1978-02-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion is concerned with the fact that under this government which has created the just society, among other things, the chances of winning a prize in the state lottery are 1 in 9, while the chances of getting a job are 1 in 26. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That this House directs the Prime Minister to explain to the premiers the inner workings of the "casino" economy which his government has created, and in particular to elucidate the philosophy of government which has led him to create a society where it is three times as easy to win a prize in the government's lottery as it is to get a job out of the government's economic policies.

[ Translation]


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with a very important matter, especially for the unemployed.
Considering that the Lauzon shipyard could easily provide work for over 3,000 employees but that it has slowed down operations with very few workers, which is worsening the unemployment problem on the south shore area, and to cope with those conditions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That this House suggest the establishment of a special committee to consider the possibility for Canada of creating a merchant marine as soon as possible to provide work for the large number of unemployed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ALLEGED MISLEADING BY GOVERNMENT RESPECTING NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Yesterday the Prime Minister of Canada, at the federal-provincial conference of first ministers stated, "our economy generated 250,000 jobs in 1977". At the same conference, the Minister of Finance stated, "the number of Canadians with jobs rose last year by more than 250,000". In view of the fact that Statistics Canada, the official, objective record for such information, reported that only 182,000 jobs were created last year in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House of Commons condemns the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance for uttering such blatant, dishonest, misleading information to the people of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NORTHERN PIPELINE ACT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The urgency of my intervention arises out of the debate currently before the House in respect of Bill C-25, the Northern Pipeline Act. Having regard to the requirement contained in the bilateral agreement between the government of Canada and the United States to achieve concurrence from the provinces in respect to certain limiting provisions in the bill, in light of the fact that the government of British Columbia has attached certain conditions to its statement of acquiescence, and in light of the fact that these conditions are not embodied in the text of the bill but are pertinent to the debate, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
80031 -3 tv%

February 14, 1978
That the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council table immediately British Columbia's communique of August 31, 1977, which contains the aforementioned demands and conditions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter which directly relates to the conference being held today. In view of today's agenda at the first ministers's conference, which deals with sectors of the economy affecting all parts of the country, yet the proceedings are being televised only over Radio-Canada by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski):
That this House immediately directs the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to televise the proceedings of the conference on both the English and French networks of this public corporation.


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.


NFU MEMBERS OF WHEAT BOARD ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO ATTEND GENEVA CONFERENCE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melvllle):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Negotiations for a new international grains agreement are getting under way in Geneva. Because this multilateral trade agreement is so vital to prairie farmers' interests, members of the producer-elected Wheat Board Advisory Committee have been invited to attend the talks as observers, that is, all members except the advisory committee's chairman and two other committee members who are members of the National Farmers' Union. Because it is important that all producers be represented at these vital negotiations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regi-na-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin):

That this House requests the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to drop his childish vendetta against the National Farmers' Union and invite all duty elected members of the advisory committee to Geneva as observers.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on an urgent and important matter.
Considering that the unemployment rate continues to be particularly high in some underdeveloped regions; considering that this situation could be corrected if the government banned imports of foreign goods which can be produced easily in Canada; and considering that concrete cases coming under the federal government-such as the contract between the CNR and the Laurentide plant in St. Tite which led to employees being laid off for three weeks pending the import of 800 dozens of gloves to respect the contract-point out the necessity of banning imports of that product, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the government order that any contract under its jurisdiction be exclusively fulfilled by Canadian products whenever possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of very pressing and urgent necessity. My motion concerns a paper circulated by the Minister of State for Science and Technology which epitomizes the arrogance of this government toward the

February 14, 1978

people of Canada. I refer specifically to the report's conclusion at page 7, which is that because the household labour force is technologically unsophisticated, it cannot always make the right decisions when it makes its purchases. In view of this gratuitous insult to my wife, the minister's wife, Your Honour's wife and all those who work at home, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That this unsophisticated minister apologize to the millions of Canadian housewives for his arrogance and slurs on their intelligence.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for discussion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. As the Deputy Prime Minister must be aware, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce prepared for the government a study outlining expected Canadian manpower and manufacturers' content in the pipeline project, entitled "Canadian Industry and Manpower Requirements and Content for a Northern Gas Pipeline". The study was finished in July, 1977. It was headed by Dr. Borden. The report suggests that 82 per cent Canadian manufacturing content is the maximum that can be achieved under perfect conditions, and that the Canadian content may vary substantially from that percentage, for various reasons, including pricing conditions, tied and concessional financing, government monitoring, corporate attitudes, and other factors.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm the existence of this report? Will he release copies to members of parliament so that we can have them while the debate on the pipeline is under way, and does the government accept the conclusions in that report as being correct?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I know that various documentary material has been prepared in connection with the negotiations for the pipeline and various estimates have been produced. I would have to verify the name and content of the report to which the hon. member refers, and consider whether in the circumstances it could be made available.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister will agree that he gave us no new information yesterday. Does the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that
Oral Questions
members of parliament are entitled to information on the important question? This study deals with the manufacturing content of the pipeline project and what percentage of that, and manpower requirements, can be Canadian. Is this not the kind of information members of this House should have, together with information on pipe dimensions that was promised us yesterday? Could the minister assure me that we will have this report once he verifies its existence?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is perfectly reasonable to have as much information as possible. We will be going into committee and we will make every effort to provide information on questions of manpower possibilities and the rather enormous job opportunities that will occur as a result of the construction and operation of the pipeline.


John Carnell Crosbie: A final supplementary question. When the Deputy Prime Minister checks, he will see that apart from the pipe to be used in this project, the report says the project can only obtain the Canadian content figure that the government indicates if appropriate guidelines, controls and monitoring are instituted. Will the Deputy Prime Minister indicate whether the government is prepared to have the proposed pipeline agency make available to parliament quarterly reports on the objectives of Canadian content and the progress being made toward these objectives, and have those quarterly reports referred to a standing committee of this House so that we can ensure there is proper monitoring in this area?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in his speech yesterday, the hon. member for Yukon made a suggestion along these lines and asked that it be considered and dealt with in committee. I am not sure if we want to deal with matters in the question period that will be dealt with by the House during orders of the day and when we go into committee on the bill.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-TABLING OF REPORTS RESPECTING CANADIAN CONTENT OF PIPE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister dealing with the exceptionally shoddy behaviour of the government and the manner in which members of this House have been treated with regard to information relevant to the pipeline debate. To be fair, I had a call today from Colin MacDonald, of the minister's office, for the first time offering assistance.
Arising out of the question put by the hon. member for St. John's West, will the Deputy Prime Minister now table the report which has been referred to and any others he may have up his sleeve and is keeping secret by tomorrow at the latest, so we may have this information in front of us during the remainder of the debate? Or is it his intention to continue the 1956 tactics of hiding reports?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will consider what the hon. member has said, but I do not think I can add

February 14, 1978
Oral Questions
anything further to what I said to the hon. member for St. John's West.


Erik Nielsen: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This is not the only report the minister is hiding from hon. members and the Canadian people. A report prepared by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion states that under policies identical to those the government has embodied in the legislation now before us, Canadian content could be reduced to 67 per cent. Will the Deputy Prime Minister now come clean and release this report immediately, so that members may compare his statements and promises of yesterday with the prognostications of his officials?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that there are all sorts of memoranda, reports and information prepared for the use of the government. It is not normal to table documents which are prepared for that purpose. However, I will consider what information can be made available. With respect to the particular report which has been referred to in the House and elsewhere, it is true that the department did prepare a "worst possible" scenario which, in the worst possible case, could result in Canadian content of the percentage mentioned by the hon. member. It seems to me this was a very useful thing to do because it provides us with information on where we are vulnerable and the steps we can take to overcome these difficulties.
As far as I am concerned, i have not changed the statement I have made so often, which has been confirmed by the proposed builders of the pipeline, that we will be able to produce approximately 100,000 man-years of employment as a result of this project.


Erik Nielsen: If the Deputy Prime Minister and the government have nothing to hide, I find it difficult to understand this cover-up. Will the Acting Prime Minister, in his capacity as House leader, now unequivocally give the House the assurance that the government will unconditionally support any and all requests made by the select committee that has been set up to study the provisions of the bill concerning the pipeline for the subpoena of material and witnesses during its consideration of the bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker; I do not propose to anticipate proceedings thr* will arise in the committee and give unqualified undertakings concerning unknown requests.


URBAN AFFAIRS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering the receptive, if belated, questions about the government's cover-up on the pipeline, I cannot understand why the hon. member for Yukon gave the government assurance

yesterday that the Conservatives would give speedy passage to the bill.
I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, plus five other cabinet ministers who were in Quebec city, announced a $42 million waterfront development program for that city.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Given the need for precisely such programs at a time when more than one million Canadians are unemployed, will the Deputy Prime Minister indicate to the House whether this is to be part of a package of proposals which will include other cities in Canada, or is it simply traditional Liberal pork-barrel electioneering in the province of Quebec?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is already part of a package of projects to ensure additional jobs in the country. The hon. member might himself update some of the positive proposals that were made at the federal-provincial conference and were so well supported by the Premier of Saskatchewan, including the Alcan pipeline which he said was a key project and ought to get under way at once.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is really ready for the Senate. I remind him that the Premier of Saskatchewan said yesterday, at the conference to which the minister alluded, "provided job guarantees and preferential treatment are given to Canadians". This seems to have escaped the memory of the Deputy Prime Minister. More specifically, in 1974 the Prime Minister promised, on one hand $290 million of assistance for urban transit which would help cities, other than those in Quebec- for example, Halifax, Vancouver and Toronto. Also, in 1974 he promised the city of Winnipeg an aircraft maintenance-facility that would guarantee 800 jobs. Winnipeg has an empty hangar as a result of that promise, and no city has received money for urban transit assistance.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, in all seriousness, given the commitment made in Quebec city yesterday, whether the government of Canada intends to live up to this four-year old promise made to other cities in Canada, before the next election?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member does not spruce up his information-collection ability, he will be ready for the back bench.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 14, 1978


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will read to him what the Premier of Saskatchewan said. Ele made absolutely no reference to legislative guarantees. He said if the federal government made sure that the pipe could be made in Canada, the steel plant in Regina could expand its capacity, creating both construction work and nearly 500 permanent jobs. There was no suggestion of legislative guarantees. We are now assured that this pipe can be made in Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Deputy Prime Minister would not bring in irrelevancies. If he would discuss the matter specifically with the Premier of Saskatchewan, he would find out that the Government of Canada does not guarantee it, and that is what he means.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Will the Deputy Prime Minister now answer the question he was asked with regard to the government's intentions? Does the Government of Canada intend to live up to its promise and provide $290 million in urban transit assistance to the municipalities of Canada? This would help many cities across the country. Specifically, does the government intend to live up to the commitment made to the city of Winnipeg to provide the new aircraft maintenance facility that was pledged in 1974?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the government usually lives up to its promises.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INDUSTRY
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. During the last few years, I have had the opportunity to travel with a former environment minister and other parliamentarians in the vast northern regions and we have seen large quantities of pipe that had been manufactured for the construction of a pipeline. Those pipes had been made in Japan. Given the fact that Canadians sell their used cars and that these cars are crushed and shipped to Japan and that these recycled materials are used in the manufacture of pipe that Canada buys for the construction of the pipeline, could the minister tell the House whether he would encourage Canadian industries to use these old cars and manufacture pipe that could be used in the construction of the pipeline which is proposed in Bill C-25 and which is the subject of our discussion here today?
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to comment on the technical feasibility of the hon. member's suggestion. However, I am confident that Canadian steel producers and manufacturers can produce the pipe that is required and will produce the pipe that is required. The companies that are preparing to build the pipeline are confident, on the basis of past performance and their knowledge of current prices throughout the world, that Canadian producers can provide this pipe. In circumstances where there is dumping or unfair trade practices, it will be possible for the pipeline agency that is proposed in the bill, and the minister, to take steps to ensure that such bids will not be accepted.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I gather from the minister's answer that the matter has already been considered but I would like the minister to tell the House whether this question was examined when the agreement with the United States was signed in order to protect the interests of Canadian industries and contribute indirectly to alleviate the unemployment plague in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the question f the use of Canadian manpower and Canadian materials was foremost in our minds during the negotiations. One of the objectives of the pipeline agreement was to ensure that each country would maximize its industrial and energy benefits. I believe the legislation that is now under discussion will make it possible to ensure that Canada will, indeed, maximize its industrial and energy benefits from this particular project.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-JOBS GUARANTEED TO CANADIANS IN CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Since the minister indicated that the agreement provides for guaranteed employment in both countries, can he tell us precisely what guarantee has been given to Canada in the agreement concerning employment in the construction of the pipeline?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the basic guarantee of employment in Canada is the competitive capacity of Canadian producers. In our view, no such guarantee as the hon. member mentioned was necessary, because already Canadian producers of pipe are able to capture this market on a competitive basis. Indeed, in addition to their ability to compete in Canada, the Steel Company of Canada-

February 14, 1978
Oral Questions


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: In Hamilton.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -has indicated its intention to secure some of the market in the United States for the pipe to be laid in that country. It seems to me the hon. member can be assured that Canada is in an extremely good position to gain great benefits from this project.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-DISCREPANCY IN ESTIMATES OF EMPLOYMENT CREATED
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: The Deputy Prime Minister has consistently referred to 100,000 man-years of employment. The study to which two of my colleagues referred the estimate of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, which includes both Alcan and Dempster speaks of not
100,000,	but 69,078 man-years. If the Dempster link is not constructed and a reduction of 30 per cent is made, the figure is brought down to 46,000 or 47,000 man-years. Is the minister prepared to table this report and explain the divergence between the figures of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the figures he himself has been using?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Foothills company itself, in its estimates placed before the National Energy Board, made an estimate of the manpower required. I am sure that on the basis of varying assumptions, one could reach different conclusions and I am not surprised if reports such as the one referred to by the hon. member for Yukon, prepared by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, indicate that, given the worst possible assumptions, the employment content would be at a different level.
As I say, I am not surprised if that should be the case. But I will have no hesitation about attempting to deal with these varying estimates before the committee. However, it does seem somewhat futile to attempt at this stage to engage in battles over the estimated number of jobs which will be provided. What we ought to do is get this project under way and make it a reality.


John Allen Fraser: I must say we would progress a lot faster if the Acting Prime Minister would come clean with the House. Yesterday, asked how the number of jobs would be affected by the type of pipe selected, he said, "Certainly, I have no estimate prepared on the basis of high-pressure pipe." Is the hon. gentleman prepared to put before the House and the committee the government's own, independent assessment of the number of man-hours of employment which will be created by this project, and stop this fluffery, these statements that there are perhaps some low-basis calculations floating around which the government has not found out about yet?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have not hesitated to put before the country our projected estimates of the number of jobs which will become available. These estimates were made public after the agreement was announced in Washington by the President and by the Prime Minister. They reflected our view of the total

man-hours which will be derived from the pipeline system as a whole, including the Dempster as well as from the pipeline system excluding the Dempster. Contrary to what was said yesterday by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, none of it was put in small print; it was all in the same large-size print which even the hon. member can read.


John Allen Fraser: In view of that reply, can 1 ask the minister why he made it quite clear yesterday in this chamber that the only estimates he was using were those he had obtained from Foothills? How can the hon. gentleman now say that he has given the government's figures to the House, the country or anybody else?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The-hon. member misunderstands the situation. Yesterday he asked a question with respect to estimates prepared against the possibility that the National Energy Board would recommend the use of high-pressure pipe. I am not prepared at this stage, for obvious reasons, to begin issuing estimates on the basis of high-pressure pipe being used.


ESTIMATES
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. As we have heard much rhetoric from the other side of Wellington Street concerning fiscal restraint at the federal level, would the hon. gentleman tell us why he has chosen to delay the introduction of his estimates into the House, by comparison with former years? Will he tell us whether those estimates in total will amount to a figure below $45 billion, on a national accounts basis?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that the estimates would probably be tabled on February 22. As far as I recall, they were tabled last year on February 16. I regret the six days' delay. There is nothing significant about it. As to the figures, they will be made known to the House when I table the estimates on February 22.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Bearing in mind that fiscal restraint is an important discussion point at the first ministers' conference, would the President of the Treasury Board not at least consider allowing that meeting to know what, in fact, will be the figure of total government spending for fiscal 1979, bearing in mind that in October when the Minister of Finance brought in his so-called budget, he did not choose to show the 1979 figures, as had been the custom in former presentations?


Robert Knight Andras: The tabling of expenditure plans for next year goes on at different dates for different jurisdictions throughout the country. Ontario is planning to make its figures public on or about the first week in March. This is a normal process. I do not intend to make a statement at the federal-provincial
February 14, 1978

Oral Questions
conference when the proper place to do so is right here in the House of Commons.


FINANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My supplementary is addressed to the Minister of Finance, who laughs at the question of fiscal restraint. Would the hon. gentleman indicate what he anticipates will be the budgetary deficit for fiscal 1979, bearing in mind that it is $9.2 billion estimated for fiscal 1978? Does he expect it to be more, or less, than that figure?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: First, Mr. Speaker, may I say I am very surprised that there is no question from the official opposition today with regard to the inflation rate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Could it be they do not want to acknowledge that there is a big reduction? As far as cash requirements for next year are concerned, we have acknowledged that there will be a special problem next year because we shall be obliged to cope with the expenditure of $2 billion in interest payments on Canada Savings Bonds. The total cash performance will be known when I present my budget.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Further to the talks the minister had over the weekend at the United Nations, may I ask him whether he has officially submitted a claim to the U.S.S.R. in order to compensate for Canada's expenditures in recovering the debris of Cosmos 954 which fell on our soil?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, no official claim has been put to the U.S.S.R. So far, we have notified the Secretary General. Initially, I did that by way of a formal letter, and 1 did it in person with Mr. Waldheim yesterday. We have also notified the Soviet Union. Incidentally, I received some clarification yesterday from the Secretary General on this matter. The next step is to determine the technique through which the costs can be identified as being related to this activity. Of course, also we are awaiting a response from the U.S.S.R., which has not arrived as yet, indicating what their reaction is to our note in this regard.
I suspect it will be some time before there is anv further clarification. Also, I should add that the search is continuing; therefore, at this point we would not want to identify a final cost. It may be possible to put in some kind of interim billing, but we would not want to cut ourselves off from the avail; bili-ty of presenting these charges and costs for as long as the operation is continuing.


NUCLEAR CONTROL COMMISSION-UNIONS' REPRESENTATION
Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, or to the acting minister if the former is not here.
In light of the fact that Bill C-14 on nuclear control will increase membership on the Nuclear Control Board from five to nine members, does the minister intend to appoint a union representative on the board as was requested by the Director of the United Steelworkers, Mr. Docquier, in order to make sure the workers have their say regarding safety on the job?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I will take note of the representation and pass it on to my colleague.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary but it is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Because of the government's apparent ignorance of what is in treaties 6 and 7, and the resultant bungling of the notification, it appears likely we will be stuck with the bill. Can the minister tell us how much the bill is as of now, and how much it is increasing, on a per diem basis?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give those precise figures. We know it is well in excess of $1 million. Actually, it is beyond $2 million at this time, if the full recovery costs are taken into consideration. That is difficult to define specifically, as the search is continuing. My last report, received yesterday, was something over 1,000 hours of flying time. This is continuing. Decisions are being made on the extent of the search and at what level it must be continued. The teams in charge of this operation are now on site and in the area. I will have more information,
2830

February 14, 1978
Oral Questions
when they return to me with their report, on which to base my instructions to them.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Obviously, the Minister of Finance was pleased with the 9 per cent inflation rate. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question about that. The Canadian price index indicated that the price of beef in this country went up by 33 per cent last year. Meanwhile, the producer price has increased by 19 per cent over that of last year. A 1,000 pound steer brought the farmer an extra $80, and the consumer paid an extra $180 for the same steer. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister, or the Minister of Finance for that matter, if they can explain the gap. Why is there a $100 gap between the farm and the table? What will be done about it?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, of course, with regard to costs being passed on to the consumers, controls played their part for two years and a half. I know full well the hon. member represents a party which wants us to lift controls, and feels we should never have had them. But part of the market cannot be controlled while the other is not. I believe that some companies dealing in the consumer goods sector were forced repeatedly to return some of their profits to the consumers; however, the NDP saw fit not to take that into account.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, obviously, controls did not work here. The farmer received an extra 19 per cent for the steer, but the consumer was paying an extra 33 per cent. Why is there such a spread? What will the minister do about it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, obviously the distributing and marketing companies exaggerated in that field; come the end of the year, when the AIB reviews their profits, they will of course hand over their excess profits to the consumers.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture said that if we needed it in this country, he would bring in an act to set up a meat trade authority. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether we can expect to see such a bill before the House.
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am taking note of the question and shall convey its contents to the Minister of Agriculture whose responsibility this is.


FINANCE
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Since the economy of every province is profoundly affected by the Gatt negotiations, will the government accept the request of the premiers and forward to them, on a confidential basis, the negotiating list Canada is presenting at Geneva?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this matter was discussed this morning at the first ministers' conference. The Prime Minister agreed that, on a confidential basis, information would be transmitted to the various premiers for the tariffs which affect their provinces.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, this information will be transmitted to the premiers: will it be on a piecemeal basis? In other words, are we going to let one provincial premier know what is going on in his province, or are we going to let all the premiers know what is going on in all of Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think there was general discussion and agreement among the premiers this morning that the responsibility of those negotiations is the responsibility of the federal government. There was an agreement that there should be exchange of information between the provinces and the federal government. I think that is the proper course to follow.


INFORMATION ON GATT PROPOSALS AVAILABLE TO PREMIERS
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Is he telling the House of Commons that the government intends immediately, today or tomorrow, to make available to the premiers of Canada all, or a part of the GATT negotiating list which Canadian officials are presenting at Geneva? Is that what he is telling us, or is he telling us that information will be made available to the premiers at a later time, which is quite a different position?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, several consultations have already been held between the provinces and the federal government on the subjects discussed. Of course, the question put to the Prime Minister this morning dealt with whether or not the provincial first ministers would be advised of the American position. The Prime Minister of Canada said that he was thinking of conveying part of that information to the first ministers concerned.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance would want to reconfirm what went on at the federal-provincial conference this morning, because that is not what happened. 1 would like to know from the Minister of Finance-or
February 14, 1978

from any other minister who might be prepared to enter into this question-whether or not it is the intention of the government to make available, now, to those provinces which express an interest in knowing it, the negotiating position Canada will be presenting at GATT? Will that information be made available now, or is some other kind of information going to be made available later on a confidential basis?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what has already been said by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and by the right hon. Prime Minister. This morning the provincial premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada have had a very frank discussion and I understand they have reached an agreement.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General.
Could the minister tell me if he had an appointment yesterday to meet the representatives of Canadian police associations and, if so, why was he unable to meet them, and did he know what they wanted to talk to him about? In the meantime, did he have the opportunity today to meet the representatives of these Canadian police associations?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I did not have an appointment to meet this association yesterday and my agenda makes it impossible for me to meet them. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I will be attending the federal-provincial conference after the oral question period.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?
Did the minister's executive assistant advise him that they tried to meet him yesterday with regard to this issue?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I was not made aware that someone tried to meet me yesterday. I was not there anyway.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. I congratulate him and sympathize with him as he becomes the sixth person to hold this office in as many years. In view of the promise of his predecessor that postal rate increases shall come only after the
Oral Questions
Post Office has achieved a satisfactory level of efficiency, and the further promise that there will be consultation with major postal users before any announcement of rate increases is made, will the Postmaster General postpone the rate increase announced by his predecessor last November, to take effect on April 1, until such time as the conditions outlined in the preamble to this question are met?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the decision to increase postal rates was taken before I came into office. I think these increases were quite wisely planned for they will greatly help reduce the $600 million deficit. That will not in any way prevent us from making postal services more efficient and solving current labour problems.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, is the Postmaster General aware of the reply of one of his predecessors, the present Minister of State for Urban Affairs, to a written question in the House of Commons, appearing in Hansard for March 13, 1974, when he said:
Rates of postage for domestic letter mail are set out in section 10 of the Post Office Act. Changes in these rates, therefore, are possible only by act of parliament.
In light of this opinion expressed by the minister's predecessor, and in face of a $600 million deficit, will the new Postmaster General now agree to increase postal rates legally, by act of parliament, rather than illegally by ministerial decree?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Mr. Speaker, since I am the sixth Postmaster General in seven years, I cannot be aware of all the statements made by my predecessors, however, I will take notice of the question in order to give an adequate answer.


