1978-04-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, that being the government's reluctance to pay out moneys owing to Canadian farmers under the grain stabilization plan. The amount of the payment is known to be in the range of $80 million to $95 million, and the statement of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to the effect that the cabinet must consider the final figures is utter nonsense and means nothing more than fixing the date of payment in relation to the timing of the upcoming election. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the money owing to western grain farmers under the grain stabilization program be paid out immediately and not be subjected to the political manipulations of the Minister of Agriculture and the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can get unanimous consent for this non-partisan motion which I move under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Crown corporation, the National Film Board of Canada, won two Oscars at the 1978 Academy Awards for best animated and short films, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House congratulate the NFB and the directors and crews involved for this outstanding achievement.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) announced yesterday that he will soon bring forward a budget, and that in a period of economic crisis; given also that according to the report of the National Welfare Council the income gap between the rich and the poor increases continuously, and that in 1976 it was two and a half times as large as in 1951, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House direct the Minister of Finance to introduce in his budget a series of measures such as tax reductions, the exclusion from taxation of government pension plans and a real annual guaranteed income plan.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under Standing Order 43, such a motion would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the Post Office Department and the Postmaster General have seen fit to produce an information kit containing a 44-page, colour brochure at enormous cost to the taxpayers, indeed a wasteful exercise, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That the Postmaster General provide this House and the people of Canada with a full explanation of the reasons for this ridiculous exercise in pseudo-public relations and inform Canadians of the cost of this arrant nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

April 4, 1978


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. On March 23, 1978, the Minister of Indian and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) announced a $4.2 million contribution to the Otineka Development Corporation of The Pas. In view of the fact that many businesses in The Pas were forced out of business by this development, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That this Liberal government also compensate the private businessmen in The Pas who have suffered loss of business.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the refusal of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) to allow Julia Walsh, a young woman from Ajax, Ontario, to apply for the Canadian armed forces pilot training program because, in the words of the Canadian armed forces recruiting officer, "young ladies are not eligible to apply for pilot training", considering the minister's rejection of my appeal on her behalf, and further considering the subsequent decision by the chief human rights commissioner of Canada to support Miss Walsh and help remove the unfair impediment to her becoming a Canadian armed forces trainee, contrary to the provisions of section 2 of the Human Rights Act, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urges the Minister of National Defence to accept Julia Walsh and other qualified women candidates as applicants for pilot training and support, rather than retard, the movement toward equality of opportunity for both men and women.


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


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in Sherbrooke, Quebec, on March 13, 1978, that the government must be able to afford increased expenditures, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the minister make a statement to the House making it clear whether or not she knew that the government would, as of now, require to borrow another $1 billion for use as standby credit, whether or not she had given consideration to the pending $11 billion cash requirement of the government this year, and whether or not the extra money required would be derived from increased taxation or a further budgetary deficit.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be put to the House only by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the government has had almost six months in which to consider the final report of the International Joint Commission with respect to the Garrison diversion project, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That the subject matter of the IJC recommendations with respect to the Garrison project and, as well, the subject matter of the Andras Plan proposed by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry in order that members of this House might make a meaningful input into the final position taken by the Government of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of this motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[Mr. Speaker.)

April 4, 1978


ANNIVERSARIES
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Royal Hudson, the unity train, arrives in Ottawa today-indeed, Captain James Cook is himself present in our gallery-I should like to seek the permission of the House to share with British Columbia in the celebration of its bicentenary, Captain Cook having landed in Friendly Cove, B.C., 200 years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I 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 the fact that the federal government has refused over the last few months to consider the stockpiling of nickel as a move to protect nickel mining communities and the jobs of miners, in view of the fact that Inco last week raised the price of nickel by 7 per cent a pound in a move which may be the start of a recovery in that industry, and bearing in mind the fact that if the government had acquired a one-month inventory of 30 million pounds of nickel to protect the jobs of miners they would now be in the position of having made an inventory profit of over $2 million, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House condemn the short-sighted policies of this government which have not only cost over 4,000 jobs in this industry but which have cost Canadian taxpayers $2 million because the government lost an opportunity to make a profit on Canadian resources.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I will address my question to the Minister of Finance, who is formally responsible in the government for monetary policy. The Bank of Canada last night raised the bank rate by a further one-half per cent. In the light of this development, can the hon. gentleman tell the House whether the government still expects the real growth rate of the economy to be 5 per cent in 1978, and whether he still expects inflation to be running at an annualized rate of 6 per cent by the end of 1978?


Hon. Jean Chrfetien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will give those answers in the budget speech which I will be making in this House very soon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we will see how far the dollar drops before that budget speech is finally delivered. My question to the minister concerns the reasons of the government or of the Bank of Canada for not announcing the increase in the bank rate last Friday, when the market expected that increase to be announced. Can the minister tell us why he waited until last night to announce that increase in the bank rate, thereby causing the Bank of Canada to drain in the neighbourhood of another $100 million unnecessarily from our foreign exchange reserves?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the governor of the Bank of Canada came to see me only last night, so I could not have made the decision on Friday.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr.Speaker, it must be very comforting for the minister to have another public servant upon whom he can lay the blame for the economic failures of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Charles Joseph Clark: On March 7, in this House, the minister told my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe, that there was, and I quote his words precisely "no basis in fact" for the suggestion that the fall in the Canadian dollar was the result of speculation by certain international investors. Yesterday, the minister was quoted on CBC radio as saying that if there are some people trying to run down the Canadian dollar in a speculative way, the government would act to stop that. I wonder if the minister could tell the House whether he has changed his position and is now saying that the fall of the Canadian dollar is related in some way to speculators and to speculation.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there is always the possibility that people can speculate against the Canadian dollar. That is

April 4, 1978
Oral Questions
why, for example, we decided to make sure that we have enough credit so that we can tell the market that we will not let anybody run down our dollar. However, of course, it is a floating dollar and the interventions of the Bank of Canada are designed to make sure that the floating of the dollar is done in an orderly way.


An hon. Member:: Floating?


VALUE OF CANADIAN DOLLAR-POLICY OF BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In spite of the half point bank rate increase yesterday and the announcement of a further $1 billion increase in the Canadian chartered banks' line of credit, the Canadian dollar today is still under heavy pressure. Another $30 million in United States reserves has been dissipated so far today, as of 2.15 p.m. Is the minister at least willing, now, to telephone the governor of the Bank of Canada to find out why the policy enunciated yesterday does not seem to be working today?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am in touch with the governor of the Bank of Canada regularly. The policy was announced yesterday. If the hon. member would read very carefully the statement of the governor of the Bank of Canada, he would find that the international situation is a very fluid one at this time; and the foolish speculation of the hon. member is not helping the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister-and he knows it-that this is not foolish speculation; it is the truth. Yesterday, the governor of the Bank of Canada indicated in effect that if the dollar continued to fall, it would bring pressure on inflation and somehow counteract our competitive position as far as the world is concerned. This sentiment was certainly expressed in the CBC interview of the Minister of Finance when the minister said that we have to make sure that the floating of the Canadian dollar is not creating too much pressure on inflation. Is it now government policy to hold that an 88-cent dollar is about as low as the dollar should go, notwithstanding so-called floating?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian dollar is a floating dollar. As the governor of the Bank of Canada said yesterday, I also say that the dollar must float rationally; excessive pressures over too short a time could lead to serious distortions in the value of the dollar. That is why the governor intervened yesterday.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the half-measures consistently taken by this government with respect to our foreign exchange position are not working, would the minister cause a reference to be made to the appropriate committee of this House so that we can have a full

airing as to exactly what is the government's policy with respect to the dollar and what the governor of the Bank of Canada intends to do? In short, let us get to the truth as to why the government is handling this so ineptly.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the policies are enunciated by myself and by the governor of the bank. There is a public debate about this, and I do not think I can add much more at this moment. I think that the market would be even more worried if we were to take the advice of the hon. member.


VALUE OF CANADIAN DOLLAR-EFFECT ON INFLATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. At the outset, I ask if he would be completely honest in his answer and acknowledge that a rational float amounts to a dirty float, which is no float at all. Will he acknowledge that the government has abandoned the principle of the floating dollar? When answering that question, will he explain why, at a time when he is jacking up interest rates, which will inevitably lead to higher costs for business to expand-which means a rise in inflation and a rise in unemployment-he is pursuing that kind of policy at this time?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the statement the governor of the Bank of Canada made yesterday stands by itself. He gave very good reasons for his move, and I have agreed with it.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister is responsible to the House, not the governor of the Bank of Canada, and when he has an obligation he should exercise it to explain to the House, briefly, why he has embarked on the course of action he has, because the inevitable consequence is an increase in unemployment and a simultaneous increase in inflation.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I take the responsibility. I said I have agreed with the statement of the governor.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will try different tactics. Considering that the government of the United States has not taken steps to prop up its dollar, on the very sensible ground that it wants to boost its exports, contrary to the desires of Japan and West Germany, why does the Minister of Finance of Canada not follow a similar policy and allow our dollar to float, which will inevitably boost Canadian exports abroad and create more jobs?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is odd to hear a member who has always complained that Canada is following the U.S. too closely say that we should follow the Americans on that score. I think we have an independent economic policy. We made that move because it was in the best interests of the Canadian economy to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 4, 1978

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
On the last sitting day before the Easter break, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture what the dairy policy would be for the coming year. Now that we have reached April 4 and that dairy producers, at least in my area, are asking many questions about the dairy policy they can expect this year, can the minister tell the House whether he will soon tell us what type of dairy policy he intends to propose and implement for the dairy year which started on April 1?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is forgetting that we have a dairy policy which is subject to review every quarter. Naturally, we meet with dairy producers and processors, and we hope to be able to announce the continuation of the program which is presently being followed. We were not able to do that as of April 1. However, I am sure the hon. member will be very happy when the program is announced for the coming year. It will be quite similar to the present policy, with not much change. As I said, it will be one of the best in the world.


REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN DAIRY YEAR
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
As it was suggested before the Standing Committee on Agriculture that the dairy year be changed, that is extended to allow dairy producers to eliminate, during the winter, those units that are not profitable, and so respect their quotas, can the minister tell the House whether that proposal was accepted and whether in fact the dairy year will be changed when a statement is made on the coming year?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this suggestion has been publicly debated by many different dairy producer groups and other people in Canada. That suggestion has been put forward.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It is supplementary to
Oral Questions
the answer he gave the hon. Leader of the Opposition about the change in interest rate. Are we to understand the reason the Minister of Finance has given for the action of the Bank of Canada is the fact that the minister did not have a chance to speak to the governor of the Bank of Canada until Monday night?


An hon. Member:: That is not what he said at all.


James McPhail Gillies: Is there not constant communication between the Minister of Finance and the governor of the Bank of Canada concerning what should be done about the decline of the dollar?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the reason. I said that the governor came to see me to make the recommendation yesterday. I talk with the governor of the Bank of Canada regularly. I think he is a fine public servant and a very capable man.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, following along the same line of questioning and the degree of speculation that is taking place on the dollar, does the minister not believe that the statements being made by him and by officials of the governement on borrowing reserves and on maintaining an orderly market are a total invitation to speculate? No speculator has any risk, given the position the government is taking at the present time. Can the Minister of Finance tell us what, in the estimate of the Bank of Canada and the Department of Finance, proportion of the decline in the value of the dollar since January 1 has been caused by speculation rather than by normal market forces?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very amusing that the hon. member would put that question, because by the very fact that he is asking these questions he invites speculation. If I were to follow his advice, I would just sit in my seat and not say a word. So if he is worried about it, he should tell his colleague next to him-who is always throwing all kinds of figures around the place just to create the confusion he wants-to shut up and he will help the nation that way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, again my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It seems to me any minister of Finance who has presided over a decline in the dollar of this dimension has no right to be saying that hon. members on this side of the House should shut up about this problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: There is grave concern in this country about the decline in the value of the dollar, because of what it is doing to economic policies, the level of inflation and the level of unemployment. Does the government, the Department of Finance and the Minister of Finance have no feeling or indication that there is a need for the government to say that it will not
4108

April 4, 1978
Oral Questions
protect the dollar totally, and if people want to speculate against it, they can take the risk, or to say that they are going to protect it so that speculation will be removed from the market and the dollar will not be forced down by these untrue market forces?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, nothing would be worse speculation than to reply to that question. Like most of the currencies of the world, the Canadian dollar is on a floating exchange basis. We intervene to make sure that the floating is done in an orderly manner. That is the policy of the government and that is the policy we intend to carry forward. I do not have to add anything to the statement made yesterday by the governor of the Bank of Canada.


EEC MONITORING OF PRICES AND WAGES
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the government any reason to believe that the Economic Council of Canada, which will monitor price and wage performance after controls are lifted on April 14, will be any more successful in obtaining compliance with the government's price and wage guidelines than was the Prices and Incomes Commission under the chairmanship of Dr. John Young, which proved to be completely incapable of doing so? If so, what are the government's reasons for so believing?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, since that appeared in the early seventies we have reached two-digit inflation. Co-operation was forthcoming from the private sector during the period in which we had controls. It is obvious there was a great deal of co-operation from the private sector because they realized the danger of runaway inflation. Because of this, we are quite convinced that the private sector and the government, as employers, will be very, very serious in their undertaking to control any inflationary spiralling.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, of course, that is pure speculation. The Prime Minister avoided answering a serious economic question, as he always does. I have a supplementary question for him. Does the Prime Minister not realize that without teeth to require compliance with the government's guidelines, the pressures that have built up on prices and wages during the past 2Vi years will bring about an even greater price escalation than that which necessitated the imposition of controls in the first place?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. gentleman that it is not, to use his words, pure speculation: it is based on an agreement reached between the ten provincial premiers and myself, when we met in mid-February, to act as employers in a way which would keep any upward pressure on the public sector within the same range as that of the private sector. That is not speculation: it is an agreement set out by the ten premiers and myself in the communique issued at the end of the conference.


George Harris Hees: Does the Prime Minister not realize that this is not a matter which can be settled by the ten premiers but, rather, by the heads of labour and management in this country? There has been no agreement whatsoever among labour, management and the government to keep prices and wages down. Therefore, does he not realize that we are right back to where we were when the government, in 1969, formed the Prices and Incomes Commission; and does he not realize that we are headed on the same disastrous course?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the fact which escapes the hon. member is that the governments in this country-federal, provincial and municipal-are also employers, and when they undertake to follow a certain line of conduct as employers, this is certainly a very important advance in attempting to control the inflationary spiral. Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter for the hon. gentleman opposite to have confidence in the ability of the provinces to deliver on their word.
As far as we are concerned, there is a bill before the House now, the Public Service Staff Relations Act, dealing with amendments which we invite the opposition to vote for, and thereby give the government the power to make sure that it does stay within a reasonable escalation of wages. I await the support of the opposition for the government to deliver on its undertaking.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. In view of the promises of former postmasters general not to increase postal rates until the service improved, what action is he taking, specifically, to deal with the poor service? I refer specifically to proposed reductions in door to door delivery, delayed deliveries in the Toronto area, and the enormous amount of rural mail delivery complaints.


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of promises made by former postmasters general about reducing rates. I would state that there is no intention whatever to curtail services already in existence in any part of Canada.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, if I may direct a supplementary question to the Postmaster General, what assurances will he give this House and the Canadian public that they will be getting their money's worth in smooth and speedy mail delivery in the not too distant future?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member of the opposition must know that at the moment we are having problems between labour and management. If you read the article that was in the Globe and Mail yesterday about the spirit of the CUPW toward the CLC and their Quebec congress, I think you will realize that it is very hard at the

April 4, 1978

moment to improve efficiency until we have labour peace. That is what we are trying to achieve.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is reported that the interim report of the Hartt commission on the Northern Ontario Environment will recommend tripartite arrangements to deal with the concerns of Indian people in Ontario. What is the view of the minister regarding such arrangements involving the federal government, the province of Ontario and representatives of Ontario Indian chiefs? What role is envisaged for Mr. Justice Hartt if such a recommendation were to be implemented?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a chance to read Mr. Justice Hartt's submission, but to the extent that it makes that recommendation, I would strongly support it. I would also point out that we have already had, in fact, the first of those tripartite meetings: it was held in Toronto recently with representatives of the government of Ontario, the Indian people and the federal government. It was an extremely successful meeting. I would say a recommendation of this kind would meet with the full approval of the federal government.


CANADA COUNCIL
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that the Canada Council has now publicly refused access to files including application forms, assessments of those applications, financial documentation and progress reports, and in view of the fact that all members of this House of Commons, including ministers, have been denied access to these files, does the minister not agree that it is time to refer the mandate of the Canada Council back to the parliamentary committee in order to assure accountability and fiscal responsibility of the Canada Council to parliament?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, of course, the Parliament of Canada, in establishing the Canada Council, placed limitations on the degree to which members of parliament and, indeed, ministers could interfere with the day to day operations of the Council. The resistance to allowing the intrusions which the hon. member described really flows from the fact that the Council is independent in its day to day operations.
Oral Questions
As to the more general question of whether there should be further consideration by the committee on the mandate of the Canada Council, I would certainly reflect upon the hon. member's representation. The committee does, of course, have during the consideration of estimates the authority to discuss with the Council its programs and policies.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, the question I would like to ask is, if we as members of parliament, and the minister, are denied access to information by the Canada Council with regard to applications, and so forth, how can he possibly make a judgment as to whether more money should be spent, or substantiate the Auditor General's comment that there is fiscal irresponsibility here or financial documentation procedures that need to be improved? How can you make that decision if you are denied access to such information, and should that subject matter not be of great concern to the minister and all members?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I have never been denied access to information which I felt was necessary to assess, whether the budgetary proposals of the agency were necessary or not.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. My question arises from information that PQ officials are interviewing FLQ exiles, and has reference to the deal made by the Prime Minister and his government with Jacques Cossette Trudel and Louise Lanctot regarding the kidnapping of Cross and the people connected with the murder of Laporte. Will the Prime Minister assure the House and the country that these people will not be permitted to return to Canada unless they are then subject to due process of the law? I believe this is one of the matters that affects the unity of this country.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the report of these meetings has been brought to my attention. I believe the Department of External Affairs is attempting to follow up and determine to what extent the reports are well-founded. I know that our embassy in Paris has not been contacted to arrange such meetings. The puzzling aspect from our point of view, if the meetings did take place, is that apparently they would have taken place in the presence of French intelligence officers. This is something of a puzzlement to us, because why would the Quebec government want it to happen that way?
On the issue itself, the Minister of Justice and myself have made it repeatedly clear that if these people return to Canada, they will, of course, be subject to due process of the law; and that would include criminal charges against them.
80033-47%

April 4, 1978
Oral Questions


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate the answer the Prime Minister has given me, Mr. Speaker. May I now put a question to the minister for external affairs. Can the minister add anything in reference to the negotiations-particularly in light of what the Prime Minister has said-and say that these two people who were exiled from Canada under a deal by the Canadian government will not return unless they are subjected to the due process of law which, in the Prime Minister's words, means they will be subject to charges with reference to the kidnapping and, indeed, the related offence of the murder of Laporte?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the supplementary question is simply a paraphrase of the one asked of the Prime Minister. I can only reiterate the comments of the Prime Minister and perhaps amplify them to the extent that the department was not aware of the interviewing that has taken place in Paris. Incidentally, I have ascertained that it was appropriate, or at least proper in the legal sense, for the Quebec government to do so under a treaty dating back to 1928.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration in his capacity as minister responsible for immigration. It concerns the notorious former South Vietnamese general by the name of Dang Van Quang who is living in Montreal. I have tried over the last three years to have this person deported, and I have failed.
I would like to ask the minister why Dang Van Quang, who is presently under an order of deportation, was granted a work permit and is working in the city of Montreal, when over one million Canadians are out of work and looking for jobs?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's efforts to have this particular individual deported exceeds the time that I have spent on it, by approximately one year. 1 did check with the officials in Viet Nam and determined that if he was, in fact, sent back to Viet Nam he would not even be allowed off the plane. It did not seem to me to be a good expenditure of taxpayers' money to send him halfway around the world to find out something I already knew in the first instance.
With respect to his being granted a work permit, it seems to be more appropriate that he should be working, and not living off welfare in that particular province. He is prepared to work at the job he has found. That seems, to me, to be the right approach.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question, I am absolutely flabbergasted at that answer-


Mr. Alexander:: Astounded.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: -in view of the fact that law-abiding Canadian citizens and landed immigrants are being forced on welfare because they are no longer eligible for unemployment insurance. In view of what I have just said, is it the minister's intention to withdraw that work permit, in view of the fact that Dang Van Quang has several very wealthy friends in Montreal from South Viet Nam who could easily afford to bankroll him for the rest of his life and for the lives of his children?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, not too many of them have come forward in the past two years to offer that kind of assistance. The situation has now reached the point where the individual fears for his life. He has some concern from day to day as to his safety. The fact that he has seen fit to work in this country rather than go on welfare, at least means there is a little bit of good-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Well, the hon. member would say, "Let's put the expense on the taxpayers and let this individual be taken care of by the government". I do not think that is appropriate.


An hon. Member:: Is he staying at the Chateau Champlain?


NATIONAL UNITY
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for federal-provincial relations: it refers to the referendum legislation which was introduced yesterday. In view of the fact that this legislation covers "any question relating to the constitution of Canada"-that is, matters falling within both provincial and federal jurisdictions-would the minister say if, prior to the introduction of this legislation, he consulted with either the provincial premiers or his provincial counterparts about the legislation?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, consultations have been held in accordance with the commitment made by the Prime Minister during the debate on the Speech from the Throne at the outset of this session. There was consultation with the leaders of all parties of this House. There was no formal consultation with provincial governments since all referendum questions which might be asked should necesssarily be related to an issue under federal jurisdiction.
April 4, 1978

There was no formal consultation with provincial representatives but this point has been informally discussed on various occasions.


