1977-08-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. My motion concerns the extremely puzzling ability of the Prime Minister to separate certain foreign multinationals, such as Gulf Oil, the Rothschild financial empire and RTZ, whom he feels are good guys, from the other multinationals such as Westinghouse. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That the Prime Minister explain to this House, the Canadian people and the director of combines investigation how he decides which of the various multinationals is a good guy and which is a bad guy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity dealing with yet another sex related murder. I refer this time to the horrendous episode in Toronto involving an innocent 12 year old boy who became a victim of a sexual orgy. Although the city of Toronto, as well as provincial officials, are taking steps to close down sex oriented establishments, much broader action is necessary from parliament in order to stem any similar future episodes. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams):
That this House instruct the Minister of Justice to introduce legislation which would make sexually related murders punishable by death.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF AGREEMENT WITH DENISON MINES FOR PURCHASE OR SALE OF URANIUM-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of reports that the federal government is now selling uranium to Denison Mines which it had recently purchased from the company as part of a federal government stockpile; in view of the suggestion that the government is selling this uranium back to the company at the same price at which they purchased it, in spite of the fact that the world price of uranium has risen $30 a pound since the initial purchase; and in view of the fact that if this is the case the government is passing on an enormous windfall profit to the company at the expense of Canadian taxpayers and at a time when wages for company employees were frozen, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That this House instruct the government to clear up this issue by releasing any agreements it has with Denison Mines for the purchase or sale of uranium.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous

August 5, 1977
External Affairs
consent of the House to discuss an urgent and important matter.
As most municipal administrations have many problems with their sewage treatment and discharge systems;
As most of our streams, lakes and rivers are in the process of becoming highly polluted;
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That this House order the central government, through the Bank of Canada, to allow loans at cost to the municipalities with a view to enabling them to finance the construction or expansion of sewage treatment and discharge facilities, which would at the same time create employment at a time when unemployment is extremely high in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion cannot be put without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
When the government promoted the advantages of Bill C-58 in the first session of this parliament, it promised that the provisions of that legislation would not only restrict unfair foreign competition but would also thereby help to establish an indigenous periodical industry in Canada. To date the government has collected about $5 million in taxes, lost about $200 million in convention business, and the periodical industry has not given birth to a major new publication.
In view of the fact the U.S. Senate foreign relations committee has approved a resolution criticizing Canada's posture and in view of the fact that at least one prominent U.S. Senator believes the Canadian provisions might end in disaster for bilateral trade relations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House instruct the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to adopt a position of enlightened self-interest and conciliation when negotiating with their American counterparts on this subject.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[Mr. Allard. 1


INDUSTRY
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of continuing high unemployment in the Pictou County area of Nova Scotia, and in view of the need for additional railway rolling stock, including refrigerator cars, and in view of the pressing need for such cars by CN rail, particularly in Prince Edward Island, as outlined recently by both Premier Campbell and the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That this House direct the Minister of Transport to forthwith arrange orders for the construction of a substantial number of suitable types of railway cars at the Hawker-Siddeley plant in Trenton, Nova Scotia.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. It concerns the plight of Danylo Shumuk, a Soviet citizen who has been imprisoned in the U.S.S.R. for over 27 years for activities that would constitute no crime in a free society. Given that Mr. Shumuk is living in great physical and mental deprivation, and that he is nearly 64 years of age, and that he has many relatives in Canada who are willing to sponsor his entry to Canada, and given that he has been adopted as a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International since 1972, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the minister instruct the Canadian delegation to this fall's Belgrade Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe to publicly raise the plight of Danylo Shumuk, and take all steps to secure his release from the Soviet Union.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
August 5, 1977


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and ask for the unanimous consent of the House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the breakdown of negotiations between the air traffic controllers and the Government of Canada, the rotating strikes threatened to commence August 8 and the need, if this situation occurs, for the government to be rotated, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the government of Canada take immediate steps to ensure the continuance of air transportation services across Canada during the period from at least August 7, 1977, to August 19, 1977, during the period of the Canada summer games held in St. John's, the capital of Newfoundland, and the oldest civilized city on this side of the Atlantic.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HANSARD
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before beginning the question period perhaps I could advise members that there has been some difficulty with Hansard, partly due to some computer difficulty and partly due to the fact that a number of tables which were filed as part of answers to questions yesterday cannot be printed in the usual way by the computerized equipment. We are trying to finalize the printing of Hansard to get it into the hands of members as quickly as possible.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. He will recall that yesterday he said he would be prepared to review order in council No. PC-1976/2368, this offensive document limiting the access of members of parliament and Canadian citizens to information relevant to our understanding of the legal or illegal activities of the Government of Canada. Can the Prime
Oral Questions
Minister tell the House whether he has considered changes or amendments with respect to this regulation and whether a changed regulation will be put into effect or the regulation removed today?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, certainly not today. 1 have asked that the regulation be considered with a view to doing what I suggested yesterday. We want the Canadian public, and the opposition in particular, to be well informed about the reasons for our policy, why it was taken and what the effects of it would be. If it is necessary in order to obtain that and to permit the opposition to debate this fairly, we will see what we can do to amend the order in council. The intention, once again, is to permit the policy to be judged on its merits, and we will attempt to do that.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how long it is going to take the government of Canada and the Prime Minister particularly to recognize the obvious, which is that we have here in this order in council a very serious restraint upon the capacity of the House of Commons to do its work. In light of the Prime Minister's recommendation to us yesterday in answer to a question by the hon. member for Calgary North-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I just heard from the Minister of State (Mul-ticulturalism). The last time we heard from him was when he voted against multiculturalism.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister is reported in Hansard to have said yesterday, and I quote: "If any person in this country, including a member of the opposition, thinks that we have acted illegally, redress is available in the courts". On the basis of the evidence we have seen, we in this party want to instruct our lawyers to investigate and advise on whether charges under the Combines Investigation Act are warranted and on what processes are open either to us or to other members of the Canadian public to act and to take advantage of the law. We have, however, been informed by very respected and responsible legal counsel that given this regulation it is impossible for them to advise or to give any opinion to us or to any member of the public in any way with respect to legal proceedings. This regulation makes it impossible for Canadian citizens to obtain advice with respect to the operations of the cartel and with respect to the legal or illegal activities of the Government of Canada.
Can the Prime Minister give us a commitment that whether by removal of this regulation or by amendment of this regulation we will have a situation where members of parliament or members of the public will not be barred from taking legal action or from seeing whether charges are warranted under the Combines Investigation Act? Can we have the commitment now that the impediment which responsible lawyers in Canada

August 5, 1977
Oral Questions
believe is created by this order in council will be removed so that the regular law of the land can apply, even though the people who suffer from that application might be the government of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the order in council itself has already been challenged in the courts, as the Leader of the Opposition may know, and it has been found by the courts to be a valid order in council.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: That is not the question; that is the problem.


Mr. Fraser:: That just proves what he said.


Mr. Baldwin:: We are talking about natural justice, not legality.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If we are talking about natural justice it seems to me-


Gerald William Baldwin: You don't understand what natural justice is.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -the first precept would be to hear the other side of the question, which the opposition does not seem to want to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: You passed a law which says nobody can hear the other side of the question.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Shut up, big mouth.


Mr. Paproski:: Listen to the red neck.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The animal is back. Welcome back, animal.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have given the understanding that I would do everything possible to permit the opposition and the Canadian public to debate this fairly, to know the reasons for the policy and so forth. I have said if that entails a change in the order in council, I will direct such a change to be brought in. But the essence of the question, as I explained yesterday, was to protect the Canadian people, producers and consumers.
I repeat, the opposition may not agree with that. They are entitled to know the facts, so that they can debate this question properly. But if that policy is justified and if it means not letting competitors of the Canadian industry know certain data relating to that industry, then, obviously, there will have to be some embargo on the spreading of that particular knowledge. I repeat, this will depend on whether the opposition has the data at hand and whether or not it can debate the justification of this policy.


Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This regulation, in effect, will stop the Parliament of Canada and the people of Canada from having and pursuing data which
(Mr. Clark.)
might relate to illegal activities by the Government of Canada. I asked the Prime Minister a simple question: Will he give us a firm commitment, now, to remove the obstacle which now prevents Canadian citizens, including members of parliament, from taking the kind of legal action which would be open to us in normal cases but is closed to us in this case, because the Government of Canada has passed an order in council to give itself special protection against inquiry into illegal acts in which it may have been involved.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, since the question is phrased in that way, I must say I disagree with the advice the hon. gentleman received from his lawyers. I would say that if the Government of Canada has acted illegally or if there is cause to believe this, there is no impediment in the courts to proceeding-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What about the regulation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And the regulation itself, I suggest, would not stand in the way of that.


Walter David Baker: I am the law, says the Prime Minister.


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-REASON FOR NOT PASSING LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF LAW
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we can get a better legal opinion than that offered by the Prime Minister, and we have it. That legal opinion is that this order in council, passed by the government to protect itself from scrutiny, bars this party, any Canadian citizen or any member of parliament from proceeding in the courts or having an inquiry started under the Combines Investigation Act. I asked the Prime Minister to have that stopped. I have asked him three times to give us a simple, clear, unequivocal commitment that he will remove this obstacle directly.
I ask, why did the Prime Minister, as head of the government, choose not to follow the example set by the government of Australia which, when faced with a problem similar to that cited by the Prime Minister, simply passed legislation to prevent extra-territorial demands for information? This order in council, in contrast to what is happening in Australia where they respect the rights of their legislators and of the citizens, stops domestic inquiry into domestic matters. If the Prime Minister of Canada wanted to prevent extraterritorial demands for information, he could have done as Australia did and passed legislation. Why did he not do that? Why did he, instead, bring in this odious order in council which seriously restricts the rights and capacities to inquire of this parliament and of the people of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in the second part of his question the Leader of the Opposition was arguing policy, arguing that another policy would have been more appropriate. This is what we are prepared to debate.
August 5, 1977


Miss MacDonald:: We are concerned about the legal issue.


Mr. Grafftey:: The Prime Minister's approach is Nixonian.


Mr. Stanfield:: Yes, it reminds you of Richard Nixon.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the first part of the question, 1 repeat what I said a moment ago. If the government of Canada or any person in this country has acted illegally, there is no impediment that would stand in front of the courts for attacking that illegality.


Charles Joseph Clark: There is this impediment.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition is showing an order in council-


John Allen Fraser: You wouldn't get through first year law school-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and 1 hear from the hon. member for Vancouver South who is talking about law school. I do not think the remark is very appropriate in this context.


John Allen Fraser: 1 said you wouldn't get through first year law school with the argument you are advancing.


Walter David Baker: You wouldn't even get passed Cite Libre.


Mr.   Flees@: You wouldn't get into law school.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: They might even take your degree back.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure it is appropriate for me to give legal advice to members opposite. Apparently they would not even listen to it, let alone understand it. If they had any courage, or if their lawyers had any courage and they believed what they are saying-


An hon. Member:: Lay a charge.


Mr. Hees:: It's the old broken record, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If they had any courage-


George Harris Hees: Wind up that old gramophone.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -they would look at a piece of legislation that the right hon. member for Prince Albert brought in some years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They don't even know about it.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Just remember the War Measures Act.


George Harris Hees: Pierre, you need some new writers. You are running down.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Walter David Baker: What are you going to do about that, Mr. Speaker?


George Harris Hees: Throw him out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This line of questions and answers which began a while ago has degenerated into an argument over legal opinions which is really not appropriate to the question period. Because it consisted of questions being put in a serious vein by the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister, I naturally extended considerable leniency in the scope of the questions. However, for some time now participants have been arguing over legal interpretations. It is really not germane to the question period in which strictly information is sought and not opinions, particularly not arguments over opinions sought outside the House. I think the hon. member for York-Simcoe wants to continue the line of questioning. Perhaps that might be permitted, but they will have to be factual rather than along the lines of legal opinion or advice.


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-IDENTIFICATION OF LEGAL OPINION TO WHICH PRIME MINISTER REFERRED
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Prime Minister. It arises out of a statement by the Prime Minister and recorded in Hansard to the effect that he had a legal opinion from the Department of Justice of Canada to the effect that they were not infringing the Combines Act. In the hope that we can identify which legal opinion the Prime Minister is referring to, as there are several legal opinions referred to in various documents that we now have in our possession, will the Prime Minister indicate if the legal opinion to which he made reference yesterday was the one to which Mr. Jack Austin made reference during a meeting recorded in a memo between Mr. O. J. C. Runnalls to Mr. Austin dated June 15, 1972 in which Mr. Austin stated that it had been necessary to measure the risk of falling within the confines of the Combines Investigation Act. It had seemed to be a reasonable business risk to accept the arrangement up to 1977 but beyond that, however, the risk of infraction of the act was substantial. Is that the legal opinion that subsequently was forthcoming to which he referred yesterday? Mr. Austin, in the memo to which I have referred, ended up by stating that a regulation would be passed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question seems to be clear without further reference to the matter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the memo that the hon. gentlemen is putting before the House. I am aware that when this policy was put together, it was done with the participation of the Department of Justice and the Deputy Attorney General. We envisaged, as we always do, what the proper way of implementing a policy is, that it is within the law. I have this assurance and this was done at the time by the deputy attorney general. In what form he expressed his opinion I have not yet ascertained, and 1 could

August 5, 1977
Oral Questions
not say if it was done at the time of, or in relation to, the particular document quoted by the hon. gentleman.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the justice opinion that he is apparently referring to, on the basis of which he justifies the government's participation in this questionable affair, is actually part of a four point program of government accommodation conceived and drafted by the producers and fully orchestrated by them to give them, if I may quote from a memo, "some insulation"? Also Chief Justice Estey of Ontario is reported in a memo to have stated that "an opinion will be rendered by the Minister of Justice which will prevent any action under Canada law ... at least as long as the present government is in power", to which a Gulf official is reported to have replied: "The political implications of"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is obviously entering into a debate. I indicated yesterday that we would welcome this debate. We will put every fact we have before parliament so it can debate this matter properly. Obviously, this game of putting statements on the record of which I have no knowledge may be profitable for the hon. gentleman, but I do not think it advances the question whether the government at that time either acted legally or illegally. Nor does it answer the question whether we did so in the interests of the Canadian people or not. We are anxious to have this debated-


Mr. Gillies:: Can you act illegally in the interests of the Canadian people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I understand another hon. gentleman has a question; perhaps you could recognize him.


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-OBJECTIVE OF REGULATIONS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister and I hope that he will have a view on this. Gulf officials, in a memo originating from Bermuda, indicated that the primary objective of the Canadian uranium export regulations is basically to implement the over-all cartel arrangement. A secondary objective is to implement the over-all cartel in the safest possible manner, with a view to the hazards of the combines act. Would the Prime Minister indicate if in fact they were the primary and secondary reasons for the regulation passed in 1972?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I do not know the context of these documents. The hon. gentleman could ask any of his lawyer friends. It seems to me that that is the kind of thing a lawyer would say. He would want to advise you to do some things which would keep you out of the reach of the law. That is the way lawyers give advice. They want to make sure that their clients are not doing

anything which is illegal. It seems to me that that is what this particular phrase is saying.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Considering that the most recent report on Canadian profits which was published in today's press shows that corporate profit increases in Canada for the second quarter of this year averaged some 12 per cent, with more than half the groups surveyed increasing their profits from 13 to 31 per cent, and considering that the Minister of Finance has admitted that the budget's $ 1.2 billion tax incentives to business which will come on top of these profits are being unproductive in terms of job creation, I would ask the Minister of Finance whether he would now reconsider this $1.2 billion package as being both unproductive and unfair and reallocate the equivalent sum of money to direct job creation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to contest the assertion of the hon. gentleman that I at any stage admitted that the proposals in the budget will not be effective for the purpose of strengthening the Canadian economy and contributing particularly to employment. I would point out to him that one of the most significant ways in which to create additional employment, in particular in Canada, is through additional investment in the public sector-


John Edward Broadbent: The private sector.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -the private sector, thank you very much. The best way of attracting that kind of investment is to make sure that it is going to gain a return. I think even the hon. member would be able to understand that an investment which is going to get a return is in the interests of all Canadians, and in that sense the hon. member should favour the proposal.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering that a manufacturing sector operating only at 80 per cent capacity because of a fall in domestic demand and other reasons is most unlikely to use these kinds of incentives to expand unused facilities any further, a fact which the President of the Treasury Board alluded to when he said that the budget has failed and which the Prime Minister alluded to when he said that the budget has failed in terms of job creation, I would ask him to follow up on his Freudian slip when he said that the way to create jobs now is through public investment and assure the House that before we come back in the fall the government will take some initiative to create jobs for the one million Canadians who need them.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to the hon. gentleman, as he knows, that when he
August 5, 1977

says that the President of the Treasury Board says the budget has failed it is a falsehood, and he knows that it is false. We are keeping the economy under careful examination. At the same time we must be concerned about a recurrence of inflation and the impact of unemployment. It is to maintain a balance between the two that we have been following this policy. If indeed as time moves on there has to be a change in that policy we will make it. It seems clear to us at the moment that we should not depart from the basic policy, which is directed at trying to restore private investment in this country and at the same time not increase inflation.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance said that I had said something which is false. I repeat what I have just said, that he himself, the President of the Treasury Board and the Prime Minister in recent weeks have said that the private sector is not doing what they believe ought to have been done in terms of job creation, and that the budget measures presumably related to that have not been successful. I repeat that.
In view of these concessions made publicly in recent weeks, and in view of the Minister of Finance's own commitment made a few weeks ago that during the first week of August the government would make a decision on some new job creation efforts, I would ask the Minister of Finance whether we are now going to get those new job creation efforts, or is the Minister of Finance saying to the people of Canada that they can freeze in the dark in the coming winter in terms of new job efforts by the government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would just repeat to the hon. gentleman that it is quite false to say that the Prime Minister, the President of the Treasury Board or I have made this statement which the hon. gentleman alleges. He would know if he examined the record that there is absolutely no foundation for those allegations.


John Edward Broadbent: Read the papers.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have read the papers. I know what the hon. gentleman says and it is pure invention on his part. With regard to the question of further measures for this winter, as I have said there is an additional quarter of a billion dollars going into direct employment measures this coming winter. I indicated that we would be conducting an examination, as indeed we have, of the current state of the economy to determine whether we should decide on further public investment at this time. We have decided not to change the fiscal framework at this time for this purpose. Obviously, we will have to watch the economy carefully during the balance of the summer and in the fall to see if further changes in fiscal or financial policy will have to be made.
Oral Questions


INDUSTRY
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Can the minister tell the House whether he can live up to the commitment he made on July 19 concerning the position he or the government will take about the obvious conclusions of the interim report of the Anti-dumping Tribunal which is investigating the footwear situation in Canada?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we are now consulting with manufacturers, importers and consumer associations to determine what would be the best policy; we had meetings last week and this week and we hope to be able to announce a policy on this subject in the near future.


REQUEST FOR CONTROL OF LEATHER GOODS IMPORTS
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Can the minister tell us whether the manufacturers will be able to have better cooperation from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the future as far as the import of footwear and of related products such as leather, etc, is concerned?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not know what the hon. member is alluding to; my department is always prepared to co-operate with all industrial sectors in Canada.


COMBINES
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, which refers to the cartel arrangement the government entered into. Any documentation we have seen concerning this cartel, or any legal opinion, seems to suggest it was either illegal, or if not that, it would not effect a restriction of a reduction of prices to Canadian consumers. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the legal opinion he has indicating that this cartel was legal is based upon knowledge that it would in fact fix prices and raise prices to Canadian consumers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said earlier. The arrangement was put together with the participation of the deputy attorney general of

August 5, 1977
Oral Questions
Canada. Obviously he knew what the arrangement was. I suppose it was evident that this would be the effect-that prices would be set. Our opinion was that this was a legal arrangement and we proceeded with it.


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-GOVERNMENT'S KNOWLEDGE OF EFFECT OF ARRANGEMENT ON DOMESTIC PRICES
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, an examination of the documents seems to indicate that the Canadian representatives were of the opinion that it would not be applied in Canada and would not affect prices to Canadian consumers.
Perhaps 1 could direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and ask him, as the principal agent of this conspiracy, whether he knew it would have the effect of raising prices to Canadian utilities such as Ontario Hydro, or if he believed, as the early discussions seemed to indicate, that it would not have that effect on domestic Canadian prices? Who conned whom? Did the government know that by entering into this agreement it would be raising prices to Canadian public utilities to the extent that the prices went up? They went up almost 300 per cent. Did the government know this was the penalty they were imposing upon Canadian consumers, when it entered into that arrangement?


Charles Joseph Clark: Did its lawyers know?


James McPhail Gillies: And, did its lawyers know?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it has been made very clear many times that this arrangement was aimed at export sales and it was aimed at stabilizing the remaining markets of the world, which at that time represented only 30 per cent of the market. It was being competed for by the producers of at least five major countries. As the hon. member may know, at that time the price of uranium was lower in many instances than the cost of uranium. For those reasons, if there had not been such a cartel arrangement, to use the hon. member's words, then in all probability there would not have been a viable uranium industry today.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Baloney!


George Harris Hees: Why don't you answer the question?


Alastair William Gillespie: The second aspect of the hon. member's question seems to imply that as a result of this producers' arrangement the price, which was then somewhere in the order of $5, went up to $40 a pound. If the hon. member has looked at the circumstances, he must know that the main increase in price occurred after the oil price increase. Second, he must know that the price of the arrangement in all respects, except for one month, was lower than the United States domestic price.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COMBINES
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister did not answer the question. If he is trying to say to the people of Canada that this cartel was put together to keep prices down, that is just absolutely inconceivable.
1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. If it can be demonstrated that the action of this cartel was to fix prices and limit production in Canada, which is clearly in contravention of the competition act, will the minister lay charges, as it is his duty and responsibility to do? Will he lay charges under the law? This arrangement has been expensive to Canadian people. Will he lay those charges, if we give him the documentation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister may want to make some response; but I cannot overlook the fact that the question in its basic terms is hypothetical. The hon. member may wish to rephrase his question and the minister may want to make some response. I am not restricting the minister; but surely there could not be a more basically hypothetical question than the one put by the hon. member for Don Valley.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Let him comment.


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, 1 completely endorse Your Honour's view that the question is hypothetical.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: The fact is that the government-


Charles Joseph Clark: It makes one wonder about its source.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: -in carrying out this measure did so in consultation with the bureau of competition policy. The government received the advice of its law officers. The project was proceeded with as a legally proper action by the government.
The hon. member is asserting that it is an illegal action. I would reiterate that the Prime Minister's point is simply this: if such a belief exists, then action should be taken by those who say so to prove so.


An hon. Member:: We can't!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. His anxiety to debate in this House the legality of the proceedings, which the government took in conjunction with the companies, is evident
August 5, 1977

and also the propriety of the regulation passed to prevent information from being given. We have some problems in getting the proper information or documentation upon which we can debate intelligently. 1 note a hint from what Your Elonour said yesterday that until there has been clear danger to a member of the House we may not be able to find there is a breach of privilege. 1 would find it difficult to debate this issue from the cell which might be occupied more properly by other people.
1 should like to ask the Prime Minister if he would be prepared to give the same absolution to members of this House and their counsel as the Minister of Justice gave those involved in the 1972 cartel, in order that we will be free to obtain the necessary documentation and papers to prepare our case in this House, and if necessary, for the purpose of laying charges outside the House under the act? Will the Prime Minister give us the same privilege as his government extended to the companies involved in the cartel?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that seems to be a rather circumlocutive way to ask if the hon. member can attack the government on its alleged illegal behaviour. My answer earlier was that he certainly could. If he feels the government has acted illegally, if he feels that due process is not possible in this, and if he feels that the order in council does not permit him to have due process in this country, then I think they should attack the order in council under the Bill of Rights. The right hon. member for Prince Albert might be able to advise them on that. When I was trying to explain earlier 1 was just talking to a howling mob, and I do not think that is conducive to finding out the truth.


An hon. Member:: Swing it again.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, now that we have descended into a quiet, judicial atmosphere where we can have an intelligent examination and cross-examination, will the Prime Minister answer the last part of my question? Is he prepared to consult with his Minister of Justice so that we can have assurance on this side of the House that we will be able to properly and legally obtain the documentation required to make our case in the House, and if necessary, on the advice of counsel outside the House, for prosecution under the Combines Investigation Act? Will he give us that assurance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman knows that neither the Minister of Justice, nor anyone else, can absolve in advance anyone from committing an illegality. If the government of Canada has committed an illegality, this will be proved in the courts.


Some hon. Members:: How?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It will not be proved by any defence or legal opinion of the Department of Justice. It will be proved in the courts.
Oral Questions
The next question is: How does one prove it in the courts. To this, I have two answers-I feel I am giving very valuable legal advice to members who probably do not appreciate it. But there are two ways. The first is to go to the minister of energy under the regulations, under the regulation in the second paragraph, and ask him for any information which is felt to be needed in order to test the government on the legality of its position. And if he refuses, I tell the opposition that they should find lawyers who are prepared to consult with the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert-


An hon. Member:: And take a chance.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And take a chance, Mr. Speaker. When you go before the courts and you believe in your legal case, when you are not simply involved in political histrionics such as we have seen in the past couple of days, you don't fool around; you go to a lawyer, you take the government to the courts and you prove your case and you have the courage to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise for the purpose of accepting the accolade the Prime Minister has just given me. But I do appreciate the welcome I have received from the House of Commons today and if I had the athletic capacity of the Prime Minister I would do either a pirouette or, if I might use the proper expression, the kick which he performed this morning in the House.
Again, I wish to ask the Prime Minister the question I asked him earlier concerning the possibility of Her Majesty the Queen opening parliament. I am wondering whether he is in a position to tell us what the situation is.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We on this side are very glad to welcome the right hon. gentleman back to the House of Commons. This is not only because of our great affection for him, which is well known and which was established, I believe, in the month of June of this year, but because he is an expert in due process and I am sure he would be an addition to his caucus at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not sure whether the right hon. gentleman was away when 1 answered this question a short time ago. I said 1 had invited Her Majesty in a hypothetical form-in other words, if we were able to open parliament at the time of her visit, would she be prepared to read the Speech from the

August 5, 1977
Oral Questions
Throne. She graciously accepted, as I believe 1 reported to the House, at which time I indicated that the date of the opening of parliament would only be known with certainty when parliament opens.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are not certain, now, when parliament will close. The various parties are consulting on the possibility of sitting beyond today and it may be that our plans for having parliament open on October 18 will not materialize. However, for the time being we are still planning on that assumption and it is on that basis I invited Her Majesty and she accepted.


WHEAT-POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE IN DOMESTIC PRICE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. The hon. gentleman told the House recently that the two-price wheat policy was under review. I should like to ask him whether he has completed this review and if so whether there will be an upward adjustment in the price along the lines recommended by the wheat pool, namely, from $3.25 for domestic wheat sold in this country to $4 a bushel. If he has completed the review will he announce his policy today and make any increase retroactive?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, a final decision has not yet been taken, but is imminent.


FEED GRAIN-POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE IN POLICY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 1 wish to ask a supplementary question which also has to do with the price of grain. In the last two years, the price of feed grain sold outside the Wheat Board has been less than the price received for feed grain sold within the Wheat Board. When he brought down his new policy, the minister made a commitment that this would not happen. Since the policy has obviously failed, is the hon. gentleman now considering placing feed grains under the Wheat Board or, at least, conducting a plebiscite which would enable the farmers to decide how they wish to sell feed grain.


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member is completely falsifying the record in relation to anything I said about prices of grain. There were expressions of protection in relation to the guarantee and initial prices, but in the ordinary course of events when there are quotas on Wheat Board grains and an open quota on non-Wheat Board grain it is to be expected that the non-Board price would fall somewhat below the Board price. That was always the broad expectation although, of course, market forces work in different ways.


TRANSPORT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Since this may be the last day upon which we shall sit until October, can the minister clarify certain statements he has made about the Crow rate? Can he tell us once and for all that he agrees with what the Hall Commission is saying and that the Crow rate must stay.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have emphasized in the House that 1 fully support the Hall Commission's statement. The Hall Commission said emphatically that the Crow rate should remain statutory and made permanent protection, and I endorse that position completely. But the Hall Commission did go on to say a number of other things which need reconciliation in terms of the rate and products carried, and this raises some difficult questions.


CRIMINAL CODE
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and it is further to my motion dealing with the brutal sex murder of 12-year old Manuel Jaques of Toronto. Could the minister tell us what action the government is taking or intends to take in order to minimize such dastardly incidents, bearing in mind that officials of both the city of Toronto and of the province of Ontario are taking action within their own jurisdictions? Such action may be a step in the right direction but I believe much broader federal action is necessary in order to discourage any such further incidents. What is this action to be?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: I share the concern of the hon. member and of the people of Toronto about this matter. All the alleged activities involved would appear to be criminal offences already and therefore subject to the enforcement of the Criminal Code provisions. I am continuing discussions with my provincial counterparts in connection with certain aspects of pornography, and as a result of our most recent discussions in June my officials are examining, in consultation with provincial officials, possible amendments to the Criminal Code in relation to pornography. However, I emphasize that the activities alleged to have been committed in Toronto are clearly contrary to the law and a matter for law enforcement.


SUGGESTED AMENDMENT PROVIDING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF MURDER
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I have one supplementary question. In view of the minister's answer and because sex related murders as well as the murder of police officers, as has occurred in the incident here
August 5, 1977

in Ottawa recently, continue to take place even after the House passed the Capital Punishment bill against the wishes of the great majority of Canadians, would the minister consider introducing legislation which would make sexually related murders as well as murders of prison guards and police officers punishable by death? If not, would the minister consider approaching cabinet about including the question of capital punishment by way of a referendum in the next federal election?


Mr. Speaker:: That is clearly a recommendation.


CUSTOMS
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that Criminal Code section 159(8) clearly defines obscenity, and that pornography is obscenity in its most gross and extreme form, and given that all pornography brought into Canada is the product of organized crime in the United States, and given the fact that the main Canadian distributor is well known in Canada as being Maclean-Hunter publishing Company-


Some hon. Members:: Right.