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister. Given the fact that there is far more openness in the United States as a result of the Watergate scandal-a similar scenario we watched with interest developing in Canada-can the hon. gentleman indicate if he will facilitate the work of a member of this party in trying to secure, under the freedom of information act in the United States, the information which the hon. gentleman personally, and the government, has denied to the hon. member for Yukon and other hon. members of this party? If he will not facilitate such an application, will he at least indicate that the government will not frustrate an attempt to secure information in that way, as was done in connection with the atomic energy cartel case?
80031 -38^2

February 14, 1978
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the question has been couched in such an obscure way that I feel like answering "yes and no".


FINANCE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It arises out of the report of Woods-Gordon on the economic crisis facing Ottawa as a result of relocation, the effect of which will be an estimated burden of $250 million on Ottawa and surrounding municipalities over the next ten years. In view of the fact that property owners are facing a double inconvenience, the inconvenience of travelling a greater distance to work as well as an inconvenience caused by an increase in their tax load as a result of the shrinkage of the tax base-that is the essence of the report-when does the government intend to bring in its grants in lieu of tax legislation, so that property owners, tenants and others in Ottawa and surrounding municipalities can expect some kind of relief? This was caused basically by the government's decision to relocate.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in my meeting with the mayor and other officials, I said I would look into some aspects of the legislation referred to by the hon. member. I said I was prepared to consider some changes, and we are in the process of looking into that matter at this time. However, I would like to point out to the hon. member that he is confusing two policies. There is a relocation to Hull, but there is also a policy of moving some of the bureaucracy out of the national capital region and into other areas of the nation. I would like to tell the hon. member that that was one of the main topics of the program of his leader in his campaign for the leadership of the Tories.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about the politics of the situation. The minister has proved that with respect to decentralization, he is a great political animal but a very poor equitable animal. When is the minister going to match with deeds his promise to the ratepayers of this area? When does the government intend to introduce this bill? Has the bill been drafted and, if so, when will it appear on the order paper? There has been a lot of wind, but not very much substance, to the minister's promises. He is hardly believable any more.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in talking about wind, I have an example to follow from this hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We met with the municipalities as recently as two or three weeks ago. We are working on this problem at the

moment, and we will be pleased to table the bill as soon as it is ready.


CAPE BRETON-DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT ON OPENING OF NEW COAL MINE
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, who is from Cape Breton. Since he is from Cape Breton, and since he is the Deputy Prime Minister, I am sure he will have the answer to my question. Can the hon. gentleman advise this House if tomorrow the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Premier Regan are going to announce the opening of a new coal mine in Cape Breton or, if not tomorrow, how soon will it be announced?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 am aware of the interest of the Cape Breton Development Corporation in opening a new mine. As I understand it, drilling activities have been very promising and have established the reserves which would make possible the consideration of a new mine. But I also understand that at the present time there must be an engineering design study in order to estimate the cost of such a new mine, and I think it is early, despite the promising possibilities, to confirm that construction will begin as soon as the hon. member and I might wish.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, may I ask my hon. friend if, as the date for a provincial election in Nova Scotia draws closer and a date for a federal election draws closer, there will be a multiplicity of these announcements, which have been advocated by the opposition over a period of years?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton.


DISCREPANCIES IN RETAIL PRICE OF GASOLINE-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns discrepancies in the retail price of gasoline charged by various oil companies. As there is often a variation of up to 16 cents per gallon for the same grade of gas in a given area, and as this places the major chains in an advantageous position, will the minister undertake an investigation into possible collusion between major oil companies and further monopolization of this industry?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, that aspect of marketing gas has
February 14, 1978

been studied extensively by both the Alberta government and the Ontario government in the past. The hon. member's representation will certainly be noted.


William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, I asked this question of the government in February, 1975, and also in July, 1975, and received a very similar answer. Perhaps this question should be directed to the Minister of State (Small Business), but I will direct it also to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I know we are all aware that small operators in this country are being forced out of business at every turn. Can the minister indicate if his department plans any action to protect the small and independent retailer from further absorption by the major conglomerates?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, we are working closely with small and independent retailers in order to assist them. The question of the marketing of gas falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. For the past three years members of parliament from all large urban centres have been endeavouring to get postal walks added to the new suburban areas of their cities. The minister's two predecessors always replied that because of restraints, none could be added. Now we find that in the riding of Scarborough West, 355 homes received a new postal walk at the request of a Liberal member. Can the Postmaster General advise the House when other large urban centres can have the additional postal walks which are needed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to advise the hon. member that the question is in precisely the terms of a question previously put and answered.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? In view of the fact that the government of Manitoba has taken the position that the Roseau River project will cause damage in Manitoba, and in view of the fact that the governor of the state of Minnesota has restated his support for that project and is campaigning in Congress for additional funding for it, can the minister indicate whether the government still supports the position held by the government of Manitoba, that the
Privilege-Hon. M. Lambert
Roseau River is in violation of article 4 of the Boundary Waters Treaty?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to withhold the answer on that question for at least 24 hours. I had a preliminary discussion with the responsible minister from Manitoba this morning. As soon as question period is over, I will be meeting him at the Conference Centre to discuss these questions, so I might be in a better position to elaborate tomorrow or the next day.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: There remains outstanding from last Wednesday some questions relating to a matter of privilege raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). Perhaps the background should be recalled briefly.
The motion related to the intention to use the buildings of parliament for the purposes of holding a reception coincident with the forthcoming national convention of the Liberal Party of Canada, in a few days. Several months ago, as I have already indicated to the House, an application was made through me, which is in keeping with our regular practice, for the use of the premises for this purpose.
Over the last two or three years I have had ongoing discussions with representatives of all parties in this House as to the appropriate policy in respect to the use of these buildings. I formulated a policy some time ago which attempts to balance, on the one hand, the appropriate use of these buildings for the reception by elected people of their constituents and other visitors, for indeed that is a legitimate aspect of our function as elected members. We have to balance the use of the premises for those purposes against the other conditions that ought to be met here constantly, and that is that these are parliamentary and not commercial premises. They ought not to conflict with events that ought to be held in the area of commercial enterprise. Anything taking place in these buildings certainly ought to have a parliamentary connection and ought to be in keeping with a number of conditions that respect the dignity of the premises.
When the original application was made to me I examined the precedents and the dimensions of the request. I granted permission, which I felt at that time was in keeping with principles which had been established along those lines, and I directed my attention at that time to something in the nature of the dimensions of the requirement of this particular reception. I had researched the precedents in respect of the use of the Hall of Honour which, in addition to the use of the Confederation Room in the West Block, would certainly indicate the size of the reception. After that, as I have indicated, I gave permission and the matter proceeded.

February 14, 1978
Privilege-Hon. M. Lambert
Last Monday morning some concerns were raised with me as a result of some publicity or other information that had come to the attention of some hon. members who brought the matter to my attention. I immediately contacted the organizers of the event to receive their assurances in respect of the conditions I had previously laid down. Having received those assurances I informed all House leaders, by letter on the following day, that the original permission was under certain conditions, and that I had received assurances that those conditions would be met not only as to the use of the premises but also as to the recovery of cost, which in every case would be a full recovery of cost, in order to make sure that nothing would be taking place at public expense which was for a private purpose.
That permission was granted, and I think hon. members will understand that it would not be my intention to withdraw that permission at any time, particularly close to an event, even if it meant a re-examination of the policy would have to take place. I think that would have been an abdication of the responsibility I had originally assumed, and would have been an injustice to the organizers of an event which would perhaps have left them unable to complete the arrangements they had in mind on the basis of the permission which I had earlier given.
In any case, on Wednesday further concerns were raised, and the hon. member for Edmonton West raised a formal question of privilege in the House. Extensive discussions were held on that question of privilege, during the course of which the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), representing the government in this matter, indicated a willingness to discuss it with me. The matter was therefore held under reserve. I should indicate that while the matter was under reserve there was a fundamental difficulty with the question of privilege, in my mind. That was, of course, that having given my decision and my permission, if I were to give a preliminary decision on the question of privilege in such a way as to put it to the House, I really would be asking the House to send to a standing committee a matter which would place under scrutiny my own decision. I frankly did not have much relish for that. I would likely, therefore, have had a good deal of difficulty in granting the question of privilege.
I recognize the merits and concerns in the point that was raised, however, and it would have led in any event, and will lead to discussions about this policy and the feeling of members about it, as well as, perhaps, an attempt to formulate something more exact.
I am happy to say the matter largely becomes academic now; because of the discussions offered by the President of Privy Council last week I may now inform the House of a letter I received this morning from the minister. It is available in my office for members who wish to read it in its entirety, but I think I should quote only from two paragraphs. The letter sets out the background as 1 have cited it to the House, and the guidelines and principles that I have exposed to the House.
The last paragraph on the first page reads as follows:
In spite of compliance with these guidelines, the proposed function has caused concern among some members and has placed you in a position of having to make a ruling on a question of privilege. This seems to me to exaggerate this matter out of all proportion in relation to the time the House of Commons should be devoting to the important issues before it. As I noted earlier, no final decisions have been taken on the location and the nature of the social event in question. I should now like to advise you that the members of parliament involved are withdrawing their request to you and will choose one of the other alternatives which were also under consideration.
The letter goes on to request further discussions in respect of the policies to be followed in this case, because the difficulties remain that access to these buildings for the purpose of meeting with, sometimes on a partly social and partly parliamentary accasion, elected members, is still a valid use of the premises. On the other hand, there are the other principles that have to be followed such as an assurance that this does not come in competition with commercial enterprises in the city, and also that any event that takes place here respects the privileges and rights of other users of the buildings and, of course, respects the dignity of the premises.
I will be inviting representatives of all parties, as they have always done in the past, to cooperate to establish and formulate clearer guidelines in respect to the use of these premises in the future.


MR. HNATYSHYN-PRESENCE OF MINISTERS IN HOUSE DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege. I will attempt to make my interjection brief at this time because we have important business to carry on.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, certainly members on this side of the House have attempted on every occasion to take steps to expedite matters and to try to do things with respect to the order of business of the House generally. In this connection part of my responsibilities on this side of the House involves the arrangement of question period, that portion of the day involving the questioning of members of the government and members of the treasury bench, and we have followed a policy of attempting to notify individual ministers who might be asked questions from time to time so that they would know in advance they will be asked questions and that their presence would help facilitate the business of the House. Indeed, we went to some trouble on this side of the House to contact individual cabinet ministers who might be involved in respect to the question period on a specific day.
As a result of this particular effort, which I thought was a courteous gesture on my part, there were a number of complaints raised with my office and my staff that we were in effect bothering individual ministers by asking that they be telephoned during the course of the day to determine whether they would be in the House. Whereupon I was subsequently informed that henceforth an arrangement would be entered into with the chief government whip's office by which one phone call in advance of the opening of the proceedings of the

February 14, 1978

House would allow me to obtain a list of those ministers expected to be present in the House from the whip.
That situation was satisfactory as far as we were concerned. It allowed us to circumvent the procedure of phoning each minister. It also provided a simple way by which the government could let us know, not too soon before the question period commenced, who might be in the House, and it would also result in facilitating the business of the House.
My office has been informed by the office of the chief government whip that henceforth there will be no notification, and in fact we will not be apprised as to which minister will be in the House during the course of any question period, and also that this information is of a confidential nature and should not be disclosed. Aside from the fact that this is in line with the paranoia and determination of secrecy on the part of the government with respect to almost everything it does, I suggest it has very serious consequences for the way in which this House will operate. If the government is to take this position, childish and poor as it is during the course of an election year, it would seem to me in line with the ruling that you yourself made with respect to the obligation of ministers to be present and receive questions, as opposed to answering them. I believe this particular practice will affect the ability of members on this side in carrying out their functions as members of parliament. I bring to your attention, Sir, the extent the government is prepared to cover up and hide from answering questions in this House.


Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I may be accused of many things but seldom of lack of co-operation.
I would like to say that the first time I heard about this matter was a few moments before entering parliament. One would presume if I was involved in any kind of agreements that someone would have spoken to me before that time. Certainly no request of any nature has been made to me personally. My House leader has not informed me of any kind of agreement which exists. My staff are quite loyal and would follow the strict instructions which say that at no time do you discuss with the media, with the opposition or with anyone else, attendance in the House. Those are strict instructions which I have issued. Even if someone phoned our office concerning some of the opposition's attendance, it would be no one's business. I am sorry if it in any way has destroyed any kind of agreement that would help the House. If an agreement was wanted I would presume a little person like myself might have been spoken to.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Essentially the point, of course, establishes private arrangements. It concerns matters of discussion and negotiation about House business and does not constitute, in any way, matters of privilege.
Regulations and Statutory Instruments



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the second report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Wednesday, February 8, 1978, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) wishes to make a point at this time with regard to the regulations and statutory instruments committee.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief intervention to make on this important matter. It is important because it constitutes a situation where all members of a hard-working committee, without regard to partisan politics, have produced this report, as they have produced other reports.
This particular report provides for the reconstituting of the criteria under which this Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments examines orders in council, regulations, and decrees. Having in mind the debate in which we have just been involved and other things, members should be aware of some of the criteria which we have adopted. I mention that because two and a half years ago this House and the other place adopted such a report. It was for that specific session and we are now reintroducing it. I hope the government House leader might give some thought to having these criteria made legal every session. He might introduce the criteria as amendments to the Statutory Instruments Act which can then become part and parcel of the basis under which that committee operates.
I will read some of these criteria and ask hon. members on both sides to take a note because many of us in committee have had discussions with our colleagues who have sometimes challenged orders in council and decrees on the basis on which they are made. We have said that here is a vehicle by which it is possible to examine regulations and let the committee have an opportunity of providing it with material to do so on their behalf. I will not go over all of them. There are 18 points in the criteria contained in 15 orders. Some of them are as follows. We object to a statutory instrument if it, and I quote:
4.	makes some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the enabling statute or by the prerogative;
5.	trespasses unduly on the rights and liberties of the subject;
6.	(a) tends directly or indirectly to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts without explicit authorization therefor in the enabling statute; or

February 14, 1978
Order Paper Questions
(b) makes the rights and liberties of the subject dependent on administrative
discretion rather than on the judicial process;
8. appears for any reason to infringe the rule of law or the rules of natural justice;
10.	in the absence of express authority to that effect in the enabling statute or prerogative, appears to amount to the exercise of a substantive legislative power properly the subject of direct parliamentary enactment, and not merely to the formulation of subordinate provision-
11.	without express provision to the effect having been made in the enabling statute or prerogative, imposes a fine, imprisonment or other penalty, or shifts the onus of proof of innocence to the person accused of an offence;
13.	is not in conformity with the Canadian Bill of Rights;
14.	is unclear in its meaning or otherwise defective in its drafting.
I have taken a few minutes of the time of the House to read those for the benefit of civil servants and members of the bureaucracy engaged in the drafting of orders in council and regulations, looking at the pipeline bill about which the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) is concerned. He will agree with me that there is very great scope in the bill for drafting orders in council. It may well be essential. I hope that he and other ministers will draw to the attention of the bureaucracy and the members of the civil service who have any involvement in the drafting of orders in council that these are the criteria which this parliament, operating through both its Houses, has laid down as being conditions precedent. These criteria must, in our opinion, be met before there is a proper order in council.
I make that point not in a partisan sense because every member of the committee on both sides of the House in all parties feels exactly the same way. Having in mind that we are getting to the stage where there is so much governing by regulation and decree, it is imperative that these criteria be printed and put in the high offices of most of the public servants in this country who are involved in any way in the drafting of regulations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[ Translation]

[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: 112, 113, 409, 732, 735 and 965.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Was the Department of Public Works charged with the responsibility of the lease for the premises on Ste. Catherine Street West, Montreal, previously

occupied by Information Canada and presently known as the Post Office House and, if not, which department carried the cost?
2.	What was the term of the lease?
3.	Was an attempt made to sublet the premises and were any offers received by prospective tenants for amounts less than the balance payable on the lease and, if so, what are the details?


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: 1. Yes, the Department of Public Works was charged with the responsibility of the lease for the premises at 640 Ste. Catherine Street West. The former occupant, Information Canada, carried the cost until October 31, 1976.
2.	September 15, 1971, to September 30, 1981.
3.	Yes, a public tender was published on March 14, 1977, and one bid received but rejected as being too low. The proposal consisted of: Annual rent: $20,000. Term: approximately four years five months commencing as soon as premises were available and terminating September 30, 1981 (date of termination of DPW's lease). Use: a family shoe and/or clothing store, including accessories.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What was the date of occupancy by the Post Office Department in the premises on Ste. Catherine Street West, Montreal, designated The Post Office House?
2.	What is the duration and monetary terms of the lease?


Francis William (Frank) Maine: 1. Occupancy by Post Office Department commenced October 3, 1977.
2. Duration of the lease is September 15, 1971, to September 30, 1981, at a rental value of $243,922.63 per annum. There are escalation clauses covering operating costs, real estate taxes and the cost of living index.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Laurentian Pilotage Authority and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: 1. Two. None are retired public servants.
2. (a) $34,535.01; (b) $47,040.23. None of which was paid to retired public servants.


Mr. Jones: 1.	(a) What is a breakdown of the total cost for the construction of HMCS Bras d'Or (b) were tenders called?

2.	What was the cost of maintaining, storing and operation for each year since the construction of the Bras d'Or?
3.	What use will be made of the research and technology gained by Canada as a result of the Bras d'Or?
4.	Has Canada sold or given any of its interests in such research and technology to other countries and, if so (a) on what date (b) to which countries (c) what was the nature of such interests?
5.	What disposition will be made of the Bras d'Or and at what cost?
6.	Has the government considered selling the Bras d'Or by tender?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Departments of Supply and Services and National Defence as follows: 1. (a) The total project cost was $51.5 million. A breakdown of the total construction contract cost for HMCS Bras d'Or is as follows: Material, $6.4 million; labour and overhead, $13.5 million; direct charges, $16.5 million; administrative overhead, $4 million; sales tax, $1.03 million; fees, $0.5 million; total, $41.93 million. Other contracts awarded in support of the project total $9.6 million; (b) No.
2.	One-time cost of storage facility, $98,914. Average annual cost for inspection, maintenance and security, $52,800.
3.	The weapons integration command and control systems for hydrofoils were applied to the development of the DDH 280 and will continue to be usefully applied to other shipbuilding programs.
4.	No.
5 and 6. Disposal options are currently being studied by the department, but no conclusions can yet be drawn.


Mr. Jones: What amount of money was budgeted by naval defence for research for the years 1970 to date and what amount is to be budgeted for the next five years?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Precise figures for naval research cannot be given as the department's budgeting procedures do not provide for an accounting of individual Canadian Forces elements. The following table is an estimate of expenditures that have been, and will be, provided specifically to naval research: 1969/70, $5,544,000; 1970/71, $7,985,000; 1971/72, $7,744,000; 1972/73, $7,462,000; 1973/74, $8,222,000; 1974/75, $9,561,000; 1975/76, $9,645,000; 1976/77, $10,674,000; 1977/78* $13,110,000; 1978/79* $14,148,000; 1979/80** $14,503,000;1980/81 ** $15,544,000; 1981/82** $16,678,000; 1982/83** $17,870,000.
* These amounts reflect existing budgets and programmed costs from the Defence Services programme.
** These amounts reflect an escalation of existing budgets using rates contained in the DND economic model and programmed costs from the defence service program.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: For the Fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, what amount was paid to New Brunswick to assist in the teaching of a second language?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Department of the Secretary of State: herewith are the amounts paid to New Brunswick (with respect to second language instruction) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, under the program administrated by the Language Programs Branch, Department of the Secretary of State:
(000's)
(1)	Formula payments (5 per cent formula)	$ 648,798(2)	Special projects	177,580(3)	Others programmes*Fellowships	60,500Teacher Bursaries	85,298Travel Bursaries	16,463Summer Language Bursaries	227,419Language Training Centres	100,000Total	$1,316,058
* (Funds are made available under most of these programs both for teaching in the language of the minority and for second language instruction. As it is impossible to break out the sums for the respective objectives, global amounts paid to the province of New Brunswick under these programs are cited here.)


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 168, 252 and 723 could be made orders for return, those returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions listed by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 168, 252 and 723 be deemed to have been made orders for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	What is the .estimated number of Canadians (a) with severe hearing disabilities (b) totally deaf (c) with some hearing impairment?
2.	Are such statistics based on Canadian surveys and (a) if so, by whom were they collected (b) if not, for what reason and by whom were they collected?
3.	What is the estimated number of Canadians (a) with severe visual disabilities (b) totally blind (c) with some impairment to their vision?
4.	Are such statistics based on Canadian surveys and (a) if so, by whom were they collected (b) if not, for what reason and by whom were they collected?

February 14, 1978
Order Paper Questions
5.	Are there income tax exemptions for the (a) deaf (b) blind and, if so, on what degree of impairment are the calculations based?
6.	Are hearing aids tax deductible and do they receive special treatment under the Income Tax Act, i.e., deduction specifically for the deaf?
7.	Are Canada Manpower offices equipped with interpreters to council deaf or applicants with some hearing disability and, if so, how many are there and where are they located?
8.	Does the Federal Court have a registry of qualified interpreters of the deaf for those disabled who have been called before the Court and (a) if so (i) what are the qualifications required for this certification (ii) how many are on the list, by province (b) if not (i) for what reason (ii) what arrangements are available for the hearing disabled?
9.	In (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (f) 1975 (g) 1976, what was the amount of government funding for programmes related to those with (i) visual (ii) hearing deficiencies and what was the nature and amount in each case?
10.	Does the CBC plan to utilize the Line 21 sign language captions concept of a captioned news within the next two years and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, on what date?
Return tabled.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	How many field inspectors were employed by the Canadian Wheat Board on January 1 each year 1968 to 1977 inclusive in (a) Alberta (b) Saskatchewan (c) Manitoba and, in each province, on an annual basis how much was expended by the Board for (i) salaries (ii) expenses?
2.	On what date did each of the field inspectors join the service of the Board and where were they previously employed?
3.	By year, from 1973 to date, in (a) Alberta (b) Saskatchewan (c) Manitoba, how many charges have been laid at the instance of the Board against (i) the Alberta Wheat Pool (ii) the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (iii) the Manitoba Wheat Pool (iv) United Grain Growers Ltd. (v) Pioneer Grain Co. Ltd. (vi) Cargill Co. Ltd. (vii) Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd. (viii) Paterson & Sons Ltd. and against elevator managers employed by, and producers who were customers of, each of these companies and, in each case, how much was spent by the Board for legal fees and services provided by staff personnel, by Department of Justice Personnel, by standing agents for the prosecution of such charges, and how much has been recovered by way of fines in each case?
Return tabled.


Mr. Herbert: During the past year, what amount was contributed by the Ministry of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport to each sport-governing body and sport and recreation association?
Return tabled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 13, 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 second time and referred to the special committee on a northern gas pipeline.
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, when I finished at ten o'clock last night, I was referring to the problem that we have because apparently the government has either not done any independent study of the probable number of man-years of work that will result from the pipeline project or, if it has, it is deliberately keeping those particular studies from the scrutiny of hon. members.
Hon. members will recall that a few minutes ago there were a number of questions asked of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) which revealed that there are in fact several studies of which we have some knowledge. I am sorry to say that, at least from the comportment of the Deputy Prime Minister this afternoon, it would appear he had no knowledge of them whatsoever.


Walter David Baker: Oh, 1 don't know.


John Allen Fraser: One of my colleagues has indicated he does not know.


