sands? The tar sands are lying idle. There was one project-Syncrude. What has happened since? What is going to happen in the tar sands? What is the minister doing for exploration? He is doing nothing.
The government of Alberta did something. Last year exploration and development in Alberta burgeoned up. I am not saying it "Bergered up"; I am saying it burgeoned up. What is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources doing to see that we get more of the tar sands developed? He is doing less than nothing. The gentleman should resign, unless he can start making some progress in these areas. What is he doing for heavy oil? He is doing less than nothing. Will the Minister without Portfolio help direct his mind in these directions? He is trying to direct his mind into an anti-Berger direction, but will he use his influence? Will he try to get the government to adopt some kind of policy? We know we are going to see some fantastic changes in Liberal policy now that the Minister without Portfolio is there. The lion has returned.
1 am not one of those who scoff at the oil and gas companies and the chances and risks they are taking. I think something should be said about them occasionally-what they are trying to do and what they are risking. I am referring to companies such as Dome Petroleum. I know we have a very risky, tricky situation in the Beaufort Sea. Canada is lucky to have entrepreneurs and companies which are willing to risk millions of dollars on long shots to develop the technology and try to find and develop the resources with it. Although I think it is time a good word was said about them and the rest of the oil and gas

May 13, 1977
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
producers in Canada, they have to be regulated in the public interest. I think they should be praised because of the fact they are willing to go for the long shot, to invest their money and wait years before they have any return. We should keep that in mind.
What are some of the questions to be considered before we decide whether Mr. Justice Berger's recommendations should carry the day? He has reported on certain aspects. We have got to decide on Canada's economic situation. What is the expense going to be on our balance of payments if we do not bring gas from the frontier areas down into the area along the Canadian border? What would be the effect on the balance of payments? The picture is grim. The picture with respect to oil shows us as having a deficit on the balance of payments accounts with respect to oil alone if present projections go ahead and even with conservation of $5 billion or $6 billion by 1985. What about that? Are we going to need gas to replace some of that oil to help us with our balance of payments problem? Because of this government, we know Canada is fast sinking down into the sink hole in its international trade and balance of payments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: If Canada can be saved with a change of government, then it should come this year rather than next year. Hon. gentlemen opposite should get their nerve up and call an election. It may be another year before we can start saving Canada. We have got to keep the balance of payments in mind. We have to keep the financing conditions in mind. We have to keep in mind the economic activity that will be developed in Canada if the pipeline does go ahead.
One thing we should not do is to make a premature decision. Neither the government nor parliament should make a premature decision. Because the United States of America passes legislation which indicates they want to make their decision by September 1 or 90 days thereafter, that should have no effect here in Canada. If it takes us another six months, we should tell them it is going to be six months, and they can change their legislation. Who ever heard of anything so foolish as the President of the Privy Council saying that we have to decide in August because the Congress of the United States passed legislation a year or two ago saying that the President has to recommend something by September 1? I say to the United States Congress, "Get your amendment ready. You might have to change it from September 1 to March 1, or even to June 1. If you do not want to wait until we are ready to make our decision in our national interest, go ahead and bring it down by LNG tanker from Alaska". We are not going to be rushed or hurried because the government of another country passes legislation. Has anyone ever heard of anything so foolish?
If we could properly make a decision, if the Lysyk report were on time and we had enough time to consider it, perhaps by December 1 we would be in a position to do it. We would not be in a position to do it by September 1. There is no government in this world, unless it were composed of the

leader of the NDP, which could decide this issue by next September 1 properly and give all the various facts their proper consideration. The Leader of the New Democratic Party, if he were the Prime Minister, would have solved the whole thing five years ago. He would not have had a Mr. Justice Berger. He would not have needed him. There would be no pipeline.
The final twist today is: what about the Yukon Indians? Mr. Justice Berger has dealt with the Indian and native people along the Mackenzie Valley. He has not gone into detail concerning how they would be affected by the other area of the Alcan route. The Leader of the NDP is prepared to abandon the fewer number of Indians who are there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman that his allotted time has expired.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) said earlier, we are going to vote against this motion today, not because we are opposed to or decided on its substance or the arguments in its favour, but because it is premature. It is premature because parliament has established a National Energy Board to consider, among other things, pipeline applications, and to advise the government accordingly. For the government to accept or reject the principal Berger recommendations at this time would be an affront to parliament and the institutions established by parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: What would the NDP say if the National Energy Board report happened to be published first? It was only an accident that it was not. If that report were published before the Berger report and the government were to make its decision on that basis without waiting for the Berger report, what would they have said? Obviously they would have cried murder, and justly so, if we had dealt with the National Energy Board report merely because it came out first and had not waited for the other principal report in this matter. It so happens that the Berger report has been published first by accident. That is no reason for a response now without examining the others.
If the government is to be fair and responsible, our response to whether we build a pipeline at all; what route it should follow; whether it should be delayed for ten years or any other period, must be based on a thorough study of the Berger report, the National Energy Board report, the Lysyk report and all other relevant documents. Any other course of action would be clearly irresponsible and even dishonest. Therefore we will vote against the motion, as I said, not because we oppose the substance but because it is premature.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 13, 1977