Simma Holt: -and given the fact that these products not only require illegal use of children, animals and adults for illustration but also counsel law breaking in their texts, will the Minister of National Revenue move to halt all pornography entering Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This seems to be clearly a representation, as was the case of the question put by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley.
* * . *


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order dealing with the matter that was raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a few moments ago. I say with some regret that a number of questioners on the matter of the uranium cartel, because of the shortness of time could not put their questions. I want to make that clear. I rise because I think the Prime Minister may have inadvertently misled the House. He indicated that some discussions were going on now regarding the extension of the period of sittings of the House while we are here. I must say to him that that is not so. There have been no discussions at all amongst the representatives of the parties about extending the sittings of the House for any purpose whatsoever. That is the first point.
The Prime Minister alluded, in the course of his remarks, to the fact that he would be interested in having a debate at some time to be agreed upon. I presume he would have no objection
Alleged Uranium Cartel
to a debate on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of next week-and 1 am not limiting myself to time when 1 say that- so this matter can be completely dealt with. I want to make it quite clear to the Prime Minister and to the government House leader that there is no objection on this side of the House to having a debate on this issue, but there is and would be great objection to having such a debate if it were conducted without the documents which have been referred to being tabled in the House of Commons so that all all members of the House have access to them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: It would seem absolutely fruitless, on one hand, for a debate on such a matter as this to be carried on under the shroud of this odious order in council, as it has been described rather benevolently and, on the other hand, for a debate to be carried on in the face of the failure of the government to produce the documents upon which this debate would take place. Moreover, I think that regardless of whether the debate and further action will take place in the House or in the courts, it would be difficult, if not impossible-and the government knows this-to prosecute the case, whether or not there is courage to do so, and there would be little point and no advantage gained in prosecuting the case outside or inside the House without the production of the documents.	-
These are the conditions upon which any debate should take place in the House, and I presume that either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) or perhaps the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), would be prepared to rise in their place in the House now and indicate that they and their officials have authority to release to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and to any other member of parliament who wishes to have them the documents which were intended to be enveloped, enshrouded and hidden away in the order in council entitled "Security of Information".
In the course of this point of order I invite the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to authorize any person, organization or corporation who has these documents to release them for the purpose of a debate in the House and in the interests of justice and full disclosure of truth with respect to this matter. I now invite him to say that all organizations which have these documents, including his own department and any other agency, can now disclose them and that, in aiding this process, he will do the courageous and honourable thing and table these documents in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am not in the position, as the hon. member clearly must know, to give that kind of "carte blanche" order with respect to a very large number of documents of a confidential nature, documents which involve not just the Canadian government but arrangements between the Canadian government and other foreign governments. Clearly, the hon. member could not expect this. If he thought for one

August 5, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
moment that I could give him that undertaking, then I can only consider his question to be a very frivolous question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before allowing the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) to state his question of privilege, I should like to deal with the question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). The hon. member interpreted correctly the preliminary opinion I gave yesterday, which I now confirm.
I should like to make reference to a ruling I made on March 17 of this year which was with reference to a very similar question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peace River. I think it is important to understand that the Chair should not attempt to decipher legal opinions and decide between one and another legal opinion. Furthermore, the Chair should not attempt to decide whether or not government action is technically or legally justified.
The Chair has to decide on questions of procedure and whether they extend into the area of privilege. Privilege, while it goes beyond procedure into substance, does in fact, for obvious reasons, have a strict definition. That strict definition has been repeated many times in the past, and it relates to actual interference with a member of parliament in the discharge of his or her duties. In fact, the hon. member for Peace River referred to this order in council as being a potential interference in that regard. Were it an actual interference, it would be a different situation so far as the argument is concerned. At the moment, I think all hon. members will agree that if there is the interference described in the terms put forward yesterday by the hon. member for Peace River, it is potential in nature and not actual. Therefore, I reiterate the ruling I gave on March 17 in respect of some regulations that were passed at that time which had a similar potential effect.
While members are expressing fear that the effect of this order in council might be to restrict them in the transportation, use or release of documents in their possession, unless the restriction has taken place I believe it would be an unwarranted extension of the definition of privilege for the Chair to indicate that the danger of that taking place, rather than the actuality of it, constituted a question of privilege. Therefore, 1 set aside the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peace River yesterday.


MR BROADBENT-ANSWER OF MINISTER OF FINANCE DURING ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It pertains to a very serious

accusation made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). He has totally mismanaged the Canadian economy, and rather than acknowledging that, he makes accusations about hon. members when they try to put the record straight. The minister said earlier in the question period that what 1 said was false and that I knew it was false. That is a serious accusation for one member to make about another member of the House, and 1 do not take it lightly.
I want to document for the minister what other ministers have said on the subject of the failure of the budget, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and then I will let the Minister of Finance repeat his accusation, if he wants to. The point I made during the question period is that a variety of ministers of the Crown have acknowledged the failure of the budget to create jobs by stimulating the private sector. It was that which the Minister of Finance said was a false description of what had been said. I see he is nodding his head.
I have reference here to three ministers who support the question I put to the Minister of Finance. The judgment of these three ministers is that the budget has failed. The first judgment was made by the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) in a speech, appropriately enough, to the Canadian Manufacturers Association in Toronto on July 12. He was talking about the failure of the Canadian economy to create jobs and, related to that and entirely appropriately, to growing feelings of disunity in the country. At that time the President of Treasury Board said, and I quote from his text:
-pressure is building to substitute public spending on direct public sector job creation . . . and there will be very heavy pressure indeed if significant private sector employment increase, through expanded or new activity, is not forthcoming soon.
The whole thrust of that part of the speech of the President of Treasury Board was that the private sector was not producing the jobs that the government expected it would in its earlier budget. In addition to the President of the Treasury Board, 1 would like to quote the Minister of Finance himself. In a newspaper article which appeared in the Toronto Star on July 22 we find the following:
The federal government may be forced to spend more on emergency job creation if business investment doesn't pick up soon, says finance minister Donald Macdonald.
"We will have to make a decision by the end of this month," he told the Star yesterday. If government projections indicate investment is not going to improve in the next few months, "perhaps we'll have to step in."
Later in the same article it says:
In his March budget, Macdonald provided $1.2 billion in tax cuts for companies in the hope they would expand and create more jobs.
Yesterday, he admitted the strategy wasn't working.
The story continues in the same vein. Finally, I would like to refer to the Prime Minister. In the same article pertaining to the failure of the budget to create jobs, in the judgment of the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister is quoted as having said earlier in the week-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Where?


John Edward Broadbent: The source I have is a Toronto Star article, and it put the words of the Prime Minister in quotation marks.
August 5, 1977

1 will try to track it down for the minister, but in the last 40 minutes it has been hard for me to find anything more specific than words attributed directly to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is reported to have said that the private sector "has not taken up the slack which was provided for it in the budget".
The President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance, and the Prime Minister all passed judgment, explicitly or implicitly, on the failure of the budget to create jobs- and if that does not support the questions I asked, 1 do not know what does. If the Minister of Finance has any respect for truth-even if he has no concern about job creation-I suggest he withdraw the accusation he made when he said that what I said was false.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, right at the start I will withdraw the comment I made that the hon. gentleman was misleading the House. 1 recognize that under the rules of this House, whatever my personal belief, I am not entitled to say that any other hon. member is deliberately setting out to mislead. Therefore, I can say that the statements the hon. gentleman made were false, and I think he has shown on the record that they are false. However, I am not accusing, and I withdraw any accusation that he is trying to mislead.
What I am saying is that he just does not know any better. The remarks made by the hon. member do not at all reinforce the arguments he made. He said that ministers had acknowledged-and I have not seen the blues yet-and admitted that the budget had failed. I have spoken to my colleagues, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in this regard and they both affirm that they have never at any time said that. In addition, the quotations read by the hon. gentleman do not support that whatsoever. The quotations he read are, "We may be forced to spend more if business does not pick up soon," and, "Perhaps we will have to step in". Both quotations refer to possible future measures. In other words, that is what I said to the hon. gentlemen-indeed, also in response to the hon. gentleman's colleague in this House-and I think it is significant that the Leader of the NDP chose to refer to press reports rather than statements actually made by me in response to his colleague right here in the House.
I would like to refer the hon. gentleman to the response I gave on July 21 to his colleague, the hon. member for Water-loo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman). In that response he will find the position I took at that time and the position I have been taking consistently. As recorded at page 7860 of Hansard, I said the following:
Mr. Speaker, I am not considering a fall budget. However, at the end of this month I will be having an analysis of the first quarter returns, and as much as is available on the second quarter returns, made to determine whether in the absence of private expenditure some additional public expenditure-additional to that announced by my colleague the other day-will be desirable for this coming winter.
Privilege-Mr. Broad bent
In response to questions today, I said that we have made that analysis and decided that with the present balance between inflation and unemployment in the economy we should not make further public expenditure at this time. I think it is fair to say, in reply to the hon. gentleman, that that statement is clearly on the record. I will examine very closely the quotations he has made, but on the face of them I suggest that they bear absolutely no support for the proposition which the hon. gentleman put forward, that ministers have acknowledged that the budget has failed. There is nothing in the record, either in Hansard or in the statements he has quoted, which supports in one whit the allegations he has made. I cannot say he was trying to mislead the House, and I withdraw that, but 1 say the statement was false.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. The House has just heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) say that there is nothing in Hansard and nothing on the record indicating that government ministers or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have indicated that the measures to stimulate the private sector have failed, in terms of producing jobs. I refer the minister to page 7829 of Hansard for July 20, 1977. On that day I asked the Prime Minister the following question:
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister, since the Minister of Manpower and Immigration copped out.
In view of the fact that construction in the private sector is stagnating or declining, a fact which indicates that the private sector has not reacted to hand-outs granted to them in the last couple of budgets, can the Prime Minister tell the House if he is now prepared to stimulate business investment and to improve the lot of working people by bringing in a new budget as soon as possible which will grant major tax concessions to low income and middle income groups of Canadians?
The Prime Minister answered as follows:
Mr. Speaker, that seems to be the type of representation that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance would want to convey to the minister. The hon. member heard me say just a short while ago-and I believe the Minister of Finance has also said this-that we are concerned because the private sector has not taken up the slack which was provided for it in the budget. In that sense I agree with the concern of the hon. member.
The clear indication and implication from that response is that the budget measures have not served the purpose for which they were designed. The minister is deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue by accusing my leader and by saying that he is misleading the House. The Prime Minister himself has clearly indicated that the measures in the budget are not solving the problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Any vestige of a question of privilege vanished when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) rose in his place to withdraw allegations concerning any deliberate misleading of the House. However, he said during the question period that there had been some misleading, or that something said by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) was false. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby was given time to raise the matter as a question of privilege. The Minister of Finance responded and withdrew his allegations suggesting the hon. member had been

August 5, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
deliberately misleading the House. Any other arguments seem to me to relate to the interpretation of answers given or statements made. That becomes a matter of debate and discussion, and not a question of privilege.


MR. STEVENS-RULING BY MR. SPEAKER ON QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF MR. BALDWIN
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which arises from the ruling Your Honour made on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). As I understood the thrust of your ruling, you came down against the motion my colleague proposed to move, on the basis that there was no infringement, other than an apprehended infringement, of the rights of members of parliament with respect to the regulation concerning the security of information regulation with respect to the uranium question.
My question of privilege is this. In my case there has already been an infringement, in my view, of my right to perform as a member of parliament in this House. I requested a large Toronto law firm to review the documentation I had at my disposal, to determine to what extent they felt an offence had been committed and, second, to what extent they felt that offence had been committed not only by officials of companies in the private sector but by certain members of the government as well. They considered the question. Upon my drawing their attention to the regulation to which 1 have referred, they said they felt they could no longer continue to even review the documentation, or to advise me on the subject, as they themselves might be charged under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Control Act.
The chap with whom 1 was dealing said he would discuss it with two of his partners. He telephoned me again in two hours and said they both felt unanimously that there was no way they could participate in the formation of an opinion with respect to this matter. Within one hour, the documents in their entirety were returned to my Toronto office.


An hon. Member:: Obviously, you did not have a case.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the second infringement occurred in this manner. I planned to go to the United States in order to review certain documents which had been made available to us in the United States. Members of a Toronto law firm agreed to go down to attend and review the documents with me. Subsequently, within 12 hours of our leaving for the United States, they told me they could not go on the trip. They felt they could not review the documents because of the impact of the regulations to which we have been referring.
In short, in two instances legal counsel of two large law firms in Toronto said that they felt the regulation was so all-embracing and so wide that they would risk being charged even if they simply reviewed the documentation with a view to giving me an opinion as to what the legal consequences might be of actions taken by certain individuals as revealed in those documents. That, in essence, is my question of privilege. If you
[Mr. Speaker.)
find a prima facie case, I propose to move the following motion:
That the question of my inability as a member of this House to consult with counsel on the question of a uranium cartel and seek legal opinion as to action being taken with reference thereto be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I feel that the point raised by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), a point raised in discussion yesterday, was met in the ruling I gave today. Perhaps, in fairness, I should have expanded on the point because it is significant. The hon. member's argument put forward today is essentially the same argument as he put forward in support of the question yesterday.
I say I think the point has been met for this reason. Surely the Chair ought not to be called upon to comment on the correctness or adequacy of a legal opinion. The hon. member did not say to me that he, as a member of parliament, could not have the documents in his possession. In fact, he said today that he had the documents in his possession and turned them over to his counsel. Counsel returned the documents saying that under the impact of the law counsel ought not to proceed to look at the documents or give an opinion. Surely I cannot say if that is a correct or incorrect legal opinion. Surely it is beyond the scope of the chairman of this assembly to determine if that is right or wrong. If the hon. member had indicated to me that he could not get the documents with which to go to the lawyers as a member of parliament, then I would say the point had been met. Similarly, the point arises in connection with the hon. member's going out of the country to have access-


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. To go on in the same vein, the hon. member intended to go elsewhere to examine documents and indicated that he requested counsel to accompany him. Counsel said, "Under the impact of that order in council, as I read it, I would not go with you because I am afraid of breaking the law." But that does not prevent the hon. member himself from going to examine the documents. After all, privilege is confined to the ability of a member to fulfil his obligations as a member of the House of Commons. Surely it does not call on the Chair to pass an opinion upon the competence of a legal opinion.
On the question of whether the lawyers gave a correct opinion or an incorrect opinion, that is a decision I do not want to make, and in any circumstances do not think the Chair should make. If the hon. member had indicated that he had not been able to get the documents to seek a legal opinion, I would think that would be a much different matter. But asking the Chair to pass on the validity of an opinion seems to me to go far beyond that which is required of the Chair in assessing privilege.
August 5, 1977


MR. BAKER (GRENVILLE-CARLETON)-ANSWER OF MINISTER OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a personal question of privilege which relates to this matter and which arose during the course of the question of privilege and point of order I raised earlier to which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) responded. I do so on the basis of the dictum which Your Honour just pronounced. Your Honour said this, and I think I took most of the words down: First, privilege is confined to the ability of the member of parliament to perform his function or carry out his duty; second, if the point relates to whether or not the member of parliament was able to obtain the documents in order to obtain a legal opinion, it might be a completely different question.
Sir, during the course of my point of order I put a specific question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources which he did not have to answer but chose to answer. He said my question was frivolous, that I ought to know better than ask such a question, and he made certain other disparaging remarks I am prepared to let pass. The important point is this: he refused to table those documents and thereby make them available to me, at my request as a member of parliament, to do with them what 1 will in my capacity as a member of parliament, which could include the seeking of a legal opinion. I do not want Your Honour to be "hung up" on legal opinions. As a member of parliament, 1 have duties other than the obtaining of legal opinions. One of my duties is to know what is happening in any given situation.
The situation in which I now find myself may be different from that of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), but fits exactly the conditions set out in your last decision. 1 should like to have those documents tabled, naturally. I now believe 1 am raising the valid question of privilege which the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) sought to raise but did not put forward, according to Your Honour's judgment. Your Honour also ruled that the hon. member for York-Simcoe had not raised a valid question of privilege. Therefore, sir-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) continues, I want to be clear as to what he is saying. Is he suggesting to me that the Chair ought to find that there is a case of privilege in every application by a member of the House of Commons for documents which is not met with the tabling of documents? Obviously, I cannot extend the area of privilege to that point.


Walter David Baker: 1 did not argue that.


Mr. Speaker:: Applications for documents have followed a well known procedure in the House, namely, the request for the tabling of documents. Surely the hon. member is not asking me to find that if a request for documents is met with a refusal, until the request is specific, is met with an argument or transferred for debate under motions for the production of documents, that that constitutes privilege. I need to have clear ground if a member indicates to me that in attempting to fulfil
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
the special obligations upon a member of this House of Commons the member has been prevented from carrying out those obligations. The definitions are well known. There is a regular process for the tabling of documents. Applications by members for tabling of government documents is well known. It is available to all members.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the question is much broader than that. It is not merely a procedural point. It should be apparent to everyone in this House that it is not a mere question of procedure. The order in council that has been dealt with in the past few days reads as follows:
No person who has in his possession or under his control any note, document, or other written or printed material in any way related to conversations, discussions or meetings that took place between January 1, 1972, and December 31, 1975, involving that person or any other person or any government, Crown corporation, agency or other organization in respect of the production, import, export, transportation, refining, possession, ownership, use or sale of uranium or its derivatives or compounds, shall
(a) release any such note, document or material, or disclose or communicate
the contents thereof to any person, government, Crown corporation, agency or
other organization unless
(1) he is required to do so by or under a law of Canada, or (ii) he does so with the consent-
It is not just a mere question of procedure. This is not a mere tabling of documents. What has happened to the public of Canada and to this House over which Your Honour presides is that by your ruling, a member of parliament, before he would have a question of privilege, would have to commit an offence and be in jail-that is, before he would have a question of privilege with respect to this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the hon. member interprets my language for me-and 1 want to give him full amplitude to develop his argument-I want to make it clear that he must establish something that comes within the four corners of privilege as we have known them within the classic definition of privilege, the interference with a member in the performance of his duties.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) indicated that he had documentation, sent it to his lawyers and his lawyers said they could not give him an opinion on it. That is their opinion. Surely the Chair is not called upon to say whether that is right or wrong. The member was not in a position to say he attempted to get documentation which was refused to him on the basis of this order in council, or that it was documentation that had been refused on grounds of confidentiality or relationship with other government, or one of several other standards. Bear in mind that in applications for documents by members of the House of Commons there are several grounds upon which the government has, and does, regularly refuse production of documents to members of this House.
If an application is made for documentation with respect to a certain negotiation, the application is made in this House

August 5, 1977
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
and the minister rises in his place and says they will not produce that document because it relates to confidential negotiations, does the member rise in his place and say that he is asking for a document, he cannot get it and that is a question of privilege? Surely not. There must be something more than the inability of members to be able to get the tabling of that document.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) stood in his place today-by way of a point of order, by the way- and said to the minister the honourable thing to do would be to stand up and agree to table all of these documents. The minister said, "Of course I cannot agree to table all documents until I know what documents they are and what restrictions they might be under." Does that constitute a question of privilege? How can I bring that within the definition of privilege? I am not in any way saying that the member has to go and steal the documents from the minister. Surely that is not an accurate interpretation of the language I have used. Surely there must be more than some sort of refusal to produce documents on the classic grounds that have been known in the past.


Walter David Baker: 1 apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot comprehend the corner in which the House now finds itself. We have not suggested that before I or any other member would have a question of privilege there has to be a theft of the documents.


Mr. Nielsen:: Those were not your words.


Walter David Baker: Those were not my words. That was not my interpretation of Your Honour's words. Moreover, the question is not whether the Chair must decide whether the lawyer, in expressing the opinion that he could not give an opinion, is right or wrong. That is not Your Honour's function; I admit that. The point is the lawyer, the solicitor or counsel who made the statement that the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) has indicated made the statement regardless of where he stands on the question of right or wrong.
The facts are now that the hon. member for York-Simcoe, by Your Honour's ruling and, indeed, any other member of this House of Commons, even when faced with a legal opinion that is wrong, that that particular lawyer could not give an opinion, is now in the position where his privileges as a member of parliament to investigate, as a member of parliament, as a citizen to involve himself in the court process, however you want to cut it, is denied access to documents and to opinion on those documents by this order in council which the Leader of the Opposition has rightfully described as an odious order in council. That is the situation in which we find ourselves.
This is not an ordinary production of documents. I asked this question specifically, admittedly not in the question period but as a point of order. It would have been grand if it had been in the question period, but it was not. It was outside the question period. The question was answered. The question was

not answered on the grounds Your Honour suggests. It was answered on the basis that the question was frivolous and I knew it. There was an absolute refusal to produce those documents.


Charles Joseph Clark: Check the record.


Walter David Baker: It is on the record that it was frivolous. The disparaging remarks followed. On the basis of this order in council, we are now being denied the documents. That is out of the mouth of the minister. In these unusual circumstances, I do not know how anyone including, with respect, Your Honour, could call this an ordinary matter of production of documents, in view of what has happened. What has clearly happened is that I, as a member of parliament, in the circumstances of the last few days in the face of order in council by the government, have been denied access here in the House of Commons to documents, according to one legal opinion, right or wrong, upon which you do not have to decide. The solicitor could not give an opinion to a member of parliament to permit him to carry out his duties.
I want those documents as a matter of my right as a member of parliament. It is not an ordinary production. In view of what has happened, I do not think it can be handled in any other way. Therefore, in view of the refusal and in view of what I have said, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That this House declare that the order in council No. SOR 76-644 is not binding on members of the House with regard to proceedings in the House or any committee thereof or their counsel and that for the purpose of such proceedings, despite the provisions of such order in council, all documents or copies may be obtained, produced and used in connection with any inquiry into questions of privilege or into the legality and propriety of the actions of the government and minister and others in the establishment of a uranium cartel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I was going to rise on a point of order. Perhaps that is the best context in which to make my remarks. As the House leader of the opposition mentioned a few moments ago, he raised during the question period a question, on a point of order, which he put to me dealing with the matter of the documents. Quite clearly, if he will reread his question as it will undoubtedly appear in Hansard, he will realize, as his motion is now cast, that this is a carte blanche request to the government to table and make public all of the documents that might have been associated with the producers' agreement, all of the confidential government documents and all of the intergovernmental agreements, the sort of agreements that Your Honour referred to a moment ago when addressing the Leader of the Opposition.
I want to make it quite clear to him that when his request was put on that basis I considered it to be frivolous, and I still do. But I would make this point to him, that if he is prepared to put forward requests respecting specific documents, I am quite prepared to consider those requests-


Walter David Baker: To "consider".
August 5, 1977


Alastair William Gillespie: Yes, to consider those requests-on an expeditious basis. Quite clearly, I cannot give a carte blanche answer that I will table every confidential document that he may want to list, but I am quite prepared to give consideration on an expeditious basis to the particular documents that he might like to receive.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I make one very brief comment before a final ruling is made or is reserved, though there is little time left for reservation today. Your Honour will take note, as a member of the profession to which 1 have the honour to belong as well, of the punitive nature of this order in council. It is not just a civil matter; this is an order in council passed under the Atomic Energy Control Act. Any offence against that act or any of the regulations under the act carries with it a very heavy penalty. I do not have the act here, but I examined it the other day. There are very heavy penalties attached to any infraction or breach of that act or regulation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the minute that I-or, indeed, my friend for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) or the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-go to anyone to secure possession of these documents and I have them in my possession, I commit an offence against this order in council. This goes back to the case that Your Honour will remember we discussed in committee, of Strauss, the father of the House in the United Kingdom. I remember that in that case the original decision was against Strauss; but ten years later, in a report of the committee proceedings in 1966 and 1967, my recollection is that the procedure committee in the House in England at that time made it quite plain that any attempt which was made in that case, by threats against a member of the House, to inhibit him in the carrying out of his functions and duties constituted, in their opinion, a breach of privilege.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what could be a greater threat to us than the contents of this order in council? It constitutes a threat to every member of this House that if they dare to secure, without the permission-the very selective permission, probably-of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), possession of a document for the purpose of proceeding in the House or out of the House, it would immediately render them liable to a criminal proceeding and to the imposition of a very heavy penalty.
I suggest to Your Honour that there could be nothing more conducive to inhibiting members of this House in the discharge of their duty than the fact that they know-and 1 intend to pursue this matter when I leave the House today-that if I come into possession of some of these documents, not second or third rate copies out of the proceedings in Washington, but the original documents themselves, that if I go to a member of this cartel, ask for a document and they show it to me and for some reason are prepared to give it to me, then I have committed an offence. How can I prepare a case for proceeding in this House?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker


Gerald William Baldwin: In support of my hon. friend from Grenville-Carleton, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this order in council constitutes a clear, present and continuing threat to every member of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Although again eloquently argued, 1 return to the basic point which I think has not been altered by the discussion during the last hour. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has very accurately and coolly described the circumstances under which this order in council, in his view, constitutes a threat to his ability to function as a member of the House of Commons. I can understand that interpretation.
Again I say that if the hon. member was standing in his place and saying to me that he has done what he says he might do, and that he had met with that kind of response, I would be dealing with a much different question from the one I am dealing with at the present time. I maintain that so long as the matter remains in the potential, as opposed to being in the actual, the Chair would be making an unwarranted extension of privilege to accept the matter as a question of privilege.
With respect to the application by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) which we are specifically dealing with here, the basis of his question of privilege is the statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) today that he could not give the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton a blanket assurance that he would table all of the documents which relate to these transactions. I surely cannot find that that constitutes a question of privilege.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question. Let me preface my remarks by saying that since the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) has now amended his original position and has at least asked to consider requests for specific documents, we will take him up on that offer. 1 can advise the minister that it will be a very long list, and we would like to have a very expeditious reply.
We would also expect to have the kind of consent which would allow the parliament and people of Canada to get to the bottom of this question. I repeat what my colleague for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has said, that access to information which will make a debate in this House useful and effective will, of course, be a condition precedent to our agreeing to a debate, because we do not intend to have a debate in which the information is hidden away in the back pocket of the minister.
If I might briefly repeat what others of my colleagues have said in argument on the question of privilege, we are not asking at all that Your Honour come to some decision on the competence of a legal opinion that two senior, respected firms in the city of Toronto felt constrained from participating in any way in any activity which had to do with these documents. Your Honour is not being asked to judge whether or not they were right. The point at issue here, with the greatest respect, is that the existence of this order in council prohibits, and has
8086

August 5, 1977
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
prohibited, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)- it is not a theoretical matter; it is not potential or a threat; it is something that has happened-from seeking the kind of external advice regarding a complicated matter which he requires to have in order to carry out his responsibilities as an effective member of the House of Commons of Canada.
Again I emphasize that this is not a threat; it is not something which is potential. This is something which has happened to the hon. member for York-Simcoe on two occasions with respect to two separate, respected, substantial law firms in the city of Toronto. Their interpretation-which is an interpretation by very reputable counsel-of this order in council is such that it prevents them from giving a member the information that he requires to carry out his functions as effectively as he would want to in the House of Commons. Consequently, it interferes with his capacity to perform his functions in the House of Commons.
I want to emphasize that while most of us are prepared to rely on our own instincts and advice, there are many specialized questions of particular complexity where it is essential for members of parliament, in order to do their job, to seek outside, specialized advice. As the hon. member for York-Simcoe has indicated, this is clearly one of those cases. This is even more the case in an atmosphere which has been developed deliberately by members of the government when in answer to any request for an inquiry into any kind of question they ask the members on this side to make a charge before they will divulge any information.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe, in anticipation that this latest attempt at a cover-up would bring forth the same response as earlier attempts at cover-up, went to legal counsel to seek advice in order to be in a position to function in the House of Commons within the ground rules the government is trying to impose upon this House. The fact that a member of parliament is precluded by this order in council from seeking the kind of expert advice he needs to carry out his duties is a clear interference with his rights. I should like to make two other brief points.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: This is a question that is different from the normal request to table documents. We are dealing here with documents that would be available to the public in the normal course. They are not available to the public because of this particular order in council. Therefore, that takes the case we are discussing out of the context of the ordinary and makes it a very extraordinary case.
Members of the Official Opposition have been faced not simply with a threat but with a real interference, flowing from this document, to our capacity to do our duty. I should report to the House that the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott), in pursuing her responsibilities as a member of this House, was in touch with representatives of a Canadian company affected by this order in council to discuss the debate

which proceeded in this House yesterday. The situation occurred where a representative of that company would not even mention the word "uranium" because of the apparent concern that official had as to the consequences of engaging in any discussion with anybody, in light of the existence of this very serious limitation upon the right to inquire and the interference with the duties of members of parliament.
Those factors should be taken into account. We are not dealing with a threat. This is something that has happened to limit the effectiveness of members of parliament to do their job in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have made a ruling on the question of privilege. There is no fresh question of privilege before us. I will not restrict the serious intervention of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) on a question of this nature. The danger of actual interference 1 attempted to stress in respect to the carrying out of duties special to members of this House are ones that it is my obligation to protect. I attempted to illustrate that as clearly as I could with respect to actual difficulties as opposed to potential ones. The matter has now received rather extensive discussion and has been adjudicated upon by me on three separate occasions, and perhaps we ought to move on to other matters.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask you, and I do it in no impertinent way, how many members of parliament would have to make an effort to get a legal opinion of the sort sought by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) before Your Honour considers that our privileges have been interfered with by this order in council?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) is asking me to conclude that the refusal to give an opinion to the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) is in itself a legal opinion. Surely that is clearly understood. It is an interpretation of a document which indicates that the effect of the document in front of me now is such that I ought not to deal with-


Walter David Baker: How do you get off the treadmill?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely we can lay this point to rest. Supposing that legal opinion is not correct. On the basis of that presentation, is the Chair required to decide that that is a correct assessment by the lawyers of their obligations?