Walter David Baker: They have been available since last August.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, this is a problem that we on this side have to struggle with when trying to determine what ministers know or do not know. We do know one thing, however. Ministers seem to go out of their way to make things as difficult as possible for members of the loyal opposition to find out fundamental facts that we have to know in order to do our job.
I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, in making this portion of my remarks specifically on the question of Canadian labour content in this project, that we want this project to go ahead. We do not want to be associated with the suggestions and untoward allegations made by members of the government that honest inquiry into what the aspects of this project may be amount to delay. I am sure all hon. members realize that this is not so. As a consequence, Mr. Speaker, my remarks are along the line of the obligations we have as members of the opposition. These obligations are pertinent.
February 14, 1978

Under schedule III of the pipeline bill, referring specifically to paragraph 9 on page 51, the company must submit to the minister a detailed manpower plan designed to ensure the maximum possible use of Canadian labour. Apparently the company plan can be amended by the minister, but once this is done the company must comply with the plan.
Curiously, on page 3 of the minister's release dated February 3, 1978, which is entitled "Outline of Northern Pipeline Agency", the following words appear. Hon. members would do well to consider them carefully. I quote:
Other responsibilities of the agency such as the development of detailed procedures and guidelines relating to Canadian content, and the co-ordination of the development of an appropriate manpower training and delivery system will also be undertaken by the commissioner in the interim.
These words are pertinent:
-co-ordination of the development of an appropriate manpower training and delivery system will also be undertaken by the commissioner in the interim.
What does this mean? Under paragraph 9 of schedule III, the responsibility clearly lies with the company to establish a manpower plan. The words in the minister's release clearly infer that the government will be involved in the co-ordination of the development of an appropriate manpower training and delivery system. Does this mean that the manpower training and delivery system is the responsibility of only the company, or does this mean that it is only to be done by the company subject to the approval of the government; or does this mean that in addition and complementary to the company's manpower plan the government is accepting responsibility for training Canadian workers so they will be available to fit into the company plan?
The reference in this regard in the minister's release is not consistent with paragraph 9 of schedule III. It raises the very important question of just who is responsible for ensuring that Canadians get the jobs. I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the company can, with the best of good will, submit a plan that calls for maximum Canadian content in labour, but if trained Canadians are not available the plan may never be fulfilled.
The only specific mention of Canadian labour content in the material that we have in front of us is in schedule III of the bill where, as I pointed out, the company must supply a detailed manpower plan. It is true, Mr. Speaker, that in the Canada-United States agreement, in paragraph 7, there is a provision that states:
Having regard to the objectives of this agreement, each government will endeavour to ensure the supply of goods and services to the pipeline project will be on generally competitive terms.
It goes on to say:
Elements to be taken into account in weighing competitiveness will include price, reliability, servicing to capacity and delivery schedules.
Assuming for the moment that labour content can be included within the word service, it could be argued that this is a reference to labour content. But even if it is-and this is certainly not clear because the word services is not defined in the bill-this clause in the agreement could actually work against Canadian labour content because, in some circumstances, if foreign labour were more competitive within the
Northern Pipeline
meaning of that term as set out in clause 7, it would result in precluding Canadian labour content rather than including it. It is all very well for the Deputy Prime Minister-I see he is now back in the chamber-to talk about competitiveness. There is no way Canadian labour can compete if this clause is relied on by the government as the basis of Canadian labour content. It does not guarantee Canadian labour content, and may even preclude it.
I know the Deputy Prime Minister will agree with me when I say there is no way in which the agreement can be re-negotiated to obtain a guarantee with regard to Canadian labour content. Apparently the Canadian negotiators assumed this was not necessary on the basis of the confidence of the company that it could employ 90 per cent or more Canadian labour. I want to say to the hon. gentleman that it is devoutly to be hoped that this assumption is correct.
Officials of the pipeline company are confident they can achieve the objective of maximum Canadian labour content. This view is based on their experience of past projects as well as on their experience of training manpower for pipeline construction. Union officials have quietly and unofficially indicated that they believe the major unions involved in pipeline construction will be able to provide a large proportion of the labour required. Again, it is to be hoped that this confidence turns out to be well placed.
What is missing in any discussion of this issue is corroboration by independent government studies of the estimates made by the company and the opinions of certain labour leaders. The Deputy Prime Minister stated in September that the project would create 100,000 man-years of employment in Canada. According to his release of February 3, 1978, entitled "The Northern Pipeline-Facts and Figures", if the company's objective of achieving 90 per cent input of Canadian goods and services in the project in this country, including the Dempster lateral, is realized, the hon. gentleman's earlier estimate of 100,000 man-years would be fulfilled. But this depends on three things. First, that there is in fact a 90 per cent input of Canadian goods and services; second, that the Dempster lateral is, in fact built; and, third, that there is presently available, or will be available by the date on which construction begins, sufficient trained Canadian workers to do the work which is on offer.
The estimates which have been put forward depend on all three assumptions being valid, and in these circumstances the government has an obligation to be completely open with parliament both during the present debate and in the committee hearings. Questions must be asked in addition to those which were asked during the question period today and in the course of the debate last night.
A study has been prepared by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce which puts the total number of man-years at 69,078. This is a far cry from the 100,000 man-years the minister has told us will be created. There may be an explanation for this lower figure. Indeed, if the study were

February 14, 1978
Northern Pipeline
available in its entirety we might find that it contained an explanation. Clearly, it demands one. This study was referred to during the question period a few minutes ago. It is not a simple statement. It is headed "Estimates of Canadian ManHours Related to Pipeline Construction." It refers to the joint project and is broken down into the construction phase, engineering, project management, transportation and related services, and so on. There is also a separate item for the manufacturing phase, and the total number of man-years estimated is 69,078. It is common knowledge that if the Dempster link is not built, a reduction of about one third is to be expected which reduces the number of man-years according to this still secret study to about 47,000. I hardly need point out to the Deputy Prime Minister that this is less than one half of the estimate he has been giving the country for some months.
An Ottawa columnist, Mr. Richard Gwyn, recently published an article disclosing that a further study exists with respect to Canadian content. This was carried out by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Noting that the figure 100,000 man-years is based on the assumption of 90 per cent Canadian content, Mr. Gwyn cites this study as saying Canadian content could be as low as 67 per cent. The author quotes the study as follows: "Unless there are more effective controls to ensure Canadian content this 67 per cent may be the more realistic projection." The Deputy Prime Minister has told us he does not intend to get into debate about what might happen upon the basis of the worst possible assumptions. But if this study, which remains unavailable, is correct, then the estimate of 90 per cent content being equal to 100,000 man-years for both Alcan and Dempster is just not realistic.
A further cause for concern are the words "unless there are more effective controls to ensure Canadian content-" What do these words really mean? Do they mean that a government department believes the controls are not effective and that some officials in government are concerned that in the absence of more effective controls-we do not know their nature- pressures will build up to by-pass Canadian content during the construction period? Again, this situation should be clarified to the satisfaction of parliament and of the labour movement during this debate.
Then again, the question must be asked: will the Dempster line be built? As of today its construction does not seem to be completely assured. According to the press the Department of Energy said recently that Canada has enough gas in the south to meet all its needs into the middle of 1990-2000. What is the government's response to this assertion? What is the position of the government on the likelihood of the Dempster link being built in the coming years? Obviously this is important because, as I have pointed out, without the Dempster link the estimate of the 100,000 man-years, even if accurately based, drops by
30,000.
There is a third important consideration. Assurances must be given by the government that its own department of manpower has under way, or will have in place in time, an adequate training program. At present there is considerable confidence that the principal unions involved can supply the

manpower needed now to be sure of maximum Canadian labour content. We want to know that the present capacity will in fact be available in 1980 and throughout subsequent construction years. I might add that inquiries of the Department of Manpower by my office and myself have not resulted in any information on this point. We understand that certain training programs in the field of skilled work on pipelines have been in place for sometime but, as far as I can determine, nothing is in place specifically for the Alcan pipeline project.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), in a speech reported in the Globe and Mail on February 10, said:
-he expects arrangements will be made with the pipeline companies to have interested Yukon residents sent south for training and experience on pipeline jobs.
The article continued:
There will be major pipeline construction for this training in Alberta and British Columbia during the next few years involving two of Foothills companies, the Alberta Gas Trunk Line Co. Ltd. of Calgary and Westcoast Transmission Co. Ltd. of Vancouver.
It is interesting that the minister, in his recent speech, seems to be putting the entire onus for training on Foothills or its associated companies. Perhaps this is satisfactory, but surely parliament should know whether the company alone can provide the training required.
Despite assurances from the company, based on its own experience, we really do not know whether a sufficient and satisfactory manpower training plan is either in effect or being planned. This question must be clarified, especially in view of the newspaper report to which I referred.
It continued:
Mr. Cullen said that, depending on the demands for skilled workers by other projects, the gas pipeline might require the use of foreign workers in certain trades.
If the Minister of Employment and Immigration made this statement as recently as last week, I should think someone on the government side owes us an explanation. How many workers might this involve? What categories of work are involved? What unions are involved? Does the government have information which casts doubts on company assurances that the highest degree of Canadian labour will be used? All these questions need to be answered. Most certainly they were not answered by the Deputy Prime Minister in his speech opening the debate yesterday, nor today in answer to questions posed in the House.
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) put the position of the Progressive Conservative party exactly, when he said that there is a need to have some sort of monitoring of Canadian content. It is all very well to be given vague assurances, but the proof of whether these assurances are taking place can come only in the future. No one is suggesting that the company, or for that matter the government, does not want Canadian labour content. Reports should be sumitted to parliament on a regular basis indicating clearlj the job situation
February 14, 1978

and illustrating the extent or otherwise of Canada labour content from time to time. Even the government, with its well known instinct for secrecy, should not object to our proposal. As the hon. member for Yukon has stated, we will be proposing an amendment to provide for such monitoring and reporting. Canadians have a right to know, after the promises, whether those promises in fact are being kept.
At this point I should like to refer to an extract from the report of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I ask government members to listen carefully. In part the report reads:
There is sufficient uncertainty about what Canadian content could be achieved ... some method of monitoring to ensure the implementation of high Canadian content will likely be required.
That is an extract from the government's own study. Either the government knows about it and has not told us, or the government just found out about it today. It emphasizes the position my party is taking. There must be a monitoring on the question of Canadian content in materials, as well as Canadian labour content.
There have been stories circulating which indicate that the American counterparts of international unions intend to send their workers into Canada to seek jobs on the pipeline. Of course this cannot be allowed, except where there is no possible way to obtain Canadian workers. The Anchorage Times of October 2, 1977, carried a story that teamsters from Alaska would be sent into Canada. I am sure this was a misunderstanding on the part of our friends in Alaska. I have been told discussions have taken place within the last two weeks in which Canadian union officials made it quite clear that American workers would not be able to move into the pipeline jobs.
I should like to deal with another aspect of this project which was touched upon yesterday by the hon. member for Yukon. What is the government doing, and what is being done to ensure Canadians have a chance to take an equity position in this particular pipeline? The experience in Alberta clearly shows that this kind of equity opportunity would prove to be very popular, not just with financiers and the wealthy, but with the vast majority of people with modest means who would like an opportunity to take some part in the future of their country through this particular project. It is incumbent upon all government members to ensure that this is given adequate consideration during committee hearings in order to ensure Canadians an equity position in the pipeline.
Yesterday hon. members on the government side indicated that it was important to have a powerful agency to conduct, co-ordinate, and regulate the work. There is no quarrel with that. That agency must have the power to do the job. I ask hon. members to look carefully at the provisions in the bill which only allow an appeal from an agency directive to the Federal Court. The Federal Court may send the appeal back. It can do one of two things; it can confirm the act of the agency, but there is no appeal from then on, or it can send the question back to the agency for reconsideration. What the Federal Court cannot do, which any appeal court ought to be able to do, is to make a decision against the order of the body
Northern Pipeline
appealed from. I urge the Deputy Prime Minister, as well as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), to consider carefully those remarks. They are not given in a pejorative sense.
Despite the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister the other day, which indicated that this is a political House and the others are judicial houses, this is still the highest court in the land in the eyes of most Canadians. All hon. members should be conscious of judicial processes. Those processes should not be interfered with in the House of Commons, even with the plea that there must not be undue delay. There does not need to be undue delay, but there ought to be an appeal in the real sense. There cannot be an appeal unless the body appealed to can reverse the decision of the arbitrary agency appealed from.
In closing, I thank hon. members for their attention. Members of my party will study this question of Canadian labour content with great deliberation in the proceedings before committee. We are not attempting to delay this bill. As I indicated today during oral questions, on more of a note of irritation than at the moment, if the government provides us with the facts, we will move the bill along quite expeditiously.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not in the House yesterday to hear the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) or the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). Since my return I have not had a chance to read those speeches, but I intend to do so. I simply apologize for not dealing today with some of the points raised yesterday, and I look forward to dealing with some of those points as they relate to my particular responsibilities at the committee stage, if that is acceptable. I think the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) has also raised some interesting questions today, and I assure him that those will be dealt with in the committee as well. Perhaps that is in fact the best place in which to deal with some of them.
I would also like to express my gratification at the expression of general support for the bill and for its expeditious passage offered on behalf of the official opposition by the hon. member for Yukon and reaffirmed this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver South. That coincides very much with the general feeling of the government.
My purpose in getting into the debate today is to elaborate on certain questions which are a particular responsibility of my ministry and which affect, directly or indirectly, the planned northern pipeline. It is to be hoped my remarks will assist hon. members in understanding the direction of our planning as it relates to the pipeline.
First, let me say that I personally believe we can set terms and conditions for the building of the northern pipeline which can maximize potential benefits and minimize adverse effects. I believe we have the time to plan. I think we have the time to involve communities, but equally I think it is important to

February 14, 1978
Northern Pipeline
make the point that we have very little time to waste. We have very little time to agonize over the challenge. This pipeline is a national undertaking and must be viewed with that in mind, and we need the time which is at our disposal to do the job properly.
Second, let me say that although this is the largest capital project undertaken by private industry in Canada, it is certainly not the most difficult. It poses nothing like the serious problems associated, for example, with an oil pipeline.
Much more challenging, I suspect, will be a project like the LNG project in the eastern Arctic or other large scale, high technology energy projects proposed for various parts of Canada.
Let me turn to the implications of the proposed legislation. The northern pipeline bill is without doubt one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this parliament. The project is of great significance to the national economy and should provide a much needed stimulus, as others have pointed out. In the longer run it will also facilitate access to Canadian reserves of gas in the Mackenzie Delta. As minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I am particularly conscious of the effects the project will have on the lives and expectations of those who live in the north and close to the route of the pipeline. Economic activity has been at a low ebb throughout the north in the past two years. Unemployment and a stagnant investment situation prevail. I see the decision to go ahead with the pipeline changing that in a fairly dramatic way.
A project of this scale will give a boost to all sectors of the economy in the Yukon through the generation of new and permanent employment opportunities. In addition, I am optimistic that some of the economic stimulus of this project will extend into the Northwest Territories. There is, Mr. Speaker, a very distinguished member of the Northwest Territories Ex. Comm, in the gallery, but parliamentary procedures do not allow me to recognize him formally beyond that.
At the same time, it must be recognized that people living both in the Yukon and in northern regions of the provinces of B.C. and Alberta look upon the pipeline with mixed feelings. I think we have to be quite candid about that. Many people, especially natives, have real concerns about the potential for seriously disrupting their lifestyle and their economy. Some see employment and business opportunities but are wondering whether they will be able to realize these benefits. The Indian people in the Yukon have all these concerns plus an additional one regarding the possible affect of the pipeline project on the settlement of their land claims.
These questions are a very real concern to me and represent, I suspect, the most difficult challenge we must meet if this project, which is to be carried out in the national interest, is also to yield net benefits for the north. To me this is central to northern economic development policy.
Last month I had the opportunity and honour to address the Northwest Territorial Council on this very subject, and I believe my remarks there were germane to the Yukon. In the

past we have too often seen northern development in terms of economic growth. Most commonly this has meant exploitation of northern renewable resources to meet national or foreign needs. All too frequently such projects have yielded little or no lasting benefits to the local people living in the north. My own objective in economic development is that it must be for the north, not just of the north.
The bill before this House, and the Canada-U.S. agreement it incorporates, provide the statutory basis for unprecedented benefits to the Yukon. The bill provides the legislative framework for my commitment to make the Yukon a full partner in this undertaking.
I should like to set out 12 key points about the project which are of particular importance to the Yukon. One, the pipeline itself will provide economic benefits to the Yukon. That does not seem to be disputed. Two, the creation of a single window regulatory agency to ensure efficient construction and full compliance. Three, a second stage inquiry to be conducted by the agency to review the proposed terms and conditions with the Yukon public. Four, an agency office in Whitehorse headed by a top official to be established under clause 10 of the bill. Five, Yukon representation on the federal-provincial consultative committee under clause 17 of the bill. Six, an advisory pipeline council for the Yukon Territory to be created under clause 18. The main reason that provision is in the bill is to help us take account of the special concerns of the Yukon. Seven, a major role and major responsibility for the Yukon territorial government is mitigative impact planning for the pipeline. I will have more to say about that later in my remarks.
Eight, the addition of a fourth elected member to the executive committee of the Yukon territorial government specifically to deal with pipeline impacts and native affairs. This I authorized in November. Nine, the establishment of a pipeline impact information centre located in Whitehorse to disseminate reliable information about pipeline impacts. Ten, substantial taxation revenues for the Yukon Territory including financing of essential mitigative measures and the creation of a Yukon pipeline heritage fund. Eleven, in addition, as soon as agreement in principle is reached on the Council for Yukon Indians land claim the government is prepared to create a $50 million advance on the land claim settlement. Twelve, the bill makes specific provision for the construction of a Dempster lateral when the necessary pre-conditions are met. The point I am making is that these 12 points constitute a substantial package of participation and benefits for the Yukon Territory. It will ensure that the interests of the Yukon are met in building the pipeline.
Let me now deal further with these 12 points. The building of the pipeline itself will provide a major boost to the economy of the Yukon, as it will to the economy of Canada as a whole. Because a major part of the route will directly cross the southern part of the territory, the Yukon stands to reap major economic benefits in the form of jobs, new businesses, permanent additions to infrastructure and new energy sources for

February 14, 1978
Northern Pipeline
Subsequent to the approval of the Alaska Highway line by the Canada-U.S. governments last fall, the environmental assessment panel was reconvened and has since issued guidelines for the preparation of the environmental impact statement. The panel will be continuing its work over the coming months and will be holding public hearings in the Yukon.
With regard to socioeconomic matters, the Lysyk report recommended that the second stage of the inquiry be carried out by the agency that was set up to regulate the planning and construction of the pipeline. I want to make it clear to the House that this recommendation has in principle been accepted by the government. We intend, however, that the public review process should be focused on a specific set of proposals and be designed to help us reach concrete decisions.
Wide ranging examination of the implications of pipeline construction in the north have been carried out in recent years by the Berger inquiry, the National Energy Board, the Lysyk inquiry, the Alaska Highway pipeline panel, financed by Foothills, to name only the most promiment. The analysis provided to the government from these quarters has been of a very high quality. In addition, many aspects of northern pipelines have been under study by departments of the federal government since the first major discoveries were made at Prudhoe Bay in 1968. What is needed now, in my judgment, is not more studies, more research, more lawyers and consultants, and TV cameras. What is needed is for the government to decide upon a range of concrete measures and then to put its proposals out for public scrutiny and debate.
The process we have in mind is as follows. Work is currently in progress within departments of the federal and territorial governments on a wide range of socioeconomic terms and conditions for the construction of the pipeline. The coordination of this work is being carried out by my department in consultation with the northern pipeline commissioner. We expect that a draft set of terms and conditions will be ready by this spring, at which time the agency will assume responsibility for carrying out a public review process which will include public hearings in communities along the route of the pipeline. I would expect this process to bring to light public concerns about any major deficiencies in our proposals. On the basis of this public scrutiny, the agency would, by the end of the summer, make the necessary revisions and additions to the terms and conditions, after which they would be issued to the company in legally binding form.
The provisions we are making for effective public and local access to the management process do not end there. The bill before the House provides for the creation of advisory councils. We will be establishing such a council in the Yukon at an early date to represent all the major Yukon interests, including the Indian people. The role of the council will be to provide effective two-way communications between the public and the agency beginning this spring and continuing throughout the life of the project. The advisory council will be kept fully informed of the activities of the agency, and be in a position to

make recommendations to the commissioner of the agency on a continuing basis concerning the project.
I would like to turn now to the challenge this bill and this project pose to the Yukon territorial government. The terms and conditions will govern the actual construction of the pipeline by Foothills. What they will not cover are the myriad secondary, indirect impacts that will result. It is in many of these areas that the Yukon territorial government has primacy under existing legislation and program arrangements. The elected members of territorial council have a special responsibility.
Senior members of the territorial government have been involved in the pipeline decision from an early stage. The Commissioner of the Yukon territory participated in discussions with ministers prior to the negotiations with the United States. The full executive committee of the Yukon territorial government was invited to Ottawa to meet with ministers prior to the pipeline decision in August. I have myself met with members of the territorial council, the executive committee, and the executive committee member responsible for pipelines on more than one occasion, and there has been a continuous series of meetings between officials of the two governments since last fall.
It is no exaggeration that managing pipeline impacts will be a major challenge for the Yukon territorial government. It has a clear responsibility to start planning now in areas where it has primary responsibility. I am referring to such critical areas of probable pipeline impact as education, welfare, the control of rental accommodation, and municipal services.
The eyes not only of the people of the Yukon but of all of Canada and of the members of this House will be focused on the Yukon during the critical pipeline construction period. The government and my department have already taken several steps to support the territorial government in preparing for the pipeline construction period.
In November I expressed my willingness to support the establishment of an impact information centre for the Yukon. I note that the Lysyk report also recommended independent monitoring of social impacts. As was confirmed in my recent fact-finding visit to Alaska, an impact information centre can play a useful role in disseminating reliable information about pipeline impact, before, during, and after the construction period.
In addition, at the request of the territorial council, the elected membership of the executive committee, or Ex. Comm., was expanded to four. This was specifically to provide for expanded initiatives in the areas of pipeline planning and native affairs.
Previous speakers in this debate have charged the government with failing to respond to the Lysyk recommendation for the creation of a heritage fund. In fact, in my judgment, we have done better. We have negotiated a tax regime with the United States which represents a tenfold increase over revenues anticipated by the Yukon government. It will generate a net return of over $1 billion over a 25-year period. This is after
February 14, 1978

Yukon communities. There will be significant economic multiplier effects.
Let me quickly summarize the scale and scope of the project. The plans of the company call for some preparatory work, requiring a work force of a few hundred, to be undertaken in the Yukon in 1979, and to continue on an expanded scale until 1980. This work will include surveys, preparation of gravel pads, and clearing rights-of-way. The laying of pipe for the first construction spread is scheduled to begin in January, 1981. By the summer of the same year large scale activity will be in progress and will continue until the project is completed in 1983. Foothills have estimated that their peak labour force in the Yukon will number about 2,200 and that the total in-migration will be short of 5,000. That figure is open to some argument. It may be conservative.


Some hon. Member:: Conservative?


James Hugh Faulkner: Demographically conservative.
For the benefits to be achieved without unacceptable environmental social and economic costs would require systematic compliance with regulatory standards. But it is equally important that pipeline construction costs not be pumped up by overblown, overlapping regulations and competing regulatory agencies. For this reason the government has established the concept of a "single window" regulatory agency. This will bring all the relevant regulations under one responsible, responsive, umbrella organization. This, in my judgment, is the central thrust of the northern pipeline bill before this House.
The concept applies for the whole of the Canadian portion of the pipeline, but it has special importance to the Yukon. The Yukon is especially sensitive to environmental and social impacts. The ecology of the Yukon is very delicate. A significant portion of the Yukon native population is dependent upon the land for food and other basic needs. The Yukon wilderness is a priceless national asset as well as for all Yukoners, native and white. It must not be crippled or destroyed by the construction of this pipeline. The Yukon population is small, only 22,000 people.


An hon. Member:: But the quality is high.


