1978-02-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 in regard to certain interests who over a period of years have funnelled money into Canada for the promotion of alleged extremist elements, and further information 1 have received from beyond reproach intelligence sources indicating certain entities who will obviously deny any such actions committed by persons within their employ. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That the Prime Minister reveal all knowledge possessed by the government concerning millions of dollars sent into Canada by means of Air France phony billings, Renault automobile company phony billings, funds distributed by the French consulate in Moncton, New Brunswick, through an insurance company located in the maritimes and, Finally, whether or not funds are now being sent into the country via Manila, in the Philippines, for similar purposes.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the terms of Standing Order 43, such a motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the existing labour unrest in Canada, resulting in an unprecedented number of man-days lost due to strikes and walkouts-in fact, over 3.5 million in 1977 alone-and because the minister responsible has over the past month or so seen fit to concentrate his time and effort on professional football in Canada, instead-who knows, Mr. Speaker, perhaps "Happy Harold"
will be able to rejuvenate the Hamilton Tiger Cats to give competition to the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski)-I move:
That this House instruct the Minister of Labour to stop meddling into the Canadian Football League, leaving those responsibilities where they belong, and instead concentrate all his efforts in returning a semblance of order to the confused labour scene in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. Canadian National has announced that it will end truck service from its servocentre in Melville in June, throwing 21 men out of work and disrupting trade for many small businesses in the city. Because of the serious economic effects of this closure and the betrayal of the commitments CN made when it closed its stations in the area years ago, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House condemns CN for failing to live up to its promises and instructs the Minister of Transport to urge the company to fulfil its long-standing service commitments.


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.


GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION PLATFORM FOR NEXT ELECTION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That the Minister of Transport make a statement on motions stating whether or not the Liberal 1978 urban transportation platform will consist of warmed up,

February 15, 1978
left over, unfulfilled 1974 Liberal promises, or will it be a brand new set of deceptive Liberal platitudes?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


FLUORIDE POISONING OF PLANTS AND WILDLIFE ON INDIAN LANDS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the report prepared by Dr. Carnow and Dr. Conibear for the St. Regis Indian band council indicates that fluorides originating at Reynolds Metal Company have affected all the life forms on the island, including plants, insects and cattle, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of National Health and Welfare take immediate steps to investigate and correct this serious matter, and in particular, approve the request for an epidemiological study which to this point has been rejected by the government.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 43, such a motion can be presented for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
 * *


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present the following motion. In view of the fact that Canadian agriculture has been sacrificed time and time again in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations among Canada and other trading nations of the world, to the detriment of all facets of agriculture and its labour force, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. McKinley):
That the Canadian government immediately instruct its people who are in charge of such negotiations now going on to exclude any dealings on agriculture that will be detrimental to the industry and that will endanger in any way a labour force which comprises 40 per cent of the direct and related jobs in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LIBERAL PARTY SUPPORT INDICATED IN GALLUP POLL-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion concerns directly the dwindling number of Liberals across Canada. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urges the government House leader to take this opportunity to deny the malicious rumour that is being circulated, namely, that the most recent Gallup poll indicates a drop for the fourth month in a row in Liberal support across the country, this time by a further four points.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House dispatch at once the Clerk, accompanied by the Sergeant-at-Arms to the Conference Centre to deliver the following resolution to the first ministers' meeting. Considering that the Bill of Rights has precedence over symbolism; considering that the right to be prosecuted in one's native language has no political connotation, but is based on the most elementary concept of justice; and showing its apprehension as a result of the argumentation made by the Ontario Superior Court to deny Gerard Filion a bilingual prosecution before judge and jury, the House of Commons voices its concern over the excessive slowness of governments to establish the necessary legal infrastructures and calls on the first ministers to put that question on the order paper of the conference and asks that it be considered before the adjournment expected today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, because of a sense of urgency with respect to creating jobs today, not ten or 15 years down the road, I should like to move a motion, under the provisions of Standing Order 43,
February 15, 1978

dealing with the capacity of the government to call now for the construction of two loading drydocks, one for the east coast and one for the west coast. My motion, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), would read as follows:
That this House direct the responsible government ministers, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and others, to make known their decision and to move forthwith in implementing that decision so that jobs may be saved and jobs may be created.


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.

[ Translation]


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr.   Ren@: Mr. Speaker, considering the continuing attacks that the Minister of Finance of Canada is launching against the government of Quebec;
Considering that in doing so he maintains a climate of suspicions which greatly affects the normal progress not only of Quebec but of Canada as a whole;
Considering that such an important position as the one he occupies requires, in addition to genuine competence, statesmanship so as to stay above contingencies of narrow and sterile partisan spirit;
Considering that his action is causing prejudices to those who sincerely want harmony in a renewed Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the House ask the Prime Minister to transfer his Minister of Finance to a position more in line with his capacities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Since it is now some three years since the federal and provincial ministers of transport in western Canada agreed upon the five major principles which affect transportation policy in western Canada, which was described as a breakthrough, since the government does not have now any legislation on the order paper to implement any of these principles-particularly as
Oral Questions
they relate to the redress of freight rate anomalies and to the incorporation of a new transportation policy in the form of legislation-can the minister tell the House if we can expect a modified version of Bill C-33 to be introduced in this session? Or are we simply to assume that the public will be treated to another list of pie in the sky promises similar to those which were floated during the election campaign of 1974?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Vegreville said, we had Bill C-33 on the order paper in the last session. It was subjected to the beginnings of a filibuster, and as a result of consultation there was a clear indication that the filibuster would continue for a long time. That time was simply not available. If the hon. member would now give me an undertaking on the ease and speed with which the bill would be passed, I would be delighted to bring it forward now.
Bill C-33 contains extremely important measures in relation to the important issues of long-haul, short-haul and minimum-maximum freight rates so the railways cannot overcharge where people are captive in fact, although not in law. I think it is an important bill. I will be glad to have consultations with hon. members opposite, and if it looks as though we can move the bill forward, I will certainly bring it back immediately in the form it was in. If a modified form would speed things up, I would be delighted to do that, although 1 am afraid I would be running into two different views, even within the Conservative party, as to which modifications to make.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, since the objections from this side of the House centred largely around the fact that the Minister of Transport wanted to set himself up as a transportation czar, and because the minister would not shake his nasty old habit of favouring the user-pay concept, this party took a very strong position against that bill. Unless the minister is prepared to modify those parts of the bill, we will again take a strong position against it. If the minister is not prepared to bring in legislation with those modifications, he should say so: he should come clean and tell the House what we can expect by way of a comprehensive set of legislative proposals to deal with the very serious problems which affect transportation in this country from coast to coast.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there was nothing in the bill which related to the so-called user-pay concept or any other such concept. Indeed, the only element which was of fundamental importance with regard to freight rates was an assurance that the user would not have to pay too much, which is, I would like the hon. member to know, a great concern of mine as well.
When the hon. member for Vegreville talked about interpreting certain clauses as setting up the Minister of Transport as a czar, he was giving an indication of the kind of filibuster that was being carried out, when in fact all the bill did in that regard was make it very clear that the minister would have to take responsibility for policy issues and not be deflected from

February 15, 1978
Oral Questions
his responsibility by the actions or role of the CTC. I think that is a very important principle.
However, the bill had complicated matters in it. It had in it some statements of principle, in clause 3, which were the result of discussions not only with western transport ministers but also with Atlantic transport ministers. Obviously, that clause was capable of a good deal of argument. I am quite prepared to come back without some of that material, if I can have some assurance that the clauses regarding long-haul, short-haul and maximum-minimum rates would be dealt with quickly in this House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Since it is important to provide a mechanism with which we can redress the anomaly of freight rates in this country, and since the third major priority of the new transportation policy as enunciated in the election campaign of 1974 is the removal of regional inequities in freight rates-and there has not been one freight rate change since that proclamation was made-are we to assume now, from what the minister is saying, that the government has abandoned the policy of removing inequities in regional freight rates? Is that what the minister is telling the House?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am telling the House and the hon. member exactly the opposite. The imposition of maximum rate control on the railways, so that they cannot charge whatever the market will bear in cases where they have a monopoly position, is very important to me. The hon. member is saying I should bring on the bill. If we bring in just those clauses which deal with that question, and if the hon. member says members of his party will not make 120 speeches about all the things which are left out and which were in Bill C-33,1 would be glad to do that. I will be glad to discuss this matter with the hon. member, and if we agree on being able very quickly to pass the clauses with regard to long-haul, short-haul and maximum-minimum rates, I will bring the bill before the House within two or three weeks.


HALIFAX-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO REDUCE RATE FOR CONTAINERS
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put at least one supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. I remind him that he has had four years to do something about inequities in the freight rate structure. A confidential report prepared by the Arthur D. Little firm in the United States, which was released within the last 24 hours in Halifax, indicates that the rate structure of CNR will very shortly price the port of Halifax out of the container business altogether unless something is done. That, in light of what the minister said, is a little hard to swallow.
We want to know when the minister is going to take his responsibility seriously and do something about the 115 per cent increase in the cost of moving containers out of the port of Halifax, and when he is going to do something positive to

enable the Atlantic provinces, the producers, processors and industrial interests, to compete in the central Canadian market, where they can no longer compete because of increasing freight rates.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-33 is to make sure that railways do not have complete freedom in rate setting in areas where they have practically monopoly control over freight movement. I say again to the hon. member, as I did to the hon. member for Vegreville, that if there is agreement to move forward with those provisions, I will be glad to bring them forward.
I should also point out that the thing we have to cure in the law is something which was overzealously done by a government some ten or twelve years ago, following upon a royal commission set up by a Conservative government. That was a mistake that I think we probably ought not to repeat on a subsequent occasion.


J. Michael Forrestall: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. That is the type of utter damn nonsense the people of Atlantic Canada will not put up with any longer from this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: Is the minister aware of the Arthur D. Little study? Is he aware of its implications? Does he agree with its conclusions? Also, can he tell the House why it was as cheap, three or four years ago, to move a container from Halifax to Chicago as it was to move it from Montreal to Chicago, and today the same container shipped from Halifax costs $500, as opposed to $350 from Montreal? Can the minister tell the Atlantic users of container service and our international customers who use the port of Halifax why that is the case, and why he is not directly responsible for it?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is not altogether obvious why at one time a rate should have been the same for a long distance as for a short distance. That is a principle that one would have to examine. In short, the reason freight rates are what they are is that after the MacPherson commission-set up by the right hon. member for Prince Albert-the minority parliament enacted legislation which gave, essentially, freedom to the railways to set rates on the principle of what the market would bear, on the theory that competition would control the situation.
I am convinced that competition, in many cases, cannot control the situation, because the mode of transportation may be completely limited to rail by the nature of the product and its movement. In such cases, we need additional protection- legislative protection. I have the instrument to do it, and I will be glad to see it supported when it comes forward.
February 15, 1978


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Considering that we have been watching show business posturing by the federal government for 216 days at the federal-provincial conference which is taking place down the street, and we have been waiting to hear what proposals the government would offer to provide jobs for the more than one million unemployed, I ask the minister whether he can tell the House the economic game plan or the specific proposals put forward, in either public or private session, that would provide jobs now for Canadians who need them.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am, personally, very pleased that it has been possible to show the Canadian people the proceedings that are taking place currently in Ottawa-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: So are we.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and to show the Canadian people, without benefit of the editorial jibes of the hon. member, what is actually taking place at the conference, the many constructive proposals that have been made by the provinces and the government of Canada to deal with the medium-term future of Canada. I understand the conference will conclude today. Obviously, there will be a summing up at the conclusion, and it will be possible for the hon. member to draw his own conclusions later today or early tomorrow.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am delighted that the people of Canada have had an opportunity to witness the incompetence and inaction of this government which we have seen here for four years. The Deputy Prime Minister said there will be a summing up this afternoon. Would he now deal with the question. I am not talking about the proposals put forward by the provinces; I am asking him what specific proposals his government has put forward, either in private or public session, to provide jobs for Canadians who need them now, not at some distant point in the future.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is threshing old straw. The question of the immediate-term and short-term economic policy of the government has been dealt with frequently during the question period in the House. There undoubtedly will be certain short-term achievements arising from the federal-provincial conference. But I believe all the first ministers of all the provinces of Canada are agreed on one point, and that is there has to be some advance planning in order to achieve the immediate-term goals of the Canadian economy. In that connection I would refer the hon. member to the rather lucid speech of the Premier of Saskatchewan.
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would, indeed, agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that there was at least one lucid speech. All the proposals made by the hon. gentleman he mentioned were ignored by the federal government and were not even seriously discussed. In view of what the Deputy Prime Minister has said-and he has not provided any information about proposals-would he admit that all he has confirmed is that the only light shed, from the federal point of view, on the economic problems of the people of Canada was that provided by the television cameras at the conference?


TRANSPORT
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Considering that Quebec and Ottawa are negotiating the transfer of a number of communication wharves from the federal to the provincial, could the minister tell whether these negotiations have come to a deadlock or whether we will be able eventually to negotiate an agreement so that these wharves be renovated before it is too late?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe that question should have been directed to the Minister of Communications.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Considering that the minister refers to the Minister of Communications and that the Minister of Public Works is beside her, perhaps one of them could answer my question.
1 should like to know whether the negotiations which were started a few years ago under the Bourassa government continue under the Levesque government, and whether we will eventually hear the good news that the negotiations have been successful and that we will be able to renovate those wharves before it is too late.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may ask a last supplementary.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Considering the time it takes to answer my question, Mr. Speaker, I shall accept a written answer.


INQUIRY WHY TRADE MINISTER OBJECTED TO PROVISIONS OF BILL C-33
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I refer to the minister's answer to my friend, the hon.

February 15, 1978
Oral Questions
member for Vegreville, and his suggestion that there was some question of a filibuster when Bill C-33 was before the House last session. If there was anything like a filibuster, it was somewhat inspired by one of the minister's new colleagues, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who at that time was the transportation critic for the opposition. The minister obviously desired to remedy these gaps in transportation policy and they were, as my hon. friend from Vegreville mentioned, defined in the election campaign of four years ago.
Since the minister had the desire to do something, has he yet spoken to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to find out what his objections were to Bill C-33, so that a bill could come before this House which could receive expeditious treatment?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member, with regard to matters such as that concerning a region of western Canada, that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and I work very closely together toward producing a better result for western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that on the surface, at least in terms of rhetoric, they may be working together. I asked whether the minister had discussed with him the implications of Bill C-33, to see what changes might help that bill move through the House. Has the minister had an opportunity to discuss with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce his meeting with the three ministers of transportation from western Canada on Tuesday last, when transportation problems, not trade and commerce problems, were discussed?
Does the minister agree with the quotation in a report which says that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce feels that too many people in the west are obsessed with the Hall report? Does the Minister of Transport agree that people in the west are obsessed with the Hall report? Has the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce reported to the Minister of Transport what he has found out about transportation problems in the west, so that something can be done for the west, let alone the rest of the country, as the hon. member for Vegreville said earlier?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have discussed the meeting which was designed essentially to deal with industrial development in the west. Of course, transportation is involved in that issue as in almost every other important issue in the economy of this country. I do not know that I checked the particular quotation to which the hon. member has referred.
It is clear that the Hall commission report is an extremely important document for western Canada and, of course, with

respect to transportation needs. We are working in very important ways to make sure that in its most important aspects it is implemented promptly. We have in investment right now, $100 million to repair rail lines throughout the western Canadian territory-this at a time of serious fiscal restraint. The hon. member opposite should recognize the importance of that. We intend to honour this very important document.