Walter David Baker: No, not at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Then, that is the nub of the disagreement. I have examined this document, and on another day some other counsel can examine this document and indicate that if the hon. member brings documents before him, he is in no way restricted from giving advice to him in his capacity as a
August 5, 1977

member of parliament. Now, which counsel is correct? Surely the Chair must decide, in order to answer the question put forth by the hon. member for Halifax. The Chair has to decide on the correctness of the opinion. If the hon. member for York-Simcoe had indicated that he wanted to take documents to counsel for an opinion, but he could not get his hands on the documents, and the reason for that was this order in council, and no other reason, then the argument would be considerably different from the one that has been put forward.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourteenth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Cafik.
[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), a position paper dealing with the proposed coasting trade act.


PENITENTIARIES
Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, under Standing Order 41(2), the document entitled "Response of the Solicitor General to the Parliamentary Subcommittee Report on the Penitentiary System in Canada".


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 118, 119, 120, 121, 495, 497, 584, 721, 734, 798, 805, 806, 807, 808, 1,229, 1,254, 1,255, 1,526, 1,528, 1,618, 1,619, 1,624, 1,625, 1,626, 1,628, 1,629, 1,630, 1,917, 1,918, 1,989,
Order Paper Questions
2,180, 2,225, 2,267, 2,292, 2,384, 2,388, 2,391 2,448, 2,479, 2,540, 2,747, 2,774, 2,860, 2,893, and 2,912.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In or about August 1975, did two men visit the offices of Radio Canada International in Montreal to discuss the content of programming to the Soviet Union by the CBC (a) did they represent a Soviet news service or any other Soviet organization and, if so, which one (b) did they introduce themselves as representing APN (c) who are the individuals and their job designations with whom these men met (d) what are the names of the visitors (e) was an attempt made by these visitors to persuade members of the Russian section of Radio Canada International to eliminate any political events or comments from coverage of the Canadian scene in Russian language broadcasts?
2.	Was the Department of External Affairs aware of this visit prior to its taking place and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, on what date did it become aware of the visit (c) did the Department take any action on the matter (i) if so, what(ii) if not, for what reason?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Department of External Affairs and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. A visit took place, to the Russian section, by two Soviet journalists, at their initiative. Visits by journalists from countries to which RCI broadcasts are a common occurrence. Discussion of RCI programs took place during the visit, as is usual in such cases, (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Mr. L. Chipman, Supervisor, Eastern European Section; Mr. A. Lieven, Announcer/Producer, Russian Section; Mr. D. Lebe-deff, Announcer/Producer, Russian Section; Mrs. H. Libe-rowsky, Announcer/Producer, Russian Section; (d) Mr. Valery Yuryev, Mr. Serguei Chandrov. (e) No.
2.	No. (a) Nil. (b) On June 29, 1976, when the matter was raised in the House, (c) No. (i) Not applicable, (ii) The department was not aware of the visit until the matter was raised in the House and no action seemed called for.


Mr. Cossitt: Did Mr. M. Mogiljansky, Head of the Russian section of Radio Canada International write a letter dated May 19, 1976, to Dr. Yaroshevsky and Mrs. E. Bobro-Zuchert of the Russian section of Radio Canada International in Toronto (a) did the memo state in part "This is to inform you in writing that according to the new rules, introduced by the RCI Director, Mr. Alan Brown, you are just reporters, not commentators" and, if so (i) what are these new rules (ii) for what reason were they introduced (iii) who compiled them (b) did the memo further state in part "You must also stay away from any reporting from the Toronto scene of a political nature" and, if so, what are the reasons that foreign listeners to the CBC should not be permitted to hear news of our democratic political processes as reported from Toronto?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: yes. Mr. Mogiljansky, head of the Russian section of Radio-Canada International wrote a letter on May 19, 1976, to Mrs. E. Bobrov-Zuckert and Dr. Yaroshevsky. These two persons are, however, not members of the Russian section nor employees of Radio Canada International, but are freelance contributors in Russian to the section's program, (a) Yes. (i) It is a normal part of a broadcaster's function to brief freelance contributors as to their role, and inform them of any policy changes that bring corresponding changes in that role. The "new rules"
80020-4 714

August 5, 1977
Order Paper Questions
referred to in the question were contained in a memo dated May 12, 1976, from the director of Radio Canada International to program managers of RCI, and gave the task of selecting political commentaries temporarily to the assistant program director, Shortwave, assisted by the heads of the English and French Sections, (ii) This was a temporary measure, pending a reorganization. It was introduced to clarify overall CBC program policies. The "new rules", were not related to the performance of Dr. Yaroshevsky and Mrs. Bobrov-Zuckert. (iii) If the director's memorandum of May 12, 1976 is here referred to, that memorandum was prepared by the director himself, (b) Mr. Mogiljansky's letter quotes an interpretation by his immediate supervisor of the director's policy memo, as follows: "You must also 'stay away from any reporting from the Toronto scene of a political nature.' " The fact that political reporting would not be done in Russian from Toronto did not mean that no political material would be available from that area to the Russian section. Such political material would continue to be available for translation by the Russian section from any political commentaries ordered under the assistant program director's authority for use by all sections of RCI. In this way a similar balance and objectivity could be achieved in broadcasts to all areas served by Radio Canada International.


Mr. Cossitt: Did Mr. Axel Thogerson, Assistant Programme Director of Radio Canada International write to Mr. T. England, Chief Administrative Officer of Radio Canada International, on June 1, 1976 and, if so, did his letter contain in part these words (a) "So we can't speak about Christmas. Why? Because the regime of the USSR has banned X-mas or what? Well, X-mas was a feature of this country last time I looked around and we have official government-declared holidays in which to celebrate the feast." (b) "The Toronto Automobile Exhibition, was that O.K. and safe? Hope we didn't offend any sensitive USSR listeners by telling them about this capitalistic show"?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: yes. (a) and (b). The quotations in question 70 are accurate but are out of context. Mr. Thogerson's letter is an internal memorandum that is part of a free and frank internal exchange on the contents of RCI broadcasts. Mr. England had not suggested any problem about mentioning Christmas or the Toronto Automobile Exhibition, nor was it within his power or responsibility to remark on program policy. On the contrary, he had simply passed on an evaluation of certain broadcasts in the Russian language which had been an evaluation commissioned from a person outside the organization-and was inviting comment, critical or favourable and was not enunciating policy. The quotes from Mr. Thogerson's memo are part of Mr. Thogerson's critical response to the evaluation. This memo, in its proper context as an internal exchange of programming criticisms, is part of a normal interchange of views within the service.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Radio Canada International censorship have removed from newscasts in the Russian language two items made by Dr. F. Yaroshevsky on May 19, 1976 and, if so, were the reports of (a) a demonstration by Jewish women in 
Canada protesting against treatment of Jews in the USSR (b) a report on the opportunities and the difficulties which doctors from the Soviet Union have encountered in settling in Canada?
2.	Was an explanation of the censorship sent by a letter dated May 19, 1976, to Dr. Yaroshevsky by Mr. M. Mogiljansky, Head of the Russian section of Radio Canada International, stating that such a censorship order had been issued by Mr. L. C. Chipman, Supervisor of East European Programming and, if so (a) who instructed Mr. Chipman to impose such censorship (b) what part did the Department of External Affairs play in the action, if any?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Department of External Affairs and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. There is no Radio Canada International censorship. RCI editors attempt to reflect major developments in Canada in proportion to their importance to the average Canadian, comparable to what might be found on the front page of a major Canadian newspaper. Deletions as described in (a) and (b) were and are made in the context of the reply to question 68.
2.	No. An explanation of the deletion of two items from the Russian program on Mr. Chipman's instructions was sent to Dr. Yaroshevsky by Mr. M. Mogiljansky, head of the Russian section of Radio Canada International, on May 19, 1976. (a) No one instructed Mr. Chipman to impose censorship or to delete particular items from RCI's programming or to forbid particular subjects being treated. The deletion was Mr. Chip-man's correct interpretation of the instructions regarding the ordering of commentaries, referred to in reply 68. (b) None.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. Alan Brown, Director of Radio Canada International, circulate an internal memo dated May 12, 1976, under the heading: "Target Area Desks and Central Programming: Preliminary Steps"?
2.	Did this memo contain in part these words "no more so-called news backgrounders are to be written by Radio Canada International employees" and, if so, what are the reasons (a) CBC personnel were abruptly ordered not to do such a thing (b) background information to the news was considered suddenly undesirable?
3.	Did this memo also contain in part the words "Of course no commentaries will be written in-house on political or economic matters under whatever disguise" and, if so (a) what are the reasons justifying the forbidding of comments on political or economic matters on the CBC's international service (b) is it now CBC or government policy to censor from Canadian broadcasts to other countries items of a political or economic nature?
4.	Did the memo also state in part "a press review will then be written by Mr. Cote (I suggest at least three times a week) referring to both the French language and English language press-but the selection will be made by Mr. Cote" and, if so (a) what is the full name and job designation of Mr. Cote (b) for what reason, has this one individual been given exclusive judgement and right to decide what excerpts from the English and French language press will be broadcast to foreign listeners (c) what is Mr. Cote's employment history with the CBC and what are his qualifications for such exclusive power?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes. (a) Radio Canada International seeks to reflect the spectrum of representative Canadian opinion on events, but should not, through its staff employees, have an editorial stance of its own. It was felt that a separate program element, referred to as a news backgrounder, had occasionally been susceptible to the inclusion of commentary by some staff employees and should, therefore, be replaced by a commentary
August 5, 1977

by freelancers. In addition, since CBC news policy precludes the inclusion of the staff news writer's own opinion in desk copy prepared for news bulletins proper, specific background facts only, (needed to explain a Canadian story to foreigners and to bring out its significance) would be incorporated by news-room staff as part of the news bulletin. News backgrounders, because of their length, are not a part of the news bulletin, but follow it in the slot where commentaries also normally appear. Where it would be difficult to deal with an event in the news without more extended explanation, either a backgrounder or commentary could continue, as had always been the case, to be dealt with in French or English by freelance commentators whose material would be available for translation by all foreign language sections, (b) Background information to the news is, of course, not considered undesirable. The policy is aimed at providing more background, using the most varied and knowledgeable sources.
3.	Yes. (a) The fact that commentaries were no longer to be written by the one or two staff members who occasionally did so does not mean that no commentaries, including those on political or economic matters, were to be broadcast by freelance commentators. The purpose of the memo was, on the contrary, to specify the duties of staff members and to widen the variety of commentary available through freelancers, thus ensuring the use of the best specialist expertise. Not only would the various language sections continue to have available commentaries written by freelance commentators in the official languages of Canada, English and French, for subsequent translation to the appropriate language, but the diversity of opinion available in Canada would be increasingly reflected by expanding the list of available authoritative freelance commentators. (b) No.
4.	Yes. Mr. Cote was given the editorial function of selection under the general direction of the assistant program director, (a) Lucien Cote, information resources officer, (b) It is normal for one person to compile a press review. Mr. Cote was given the responsibility because he is well informed on Canadian events and has a distinguished journalistic background. Since he is fluently bilingual, Mr. Cote has access to the contents of the English and French language press, (c) Mr. Cote is a highly experienced broadcaster and journalist. He has worked in the national service of the CBC, both in radio and in TV, and in the international service, or RCI.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. Ted England, Chief Administration Officer of Radio Canada International, have an evaluation made of a number of broadcasts from Toronto by Dr. F. Yaroshevsky in the Russian language and did Mr. M. Mogiljansky, Head of the Russian section of Radio Canada International, in a letter to Dr. Yaroshevsky dated May 25, 1976, state in part, as follows "The evaluation was undertaken by an outsider, who is aware of our mandate" (a) what is the name and address of this anonymous evaluator (b) what were his or her qualifications for making such an evaluation (c) who selected this person to make the evaluation (d) what is the meaning of the phrase that this person "is aware of our mandate" and exactly what is this "mandate"?
2.	Did this anonymous evaluation consist of eight pages of comments (a) did it state in part "Religious overtones, for example, have no place on any Radio Canada International broadcast" (b) did it also state in part "Why should a writer-announcer (Felix Yaroshevsky, in this case) be allowed to voice his own political feelings regarding the Canadian government on the air" and does this
Order Paper Questions
indicate an attempt by the government to forbid Russian listeners of Radio Canada International from knowing that in a democratic country such as Canada there are those who are permitted to disagree with the government (c) did it criticize Dr. F. Yaroshevsky from reading in Russian an article from the Toronto Star which stated that certain United Nations delegates from small countries were selling their votes in exchange for sums ranging between $600,000 and $800,000 and, if so, for what reason is there any objection to Russian listeners being made aware of articles or editorials appearing in the Toronto Star (d) did it criticize Dr. Yaroshevsky for pointing out that Russian immigrants to Canada had apartments, cars and supermarkets available in which to shop, electrical appliances, etc. and did it criticize him further for saying that "the material goods are not what is important, it is the newly-found freedom that counts" and, if so, what is wrong with Radio Canada International speaking about the subject of freedom in Canada (e) did it criticize Dr. Yaroshevsky for stating that the Ontario Liberal Party "fared poorly in the last provincial elections" and, if so, for what reason, when Dr. Yaroshevsky was actually stating a basic fact (0 did it criticize Dr. Yaroshevsky for stating that "the federal Liberals, under Trudeau, are becoming less and less popular in Canada" and, if so, for what reason, in view of the fact this statement is in accordance with all recent Gallup polls (g) did it criticize Dr. Yaroshevsky for pointing out that the Ontario Liberal Leader is a Jew of Russian origin and stating that therefore the Prime Minister of Ontario might one day be a Russian Jew and, if so, for what reason was fault found with such a statement and does the government not consider such a statement a credit to the opportunities offered to immigrants by Canada (h) did it criticize Dr. Yaroshevsky for describing in Russian "the Christmas scene in Toronto; the masses of shoppers, the after Christmas sales, etc. and remarks that Christ's teachings were not along the lines of materialism" and, if so, what was wrong with the stating of these basic facts (i) did the evaluation ridicule praise, given in Russian on one broadcast, of the work of the Salvation Army and, if so, for what reason is this something that should not be told to Russian listeners (j) did it criticize Dr. Yaroshevsky for pointing out as follows "Latin America, South Viet Nam, the Soviet Union, and other countries where the imperfections of the social system manifest themselves in the fact that the minority rules as a dictatorship in name of the majority and where all individual initiative is curtailed" and, if so, for what reason does the government and the CBC object to this statement of democratic principle?
3.	Did the evaluator state that Dr. Yaroshevsky's broadcasts showed "incredibly poor judgment and a total lack of sensitivity to the listeners' point of view" and, if so, is it now the policy of the CBC's International Service to see that everything broadcast to the Soviet Union conforms with the point of view of the Soviet Union?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. A fairly elaborate program evaluation process was begun in September 1975 and between that time and February 1976 all language sections, including French and English sections, had undergone a preliminary evaluation. In the case of languages inaccessible to some members of the evaluating committees, an outside evaluation was commissioned to provide an additional element to the retranslations of program material available. The evaluations, internal and commissioned, are part of an ongoing process. As part of these evaluations, and on instructions from the director of Radio Canada International, Mr. England requested an evaluation of a number of Dr. Yaroshevsky's freelance contributions to the Russian section. Mr. Mogiljansky in his letter of May 25, 1976 quoted a memorandum from Mr. England as follows "The evaluation was undertaken by an outsider who is aware of our mandate", (a) The name and address of the evaluator cannot be revealed for obvious internal reasons, (b) The evaluator had experience in broadcasting, a distinguished academic career and knowledge of the Russian language, (c) The director of Radio Canada International in consultation with Mr. England and another member of his staff, (d) The phrase "is aware of our mandate"

August 5, 1977
Order Paper Questions
means that the evaluator understood Radio Canada International's strategic objective as approved by the board of directors of the CBC in 1973. It reads "Radio Canada International is directed by the CBC to provide a program service designed to attract an international awareness of Canada and the Canadian identity by distributing, through shortwave and other means, programs which reflect the realities and quality of Canadian life and culture, Canada's national interests and policies and the spectrum of Canadian viewpoints on national and international affairs."
2.	Yes. (a) to (j) Yes, it contained the remarks quoted. However, it must be understood that the evaluator's remarks, as quoted in part in 2(a) to (j), were one of several internal evaluations and had no status as CBC policy.
3.	Yes: the question, in itself, is accurate. The evaluator's text, however, does not represent Radio Canada International policy. Broadcasts to the Soviet Union are not designed for the Soviet government, but for listeners in the USSR. Subjects which might be displeasing to their government can be treated at any time, but, in accordance with good journalistic practice, must not be treated in such a way as to constitute a propaganda campaign.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Supervisor of East European Programming for Radio Canada International in a letter dated June 1, 1976, to Mr. A. Thogerson, Assistant Programme Director of Radio Canada International, state in part as follows "Do we allow information in English to the United States about anti-Vietnam rallies in Toronto knowing that the US government understands the nature of democratic journalism but censor news in Russian to the USSR about Jewish demonstrations against Soviet policy because the Soviet government does not? If we do, our credibility with our listeners is shot because our hypocrisy will be apparent; if we do, our sense of journalism is warped to some extent beyond the limits of the normal restraints of good sense and a feeling of responsibility. If we don't, there are suggestions that a political campaign is being waged." and, if so (a) is it the policy of Radio Canada International and the government to permit anti-American propaganda on foreign broadcasts but to censor any criticism of the Communist system on such broadcasts (b) is the government prepared to allow a Parliamentary Committee to summon and question officials of Radio Canada International concerning programming in general and whether or not and on how many occasions, pressure has been put on the CBC's international service by the Department of External Affairs to restrict what is said in broadcasts to the Soviet Union?
2.	Did the letter also state in part "Our Soviet programmes are directed to an audience we know to be friendly and interested (and it includes Communists) living under a dictatorship that is not. As Robert Ford has pointed out often, the trouble is that the Soviet Union is a super power whose government re-acts with the sensitivity and lack of confidence of a banana republic. Even the wages of Toronto garbage collectors are an offence." and, if so, is the government prepared to censor the fact that workers in Canada such as garbage collectors in Toronto make wages higher than their counterparts in the Soviet Union and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Did the letter also state that on the subject of detente the alternative is "acceptance of the Soviet definition that detente means that Western Countries shouldn't say mean things about the Soviet Union"?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Yes, but in an internal memorandum, not a letter, (a) Radio Canada International's policy is to reflect in a balanced way the spectrum of Canadian opinion on any subject, (b) To be answered elsewhere.
2 and 3. The internal memorandum (not a letter) did make the statements quoted. There is no censorship in Radio Canada International by the government or otherwise. The memorandum refers to the outside evaluator's remarks, which have no policy status.
As far as the government is concerned: 1. (b) The Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts has the opportunity to question officials of the CBC on subjects it deems appropriate during the review by the committee of the CBC main and supplementary estimates.


Mr. Cossitt: Is the government prepared forthwith to order an immediate inquiry into the programming of Radio Canada International in the Russian language and in languages to other Communist countries to determine whether or not political influence is being used by the Canadian government to bring about censorship and, if not, for what reason?


John (Moody) Roberts: No. In a news release dated August 5, 1976, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation gave an unequivocal assurance that there is no censorship policy and never has been as it applies to broadcasts to foreign countries. As was further outlined, the CBC strives to achieve the same policy of balance in foreign broadcasts as is applied to domestic news and current affairs programs.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. Carroll Chipman, Supervisor, Eastern European Programming of Radio Canada International, write a memo dated December 10, 1975 to Mr. Alan Brown, Director of Radio Canada International and, if so, did the memo state in part "You will find attached my note to Bill Hooper and Alex Chistoff of the Eastern European Division of the Department of External Affairs covering my submission of the Russian and Ukrainian Radio Canada International section reports as they requested. Mr. Hooper and Mr. Chistoff were concerned about the complaints made at a cocktail party by the Soviet Ambassador about our programmes. They were thought to be worse than those of the BBC and Radio Liberty, were offensive to the Soviet Union and said nothing about Canada"?
2.	Were there discussions or communications between Messrs. Hooper and Chistoff or any others in the Department of External Affairs, with Mr. Chipman or any others in RCI and, if so (a) on what dates (b) for what reasons (c) in what locations and in what manner did they take place?
3.	What was the date and place of the cocktail party referred to in Carroll Chipman's memo of December 10, 1975?
4.	Is it the policy of the government to have the Department of External Affairs attempt to influence programming of RCI to Eastern Europe and particularly to the Soviet Union and (a) if so, for what reason (b) if not, what justifies the actions taken by Messrs. Hooper and Chistoff in this case?
5.	Did the memo of December 10, 1975 from Carroll Chipman to Alan Brown also state in part "After a cursory look at our programme reports, Alex Chistoff raised a few questioning criticisms from, as it were, diplomatic point of view	a tendency to nag the USSR, that is to say, to seek out material which while certainly published in the Canadian press, reflected poorly on the Soviet Union, in a way that was out of proportion with other matters of greater general Canadian concern" and, if so, what are the reasons justifying such interference on the part of the Department with the material broadcast by RCI to the Soviet Union and does this indicate a policy of censorship by the Canadian Government being applied to programming to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Department of External Affairs and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Yes, the memo did so state, in part.

August 5, 1977

2.	Yes. (a), (b) and (c) November 18, 1975, the Soviet desk officer, Mr. Chistoff, asked Mr. J. Svedman by telephone for an indication of news subjects for the sample period of September 20 to November 7, 1975 that would be helpful in any future discussions the division might have with the Soviet embassy on the subject of RCI broadcasts which it had raised with the department informally. December 5, 1975 Mr. Chip-man called on Eastern European Division on routine consultations and delivered a memorandum dated December 3, 1975 to Messors. Hooper and Chistoff together with the typed programme items. April 28, 1975 Mr. Alan Brown and Mr. E. T. England called on Eastern European Division during a call on the department on routine consultations.
3.	The Department of External Affairs is unaware of the cocktail party mentioned in Mr. Chipman's note of December 10, 1975 and believes the reference intended may have been to informal conversations which took place with Soviet embassy officials at luncheons on October 31 and November 17, 1975.
4.	No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Consultations between RCI and the Department of External Affairs are provided for in Order-in-Council PC 1968-525 dated March 19, 1968, which directs the CBC "to provide in consultation with the Department of External Affairs an international service . .Officials of RCI and the Department of External Affairs accordingly meet from time to time to discuss questions of mutual interest. The department does not, however, seek in these discussions to influence RCI's programs in any way whatsoever.
5.	Yes, the memo did so state in part.
In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned, however, the incomplete extract quoted from Mr. Chipman's memorandum suggests that Mr. Chistoff was critical of RCI programmes when in fact this was not the case either after the first brief look at the programme reports or at any other time. He did not criticize RCI for any tendency of its programmes to nag the USSR as suggested in the quoted extract. In its entirety, the relevant paragraph of this memorandum reads as follows: "After a cursory look at our program report, Alex Chistoff raised a few questioning criticisms from as it were, a diplomatic point of view, which coincided rather neatly with my own occasional criticism of the Russian program from a journalistic standpoint. I attempted to define this thought-a tendency to nag the USSR, that is to say, to seek out material which while certainly published in the Canadian press-reflected poorly on the Soviet Union, in a way that was out of proportion to other matters of greater general Canadian concern". The memorandum did not represent an interference or a policy of censorship.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Carroll Chipman, Supervisor, Eastern European Division of Radio Canada International, in a memo dated December 10, 1975, to Alan Brown, Director of Radio Canada International, state in part "He (Chistoff) will go through all the papers I gave him, and probably come back at me with further thoughts. They will be thoughts that, quite naturally, reflect External's sense of its own interests. An example: They don't like us to report, even in the news, anti-Soviet demonstrations outside the Soviet Embassy because the Soviets think that these demonstrations are (in the Soviet fashion) government inspired and
Order Paper Questions
that the government wants RCI to report them out of bitchiness" and, if so, what are the reasons that the Department of External Affairs objects to RCI reporting anti-Soviet demonstrations outside the Soviet Embassy that have actually occurred and news of which has been published in the western press?
2.	Does such objection constitute a direct attempt at censoring the reporting of news events by the Department and, if so, on what date did such a policy commence and (a) who authorized it (b) for what reason?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by External Affairs and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Yes, the memo did so state in part. The Department of External Affairs does not object in any way to Radio Canada International reporting the news. It is incorrect to infer that the department does not like RCI to report anti-Soviet demonstrations. Such a view point has never been held or expressed.
2.	There was no objection and no censorship exists, (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Carroll Chipman, Supervisor, Eastern European Programming of Radio Canada International, in a memo dated December 10, 1975 to Alan Brown, Director of Radio Canada International, state in part "I took the opportunity to complain that External doesn't properly and promptly allow us to report and explain Canadian foreign policy ..." and, if so (a) by what authority does the Department allow or disallow RCI to report and explain Canadian foreign policy (b) what is a full explanation of the word "allow" and does this indicate a policy of control by the Department over the programming of RCI?
2.	Did Carroll Chipman also state in the memo that RCI only gets "ministerial and ambassadorial pronouncements three weeks after delivery" and, if so, for what reasons was the Department not willing to make full information of events available to RCI for proper and legitimate news reports?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Department of External Affairs and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Yes, the memo did so state in part, (a) The department has no authority to allow or disallow Radio Canada International to report and explain Canadian foreign policy, (b) The word "allow" in this quotation was used in the sense of "enable". It does not indicate any policy of control by the department over the programs of RCI but rather a desire on Mr. Chipman's part to receive more current information from the department on Canadian foreign policy.
2.	Yes, the memorandum did so state in part. The department is willing to and does make factual and policy information available to RCI and other journalists for news reports and commentaries. Moreover, the department is constantly exploring ways of facilitating and improving this process.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Carroll Chipman, Supervisor, Eastern European Programming of Radio Canada International, write a memo to Messrs. Hooper and Chistoff of the Department of External Affairs in which he stated in part "You will find attached itemized programme reports of the Russian and Ukrainian sections of RCI on the period you requested from Gromyko's visit to Ottawa to the October Revolution, September 20 to November 7" and, if so, for what reasons did Messrs. Hooper and Chistoff request such material?
2.	Were Messrs. Hooper and Chistoff acting on complaints received from anyone in the government directly or indirectly as a result of complaints from any Soviet authority and, if so (a) who made such complaints and on what dates (b) what was the nature of such complaints?

August 5, 1977
Order Paper Questions
3.	Is it the policy of the Department to scrutinize and censor programming of RCI to the Soviet Union or any other countries on the basis of complaints received from representatives of such other countries and, if so, on what date did such a policy begin and on whose authorization?
4.	Did the memo also state in part "We will never have a programme that will satisfy pro-Soviet Soviets or anti-Soviet Soviets: we don't aim to. Our job is to fulfill our mandate, satisfy our journalistic conscience and interests, engage our listeners. Your Ambassador will never be happy, because he believes journalism should serve politics" and, if so (a) is the Department more concerned with keeping ambassadors and the governments of other countries happy than it is with the news being reported accurately and factually (b) is this an example of attempted censorship of RCI by the Department?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Department of External Affairs and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Yes, he did write a memo which so stated in part. The purpose in doing so was quite simply to obtain whatever background Radio Canada International could provide that would enable the department to discuss the matter knowledgeably if it were again raised by the Soviet embassy. The Soviet embassy did not raise it again.
2.	(a) and (b) The request for background information was made following informal comments by members of the Soviet embassy at luncheons on October 31 and November 17, 1975 that the programs of RCI were inconsistent with the spirit of the Final Act of the CSCE in Helsinki.
3.	No, it is the policy of the department to relay to RCI comments from foreign sources in the course of the consultations provided for in the Order In Council creating RCI.
4.	Yes, the memo did so state, in part, (a) No. (b) No, nor does Mr. Chipman's memorandum imply this. It goes on to state: "But we are sometimes unhappy too when we lapse from our standards". The memorandum is clearly an attempt to anticipate the kind of detailed points that could conceivably be raised by the Soviet authorities and to provide the Department with points that could be made in reply.


Mr. Cossitt: Did Mr. A. W. Johnson, President of CBC issue a statement dated August 4, 1976, stating in part that CBC has not been subjected to pressure from the Soviet Union in regard to Radio Canada International Programming and, if so, was he aware of an internal R.C.I. memo dated September 10, 1975 and signed by L. C. Chipman, at the time, Eastern European Director for R.C.I., addressed to the Director of R.C.I. and stating in part that Messrs. Hooper and Chistoff of the Department of External Affairs had approached him concerning complaints by the Soviet Ambassador about R.C.I. broadcasts to the Soviet Union and, if so, for what reason did he issue such a statement and is he prepared to correct it in this regard?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: Yes, the CBC president's statement of August 4, 1976 did so state, in part. It is presumed that the question refers to a memorandum dated December 10, 1975, and not September 10, 1975, between the parties mentioned and on the same subject. The president had not seen that memo on August 4. Since, however, the memo, in its entirety, reflected the frank review of criticism received from abroad which is part of the normal consultation process outlined and explained in the answer to part 2 of question 69 (formerly 5,.830), it in no way alters the purport of the statement of August 4, 1976.