William Warren Allmand: I will not even take issue with the arguments put forward by the NDP to support its motion. I will, however, put forward the government's position on some of the questions involved and where we presently stand on land claims.
Mr. Justice Berger in volume I of his report has given us a timely, thoughtful, and eloquent commentary on a very complex situation existing in the Mackenzie Valley at present. It is a report of very direct significance for me as the Minister responsible for Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It reflects in a coherent way many of my current pre-occupations and appreciations relating to native land claims, economic development and political evolution in the Northwest Territories. It was clear from the proceedings of the Berger inquiry, whether in the representative public meetings held in the large centres or in the less formal small gatherings in the tiny communities, that the Berger Commission was receiving evidence on a whole range of concerns. These concerns were triggered by the pipeline applications but extended well beyond them in terms of both content and implication.
Many of the same concerns have been raised in other forums and at earlier times. Some are less well known than others. Some are susceptible of effective government response, others raise real difficulties that are not easily overcome.
Judge Berger was asked to make recommendations in relation to the pipeline applications. In the course of his inquiry he has heard references to a whole range of problems that have been raised by various people in the Mackenzie Valley. Accordingly, his report does make certain recommendations that will be considered by the government in the months to come, along with other advice and recommendations on the same subject.
He also makes comments on other issues and problems that are valuable, and especially to me as the minister concerned with Indian and Inuit affairs, because they bear directly on key aspects of the government's continuing responsibilities for and relationships with these native groups.
In the first place there is much that I can agree with in the commission's assessment of the needs and aspirations of the northern native peoples. I am aware of their concerns-many of them shared by Indians generally in this country-about the threats to Indian and Inuit identity that are inherent in the rapid economic and social development all around them.
Since assuming my responsibilities as minister I have had frequent occasion to assure representatives of the Indian people, both in public and private meetings, that the government is committed to continuing its special responsibilities in relation to them; to safeguarding their Indian status, rights and interests; to ensuring their continuing Indian identity within Canadian society. This commitment is expressed and reflected in a whole range of policies and activities the government is pursuing at the present time north and south of the 60th parallel.
This can best be illustrated by the following quotations from current policies of the government: first, from a statement
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
entitled "Canada's north 1970-1980" made in March, 1972, which reads as follows:
The people of the north have survived for many centuries in spite of the harsh conditions prevailing there. In recent decades the native northerners have been offered new opportunities and facilities for strengthening their capacity to survive. But survival for them must be more than mere subsistence supplemented by government subsidy. It must above all permit the people themselves to make their own choices as to the place they wish to occupy and the part they wish to play, in the evolving society of Canada, north and south of the 60th parallel.
Second, the statement on claims of Indian and Inuit people, released on August 8, 1973, which reads as follows:
The government has been fully aware that the claims are not only for money and land, but involve the loss of a way of life. Any settlement, therefore, must contribute positively to a lasting solution of cultural, social and economic problems that for too long have kept the Indian and Inuit people in a disadvantaged position within the larger Canadian society.
Third, a directive to all directors general of the Indian affairs program issued by the minister on July 26, 1976, enclosing a paper entitled, "Approach to Government-Indian Relationship", which reads as follows:
The emphasis of the approach is on processes of joint participation in policy/program developments with organized Indian leadership at all levels. In conveying to you this paper, I intend that you should be guided at all times by this approach, the various implications of which are summarized in the paper. The approach would also serve as a broad policy framework for all federal departments and agencies having programs that affect status Indians, with heavy emphasis on systematic consultation among departments concerned both in Ottawa and in the field.
These policies are reflected in the processes established and contemplated under the National Indian Brotherhood-Cabinet Committee, in the claims negotiations, in the progressive transfer of authority and resources to Indian bands, and Indian people.
Judge Berger has also commented about the need for a partnership of interests between government and the native peoples. This is something else that I subscribe to whole-heartedly and that has become a principal thrust of departmental effort, during the past year or so, toward an improved relationship with the Indian people.
In a wide subject area including housing, education, economic development, and Indian Act revision, departmental officials and I have been engaged in closely-knit, joint working arrangements intended and designed to arrive at agreed accommodations of policy and program, whereby the Indian people can take charge of their own affairs in ways of their own choosing.
I agree with Judge Berger that the Indian and Inuit groups in the north must have freedom and latitude, in making their own choices about how they wish to run their own affairs. It is basic to the government's current Indian and northern policy that self-government, education, municipal services and economic development in native communities should reflect native values and take into account suggestions advanced by communities themselves. This is a key consideration in the negotiation of comprehensive land claims and in the proposed political consultation that I will be mentioning later.
The Berger report refers frequently, though not precisely, to native institutions, including their own political institutions.
5646

May 13, 1977
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
We have already seen in the James Bay Agreement the establishment of various institutions, controlled by Indian and Inuit groups, for governmental and developmental purposes. We have seen that Indian and Inuit peoples of the James Bay area are to have ensured representation on governmental bodies concerned with such key matters as land use, environmental protection, and game management.
The government is not wedded to any particular model for achieving and ensuring native self-government along those lines, but it is committed to ensuring that effective native participation is brought about. This is an essential and central element in our approach to comprehensive land claims in the north, in both the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
Since the Berger report emphasizes the significance of native claims, it may be helpful if I summarized the status of the various claims arising in the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
In the Yukon, representatives of the council for Yukon Indians, the federal and territorial governments, have established a co-operative planning process which is providing a new and effective framework for discussion and negotiation, and serves as well to inform all Yukoners about claims developments as they occur. This process functions under a Yukon planning council, which has reached agreement on the goals of settlement, and set up several working groups to examine the issues and prepare mutually agreed solutions. If the current rate of progress were to continue, an agreement in principle could be reached before the end of this year.
The Inuit of the Northwest Territories, represented by the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, submitted in February of 1976 their proposals, entitled "Nunavut", for the settlement of Inuit land claims in the territories. A number of clarification meetings were held before September of last year when the Inuit representatives decided to consult further with their communities on the claim. The government is expecting to receive a revised proposal later this year.
The Indian Brotherhood of the Northwest Territories, representing the Dene, presented its proposals to the government last October. Among other things, the brotherhood seeks to establish an Indian territory in the Mackenzie Valley. Since last October there have been several meetings with the brotherhood aimed at clarifying various elements of the Dene position, including the issue of an Indian territory. The questions that have emerged are very complex and relate very directly to the future political evolution of the Northwest Territories.
The Metis Association of the Northwest Territories has prepared a discussion paper concerning its land claim in the Mackenzie Valley, which is now being reviewed by native communities in the valley. The association has indicated that it will submit its claim to the government by July 1.
Finally, I have just received settlement proposals from the Committee for Original Peoples' Entitlement, known as COPE, which represents 2,000 Inuit people in the Mackenzie