IMPLEMENTATION OF HALL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that the $1 million Hall report tabled in May, 1977, resulted in 92 individual recommendations, of which only six have been fully implemented, three have been partially implemented, 58 have not been implemented at all and 24 official statements have been made on the rest, calling for further study, and noting that the western premiers bypassed the Minister of Transport and tried to meet the Prime Minister with a view to persuading the government to implement the recommendations speedily, 1 ask the minister, when will he implement the action recommendations by Hall, instead of further stalling and impeding the improvement of transportation and grain handling in the west?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, obviously a good number of matters which are recommended in a royal commission report involve very significant expenditures. These have to be weighed. Sometimes engineering designs are required. These have to come before action-as the hon. member calls it-can take place.
In fact, what we did was immediately transfer lines to the basic rail network which Mr. Justice Hall's commission wanted there. We have begun the rehabilitation work, which is the most important, immediate action to take place. We set up an action committee, which has made recommendations on some additional lines. Indeed, we are taking very rapid action on most of the important recommendations, not with the approval, it is true, of the three provincial governments which happen to be in a different partisan field-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is true that our form of action has been endorsed almost entirely by the Alberta pool, the Manitoba pool, the Saskatchewan pool and most other key organizations in the west.


An hon. Member:: Not the NFU.


Otto Emil Lang: Not necessarily by the NFU, but by every key organization in agriculture in the west.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the minister just said that he has taken no action at all except the abandonment of railways. On August 15, 1977, the minister stated that the total cost involved in implementation of the Hall report must be carefully analysed before a proposal is put before the federal cabinet. Can he tell us today whether those cost analyses have been
February 15, 1978

made? Have any recommendations been made before cabinet, or are we going to have another situation in the next federal election like the $290 million rapid transit promise, which will simply disappear?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, some of the analyses have been made, some recommendations have gone before cabinet and have resulted in action being taken. Others are before cabinet at this very time; for example, in relation to Prince Rupert and the whole question of the future of the branch line system in the prairies. The hon. member misunderstands the importance to the prairies of the transfer to the basic rail network of about 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the lines there, so that their future is secure.
In addition, there is the investment of $100 million and what it means to communities such as Beechy and Lucky Lake, Saskatchewan, where after 50 or 60 years of seeing nothing done on their rail lines, they now see new ballast, new ties, and they are going to see new rail, as our dedication is to a rail handling system that is good, solid and for years to come will give assurance to farmers in the west.


INSTRUCTIONS TO ANDERSON COMMITTEE RESPECTING INCREASING RAIL TRAFFIC ON PRAIRIES
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to continue this line of questioning of the minister, in view of the fact that he is wearing his Transport hat. The Hall commission report had a main thrust to it, namely, that the way to get the railways on the prairies operating in the black again was to increase their traffic. Did the minister, or any of his colleagues, give the Anderson committee any instructions not to consider any positive proposals that would increase traffic on the prairie rail lines?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I did not find that recommendation, as such, in the Hall report. The Hall report had a major recommendation, that the government pay to the railways approximately $200 million a year, which is the difference between what it costs for them to carry grain and what they receive for carrying it. We have not been able to approve, at this time of fiscal restraint, that additional $200 million a year for the railways. 1 am not sure hon. members opposite would have rejoiced had we done so. What we did, instead, was find $100 million and offer it for specific programs of rehabilitation; therefore, we are obtaining firm rehabilitation for it.
The Prairie Rail Action Committee has recommended that an additional line be transferred to the prairie rail network. That is the first of their recommendations. They considered the line into Spiritwood and Glaslyn and decided that it should remain. A decision on that question was needed so that the elevator companies could go ahead with building plans. They recommended that it be transferred to the basic rail network. We have transferred it to the basic rail network, and at least one elevator company has announced its construction plans at Spiritwood. That is the kind of action that really counts in relation to the grain handling and transportation system.
Oral Questions


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I simply asked whether any instructions had been given not to consider proposals. As a prelude to my question, I wish to quote from a letter dated September 15, 1977, from Mr. Anderson to the Golden West municipality in Corning, Saskatchewan. I quote from one paragraph:
Your brief represents broader action than our committee can recommend. I note you have sent copies to Messrs. Lang and MacMurchy. These are the gentlemen who best are prepared to consider your proposal.
My question to the minister is obvious. Has he received this positive brief to build up tonnage so that the railways can make more money by carrying goods in Saskatchewan for both domestic and export markets, and has he responded to that brief?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference of the Anderson commission are available: there is no doubt about what they are. That question would not ordinarily be seen as being within them. While I am not sure 1 have seen that particular brief, there have been a number which have recommended attention to the situation so that more grain may move. I have been one of the strongest advocates of the view that there will be much more grain moving out of the prairies in three, four or five years. I suggested, three or four years ago, that we should build for the export of a billion bushels of grain a year. That is the basis upon which I am operating, and it is the basis upon which we ought to review the adequacy of the rail system and the grain handling system.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have been trying to talk about what the Hall commission recommended, namely, that the railways should put more traffic on the rails than is the case now. Has the minister considered the possibility of putting in the small lines which are required to move our potash out of Saskatchewan by rail instead of by truck? Lumber, coal, gravel-all these things could be hauled over rail lines which are presently in existence, but the railways are not hauling them and our roads are being wrecked. We could make enough money to enable the railways to pay for themselves, if they would let these other products get on the railways. It is not just the grain we are interested in.


Otto Emil Lang: I do not know from what source the hon. member receives his information, but in almost every case the railways are presently moving Saskatchewan potash to the west coast ports. There is one potash mine where, as a result of a dispute between the railway and the potash company, the potash is being moved out by truck. But even in this case the rail lines are in place, I believe, and are available. So the product can be moved by rail as soon as appropriate arrangements are made between the company and the railway.


TRADE MINISTER'S COMMENT ABOUT MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to intrude into the discussion which is going on, but the fact that the minister found it necessary, First, to

February 15, 1978
Oral Questions
endeavour to delude the House into believing that my government had anything to do with the legislation to which he referred leads one to believe that the rest of his answers are equally a perversion of the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: It is of interest that as soon as the Minister of Transport began to speak about the part played by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce disappeared: he left the chamber. Another perversion of the truth to which I wish to refer concerns this western grain story-"The Ode by Otto", from Otto, for Otto.
I want to ask the minister this question. In that wonderful, new relationship between himself and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, have they been able to clear up the description given by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on November 26, 1974, which was Five years after the minister modestly says in the "Western Grain Story" that everything has improved since he took over. Has he discussed with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce the words used on November 26, 1974, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce with reference to the Minister of Transport, "I shall see Otto Lang tarred and feathered and driven out of Saskatchewan." Then we have the generous words, "I'll pay for the oil and I'll pluck the chickens".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Once again, if the record of what I said is checked, it will be clear to the right hon. gentleman that when I first referred to the MacPherson royal commission I made it very clear that it was acted upon by a minority government, and I indicated that I took some responsibility, in a broad sense, for the error of following the recommendation of a Conservative royal commission. I made that very clear.
So much for his statement implying that I was misleading hon. members. The second misleading thing in the right hon. member's remarks comes in his reference to the "Western Grain Story". That is a very important analysis, for our grain producers, of all the policies, showing how they have fitted together over many years. It is one of some 29 pieces of correspondence I have had with the producers on the prairies since I took over responsibility for the Wheat Board. I consider it extremely important to keep them informed. It is true that there are a couple of pictures showing myself speaking with farmers. This is to emphasize my desire to hear from them. That was another purpose of this particular booklet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Incidentally, there are pictures of Mr. Hall and Mr. Snavely and, as far as I have heard, they are not yet Liberal candidates in Saskatchewan. As far as the remarks of my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, are concerned, I would say that before this place was electronically recorded, hon. members were used to hearing colourful

ways of referring to one another, even when later in the day we referred to one another quite sincerely as friends. That happens to be the nature of this institution. I am delighted to admit that I was a principal target for my colleague's colourful and effective wit over the years. 1 am equally delighted now that we are side by side and that the targets are over there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: We have now seen the personification of the immortal words of the Prime Minister, "Love one another." We have had an example of it here this afternoon. I simply ask whether the words I have quoted concerning the minister, after five years of office and uttered by the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, did not rather shock the finer sensibilities of the hon. gentleman and cause him to have some doubt as to whether the two were friends at that time.


Otto Emil Lang: Over the years, the right hon. gentleman himself has been, of course, recorded as predicting time after time, on the eve of an election, that the campaign would be his last. When the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce joined this party and the cabinet, I thought it was delightful that we could be both speaking to the west about the interests of the west, for the very reason that, as may have been noted, we may speak in some ways to different audiences and in different ways. It is very desirable that both of us are there, speaking in that way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could depart for a few moments from the story of the lion and the lamb lying down together.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Which is which?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to address a question to the Minister of State for the Environment. In view of the fact that the Kitimat Pipe Line company has reactivated its application to construct a pipeline from Kitimat, British Columbia, to Edmonton, and that this matter is to be reviewed by the National Energy Board in the next few months, I should like to ask the minister why the west coast oil port inquiry, headed by Dr. Thompson has not also been reactivated, and why no arrangements have been made for community hearings or for the funding of public interest groups who were promised an opportunity to put forward their views on this important matter.


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: decision was made that we would consider this matter after
February 15, 1978

Dr. Thompson had submitted his interim report to us. He made the request that the hearing be reopened pending seeing what was done with the Kitimat application. We want to wait until he submits his interim report, so we can decide whether to reactivate the hearings or call an end to them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Surely, that is a complete evasion of the issue. When the application by the Kitimat Pipe Line company was held in abeyance, scores of community hearings which has been planned by Dr. Andrew Thompson were also suspended. Are the people of British Columbia, who were promised an opportunity to be heard in this connection, to be completely ignored?
If, as the minister said, he is going to wait until after Dr. Thompson makes his report at the end of April, this matter will be before the National Energy Board long before the people who are vitally concerned have the opportunity to express their views.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I expect to receive the report from Dr. Thompson within the next few weeks. I am sure the hon. member will not have to wait very long before a final decision is made one way or the other.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the names of passengers on the PWA flight which crashed in Cranbrook, B.C., on the weekend apparently were lost by a centralized computer system, causing unnecessary fear and anguish for many families, does the minister have any plans to require airlines operating within Canada to provide in future a fail-safe or, at least, a back-up system for recording the names of passengers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. In respect of this tragic accident, the delay in dealing with the names is a very important matter indeed. I propose to ask my officials and the Canadian Transport Commission, within their appropriate jurisdictions, to look at the question of making sure that ways can be found to avoid this happening in the future.


REDUCTION IN SUBSIDIES FOR CERTAIN PRODUCTS IN ATLANTIC REGION
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, we can see the evasion of ministerial responsibility by one cabinet minister after another, and the epitome of that evasion has been evidenced here today as the Minister of Transport has looked for scapegoats rather than being willing to accept
Oral Questions
blame for the slow passage of his bill as a result of his own obstinate position.
I should like to ask the minister whether he would explain to this House the economic justification for the change and reduction in subsidies as they relate to the intraprovincial movement of forest and agricultural products in the Atlantic area, at a time when both industries are suffering economic difficulties and when unemployment in both industries is extremely high. Does he think it is timely to reduce the subsidies at this time?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the change in subsidies in the Atlantic freight program results from long discussions among the Atlantic transport ministers, the premiers and myself, and from a five-way agreement among us that the subsidies can be selectively used and should be retained wherever this does, indeed, promote development and, therefore, jobs in the Atlantic region. It was also our agreement that where those ends are not met, this money was better used in other ways in the Atlantic region. That is what we are doing by building airports immediately and, I hope very soon, making improvements to bus transportation and to highways.
It is true that today we are announcing a proposal for changes in those subsidies in accordance with that agreement. I say, again, that this is a reduction in certain areas where it has been found, by the agreement of five governments, the four provincial governments in the Atlantic area and ourselves, that this will not have any adverse impact on the development of jobs in the Atlantic region, particularly when the five governments agree that the money could be better spent in other ways for the benefit of the Atlantic region.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, having an element of familiarity with the negotiations between the less favoured provinces and the government of Canada, I am quite familiar with the pressures that have been exerted by the federal government for the acceptance of the reduction in these subsidies. I ask the minister whether he has at any time studied the economic impact of the massive increases in freight rates as they apply to the maritime provinces, particularly in respect of goods for export, for intraprovincial and interprovincial movement, and is he satisfied that each of these transportation cost increases is justified and have had a favourable impact upon the economy of the Atlantic area?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, of course, as with other freight rates in the country, cost increases inevitably will show up in certain freight rate increases. I am not trying to justify every increase by the railways, by any means; I do not say they are all justified. But our current legal framework gives the railways certain freedom in that regard, and that is a matter about which I should like to do something.
The hon. member asks whether we have studied the impact. We certainly have. The five governments together had officials at work for a long time identifying the exact list of goods which should remain under the subsidy program. I would

February 15, 1978
Oral Questions
remind hon. members that, whereas in many other areas of the country freight rate increases are borne in total by those upon whom they are imposed, because of the various programs we have in the Atlantic region a good number of these freight rates are borne to the extent of 50 per cent by the people of Canada through payment of the transportation cost by the government. Therefore, 50 per cent of the increases and, indeed, of the whole rate is very frequently borne by the people of Canada as a whole. I think this is a good thing, because it is part of our commitment to the development of the Atlantic region and I will continue to support that kind of program.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, the impact is virtually unbearable and beyond the increases which have taken place, particularly as they relate to export rates. The minister overlooks the fact that the Government of Canada, in its wisdom and when it chose, could take steps to alleviate the impact of freight increases; but this it has not done recently. Does the government anticipate, in its policy, that it might take those steps, in a time of economic difficulty in the Atlantic area, in order to reduce the impact of massive increases which have taken place while this minister has been in the saddle but has failed to exercise his capability as minister?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think, again, the notion that costs can somehow simply be ignored, or that they will go away by being transferred to the taxpayer, is a popular notion among opposition politicians. But it is neither true nor is it good for the economy of this country or the taxpayer. It is not sensible for us to transfer to the taxpayer all the freight costs and ignore the realities of those costs. In the Atlantic region, however, we do have a program whereby there is significant assistance to modify that impact, by bearing 50 per cent of certain of those freight costs in the treasury, and I support that program. More than that can only be done if we are willing to put much more in the way of tax dollars into transportation, and thereby lessen the rigour with which all our entrepreneurs have to examine the best way of producing.


An hon. Member:: You are lecturing.


Otto Emil Lang: I am lecturing, the hon. member for Vegreville says. What I am trying to get across is the point that it is often better for us to recognize the real cost of transportation and, where possible, as a result refine the product, process the product and ship a lighter product a further distance, to leave the jobs back at the source, particularly when it is in the Atlantic or the western regions of this country.