James Hugh Faulkner: the Yukon has funded the additional programs required as a result of the project; these are currently estimated to cost in the region of $70 million up to 1983.
In 1983, the first year of operation, Foothills will pay taxes of $30 million. In each succeeding year this figure will be escalated by the GNP price deflator. The construction of the Dempster line in the 1980's would expand revenues still further, and, coupled with further mining development, should bring the Yukon close to a position of fiscal independence from the federal government. With fiscal independence would inevitably go a greater ability to Yukoners to manage their own affairs.
In the initial years, if we applied all the new tax revenues against the annual federal deficit grant there would be no net gain to the Yukon. I do not believe this is just, and therefore I accept fully the concept of a heritage fund first proposed in the Lysyk report. I wish to announce that to establish this fund the federal government is prepared to exempt a portion of the pipeline revenues, and all other new territorial taxes, from the calculation of the annual deficit grant. The fund would be capitalized to an eventual total of $50 million and the moneys used by the territorial government to provide lasting benefits to the Yukon.
I have also informed the territorial government that we wish to negotiate an agreement with them relating to other pipeline matters and, in particular, the provisions of loans to pay for pipeline related expenditures in advance of the funds becoming available from pipeline taxes. I am proposing that the territorial government be free to borrow up to $200 million from Foothills or from any alternative source it may choose, thereby ensuring the best possible rate. This will be the first time that a territorial government has had the right to undertake independent borrowings. Such borrowings would supplement the very substantial expenditures which the federal government expects to incur on its own account in the Yukon.
I have outlined several major steps which are already being taken, Mr. Speaker. As minister responsible for northern affairs, I stand ready to co-operate with the territorial government in other ways. For example, clause 17 of the bill before you makes specific provision for a representative of the Yukon on the federal-provincial consultative council. I look forward to co-operating with the territorial government in the selection of this representative.
The people of the Yukon and the federal government are looking to the territorial government for leadership in the management of pipeline impacts within its areas of responsibility. I urge the territorial government, and particularly the elected members of council, to take up the challenge. It will require political courage to make the tough decisions that lie ahead. Specifically, they will be called on to commit significant financial resources to meet pipeline needs, particularly in such areas as housing, social programs, and municipal services. In the measures announced today and the action previously taken, the federal government is meeting some of its major responsibilities. In addition, the fiscal measures we have developed will ensure the territorial government has the resources to
Northern Pipeline
play a leadership role in the management of pipeline impacts in the Yukon territory.
It will be clear from what I have said thus far that the interests of native people in relation to this project are very much in my mind. This is true, not only of the Yukon Indians, but of those in Alberta, B.C., and Saskatchewan as well. Pipeline co-ordinators have already been designated in the regional offices of the Indian Affairs program in the three western provinces plus the Yukon. They will be working closely with Indian leaders and the company to ensure that Indian interests are protected, and that Indian people are able to take advantage of the economic opportunities inherent in the project. The results of their work in the next few months will be reflected in the socioeconomic terms and conditions we are preparing. Alberta Gas Trunk, one of the principal members of the Foothills consortium, has established an excellent record in working with native groups, and our discussions with its president, who is also president of Foothills, has left us in no doubt that we can count on full co-operation from the company.
I would now like to look specifically at the Yukon Indian land claim. I have purposely left the most pressing issue to last, and that is this issue of the Yukon land claim relative to the pipeline. The pipeline is a reality which cannot be avoided. It is therefore in the interests of both the government and the Yukon Indian people to ensure that the land claim is settled quickly and fairly, and that both sides do everything possible to avoid prejudicing the negotiations toward the settlement of the claim. We have three full years before construction starts in earnest in the Yukon, and I believe this should be sufficient to achieve a just settlement of the claim and to make a good start on its implementation.
The Yukon Indians presented their paper, "Together Today for our Children Tomorrow", five years ago today. Three years ago the government made an initial offer for the settlement of the claim. A sustained set of negotiation meetings was held during the course of 1977, and by the end of the year there was agreement on both sides that an agreement in principle should be attainable by the spring of 1978.
In the past few weeks the Yukon Indian leaders have informed us that they wish to reassess and consolidate their position, and that they intend to present a new and comprehensive statement of their claim before the end of March, 1978.
I fully recognize that northern claims, including the one in the Yukon, have to do with more than land and cash, important though these may be. The claims reflect the legitimate desire of native people to establish for themselves a more effective role in northern society and northern institutions; they are an attempt by people who have been virtually powerless to gain effective control of their lives. The federal government is in full sympathy with these aspirations.
The government has made clear its willingness to consider modifying existing institutions and systems, and to develop with native people ways of providing special protection for

February 14, 1978
Northern Pipeline
their interests, whether through legislative or other measures. Indeed, special protection for native interests may be particularly important for Yukon Indians because they are a minority and there is danger that their position will be eroded further as the pipeline and other major development projects proceed.
I am confident that, with trust and good will established on both sides, measures can be developed that will give native people in the Yukon both political and cultural security, together with substantial and lasting opportunities for economic development.
The Lysyk report proposed that a fund of $50 million be established in order to enable implementation of the settlement to begin in advance of the final agreement. I informed the council for Yukon Indians last November that we are prepared to give very serious consideration to a proposal whereby such a fund would be established as soon as an agreement in principle was reached. While the principal would be held by the federal government-and this is in the spirit of the Lysyk recommendation-pending signature of the final agreement the Yukon Indians could set up a corporation to use and manage the interest accruing from the fund. These interest moneys, which might be of the order of $4 million or more per year, could be used to establish Indian enterprises that could take advantage of economic opportunities arising from the pipeline project, to carry out community improvements, and to provide programs for the protection and enhancement of Indian culture in the Yukon.
In summary, I believe that the pipeline project, although it is being undertaken for national reasons, can be managed in a way that will provide substantial and lasting benefits to the north-that it will be consistent with the objective I stated at the outset of promoting development for the north, that it will be consistent with the objective I stated at the outset of promoting development for the north as opposed to simply development of the north.
In particular, I believe that through the development of effective terms and conditions for pipeline construction, through the enhancement of government programs, through the creation of a heritage fund, and through the benefits that could result for all Yukoners from a just settlement of the Indian claim, we can produce a better order of things in the Yukon. South of the sixtieth parallel, the project can create significant economic opportunities for Indian people.
The agency that will be created by this bill will have a key role to play in combining firm regulation with simplified and expeditious management of the government's role in the project. It is important that the measures in this bill receive the earliest possible approval so that we can all get on with meeting the challenges that lie before us.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, before the minister sits down, may I ask a question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister will have to give his permission.


James Hugh Faulkner: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, last year when we were discussing this matter it was suggested that the native land claims were close to settlement. There was a real possibility that by the month of September, 1977, a settlement in principle would be reached. September has come and gone.
The minister seems to be reasonably hopeful that a settlement will be reached in the spring of 1978. I would like to ask the minister if any discussions have been held within the past six months, or are presently being held, concerning the native people of the Yukon regarding their land claim? If not, has the whole process been stalled so that no hearings or discussions are being held at all? What stage are the negotiations at with the native people on land claim settlement?


James Hugh Faulkner: that concern them, such as education and a host of other questions? These areas are the ones which present difficulty in settlement but, in my judgment, they can be settled if there is good will and flexibility.
It is in that spirit that a satisfactory settlement will be reached. There is a disposition on both sides to try to settle it. I do not wish to minimize the negotiations that lie ahead, but I believe those issues can be resolved.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat disturbed to learn this morning of the existence of two reports, one put out by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and another by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which seemed to contradict the figure which has been bandied around by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen). This, to my mind, underlines the need for freedom of information legislation such as has been advocated for so long by my hon. friend from Peace River.
The bill we are discussing today is an important piece of legislation. It affects all the people of Canada, and in dealing with it we should have all the facts before us. Nothing should be hidden. If we do not have all the information in our possession as parliamentarians how can we make an intelligent decision on the issue? As my friend, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has said, it is not the intention of members of this party to delay the legislation. If the pipeline is in the interest of all the people of Canada, whether they work in the industrial plants of Ontario or Quebec or whether they work on the prairies or whether they are looking for jobs in the maritimes, we are prepared to give relatively quick passage to the bill, but only after expressing our concern with regard to a number of aspects and the presentation of amendments which we believe to be necessary.
I listened to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) a few minutes ago. 1 shall not comment at length on his remarks but I should like to refer to one of the statements he made. He said, and I believe I am quoting him correctly, that the bill "makes the Yukon a full partner in the project." Well, I have read the legislation several times, and it certainly does not appear to me that it makes the Yukon a full partner. In fact it detracts from the powers of the Yukon. The minister talked about the appointment of a member to the advisory council. But that appointment will be made by the governor in council, not by the legislative assembly of the Yukon. If you go through the legislation, Mr. Speaker, you will find many clauses which have the effect of placing power in the hands of the governor in council without right of appeal.
I intend to restrict my remarks to the subject of northern development. The Conservative party over the years has maintained a consistent and progressive policy toward the economic and political development of the north. On September 26, 1958, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker), who, incidentally, was the first Canadian prime minister to travel north of the 60th parallel, stated "Eventually the
Northern Pipeline
area of the Yukon will surely be a province. It is my hope that by the time of Canada's centennial, in 1967, the Yukon and Mackenzie will have gone a long way-if not all the way- toward self-government."
The right hon. gentleman had a vision of the north, a vision so powerful that it captured the imagination of the people of Canada. Twenty years later that vision has been eroded and obscured by successive Liberal governments which continue to ignore the seriousness and sensitiveness of Indian land claims, along with need to provide leadership and assistance in the economic and political development of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. The peoples of the north are looking and working toward provincial status. Their aims and aspirations are dedicated to this goal, and they will receive provincial status when the Conservative party forms the government after the next general election.
On August 4 of this year, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) speaking on the northern gas pipeline motion, stated as reported at page 8037 of Hansard:
The Government of Canada, which runs the north like a colony, has known for at least a decade that the society and the economy of that region were bound to be profoundly affected by a pipeline possibility. Yet, despite that warning, despite Ottawa's absolute jurisdiction, we have to make this decision without a northern energy policy, without a national energy policy, without a northern development policy, and without any clear or consistent approach to native rights or northern ecology.
The key words of the above quotation are, I would submit, "The Government of Canada which runs the north like a colony"-a colony, 1 might add, in respect of which direction is given and decisions are made by experts in Ottawa who, while they might have all the data at their fingertips, have little if any intimate or personal knowledge of the north or of the hopes and aspirations and feelings of the people who reside within the territory.
When the Leader of the Official Opposition visited the territories two years ago, he gave a firm commitment to the people of the Yukon. He explained that if it was the expressed wish of the Yukon residents to become a province just like the others, he would, within his first term of office, pass the necessary legislation to give the Yukon provincial status. His is a progressive attitude, in complete contrast to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has had to say regarding provincial status in the Yukon.
I would like to quote from the editorial page of the Whitehorse Star dated Monday, August 8, as follows:
Mr. Trudeau said on the CBC Friday that for the Yukon to become a province it would require a massive injection of federal funds.
The editor went on:
Trudeau seems to be ignoring the Yukon territorial government's good record of paying its own way for operating and maintaining its programs and departments. In the past year the Yukon taxpayer met over 80 per cent of the territory's expenses. That's better than most provinces. If he applied the argument to Canada's provinces, seven of them would immediately become territories.
I am advised by a member of the Yukon legislative assembly that when the pipeline is constructed, taking into consideration the taxes that will be paid to the Yukon territorial government and using the same formula as is presently used for the

February 14, 1978
Northern Pipeline
provinces, the Yukon, if if were a province, would be one of the few have provinces in Canada.
You may be wondering, Mr. Speaker, why, in a debate on a pipeline, I should be discussing self-government in the Yukon. The answer is simple. Of all the areas the pipeline crosses, it is the Yukon, with the exception of northern B.C., which will be most directly affected and where the greatest strain will be placed on the population and on the local and territorial governmental structures. It is an area where decisions must be taken which will have a lasting effect upon the people and the territory, decisions which will require an intimate and complete knowledge of the effect then are likely to have. I do not believe the government has recognized this fact.
If one examines the provisions of the bill, specifically clause 17, one will note that this clause provides for the setting up of a federal-provincial consultative council. This council will consist of representatives of each of the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Each of these provinces may nominate, by lieutenant governor in council, the person who sits on that council. In effect, the cabinet in each of the provinces makes the choice and designation. However, when it comes to the Yukon Territory, it provides for the commissioner, who is a federal government appointee, to be a member of the council. It provides for the other representative to be named by the governor in council, in other words, the federal cabinet.
From reading this specific clause, 1 gather this representative will not necessarily have to be a resident of the Yukon Territory, but could be an individual chosen by the governor in council from anywhere in Canada. I would suspect that the appointee will be one of the top public servants, presumably from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The representative of the Yukon Territory on the federal-provincial consultative council must be named and appointed by the executive council of the Yukon Territory, which represents the people of the Yukon. It is my party's intention in committee to propose an amendment to this clause which gives such power of appointment to the executive council. Not one person, nor a group of people from the south, can represent the interests of the Yukon. They lack both the feeling and sensitiveness which is necessary to understand the problems and concerns of the north.
The pipeline minister, Mr. Ken McKinnon of the Yukon legislature, said a few days ago, as reported in the Whitehorse Star, that the pipeline legislation presently before the House of Commons reflects a growing and powerful federal presence in the Yukon. He pointed out that the Lysyk report indicated that the Yukon must be involved totally in all matters pertaining to the pipeline through its territory.
Is the federal government going to continue to treat the Yukon as a colony, or is it going to respect the wishes of the people and grant them responsible government? Will it allow active involvement by the people in the territorial council in decision-making with respect to the impact of the pipeline? It
[Mr. Ncii.J
would almost appear that the attitude of the government is to become more and more involved, and that its policy is to move further away from, rather than toward, responsible government. Certainly it did not have the interests of the Yukon in mind when it failed to negotiate the $200 million heritage fund for the territory recommended in the Lysyk report. As the hon. member for Yukon stated yesterday, this fund would have given the people of the Yukon the money to enable them to purchase the assets of the Northern Canada Power Corporation and set up a new corporation of their own.
Time will not permit me to go into a detailed discussion of the Northern Canada Power Corporation, but it is sufficient to say that it was set up by an act of this parliament in 1956 to service the Yukon and Northwest Territories. It was based on a user-pay concept. Each project undertaken must be self-sustaining. Therefore rates charged must provide sufficient revenue to cover interest on investments, repayment of principal over a period of years, as well as a contingency reserve. The NCPC is operated by federal appointees, and it is not popular in the north. Its power rates are high, its planning is poorly done, and recently it was faced with a cost over-run of $36 million on the $11 million Aiskik power project. If the Yukon were able to acquire the capital assets, future planning could take place by the people of the Yukon.
There is tremendous hydro potential in the territory. There is one of the largest bodies of iron ore in the world in the Snake river area, as well as coal. These two resources, combined with power, could result in a large and almost fantastic steel industry. One must remember it was the steel industry which made the United States what it is today. There are other large ore bodies of lead and zinc, as well as a potential for an aluminum smelter in the Whitehorse area. It is interesting to note that Kaiser Aluminum showed a keen interest in such a smelter, but received no encouragement from the federal government.
Some might say that I am stressing development too much and that I am not concerned about the environment. This is not so. Development can go hand in hand with environmental and ecological protection. Development of resources must and will come. During the past few years I have met many people of the Yukon. They are vitally concerned about the environment and the ecology, as well as the socioeconomic problems. They are responsible people. They are the ones who should be making the plans and participating in the decisions, not the top senior officials of government who do not possess the same personal concerns.
Basically, the Alcan route will be constructed to deliver American gas from the North Slope and Prudhoe Bay to the lower 48 states. It is an accommodation for our neighbours to the south. It is only if the Dempster spur from the Mackenzie Delta is constructed and connected that Canadian gas will move down the line. Whether or not a Dempster spur will be built will depend on numerous factors, such as the reserves which will be discovered in the delta; the environmental and ecological effects in the area which the pipeline will transverse; and whether or not a smaller line down the Mackenzie valley
February 14, 1978

will be less costly or of greater national interest and value to the settlements in the valley.
Bearing these facts in mind, one wonders why the Deputy Prime Minister, when he was negotiating with the American authorities, did not do so on a quid pro quo basis and obtain some major benefits for Canada. I will refer to one benefit specifically, and that is a corridor from the Yukon through the Alaska Panhandle to tidewater. This was touched upon briefly yesterday by the hon. member for Yukon, and in the earlier pipeline debate by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) and the Leader of the Opposition. The question of a corridor through the Alaska Panhandle is one which the Americans may have looked upon with some favour because there has been some feeling in Alaska in the past that such a corridor should be established.
1 need ony refer to House Joint Resolution No. 119 in the legislature of the State of Alaska, Sixth Legislature, 2nd Session, which was introduced in the legislature on April 13, 1970, and referred to the Committee on State Affairs. The resolution was a request for a negotiation of a treaty between Canada and the United States for the establishment of a Canadian port at Skagway and Haines. The resolution is very short, and I would like to read it into the record:
Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Alaska whereas the State of Alaska has established, at its own instigation and expense, a modern marine highway system connecting Alaska and the 48 contiguous states through the Port of Seattle; and
Whereas the Alaska Marine Highway System was devised and has operated to take the place of a highway because of the impossibility of actual roadbuilding in southeastern Alaska; and
Whereas there is a tremendous movement in commerce, trade and tourism between the south 48 states and Alaska; and
Whereas better to handle all the traffic, the Alaska Marine Highway System purchased a foreign-bottomed vessel, the M. V. Wickersham\ and Whereas presently, due to the provisions of the Jones Act, the M. V. Wicker-sham is prohibited from transporting passengers and vehicles between U.S. ports, thus creating an unreasonable burden on the residents of the state, on the flow of commerce and on the visitors to Alaska; and
Whereas under international law every government which is sovereign within its sphere of action possesses as an inherent attribute the power to acquire territory by agreement or treaty;
Be it resolved that the Sixth Alaska State Legislature respectfully requests the Department of State to negotiate with the Canadian government with the object of establishing by treaty or other agreement a portion of the ports of Skagway and Haines as Canadian ports.
Copies of this resolution shall be sent to the Honourable Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States; the Honourable William P. Rogers, Secretary, Department of State; and to the Honourable Ted Stevens and the Honourable Mike Gravel, U.S. Senators, and the Honourable W. Pollock, U.S. Representative, members of the Alaska delegation in Congress.
I grant that the resolution was proposed at a time when the Jones Act was an issue, but certainly the resolution does indicate some sympathy for a corridor through Alaska.
A copy of the resolution I have just read was handed to me by a very concerned resident of the city of Whitehorse. When he learned of the resolution introduced into the house in Alaska he took the trouble to obtain a copy immediately. He forwarded a copy of the resolution, along with a letter to the
Northern Pipeline
then secretary of state for external affairs, now the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp), and suggested that the Government of Canada look into the matter with a view to opening negotiations for such a corridor.
I am advised by the individual that he was not even accorded the courtesy of a reply from the then minister. I suggest that the interest is there and that we had an opportunity to negotiate for a corridor, but the opportunity was not taken by the then minister.
I would like now to turn to some of the clauses of the bill pertaining to real property and the Land Titles Act. Certain clauses of this bill amend two other acts. Under the present system, Crown land in the Yukon may be appropriated to the commissioner of the territory, and the disposition of that land is determined and carried out by the commissioner. This is the manner in which land has been set aside for cities, municipalities, towns, settlements, et cetera. According to clause 37(1) of the pipeline bill, the commissioner's power with respect to so-called block land is taken away and vested in the governor in council if the governor in council or the minister is of the opinion that such lands are required temporarily or otherwise for the construction, maintenance or operation of the pipeline, including lands for camps, roads and other related work. The management of control of such lands then evolves to the minister.
Effectively, control of block lands, which was vested with the commissioner, has now been taken away and vested entirely with the minister, who may allocate these lands for any of the purposes set forth in this clause. According to this clause, in conjunction with sections 16 and 23 of the act it amends, there is no right of appeal. The rules of natural justice has been set aside, and control of the lands is in the minister's hands rather than in the hands of representatives of the people of the Yukon. If one examines the amendments to the Land Titles Act at page 22 of the bill, one notes here as well that powers with respect to easements have been widened to include works which in many instances go beyond anything contemplated in the construction of a pipeline. How frustrating all this must be for the people of the Yukon.
In today's mail I received a letter from the Haines Junction Businessmen's Association. Their local government started in 1968. They have a boundary which covers 367 acres, 90 per cent of which is Crown land held in right of Canada, and the other 10 per cent is privately owned. In 1975 a 50-unit trailer park for permanent residents was to be developed by the Yukon in an area which was part of the original local government district, but this was blocked by the federal government. The association says the land is desperately needed for private and government housing projects and commercial enterprises, but it cannot get any satisfaction from the minister or anyone-

February 14, 1978
Cruelty to Animals



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 Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)-Environmental Affairs-Government plans to clean up oil spills; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman)-National Defence-Disintegration of Soviet satellite over Canadian soil-Information provided minister; the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Industry- Plastics-Request for measures to aid.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, and notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we have the unanimous consent of the House to proceed with bill C-340.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I see we do not have the unanimous consent of the House. In such circumstances, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to proceed with Bill C-221 introduced by the same hon. member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the request of the hon. parliamentary secretary. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the government, I ask that we proceed with Bill C-221, according to Standing Order 19, and that all preceding bills be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. Is it agreed that all bills preceding Bill C-221 shall stand by unanimous consent?


Mr. Paproski:: Agreed.
[Mr. Neil.)


CRIMINAL CODE
Allan Bruce McKinnon: that Bill C-221, to amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised to find myself speaking on this particular bill on this particular afternoon. It will be apparent to readers of Hansard that having drawn a low number on the order paper, I was refused unanimous consent to discuss another bill of mine on the reform of the Senate and selection thereto. The hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) did not see fit to give unanimous consent to proceed with that bill, and consequently I shall speak on the lower priority bill.


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


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was not only I who did not give unanimous consent to that bill. In case the hon. member who has the floor could not see, it was also other members of the House. I think 1 had the right to object and not give unanimous consent. Furthermore, I do not like this idea that a bill which is slotted for a certain time be substituted by the member. He should be prepared to go with the bill which was-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I had asked for unanimous consent previously for Bill C-340. That was refused, and I sought unanimous consent for Bill C-221. That was granted, and we are proceeding at the request of the government with Bill C-221 in the name of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon).