Delta. COPE is particularly concerned about the increasing pressures of population and resource development in this area, and it has expressed a wish to work out an agreement in principle before a decision is made on a northern pipeline. We shall be studying COPE's proposals and discussing them with COPE in the months ahead.
The effective presentation of these complex native claims proposals is the product of research and other claims development activity which has been directly funded by the federal government, through our department. Since 1972 nearly $7 million have been provided to native northern associations for these purposes, including $1.6 million to the Indians of the Yukon, $1.7 million to the Indians and Metis of the Mackenzie Valley, and $3.3 million to the Inuit.
The political responsibilities, economic and social benefits, and practical working arrangements that the various native groups do achieve through patiently negotiated claims processes are to be incorporated in enabling legislation, including, above all, special enactments of the federal parliament. This procedure has been contemplated from the outset in the government's policy on comprehensive claims, enunciated in August, 1973.
It is intended to give Indian and Inuit rights and interests in this country precise definition, lasting effect, and the full protection of Canadian law. The basic aim of the government in this regard is not to diminish or dilute the identity and culture of these native peoples, but to safeguard them. It is also to promote their self determination within Canadian society to the extent that this is possible in contemporary circumstances. Judge Berger's report is much concerned with self determination for native peoples in the north, and it refers to several aspects, some of which I have already mentioned. In our Indian and northern policies at the present time we are concentrating on goals and measures that improve the prospects for political self determination and economic self-reliance in native communities. The two go hand in hand.
The Berger Report refers at some length to the native economy in the Mackenzie Valley, and particularly to the traditional pursuits of hunting, fishing, and trapping. I am largely in agreement with what it has to say about the importance of these pursuits to the native peoples and about the related questions of surface land use and environmental protection.
The report also lays heavy emphasis on the need to diversify the economy of the Northwest Territories. It suggests that more reliance be placed on modernizing the methods used in native pursuits, encouraging small industries and promoting tourism. These are among approaches that have been considered from time to time and that are being pursued by the federal and territorial governments, but not always with great success.
Far from ruling them out in the future, I believe that we need to renew such efforts with greater energy, innovation, and commitment on the part of all concerned. It goes without saying that the various sectors of the rather fragile economy that exists in the northern territories are closely interdepend-
May 13, 1977

ent, whether they are under the control of government, private industry, or the various native groups. The Berger Report assumes that resource development and related activity will continue and should do so, as long as it complements, rather than displaces, the traditional mixed economy of the native communities.
The northern economy is, moreover, sharply affected by external factors such as inflation, transportation costs, and non-renewable resource activity, or the lack of it. Judge Berger has noted these factors, among others, in his comments on the economic impacts of pipeline construction. They would exist whether or not a pipeline was built in the Mackenzie Valley in the near future or after a delay.
As the report suggests, the small, predominantly native communities, with their involvement in native economic pursuits, are perhaps better able to weather changes and fluctuations in the northern economy than the larger, mixed communities where the local enterprise tends to be largely in the service sector and in support of major resource development. This accounts in part for the concerns being expressed in Yellowknife and in other towns in the Northwest Territories about the Berger Report.
It also underlines what we have increasingly realized, and what the Berger evidence reinforces: that there must be a more cohesive strategy of economic development in the Northwest Territories, and in the Yukon for that matter. It must be shaped in the north through participation of all the interests involved there: government, industry, and native peoples. It must be related to claims negotiations and settlements and to constitutional development in each of the two territories during the coming years.
Most of the tensions and pressures in the Northwest Territories today can be traced to three major sources: first, the general demand for a greater degree of self-government; second, the determination of the native peoples to gain recognition and power through land claims; and third, the urgent need for direction and pacing in the development of the economy. These three factors, and the disruptive forces they let loose, interact among themselves and bear heavily on the whole question of how the Northwest Territories is to evolve politically in the years to come.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. minister that his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few minutes to go, and I thank the House for its permission.
As Judge Berger has suggested, the way we resolve these issues and situations in the north may tell us quite a lot about ourselves and our country. Certainly there are some national implications of grand magnitude, beginning with the claims settlement that can be contemplated.
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
The various processes set up for negotiating land claim settlements are not sufficient to serve all the major purposes involved in the north. Neither are the normal processes and channels for government to government communication. Both these processes will continue and, no doubt, grow in importance, but in addition there is an apparent need for an essentially political process of consultation and negotiation about constitutional issues. It should be systematic, action oriented, and ongoing, under the direct guidance of the minister responsible. It should have for its mandate and framework for conducting business a broad policy statement endorsed by the federal government and take into account the various views which have been expressed by all interested groups in the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
[DOT] (M50)
During recent months I have been engaged in preliminary consultations with these groups about the policy statement and political process I have in mind. Once these preliminary discussions have been concluded, I intend to make recommendations to cabinet about the whole matter. Although I would be the last person to underestimate the complexity of the issues involved, I am hopeful that the proposed policy statement can be ready for publication this summer.
I believe we are indebted to Mr. Justice Berger for the way in which he has carried out his demanding task. 1 have already indicated ways in which views expressed in his report related to my responsibilities as minister and to those of the government in the north. To have these important matters presented in this informative, comprehensive, and readable report is bound to enhance public understanding of the major issues involved.
Before concluding I wish to add a few words about the board of inquiry, announced on April 19, 1977, to examine in a preliminary way the socio-economic aspects of the proposed Alaska highway gas pipeline. Its establishment followed consultations with the Yukon territorial government and the Council for Yukon Indians, both of whom are represented on the board. In this way this inquiry is different from the Berger inquiry.
In the course of public hearings in the Yukon, the board is to review the application for construction of the pipeline in order to identify areas in which additional information should be provided by the applicant and where further studies may be required.
As well, the board is to advise me of the measures that should be taken, including arrangements for a further inquiry, to produce a final socio-impact statement upon which specific terms and conditions could be developed for the construction and operation of the pipeline in the event that the Alaska highway application receives approval in principle.
I emphasize the preliminary nature of this inquiry and of the report the board is asked to make by August 1. I do this because of some suggestions in the press that Dean Lysyk and his colleagues have been asked to carry out in three months a task that occupied Judge Berger for nearly three years. What
80016- llVi