Mr. Cossitt: Did Mr. A. W. Johnson, President of CBC issue a statement dated August 4, 1976, stating in part: " ... it has been charged that the CBC has been censoring its broadcasts to Eastern Europe. I can give an unequivocal assurance that there is no such censorship policy and never has been" and, if so, was he aware of various internal CBC memos written by M. Mogiljansky, at the time. Head of the Russian Section of Radio Canada International, L. C. Chipman, at the time. Head of the Eastern European Division of R.C.I. and Axel Thogerson, at the time. Assistant Program Director of R.C.I. which indicate otherwise and, if so, for what reason did he issue such a statement and is he prepared to correct it in this regard?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: Yes. Yes, if these are the memos and letters referred to in questions 68, 69, 70, 71, 73 and 74 of October 12, 1976. For a discussion of this correspondence and its meaning and context and confirmation of the fact that there is no censorship in Radio Canada International by the government or otherwise, see the answers to the aforementioned questions together with the answer to question 72 of October 12, 1976. The statement was issued to answer and refute allegations which had been made and published concerning the broadcasts to Eastern Europe by CBC's Radio Canada International and to place the matters in question in their proper context.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the complete Public Service employment history of Mr. Daniel Coates, including positions held and dates, etc.?
2.	Did Mr. Coates receive French language training and, if so (a) in what location (b) during what period of time (c) at what cost to the taxpayer?
3.	On what dates was Mr. Coates on vacation during the years 1975 and 1976 and what exact work was he doing for the Unemployment Insurance Commission on the three days immediately preceding his holidays and on the three days immediately following his holidays?
4.	Is Mr. Coates drawing full pay from UIC and, if so, what is the amount per year?
5.	Is Mr. Coates presently engaged in taking university courses in the United States and, if so (a) in what location (b) at whose expense (c) by what authority (d) for what period of time?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. Summer 1964-Department of Citizenship and Immigration-Research Assistant. Summer 1965-Department of Labour-Senior Research Assistant. September 24, 1973-SAPP appointment to UIC-To initiate an organization and human resources development program in UIC. January 10, 1974-Acting Comptroller, UIC. July 1, 1974- Executive Director, Administration UIC. April 19, 1975- Special Advisor to Chairman, UIC.
2.	(a) Algonquin College, Ottawa, (b) July 7, 1975 to January 31, 1976. (c) $12,660-Instructors' fees.
3. 1975-June 2 to June 30 inclusive; 1976-no leave; Special Advisor to Chairman.
4.	Yes-$31,500-$41,500 salary range.
5.	Dr. Coates is pursuing the development of models of organizational change and effectiveness as a post-doctoral
August 5, 1977

fellow, (a) Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, (b) Except for full salary, his own expense, (c) Treasury Board Minute 718445 1973-55. (d) February 1, 1976 to September 30, 1976 on educational leave. October 1, 1976 to December 6, 1976, by way of exhaustion of his annual leave credits.


Mr. Coates: 1.	What are the names, positions and salaries of each of the individuals who hold non-public service positions in the offices of Parliamentary Secretaries and in each instance, what was the date the person was appointed to the staff in question?
2.	In each case, how many have been candidates for office for the Liberal Party in either federal or provincial election campaigns?
3.	In each case, are there any persons who work on a contractual basis and are not listed in the above categories and, if so (a) what are their names (b) how long does their contract run (c) what is the amount of the contract (d) what is the reason for the contract (e) were any of them actively involved in the Liberal Party, either federally or provincially, in any past election campaigns?


Ralph Goodale: 1, 2 and 3. See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, Citation 184.


Mr. Cossitt: Is November 7, 1976 the effective date of the reorganization of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's Radio Canada International Russian Section and, if so (a) for what reason was the date selected and by whom (b) was the fact taken into account in making such selection that November 7, 1976 is the anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution in the Soviet Union?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: No. November 7 is, however, by international agreement the date on which RCI and other international shortwave broadcasters carry out frequency changes in transition from summer schedules to fail and winter schedules, under the auspices of the International Frequency Registration Board, a division of the International Telecommunications Union, which is a United Nations agency based in Geneva, (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) What was the total square footage occupied at 1650 Carling Avenue by the Unemployment Insurance Commission (b) what was the rental cost per square foot (c) what was the total rent paid per year (d) how long does the lease to the government have to run (e) following the moving of the UIC from this location, what was the length of time that the premises remained unoccupied before being utilized for other government purposes and what was the total amount of rental paid for the unoccupied premises?
2.	Have the facilities of the Ottawa Office of UIC, formerly located on Carling Avenue, been divided between L'Esplanade Laurier and 414 Cooper Street and, if so (a) in each case, how many square feet of space will be occupied (b) what is the total overall square footage (c) in each case, what is the rental cost per square foot (d) what is the total overall rental (e) from whom is each location rented (0 in each case, what is the (i) length of the lease (ii) name and address of the landlord?
Order Paper Questions
3.	What was the total cost of the move from 1650 Carling Avenue to the two new locations and what are the reasons justifying such expense in view of the government's declared restraint programme?
4.	What is the (a) total cost of all furnishings at (i) L'Esplanade Laurier (ii) 414 Cooper Street (b) overall cost?
5.	Was a new telephone system installed at 1650 Carling Avenue and, if so (a) at what cost (b) on what date?
6.	Was a new telephone system installed at the two new locations and, if so (a) in each case, at what cost (b) what was the overall cost?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Department of Public Works and the Unemployment Insurance Commission as follows: 1. (a) 23,036 square feet (plus 174 parking stalls); (b) $4.15 per square foot (lease payment to owner-not including parking); $5.27 per square foot (U.I.C. rental payment to DPW-including parking); (c) $95,599.40 (not including parking); $121,399.72 (U.I.C. rental payments to DPW-including parking); (d) To March 31, 1977 (plus 2 x 1 year options); (e) U.I.C. vacated July 30, 1976. New tenant occupied premises on October 22, 1976. Renovations commenced two days after U.I.C. vacated. Total amount of rent paid during renovation period-$21,739.04.
2.	Yes. (a) L'Esplanade Laurier-office space-22,214 square feet; storage area-737 square feet; 414 Cooper Street-office space-5,407 square feet; (b) 28,358 square feet (plus 13 parking spaces); (c) L'Esplanade Laurier: $9.25 per square foot (lease purchase payment of office space); $3.00 per square foot (lease purchase payment for storage space); $41.25 each per month (for 12 parking spaces); U.I.C. rental payment to DPW -$9.71 per square foot for office space; $3.09 per square foot for storage space. 414 Cooper Street: $10.00 per square foot (lease payments); $40.00 per month (for 1 parking space); U.I.C. rental payment to DPW-$10.30 per square foot; (d) $268,180.50 (total annual payments including parking); $273,667.37 (U.I.C. rental payment to DPW); $6,420.00 (parking payments); (e) L'Esplanade Laurier-Olympic and York Ltd., 414 Cooper Street-Chomley Investments Ltd.; (f) (i)-L'Esplanade Laurier-lease purchase over 35 years; 414 Cooper Street-5 years plus 3 x 1 year options, (ii)-L'Esplanade Laurier-Olympia and York Ltd., 1 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario. 414 Cooper Street- Chomley Investments Ltd., c/o Glenview Management Ltd., Suite 400, 170 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, Ontario.
3.	$285,505.09. The primary reason for the move was co-location with Canada Manpower, which in itself enchances our service to the public. In addition to this, the central nature of the location made it considerably easier to serve those in east, south and central Ottawa.
4.	(a) There is no separate inventory for each of these offices; (b) $194,639. This includes L'Esplanade Laurier, 414 Cooper Street and a small office in Vanier.
5.	Yes. (a) $6,400.00; (b) March 24, 1975.
6.	Yes, a new single telephone system, which included a switchboard, was installed to serve both locations, (a) $6,110.50; (b) $6,110.50.
8094

August 5, 1977
Order Paper Questions RADIO CANADA INTERNATIONAL


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the government aware of a press statement made to journalist Mr. Patrick Best by the Ambassador of the Soviet Union, His Excellency Alexander Yakovlev, to the effect that at no time did he complain to the Department of External Affairs or the government concerning programming to the Soviet Union by CBC Radio Canada International?
2.	How does the government reconcile Mr. Yakovlev's statement with internal CBC memos signed by Mr. L. C. Chipman, Head of Eastern European Programming at the time, one dated December 10, 1975 and the other undated, which state exactly the opposite to the effect that Messrs. Hooper and Chistoff of the Department of External Affairs were approached by Mr. Yakovlev?
3.	(a) Is Mr. Yakovlev's statement according to fact and, if so, has the government adopted a policy of slandering the Ambassador to Canada from the Soviet Union (b) is the government prepared to withdraw any statements made alleging such actions by Mr. Yakovlev and (i) if so, on what date (ii) if not, for what reason?


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the
Department of External Affairs is concerned, the reply is as follows: 1. The government is aware of an article by Mr. Patrick Best on this subject which appeared on October 21, 1976.
2 and 3. (a) and (b) As the government is not in a position to confirm statements reportedly made by the Soviet ambassador to the press, it would not be appropriate for it to comment on them.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Mr. M. Mogiljansky, Head of the Russian Section of CBC Radio Canada International at the time the Honourable Member for Leeds released copies of internal CBC memos signed by Mr. Mogiljanksy and others which suggested interference by the Department of External Affairs with news broadcasts to the Soviet Union, recently demoted from his position and, if so, for what reason?
2.	How many years was Mr. Mogiljansky in charge of the Russian Section and what is his complete employment history with CBC?
3.	What part did Mr. Mogiljansky play originally in setting up the Russian Section of R.C.I.?
4.	Is Mr. Mogiljansky being persecuted by the government for offering constructive criticism?
5.	Is the government and CBC referring to Mr. Mogiljansky's change in position as a lateral transfer and, if so, how do they justify this?
6.	Is it government policy to conduct vendettas against long standing public service employees who simply offer constructive criticism that might be helpful to the operation of the department or corporation concerned, in this case, CBC Radio International?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1. No. Mr. Mogiljansky was recently assigned to a new position in R.C.I.
2.	Mr. Mogiljansky was in charge of the Russian section of R.C.I. for approximately one year and four months. It has not been customary to require the CBC to supply such details of its internal management and administration (the background to this custom is explained in the answer to question no. 2,530, May 22, 1975).
3.	Mr. Mogiljansky was one of those involved in the setting up of the Russian section.
4.	No. Mr. Mogiljansky has offered no criticism.

5.	No. The CBC is describing these changes as transfers to new positions with no reduction in pay.
6.	To be answered elsewhere. In so far as the Secretary of State is concerned: no.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Mr. Axel Thogerson, Assistant Director of Radio Canada International at the time the Honourable Member for Leeds released copies of internal CBC memos signed by Mr. Thogerson and others which suggested interference by the Department of External Affairs with news broadcasts to the Soviet Union, recently demoted from his position and, if so, for what reason?
2.	What is Mr. Thogerson's complete employment history with CBC?
3.	Is Mr. Thogerson being persecuted by the government for offering constructive criticism?
4.	Is the government and CBC referring to Mr. Thogerson's change in position as a lateral transfer and, if so, how do they justify this?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Mr. Axel Thogerson was never assistant director of RCI. He was for a time, assistant program director (shortwave). The memo by Mr. Thogerson did not suggest interference by the Department of External Affairs with news broadcasts to the Soviet Union. Mr. Thogerson was recently transferred to a new position within RCI.
2.	It has not been customary to require the CBC to supply such details of its internal management and administration (the background to this custom is explained in the answer to Question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975).
3.	No.
4.	No. The CBC is describing these changes as transfers to new positions with no reduction in pay.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Mr. L. C. Chipman, Supervisor of Eastern European Division of Radio Canada International at the time the Honourable Member for Leeds released copies of internal CBC memos signed by Mr. Chipman and others which suggested interference by the Department of External Affairs with news broadcasts to the Soviet Union, recently demoted from his position and, if so, for what reason?
2.	What is Mr. Chipman's complete employment history with CBC?
3.	Is Mr. Chipman being persecuted by the government for offering constructive criticism?
4.	Is the government and CBC referring to Mr. Chipman's change in position as a lateral transfer and, if so, how do they justify this?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Mr. Chipman was recently transfered to a new position within RCI. No memos written by Mr. Chipman suggested interference by the Department of External Affairs.
2.	It has not been customary to require the CBC to supply such details of its internal management and administration (the background to this custom is explained in the answer to Question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975).
3.	No.
4.	No. The CBC is describing these changes as transfers to new positions with no reduction in pay.
August 5, 1977


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	Will the relocation of the Department of Veterans Affairs, as announced, to Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, contribute to the effectiveness of the Department and, if so, in what manner?
2.	Will the decentralization of the Department, as announced, provide better service to the veterans and his or her dependants and, if so, in what manner?
3.	What provisions are being made for public servants who cannot relocate to Charlottetown?
4.	Which government departments will be able to absorb such employees and how many fall within the category?
5.	Is there any likelihood of such public servants, who cannot move, being forced to accept employment in the Public Service at a lower salary scale if they elect to remain in the Public Service in another department or agency?
6.	Did the Minister, in a letter dated October 28, 1976, addressed to employees state that employees "are protected to the fullest" and, if so, what did the Minister mean by such a phrase?
7.	What is the estimated cost per employee to transfer the bulk of the Department to Charlottetown?
8.	What alternative measures for aiding Charlottetown were considered and for what reason were such alternatives abandoned in favour of decentralization of the Department?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Treasury Board Secretariat as follows: 1. The effectiveness of the Department of Veterans Affairs will not change as a result of relocation to Charlottetown. However, during the years preceding relocation the department will proceed with planned organizational, procedural and systems improvements which will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of operations.
2.	The high standard of service to veterans and their dependants will be maintained. This service will continue to be provided on a personal basis at the Veterans Affairs field locations across Canada.
3.	These provisions are described in Treasury Board Personnel Policy Manual including provision for first consideration for reassignment to other departments.
4.	Insofar as the Department of Veterans Affairs is concerned, this question cannot be answered at this time.
5.	In view of the 4-5 year span of relocation implementation, there is little likelihood that employees who choose not to relocate will be required to consider employment at lower salary levels.
6.	Yes. Veterans Affairs employees who choose to relocate will be eligible for reimbursement of legitimate and reasonable removal costs as provided for in the Treasury Board Relocation Directive. Employees who do not choose to relocate will be accorded the provisions of current Treasury Board policies on human resource utilization described in the Treasury Board Personnel Management Manual.
7.	Removal costs are estimated to be approximately $6,000 for each employee. At this time there can be no precise determination of the number of employees who will choose to relocate and the number of employees to be recruited at the new location.
Order Paper Questions
8.	None.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government aware of the reports that Canadian flax straw has been used to the limit of its availability for making fine paper products and, if so, is the government giving consideration to ensuring that more of this product is produced in the coming crop year?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as Agriculture Canada is concerned: Yes. Flax straw presently used for making fine paper products is a by-product of flax seed production and current prices for flax straw do not provide an incentive for producers to increase flax production. Increases in flax acreage cannot be encouraged solely to provide more straw. In addition to the research conducted and supported by Agriculture Canada, as outlined in the answer to Question 1,255, the government is working with producers to investigate possible production and market possibilities of special fibre flax varieties. Government officials have met with flax producers and some members of the Flaxseed Growers of Western Canada have been to a meeting held in Ottawa to discuss the topic. Also, a group of producers and researchers were sponsored on a mission to Europe to investigate European production and utilization of flax fibre.
In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: Presently a limited amount of flaxseed straw is being collected and used for the production of fine paper products. The collection and further processing of flax straw is being examined as a complementary source of revenue for flax growers. To this end, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has collaborated with the Flax Growers of Western Canada by funding a mission to western Europe to conduct trials on the production of flax fibre from Canadian flax straw, to evaluate processing technologies and processing equipment available and to evaluate market potential. It should also be noted that the department is assisting in a major way in the establishment of the "P.O.S." Pilot Plant Corporation in Saskatoon which has, as the prime objective, the value-added processing of grains and oilseeds including flax.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government aware of the reports that industrial oil obtained from western Canadian flax is of high quality and is a possible continuing source of this important product and, if so, what research is the government undertaking to ensure that this potential resource is fully exploited?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes. Agriculture Canada conducts research to obtain earlier ripening, improved yields, resistance to flax rust and superior oil and meal quality through plant breeding and this work is supported by genetic research. In addition, Agriculture Canada supports complementary research on flax at the University of Saskatchewan in order to expand the potential of flax as a major prairie
80020-48V4

August 5, 1977
Order Paper Questions
crop. It should also be noted that the department is assisting in a major way in the establishment of the "P.O.S." Pilot Plant Corporation in Saskatoon which has, as the prime objective, the value-added processing of grains and oilseeds including flax.
(b) Yes.
(i-iv)
(v)
(vi-x)
1975-76	1976-77
Nil	Nil
12	13
Nil	Nil


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


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1.	Yes. (a) i, vii, ix, x-Nil; ii-12; iii-3; iv-9; v-1,046; vi-44; viii-1. (b) i, ii, iii, iv, vi, vii, viii, ix, x-Nil; v-64.
2.	Main estimates.
3.	(a)
	1975	1976
Alberta	$6.30	$6.71Saskatchewan	5.20	6.50Manitoba	6.00	5.81Ontario	8.25	7.65Quebec	4.50	5.00Nova Scotia	
5.40
(b) This information is not available from department records as salary and pay arrangements are the responsibility of the agency and the employees, (c) 1975, $651,278.33; 1976, $1,083,965.31.


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


Francis Fox: 1. (a) Yes.
	1975-76	1976-77
(i)	2	1(li-iv)	Nil	Nil(v)	130	130(vi)	Nil	Nil(vii)	3	8(viii-x)	Nil	Nil

2.	No. The employees are paid from main estimates.
3.	(a)
	1975-76	1976-77
(i)	$5.90	$5.75(ii-iv)	N/A	N/A(v)	$6.98	$7.59(vi)	N/A	N/A(vii)	$4.75	$4.90(viii-x)	N/A	N/A
(b) All agency employees are paid by their respective employment agency, and the hourly rates of pay they receive are a private matter between the agency (employer) and their employees, (c) (i) $223,143; (ii) $204,180.
Canadian Penitentiary Service and the National Parole Service: 1. (a) Yes.
	1975-76	1976-77
(i)	58	62(ii)	8	3(iii)	11	2(iv)	Nil	Nil(v)	78	117(vi)	1	Nil(vii)	2	Nil(vm)	Nil	1(ix and x)	Nil	Nil(b) No.	2. No. Funding	for payment is included in the main	estimates. 3. (a)	1975-76	1976-77(i)	$6.28	$5.66(ii)	$4.75	$4.37(iii)	$5.00	$4.25(iv)	Nil	Nil(v)	$6.02	$5.54(vi)	$5.15	Nil(vii)	$4.90	Nil(viii)	Nil	$4.85(ix and x)	Nil	Nil(b) The Canadian Penitentiary Service	is not informed ofthe rate paid by the employment agencies to their employees.	(c) (i) $171,507.70; (ii) $180,375.34.	Royal Canadian Mounted Police: 1. (a) No. (b) Yes.	1975-76	1976-77(i-iv)	Nil	Nil(v)	59	80(vi)	2	Nil(vii-x)	Nil	Nil
August 5, 1977

2.	No. The employees are paid from main estimates.
3.	(a)
		1975-76	1976-77	
(i-iv)	Nil	Nil	(v)	$6.05	$6.38	(vi)	$6.48	Nil	(vii-x)	Nil	Nil	(b) All	agency employees are paid	by their	respectiveemployment agency, and the hourly rates of pay they receive are a private matter between the agency (employer) and their	employees, (c) (i) $161,749.16; (ii) $278,625.80.	National Parole Board:	1. (a) Yes.	1975-76	1976-77	(i)	3	3	(ii)	Nil	Nil	(iii)	1	1	(iv)	Nil	Nil	(v)	14	8	(vi-x)	Nil	Nil	(b) No.	2. No.	Funding for	payment is included in	the mainestimates.	3. (a)	1975-76	1976-77	(i)	$6.17	$6.25	(ii)	Nil	Nil	(Hi)	$4.70	$5.45	(iv)	Nil	Nil	(v)	$4.95	$5.34	(vi-x)	Nil	Nil	
(b) All agency employees are paid by their respective employment agency, and the hourly rates of pay they receive are a private matter between the agency (employer) and their employees, (c) (i) $6,976.79; (ii) $2,899.16.


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many employees of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources are located in the Province of Quebec and what is the estimated payroll for the fiscal year 1976-77?
2.	What is the value of property and equipment associated with the operations of the Department in the Province?
3.	What is the value of the cushion provided under the policies of the Department in association with the importations of foreign oil from the beginning of the programme to the end of the 1976-77 fiscal year?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments
Order Paper Questions
of Energy, Mines and Resources and Public Works as follows:
1.	Sixty-three employees; $839,690.
2.	Value of property-See answer to part 2 of question No.
1,620	answered April 1, 1977. Estimated value of equipment- $651,286.
3.	January 1, 1974 to end of fiscal year 1976-77, Quebec only-$2,300 million.


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many public servants in the Department of the Secretary of State are located in the Province of Quebec and what is the estimated payroll for the fiscal year 1976-77?
2.	What is the value of buildings and equipment associated with the operations of the Department in the Province?
3.	What is the estimated value of programmes presently underway in the Province that are associated with the operations of the Department?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Public Works and the Secretary of State as follows: 1. Four hundred eighty. $7,514,636.
2 and 3. Value of buildings-See answer to part 2 of question No. 1,620 answered April 1, 1977.
Program	Operating expenditures and fixed assets (other than salaries) Grants	Contributions	TotalAdministration	1,000 -	-	1,000Education Support	336,000,000	336,000,000Translation	551,000 -	-	551,000Citizenship	213,000 1,390,000	202,000	1,805,000Approximate cost	765,000 1,390,000	336,202,000	338,357,000Note: Salaries indicated in part 1 to be added.


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many employees of the Department of Supply and Services are located in the Province of Quebec and what is the estimated payroll for the fiscal year 1976-77?
2.	How many government contracts are now being monitored by the Department, including defence projects and what is the estimated value of such contracts?
3.	How many buildings and equipment under the responsibility of the Department are located in the Province and what is the estimated value in each case?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Supply and Services and Public Works as follows: 1. One thousand five hundred twenty-six. $20,808,018.
2. Contracts:
National Defence Total
Vendor Location No.	$000
5,951	126,138
20,420	437,445
Vendor Supply Point No.	$000
7,246	146,533
27,774	399,191
3.	Total value of equipment $2,128,343.56. Value of buildings-See answer to part 2 of question No. 1,620 answered April 1, 1977.

August 5, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many members of the RCMP are located in the Province of Quebec and what is the estimated payroll for the fiscal year 1976-77?
2.	What is the estimated value of buildings and equipment under the responsibility of the RCMP in the Province?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Department of Public Works as follows: 1. One thousand two hundred sixty-five. $21,913,500.
2. Value of buildings-See answer to part 2 of question No.
1,620	answered April 1, 1977. Estimated value of equipment- $4,800,000.


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many employees of the Department of Agriculture are in the Province of Quebec and what is the total payroll for the fiscal year 1976-77?
2.	What is the estimated value of property and equipment owned by the Department in the Province?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by Agriculture Canada and the Department of Public Works as follows: 1. 1,359 man-years and $21,321,659 are budgeted for 1976-77.
2. Value of property-See answer to part 2 of question No.
1.620	answered April 1, 1977. Value of equipment-$3,480,440. Equipment records maintained by the department includes items which are considered attractive or have a value of more than $50.


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many employees of the (a) Canadian Penitentiary Service (b) Department of the Solicitor General (c) Department of Justice are located in the Province of Quebec and, in each case, what is the estimated payroll for the fiscal year 1976-77?
2.	In each case, what is the value of buildings and equipment that the Department has in the Province?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of the Solicitor General, Justice and Public Works as follows:
1.	(a) 2,228. $39,827,000. (b) 2 (Ministry Secretariat); $35,264. (c) 67. $1,282,186.66.
2.	Value of buildings-See answer to part 2 of question No.
1.620	answered April 1, 1977. (a) Value of equipment- $9,200,000 (approximately); (b) Value of equipment-$4,880; (c) Value of equipment-$81,892.


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many employees of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion are located in the Province of Quebec and what is the estimated payroll for the fiscal year 1976-77?
2.	What is the estimated value of property and equipment owned by DREE in the Province?
3.	What is the total value of loans and grants awarded to industries in the Province since the inception of the Regional Development Incentives Programme and what is the outstanding indebtedness of Quebec businesses to the government as of December 31, 1976?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Public Works and Regional Economic Expansion as follows:
1.	One hundred thirty-five. $2,277,038 as of December 31, 1976.
2.	Value of buildings-See answer to part 2 of question No.
1,620	answered April 1, 1977. Value of equipment-$260,586.
3.	(a) The department has awarded no loans since the inception of the Regional Development Incentives Program. However, as of December 31, 1976, for loan guarantee offers made and accepted, the amount of DREE guarantees, in respect of loans of $24 million is $16.5 million, (b) As of December 31, 1976, $217,630,125 in grants had been offered to industries in the province, (c) Quebec businesses owed no money to the department as of December 31, 1976.


Mr. Coates: 1.	(a) What are the names of Crown corporations, in addition to CNR, CBC and Air Canada, that operate in the Province of Quebec (b) what is the total number of employees of each located in the Province (c) what is the estimated payroll for each for the fiscal year 1976-77?
2.	In each case, what is the estimated value of property and equipment owned in the Province?


Ralph Goodale: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: 1. (b) 990. (c) $11,000,000 (estimated) year 1976.
2. The estimated value of residential properties owned by CMHC in the province of Quebec, as at December 31, 1976, is as follows: CMHC owned: $106,169,146. Mortgage Insurance Fund: $44,240,212. Total: $150,409,358.
Export Development Corporation: It has not been the practice to answer questions concerning the internal administration of the Export Development Corporation inasmuch as the Export Development Act places the responsibility for such matters in its board of directors.
Farm Credit Corporation: 1. (b) 128 as at December 31, 1976. (c) $2,005 million (estimated).
2. No real property as at December 31, 1976. Equipment $59,020 as at December 31, 1976.
Federal Business Development Bank: 1. (b) 646. (c) $8,900,000. (estimated).
2. The Federal Business Development Bank does not own real estate for its own use in the province of Quebec but it does own office equipment and furniture located in its Head Office in Montreal and regional and branch offices. At March 31st, 1976, the book value of all fixed assets owned by FBDB was $2,082,852. A breakdown by province is not available.
Laurentian Pilotage Authority: 1. (b) 81. (c) $1,600,000.
2. $103,000.
Loto Canada Inc.: 1. (b) 31. (c) $383,832.
2. $49,750.
The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority: 1. (b) 432. (c) $7,225,000.
August 5, 1977

2. $212,000,000.
Teleglobe Canada: 1. (b) 700. (c) $18,435,818.
2. At cost $37,371,392. At net Book Value $21,929,003. Other proprietary corporations have no employees working in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	For all immigration activities, including appeals, how is work progressed through (a) local offices (b) overseas offices (c) regional offices (d) headquarters?
2.	In each case, what is the (a) chain of command (b) name, title and location of those responsible at each decision-making level?
3.	In each case, who is responsible for decisions on the movement of immigrants, according to each category, in Canada?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The process of immigration activities is described in Volume 2, "The Immigration Program" of the Report of the Canadian Immigration and Population Study published in 1974. To reply to this question in more detail would require a complete explanation and documentation of all operations of the immigration division at headquarters and in the field including the work flow and decision-making process. The cost of compiling this detailed information is clearly prohibitive.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	In each year since 1947 to date, how many immigrants by (a) country of origin (b) racial extraction (c) occupational qualifications (d) destination were accepted into Canada and, in each case, how many were (i) sponsored (ii) unsponsored?
2.	For the same years, how many of those sponsored were (a) workers (b) non-workers and what was the sponsor relationship in each case?
3.	For the same years, how many of those unsponsored were (a) workers (b) non-workers?
4.	For the same years, how many visitors by (a) country of origin (b) racial extraction (c) location in Canada were granted landed immigrant status?
5.	For the same years, how many Canadian emigrants by (a) province (b) age (c) qualifications (d) country of destination, left Canada?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. (a) Available from Immigration Statistics which are published yearly, (b) Not available, (c) See 1(a). (d) See 1(a).
2. (a) Prior to 1967, statistics in the form requested not available. In October of 1967, the regulations were amended to include nominated relatives, sponsored dependants and independent classes. Therefore, the statistics provided below concerning sponsored immigrants destined to the labour force were: 1968, 5,958; 1969, 6,496; 1970, 6,523; 1971, 7,425; 1972, 7,764; 1973, 8,959; 1974, 10,606; 1975, 14,762; 1976, 16,448. (b) Prior to 1967 statistics in the form requested not available, (see 2(a)). Since that time, sponsored immigrants not destined to the labour force were as follows: 1968, 32,349; 1969, 27,052; 1970, 25,740; 1971, 26,025; 1972, 25,313; 1973, 33,042; 1974, 43,691; 1975, 49,563; 1976, 45,394. Sponsor relationship not readily available.
Order Paper Questions
3.	Data not available on unsponsored workers prior to 1964.
The unsponsored class of immigrants was cancelled in 1967 with the introduction of the new immigration regulations. Therefore, the statistics below reflect the unsponsored workers and non-workers who came in Canada in the years 1964 to 1967 and independent immigrants from 1968 on: (a) 1964, 38,529; (b)	27,281;	1965,	(a)	53,679;	(b)	34,988;	1966,	(a)75,771; (b)	51,108;	1967,	(a)	93,302;	(b)	55,141;	1968,	(a)64,961; (b)	36,979;	1969,	(a)	54,488;	(b)	32,328;	1970,	(a)51,293; (b)	28,815;	1971,	(a)	36,808;	(b)	22,299;	1972,	(a)34,106; (b)	23,864;	1973,	(a)	59,117;	(b)	38,400;	1974,	(a)67,447; (b)	43,473;	1975,	(a)	42,106;	(b)	34,454;	1976,	(a)
25,163; (b) 23,862.
4.	Statistics on the number of "visitors" landed in Canada are not available as such. However, the following is the total number of applicants in Canada who were granted landed immigrants status since 1957. Prior to that date, data not readily available. 1957, 7,067; 1958, 8,149; 1959, 9,886; 1960, 8,648; 1961, 10,536; 1962, 11,243; 1963, 13,466; 1964, 13,872; 1965, 14,847; 1966, 18,045; 1967, 31,611; 1968, 32,619; 1969, 38,765; 1970, 43,010; 1971, 46,896; 1972, 45,079; 1973, 66,467; 1974, 45,089; 1975, 23,122; 1976, 25,212. (a), (b), (c) statistics, in the form requested, not available.
5.	We do not record persons leaving Canada.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	(a) What was the cost of building the M.V. Gulf Guard, now owned by the Canadian Commercial Corporation, for the original owners, Gulf Garden Foods (b) for what purpose was the boat built (c) for what length of time was it in use for Gulf Garden Foods before it was sold?
2.	(a) For what purpose did the second owners, PEI Industrial Corporation purchase the boat (b) for what length of time was it in use for PEI IC (c) for what reason was the boat listed for sale by PEI IC (d) how much did PEI IC pay for the purchase of the boat from Gulf Garden Foods (e) for what reason was it transferred from PEI IC to Industrial Enterprises Incorporated?
3.	(a) For what purpose did Breton Trawlers Ltd. purchase it from PEI IC (b) how much did they pay for it (c) for what length of time and in what capacity was it in operation for Breton Trawlers Ltd. before it was sold (d) for what reason was the boat listed for sale by the Breton Trawlers Ltd.?
4.	When the Canadian Commercial Corporation purchased the boat from Breton Trawlers Ltd., was the Corporation aware that modifications would be necessary before the vessel would be suitable for the purpose intended by CIDA?
5.	What "unforeseen requirements", as stated in the Auditor General's Report, caused an increase from $264,500 to $453,800 for a contract for modification of the vessel?
6.	Did CIDA confer with the Republic of Colombia concerning the modifications necessary before the boat would be suitable for operation and, if so, for what reason did the Republic of Colombia find the vessel unstable and unsuitable?
7.	Where is the boat at the present time?
8.	What course of action does CIDA intend to take to put the M.V. Gulf Guard into operation?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Department of Supply and Services and the Canadian International Development Agency as follows: 1. (a) This information is not available to us. (b) We have to assume for fishing as this is a fishing vessel, but beyond this we have no details, (c) Gulf