Leonard C. Jones: The point of the order is that I do not know if Hansard showed who said no. There were persons other than myself.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: That was done at the request of the government.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I feel certain that anyone reading Hansard will be completely baffled about what has gone on. I think it would not be an exaggeration to say that it rarely happens that we speak on the bill that is at the top of the order paper. The exact degree of co-operation we have had today will no doubt be remembered.
Mr. Speaker, I introduced this bill which would ban the steel leg hold trap in April of 1975 when it received first reading. I submitted it again when we started the new session. Subsequent to first reading of my bill, my colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), introduced a similar bill although I thought his was more flexible. In the luck of the draw his bill appeared ahead of mine and was debated on November 16, 1976. It was withdrawn by agree-
February 14, 1978

ment and the subject matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry which has prepared a report, although it has not been tabled. I see no indication on the order paper that any further action is going to be taken. I had intended to wait a while longer before discussing my bill, but fate determined otherwise today.
Another committee existed ahead of the referral to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and it was to look into the problem of steel leg hold traps. Its fate was like that of the Cheshire cat in "Alice in Wonderland"-it faded gradually away leaving nothing but its smile behind. Certainly nothing has been done by that previous committee. In the unlikely event that this bill is to go to committee today I would be prepared to accept amendments to the effect that the bill become effective at the date of proclamation. I say this because there is some difficulty in the period of time between passage of this bill and the time the trappers would be expected to have Conibear traps or whatever other type of traps they obtain if they must find a substitute-which has not been done so far.
The bill is nothing, if not simple. It consists solely of a small amendment to section 402, (1) of the Criminal Code which is headed "Cruelty to Animals". I believe it was written in the days when we were worried about people beating horses to try to get them to pull enormous loads.
Section 402.(1 )(g) reads as follows:
Every one commits an offence who
(g) being the owner, occupier, or person in charge of any premises, permits the
premises or any part thereof to be used for a purpose mentioned in paragraph
(/)[DOT]
Paragraph (/) reads as follows:
Everyone commits an offence who (0 promotes, arranges, conducts, assists in, receives money for, or takes part in a meeting, competition, exhibition pastime, practice, display, or even at or in the course of which captive birds are liberated by hand, trap contrivance or any other means for the purpose of being shot when they are liberated, or
The simple effect of this bill is to delete the word "or" at the end of paragraph (f) and add the word "or" at the end of paragraph (g) and then add the following paragraph:
(h) uses leg traps to snare or trap any animal.
I understand that the penalty under this section of the Criminal Code is a $500 fine or six months in jail.
I have received a great deal of correspondence since putting this bill down for first reading, although the mail has slowed down somewhat because people perhaps thought that parliament was doing something on the other bill, the subject matter of which went to committee.
One letter I received is so typical of the hundreds of others that it would not hurt to read it into the record. It arrived about three days ago and reads as follows:
Dear Mr. McKinnon
I am writing on behalf of the Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals ... I fail to see why the matter of leghold traps seems to be ignored in parliament, in B.C. and federally. I am sure that there are a vast majority of citizens who feel that the method presently enforced for trapping in B.C. and other provinces is certainly not the best. Members of parliament encourage us to
Cruelty to Animals
write to them on occasion, so I decided to write. I hope you give this letter and others on this subject your requested attention.
Sincerely, Lynn McAllister
I think that Lynn, a former pupil of mine, has summed it up very well. This is a cruel treatment given to animals. There is a great deal of public attention which has been fastened on the seal hunt which takes place off the east coast. The seal hunt cruelty is minimal compared to the leg-hold trapping of wild animals, particularly muskrat and the smaller rodents. I am sure all of us who have taken an interest in this matter can relate countless stories about animals which have chewed off their own legs trying to escape the traps. Some of them have even been caught twice and have gone through the same process on two separate occasions; they eventually freeze to death if they are caught above water. It is time something was done in Canada to stop this situation.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I am not trapped, but I would like to take part in the interesting debate on my hon. colleague's Bill C-221, through which he would like to amend the Criminal Code so as to punish those who snare or trap animals with leg traps. I read the suggested amendment and I must say that, at least in the French version, one is aware that the wording is so general in nature as to lend itself to abuse where it says that "everyone commits an offence who", and I quote:
(h) uses leg traps to snare or trap any animal...
To my mind, this should be more specific because, in the mind of the hon. member, some animals must be excluded from this provision; I presume he is alluding to animals other than thinking animals. Moreover, I agree that saying that the use of leg traps "to snare or trap any animal" is not specific enough in that of course we must mean animals with legs.
From a practical point of view, it remains that the text of the act could be more specific, though the principle of the bill is worthwhile in that its objective is to fight against cruelty to animals and I congratulate the hon. member for his good intentions. He mentioned a while ago that this subject has already been discussed by one or several committees. I believe that because of the play of parliamentary procedure before adjournment of the session, and because of the attitude of hon. members on the committee, this bill did not come back to the House. That is why the hon. member introduced a new bill on the subject today, that is Bill C-221. If the government of Canada had to choose between humane and inhumane methods of trapping or snaring, needless to say it would opt for the less cruel methods.
Traps are inhumane when they do not kill the animal immediately or when they hold it prisoner and needlessly cause it stress. I agree that the trapping industry would be the first to benefit from a more merciful trapping method. Indeed, the fur of an animal which has struggled is often damaged. If it succeeds in getting free and loses a leg, the animal stays lame

February 14, 1978
Cruelty to Animals
and its fur is lost. However, even though the national conscience and the industry can benefit from more suitable trapping methods, no trap or group of traps can yet be considered truly humane. Among those who want to promote humane trapping methods, some state that by prohibiting leg traps and other inhumane practices, we would inevitably promote the development of an alternative method. They say that only such drastic action can force those responsible to do something. However, we might well wonder what would happen if existing traps were prohibited before alternatives are suggested.
Many trappers, most of them native people, have incomes which put them just above the poverty level. Prohibition of these traps would force these people to give up their hunting income perhaps to draw welfare, or to continue illegally their activities in spite of the threat of prosecution. There are already instances of people who violate the regulations and who cannot be punished, and this causes the law to be ignored. Even if there were only a period of one or two years between the interdiction of those traps and the development, testing, manufacture and distribution of generally acceptable traps, what would become of trappers during this time? And what if this period should be extended? What are the chances that generally accepted traps or series of traps could be developed? Have the efforts made so far been successful?
Even though about 3,000 trapping mechanisms have been patented in the last 125 or 150 years, it is only recently that inventors have considered the humane aspect an important factor in the design of traps. The rewards offered for many years have not always gone to the inventors of humane trapping methods; this is now the case of the award previously of $10,000 and now of $20,000 offered by the American Humane Society since the twenties. However, it must be recognized that there has been very little publicity to make this reward known to those who can design such traps.
Through trap exchange programs, a number of attempts have been made to change the attitude of trappers about new techniques. But these exchanges may have come too soon. For example, a trap tested under this program is still in the development stage some 40 years after it has been designed. We can learn from this experience. The new approved trapping techniques must meet the requirements of the groups that are concerned with the question of humane trapping, because trappers cannot be required to replace their traps several times over. There are now some traps and trapping techniques that are less cruel than others. But no alternative program can be implemented before we reach a definition of what a humane trapping technique is.
In spite of these various difficulties, the federal government has committed itself to finding an alternative. The fact that this government participates in the proceedings of the federal-provincial review committee for humane trapping techniques is a step forward in this direction. This committee was set up in 1973 to promote the development of less cruel techniques and to assess their relative advantages.

More that 160 proposals were sent to the federal-provincial committee, of which the 22 most promising have undergone trials to date. A number of the proposed designs were already on the market under a "humane" label and in popular use. Mechanical tests have been conducted by the Canadian Standards Association and the engineering department of the University of Guelph. The Veterinary College of Ontario also conducted biological tests in Guelph and the provinces proceeded to experiments in the field. Mechanical, biological and practical test data are being assessed for a wide range of factors,including humane and method selectivity features, such as the effects on the animal's fur, easy portability as in a packsack for instance, the safety aspect in respect of both trappers and children and pets in some areas, mechanical durability and cost.
Minimum standards will soon be established on the basis of test results. Those standards will be amended as needed in light of further tests. Always on the lookout for new inventions, the federal-provincial committee issued a brochure on humane trapping for inventors. The Department of Fisheries and Environment is encouraging industry and inventors to co-operate with the government in the search for a solution to the problem of cruel trapping methods.
If a less cruel trap or series of traps is finally uncovered, the next question will be what type of program should be established to replace and take out of use the five million traps or so that would become obsolete in Canada. Should trappers be expected to bear alone the financial burden? The government is concerned with both animals and trappers. The department is therefore committed to support efforts to solve that further problem, trap replacement.
Even if a trap or a series of traps were developed to replace the present types of traps, it would still be necessary to ensure their judicious use. Indeed the most sophisticated traps can still be inhumane if badly used. It is therefore necessary to establish a program to teach the right way to use traps. Even if we do not succeed in finding a ideal way of trapping, the present traps could be made less cruel if the trapper knew how to use them. Acknowledging this fact, the provincial and territorial authorities have developed for the benefit of the trappers, information programs, some of which are partly subsidized by the federal government. The Canadian Trappers Federation is distributing a guide for trappers and resources from the federal government have been used to finance this information campaign.
A training program should help teach unexperienced trappers the art of trapping so that the preys may be killed as quickly as possible, taking into account the limits of the device being used. Professional trappers know how to practise some form of selection of the species, by using specific twigs or baits for instance. Their knowledge should be transmitted to other trappers. The federal government could institute such a training program for trapping carried out on native people land and other federal lands. If the provinces need assistance to increase the scope of their own training programs, the federal govern-
February 14, 1978

ment will put its own specialists at their disposal. The issues of a general nature dealing with the responsibilities related to the implementation of the various aspects of the trapping method humanization program will be studied jointly with the provinces as soon as the standards applicable to humane trapping methods are established.
The government is pleased to see that people calling for the humanization of trapping methods are trying to speed up the development of an improved trap. The federal government strongly hopes that a merciful method of trapping will be found and is allocating resources to efforts made in that respect. It must also ensure that the trapping and fur industries do not have to suffer from modern advancement in this area.
Trapping still has a role to play in this new age but it is no longer limited to fur harvesting. Close to human settlements the trapping of certain species helps prevent eventual conflicts with man. A certain balance between the viable fur animal population and its environment can also be maintained today through the use of traps. This aspect of the management of the ecosystem is certainly profitable while not requiring any expenditures from the government.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that trapping cannot endanger any animal species. The number of trapping permits is determined by the provinces based on the level of optimum population to be maintained in each area. Animal overpopulation leads to the depletion of habitat resources, fights between species, sickness and long term depopulation. That is why the maintenance of a balance between animal populations can be considered a form of humanization in itself because it protects the species against those scourges. Those asking that all forms of trapping be banned should take those factors into consideration in their fight.
Furs are a renewable resource of which Canada can be proud. Those who want to replace furs by synthetic products are de facto advocating the use of petroleum by-products which are non-renewable resources. Just the development of those by-products often destroys habitats which can lead to an irreparable disappearance of wildlife. In concluding, Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we consider all aspects of the issue of humane trapping methods rather than limit ourselves to the one advocated by the supporters of the formal banning of leg-hold traps.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the parliamentary secretary reading, quoting and paraphrasing a document published by Fisheries and Environment Canada, dealing with inhumane trapping, "The Desire and The Reality." I would like to quote from a piece of correspondence by The Association for the Protection of FurBearing Animals. The association said on January 31, 1978, that the publication to which we have been exposed is an interesting article that devotes approximately two and a half lines describing its desire to develop humane traps. The remaining six and a half pages seemingly are devoted to justify-
Cruelty to Animals
ing the reasons for not developing humane traps. They think this speaks volumes for itself.
I heartily concur with the position taken by the organization, but I must say in the same breath, Mr. Speaker, that while I am opposed to inhumane traps, and specifically the leg-hold trap, I am not opposed to trapping per se. I should put on record a comment by Dr. N. S. Novakowski, program coordinator of the Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment. His comment was, and I quote:
Because this topic has been discussed and argued for many decades with little result, we should make every effort to solve it. To ignore it would be to turn our backs on a large body of public opinion.
That statement made by the program co-ordinator of the Canadian Wildlife Service, the federal Department of the Environment, was made in the year 1958.
The real issue surrounding the development of a humane trap can best be summarized by advancing a quote from a letter that I have received from a Mr. Leo Rutledge of Hudson Hope, British Columbia. He says:
It seems highly improbable that a practical killer trap will ever be devised for the wary ones of the dog family. But then one might well ask: is it an absolute essential that we should kill the possible maximum of these? (or of anything else for that matter). To strike a pose as removers of predators and so benefactors to the livestock and poultry industries seems an improbable reason. It lacks credibility. The price of fox and coyote furs has only recently emerged from a 25-year state of depression when relatively few were caught because it did not pay to trap them. Rather that being "alarmed" it is doubtful if the livestock people noticed the difference. At any rate traps, leg-hold or otherwise, would be a doubtful agent of control. The northern canines increase and decrease in their own time. Traps and snares are not an influence of consequence.
Finally, while still discussing Mr. Priest's defence of the leg-hold trap; how apt is the quote from the president of the Canadian Trappers Federation, Mr. L. Cook's report, "You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time".
The leg-hold trap must be considered the ultimate in barbarism but if the development of a "humane" trap is to mean the total exclusion of pain and frantic anxiety, there can never be one. At best there can be only those less inhumane.
No trap can ever be the answer to all needs because the constraints and variables contingent are infinite. So be it. Let us then proceed with what we have now devised and that which we know can be done.
There have been killer traps available for many years capable of practical use on animals up to the size of the fisher, and these in the bigger sizes may also be used successfully on some of the larger animals such as beaver and wolverine. Wolves, being now classed as big game, need not be considered. In other words we have nearly all the essentials now-and perhaps all we are likely to get. So there is really little to wait for.
The higher price of one of the better known killer traps has been one of the averred objections to conversion. An argument of some validity, perhaps, while fur prices were resting in the doldrums, but with some of the fur bearers trading at $100 and occasionally even better, the cost-benefit ratio is now entirely different.
Price, weight, bulk, dependability, ease of setting and ability to kill are among the factors to be considered in devising a "humane" trap. Strangely enough, none of these were problems to the deadfall of yesteryear. Perhaps it would be well to take a second look here lest it should hold a partial solution. Improved trigger assemblies of various sizes and perfect in design could now be mass produced for pennies; with the aid of the small modern power saw the woodwork would be simple. Some trappers may have spare time in the summer. If so, it could be done then and building a thousand deadfalls should not seem an unreasonable objective. No special skills are required and once built they would remain serviceable for years.
2854

February 14, 1978
Cruelty to Animals
The government funds made available to various aspiring "humane" trap builders have been rather well publicized. Therefore, results, per dollar expended, may well prove to be politically rewarding but other yields are likely to be unimpressive. All too often and easily, our leaders, our decision-makers, tend to defer the decision to further study, more research, the consultant's consultant, the committees, the subcommittees and all the other devices to stall for time, the more opportune political climate, the diffusing of responsibility, the guise of something productive being done, the "peace in my time" and ultimately the dead end. In the real world it is called "passing the buck".
The article "They take so long to die" sees the present government funding for the development of a "humane" trap "as only a scratch on the surface" because someone has estimated that it will require $150,000 per year "To get the job done". The estimate did not include how many "per annums" were deemed essential. How these conclusions were arrived at will forever remain a mystery to me. Really! Estimators should be more careful lest they trigger something-like a rash of government grants. In my opinion, $150,000 per annum or any other additional "humane" trap funding can only serve to buy a bigger pile of procrastinations. If legislators will now proceed to enact in a decisive manner, the marketplace will react and builders of better traps will beat a path to our door.
I suggest there is sufficient evidence at hand to act and that legislators should now do so. The facts are in and the time has come. The leg-hold trap-useful to our survival in its time-has served its purpose. It can no longer possibly be held as acceptable to the mores of our contemporary society. It has become an anomaly to our way of life. It is out of step. Already it is very late. The leg-hold trap has been able to outstay its time only because it operated in relative obscurity. Most were used well removed from the mainstream of society.
But though the leg-hold trap has become foreign to our culture, we should not be unduly harsh and speak of it despairingly. It served us well as a useful and dependable tool in our time of need. Instead, let us now take it to the museum with some decorum and place it with our other many and varied anachronisms- the thumbscrew, the wheel, the rack and the garrotte. The end is inevitable. So let us now acquiesce-sooner rather than later-while we can still do so with some grace.
I am quite aware that new rules and implicit compliance are not one and the same thing. There may well be some leg-hold traps in use two decades after being outlawed. All the more reason for an immediate start. We must act if legislators are to react and so ultimately enact. If we, as a people, do not express disapproval we thereby imply approval. We condone. There is no room for fence riding here. By a land stand of no dissent, we in fact give tacit consent.
British Columbia's attitudes to the raw-fur resources have been traditionally progressive. 1925-26 saw trapping areas of defined borders established throughout the province. These borders were recognized by the "Game Department" and their contained areas became known as registered trap lines. This system was the first of its kind and intelligent resource utilization was thereby ensured in lieu of former haphazard exploitation. This was a major breakthrough and undoubtedly among the most enlightened wildlife legislation ever enacted in Canada. It would now be fitting if B.C. again led wildlife legislation in an enlightened way by relegating the leg-hold trap to the past. Young people in search of causes to champion need look no further than this. And they could slay this dragon overnight if they choose to do so.
Finally, as a point of information-and lest it be thought that I might be little, old and wearing tennis shoes-I have spent 42 years in northern B.C. as a big game guide and outfitter. For 15 of the earliest years I also ran a 13-cabin trap line and made thousands of sets with leg-hold traps. I entered the north when options were few and easily defined. If one did not wish to leave he could stay and hunt or stay and starve. I elected to stay, hunt and live. The economy was fur. Trappers were either good hunters or they were not. The criterion of "good" was ability to consistently return with a sizeable catch of fur. Hunters, whether two or four-legged, hunted to live and the method was not a consideration of the time.
Leo Rutledge
Hudson Hope, B.C.
When Mr. Rutledge talks about a deadline it should be noted that his letter is dated March 25, 1974. Since that time the committee on humane trapping has appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and has made a report of a buck-passing nature. The Department of Fisher-

ies and the Environment has, it is true, produced a pamphlet on the subject and the "motherhood statements" contained within that literary exercise are truly amazing. The suggestion that the federal government should teach trappers how to trap shows a total lack of understanding of trapping and trappers. The suggestion that the federal government might control the Crown land in which the trappers operate and constrain them in some fashion other than the way in which it is done in British Columbia is another indication that the government would like to impinge upon men who are probably the freest spirits in Canada's north.
In many instances trappers are concerned about the inhumanity of existing leg-hold traps. Experienced trappers are more equipped for obtaining their furs with little damage and with more humanity than inexperienced or novice trappers. That does not remove from us, the trapping industry or the trapper the responsibility of resolving this problem. This problem has been in existence as long as the leg-hold trap has been in use.
I support the private member's bill of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). I am sure many trappers in my constituency will realize that I do not want to deny them an opportunity to earn a livelihood. The federal-provincial committee has one of the best boondoggles going for it: a budget of several hundreds of thousands of dollars, as well as an opportunity to delay decisions. This nonsense has been going on for years. If I was lazy, I would want to be associated with that committee. I do not wish to wallow in the public trough in that fashion, or in any fashion for that matter.
I conclude by indicating that I support the private member's bill before the House today.


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco), I feel trapped. I was under the impression that he had lived in a trapping area for many years. The letter the hon. member was quoting from was signed by another gentleman. When I heard him so indicate, I felt courageous enough to rise to speak on the very controversial issue of leg traps.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I am from a trapping area.


Peter A. Stollery: Generally speaking, the problem with respect to trapping humanely leaves one with a slight feeling of unease. Many of the people who are concerned with the inhumanity of trapping-and I exclude the hon. member for Kootenay West-basically live in urban areas.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I do not live in an urban area.


Peter A. Stollery: If the hon. member opposite would listen for a moment, he would realize that I excluded him. I do not suppose listening is one of his characteristics.
The hon. member used up a lot of time explaining his position. I will attempt to make my comments in as few words as possible. Many of those people who express concern seem to
February 14, 1978

come from urban areas. They wear leather shoes, and there are other differences. When one refers to trapping, obviously an animal is going to be killed. Fur-bearing animals are killed in order to adorn people. There are few furs which are needed for real purposes. Basically they are used to make people more attractive in the eyes of someone else.
There seems to be a contradiction in this entire area, as well as some hypocrisy. People who live in urban areas often wear fur trim themselves, as well as leather shoes. They have views about how other people in different parts of Canada are living. In this case, they have views about trappers who are using the leg trap and are promoting a more humane method of trapping. There is no question that everyone wants more humane trapping. The question seems to be: is there a more humane and practical form of trapping which is readily available?
Various brochures have been published, such as the one on humane trap development and the one a la recherche du progres, referring to testing systems for humane traps. There is some contradiction in the opinions of people who are knowledgeable in this area. But then I have always found a contradiction in the definition of the term "humane killing". No one can kill something humanely. 1 realize people are omnivorous and eat meat, but most of them would find it offensive to spend an afternoon in an abattoir, especially those who are not accustomed to it. I am from the city of Toronto, but on occasion I have had to butcher animals when I was living in the country. I have lived in areas where it was necessary to butcher goats and sheep, and I have never found that process to be attractive. It is necessary to slit the goat's throat. How can that be done humanely? Either you do it or you don't.
In preparation for rising today, I had occasion to look at that section of the Criminal Code dealing with cruelty in trapping and cruelty to animals. It seems to me that it would be more important to argue against killing animals rather than working toward arriving at a more humane trapping method. I argue strongly in favour of not killing fur-bearing animals for decorative purposes, rather than arguing in favour of killing fur-bearing animals for decorative purposes in a more humane manner.
Somehow the logic of this argument escapes me. I have had occasion to visit northern Canada as well as other parts of the world. The hon. member for Kootenay West talked about wolves and other animals. There are places in the tropical world where people kill everything that moves, and the furs are sold to Canada where coats are made. Ocelots and other exotic animals are killed for this purpose. An hon. member pointed out that snakes are also killed for their skins. The crocodile population is being wiped out. The skins of some of these animals are used only to hold up somebody's trousers. Alligator skins are used to make extremely expensive shoes for very wealthy people.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would not want to misinform the House and the nation. The alligator population has increased considerably
Cruelty to Animals
lately. They are now being marketed, and I hope the hon. member will bear that in mind while he is talking this bill out.


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member has been visiting the southern United States recently. Perhaps he went to an alligator farm, but maybe he does not know the difference between an alligator, a cayman and a crocodile, all of which are from the same family. In some parts of the world their population is increasing, but in most parts of the world they are practically extinct. The hon. member probably goes to the southern United States for his Christmas holidays, and that is probably where he gets his information.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I suspect the hon. member has a guilty conscience about Christmas. I spent Christmas in my constituency, and I hope the hon. member did the same thing.