Charles Joseph Clark: Incredible.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: My supplementary question is also to the minister. Is he saying that in a matter of such constitutional magnitude as this, which in effect could reflect on matters within concurrent jurisdictions, or within provincial jurisdiction as well as within federal jurisdiction, he did not consider it necessary to consult the other partners in our federation? Is that not what federalism is all about?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that if a question involving provincial authorities were raised, there would then be consultations with the provinces about issues which might affect them. However, if the questions raised were strictly within federal jurisdiction, it is quite clear in such a case that consultations would not be required. This bill authorizes parliament to put questions dealing with referendums. The type of consultations which should be held will be determined according to the question raised when those questions will be specifically submitted to parliament for consideration. It is as simple as that.
 * *


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. A few weeks ago the minister stated in the House that he was negotiating an agreement with the Quebec government to sign a subagreement for tourist development in that province. Considering that the citizens of the Gaspe Peninsula are anxious to learn the contents of that agreement, could he tell us whether those negotiations are completed and at what date he expects to sign that agreement for tourist development in Quebec?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, indeed those discussions are completed. We will sign that agreement in Quebec City on Thursday next if nothing untoward develops until then. On Thursday next, we will sign an agreement with the Quebec government in Quebec City.
Oral Questions


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in relation to governement policy on marijuana, cannabis. In 1972, the then minister of health, now the Minister of Labour, and later in 1973 the then minister of health, now the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations, both announced that the federal government was going to move possession of marijuana, cannabis, from the Narcotic Control Act to the Food and Drugs Act. Bill S-19 was introduced but allowed to die in parliament.
I understand there was some discussion on this topic at the recent little seance the Liberals had in Ottawa. I wonder if the government has a policy, and when it intends to act upon it, because it has been dilly-dallying for five years now.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the member is right in speaking of one of our little seances. For us to have 3,500 people discussing questions is a little seance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss B6gin:: We easily attract crowds much larger than that. Relating to the hon. member's question, I would like to inform the House that further to representations made to me, to my predecessor and to other departments of the government by the Canadian Medical Association, the Solicitor General's department is reviewing the draft Bill S-19 with a view to improving certain sections. When it is ready, this House will, of course, be informed.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Solicitor General. In view of the information just received from the Minister of National Health and Welfare that his department is, in fact, redrafting Bill S-19, can he inform the House whether the intent is to have possession of marijuana changed from the Narcotic Control Act to the Food and Drugs Act? When does he propose to introduce that bill: will it be in the next few weeks?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, review of the bill which has been identified by the hon. gentleman, Bill S-19, is taking place. My department is interested in that matter, not independently of consultation with other departments; there are ongoing discussions and a bill will be presented. I doubt, however, that it will be done within the time-frame specified by the hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 4, 1978
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In late March the minister stated that if any irregularities were found in Canadian agricultural chemical pricing, he would either open the Cana-da-U.S. border or use import permits to permit agricultural chemicals to come into Canada. Since farmers have to know the government's intentions, will the minister advise what action the government is prepared to take on the whole question of agricultural chemicals and chemical pricing in Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the last meeting with the committee which advises the minister and the department on the price of chemicals found no real evidence that a great debate is necessary or that we are paying too much for these chemicals. They point out that many chemicals used in Canada are much cheaper than chemicals used in the United States. There are pocket areas where there is a discrepancy: we recognize this. As Minister of Agriculture, I have to look at the whole Canadian scene and then decide whether irregularities exist and whether there is a rip-off of farmers who have to use the imported chemical brought into Canada by some dealers.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that he has examples: I provided some from Manitoba. Has this committee determined the price spread between distributor and retailers of agricultural chemicals in Canada, and whether such price spreads have widened since the closing of the border last year?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, they have looked at all aspects of the price spread. As 1 said, many chemicals are cheaper in Canada than they are in the United States. How do you come to a decision when one or two chemicals used here cost more in Canada than in the United States? Do we throw the baby out with the bath water, or do we hope that the competition in a free market system will look after this? We are hopeful this will be done. We know this has happened in some instances where the American supplier not only had one agent in Canada but used three or maybe even four in some instances.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since the spokesmen for terrorism and kidnapping in Rhodesia, Messrs. Nkomo and Mugabe, were able to make known to the Security Council their views on the matter of a Rhodesian settlement, is the minister able to say what steps he

took or would be prepared to take to get at least equal time with those who negotiated a settlement in Rhodesia, in the person perhaps of Bishop Muzorewa or Mr. Sithole.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the necessity for making a specific decision did not arise because of the awareness made known to us that the majority on the Security Council were, in fact, not going to agree to these gentlemen appearing. Here I am expressing a personal view, because I have not consulted the permanent members or others on the Security Council. I cannot see that any damage is done by hearing all points of view. I emphasize that it is hypothetical in that sense, because I do not think anything that Canada or, indeed, the western countries could have done would have been able to set things up in such a way that they could have been heard.


Donald W. Munro: I assume we can take it from that answer that no steps were taken to secure a hearing with those who negotiated the settlement. In view of his ofttimes expressed preference for negotiated settlements in international questions, what steps is the minister now taking to remove from the forces of terrorism, murder and kidnapping in that area the support that Canada is now providing to them either through third countries or through certain non-governmental agencies?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, may I just file a slight reservation on the preamble to the hon. member's question until I have an opportunity to check in order to be absolutely sure so there will be no argument. To the best of my knowledge, there was no formal discussion about their being heard. I recall having said informally that I saw nothing particularly wrong with it.
On the second part of the question, if the hon. member, in his use of adjectives, is referring to the patriotic front, we of course are not providing anything by way of what might be described as aggressive assistance for anything other than humanitarian purposes. We are, of course, giving a certain amount of support specifically for educational assistance for the children, some food aid and things of this nature. I would question whether it would be desirable to withdraw that. I am not being facetious when I say I will take a look at the possibility.


MANPOWER
Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In 1976 and 1977, students from Shawinigan, Quebec, received preferential treatment in filling job vacancies in Flin Flon, Manitoba. These students arrived in Flin Flon with their papers totally completed, bypassing the local Manpower office. Can the
April 4, 1978

minister give me some guarantee that this practice will not be continued in 1978?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the hon. member's representation. I will look into it.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Art Lee (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that 55 delegates of the National Committee to Save Chinese Barbecued Meat Products are here in the nation's capital-many of them are now in the public galleries-at their own expense, and they are here from Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question, will he put it.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Can the minister explain why she has been unable to see the delegation, and why to date she has not seen fit to grant an exemption under the regulations respecting Chinese barbecued meat products?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, there are difficult moments in life which one cannot avoid. Unfortunately, I cannot accept the invitation to sample barbecued meat: another meeting was arranged a long time ago with the Canadian Medical Association. Also, I am on a diet!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: I wish to assure the hon. member and the Chinese merchants who are in the galleries that I appreciate the culture which has given us such extraordinary recipes. However, because the Department of Justice has laid a few charges against some Chinese restaurants in Toronto and Vancouver, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to exempt an ethnic cuisine; because in most parts of the country food merchants have complied with the regulations very well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON NARROWING GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the excellent speech that the Minister of National Health and Welfare made in Sherbrooke, Quebec, on March 13-a copy of which, she told us this morning, had been supplied to the Prime Minister-in which she said "not only can we afford
Vacancy
more equality, we must afford it", and in which she documented the fact that although the poorest people in our society are not, in absolute terms, as poor as they were 30 years ago, nevertheless the gap between rich and poor is as wide as ever, a fact which has been confirmed in the report of the National Council of Welfare on "Taxation and the Distribution of Income", in view of all this, would the Prime Minister like to correct the statement he made in Calgary a while ago when he said the government had narrowed the gap between the rich and the poor, and would he indicate to the House whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare has his support and the support of the government in her pursuit of a program of a guaranteed annual income?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in view of the length of the question, I hope you will permit me to speak a little bit about Liberal philosophy in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: General election, here we come.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when we in this party speak of equality, we do not try to equalize all citizens and lower the incomes of upper income people to a very low average. This is the view of equality pursued by the New Democratic Party. That is indicated by the nature of the question itself, which lays emphasis on the gap between the lowest quintile and the highest quintile.
In our approach to these questions we talk of equality of opportunity: we do not talk about absolute equality of income among our citizens. What is important is that the group of Canadians below the poverty line be reduced in number. We do not say they should all become equally rich; we say they should become less poor. The statistics I gave in Calgary bear this out. When the government took office in 1968, about 18 per cent of Canadian families were below the poverty line.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are dealing with a matter of very general policy here. Obviously, the pursuit of this line of questioning would lead to a very wide-ranging debate. I allowed a lengthy question from the hon. member, and a lengthy answer was given. I do not think I ought to allow the matter to be pursued any further.


VACANCY
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, that brought about

April 4, 1978
Board Report
by the resignation of the Elon. Stanley Elaidasz, P.C., member for the electoral district of Parkdale.
Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to proceedings in the House of Commons yesterday and the motion under Standing Order 43 proposed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I should like to make a correction to Hansard. At that time I stood in my place and pointed out that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) had said no to that motion.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, arising out of something which happened at a meeting of the defence committee this morning. I note the ruling which Your Honour made on March 20 concerning the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) having altered the official Hansard record. My question of privilege has to do with a similar occurrence this morning in the defence committee. The chairman of the committee has agreed to conduct an investigation into the matter, and I simply wish to reserve my right to put forward a question of privilege after he has presented his report, should it prove unsatisfactory.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will realize, I am sure, that the Chair is powerless to do anything about events which take place in a committee until such time as the committee reports to the House. But the hon. member is, obviously, simply guarding his position, and I respect that.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ed Lumley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 17(2) of the Anti-Inflation Act I wish to table, in both official languages,

seven copies of a report sent to the Administrator by the Anti-Inflation Board.


MISCELLANEOUS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1978 MEASURE TO CORRECT REVISED STATUTES
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-41, to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, errors and other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, and other Acts subsequent to 1970.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Stanley Ronald Basford: for leave to introduce Bill C-42, to amend the Criminal Code.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Arthur John (Art) Lee: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of the National Committee to Save Chinese Barbecued Products. It contains 26,106 signatures.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 341, 350, 546, 904, 925 and 1,137.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What was the total number of CBC staff members involved in the coverage of the Manitoba provincial election campaign and the election results on October 11, 1977 and, in each case (a) what were their functions (b) how much time was spent in actual election coverage work?

April 4, 1978

2.	Were any brought into Manitoba from other parts of Canada for the specific purpose of the Manitoba election coverage and results and, if so (a) how many (b) who were they and what were their functions (c) from where did they come and what were their transportation costs (d) what were the costs for food, lodging and other expenses while in Manitoba (e) what was the total cost of bringing these employees into Manitoba for the election coverage?
3.	(a) What was the cost to the CBC for computer services and staff for election results coverage (b) who was hired (c) how many computer operators and related staff were involved (e) what was the total cost for all of the computer related services?
4.	What was the total cost of covering the Manitoba provincial election campaign and the results and what were the costs involved in reaching this figure?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. One hundred sixty-five staff members took part at one time or another in actual election coverage work, i.e. coverage of the five-week campaign and/or election night results, on behalf of four services-English television, English radio, French television and French radio-for local, provincial and national use.
(a)		(b)
English Television		
1 national news reporter	10	days1 national news reporter	1	day1 film cameraman (national news)	10	days3 film cameramen (local news)	75	days (total)3 news reporters (local news)	75	days (total)1 national news reporter (local info, item)	7	days1 cameraman for above item	7	days1 director	1	day1 producer	2	days1 producer	30	days2 directors	10	hours (total)4 script assistants	26	hours (total)6 production assistants	46	hours (total)1 news supervisor	11	hours1 news editor-host	11	hours4 news editors-decision desk	41	hours (total)3 news editors-editorial desk	24	hours (total)2 announcers	19	hours (total)1 reporter-analyst	11	hours5 reporters-remote locations	33	hours (total)1 reporter-ENG	5	hours1 editorial assistant-control room	11	hours1 editor-remote liaison	11	hours6 riding reporters-phone results	36	hours (total)1 host	6	days1 communications specialist	35	days1 communications assistant	7	days1 communications specialist	6	days1 teletype operator	1	day1 teletype operator (backup)	1	day6 runners	60	hours (total)13 telephone operators-results Plus staging and design staff	91	hours (total)English Radio	3 news reporters	6	weeks (total)1 executive producer	120	hours1 story producer	28	hours1 results coordinator	28	hours1 results coordinator	10	hours1 host	28	hours1 host	49	hours2 results announcers	20	hours (total)5 technicians	50	hours (total)4 reporters-remote	40	hours (total)
Order Paper Questions
(a)		(b)
English Radio		
1 reporter	1	week1 producer	1	week1 news reporter	1	weekFrench Television	1 editorial liaison	1	day1 reporter-analyst	5	weeks1 reporter-analyst	3	weeks1 reader-partial returns	1	day1 anchorman	2	weeks2 Viacom operators	2	days (total)1 Extel operator	1	day1 coordinator	4	weeks1 floor manager	1	day3 script assistants 2 script assistants	12	weeks (total)2	days (total)1 producer	4	weeks1 assistant producer	1	week1 host-guest desk	1	dayFrench Radio	1 Viacom operator	1	day2 Extel operators	2	days (total)1 reporter-analyst	5	weeks1 editorial liaison	1	day1 coordinator	4	weeks1 producer	4	weeks1 assistant producer	1	week1 anchorman	2	weeks1 reporter-analyst	3	weeks1 office junior	1	day3 readers-partial returns	3	days (total)1 display board operator	1	day1 supervising technician	2	weeks1 technician	2	weeks2 technical operators	2	days (total)
At Party Committee Rooms (French Radio and Television)
1 reporter-with NDP	5	weeks1 producer	1	day1 floor manager	1	day1 radio technician	1	day1 reporter-with Liberals	5	weeks1 producer	1	day1 radio technician	1	day1 reporter-with Conservatives	5	weeks1 production assistant	1	day1 radio technician	1	day2.	Yes. (a) English Services Division-11; French Services Division-16*. (b) With reference to names, see note below re individual employees. Functions (this staff also included in answers to 1. and/or 3. (c):(C)English Services	1 TV director	Toronto1 TV producer	Toronto1 host	Toronto2 communications specialists	Toronto1 communications specialist	Ottawa1 project manager (computers)	Toronto1 computer specialist	Ottawa1 computer analyst	Toronto1 computer specialist	Ottawa2 computer programmers	Ottawa
4116

April 4, 1978
Order Paper Questions
	(C)
French Services	
1 TV coordinator	Montreal
3 TV script assistants	Montreal
1 TV producer	Montreal
1 reporter	Regina
1 reporter	Chicoutimi
1 reporter-analyst	Montreal
1 TV anchorman	Montreal
1 radio coordinator	Montreal
1 radio producer	Ottawa
1 radio anchorman	Montreal
1 reporter-analyst	Edmonton
2 Video TV technicians	Montreal
1 computer analyst	Montreal
* 16 staff members required because of the comparatively small
French-language operation at CBC Winnipeg
See note below re transportation costs and for parts 2 (d) and (e)
3.	(a) See note below, (b) Only CBC staff were used, (c) 18. (d) See answer to 4. below.
4.	It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details of its internal management and administration as the names of individual employees and the costs involved in program projects. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.
English TV	English Radio	French TV	French Radio(a) 2(i)	-	30)	-(b) 35(i)	4(i)	2(i)	3(i)(c) 26	0(ii)	2	0(d) 0	Kiii)	0	0(e) 3	3	3	3(0 8(iv)	0	0	0
(0 In each vertical column, the figures given in (c). (d), (e) and (0 are included in (a) and (b).
(ii)	technicians' time was less than one day and no seperate technician was assigned to radio.
(iii)	producer and editor-in-charge.
(iv)	editorial and production staff.
3.	English TV-special program 1,700 hours, The National 221 hours. English Radio-249 hours. French TV and Radio-384 hours (same staff used for both services).
4.	(a) A car and a plane were hired to transfer program material, (b) See the reply to 1. above.


Mr. McCain: 1.	What was the total cost of CBC's coverage of the Premiers' Conference at St. Andrews covering such items as (a) transportation of personnel and equipment to the conference (b) accommodations, meals and related expenses (c) setting up of equipment (d) production and telecasting of the TV special on the conference (e) managerial expenses (f) accounting costs?
2.	How many persons were employed by CBC for the Conference in the category (a) on camera personnel (b) off camera personnel (c) of a technical capacity (d) of an administrative capacity (e) as a reporter or correspondent (0 miscellaneous positions?
3.	What was the total number of working hours spent by the employees of CBC in covering the Conference and in producing the programme on the Conference?
4.	Were helicopters, airplanes or other vehicles used to transfer tapes, recording and program material from St. Andrews to stations for broadcasting and, if so (a) how many were rented and from whom (b) how much was paid for each vehicle?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details of its internal management and administration as the costs relating to individual program projects. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.


Mr. McCain: What was the budget of CBC program The Fifth Estate covering such items as production, air time, capital costs, etc., for 1976-77 and what is the budget for 1977-78?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details of its internal management and administration as the budgets for individual programs. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.


Mr. Marshall: What fish species did Canada import in the years 1976 and 1977 and, what was the dollar value?


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as Statistics Canada is concerned: Source: Statistics Canada, Catalogue 65-007, imports by Commodities.
Note: Current statistics only available to September, 1977.

April 4, 1978

Order Paper Questions


[Stage Direction]
Quantities (Q) in metric tones, product weight; Values (V) in thousand dollars
SPECIES and		1976	1976 (Jan. Sept.)		1977 (Jan. Sept.)	
PRODUCTS _ .,						
Q	V	Q	V	Q	VCOD	1,790	3,147	1,370	2,404	1,891	2,747Fresh or frozen	1,790	3,147	1,370	2,404	1,891	2,747HADDOCK and HAKE	2,539	3,161	1,578	1,892	2,267	2,257Fresh or frozen	2,539	3,161	1,578	1,892	2,267	2,257HALIBUT	965	3,137	661	1,945	316	1,260Fresh or frozen	965	3,137	661	1,945	316	1,260SALMON	3,495	10,305	2,250	6,253	5,299	7,166Fresh or frozen	1,505	4,835	1,088	3,213	2,970	4,581Canned	1,990	5,470	1,162	3,040	2,329	2,585SPECIES and	1976	1976 (Jan. Sept.)	1977 (Jan. Sept.)	PRODUCTS ..	Q	V	Q	V	Q	VTUNA	12,903	23,712	8,212	16,163	11,943	23,432Fresh or frozen	3,883	2,765	1,450	1,075	6,251	5,591Canned, flake pack	3,577	7,988	2,698	5,736	1,782	5,961Canned, not specified	5,443	12,959	4,064	9,352	3,910	11,880TROUT	701	1,782	516	1,233	709	2,180Fresh or frozen	701	1,782	516	1,233	709	2,180HERRING	565	779	366	476	390	589Pickled	289	362	221	257	108	152Canned	276	417	145	219	282	437ANCHOVY	233	721	183	531	333	1,303Canned	233	721	183	531	333	1,303SARDINE	1,277	2,668	748	1,529	1,041	2,106Canned	1,277	2,668	748	1,529	1,041	2,106SEAFISH, NOT	.-	30,167	-	22,168	-	28,587SPECIFIED 	Fresh or frozen	14,365	14,335	12,275	11,281	17,639	12,332Fresh or frozen,	5,933	7,716	4,502	5,603	7,483	10,789steaks and blocks _	Smoked	238	380	194	303	228	319Salted or dried	1,693	3,625	937	1,874	940	2,210Pickled	87	80	59	58	47	40Canned	2,601	1,715	2,305	1,260	1,025	1,577Liver and Visceral oil	-.	213	-	160	-	228Fish and marine	299	233	271	208	264	173animal oil 	Meal	962	309	792	243	406	128Foods and feeds	2,323	1,561	1,080	1,178	333	791FRESHWATER FISH,	1,114	1,876	730	1,029	1,789	1,149NOT SPECIFIED	Fresh or frozen	1,114	1,876	730	1,029	1,789	1,149CRAB	836	3,462	483	2,119	1,107	3,468Fresh or frozen	811	3,389	463	2,063	917	3,369Canned	25	73	20	56	190	99LOBSTER	2,524	23,401	1,782	17,051	2,245	17,523Fresh or frozen	2,524	23,401	1,782	17,051	2,245	17,523OYSTER	1,829	4,379	1,087	2,799	1,298	4,245Fresh or frozen	597	1,015	217	524	271	599Canned	1,232	3,364	870	2,275	1,027	3,646SPECIES and	1976	1976 (Jan. Sept.)	1977 (Jan. Sept.)	PRODUCTS	Q	V	Q	V	Q	VSHRIMP and PRAWN	11,002	60,585	8,205	41,715	7,399	46,908Fresh or frozen	8,607	47,678	6,427	32,585	5,849	35,433Canned	2,395	12,907	1,778	9,130	1,550	11,475CLAM	2,387	2,947	1,538	1,821	1,254	2,274Canned	2,387	2,947	1,538	1,821	1,254	2,274SHELLFISH, NOT	2,867	6,628	1,943	4,533	2,633	5,905SPECIFIED	Fresh or frozen	2,094	4,128	1,467	2,830	2,052	3,602Canned	773	2,500	476	1,703	581	2,303TOTAL IMPORTS	-	182,857	-	125,660	-	153,099
80033-48'/2
[Stage Direction]
April 4, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. Cossitt IMPORTED PENICILLIN
Mr. Herbert: What steps are taken to ensure that imported penicillin is manufactured under the same exacting standards for plant and premises as are enforced on Canadian drug manufacturers?


Monique Bégin: For parenteral antibiotics, the Department of National Health and Welfare inspects foreign firms and issues licences for the manufacture of specific products offered for sale in Canada. For all other drugs, the Canadian importer must maintain detailed information and evidence that the conditions prescribed in the Food and Drug Regulations, relating to manufacturing and quality control, are met. Importers are routinely requested to furnish this evidence for evaluation. The Health Protection Branch of the Department has concluded bilateral agreements with four countries, the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Sweden, to exchange information on the capability of manufacturers. Commercial shipments of drugs entering Canada are also monitored.


Mr. Herbert: During the past year, did the Department of Public Works insert (a) French language advertisements in English language newspapers (b) English language advertisements in French language newspapers, in the Province of Quebec and, if so (a) on how many occasions (b) for what reason?


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: (a) French language advertisements in English language newspapers, in the Province of Quebec, were placed by the Department of Public Works: (i) on one occasion; (ii) because of the importance of the project and the large circulation of the newspaper, the department wanted to reach the largest number possible of French and English contractors, (b) There were no English language advertisements inserted in French language newspapers in the province of Quebec.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to begin by drawing attention to question No. 1,085 which was placed on the order paper on January 23 and which has not as yet been answered. In doing so I should like to thank the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamon-tagne) for sending me the answer which should, actually, have been tabled in the House. I cannot understand how such a thing could happen, but it happened. Here is the answer which should have been given in the House some time ago. What is even more interesting is the fact that the reply bears a departmental notation which reads as follows: "There is a time limit of ten working days for preparing replies to written

questions." The notation then goes on to say other things concerning steps to be taken if an extension of time is required, and so on. The note is signed by Ronald Regimbald, Public Affairs Branch, Parliamentary Returns.
Mr. Speaker, if there is a ten-day limit on preparing replies to questions put down by members of this House, I think I am justified in asking why question No. 44 which was originally placed on the order paper on December 20, 1976-one year and four months ago-concerning a letter sent by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to all members of the Liberal party in this House, has not been answered, bearing, as it does, upon his use of government aircraft.
I draw attention, also, to three further questions which are in a similar category, first, No. 45, placed on the order paper one year and two months ago on February 7, 1977, concerning the massive fingerprinting operation carried out on public servants; the government will not disclose the number of those who have been fingerprinted, but it runs into thousands and thousands and involves an invasion of privacy about which the Canadian people have a right to know. Question No. 48 has been on the order paper for one year, or almost one year, dating from April 18, 1977. It concerns certain remarks which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) made in a speech about a year ago. Finally, I refer to question No. 52 which was placed on the order paper last June, eight months ago, concerning Martin Goldfarb and the amount of public business he has received, he being the chief pollster for the Liberal Party of Canada.
I feel that if ten days is the limit, a member has a perfect right to rise, bring a question to the attention of the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), and to ask him if he is prepared to guarantee that before this parliament is dissolved, whether it be this week, next week or the week after, as it surely will be, all questions on the order paper which have been there for more than four or five months will definitely be answered. I think it is a disgrace to every member who puts questions on the order paper that they are not answered and that the information requested is not forthcoming. I do not know how the minister can sit there, keep a straight face, look off into space, and have nothing to say on this subject. I hope he has the intestinal fortitude to rise at this time-not leave it to his parliamentary secretary-and tell us why, ten days being the rule, two years seem to be the actual fact.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the standing orders of this House do not provide for any minimum and specific delay for answering questions on the order paper. If the hon. member sees some notes on the documents, they might be internal administrative delays which have nothing to do with the rules of the House but in any case I will check the point he has raised.
April 4, 1978

As regards his questions, I want to point out to the House that the hon. member has always been well treated by parliament and that we shall continue to do so in the future.