August 5, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Garden Foods was the registered owner from Feb. 10/65 to Dec. 19/66 but we have no details as to use.
2.	(a) We assume for fishing purposes as this is a fishing vessel, but no further details are available to us. (b) PEI Industrial Corporation was the registered owner from Dec. 19/66 to June 4/68 but we have no details as to use. (c) This information is not available to us. (d) This information is not available to us. (e) We understand that PEI IC was disbanded and therefore this vessel was transferred to Industrial Enterprises Inc.
3.	(a) According to Ministry of Transport Registry of Shipping, Breton Trawlers Limited obtained the vessel from Industrial Enterprises Inc., not from PEI IC. The vessel was obtained for fishing in the Gulf off Prince Edward Island, (b) This information is not available to us. (c) Breton Trawlers Limited was the registered owner from August 13/69 to Dec. 28/73. The vessel was employed for fishing more or less during this period but fishing declined from 1972 onwards, (d) Because the fishing declined around Prince Edward Island in the Gulf area.
4.	Yes.
5.	The contract allowed for costs of design changes or additional work to be negotiated under Design Change Procedures. These included design changes requested by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)/Colombian Government costing $42,242.63, additional work arisings (which only became evident as the vessel was opened up so that the conversion requirements could be met) costing $62,209.12 and additional watch-keeping services costing $28,891.50 for a total of $133,343.25. These additional requirements therefore caused an increase from $264,500 to $397,843.25 to the contract for the modification of the vessel. The Auditor General's figure of $453,800 includes other charges accruing to the Canadian International Development Agency (ClDA) for the total cost of the program including such items as Naval Architects fees, cost of winterizing the vessel, design investigation and the Department of Supply and Services cost recovery charges for contractual services.
6.	(a) Colombian officials were consulted throughout the elaboration of designs for the vessel, and approved the final design, (b) The stability characteristics were determined in Canada as part of the conversion contract. When the vessel was inclined upon completion of the conversion work the figures obtained by the contractor indicated that the vessel could not operate safely in one condition of the requirement that she perform as a multimode fishing-training vessel. The Gulf Guard had been officially donated to Colombia before the stability characteristics of the vessel (as converted) were known. In the circumstances, CIDA rescinded the donation. Subsequent events including a second inclining test proved the vessel to be capable of operating safely in all fishing modes subject to a minor modification and revealed that the first inclining and stability investigation contained an error.
7.	Sydney, Nova Scotia.
[Mr. Goodale.l
8.	The Government of Colombia has been informed that the Gulf Guard can be certified for use as a multimode fishingtraining vessel as originally intended. The vessel will be handed over on acceptance by the Government of Colombia.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,552, did the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs obtain (a) part-time (b) full-time help, that was not placed on the pay list at the Central Pay Office but paid in some other manner, from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many persons were involved?
2.	From what source were such persons paid?
3.	What was the total amount paid to such persons in (a) 1975 (b) 1976?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1. (a) No; (b) Yes-(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (vii), (viii), (ix), and (x): Not applicable; (v) Yes. 1975-76: 207 persons; 1976-77: 94 persons, (vi) Yes. 1975-76: Nil; 1976-77: 5 persons.
2.	Operating Vote, Standard Object 04.
3.	(a) $431,931; (b) $299,878.
Note: These persons were all hired to work full-time, i.e., 371/2 hours per week, but they were temporary in that they were hired for a short, fixed length of time through a private employment agency and were paid by the private employment agency.


Mr. Herbert: What is the value of federal properties by province and for the National Capital Region?


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned: This question cannot reasonably be answered as our records are not maintained to show the value of our holdings. We do have original cost data, but this generally would be a very poor measure of the market or replacement value of our holdings. To determine the market value would be an extremely costly and time consuming task as it would involve the individual appraisal of every building and property; including presumably marine structures and equipment.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	What is the total number of public servants and employees of Crown corporations and agencies whose place of work is in Hull, Quebec?
2.	How many such employees were residing in the Province of Ontario as of April 1, 1976?
August 5, 1977

3.	What is the anticipated total number of such employees who will be employed in Hull, Quebec by the year 1980?


Ralph Goodale: Treasury Board: 1. As of February 28, 1977: 5,428 federal public servants.
Note: This includes all employees in Metropolitan Hull in departments or agencies which are subject to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, Schedule 1, Part 1.
2.	No information is available.
3.	No information is available.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: 1. Fifty-two.
2.	Twelve.
3.	No information is available.
Farm Credit Corporation: 1. One.
2.	None.
3.	One.
Federal Business Development Bank: 1. Nine.
2.	None.
3.	No information is available.
Royal Canadian Mint: 1. One hundred and thirty nine.
2.	Eighty five
3.	No information is available.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): 
Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. No, it is not confidential, (a) Not applicable, (b) This office is in the process of being set up and does not as yet have the staff required to provide information by telephone. This service is provided toll free by the Chicoutimi office.
2. (418) 542-7507.


Mr. Fortin: On September 26, 1976, did five officers of the Quebec Unemployment Insurance Commission, wearing masks because allegedly they were afraid of being fired, submit documents to denounce certain methods of the UIC in Quebec, especially some guidelines signed by Mr. Robert Sanschagrin, Chief of Insurance Services in Quebec, providing that it is not necessary to indicate summons, form letters or other documents that a beneficiary must be able to speak one of the two official languages and, stating also that if a beneficiary who does not speak one of the languages would come without an interpreter, he would be considered uneligible under subsection 55(5) of the Act and, if so, have the guidelines been revoked since that time?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The five persons wearing masks were not identified as officers of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
s
o
o

Item	Loans	1972 Units	Hostel Beds	$000	Loans	NHA ACTIVITY1 1973 Hostel Units Beds	TABLE 1 VANCOUVER BRANCH, CMHC, 1972-1976 1974 Hostel $000 Loans Units Beds $000	Loans	1975 Hostel Units Beds	$000	Loans	1976 Hostel Units Beds	$000Loans for Housing2 Approved Lenders	5,690	8,355	576	149,466	4,589	5,765	482	122,486	3,558	3,812	113,930	7,961	8,482	307,996	8,752	11,147	122	439.552CMHC3	183	1,194	435	15,013	271	1,141	1,273	22,920	1,014	3,602	549	73,942	885	3,388 426	76,376	1,094	2,969	485	37,878F/P Housing Projects	3	561	-	7,148	4	1,267	-	19,527	4	131	151	2,469	1	17 -	19	-	-	-	-Loans for Other Purposes4	14	18,485	10	20,214	16	-	.-	6,216	10	- -	23,917	23	-	-	16,335F/P Land Assembly Projects	1	355	-	-	-Grants for Community Revitalization5	.	5	2,500	6	1,900	12	-	5,100Grants for Infrastructure6	8	574	58	-	-	3,453Grants for Other Purposes7	-	_	30	-	198	13	- -	73	7	-	-	561	Data are gross.2	New and existing housing.3	Includes Residential Rehabilitation.4	Land assembly, water and sewerage projects.5	Urban renewal, neighbourhood improvement.6	Water and sewerage projects, municipal incentive.7	Start-up funds.
8102 ________________ COMMONS DEBATES____________________________August 5, 1977
August 5, 1977


Mr. Fortin: 1.	During a press conference held on September 26, 1976, did five agents of UIC wearing a hood, disclose the content of a guideline sent to all directors of UIC offices in Quebec by Mrs. Claire Duquette on behalf of the Head of Insurance, Mr. Robert Sanschagrin, which stipulated that hereafter, agents who used to phone the claimants under the ICE Programme to inquire about their availability before disqualifying them, should stop this practice immediately and disqualify without further ceremony any claimant who did not show for his ICE interview and, if so (a) is this guideline applied in other areas of Canada (b) has this practice been abolished (i) in Quebec (ii) elsewhere and, if so, on what date?
2.	Since the month of April 1976, what percentage of this type of excluded claimants have regained their right to receive their allowances, for each month and in each area of Canada?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. Not applicable, since the five persons wearing hoods were not identified as employees of the U.I.C.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Neil: Did DREE or any other department provide funds by way of grant or loan to Maple Leaf Monarch Co. to establish an oil seed crushing plant at Windsor, Ontario?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture, Finance, Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion as follows: no.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	What was the total cost of expenses for attendance of the members of the Ministerial Advisory Board of Kootenay West at meetings for the first series of applications under the Canada Works and Young Canada Works Programmes?
2.	What is the estimated salary of the project officers involved in the review of the Programmes for Kootenay West?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. $1,567.
2. Two project officers have been designated to serve the constituency of Kootenay West. Their annual salary ranges from $14,296 to $16,207.


Mr. McKinnon: 1. Did the Department of Public Works or any other department award in 1977 a contract to an unlicensed mover to move the main post office from
Order Paper Questions
Victoria to Saanich, British Columbia, in breach of the stipulation in the contract put out to tender, namely section 6, page one of three, "Permits and By-laws", which states "The Contractor shall comply with all laws and regulations, relating to the work, whether federal, provincial or municipal, as if the work were for a person other than Her Majesty, and shall pay for all permits and certificates required in respect of the work"?
2. Was the contractor awarded this particular contract in breach of any federal, provincial or municipal law or regulation?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: 1. A
contract was awarded by the Department of Public Works to a contractor who was registered in New Westminster. He was to comply with Section 6 and obtain all necessary permits and certificates. We have subsequently discovered he did not comply technically with our contract clause. A provincial motor carrier license was not obtained.
2. To our knowledge, the contractor was not in breach of any law or regulations. He did not require a municipal permit because the move involved more than one municipality and he was exempt from a provincial license because the move was for the federal government.


Mr. Robinson: What is the salary of the (a) Executive (b) Director (c) Chairman (d) Vice-Chairman (e) board members of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: (a) The Chairman of the Board of Directors of CMHC receives a salary of $53,000 per annum, (b) The President of CMHC receives a salary in the range from $45,000 to $50,000 per annum, (c) The Vice-Presidents of CMHC receive salaries in the range from $40,000 to $45,000 per annum, (d) The three members of the Board of Directors of CMHC, appointed from the Public Service of Canada, do not receive additional remuneration because of their appointments. The five members of the Board of Directors of CMHC, appointed from outside the Public Service, receive $150 per diem for attendance at meetings of the Board of Directors.


Mr. Hogan: For the fiscal year (a) 1975 (b) 1976, what was the total number and value of homes built and repaired under the Rural and Remote Housing Programme in (i) the Municipality of the County of Cape Breton and what was the breakdown of the figures by location (i.e. Louisbourg, Marion Bridge, etc.) (ii) all other counties of Nova Scotia?


André Ouellet: am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. See Table 1 following.


[Stage Direction]
New Housing (Sec. 40)	Rehabilitation (Sec. 34.1)
County	1975	1976	1975	1976Units	$000	Units	$000	Units	$000	Units	$000Cape Breton	35	910	-	-	-	-	11	49Birch Grove	1	26	-	-	-	-	-	-
August 5, 1977
Order Paper Questions
New Housing (Sec. 40)
County	1975 Units	$000	UnitsBras D'Or	7	182	-Broughton	1	26	-Donkin	4	104	-Florence	11	286	-Louisburg	1	26	-New Boston	1	26	-Point Aconi	-	-	-Port Morien	-	-	-Reserve	5	130	-Scotchtown	4	104	-Annapolis	-	-	-Antigonish	-	-	17Colchester	-	-	3Cumberland	-	-	14Digby	3	78	13Guysborough	28	807	16Hants	1	26	8Kings	1	26	19Lunenburg	3	78	2Queens	1	26	4Yarmouth 5 O) Data are gross and preliminary.	130	15
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Under the agreement signed on June 13, 1977 between the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of Health for Ontario with regard to the transfer of DVA's Westminster Hospital in London on October 3, 1977, what are the details involved in the transfer of (a) all the buildings (b) the land?
2.	What is the location of all the buildings?
3.	With regard to the provision of an $18 million capital grant to the Province of Ontario for up-grading of hospital facilities and new construction over a five year period, what are the details of the participation, involvement and responsibility the Department of Veterans Affairs will have in the spending of these funds?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. (a) and (b) All of the land, buildings and chattels located north of Commissioners Road shall be transferred outright to the Province of Ontario for the sum of one dollar. The land, buildings and chattels located south of Commissioners Road will be leased to the province for the sum of one dollar a year for a five-year period. In addition, the province will permit the Canadian Red Cross Society to remain in possession of the Red Cross Lodge and to operate in a manner consistent with its present manner of operation. Also, the Society may remain in possession of the space and accommodation it presently occupies on the ground floor of the Works Building on the north side of Commissioners Road, and in the Waterloo Pavilion of the Western Counties Wing.
2.	North of Commissioners Road on 78.12 acres and South of Commissioners Road on 246.5 acres.
3.	The obligation of Canada to make a capital grant of $18 million is subject to the condition that the construction, purchasing and installation of facilities shall be related to the improvement of health facilities for the benefit of veterans, and will be carried out in strict compliance with all applicable federal and provincial enactments. The amount of the capital grant when payable shall be paid in the following manner: (a) An amount of $500,000 within 30 days after the effective date

Rehabilitation (Sec. 34.1) 1975
$000	Units	$000
78
338
208
52
390
Units	$000
1	5
1	4
3	13
1	4
1	4
3	13
1	5
7	34
16	78
1	5
14	68
8	39
45	218
10	48
26	126
5	24
4	19
23	Ilf
of transfer, (b) With respect to construction of facilities, by progress payments payable within 30 days after the production by the province of statements satisfactory to Canada-verified by the province as to the amount of, and the entitlement of a contractor to the amount of each such progress claim, (c) With respect to the replacement of obsolescent equipment and furnishings, purchasing and installing additional equipment and furnishings, the full purchase price when delivered on site, including installation costs where applicable, within 30 days after production by the province of statements satisfactory to Canada verifying the completed installation, (d) With respect to the acquisition of existing buildings, within 30 days after production by the province of a statement of the amount of the cost together with the certificate of a solicitor certifying as to clear title to the facility and registration of same in the name of the province, or its designee, as the case may be.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Was the management audit of the Farm Credit Corporation awarded to the Sibbald Group and completed in the Spring of 1976 and, if so, what individuals or corporations tendered and, in each case, what was the bid submitted?
2.	What criteria were used for the selection of the successful bidder?


Eugene Whelan: Farm Credit Corporation advises:
1. On September 24, 1976, the Corporation accepted the tender submitted by The Sibbald Group, Haskins & Sells Associates, to undertake a Management Audit. The report was completed in April 1977. Tenders were received as follows: Bureau of Management Consultants-$225. per man per day excluding travel expenses. A progress review was proposed after $12,500. had been spent to decide if the Corporation wished to proceed. Ernst & Ernst-$64,000. Manitoba Institute of Management Inc.-$89,400. The Sibbald Group, Has-
August 5, 1977

kins & Sells Associates-$64,000. In addition to the above, the Chairman of the Corporation requested that the following projects be undertaken by the Sibbald Group: Research, preparation and presentation relating to the division of duties and authorities between the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman; and Preparation and presentation of Report for Senior Management-$12,872.80.
2. Criteria for selection of successful bidder were as follows: Approach, personnel resources, experience and interest in the project, and cost estimate.


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


Eugene Whelan: (a) $418,212. (b) $341,970.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if the following questions could be made orders for returns, those returns could be tabled immediately. I think from the pile of papers on my desk the reason for taking this course is obvious; it is the lengthy nature of the answers. The numbers are as follows: 207, 1,480, 1,698, 1,741, 2,052, 2,376, 2,439 and 2,455.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How much was paid to private employment agencies for workers supplied to the Public Service in the years (a) 1973 (b) 1974 (c) 1975?
2.	How many man-years of work were performed by such workers in each year?
Return tabled.


Mr. Nowlan: 1. Has CRTC awarded a licence to a cable system to serve St. John's, Newfoundland and, if so (a) to whom and on what probable starting date (b) what channels will be carried?
Order Paper Questions
2.	(a) Did CRTC order payment to be made to any local outlets (television and radio stations) by the cable system and, if so, on what formula and to which companies (b) who requested that an order be issued for such payments (c) do similar payments exist in any other part of Canada?
3.	Did CRTC also approve the grant of a licence to a FM-radio network to serve Newfoundland and, if so, to whom?
4.	Who are the shareholders of the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company?
5.	Has the Commission received an application to dispose of any of the shares of the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company by its present shareholders and, if so, what was the decision?
6.	Has CRTC received complaints since July 1, 1975 regarding the operation of any of the stations owned by the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company and, if so (a) how many (b) what was their nature (c) what action was taken, if any?
Return tabled.


Mr. Howie: 1.	For each department, what has been the cost to date of (a) introducing (b) advertising metric measurement?
2.	What has been the cost to date of educational programmes, including the distribution of aids and guides on the conversion to metric measurement?
3.	Have incentives and income tax deductions been offered to the private sector to help defray the costs of conversion to metric measurement and, if so (a) what are they (b) what is the cost to date?
4.	For the year 1976, what proportion of Canada's foreign trade, in terms of (a) imports (b) exports, was conducted with countries using 6) metric measurement (ii) other systems of measurement?
5.	In the case of Canada's foreign trade being conducted with countries not using the metric system of measurement, for the year 1976, what (a) were the countries (b) were the values of the imports and exports (c) was the proportion of Canada's total foreign trade represented by such values (d) was the system of measurement used by the countries?
Return tabled.


Mr. Allard: For each Fiscal year since 1968, did Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation hire lawyers or lawyer firms in the Constituencies of (a) Gaspe (b) Bonaventure-Iles-de-Madeleine (c) Matane (d) Rimouski (e) Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata and, if so (i) what are their names (ii) on what basis were they selected (iii) what amount did they receive in fees and other costs?
Return tabled.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	In each Fiscal year (a) 1974-75 (b) 1975-76, what was the aggregate expenditure by the Department of Agriculture for travel abroad by (a) the Minister and his immediate staff (b) departmental staff (c) the staff of boards, commissions, tribunals, Crown corporations or similar agencies reporting to the Minister (d) others whose expenses were paid in part or in whole directly or indirectly?
2.	In the case of each expenditure in excess of $200 (a) what was the purpose of the trip (b) what was the furthest destination (c) what is the name of the person and how long was he/she outside the country (d) what was the nature of the expenditure (e) how many others were in the party making the trip?
Return tabled.

August 5, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the number of (a) elementary school teachers (b) secondary school teachers (c) university professors, lecturers etc. who entered Canada in each of the past five years and what is the overall total in each category?
2.	(a) For each category what is the breakdown of the countries of origin (b) how many went to each province?
Return tabled.
EFFECTS OF PREMIER LfiVESQUE'S STATEMENT IN NEW YORK 
Question No, 2,439-Mr. Cossitt:
1.	Following the address of Premier Rene Levesque to a financial gathering in New York City earlier this year, did CBC French network include in its newscasts the next day that Quebec stocks took a considerable drop in stock markets that day and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Following the press conference statement by the Prime Minister that Separatism was having a severe effect on the Quebec economy, did CBC French network fail to report the statement and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Did CBC French network carry reports that the use of two languages in aviation was a possible cause of a large air disaster in Yugoslavia and, if not, for what reason?
4.	What are the names and job designations of all CBC French network personnel who had any part in the decision not to carry such items?
Return tabled.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): During the past five years, did the Department of Manpower and Immigration grant subsidies to projects under the Local Initiatives Programme and, if so, in each case, what was the (a) name and number of the project (b) amount of the subsidy (c) name of the municipality involved?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the questions enumerated shall be deemed to be made orders for returns, with returns tabled forthwith?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, it is not often anyone rises to congratulate the parliamentary secretary, because we have tried for a year and a half to get answers to some of these early questions to which a response has finally been forthcoming today, perhaps because of complaints from various members of the opposition. I might say, though, that we also received these answers about half an hour ago, before the House gave permission for them to be released. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could tell us how this happened. It may be it was because of his anxiety to satisfy the House, having at long last procured the replies to these questions.
The only complaint I might mention at this moment is that the questions concerning the use by government ministers of government aircraft still remain unanswered. The reason for this seems to be obvious-the answers would be embarrassing to the government. But if the House is still to be sitting next week, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated earlier
[Mr. Schellenberger.l
might be the case, perhaps the parliamentary secretary could tell us whether these questions will be answered before we finally adjourn for the summer recess.


Mr. Speaker:: I should say, following the point of order raised by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt), that our staff may have been involved in releasing to the opposition one of the documents which was handed to us on the basis of the usual procedure, that is, that it would be retained in our possession until the point at which approval for its release was given by the House.


Ralph Goodale: In response to the hon. member's question with respect to the number of questions remaining on the order paper and having to do with the use of government aircraft, I think I can give him the assurance he is seeking. I have indicated to him all along that my intention was to provide answers not only to those questions but to all questions on the order paper before the end of this session, and I am hopeful I can provide the answers to the questions to which he has referred at the earliest opportunity, certainly before the end of this session.


Ralph Goodale: There is a starred question to be dealt with, Mr. Speaker. Would you be good enough to call question 2,937? Before dealing with this question I should point out that a portion of it appears in the form of a complicated table, details of which would take a considerable length of time to read. It is in response to part 3 of the question, and it consists of a number of columns of figures. I would seek permission of the House to have that table appear in Hansard as read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Was an account with the Talisman Hotel in Ottawa opened by the Farm Credit Corporation and, if so (a) on what date was it first opened (b) on whose authority was the decision made to cover expenses in this fashion instead of through the submission of regular expense accounts?
2.	Who are the officials of the Corporation entitled to charge items to this account?
3.	By month, since the opening of the account, what was the dollar amount charged (a) for accommodation (b) for liquor (c) for food (d) for any other goods or services and, in each case, what were the items charged (e) in total?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the answer is: 1. Yes. (a) April 18, 1975; (b) Chairman.
2. B. H. Kristjanson, Chairman, W. R. deGruchy, Secretary to the Corporation.
August 5, 1977

Northern Gas Pipeline
		Dining Room		Dining Room		
Charges Specified	Not specified	Gratuities	Month	(a)	(b)	(C)	(b)+(c)	(d)	(e)May 1975	-	46.95	73.86	9.50	14.50	144.81June	-	18.04	37.10	-	6.50	61.64July	-	10.70	13.05	-	3.00	26.75August	-	15.64	25.08	-	5.00	45.72September	-	105.25	168.65	81.13	46.30	401.33October	79.58	31.15	213.03	40.16	32.32	396.24November	-	-	-	108.65	11.95	120.60December	-	-	-	20.40	2.00	22.4079.58	227.73	530.77	259.84	121.57	1219.49January 1976,	-	-	-	96.60	5.00	101.60May	-	-	-	115.35	6.75	122.10June	-	-	-	39.85	4.00	43.85July	-	-	-	31.55	3.20	34.75September	-	-	-	43.65	5.05	48.70October	-	-	-	15.44	2.00	17.44November	32.10	-	19.70	66.05	7.80	125.65December	-	-	-	74.19	9.00	83.1932.10	-	19.70	482.68	42.80	577.28January 1977	42.85	12.40	8.15	48.50	2.55	114.45May	-	-	-	41.25	4.25	45.5042.85	12.40	8.15	89.75	6.80	159.95Total	154.53	240.13	558.62	832.27	171.17	1956.72



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable R.G.B. Dickson, LL.D., D.C.L., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day, the 5th day of August, at 4.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
D. C. McKinnon Comptroller of the Household


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: One o'clock.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.
["An hon. member mentions rule by regulation. The government's actions in the area of energy are but another example of that rule. I do not think we have emphasized sufficiently in this debate the matter of Canada's security of future energy supplies. If we are to import about half our energy supplies, a substantial proportion will be shipped via the Indian Ocean and round South Africa. We shall be highly dependent on a number of foreign powers for our energy supplies. This, in addition to our economic difficulties, is a most serious problem to those of us who live in northern latitudes.\nI say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is very much in our interest to work together with the United States to make possible the construction of a northern pipeline. While we can be instrumental in making available to the United States sizable quantities of its own energy supplies, we can at the same time, probably by using the Dempster route, eventually bring into use our Mackenzie Delta and Beaufort Sea gas.\nOn reflecting on the events of the past months, after having visited recently the Mackenzie Delta, something I have done many times, I am impressed by a number of facts. For example, both natives and whites alike told me and my colleagues, when we visited the Delta, that Mr. Justice Berger's report does not properly represent the views of the northern people. The reason is, I think, that the views expressed to Mr. Justice Berger were largely those of a group of experts from Toronto, who arrived in the north on an aircraft ahead of Mr. Justice Berger and persuaded the natives as to what they should say. These same gentlemen probably wrote their reports right at the University of Toronto. We asked businessmen in the north why they did not put forward their views; or, why were we hearing from them views which had not been expressed to Mr. Justice Berger? The reason is this: the experts from Toronto were funded directly and indirectly by the government. They had funds which enabled them to sit at the hearings for days on end and to buy airline tickets which\nNorthern Gas Pipeline\nare expensive items in northern communities. But the small businessmen, the young people who were enterprising and had staked their future in the north, had no chance to express their views, because they had neither the time nor the money to do it.\nI can hardly fail to remind the House that Mr. Justice Berger himself at one time was an elected representative and formerly the leader of the New Democratic Party in British Columbia. As one northerner put it, asking Mr. Justice Berger to report on matters in the north is akin to appointing a cardinal to head a commission on abortion.\nWhat are this country's energy reserves, and what are our potential sources of supply? We have a good deal of potential for supplies in Alberta. We have potential supplies off the east coast, but in deep water and probably cannot extract those supplies with presently known technology. I expect we shall need to learn new technologies. We have the Alberta oil sands and the heavy oils in Alberta. But the frontier area most likely to yield energy supplies immediately is the Mackenzie Delta.\nWe shall need all of this country's energy reserves. All will be required, each in their own time. The development of some can be hurried; the development of others cannot be. Huge sums of money will be required for exploration in our provinces and off the east coast. In view of the enormous costs of these developments, we shall need to time them carefully. Today we have known reserves in our western Arctic areas. The reports of the National Energy Board make clear that this area is the next and most important source which should be tapped for Canadian energy needs.\nThe projected production from the Mackenzie Delta would meet the growth in Canada's energy needs for less than two years. That should make it clear we shall need all our energy resources. We cannot stand aside at this time, awaiting the development of the oil sands, or the heavy oil reserves. We must make use of our present opportunity to bring on stream Mackenzie Delta gas.\nIt has been said in this debate that by agreeing to the pipeline we shall do the United States a favour. Before I deal with the point let me draw attention to the outstanding job done for many years by the Canadian Arctic gas group. This government told it to get to work and undertake studies in thousands of important areas. The group did its work well. It conducted undoubtedly one of the most thorough studies ever undertaken on northern ecological and transportation matters.\nI ask again, who will be dealt a favour? I say that, yes, we can help the United States, and it is important for us to do so. But I also suggest this project is greatly to Canada's advantage. Today we desperately need the economic stimulus of this pipeline and its construction projects. This, of course, is largely due to the mess that our country is in as a result of the economic mismanagement of the government sitting opposite.\nWe cannot afford to build our own pipeline at the present time from our western Arctic reserves because they are not large enough. However, the Alaska-Yukon line which is pro-\n80020-50 Vi", "August 5, 1977\nNorthern Gas Pipeline\nposed by the Foothills group in Calgary to build their line within 480 miles of our reserves brings our reserves within reasonable distance of a major transportation artery. The energy supply of North America would be more secure and the strength of the economy of our largest trading partner would be increased.\nOur supply of energy is important to us. Equally important to us is that the United States receives their supply of energy. Hon. members will recall how many Americans were out of jobs last winter and how seriously the slump in their economy affected Canada.\nThere is one other aspect. The pipeline group intends to employ thousands of people on the pipeline, something in the area of 5,000 or 6,000. This will be multiplied at least five times in other parts of Canada. That would be Hamilton, the maritimes, and as I told the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), they will probably eat a lot of fish in those pipeline camps.\nI understand that another factor being considered is gas swaps. At the present time the important problem facing the United States is their short-term supply. The President of the United States has put into place a long term program but, as hon. members know, it takes a long lead time to bring these supplies on stream.\nIt is my understanding that affiliates of the Alaska-Yukon pipeline company are at the present time willing to deal with the United States on short-term supplies from western Canada. This is of considerable importance to the United States.\nWe have these additional supplies available. There appear to be various formulae to make possible their implementation. I urge the government to support these efforts and, wherever possible, to back those who are attempting to use these important levers to bring about acceptance by the United States of this particular route.\nAs I reflect on the figures of our own energy shortfalls in the eighties, I find them frightening. What is of even more concern is that the problem we have in energy is not truly an energy problem, but a political problem. It seems little short of incredible that Canada is programmed by this government in its studies to permit itself to lapse into heavy dependence on outside sources on the whims of foreign powers for its essential energy supply. It is all the more tragic when we realize that this potential energy is available in Canada through the various sources that we have.\nThere is the example of the northern regulations. This minister ought to be ashamed of himself. He has told this House and committee on more than two dozen occasions in the past six or eight months that these regulations would be available very soon. He said as recently as this past June that he would introduce them this session. We are well into the summer, and no regulations. This speaks very well for the concern the government has for the energy problem, and indeed the competence of the minister.\nIt is interesting that the government's program, the shortage and desperation in our actual supply situation, lead us very\nmuch into the 1980's when we will be facing deficits which will not permit us to buy supplies. I wonder if the minister is aware of that.\nYesterday the Leader of the Opposition pointed out that studies by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and others clearly indicate that by the middle of the 1980's oil may very well not be available. This master plan, these studies, these words, all that we hear from this minister brings us to our maximum problem, our maximum shortages at the very time when world supplies will be phasing out and may very well be unavailable to us.\nOn the question of a northern pipeline, the government is obligated to come forward with some answers. It has had this problem for many years. The opportunity to build an oil line through Canada came at the time that Alaska oil was to be brought from Alaska. The government failed to react. It said no. It had an opportunity at that time to take steps to make possible the energy corridors, but it failed miserably. It is continuing to do so."]
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to move a motion, with the consent of the House. As hon. members know, the office of the Commissioner of Official Languages became vacant at the end of July. My intention is to move a motion to secure a replacement. So if I have the agreement of the House to do that, I will be glad to do it.