Peter A. Stollery: It seems somewhat beside the point to discuss whether animals are killed humanely. They are being killed, and the Inuit and native peoples who live in the Mackenzie district and in other areas of the Northwest Territories earn a considerable amount of their income at this kind of business. I prefer to argue the question of whether killing is needed at all rather than whether it is done in a certain way.
I know many countries have game laws which are very lax or practically non-existent. Those countries have allowed various species to become practically extinct. The people who wear expensive coats and belts to hold up their pants are often the people who have very strong views on how animals should be trapped in Canada. I do not think there is an hon. member in this House who does not want to see humane trapping, but the fact remains that many people earn a large part of their living trapping. They may not be in the city of Toronto. But I do not think I should impose my views in this matter because I do not come from an area where people trap to earn a living.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in this debate on Bill C-221 the advantage of having representatives from all sectors present is obvious as it brings a viewpoint from all regions. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) was able to give us the benefit of his views as an urban dweller. I am surprised, however, that the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), who introduced this bill, did not consult his colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), who on November 16, 1976, brought forward Bill C-208 on this very same subject. This matter has been referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. A good deal of time and money has already been spent on an approach to this serious question. I am surprised that once again we are using the time of this House on this matter. Five or ten minutes were taken deciding whether we should deal with Bill C-340 or Bill C-221.
I agree with the hon. member for Spadina, who says that all hon. members are in favour of a humane approach, if there is such a thing, to trapping, and of improving technology in traps which are used to kill. There is a good deal of interest in
80031-39V2

February 14, 1978
Northern Pipeline
hunting and trapping in Canada. In the area I represent in northern New Brunswick there are many expert hunters and trappers. I am satisfied that they use the latest techniques and that where possible they make every effort to live up to what is contained in this bill.
1 wonder if this matter should be dealt with in the Criminal Code. It may be that it should fall within provincial jurisdiction in terms of game laws and regulations respecting trapping. This activity is probably already somewhat controlled by provincial legislation in game laws, and I wonder if this is the proper time for us to be discussing this matter.
I have one other suggestion. Perhaps this House could make a reference of this matter so that all the time and effort which has already gone into it will not be lost.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of 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 second time and referred to the special committee on a northern gas pipeline.
Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, when five o'clock was called 1 was referring to a letter 1 had received from the town of Haines Junction in the Yukon and putting on the record the problems they are encountering in trying to obtain land not only for government purposes but for the purpose of building a trailer court and other things. I should like to read the following three paragraphs of the letter:
The Alaska Highway paving program (Shakwak Project), a ten-year program, is scheduled to begin in June this year, with between 80-100 employees in our community. The Alcan pipeline route is also scheduled to pass within a few miles of our community, our portion is presently scheduled for 1981. How can

this community even begin to have a hope of accommodating the impact of these projects when land is not being made available for development by people, nor is land being made available for utilities such as water, sewer, larger lagoons etc. If some action is not taken immediately the results can only be tragic.
They say they have written to the present minister and to former ministers on numerous occasions. They are faced with an influx of people but cannot get land on which to build the necessary housing or trailer court to accommodate them. This shows a complete lack of understanding on the part of the federal government and indicates the need for the people of the Yukon to have an opportunity of determining their destiny.
Another matter that I should like to touch on briefly with respect to the pipeline is the question of Canadian equity. This is a subject which was mentioned yesterday by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). The pipeline project is one of the largest in Canadian history. It will require large amounts of capital, something in the neighbourhood of $4.5 billion to $5 billion, which will come from Canadian and United States markets.
If one examines the history of Alberta Gas Trunk Line, one of the partners in the Foothills project, it will be noted that when AGTL was set up Alberta residents were given the first option to purchase shares in the company. They acquired an equity that over the years has been an excellent investment due to the appreciation in the shares and the dividends that accrued.
If an arrangement were worked out in the present instance whereby Canadians could purchase equity shares, it would mean that less money would have to be borrowed on the foreign market, at substantial savings in interest to the people of Canada. We speak of foreign investment in our country and the outflow of Canadian capital to the United States and other countries. What better way to keep capital at home than to allow Canadians to purchase equity shares in the Foothills pipeline?
I should like to make one further recommendation, Mr. Speaker, and I must emphasize that I am expressing a personal opinion and not necessarily the policy of this party. Why not arrange for Canadians to purchase equity shares in the company and, to encourage such an investment, amend the Income Tax Act to provide for the waiver of capital gains tax in cases where the shares purchased are held for a period of two years or more, or, alternatively, allow the amount of the purchase price of these shares to be an exemption for income tax purposes? Canadian equity investment is vital. This party will insist that the government allow the widest possible participation by Canadians in the pipeline financing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: In closing, 1 would like to say that concern about the environment, the effect of a pipeline on the ecology, and the socioeconomic problems that exist, has been expressed by Berger, Lysyk, and numerous individuals and organizations who have appeared before various bodies which were holding hearings. All of these questions are important and must be
February 14, 1978

looked at in perspective. The Yukon has faced many of these problems before and has had experience dealing with them. There is a population of 24,000 in the Yukon but each summer there is an influx of some 350,000 visitors. Foothills advise that at its peak construction period the maximum number of employees who will be working in the Yukon will be 2,200. If you add to that their families, the maximum number of people who will be resident in the Yukon specifically with respect to the pipeline will be some 5,000 people
The Yukon has seen the construction of the Alaska Highway built with guts and tractors by the U.S. Army Corps, of Engineers. The work was begun in March 1942 and completed in nine months. In the early 1940s it saw the construction of the Canol pipeline, involving 1,600 miles of pipe and 1,000 miles of road. This cost $137 million and took 20 months to complete, excavating beneath the permafrost through the Mackenzie mountains while at times temperatures fell to 70 degrees below zero. The construction of the Haines-Fairbanks pipeline took place in 1954-55. It was 620 miles long, with 292 miles in Canada, and carried 12,000 barrels a day. There are other projects as well. I mention these few examples to indicate that in the Yukon the residents and local authorities are able to cope with fairly substantial projects. These projects have had minimal impact and the area remains a relatively beautiful and virgin territory. The people in the Yukon are able to adapt.
My plea through you, Mr. Speaker, to the government is to give to the people of the Yukon, through their elected representatives, the power and responsibility to deal with and solve problems that arise as a result of the pipeline construction. Let us not see a massive influx of federal civil servants involving themselves in problems that can be dealt with by the people who are native to or who have lived in the north for many years, and who have the ability to understand and solve the problems associated with pipeline construction and development of the north.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to take part in what I consider this most important debate on Bill C-25, but it is with some concern that I see the government forging ahead with the debate on this bill before the National Energy Board has published the contents of its report. As we have always demonstrated, the energy matter is always a matter of big money, without regard for the environmental and socioeconomic aspects which we must learn to appreciate, as soon as possible, for our own survival. Had it not been for the foresight, the objectivity, and the rigor manifested by Justice Berger during his three-year inquiry on the environmental and socioeconomic effects of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline construction, once again, as a nation, we would have infringed on the individual freedom of natives, and caused irreparable damage on an extremely delicate environment to which we are total strangers.
The recommendations made by Justice Berger take into consideration the opinions put forth by the two main groups
Northern Pipeline
who fought this project, namely the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee and the Committee on Justice and Freedom. The former categorically requested abandonment of the project, while the latter argued for a ten-year moratorium on the entire question of northern development.
As we know, the commission of inquiry chaired by Justice Thomas R. Berger was set up in March 1974 as a result of the enormous difficulties, financial, technical and social, created by the project in which two companies, namely Arctic Gas and Foothills Pipeline, had already invested considerable amounts of money. Contrary to what usually happens, the commission took an active part in the debate during the meetings through advisors who repeatedly stressed that the applicants, that is the companies, were in a position to prove their claims, particularly where engineering and construction were concerned. For instance, the commission produced the theorical testimony of Dr. P. Williams of Carleton University in Ottawa according to which the underground pipeline of the Arctic Gas would be subject to differential upheavals that could damage it seriously, and technical methods to reduce or avoid such continuous uplift of the buried and refrigerated pipeline were still in their infancy. To our mind, that was a weighty argument in favour of putting off the project to a later date.
From the social point of view, the methods used by Justice Berger to collect the testimony of the indigenous populations was also remarkable since, far from limiting himself to those of the inhabitants of big cities, the centres of economic and political power such as Yellowknife, Inuvik and Fort Smith, he went to the trouble of travelling 1,700 miles throughout the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, using all means of transport including the canoe and the dog sled, to listen to 1,317 witnesses in 300 days of public hearings and give an opportunity to the native Denes and Inuit who represent most of the inhabitants of the towns and villages to state their opinion while the members of the commission paid close attention to them as if they were experts.
The position of the natives on the pipeline is well summarized in a few words found on page 11 of the lengthy Berger report. It will cross lands that are claimed by Canada's native people, a region where the struggle for a new social and economic order and political responsibility is taking place.
Canadians remember that unhealthy incapacity of the federal government to remain unbiased in its decisions about the development of energy resources, an incapacity which we pointed out on several occasions and which is due to the fact that it is entirely dependent on oil companies for its information. Regarding this, Justice Berger was very critical in his report of government industry co-operative efforts. Although it is neither realistic nor financially feasible to duplicate all industry services, there is a solution to that basic problem. According to Mr. Lewis Auerbach, scientific advisor to the Science Council of Canada, it would be possible to selectively reproduce key data for the evaluation of projects put forward by the federal government.

February 14, 1978
Northern Pipeline
There again, the Trudeau government cannot say it is not aware of such possibilities, because the council with which Mr. Auerbach is working is directly subsidized by the federal government. In his conclusions, Justice Berger paid no heed to Canadian economic needs for Mackenzie Delta gas. In order to show another facet, we now refer to an economic study of the Arctic pipeline which takes no account of environment, social nor other ramifications for the north and its inhabitants. That study by Mr. John F. Helliwell of the Economics Department of B.C. University was tabled with the National Energy Board and is reported on in the summer 1977 edition of the Journal Analyses de Politiques.
Concerning the over-all effect of an Arctic pipeline on the national economy, Mr. Helliwell feels that barring fortuitous circumstances, there is no assurance the implementation of such a project will help stabilize economic growth. But in the same breath he adds that such a project, however big, can be implemented if the public and private sectors give it top priority and agree to slacken the demand for other resources, which confirms our view that the money and human resources needed for such projects are so huge it is impossible to develop at the same time other energy sources, including renewable sources. This therefore inevitably leads to an energy impasse.
According to our economist, cost estimates submitted by the applicants are grossly understated, in an attempt to prove the project is viable, in the face of small proven reserves in the Mackenzie Delta. He feels real costs were 125 per cent higher than stated by the oil companies, a type of evaluation error responsible for the fact that a project such as the Trans-Alaska pipeline, that was to cost Canadians $2 million per mile before 1970, will in fact cost the taxpayer $10 million per mile, with unforeseen overspending accumulating day after day. As opposed to the 8.5 per cent annual growth forecast made in 1975 by the National Energy Board for natural gas demand, the Helliwell study covering the period from 1974 to 1980 puts the estimated annual growth at 3 per cent.
From 1974 to 1976, actual demand increased only by 2 per cent and not by 8.5 per cent. We must therefore seriously question the intentions of the National Energy Board in this regard. The board is very conservative as concerns gas supplies, and this attitude also prevails among the applying companies which, according to Helliwell, are "pessimistic in their estimates of potential supplies and take no account whatsoever of supplies located in areas of the country other than frontier areas, even though all parties recognize that there are proven reserves in these areas".
When we look at gas supplies estimates, we note that the shortage expected will occur only in the mid-nineties. We are therefore wery far from the figures quoted by the applying companies which predict that by 1985 we shall have a deficit equivalent to one million barrels of oil a day. Because of all these factors, and always according to Helliwell, Canada would be wise to postpone construction of a pipeline in this area of the country. Helliwell also adds that it is not at all obvious that the Alcan route, which is the route recently approved by the National Energy Board for the construction of

a pipeline, will avoid the problems caused in the case of the Mackenzie Delta project, and this from an economic viewpoint, even though this route seems to have the advantage of avoiding any trouble with native land claims and of being less damaging to the environment. What greatly concerns the economist is the pressure exerted by the urgent needs of the United States on Canada's decision, which pressure could impose on us costs which do not justify the expected benefits.
We, of the Social Credit Party of Canada, believe that the government should see to it that the Americans do not reap all the benefits of this endeavour and let us support the consequences of all the environmental damages. The government should negotiate with the natives with all due consideration to their rights as native owners of the territories concerned. They should get the opportunity to assert themselves without being forced to live a way of life that is unsuitable to them, and as our natural gas requirements are very uncertain we should not saddle them with time restrictions as we did for the James Bay Inuit. We know what happened in James Bay. The government should consider without delay any source of energy that could more safely and progressively replace natural gas so as to satisfy social and conservation needs rather than political or economic requirements.
The government should consider more seriously than it did until now the long-term factor with a view to protecting our energy and environmental situation in the future. The government should delay any pipeline construction in the untouched wilderness of the northwest as long as adequate environmental protection measures are not developed and that negotiations with natives are not fairly settled.
Mr. Speaker, the energy crisis we are facing now will end only when governments realize that renewable energy is the only solution. If the backward state of our technology is due to economic reasons it shows once more the incompetence of our political leaders. The main factor in all projects desirable for the community is the human factor itself. Mr. Speaker, again, this government becomes the accomplice of big oil corporations to make more profits from a natural resource that, after all, belongs to every Canadian citizen.
Lately, scientists have searched into history to find what might well be a way to deal with the alleged shortage that is threatening us. They remembered that some 40 years ago Germany waged war during a period of four years while not having any natural petroleum resources at its disposal on its own territory. As a matter of fact, the Germans accomplished this remarkable feat by using techniques for the conversion of coal, which their country has plenty of, into gas and oil in sufficient quantity to wage war for a period of four years. Our country and North America as a whole being endowed with huge deposits of coal which are estimated at 60 billion tons, I think that modern technology could provide us with a solution to our energy problem. There is no need to search through the documentation of foreign countries because the technology
February 14, 1978

February 14, 1978
Northern Pipeline
Indeed, the federal government has already allowed the oil companies to increase their prices next March over and above the increase they got at the end of last August.
A small tin of shoe polish of just over one ounce now costs 47 cents. Last time I bought some, I paid 39 cents for two tins of the same size. Last week my wife bought one pound of Fry's Cocoa for $3.85. Last spring the same thing cost $1.37. Finally, the price control is a monumental fraud. As a matter of fact, since the fall of 1975, prices have been constantly rising and the main culprit for all this is this very government. Let us take for example the rise in the price of stamps to 14 cents. It will come just 12 months after the last one.
Before making any further remark, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote an extract from an article published in Le Soleil of March 25, 1976 where it says: "The pressure of interests is very much like a huge financial cobweb which envelops us and tightens around us, leaving us with just our life-or almost". These interests snowball, accumulate and centralize money in favour of a small group of financiers. On the other hand, caught from all sides, the little people are divided, abandoned and ever more exploited by avid leaders who are hungry for profit. They are left to the mercy of those unscrupulous heartless, top hatted men of finance who, from the height of their ivory tower, without a gun but with more power than a whole army, make us accept insidiously an impossible, repugnant and sickening way of life in which all human values are despised and money is everything.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the present financial system prevents consumers form truly living. It prevents them from benefiting from their association, because this system sees to it that the fruit which should be falling to each and every citizen is taken away from him. If Canadians are to benefit truly from the fruit of their association, we must relate financial credit to real credit, or to the Social Credit Party of Canada. In other words, we should relate money and credit to what is produced by Canadians. Further on, in the same article, one could read: "These financiers who represent chartered banks are cleverly camouflaged by the Bank of Canada, which draws its pocket money at 8 per cent on all cash reserves of the country, and they take care of the rest, namely 90 per cent of the credit of the country".
It should be said that in a country money should not be bought; the country should create it itself without owing anything to anyone. This is a strictly sovereign right of the state. In other words, a government should not administer a country if it continues to buy money from abroad, which makes a false and unbalanced economy. Mr. Speaker, I think my allotted time has nearly expired, but it remains that the federal government had better make some amendmends to Bill C-25. It should wait in particular for the National Energy Board to submit the result of its studies on Bill C-25. Bill C-25 now provides for the fees to be paid to the federal government but it omits to mention or does not mention anything on what the government will do with the funds received. We know that this will perhaps be used in the next election.

I wondered whether the purpose of this bill is not to reduce domestic consumption in order to stimulate exports. As I said earlier, we should insist mainly on research to discover technologies to exploit fully our coal resources which are tremendous, and also wind energy forces, which would result in enabling the federal government to delay the pipeline project and at the same time to come to an agreement with the natives of this area to avoid disturbing their way of life which is beautiful indeed. It is different from ours because it is natural. Thus, I think the government had better delay the study of this bill.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very happy to have the opportunity to participate in this historic debate on the northern pipeline, Bill C-25. It will authorize and make provision to regulate the northern Alcan pipeline which will provide a land bridge or source of transportation for gas from the Alaskan-Prudhoe Bay fields to the lower 48 states and, at the same time, make provision for a connection for the delta and Beaufort Sea gas to be transported to southern Canada at a later stage.
This pipeline is historic in many ways. I do not believe there has ever been an engineering project that has received so much attention, so much planning and so much construction engineering as this one since the discovery of gas and oil in Prudhoe Bay in 1968. Perhaps no project has had so much money spent on it as well in terms of study. The Arctic gas company spent something like $140 million just to lose the nod of approval to Alcan.
Perhaps no project has received more study through royal commissions and environmental impact statements than this project which, of course, was the subject of the Lysyk and Berger inquiries as well as hearings by the environmental assessment panel of the federal government. Perhaps no project, at least in the history of Canada, has received more study by such a great number of governments, including the territorial governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, the several provincial governments concerned, as well as the federal government, and, on the United States side, the government of Alaska and the U.S. federal government. Surely the National Energy Board hearings that were held were among the most lengthy ever. I believe the length of the project, over 5,000 miles of large diameter pipe, is a first. So by all measurements this is one of the largest projects in the history of Canada or any other country.
Perhaps the largest aspect of it is the financial dimension of the project, now estimated at $10 billion. To put that in perspective, that is about 20 times the cost of the St. Lawrence Seaway when it was constructed in 1952.
This project, in the early years at least, will be designed to transport gas to the lower 48 states from the Prudhoe Bay fields. From Canada's point of view it becomes an important project in terms of providing economic activity in our country and a service to our U.S. neighbours; Alcan estimates some
February 14, 1978

$400 million to $500 million in services per year to transport that gas across Canadian territory.
Surely at this time when we see projects of this magnitude costing, in this case, $10 billion, and when more projects are on the drawing boards for nuclear plants, for oil and gas exploration, for uranium mine development and for coal development costing hundreds of millions of dollars-literally billions-this should make us more conscious of the need for energy conservation.
It is nice to know that this aspect is going forward as well in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Last week I met two young people who will be working in my constituency at conservation community clinics. They had attended the conservation office of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in Ottawa taking the intensive training program. 1 must say they were very enthusiastic and very determined that they were going to make a real contribution toward the Canadian and world energy crisis. Although this is not spectacular-unlike the spending of $10 billion for this northern pipeline-surely it is terribly important that we learn conservation as well, because the habits developed now are ones that will last forever and do not represent a one-time expenditure.
If we have to make expenditures of this magnitude for energy projects in this country, even though it is for our U.S. neighbours initially, now is a good time to be doing it. We are going through a period in the next two years when we will have a very large number of people coming into the labour force in this country. Toward the 1980s that will taper off and the number of people coming into the labour force will be reduced. Therefore, during the next few years we should be taking on and carrying out these massive national projects which will provide employment, capital investment and economic activity in our country, resulting in a long-term benefit as well.
Certainly the economic benefits to our country of this project are very significant. The Foothills company projects that 90 per cent of this project on the Canadian leg will be spent on the cost of services in Canada. This means that at the escalated price of $3.3 billion, some $3 billion will be spent in Canada for Canadian work. Some 68,000 man-years of work will be created over the five to seven-year period of construction. If we take into account the total Dempster link as well, as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) has estimated we are talking in terms of 100,000 jobs. If we look at just the manufacturing aspect of this construction project, we envisage some 30,000 jobs alone being created.
The company estimates that one-half of one per cent of the gross national product will come from this project during the period 1979 to 1981. During the period from 1977 to 2005, it is estimated that $500 million per year will accrue to Canada in terms of balance of payments benefits. Also the company has estimated that during this 28-year period approximately $13.6 billion of benefit will flow from the United States to Canada. The purchase of pipe alone will involve over one million tons of pipe costing $1.2 billion. The 30 compressors
Northern Pipeline
required can be produced in Canada. They will cost $158 million, according to the company's estimate. Thus, the economic benefits are significant.
In terms of jobs to the Yukon, it has been estimated that there will be 2,200 jobs during the peak period, and approximately $177 million will be spent in that territory. In the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, approximately $1.6 billion will be spent. In Ontario and Quebec some $1.2 billion will be spent. The economic benefit is not just in the west but is spread right accross Canada. It will help communities like Hamilton and Welland. Surely the benefits will spill over to a company like Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie, which is located partially in my constituency. In terms of construction, approximately 7,800 jobs will be created on the project at its peak.
The government and the bill commit this project to having a maximum of Canadian content. The objectives of the bill spell this out very well. The minister, through his powers of approving the procurement program of the company, ensures there will be a maximum amount of Canadian content. At the same time, it is in Canada's interest to have competitive bidding so that the project can be carried out within the estimated cost. If the project is constructed within 135 per cent of the estimated cost, that means American consumers of gas will be responsible for paying the transportation of gas between Dawson Creek and Whitehorse, which is a distance of approximately 277 miles, for the entire history of the operation of the Dempster link. Canadian steelmakers have welcomed the competitive bidding arrangement. They are not concerned about competing with American companies. Indeed, they have projected that they will bid successfully on some of the pipe in the United States and Alaskan sector as well. Regularly our steel industry bids and competes successfully against United States companies.
Surely the final decision as to the size of the pipe for the Canadian section of the pipeline must rest with Canada. The consultations which are ongoing with the United States now are necessary. We must make provision for the size of pipe which will carry gas from the Mackenzie Delta to southern Canada. Provision for adequate capacity must be made. Since Interprovincial Steel and Pipe Corporation, Ltd. and the Steel Company of Canada, Ltd. are able to meet the requirement for low pressure pipe, surely the ultimate decision of the National Energy Board and the government must be to choose a pipe which can be manufactured in Canada. When Ipsco has completed its $80 million expansion program in P.egina, it will be able to provide approximately one-third of the required pipe, and Stelco has the capacity to provide approximately two-thirds. The naturally desirable arrangement would be for these companies to provide the pipe.
Initially the pipe will transport American gas to American consumers. At a later stage when the Dempster link is connected and the sources of supply in the delta and Beaufort are tapped, the pipeline will supply gas to southern Canada. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, when that link is connected, it will provide approximately 10 per cent of the gas supplied to the
2862

February 14, 1978
Northern Pipeline
Canadian market. Surely at that time it will be more vital to Canada than to the United States.
In the short term, the economic benefit to Canada will be the provision of jobs. The bill makes it clear that there will be a great deal of benefit provided to the Yukon. The people in that territory will be given the first opportunity for work and the provision of supplies. The company has indicated that it will provide a gas supply to the major communities of the Yukon. One report indicated that this will save the average household $200 per year; that is, through the use of natural gas rather than oil to heat their houses.
In his negotiations with the United States, the minister has been able to make a very favourable arrangement in terms of providing a $200 million advance payment to the Yukon to cover the socioeconomic costs there, as well as to provide for advance tax payments up to 1981 of some $35 million, and beyond that, payments of $30 million per year. Over the 25-year projected life of the project, that will amount to approximately $1 billion of benefits to the Yukon Territory, which surely is a significant gain.
The central aspect of this bill is to provide a northern pipeline agency, a single window agency, to regulate and control all aspects of the development of the pipeline. This is a good idea. It will provide for the delegation of authority from the National Energy Board, the Department of Fisheries and the Environment, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. It will provide for consultation with the provincial and territorial governments as well. This agency will be concerned with the physical aspects of the pipe, as well as the native questions, the social and environmental aspects and Canadian content. It will be a situation where one administrator will report to a commissioner, and ultimately to the minister in Ottawa. Surely the socioeconomic and native questions will be of as much concern to that agency as the physical aspects of the pipeline.
One question which the committee will want to study will be the relationship between the designated minister and the minister responsible for the National Energy Board, if they do not happen to be the same minister, because ultimately the responsibility for this pipeline will revert to the NEB. 1 think that interplay between the two ministers will be an important aspect which we will want to have clarified in the committee.
The idea of a single agency is a very good one because in 1975 the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works did a very extensive study on oil and gas supplies from frontier regions and on transportation systems. During the course of that study we went to Alaska and met with senior officials who were carrying out the construction of the Alyeska pipeline. That was just at the period of time when the Alyeska pipeline was about two-thirds complete. They described the mechanism under which they were working. Authority from the various agencies of the federal government and the various agencies and departments of the state department was delegat-

ed. There was one person at ground level where the decision to proceed with construction was made. The senior people with whom we met said that without this delegated authority to a person actually on the ground the pipeline would never have been completed. It would have bogged down in red tape.
The establishment of this kind of central agency is a very good idea which will ensure that this kind of authority is delegated to people actually on the construction site, so that the project can move forward, be completed on time and not be bogged down and held up.
Another important aspect which is provided for in the bill is consultation and agreement with the provinces and territorial governments. Many of the provincial governments, like Alberta, have extensive expertise in regulating and controlling pipelines, so it is natural that the federal government will want to have a liaison with those groups and take advantage of their expertise. A formalized structure is laid out in the bill for a consultative mechanism. Consultation every three months would not be a very practical arrangement, although it might be good for long-term discussions.
It seems to me that the direct consultation with the minister which is provided for would be beneficial. However, surely consultation with the territorial governments will be even more important, especially with the Yukon in the initial stages, but also with the Northwest Territories when the Dempster link is dealt with, because proportionately this will a very much larger project to the Yukon than it will be to the provincial governments involved. I met with several councillors and assemblymen in the Yukon in early December. 1 had a chance to discuss this, and they were very concerned that there might not be adequate consultation and that they might not have an active part in the discussion and development of this pipeline.
Likewise, when the Dempster link is established there should be a very good liaison and consultation process with the Northwest Territories Council. One councillor told me recently that a resolution was passed in October proposing an alternative to the Dempster link, the Canol line. Under the proposal the line would run from Johnson's Crossing on the Alaska Highway to Norman Wells, along the Mackenzie River and to the delta reserves. I am not sure of the details of that proposal, but if there is adequate consultation with the Northwest Territories Council, there will be an opportunity for the proposal to be fully explored.
Another aspect of the bill which I think is very important and very good is that the cost of the agency will be borne by the Foothills company. This will ensure that there will be constant pressure on the company to complete the line on time, and that they do everything in their power to avoid strikes and delays. The company will not only bear the financial cost of delays, but will also bear the cost of the regulatory agency if the project is held up because of the company's lack of foresight or organization.
In conclusion, it seems to me that the northern pipeline bill is a reasonably good piece of legislation with which to develop this northern project. It is designed to ensure that the pipeline is built efficiently through the use of a single window agency.
February 14, 1978

The bill will ensure the maximum number of jobs for Canadians, that environmental precautions are taken, that the social needs of the people of the north are met and that precautions are taken to ensure the financial integrity of the project. It will provide a good consultation mechanism and provide for agreements with the various provincial and territorial governments.
I hope the bill will not be unduly delayed by debate in the House, that the project can be discussed in the special committee and the beneficial economic effects of the bill are passed on to all Canadians at a time when they are very greatly needed.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I must say that this bill disturbs me and gives me much cause for thought. I will expand on that in my remarks, but first let me deal with the sentiment expressed by the previous speaker. He hoped the bill would not be unduly delayed in the House. Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard such poppycock? We have before us a bill involving $10 billion, and we are now on the second day of debate at second reading, approval in principle. I did not say millions, I said billions, and the previous speaker had the audacity to say he hopes the bill will not be unduly delayed. I do not know what that hon. gentleman's definition of undue delay is, but I think the bill would not be unduly delayed if we debated it for at least four weeks. That would not be an undue delay. What poppycock we are hearing from this government when it has delayed the project for months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The government did not bring the bill to this House until just this week. That was the first delay. Second, when the government was dealing with the Americans it did not have the guts to say that we should set the specifications for the pipe, so it has to weasel around for months on that. A pipeline is being put through Canada, and Canada does not have the last word on what size and thickness the pipe will be. That question has delayed us for months. Third, the prices for gas are not yet approved. The gas producers in Alaska have not said what they are going to sell it for. The American authorities have not said what they are going to buy it for. That is holding up the project, and it will for months to come. Yet when we poor, paltry, elected parliamentarians dare to say a word on this bill or to speak for a few moments, the government tells us we are delaying it unduly.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Why do you support it?