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


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has been given the floor and permitted to develop a rather extensive point of order. There is no machinery by which I can allow a second intervention on a point of order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, 1 simply want to correct what the parliamentary secretary has said. He has completely twisted the remarks I made, and I therefore have a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to let him sit over there and lie about what I said to this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I have the right and the privilege to raise this point because he completely misquoted what I said. I think I have a right to bring it up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order! I listened very carefully to the remarks of the parliamentary secretary, as I did to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt). Neither were out of order in any respect.
Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Marcel Lessard: that Bill C-38, to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of discussions which have taken place I believe there is an understanding that we can put this bill through all stages right here in the House. So far as we are concerned, there is to be no debate on it. It is simply voting some money which was dropped out of a supply bill a while ago.
Northern Pipeline


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that this was a dollar item which had been ruled out of order in another appropriations bill, and there is the agreement of all parties to proceed directly with the matter through all stages without debate.


Mr. Speaker:: In which case the motion would obviously have to be changed. Rather than referring the bill to the Standing Committee on Regional Development, with the consent of the House the motion would have to be changed to read "to the Committee of the Whole". Does the House consent to that change?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council) moved: that Bill C-25, to establish the Northern Pipeline Agency, to facilitate the planning and construction of a pipeline for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska and Northern Canada and to give effect to an agreement between Canada and the United States oi America on principles applicable to such a pipeline and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto, be read the third time and do pass.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There appeared on the notice paper this morning a proposal to amend the standing orders of the House of Commons dealing with reporting to parliament. In rising on this point of order I would like to commend the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and, indeed, the minister, for the discussions which were conducted in the committee, and before we begin this important debate at this final stage of the bill 1 wonder if the minister could indicate that forthwith upon third reading it is his intention to call and have dealt with finally this amendment, which would add to our standing orders a provision that the agency would be reporting to a standing committee of this House in the terms of the proposal on the notice paper.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to speak very briefly in the debate at third reading of this historic bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the point of order?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will deal with the question of parliamentary scrutiny of the operations of the pipeline agency in the course of my remarks.

April 4, 1978
Northern Pipeline
It is not my intention to speak at any length at all because the issues involved in this legislation have been carefully considered by the standing committee, and yesterday the House of Commons dealt with all the amendments which had been put forward at the report stage of the bill.
The legislation governing the construction of a pipeline to carry both Canadian and United States natural gas from the Arctic to southern markets in both countries is necessarily lengthy and complex, but I am pleased to say that, despite very thorough and careful consideration by all members of the House, the main outlines of the bill and the framework of the legislation have emerged intact from that careful and thorough consideration.
At the same time the bill has been dealt with expeditiously, I believe reflecting a recognition of the immense contribution this project can make to the Canadian economy and to increasing our energy self-reliance. As hon. members recall, the bill was debated for seven days at second reading stage. The special committee which was established to consider the legislation in detail sat on 11 days and held 21 sessions. During that period it did receive the views of a substantial number of witnesses.
Certainly I would like to express my appreciation to members of the committee who attended with great dedication and who conducted the sessions with the minimum of partisanship and a maximum amount of cooperation. Also, I should like to express my appreciation to witnesses who appeared before the committee and whose views were carefully considered by members of the committee and, in some cases, whose views were directly reflected in amendments that were made to the bill either in the special committee or at the report stage of the bill itself.
A number of proposals were made in the committee, notably by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and other members, to improve and strengthen the bill. They were adopted unanimously. In fact it is worth mentioning that in the course of the committee's deliberations there was not a single recorded division. Every clause, every item before the committee, was accepted unanimously without any recorded division. But, of course, not included among the amendments that were accepted in the committee, or indeed at the report stage, is the matter of providing parliament with a continuing opportunity to maintain surveillance over the process of the project itself. I gave an undertaking in the course of the committee hearings that I would propose, on behalf of the government, an amendment to the standing orders establishing a continuing committee on northern pipelines. Hon. members will have noticed that there is on today's notice paper a motion in my name, proposing:
That Standing Order 65(1) be amended by adding immediately after subsection (s) the following:
"(t) Northern pipelines, to consist of not more than 15 members, to which shall stand permanently referred all reports, orders, agreements, regulations, directions and approvals mentioned in sections 12, 13, 14, 15 and 22 of the 
Northern Pipeline Act; provided that the said committee shall report thereon
at least three times in every sesssion."
Provided that this subsection shall be deleted from the standing orders on the day on which the Northern Pipeline Agency ceases to exist.
I propose, in reply to the questions raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), to call this motion and put it before the House as soon as it is appropriate to do so following the passage of the bill. I am not quite sure whether we must wait until the bill has received Royal Assent because of the reference to the sections of the Northern Pipeline Act, but in any event it is my intention to call the motion and have it adopted, if the House so wishes, at the earliest appropriate opportunity.
The creation of this special committee will make it possible for members of the House of Commons to sit with a continuing reference, and to receive reports, orders, agreements, regulations, directions and approvals as mentioned in the relevant sections of the bill. The committee, of course, will be free to organize its own activities, but this material will be automatically referred, and to ensure that the House will have an opportunity to examine the work of the committee there is a provision that the said committee shall report thereon at least three times in every session. I believe that is a reasonable stipulation which will provide the committee with occasions to meet and to report to the House. I believe that is a constructive provision.
From the very beginning I undertook in the House to ensure that parliament was brought in at every stage, and indeed we did provide for a debate in the House of Commons during last summer when all political parties had an opportunity to express themselves on the Berger inquiry and to indicate what, in their view, should be the main lines of any ultimate pipeline construction in Canada.
I am happy to say that the agreement which was negotiated between Canada and the United States and the bill which is now before the House contain, if not all, a substantial proportion of the suggestions and ideas that were put forward by members of all parties. Even though the New Democratic Party has raised certain objections to certain aspects of the bill, if reference is made to the speeches made on the occasion last summer and the philosophy outlined in those speeches, it will be found that a substantial part of the proposals made by them was reflected subsequently in the agreement and in the legislation.
In the case of the official opposition, I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Yukon and his colleagues on the committee for the constructive approach taken with a view to providing an expeditious passage of the bill, and also to providing certain changes which, in my view, were an improvement on the original measure as it was introduced in the House of Commons.
The last time I had the opportunity to put a major bill through the House of Commons was, of course, when I introduced the bill on the reform to the Election Expenses Act, and that, as hon. members will recall, was a major change in our electioneering. It will be applied, of course, for the first
April 4, 1978

time in the next election. However, political parties have already felt the benefits of that legislation, and political parties and candidates will appreciate even more the benefits that have accrued from the major undertaking. On that occasion as well there was a high degree of cooperation in the committee, and when the bill was passed it was, in a sense, a bill that had emerged from the House of Commons rather than the government itself.
I do not say that the same degree of consensus exists with respect to the northern pipeline bill, but I will say that, as time goes on, members as well as citizens throughout the country will appreciate even more the substantial benefits that will accrue to Canada in terms of increased production, employment, and access to energy reserves from the building of this huge pipeline system. The debate itself and the discussions in committee served to underline the enormity and the significance of these benefits.
Of course the question of Canadian participation and Canadian content has been a matter of debate. We dealt with amendments proposed on that subject yesterday. It is not my intention to relive that debate, except to say that evidence in committee, given by the company particularly and by officials from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, has certainly served to strengthen my conviction that Canadians will participate to the maximum possible extent in the construction of this line, and that the estimates which have been made by myself, when the agreement was signed and in the course of the debate, with respect to Canadian employment, Canadian jobs, impact on Canadian industry, and the benefits to Canada's balance of payments, will be fully realized.
In addition to what I have said already, it is important to underline the acute awareness on the part of hon. members on all sides of the House that this project be carried out in a manner which will minimize the adverse social and economic effects of the project on all of the people of the north, including the native people; and minimize the adverse effects on the environment in which they live and work, at the same time as ensuring that they will derive the greatest possible benefits both in the short run and over the longer term. We believe the project will contribute significant benefits to all of Canada, but we want to ensure that the adverse environmental and social effects be minimized. That sentiment was reflected in the comments made by all hon. members of parliament. I think that can be achieved, and I think the benefits for the northern people can be maximized during the course of construction.
In conclusion, I thank hon. members for the manner in which they have approached this measure. I wish to express the hope that it can be dealt with at this stage of the debate in the same expeditious manner which has characterized the preceding stages of the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Northern Pipeline


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) with interest, just as I listened with interest to his statements in response to questions put in the pipeline committee on which I was privileged to serve. That committee dealt with the entire aspect and many issues surrounding the Alaska pipeline.
In the area of another responsibility, which I share with other hon. members of the House, I have had some concern over the failure of one particular department to engage in any fashion in the discussion and debate surrounding the Alaska pipeline. That concern was reflected in Hansard dated March 16, 1978, when I asked the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) about his role and his department's role in the development of the Alaska pipeline. By way of questions raised by the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), we had an opportunity to review the summary provided by DREE. It was a summary provided for the pipeline committee. I am not referring to the pipeline committee of the House, but rather of the government. Certainly the review occasioned some concern in the House which was demonstrated during question period. It concerned the degree of Canadian involvement in the project. Some of those concerns have been answered, and some will not be answered until the pipeline project goes forward.
The concerns which have not been answered with reference to the role of DREE appear to indicate on the surface that this is where the role of DREE will stop, rather than where the role of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will begin. In response to my question about his role, the minister provided me with vague and general rhetoric, without any categorical statement or indication that his department would be most substantially involved in the pipeline. The minister indicated that there had been some discussion with the province of British Columbia. He said that there had been no discussions with the municipalities, which is not quite correct. DREE officials have met with representatives of the regional district in a conference which was held in Fort St. John, a conference which was quite noticeable by the absence of any provincial representation. I see no reason why, in concert with provincial representatives, officials from the minister's department could not meet with municipal officials concerning the industrial infrastructure which is bound to follow the development of the pipeline, and perhaps even precede it.
The minister apparently thinks the service industries will have to respond. He said the same to me when I raised the question before the Standing Committee on Regional Development on March 21. At that time the minister said the following:
What we intend to do is to make sure that while the pipeline is being built we maximize the benefit to Canada and also, in your case, you were mentioning obviously British Columbia.
Also in response to my question in the House, he indicated that the service sector would certainly be involved. He said the following:

April 4, 1978
Northern Pipeline
I think the service industries will have to respond to the opportunities that will be offered to them on the construction -
This gives me further cause for concern, because apparently no study is going forward or being planned for some semblance of orderly development of the service sector. Hopefully the service sectors will remain in an organized fashion in industrial parks or as needed. Certainly I hope we do not see the service sectors scattered along the route of the Alaska highway and the Alaska pipeline, eventually to become little isolated ghettos of rubbish and garbage which are so apparent after major construction projects of this kind. The minister has failed to address himself to this particular issue.
In response to my inquiry before the standing committee, the minister said that he intended to make sure there would be maximum benefits. He then went on to say the following:
-how to ensure the maximum benefit for B.C. in that instance through the whole exercise, I have no explicit plan in mind, but we have discussed that.
On the one hand the minister provided a statement through his departmental officials. A very substantial degree of analytical study went into that statement. The minister has indicated his department's concern only with reference to the future possibility of Canadian participation in the pipeline and the economic impacts. I must say I do not believe that particular aspect is in his mandate. Beyond that, when we move into the area of the minister's mandate dealing with economic development, the expansion of the economy, and areas which are disadvantaged, we find the minister really is not interested.
This morning, sir, before the same Standing Committee on Regional Development, I had an opportunity to ask the minister again whether he had expressed any concern to his provincial counterparts regarding the inquiry into the British Columbia railway. The minister apparently realizes, and his report indicates it, that rail is going to be one of the very substantial modes of moving pipe and other equipment to construction sites-at least in so far as rail runs into northern British Columbia. The minister's officials are not really aware of the fact that British Columbia had a very substantial inquiry into B.C. Rail. He is not aware that there has to be a very substantial upgrading of the roadbed before that rail system can provide the kind of service that is expected.
The minister has signed a subagreement as well with the province of British Columbia dealing with roads to resources in the north, whether they be railroads or highways, particularly in regard to coal development in the north. He did not seem to be aware this morning that, in fact, coal development in the north has been shunted aside because of the economy and the fact that coal is not selling. That particular type of soft coal has no market at this time.
The minister does not seem to be concerned over the fact that the forest industry, which is an important industry in northern British Columbia, also utilizes B.C. Rail and should also be receiving some form of assistance through DREE. He was unaware of the fact that the lieutenant governor of the

province, in delivering the throne speech a week ago, stated that the government was seriously concerned about the condition of the forest industry in the province.
You may ask, Mr. Speaker, what the forest industry in British Columbia has got to do with the pipeline. The simple fact remains that the subagreement with respect to northern British Columbia, where 500 miles of this pipeline will be built, has two subagreements dealing with transportation and with forest and coal development. It would naturally follow, in a government with any sense of organization and forward thinking, that if the economy of the north is to be developed in one way, whether it is coal or forest or pipeline, then one should complement the other. There should be a realization that there is, indeed, going to be a very heavy demand on those transportation modes. It should also be realized that the service sector alone is not sufficient in the way of DREE examination.
I am not suggesting to the minister or the government that there should be DREE funding for the service sector, Mr. Speaker. I think, sir, as most supporters of free enterprise would think, they should be able to fend for themselves. Surely DREE, in concert with its provincial counterpart, should be looking at the fact that the service sector is going to go forward. Further, the minister and his departmental officials should be reading what has been said in the pipeline debate about the type of industry which will go along with the construction of the pipeline and follow the eventual development of the line once the system is in operation.
The minister has given no indication whatsoever of any concern in this regard. Indeed, I would think that it would be the minister's responsibility to look at the type of equipment that is going to be used in this pipeline, and to think in terms of heavy equipment, which we traditionally import from the United States. He should reflect on the fact that heavy equipment, manufactured in Canada by Canadians for Canadians on the Alaska pipeline, may be a very sensible investment.
There is not only the Alaska pipeline. Surely, to follow, will be the Dempster lateral, and then some years down the line we will eventually see a polar gas route. Bearing this in mind, Mr. Speaker, the horizons that are there now and that are going to develop in the north, it would be wise for the minister to expand his thinking to include the north. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has failed in appreciating and seizing upon an opportunity to advance the economic development of this country. I am not surprised when I see the type of attention he has failed to give to probably the single largest opportunity that has ever slipped through that minister's grasp.
Again, 1 must state for the record that I am astounded at the generalizations made by the minister in response to questions that I have raised in the House and before the committee with reference to the Alaska pipeline. I am appalled at the failure of the minister even to address himself to this vital subject.
April 4, 1978


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the third reading stage debate on the bill on the northern pipeline. I want to reiterate the stand of the New Democratic Party in favour of the building of the northern gas pipeline, the Alcan pipeline as it is called.
Our concerns and, indeed, our reasons for voting against the bill that we have before us are that we feel it is inadequate and it does not represent the true interests of Canadians and Canadian companies. The bill has serious deficiencies and weaknesses, which I predict, some years down the road, will come back to haunt us. As I said, we are in favour of the Alcan pipeline running through Canada but we want to ensure that it will be built on the grounds that it will maximize Canadian content and Canadian jobs on the project. We have had assurances from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mac-Eachen) that this will be the case. However, those verbal assurances for us are not enough. We want to see something written into legislation which will become the law of the land and will guarantee maximum Canadian content and Canadian labour participation in this huge undertaking. To that extent, we moved a number of amendments in the House of Commons yesterday which, regrettably, were voted down by both the Liberal and Conservative members.
It might be worth while, Mr. Speaker, to recall the position of the New Democratic Party when it became apparent that the Alcan pipeline would be chosen over the Canadian Arctic Gas submission to bring natural gas down through the Mackenzie Valley to the southern part of Canada, and to the United States. In the debate in this House of Commons on August 4, 1977, the leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), moved an amendment to the government motion recommending the Alcan pipeline route. His position in that amendment, is worth while recalling, and I would like to quote from page 8044 of Hansard:
-and after considering the evidence and reports of the relevant inquiries, this House approves the granting of a certificate for a pipeline through the southern Yukon as recommended in principle by the National Energy Board and the Lysyk and Hill inquiries, with particular reference to the following conditions:
(1)	That an Alcan pipeline authority be established immediately comprised of representatives of the native communities, labour, small business, consumers and conservationists from the affected pipeline corridor and from the federal, provincial and territorial governments, and that this authority be empowered to manage the regional impact of pipeline construction especially with respect to employment practices, and food, housing and utility prices as well as assuming the other responsibilities recommended by the above inquiries;
(2)	That a "Canada first" priority be enforced in hiring, contracting and supplying the pipeline with particular preference to local residents of the Yukon, British Columbia and Alberta in the vicinity of the pipeline route;
(3)	That no pipeline construction precede a fair settlement of the affected native land claims; and
(4)	That no pipeline construction commence before August 1981, and that the interval be used to inquire further into the local impact of pipeline construction, to determine final route selection, and to control project planning;
Northern Pipeline
and furthermore that exports of Canadian natural gas licensed for delivery to the United States after 1985 be considered as credits to be redeemed from the United States on an equivalent BTU basis."
Those were the conditions the NDP put forward and which we wanted to see incorporated in this legislation before us. Unfortunately, only part of those conditions are in the legislation. Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council said he believed most of the conditions the NDP had asked for were met. I have to disagree with him on that point. We do have a committee, not only a government committee which will be supervising the planning and construction of the pipeline, but also, of course, the House of Commons committee which will be monitoring these developments.
Every member in this House knows from past history the attitude of this government to northern development. Not always has it been in the interests of northerners, and often their interests are sacrificed for the expediency of those more powerful interest groups in southern Canada. We also know from experience that this government has had a very sad record in protecting northern environment and the rights of native people in the north. It was this government and its former ministers of Indian affairs and northern development who were all gung-ho on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline route. So I am a bit suspicious that any agency set up by this government, and under this government's control, will prove to be beneficial to Canadian interests, and especially to northern interests.
I am also worried that the parliamentary committee, set up to monitor the progress of this pipeline will be ineffective in the long run. Every member in the House of Commons knows that every House committee is dominated by Liberal members. If there is an embarrassment to the government in terms of any phase of the construction or development of that pipeline, we all know that any attempts by opposition members to move correcting motions or courses of action are outvoted. All that we can hope for as an opposition is to generate enough publicity to embarrass the government into taking some corrective action.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this government has long since become insensitive to publicity. One thinks only of the examples of the economic problems in this country, the serious representations that opposition members have made to correct the situation and how those representations have fallen on deaf ears.
For these reasons the bill before us needed strengthening and yet we do not have these corrective measures in it.
The real concern my colleagues have is the lack of specific guarantees in the legislation to maximize Canadian content and participation. It was for these reasons that we moved a number of amendments to incorporate in the bill before us some very specific, concrete and clear demands on the government and the pipeline companies so that we would have, as the Deputy Prime Minister assured us verbally, at least 90 per cent Canadian content in this vast undertaking, and that we would have at least 100,000 man-years of employment during the construction of this pipeline. It seemed to us that if the

April 4, 1978
Northern Pipeline
government is so confident that this could be achieved, it would have no objection to having such provisions in the legislation so that we could rely on law rather than on some cabinet minister's assurance, a cabinet minister who might be here today and gone tomorrow.
Why have we moved such amendments? Why are we so concerned that we will not achieve this maximization of Canadian content? We are concerned for a number of reasons. First I would like to cite some of the government's own departmental studies which have given rise to our concern.
We know that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion undertook a study of the proposed pipeline. They did an exhaustive analysis and came up with the conclusion, and we have quoted it in this House, that, unless there were guarantees, we could be more likely assured of only 67 per cent Canadian content, not the 90 per cent the minister promised, and not 100,000 man-years of employment, but more realistically somewhere between 60,000 and 68,000 man-years of employment. Surely if a respected government agency has produced a study like, this we should have some cause for concern if they are saying themselves that we need guarantees, or because of market situations and unfair trade situations and the way the treaty has been written, we will not get the maximum Canadian participation.
We have also heard reports from our friends in the American government. This is an energy pipeline and it will mainly benefit the Americans. It will move Alaskan gas through a Canadian land corridor to the 48 states. The Americans have been telling their business, their industry, and their Congress that it is a most beneficial undertaking. They have set up a situation or an agreement whereby they expect to achieve their maximum in terms of content and labour participation. Indeed the Americans are so confident that they predict 97 per cent American content in the Alaska portion of this pipeline yet here we are quibbling or afraid to even guarantee 90 per cent.
I recall when the Deputy Prime Minister first made the announcement after the negotiations and it was something like 98 per cent Canadian content. Then this figure was reduced to 90 per cent. The Americans are confident that they will get at least 97 per cent of the work on their section of the pipeline and will be employing American labour. It would seem to me we should be assured that we get maximum on the Canadian portion of the line.
We know the Americans have more competitive advantages, many more than we have in Canada. They have skilled labour which has recently worked on the Alyeska pipeline. This labour will be pressuring to move into northern Canada to work on the line here. As I say, I have some worry about whether our monitoring agency will be able to exclude these personnel, especially under the terms of some of the contracts that may be granted. We know there is American pipeline equipment that was used on the Alaska pipeline which has been bought up by American contractors at discounted prices. They are ready to go, in terms of submitting bids to work on the Canadian section of the line.