Walter David Baker: That will be agreeable, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Jones:: I am not prepared to give consent for that, Mr. Speaker.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, August 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen:
That this House recognizes the social, economic, environmental and energy issues surrounding the question of northern gas pipelines and, believing that the resolution of these issues must reflect the national interest, approves the position of the government that all relevant reports must be considered before deciding on a pipeline and its route; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Broadbent.
Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.08 p.m. the House took recess.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no consent for the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) to move the motion. We will therefore proceed with the debate. At the time of adjournment yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Dupras) had the floor.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the House and the Canadian people cannot learn who will be the successor of Mr. Keith Spicer, who has performed some excellent work as Official Languages Commissioner, but I hope anyhow that the appointment will be made as soon as possible.

August 5, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. Let me remind the hon. member of the subject now before the House. To my mind, the remark he just made is irrelevant in this debate.


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when the Chair gave me the floor last night, the construction of a pipeline assumes, for us Canadians, such importance as to be comparable with the great project achieved by our ancestors, namely the construction of the railway linking the east with the west, or the construction, more recently, of the St. Lawrence Seaway, as some of my colleagues pointed out yesterday during the debate, for it will contribute in a large measure to making Canada self-sufficient in matters of energy.
This special debate tops off several serious studies undertaken as early as in 1967, at which time the task force known as the North-West Project was set up whose main objectives were to make feasibility and engineering studies for the construction of a pipeline to transport natural gas from the Pointed Mountain in the Northwest Territories to the markets in the south. Some time later, in 1969, the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Research Ltd. was created with a view to adding to the northwest project studies on a pipeline from Alaska and the Mackenzie Delta, as well as a link with existing pipelines. In 1970, other companies and task forces joined this core of researchers.
Following those important studies, groups of contractors applied to the National Energy Board for authorization to build a pipeline from Alaska and the Mackenzie delta to southern markets, by way of the Mackenzie Valley. In October 1976, Foothills Ltd. offered to build a pipeline for the transport of Alaska gas to American markets through the Yukon, British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, a project whose approval was recommended by the National Energy Board last July. For us, eastern Canadians, this project represents many advantages well beyond the guarantee of an energy supply and assumes a very great importance. First, the implementation of this project will call for the participation of human and industrial resources in Canada and will obviously imply almost exclusive participation of the industry in Canada and naturally in the province of Quebec, more specifically for manufacturing the equipment needed to carry out the project such as compressors, generators, pumps, heavy machinery, air exchangers and so on. All this entails the creation of numerous jobs while at the same time boosting the processing industry in that province, not to mention the direct economic impact it will have all over the northwest region. Among the various benefits we are likely to get from that project, we must point out also, and they are not the least, the numerous permanent positions which will open up and which will be filled by natives. In short, Mr. Speaker, building a pipeline will represent another monument to the entrepreneurship of Canadians, a quality which is the pride of our country and which keeps on amazing the whole world. This great undertaking will be tailored to the size of our country.
In the few minutes available to me, how can I enumerate all the reasons that prompt us to build this pipeline now, whether we agree on the Foothills Yukon Ltd. or the Canadian Arctic
[Mr. Dupras.l
Gas proposals? The two are feasible without jeopardizing the environment and if there ever was a project as important as this one which has been considered as exhaustively as this pipeline, I cannot recall it, Mr. Speaker. This leads me to say that I find we have given a great deal more importance to environmental protection in the construction of a pipeline than we did to the opinion of Montrealers when time came to build Decarie Boulevard or the east-west expressway. Never was there such exhaustive consultation to make Canadians understand how important the building of such a project is. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the two are feasible without jeopardizing the environment and the self-reliance about which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) is talking in the foreword of the document entitled "An energy strategy for Canada", a document which the Leader of the Opposition does not seem to be aware of since he claimed that Canada has no energy policy. I suggest he should read it, for the minister stated we have in Canada the expertise, the material resources, the technology and the necessary energy resources we need to reduce our dependency on imported gas.
To achieve this, we shall have to reduce the rate of increase in our future energy needs, substitute more abundant types of energy resources for those which are less abundant, and speed up our search for oil and gas so as to transform our potential resources in proven resources and thus meet our needs. All these solutions are expensive, but we have no choice: we shall have to apply them fully, or else we shall be faced with energy shortages which will worsen our dependency on expensive and questionable oil imports, and even cut down on the available stocks in Canada. We are able to prevent the occurrence of those last two possibilities and we have to act accordingly. Those are, Mr. Speaker, the views of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Furthermore, among the important reasons why we want to carry out this project now, there is also this opportunity we have to do so jointly and in sharing the costs with our neighbours south of the border, the Americans, with whom, it has to be admitted, we are already sharing the American continent as well as a continental defence system. We are also sharing many joint ventures, not to mention the professional hockey leagues, the major baseball leagues, Biscaine Boulevard in Miami and finally Cape Cod. Therefore we should not take offense at it, but feel a legitimate satisfaction at the fact that the solution to some of our energy problems could at the same time help resolve part of the serious difficulties our neighbours south of the border have faced these few last years.
Like the beneficial effects that the major gas discovery in the North Sea brought the British, something which is now being called the British economic miracle and which is the envy of the world of finance, even leading a Swiss banker to say that the British economic problems had been overcome through the valorization of the natural resources in the North Sea, the recovery, transformation and utilization of frontier natural gas represents in this country a capital event which in a few years will surely be called the economic event of the century. In the province of Quebec alone if consumption of
August 5, 1977

natural gas is to go from 6 per cent of total energy consumption to about 18 or 20 per cent one may extrapolate on the saving of oil which could result. That increased volume of gas consumption will help maintain the competitive quality of the industry of that province while also at the same time helping heat our residences and institutions.
One can also envisage the possibility of the day being delayed when the construction program for a nuclear reactor network will have to be implemented to provide the province with the energy supply it will need. It must also be anticipated that the construction of pipelines to serve the province and linking large cities which are not already supplied with natural gas will stir up construction activities leading to the establishment of infrastructures, Quebec City still being one of the rare large cities in North America not being yet supplied with that source of energy.
Mr. Speaker, the importance of that project for all Canadians was stressed by most hon. members who spoke before me in this debate, and it does seem that the most important question is not so much whether we are going to build the pipeline but rather when it will be built and what route it will follow. In light of the various reports that were produced by the Berger Commission, the National Energy Board as well as others who considered this important problem, the cabinet seems prepared to make a decision, and I am sure that decision and the challenge it will pose for all Canadians will be taken up by all Canadians.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my leader has set out very clearly the position of the official opposition with respect to a pipeline to bring gas from the Arctic. He has said, first of all, that we wholeheartedly support the principle of a gas pipeline, that the primary purpose of a pipeline is to deliver frontier gas to southern Canada, and that the secondary purpose of a pipeline is to deliver American gas to American consumers. He also said that based on available evidence-and I would like to emphasize the words "available evidence"-we support the Alcan route as recommended by the National Energy Board.
In order for a pipeline to be a reality, the approval of the United States will be required because at the moment there are not sufficient reserves of natural gas in the Delta to warrant a Canadian pipeline. The United States, of course, has the option of moving its gas down the El Paso route from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, where it would be liquefied, put into LNG tankers and carried down the coast to California, or alternatively, as the President of the United States said in a speech a few days ago, through a new Panama Canal to the Gulf coast and eastern ports.
I read a report in yesterday's Globe and Mail that Basil Robinson, Canada's northern pipeline co-ordinator, and his team of negotiators received a "frosty" reception from their counterparts in Washington when they were down to work out the parameters of a Canada-U.S. agreement on an Alaska
Northern Gas Pipeline
Highway pipeline. I find this very hard to comprehend. Are we to understand that this was the first meeting held between Canada and the United States to consider pipeline proposals? That is, of course, other than the brief meeting which took place between President Carter and our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I wonder, too, if the group of Canadian negotiators will include a representative of the government of the Yukon. After all, if we choose to build a pipeline along the Alcan route, it will affect the Yukon and it seens only logical, therefore, to include in the negotiations a representative of the Yukon, possibly an elected representative, or the Commissioner of the Yukon.
We face an impending world energy crisis, which makes it imperative for the United States to build a gas pipeline for moving its gas to the south, and also makes it imperative for Canada to build a pipeline for moving our gas to the south. Therefore, a Canada-U.S. line would be to our common advantage. Surely it would have made sense to hold a series of meetings during the past two or three years at which the two governments could have arrived at a tentative agreement or basic understanding, instead of waiting until the eleventh hour to begin the hard bargaining which will lead to an agreement.
I appreciate that applications for competing pipelines have been made in Canada and in the United States, that hearings must be held and decisions made; but would it not have been more reasonable to negotiate on the basis of all the options open to us? If that had happened, the government could have told the opposition parties in this debate, "We have worked out certain tentative proposals with the United States on the basis of existing options, and these are the alternatives. Let us now debate them on the basis of all the facts." It did not happen this way. We are now debating an issue on which we do not have all the relevant facts. The government is playing politics, hoping, 1 suspect, that the opposition will make a statement or statements based on inadequate evidence which the government can use at some future time to its political advantage. 1 note that yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) asked my leader the official opposition's position on the pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley, the CAGPL route. Allow me to read the following exchange which is recorded on page 8040 of Hansard:


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


Charles Joseph Clark: August 5, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
this government, without justification, led the people of the valley to believe there was no doubt the Mackenzie Valley pipeline would be built. The people in the valley built their hopes on it.
In Hay River, the headquarters of Northern Transportation Company Limited, a Crown corporation which carries freight by barge up and down the Mackenzie Valley and out to the islands in the Beaufort Sea, NTCL spent $20 million on barges and tugs in anticipation of activity to be created by construction of the pipeline. You will find the majority of this equipment either in drydock or tied up at wharves and not being used. In Norman Wells one will note that the government built some 20 houses, costing about $80,000 each, to accommodate the government employees it was anticipated would be needed in the area when the pipeline was built. Walking around Norman Wells you will come on a pile of 50 or 60 pieces of brand new furniture, chesterfields, chairs, and so on, still wrapped in cardboard. The furniture was destined for the houses under construction. Rain has fallen on it several times and I think it is now useless. Many thousands of dollars were wasted. As one resident said offhandedly to us, it will probably be thrown on the garbage dump.
One finds that Inuvik, at the suggestion of this government, developed an area and installed infrastructure for a new subdivision for homes for the people who would move into the town during the pipeline construction period and subsequently. This development cost the town several million dollars. We were told at Inuvik, as well, that DREE and the Industrial Development Bank had encouraged business to expand in anticipation of the pipeline being built. Now many businessmen are faced with large loan repayments which they are unable to meet. There are possibilities of shutdowns of businesses and even of bankruptcy. As I said earlier, there is a feeling of despair up and down the valley, despair caused by this government's lack of leadership, by lack of departmental co-ordination, by assumptions on the part of either ministers of the Crown or senior officials of their departments that, without doubt, a decision in favour of a Mackenzie Valley pipeline would be handed down.
I should be remiss in my duty if I did not put on record some of the feelings of many of the residents of the north with respect to the Berger commission hearings. We were told time and again that the report does not represent the true feelings of the majority of the native people but expresses the views, given through the mouths of native people appearing before the commission, of radical white advisers from the south. One name mentioned frequently was Mel Watkins, known to many as the former leader of the Waffle party. His views differ greatly from the views of the vast majority of Canadians and were so radical that the party to my left could not live with him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: 1 am told for at least two years he was paid a salary of $45,000 a year by the Indian Brotherhood. We asked those who raised the issue why they did not appear before the
Berger commission to give their side of the story. Without exception, the answer given was that the majority of the groups which appeared before the commission were funded by the federal government. They were able to take the time to travel and had the funds to do so, whereas the people expressing their concern to us had businesses to look after and just did not have the time and the funds. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I think it important to record in Hansard the views of those people.
In yesterday's mail, all members received a letter from John W. Steen, MLA for the western Arctic. That letter was dated July 14, 1977. Time will not permit me to read the whole letter into the record, but I would like to read three paragraphs. This is what Mr. Steen said:
I am a member of the Northwest Territories legislative assembly: although this assembly does not have the status of a provincial legislature, the members are no less the official representatives of our constitutents.
We, on the Northwest Territories legislative assembly are appalled at the tendency, however well intentioned, for southern Canadians to want to make our decisions for us. We are frustrated by our inability, due to our limited access to mass media, to make our true needs and desires known and understood nationally. Look at how much attention was given to Judge Berger's report and how little attention was paid to our assembly's assessment to the prospective Mackenzie Valley pipeline.
Once again, my plea to you is to let democracy work in the Northwest Territories-listen to the duly elected representatives of all peoples of the Northwest Territories. Do not force a moratorium down our throats.
If members will take the time to check the record, it will show that nine of the 15 elected members of the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories are of native origin. 1 would suggest that these members do represent all the people in the territory. As representatives of all the people in the territory, the council must be actively involved not only in the negotiating area but in the final decision-making with respect to native land claims. The members of the legislative assembly recognize the right of the natives to a settlement of their land claims.
In the past four years I have made six trips into the Mackenzie Valley and have talked to a great many people. Not once did I talk to an individual who was opposed to a settlement. Without exception they said there should be a settlement and that the settlement must be just and equitable. However, they are opposed to a settlement along the lines of the Dene proposal. I would like to say, on my own behalf and on behalf of the official opposition, that we are opposed to any settlement along the lines proposed by the Dene. I can only classify their proposal as apartheid. It is interesting to note that the various organizations and groups throughout Canada who so vocally support the Dene proposal condemn even more vocally the apartheid policy of South Africa. How inconsistent can they be? In the debate yesterday, when the hon. member for Lambton Kent (Mr. Holmes) spoke he talked of the Dene proposal and apartheid and suggested that the government was sympathetic to it. The hon. minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) then became quite agitated and I gathered from his remarks shouted across the floor of the House that he was denying it.

August 5, 1977

I would like to read into the record an excerpt from a letter dated June 28, 1977, written by the minister to David N. Searle, a member of the council of the Northwest Territories. The minister, referring to a meeting on April 19, 1977, in Yellowknife, said:
As I mentioned during our meeting, I reject the concept of an exclusively ethnic political unit, although I am not opposed to political units with native majorities, provided that minority political rights are protected.
I think this House and the people of Canada are entitled to an explanation of just what he means by that statement. Was he stating his own personal views, or government policy? The north, particularly the Northwest Territories, has suffered too long from the failure of the government to establish a northern policy. In the Diefenbaker years there was the vision of the north and the roads to resources policy. There was enthusiasm and anticipation on the part of all Canadians. It struck their imagination. But it was more than a vision. Projects were started. Some were completed, but unfortunately when the government changed, the north was forgotten. Prime Minister Pearson laughed at the Dempster Highway and said it was a road from igloo to igloo. Had that highway been built as planned by the Diefenbaker government, much of the equipment and supplies for Prudhoe Bay would have been carried over it. Think of what that would have done to Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk.
This government has been a failure as far as the north is concerned. It has done everything it could to discourage development. It suspended the northern oil and gas regulations in 1970, and seven years later, despite repeated demands from oil companies and the official opposition, they still have not been drafted and promulgated. There has been a land freeze, preventing the development of some rich farmland and market gardening. There has been a freeze with respect to mineral exploration and development. The operation NCPC, a Crown corporation, has resulted in extremely high power rates to the residents of the north.
These are just a few examples of negligence of this government. They have failed to accept the fact that the territories at this point in time should have progressed to self-government by a phasing in of responsibility, that over the years the people of the north should have been consulted through their elected representatives to work out programs for the development of the north. The government may argue that settlement of land claims has held up development, but as someone mentioned yesterday in this debate, it was not until three years ago that the Prime Minister recognized the rights of the natives to a land settlement.
What is the future of the territories? How can the feeling of bewilderment and despair be overcome? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that immediate steps must be taken to develop a policy that will stimulate oil and gas exploration in the Delta and the sedimentary basin of the valley. There must be a stimulus to mineral exploration and development. There must be a policy of hydro development tied into a Canadian power grid. There must be an opening up of farmland. There must be a good, hard look taken at logging in the southern part of the territo-
Northern Gas Pipeline
ries. There must be development of a transportation system in the north, in the broadest sense. The policies must not be developed solely in Ottawa, but primarily by the elected representatives of the people in the north with the co-operation of Ottawa. I see my time is up. I will close by saying that the situation in the valley is critical. I plead with this government to take immediate steps to work toward a solution to the problems.


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to make a few comments on the motion before the House at this time. It is a very important decision that will affect not only the people living in the Yukon and Northwest Territories but all of the north. Indeed, the long-range effects of this major decision which I expect will be made within the next few weeks will affect all of Canada. I am willing to support this motion and amendment because of the quality of reports produced for the government in the past several months. I suggest that these be received by the government and given full consideration. However, I can only support this motion if I can see that the government truly and in good faith is willing to base its decision on the evidence and recommendations made public this past spring and summer.
If the government is using this motion to support a decision based on some other secret or confidential material it has prepared, and if in the next week or so we are treated to a decision based on information that is not now public, the cabinet will have made themselves, parliament and indeed everyone else involved look rather foolish. I certainly hope that does not happen. The decision that is to be made is a tall order for any group of people. I would like to help by reviewing the recommendations that have been made thus far. I would also like to add my own emphasis to these recommendations because the decision the government will be making in the near future is going to change my part of the country perhaps more than any other decision that may be made about the north in this decade.
I hope that all hon. members of the House will share my concern that the views of northern people are given just a little bit more of a fair hearing in deciding whether to build a gas pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley, along the Alcan route or whatever.
I should like to touch on some of the comments made by the major boards and commissions which have reported to the government on northern pipelines. By this I mean Mr. Justice Berger, the members of the National Energy Board, and the members of the Lysyk and Hill inquiries. First of all, I would again congratulate those people who worked so hard and conscientiously to prepare this material. To Judge Berger and the staff of the Berger inquiry, the people of the north, I believe, owe a debt that will be very difficult to repay. To the members and the staff of the other commissions and the NEB we owe a similar debt of gratitude for the full and fair way in which they have completed this work.

August 5, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
The manner in which these boards and commissions have included the public directly in the decision-making process is a welcome change from the way things have been done in the past, and I hope that these methods will set a precedent for the future. The way in which this material has been gathered shows the depth of feeling of Canadians generally about this major decision which affects the north. It shows that small groups and even individuals can have an influence on something as big and powerful as Canadian Arctic Gas. I believe that if it were not for the efforts of these boards and commissions, groups and individuals who devoted so much time and effort, we would now be watching Arctic Gas laying its pipeline along the Mackenzie Valley, which might have been a bad, even a dangerous, situation. These commissions and the people who appeared before them helped prevent that, and I certainly hope the government does not treat their efforts lightly.
In his report to this House, Mr. Justice Berger spoke of the social and economic cost of building a pipeline along the Mackenzie. Mr. Lysyk has this to say:
The main benefits from the pipeline will be concentrated outside the Yukon, largely south of the 49th parallel, whereas the most significant costs, in terms of both economic dislocation and social disruption, will be experienced in the Yukon.
The point is, Mr. Speaker, that when pipeliners go north to build they are not doing the northern people a favour. If the government decides to build a pipeline in either the Yukon or the Northwest Territories, it had better realize that it will do nothing but double or even triple our cost of living. There will be very few of us who will benefit from high wages; most of us will just have to pay. If the government does decide to go ahead, I plead with the government to have something a little more potent on hand than their useless wage controls.
I shall return to this question later as I would now like to go to the substance of the evidence. My reading of the four reports gives me the obvious general conclusion that there is a favourable reaction to the Foothills route, or, as it is more popularly known, the Alcan pipeline route, down the Alaska Highway. To my mind this is the best of a lot of bad choices and I would urge the government to consider it.
There are some loose ends though to be found in the fine print of these reports. These loose ends are not the fault of the commissions, but they are there and the government will have to do something about tying these loose ends together. In my view, one important loose end is the question of how pipeline development will mesh in with a settlement of land claims made by the native people of both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
It always strikes me as odd, Mr. Speaker, when you mention the words "northern development" to most people in the southern part of Canada they immediately think you are talking about a pipeline, or a hydroelectric project covering two billion acres, or anything that is really big and which costs more money than most of us can imagine. I will admit that some people in southern Canada do include, say, things such as forestry or fishing in their definition of "northern develop-

ment", but their number is few. Not that these things are not, strictly speaking, northern development; but I think these people miss the point that by far the most important kind of northern development-this is a point I have made several times not only in this House but elsewhere-would be a just settlement of native land claims both in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Not only is settlement of a land claim economic development, in my humble opinion; it is also the means of social and political development for just over half, if not more, of the people of the north.
A just land claim settlement will set the background for most development, including construction of a pipeline in the future. A settlement would allow participation at several levels of government by native people through the economic activities that will shape the environment and the future of the people of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. I hope that as a result we will have some power, in terms of financial resources, to become participants in whatever economic development we choose, instead of being, as in the past, the victims of economic development which someone else far away from the scene chooses for us.
Perhaps more importantly, Mr. Speaker, a just land settlement will set the guidelines for how northern people will govern themselves and will relate to other levels of government both in the territories and in the rest of the country. A just land claims settlement would also influence the general land use patterns of the two territories. So far as this matter is concerned, the government does not have to listen only to me. Of the four reports that I have mentioned, three devote space to the topic of land claims. The fourth, the Hill report on environmental impact in the Yukon, did not include this topic within its scope.
Judge Berger has a lot to say in his report about land claims, and what he says is the best proof that he was able to understand the position taken by the native peoples at the hearings he conducted up and down the Mackenzie and indeed all across the country. At one in his report Judge Berger has this to say:
Euro-Canadian society has refused to take native culture seriously. European institutions, values and use of land were seen as the basis of culture. Native institutions, values and language were rejected, ignored or misunderstood and- given the native peoples use of the land-the Europeans had no difficulty in supposing that native people possessed no real culture at all.
Judge Berger goes on to say this:
Native culture 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.
Judge Berger recommends that a period or ten years be set aside, and if this is done not only can a land claims settlement be reached but the settlement can be implemented before construction of a pipeline starts. He is adamant that no pipeline should be built before land claims are settled. He was speaking, of course, of conditions in the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Lysyk agreed that land claims in the Yukon must be settled before construction of a pipeline begins. He suggests that the period for implementation of the settlement be four
August 5, 1977

years. In the Yukon the native people have reached a kind of consensus. Based on that, they are willing to start negotiations for their claims. I am amazed that they have been able to complete this process in such a short time and with such apparent success.
In the Northwest Territories things are different. We have more than one culture, seven different languages and a different set of economic and political conditions. It will take much more time to work out a position that all the people in the Northwest Territories can feel comfortable with. This explains why the two territories need different time frames to complete a land claims settlement.
There is another important point which must be discussed, and I am referring to the other far-reaching effects of the building of a pipeline to the western Arctic, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I am speaking of the people who work in our mines, in our government departments, people who are employed by small business and people who own small businesses in the north. They will have to face a very big problem, and that is the effect of increased wages, high cost of living and the kinds of things which will come about as a result of high wages being paid to pipeline workers.
People in the mining business, small business, and so on, will have a difficult time contending with that. In the Yukon, these people make up by far the largest section of the work force. In the Northwest Territories, they are also a substantial percentage of the population. Presently these people, along with everyone else in the territories, face a cost of living far higher than anyone in the south. Also, it is harder to find a job in these territories than anywhere else in the country. I do not believe the building of any pipeline will help that.
In Alaska, during the construction period of their oil pipeline, the state was flooded with unemployed people from the lower 48 states, so much so that real unemployment in the state increased. There were more people without work during the construction period than before it started. This inflation will hit people who, even though their wages will no longer be controlled, I expect, will not be earning the pipeliner's dream wages. As I mentioned earlier, the miners will not, and the public service employees certainly will not. I could go on and on about this, but I believe there are a number of things that should be done before the construction of a pipeline commences. This is why I agree with the Lysyk recommendation for the Yukon, of a period of delay of four years, and the recommendation by Berger of ten years in the Northwest Territories.
Will the government make sure that Whitehorse and Yellowknife can afford to pay police officers, when the going rate for a night watchman is $4,000 or $5,000 a month on a pipeline-building project? Will they provide housing where a bunkroom full of people can cost $75 a week? Something like that happened along the route in Alaska during the building of the oil pipeline.
Northern Gas Pipeline
Another project that should be recommended before the building of any pipeline is the massive log housing program. There should also be job training. The Yukon people should be lobbying for the paving of the Alaska Highway, which would provide some jobs. The building of a massive log housing program in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories would assist the economy of those territories during the waiting period before settlement of land claims, and so on.
In conclusion, I should like to extend an invitation to all members of this House and all members of the other place to come to the north and see for themselves the kind of beauty and the kind of problems that have to be contended with up there. Perhaps if more members of this House and the other place had gone to visit the Northwest Territories in the past few years, the decision frontbenchers over there will have to make, or intend to make before too long, would have been a somewhat easier task.
Members opposite on the front benches have a big decision to make. They must assure a place for the rational development of gas, oil and other mineral wealth of the north. At the same time, they must assure a place in the development for the people of the north. They can turn it into a model of how men and women can live with respect for the land and the several cultures, or they can destroy the unique land and unique people. On behalf of the people of the Northwest Territories in particular, and all northerners, I say to the members in the front benches opposite, "Please be careful".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) wishes to ask a question. This can be done only with the consent of the hon. member, and it must be done quickly because there is only half a minute of his time remaining.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member tell the House how he can take the position he does, opposing the pipeline down the Mackenzie on the basis he does, when the 15 elected members of the Northwest Territories Council, nine of whom are native, take the opposite view?


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, it is part of democracy. I have for many years been very, very concerned about the building of a pipeline down the Alaska Highway as well as the building of a possible pipeline along the Mackenzie route. I take this position on the basis of the 40 years I have lived in the Northwest Territories. I worked as a hunter-trapper, I talked to many, many people and I listened very carefully to the views put forward to Mr. Justice Berger. As I mentioned in my speech, I am basing this not only on the report of Mr. Berger but also on the Lysyk report, the NEB report and my personal experience from having lived in both territories.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, first of all I think that most Canadians are in favour of building an oil or gas pipeline, particularly because of the psychosis which has

August 5, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
been created for several years by the government and some so-called specialists who are trying to convince the public that there is a shortage of oil products. The government took every advantage of this and so has forced the Canadian people to accept the continuous increases in the gas and fuel prices. And today it says that Canada commits itself to build a pipeline and that a continuous supply is guaranteed for Canadians and it implies that this supply will cost less than the methods presently used.
It must be noted that the project guarantees at least a 25 year supply with the normal resources alone. This is what the studies indicate, which proves without any doubt that once again the so-called specialists, who try to make people believe there was a shortage of gas and oil products, were completely wrong.
To distract attention from the cost of installation, the debate has been centred on native rights and the environment. The Berger report speaks at length about this and even suggests a 10 year moratorium before starting to build a pipeline. I am wondering whether the experts have tried to make the population understand what such a project would cost-more than $10 billion according to pre-production estimates. Absolutely not. The experts talk about costs, but not more than is necessary. They talk about all sorts of aspects, but they forget to talk about money. The cost for the government and the companies involved has no importance or nearly none. When we consider what each investigation has cost-$48 million for the least expensive and more than $100 million for some others-we are talking about large expenditures. But this remains untold. What seems more important is to hide this figure of $10 billion to the population and to say that the cost is small and that it will contribute to stimulate the economy in an area of the country and that this investment will create employment.
What we of the Social Credit deplore is precisely this tendency of the government to refuse to reveal clearly and emphatically the cost of its projects for Canadians. However, we all know that Canadians will be the ones to pay for the project and that, according to present rates, interests of 9, 10 and even 12 per cent will have to be paid on these $10 billion. However, this is not mentioned. Whether the investment is made by private companies or jointly with the government, it still remains that Canadians will pay the cost.
The motion we are discussing today attempts to emphasize the agreement of all parties to the building of a pipeline, which forces us to set certain priorities, namely the significance of and need for such a project, and especially its impact.
Clearly there is an all-important factor, capacity for a , nation to be self-sufficient. It is important for a country like Canada to be independent, not to depend on foreign countries. This one reason alone gives us the right to support the construction of a pipeline that would obviously allow us to use our own resources.