May 13, 1977
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
seems to have been overlooked is that the Berger Commission conducted its own preliminary inquiry before engaging in more detailed investigations. The Lysyk Commission will not deal in environment or conditions for construction at this time.
Concurrent with this board of inquiry under Dean Lysyk, the environmental assessment and review process of the Department of the Environment will be examining environmental matters, and there will be continuous exchanging of information between the two investigatory bodies.
The Yukon board faces a major challenge in trying to arrive at preliminary findings in a relatively short time. Judge Berger's report suggests, however, that the socio-economic impacts in the southern Yukon may not be as severe as those encountered in the Northwest Territories. In any event, the experience and reports of the Berger inquiry, the first of its kind in Canada, should greatly assist Dean Lysyk and his colleagues in carrying out their assignment.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank hon. members for the additional time given me, and I assure them and the Indian people of Canada again that while we are voting against this motion we are doing so simply because it is premature.


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, the concluding remarks of the minister astound me. I find it rather difficult to accept the argument that he and hon. members who spoke earlier on this motion have made. They say they cannot support the motion. They say that, even after three years of very careful and hard work done by Mr. Justice Berger.
The motion reads as follows:
That this House urges the government to accept the principal recommendation of the Berger Report that no pipeline be built in the Mackenzie Valley for at least ten years.
That is a straightforward motion.
I wish to start out by stating very categorically that I wholeheartedly support the report brought down on Monday by Mr. Justice Berger. It is a totally comprehensive analysis of a most important issue. In its style it is forthright, and therefore I believe that you either have to be for it or against it, and I personally feel that anyone against the recommendations in the report is either fooling himself or, even worse than that, is rather shortsighted.
The magnitude of the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline is, to say the least, immense. I say that for several reasons. As Justice Berger points out, this endeavour is the greatest construction project ever contemplated by private enterprise. The impact upon the north, especially the western Arctic, is massive. And, due to the issues involved, the proposed undertaking assumes international importance. Consequently it would be foolhardy to try to minimize any of the matters we are dealing with here.
From the beginning the NDP has pushed for consideration and evaluation of such a proposed undertaking. Indeed it was due to our prodding that the Berger Commission was initially established. We feel that it is absolutely essential that, rather
(Mr. Allmand.]
than push blindly ahead, we should have a clear picture of our energy needs, to determine, in the first place, if and when such activity might be necessary. In addition, we are concerned about the environmental matters, and, most important, the social impact on the northern people, especially the northern native population. It is consideration of these issues which we sought, and now we have the Berger recommendations. It is essential that we proceed with reasoned caution and try to do what is right.
Mr. Justice Berger has come out very strongly against any pipeline in the northern Yukon. The environmental concerns are of utmost importance, and any headlong rush to development and exploitation could cause catastrophic and irreparable damage in that area.
Maybe people in the south, environmental and conservation groups notwithstanding, are more accustomed to pollution and the like, and possibly are a bit more complacent, though this is changing. We in the north, who have historically had a very close relationship with the land, are very much aware of the tenuous state of the relationship. Justice Berger has explained, at great lenght, the potential dangers to the environment which would result from such an undertaking. It certainly would be difficult to argue with his conclusions as to the environmental impact that could be inherent in such a venture. But there may be those who would be willing to sacrifice the clean waters, the rare wildlife, and unspoiled land, for what they consider more important things. We all well know that it has been done before. However, let us be clear about one thing; if not immediately, then over the long run, we would be doing a grave disservice to this country.
I have no intention of going into great detail on this; but surely we are all aware by now of the often catastrophic and, usually, unforeseen results that have occurred where man has interfered with the balance of nature. And I assure you that there are very fewer areas where nature exists in such a delicate balance as it does in the north. It is a harsh land, with its own unique beauty; but due to the existing conditions, the slightest upset could have far-reaching detrimental effects. I really cannot over-state the importance of this. But this is not the only matter which we must take into consideration. There is even a very bigger concern. It should be no surprise that that concern is the people, especially the people of the north. At this point we must consider seriously the social, cultural and economic importance of such an enterprise as the building of a northern pipeline.
As Mr. Justice Thomas Berger points out, Euro-Canadian society has not taken native culture seriously. At best, its attitude can be described as patronizing. Now I admit that this is changing. It might not be changing as fast as we would like, but it is changing. Certainly people are becoming more aware of the importance of our native cultural heritage. We have seen the damage that has occurred to our way of life since the coming of the white man. It is not overly dramatic to say that the social fabric, especially in the part of the country I represent, has been torn apart. Depression and frustration in trying to cope with-or evade-the white man's lifestyle have
May 13, 1977