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO REDUCE AIRLINE DISASTERS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It relates to air safety. In May, 1973, there was a fatal crash involving a DC-3, at Rimouski, Quebec, with the loss of four lives. In the MOT accident report it is stated:
The carrier did not comply with the Ministry of Transport standards in pilot training, dispatch, flight watch, and operational control as specified in Air Navigation Order-
{Mr. Lang.J
There was also the crash of a DC-3 last May. In the just released accident report on this incident at Pickle Lake, Ontario, it is stated:
The carrier's maintenance and operational control procedures were below standards specified by Transport Canada.
It would appear there have been no improvements in procedure over the last four years. I ask what measures the minister's department has taken to see that airlines are adhering to MOT standards and that operational control procedures are up to standard?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should recall that only about a month or six weeks ago I indicated in the House the steps we had taken, following the investigation in northwestern Ontario, to improve the inspection approach throughout the aviation industry. Because I recognized that this was not an isolated matter in relation to western Ontario, we made these improvements right across the country. We have begun the appointment of many more inspectors and have improved their procedures. We have given more authority to the regional offices throughout the country, as was recommended in that investigative report.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, in the Rimouski accident report it is stated:
The Ministry of Transport had been aware of the carrier's non-compliance for some time but had not effectively enforced the provisions-
Also in the report on the crash at Pickle Lake last year, it is stated:
Inspection and enforcement actions by Transport Canada was not effective in correcting the deficiencies of the carrier.
Can the minister give a complete assurance to the House and the travelling public that he will take immediate action to see that carriers comply with MOT provisions, and that the Ministry of Transport will start enforcing and correcting safety regulations relating to Canadian airlines?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers back to the practice of making it appear as though those reports came after the action to which I referred, and they did not; they came before, long before, that action. Action has been taken since that time. I wish the hon. member would not try to mislead the public with regard to that matter. This action is important.
Of course, the prime responsibility for carrying out the regulations rests with the carriers themselves. Most of them are very responsible and very respectable. They are attempting to carry them out in every way they can. Even then, there will be gaps and deficiencies, because human beings are involved and there are bound to be some errors from time to time. Our inspection process is meant to ensure that anyone with bad will or bad intentions is certainly weeded out. Those who have the good will, have the knowledge which leads them to do the job in the right way. We are trying to do that with an extremely able group of transport officials, inspectors and agents
February 15, 1978

Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
throughout the country. As a result, I think it is fair to say that we have a safer aviation system in this country than any country of the world.
['Agreed.\n(Mr. Orlikow.]']
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to a number which were asked earlier. It is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. A little over a year ago, I asked the minister what his position was with respect to his responsibility for the grain commission regarding the port at Prince Rupert which, if brought up to its potential, could save farmers in the northern part of our country, in the Peace River region of British Columbia and Alberta, $25 million in freight rates. At that time, the minister said that the elevator was to be upgraded and sold. Can he tell us today to what extent his program has progressed, and whether he has an updated report which would tie in with some of the verbiage the Minister of Transport gave us today?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to put a correction on the record, because the hon. member indicated that I said it would be sold. We said that we had asked for tenders. None of the tenders that we received was satisfactory. We asked another engineering group to make a study of the elevator facilities. That has been finished now and we will be making a decision on what to do with the elevator, whether we should upgrade it to bring it up to the standard the hon. member and I think it should reach. That decision will be made shortly.
I am sure the hon. member is aware, but in case he is not I should say that the elevator has been used more this year than in the past. It is providing good service at the present time. We think it can do even better, and it is our intention to make it so in that port area.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, having lived through another season of incredible bungling, where we have seen 600 rail cars piled up on the main line trying to get into Prince Rupert, and 40 ships in Vancouver harbour trying to get loaded, can the minister tell us when he expects a decision on this most important issue which has plagued the grain industry and the western transportation system for so long?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows full well that a lot of ships that went into the port of Vancouver, went in there without placing orders within the proper time limit. They went in there asking to be loaded with grain. More grain has been shipped out of these ports than ever before. Prince Rupert has been used more this year than ever before. We think it can be used even more in the future.


FEDERAL COURT ACT
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-420, to amend the Federal Court Act (production and discovery of documents).
He said: Mr. Speaker, in brief, this bill amends the Federal Court Act. It amends section 41(2) in which ministers are able to deny the right of statements becoming admissible as evidence in that court on various grounds of public policy and other policy. Under the proposed amendment the judge can demand to see the document, in proceedings in camera, and examine it. If on the grounds of an affidavit filed by a minister he considers the matter as one against public policy, then he allows the document to be declared inadmissible. On the other hand, if he wants to clear up the secrecy of government, he admits the document.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time? Next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to designate Friday, February 17, as an allotted day.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 55, 65, 440, 502, 526, 743 and 918.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	Has the government considered using Article 14, section 4, of the Columbia River Treaty and subsequent protocol of 1964, to charge or empower British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority with the specific duty of ensuring the greater stability of the Arrow Lakes and the suspension of all progress on the Kootenay River Diversion project and, if not, for what reason?
2886

February 15, 1978
Order Paper Questions
2.	Has the government made any use of the provisions of section 4, Article 14, to better effect the implementation of the Treaty insofar as Canadian interests are concerned and (a) if so, on what dates and what is the wording of the exchange of notes, if any (b) if not, for what reason?
3.	Does the government recognize any continuing residual or supervisory role with respect to the implementation of the Columbia River Treaty signed by Canada and the United States and, if so, what is the nature of the role and in what manner has it been carried out of late?
4.	Did the government, by Order in Council P.C. 1964-1407, designate the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority as the Canadian entity for the purposes of Article 14 of the Treaty and, if so, under what considerations?
5.	Is the government satisfied with the performance of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority in whatever capacity it might have under the Treaty and, if not, in what respect has its performance been less than satisfactory?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. No, because the lakes and rivers of British Columbia are a provincial resource and the purpose and function of the Columbia River Treaty was to facilitate development of that resource having regard to the international aspects of such development.
2.	No. (a) Not applicable, (b) There has been no perceived need to do so.
3.	Yes, to ensure that the objectives of the treaty are being met and that the obligations imposed on the designated agencies by the treaty and by the Canada-British Columbia Agreement of July 8, 1963, are being fulfilled. It has been carried out by the establishment and continuance of the Columbia River Permanent Engineering Board and the Canada-British Columbia Columbia River Liaison Committee.
4.	Yes, in accordance with the provisions of the January 8, 1963, agreement between the Government of Canada and the government of British Columbia.
5.	Yes.


Mr. Jones: 1.	What are the names of the general managers of CNR responsible for freight and rail passenger service across Canada and, in each case, what are his/her qualifications?
2.	Were any of them involved in other transportation companies in the United States or Canada which have gone bankrupt?
3.	Were any of them a shareholder or connected in any way with any transportation company other than CNR and, if so, what is the financial status of the company?


Otto Emil Lang: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. The relevant officers are: Atlantic Region: Mr. G. J. Frontain, Regional Manager Marketing, Canadian National Railways, CN Terminal Building, 1234 Main St. Moncton, New Brunswick. Mr. A. W. Raftus, Regional Manager, Passenger Sales and Services, Moncton, New Brunswick. St. Lawrence Region: Mr. J. M. Provost, Regional Manager Marketing, Canadian National Railways, 800 Dorchester Boulevard West, Montreal, Quebec. Mr. J. F. A. Levasseur, Regional Manager, Passenger Sales and Services, 800 Dorchester Boulevard West, Montreal, Quebec. Great Lakes Region: Mr. S. F. Warwick,

Regional Manager Marketing, Canadian National Railways, Room 424, Union Station, Toronto, Ontario. Mr. J. J. Menary, Regional Manager, Passenger Sales and Services, Toronto, Ontario. Prairie Region: Mr. S. B. Hall, Regional Manager Marketing, Canadian National Railways, CN Station, 123 Main St., Winnipeg, Manitoba. Mr. G. S. Smith, Regional Manager, Passenger Sales and Services, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Mountain Region: Mr. J. H. D. Sturgess, Regional Manager Marketing, Canadian National Railways, Tower Building, Edmonton, Alberta. Mr. F. R. Wildy, Regional Manager, Passenger Sales and Services, Edmonton, Alberta. These persons have the general and technical skills and qualifications required and appropriate for the above positions.
2 and 3. This is not information which appears on the staff records of CN. All CN officers are subject to internal regulations designed to prevent "conflict-of-interest" situations.


Mr. Leggatt: In each fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of New Westminster by the Ministry of State (Multiculturalism) and those agencies that report to it?


Hon. Norman A. Cafik (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: The multiculturalism directorate provides grants and
services to voluntary organizations whose membership and activities are usually spread over an area greater than any one electoral district, and records are not maintained on the basis of these districts. Similarly, expenditures by the federal cultural agencies on multicultural subjects are not recorded with reference to electoral districts. Accordingly, it would be extremely costly and time consuming to calculate the information requested.


Mr. Howie: As of November 1, 1977, how many persons were directly employed by the (a) Ministry of State for Science and Technology (b) National Research Council (c) Science Council of Canada (d) Medical Research Council of Canada and, in each case, how many were earning (i) $30,000 or more annually (ii) $20,000 to $30,000 annually?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology, the National Research Council, the Science Council of Canada and the Medical Research Council of Canada as follows: (a) 135. (i) 36; (ii) 39. (b) 3,008. (i) 415; (ii) 821. (c) 56. (i) 11; (ii) 11. (d) 37. (i) 4; (ii) 4.


Mr. Howie: How many studies are now in progress and being funded by the government to detect manganese, copper and other minerals on the ocean floor?
February 15, 1978


Alastair William Gillespie: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: there are no studies being conducted and funded by the government to detect manganese, copper and other minerals on the ocean floor. However, the Geological Survey of Canada is collecting geological information to provide a basis for the identification, characterization and distribution of possible mineral resources on the ocean floors and the continental shelves, and for formulating national mineral policies. This information is being collected under two GSC projects at a cost of $48,000 for the Fiscal year 1977-78.


Mr. Howie: On what date will the current Fundy Tidal Power Study be completed?


Alastair William Gillespie: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: the study has been completed and the Bay of Fundy Tidal Power Review Board's report is now in preparation. The report is expected to be available for tabling and distribution early in 1978.


Mr. Alexander: 1.	Has the government established a task force on service to the public and, if so, on what date was the task force established?
2.	To which minister does it report?
3.	What are its terms of reference?
4.	Who works for the task force and in what capacity?
5.	Is the task force (a) reviewing departmental revenue policies and the fees that are being charged for services offered to the public (b) reviewing the cost of offering various services to the public (c) assessing public satisfaction with services that are being offered?
6.	Will the task force concern itself with postal rates, the cost of postal service or public satisfaction with postal service in the country?
7.	Has the task force been asked to make recommendations regarding possible new services to the public?
8.	What initiatives are being taken to ensure public participation in the work of the task force?
9.	(a) On what date will the task force make its report (b) will it be tabled in the House of Commons?
10.	What is the total anticipated cost of the task force?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.	Yes. The Task Force on Service to the Public was set up in June, 1977, as part of the government's ongoing concern with this issue.
2.	The task force reports to myself and the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment.
3.	The terms of reference of the Task Force on Service to the Public are to study and report on the quality of the federal government's service to the public and the public's perception of that service.
4.	The task force is directed by Dr. F. Schindeler of the temporary assignment pool in the Treasury Board secretariat and has been staffed at various times by eight professional and
Order Paper Questions
three support staff. With the exception of two of the support staff, the personnel have been drawn from federal departments on a temporary basis.
5.	(a) No. (b) In the consideration of possible improvements in the quality of service, the task force is taking their costs into account, (c) Yes.
6.	No, the task force has not been concerned with postal rates or with the cost of postal service. Nor has it studied public satisfaction with postal service, per se, but only as part of the general subject of quality of service.
7.	The task force may recommend new ways of delivering existing services but it is not expected to suggest new programs or services.
8.	Public opinion has been sought across Canada through personal interviews and discussions to ensure that the views of the public are taken into consideration in the development of recommendations.
9.	The task force is reporting to me and to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment on a regular basis. We anticipate a concluding report by mid-summer, which we hope to make public.
10.	The anticipated total cost of the task force is $84,000, exclusive of the salary costs for those public servants who have been assigned to the project for varying periods of time, some on a part-time basis.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, almost four months ago, on October 18, I put five questions on the order paper having to do with payments made to people like lawyers who have worked for native groups and whose payment obviously came from funding from the federal government. I asked for information as to the amounts they received and so on. Perhaps it is embarrassing for the government to admit how much money has gone to some individuals, but I think four months is long enough. Can the parliamentary secretary give me some idea when I might receive answers to my questions?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it often happens that the replies are more embarrassing for the opposition than for the government. In this case, I asked the hon. member some two weeks ago to wait for three weeks because we had to gather the documents requested. That period is not over yet and I am confident that within a week or two we should be able to meet the hon. member's request. Unfortunately, I cannot make any commitment in this regard until I have seen all those who are doing the research involved.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I hope the parliamentary secretary will look at today's Hansard. The questions I am asking about are not the questions which he promised me answers to three weeks ago. It is a different series of questions. I hope I will receive some answers.
80031 -41 Vi

February 15, 1978
Motions for Papers


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, would you please call notice of motion No. 59 for the production of papers?


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 59-Mr. Clark:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all reports, studies, documents, memoranda, and correspondence prepared between 1973 and July 1977, by the office of the Western Region of Parks Canada in which officials of that office informed the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development of their recommendations as to whether expansion should or should not be allowed at Sunshine Village ski area in Banff National Park; the probable effects on the environment of additional lifting facilities, further buildings, and parking lots, and the terms and conditions under which such expansion should be allowed to take place.
Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, documents of the kind requested by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) containing recommendations to the minister by senior officials are of an internal departmental nature and are not available for public release. Under the circumstances, would the hon. Leader of the Opposition agree to withdraw the motion?


Mr. Paproski:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, may I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all the remaining notices of motions for the production of documents be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Mr. Orlikow.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 14, 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 a special committee on a northern gas pipeline.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as reported at page 2815 of Hansard dated February 13, 1978, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) said the following:
I want to say on behalf of this party that though we support the building of a pipeline it is apparent that the promises and conditions which were set forth on August 4 have not been implemented, and unless they are implemented we have very serious reservations about whether this legislation should be passed by the Parliament of Canada.
Yesterday the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cros-bie) made a most convincing speech. Contrary to what the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) had to say, he emphasized the reservations pointed out by my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. In my preliminary remarks last night I quoted the questions asked by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and others in the official opposition about guarantees and sellouts. The hon. member for Yukon says that we cannot have guarantees. He agrees with the government position as stated by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) when he was answering a question in the House a few days ago. When the hon. member for Yukon says there is no sellout, I want to remind him that the hon. member for St. John's West interjected during the answer of the Deputy Prime Minister to the effect that in their negotiations with the United States they gave it all away. I concur with that statement. The government have been out-manoeuvred; they continue to tremble when they are negotiating with our friends south of the forty-ninth parallel.
With regard to the whole issue of our nationhood, our sovereignty and our being masters in our own house, I find it passing strange that our government can acquiesce to what is called generally competitive bidding for pipeline construction and any of the infrastructure which may be needed, such as pressure stations and so forth, while at the same time not only are our friends in the United States guaranteeing to protect their industry and their workers but countries in western Europe and Japan do the same thing.
February 15, 1978