We feel that this one reason is ample justification for supporting the project, with the provisos stated earlier and others I shall refer to later.
My second question concerns the need for a pipeline. Is it important for Canada's development, is it absolutely necessary? This may be the key to the whole problem. Although the proposed pipeline now appears to be a necessity of some sort, we wonder whether it will still be four or ten years from now.
Since all reports agree on a four- to ten-year postponement, we can justifiably ask ourselves whether, during that period, the government would not be better advised to spend the pipeline's estimated cost on researching other forms of energy that would not harm the environment. The proposed delays are based on environment and native sociology reasons. Every report refers to the need for postponing construction to obtain a better knowledge of the environment. Would it not be better if the government looked for other sources of energy? How far down the road can we expect that solar energy will be tapped, that tide or wind energy will be in general use and, in a still more technologically advanced area, that the earth's magnetic energy will be developed? This is the question I am pondering. Why not spend the same amount of money on developing other forms of energy? Will the pipeline project seriously jeopardize research in other fields? Why did the studies not order comparative analyses of the development of other resources and that of oil and gas transportation?
To my mind, a government concerned with the common good would have, right from the start, ordered such a report before looking into which route would be the best for building a 20- or 48-inch pipeline. I agree with the idea of a pipeline, but I am still reticent about its value in twenty years from now, especially knowing that Canadians, in 100 years from now, will still be paying for the cost of the project which will probably have been profitable for barely ten years. Still, I am quite willing to try to find out what its consequences will be. But, once again, I have to refer to all those studies which, without a single exception, point out the ecological dangers while at the same time advising us that it is impossible to evaluate its repercussions, at least the most important, namely the respect of our aboriginals and the environment. In that respect alone, we are floundering in strange waters, at the risk of making the same error as our ancestors who, in the name of industrialization, did not evaluate the destruction of the environment, the pollution of our rivers by industrial waste, and so many other consequences we are now up against.
Nevertheless, I must congratulate those responsible for the reports for at least thinking about the future impact of such a project. And for that I endorse the suggestion, but as I mentioned my support remains conditional on the answers that will be provided by the further inquiries, if any, and the attitude of the government. For the economic good of the country we certainly support the proposed pipeline but for the good of Canadians we believe that the government would be more respectful of reality if it tried just as much to develop the other sources of energy that seem to me to be less risky for the environment.
August 5, 1977

In conclusion, I want to mention that whatever project the government accepts, its financing will be done under the present economic and monetary policy based on the conventional methods of the old parties; whatever the project approved by government, it will force the people to pay ten times the actual value of the project, if it is a gas pipeline it will force the people to pay ten times the actual cost of the pipeline with only one pipeline being built. As usual, Canadians will pay for one pipeline and ten of them to financiers. Unfortunately, that is the normal practice of a government that remained hooked on the economic residues of the eighteenth century. I am much more looking forward to a debate on the changing of that economic policy than a proposed pipeline such as the one that is now before us.
On the whole, those are the remarks I wanted to make and I want to repeat that, unfortunately, whatever the attitude of this government on whether or not to approve a pipeline, once again through interests or the multiplication of interests Canadians will have to pay the cost of such a facility not one time but ten times over as happens with all government investments. I think that in the case of a project which initially should cost an estimated $10 billion-if one takes the example of James Bay the estimates were about 80 per cent below actual cost-one realizes that when such a project gets going we will no longer be talking about $10 billion but a much more considerable figure. What is unfortunate in all this is that the government does not want to take into consideration the suggestions made by the Social Credit Party of Canada, but projects of such magnitude as this should, if the government gets directly involved, be financed by interest free loans. So, once again, the ideas put forward with respect to a gas pipeline are certainly a contribution to the Canadian economy but at the same time it is also a deficit, an unthinkable debt to put on the backs of Canadians.
Mir. Frank Maine (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, with regard to the decision on whether or not to build the northern pipeline, there are five major questions which must be addressed and answered.
The first question is that of need. Do we need the energy, do we need the gas in the north to bring down to southern markets?
The second question relates to the science and technology involved in building a pipeline. Do we have the necessary science and technology to construct a pipeline adequately and safely to transport the natural gas?
The third question involves the environment. Can a pipeline be built with adequate safeguards to the environment so that the ecological price will not be devastating?
The fourth major question is that of the native land claims. Can we resolve these satisfactorily to give justice and equity to the people involved?
Northern Gas Pipeline
The fifth and most important question over-all because it affects the previous four questions is that of economics. Can we satisfy the four earlier requirements and reach an economically viable solution? I would like to deal with each of these questions in some detail.
The first and most important question is that of need. Do we need the energy; do we need the natural gas to construct a pipeline to bring it down from the north? I heard no evidence to the contrary expressed in the House yesterday or today that both the United States and Canada have a need for more energy, and, in particular, for more natural gas. The question is not if, but when. Here we come to the first major difference between the two needs, that of the United States and that of Canada. The U.S. need is immediate. If anything, it is more than immediate. They needed gas last year, as was evident from the crisis which occurred in the U.S. last winter at which time we were able to assist them in solving some of the major problems they faced. Canada's need is not immediate. Right now we have adequate gas-if anything, we have a small surplus of gas. As can be projected from the studies that have been tabled, our real need will be in the early 1980's, assuming the continuation of past practices.
There are some options which could be exercised to change that situation quite significantly. I will come back to the question of need and some of its implications after I have addressed the other four major questions. In the area of science and technology, judging from the reports we have seen, there is no question that we have an adequate data base to answer the questions involved. There is still some work to be done, especially in the area of engineering, as has been brought to light recently with respect to the proposed Alcan line, both with the Dawson Bulge and the Dempster Lateral. The engineering studies have not been completed and will have to be finalized before a decision can be reached.
The same situation exists with regard to the environmental question. There is an indication that we can answer the questions involved, that we can satisfactorily protect our environment in the future, but we have not yet completed the work that must be done. The second phase of the Lysyk inquiry should be undertaken as soon as possible to finalize the questions that have not yet been answered adequately, and that will take some time. But there is no indication at this stage that we cannot solve the environmental questions within the economic constraints.
The fourth question, that of the native land claims settlement, and the related socio-economic effects of the pipeline on the natives. Again, both the Berger and Lysyk inquiries addressed these questions in some detail. I fully agree that these questions should be given a high priority and that all attempts should be made to answer them before the construction of the pipeline. Again, we have to maintain an adequate awareness of the economic constraints in this question. There is not an unlimited amount of money to spend.
This brings me to the fifth point to be addressed, that of economics. It depends on the settlement of the above questions,

August 5, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
but it is also guided by the alternative solutions to bringing natural gas from the north.
Because of the different needs of Canada and the United States several alternatives are open to us. I should like to illustrate briefly the four options that I consider to be viable options in attempting to satisfy our energy needs by way of satisfactory transportation. First there is the Alcan route by itself. By this I mean a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay via Fairbanks and Whitehorse down to British Columbia and Alberta with no side connections, strictly a natural gas pipeline to transport gas from Prudhoe Bay south to the markets in the United States.
The second option is the Alcan route with the Dempster Lateral, with or without the Dawson Bulge. Again there are several questions to be answered in that option: the economics of the change, the engineering studies that have not yet been done, and the environmental questions.
The third option is one which I think defines the economic limitations, that is, the El Paso line which takes the natural gas from the northern slope in Alaska by pipeline to Valdez on the southern Alaskan coast and then by liquefied natural gas (LNG) tanker to the southern 48 states.
There is a fourth alternative to consider so far as Canadian needs are concerned, and that is the Polar Gas option whereby instead of taking U.S. gas to U.S. markets, as the El Paso route does, we will take Canadian gas from the Arctic islands to Canadian markets via liquefied natural gas tankers. I would like to emphasize that that option has not been outlined in this debate so far but it is a very viable option and it satisfies the very pertinent questions that are raised.
As I mentioned earlier, our needs for gas are not immediate and if we are looking primarily at satisfying our markets so far as natural gas is concerned, we do not have the same time pressure as do the Americans. Therefore, in our time frame, if for one reason or another the Dempster Lateral is not a viable alternative, the Polar Gas LNG tanker route is a viable solution to consider. We are not talking about having to build a pipeline. We have to liquefy the natural gas in the Arctic islands after collecting it, and then ship it by LNG tanker through the Northwest Passage down to the east coast. There are many attractive features about this option, and I submit that this is a very real option which should be considered in our negotiations with the United States.
This brings me to the question of the negotiations with the United States and the very important variables Canada should consider in these negotiations. Time is a very pressing question as far as the need for gas by the Americans is concerned. The question of the swapping of natural gas to buy more time is another question. Right now Canada has an excess, and when I talk about swapping I am talking about volume for volume at the same price. In other words, if we give them some of our gas now at whatever the going price, that gas should be replaced at the same price sometime in the future with American gas from the Arctic slope.

The details of the route are also further negotiating points. These details have been suggested by a variety of sources. The National Energy Board has brought in some new variations. There have been other reports which have raised other questions as to route options which have not been fully discussed or decided upon. Another negotiating point is the whole question of native land claims. There has been debate already on the American position as to whether the pipeline treaty recently signed by Canada and the United States prohibits a $200 million pay-out which has been recommended in the Lysyk report and in other reports.
In the Canadian context I think it would only be fair to keep in mind the James Bay settlement. It would be appropriate to use that settlement in the Yukon. I think the settlement with the natives in the Yukon should not be any lesser a settlement than that arrived at with the Indians in the James Bay area. Conversely, we cannot have a settlement in the Yukon which is better than that at James Bay, for equality reasons and for economic reasons in competition with the El Paso option.
Then there are further negotiating points to consider. With regard to the option of the Dempster Lateral, environmental and engineering studies should be started as soon as possible. If that option is the one to be utilized, there is the whole question of Canadian content as well as the question of financing. With Canadian participation and with Canadian gas going to Canadian markets from Canadian fields it is quite different from the Alcan route without the Dempster Lateral, in which case we are talking only about U.S. gas going to U.S. markets. In that case I think there is no justification whatsoever for any dependence on Canadian financing for that option at all. These are negotiating points we should be very aware of and use very wisely and strongly.
The question of science and technology is another important negotiating point. There should be Canadian content not only in the materials and labour for the pipeline but also in the engineering design. We have a pretty lousy deal in the Cana-da-U.S. auto pact. Canada has not benefitted at all with regard to science and technology in the auto pact. All research and development and all engineering design is done in Detroit. In this regard Canada does not participate independently in the automotive industry. Canada is completely dependent on the United States, and Canada has only manufacturing facilities. I feel that is a totally untenable situation. We should learn from that mistake and not make it again with any pipeline in the north. We should be involved not only in materials and labour but also in engineering design and development capability. That would benefit us in the future for future pipelines which will undoubtedly be built.
I therefore recommend, as other parties have done, that Canada proceed with negotiations with the United States, that there be given approval in principle to build a northern pipeline, but let it be contingent on a satisfactory resolution of several of the details I have mentioned. After the negotiations have resulted in mutual satisfaction, legislation should be introduced into the Canadian Parliament which would provide the details of the route and other pertinent aspects which will
August 5, 1977

have been negotiated so that parliament can debate this important and massive project and make a final decision in full view of the Canadian public so that there can be full participation of all the people in the country.


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine). I can only say that if the excellent speech he made had been made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), or if the minister's speech had been half as good, the government would have had something of which to be proud.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: Many points were raised by the hon. member for Wellington, but I would like to make one observation on one specific point. He spoke about the possibility of the alternative of moving gas from northern regions by ship, or by what I call the eastern route. I agree that it is a possible and viable alternative, but it is deplorable that the government pays lip service to our shipbuilding industry and to the reconstitution of our merchant marine but does absolutely nothing to encourage an expertise in one area of merchant marine in which Canada should be expert, and that is the type of navigation and transportation the hon. member for Wellington has just outlined so ably.
The motion which is the subject matter of this debate asks that this House recognize four issues surrounding the question of northern gas pipelines. These are social, economic, environmental and energy issues. Much could be said about each, but time limitations permit me to deal with only one of these, that being the environment.
I start with the proposition-which is likely self-evident- that a pipeline does nothing to enhance our Canadian environment. Therefore the challenge is to minimize the impact this huge project would have on the ecology of our far north. Probably the greatest risk would be experienced during the construction period, but I would like to remind the House that the potential for an adverse impact upon the environment continues during the time which might be called the withdrawal from construction period and during the third stage, which is the continuing period of pipeline operation.
For those who might question the importance of these latter two stages I need only point out the problems which have been experienced in Alaska with the recently completed Alyeska oil pipeline. In the few short weeks since the completion of that line there have been serious problems of technical faults, operation error, waste disposal, and suspected sabotage. The risks arising from these problems affect not only the environment but may also have a serious social and economic impact as well as bring about an interruption of energy supply.
I remind the government, therefore, that the need for control and precautionary measures does not terminate with the end of construction. I further remind the government that in the event of construction of a pipeline the government will have no excuse whatsoever for not having in place adequate
Northern Gas Pipeline
controls for the withdrawal from construction and operation periods. This requires particular emphasis because this is a government which has had a long and unhappy history of permitting dangerous situations to develop and then reacting to them without adequate studies and preparation, and nowhere has this been more obvious than within the Department of the Environment.
As an example we need only look to the Beaufort Sea, an area which experienced what could only be called a crash study on environmental impact, followed by a hope and pray period, and then followed by the granting of drilling permits with conditions which possibly are too stringent and possibly are too lenient. Who knows? Had the Department of the Environment spent a comparable amount of effort and resources in becoming scientifically excellent in its weather and ice predictions, we could likely have been in a much more flexible and confident position when drilling permits were issued. Therefore, with regard to the period following construction of a pipeline I ask that the government adopt what is, for it, a unique course of action; and that is planning instead of reacting.
However, the immediate concern is the construction period, in the event the government should give its approval. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has said that we approve in principle the Alcan route on the basis of available information. There is a deplorable and inexcusable lack of environmental information on the Alcan proposal, and I assure this House that I do not seize upon this lack of information as an excuse for opposing construction of a pipeline. I regard it as a missing tool essential to the planning and construction of a pipeline which is as compatible with our environmental concerns as is possible.
There are two basic sources of the necessary environmental data. The first of these sources is government, principally through its Department of Fisheries and the Environment, the second, of course, is the private sector and, in the case of a pipeline, one expects to receive substantial data from the company or group of companies that proposes and seeks government approval for the construction.
Such was certainly the case with regard to the proponents of the Mackenzie Valley route who commissioned and filed at least 41 volumes of biological reports. I do not suggest that the proponents of the Alcan route have done nothing in this regard, because they have filed significant and helpful material including, incidentally, an initial environmental evaluation prepared by the Alaska highway pipeline panel which was sponsored by Foothills Pipe Lines Limited. To suggest, however, that we have received anything more than very preliminary environmental information would simply not be in accordance with the facts. I suggest that it is the direct responsibility of the pipeline proponents to bear the cost of supplying all necessary environmental data. Second, I believe, on the basis of information received from these companies, that they acknowledge this responsibility and are willing to assume it.
8118

August 5, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
The other source of environmental information, as I have mentioned, is government itself. Much baseline data has been accumulated over the years by various government departments or agencies. Other data may be gathered more effectively and efficiently by government than by the private sector proponent. Recognizing that it is the proponent's responsibility to prepare the required reports, it is government's responsibility to supply any existing data to the proponent. Where government is better able to gather additional data, it is its responsibility to do so. If this demands accelerated or additional programs resulting in unbudgeted costs, it is the proponent and not the taxpayer who should likely pay these costs.
Finally, the government is responsible for evaluating the proponent's reports and, as a result, prescribing the regulations and conditions attaching to any approval for pipeline construction.
With regard to the Alcan proposal, the principal environmental report is that of the environmental assessment panel dated July 27, 1977, and entitled "Alaska Highway Pipeline". This report has come to be called the Hill report because the distinguished chairman of the panel was Dr. Harry M. Hill of the Department of the Environment.
On August 30, 1976, Foothills made its application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to the National Energy Board. On the same day, August 30, 1976, it applied to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) for a right-of-way to build its pipeline through part of the Yukon. At this point it was obvious that this proposal required the application of the government's environmental assessment and review process, commonly called EARP. This was obvious on August 30, 1976, first because a significant part of the project would pass through federally administered lands and, second, because the project had the potential for significant environmental impact. Despite this it took almost seven months, until March 21, 1977, before the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development referred the matter to his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc), for an assessment of the environmental impact. This seven month delay is not only unexplained; in my party's view it is inexcusable and unacceptable.
Hon. members should realize that the normal EARP procedure is for the EARP panel to issue guidelines under which the proponent prepares an environmental impact statement. The EARP panel then does the technical review of the report and makes its recommendations to the minister. With regard to the Foothills proposal, the request for a review was not even made until seven months after the Foothills application, which certainly indicated that the government was not even treating the application seriously at the time.
Following receipt of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's application for a review, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment then took almost another month, until April 19, 1977, before he formed a panel, or at least appointed Dr. Hill as chairman. In my view that was a reasonable time span in which to establish an environmental assessment review panel. He then proceeded to give the panel
[Mr. Jarvis.l
until August 1 to prepare its report, less than three and a half months. Dr. Hill, in the introduction to his report, points out at page 3:
The short lead time available made a normal environmental assessment of the project impossible at this time.
He then goes on to say at page 4:
The requirement for the environmental assessment panel to file an interim report by August 1, 1977 necessitated a significant departure from procedures normally followed in panel operations.
As if the situation faced by Dr. Hill and his colleagues on the panel were not difficult enough, they were asked subsequently to consider alternate Yukon routes, plus consideration of the Dempster Lateral, plus a comparison of the environmental impact between the Mackenzie Valley and Alaska highway routes. In my view this was an impossible task. I in no way question the ability or integrity of the Hill panel; on the other hand, I point out that their report is printed testimony to the frustration of attempting to do too much too late. Therefore when we in this party indicate that our support for the Alcan route is based on available information, we emphasize that the Hill report points out quite accurately, the serious lack of environmental information. My approach to this report is to use it not as an environmental assessment but as a catalogue of problem areas which must be faced immediately, effectively and efficiently.
I repeat that 1 do not search for environmental problems to find an excuse for delaying or opposing important decisions but rather to ensure that the implementation of these decisions may be accomplished with the minimum of adverse impact to the Canadian environment.
Let me quickly run through the Hill report, with particular emphasis on the deficiency of information which it outlines. I deal first with Chapter III, to do with physical and engineering concerns. With respect to geotechnical aspects, mainly permafrost and seismic activity, the panel devotes almost a full page to information deficiencies, including emphasis on a limited data base. With regard to water crossings, there is an inadequacy of biologic, hydrologic and soils data. Concerning erosion control the panel says that stabilization techniques are not sufficiently developed. Insufficient information is available to predict the impact of various facilities and structures.
According to chapter IV dealing with biological concerns, there is insufficient knowledge of life histories and exploitation rate of fish, and major deficiencies exist in the knowledge of wildlife and waterfowl populations. In chapter V on unique and sensitive areas, the panel says we require detailed environmental assessments of four specified geographic areas. According to chapter VI on aesthetics and recreation, a systematic assessment of probable aesthetic impact is required. Chapter VII deals with associated developments. The panel was not convinced that sufficient planning had been done to minimize the impact of such projects as highways and hydroelectric construction. Chapter VIII deals with other possible pipeline routes. In addition to the Alaska highway route, the panel considered alternates along the Klondike highway and Tintina Trench, but they concluded that insufficient data was available
August 5, 1977

to draw any definite conclusion from a comparison of alternate routes in the southern Yukon.
To put all of this in perspective, Mr. Speaker, we must realize that the Hill report concludes that the pipeline can be constructed and operated in an environmentally acceptable manner, provided three conditions are met: first, that the environmental planning is properly carried out; second, that we can avoid or solve the problems in unique and sensitive geographic areas; and third, that environmental problems associated with permafrost areas can be overcome.
Similarly, there is nothing in the report to indicate that these three conditions cannot be met within the permissible time frame between now and the commencement of construction. Finally, the panel concluded that the Alcan route is environmentally preferable to a Mackenzie Valley route.
Therefore, in connection with Canadian accommodation to permit the United States to move its natural gas through our territory to U.S. consumers, if the government were to approve in principle the Alcan route, it seems self-evident that the normal EARP procedures should be expedited so that we might benefit from a proper and meaningful environmental assessment review, having confidence that such review could be completed in a reasonable time. This is consistent with the commitment made by the Minister of the Environment on April 19, 1977, when he first established the Hill panel. At that time the minister said:
... If the Alaska highway pipeline project is still a contender after decisions have been made in the competing proposals, the normal panel procedure would then be followed.
It is essential that the minister, given the situation I have mentioned, reaffirm this commitment at the earliest possible date.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, this all relates to the secondary purpose of this whole exercise, that of moving U.S. gas to U.S. markets. The primary objective has for years been the transportation of Canadian natural gas to Canadian markets. It was this objective which initiated all of the various studies and applications and which must remain our principal concern. The shift in emphasis from the Mackenzie route to the Alcan route does nothing to mitigate this concern about Canadian resources destined for Canadian consumers.
There are a number of possibilities in terms of moving this gas. Much has been said during this debate about the Dempster Lateral to connect with the Alcan line. This would permit Mackenzie Delta and Beaufort Sea gas to be transported via this spur to connect with the main Unites States line near Dawson. There are other alternatives as well. The important point is this-if a real possibility, not probability, but real possibility, exists that a certain route or routes may be used for transporting this gas, the time to commence the environmental assessment review process is now. It will be inexcusable for the Minister of the Environment to wait, as has been the govern-
Northern Gas Pipeline
ment's policy, until a situation develops when we can do little more than react because time limitations do not permit us to do the proper planning.
I put the minister on notice that we in this party and, I believe, Canadians everywhere, will not permit him and the government to ignore their obligation to our country to provide an environmental process in keeping with the importance of our trusteeship for our Canadian environment.
In chapter VIII of his report Dr. Hill deals with the Dempster Lateral and points out that three to five years would be required for a program to evaluate potential environmental impacts and mitigative measures. The report lists point after point wherein adequate information is lacking. The report goes on to conclude that, if a decision is made to continue planning for the transportation of Alaska gas through the southern Yukon, an environmental impact assessment of the construction and operation of the Dempster Highway be undertaken immediately.
The panel points out that the study of the highway itself is a prerequisite to the assessment for the possible pipeline. It is to this recommendation that the minister must respond, and I point out to him that this conclusion of his own officials is not based on the probability of moving Canadian gas along this route.
Dr. Hill and his colleagues are saying, in the clearest terms, that continued planning to construct the line to move United States gas through the southern Yukon is reason enough for us to prepare now our environmental assessment of the Dempster Lateral.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from the report of the Alaska Highway pipeline panel which, as you know, was a committee of distinguished Canadians sponsored by Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd. and whose initial environmental evaluation I found most helpful and informative. This group had this to say:
If the government is not ready to control the pipeline, the pipeline should not be built.
In terms of environmental concerns we on this side expect that the first evidence of government control would be the assumption and discharge of government responsibility. Regretfully, little evidence of this is available to date. To permit seven months to go by before application for creation of the EARP panel is evidence only of the government's wish to avoid its responsibility.
Perhaps a positive response to the Hill report, on behalf of the Minister of the Environment, might be the first small step toward the recognition of its responsibility and assumption of control that Canadians deserve to expect from their government.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, as a member from British Columbia I am honoured to participate in this debate. As a British Columbian I also support the construction of the Alcan Pipeline if the Canadian government is able through negotiations to arrive at a satisfactory agreement with the United States, satisfactory to Canada and at the
80020-49)4

August 5, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
same time assisting our neighbour to the south, the United States of America, at a time when I consider their need to be critical for natural gas.
The Canadian government will indeed be facing a challenge because the United States will be tough bargainers. This is in no way depreciating the United States. However, at all times it must be remembered that the Alcan Pipeline will be transporting American gas to American consumers through Canada, and although economically Canada will gain certain advantages, Canada will also incur social disadvantages.
In my opinion Canada must deal from a position of strength, taking into consideration the Americans' need for natural gas, a strength based on our desire to assist this nation solve its critical gas shortage, a strength based on principles of fairness and equity to both Canada and the United States.
In order to show our realization of the critical need the United States has for natural gas in the northern tier, we as Canadians should be willing to lift export restrictions on Alberta natural gas in conjunction with the Alberta government before next winter, if an agreement in principle can be reached regarding pipeline construction, and to have the gas replaced in the future when Prudhoe Bay gas begins flowing through the Alcan pipeline. This would assist independent producers in Alberta, assist rectify our balance of payments deficit, and also indicate our awareness of the critical need facing the United States for natural gas.
I would also recommend to the cabinet that the price be set at current export gas rates, and that Canada have the option to purchase the same quantity exported, an option that may not be required if further significant natural gas finds are made at some subsequent date.
Negotiations with the United States must clearly give absolute sovereignty over choice of route, and timetable to the people of Canada. Needless to say that project and construction management, labour content, financing and construction itself must be Canadian in content. One problem that has already surfaced is that of shortages in certain skilled professions. I would recommend that with the three to four year lead time an assessment be made of labour requirements, and where shortages exist of skilled labour such as welders, pipefitters, and so forth, provincial and union consultation take place through Manpower in order that Canadians are put to work. It would be a shame if we had to import construction workers from other parts of the world at a time when we in Canada have significantly high unemployment.
At the present time Foothills is well aware that imported workers will be required if no concerted effort is made to train and upgrade Canadians. We are talking of a significant labour force for the construction of the Alcan pipeline. At peak construction period the total manpower requirements are expected to reach 7,800.
It would be the height of absurdity if unemployed Canadians did not work during the pipeline construction because the skills are not there. We have a lead in period of time where there could be consultation between the federal government,

provincial governments, labour, the unions and so on in order to get these people upgraded, not only for pipeline construction but past the completion of the pipeline. I hope the government will be cognizant of the fact that we have an opportunity that may not come our way again. We must upgrade the skills of Canadians in order that the construction of the line will be done for Canadians by Canadians.
We are all aware that the United States has an alternative to the building of a pipeline in Canada. El Paso has proposed the building of a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez and then trans-shipping liquefied natural gas to California. As a member from British Columbia, I am totally opposed to any increase in tanker traffic of any size, form or shape. 1 only wish that we had television in the House today, Mr. Speaker, because I would jump and dance around a bit to make sure that this point is made. I think that even my friends in the Conservative party from British Columbia will agree with me on this issue. We do not agree with the Conservative party in British Columbia on very much, but I think that even they would agree, indeed any Conservative, Liberal, NDP-er or Social Crediter, that we in British Columbia are opposed to tanker traffic off our west coast. I do not think it would be unfair to say that there is no one issue in British Columbia today on which the people are so totally united. We are well aware of what will happen, that it is only a question of time, and this explains why we do not want any tanker traffic.
I would also ask the cabinet, when it sits down with United States negotiators to discuss the problems associated with Cherry Point, which is in the state of Washington-


Benno Friesen: Aw, thanks!


Hugh Alan Anderson: Well, Mr. Speaker, not everybody is as brilliant as my colleague from British Columbia.


Benno Friesen: That's for sure. I agree.


Hugh Alan Anderson: The port of Cherry Point, Washington, handles the unloading of Prudhoe Bay crude. Many groups in British Columbia have quite rightly pointed out the dangers associated with tanker traffic in the Juan de Fuca straits. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that if Cherry Point, Washington, continues to be used as the terminal for trans-shipment of Alaskan crude, a spill will occur. Common sense tells us a docking facility should be located outside the most heavily congested shipping area of British Columbia. Since discussions with Washington will be dealing with energy, Canada should take the basket approach and ask for a review of current outstanding irritants which include Cherry Point, and I guarantee the government will have the unqualified support of the people of British Columbia in its deliberations, including that of Conservatives.
The National Energy Board, in its long deliberations over 214 days of public hearings, with 1,200 exhibits, 900 public documents, and 37,000 pages of hearing transcripts, had to determine the need for a pipeline to bridge Prudhoe Bay gas to
August 5, 1977

American markets. Two major questions arise in my mind: one, whether the benefits would outweigh the costs to Canada; and two, whether the pipeline would facilitate or hinder the connection of Mackenzie Delta gas to markets, both in cost and timing.
The National Energy Board has concluded it would be prudent to provide a safety margin in connecting new sources of supply. Exhausting western reserves before connecting Delta gas is foolish. We are all aware of the long lead times needed to connect new sources to market. Undue delay in a decision would also narrow our options and United States participation would be lost.
Also, consideration must be given to Delta exploration which would certainly be curtailed if no action is discernible. Unfortunately previous exploration has not firmed up reserves that justify a Delta pipeline. The 5.3 trillion cubic feet can be tapped with a Dempster spur but the earlier Foothills proposal for a Maple Leaf line is not feasible in the foreseeable future.
The National Energy Board option of connecting Delta reserves with the transportation of Alaskan gas is correct, and I believe that with the swapping of Alberta gas for Alaskan gas a greater lead time could be justified for resolving land claims, carrying out further environmental assessments, and in general preparing for an orderly and rational construction of the Alcan pipeline.
I should like to commend Justice Berger, Dean Lysyk, the National Energy Board and Dr. Hall from Environment Canada for their excellent work and trust that Dr. Thompson, entrusted with a similar responsibility in British Columbia, will proceed as expeditiously as possible, with the example of the Lysyk commission as a guideline.
I applaud the government position to set up an agency to handle all aspects of pipeline co-ordination and planning if indeed negotiations with the United States lead us to proceed with the construction of a pipeline. As I mentioned earlier, one of the questions which could be brought before this agency is the upgrading of worker skills in order to ensure Canadian content not only in the pipe but in manpower.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think this gives us a golden opportunity to do several things in the Yukon. This is the third "golden rush" which may come to the Yukon area. The first, of course, was the Klondike; the second was the construction of the Alaska Highway. Perhaps the third will be construction of the Alcan pipeline. I think that the Yukon is mature in the financial sense. However, without being derogatory to the Yukon, 1 think socially there is an immaturity. Perhaps construction of a pipeline will enable the native people as well as white people to work together on a project of benefit to the Yukon. I hope this opportunity will also enable the people in southern Canada to have a better appreciation of the north. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) appears to find this humorous.