We should be guided by the fact that the Alyeska pipeline in the state of Alaska was eventually constructed with Japanese steel. It was not an American company that won the contract. I fear that this pattern may be repeated for the contracts issued on the pipeline coming through Canada. We have this government's studies and these American projections, all of which lead us to worry about whether we will get the 90 per cent content promised to us by the Deputy Prime Minister.
If the Department of Regional Economic Expansion Study is not enough to convince hon. members that there indeed may be some difficulties, I refer them to another report issued by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce entitled "Canadian Industrial and Manpower Requirements and Content for Northern Gas Pipeline". I went through this report in detail yesterday during the course of moving my amendments. I would again like to quote a couple of relevant sections from that report which back up the contention of this party that, unless we have these guarantees, we are not going to get the maximum benefits from the pipeline project. I quote from the report by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce:
Given that American firms are very well placed to win contracts for the U.S.A. portions, they, as a result, are in a more favourable position to bid on contracts for the Canadian segment by being able to pass on to the pipeline contractor some portions of the savings to be achieved by combining the Canadian requirements with their existing production for the U.S.A. sections of the line.
Here again American industry, through the efficiencies and economies of scale in terms of their production capacity for the sections of the line that will run through American territory, will have a competitive advantage over Canadian firms. That is an admission by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. That same report worries about the state of our economy in terms of the degree of foreign ownership and the relationship between subsidiaries and parent companies as far as Canadian content in this undertaking is concerned.
I again quote from the report:
The danger that sales contracts of Canadian branch plants of foreign multinationals which exceeded their existing capacity would simply be transferred to the non-Canadian parent instead of to alternative Canadian suppliers. Similar problems could occur if the low cost offshore plants were to be used to fill a bid made and originally intended for the successful Canadian subsidiary.
There is a very real possibility that Canadian companies will not get any spillover if American or foreign subsidiaries are producing at their maximum capability. Instead, that business will be transferred to the parent company of a subsidiary. I again quote from the Industry, Trade and Commerce report:
Competition in world markets is intense and Canadian companies could be outbid by the pricing strategies of Japanese and European pipe producers. Projections by steel experts reflect a tough world competitive situation.
The pipeline treaty between Canada and the United States allows for open competitive bidding. It is not just a bidding situation between the United States and Canada. Japan, West Germany, Italy, or any other foreign country which has a steel industry will be able to bid on the contracts for this pipeline. Surely hon. members do not need to be reminded that, in a world of international competition, all kinds of devices and
April 4, 1978

strategies are used that in the end amount to unfair competition, submitting bids at a low cost, bids that no Canadian company can match because of the lack of subsidies and other kinds of incentives provided by countries such as Japan.
This has been demonstrated again and again. I think, for example, of the latest charge under the Anti-dumping Act against Japan, by Algoma Steel in my constituency, for dumping on the Canadian market. There are also examples of American steel companies. One example is a recent pipeline contract in Mexico. American companies deliberately underbid 20 per cent so that they would get the contract for the Mexican pipeline and thereby not have to reduce the operation of their steel mills.
There is a slack in the world steel economy in terms of productive capacity. The bidding will be very intense. Is anyone naive enough to believe that the steel industry of Japan, West Germany, Italy, or the United States under the DISC program, will not have special concessions and assistance in terms of taxation policies, transportation policies or grant policies to allow them to submit bids in an unfair way to the detriment of Canadian steel producers?
The Canadian steel industry is confident it can win the bulk of the contracts on a competitive basis. We must remember it is an assumption of a fair competitive basis. I am worried that with unfair competition and lack of commitment in terms of some kind of guarantee, in the face of unfair competition Canadian steel companies and construction companies will not get the contracts for this undertaking. That is why we moved amendments recently to ensure that in the legislation we would have these guarantees of 90 per cent content and so on.
The government argues we cannot have that kind of guarantee in the legislation because it would be against the GATT treaty, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I reject that argument. This is a bilateral agreement, an energy cooperation agreement between Canada and the United States. It mainly falls outside the narrow provisions of the GATT treaty. Indeed, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in its analysis of the situation correctly pointed out there have been precedents in the past relating to pipeline construction in both countries, the Interprovincial and the Portland-Montreal pipeline, as well as the Trans-Canada gas pipeline, whereby preference has been given to the country through which the pipeline passed in terms of construction and general contracts.
We made a mistake in the treaty that was signed with the United States, allowing for international competitive bidding. I am confident, if we had the competitive bidding within Canada, that our industry could meet the requirements of that pipeline construction at a fair cost. It is my worry that without guarantees we will find ourselves at such a competitive disadvantage that we will not get the maximum of the contracts. Certainly we may get something like 50 or 60 per cent. However, in light of the fact that we are taking all the risks for this construction, it is unreasonable because we will not be receiving the benefits in terms of natural gas until some long-off future date if and when a Dempster lateral spur pipeline is built in the Mackenzie valley.
Northern Pipeline
I have no qualms about arguing there should be provision for maximum Canadian participation. I think the government is using the GATT argument as an excuse. The monitoring committee of the House of Commons, as I have said, while a welcome improvement to the bill, will be powerless to redress any major setback in terms of Canadian content.
Mr. Speaker, another position taken by the NDP was that there should be no construction of the pipeline through the affected areas until native land claims had been settled. That amendment was not accepted by the House. We have offered another amendment which, in my opinion, is weaker but which, nevertheless, is better than nothing. It would provide that the native people's land claims would not be prejudiced while the pipeline continues to be built, supposing, of course, that they were not settled prior to the actual construction. My fear is that unless these land claims are settled before the pipeline construction commences, we shall be faced with a number of problems. I see real difficulty for Foothills in trying to raise the necessary capital in the financial markets of the world unless investors are assured that there will be no challenges in the courts by the native people, long litigation or other such delays in construction which will raise the cost of the pipeline. The only alternative, it seems to me, is to ensure the land claims issue is settled prior to the beginning of construction. Construction is not due to begin until 1981.
I had hoped that our amendment on the native claims issue would have brought pressure on the government to move expeditiously and fairly in getting a settlement to the land claims. We know the history of this government has been a sad one as it relates to the native people in terms of betrayal of their trust and interests. Had the amendment been passed it would have been a legislative incentive, an inducement to the government to stop dragging its feet and to get the land claims settled in a fair and judicious manner. Unfortunately, that amendment was not accepted. I hope the land claims issue, which unfortunately is now in limbo, but which could conceivably be a very contentious one if not settled by 1981, will not delay construction of the pipeline project, though, as I have said, I do have certain fears that it may do just that.
I am also puzzled in a way by some of the statements of my friends in the Conservative party who have rushed to the government's defence. I know the members who represent steel industry towns, such as the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), were very concerned, as we in the NDP were that the government did not see fit to legislate guarantees to maximize Canadian content and Canadian labour. Unfortunately, the minister has not been able to convince his colleagues that this represents a real danger and I regret his failure to do so.
Again, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has castigated the government for blaming the GATT agreement for its failure to include guarantees in the bill. That argument, too, seems to have been abandoned by his colleagues. I hope the Conservative party has not misplaced its trust in this Liberal government. I find it strange, in light of

April 4, 1978
Northern Pipeline
the criticisms it has made of the way in which the goverment has behaved that the Conservatives have been willing to accept a bill which is in a weak form when it could have been strengthened considerably. For those reasons I regret that they have not supported the amendments we advanced.
This is a great undertaking, Mr. Speaker. It will mean a cost of some $10 billion, and it may mean at least some temporary relief to the massive unemployment situation we are facing as a result of Liberal government mismanagement of our economy. I hope that Canadian workers and Canadian companies a few years from now, when the contracts have been let and construction is under way, will not be short-changed by a bill which this House has been content to pass in the form now before us, when it had the opportunity to strengthen it by way of amendment. I hope the pipeline project proceeds without undue delay, without jeopardy to the environment, and in the interests of Northern Canadians and, indeed, of our friends in the United States. My only regret is that though we had the opportunity to improve the bill in significant ways for the benefit of Canadians, this House did not see fit to accept the needed amendments. I can only say my reservations still stand. 1 hope I am proved wrong. But the whole purpose, the whole stance of this party was to get the majority benefits for Canadians whom I thought we were elected to serve.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened carefully this afternoon to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) in his wrap-up speech on third reading and there was one area that I think he should have addressed himself to this afternoon, that is, the position of the churches of Canada with respect to the pipeline. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will find it possible to take note of what I am about to say because I think the brief which was presented to the cabinet just before Easter on behalf of the five major churches in Canada was a significant one and needs to be responded to by the members of the government and, failing that, certainly by members of this House.
Throughout this long process, from the beginning of the Berger and Lysyk inquiries, through the debate and work of the special committee and in the House, we know there have been small groups representing the churches-one might call them social activist groups-which have been lobbying very strongly against this bill and against the pipeline, largely on the grounds that the native people of the north are going to be hurt.
It was my feeling, as this process went on, that the objections these groups were making on behalf of the churches were being noted and taken care of and that there were answers to them. To my surprise, a few days before Easter, not a small group but the main delegation from the Roman Catholic, United, Presbyterian, Lutheran and Anglican churches-what might be called the mainline Christian churches of Canada- presented a brief to the federal cabinet which had to do with the ecumenically arrived at position of the churches on the economic outlook in Canada.
Four major areas of concern were outlined in the brief which was presented to the cabinet. The first was northern development, the second was income distribution, the third was investment transfers, and the fourth was regional disparities. I do not propose at this moment to go into all the implications of the comments made by the church leaders of our country in this interesting brief. I will save that for another occasion, but I do not think we can let this bill pass at third reading without responding adequately to the more or less up-to-date comments of the church leaders, who continue in their opposition to the northern pipeline.
The inter-church brief opposing the pipeline deals with four points. The first has to do with native land claims. On this point the church brief says the following:
The Council of Yukon Indians has our support in their insistence that these matters be settled and implemented before construction begins.
Second, the church brief makes the point that the second stage inquiry should be proceeded with in order to guarantee social justice with regard to the pipeline. Third, the interchurch brief asks how the government can guarantee for Canadians maximum benefits, and so forth. Fourth, in view of public criticism since the pipeline agreement was signed, the inter-church brief asks how Canadians will be assured that Canadian public funds will never be spent on the pipeline.
As a basis for the questions raised by the church leaders in opposing the pipeline I would like to refer to one or two sentences in their brief to explain the philosophy on which they based their questions. The inter-church brief says that a new industrial strategy is needed in our country and that this conclusion has been arrived at as a result of the contention that the present model of industrial development tends excessively to be capital-intensive, highly technological, energyintensive, export-oriented, and foreign controlled. The church brief sums up as follows:
To sum up on this point, we continue to see in the present pipeline plans a bleak economic outlook for Canadians-whether they be northern residents whose way of life and livelihood will be drastically changed, or southern residents for whom the main outlook seems to be the risk of further staggering increases in public debt.
A response to what I have quoted is needed. I intend to vote for this bill at third reading because I believe that the pipeline is needed for all the reasons we have been through over these past months. I also believe that the philosophy being advanced on behalf of the churches today is a philosophy which can lead us into a no growth situation. I make that comment respectfully to the church leaders.
I have received representations that I should oppose the bill, but the philosophy laid down by the churches in opposing the pipeline is a philosophy which would bring about quite the reverse of what the church leaders intend. The church leaders are arguing in the name of social justice. I believe that to conclude that the pipeline must not be built for economic reasons or for social reasons or that it must not be built before native land claims are settled, would be injurious to all Canadians and that would lead us away from the opportunities

April 4, 1978

for social justice that the church leaders want and which, indeed, I want.
Those who argue against the pipeline do us a service, however, because they make us focus on a just settlement of native land claims, on the social danger of destroying the native way of life, on environmental hazards, on the displacement of capital away from other pressing needs in southern Canada, on the voracious energy demands of the industrial machine which dominates western society, and on the need for us to change our way of life from resource exploitation to a new concept of stewardship, thus opening the way to a more just system of sharing wealth in the global community. That is a submission which church leaders as well as many responsible social analysts in Canada today are putting before the government. That philosophy can be found throughout the brief presented by the church leaders, although 1 have cited only a portion of it. The evidence which has been accumulated so far makes us aware of our responsibilities.
I think that what the church leaders and the coalition of social activists have been talking about over the past few months-and I support this-are changed attitudes which are necessary in today's economic society. I believe, however, that a pipeline can help us produce a climate in which people will be more receptive to the need for the changes for which the church leaders are arguing. The debate engendered by the pipeline hearings has sharpened our awareness.
The principal objection to the pipeline found in the up-to-date brief of the church leaders is on the ground that native claims have not been settled. I wish to make reference to the amendment which was introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes), which I seconded. It is an amendment which was arrived at through the negotiating skills of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who, I think, very diligently throughout this whole process took careful account of the economic and social implications of the pipeline, and who worked in such a way as to strengthen the bill-the Deputy Prime Minister paid just tribute to that this afternoon-so that the best results would be obtained by Canadians generally, specifically including native northerners.
The amendment to which I want to draw the attention of the House reads:
Notwithstanding this act, any native claim, right, title or interest that the native people of Canada may have had prior to the coming into force of this act in and to the land on which the pipeline will be situated continues to exist until a settlement in respect of any such claim, right, title or interest is effected.
That motion was presented to us at report stage as motion No. 6, and it is in opposition to motion No. 4 put forward by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), the effect of which is to hold up the pipeline until all native land claims are settled. In my judgment, and I think in the judgment of several others, the effect of that motion would have been to kill the pipeline, or to hold it up for such an indeterminate period of time as to jeopardize the success of the project and the commitments that were made by the Government of Canada,
Northern Pipeline
with the concurrence of parliament, that the pipeline should be started.
Therefore, I think that we should look now to the special parliamentary committee which will act as an ongoing parliamentary monitoring agency, in addition to the regulatory agency which has been established, to ensure that the economic and social benefits are intertwined in a just way. I believe that this can be done. I think that the optimism expressed by the government that a settlement will be reached is perhaps reflective of the optimism which the government always brings to a statement of justice on behalf of minority groups. Of course, the proof is in the pudding.
I think that we will only obtain that justice in native settlements, we will only obtain the justice that the church leaders want for northerners in the dislocation they will be undergoing, if the ongoing situation is very carefully monitored and if pressure is exerted on the government by members of parliament and members of the committee to ensure that the settlements affecting the way of life of the northerners are handled in such a way that the benefits of the construction- the largest construction project in the history of Canada- meet the needs of both the southerners and northerners combined.
1 think that if we ask ourselves whether we should halt the construction of the pipeline until the native land claims are settled, we should also ask ourselves whether we are not jeopardizing our relations with the United States and antagonizing the non-native Yukoners, not to mention a significant portion of Canadian labour. I do not think that that is a solution, which is why I personally oppose motion No. 4 and support the motion introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent. I think that pressure must continue to be exerted on the federal government to achieve a just settlement, and in the next three years the federal government must work just as diligently toward the achievement and implementation of a settlement as it will be working toward the construction and operation of the pipeline.
In the continuing examination of this project by the two groups I have mentioned, I would anticipate and urge that we see some concrete proposals on what the federal government intends to do about the Indian land claims. I think that we will certainly be hearing from the Council of Yukon Indians themselves, and then we will see how far apart the two sides really are. I think that the regulatory agency can then use its mandate to make revisions to our bill as time goes on to ensure that native land claims are not being prejudiced.
May I say in summation that I believe it is in the interests of all of Canada to proceed with this project, which is why I am supporting it, and I think that the argument made by the church leaders needs to be respectfully responded to, in order that it not be said that the Parliament of Canada was uncaring, unresponsive or not sensitive to the very real human problems that are connected with any major development project.
It is my intention to conclude by emphasizing that, as the Canadian economy continues to develop, it is important that

April 4, 1978
Northern Pipeline
we strengthen ourselves-and not weaken ourselves as failure to proceed with the pipeline would do-to make of our economy a production centre that the world can view with respect, with admiration, and with benefit, because out of a stronger economy in Canada we can obtain the ability to make a stronger contribution to a world that is in change.
I think that parliament should extend its concern about energy and its uses beyond the question of the northern gas pipeline for, as the Club of Rome points out in "Goals for Mankind":
Mankind's growth toward energy sufficiency and self-reliance requires the international coordination of energy policies. Dangerous alternatives must be discouraged, wasteful duplication effort eliminated, and the options and possibilities constantly reappraised in the light of criteria based on human need.
Modern needs include a better flow of information and a more efficient transfer of technology. If the world energy system is to become safe, decentralized, and capable of satisfying legitimate demands on a sustainable basis, its development needs to be co-ordinated and supervised by an international body. As the International Atomic Energy Agency is presently co-ordinating and supervising the peaceful uses of atomic energy, a more long-term oriented and universal world energy agency is needed toco-ordinate the development of technologies which could bring to mankind abundant, accessible, and affordable energy.
Canada, a land of rich resources, technology and human energy, is ideally placed in the world community to exert leadership for the creation of such an agency. Let us expand our northern vision to a world vision so that we can learn to recognize the ways in which we can extend economic and social justice to mankind.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I will be brief. I want to answer a few of the points raised by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes). Again I emphasize that he was not at the committee meetings and it appears that he has not read the committee proceedings either, because the bill we have before us now is a bill as amended by that special committee. The members on that committee were unanimous in the acceptance of all the amendments. There were one or two technical amendments that were advanced by the government, but the substantive amendments were all advanced by this party.
The opportunity was there for the NDP to advance amendments in committee, but they chose not to do so. So it seems to me to be rather inconsistent for them to be putting forward arguments that they failed to make in committee, which is the proper forum for that to take place. As the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) has said, it was unique, certainly in my experience, for a bill to come out of committee on which no recorded vote was taken. It was a completely unanimous report.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie says that we have seen all too often instances where northern interests are sacrificed for powerful southern interests. Those were his words. I would like him to name me one instance in the Yukon where a northern interest was sacrificed for any powerful southern interest. I challenge him to do that now. I see him sitting in his

seat. Does he know of one instance where a Yukon interest was sacrificed-and the Yukon is in the north-for powerful southern interests? I invite him to stand up and tell me what that instance is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the hon. member finished his speech?


Erik Nielsen: I will allow the hon. member to answer my question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then we can take it that the hon. member has finished his speech.


Erik Nielsen: Would the hon. member like to respond to my question?


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I have been invited to make a statement. I assume the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has concluded his remarks.
The hon. member for Yukon mentioned examples of northern interests which have been sacrificed for those of southern Canada. The hon. member for Yukon has been a consistent critic of the government for its failure to recognize provincial status for the Yukon. That was recommended by the NDP at its national conventions. I would have thought the hon. member for Yukon would have been the first to recognize the implications of the fact that the Yukon has not been given provincial status by the government and the various interest groups which it represents. Constantly the hon. member has complained about the Northern Power Company and how it has been under the control of the federal government and against the scrutiny of the territorial government. Also he has complained about Yukoners not being able to control the tax system, nor to regulate the development of the Yukon, as well as the entire question of royalties and taxes from resources.
All of these things are examples of how the territory and its people have been exploited by southern interests such as many of the multinational energy companies, whether oil, mineral, or what have you, and of the inability of Yukoners to control their own destiny because they are still treated in a colonial manner.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am astounded at the abysmal ignorance of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. If the truth is admitted by him, obviously he meant the powerful southern interests were powerful moneyed or corporate interests. That is what the hon. member said when he indicated that the powerful southern interests were the reason for northern interests being sacrificed. If he wants to call the Liberal government of Canada one of those powerful southern interests, that is a neat way of slithering away from the inference he attempted to leave with those words. It is false. There has been no exploitation in the Yukon by powerful southern interests. Certainly a colonial system of government exists up there. That is because of the government's refusal to bring about meaningful reform and provincial status.
April 4, 1978

I am glad to hear the hon. member indicating that his party is now in favour of provincial status for the Yukon, because that is not what was decided at the NDP convention in Vancouver in September of 1970, 1971, or whenever. That was not his party's position when Mr. Barnett was expressing government policies with respect to that party on that question. It was somewhat similar to what Mackenzie King used to say; "A provincial status if necessary, but not necessarily provincial status. Maybe sometime in the future, but we are not ready for it now." If the hon. member was expressing the views of his party, I am happy to hear him say that he supports that philosophy of a provincial status for the Yukon now.


Reginald Cyril Symes: In 1974.


Erik Nielsen: In 1974? Well, I hope the hon. member is expressing his party's stance on that. It has taken a long time to bring that party to such a point.
Deliberately the hon. member is twisting the whole thrust of the pipeline. His worst contribution was the lengthy quotation which he made from the IT&C report. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) acted very responsibly in committee. Having read the report, the hon. member obviously saw that what the government said represented the worst possible scenario.
In committee we heard evidence from Mr. Blair, from Mr. Pierce, and from others on the question of Canadian content. These very questions were generated by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. In issue No. 2 of the proceedings at page 2:14, Mr. Blair said the following:
In a nutshell, we know the history of the supply of materials and equipment and services to the construction of pipelines in Canada; we know the individuals in the companies and how they have performed and we expect that they will continue to perform for this project basically as they have for the past projects by giving us high quality, suitable delivery schedules and prices and costs which are competitive or even advantageous as compared to counterpart suppliers in the United States. We suppose they will continue to behave competitively and energetically, and we know that they are sufficient as suppliers. We have calculated that very carefully; there is enough capacity in Canada to provide the materials and services to build this pipeline and we would prefer not to be put into a box that would weaken our negotiating position with our goods suppliers. We want to deal at arm's length with them and to have every encouragement that they will be trying as hard as ever to maintain their fully competitive status. We expect that by carefully following the procedures in the past, the content to which we have testified will be achieved.
In other proceedings Mr. Blair went on to tell of the approximate 1,000 miles per year of pipeline which has been built in Alberta, and that historically all the pipe and steel has come from Canadian suppliers because they have a competitive edge on the world steel market. I believed him, and I dare say the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands believed him when he backed his statement up with that evidence. Obviously the government believed him.
The hon. member's biggest impractical argument is that a legislative change can be written into this bill to provide guarantees. He knows, or should know, that the labour leaders of this country do not require that; that the steel industry of this country does not require that; that the Foothills people do not want that; and that the Canadian pipe producers have no
Northern Pipeline
such requirement. A legislative change cannot be written into this bill for two reasons. It seems to be impossible to penetrate the thick skull of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.
It is impossible to amend this legislation in the face of the international agreement. If it were possible, we would support it. Actually it is impossible because of that one reason. Another reason is that the government has taken refuge behind GATT and does not want to offend the provisions of GATT. To speak of a legislative amendment guaranteeing Canadian content is to be very, very hypocritical, to say the least.
My party's alternative was the only practical one. Our alternative was a parliamentary process, the establishment of a monitoring committee, a new standing committee of the House. That suggestion was agreed to by the very sensible hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. It was the only practical alternative. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands supported the establishment of such a committee. The government, in its rare and unusual wisdom, accepted and conceded to that motion. Quite frankly, I was surprised that it agreed to set up the monitoring committee, and just as surprised to find it agreeing to insist upon the committee reporting once every four months to the House. Has the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie so little faith in the parliamentary system, even with this government, as to suggest that the committee is going to be useless?
Automatically, by the terms of the motion that the Deputy Prime Minister will be moving after third reading, every agreement, every regulation, every order, every direction, in essense every administrative act of any consequence whatsoever is going to be referred to that committee automatically. The committee will have responsible members sitting on it and will be able to review the very admirable intentions set out in the international agreement with respect to Canadian content. They will be able to look at whether Canadians are getting the greater portion of the steel orders, whether they are getting the greater portion of the pipe orders and whether Canadian labour content is being kept at the highest, with offshore labour only being imported where skills required are non-existent in Canada.
The committee will be able to review such matters once every four months. What more can we ask for? That committee will report back to the House, and if the intentions in the agreement are not being adhered to, then the spotlight of public attention is focused on what the Deputy Prime Minister and others on that side have been saying about 100,000 man-years if the Dempster lateral is included, or 68,000 man-years if it is not. If they fall below those figures they are going to be accountable to parliament. What better control does the hon. member, or any member of parliament, desire? Unless, of course, he wants to run the whole project himself.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You are giving it all to the Liberals anyway.

April 4, 1978
Northern Pipeline


Erik Nielsen: The government of the day has a right to govern. That fact seems to go over the heads of the members on the left.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: They control the committees.


Erik Nielsen: They have a majority on the committees. Would the hon. member in the NDP-I am sorry, I have forgotten his riding-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Brant.


Erik Nielsen: -from Brant have it reversed? Would he have the opposition members have a majority on committees? Is that the way he would like parliament to run-that the minorities should be doing the governing and the majority should be in the opposition? That is the logic of his argument.


Mr. Goodale:: That is NDP democracy.


Erik Nielsen: We can improve-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: That is the balance of power.