led to social breakdown, to alcoholism, and even suicide. Now we want to change this. We want to retain control over our lives and take our rightful place in Canadian society. But we also want to be accepted on an equal footing.
As 1 have said many times inside and outside this House, we want to be accepted as native people, not as brown white men.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter (Wally) Firth: Who can say this is unfair? It is pretentious to say that so and so discovered the north. Our people have survived in the harsh environment of the north for a very long time. And when the white man came, we helped him and shared with him, as is our custom. I ask, should we now be forced to take a back seat? Most emphatically I say, no!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter (Wally) Firth: Our people, in great numbers and with essentially one voice, said it to Mr. Justice Thomas Berger. That point is extremely important, Mr. Speaker. He listened to our views, and was made aware of this sentiment. He was made aware of the fact that central to this feeling was the feeling of the people that they need to gain legal control of our land.
Please note that I used the word "legal." It is difficult for a native person to accept that he might not have control over land on which he and his forefathers have lived, hunted and fished from time immemorial. We native people realize that our destiny is tied to an important decision which must be made, the decision to settle the land claims of the people of the Northwest Territories, the land claims of the native population. We have always understood the value and worth of the land; perhaps we did not look at it in terms of ownership, as white society does. Now we are looking at it with different eyes. First of all we are now thinking of owning the land, which was not our concept in the past. We now realize that only if we own the land can we achieve the necessary control. Only that way can we control the direction of our lives and the direction in which we want our society to go. In this respect I suggest that we want no more than the rest of the Canadian population wants.
We also understand that in future we may take our wealth from the land in a manner different from that of the past. 1 do not think I can improve on the words of Mr. Justice Thomas Berger who said, on page 18 of his report:
Native society is not static. The things the native people have said to this inquiry should not be regarded as a lament for a lost way of life, but as a plea for an opportunity to shape their own future out of their own past. They are not seeking to entrench the past, but to build on it.
There are those who feel that the land claims could be settled even if the pipeline went ahead. I disagree. With the examples of James Bay and other examples behind us, the native people believe that land claims must be settled first. With this Mr. Justice Berger concurs. Frankly, given all the implications of the question, I fail to see how any fair minded person can disagree.
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
Those who say we should proceed at once with a pipeline also argue that the economic development of the north depends upon such immediate action. With such a view, as well, I must disagree.
We need to look at some basic questions. What would be the real impact of the pipeline, in a purely economic sense? Certainly there is a lot of money involved. But in return for the incredibly large capital outlay, what are the long-term prospects? Aside from anticipated, increased exploration activity along the pipeline, which would add considerably to the environmental and social impact, what, I ask, would be the effect on substantial economic development? We must be realistic. It is proposed that the line will carry gas, and perhaps eventually oil, to the south, the implication being that no spin-off industries are to be expected. And what of the construction companies, hotels, restaurants, supermarkets and so on which could spring up? How many enterprises of such magnitude can we expect will be established? I agree with the words of Mr. Justice Berger, who said:
... the Mackenzie Valley pipeline could produce a serious distortion of the small business sector of the Northwest Territories. This would raise problems for the orderly development of regional, economic and commercial activity in the long run.
That is why I say we cannot afford to put blinkers on when looking at this proposal. We cannot and must not be shortsighted. There is far too much at stake. It would be an illusion-we would really be fooling ourselves-if we thought the pipeline would solve our economic problems.
Finally, I wish to state again my support for the recommendations against the building of the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Further, I wish to add my conditional support to the proposed Alcan route. I say conditional, because many questions must be considered. The main condition, of course, would be the settlement of native peoples land claims in the Yukon. So my support is conditional, since many questions affecting the area must be considered before a final decision can reasonably be made. However, my own initial view is that the Alcan route seems to be a more suitable solution. A gas pipeline can be built in Alaska; you could hook it up with a new pipeline to run through the Yukon, along the Alaska highway. Later on it might be feasible to run a pipeline from the Mackenzie Delta, along the Dempster highway, to tie in with the proposed Alcan gas pipeline, which could be used in future to move Canadian gas from the proven fields of the Mackenzie Delta. I suggest that the environmental impact of that proposal would be somewhat lower, and the infrastructure already exists along the proposed route for accommodating more conveniently the venture. However, I point out that even if we should move in that direction, many issues remain to be settled.
I want to see assurances that any pipeline built would not be built solely for United States interests. I want to see Canada maintain control over any such pipeline. Also, before any money is spent, I want to see some hard-nosed negotiations take place to ensure a good deal for Canada. Further, if the venture is proceeded with, I want to see a provision calling for a period review-say every five years or so-of any deal made