Charles Joseph Clark: I find it pathetic.
Northern Gas Pipeline


Hugh Alan Anderson: When he went to the Yukon and came up with the decision that his party would support the Yukon financially, he took a southerner's position without understanding anything of the north. Perhaps a pipeline will bridge that gap of understanding between northern Canada and southern Canada, one that perhaps should have been crossed several years ago.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a feeling of some sadness that I participate in this debate. It is almost exactly 20 years ago when, as the first act of the Diefenbaker administration, we proposed a royal commission on energy to look into the terrible things which had happened to Canada in the case of Westcoast Transmission in 1954 and in the case of TransCanada PipeLines in 1956. I remember the horrible mistakes which were made during that whole period, and I now see the government repeating those mistakes, probably unwittingly, today.
Even more than the feeling of sadness which I have over the ignorance of the government regarding the mistakes we have made in the past is the feeling of personal sadness that I have over the several thousand people who lived in the Yukon and Northwest Territories when, as a southern government, we built schools all through the settlements of the Yukon, and in the Northwest Territories in the larger settlements, and asked the native people to give up their young and send them to these schools. We flew them into schools at Fort Smith, Yellowknife and Inuvik and flew them back for their holidays. The appeal that we made to their parents was very simple, and at that time honest and sincere: if you give us your children-because we know there is no future on the land for them,-and we educate them in the white man's ways, there will be a job for them when they graduate.
Those schools were built mostly during the period from 1957 to 1963. The students who came into those schools in the early days in Fort Smith, Yellowknife, Inuvik, and up as far as Old Crow, have graduated; but they are still awaiting the development that was promised. They were told that if they left their homes, their loved ones, and came to these boarding schools for eight to ten months of the year we would provide work for them.
When the government changed in 1963, all development stopped in the north. Regulations that we had to induce the oil and gas industries to explore and expand were suspended in 1970 and are still not in effect. The dream we had in 1957 was that we knew by 1980 North America would be short of energy and minerals. We also knew that it would take 20 years to lead time to get into the north and make access to these resources available to the whole world, and not only North America. Part of that equation was the human factor. We promised a future to these young Indians and Eskimos, and we have failed in that pledge which was made in good faith 20 years ago, because we sit opposite a government that is only concerned with public relations or, as they call it, communications-anything to keep in the headlines. It has ignored

August 5, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
Canadian interests from first to last. If anyone reads the history of our country from 1939 to 1957, he will see that the history was the same. The leading historian of our nation called it "the forked road". We took the wrong fork in the road.
I say these remarks in introduction because I want to get to the part of this problem that offers opportunity, which is not all lost. I should have liked to hear in this debate how this whole energy development on the North American continent plays an active part in the total development of the world. With a world begging for development and begging for higher standards of living, we stand in our places talking about trivialities. I am sorry the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona (Mr. Roche) could not get his speech in, because he would have dealt with that subject.
We have learned lesson after lesson over the last 30 or 40 years. One thing I have noticed is that they are orientated the wrong way and they are costly. When we set up the National Energy Board Act, we set up hearings for specific purposes. Other functions have been added since, such as native rights and the environment. All these things were not connected and moving completely without concern for the other factor. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said in opening up the debate yesterday, we are debating something and we have not got the information. Everyone is recommending the Dempster route because no one has studied it. The only ones they do not recommend are the ones they have studied. Partially these hearings are to blame.
Business has learned that before you start on a big project you must have a conceptual hearing to look at the entire strategy, so that every component part has a place in this strategy. From this you build your critical path so that each person knows what he has to do and the time he has to do it in. Over the last seven years the first lesson we have learned is that the whole concept of the technique of hearings in these cases should be changed. If we have an industrial or a development strategy, it should be put down as a concept, and around that concept you begin to build what you have to do.
The next thing is this question of socio-economic responsibility. I heard the Leader of the Opposition say yesterday that he wanted one of the conditions to be that private companies would have some share in the economic and social responsibility of a major construction project.
This gas has nothing to do with Canada, except for the odd little bit which will spurt up alongside the pipeline. This is American gas going from one American state to another American state. We must lay down the conditions under which they build through our country. It is as simple as that. This should apply to domestic enterprises as well. What share is to be borne by all the people of Canada of the socio-economic costs? What share is to be borne by the private entrepreneur?
Another significant lesson is transportation. Twenty years ago I stood in this House to say that the major priority was transportation to open up the north. That is still the major priority. Here we are 20 years later, after having started a program of opening up the north, and we still have not got one

major land route to the Arctic. We got up 80 miles north of the starting place in the Yukon. We got to Yellowknife, and stopped when the government changed in 1963. We should have a transportation corridor in place including a railway, the road, and the pipeline. All this spending of money locating routes has to stop. It is just not allowable up there in the north.
I could list case after case where we have completely failed as Canadians to fight for Canadian interests. Even Berger, duped as he was by the doctrines and rhetoric of the Waffle or the anti-Americans, did not say there should not be a pipeline on the Mackenzie. He knows there has to be one. He simply said to postpone it ten years to give native people a longer time to complete their bargaining for native rights; but that turned out to be the death knell for the people of the valley. Based on our promises, the people of the valley have been let down and destroyed by the National Energy Board report and the Berger report. Both of those reports were far from honest and far from objective.
This country has to get back to economics. We cannot afford to fiddle around any more with irrelevant issues, which is all we have done for ten years. This pipeline is a courtesy to a neighbour. Just as the Americans gave us the right to move Canadian oil from western Canada to the east through American territory, we should give them the same right. When we moved gas from western Canada, coming out of Manitoba, through the northern states and into Ontario, the Americans exacted conditions from us. In the Great Lakes application of 1966 they said we were spending all the money because it was our gas that was going through and that they wanted 50 per cent of the shares of the ownership, and they got it. We would not have got the pipeline otherwise. The U.S. government backs up American private companies. We accepted those conditions. If they want to move a pipeline through this country, we will help them in every way we can. We will do everything we can to facilitate it, even though it has been a farce to date.
I should like to refer to the advantage of it, which we do not understand, but the Americans, the Arabs and the Japenese do. When the Alberta Gas Trunk Pipeline Company was set up the provincial government moved and indicated that there would be five classes of shares, with so many shares going to the producing companies and so many shares going to the consuming companies, and that they would have votes. The government was to step in and buy two shares, and the public would be allowed the great majority of the shares if they lived in Alberta. Alberta people swarmed into the banks and the provincial treasury offices and bought many more shares than were available, and they had to be distributed pro rata. Today Alberta Gas Trunk is owned by the people of Alberta, but they do not have a vote in the company. The votes are left to the government.
During the past 20 years that company has operated without interference from the Alberta government. Relatively it is a very small company with a few hundred million dollars in assets, but it will now take over a $10 billion empire if this proposal for the Alcan route goes through. If they use the
August 5, 1977

same technique in controlling the massive investment which would go into this pipeline, $10 billion, you will find a little company like the Alberta Gas Company, a monopoly set up by the government of Alberta, with two shares owned by the government of Alberta, controlling this big entreprise to carry gas from American states to American states, and the people who are going to make the money will be those who hold the equity, because when you finance a pipeline it is traditional that you put so many shares out in equity, risk shares, and four or five or six times more in senior financing bonds. Suppose you have a conservative ratio of one to four. Those proportions are added together to make a rate base.
The total amount invested in equity and bonds is added together to give a rate base upon which the National Energy Board sets the rates of return. The Board usually sets a rate of return in the area of 9 per cent to 10 per cent. When they pay off the senior financing, the money paid to the pipeline company is the same as though the money had not been paid back as to bonds, and all the money ultimately goes to the shareholders. This is called a leverage situation. So if you have a one into four ratio, 20 per cent of the amount of participation at the beginning gets 100 per cent of the revenue. As a result, the value of the shares goes up five, six or seven times. This is the plum that every smart cookie in the whole world seeks. This is why the Americans asked for and got 80 per cent of the ownership of the TransCanada Pipeline when it started; this is why they asked for 50 per cent of the ownership of Great Lakes; this is why they asked 50 per cent of the ownership of West Coast Transmission in 1974.
When you know how many times you have been gored by men who understand the technique of oil pipeline financing you do not put yourself in a position to be gored again if you are smart. All the government has to do is think through the experience of West Coast in 1954 and of TransCanada Pipelines in 1956. Let members opposite read the debates which took place in this House in 1966 when the opposition persuaded the government to change its policy completely. If the government shows the strength to stand up, with all parties supporting it, and say they want equity to go to Canadians, they will get it. The Americans have no choice, because the only other option which faces them is to haul the gas down in pressurized ships specially constructed to carry liquid natural gas. This would add another chore to the work of the already hard-pressed American navy which cannot even keep peace in the Mediterranean. It would have to undertake the further task of seeking to protect a vital product going by sea. It is bad enough having to ask them to protect oil shipments.
Then, when the ships reach the west coast of the United States after all the expense of changing the natural into liquid form under great pressure, the cargo must be changed back to natural gas again to be sent to the people of Chicago through another pipeline costing $3 billion or $4 billion. Think of what the people of Chicago would have to pay for their own gas.
Northern Gas Pipeline
I go through the simple steps surrounding the financing of a pipeline to reinforce my plea to the House and to the government: please, don't let this chance slip by. Give Canadians an opportunity to get that first billion or billion and a half of equity. And when the project begins to pay off and the value of the shares goes up five or ten times we shall forgive the government for some of the mistakes it has made in the last 20 years. Think it through, let us not miss this opportunity. The Americans will have no argument to put up. They did it to us on the occasions I have mentioned.
I would ask for a lot more. I would say "You are going to need a paved highway to move all that stuff up along the Alcan route. We will build that highway and construct it to accommodate the big trucks needed to haul all that steel. But we want the Panhandle. That land was stolen from us in connivance with the British in 1906. We want it back."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: And if we
don't get it back we want access to the sea. Lay down conditions. No Americans live in the Panhandle. It was put there specifically as a barrier, 25 miles east from tidewater, to keep us from the sea. And a great corner of North America is barred from the market because of that artificial, man-made barrier put up by the Americans and the British against Canada in 1906.
Oh yes, I would list a lot of conditions. We in the opposition have already listed seven or eight of them. But I have said enough to illustrate my point. Let us not be gored a fourth time in one generation. Three times is enough. Let us make some money out of the pipeline. That is what the Americans understand.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say this: I have heard talk in this debate about a single agency to correlate all those 30 agencies which are involved in pipeline construction. I am not opposing that idea. It is a sensible one. But this operation amounts to an international treaty of an economic sort which will require a watchful eye on the part of the Canadian government and of all the Canadian interests involved for 30 years to come.
I believe it will be necessary to bring enabling legislation before the House to consider this whole project as being a 35 or 40-year deal, because if we leave it to the small holding companies, joined by ten or 15 operating companies, and give them monopolistic power to run this operation, in the absence of any control by the federal government we shall not be serving Canadian interests. Consider West Coast Transmission owned by the B.C. government, the Alberta Gas Company owned by the Alberta government, and the techniques of the operation of those two companies. If you put them in charge of this big pipeline it will be the same as putting a weasel in charge of a hen house.
Get the Canadian government into the picture. Make sure it has two or three directors on the board to see that Canadian interests are protected and that the operation is not run entirely by power hungry individuals who understand pipeline

August 5, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
financing. I am suggesting to the government that all is not lost. Let it get on the ball and act like Canadians for a change. Let Canadians have a chance to make a few dollars.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) yesterday I could not help thinking of the advice sometimes given to young corporate lawyers-if you have a weak case, shout. The rest of the advice is: it will not do any good if you shout louder.
The hon. gentleman spoke of the sins of this government with respect to northern economic policy, with respect to northern development, with respect to native issues, with respect to conservation, with respect to energy supply management. What he failed to do was tell us that for the first time an attempt has been made by him to make a start on articulating an energy policy for his party.
He said that he favours the construction of the Foothills Yukon pipeline on the basis of information he has at present. Admittedly this was drawn out by a question at the end of his speech, but it is a stand, and we on this side of the House are happy to see that the Tories for the first time in a long time agree on something.


John Allen Fraser: You are not speaking for your backbenchers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: I have a feeling that I am cutting in pretty close. I have a feeling that the truth irks a little bit. For the first time I believe that the Tory party, at least temporarily, has been able to agree on something.
I will not spend much of my time on the hon. member's remarks about energy conservation. He knows, or he should know, that the measures we have implemented in this country outstrip those in the U.S. Mind you, from time to time, as some of his members like to remind us, that is the particular yardstick that we should follow, but perhaps he should look at the record. He should recognize also that conservation is also a provincial responsibility, and I suggest to him that he might do more for the energy conserving attitudes that he espouses and the practices he supports if he were to call up Queen's Park and ask them to get a move on the energy insulation program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: His views about northern development will appear peculiar to many Canadians who read newspapers and listen to radio and television. People in the north are organizing a strong cultural base. They are speaking to the media and to the politicians and, what is more, they are being assisted in their work by federal agencies with federal funds.
The Leader of the Opposition appeared annoyed yesterday that the government had not yet announced a decision. Let us remember that the motion was moved because the government was asked by the Leader of the Opposition to provide an opportunity for debate before a decision in principle on a major project for this country has been taken, perhaps the biggest construction project ever undertaken in this country. Has he already forgotten that he asked to be heard? Has he already forgotten that he and other members asked to be heard before the government took a decision?


John Allen Fraser: We expected you to give us some idea of what you wanted to do.


Alastair William Gillespie: The government has now consulted parliament. I believe we have taken our responsibility in doing so. Our responsibility now is to keep parliament informed, and eventually to let parliament decide whether it agrees with the form of that decision. That is the parliamentary process and the parliamentary system. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would have been the first to criticize the government had the government House leader stood up yesterday and announced a decision.
One other speaker who I think should be singled out in the debate yesterday was the leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent). He adopted what can only be described as a ludicrous position for his party. It is the members of his party who had said that they wanted to have an input into the decision, that they wanted all members of parliament to have an input into the decision, or as many as could be heard, before the decision is taken. But what was the first thing he did? He placed an amendment before the House which in effect asks the House to take a decision before the House has even heard the views of members. Of course that is not the first time the NDP has adopted ludicrous positions.
My colleague, the government House leader, yesterday recited some of the events leading up to this debate. He spoke about the reports and the actions which gave existence to the reports: The Berger report, the NEB report, the Dean Lysyk report, the second Berger report, and the environmental assessment review process. He underlined as well the native interests and the concerns of the government with respect to those interests and the environmental interests with respect to a pipeline. He outlined the options for Canada and he also indicated rather strongly some of the complexities involved in reaching a decision of this magnitude.
I think it might be helpful to cast our minds back to the recent U.S. experience in Alaska. The U.S. has already experienced and faced up to environmental and native questions when it built the Alyeska line. Those complexities and difficulties with respect to the native claims and the environment were not insubstantial. There would be additional environmental problems for us if they were to decide to go for El Paso. Of course they would have to weigh the industrial benefits and the environmental costs which an El Paso route would involve against the lower prices and delivery to markets

August 5, 1977

of an overland Canadian route. This issue involves big money, big impact and big results, so it will not be settled overnight.
In concluding this debate I wish to place the spotlight for a moment on the question of energy supply and to summarize my impressions of the debate against the background of the major supply question for Canada.
The National Energy Board made reference to its 1975 report on natural gas supply requirements. It noted that some conditions have changed, basically as a result of the significantly higher prices which have brought supply and demand more in balance. Regrettably, the absence of assurances as to a secure supply-users will just not contract for gas without a five to ten years guarantee of supply-has resulted in an almost stagnant market for gas in Canada outside of Alberta in recent years. I call it regrettable because the prospects for oil production in Canada are much more serious. The alternatives are high cost tar sands and heavy oil production and imports.
I know a pipeline decision would clearly raise the question of how we provide that long term assurance of natural gas supplies which consumers and the distributing utilities need in order to plan for greater use of natural gas and less dependence on oil, particularly imported oil. It is thus not only a question of whether or not we need northern gas and, if so, when, but also whether or not we are going to indicate to natural gas users and potential users that there is a supply available not only in Alberta but also in the frontier. We need to be able to indicate to gas users that their investment is protected for its life, that they will not be cold if they decide to heat their homes and run their factories with natural gas.
We need to be able to indicate to potential gas users that the government's strategy is to use natural gas to the maximum extent wherever economical, and this requires the long term assurance of supply. Otherwise a major opportunity to replace foreign oil and to reduce our growing dependence on foreign oil will be severely threatened and forgone.
On the matter of the deliverability of gas, which in the final analysis is more important than a reserve estimate, I can say that analyses by my department and the National Energy Board on deliverability profiles show production from existing western Canada reserves peaking in 1981. When so-called trend gas is added, production will peak in 1983-84. After that time, amounts of trend gas deliverability cannot offset the decline in deliverability of the established reserves.
The Board has performed some very important sensitivity tests on its own projections of supply and demand. In one case when optimistic assumptions are used with respect to supply and a low growth rate for gas demand is assumed, an approximate balance between supply and demand, with no shortfalls, is obtained until the year 1990. I think it is important that we understand that. That is under one set of assumptions that the National Energy Board has used for this sensitivity analysis. I believe this points to the degree of uncertainty regarding the first year of shortfall, and, inasmuch as less than expected
Northern Gas Pipeline
supply trends and high demand growth could bring the supply-demand crossover point forward into the early 1980's, it does emphasize the importance of preparing for expected shortages well in advance rather than risking the country's energy supply on a fine calculation of a year or two of shortage. This is the fine tuning, in other words, into which some spokesmen have allowed themselves to be drawn. For this reason the board has emphasized the importance of frontier gas supply by the first half of the 1980's.
Finally, I would like to refer to some policy considerations relative to the supply and timing of Mackenzie Delta gas. In the report I released last year concerning our energy strategy for Canada emphasis was given to policies for self-reliance. Included in the policy elements are energy conservation and increased exploration and development. Those elements are directly related to curtailing demand growth and increasing energy supply to reduce the energy gap forecast for 1985. This remains our objective, and the opening up of new supply sources, whether in frontier areas or in the heavy oil areas of western Canada, is fundamental to the attainment of self-reliance.
The National Energy Board, after a very thorough and independent analysis, as I have said, has concluded that frontier gas supply before the mid-1980's is an essential element of the country's supply and demand equation. Here 1 must point out just one of perhaps several discrepancies in the positions taken by the Leader of the Opposition and his energy critic, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). On the one hand the Leader of the Opposition was saying "Damm the torpedoes, full speed ahead, we must have energy self-sufficiency by the year 1990". Bringing domestic demand, he said, into some kind of harmony by then was not only realizable but absolutely essential.
However, his energy critic, on the other hand, adopted a rather more relaxed attitude. He said that our need for frontier gas from the Delta or the Beaufort Sea will not come in the last half of the 1980's, or need not come. He said we should gamble. That was one of the words he used. He said we can get by without frontier gas until then. That was an incredibly rash statement, but any of us who have watched the hon. member for St. John's West in this House realize that was fully in character.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: I have no intention of entering the debate between the hon. member for St. John's West on the one hand and his leader on the other with respect to the energy self-sufficiency policy of their party, but I point out only that Canada could fall short of this goal if the Leader of the Opposition cannot persuade his energy critic to see some greater urgency in the matter. Indeed, far from having attained self-sufficency, we could be faced with energy shortages if we took the kinds of risks the hon. member for St. John's West appears willing to take.
In acknowledging the need for frontier gas 1 am not in any way proposing to lessen the pressure we must maintain toward
8126

August 5, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
the objective of new oil supplies from the tar sands and the heavy oil areas of Alberta. In fact that development is complementary to frontier gas development. Both are needed urgently. Nor am I suggesting that our energy conservation measures should be less stringent because we can achieve a supply and demand balance through new sources of supply. We must, in fact, increase our conservation efforts. The fact is that we are projecting an energy supply gap for 1985, even assuming frontier gas supplies and a considerable turnaround in the energy consumption habits of all Canadians. The extent to which we fail to bring on any of these new energy sources or to convince people about the importance of conservation will be a measure of the widening gap in our 1985 energy projections and beyond.
The alternative to greater self-reliance is an increasing dependence on imported oil. Forecasts of the world energy situation in the latter half of the next decade point to increasing competitive demand for decreasing supplies, and that can have only one result: escalating prices, very high prices or, at worst, a major security of supply problem.
While these supply conditions pertain to the mid-1980's and beyond, there is a tendency to forget about the long lead times involved in major resource development and transportation projects and to set aside the necessary decisions until it is too late to undertake a well planned program. This in turn often leads to crash programs which are costly and ineffective. The time for a decision on a northern pipeline is now. With a decision in principle preparations can be completed in a thorough manner and the facilities carefully constructed to open up new sources of energy supply for all Canadians.
As perhaps the last speaker in this debate I would like to compliment hon. members of all parties who have participated. I would particularly like to thank hon. members of the official opposition for finally turning their minds to the development of an energy policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: I am pleased that the policy they have adopted is very similar to ours. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: I would like now to summarize briefly some of the main points in the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. minister that his allotted time has expired.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would permit a question at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The minister's time has expired. The only way he can accept a question is with unanimous consent. Does the minister have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for allowing me to ask my question. Earlier today the minister indicated that if he received a specific request with respect to certain of the cartel documents he has in his possession he would consider releasing them. I have two preliminary lists or schedules of such documents which I would like to deliver to the minister at this time. Would the minister indicate if he would accept the lists from me, and would he indicate to the House when we might receive the documents?


Some hon. Members:: Order!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: That question does not pertain to the debate.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was my understanding that I had the indulgence of the House to summarize the debate. My summary would cover the speeches of various hon. members. I thought I had until a quarter to five. I ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I point out to the minister that the time allocation was 40 minutes for the leaders of each party and 20 minutes for all other speakers. Due to the fact that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) spoke on behalf of the government first, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) was allocated 20 minutes.


Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to express my views in 20 minutes but understand I shall have available only two or three minutes. Therefore 1 have put aside my notes and will begin by commenting on the remarks of the minister. He commented on what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said and also said, I think, that if we follow the counsel of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) we shall face energy shortages in the years ahead. It is incredible that the minister who was in charge of energy affairs in this country when we were self-sufficient in energy, when reserves were growing, when our prospects for energy supplies were favourable, indeed excellent, should have brought this country to the position in which in the next five years it will be on its knees from the point of view of energy supplies. That is shameful.
Personally I believe the question of northern pipelines is greatly connected with the question of energy supplies in Canada. This point has been covered adequately; yet it is important to note that by 1980, in little more than two years, Canada will import some 390,000 barrels a day, according to figures the National Energy Board gave us, and by 1985, only about seven years away, Canada will depend on foreign sources for over half its oil. Given these projections and estimates as to where our future energy supplies will come from, we must look carefully at this country's pipelines.
The minister who is responsible for energy matters in Canada should reflect upon what others have said about energy to North America. Speaking on energy, the President
August 5, 1977

of the United States referred to it in April this year as the greatest challenge his country would face during our lifetime. He said the energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us but it will if we do not act quickly. He said we must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren. He concluded by saying we must simply balance our supply and demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now we can control our future, instead of letting the future control us.
The minister referred again today to his strategies, his studies and to many reports. We have had, since the present minister and previous minister assumed the responsibility for their portfolios, nothing in the way of action. We have had all kinds of reports and heard a lot of talk. The minister speaks of the problems facing us but does nothing. Actually almost everything the government, including the minister, has done in the last few years with respect to energy has been negative, has in fact been a detriment to the acquisition of future supplies.


An hon. Member:: We have had government by regulation.


Peter Colwell Bawden: An hon. member mentions rule by regulation. The government's actions in the area of energy are but another example of that rule. I do not think we have emphasized sufficiently in this debate the matter of Canada's security of future energy supplies. If we are to import about half our energy supplies, a substantial proportion will be shipped via the Indian Ocean and round South Africa. We shall be highly dependent on a number of foreign powers for our energy supplies. This, in addition to our economic difficulties, is a most serious problem to those of us who live in northern latitudes.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is very much in our interest to work together with the United States to make possible the construction of a northern pipeline. While we can be instrumental in making available to the United States sizable quantities of its own energy supplies, we can at the same time, probably by using the Dempster route, eventually bring into use our Mackenzie Delta and Beaufort Sea gas.
On reflecting on the events of the past months, after having visited recently the Mackenzie Delta, something I have done many times, I am impressed by a number of facts. For example, both natives and whites alike told me and my colleagues, when we visited the Delta, that Mr. Justice Berger's report does not properly represent the views of the northern people. The reason is, I think, that the views expressed to Mr. Justice Berger were largely those of a group of experts from Toronto, who arrived in the north on an aircraft ahead of Mr. Justice Berger and persuaded the natives as to what they should say. These same gentlemen probably wrote their reports right at the University of Toronto. We asked businessmen in the north why they did not put forward their views; or, why were we hearing from them views which had not been expressed to Mr. Justice Berger? The reason is this: the experts from Toronto were funded directly and indirectly by the government. They had funds which enabled them to sit at the hearings for days on end and to buy airline tickets which
Northern Gas Pipeline
are expensive items in northern communities. But the small businessmen, the young people who were enterprising and had staked their future in the north, had no chance to express their views, because they had neither the time nor the money to do it.
I can hardly fail to remind the House that Mr. Justice Berger himself at one time was an elected representative and formerly the leader of the New Democratic Party in British Columbia. As one northerner put it, asking Mr. Justice Berger to report on matters in the north is akin to appointing a cardinal to head a commission on abortion.
What are this country's energy reserves, and what are our potential sources of supply? We have a good deal of potential for supplies in Alberta. We have potential supplies off the east coast, but in deep water and probably cannot extract those supplies with presently known technology. I expect we shall need to learn new technologies. We have the Alberta oil sands and the heavy oils in Alberta. But the frontier area most likely to yield energy supplies immediately is the Mackenzie Delta.
We shall need all of this country's energy reserves. All will be required, each in their own time. The development of some can be hurried; the development of others cannot be. Huge sums of money will be required for exploration in our provinces and off the east coast. In view of the enormous costs of these developments, we shall need to time them carefully. Today we have known reserves in our western Arctic areas. The reports of the National Energy Board make clear that this area is the next and most important source which should be tapped for Canadian energy needs.
The projected production from the Mackenzie Delta would meet the growth in Canada's energy needs for less than two years. That should make it clear we shall need all our energy resources. We cannot stand aside at this time, awaiting the development of the oil sands, or the heavy oil reserves. We must make use of our present opportunity to bring on stream Mackenzie Delta gas.
It has been said in this debate that by agreeing to the pipeline we shall do the United States a favour. Before I deal with the point let me draw attention to the outstanding job done for many years by the Canadian Arctic gas group. This government told it to get to work and undertake studies in thousands of important areas. The group did its work well. It conducted undoubtedly one of the most thorough studies ever undertaken on northern ecological and transportation matters.
I ask again, who will be dealt a favour? I say that, yes, we can help the United States, and it is important for us to do so. But I also suggest this project is greatly to Canada's advantage. Today we desperately need the economic stimulus of this pipeline and its construction projects. This, of course, is largely due to the mess that our country is in as a result of the economic mismanagement of the government sitting opposite.
We cannot afford to build our own pipeline at the present time from our western Arctic reserves because they are not large enough. However, the Alaska-Yukon line which is pro-
80020-50 Vi

August 5, 1977
Northern Gas Pipeline
posed by the Foothills group in Calgary to build their line within 480 miles of our reserves brings our reserves within reasonable distance of a major transportation artery. The energy supply of North America would be more secure and the strength of the economy of our largest trading partner would be increased.
Our supply of energy is important to us. Equally important to us is that the United States receives their supply of energy. Hon. members will recall how many Americans were out of jobs last winter and how seriously the slump in their economy affected Canada.
There is one other aspect. The pipeline group intends to employ thousands of people on the pipeline, something in the area of 5,000 or 6,000. This will be multiplied at least five times in other parts of Canada. That would be Hamilton, the maritimes, and as I told the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), they will probably eat a lot of fish in those pipeline camps.
I understand that another factor being considered is gas swaps. At the present time the important problem facing the United States is their short-term supply. The President of the United States has put into place a long term program but, as hon. members know, it takes a long lead time to bring these supplies on stream.
It is my understanding that affiliates of the Alaska-Yukon pipeline company are at the present time willing to deal with the United States on short-term supplies from western Canada. This is of considerable importance to the United States.
We have these additional supplies available. There appear to be various formulae to make possible their implementation. I urge the government to support these efforts and, wherever possible, to back those who are attempting to use these important levers to bring about acceptance by the United States of this particular route.
As I reflect on the figures of our own energy shortfalls in the eighties, I find them frightening. What is of even more concern is that the problem we have in energy is not truly an energy problem, but a political problem. It seems little short of incredible that Canada is programmed by this government in its studies to permit itself to lapse into heavy dependence on outside sources on the whims of foreign powers for its essential energy supply. It is all the more tragic when we realize that this potential energy is available in Canada through the various sources that we have.
There is the example of the northern regulations. This minister ought to be ashamed of himself. He has told this House and committee on more than two dozen occasions in the past six or eight months that these regulations would be available very soon. He said as recently as this past June that he would introduce them this session. We are well into the summer, and no regulations. This speaks very well for the concern the government has for the energy problem, and indeed the competence of the minister.
It is interesting that the government's program, the shortage and desperation in our actual supply situation, lead us very
much into the 1980's when we will be facing deficits which will not permit us to buy supplies. I wonder if the minister is aware of that.
Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition pointed out that studies by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and others clearly indicate that by the middle of the 1980's oil may very well not be available. This master plan, these studies, these words, all that we hear from this minister brings us to our maximum problem, our maximum shortages at the very time when world supplies will be phasing out and may very well be unavailable to us.
On the question of a northern pipeline, the government is obligated to come forward with some answers. It has had this problem for many years. The opportunity to build an oil line through Canada came at the time that Alaska oil was to be brought from Alaska. The government failed to react. It said no. It had an opportunity at that time to take steps to make possible the energy corridors, but it failed miserably. It is continuing to do so.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-24, An Act respecting immigration to Canada-Chapter 52.
Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act- Chapter 53.
Bill C-27, An Act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof-Chapter 54.
Bill C-23, An Act to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement-Chapter 55.
Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act respecting the establishment of marketing plans and to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act in consequence thereof-Chapter 56.
Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, pursuant to the order made by this House on Monday, July 25, 1977, this House stands adjourned until Monday, October 17, 1977, at two o'clock in the afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.10 p.m., until Monday, October 17, 1977, at 2 p.m., according to order made July 25, 1977.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, August 9, 1977