Erik Nielsen: Oh, the balance of power. Well, I am afraid they will never advance beyond the stage of-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) on a point of order.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, it is not a point of order. I would like to ask the hon. member a question, if I may?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Would the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) permit the hon. member for Brant to ask him a question?


Erik Nielsen: Certainly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Brant.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: 1 thank the hon. member for Yukon for allowing me to ask this question. I was referring to the balance of power in this chamber and the way it has been shifting more and more to executive rule in this country. I am firmly convinced that, unless we give more power to the committees of this House, we are not going to have a true democracy in this country. Does the hon. member for Yukon agree or disagree with me?


Erik Nielsen: I would certainly agree with that, Mr. Speaker, but that is not what he was saying a moment ago. His colleague from Sault Ste. Marie was belittling the amendments setting up this committee and the concession that his colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) agreed with. I would like to get off that track, because they show an utter lack of understanding of the whole process by pushing that.

I would like to deal for a moment with the other amendments in this bill. I would like to emphasize that these other amendments, as the Deputy Prime Minister has very graciously stated, were amendments that came from this party. In instances where we could not get the whole amendment, we negotiated. The representative of the NDP party could have followed the same course. We now feel that we have a far superior bill than it was when it went into committee. We were able to get native presence into the bill-not as strong as we would have wanted it, but it is there now. The monitoring process and the point that the line will remain in Canadian hands were included. If it does not, it will be the responsibility of the whole cabinet.
More important, we got the judicial provisions so utterly changed that they completely wipe out the original provisions. There is now the usual court process of appeal to the Supreme Court. There is the presence of section 16. After our arguments, including the argument of the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands, in committee, the government withdrew both of the offensive provisions. We have come back with a far better bill than when it went into committee.
One of the sad parts of the whole matter is that we have not come back with a $200 million heritage fund, which would provide some long-range benefits for Yukoners through whose territory the pipeline will pass. That is another area, however, and I will have to pursue that in another fashion. It is impossible to do so in this bill.
1 have one last word-if hon. members are disposed to vote on that matter before five o'clock-and that is on the question of native claims. There should be no group, whether it be racial or otherwise, permitted to stand in the way of a vital project which is in the national interest. Even if the whole population of the Yukon were against this line passing through their territory, they should not be permitted to hold up a project of this magnitude. That is the simple answer. With respect to their claims and negotiations toward settlement, there is no reason why development and negotiation cannot go ahead hand-in-hand, without one prejudicing the other. No one has been able to convince me yet that development of any kind is going to prejudice the negotiations and final settlement of those native claims.
If, Mr. Speaker, they would like the question put, I will resume my seat. If they do not, I wish to continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question?


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I am prepared to go ahead at eight o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
April 4, 1978



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-Post Office-Delivery service to new subdivisions; the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)- Post Office-Minister's action to improve service and low employee morale; and-Ceiling on mail delivery contracts; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco)-Regional Economic Expansion-Northern pipeline

Discussions on economic development of certain areas.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, and notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

["Order, please. The hour allotted for private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.\nAt six o'clock the House took recess."]
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to proceed with the consideration of Bill C-208 and to stand all bills which precede it on the order paper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the question of the hon. parliamentary secretary. Is there unanimous consent that all bills be stood prior to Bill C-208?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Agreed and so ordered.



Ralph Goodale: that Bill C-208, an act to render government documents and publications pertaining to senior citizens more legible and comprehensible, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Document Legibility
He said: In my experience as an MP I think one of the most satisfying and rewarding aspects of this job is the opportunity that we have as members of this institution to become associated with groups of retired Canadians, the senior citizens of this country, who have formed themselves into a wide variety of New Horizons Clubs and other types of senior citizens' organizations in all parts of Canada.
I am sure, as all other hon. members do, I welcome those occasions when I have the opportunity to visit these clubs and groups and meet with their membership. The time spent is very worthwhile because it is rare that one will find the depth of knowledge and the wealth of experience assembled together in one place that you will encounter in the drop-in centres and other meeting places created by the New Horizons programs of the Government of Canada, and in the clubs and organizations of senior citizens across the country created by other public and private programs.
For any member of parliament or any other interested person, the analysis of issues to be found in these places and the ideas which are put forward, whether those issues are large or small, local, provincial, regional, national or international, are very much worth listening to and heeding with care.
In Assiniboia constituency I am pleased to say we have more than 50 active projects operating under the auspices of the New Horizons program. Our part of southern Saskatchewan is fortunate to have a number of other agencies and organizations of particular relevance to older people. The idea for the proposal contained in Bill C-208 now before us in fact originated in the discussions which I have had from time to time with the members of these various clubs, agencies, and groups in the Assiniboia constituency. I am sure my experience in this regard has been duplicated many times over in virtually all parts of the country.
In proposing this bill, Mr. Speaker, I want to pay a special tribute to Mrs. Ivol Krueger and to all of those who have been involved in such a dedicated way on the New Horizons committee of Weyburn, Saskatchewan, and the very active "Aid for the Aging" group in that community. Their efforts in drawing attention to the particular issue dealt with in Bill C-208, and their work on behalf of senior citizens in so many other ways, is a prime example of spirited and effective community service. I hope that this House can add to those efforts in some small way by adopting this bill, or at least by adopting the idea in principle and allowing the matter to go to a House committee for detailed analysis and consideration.
The gist of Bill C-208 is captioned quite well in its short title "An Act to render government documents and publications pertaining to senior citizens more legible and comprehensible". It is brief, as hon. members can see, consisting basically of three short clauses. The major provisions are really two in number. First of all there is a requirement through this bill that the Queen's Printer print all publications specifically intended for senior citizens in a large and clear style of type. Secondly there is a provision which would require the Queen's Printer to make specific documents available on request to

April 4, 1978
Document Legibility
senior citizens if they have a particular need for them. These documents should be printed in a large style of type in order that these people can make use of them.
There are two additional clauses in the bill. One would authorize the minister to make the appropriate regulations to implement the thrust of the legislation. The other is a short definition clause defining precisely that "senior citizen" refers to people who have reached the age of 65.
I am sure that rationale behind this kind of proposal is perfectly obvious and will be well understood by hon. mem-oers. As people get older, eyesight often tends to fail. Therefore, regular sized print or type used in official publications is often not adequate to meet the physical requirements of senior citizens.
In my office today I received an orange booklet put out by the Department of National Health and Welfare. It is entitled "Basic Facts of Social Security Programs". It is a very useful booklet, and it contains approximately 45 pages. In this booklet there is information about various programs and activities of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Unfortunately every page is chock-full of very small, fine print. It is extremely difficult to be able to read such a document in an easy way and to comprehend what is being said in that document, even with perfect eyesight. I am sure that to anyone who has any impairment of vision this document might be almost unreadable not because of what is contained in it, but because of the style, type, and method of printing used.
As older people struggle to deal with the papers they have to read and cope with, they are subject to a considerable amount of unnecessary strain, physical eye strain as well as emotional stress or strain. Sometimes of necessity, because there may be no alternative, documents like that one and even others of greater importance simply get ignored.
In discussing this issue with senior citizens themselves, another interesting point was brought to mind. In days gone by, many people who are now in the older age bracket did not have access in their youth to the formal educational facilities available in Canada today. As a consequence they are often apprehensive or even frightened to tackle government documents, forms and publications. It is ironic, and I think unfortunate, that these people, who are often so properly referred to as the "salt of the earth" or the "backbone of the country", are sometimes intimidated by some of the complexities and the complications placed on them by the country to the building of which they have contributed so much. Sometimes it seems to me that this intimidation or that feeling of inadequacy can have very serious consequences, Mr. Speaker.
I am told by senior citizens that a prime case in point is in relation to the various federal-provincial old age income supplement plans for which senior citizens must make application. These plans are not available to senior citizens automatically when they reach a certain age. They must apply to the various departments responsible for the administration of the programs in order to entitle themselves to benefits.

Specifically, I think of the guaranteed income supplement program. This is a program which is very useful to senior citizens on limited incomes. But the important fact to remember is that this program is not automatically available to senior citizens upon their attaining a certain age. They must file an application for it. In order to know that they must do that, they have to be able to read documents like this one, to which I have just referred. This document outlines the details of that particular program and makes it clear that an application must be filed. In addition to that they must be able to deal with the application itself in a reasonable way, to read it, to understand it, and to file it, in order to entitle themselves to those benefits. If the form or the book itself is not printed in a way that is easily read, then that, of course, impedes the making of that application. That is a rather serious consequence which should be a relatively easy problem to solve.
Income tax forms are another problem. Those closely associated with programs involving older people can attest to the fact that every year at tax time some senior citizens actually become physically ill in having to contend with the complex and finely printed documents and forms which come to them during the time when income tax documentation must be completed. I suppose there is no formal documented evidence on this point. But I am content to rely upon the observations of those who have been very active in helping to serve senior citizens. Again I refer to Mrs. Krueger of Wey-burn, and many others like her, who can speak from years of observation in actual experience in this field. They know the kind of anxiety that senior citizens experience when confronted with difficulties of this kind.
The problem could be alleviated in some small part by ensuring that the relevant printed material is in fact printed in a manner which can be easily read. That would be a step in the right direction. It would help to reduce some of the uneasiness and frustration which some senior citizens presently experience when trying to grapple with the documentation with which they now have to deal.
The idea contained in Bill C-208 is obviously not a cure-all for all of the difficulties with which older people must deal in encountering government agencies and other institutions, both public and private. The complexity of life in this day and age is unfortunately more than any of us would like to see. At least this bill would implement one measure which might be of positive, practical assistance.
I do not pretend that this is a perfect proposal in Bill C-208. It has some obvious defects. For example, it is specifically tied to the needs of older people. There are many Canadians under the age of 65 who also suffer from impaired vision. Conversely, there are a great many senior citizens who enjoy perfectly good eyesight and might not require the large style of type proposed in this bill. Nevertheless, this is an important matter for the House to consider. I appreciate the attention hon. members are giving to it this afternoon.
April 4, 1978

If there is general agreement that the subject matter of this bill is worthy of further examination but the specifics proposed in it are not precisely appropriate, I would have no objection to the motion being amended to refer the subject matter only to the appropriate committee to consider and study a matter of this kind. It might not be the Miscellaneous Estimates committee. It might well be the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. If it were the disposition of the House to make that amendment and refer the subject matter, I would be happy to see the matter go forward in that way. In that forum, such as a committee of this House, we could more thoroughly canvass this whole area of concern and identify the best technical way to solve what is a very real problem for older people and for certain other Canadians as well.


Mr. Alan Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in joining in this debate on a very interesting and worth-while topic, I commend the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) for bringing to the attention of the House concerns of senior citizens. As I read the wording in the bill, as a legislator I have some reservations as to just what we might be legislating by bringing this specific bill into force or into committee for possible amendment, as the hon. member suggested. Bill C-208 is, and I quote:
An Act to render government documents and publications pertaining to senior citizens more legible and comprehensible
If we were to pass this bill, we would be amending the Department of Supply and Services Act to require, and I quote:
The Queen's Printer for Canada shall
(a)	print any publication that is distributed to senior citizens pursuant to the
Old Age Security Act or the Canada Pension Plan in large and clear type, and
(b)	provide on the request of any senior citizen a copy in large and clear type
of any publication that is printed on behalf of any department or agency of the
Government of Canada.
(2)	The Minister may make regulations respecting the printing and distribution of publications for carrying out the purposes outlined in subsection (1).
(3)	In this section "senior citizen" means any person who has reached 65 years of age."
There are a number of concerns that will come out of the course of this discussion that will not in themselves take away from the point that is being made by my colleague from Assiniboia. But they perhaps give us some reservations in terms of putting this legislation on the books before we have a much deeper look at the substance.
Let us talk about the criteria. The bill refers to age. The hon. member for Assiniboia indicated that age might not be the only criterion. There might be other criteria that should be examined. The condition of eyesight is the underlying cause in the bill. If that is so, it should not be restricted to a particular age factor.
I have many senior citizens' residences in my constituency. In them are people of various physical situation. Some of them at a very advanced age have far better eyesight than perhaps I myself in terms of their reading habits. In other cases there are much younger people who, for one reason or another, have eye
Document Legibility
problems. They do not have to wait until they are 65 before it becomes a serious problem for them. Therefore I question the age factor if we are going to proceed with legislation of this type.
If the criterion is age, we are setting an artificial barrier by putting in age 65. Perhaps 65 is chosen because that is the age at which people are entitled to the old age pension and the Canada Pension Plan. However, I am not sure this would be a valid criterion for inclusion in legislation of a more general nature of this sort. We would in effect be creating two classes of citizens at the taxpayers' expense, one privileged, and the other not. Presumably those citizens who will receive the larger face type will receive a certain advantage if, indeed, they need it. The problem is that it may end up going to a lot of people who do not need it.
How do we readily identify citizens with a reading difficulty? If age is used, reaction from older persons past the chosen age limit or barrier who have no such problems will be critical. The problem relates primarily to the identification of the audience for each publication put out by the 128 departments and agencies of the Government of Canada. However, is this really to be on the basis of age or eyesight? Regardless of what happens to the bill, that is a point that will have to be examined at greater length.
In addition to that general criteria problem, I would like to speak for a few moments on the matter of cost. It would be unfair for us as parliamentarians at this time to brush over this issue and see the bill go to committee before we have the benefit of discussion on what kind of costs might be involved in making an amendment of this nature to the Supply and Services Act.
It is going to be very difficult to assess the cost figure and the actions required to implement successfully what is called for in Bill C-208. That becomes obvious as we examine the details of the bill as I enunciated them earlier. If the likely cost cannot be calculated with some degree of accuracy, it would be imprudent on our part to adopt this amendment before endeavouring to assess just what it is to which we are exposing the Canadian taxpayer.
A costing of these responsibilities presupposes at least the ability to do a number of things. We must be able to identify which government publications should be printed in the larger type size, and why. I am sure that my colleague from Assiniboia would be the first to say it should not necessarily apply to all government documents, only when there seems to be a particular need. This again gets into the criteria question, which document should be and which should not.
We would need to have the ability to specify the required quantities of each identified publication in each official language. There are massive publications hour by hour, day by day, in the various government departments and agencies in the over-all government service. In each specific case, someone would have to pinpoint how many would need to be printed in the larger type and in both official languages. Would it be the same number in English and French, or more English and less

April 4, 1978
Document Legibility
French? What would be the percentage? How would that be established?
In addition, a method of distribution would have to be established. In other words, after these copies have been produced in large type in English and French, what do you do with them? Presumably they are distributed to someone. The question is, who gets them? Is it the intention to wait for applications to come in from Canadians who, perhaps, would have to be over a certain age in order to qualify to receive these publications in the larger type? How does one go about this process? The demand may, in the end, turn out to be very small. We could be piling up surpluses in printed paper, publications which may never be requested or, indeed, required. Just what are we getting into in terms of the inventory of these special issues?
Then there is the question of frequency. How often will these publications be brought out? Would every issue be treated in the way suggested, or only the more important ones? Where would a limitation be placed? What I am really saying is that the range of possibilities or options in layout and type size is really too broad to enable us to make any reliable estimate as to cost, and in these circumstances it would be somewhat irresponsible for us to allow the bill to become law.
There are, however, two basic factors which can be recognized immediately as likely to have an effect on costs. And each of them implies additional costs. The first is that in most cases a larger type face will put less characters on a page, thus requiring more pages or larger pages to achieve the same quality of communication. This means more paper, and, if there are to be more pages, additional sheets to be run through the printing presses. Already many of us are receiving criticism from our constituents about the amount of paper we generate in the system. And most of us here would agree there are times when we are ourselves overwhelmed by the quantity of paper which is churned out day after day for our attention.
The second factor is that the number of the older generations will increase over the years, implying an increased audience for such publications if they are based on the somewhat dubious criterion of age. In other words, the percentage of the population over the age of 65 is rising rather rapidly, so the demand might be expected to increase.
A further alternative, and one which has the virtue of eliminating doubtful selection criteria, would be to instruct the Queen's Printer to produce all government publications and tracts in type of not less than a given size, thus assuring the reading comfort of any citizen suffering from a corresponding degree of restricted vision. Two problems immediately emerge, however. First, the cost of all government printing would automatically increase, although percentage increases would probably vary with different publications. In the second place, defining a corresponding degree of restricted vision which made any sense would still leave citizens, whose eyesight is more seriously impaired, without an increase in their reading

comfort. What is the correct reading impairment cut-off point?
These are just some of the problems to be faced. I am simply pointing out the need for a much closer examination of the criteria of which we are speaking if we are to take this legislation through the whole process and make it an official amendment to the Supply and Services Act. It is my view that as members of parliament we should be concerned about the cost we are imposing upon the taxpayers generally. If we were to pass this measure I assume there would be considerable pressure on provincial governments and municipal governments to take similar action. It is my observation that municipal governments, in particular, often make use of print sizes which are very small.
I am sure that senior citizens have recommended such a measure as this to the hon. member. It has not so far been brought to my attention, although there are a large number of senior citizens' homes in my riding. Nevertheless, I hope the discussion this afternoon will focus on some of the specific points which I have raised and which need to be explored further.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Martin) has pointed out, there are certain difficulties in connection with this bill. However, I hope we will not let those difficulties stand in the way of the suggestion of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), namely, that the subject matter be sent to the appropriate committee. Like him, I think the appropriate committee would be the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. The parliamentary secretary wants certain aspects of this matter looked into. There is no better place in which to do that than the committee to which the subject matter could be referred.
I suppose I should do the usual thing and commend the hon. member for Assiniboia for bringing forward this measure. But I should like to go back a step and commend Mrs. Ivol Krueger of Weyburn, Saskatchewan, who proposed that this matter be discussed in parliament. I suggest that there are many Mrs. Kruegers around the country who have the same view, and who would like to see the things they have to read printed in a type size which is discernible.
Before going any further, may I say something which is, surely, so obvious that I am surprised it has not already been said: that what the senior citizens would like to see larger is not the size of the type in the things they have to read but the size of the figures that indicate the amounts of their pensions. If we want to raise something, let us raise the amount of the old age security payment and the guaranteed income supplement, and give our senior citizens a better break in that respect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 4, 1978


Stanley Howard Knowles: The debate on this subject began at five o'clock and I am surprised that I should be the first one, at half past five, to propose this.
I turn, now, to the question of the size of the type used in printed materials. The parliamentary secretary is quite right that it is a matter of concern not just to those senior citizens who have impaired eyesight but also to people of all ages who may have difficulty reading things. My eyesight is pretty good. At least, it is with the bifocals I have worn for a very long time. Like some other hon. members, 1 have been working on my income tax return, and in particular you have to look at those T-4 slips, T-4A's and T-4B's, or whatever they are, and try to figure out which one you attach to the income tax form and which one you keep for your own records. The size of the type is so small that anyone with good eyesight still has to use a magnifying glass.
I am an old printer. I realize that I learned printing when it was closer to the Gutenberg days than it is to modern technology, but in my time we had hand-set type which got as small as six point and on a linotype machine or on a monotype machine we could get down to 5'/2 point or even 5 point. However, that was as small as we could get the type in those days. However, under the modern photographic processes they can reduce it to what must be about 2 point or l'/2, so that it is beyond reading by anyone at all.
1 think some concern should be expressed about the matter. As the hon. member for Scarborough West has pointed out, this is a concern to other people as well, and I think that the government as a whole should take a new look at the material it puts out to see if it cannot be made more legible for everyone.
The last speaker indicated that if we make the size of type a little larger, that means we get fewer characters on the page, and that calls for more paper. Well, maybe we could save far more paper than we would have to use for that purpose if we could cut out a lot of the paper that is wasted in this place. If just the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) would stop sending us his speeches every day of the week, we would save enough paper to do all kinds of things. I think the Minister of Agriculture gets the prize; I think we get more paper from him than from anyone. I am sure my experience is not unlike that of other hon. members. I fill a waste basket every day with printed material which comes in. 1 look at it only to see what it is, knowing that in most cases it is not for me. If we took some care to cut out the wasteful use of paper and printing, we could afford the extra paper which might be needed to print things for people so that they can see them.
I also like the suggestion in the title of this bill that these documents should be made more comprehensible. It takes more than type size to make some of these things comprehensible, but what I am saying is that surely the whole idea is a good one. Yes, there are things which have to be looked at, but the place to do that looking is in the standing committee to which this matter could be referred. As the last speaker
Document Legibility
pointed out, if we do something at the federal level that would suggest that something should be done at other levels as well. There is such a thing as giving a lead. If we can do it here, it might be done at other levels of government.
What about the publications of some private agencies? Just go out into the lobby and get Bell Canada's telephone book and try, without squinting or adjusting your glasses, to see the number you are trying to look up. The government telephone book is not too bad yet, but in another year or two it will be the same. We cannot pass one law today which does away with all type sizes below the old six point or below the old eight point, but we can give a lead.
It is in that respect that I welcome the fact that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) has put this bill before us this afternoon. It is obvious from what he has heard from his side that his bill will not get second reading today, but I plead with the dozen Liberals over there to let the subject matter of this bill go to committee this afternoon. I agree that printing should be of a size that people can read, and I am glad that the hon. member agrees with me that the size of the payments on old age pension cheques should also be made much larger.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, this bill is an interesting one. Perhaps it does not need to be discussed interminably as so many other things around this place are before anything gets done. Surely if the New York Times and Reader's Digest can mount a special promotional campaign to sell their products to senior citizens and people with impaired vision by special publications which have enlarged type, that indicates that there is something to be said for helping people who have impaired vision. To that extent the hon. member should be congratulated for attempting to bring to government publications a method that the commercial world has found to be very worthwhile indeed.
I want to mention one reason why it should be the responsibility of the government to make its material clear. Special attention ought to be given today to an incident only last week to which I think this bill, if it ever gets further than second reading, would be directly related. I have my doubts that it will this afternoon, but I can assure the House that it will not be my fault if it does not come to a vote.
Last week it was revealed that some 1,400 retired public servants were going to be required to repay overpayments they received in superannuation benefits. It was brought to light that these 1,400 retired public servants were receiving not only their superannuation but also disability pensions under the Canada Pension Plan. Upon investigation it turns out that many of the people concerned are living on approximately $350 to $360 a month, which are very low pension payments, and somehow or other their names were included in the Canada Pension Plan disability list. Their names were retained on this list when they began to draw superannuation benefits.
It boggles the mind to suggest that 1,400 retired civil servants attempted to defraud the government by obtaining two pensions. Some of those retired public servants reside in

April 4, 1978
Document Legibility
Edmonton, and in my investigation I found that they did not know they were required to report this duplication. Whether or not instructions were given to these persons-and there is some debate about that-it is abundantly clear that the forms they had to fill out had type which was so small and so hard to read that these persons, who are honest citizens, went ahead and filled out the forms in good faith.
If there is any blame to be ascribed in this situation, it ought to be laid at the doorstep of the government. For the government now to be reclaiming money paid in this so-called overpayment by deducting from pensions which are already far too low, a fact to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) alluded, I think is intolerable. I think it is intolerable for the government now to be enforcing a requirement that these people repay these amounts of perhaps $ 1,000 or $2,000, which seem to be insignificant but which for the people concerned are large amounts of money. It is unfair and unjust of the government to be insisting that the money be repaid because of this error.
Apparently the public servants involved did not inform the Department of Supply and Services. That is the government's story. Whether or not they did, it is clear that the manner in which the reporting was to be done was so obscure to the people concerned that they went ahead in good faith. For the government to force them now to repay the amounts received in duplication of pension allotments is, I think, something about which members of the House, and indeed the sponsor of the bill himself, should feel outraged.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The forms certainly were not comprehensible.