May 13, 1977
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
with respect to a pipeline carrying gas or oil to the United States through Canada.
In summary, I believe, first, that we must determine what are our energy needs and resources. It is important to get a true picture. I suppose I am concerned about this because, in the past, the petroleum industry has exhibited what could fairly be called a credibility problem.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That's putting it mildly.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Next, we must look at the best way to reconcile this need with the interests of the north and northern people. That is simple enough to say but more difficult to do. It took Mr. Justice Berger almost three years to get this excellent report together. And what is one of his most important recommendations, Mr. Speaker? It is that the pipeline should be postponed for ten years, which would allow for the settlement of land claims and the establishment of new programs and institutions. That is the heart of the matter, and the heart of the motion before the House.
If we were faced with a graver energy crisis than we are confronted with now, the decision we would have to make would be even tougher than it presently is. However, I believe that we may still have a few years to decide. I think we should take time to work out the best possible solution. Anything less would be almost criminal.
We must get a perspective on this matter. There are many issues to take into consideration. I am against the pipeline, but I would like to see more jobs for the people of the north. I do not want to hold up economic development, but I want to see land claims settled. So, where does this leave me? And where does it leave those on the government side?
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Justice Thomas Berger has helped us in our job. He has given us an honest, straightforward, intelligent and comprehensive report. It is now our responsibility to go from here. I feel it would be less than responsible for anyone not to give this report his wholehearted endorsement.
Another point I would like to make is that I have run in two federal elections in the Northwest Territories, 1972 and 1974. A major plank in my platform in both elections was that there be no Mackenzie Valley pipeline built until such a time as the native claims are settled. I won both elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Possibly the minister will allow the Chair to make the ruling which had been deferred upon the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). The decision was reserved at the time the amendment was proposed.
I wish to thank hon. members, in particular the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), who attempted to enlighten the Chair as to the judgment to be passed on the amendment moved by the Leader of the Official Opposition to

the motion moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). That motion reads as follows:
That this House urges the government to accept the principal recommendation of the Berger Report that no pipeline be built in the Mackenzie Valley for at least ten years.
The amendment offered by the Leader of the Opposition reads as follows:
That all the words after the word "government" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"to appoint a special committee of the House to consider the recommendations of the Berger Report and all other reports, studies and recommendations relevant to the building of a northern pipeline, and the method of settlement of native land claims and urges that no commitment in principle be made to build a northern pipeline without parliamentary approval."
The Chair at this time must make a decision on the relevancy and acceptability of the amendment. In so doing, it must look very carefully at the amendment in terms of its relevancy to the main motion.
In this particular case we have before us a motion, the subject of which is very clear. The motion asks the House to accept a particular recommendation of the Berger Report. That is very definite in the motion put forward by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent).
On the other hand, the amendment seeks to widen the scope of the debate. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton says there is nothing wrong with that. The amendment seeks to widen the scope of the debate by asking the House, not simply to accept or reject the proposition contained in the main motion, but to consider whether the Berger Report ought to be studied by a committee of this House. That was not part of the main motion. To my mind this is a new proposition. The motion proposes the acceptance of the main recommendation of the Berger Report while the first part of the amendment proposes referring the Berger Report to a committee of this House for study.
While I can have sympathy with hon. members who feel we ought to proceed in this way in the sense of going through a thorough examination of the report before making a decision, I cannot overlook the fact that the amendment states that the proposed committee also study "all other reports, studies and recommendations relevant to the building of a northern pipeline". It seems that the amendment travels even farther beyond the rather narrow confines of the motion.
I am, of course, aware that these matters are all closely connected and related to the issue raised by the main motion. However, I am rather uncertain about their relevance to the subject matter of the motion which is a definite and specific request to this House to accept a recommendation of the Berger Report.
I can say the same about the third subject dealt with in the amendment, the bringing in of the settlement of the native land claims. Clearly it is an issue related to the broad area of the Berger Report and the northern pipeline, but I have difficulty seeing it, in the procedural sense, as relevant to the very narrow proposition contained in the main motion.
May 13, 1977

The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton complained about the fact that hon. members have the right to move an amendment, and the Chair should not in its decision preclude any members from doing so. I referred to that point in my previous comments. The Chair has one main function, that is, to apply the rules and regulations of this House and make judgments, not on the judgments of hon. members on subject matters, but in the application of these rules.
The hon. member denied the fact that his motion was an expanded negative or was not relevant. I feel that this is a question of opinion, especially in the perspective in which he is putting his argument. He referred to his amendment as a relevant modification. This I have to admit is quite the fact, that the amendment is directly related to the report and to the construction of a pipeline in the north of Canada, but that is quite far from denying the fact that the amendment is not a new proposition.
Finally, however, the amendment proposes that the House pronounce itself on the proposition that no commitment in principle be made for or against the building of a northern pipeline without parliamentary approval. In my view this is clearly a new proposition. The main motion asks the House to make a decision on a recommendation which could delay for ten years the construction of a pipeline. The official opposition proposes to refer the subject matter and all related subjects to a committee. Finally, it adds a limitation to the decision of the House, a limitation which makes it subject to a future parliamentary approval. In my view this is clearly a new proposition and beyond the scope of the original motion. It is the kind of proposition which the House might want to debate some time; however, according to our rules it cannot be debated as an amendment, but only as a motion. As I say, it introduces a new proposition-I refer particularly to the words "and urges that no commitment in principle be made to build a northern pipeline without parliamentary approval." Because of all these considerations, it is impossible for me to accept the amendment.
Mir. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to take the time of the House-


Mr. Peters:: Then sit down.