The hon. member for Yukon says that if we were to do that it would be in violation of GATT. As my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, pointed out very accurately, there is nothing in GATT to prevent bilateral agreements or understandings. I want to illustrate this by citing the case of the Interprovincial Pipe and Steel Company in Regina and Edmonton, a Canadian company. Majority ownership in that company resides in the hands of the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the company wants to do an $80 million expansion. DREE has been studying the case and has made reports. Now they are trying to make a decision on whether to approve that expansion. The problem is that the Interprovincial Pipe and Steel Company is caught in a Catch-22 situation. As I understand it, DREE is saying, on the one hand: "If you get contracts for the manufacture of the pipe, we will approve this expansion, and you will get $80 million in advance". On the other hand, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is saying: "If you can show us you have the capacity to make that pipe, you will get some contracts".
So there sits a Canadian company in western Canada which has a 2,000 or 3,000 mile advantage in North America in terms of manufacturing and delivering the pipe, which has the potential to provide a majority portion of the pipe for that 5,500 miles of pipeline, but which cannot exercise that advantage unless it can assure DREE that it will get the contracts, and it cannot assure DREE it will get the contracts until it can assure the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Deputy Prime Minister that it has the capacity to produce the pipe.
If that is not a stacked deck against a Canadian company and against Canadian employment, I have never seen one. I would like to see who started all this about a high pressure, three quarter-inch pipe. Certainly it was not Ipsco, nor was it Stelco or Algoma. It was nobody here in the opposition and I do not know of anyone on the government side who could have started all this. But somehow or other the matter of having a high pressure, three quarter-inch pipe came up during the negotiations between Canada and the United States. There is no high pressure pipeline anywhere in North America, so far as I am aware, and there is no corporation capable of producing such a pipe, with the exception of one plant in Texas which can make a three quarter-inch pipe. It may well be that the U.S. steel industry has the capacity to move quickly into manufacturing that size of pipe, and if they have that capacity, one can hardly blame them for placing an unholy amount of pressure on the United States administration and on the U.S. Congress to arrange their dealings and negotiations with the government of Canada in such a manner that they will get a significant part of the action which they would get if there was a specification for a high pressure pipe.
Even if the National Energy Board were to come out with specifications which called for a low pressure pipe, under the terms of the agreement, in the phraseology of the minister's speech, in the government's statement and in the agreement about being generally competitive, the United States steel
Northern Pipeline
industry can be reasonably assured of a significant portion of the manufacture of the pipe. It would be interesting to know what chance, if any, Canadian steel pipe producers would have on contracts for this pipeline which is being made in Alaska or south of the 49th parallel. We can talk about general competitiveness all we like. The reality is the kinds of benefits which the public provides for the steel industry in the United States. Canadian contractors or Canadian bidders, the steel pipe manufacturers, if they were to bid competitively, do not have a chance of a snowball in hell of getting any of it.
I know of no other country which would allow itself to be made a new Panama. Once and for all Canada should stand up for Canadians, for Canadian workers and for Canadian industry. When will we have a federal government which will have the spine to do that? Even banana republics now stand up to the great U.S.A. They do not stand up with loaded guns or with the intention of starting wars. They are willing to be good neighbours. They are willing to help the U.S.A. out. But work done in Canada should be done by Canadians and controlled by Canadians. Canada should not, however, hold the project up for ransom with regard to prices.
Since 1867 we have had 46 years of Tories and 65 years of Liberals. They continue to betray our nationhood and undermine our capacity to do more and better. The Liberals and Tories bow at the altar of the Yankee dollar far more than any banana republic of third world country. They weep, moan and tremble, and if there is a difference with our friends south of the 49th parallel or if we want to do something the way we want to do it, somehow the old line parties feel that will destroy the great friendship and neighbourliness which exists between us and the United States. They feel that somehow any disagreement will harm investment. That is a myth which is continually perpetuated by members of the old line parties.
We must put guarantees into this legislation. We must insist that Foothills live up to what the government said on August 4, that there will be 90 per cent Canadian content. The Deputy Prime Minister is going to be in charge of this project. He says he is not interested in establishing a Canadian monopoly or cartel. It might be news to him, but neither are we. But we are determined that any project undertaken in Canada will be undertaken by Canadians. Any decision made should be the decision of this parliament, of our government, of the minister in charge of the project and of the company responsible for installing the pipeline. "Competition" means that United States industry will get a major portion of the benefit of this project. No self respecting Canadian member of parliament should hold still for that.
In addition, if any Canadian manufacturer or contractor is stupid enough to try to make unreasonable charges for the construction of this line, then and only then should contracts be open to competitive bidding. This could be provided for in the bill, or the minister could be authorized under the bill to make that decision. There are people in several government departments and certainly people with the Foothills company

February 15, 1978
Northern Pipeline
who know when there is unreasonable bidding. They can assess tenders from Ipsco or Stelco. They are not stupid.
The government is trying to tell us that there cannot be any guarantees because Canadian companies are dishonest and Canadian workers will be unreasonable. The government says that it must be possible for the Japanese to supply pipe and that it must be possible for steel plants in Pittsburgh, Chicago, Texas or elsewhere to supply pipe. The government has been out-manoeuvred. Unless these kinds of guarantees are put into the legislation, we will be another Panama.
I am trying to get in touch with Canadian companies who will tender on the installation of the pipeline to find out what they know about this, but I understand that there is in excess of $1.2 billion worth of pipeline construction equipment staged in the northwestern United States. It is left over from the construction of the Alaska pipeline. It has been written off. It has been bought and paid for. American contractors are buying it up or will buy it up at firesale prices, and they will submit competitive tenders for the construction of the pipeline in Canada. As far as I am aware, there is no Canadian company which will be able to compete against those kinds of tenders. We are not interested in getting fast bucks from American consumers of American gas. When Canada tries to help out a neighbour, we are interested in seeing that work done in Canada will be done by Canadians. There is no excuse for not saying that to our good friends south of the 49th parallel.
I am ashamed to say that our good friends to the south do not respect us. I do not want them to fear us. They have nothing to fear. But we do not get their respect because we do not have the courage to stand up for ourselves.
We have tried for many years to establish an industrial base to support the agricultural economy of western Canada. We have tried very hard, privately and publicly, but just when we get it going nicely opportunities to expand the industrial base further are poorly handled.
I want to invite the hon. member for Yukon to come with me on Friday to meet the board of directors of the Interprovincial Pipe and Steel Corporation. More particularly, I should like him to stand at the plant gate of Ipsco in Regina or in Edmonton and tell the steel workers that he agrees with the government that there should not be any guarantees in this legislation. I would like to see any Liberal or Tory candidate have the nerve to show up at either place during an election campaign. The meeting, I suggest, would not be political because not all the workers in those steel plants are NDP. But the workers will be angry. They will feel the same kind of shame that I feel as a Canadian when my government-even though I voted against them they are still my government- and my parliament allow what has been going on for decades to continue. The terrible price we are paying for being a branch plant country and the terrible price we are paying for unemployment was pointed out by my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas),

on another issue several years ago when he said that because of our supine acquiescence we will always pay.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with nationalism if it is positive nationalism, not the nineteenth century kind when countries used nationalism to exploit and defeat others. I mean a nationalism that has to do with our own nationhood, the kind that earns us the respect of our friendly neighbours. I mean the kind of nationalism that says to our friends in the United States, particularly when we have over a million people out of work: Look, we are happy to make Canadian soil available for a pipeline to take your gas from one part of your country to another, but on our soil the pipeline will be built by us, we will install it and put up the compressor stations. We will not overcharge and we will see to it that delivery of gas is secured. If we want to put some of our gas through parts of it ten of 20 years from now, there will be no problem.
We should not give away the store every time we deal with our friends the United States. A few years ago a senior officer of a United States operation told me: "The trouble with you Canadians is that you do not know what you want to do, how you want to do it, when and where you want to do it. I am getting sick and tired of you guys complaining about the Americans." In fact, the analogy he used was that of a hound dog sitting on a cactus, with all the spines sticking up his backside. Yet he is just too lazy to get off it, so he just sits there and howls.
If we do not grab this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, others will. Under this legislation others certainly will. Surely it is incumbent upon this parliament to put guarantees into the bill that the pipe will be manufactured in Canada, that the construction will be done by Canadian companies and that the installation of compressor stations and all the products needed for that will, as far as possible, be manufactured in Canada.
When the United States assisted the Soviet Union to instal the large pipeline that runs from the Soviet Union into eastern Europe, they provided technological help, construction foremen and private companies to help out. I never heard of the United States requesting competitive bidding on pipe. In fact, when Coca Cola puts up a plant in Africa or anywhere else it is African production, manufacture and labour that is used. Of course, Coca Cola gets a percentage of the profits but even those small countries stand up for themselves.
Sometimes there is disagreement, but even families disagree. Neighbours disagree. Sometimes neighbours do things you do not like. But you do not tell a neighbour that the next time he wants to put a lawn in you will do it for him and send him a bill. Countries are just the same, Mr. Speaker.
I do not think this legislation should pass in its present form. I do not think it should pass second reading unless and until the Deputy Prime Minister can assure this Elouse that guarantees will be placed in it at committee stage. Not only should there be guarantees of Canadian content, but in order to show our neighbourliness it should be provided in the legislation or in the regulations that excessive bidding or attempts by any Canadian company to extract more than is reasonable and just will be ruled out.
February 15, 1978

The hon. member for the Yukon and the Deputy Prime Minister have sounded like two of a kind in this debate, contrary to what the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has said. When will they have the courage to say "Oh Canada, true north strong and free," and to say it in a manner that demonstrates belief in the words? I have a great deal of regard for the Deputy Prime Minister. If he wants to do something about Canadian unity, about a new confederation, he could show by example, not only people in French Canada but people on the prairies and in the Atlantic provinces as well, that we are doing something about our nationhood. Nationhood may mean something different to each of us but it is extremely important. It is not a question of whether a steel plant in Regina makes 2,000 miles of pipe. It goes beyond that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, at First glance this bill strikes me as fulfilling the yearnings of most Canadians in two vital sectors of our community, that is energy and labour. We know that the purpose of the bill is to make available to Canadians in the shortest possible time and at the best prices the energy resources which are found in the Mackenzie delta. We also know that the bill promotes the construction of a pipeline by free enterprise, an undertaking which will no doubt create tens of thousands of jobs in Canada, whatever reservations members opposite may entertain about it.
This negative position taken by the parties opposite is not new. However, under the present circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised. As soon as we learn that Statistics Canada has published the monthly unemployment rate as soon as we hear about a lay-off in a Canadian plant, we see members opposite, especially from the NDP, blaming and criticizing the government for doing nothing to create employment. Yet we have here a bill which is historic, a great bill through which we intend to create many thousands of jobs in Canada. Perhaps the fact that we saw Fit to leave to private enterprise the responsibility of making this important project a reality was contrary to the philosophy of the NDP, but given our current economic predicament I would have thought those people intelligent enough to accept and recognize that the government is making a concerted effort towards job creation to help Canadians and improve our economy. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this pessimistic attitude on the part of the New Democratic Party in particular is indeed an insult to our industry and to Canadian workers. I do not understand the lack of confidence of the members of that party in the ability
Northern Pipeline
of our industry and workers to compete with other countries in the making of pipes for the pipeline. I see there a token of small-mindedness and an overt lack of self-confidence.
For instance, would they want to include a clause stipulating that only Canadian industry can bid on the Canadian section of the pipeline, thereby excluding industry and our workers from participation in the construction of the American section of the pipeline? In order to provide for such a possibility, it is necessary to have an open mind and to be confident in one's own capabilities. I wish the members of the New Democratic Party would think about that and realize that we have anticipated that possibility to allow our industry, which is perfectly able to compete with the American industry, to participate not only in the construction of the Canadian section of the pipeline which is proposed in this bill, but also in the construction of the American section as well.
But it is mostly the negative attitude on the part of the NDP that I noticed, in spite of the loud protests from the hon. member who just spoke and who does not seem to understand what I am telling him. I accuse them of being unrealistic and inconsistent. I believe they seem to ignore that what they are advocating would likely preclude this agreement between Canada and the United States on the construction of the pipeline. So, were it not for this agreement and the legislation before us, there would not be any job creation in that sector in Canada. What they preach today by way of their futile protests is unrealistic. If we were to believe them and implement what they preach today, the United States would never have accepted the construction of the pipeline without any consideration for the cost. And ir. that sense, I say that the NDP in particular is being unrealistic and irresponsible.
Last night, I listened to the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) who, in his monologue-to use a polite expression-was saying: But I for one intend to see to it that this debate keeps on going for three or four weeks on second reading if need be, because an amount of $10 billion is at stake, and I intend to take part in the discussion in committee to talk at the report stage and also to participate in the debate on third reading so that we take as much time as possible to study this bill because $10 billion is involved I am afraid he did not read the bill: the pipeline is not paid by the Canadian government, by Canadian taxes but the entire building cost is paid by private enterprise. After the few days of debate we had on second reading of this important piece of legislation, I feel that members of the official opposition did not read the bill and do not know its contents as regards a certain guarantee for Canadian participation and the beneficial effect it will have on energy consumption in Canada and job creation.
Therefore, I think it is advisable in this context to refer this bill to committee and to highlight the main points in the hope that this will have the effect of avoiding statements which are not based on reality and which do not take the needs of the Canadian people into consideration during these times when we have an urgent need of new jobs and must act quickly to get the most out of our energy resources.

February 15, 1978
Northern Pipeline
Mr. Speaker, this is an historic bill which we are now discussing on second reading. Its purpose is to authorize Canada legally to co-operate with the United States in the achievement of what the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mac-Eachen) rightly called yesterday in the House one of the most ambitious projects ever undertaken by private enterprise. Bill C-25 provides for the construction in the north of a $10 billion pipeline, of some 5,500 miles which will be used to transport natural gas from the Arctic to meet the pressing needs of millions of consumers in the two countries, Canada and the United States. This bill therefore authorizes the construction of a northern gas pipeline, as stipulated in the Canadian and American agreement; in addition, it provides for the setting up of the Northern Pipeline Agency to formulate and supervise the plans with a view, first of all, to maximizing the economic benefits of the project for Canada and, second, to minimizing its adverse effects of social and ecological nature.
The Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council is the minister responsible for this bill in his capacity as chairman of the special cabinet committee on the pipeline. How right he was in saying that this huge joint project, which passing of this bill will allow, will stimulate considerably both production and employment in Canada, will help to achieve the objective of becoming self-sufficient in the field of energy, by giving access at a reasonable cost to the main new reserves of natural gas in the Mackenzie Delta.
I would recall, Mr. Speaker, that near the end of last year the American Congress approved by a strong majority similar proposals brought forward by President Carter for the implementation of the bilateral agreement signed by our two countries.
I think it can be useful at this stage to give a brief description of the pipeline to show its importance as well as a number of statistics and to indicate its cost. The pipeline will start at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, and will go south to Yukon. This of course is the American section which will run for 731 miles. Then the pipeline will go from the Alaska boundary to Whitehorse, Yukon, which is the site of the proposed 737-mile lateral spur which will reach the Mackenzie delta where our natural gas resources are. Later it will cross the northeast part of British Columbia, heading southeast, through Alberta, up to James River, near Caroline. The pipeline will then divide into two sections: the western leg, up to Kingsgate, British Columbia, and the eastern leg up to Monchy, Saskatchewan. The pipeline, including the Delta lateral, will stretch over a total distance of 2,765 miles in Canada. In the 48 continental states of the U.S., the Pacific Gas Transmission Company and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company will undertake to build the western section going down to California, which will parallel the present system, and the Northern Border Company will build the eastern section to the central western states, for a total length of 1,991 miles.
So the pipeline, including the Dempster lateral going to the Mackenzie delta, will cover a total distance of 5,487 miles

over Canadian and American land. It will cost approximately $10 billion. The Alaska section is estimated at $3.5 billion, the Canadian section, except for the Dempster lateral, will cost about $4.2 billion and, in the 48 continental states, $2.3 billion.
Mr. Speaker, it is expected that in the beginning the complete system will carry up to 2.4 billion cubic feet per day of American gas, and up to 1.2 billion cubic feet of Canadian gas.
According to the work schedule, Mr. Speaker, construction of the pipeline, in northern British Columbia, that is on the Canadian side, would not start before the winter of 1980-81, and under the Canada-U.S. agreement, construction would not start in the Yukon before January 1, 1981, as the deadline for the system being operational is January 1, 1983.
The proposed Northern Pipeline Agency will work in close co-operation with the National Energy Board, and will serve as the only regulatory agency in charge of all federal responsibilities with regard to the Canadian part of the pipeline. Under this legislation, a member of the National Energy Board would be sent to the agency as designated officer, and the board will delegate to him the authority to exercise certain of its powers as regards the project, subject to the approval of the responsible minister and the general power of direction of the governor in council.
The deputy head of the agency will be the commissioner whose head office will be in Ottawa. He will be the minister's principal advisor on matters of policy. An administrator whose head office will be in Calgary will be responsible for the routine administrative duties, within the authority delegated to him by the minister. He will report to the minister through the commissioner, and the designated officer of the National Energy Board may be appointed administrator or deputy to the administrator.
Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of the pipeline, the bill authorizes the governor in council to transfer to this agency the legislative powers now exercised by several other departments and agencies, which must ensure that the relevant federal responsibilities fall under a single regulatory agency. The bill also proposes amendments to a number of acts to facilitate the accomplishment of this objective, as well as the rapid construction of the pipeline in this country.
Moreover, the legislation replaces all certificates of public convenience and necessity certificates required to authorize the project. It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that the Foothills group will have to comply with the many conditions set out in the legislation. The plans and specifications, the exact route taken by the network, as well as other matters, such as the location and the nature of temporary camps and the training and employment requirements of northern residents will all be submitted to the approval of federal authorities.
The group will have to prove to the satisfaction of the minister responsible for the administration of the pipeline and the National Energy Board that it has obtained the financing required for building the network and has adequately ensured against the risk of incompletion. Foothills will have to meet all
February 15, 1978