Douglas Roche: Yes, the forms were incomprehensible. As one who has just gone through the annual exercise of trying to decipher regulations with respect to income tax, let me say that the forms put out by the government need to be printed not only in larger type but drafted by somebody with some editing experience and an ability to communicate to the public in simple language rather than in the obscurities which are found in so many government forms.
So my concern is not only that the size of type be larger but also-and I say this very sincerely-that a real effort be made by those officials in government who are responsible for such exercises to communicate those regulations that the government has passed in a way that can be understood, particularly in situations involving pensions. It is often difficult indeed for people at such a stage in life to get professional help in filling out forms. It is fine for me. After I get through figuring out my income tax, I send my form to an accountant. But there are a lot of people for whom we must be concerned who need special help.
That is all I want to say on this bill. If the government has any compassion at all as it approaches the electorate in a few days' time, then it will show that compassion for the handicapped and disadvantaged people in our society, people who
(Mr. Roche.]
live on small incomes, by making a decision now, involving minuscule cost to the government, that the 1,400 public servants involved in this case who acted in good faith will not be penalized by somebody's obscure mistake.
I hope that if this bill goes to committee we can examine the Public Service Superannuation Act at the same time as we go through the matter involving the Department of Supply and Services and the amendments that are proposed for that act. I believe that the Public Service Superannuation Act should be amended to permit the recovery of payments which were made because of misinformation. Certainly the government should be entitled to recover payments that are made as a result of misinformation given to the government, but the government should not be able to recover overpayments arising from its own mistakes. If government officials make mistakes, if the language is shown in a legal sense to be misleading or if it is shown in a parliamentary sense to be misleading, then it is clear to me that the mistake is made by the government and that the burden of that mistake should be carried by the government.
That is the amendment that I would propose if this bill goes as far as the committee. In the meantime I think that, because of the impending great event which will be visited upon the Canadian electorate, the government would be well advised to move quickly on this situation in the case of the 1,400 public servants.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), for bringing this timely matter before the House of Commons. It certainly indicates his concern for senior citizens, and I suggest to him others as well, including the handicapped. As my other colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin), pointed out, it is not a question of age alone that is involved. In other words, a person having reached the age of 65 should not automatically have large type publications from the government sent to him. People who are much younger and have disabilities such as impaired vision, and who are considered handicapped, also need this kind of assistance.
The explanatory note indicates that publications for senior citizens should be available in a type face that can be easily read by those with impaired vision. I suggest that the bill should be broader than that and our concern should relate to all Canadians so that they can deal at least with the government, if not with private agencies, by way of documents printed in a way that is readable to them. Of course, the language should be understood, but at least the document should be legible.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), pointed out, the print in the telephone directory is so small that it is difficult even for people with 20-20 vision to read some of the names and numbers unless they have a light reflecting on the book. Sometimes I have even thought that every telephone book should have tied to it a magnifying glass, because I have difficulty reading the fine
April 4, 1978

print in the directory even with my reading glasses on. On the other hand, I suppose the telephone book might have to be twice its size if it were to be really legible. Maybe that would not be such a bad idea.
I will not attempt to reply to the various arguments that have been put forward because they have already been discussed by my colleagues, but I would point out that cost is certainly a factor, although it should not be the overriding criterion. As we all know, not too long ago the government was criticized for inserting in letters to senior citizens and others information with regard to family allowance cheques and old age security cheques. Had the information been in larger type, it would probably have cost twice as much. All I am saying is that the cost factor must also be considered.
On the other hand, in fairness to some senior citizens, it may be that some of the 28,000 senior citizens who have not replied to the government's suggestion that they fill out their forms for the old age supplement have not done so because they were not able to read the fine print. I do not know. I can only say that I personally have not received complaints from any of my constituents regarding that matter. That does not mean to say that what the hon. member for Assiniboia is saying with regard to some of his constituents is not so.
I notice that the bill refers to matters concerning the Department of National Health and Welfare since it mentions directly the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan, both of which fall within the ambit of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I notice that although the suggestion is made that any senior citizen should be able to receive government information in large, clear type, perhaps what we are talking about is a limited number of people. In other words, people who want information in larger type would have to ask for it expressly.
Since the bill refers, at least in part, to the Department of National Health and Welfare through the two acts I mentioned, I have a few remarks which I would like to read into the record.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is the fine print!


William Kenneth Robinson: I can read it with my glasses on.
The Department of National Health and Welfare is responsible for many programs concerning Canada's senior citizens. Each month the department sends out old age security payments to two million senior citizens. Over one million of them also qualify for the guaranteed income supplement. That brings up the point I mentioned earlier of some 28,000 who have not responded. It may be that some of them were not able to read the print. A large number also receive monthly retirement benefits under the Canada Pension Plan; I understand that at present there are about 600,000 such recipients.
Of course, the department is desirous of providing the best possible service to its clientele, both those who are already
Document Legibility
receiving benefits and those who are in the process of applying to qualify for benefits. The income security programs branch has a network of regional and district offices across the country for the purpose of providing information on benefit programs, receiving applications and giving prompt and reliable service to our senior citizens. At the present time the branch is in the process of reorganizing its offices to improve the quality of service, including integrating the various income security programs under one administration to ensure that our clients can get all the information they need about all their potential benefits from a single office.
The department is constantly striving to improve the calibre of the service it offers. For example, last fall it commenced a new program of sending out letters of information to 64 year olds throughout Canada to remind them that they might qualify for Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security benefits when they reach their 65th birthdays, and advising them to be sure to apply well in advance of their birth dates to ensure receipt of their benefits without delay. Departmental staff are striving also to improve the quality of the counselling they give to people who inquire about benefits. Increasing attention has been given as well to various information programs, including advertising campaigns and mailing of notices regarding GIS renewal, advertising campaigns concerning changes in legislation, and so on.
In addition, the department provides a wide range of written materials to inform people about the programs, including a large number of booklets and pamphlets on our various programs. Naturally, an attempt is made at all times to make these documents as clear and readable as possible. However, there is no doubt there is always room for improvement. The department will continue to examine its printed documents to make them as useful and easily comprehensible as possible.
I might observe, given the nature and extent of the OAS and CPP programs, that the department has of course a vast number of contracts and communications with our senior citizens through its network of offices across the country. Indeed, there are over five million contacts each year involving applications, correspondence, telephone calls and personal interviews. This multitude of contacts has not revealed any identifiable volume of complaints concerning the readability of documents.
From the perspective of the Department of National Health and Welfare, therefore, we do not really see the need for Bill C-208. The problem which this bill addresses is not a serious one in our experience. We fully accept the principle that inspired the proposal for this legislation, and the department will continue to examine its printed material to improve its readability for persons with impaired vision. However, surely it would be overkill to proceed with legislation on this point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Parent).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question! Is the hon. member going to talk it out?

April 4, 1978
Document Legibility


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few suggestions and comments. 1 heard the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when I rose. Many times 1 have sat in this Chamber and listened to his words of wisdom. I thought I could share a few of my comments with him and all other hon. members who are present today.


Mr. Orlikow:: Until six o'clock.


Gilbert Parent: So much the better. Continually I come across references to age 65. It seems to be the magic number when older people in Canada, and other parts of the world, change into something else. At that point they receive the title of senior citizen and are considered to be old people. I would not want to suggest that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is that much older and should have his copy of Hansard printed in large type, or that the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) should have his printed in block letters.
The other night I was interested to learn how this magic number of 65 was arrived at as being the age when everything starts to change. The figure of 65 was chosen back in 1881. Count von Bismarck was the chancellor of Germany at that time. He had to find a way to appease the masses. One of his advisers came to him and said: "Count, we have to appease the older workers. Here is what I suggest:-we must set up a date when a person will no longer be able to work and will be retired. At that time we will pay him a half or two-thirds of the salary which he was earning". So Count von Bismarck said: "That is a good idea; that is exactly what we should do". He asked his adviser what age he would suggest, and the man said: "Sixty-five is the age when you should start to put people on compulsory retirement". So the chancellor said: "Why 65?" At that time the life expectancy of people in Germany was 55, so he figured very few of them would reach age 65. That is why the figure of 65 was agreed on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mackenzie King picked the age of 70 because he read in the Bible that the days of a man's years are three score years and ten.


Gilbert Parent: Perhaps that prime minister spoke to the ghost of Count von Bismarck.


David Orlikow: He had his own ghost!


Gilbert Parent: That is quite true, and many of us have skeletons in our own closets some place along the way. The age expectancy of most people has increased to approximately the age of 71 for women and the age of 69 for men. As always, men are lagging behind. The countries of Italy and France followed along by adopting 65 as the magic age. I do not know if people of that age want to be singled out as a group.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre talked about the cheques. He was talking about the numerical size of the cheque, rather than the print. I am sure all hon. members will be interested in hearing the following. The Receiver General

cheques are issued pursuant to the Financial Administration Act and not pursuant to the Department of Supply and Services Act. Therefore, the Receiver General cheque is not a document within the categories established by Bill C-208. However, Bill C-208, if implemented, could have a detrimental impact on the Receiver General cheque and Receiver General payment process.
The Receiver General of Canada is responsible under the Financial Administration Act for making paytnents to all citizens on behalf of the Government of Canada. Some of these payments are made to senior citizens by the authority of the Old Age Security Act or the Canada Pension Plan Act. The Receiver General has developed a set of standards for the payment instrument and other related documents based on very strict and rigid specifications.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour allotted for private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-25, to establish the Northern Pipeline Agency, to facilitate the planning and construction of a pipeline for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska and Northern Canada and to give effect to an agreement between Canada and the United States of America on principles applicable to such a pipeline and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto, be read the third time and do pass.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. At five o'clock the hon. member for Yukon had the floor.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it has been our determination from the outset to assist in the passage of the pipeline bill, Bill C-25, but that in doing so we would ensure that the legislation is improved so as to guarantee that the best interests of Canadians are served.
When the bill was introduced it was immediately apparent that there were several major defects and omissions. We have
April 4, 1978

attempted to explain those and correct them through amendments at the committee. As the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) explained in his remarks, most of those were appreciated and accepted. Our chief concern was that the project should be well thought out and delays avoided. At the second reading stage the NDP voted against the bill. It will be interesting to see what members of that party will do on third reading. Perhaps they have received a call or two from Premier Blakeney and one or two others in the west in respect of their stance on the bill.
Delays in respect to this project are critical, not by reason of any political problem, but rather with regard to the companies charged with building the line being able to meet the very heavy debt financing responsibilities. A number of delays in conjunction with incomplete planning constituted the reason for massive over-runs on the Alaska project, which met with economic tragedy. We cannot afford such over-runs on this project.
One thing the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) and others of that party have failed to recognize is that this is a project which will not involve the expenditure of any taxpayers' dollars. It is a project which is being undertaken by the private sector entirely, and that should not be overlooked. In light of this critical delay factor and the importance to the nation of the project over-all we should have expected more leadership. I say that kindly in light of the very kind remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister with respect to myself in my committee activities.
There have been government shortcomings. They could have introduced this bill last fall. They could have given us more opportunity in committee to examine the project more thoroughly. They have not given the leadership which should have been expected but was not forthcoming. We were presented with a bill which was very deficient, and that is implicit in the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister. It was drafted in a fashion which virtually eliminated the judicial review processes of the bill.
There was no mention of the native presence or any review process whatsoever to ensure the observance of the Canadian content provisions spelled out in the international agreement. Also, there was an absence of watchkeeping or safeguards to keep watch over the exercise of very wide discretions granted to the minister, to the agency and others having authority under the bill.
For a party that should have been displaying leadership on such an important issue to this country, they have failed to an extent that was a surprise to us. In retrospect, perhaps it was not such a surprise in view of the extent to which the government accepted the amendments which we proposed. For example, I have mentioned that proper planning and preparation, the avoidance of delays, which was absolutely critical to the success of the project, and the recognition of native rights should have been an integral part of the planning process. Instead, we have the native groups appearing before the
Northern Pipeline
Commons and Senate committees virtually unannounced in their indictment of the government's lack of planning of concern for these people. The government should have shown concern with singular focus on native rights, rather than on the over-all concern for the total population in the areas which would be traversed by the pipeline itself.
The most glaring omission-and even I was surprised at this because I thought that the government would have been more closely attuned to this factor-was the total failure to look into the native environmental situation in northern British Columbia. The Yukon at least had Lysyk and the promise of a second stage inquiry, which is now resolved by the government's acceptance of an amendment which will ensure that an advisory council will be set up for the Yukon. The NWT had Berger. But northern B.C. had nothing. It spite of the fact that more pipe will be running through B.C. than the Yukon, they were completely ignored. Anyone studying the matter will immediately come to the conclusion that the environment and the socioeconomic impact of the pipeline is just as important in northeastern B.C. as in the Yukon.
One cannot help but reflect on this government and its consultative practices. So much for the just society, so much for participatory democracy and so much for the consultative process. It simply results in bad management, and that is the bottom line. It is plain bad management. It is insensitivity as well as lack of foresight. How can you expect, for instance, the native organizations in British Columbia to react favourably when they are not even consulted? How, indeed, can you expect anyone else to co-operate with the government in a project of this size? Really, they jeopardized their own project. Indeed, the approach taken by the government party invites obstruction. It invites lawsuits and delays in construction.
The same thing happened to the Alyeska project. It resulted in huge over-runs, and I might add-and I hope this does not happen in Canada-that that line has been sabotaged twice deliberately. It is an inevitable implication in the climate of suspicion and resentment such as this that both this project and the national interest cannot help but suffer. Whatever delays occur-and they have occurred already-will be completely the fault of the government. It is their inability to manage and provide leadership for this massive undertaking of extremely strategic importance to Canada.
Our approach from the outset has been to expedite the passage of this bill. We have taken the leadership in making a bill out of a non-bill. Confronted by a seriously deficient piece of legislation, as was this bill, we had to optimize this tremendous opportunity to help the country out of its current malaise. It was we who initiated the discussions relating to changes which would recognize native concerns and formalize the judicial review provisions. It was we who initiated the discussion with respect to the plan of parliamentary review of the decisions and agreements and other matters involving the sections of the bill which are going to be the subject matter of the resolution proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister. We were the ones who devised the parliamentary plan of review,
4140

April 4, 1978
Northern Pipeline
which is the only acceptable alternative to ensure Canadian content.
We recognize that an explicit guarantee of Canadian content was impossible, for the reasons I have already expressed, namely that it offended the international agreement as well as the terms of GATT. We have accepted the assurances of the company that is going to be building the pipeline, and we have accepted the assurances of the Deputy Prime Minister and of the government that material and labour procurements will not be approved which do not optimize the Canadian content possibilities.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie overlooks the fact that the designated minister will have that power under the bill. That will undoubtedly be explained by the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), who explicitly examined the minister when he appeared before the committee with respect to powers in that respect.
In addition, we added the provision for a parliamentary review of such approval by a standing committee. This is unique in my experience in this House, where the standing orders have been amended to provide for the establishment of a special committee for this specific purpose. Given these constraints, plus the fact that neither industry nor labour wants the kind of changes that the member for Sault Ste. Marie has been advocating, our approach is by far the most reasonable. It is the only acceptable approach.
We were the only party which proposed imposing a limit on the cost of the agency which could be passed on to the company. That proposal was made by the member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden). It was ruled out of order. This party thought that was essential. It is included in the American legislation but it is not in ours.
Our intention was not to pass on these costs to the people of Canada as taxpayers, but rather to impose a lid on the bureaucratic growth that we are all too familiar with respecting the unwieldy, unresponsive, secretive and expensive bureaucracies of this government. We thought a lid would impose a discipline which would keep those costs under control. The government argued against it and the proposal was ruled out of order. All of these measures we presented in committee. This was not done by the NDP. At the last moment they introduced amendments which they should have introduced in committee. We think that lid was important. We think that lid would have enhanced the position of the companies in the debt financing markets, and that is precisely why the provision is in the American legislation.
It is my belief, and I say this kindly to the government, that the number and the scope of our amendments clearly show that this government still does not know what it is doing wrong. They plod on and they keep making the same mistakes over and over again. It was our party which also expressed concern over the possibility that a controlling interest in the project might fall into foreign hands. We obtained an amendment which places the responsibility upon the governor-in-

council, the cabinet, to approve any alteration in the shareholdings of the companies undertaking the project. That, we thought, was essential.
A final point remains which still causes some concern, and that is the absence of some assurance that Canadian gas will flow to Canadian consumers through this pipeline. This was one of the key points raised in debate last August-that we must maximize the potential benefits to Canadians that may issue from this project. At the time it was stated by our leader that it was imperative that the government and the Alcan proponents begin immediately environmental and other studies to tell us whether a Dempster connection was feasible. Today, almost eight full months later, there are not only no reports, but no studies have been initiated.
At committee we continually probed and questioned in an endeavour to find out whether Canadian gas would indeed flow through this line. We were continually assured it would, but assurances are all that the Canadian people have received. They have received no action in the way of setting up the machinery to prepare these reports. I believe that this point is critical. How are we to move to energy self-sufficiency? How are we to rectify our trade imbalances? This government is dragging its feet. When I speak of delays in introducing the bill, the delays apply equally to the absence of any action in exploring the Dempster lateral.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; 1 can finish in just two minutes. The government is dragging its feet. That, coupled with the initial delays of the New Democratic Party, has delayed this bill. The NDP seems to have had a change of heart, perhaps because of pressures from the west. One can conjecture about that.
While the title of the act refers to a pipeline for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska and northern Canada, the definition of "pipeline" is, and I quote, "the pipeline for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska across Canada along the route set out in Annex I". This route does not include the Dempster or any other route to Canadian sources, and that to my mind is not good management. It is not leadership. I think they could be missing their big chance. The government is not maximizing this opportunity. The government has delayed the bill. It should have been introduced last fall. We had urged that last August through our leader. They have not used the intervening time to study that route.
The position of the NDP is simply not acceptable. They voted against the bill at second reading. What will they do at third reading? That is left to conjecture. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands accepted every one of our amendments in committee. He did not introduce any from his own party. Amendments should be discussed in committee
April 4, 1978

where witnesses are available and where we can have free discussion and cross-examination of witnesses.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands was absent, I am sure for a legitimate reason, when the matter came on at the report stage and the responsibility was left to the hon. member for Sault Ste Marie. His presentation displayed an absolutely abysmal ignorance of what went on in committee. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands was concerned about two things. He was concerned first of all about Canadian content, and he was concerned secondly about native rights. He listened to me, as I did to him in committee. The Canadian content and those guarantees are adequately protected by the acceptance of the government of our suggestions for parliamentary review, which is where it should be and nowhere else, and because it is impossible in the legislation itself.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands does not understand the situation with respect to the residents of the Yukon as a whole, and the native people there in particular. While the native people say that I do not represent their interests in this forum, what they really mean is that I do not agree with their views. I do not, and this party does not. It does not stand to reason that any development should be impeded or stalled or held up if the negotiating process is still a reasonable process to follow. Without the one prejudicing the other, there is no reason in the world why those negotiations cannot result in a just and fair settlement of the native claims, with development taking place at the same time. Logically, if you adopt any other conclusion there will be no road built, no bridge built and no new mine brought into production. Everything is stalled until the native demands are met, if they are to be met. That is an intolerable position, in a project of such national interest as this, for the New Democratic Party to be taking.
I chastise the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, although I would like to be as fit as he when I reach his age to enforce that chastisement-which I would probably be unable to do successfully even with our age difference now-for not introducing amendments at the committee stage. I chastise him and his party for agreeing with every amendment that we advanced at the committee stage and then at the report stage coming up with the ill-advised and empty amendments which he proposed.
When they charge us with defending the government's position, they are twisting the truth. The government came in with a weak bill. It is through our amendments that the bill is now at least half acceptable. There are still weakneses, but we negotiated for as much as we could get. I suggest to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands that in the national interest his party is compelled to vote for the project.
They have the guarantees that they wish through the overview of the parliamentary committee. That should satisfy him and his colleagues. They have the judicial provisions completely revamped so that there is no impediment to freedom of
Northern Pipeline
access to the courts by the individual. That was not in the original bill. It is there because of us. Clause 16, with its broad, sweeping powers, is wiped out because of our objections. That should satisfy them. All of the other major amendments which we proposed in committee have been accepted by the government.
If the gloomy predictions of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie occur and if the control or ownership of the mine passes from Canadian hands, it will be on the head of the government, not on the head or in the discretion of a single minister, because of our proposals.
Something I want to emphasize is that the amended bill as it came back from committee was a result of the amendments of this party only. There was no input whatsoever in the way of amendments from the New Democratic Party. That I chastise them for. If they were really sincere and if there were no hypocrisy about their position, that is where their amendments should have been brought in.
The government has to be chastised for their delay, not because of the presentation of the project in the national interest. Through no fault of the Deputy Prime Minister- because he was ill-it was not treated with very much importance in the two days before we recessed for Easter. The first day it was left to a minister who knew nothing of the terms of the agreement itself. The second day it was left to my friend and colleague, whose constituency I cannot identify at the moment, but who also is not a member of the committee.
It seems rather a shame that they would treat in such cavalier fashion a bill of this importance. The magnitude of the project, the importance that it has to Canada as a whole, the bottom line being the creation of a new industry which has the potential of bidding competitively and successfully throughout the world in a pipeline industry, cannot be overlooked. For those people on the left to adopt stalling and delaying tactics, voting against it on second reading-and who knows what they are going to do on third reading-is very patently against the national interest. In my submission, that is what we must be concerned with here.
The government could have handled this project much better than it did. It could have negotiated a much better agreement, particularly with regard to my constituency, something I will take up elsewhere. However, for anyone in this House to vote against this project in my submission, and in the submission of this party, is sheer irresponsibility, because it leaves too much at this critical stage of our, to put it kindly, extremely disturbed economy.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, that is the longest two minutes I can recollect. The hon. member said he wanted two minutes of overtime. The hon. member has complained about the members of the New Democratic Party stalling and taking up time, but he is the only member who has taken part in the debate who went overtime on second reading, overtime on third reading and monopolized a good deal of the discussion in committee.
80033-49*/2

April 4, 1978
Northern Pipeline
Nevertheless, I commend him for his interest and the work he has done. However, he would be better advised to worry about the position of his party instead of worrying about the position of the NDP. We are quite able to take care of ourselves. He had better square with the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and some of the other members who have raised very valid questions about this legislation, concerns which have not yet been resolved.


An hon. Member:: But they are going to vote for it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is right. That is exactly what the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is going to do. His speech was in two parts. Before dinner he spent all his time saying what a great piece of legislation this is and what hypocrites the NDP were that they were not going to vote for it. He has spent all his time since dinner analysing the bill, taking it to pieces and damning the government for the way they have handled the situation. That is a typical Tory approach. The speech can be sent out to two different classes of people. One half can be sent to those in favour of the bill and the other half to those against it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder what he had for dinner!