John Carnell Crosbie: I have not yet said what I am going to do. I will not support anything until we have properly considered it, until it has gone to the committee and comes back with a few healthy amendments. I am not saying I am supporting this $10 billion project.
The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) referred to a list of great projects the Liberal government has in the energy field. Today the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) read a list to the conference of Premiers, trying to titillate the public with the trillions. It was a list of projects that will cost trillions. It was read out as though these things
Northern Pipeline
were going to be done in the next three to five years by the Liberal government. The list included such projects as the Kitimat oil line, just as though the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo) had not put the kibosh on that. The people up there told her that if she allowed the pipeline to go through they would hang her up by the heels. They are also going to put the Gull Island project through no matter what Quebec says or thinks or does. It is "titillate with the trillions". The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is not the $6 million man now, he is the $6 trillion man!
The people of Canada are not going to swallow that, Mr. Speaker. They are going to regurgitate that. They are going to be like those birds that pick things up and regurgitate them. I wish we would get to the election and get this farce over with.
If we speak on this bill on second reading for three or four weeks I would say we would not be speaking on it "unduly". If it goes to committee for another few weeks before it comes back to the House, that will not be speaking on it "unduly". The United States Congress passed their bill because it was given to them three or four months ago. I am not listening to "unduly", Mr. Speaker. No Liberal government is going to "unduly" me. I am going to have my say here, at report stage and on third reading, and if I am on that committee I will have my say there as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Did you hear that, Erik Nielsen?


John Carnell Crosbie: That is, unless the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) does not want me to. In the Progressive Conservative party we are free to speak our minds, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: We are not like the New Democratic Party or the Liberal party who have to stick to a party line.
I want now to touch on an aspect that particularly affects the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce with respect to this project. I was very disappointed with the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) when he introduced this legislation. It was as poor a performance as was given last August. He gave us no new information. He had no enthusiasm. He read his speech with a platonic lack of pleasure-a script prepared for him by civil servants or by somebody who should be rotated, made redundant and revivified. If it had been written for me I would not have read it in the House. The Deputy Prime Minister does not appear to be enthusiastic about this project.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) has not spoken, and neither has the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie). They do not want to give the House or the people of Canada any information. Any information they have they kept secret until we discovered it today and brought it to light. We are discussing a $10 billion bill and the government will not even give us any
80031-4oy2

February 14, 1978
Northern Pipeline
information. This could be the $10 billion bungle if it is not watched closely by parliament. All we know about this project is that it is going to bring United States gas to United States consumers and it might or might not bring Canadian gas to Canadian consumers some day.
Yesterday I asked the Deputy Prime Minister when it is estimated we will need frontier gas here in lower Canada. His answer was just mumbo-jumbo. He said he is sticking with the NEB. Anyone sticking with the NEB is on a sticky wicket. We know that frontier gas is supposed to be needed by the mid-1980s but now it seems it may not be needed until the 1990s. We expect a fair answer from the Deputy Prime Minister. We ask him when frontier gas will be needed in the southern part of Canada and the poor gentleman cannot answer. All he has to say is: "We are still going with the NEB." I would hate to have the NEB around my neck. It would be like the albatross around the neck of the ancient mariner.
We do not know whether the Dempster line is going to be completed in three or four years or not. All we are assured of is that this is the line to bring United States gas to United States consumers.
I shall not deal with the labour aspect, as that has been done with great distinction by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). Let me say, however, that I agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). I thought he was right yesterday when he said that if we passed this bill as it is, parliament will have no control. He was telling the exact truth. Any self-respecting parliament that would pass this bill with its present provisions and pass the whole thing over to the executive branch should be arrested for criminal negligence. This bill provides for nothing except an annual report to be filed in parliament. Clause 13 provides for an annual report to be filed, but it does not say what should be in the report, just that the agency shall prepare a report relating to its operations and that the minister will cause it to be tabled in parliament.
If the legislation is passed as it stands, all we can get in the future is an annual report. We do not even dictate what is to be in the report. We do not even say that the objectives for Canadian content and how that is being realized shall be in the report or anything about the financial arrangements.
I know that the official opposition will be putting forward amendments to correct that when we reach committee stage, so that the agency will have to report at least quarterly on specific matters. If that provision is not included I am sure no legislator here will accept the bill. If there are no substantive amendments then parliament gives up all its rights in connection with this huge project.
The bill does not specify which minister is responsible for it. If I were the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I would not put up with something in my bailiwick being given to another minister-the land grabber, the pipeline grabber, the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is responsible for all oil, gas and energy development, but when the biggest project is snatched from him and

put under the jurisdiction of the Deputy Prime Minister, he does not even resign. What is the matter with him?
Of course, I understand why it was done. They could not trust the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with it. He is suffering from gas as it is. The project was given to the Deputy Prime Minister who went to Washington and surrendered everything. His theme song in Washington to Mr. Schlesinger was "I surrender, dear." He surrendered to Schle-singer. He got into a game of strip poker with Schlesinger and was left naked as a newt; barefoot in the park, was the Deputy Prime Minister. The result of his efforts of last September 20 are attached to this bill. If I were he I would leave the House and not come back. If 1 were responsible for the agreement that is attached to this bill, if I had given away all the bargaining cards that Canada held and came back with this piffle, this less than nothing, I would certainly leave this House. The bill went from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources into a deeper dungeon. We have the results before us.
Here is a bill before us for a $10 million project and we do not know which minister is going to be responsible for it, which of the 34. That is an insult to parliament. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources should have his title changed to "minister of energy, mines and resources excluding gas piplines".
Now I come to the question of secrecy. This government intends to bring in legislation so that the RCMP and the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) can open mail if they want to. When it come to giving parliament information about what the government is doing, nothing is forthcoming. Not even a writ from the supreme court would force them to give us information. Secrecy is paramount.
In the last couple of days we have come across a report prepared last July by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources under the supervision of the director of energy policy for the Minister of Industry Trade and Commerce. It was prepared before the minister surrendered on September 20 and signed the agreement, and before the debate on the pipeline on August 4. When asked a question during the question period today the Deputy Prime Minister looked around, bewildered, toward the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as if looking for information. Mr. Speaker, anyone who does that is an extremist, yet the Deputy Prime Minister looked desperately to him to see if there was such a report or not. Santa Claus said: "Yes, Virginia, there is such a report". I hope the Deputy Prime Minister now has the report and has seen some of the things that are in it which should be before this House.
What are some of the things in this report? In terms of impact on the economy, the project is small. The peak year demand represents about .3 per cent of the labour force and less than 1 per cent of the GNP. However, these benefits gained by construction may be in jeopardy, depending on the combination of Canadian content before financing. Do we hear
February 14, 1978

anyone from the government side tell us that? Not on your life.
It goes on to say that there will be an appreciation of 2.35 cents in the Canadian dollar. The Canadian dollar has gone down to 90 cents. If it appreciates 2.35 cents this would virtually wipe out the employment generated in the peak year of construction. In other words, because the government is borrowing money outside Canada it has to borrow billions. If it is done too hurriedly and at the same time it may cause the Canadian dollar to rise 2.35 cents, Canada will lose more jobs in industries such as textiles, pulp and paper, etc., which are affected by the exchange value of the Canadian dollar, than it will gain in the whole construction. That is what this report from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce says. But do we hear about that in the House? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Not from Crowfoot.


John Carnell Crosbie: Not from Crowfoot nor from Cape Breton or anywhere over there. I do not mind not hearing about it from the Deputy Prime Minister because he obviously knows nothing about this project. What else does the report say? It says that concessional financing could endanger Canadian content objectives and should not be a determining factor in awarding bids. It is suggested that Canada and the U.S.A. could agree there because no concessional financing would be offered for this joint transit pipeline. In other words, the government should forbid tied financing. They should not be allowed to approach the United Kingdom or here or there outside the country and receive financing tied to our using foreign goods and services. That should be forbidden. That is what the report says, but we have not heard that from the government.
Then the report says that the Canadian content actually achieved can vary substantially from estimates because of competitive pricing conditions, tied and concessional financing, government monitoring, corporate attitudes, and other factors. We did not hear that from the government.
Then it has tables which show that the best we can expect in Canadian manufacturing content is 81.3 per cent. Table 12 shows estimates of Canadian content. There is a percentage of total expenditures for the construction of Alcan-Dempster; it is 81.3 per cent Canadian. Not 90 per cent, not 85 per cent, not 88 per cent, not 84 per cent, not 82 per cent, but 81.3 per cent. We go on through the table and the figure is $2,299 million. If we add on the construction side of the table, there is a total of $3,367 million Canadian out of $3,940 million which is 85.4 per cent. That is the maximum, and that is if everything goes perfectly; and everything is administered to the utmost perfection. So is the most we can have is 85 per cent with absolute perfection.
What does the Deputy Prime Minister tell us in his speech of yesterday at page 2790 of Hansard? He said this:
During the hearings before the National Energy Board, Foothills stated its objective-and I stress the word objective because it was not and could not be a flat guarantee-
Northern Pipeline
The Deputy Prime Minister is cagey; he is the cagiest cage in the government. He goes on:
-was to achieve Canadian input into the system in Canada of more than 90 per cent.
We have been warned it is only an objective. You cannot catch the Deputy Prime Minister when he says that. Then he goes on to say:
During the intervening months Foothills has repeatedly restated that objective. On the basis of past performance of the sponsoring companies, and our own assessment of Canadian supply capabilities, there is every reason to believe that this target will be achieved.
The Deputy Prime Minister went a bit further than he thought he was going when he said that there is every reason to believe that we can achieve over 90 per cent. Because the report of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce states the most we can achieve is 85 per cent-if we are perfect. God knows this is not a perfect government. We have to be harsh and say there are a few imperfections here. The Deputy Prime Minister is not properly briefed. He is saying we can achieve 90 per cent, but the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, headed by our late comrade, has said the best that can be done is 85 per cent. Our manufacturers will achieve only 82 per cent.
I hope, therefore, that the Deputy Prime Minister will retract his statement at the first opportunity, that he will come before this House is sackcloth and ashes to retract that statement. The government is so secretive. It is governed by stealth and secrecy. It is government by the unknowing doing the unknowable. They do not know what reports they have prepared. Some ministers are in the federal-provincial conference and some are here. They give this "boffle" to the House. It is government in the dark. It reminds me of the old Cole Porter tune "Dancing in the dark". I hope that when government members have their little drinking session here they will sing "Government in the Dark".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: As I understand it, of this $10 billion there is about $3.8 billion to be spent on the Alaska part of the project and $2 billion in the United States. Since our leader on this matter is not shaking his head, I assume that is right.
Does anyone think Canada is going to get much business in the United States? What a joke! What a laugh! Does anyone think we will get much business in Alaska? The Americans are not shy sticking up for their own rights or shy about gaining their own national objectives. They are not scared of Canada. They are not the "good old neighbours". They have "buy American" legislation. Protectionist pressures during 1977 resulted in the emergence of new "buy American" proposals at all levels of government.
Our government is cowering here in Ottawa, afraid to have a buy Canadian policy. Our own pipeline, which we do not need in the first place, we are building as good neighbours. The U.S. public works employment act amendments of May, 1977, tied a "buy American" requirement to state and local government public works projects to be funded with the $4

February 14, 1978
Northern Pipeline
billion authorized under the legislation. This represented an extension of normal "buy American" act practices which apply only to purchases by and for the use of the U.S. federal government.
A similar restriction is now included in the U.S. water pollution control act amendments involving $13 billion in federal funding for state and municipal water projects. Canada was concerned and protested to the state department, but these efforts proved to be unsuccessful. So we protested and our protests were brushed aside. When it comes to our own pipeline we cannot even insist on buy Canadian content restriction.
In a more recent development, another bill has been introduced into the U.S. Congress and, if passed, will cut off all kinds of things. Anything that the U.S. government finances, except for defence matters, such as state, local government purchases, housing, mass transit, urban renewal, highway construction, public works, will have to be "buy American" purchases if these new amendments pass.
Is the U.S. congress cowering and asking us if we approve, or if we are going to be bothered, or will we feel hostile if they pass these amendments? They are not. They do not give a damn what we say in this House. I say here is a chance for us to pass some legislation which says "buy Canadian". But we do not do so. We have all this charade going on with specifications. The government should resign. The government should be driven out of office by the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: We are hearing a lot about GATT. The Deputy Prime Minister said today that we could not put anything in the agreement about Canadian preference, that this would violate GATT. Are the Americans worrying about GATT? It is "rat-a-tat-tat" to GATT. The Americans legislate a "buy-American" policy, which means a complete surrender of Canadian interests.
The industry, trade and commerce report says that if we word it carefully we would have no problem with GATT. But this will not solve the project engineering services that are not affected by GATT. Japan, Germany and the United States don't care about GATT. The only ones who care about GATT are those in this "GATT government". The Canadian people have to get this GATT government so that it will not get them.
We all know Foothills propose a 48-inch pipe, half-inch thick, 1,260 p.s.i. That is fine for Canada. There is a 48-inch pipe, three-quarters of an inch thick, 1,680 p.s.i., which Ipsco cannot make, but which the Americans want because they can make it. We know there is a 54-inch pipe, one half-inch thick, 1,160 psi, which the Americans cannot make but the Canadians can, Ipsco in Regina and Edmonton and Stelco in Welland and Camrose.
Should there be one second, one week, one month or any time taken to make a decision? I do not give a hoot what the

NDP recommended. It is the 54-inch pipe that only Canadians can make which is the pipe we want. If there is some technical reason 1,260 p.s.i. pipe is unsatisfactory, there is the 48-inch pipe that Foothills recommended in the first place.
When it comes to the pipe which is important to Canada, what do we find? If this was not Canada, I would not believe it. If Stelco makes its pipe in Welland, in order to be competitive it has to transport it through the Panama Canal to get to the site of the pipeline. It would be too expensive to transport it by rail. It is unbelievable, but I am told that Foothills are actually having a study done to see what is the best way to transport pipe and other materials.
This country has a railway, but we cannot ship the pipe by rail cheaper from Welland to the Yukon and Alberta. We have to send it through the Seaway, down the seaboard, through the Panama Canal, up the west coast and then by truck or rail. No wonder the British Columbia members are going berserk about the wide flange steel. I would be a "flangist" myself. In fact, I am. We are in the same position in Newfoundland. The freight rates are such that it is cheaper to get steel from Japan rather than central Canada. What a crazy country! We talk about DREE. That is one of the problems.
If the American plant in Texas is going to be able to compete and the cheapest way of getting the materials there is through the Panama Canal, that will be cheaper than shipping from Ontario. According to my atlas, it would be cheaper to ship from Texas. They will have the advantage. Any government that permits that to be done should be strung out and strung up. They should not be permitted to exist. They should change the freight rates or do something to reverse the situation. I just draw the attention of the House to this anomaly.
What is apparently being considered is to use B.C. pulp and lumber carriers which now go east through the canal to the eastern seaboard and return empty. They are to return west filled with steel. That is the proposal being looked at. The United States steel plant is at Baytown, Texas. That is certainly closer to the Yukon if the Panama Canal must be used. That is certainly a strange kettle of fish, as we say in Newfoundland.
There is no reason why we ought to be having a debate in Canada as to whether we should use Canadian steel. It is ludicrous. No other country in the world would have such a debate. There would not be such a debate in Japan, Germany or the United States. Are they raging with debate in the U.S. as to whether they are going to allow foreigners to build their pipeline, supply the pipe and all the rest? They are not. The debate they are having is whether they are going to grab ours. We are wondering whether we are going to save a little bit for ourselves. What kind of a country is this? I would sooner go down fighting than put up with that kind of humiliation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: There are other items to be considered in addition to the pipe. We must consider the valves, pipe fittings, gas turbine drivers, compressor assemblies, pressure vessels and generator sets. On and on it goes. For supplying some of
February 14, 1978

this the Canadian content can only be 50 per cent. I presume there are technical reasons for that.
There are a lot of items apart from the pipe that can and should be Canadian right to the limit, as set out in table 12 of this report which we have not got. We are not supposed to have it because we are not supposed to know anything about this project.
There is another piece of hypocrisy that had slipped my mind. I refer to clause 3(f) on page 3 of the bill. One of the objects of this act is, and I quote:
-to advance national economic and energy interests and to maximize related industrial benefits by ensuring the highest possible degree of Canadian participation in all aspects of the planning and construction of, and procurement for, the pipeline while ensuring that the procurement of goods and services for the pipeline will be on generally competitive terms.
That is stated to be an objective. The rest of the bill contradicts the objectives. It kisses the Americans' you know what in practically every clause.lt is given up altogether when we get to section 7 of the agreement, which is annexed to this bill, dealing with supply of goods and services. I quote:
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 in to account in weighing competitiveness will include price, reliability, servicing capacity and delivery schedules.
Each government is going to give the other a preference. Each may, and I quote:
-institute consultations with the other in particular cases where it may appear that the objectives of subparagraph (a) are not being met.
This is contradictory to the objective in clause 3(f).
Remedies to be considered would include the renegotiation of contracts or the reopening of bids.
You can bet your bottom dollar, Mr. Speaker, that with the first contract that goes to a poor old Canadian supplier, the Yanks will be objecting under clause 7 stating that we must renegotiate. Is this parliament going to surrender its right to check on that? We will never know unless somebody squeals to us. Under this legislation, the government does not have to come back to the House. They need only give an innocuous report once a year. I am sure members of this House will not agree to that.
What will happen? When a protest is made, Canadian bids will be reopened. We will have to give the Americans more because they are our big, strong neighbour. We cannot stand up against them. The opposition will never know about it. That is what will happen if we leave this in the shape it is in now.
We in the official opposition want the pipeline, but we want some assurance that it will be constructed properly. We want some assurance that this parliament will be able to check to see that it is done properly. There must be adequate discussion before the bill goes to committee.
If this government is sensible and agrees to the reasonable amendments we suggest, it will be completed in time before the Americans agree to the gas prices, the producers agree to the gas prices and all the rest. Let us not hear that foolish word "unduly" spoken here again for at least a month.
Northern Pipeline
We want a strategy that will give Canada some long-term benefits. The report from industry, trade and commerce states that there will be $226.7 million in Canadian taxes and duties. If the project goes ahead, that is what the government will get. That is the estimate. Some of that money should be used to ensure that Canadian industry gets well established so that we can become foremost in the world with regard to pipeline building, construction, servicing and supplying. When this pipeline is nearly completed, we should be ready to go on to the next one no matter where it is in the world, whether it be in Saudi Arabia or the Carpathian mountains. We should be prepared to do this work, not only protect what we have in Canada.
The government must have an industrial strategy that will take advantage of what comes our way, rather than hiding its head in the sand and prevaricating, as this government has been wont to do.
We have been told that 50 per cent of the content will be Canadian, that no one can interfere with that 50 per cent. No one can stop us having our labourers on the job or using our own gravel and sand. With regard to the other 50 per cent, we are told by the experts that we should concentrate on 35 per cent. I am going by the industry, trade and commerce report and making some suggestions of my own.
We are willing to accept advice from government departments if we think it is wise. What we want is long term industrial benefits. We want what the Science Council has called an industrial strategy for Canada. We want Canadian technological superiority for our northern nation. Our former prime minister had the northern vision which has been so sadly lacking since 1963. Since then we have had nothing but the Liberal vision.


An hon. Member:: Lack of it!


John Carnell Crosbie: Liberal balls and Bacchanalian orgies. Thank God I saw the light. Thank God I am reborn as a PC.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: We want a strategy which would develop a framework of opportunity to increase the capacity of Canadian industry to produce. We have already put money into industry, trade and commerce to help develop larger gas turbines and I think Westinghouse will be able to do the job. We must see to it that gas turbines are made here in Canada and if some assistance is needed let us whack out a few dollars from the $260-odd million we would be getting in taxes, as I have explained. Then we should negotiate with one of the international heavy equipment manufacturers for the establishment of plant to produce at least one of their product lines here. We know we cannot have them all but why could not Caterpillar be induced to set up a plant here? We should be developing our own industry in this country.
Never mind that bluff about bids and competitiveness. Let us try and get established in Canada a large dimension ball-

February 14, 1978
Northern Pipeline
valve facility. Of course, I do not know anything personally about these machines but they are all involved in pipeline construction and I know we cannot presently manufacture in Canada large-diameter ball-valve facilities. That is what I am told. I understand there is $20 million involved in that one area alone. There are other things of this nature which do not immediately come to my mind tonight. Never mind all this ballyhoo and nonsense about letting the Americans bid and do this and that and be nice Nellies. We should not even be contravening article 111 of GATT.
What we want is a policy of developing a pipeline-oriented industry, a strategy to develop industry in this country using the money we are going to get from import duties and taxes so that we will be able to compete anywhere in the world. We want people like the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) in charge of this pipeline project. He is the type we want. With my hon. friend in charge we in Canada would get everything out of the pipeline that we should.
My last point, Mr. Speaker, is that parliament needs a monitoring agency such as that which the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) spoke about. Such an agency should produce quarterly reports setting out Canadian content objectives, the degree to which they have been achieved, and so on. The reports would go before a standing committee; every three months the committee would examine them and raise hell if things were not satisfactory. The reports should state precisely what value has been added, who owned the companies which were doing the business, and so on. The Americans have a pipeline reporting mechanism and we can look to that as a precedent.
Then again, fluctuations in value of the Canadian dollar are so important that there should be a report made to the committee every three months about the way in which financing has been arranged. If some of this information has to be kept confidential, that can be arranged. We do not want them rushing in with a billion dollar bond issue pushing up the value of the dollar by four or five cents. The effect would be too dangerous. It isn't all roses in the buttonhole, as the Prime Minister tried to tell us yesterday. He will find out about the thorns under the roses later this year. I suppose the greatest coup of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was forcing the dollar down to just about 90 cents. And I further suppose that if he remains in office the dollar will stay down. Be that as it may, a rise of just two or three cents in the value of the dollar would mean the loss of more jobs that we would get from the construction of the line. That is what the IT and C report says.
My hon. friend from Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) reminds me to mention the equity which should be made available to Canadians who invest in this project, to give Canadians a chance. As you might gather from what I have said, Mr. Speaker, I am supporting this bill in rather lukewarm fashion. I do not want any Liberal in this country to go around twisting the facts and saying we are not supporting the bill. We do support the bill.


An hon. Member:: After all that!


Mr. Gilbert:: No wonder. He is a Liberal retread!


An hon. Member:: He makes Horner look good!