the commitments made during the hearings of the National Energy Board which aimed at maximizing the economic benefits of the project and minimizing its social, economic and environmental negative impacts. In addition, it will have to comply with other specific conditions to be established under the legislation by the designated administration officer. These policies, instructions and orders will be subject in certain cases to additional studies that the company will have to make, such as that on the statement of environmental effects that it has already begun as part of the second stage of the examination process in this area. The detailed conditions will first of all be published in draft form to enable the public to examine and comment on them before they are given final approval by the designated administration officer.
The terms and conditions of implementation also give specific details about the comprehensive information that Foothills will be asked to submit to the approval of the administration concerning its hiring and supply plans. These provisions aim at ensuring that the Canadian staff and suppliers will have an opportunity to offer the goods and services required for carrying out the project in compliance with the objective of Foothills to ensure approximately 90 per cent Canadian content. Moreover, under the conditions set out in the legislation, Foothills will have to increase the capacity of the main pipe if necessary for carrying Canadian gas from the Mackenzie delta once the Dempster link is completed, in order that these new reserves may supply Canada's increasing energy needs in future years.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation empowers the minister to hold consultations with the United States government and Canadian provinces and territories when needed, to coordinate all aspects of the project involving various jurisdictions.
The legislation also provides for a Federal-Provincial Consultative Council to meet as required and which will be charged with strengthening day to day liaison and co-ordination between officials of various governments charged with overseeing the pipeline project.
The bill also authorizes the establishment of one or more advisory councils consisting of not more than ten members from outside the government to ensure communications and consultations between the various public groups involved and the Northern Pipeline Agency.
As the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out the Yukon has already shown it was interested in the establishment of such a council, which will give the general public a well-organized forum to make its views known on the nature of implementation parameters that are in the Yukon's best interest. The legislation amends the National Energy Board Act to permit the board to recover from any corporation the costs incurred by the regulations agency in overseeing and surveying the planning and construction of any pipeline from the issue of a certificate until one year after leave to operate the facility has been granted. Under that amendment, Foothills will bear the costs incurred by the Northern Pipeline Agency and the board in overseeing and surveying the project, from the day the act is made applicable until one year after the project has been
Northern Pipeline
opened. And that aspect seems very important to me. Not so long ago in this Flouse, on an opposition day, some members, especially from the Conservative side, called for the creation of Crown agencies or corporations of a temporary nature and at the lowest cost possible.
Now, we have here an example of an agency which is set up for a limited time, as I have just explained, and furthermore its cost is fully borne by private enterprise without any charge to the treasury. So 1 think that in addition to attaining all the major aims I mentioned previously, the fact that this type of temporary agency grouping in a rational manner of some elements of various other departments involved in this tremendous project, and above all, that its cost will be borne by private enterprise is in my opinion an innovation and at least meets the wishes of many government and opposition members. When it considers the matter of tolls and tariffs, the National Energy Board should take into account the relevant clauses of the Canada-U.S. agreement. The bill also authorizes the governor in council to make regulations regarding the tolls and tariffs in order to implement this agreement and prescribe the method by which the Board will establish a rate of return on equity investment in the project. Another clause suggests that the National Energy Board Act be amended so that the definition of tolls may be changed. As a result, the NEB will be authorized to collect such charges when the pipeline is ready to transmit oil or gas. This bill provides for the repeal, one year after the issue of the licence to operate the pipeline, of those sections of the act establishing the Northern Pipeline Agency and delegating to it as well as to designated officials certain powers. I stressed this point earlier.
Flowever, those sections may be repealed by a joint resolution of both Houses of Parliament if a certificate of public convenience and necessity is issued for the construction of the Dempster spur before the authority to operate the main system is granted. Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister explained that this line of action had been taken because it was considered prudent to provide for the dissolution of the agency one year after the beginning of the operation of the main system in case no certificate would have been issued for the Dempster spur which would be the only reason justifying the retention of the regulating body. That method also leaves parliament the choice to authorize the agency to undertake the responsibility for the planning and the monitoring of the Dempster spur if the required certificate is issued within the prescribed time period.
This bill will impose an impressive set of terms and conditions for the proposed northern pipeline to be built by the Foothills group to carry Canadian and U.S. natural gas from the Arctic to southern markets. This bill on the northern pipeline specifically requires participating companies to meet general conditions relating to varied matters such as the procurement of Canadian labour, goods and services, the design, specifications and route of the system, the elimination or reduction of adverse socioeconomic and environmental effects.
2894

February 15, 1978
Northern Pipeline
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the companies will have to provide detailed information on things such as costs, financing plans, contracts to manufacturers and shippers, operation and security guidelines, collective agreements, and, in many cases, they will be required to secure the approval of the federal government. The general terms set out in the bill will be complemented afterward by orders, guidelines and specific requirements, the proposed drafts of which setting out the conditions in detail should be made public early this summer so the public will be able to comment on them before they are put into effect.
The policies dealing with the procurement of goods and services needed for the construction try to maintain a good balance between two crucial objectives: first, the maximm input from Canadian industry, second, the construction of the pipeline in Canada at the lowest possible cost.
The reasons we want to maximize Canadian input are obvious, but we must take into account the fact that Canadian gas consumers want the construction of the pipeline to be as efficient and economical as possible.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) made that statement when he tabled this bill for second reading.
According to the bilateral agreement signed with the United States, Canada is directly interested to limit costs. U.S. users will have to pay the total transportation costs for Canadian gas on the Dempster lateral that willl be 277 miles long if the total expenses for the main pipeline built in Canada do not exceed estimated cost by more than 35 per cent. If they do the U.S. share will be reduced accordingly.
It was interesting to hear the minister state and I quote:
Except for that particular point, Canadian consumers are to be more directly affected by the total cost of the system and the delivery cost, for it is expected that by the mid-1980s, Canadian Arctic gas will meet some 10 per cent of our requirements while Alaskan gas is expected to meet only 5 per cent of U.S. demand.
It should be noted that the Foothills group is required, under the terms and conditions specified in the bill, to submit a procurement program covering all goods and services for the approval of the minister responsible. This program must be aimed at achieving the maximum level of Canadian input for the supply of goods and services and maximum advantage should be taken of opportunities to foster Canadian research and promote the long-term expansion of viable Canadian suppliers.
The company is required to submit to the minister the outline of the procedure it intends to follow to carry out its Canadian goods and services procurement program. Once the minister has approved the goods and services procurement plan, the company will be required to carry it out under the pipeline agency supervision. Some proposed contracts, specified by the minister, would have to be approved by the minister before being awarded. If the minister has reasons to believe that a proposed contract with a foreign supplier could result in sales losses or unfair trade practices, he may request the company to produce proof to the contrary before giving his authorization.
Foothills will also be required to obtain the minister's approval of a detailed manpower plan designed to ensure maximum possible use of Canadian labour in the planning construction and operation of the pipeline. According to the general conditions outlined in the bill, Foothills must also comply with the undertakings given to the National Energy Board regarding social and economic matters, problems concerning ecology, animal life, fisheries and farm lands and act toward solving them as well as comply with any other direction made by the designated officer of the pipeline agency.
All these requirements will be recapitulated in the detailed conditions issued pursuant to the general provisions of the bill after having been reviewed thoroughly and submitted to the public for its comments. Moreover, Foothills must seek the minister and the National Energy Board approval for the network plan, including pipe diameter, wall thickness, and maximum allowable pressures. It must also have the final plan for each section approved by the designated officer of the pipeline agency, submit detailed estimates on the cost of these sections and prepare an operation and security guide and inspection plans to the satisfaction of the National Energy Board.
The companies participating in the work are also bound, under the general terms and conditions, to file with the minister and the National Energy Board, documents establishing satisfactorily that a source of financing has been found, that debt instruments do not contain any provision requiring the consent of their holders to the financing of the Dempster line, and that the major part of the financing is Canadian, within the terms of the Foreign Investment Review Act. Foothills must also convince the minister and the National Energy Board that it is protected against any risk of non-com-pleton of the pipeline and interruption of its construction. To comply with its commitments and the Canadian and American agreement, Foothills is also bound, pursuant to the provisions of the bill, to construct the spurs required to transmit the gas to remote communities along the main pipeline. It will have to spend up to $5 million to build the secondary lines needed to distribute gas in the Yukon.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that this vast endeavour will generate considerable benefits, over both the short and the long terms, for all Canadians. First, it will give us access to a new and important source of energy, at once more sure and more economical than any other; second, it will stimulate considerably both production and employment in many parts of the country; third, it will certainly have a bearing on our international balance of payments; and four, it will play a vital role in the long term development of our northern economy. That having been said, and those specific details given, I therefore hope, in the interest of all Canadians, that the parties of the opposition will facilitate the adoption of this important bill as soon as possible.

February 15, 1978


John Robert Holmes: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I am delighted to make a brief intervention in this most important debate. It is not my intention to review the importance of the pipeline, which has been adequately described by my colleagues, the deficiencies, which have as well been described by hon. members, or, indeed, many of the positive proposals suggested by those on this side who spoke earlier in the debate. I want to concentrate on the specific issue of land claims in the Yukon which the minister indicated yesterday was a specifically important factor relating to the pipeline, and in particular to the people who live in the north and who are really the most directly affected by the project.
I listened with great interest and, I must say, astonishment yesterday to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner). Let me make two or three observations-and there are many I could make-in relation to the speech he made in this House.
First, in spite of the minister's attempt to emasculate the government's position on a second stage inquiry, which was promised by a previous minister of Indian affairs and northern development and, indeed, Dean Lysyk when he was in the communities of the Yukon, who pointed out very clearly that there would be a second stage inquiry, there is no doubt in my mind that the minister has not changed his position and that in fact there is still no promise of a second stage inquiry.
Second, if I understood the minister correctly I am sure he was suggesting that land claims represented a most important component in this entire debate. He also gave the impression to this House of Commons that negotiations were proceeding very smoothly, that there were no problems with negotiations, and implied they were almost on the verge of obtaining a settlement with the native people of the Yukon territory. That just does not live up to the facts.
As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, the Council of Yukon Indians was in Ottawa not too long ago discussing the problems it was having with this government relating to the pipeline issue, specifically the problems in respect of land claims. Let me quote from page 3 of this press release:
We are now faced with some clear choices. We can continue to oppose a pipeline until our land claims are settled and be labelled as radical and anti-development. Or, we can compromise, thereby, sacrificing our rights to self-determination on our home land.
We have decided not to compromise but to fight!
We will take our case to the Canadian people. We will demonstrate the humanity and justness of our position. We will use every legal means at our disposal to ensure that we achieve a fair and just settlement. On February 13, the Federal Court will rule on our opposition to the National Energy Board recommendations. Our struggle to achieve self-determination will not stop there.
All I can say is that that does not sound to me as though negotiations are proceeding smoothly, and it does not sound to me as though they are on the verge of agreement in principle.


An hon. Member:: That was two weeks ago.
Northern Pipeline


John Robert Holmes: I realize that, but that statement to me is self-explanatory of the situation that exists in the Yukon.
Another very brief comment that astonished me yesterday was the statement by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as recorded at page 2846 of Hansard, in which he indicated very clearly the position in respect of the $50 million which had been suggested in the Lysyk report and by other members on this side. The minister stated:
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.
This is astonishing because somewhat earlier, in the Globe and Mail of January 25, there appeared an article entitled "Ottawa acts to speed land claims", in which reference was made to a $50-million advance into a Yukon native trust; but there was nothing about an agreement in principle. This is a brand new concept the minister introduced into the debate yesterday. This is one of the difficulties we have experienced, and certainly that the native people have experienced in the Yukon vis-a-vis their relationship with this government.
When Canada and the United States signed an agreement in principle applicable to the northern natural gas pipeline they signed a death warrant to the way of life in the Yukon. Whether Yukoners view the pipeline as synonymous with progress with no significant adverse effects, whether they view the pipeline as an evil intrusion of southern influence which will disrupt and permanently change one of the few remaining frontiers, or whether they accept the inevitability of development providing certain conditions are adhered to, they all agree that significant changes are inevitable with the construction of a pipeline. With the introduction of the legislation the federal government, whether by accident or design, has polarized and hardened the position of Yukoners.
The pipeline may be an engineering feat unexcelled in the world. It may be a success in delivering gas to the United States, and there are undoubtedly economic benefits that will accrue to Canada, with convincing arguments that job opportunities are significantly important at a time when the number of unemployed in Canada rivals that of the depression years. But however valid these or other reasons for the construction of a pipeline may be, these potential gains may be overshadowed by discontent and divisiveness in the Yukon unless the government acts responsibly to create harmonious relations between all the segments of society in the Yukon. I am not convinced that the government of Canada recognizes the significance or magnitude of this particular problem. More importantly, sir, there is little tangible evidence that the government cares about the individual whose home is in the Yukon.
This government's record to date in dealing with the native people has been virtually non-productive in spite of the fact that negotiations of land claims have been underway since 1973. In addition, the constant feuding with the territorial council and other responsible groups in the Yukon has bred discontent. The government's insensitive attitude to the wishes of all Yukoners, native and white alike, will be aggravated as
80031 -42Vi