Erik Nielsen: I didn't have any dinner.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Bill C-25 is a very difficult bill to assess. The reason is obvious. In the first place, there is no difference of opinion between the various political parties as to the advisability of making a land bridge available to the United States to transport gas from Prudhoe Bay to the United States. This party advocated considering that proposal a year ago. When the National Energy Board brought down its report in August, the leader of this party, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), set forth the conditions under which he would support legislation to have this line constructed. Therefore, there is no difference on that point of view.
Why we voted against the bill on second reading and why we are going to vote against it on third reading is because our concerns have not been resolved. I say to the hon. member for Yukon he need not worry about Premier Blakeney or anyone in the west telling us what we are going to do. We all make our own decisions. I do not think it comes with good grace from him or anyone else to suggest that our position with reference to this or any other piece of legislation will be dictated by what we are told by someone outside of our own caucus.


Erik Nielsen: You must have heard from him.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Our objections to this legislation lie basically in two areas. First, there is the agreement itself which the bill before us virtually ratifies. We think the agreement was ill-conceived and hastily considered. We believe the government entered into an under-

standing which is not in the national interest. In the second place, we are critical of the legislation not so much for what it contains in its amended version as for what is omitted.
Members have criticized me for not moving any amendments in committee. Well, first of all, the Conservative members moved some good amendments which I supported. As for the amendments which were proposed by the Council of Yukon Indians, by the Committee on Arctic Research and by the Committee for an Independent Canada, I asked both the government members and the opposition members if they were prepared to support them. They were turned down. It would have been of no use at all to go through the charade of one member of the committee moving proposals which it was perfectly clear neither the government members nor the opposition members would support.
1 agree that the bill was greatly improved in committee. Many of the most obvious deficiencies were removed and I commend the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) for adopting the changes proposed. To have really amended the legislation would have required redrafting the bill. It would have required amendments which no private member could have introduced.
I suppose we could now, at third reading, move a motion to refer the bill back and ask the government to negotiate with the United States so as to make fundamental changes in the legislation. But that would simply be histrionics. The government has been pushing this bill through as quickly as it can- too quickly, in my view, to allow for proper and careful consideration to be given to it. There is no doubt that the official opposition is gung-ho when it comes to getting this measure through, as the hon. member for Yukon has demonstrated again and again. The fact remains, though, that this House is about to take part in putting on the statute books a piece of legislation in which there are glaring gaps and deficiencies, shortcomings which will become more obvious as the project proceeds.
Let me remind hon. members that we are passing this legislation despite the fact that there has so far been no agreement with Foothills, the company which was recommended by the National Energy Board to get a certificate of public convenience. This is the company which is to be allowed to proceed with the project. The agreement is presently being negotiated. We do not know what it is to contain, yet the agreement is important for a number of reasons. For example, it will set forth the hiring procedures and the timetable for construction of the project. Most important of all, it will set forth the environmental impact protection provisions.
I do not think sufficient consideration has been given to environmental protection. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), quoting this afternoon from a brief submitted by the churches of Canada, made the comment that he thought the position they were taking really amounted to a philosophy of no growth. Mr. Speaker, I have read that brief. I do not agree with him, but I don't think it envisages a no growth situation. What it does, though, is remind parliament and the government that it should be possible to get economic
April 4, 1978

growth without destroying the environment; that it should be possible to improve the living standards of this generation without destroying the prospects of the next generation living well. Surely those two things are not mutually exclusive.
I believe there has been a complete failure to understand the dangers which are implicit in this project. We might have been in a position to assess what the government had in mind if we could have examined the agreement with Foothills Limited. But we do not have that document. We have the report of the Lysyk inquiry which took only three months. Dean Lysyk himself, at every hearing, told those who came: This is only a preliminary inquiry; there is to be a second review. In point of fact, there will be no second inquiry. Committees will be set up and so on, but most of the plans will already be under way by then. There is a serious failure to put anything concrete in the legislation along the line that we want the pipeline but we do not want the environment of northern Canada destroyed or the livelihood of its people impaired.
Further, the United States government has not yet set a price for the gas, and in consequence Foothills Limited has not been able to get any gas contracts. And because it has not been able to get contracts, it cannot arrange any of its financing. No financial institution is going to buy bonds or debentures from a company which has not signed any firm contracts.
Again, there is nothing in the legislation about cost over-runs.


Erik Nielsen: We tried.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In the message which President Carter sent to the U.S. Congress there was the definite statement that there would be no financial support forthcoming from the government of the United States. This afternoon the hon. member for Yukon said there would be not one dollar of the Canadian taxpayers' money involved. How does he know that? Certainly I do not know it and I do not suppose the Deputy Prime Minister knows it either. There may be another parliament here in a few years' time. There may be other members sitting on these benches, and if that pipeline is three-quarters finished and the company cannot get enough money to finish it, what government will sit back and do nothing?


An hon. Member:: It will be like the CPR again.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The CPR
affair will be peanuts in comparison with this situation.


Erik Nielsen: They will have to come back to parliament.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Of course they will go to parliament, and when they do there will be members here just as supine as the hon. member for Yukon who will say: "Look, if we don't finish it there won't be any jobs and there won't be any gas".
Then again, there is no agreement between the government of Canada, the Territorial Council of Yukon or the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta or Saskatchewan. It is true the
Northern Pipeline
provinces will have to consent before the agreement is signed, but they will be under the same kind of pressure as we are in this chamber. It is true that particularly the provincial governments will have to agree before an agreement is signed, but they are going to be under the same type of pressure this House of Commons is under. They are going to be told that there are over one million unemployed in Canada and that if they want jobs they should agree and not hold the project up. In the public eye they are going to be accused of holding up a pipeline which is essential to economic growth in this country, and they are going to sign.
Yet what is involved? The hon. member for Yukon says taxpayers' money will not be involved. There could be a lot of local taxpayers' money involved because the construction of this pipeline, first of all in the Yukon, is going to put a heavy financial burden on the people of the territory. They are going to have to increase their infrastructure. They are going to have to supply improved educational services, health services and police services, and where is the money coming from?


Erik Nielsen: The heritage fund.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In the case of the Yukon Territory they are going to get an advance payment on their taxes on which they are going to pay interest, and they are not going to get the $200 million heritage fund which was proposed. If I were the hon. member for Yukon, on that score alone I would vote against this legislation.


Erik Nielsen: You can't amend that by legislation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If it is not
amended now, it will not be amended later; let us make no mistake about that.


Erik Nielsen: You can't do it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member should just sit down and keep quiet for a while. The trouble is that when he sits down it agitates his mental processes, and this seems to make him vociferous. I listened very quietly to him, and I suggest that he just try to control his exuberance.


Erik Nielsen: Impossible!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What about the provincial governments of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan? This pipeline will go through areas which will affect local government structures. It will increase the demand for housing, police protection and schools. Who is going to meet that cost? We do not know. It may be that the provincial governments and the federal government will reach satisfactory agreements as to compensation for those municipalities, but we have had no evidence of it. The municipalities in the Peace River region certainly have not received any assurance either from the government of British Columbia or from the federal government. We are being asked to pass

April 4, 1978
Northern Pipeline
legislation despite the fact that the provincial authorities, the Yukon Territorial Council and the local governing bodies have no idea at all how they are going to meet the burdens which are being imposed upon them by this parliament through this legislation.
Thirdly, there is no agreement which has yet been reached with the native people who will be affected by this pipeline. Negotiations started with the Council of Yukon Indians as far back as 1973. On February 14 of this year the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) said he hoped we were making progress but, of course, we hoped we would make progress and have a settlement in principle last fall. Now we are hoping we might have it soon. But there is still no settlement at all, and if we do not move any more quickly in the next four or five years than we have moved in the last four or five years, there will not be any settlement prior to the commencement of construction of this pipeline.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) was quoted by the media a few months ago as saying he could not agree that there should be no commencement of construction until a settlement had been reached, because that would allow the native people to hold the country up to blackmail. The hon. member for Yukon reiterated the argument again this evening that we cannot allow one small group of people to hold the nation up for ranson. He went so far as to say that even if the whole of his area were against this legislation he would support it because it is in the national interest.
On the other hand, surely any minority group in this country has a right to consideration, and what we are doing when we pass this legislation is putting the shoe on the other foot. What we are saying with this legislation is that we are going to build the pipeline. We are telling the native people that they had better sign the agreement we have put in front of them or the project will begin, and once the project is finished the chances of getting a settlement are extremely remote.


Erik Nielsen: Not with our amendment.


Douglas Roche: What about motion No. 6?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will come to the hon. member's amendment in a moment.


An hon. Member:: It is after the fact.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Of course it is after the fact, and the hon. member knows that, but he wants to pretend he does not. Surely hon. members of this House who have listened to briefs presented by native people, not only from northern Canada but also from southern parts of Canada, know perfectly well that probably the blackest page in the history of this country is our treatment of native people. We robbed them of their land, we deceived them and we made promises to them which we have not kept.
Most native people in Canada live in dire poverty, stuck on reservations, and some of them not even on reservations. They

have no agreement and no treaty. Our forefathers might have been excused. I personally do not excuse them, but they might have been excused by virtue of the fact that they did not realize the enormity of the crime which was being perpetrated. However, we in this parliament cannot claim ignorance. We know what has happened, and we know what will happen again if the government does not put its foot down and say it will come to an agreement with these people.
The company has said repeatedly through its spokesmen before the National Energy Board and before the special committee of this House that they do not want to begin the project unless they have the co-operation of the native people. They have said they do not want to build the pipeline in a hostile environment, and of course they do not. Too many things could happen. Too many difficulties could arise. I think we will regret not having had something much more definitive in this legislation with respect to an agreement in principle with the native people regarding their land claims in the areas affected by the pipeline.
The fourth thing I want to refer to has been referred to many times, but I want to touch on it because it was mentioned again today both by the Deputy Prime Minister and by the hon. member for Yukon. It is that there is no guarantee with reference to Canadian content. There is no guarantee of the 100,000 man-years of which the Deputy Prime Minister spoke, although actually if we take out the Dempster spur, we are probably talking about 67,000 or 68,000 man-years. However, that is a mere detail. The argument has been put up today, particularly by the hon. member for Yukon, who seemed to be more vociferous in protecting the government than the Deputy Prime Minister was, that we do not need to worry any more about Canadian content because we have the assurance of the company and the assurance of the government that they want to have Canadian content.


Erik Nielsen: And the committee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And the
committee; there is no doubt that that is true. When Mr. Blair, the president of Foothills (Yukon) Limited, was on the stand, I quoted to him his own submission to the National Energy Board in which he said that they would buy all their pipe in Canada. I asked Mr. Blair if he still stood by that, and he said "yes". I asked if that applied to practically all the compressors, the fittings and the valves, and he said "yes". I believe him, and I believe the Deputy Prime Minister when he says he wants to see all the business done in Canada. But that is not the point at issue. The point at issue is that we are ratifying an agreement with the United States, and article 7 of that agreement is paramount. It says:
Having regard to the objectives of this agreement, each government will endeavour to ensure that the supply of goods and services to the Pipeline project will be on generally competitive terms. Elements to be taken into account in weighing competitiveness will include price, reliability, servicing capacity and delivery schedules.
April 4, 1978

That is crystal clear. The matter of competitiveness will not be decided on the pious wishes of the Deputy Prime Minister or the good intentions of the president of Foothills. The allocation of a contract in the final analysis will lie with the terms that are set out in article 7. When the hon. member for Yukon argues, as he did this afternoon, that one did not have to worry about this because a committee was going to be set up to which matters would be referred and that members of that committee would see to it that Canadian content was taken care of, could anything be more absurd? Did the hon. member take a look at what the proposed change in the standing order says?


Erik Nielsen: You supported that view in the committee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My friend does not need to worry about what 1 supported. If he would just try to control himself, I will get around to the position I took in committee. The proposal, which is in the order paper for today, is one which I certainly support. I support it in that it is better than having no committee at all, that it is a committee to which the monitoring agency must give account. The motion reads as follows:
"(t) Northern pipelines, to consist of not more than 15 members, to which shall stand permanently referred all reports, orders, agreements, regulations, directions and approvals mentioned in sections 12, 13, 14, 15 and 22 of the Northern Pipeline Act; provided that the said committee shall report thereon at least three times in every session.
What power does that give the committee? This is a committee to which the monitoring agency will periodically give information on how things are going. There is no guarantee that the reports it makes to parliament will even be discussed and certainly they will have no authority to discuss anything prior to it taking place.
One of my main quarrels with this legislation is that prior to its being suggested there was no accountability at all. Here was an agency which was to have the power of several departments, which was to have the power to authorize the expenditure of billions of dollars, which is responsible to no one, and which is not required to account to anyone. I supported the idea of having a committee of the House-certainly it is better than nothing-but it is a committee which deals with the matter after the fact, not prior to policies being instituted. For instance, they will not have a budget to discuss before the budget is made up. They may be allowed to look at expenditures after they have been made.


Erik Nielsen: On a four months basis.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This will not give parliament any power. It is a reporting agency. It is certainly better than nothing, but let nobody think for a moment that this answers the problem of Canadian content in the pipeline. It does not at all. The matter of Canadian content is determined by the treaty, and as the hon. member for Yukon said this afternoon, you cannot amend a treaty. Of course you can. You can ask the government to go back and renegotiate the treaty as it did with the Columbia River
Northern Pipeline
Treaty. As the treaty now stands, there is no guarantee whatsoever that Canadian content will be properly recognized.
It may be that I am a born optimist-although sometimes my optimism is not fully warranted-but I think that the 88 cent dollar will probably help us more than any other thing the government might do, and we might get a fair share of the business. As my colleague, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), pointed out this afternoon, we should not forget that the Alyeska line was built entirely with Japanese pipe, and we should not forget that the Americans have the Disc program and that West German bankers have announced they are prepared to help finance any pipeline companies without interest charges during the construction period. We should not forget these things.
The hon. member for Yukon again said that my colleague, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, was being hypocritical when he talked about what GATT would do. GATT is a fact, but I point out that in the committee the minister and the law officer of the Crown were telling us that GATT did not really matter because in interpreting article 7 you must look at the preamble of the treaty under which the interests of both countries were to be advanced. So that GATT is not anything they can hide behind. The fact is that it would have been comparatively simple to have said to the Americans: "You want a land bridge across our country. It is going to cost us a great deal of inconvenience, it will impose some hardships upon our people; but it will create jobs and we want those jobs, so part of the quid pro quo is that we get the preference." We could have safeguarded the company and we could have said that Canadian contractors will be the first to bid. If the company can convince the minister in charge of the monitoring agency and the officers of the agency that those bids are out of line, then those bids could be swept aside and the whole project could be laid open to competitive bidding.


Erik Nielsen: He has that power now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Canadian contractors should have had the first right to bid. Almost every provincial government in this country with reference to highway contracts and public works contracts gives its own employers and its own workers a preference, so there is no reason at all why the Canadian government could not have done the same.


Erik Nielsen: The minister has that power under the bill.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He has no power under the bill except the power that is in article 7 of the agreement; and if the minister tries to set aside article 7 of the agreement, he will be in real trouble with the United States.


Erik Nielsen: All that was explained in the committee and you know it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What I want to do in closing is to point out to the House that since we started to discuss this legislation the whole scenario has

April 4, 1978
Northern Pipeline
changed. Originally we talked about a pipeline to take Prudhoe Bay gas to the United States.


Erik Nielsen: Plus the Dempster.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since that time, John G. McMillian, chief executive officer of the Northern Energy Company which is a partner of Foothills, has signed an agreement with the Pan-Alberta Gas Company for the purchase of 1.04 billion cubic feet of gas per day. That works out to something over 370 billion cubic feet of gas per year. That would mean an increase of 37 per cent in our exports of gas. I know that the answer will be that we cannot do this without the approval of the National Energy Board, but I say the National Energy Board will give that approval. I predict furthermore that they will get approval for even more gas than is now being requested.
It makes one ask whether this government is like the Bourbons who learned nothing and forget nothing. Have we forgotten that it is only five years ago that some of us were pleading in the House to phase out exports of oil? Today we are a net importer of oil and we are told by the National Energy Board that in the 1990's we will be spending $4 billion or $5 billion per year to pay for imports of oil. Are we going to make the same mistake with reference to gas? We are exporting 60 per cent of our gas production. We are going to increase it now by almost 40 per cent.
The government say: "Just a moment, we are going to work out a swap arrangement". I think a swap arrangement could be worked out if it were on an energy equivalent, so that for every 100 units of BTU energy we sold we would get back a similar amount, if and when we wanted it. That is what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources talked about a few months ago. The tune has now changed. When Mr. Bob Blair, the president of Foothills, appeared before the committee, I asked him about the swap. He said, "Yes, we would like to do that." I asked on what basis. He said in effect: "The only basis would be that we would sell Alberta gas down this pipeline to the United States, and if and when we needed gas, we would get it back; but we would sell at the going price now and we would buy it at the going price then." I am not saying the government will approve that, but I tried to get the chairman of the National Energy Board, when he was before the committee, to be very specific and he ducked right around the question. Certainly the Deputy Minister was not any more helpful.
Do we realize what we are doing? We are walking blindfolded into a continental energy policy. The Americans have always wanted a continental energy policy, particularly when they ran short of energy. We are like the couple of brothers who went into town: one saved his money and did well, and the other one had a high old time until he was broke and then said, "Let's pool our resources". That is exactly what the United States is doing. We have supplies of gas. We can manage for quite a few years. But we do not have inexhaustible supplies. If

we enter into a swap arrangement by which we sell 370 billion cubic feet of gas per year at $2.16 at the border, and 10 or 15 years down the road we buy it back at $3.50 or $4 per thousand cubic feet, we will have sold Canadians down the river. This House had better be aware of the manner in which the pieces are falling into place.
Now they are talking about starting the pipeline at the south end and building it so that it will take Alberta gas down to the United States, and the companies involved will make enough money out of that to finance in part the rest of the pipeline. The primary purpose in the immediate future is not to take Prudhoe Bay gas to the United States. The primary purpose is to take Alberta gas to the United States, and then hope some day, when the line is completed and Prudhoe Bay gas is coming down, if we need it, we can buy it back at a price. I suggest with great conviction that price will not be the same price we got for the gas we sold.
As I come to the end of my parliamentary life, I hate to make such a pessimistic speech; but I suggest to the hon. members of this House that my pessimism regarding this piece of legislation is based on some very bitter experience. I was in the House in 1962 when the Columbia River Treaty was debated. It was proposed by the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Also I was in the House in 1963 when we debated the amended version of it, as it was introduced by the government of the late Lester B. Pearson. There were only a few of us who fought that legislation. We were branded as holding up a necessary project. It was said that this was an opportunity to get the people of British Columbia very cheap gas, almost free gas, with very little inconvenience.
Of course, the legislation was shoved through, although we held it up for some months in the House and in committee. We were chastised in many parts of British Columbia for so doing. Today it is acknowledged by the government of British Columbia, headed by the son of the man who was premier when the agreement was signed, that the Columbia River Treaty has cost British Columbia over $500 million. We are much wiser now than we were then about the Columbia River Treaty.
Also I remember that in 1965, the government of the late Lester B. Pearson, brought in the Canada-United States auto pact. The same story was told then. This pact was going to give us more work and a larger share of the automobile manufacturing industry. It was going to remove the differential in price between cars in the United States and cars in Canada. What has happened? Again we opposed that legislation, but not because we were against the principle. It was because this legislation had all the cards stacked against Canada. We were shooting craps with loaded dice. It was rammed through, amid the cheers and the hurrahs by those who favoured it and the jeers for those who dare to question it. In the past 12 years, there has been a slight surplus in our favour in three of those years, but in nine of those years we have lost approximately $1 billion a year on that agreement. Surely we should have learned something.
April 4, 1978

I hope I am wrong this time. I hope this legislation will be beneficial and the pipeline will go well. I hope the agreements with the provinces, the territorial council and the native Indians will be the kind of agreements which protect Canadians. I hope the government will be able to work out ways to get around article 7 so that the Canadian content will give us the jobs we hope for. But I am very doubtful. Hon. members of the House should realize that if the harmful things which could happen do happen, they should never claim they were not warned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues from the Edmonton area have not participated in this debate at any great length by deliberate policy. First of all, there was limited access to the committee. Also there was a desire to have an orderly debate without any protraction. If there is a city and a district which has a vital interest in this pipeline, certainly it is that portion of central and northern Alberta which is headquartered through the city of Edmonton.
At this time it is not my intention to engage in great polemics with regard to this pipeline, but we have to look at the general principles involved. I have listened with some care to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and earlier today to his colleague, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes). I am not going to engage in any point by point argument with either of those hon. members. They are expressing doctrinaire points of view which clearly indicate their socialistic views regarding the development and the operation of that industry or the use of resources. They betray the socialist traditional leaning by which they know better how to run affairs than the people who will be risking their money and energy developing these resources.
This is implicit. In fact, I would say it is explicit in the descriptions by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands of this House committee which has been appointed under the bill as a watchdog committee. As far as the socialists are concerned, this is not to be a watchdog committee in any way but, rather, it is to be a management committee. Those members will substitute their valued judgments regarding the construction of this pipeline for those of management and the people on the site who have the responsibility for the business commitment to build this pipeline, and the responsibility for the risk involved to their own money as well as the money of other investors. There is to be no government money involved in this particular project, and I hope that turns out to be the case.
I intend to propose something that has not been discussed so far during this debate, and this will involve what I consider to be the advantages to Canadian investors and how we can encourage them to provide the bulk of the money required for that part of the line going through Canada, without the necessity to resort to government participation.
Northern Pipeline
Some people will suggest that this project involves an extremely large investment requirement. Let me remind them that this is not to be financed entirely over one year. This pipeline will take some time to build, and investment will not only come from individual Canadians but from Canadian corporations as well.
I want to look at this project from a positive angle. We have heard hon. members often in the past describe many projects in a negative fashion. They have said almost everything about how not to achieve a project, and they have done so in detail. The people in the region from which I come have an entirely different concept about this project, as do the people from those regions represented in the past by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.
I recall when that hon. gentleman was premier of the province of Saskatchewan. At that time there was very active petroleum development in the province of Alberta. If any government went about the development of oil and gas within provincial boundaries in a backward, hesitant, wrong-headed, impossible way, it was that administration led by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. As a result, entire fields of leases were given up, in total disgust, because of the conditions imposed by that socialist administration. The net result was that a great part of the population of Saskatchewan moved to Alberta where the oil and gas development action was, and they have remained there. Even today many people from Saskatchewan are moving to Alberta. That province has a different philosophy and a different approach. It has a positive approach, and that is the kind of outlook I want to see on the part of Canadians toward this project.
I have here a numer of magazines, including the Oil Week, which indicate advance proposals for the development of oil-sands mines in the constituency of my friend the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk). The next project will cost in the neighbourhood of $4 billion and will lead to the production of $150,000 barrels a day by 1985. Others are to follow.
We do not have the people or the materials to undertake more than one development of this type at a time. These are fantastically large projects. To the extent they are financed by Canadians, using Canadian materials and labour, we will have economic development for the benefit of Canadians. The governments of the provinces involved, whether they be of Saskatchewan or Alberta, and the Government of Canada will gain greater revenues through these developments which can be used to provide better services for Canadian citizens. Governments have an interest in these projects as well as the people, but they have to be initiated by private investment.
Governments lay down the guidelines and parameters of proper conduct for the development of these resources, but beyond that governments should not interfere. When listening to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands on what I consider in many ways to be nitpicking matters, I was reminded of a couple of philosophers of the Middle Ages arguing about how many angels one could fit on the head of a pin. These are totally sterile arguments. After all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the oil development policy of
4148

April 4, 1978
Northern Pipeline
the hon. gentleman when he was premier of Saskatchewan does not give me any proof or encouragement that what he describes could result from the sensible development of the oil industry. I suspect that this would accomplish quite the contrary, particularly since the industry in Saskatchewan has never recovered.
Let me speak a little bit about the capitalization of this project. The method of capitalization should not be covered by the bill as it is not covered in the agreement. I do not think one should establish capitalization by statutory requirement. I want to see Canadians participate in the capitalization and the ownership of shared capital, or debt capital, for this undertaking to the maximum extent possible.
To do that, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to see a change in our tax laws. Our income tax law with its capital gains provision is an absolute albatross around the neck of any potential Canadian investor in projects of this kind. I do not care whether they are private individuals, whether they are corporate investors or whether they are actively engaged in the development and production of oil or gas in this country.
Over the past 20 years our history with regard to income tax as it relates to resource development is a woeful chapter of wrong-headed philosophy. It was designed-I do not know by whom or for what reason-to penalize the Canadian investor. There was an infamous principle occupation rule, which I have spoken against for over 15 years in this House. I must say in that regard that the government which I suppported was just as deaf to arguments and supplications on behalf of the oil industry while all the time Canadians, and particularly Albertans, were being driven out of ownership of the oil lands because our American counterparts could always bid us out. In the purchase of speculative leases, farm out agreements and all other related development work, we as Canadians simply could not recover any losses unless our principal occupation was the search for and development of oil and gas. Therefore, Canadian investors, be they doctors, lawyers, garage owners, farmers or what-have-you, could not put up $10,000 or $40,000 or any portion of the drilling costs, which were extremely low drilling costs for those earlier wells.
I have been through this many times in this House, Mr. Speaker. It was a one-shot affair for so many of them because if the net result of drilling a hole in the early days was a dry hole the loss was no more than $75,000 to $85,000. Rarely did it go to $100,000. But it was a loss and it could not be offset against any other income.
On the other hand, our American counterparts could always offset those losses against their other income. It was all right if you had enough money in the syndicate for one small company to drill three or four wells and you had a couple of producers, because you could always offset the expenses of the dry holes against the revenues earned by the producers. Now, however, that nefarious rule is gone and there can be a progressive write-off of those expenses.