Walter David Baker: I listened carefully to the points Your Honour has made, and I am rising merely to seek clarification. Your Honour may have been greatly moved in your consideration of this matter by the words "and urges that no commitment in principle be made to build a northern pipeline without parliamentary approval" on the ground that they imposed a new principle. If that is the case, and bearing in mind it has been the consistent hope of the official opposition that the House will be able to pronounce itself on the establishment of a parliamentary committee, I wonder whether the Chair would reconsider its judgment if I were to indicate that the removal of the phrase to which I have referred would certainly be acceptable to us.
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Walter David Baker: I say this because it has been a consistent hope of the official opposition that the whole question of the pipeline together with all these reports ought to be considered by a parliamentary committee.


An hon. Member:: The Chair has ruled on it.


Walter David Baker: Despite the chit-chat from the noisy rump down there, I advance this suggestion, not in any way to question the judgment of the Chair, but to seek clarification.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might, of course, have referred during my judgment to some of the precedents mentioned by the hon. member. I have them in front of me and the majority of them refer to cases in which the purpose of the amendments proposed was to narrow the subject matter of the motion. In this case we are clearly widening the scope of the subject matter. My reference to the words mentioned by the hon. member does not mean that the consideration of relevancy is less important. The hon. member will agree with me that the reaction of hon. members while he was seeking to convince the Chair and the House that there might be some kind of agreement possible to remove the latter part of the amendment was not entirely favourable. As he knows, this could only be withdrawn by unanimous consent; the hon. member does not have the floor, and it is my judgment that such consent would not be forthcoming. The only alternative left to the hon. member would be to put forward a further amendment while another speaker has the floor. At the same time, there would still be grounds for refusing the amendment and I suggest that the course the hon. member has in mind would not alter the decision of the Chair.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I open my remarks by saying that I listened carefully, as always, to the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth). He is a man who speaks from experience, and obviously he is a very articulate spokesman within his own caucus. He is probably responsible for the decision of his party, even earlier than today, to take exception to the building of a pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley. Perhaps this is related to his election promise. I do not know.
I was encouraged by his statement that he was very anxious to obtain a better understanding of the country's energy needs. He was clearly keeping the matter within a national context when he made that comment. It seemed to me he was making the case which the government has made in this debate-that until the report of the National Energy Board has been submitted, and until parliament has had an opportunity to discuss the matter, we cannot be sure what those energy needs are.
At the same time I was discouraged by what I can only describe as the "shoot from the hip" attitude of some members of the official opposition. I regret that this particular tactic, one which they have followed with great success in recent

May 13, 1977
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
times, should have had the effect of preventing more members from taking part in the debate today. A great deal of time has been used up dealing with procedural matters. Fortunately, we have got that amendment out of the way.
Some of us on this side were amazed by the suggestion that a committee be formed to deal with this matter. Mr. Speaker, when those of us who are interested in energy matters attend meetings of the committee on national resources we sometimes have to wait for as long as 50 minutes after the time officially appointed for the meeting to begin before one member of the official opposition turns up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: We hear a lot of noise from the other side about the need to discuss these energy issues, but when a committee is set up to do so we have to wait for 50 minutes for one of their members to turn up.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister should know the rules well enough to realize that Your Honour has ruled against the amendment. It should not therefore be discussed. If the hon. gentleman has any reasonable contribution to make, let him make it now.


Alastair William Gillespie: Perhaps the hon. member will be able to persuade some of his colleagues to show a greater interest in energy matters. His own chief energy critic-I do not know whether he made an error or not, but the record will show it- said that if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) were the prime minister of this country-


An hon. Member:: A natural slip!


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member said that if the Leader of the Opposition were prime minister he would abolish the National Energy Board.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: Are we to take that party seriously?
The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) said that if the Leader of the Opposition were Prime Minister he would abolish the NEB. Now, I ask you-


Steve Eugene Paproski: You know that is a lie, Alastair.


Walter David Baker: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is rising on a point of order.


Walter David Baker: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the remarks which were made just now by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) were the worst form of pettifogging that I have heard in a long time. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources knows, because he was here, that the record was corrected, and corrected proper-

ly, and he ought not to leave that impression. Perhaps he will enhance what little reputation he has by getting on with the debate.


Alastair William Gillespie: I am very pleased that the record was corrected, Mr. Speaker, but I point out it was corrected by a member on this side. I believe the Leader of the Opposition has also corrected the record as far as his remarks on Monday night are concerned.


Walter David Baker: You have no record to correct.


Alastair William Gillespie: We are dealing here with an important national question, one particularly important to the people of the north. If I may have the attention of hon. members opposite I should like to make a few remarks in respect thereto.
I believe that Mr. Justice Berger's report was one of the most significant the country has received and will certainly set a new standard in terms of its approach and its impact. I very much appreciate the work that the author has done, because I think he has done his job well. Indeed I think his eloquence in the report speaks for itself. I am sure that both he and the many people who appeared before his inquiry will want this House and all those who are interested to take longer than the four days that we have had since his report was made public to digest what he said, to reflect upon it, and to reach our own conclusions respecting the many complex and difficult issues that he has addressed.
He dealt, as we know, with two main questions, the question of the impact, social and environmental, and the economic impact. He dealt as well-and this part has yet to be completed-with some of the conditions that should be imposed in the event that a decision is made to have a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley.
He did not deal, of course, with another issue, a very important issue, nor was he asked to deal with it, that is, the question of the national interest. That is why the National Energy Board report is so important. Parliament assigned this equally difficult responsibility to the National Energy Board and it is still in the process of conducting its inquiry, with a report expected early in the month of July.
As the House knows, the government has consistently taken the position that a decision on whether it would be in the Canadian interest to approve a northern gas line at this time should be taken once all the evidence is before it, and that it would be premature to reach a conclusion until all issues have been examined in depth and set out fully so that they can be assessed together. There was never any doubt, at least in the mind of the government, that a northern pipeline along whichever route might seem desirable could have significant consequences for the lives and futures of the people living along the route. It was, in fact, that very concern which prompted the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry in the first place.
There is, however, another very grave concern, and that is the energy future of this country, and the role that frontier
May 13, 1977