February 15, 1978
Northern Pipeline
the various agencies become more preoccupied with the design and construction of the pipeline. This will occur at the expense of the issues that are potentially divisive among the people of the Yukon.
The implications of the problem were prophetically described in the document "Together Today for Our Children Tomorrow" by the Yukon Indian people, who state at the beginning of the chapter entitled "Today":
In 1973 the picture of the Yukon Indians is not a pretty one. The Yukon Indian people are not a happy people. Both the white man and the Indian are becoming more and more disgusted with each other. The communications gap, the social gap, the economic gap-all these are widening. Both Indian and white are getting nervous because of the lack of understanding and tolerance among both groups.
To a great extent, a good deal of the uncertainty that exists in the Yukon is related to the government's handling of the comprehensive land claims and the ability to arrive at a just and equitable settlement. Let me emphasize, if I may, the importance of this issue of land claims and their settlement. Mr. Justice Berger during his inquiry in the Northwest Territories in relation to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline made a comment that is relative to the situation in the Yukon when he stated:
If the pipeline is approved before a settlement of claims takes place, the future of the north-and the place of the native people in the north-will in effect, have been decided for them.
In his report entitled "Alaska Highway Pipeline Inquiry", Dean Lysyk indicated that native land claims was a major issue. In part, it reads:
With respect to the Yukon Indian land claim, we should like to emphasize that, contrary to the expectation of some observers, there is no significant element of public opinion in the Yukon that either challenges the validity of this land claim or doubts that it is important and desirable to settle the claim quickly and justly. Everyone understands that the settlement of the Indian land claim will not merely prepare the way for future economic developments that may be financed from southern Canada, but that substantial financial resources and the specified rights that will be placed in the hands of the Indian people will, of themselves, provide a strong and long-lasting stimulus to the local economy that cannot fail to be of benefit to everyone living in the Yukon.
In preparing its position paper entitled "Meaningful Government for all Yukoners", the government of the Yukon Territory clearly recognized the validity of native land claims. The introduction to that document reads as follows:
The object of this paper is to discuss how government in the Yukon Territory can be made more meaningful to all residents, native and non-native alike. This entire package is a necessary element that must be considered along with other aspects of the Indian land claims negotiations.
It continued:
In this paper there is no discussion on the Indian corporations which will be concerned with controlling and developing any assets that native people will receive. Nor is there discussion on other native organizations that may be concerned with aspects of Indian culture, society and human resource development. This is because these areas are primarily of native interest and the governments should not be directly involved with them although assistance should be available if necessary.
Mr. Robert Blair, the president and chief executive officer of the Alberta Gas Trunk Line Company and Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd.-the company responsible for building the Canadi-

an portion of the Alcan pipeline-spoke of the rights of northern native residents during the hearings before the National Energy Board. On November 8, 1976, he stated:
I feel sure that the issue of "land claims" alone will be a factor of great importance to the timing of a Mackenzie Valley pipeline and is a factor whose effect on timing has not been quantified at all successfully. I put the words "land claims" in quotation marks because this factor is far more; it is the determination of the residential and employment and economic rights of the majority of the permanent residents of the large part of Canada through which a Mackenzie Valley route would proceed. I have personally given considerable time to work on this factor.
While appearing before the National Energy Board on December 10, 1976, he stated:
You don't ride over the citizens to push through an industrial development.
Also on the same date he stated:
Until there is settlement of those matters, 1 do not believe that a manageable project can be carried out.
In its report, the National Energy Board emphasized that the settlement of comprehensive land claims was a major factor in the construction of a pipeline.
The observations in support of the settlement of land claims by the previous individuals and groups I have mentioned is by no means complete. I am sure many more could be added. I assume it provides sufficient background evidence to support the very obvious fact that the federal government should honour its commitment to settle the native land claims in the Yukon. The government should have been acting in a far more responsible manner to achieve that end.
Why the delay? Why so little progress in view of the fact that negotiations commenced in 1973? Obviously it is to the advantage of the native people to arrive at a just and equitable settlement before the onslaught of a major development project in the north. The reasons revolve around two basic issues, namely, mistrust and the deliberate attempt of the federal government to slow the progress of the negotiations to serve its own political ends.
In 1969, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) introduced the controversial white paper on Indian policy which rejected aboriginal rights. Despite the fact the white paper was withdrawn following intense reaction from the Indian community across Canada, and the Prime Minister was forced to qualify his position on aboriginal rights following the supreme court decision on the Nishga case in 1973, the Indians across Canada continue to distrust the motives of the present Liberal government. The concern of the native people was reinforced when the federal government assumed a very passive role, abrogating its constitutional responsibilities in the James Bay agreement.
In 1972 the Grand Council of the Cree were attempting to negotiate with the Quebec government following the proposed James Bay hydroelectric project. The Quebec Boundaries Extension Act of 1912 clearly indicated negotiations should take place, and yet the federal government refused to intervene despite its constitutional authority under the British North America Act. When the negotiations failed, the Grand Council of the Cree and the Northern Quebec Inuit Association took
February 15, 1978

the James Bay corporation to court. Following lengthy trial proceedings, once again they returned to the negotiating table. In a restricted time frame, the Cree and the Northern Quebec Inuit Association were confronted by the James Bay Power Corporation, the James Bay Development Company, Hydro Quebec, and the province of Quebec. Although the federal government was a party to the negotiations, it failed to intervene and counteract the adversary role of the large corporations.
On one occasion just prior to the deadline for the signing, I was asked by the Northern Quebec Inuit Association to seek a one month extension of the negotiations. That extension was not to negotiate a Five-cent per hour raise; it was to negotiate the lifestyles and entire future of Eskimos in northern Quebec. The following day I asked a question in the House and I was refused by the then minister of Indian affairs and northern development. He refused to grant a one month extension.
When Eskimos in the northern part of Quebec were experiencing grave difficulty in Finalizing their land selection, once again the federal government refused to take action to protect the interests of the Inuit. The most devastating testimony regarding the lack of concern on the part of the federal government with respect to native rights was its refusal to insert a clause in the bill which would protect the rights of non-signatories to the agreement.
Subsequent testimony during the hearings of the standing committee clearly identified a number of Indian, native and Inuit people who perhaps had rights to that area. The argument was very simple: if the group had aboriginal rights, then a grave injustice was being carried out by extinguishing those rights unilaterally. Yet a simple amendment which would have extinguished the rights of those signing the agreement and protected the rights of others who may or may not have a claim to the area was defeated by the government. Is it any wonder that the native community across Canada mistrusts the government?
It was in the context of this background that the document entitled "Together Today For Our Children Tomorrow" was presented to the government in 1973. The Prime Minister's initial response was positive, yet negotiations between the Council of Yukon Indians and the federal government was painfully slow. Federal negotiators refused to respond to that detailed document. In reality, those negotiators had no authority to negotiate unless they had clearance from Ottawa.
On March 3, 1975 the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the present Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), arrived in Whitehorse and made a unilateral public offer of settlement. The government knew this announcement violated the negotiating process, and not unexpectedly the native people rejected the offer and the methods employed by the government.
Nego'iations remained in limbo despite pressure from the Council of Yukon Indians. Finally in October of 1975, the minister appointed a one-man negotiating team, Mr. Digby
Northern Pipeline
Hunt, the former assistant deputy minister of northern development.


Mr. Nielsen:: The worst mistake.


John Robert Holmes: He was one of a small group of federal architects which had been formed to develop, prepare for, and promote the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.
Although the second round of negotiations commenced, they were clouded with uncertainty. Because of his background and involvement in northern pipeline development, Mr. Hunt's appointment was viewed with suspicion. Concern about his appointment to this important position fell on deaf ears in the government and our fears that additional time would be wasted in settling the land claims became a reality with the suspension of negotiations in 1976.
Negotiations commenced for a third time in 1977 and on July 19, 1977, the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand), reported from Ottawa substantial progress with Yukon Indian claims. The report, which I think is very significant, stated the following:
Indian and Northern Affairs Minister Warren Allmand stated today that he was very encouraged by the release Friday, July 15, of a "settlement model" for the Yukon Indian claim. The model was made public by the Planning Council for the Yukon Indian claim, following lengthy discussion between planning council members who consist of representatives of the Council for Yukon Indians, the government of Canada and the Yukon territorial government. The model describes the goals of the Yukon Indians and outlines ways in which they could be achieved. "This is a significant step forward in the resolution of the Yukon Indian claim".
The former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said:
I am confident that the settlement model, which has my personal endorsement as well as that of the board of directors of the Council for Yukon Indians and the executive committee of the Yukon territorial government, will lead to an agreement in principle and ultimately to a final agreement.
The minister said he had been following the Yukon discussions closely through his special representative and the federal negotiator, Dr. J. K. Naysmith, and he emphasized the value of the "co-operative planning process" which has provided an effective framework for reaching agreement. He said:
The preparation of this settlement model is proof of the substantial progress that has been made by the Council for Yukon Indians and the two levels of government by co-operating and dealing openly with the issues involved.
He said also:
The process could well serve as an example of how complex elements in native claims might be handled in other parts of Canada.
The minister was optimistic that an agreement in principle between the Yukon Indians and government may be reached by the end of 1977. He reiterated his position that the resolution of the Yukon Indian claim is a high priority with the government and that every effort must be made to resolve it in an equitable and realistic manner.
Where is the agreement in principle that was promised by the end of 1977? Why have negotiations stalled once again? Are we to believe the resolution of the Yukon Indian claim is a high priority with this government?

February 15, 1978
Northern Pipeline
In light of events in recent months, broken promises, loss of trust and inevitable confrontation, the obvious conclusion is that the Yukon land claim is not a priority but an issue to be engulfed by the gigantic pipeline project as it gains momentum. We witnessed a similar struggle with the James Bay agreement, and this government, by virtue of its actions in the recent past, has set the stage to impose its will rather than honouring its commitment and constitutional responsibility to negotiate a fair and equitable agreement.
On April 19, 1977, the former minister of Indian affairs and northern development announced the establishment of a board of inquiry on the socioeconomic aspects of the proposed Alaska Highway gas pipeline. The board was chaired by Dean Lysyk with a mandate to submit its report by August 1, 1977. In an effort to allay the fears of the northerners, including the native people, and to avert a boycott of the natives who viewed such a short inquiry as a whitewash, the then minister of Indian affairs and northern development assured Yukoners and the Canadian people that a second stage inquiry would be held.


Erik Nielsen: It was part of the order in council.


John Robert Holmes: Indeed, the above report goes on to declare:
The inquiry is to submit its report, including the preliminary impact statement, by August 1 in order that its findings may be taken into account by the government in decisions it expects to take concerning northern pipelines in the early autumn.
The minister said that if the Alaska Highway application should receive approval, the government would establish a further inquiry to assist it in developing terms and conditions for the construction and operation of the line. As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, let us make no mistake; Dean Lysyk, when he was travelling through the community, gave the message to every Yukoner, Indian and white alike that in the event that an Alcan pipeline was approved, there would be a second stage inquiry.
It is perfectly clear that this government made a commitment to have a second stage inquiry if the Alaskan Highway application was approved, and yet both the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) and the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) have said no to a second stage public inquiry.
Is it any wonder that the Council of Yukon Indians during their visit to Ottawa stated:
Throughout the inquiry, our people in the communities stated their strong objections to the pipeline proposal. And in every community our people listened as Dean Lysyk repeated the promise of a second stage inquiry. We believed the government and their agent but now we are advised by the Minister of Indian Affairs, Hugh Faulkner, that there will be no second stage inquiry. We have been denied participation in all pipeline discussion. Our hopes for establishing a relationship of trust and co-operation are gone. The wound is deep and the hurt deeper.
On Saturday, February 4, the Toronto Globe and Mail reported the President of Privy Council as stating a second stage inquiry into the impact of the pipeline on the north would not take place. Instead, as reported in the paper, an

advisory committee would be established to obtain public input.
The minister knows such an advisory committee is similar to the "citizens' advisory panel" recommended in the report from the committee on interior and insular affairs of October 25, 1977, entitled "Approving the presidential decision of an Alaska natural gas transportation system and for other purposes." The minister knows that, irrespective of the merits of an advisory committee, it will not replace the second stage inquiry promised by this government that is so crucial to the communities in the Yukon.
Again, Sir, during the fall of 1977, following the decision to build the Alcan pipeline, the Union of B.C. Chiefs, under the able direction of George Manuel, the past president of the National Indian Brotherhood, requested that the second stage inquiry as promised by the government be carried out. With the signing of the agreement between the U.S.A. and Canada, it was now apparent there would be a significant impact on the Indian communities, particularly in the north and east of B.C. in such places as Fort St. John and Fort Nelson.
In anticipation of the disruptive changes which would occur in these Indian communities the Union of B.C. Chiefs made a very sensible and responsible request for a second stage inquiry, which was initially, and I must re-emphasize this, promised by this government. The minister and the government again said no to the B.C. request. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Deputy Prime Minister and the government know that with this change in policy the government has broken its promise. Indians and native people have been betrayed. The government has lost the confidence of native people and, what is more important, the government has imperilled the prospects of a fair and just settlement.
I want to serve notice that at the appropriate time during debate or study of this bill I intend to pursued the important matter of a second stage inquiry, and I hope that during this debate or committee hearings we will be able to convince the government that it should honour its previous commitment to all those in the Yukon and in the northeast part of British Columbia.
When the United States and Canada signed the agreement in principle applicable to a northern natural gas pipeline in September of 1977, agreeing to a timetable for beginning construction of the pipeline in the Yukon by January 1, 1981, they ignored a very significant recommendation of Dean Lysyk. In his chapter on Yukon Indian land claims the third recommendation appearing at page 121 declares, and I quote: For the reasons stated in part E of this chapter, some additional time is desirable to avoid prejudice to a just settlement. Construction of the pipeline should not commence before August 1, 1981.
Dean Lysyk was not recommending a moratorium. He was not recommending some unrealistic time delay; his was a responsible position. He was recommending a responsible time in keeping with the complexities and sensitivity of the issue in the Yukon Territory. Yet this government chose to ignore this
February 15, 1978

important recommendation. As I indicated, that is reminiscent of the days when I asked the former minister of Indian affairs and northern development for a one month extension to complete negotiations on the James Bay settlement.
The legacy of broken promises and delaying tactics of this government unfortunately has transformed negotiation into confrontation. Witness the application for leave to appeal the recommendations of the National Energy Board submitted by the Yukon Conservation Society and the Council of Yukon Indians. If I understand the legislation before us correctly, it blocks entirely a move by any group, including native groups, to have hearings before courts in the future.
The government's game plan is obvious. With the passage of this legislation the momentum of the project will impede efforts to conclude a fair and just settlement. The rights of individuals can be conveniently shunted aside in the name of progress. Dean Lysyk stated in the Alaska Highway pipeline inquiry:
With respect to the Yukon Indian land claim, the proposed pipeline represents both an opportunity and a risk.
The government has failed to understand the significance and importance of that statement. If the past has taught us anything, it is simply that pre-conceived views and unilateral action bear little relation to the real problems of the Indian and native people in Canada. Through broken promises and deliberate attempts to delay the negotiations which commenced in 1973, this government has impeded the prospect of allowing Indian and native people to choose a future path which they, their children and their children's children wish to follow.
The native people are not asking us to determine what the Indian was, what the Indian is today or what he may become in the future. They are simply asking us to accept him as he is and to provide him the choice to develop without interference. I regret to say that that has not occurred under the administration of this government.