How are we going to interest Canadians in such projects? Well, we all know what was done with the building of Alberta Gas Trunk back in the mid-1950's when the reservations for equity stock were limited to all Albertan citizens. But that policy in the 1950's before we had capital gains tax was geared to cupidity and the love of profit by the many thousands of Alberta citizens who took a reservation for the maximum number of shares that would be allotted to them and at the same time signed a trust agreement for which they were paid a bonus in order to assign the stock as soon as they got it. There was no limitation on the devolution of stock, and the net result was that soon the ownership of Alberta Gas Trunk passed out of the hands of Albertans. It is now a company that is controlled basically by investment funds of one kind or another.
How can we avoid that this time? Well, I am going to suggest that with the advent of the capital gains tax there is a method that will see that the classes of Canadians who will invest in this stock are such that the stock will remain in Canadian hands. It is simply this: that the income tax Act be amended to provide that, in the development and production of natural resources, there be created a so-called "ball park" of qualifying operations. If any Canadian taxpayer that is a Canadian citizen residing in Canada or a company controlled by Canadians is to invest in such stocks and was to keep the stock for a period of five years and then dispose of it, there would be a forgiveness of any capital gains tax. That is for five years. If it were kept for four years, then the forgiveness would be 80 per cent, and progressively moved downwards so that if the stock were kept within the "ball park" of investment there would only be a 20 per cent forgiveness.
There would, as I say, be the opportunity for rollover providing the stocks or the investments were kept within the category of qualifying investments, but one has to be a Canadian to get that advantage. It does not mean that non-Canadians could not invest, but such non-Canadians investing in Canada would have to pay income tax as well as capital gains tax. Of course, I am looking to an operation where basically we are going to see some profit and an increase in the value of those stocks or investments. To me the idea is fundamentally simple and would encourage Canadians to invest in this type of stock.
Now, how do we guarantee that the initial investment shall be for Canadians? This can be done the same way as it was done in the case of Alberta Gas Trunk, except that in that case Albertans had a monopoly on the initial offering. In this particular instance I dare say that since the pipeline would have to go through three areas of Canada-the Yukon, British Columbia and Alberta-some equitable formula could be found, perhaps on the basis of the proportion of total costs, and that percentage could be allocated to Albertans, a remaining percentage to British Columbia and then some percentage to the Yukon. To the extent that the people from any one province or zone did not take up the investment allotted to that zone, then that portion could fall to other Canadians; there are a number. I am not going to be dogmatic about the formula
April 4, 1978

except as to the insistence that it should be Canadians or Canadian companies who shall have the benefit of the bonuses with regard to this investment in this particular pipeline operation.
I do not know just what volume of savings would be forthcoming from Canadians. I would hope that they could take up the bulk of this offer over the period of years which this pipeline will require for construction. I would like to see this kind of financing applicable in some of the other developments in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
Let us start with resources and get the control of resources back into the hands of Canadians to a greater degree than is the case today. Goodness only knows that our tax policy over the years has driven the ownership of our natural resources, minerals, petroleum and natural gas, into the hands of foreign nationals or international companies. This has happened simply because they have the tax advantage. If there ever was an ostrich-like attitude toward this thing over the years, it was that of the Canadian government as well as some of the provincial administrations.
I am astounded that we, as a Canadian public, have put up with it this long and have failed to recognize how we could deal with the situation when the tools for it were immediately at hand. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that those things that require to be done with regard to the further implementation of the agreement concerning this pipeline shall be carried out and some of the many difficulties that exist will be ironed out.
I have not spoken about the settlement of Indian land claims. I do not think those were in any way related to the development of this pipeline, no more than they were related to the development of the Great Canadian Oil Sands, or Syncrude. Nor will they be related to the next consortia in Alberta or Saskatchewan with regard to the development of oil and gas. The claims arise for other reasons and shall be paid for by Canadians, because it is the government on behalf of Canadians which has the obligation with regard to land claims. I thought it was patently nonsensical for anyone to insist that part of the price of this agreement should be the setting aside of a fund of hundreds of millions of dollars to be paid for by the users of the gas to settle land claims. What nonsense. It has no relationship whatsoever. It is merely an attempt by someone who feels that there is a legitimate claim by the native peoples to find a suitable milk cow to provide the milk, as long as that person did not own the cow and did not have to feed the cow.
I hope that the Canadian government and any other provincial government which is involved in land claims will get on with the business. That is a matter of justice vis-a-vis the native peoples. It has nothing to do with the development of natural resources.
1 think that the Berger Commission in effect did a great disservice to the people of the Northwest Territories and along the Mackenzie River valley. Go there now and talk to them. Talk to the people of northern Alberta and British Columbia
Northern Pipeline
who have contact with the Northwest Territories and see what has happened and what is going to happen to what have been thriving communities as a result of the negative stand taken by the Berger commission. This was in effect an engineered affair. It was an engineered affair subject to points of view organized by the CBC and other people who used native associations, not for the benefit of those native associations, but for political purposes. In all that has happened the Berger report will join as quickly as possible other government reports on some lonely shelf in some back room. In my estimation, Mr. Speaker, that is its fate. It started out with the wrong concept and it finished with the wrong recommendations.
I commend, Mr. Speaker, the work that was done by my colleague from the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) on this particular bill and as a matter of fact by all members of the House who participated. I may disagree with the views of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, but I do not disagree with his own bona fides and his own earnestness. We can now get on with the final determination on this particular bill and I would invite hon. members to join in the support of third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than Jive members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 therefore declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) said that he had just arrived from a visit in Edmonton, which is in the vicinity of my constituency. He was replying to a question put by me representing, as I do, the constituency of Saskatoon-Biggar. I ask if the Postmaster General does not know where Saskatoon is, because I suggest we have very serious problems with respect to our postal service. Many people in Saskatoon really believe that the Postmaster General does not know where Saskatoon is. I can assure him that by the end of this speech he will know exactly where it is and exactly what the problem is. I expect in turn that after having received this kind of advice he will do me and the people of Saskatoon, and generally people in urban communities across this country who deserve a reasonable postal service, the favour of providing door to door delivery. I hope he will have the presence of mind to stand up tonight and tell those people that they can expect now to receive the same kind of service or, to be more correct, door to door delivery service in the new subdivisions, a delivery service which they so sadly lack now.
Although it is tempting to blame the fact that the Postmaster General does not know where Saskatoon is as being the root problem of our inadequate mail service, the real malaise lies much deeper than that. Last week we faced yet another increase in the price of stamps in this country, sending the cost of mailing a first class letter up to an all-time high of 14 cents. It can come as little comfort to know that none of this money whatsoever will go toward improving service, and further that it will not even wipe out the Post Office's massive deficit.
I want to mention, for the benefit of the Postmaster General, some of the new areas in Saskatoon which require that service. They are: Meadow Green, Wildwood, Confederation Park, River Heights and Pacific Heights. Saskatonians living in these new areas will have to pay up like everyone else for the privilege of receiving mail weeks late, sometimes in deplorable condition. However, unlike Saskatonians living in older areas, they will have to trudge down to their little green boxes to get it. It is all part of this new service at the higher rate.
The Postmaster General said that he was sorry. He stated the following:
The Post Office Department is very conscious of the annoyance, inconvenience and disappointment caused to new home owners across Canada who expected to have door to door delivery of mail.
This was contained in a letter addressed to me and also to the city council of the city of Saskatoon. He has done nothing about it. We make out petitions and send them to the Postmaster General, and then he sends back a form letter of apology and attempts to provide more little green boxes. The form letters imply that the lack of door to door service is merely a temporary inconvenience. Don't bet on it! The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated last year that the government has given serious consideration to doing away with door to door delivery altogether. Thus, not only will the people in new areas

(Mr. Deputy Speaker.]
April 4, 1978

be deprived of this service; it will include every citizen and resident of this country. The Prime Minister has put on record that he is considering this option. Is this the type of service we can expect at higher prices for delivery of first class and other classes of mail?
The Post Office has now gone through a decade of drift, with only one consistent theme: a steady deterioration of service. It has the worst labour relations in the public service. It is losing over $1 billion of the taxpayers' money. It takes longer today to deliver mail than it did before the last war. It does not provide full service to those families who have a right to it. The service requires reform now, if it is not to slide into total chaos. For this reason, the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) established a special task force which will bring back its recommendations soon. After the next election, the Conservative government will make a new start in the Post Office. It needs it. What does the Postmaster General propose to do now for those people who have been deprived wrongfully for over two years of their right to have door to door delivery service?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I could argue with many of the affirmations stated by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn), but I prefer a more positive approach to the problem, and I should like to tell hon. members of the House what we intend to do.
Yesterday the hon. member asked about the lifting of the current freeze on extensions of letter carrier service and the possibilities of alternatives. I have been discussing the matter with senior departmental officials, but basically I can restate only what I outlined on previous occasions.
The Post Office Department has several methods of getting mail to the public. One of the most common methods is that of the individual picking up his mail from a post office box in a small town post office, in his apartment building or in a large business complex. Another is by general delivery over the counter, and still another is by rural route delivery.
In most cases both businesses and residences in cities enjoy door to door service. While this method of delivery is relatively efficient in business areas, the cost per item of mail delivered in the residential areas is relatively high. It would be well to realize that in 1978 the milkman, breadman and dry cleaner have eliminated daily service in most residential areas. Obviously they are faced with the same high cost of delivery as we are.
In 1972 the Post Office had a $90 million deficit. The projected deficit this year, without the rate increase, would have been $717 million, and for 1980 it would have been $1 billion. This situation was assessed in November 1975, and it was determined that there were just not enough funds in taxpayers' pockets to handle these rapidly increasing costs. In the name of good administration and sound business practices, the government restrained its spending. The only alternative was to put a freeze on the extension of door to door delivery service.
Adjournment Debate
In place of door-to-door service, new suburban areas were provided delivery service through the use of group mail boxes located on the side of the streets adjacent to these new areas, bearing in mind that the Canadian citizen is entitled to the services of the mails.

I realize that city dwellers are used to door-to-door delivery service. I realize also that in some neighbourhoods we are putting some hardship on our customers by forcing them to pick up their mail at the wickets of general delivery post office or at a group of mail boxes located near their homes.

I realize, however, that I have the serious responsibility of providing Canadians with a mail delivery service which has some degree of consistency, yet in doing so I must ensure that excess costs are avoided.
I should like to reassure Canadians that for the moment there is no question of curtailing any existing services. If we are to contemplate any changes or expansion in delivery methods we must re-evaluate the overall situation and consult with the unions to obtain their full collaboration, keeping in mind that the taxpayer is the one who always foots the bill.


POST OFFICE-MINISTER'S ACTION TO IMPROVE SERVICE AND LOW EMPLOYEE MORALE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) is with us tonight. The last time I dealt with matters on the motion to adjourn the spokesman was the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lumley), who completely missed the point I was making. Unfortunately the replies of the Postmaster General since he has assumed responsibility for this portfolio-and he is the tenth Postmaster General in the past six years-would indicate he is not yet aware of the gravity of the situation. The only response to some of the problems briefly outlined tonight by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has been to increase postal rates and to change postmasters general. This has only aggravated the problem.
The Post Office provides an essential service, but it is in desperate difficulty and its efficiency has been going downhill continually for ten years. This is demonstrated by the more than one half billion dollar deficit in the past fiscal year. Business is declining, particularly parcel post, the level of which today is down to the level of 20 years ago, and projections with regard to first class mail indicate this mail is down by one million pieces. The situation is desperate when periodical publishers in Canada, upon whom the Post Office depends for goodwill, are forced to go to court to get justice as a result of the service, or lack of it, by the Post Office Department. At the present time they have an appeal before the Supreme Court of Ontario.
The Postmaster General, in the face of these obvious problems, has told members of the House that service is improving,

April 4, 1978
Adjournment Debate
as are industrial relations. In a reply to the hon. member for Hamilton-West (Mr. Alexander) yesterday it was pointed out that you cannot even depend on registered mail these days. Obviously postal service is in a very desperate state of deterioration, and this is mainly the result of a disastrous breakdown in morale following the breakdown in labour-management relations.
I do not have much time to develop my theme, but it relates to mechanization and the failure of management to consult with unions when introducing this monster for the handling of our mail. There has been a complete breakdown in the parcel post sorting mechanism at the bulk mail facility at Gateway, Mississauga. The Post Office is establishing an emergency manual sorting process at the abandoned warehouse of Canadian Arsenals. It looks as if they are going to have to take the computer program back to contract. All these things are evidence that something drastic has got to be done.
Canada is not unique. The Conservative party have a task force working on this matter. We have already come to a lot of positive conclusions and I am going to pass some positive tips on to the Postmaster General tonight. The United Kingdom, West Germany and Japan, all modern states, have faced exactly the same problem. Several of them have gone the route of the Crown corporation because, after all, the modern post office is an industrial organization. However, essentially they have dealt with the problems of management and labour relations in the post office by establishing management advisory committees where management, workers, postal users and customers sit around the same table.
It is not consultation or co-determination or comteam, or any such terms that are used by those who think they are resolving the problems in Canada's Post Office. It is constant consultation. No decision is made in dealing with the major problems in our changing technology in the post office unless consensus is achieved. As a result, you have harmonious co-operation and you have every aspect of the postal service working together to achieve the most efficient operation possible.
The union have offered the Postmaster General an alternative. They say they want a study. They want the Postmaster General and the government to consider the possibility of a Crown corporation. Why does he not move in this direction? He will never get a contract unless he does something. To do nothing is to court continued disaster. Leadership is desperately and urgently needed. There must be legislative action, and this is the question I raised the other day. The Postmaster General said: "Maybe before the election, maybe after the election". After the election will be too late. This is the voice of management!
I have before me a report known as the Uberig report. It is dated August 11, 1975, and it has excellent suggestions for improving the post office situation. The information paper is headed: "Re. Special Status For the Canada Post Office". Recommendations have been made by the union to improve

the situation. The postal users have gone to court to get justice from the Post Office Department, and certainly the voice of the general public protesting loud and clear has been heard in the land. I trust that the Postmaster General will indicate that he is going to take action, and that he is going to take it as quickly and as urgently as possible.


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to my colleague across the aisle, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). He has mentioned many things which I could argue tonight. For example, he talks about harmony in the United States post office. He should read American newspapers, where he will find talk of the danger of strike in the post office and the talk-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is illegal; they cannot strike.


Maurice Lamontagne: Even if it is illegal it could happen just the same.
Also, he should read a book which was written in the United States about the mess the United States post office is in. This book was printed last year. I am not interested when he talks about harmony somewhere else. I am interested in what is going on here.
It would be a good thing if the hon. member on the other side of the chamber would learn what has been done during the past few weeks. I will tell him what has been done during the past few weeks in the Post Office Department. I had meetings with all union leaders, including Mr. Parrot, president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. I have had meetings with all senior management in the Post Office Department as well as regional and divisional managers. The General Trade and Labour Union has ended its rotating strikes and an agreement has been reached. The president of the conciliation board has now been appointed and I can report that conciliation is going normally. The Hubling commission got underway concerning allegations of mail disruptions during the Christmas period in Toronto. I have visited major and minor plants in the Toronto area and other places and have talked with many workers in order to determine exactly what they think.
Invitations have been made to CUPW to sit down and talk about labour problems. We have invited them to study with us the feasibility and possibility of creating a Crown corporation. We have also invited them to participate in our inter-group meetings. However, all the invitations fell on deaf ears and a response was never received.
Our objective is to negotiate an acceptable collective agreement with CUPW without a work disruption if at all possible. We have made efforts and every attempt to improve and strengthen our dialogue and our relations with the post office workers. We should communicate more and more with the employees, I agree, and with the general public so they can understand the situation and then be able to make a valid and
April 4, 1978

a more informed judgment on the situation. We will try to avoid an escalatory situation of power struggling. It is not a question of who is the strongest. When one talks about leadership, there is all kinds of leadership. We have leadership and we will show leadership. Hitler was a leader but that is not the kind of leadership we believe in, and I do not think Canadians do either.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Have you talked to the postal users? They have to go to court for justice.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-NORTHERN PIPELINE-DISCUSSIONS ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN AREAS
Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, on March 16 I asked the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) the degree of involvement of his ministry with reference to the development of the Alaska pipeline. I did that on the basis of having participated in the extensive standing committee hearings on the pipeline and on the basis of having listened to speeches in the House on second reading and at report stage about the concerns of government with reference to industrial development along the course of the pipeline and in those communities which will be closely associated with the pipeline.
I have in fact addressed similar questions to the same minister before the standing committee dealing with regional economic expansion. The minister on March 16, in reply to me, indicated two things which are of concern. He indicated that there had been no negotiations with municipal authorities but that there had been some discussions, I must assume in a very shallow and vague fashion, with provincial authorities. He really was not quite correct because some of his officials in DREE in British Columbia have met with the regional district representatives in the northern part of British Columbia.
What really concerns me is that the minister, in his answer to me on March 16, went on to say that he was trying to put into force a subagreement on the industrial development of that province which was signed last year. Mr. Speaker, a careful analysis of the subagreements dealing with industry which were signed with British Columbia last year will indicate to the reader that those subagreements in no general or specific way deal with pipeline development and the need to develop the industrial sector along the course of that major undertaking.
In fact, on the occasion that I addressed the minister with reference to this issue before the standing committee, he did in both instances make reference to the service sector. I must assume, sir, that it is a reflection of the minister's thinking in general terms, in general policy, when he speaks of the service sector. The last thing that needs assistance is the service sector. The first thing that needs consideration is some orderly planning for the future in terms of the industrial community, whether it be in the manufacturing sense, basic industries, resource industries or secondary industry.
Adjournment Debate
I find it very regrettable that on the basis of questions that I have asked the minister both in the House and before the standing committee he is clearly not prepared to give his department the mandate to make the necessary planning, certainly in the long range, that is required if this pipeline is going to be more than simply a pipeline, which in itself is a major proposal. If it is going to serve in any real sense the needs of Canadians in the north, there has to be some planning. That planning falls within the responsibility of the minister. Clearly that minister is not prepared to live up to that responsibility.
I can only suggest that a different government, a Conservative government, would have that planning in place so that when we go into this proposal four years down the line we would know what provisions can be made for industry and what provisions the government would have to make to encourage industry to develop. It would not be to live up to some willy-nilly development along the fringes of the pipeline which inevitably in the long haul will fail, and not to provide dollars to the service sector when it is clearly not needed.
I hope the minister will study the comments I have made and will give his officials a mandate to work in the direction I have suggested, other than the type of summary that DREE has provided with reference to the pipeline debate, which had some value but clearly did not deal with that particular mandate of that minister.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to reply on behalf of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) for whom I had the pleasure of being parliamentary secretary for 12 months prior to being Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
It is not accurate to state that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has not taken any initiative to discuss economic development with municipal and regional officials in northern British Columbia. The officials have had frequent discussions and have made frequent presentations to various municipal and regional bodies, chambers of commerce, etc., in northern British Columbia, including Prince George, Dawson Creek, Fort St. John and Fort Nelson. In fact it was the recognition of the potential for economic development in the northern part of the province that led the department to the decision to establish an office in Prince George, which would make staff and programs more accessible to the people and needs of northern British Columbia.
The officials have not undertaken, not is it their place to undertake, discussions specific to the proposed northern pipeline with such bodies. As the hon. member is aware, the responsible minister for the northern pipeline is the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) and the responsible agency is the Northern Pipeline Agency.
The department has contributed significantly to both the collection of information required for pipeline discussions in British Columbia and negotiations between the pipeline com-

April 4, 1978
Adjournment Debate
missioner's office and officials of the provincial government in British Columbia.
The hon. member knows the negotiations between the federal and provincial governments having to do with the pipeline are not yet concluded, and as a result it would be inappropriate for the department either to discuss details of the pipeline with regional planning bodies or to negotiate possible subagreements having to do with the pipeline with provincial officials until the pipeline negotiations are completed.
As the minister stated in his reply to the hon. member on March 16, 1978, the industrial development subsidiary agreement is being applied in northern British Columbia. Industrial commissions under the subagreement have been agreed to in a number of places, including the Fort St. John area, and the department has received a number of applications under the small business program from the area, some having been approved. Others are under active consideration at this time. In addition, the department is currently giving consideration to several RDIA applications from northern British Columbia in addition to those already approved.
I understand the minister will be announcing this week a fairly substantial grant under the special ARDA program in that part of the country. I should also state that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the provincial government contributed some funds under the industrial development subsidiary agreement toward the cost of holding the "Impact '78" conference which recently took place in Fort St. John at the initiative of interested groups in the northeast, to examine economic development issues in the region. This meeting was attended by the newly-appointed northern district B.C. manager of DREE. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, while DREE officials are not, for the reason stated, actively negotiating with municipal and regional officials relative to the pipeline, the department is very active in northern British Columbia and will continue to be active in promoting its economic development.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:51 p.m.

Wednesday, April 5, 1978