natural gas, particularly delta gas, can and should play in meeting future energy requirements. The government over the past few years has heard from many groups asserting that northern natural gas would be required to supply southern Canadian markets within a relatively short time period, and in fact an earlier report of the National Energy Board has indicated that natural gas supplies from western Canada, while adequate for today's needs, may not be sufficient to meet future demands. The government was not prepared at that time to conclude on the basis of these concerns that a pipeline from the delta would necessarily be the best or only solution to our future energy requirements. This can be done only after the National Energy Board has had an opportunity to assess fully each of the proposals now before it, and to present its decision and reasons for reaching that decision on the basis of the evidence it has heard.
I think we need to look at some of our concerns respecting our energy future. We have just entered into a period where our total net imports of crude oil exceed our total net exports. We are therefore becoming more and more dependent on imported oil to meet our future energy requirements. This comes about not solely because of growth in demand but also because of declining supplies and deliverability of crude oil from western Canada. We can in the short term count on imported oil, but there is no basis realistically for thinking that we can do so for very long.
For reasons of national security, and in order to reduce our exposure to a price system established outside Canada, we have adopted a target to limit our total crude oil imports to one third of our total consumption by 1985. We will not reach that point for some years yet, but with greater conservation, and the development of our own petroleum resources, oil and natural gas and other substitute fuels, we will exceed that target.
That is not to say that delta gas is our only source or the only solution to new supplies, but we must assess whether, in looking to the long term, we can afford to reject the opportunity now presented to us to bring that gas within a known time frame to Canadian markets. There may be many Canadians who are not concerned with the balance of payments implications and with growing dependence upon foreign countries. It has been estimated that our dependency on foreign oil requirements is of the order of $4 billion to $5 billion a year. It seems to me that all Canadians should be able to understand the question: what do we do when that offshore oil is no longer available to us, or indeed to others?
I agree that this is obviously an important and constructive approach to the problem, but it is not a solution. All it can do is help reduce the size of the problem. We may very well be able to reduce our energy consumption to 2 per cent growth, which is roughly a zero rate of growth per capita, something which "An Energy Strategy for Canada" set out as a possibility a year ago. Over that period of time I have repeatedly referred to this, and I was particularly interested to see that the United States energy policy contemplated the same kind of target.
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
We are going to be increasingly pressed to develop our own supplies, our own substitutes, for the reasons I have given and for the reasons which President Carter gave his own people not very long ago when he set out the stark realities and talked to the United States people about their energy future. We have little enough time to put our own house in order. If we were to set aside, for a period of ten years for example, projects and plans which would help provide future energy for Canada, we could be losing a very significant opportunity. If we are not prepared to face that head on, to look at the disastrous consequences of an energy shortage ten years hence, which implies greater unemployment and greater inflation, then we will be derelict in our duty. For that reason it is important we await the views and the judgment of the National Energy Board before reaching a conclusion on this aspect of our energy needs.
It may be that through alternate sources of energy, such as the Athabasca tar sands, the Cold Lake deposits and other heavy oils, Arctic Islands natural gas, renewable solar energy and coal gasification, we can make up for the predicted shortfall of our oil and gas requirements. I am leaving aside, for the moment, our requirements for electrical energy. It is true we do have these options but, so far as I know, none is lower in cost than delta natural gas at this time. Each of these options, moreover, has its own particular set of difficult issues, economically, socially, and environmentally.


Mr. Stanfield:: Which side of this are you on, Alastair?


Alastair William Gillespie: If there were delays in bringing natural gas down from the north, we would be forsaking one of the options we have before us. It is not clear that the next major option, the development of the tar sands and heavy oil, can be done at a pace which would fill in the shortfalls that otherwise would occur in Canada. This point was made very clear by Mr. Getty, the Alberta energy minister, as recently as two days ago. We have got to use time between now and this summer to assess the many points made by Mr. Justice Berger in his report. These are points with respect to the importance of trapping, hunting and fishing employment levels which one can hope to obtain for those in the area. We also have to address ourselves to such questions as: what about the young people who are leaving the school system? Will they all be interested in becoming hunters and trappers? How many will be able to find a livelihood from such pursuits? Will some not seek a greater variety of challenges and opportunities to enter an industrial economy?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: They will probably be the next ministers of energy, mines and resources.


Charles Joseph Clark: Tell us about the buffalo.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I suggest we need to reflect upon Mr. Justice Berger's landmark report. Four days is too soon for such a purpose. I believe Mr. Justice Berger would want us to understand thoroughly what he is saying, to know
5654

May 13, 1977
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
what we would be accepting if we adopted his recommendations and approach, and in fact be prepared to give full support to the implementation of his ideas and suggestions for the north-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order.


Alastair William Gillespie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 3:35 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 58(9)(a).

The question is on the motion of Mr. Broadbent. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion lost.			
Pursuant to the order made earlier this week, and it being			
after four o'clock,	this House now stands adjourned until		
Monday next at two o'clock in the afternoon.			
At 4.10 p.m. the House adjourned,		without question put,	
pursuant to Special Order.			
			

Monday, May 16, 1977