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the construction of a natural gas pipeline I would like to paraphrase a statement made by the hon. Mr. Justice Berger, who said, and I quote: "The risk is in Canada; the urgency in the United States." I prefer to think that the urgency is in the United States and the opportunity is in the Yukon.
Traditionally pipelines have been powered by the resource being transported through the lines. For example, much of the Alyeska pipeline is powered by the oil running through it. In the case of the proposed natural gas pipeline the intention is to bleed gas from the line in order to operate the driving motors, the compressors. The amount of gas required to drive these motors would be approximately 8 per cent of the gas in the line, or enough gas to heat 750,000 homes annually. At a time when there exists a critical national shortage of natural gas, 8 per cent of the gas in the line used simply to operate the
Northern Pipeline
motors is a tremendous waste which would be better used in the marketplace.
An Anchorage engineering firm, Retherford and Associates, has come up with a more economic means of driving the motors, that being to electrify the pipeline. Electrification of the pipeline in the southern Yukon was previously mentioned by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) in his speech opening the debate on this bill on Monday. Electrical energy, either by means of coal, oil, geothermal heat or hydro-electricity, could be used to power the natural gas to its various destinations. Each basic resource was examined to determine the most viable and economic method for electricity production to be used instead of the fuel gas in the gas transport system. The high price of oil, the rising price of coal and the lack of research and development in the area of geothermal heat made it clear that hydroelectricity would be the most feasible and competitive fuel to power the pipeline in the Yukon.
What are the reasons? First, hydroelectric energy can be developed in sufficient quantity at competitive cost. Second, hydroelectric energy is a renewable resource, the fuel of which is descending water, which does not escalate in price and which is not depletable.
Third, the use of hydroelectric energy reduces the pressure on other energy sources and extends the life of non-renewable fuels, the future value of which may lie in other uses more important than energy, such as food.
Fourth, the hydroelectric process is non-polluting.
Fifth, hydroelectric projects have long lives, and their major structures are relatively maintenance free.
Sixth, hydroelectric energy can easily be used instead of fossil fuels such as gas, oil and coal, which can be used in other market areas.
The Yukon has hydroelectric potential, and therefore it is essential that we take this opportunity to capitalize on such an energy swap. In short, the use of hydroelectric power to drive the natural gas pipeline would ensure that an additional 8 per cent of the gas resource would reach the marketplace. Once there, the value of this gas would more than pay the cost of the use of electrical energy.
Moreover, the construction of a dam on the Yukon River to generate this hydroelectricity would give strong assistance to the infrastructure of the Yukon economy. The abundance of hydroelectricity generated would not only drive the motors of the pipeline but also serve the community.
The market for the electricity assured by the electrification of the pipeline would justify the construction of a dam that would generate twice as much electricity as is needed for the pipeline. The remaining 50 per cent electrical capacity would be an extremely valuable aid in the development and advancement of the already existing lines as well as attracting secondary industry, which would not have otherwise come to the area. It would diversify the economic base of the Yukon and

February 15, 1978
Northern Pipeline
would be assured of being readily accepted by the Yukon. For both the dam and the pipeline I feel Canada has the capacity to undergo such an enormous project at a competitive price. We have the Canadian know-how, the competent engineers and technicians; we have the Canadian manpower, a sufficient and able labour force, and we also have Canadian materials sufficient to meet the needs of the proposed pipeline.
I urge the people making the decision on the means of driving the natural gas from Prudhoe Bay to southern markets to investigate very carefully the suggestion of using hydroelectricity as the source of energy. The people of the Yukon await the decision. We have the Canadian talent. We must maximize the potential economic, industrial, energy and social benefits for the Canadian people, while at the same time minimizing adverse social and environmental impacts. This is an excellent opportunity to help in the development of the Yukon and also of Canada.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker. I am terribly excited about the performance of my friend from across the aisle. He has been painting this Utopian dream for the Yukon that we have always known about, and that this government has procrastinated with for the last 100 years. If they had just listened to the Yukon Territorial Council and to the hon. member from the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who has spoken about these things for the last 20 years, we would probably have achieved some of these projects long before now.
It is my intention to confine much of my remarks today to purely parochial interests, and I feel justified in doing that, because my constituency, Mr. Speaker, encompasses about one-third of the geography of British Columbia in which 540 miles of this pipeline will be placed. The section which I am concerned with is described in the bill as entering British Columbia near Watson Lake, on the B.C.-Yukon border. It will follow the general route down the Alaska Highway, touching all the small communities along the route, such as Lower Post, Fireside, Summit Lake, Trutch, Fort Nelson and Fort St. John. It will traverse and touch the Stone Mountain and Muncho Lake provincial parks, areas, Mr. Speaker, that have traditionally been the domain of native hunters and trappers, all of whom will be affected by this pipeline, as well as a number of very sensitive game sanctuaries and breeding grounds. Closer to the Peace River country, Mr. Speaker, the pipeline will go through some of British Columbia's most productive farmland before it enters the province of Alberta near Dawson Creek.
Very few of my hon. friends in the House, Mr. Speaker, have heard before all of these exotic places, but that comes as no surprise to me. Unfortunately, there is not enough time for me today to make more than brief reference to this great area of our country.
My hon. friends here will recall my repeated efforts to convince the government to extend the terms of both the Lysyk and the Berger inquiries to study the impact the pipeline will have on the area that I have described; but, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the government chose, as it does in so many things, to

hold the provincial governments in this particular matter responsible for whatever planning or preparation will be necessary to minimize the obvious negative side effects, and, on the other hand, to maximize the positive benefits that could accrue to the area touched by the pipeline. In so doing, the federal government abrogated its clear responsibility in a number of very important areas of their own jurisdiction, and I want to touch on these, Mr. Speaker.
Firstly, the Alaska Highway, or that portion of the highway, namely 600 miles, which travels through British Columbia. As you know, Mr. Speaker, that highway is entirely under federal jurisdiction. It is owned and maintained by the Department of Public Works and will, of course, be the major staging and access route for the pipeline contractors. To a great extent, Mr. Speaker, the highway is used by travellers from the United States since it offers the only road link-between Alaska and the other states south of the 49th parallel.
Many thousands of visitors from all across our country and, indeed, from every corner of the globe travel the highway every year. They come to take part in a unique experience, to see part of our country and its history which most Canadians have already forgotten. They find fulfilment in the rugged wilderness and go to hunt and fish and enjoy the many wilderness scenes and wildlife species, such as the mountain goats, mountain sheep and grizzly bears which still abound in the area. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the tourist sector of British Columbia's economy of which the Alaska Highway is a most vital component, is probably the most important industry in that province next to wood fibre and maybe mining.
All of British Columbia's oil and gas deposits are serviced from the Alaska Highway, which provides access for a significant portion of the forest and mining industry in the province as well. The number of people who service and cater to all these industrial and recreational activities is greater than the total population of the Yukon. Every single person will be affected by the pipeline. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, there are twice the number of people living in the areas of northeastern British Columbia-which I have described-who will be directly affected by the pipeline than there are in the area of our country which was studied by the Berger and Lysyk inquiries at a cost of tens of millions of dollars. Some of these people, Mr. Speaker, are of native ancestry, and again the numbers are at least equal to those to whom all the attention of the inquiry was directed.
Now surely, Mr. Speaker, the government cannot deny its direct responsibility, at least in the area of native concerns. If there is such a thing as special rights and aboriginal title for native people, the government of British Columbia has never heard of it. If there is a special deal for native people, Mr. Speaker, it is a deal they must address to the federal government. As far as British Columbia is concerned, even the reservations that have been set aside for the native people in that area can be expropriated for railway rights-of-way, roads and power installations. That has been done. As my hon. friends know, there were no treaties with the Indians in most of British Columbia. As far as the Peace River country is
February 15, 1978

concerned, however, we do have treaty No. 8, and it will form the basis on which the natives of northern British Columbia are beginning to build their case-and I hate to say it- against the pipeline.
I fully understand all of the difficulties the companies will experience if they do not receive approval by March of this year to finalize their plans and to start working on the logistics of building the line. 1 understand as well the problems the government faces if the pipeline agreement is not ratified by parliament before an election is called. But, Mr. Speaker, I am at this time in no position to sympathize with these problems. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I was one of the first to greet the National Energy Board's decision to opt for the Alcan route instead of the Mackenzie Valley route with a great deal of excitement and enthusiasm. You will also recall, however, Mr. Speaker, that I urged the government repeatedly to begin their discussions with the government - of British Columbia and assess the problems, in socioeconomic terms, in the areas affected by the pipeline.
On April 22 last year I raised a question in this House to find out whether the terms of reference of the Lysyk inquiry in the Yukon could be extended. 1 asked the government this question on July 18, October 6, October 26 and December 19. Twice within the last couple of weeks I have used my time in the House during question period to remind the government of their direct responsibilities in this regard. I have asked the government to table the agreements which they have reached with the province of British Columbia so that we can intelligently and adequately discuss them here in the House. I have asked the Government through local, regional and municipal authorities as well as citizens groups to safeguard against any unnecessary and negative side effect.
Unfortunately these legitimate requests have so far been ignored. There has been no dialogue as far as I am concerned with the agencies I have mentioned. Whatever discussions have been held with the province have been held behind closed doors. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the agreement with the United States requires a statement of acquiescence from the provinces affected by the pipeline. The B.C. government gave its approval without any consultation with local governments and without any formal study or inquiry into the possible impact of the project.
I am put in the position today of making a judgment on behalf of my constituents without even knowing what demands or conditions the government of British Columbia has placed on the building of a pipeline or approval of it. As part of the agreement between Canada and the United States these statements of concurrence must be issued. Let me state what the bill says in respect to the British Columbia situation:
Specific details of this undertaking will be the subject of a federal-provincial agreement to be negotiated at as early a date as possible. Such agreement should guarantee that British Columbia's position expressed in its telex of August 31 is protected.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I asked the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) whether he would be prepared to
Northern Pipeline
table the communique. On two occasions, the hon. gentleman preferred not to make this document public. Whenever the government is reluctant to pass on information, I am suspicious that they have something to hide. From the point of view of myself and my constituents, it would appear that the bill will have to wait until the two governments consider it timely to tell those people who have to live with this extravagant scheme, both during and after construction, how their environment, their lives and their future will be affected.
I do not trust either this government or the government of British Columbia with such an important and far-reaching decision. In northern British Columbia we have been disappointed before. For instance, we were told that the total work force of 6,000 men, which at one time was working on the Peace River dam project, would find work in industry attracted to the area by the government. They would be able to take advantage of the special on-site power rates. As well local municipalities and communities would have access to the preferred power rates, easing the burden of building the required infrastructure.
Over 600 square miles of land was flooded, with monstrous environmental and ecological consequences. None of the promises was kept. Power rates in the Peace River country are still higher today than they are in Vancouver which is 700 miles away. The federal government failed to exercise any of its jurisdiction when whole settlements of Indians were forced off their land without compensation. These included registered reservations. The massive body of water has affected the climate and atmospheric conditions in the area to the point where it has seriously threatened the viability of certain industries. The growing of certain cereal crops in the Peace River area is a marginal endeavour today. I am always sceptical when this government makes any deals, the terms of which cannot be made public.
My concern in respect to this project is somewhat different from those expressed by most of our colleagues. Like the territorial council of the Yukon, I worry about the impact on the local labour market as much as I do about assuring Canadian content, which is most important. I want similar assurances to those granted to the Yukon in respect to preferential treatment of local workers, businessmen and entrepreneurs.
On the other hand, 1 know what it means to local employers. Local industry will not be able to match the lucrative labour contracts. Machine operators and workers will enjoy higher wages as a result of these contracts during the pipeline construction. Labourers of all categories will seek work connected with the pipeline construction and will quit their present jobs. Local businesses will be forced to raise their wages in order to equal wages being paid by the pipeline companies. Alternatively, they will close down for lack of workers.
I took a trip last summer through Alaska and the Yukon to study the impact of the pipeline on the communities along the Alyeska route. I was told that in Fairbanks 80 per cent of the municipal police force left their jobs to work on the pipeline construction just at the time when the drug peddlers, gamblers

February 15, 1978
Northern Pipeline
and prostitutes arrived. An acute shortage of labour will occur in the local area whenever such a large project commences. Local residents will be denied their most essential services.
Experience along the Alyeska route as well shows that the contractors like to use local supplies and service facilities as much as possible. However, these facilities are always inadequate, and there is a lack of time to gear up for the influx of new business. When the projects are completed it will take months if not years to get everything back to normal, as was the case in Alaska. During construction of the pipeline it will be worth one's life to travel the Alaska highway. The term "highway" is too generous a description of the road which was built in 1942 by the United States army as a defence project. For the most part it is a dirt road. The federal government has plans to upgrade and pave the road; however, this has never been a priority. My hon. friends and colleagues will recall the many interventions I have made in the House in support of an accelerated upgrading program for the highway. The paving from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson was to be completed this year, but it will now take an all-out effort to come close to completing that section to coincide with the completion of the construction of the pipeline.
The adjustments that will have to be made by the smaller communities is a concern of mine. They must accommodate the influx of population required to maintain and operate the line once it is in place. We know of the commitment made by the provinces not to levy additional taxes or fees, which was commensurate with the commitment made in the bilateral agreement. There is no mention made of who is to pay for the additional services required by towns, cities and villages along the way, including schools, hospitals and recreational facilities which the newcomers have a right to demand. Will their cost be borne by the local taxpayers? We do not know that. We expect cost is a component of the behind the door agreement reached with the province of British Columbia.
Again, Mr. Speaker, our previous experience provides us with little comfort. Governments have always been more preoccupied with calculating royalties and taxes than with assuring those people who manned the frontier and maintained the facilities in remote areas of equitable living conditions.
I would be remiss if I did not recognize the exemplary corporate citizenship demonstrated by one of the partners in the Foothills consortium, namely Westcoast Transmission. This company, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is taking part in the pipeline construction. It has built and it maintains hundreds of miles of pipeline in British Columbia. Where the government neglected their responsibility, the company took over, providing housing and recreational facilities, co-operating with local municipal councils and community groups, encouraging their employees to integrate, to take part in the social affairs of their new towns.
In some cases brand new small communities had to be built, but wherever possible the employees live in existing towns, adding to their vibrancy and viability. This company has a

unique and enviable relationship with their employees as well. Their industrial relations process could serve as a model to most other industries, and even to the government in its dealings with the public service.
I encourage hon. members to study what Westcoast Transmission is doing for its employees. It was the the officials of Westcoast Transmission who made the first and only contact with the municipal and regional officials, discussing the new project and its implications. However, this dialogue is limited in the sense that the company as well can only speculate on the terms of reference the government will eventually dictate and the guidelines that must be followed. At this point they have not been told what size of pipe they must use for the project. They have been told that they must bear the costs of the monitoring agency, but there is no indication of the size or dimension of the bureaucracy. The company knows that the British Columbia government will attache certain conditions on the permits they must issue, but no one knows what these conditions might be.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the private sector still gets involved at all in such risky schemes. The risks are not any abnormal or changing market conditions or unknown factors in respect to the technological challenges connected to the resource harvest in the new frontier and hostile environments, but rather the risks of dealing with governments which make their own rules as they go along, usually after irreversible commitments have been made by the resource sector, governments that regulate and change at whim every aspect of market conditions.
Government estimates on which their policy decisions in the public interest are based are consistently and hopelessly wrong. A year ago, for instance, we were told that we might be experiencing serious shortages in natural gas in the early eighties. That was only five years after the government declared that our domestic requirements are secure for the next 100 years. The latest estimates announced by the policymakers of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources show that we will have no trouble meeting both our domestic and export commitments with reserves already identified until at least 1990.
I wonder what impact those latest inventory figures will have on pipeline decisions. How firm, for instance, is the agreement with the U.S. which is annexed to the bill under schedule I? With respect to the schedules of construction, we do not know and probably will not know until long after this bill is passed in this House just what is involved.
The passing of Bill C-25 will not answer any of the questions that need to be answered before the companies can proceed with their final plans. The passing of this bill will not facilitate the assembly of the capital required to build the line.
What it will do, however, is give the government the opportunity to make all other remaining and critical decisions without the scrutiny of parliament. It will give the government the option to make final decisions respecting Canadian content of labour and supplies, and critical decisions respecting timing and the staging of the various sections in a manner that
February 15, 1978