John Carnell Crosbie: If somebody were to put a rooster in that barnyard they would soon shut up!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: We are supporting the bill and the basic principle enunciated therein, but we hope it will be improved in committee. If it is not we shall reassess our position. So the responsibility lies with the Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues. We are not satisfied with what they have done. It was an execrable job. We are hoping they will show some sense and improve it in committee.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened last night to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielson) and spent some time today reading in Hansard for last November and December questions which were raised in this House by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). I have just listened to the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie).
If anyone gave a speech to show why this bill should not pass in its present form, it was the hon. member for St. John's West. If anyone ever asked questions in this House to which we have not received satisfactory answers, it was the hon. member for Hamilton West. Anyone reading those questions and the replies made to them will understand why we should not push this bill through, as the hon. member for Yukon would have us do.
I am sick and tired of watching, since the fifties, successive Liberal governments trembling at the knees whenever they were in negotiation with the United States. Two things happen to them. They tremble. They get U.S. dollar signs in their eyes while any idea of our own national sovereignty and self-respect goes down the drain. I am glad the hon. member for Hamilton West raised the questions he did last December and I am glad the hon. member for St. John's West made the speech he did tonight, even though he told us he would support the bill- having given us lucid reasons why we should not.
Last night the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) condemned the NDP and our spokesman on energy, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). He said:
The hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party has labelled the bill a betrayal of Canadians.
The hon. member for Yukon said:
We put no such label on this bill.
Those quotations are to be found at page 2795 of Hansard for yesterday. The hon. member went on further to say:
After my perusal of this bill, there seems to be no earthly reason why it could not have been before the House prior to Christmas, instead of giving hon. members so little time to consider its provisions with experts in the field.
February 14, 1978

The hon. member for Yukon then went on to say:
The hon. Leader of the NDP and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands are taking a wholly impractical position when they indicate that guarantees, with respect to Canadian labour content and industrial content, must be written into the bill.
The hon. member for Yukon continued:
I agree with the minister in his assessment of that.
Let us look at what the hon. member for Hamilton West had to say. It was not just the NDP that was talking of guarantees and it was not just the NDP that was talking about a sellout. On October 27, as reported at page 313 of Hansard for that date, the hon. member for Hamilton West said, in the process of directing a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner):
In light of the fact that the agreement calls for implicit understandings ... and refers to bei.ig competitive, and given the fact that the minister has said Canadian interests will be given every opportunity, which means that some room is left open for international bidding, can the minister advise, together with his colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, whether he will see to it that there will be guarantees in order to protect the interests of our steel industry and those who provide goods and services which play a major part in this pipeline?
When talking about the matters of guarantees and reinforcement, let us again look at what the hon. member for Hamilton West said on November 21, at page 1062 of Hansard for that date. He was directing a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and this is again related to what the hon. member for Yukon said last night about sellouts. The hon. member for Yukon said at page 2807 of Hansard of yesterday:
The Deputy Prime Minister accused the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) of charging that we have been sold out. He charged the member with labelling the bill as a sellout before it was exposed to parliament. I reject that contention of the Deputy Prime Minister.
To quote what the hon. member for Hamilton West said in his question to the Prime Minister on November 21 at page 1062:
-my question is for the Prime Minister regarding what I call that great sellout by this government in terms of the northern pipeline and the evasive answers given by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and others. Given the fact that Dr. Stuart Smith, leader of the opposition in the province of Ontario, has indicated by way of a letter to the Prime Minister that he is very, very concerned about this matter-
The hon. member for Hamilton West on that occasion referred to this matter as "that great sellout". 1 am glad to have the views of the hon. member for Hamilton West in this regard on the record, which are contrary to what the hon. member for Yukon had to say last night about this bill.
There are a number of quotations 1 could refer to which appear in Hansard regarding what has been said by the hon. member for Yukon in contradiction to what has been said by the hon. member for Hamilton West. I am sure a reading of what the hon. member for St. John's West said tonight will be further evidence of statements contradictory to those made by the hon. member for Yukon. This would indicate there are at least some Progressive Conservatives who assess this bill as a betrayal or a sellout, and look at the bill as completely lacking
Northern Pipeline
guarantees for Canadian manufacturers of this pipe and Canadian contractors for the pipeline itself.
The hon. member for St. John's West was primarily correct when he said that when the United States government, Congress, decides on an exercise or an enterprise, whether it be public or private, it in fact protects, gives preference to, subsidizes, ensures and guarantees United States manufacturing and labour content.
The Deputy Prime Minister, who is responsible for this bill and was in charge of the negotiations with the United States, behaved in a way that we have seen many times before in the history of our country; his knees trembled, he forgot to keep his back to the wall and his gun loose in his holster. He could have obtained, and I believe still could, guarantees through this legislation, unless the United States wishes to pay an additional $6 billion to $10 billion by going another route. If that is the case it is welcome to do so, but you, Mr. Speaker, I and everyone else in this country knows it is not about to do that.
Guarantees to Canadian manufacturing and construction could be written into the legislation. If by some remote chance a Canadian manufacturer or contractor, one or more, attempted to tender or bid with unreasonable prices, we could put safeguards in the legislation, or provide the safeguards by legislation, stating that where in the opinion of a monitoring agency, or in the opinion of the minister, or in the opinion of anybody else, tenders by Canadian manufacturers are unreasonable, tenders will be called for from anywhere else in the world. This would apply to manufacturers of steel pipe in the United States, Japan or western Europe, who would then be able to tender. This would be the case if our pipe manufacturers were stupid enough to attempt to charge all the traffic would bear by tendering at unreasonable or exorbitant prices.
In light of the more than one million people out of work in this country and the fact that this pipeline is going under Canadian soil, surely it is incumbent upon us to see that there are guarantees. We could earn the respect of the United States and do something about our own nationhood if we make sure we get most, if not all, of the work here in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
February 14, 1978
Adjournment Debate

Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, ever since my election in 1974 I have been pressing the Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Marchand) for an assurance that the Department of the Environment has some kind of operative plan to protect the people of Surrey and White Rock and, as a matter of fact, all the people of the coast of British Columbia, against the future inevitability of a major oil spill.
I recall the spill in 1972 at the Argo plant, and 1 know we are always vulnerable to that kind of disaster off our shores. As a result of that awareness I began pressing the minister, early in October, 1974, for some kind of assurance that there would be contingency plans that would be operative in the case of a major spill. As a matter of fact, I asked the then minister questions so frequently about that particular issue that she became exasperated with me and on one occasion presented me in the House with a computer print-out list of all the equipment in place in Vancouver. That list contained the number of peat bales, booms and so forth, and this surely was a highly irrelevant thing to do.
In November there was a report in one of the Vancouver newspapers under the headline "No government agency capable of major oil cleanup, GVRD told". I had always doubted somewhat the minister's statements to me. When I received that report, I made certain I had a copy of the report which prompted that headline. On January 24, 1978, as reported at page 2176 of Hansard, I asked the following:
In the months of October and November of 1974 I posed a series of questions to the former minister of the environment and asked for the tabling of contingency plans in the event of a major oil spill on the west coast. The former minister assured me, as recorded in Hansard of November 6, 1974, that plans in the Vancouver area were very adequate and, in fact, computerized.
In response to that question, the minister said:
I assure the hon. member that we can deal effectively and quickly with oil spills on the west coast, and on the east coast as well.
I have a copy of the plan which was presented to the GVRD by Mr. Chris Hatfield, the former Pacific region environmental emergency co-ordinator for Environment Canada. This man has credentials and knows what he is talking about. I should like to present to the House some of the items which he mentioned to indicate major deficiencies of contingencies in the GVRD area. The first one reads as follows:
Although all the contingency plans contain much useful information, they are really spill notifications and general policy plans. No site specific action plans are included that describe such things as which local areas have priority for protection or clean up, where field co-ordination centres will be located, or what methods will be used for cleanups in the different areas.
The next item reads as follows:
No comprehensive communications system exists to link all federal government agencies, air and waterborne support, provincial and municipal truck and equipment fleets and contractors together, in order that they may communicate effectively. This results in gross inefficiencies, delays and isolation of many working groups from each other during incidents.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
It continues by indicating that the Department of National Defence is not included in the contingency plan, although a large body of manpower and communications is available in the event of such an emergency. Another item contained in the plan reads as follows:
Little risk analysis has been carried out in order to give priority in spill control planning to areas having higher exposure to the occurrence of spills. As a result, spills in obvious high risk areas such as Boundary Bay, Vancouver Harbour and Port Moody Arm, are not planned for.
It continues:
No provision has been made for the mock exercise testing of present contingency plans. As a result, when an actual event occurs, details such as telephone lines becoming overloaded, lack of keys for important buildings, or lack of air transport, become critical delay problems.
A few days ago I received a letter from the minister as a result of my urging him to provide some equipment for Surrey and White Rock. The letter indicated that there is a plan for mock exercise some time in 1978, together with American departments. It seems to me that is very indefinite and far too loose. Another indication of a deficiency reads as follows:
There is at present, no provision in current contingency plans for updating. Most existing plans are, therefore, put on shelves, where they become obsolete as personnel and phone numbers change, material suppliers go out of business, and clean-up methods improve.
The closing paragraph of the plan ends on a note of some wry humour. It reads as follows:
To end this section on a positive note, it should be pointed out that the federal government has spared no cost to acquire tremendously sophisticated equipment for communicating information about spills to Ottawa. Any word uttered, picture taken or story printed, can be whisked to Ottawa within milliseconds of its release. Computers, telecopiers, mag card selectric typewriters, telex, multiple speaker telephone conference call hookups and suitcase portable computer access terminals are all used to keep headquarters informed of events-during Ottawa working hours.
[DOT]
The fundamental question is who is in charge in the event of a spill like the one we had in Richmond last summer? We had all the equipment there. The booms, the peat moss and the skimmer were all there, but who is in charge? The final and ultimate question is: Who is going to make the decision to send the equipment out to the site? It looks to me as though we have all kinds of equipment spread along the lower mainland by government departments as well as private industry, but there is no one on site who is the ultimate person in charge and who says, "send it out". As a result, it appears that people are waiting for someone else to do it, and it does not get done.


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


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) has over the years quite correctly posed a series of questions regarding contingency plans for dealing with a major oil spill on the west coast and specifically in waters in the lower mainland area. Ministers responsible for the environment have answered his questions and provided copies of the major contingency plans prepared by departments of the federal government. If the
February 14, 1978

hon. member had read these plans, particularly the joint Canada-United States marine pollution contingency plan, he would realize that the Department of Transport's Canadian Coast Guard is the lead agency for ship originated spills and for those which could affect the Canada-U.S. boundary waters.


Benno Friesen: I know all that.


Hugh Alan Anderson: The Department of the Environment has lead agency responsibilities for spills from shore sources which do not affect boundary waters.
At this point I must emphasize that those federal departments that have a duty, or are called upon to respond to spills, do have effective contingency plans. They are exercised in real and in simulated spills, and they do work. Accepting the "polluter pays" principle, our problem is to ensure that potential polluters and other levels of government are equally prepared to respond to spills within their jurisdictions.
The major oil companies and oil spill co-operatives formed under the aegis of PACE, the Petroleum Association for the Conservation of the Canadian Environment, have good contingency plans and have effectively demonstrated their capability to respond to spills for which they are responsible. However, the capabilities of municipal and provincial governments range across Canada from excellent to non-existent. This situation clearly indicates that some provincial and municipal governments accurately perceive their responsibilities for spill response while others do not.
I am pleased to advise the hon. member that a municipal government and industry co-operative called Burrard Clean is actively involved in spill responses in Vancouver Harbour. We welcome the initiative of the GVRD in examining its emergency measures requirements and are prepared to advise and assist them in developing contingency plans and response mechanisms to complement existing federal arrangements. We wish that more jurisdictions-


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


NATIONAL DEFENCE-DISINTEGRATION OF SOVIET SATELLITE OVER CANADIAN SOIL-INFORMATION PROVIDED MINISTER
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have reason to be concerned about the security of their nation. Our depleted yet competent military has lost confidence in the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson). The apparent confusion and ineptitude of the minister has been only too well documented in the recent Soviet nuclear powered satellite affair. The Globe and Mail put it very well as follows:
Mr. Danson appears unwilling to complain. Loyal to a fault to his subordinates, he is willing even to make their excuses for them: "The senior actors can be kept out of the picture until they are needed."
Which is utter nonsense. A man who has been kept as completely out of the picture as Mr. Danson obviously was is not a senior actor, or an actor of any sort, except in the role-playing sense. He is, to put it plainly, just a flack.
Adjournment Debate
The final paragraph of the article reads as follows:
How many other pictures is Mr. Danson being kept out of? What else will he know nothing about until it is too late? We know that Russian and American satellites are competing over our heads in a war of spy and counterspy. We know that each side is developing "killer satellites" to knock out the other's space snoopers. Yet the Government of Canada, linked in a defence partnership with the United States, appears content to be left out of the picture-at least until it is needed to explain the next disaster. And Mr. Danson will go on being treated like a flack, until he works up the nerve to stop acting like one.
That is an outside assessment, Mr. Speaker. I could put it more strongly. Canada needs leadership, not the "followship" of the Minister of National Defence. Emergencies require clarity and decision. The recent satellite issue shows that the minister is lacking on both counts. Perhaps the minister should be placed on the back bench until his confusion clears.
The recent communications failure saw the President of the United States providing information to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who, in turn, informed the Minister of National Defence, when the reverse should have been the case. Word should have gone from our Canadian commander to the Minister of National Defence, then to the Prime Minister and then to the President of the United States.
I questioned the former minister in committee regarding the speed and efficiency that would be required for consultation and consolidated defence procedure in emergencies within NORAD that would assure the protection of the sovereignty of the United States and Canada as well as initiate prompt protective measures. The minister's response was that procedures are secure but they are not public. My scepticism at the time has proved unfortunately to be accurate. I want to know what measures the minister has taken to ensure that this communication gap will not occur again. Perhaps the minister should provide an in camera briefing in order that, as representatives of the Canadian people, we can tell them that corrective action has taken place to assure their security to the maximum degree possible in spite of the imperfections of the minister and his "busy" systems.
Perhaps since the Prime Minister as well as the Minister of National Defence failed to grasp the significance of Canada's participation in NORAD, that does in fact give Canada access to United States space surveillance information and points to the fact that parliament, and in particular the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, needs further briefings on the purpose and functioning of NORAD. Will the minister refer this matter to that committee for further study and investigation?
I want a strong, secure Canada. Since Canada cannot defend itself I want our ties with our allies in NORAD and NATO resecured and strengthened. I know we have time-tested friends within these agreements, and perhaps through discussions we might even determine if there really is any threat or enemy and, if so, who that threat and enemy is and where they are. I asked the former minister of national defence and the former secretary of state for external affairs who our enemies are, and neither could tell me.

February 14, 1978
Adjournment Debate
Can the present minister tell us who the enemies are that we are defending ourselves against? Where is the threat? Has he told us in a recent statement, where he declared that the Soviet Union had a grand plan to impose its will on Canadians by force if they were unsuccessful through non-violent methods? Quite frankly, I do not think even the minister believes that, or does he? Can we take his word or is this ministerial irresponsibility again? Or is it just one more government deception as a decadent and crumbling government makes one last desperate grasp for power; as it attempts to give three loud cheers for the constitution, three more for the United States and the RCMP, and three kisses and boos for the Russians, the spendthrift provinces and the opposition?
When the minister-or whatever hon. flack the minister has chosen to respond to me tonight-stands to answer my question, let him address the issue, identify our internal and external enemies and assure us that we have taken corrective procedures for the security of Canada. Let us recognize that while in the short term we will have to rely on strengthening our defences through NATO and NORAD, in the longer term these are but functionary vehicles currently possessed of the evil of confusion and power lust.
The real danger and enemies of this world are hate, anger, fear, bigotry, selfishness and perverted violence in whatever vehicle or in whatever place or person or country they might be found. Let us recognize that our defence against these enemies must be attacked first by individuals with an inner strength of spirit, of love, peace, truth and natural justice, acting without fear and with courage and clarity. Let these be the common values that will unite Canadians with a will and a way to build a nation that is worth defending.
I call now on the person chosen to speak on behalf of the minister to stand and speak strongly and clearly and to assure this nation that we are secure.
(Translation]


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is probably because we are nearing election time that my friend and colleague from Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) has the inspiration to make a speech such as we have just heard, which is more or less an election speech we would normally hear in the public forum once hostilities between political parties have started. There must be special circumstances indeed when a very secondary event reported in the newspaper, namely the contention that the minister and the chief of defence staff were not quite in contact, leads to such diatribes.
For my part, I find myself in a privileged position as parliamentary secretary to the minister to know exactly of the close ties which exist between the minister and his departmental officials. 1 find absolutely groundless the contentions of my hon. friend to the effect that the minister does not play an important role in defence, in Canada, and that he is removed from his officials. To prove him wrong, I shall read a document that was given to me by the officials, and which only

serves to prove that they maintain very close relationships with the minister and his parliamentary secretary.

In response to the hon. member's question in the House on January 30, 1978, concerning lines of communication between himself and the chief of defence staff with regard to information on Cosmos 954, the minister stated that they were in constant communication and were working in close concert, and any difference on the information given was that of timing.
It was and is the minister's wish that information on events concerning the Cosmos 954 be given freely as they occur. The contradictions of information outlined by the hon. member did not, in fact, take place. At a briefing just prior to the minister's departure for Toronto on the Friday afternoon of January 27, 1978, both he and Admiral Falls, the chief of defence staff, were advised that a significant "hot spot" had been detected. This information remained unchanged until just five minutes before Admiral Falls' scheduled press conference at 3.30 p.m. the same day, at a time when the minister was airborne enroute to Toronto.
In accordance with the minister's instruction, Admiral Falls properly proceeded with his press conference, in which he disclosed that the hot spot was not confirmed. This information was relayed to the minister when his aircraft landed in Toronto.
That is the sense and the gist of this whole big event that the hon. member is trying to blow up into immense proportions. In reality the minister and the senior members of the defence staff are constantly working together, and I know of no other civil servants who work in a comparable fashion respecting the authority of the minister than those we have in the defence staff.


INDUSTRY-PLASTICS-REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO AID
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, on December 8 I asked the minister about requesting aid for the plastics industry. He said at that time that he felt the 10 per cent discount on our dollar would be of sufficient help and that we would be using our own raw materials.
When I asked about cutting interest rates and cutting capital aid, he said that Treasury Board would have to pay for this. Well, that is the taxpayer of Canada. That means all Canadians who are now paying for about one million unemployed. I leave it to reasoned judgment which we would prefer.
I want to speak about the economic mismanagement of this government. Our industry has gradually priced itself out of world markets. Our exports of manufactured goods have fallen simply because of the burden of increased taxes on labour and management. This burden could not be met without increasing the price of the article that was manufactured and paying more to labour to meet the demands of inflation and increased taxation.
February 14, 1978

I do not believe anyone would seriously argue with me the incompetency of the present government in the economic debate. Perhaps I would not be too unkind if I said that it is the most incompetent of all governments in its field since confederation. As an example, let us compare what it has done in the labour field. A Canadian workman would probably receive SI per hour more than his American counterpart. However, because of our heavy taxation the American has more take-home pay. In addition, his living costs are 15 per cent less. Added to this is the fact that his dollar is worth 10 per cent more.
No wonder we are selling less and less goods outside of Canada. A reduction in tariff protection in Canada would endanger some industries. I speak of the plastic industry in particular. If present conditions are allowed to exist, with government taxation at an all-time high, a million unemployed and a high inflation rate, this country will keep on losing its exports markets and factories. For this reason industries are leaving Canada almost weekly.
Many industries have moved out of the province of Quebec into the New England states and Vermont, where labour earns less but people are employed because the production can be sold. They also have more take-home pay which enables them to purchase more goods and services.
This is the situation in the plastics industry today. There are 1,400 manufacturing establishments, a market of around $2.6 billion, one-third supplied by imports. The industry input goes into various markets. About 150 pounds of plastics go into an automobile. By 1982 or 1983, it is estimated that this will be up to 550 pounds. Plastics represent 6 per cent of the manufacturing components of Canada's gross national product. The plastics industry employs directly nearly 50,000 people and has increased its employment 6 per cent per year up until last year.
The general need is to be internationally competitive. That is impossible if protection is not given or incentive programs such as tax credits are not used in every way possible to stimulate productivity and efficiency.
This situation is now more acute. Petrosar at Sarnia is turning Alberta oil and gas into petroschemicals, into pellets used by plastics fabricators, and into a growing list of products such as insulation, pipes, drains, cups and so on. If conditions are not made more favourable, most of the petrochemicals will be exported and we will be buying back from those companies our manufactured articles.
1 appeal to the minister. He knows full well that Canada is the largest importer of plastics per capita in the world. Canada imports more plastics products than any other country in the world, more than the United States which has ten times our population. Does the minister fully realize that Canada imports more finished products per capita than any country in the world and that our total deficit trade balance in manufactured goods in 1976 amounted to $10.2 billion, roughly equivalent to 500,000 jobs?
Adjournment Debate
In the absence of a manufacturing industry the role of the risk-taker disappears. Unless changes are introduced along the lines I have outlined, our only role would be that of an exporter of natural resources, thus admitting to the world that the government, and we as parliamentarians, cannot make the grade. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have seen too many smart Canadians holding top jobs south of the border to listen to that lament. What have we got to offer? In the absence of manufacturing, research will dry up. And that is progress in reverse.


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, our department has co-operated closely with the main association of the plastics industry, the Association of Plastics Industries, and the provincial governments, to make an in-depth study of the plastics industry in Canada. This study aimed at identifying the problems and the potentials of the industry in the next few years.
The main facts are as follows: Between 1964 and 1974, the industry's part of the total production of manufacturing industries increased from 3 per cent to 6 per cent; it should be noted that this pattern is expected to continue. Indeed, it is anticipated that between 1975 and 1985, the demand for plastic products will increase on the average by 10 per cent a year, which is a much higher rate of growth than for the entire sector of manufacturing industries.
Because of its high rate of growth, it is not surprising that this sector has all the characteristics of a youthful and inexperienced industry, including fragmentation, overly rapid development and underutilization of its facilities. These negative factors have forced the Canadian plastics industry to suffer higher losses than its American counterpart.
Study of this sector shows that capital expenses excluded, the difference in costs is of about 15 per cent and that if we take into account the difference in capital costs, the difference is 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent more. It should be underlined that this analysis is based on equivalence between Canadian and American currencies. The major factor in the difference in costs is the fact that raw materials required for the manufacture of plastic resin are more expensive in Canada. When petrochemical complexes are opened in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, this will considerably increase the Canadian plastic resin production capacity. The Canadian price of resin is already becoming increasingly competitive with that of the United States and other international markets; this may result from the implementation of a more energetic marketing policy by Canadian resin producers who anticipated the opening of these new facilities.
Fragmentation and overcapacity constitute the other factors which explain the cost differential between Canadian and American industries. It is very difficult to solve this problem because of the high rate of demand for plastic products, of the relatively low costs of the addition of new facilities in anticipation of an increase in the demand and of the ease with which new manufacturers can enter that industry. It will have to play a prominent role if it becomes necessary to reduce the costs

February 14, 1978
Adjournment Debate
brought about by its overcapacity. It will have to carry out more thorough studies to determine if new facilities are needed before building them.
The department and the Association of Plastics Industries also believe that it would be useful to carry out a certain regrouping within that industry through mergers and agreements calling for specialization; they are actually now getting prepared to study this issue in a more detailed manner.
It is worth noting that the department and the Association of Plastics Industries' will look for means to increase Canadian exports of plastic goods particularly to the United States; this will be another way to enhance the efficiency of that industry. The tariffs applied to plastic products entering the United States are relatively low and could again be reduced through GATT negotiations now under way. The creation of export consortiums and the use of better technology for export development will also be studied.
The Canadian plastics industry is one of the sectors in Canada which has experienced the most rapid growth; in that
respect, prospects are excellent for the coming decade. If prices of raw materials get closer to those of American industries, if we use our plants in a more rational manner, if we set appropriate Canadian tariffs and if we facilitate the access to foreign markets, particularly the United States, and if we get a favourable exchange rate, this sector of the Canadian industry will be able to expand so as to meet the very high demand for plastic products which will exist in Canada by the year 1985. For that purpose, it will be necessary to reduce inasmuch as possible, disparities between costs; furthermore, the industry and the government will have to work more closely. We believe that at the present time, only the first steps have been made in that direction and we hope to have permanent and fruitful discussions with the representatives from this industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

Wednesday, February 15, 1978