accommodates their political objectives and the timing of this year's election.
Most of my constituents welcome the pipeline. We in northeastern British Columbia have learned to appreciate the major influence this industry has had in the economy of the north and the quality of life. The industry has helped to stabilize small and fragile communities, adding an important tax base to the marginal source of finances available. The pipelines and processing facilities have added an important dimension to the job markets. They have opened up the country, helping to provide access to other resources in the area.
While there is always an upheaval during construction, it can well be said that there are no harmful side effects in terms of the environment. Even the wildlife has adjusted well to the rights-of-way which provide additional food and trails for the animals to get around. But in spite of all that, we do not want the pipeline at just any price. We must have some assurances, similar to those built into the bill for the Yukon, that the existing communities will receive adequate help to cope with the pressures and social tensions that will accrue during the construction period.
We want local residents to have preferential treatment when applying for the construction jobs. Local business entrepreneurs must be given the opportunity to supply all those services they are capable of supplying. We must insist that the contractors and the companies operating the system once it is in place will make every effort to train young people, particularly young native people, in the skills they require; and, most important, we want the infrastructure around the project built to accommodate the needs and the legitimate aspirations of the people already in the area.
With regard to the labour component, one of the most necessary matters that has not been mentioned is the fact that there needs to be an agreement with the unions for access to their membership on the part of local residents so that they can be placed on these important jobs.
Ironically, most of these demands can be met without any additional costs to the project. As a matter of fact, with the least degree of foresight and planning the objectives of all concerned could be made to complement each other. For instance, the operation of the system will require a very sophisticated communications system employing the latest technology. This system, if properly planned, could, without much additional cost, carry radio, television and telephone channels and signals which could service the residential settlements along the route. These services are presently not available for the most part of the highway area. With a small number of strategically located breakout systems, the whole area could be serviced with these essential amenities which other Canadians have taken for granted for two generations. Similarly, access routes and transportation infrastructure could be planned commensurate with other interests.
Without the benefit of an impact study which would directly relate to the pipeline, I must rely on my experience in municipal and regional governments and on the studies that have
Northern Pipeline
been made by the various authorities in the areas affected, such as chambers of commerce and councils.
I must assume, that we can rely on the province to provide and advance the funds required for the initial adjustment that local settlements must make. The sum of $200 million, which is the figure used in the Yukon, is not unrealistic for northeastern British Columbia.
We must insist on a firm commitment to build in the cost of laterals to service the settlements north of Fort Nelson and to adjust the rates charged in Fort Nelson commensurate with Alberta border prices.
There must be an immediate assessment of any land claims that may arise and an effort to begin negotiations. In addition to that, however, there must be a clear commitment by the federal government to accelerate the reconstruction program on the Alaska Highway to the point where it is paved to mile 315, which is the junction with the Liard Highway. As well, we want to know the role the B.C. railway will play in the staging and transport scheme. There is a great deal of uncertainty about the future of that part of the railway which spans the stretch from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson. In view of the importance of this rail link to industries in Fort Nelson, we want the rail bed upgraded not only to accommodate the pipeline contractors but also to assure continued service to the vital resource areas of the north. I can only hope that all these points are incorporated in the provincial shopping list when it is finally made public.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of my party to expedite the bill in every way possible having regard to the many opportunities which can accrue to Canadian business and labour as a result of the project. I would point out, however, that the government has had this legislation ready for four months. It could have been debated at the time the United States Congress dealt with the matter. We are now called upon to proceed with almost indecent haste in our consideration of the bill while assuring adequate safeguards for Canadian interests. My hon. friends have drawn attention to many areas in which the bill is imperfect. As one editorial said this morning, there are so many holes in this bill it could accommodate a pipeline.
I serve notice on the government that ministers will have to be much more co-operative during the committee proceedings, much more free with information, if they wish to ensure our support. To those members on the government side who would like to blame us for holding up this bill, I say that the people who will be holding up the bill will be the natives in the Yukon and in northeastern British Columbia who will be sitting in courtrooms and in front of bulldozers because they realize that, once again, their last chance of seeing the promises made to them by the government fulfilled has gone by. We on this side intend to insist on significant changes being made in this bill, so it is really up to the government to decide when the legislation will leave the House and when the contractors will be able to get on with their work.

February 15, 1978
Northern Pipeline


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, the note on which my hon. friend from Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) concluded is the note on which I feel I should begin. This is beyond any question one of the most questionable operations the government has tried to pull off. I refer to the manner in which the introduction of the bill has been delayed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Delayed?


Donald W. Munro: Delayed. The government has delayed the introduction of this bill. Do I have to say it again? It has delayed the introduction of this bill.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Thank you!


Donald W. Munro: The agreement with the United States was signed on September 20 in this city. The bill was introduced on February 6. There was plenty of lead time, even as the agreement was being concluded, to have prepared a measure for implementation in legislative form to be placed before the House.
I have noticed that this is not the first time the government has exercised a delaying device of this sort for the single purpose of trying to secure a political advantage by forcing the opposition to make hasty decisions. We have had six days only in which to examine this legislation. It is an important bill. Aside from the other bill which we considered earlier this session in relation to the budget and granting the government authority to borrow $10 billion, it is the only bill to come before us which deals with a sum of this magnitude. Here is another bill which involves $10 billion. Not all of that sum, it is true, is to be raised by Canadians but we are dealing with issues of a magnitude which cannot be overlooked.
This party, the party to our left and the party down at the end of the chamber have had six days in which to study the implications of this bill, yet we are being pushed to allow the measure through. We have given an undertaking that we shall not delay the measure in the House. But I still believe every member on this side should make it clear that bills of this importance should not become the political playthings of the government. This is not the way to govern a country as delicate as Canada. I find it shameful that there should be members sitting in this chamber today who can accept that sort of thing. It is deplorable. It is a form of blackmail.
[ Translation]
Aside from that, I have other remarks to make and having commented on that matter, I would like to add that we all want to be sure that Canadian manpower and industries will be involved to the highest degree possible in the construction and maintenance of the proposed pipeline. It is a huge project, Mr. Speaker, since it is expected to cost $10 billion and require a construction period of two to three years as well as the use of pipes in Canadian territory over hundreds of miles-1 do not remember exactly how many-a number of miles in Yukon, my colleague just said 600 miles in British Columbia and the rest in the province of Alberta. It is therefore a huge project and we on this side insist, as do government members, I hope,
[Mr. Oberle.)
that Canadian manpower and industry take maximum part in that project.
We want the construction company to be obliged to hire manpower in every part of Canada and also order the needed materials from each of our regions. Let us take advantage of the expertise and steel technology developed not only in Ontario, in Saskatchewan and the west, but also in the province of Quebec and in Nova Scotia. All Canada, Mr. Speaker, must benefit from that huge project. To be sure that it will be so-

-that the future may unfold as it should, Mr. Speaker- [Translation]
-we, of the Progressive Conservative party, will propose to the committee that a monitoring agency accountable to parliament, whether it is a select committee or one of the standing committees of the House, be set up to make sure that the company is complying with the provisions of the bill.
Before turning to another aspect for which I am responsible, namely the environmental problems relating to this matter- and that is my principal task-let me speak of another concern I am most anxious to get on the record. I refer to the opportunities Canadians ought to have of acquiring equity shares in the company responsible for the construction and operation of a pipeline project of this sort and size.
This situation did not arise in the first instance as a result of an earlier pipeline construction, but it did finally occur as a result of a good deal of effort on the part of this party. Our party down through the years has been in the vanguard of those who have sought ways to assure that Canadians have an even, and even a better than even, chance to participate in the fruits of this country's good fortune, not through agencies such as FIRA, but through an ability to participate in projects which have Canada as their base.
A method of assurance would be to require that there be an offer of equity shares in the Foothills pipeline project. Probably Foothills will set up another company in which Canadians should have the opportunity of sharing. This will be a gilt-edge investment if we believe in the future of this country. Why should Canadians not be given the first opportunity to share in and enjoy the benefits that will be accruing to our country once gas begins to flow through the pipeline we are now discussing? The investment will be even more gilt-edged once Canadian gas is flowing through the pipeline, as is hopefully foreseen down the road and 1 will return to that later. 1 should like to see assurances built into this legislation which would give that right to Canadians to participate financially in this great venture and draw profit from it. This is a matter we might well examine more closely once we get into committee.
In referring to the matter of Canadian input of work and material, I would mention the need for a parliamentary monitoring agency which would be required on a quarterly basis to
February 15, 1978

keep under scrutiny the manner in which the many varied terms and conditions imposed on the construction companies and others under the bill are being carried out. This project is too vast to think that parliament in a matter of a week, two weeks or three could discuss it, pass it and forget about it, going on to something else. We have to be able to come back to this project to make sure that what we have stipulated is being carried out. We cannot just say: "There you are, we have passed the bill, now you get on with it". We have to be able to assure ourselves and Canadians that those who are authorized under the bill to do the job will do it in a manner that is wholly and in every respect consistent with the requirements of this bill. Nothing can be left to chance or to a monitoring agency that cannot be called to account.
The monitoring agency that is envisaged in the bill is an agency which, under these provisions, cannot be called to account. We as members of parliament can and ought to be called to account. That is why we are here. We cannot authorize a project of this size on the basis of allowing things to go ahead without being sure there is some manner in which we can call the company or companies to account for their actions in relation to the legislation. We as parliamentarians should be ready to provide answers when we are called upon to do so. The only way we can do that is by making sure there is an agency in place that will allow us to determine whether, in each particular area of construction, progress is being made along that foreseen critical path, and in accordance with the provisions so loudly being touted regarding the competitive capability of Canadians to provide the materials and workmen.
There must be a more than equal opportunity for Canadians to participate in that construction in Canada. These are matters for which we in this House will be held accountable, and we must be sure we have all the answers. We do not want to be like this government which stands up during the question period and sidesteps questions. We cannot sidestep questions on a matter of this importance. We have to know what is taking place and that it is taking place in a proper way and at the rate it should be taking place in order to produce the greatest economic return possible to this country. A monitoring agency composed of members of this parliament is essential to this whole deal.
We have been talking in general terms about some of the problems that will be faced during construction. Let us consider the things that have yet to be done before the project can get underway. What provisions are there in the bill which give an ironclad assurance that these things will be carried out before the project begins? What about all those things that have to be done before the project materializes?
Let me quote briefly from one of the reports that fortunately was prepared by the environmental assessment panel which in itself was rushed into preparing its assessment of the impact of the project in federally owned territory. I have with me the Hill report. It is an interim report of the environmental assessment panel sent to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) in July 1977. It was commissioned, if I remember correctly, in February. The panel had a
Northern Pipeline
matter of three or four months to examine and outline those areas where there could possibly be an impact, and then submit recommendations to the minister on what might be done. At page 3 of this particular report the authors state:
The short lead time available made a normal environmental assessment of the project impossible at this time.
That suggests to me that if it was impossible at that time there must be a further study in order that a full environmental assessment can be made. Instead, the panel was instructed to review the existing data, seek public and professional information and submit an interim report by August 1. It did that, but this was purely an interim report.
Yesterday, if I am not mistaken, I heard the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) make reference to guidelines following the publication of this report. As yet I have not seen those guidelines. A lot of documentation has crossed my desk relating to the pipeline, among other things, and perhaps I overlooked the guidelines. This environmental panel studied the situation as carefully as it could in the time available. If it produced a set of guidelines which would be of assistance to the construction company, then they should be available to all hon. members who are considering this important piece of legislation.
How can the government expect the House to pass the bill as quickly as possible when some of the documents are not available? There are some things which all hon. members must know before considering this piece of legislation. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River referred to the position of British Columbia which was sent in a telex to the federal government on August 31. As yet, we do not know what the position of that province is.
It will be necessary to conclude three agreements between the federal government and the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Surely the conditions under which those three provinces agree to the construction of the pipeline are relevant to this debate. Yet we do not have that information. In fact, there are many lacunae in the documentation which is at our disposal. Even so, we are expected to approve this legislation on a crash basis.
I should like to refer to the environmental concerns which the Hill panel laid before us. As I have suggested, the panel was under the gun just as hon. members are. It is unfair to parliament and it is cynical of the government to push the passage of this bill. The importance of the concerns expressed in the Hill report should not be underrated. Environmental concerns are of prime importance. It is only within the past 20 or 30 years that the true significance of the effect that developmental projects can have on the environment has come to light. It is not easy to define the dilemma faced by our modern society when developmental projects begin to manifest an impact on the environment of an affected area. The trouble is that some of the environmental effects need not be immediate. It may take years for the effects to show. The environment must be safeguarded and the developmental change must be allowed.

February 15, 1978
Northern Pipeline
I happened to notice a cartoon by Norris of the Vancouver Sun which appeared in an Ottawa newspaper. The cartoon depicted a cave situation. There was a bush fire at the mouth of the cave. There were a couple of hairy boys entering the cave wearing goatskins and carrying clubs over their shoulders. At the same time, an equally hairy individual was leaving the cave. Obviously he was an egghead, a man who had been thinking. He had produced an object which the other cavemen were looking at. The caption under the cartoon was: "You can call it a wheel if you like, but to me it is development". Following that, the other cavemen went through the process of breaking it up. Surely that is not the attitude toward development we have to adopt.
I wonder if the definitions of the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) should be applied to environmental problems. After the federal-provincial meeting of industry ministers on January 30, the minister said that the over-zealous protection of the environment costs jobs. Is that the definition used by the government? Also he said that we, the Canadian people, have to be fully aware of that, and that minimum standards of environmental protection across the country are not necessary, that over-zealous maintenance of minimum standards hurts the regions. Then the minister went on to explain that in areas where there is no industry, standards designed for urban Canada would be inappropriate. Perhaps a pragmatic approach has to be taken. However, there are minimum standards which must be followed. It is a very delicate balance.
I should like to refer to some of the problem areas indicated in the Hill report. The report indicated that there would be damage in various areas that could be mitigated. Also in the final analysis it was indicated that more study was necessary and more data had to be collected before a final decision or recommendation could be reached. Because of the size of the project, its impact in environmental terms will be of the same relative magnitude, according to the report.
The panel referred to the potential environmental effects associated with a buried gas pipeline passing through areas subject to permafrost. They were not examining, they were just spotting. Then they spotted another one, the relative importance of environmental problems resulting from the operation of the chilled line, on one hand, compared with the heated gas mode over the remainder of the route, on the other. With the chilled line, frost accumulation could result in heaving of the pipe, while a warm line could result in the degradation of the surrounding permafrost. These are the sorts of problems that the Hill report saw emerging once the construction was underway.
There is also the possibility of a pipeline rupture due to seismic activities. One of the lines went through a seismic area, and, incidentally, that was the Alcan route. The other line does not go through a seismic area, but there were dangers which they foresaw and which they spotted.

When they were examining the company and its knowledge of the various construction problems, they were advised during the hearings that the proponent had limited knowledge of the occurrence, distribution and nature of permafrost along the proposed route. If I remember correctly, the construction is not likely to begin until about January 1, 1981. There is a two-year lead time.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the conversation which is going on across the way might not take place behind the curtains?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Will the hon. members please carry on their conversation behind the curtains.


Donald W. Munro: This is another area where the Hill assessment group spotted problems that were going to occur. Another one is river crossings. Should the pipeline be buried under the river or should it be carried by an elevated mode across the river? Because by burying it, there could be damage to it and interference with fish spawning, migration and overwintering and possible deleterious effects of siltation on fish and fish habitat, and the possibility of gas leaks under ice cover. All these are matters which must be investigated.
This is one reason among many that I have maintained from the beginning that a monitoring agency should be set up composed of members of parliament, so that we can be assured that the construction company is examining these matters and making sure that the environmental damage is reduced to the minimum, in a manner which will permit construction to go through. If they have to examine rivers for fish spawning, etc., are they doing it now? We do not know that. I think we should know whether or not they have started this.
There is a provision in the bill at page 50, schedule III, clause 7, which reads as follows:
The company shall, in respect of social and economic matters and environmental, fisheries and agricultural concerns, comply with the undertakings given by Foothills Pipe Lines (Yukon) Ltd., the Alberta Gas Trunk Line (Canada) Limited, Westcoast Transmission Company Limited, and Alberta Natural Gas Company Ltd., and in the submission of the Alberta Gas Trunk Line Company Limited to the board, as amended during the hearing or such orders or directions as may be made or given by the designated officer.
Clause 8 reads:
Prior to the approval of the final detailed design of each section or part of the pipeline, the company shall submit to the designated officer,
(a)	the results of such further studies in respect of social and economic
matters, environmental, fisheries and agricultural concerns as may be ordered
or directed by the designated officer; and
(b)	the recommendations of its environmental consultants for the protection of
fisheries, farm lands and the environment.
These requirements are written into the bill and the provisions are under the general direction of what is known as the designated officer. However, that does not relieve those of us who sit in this parliament of the responsibility to ensure that those requirements are fulfilled. I think in a matter of such importance and size it would be a mistake for us to proceed as though, once the bill has left us and gone to the other place and been given royal assent, it were no longer our concern. It is
February 15, 1978

our concern and it is the concern of the Canadian people. They are going to hold us accountable and we should be in a position to be accountable.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
Northern Pipeline


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 16, 1978